04-25-2008, 02:09 PM
|
 | Puritanboard Doctor | | Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: Mandeville, LA
Posts: 7,361
Thanks: 1,495
Thanked 932 Times in 643 Posts
| |
Quote:
Originally Posted by Backwoods Presbyterian  Quote:
Originally Posted by Pilgrim Quote:
Originally Posted by DMcFadden
Daniel,
I appreciate your concern about nit-picking. My response to Dr. Clark's OP was not intended to argue with the TR brethren or to claim baptists are Reformed. I accept as valid Scott's essential point that the Reformed ought to have the right to define themselves as they wish. That such definition does not include me does not offend me in the least. I am a baptist who believes in the doctrines of grace, not a Reformed/Presbyterian. Actually, Daniel, my original response to Clark was intended to say that I agree with his article and wanted to raise a couple of related issues, not to nit pick the man.
I am a 5-pointer who would rather exalt in the majestic sovereignty of God in all his creation than the dignity of a partially fallen creature (to paraphrase Nettles). From a strictly linguistic and historical consideration, I think that gives me a right to claim to be Calvinistic, as in a Calvinistic Baptist as opposed to an Arminian Baptist, even though it is not theologically or historically permitted to describe this as Reformed.
You do raise some interesting points which Scott addressed in part. The "Reformed" people who taught me in seminary were published authors, noted scholars (one eventually to become the moderator of the 213th General Assembly of the largest Presbyterian denomination in America) and all around muck-e-mucks of Reformed thought. I simply find it ironic that my TR brethren on PB should find more in common with my theology (inerrancy, confessional 1689 baptist, creationist, complementarian, no gay marriage/ordination, etc.) than with a majority of pastors and lay people (by head count) in the officially Reformed or Presbyterian denominations.
Again, no whining here. I'm a baptist not a presbyterian, so I can't be Reformed. But I'll take baptist John Piper over presbyterian Jack Rogers any day. And, even among Refomed people, give me R.C. Sproul in a heart beat over the typical current graduates (or professors) at Princeton, Pittsburgh (except our dear PB bro), or McCormick.
Baptists are saddled with Arminians (now the majority). You presbyterians are stuck with a majority that I do not believe accepts what most of you Reformed guys on PB believe.
| Dennis,
I think we're talking past each other to a certain extent. The PCUSA has not held to the WCF in any meaningful sense in decades, and not formally since at least 1967. They are not included in Dr. Clark's definition of Reformed. Identifying them as Reformed in anything but a historical sense makes about as much sense as saying Robert Schuller is an example of a Reformed minister (he was and perhaps still is RCA.) Lumping in all Presbyterians together may make sense to someone in the mainline (which would include the SBC although it is generally far better in upholding the authority of the Bible than the PCUSA or RCA) or someone in the world, but it isn't applicable to anyone who is in a separatist denomination like the PCA, OPC or the URCNA, as well as the Calvinistic Baptist groups like ARBCA, FIRE, etc. I am certain you realize this but I just wanted to make it clear for any who may be lurking.
We have more in common with each other than you do with Campolo and we do with Rogers because we share a common commitment to the authority of the Bible as well as to our respective confessions. This phenomenon can be traced back to at least the Fundamentalist/Modernist controversy that started over 100 years ago, where a Baptist and a Presbyterian who were faithful to the scriptures had more in common than a Baptist modernist and one who upheld the authority of the Bible. One reason why the term Reformed has been defined down is because even conservatives of that day tended to deemphasize the Confessions and their denominational distinctives.
Another factor is that Dr. Martyn Lloyd-Jones and the Banner of Truth were instrumental in the revival of the Doctrines of Grace over the past 50 years. They tended to deemphasize ecclesiology if not ignore it altogether, so the result is people now thinking that someone is Reformed if they agree with the Five Points. I'm not knocking their work, and I have been blessed by it as have many. | We also must remember that just because one holds to Innerency does not automatically mean one holds to Orthodoxy. | Agreed. But, in keeping with the spirit of the original post, who or what defines Orthodoxy?
|