We also must remember that just because one holds to Innerency does not automatically mean one holds to Orthodoxy.

__________________
Benjamin P. Glaser, M. Div
Licentiate Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church

Member: Fairmount ARP Church Pittsburgh, PA
Attending: Looking for a Reformed church in North Central WV
Preaching: Nov. 8 Belington Presbyterian & Beverly Presbyterian PC(USA) Churches

Deo Vindice

Agreed. But, in keeping with the spirit of the original post, who or what defines Orthodoxy?

__________________
Christian
One Pilgrims Progress

But Daniel, in order to call Confessional Baptist "Reformed" under your criteria, you will have to redefine "Calvinistic" as merely 5 point (excluding Calvin's view of the sacrament, for example). And redefine Covenant theology to include views that see Abrahamic and Mosaic covenant as having different substances than the New Covenant. But that's the point of the post: Who gets to re-define "Reformed", "Calvinistic", "Covenant theology"? Those who are historically associated with the label? Or those who are historically outside the definition of the label?

Ya, I agree that "labeling" itself is not glorifying God. But what are the alternatives? The label "Evangelical" or "Christian" has already lost its meaning in our day because of endless relabeling. I certainly don't want to see someone call themselves "Calvinistic Open-theist".

__________________
Polo
Layman, Chinese Evangelical Church/Independent
San Diego

For from him and through him and to him are all things. To him be glory forever. (Romans 11:36)

No one is saying you have to acknowledge anything Josh. Why are you so adamant about this? One more thing... I am not so sure the Particular Baptists wouldn't consider themsleves to be Reformed. The distinction of Particular was meant mainly to emphasis that they as Baptist held to reformational soteriology as opposed to the anabaptist. That was the struggle. They were accused of being anabaptists of the radical reformation. The anabaptists were considered radical reformers. So reformed was not the problem here when they made distinctive terms to define themselves by.

As I noted before the terms people are adhering to are to line themselves with their roots as opposed antithetically to something else. I don't why you are having problems with this Josh. I guess I am proud that my heritage is from the reformation instead of the radical reformation.

I guess I am a Reformed Baptist by today's standards.

__________________

Norseman Moderator

R. Martin Snyder
1689er
http://www.puritanboard.com/blogs/puritancovenanter/

"Our object should not be to have scripture on our side but to be on the side of scripture; and however dear any sentiment may have become by being long entertained, so soon as it is seen to be contrary to the Bible, we must be prepared to abandon it without hesitation."
William Symington

Click to get:Board Rules -- Signature Requirements -- Suggestions?

Polo,
Are all Covenants the same? Are covenants purely that of grace or works? Are some Covenants mixed with Law and Gospel? Are all covenants either conditional or unconditional? Are the Abrahamic, Mosaic, Noahic, Davidic, and New Covenants either law or gospel, conditional or unconditional? Which is which?

Are you kidding, Brother? I'm not being adamant. I'm responding to your post asserting that I was at a failure to recognize yada yada yada. My own church calls itself Reformed, I'm not up in arms about it. I'm just giving my . It's not sweat off my back in the long run. Just observations being made.
Regardless of your lack of surety, the early Baptists didn't call themselves Reformed, even though they could have. Apparently they didn't do so because, although they shared soteriology and many other doctrines with their padeobaptist Brethren, they didn't share their view of the Church, Sacraments, and Baptism. So, to distinguish themselves from such, they didn't call themselves Reformed. It does not follow that they were enemies just because they didn't have the same name.
Again, Brother Randy, I'm not "having problems" with anything. I'm making observations. Why are you so adamant about this?

__________________
Josh Hicks, Chloë's Dad
Christ Covenant Reformed Presbyterian Church, RPCGA
Facebook - The Calvinist Vent
Board Rules - Signature Rules - Suggestion Box

Just so all you know, I mostly do this in fun. It ultimately doesn't matter to me what a Calvinistic person calls him or herself. Get this: I'm a member of a REFORMED BAPTIST Church. GASP! This is just fun stuff for me. I apologize if I caused any undue offense, or seemed to be on a hobby horse.

Sorry Josh,
You sounded incredulous just because someone might want you to call themselves Reformed Baptists.

I understand your historical context but in history now some are calling themselves this.


I would like to see some references to what you are saying about the Baptists not wanting to be known as reformed. It would help me out. I do know about the anabaptist being called radical reformers and the Particular Baptists not wanting to be identified with that.

Randy, if you can hear me over the PB, I'm concerned. Have you been bugging my house?

Here's my olive branch, Brother.

Chris, thanks for you reply. I ALWAYS enjoy interacting with you. What you see as talking past each other, I label the limitations of this format. No one has time to clarify what they or the other person means. We tend to run on without interacting.

Yes, I know that PCUSA is no longer Reformed in the sense that you and Dr. Clark are using it. Man, they aren't even Calvinistic as I use it!!! However, they would probably still think that they are and that you all are just a foolish hangover from the past, some folks stuck on the errors of modernity with a brittle hermeneutic. If they were drawing the circle, the Reformed Community would probably include ALL of the presbyterian polity denominations from left to right. Like you, they would not consider baptists Reformed which is OK by me, I don't consider most of them confessional either.

Actually mainline includes, by general but not unanimous usage, the seven "sisters" of the mainline: ABCUSA, Disciples, ECUSA, ELCA, UMC, PCUSA, and UCC. SBC has always been quite sectarian and considered themselves neither mainline nor evangelical but Babptist (spelling intended).


Agreed! Campolo is off the reservation among the conservative ABCers, but the hierarchy just loves him. When I had Rogers in seminary, he was so busy running away from confessional presbyterianism, that I learned very little about what you all believe. For Rogers, Francis Schaeffer (considerably more popular back in the 70s than now) was a cuss word (he even had a case study in his classes to trash the guy) as were any people who held to the inerrancy of the Bible. One of my other "Reformed"-and-proud-of-it profs, took great delight in proving that the Bible was full of errors.

Agreed again. It had a salutary effect in that it made common cause among evangelicals against modernist liberalism in the seminaries, pulpits, and denominational headquarters. But, as you indicate, it opened the door for an incredible dumbing down of the faith, the triumph of latitudinarian evangelicalism (cf. Osteen), and the rise of charismatic de-emphasis upon doctrine (cf. the "doctrine divides, experience unites" mantra in the 70s).

I do not dispute your perspective but would broaden it a bit to include the work of Packer, Piper, and Sproul. The generic popularity of these three men near the end of the century had far more effect (IMO) in the U.S. than even Lloyd-Jones. And, maybe because Packer is Anglican, he doesn't discuss ecclesiology much; Piper has always been a baptist and his books have been amazingly popular in jump-starting a reinvestigation of Calvinism among young evangelicals; and while Sproul makes no bones about his paedo-baptist convictions, his listening/reading audience consists of an awful lot of mainstream evangelicals from free church backgrounds.

If I have learned anything in my more than three decades of ministry, it is to conclude that the doctrine of inerrancy is not sufficient. Without adding to it the sturdy structure of a comprehensive theological framing and the insulation and walls of confessional orthodoxy maintained strictly, we will (both the Reformed and the broadly evangelical) inevitably drift into error, then heresy. The path of the majority of presbyterians and now (increasingly) of the broad evangelicals has disturbed, disgusted, and depressed me.

I have already given up on my former mainline denomination. My efforts now are directed toward promoting confessionalism with integrity among baptists in my circles of influence.

__________________
Dennis E. McFadden, Ex Mainline Baptist (in Remission)
Atherton Baptist Homes, CEO
First Baptist Church of Alhambra, Member, Transformation Ministries (CA)

Click to get: Board Rules -- Signature Requirements -- Suggestions?

I'm not saying that they actively avoided the moniker. However, they certainly didn't seek it.

Randy, not to get into argument about covenant theology, who is right, etc. But can you say that your view of the covenant is in line with the historical casting of covenant theology? See, you are not only redefining "Reformed", you are redefining "Covenant theology". And again that's the point of the post: who gets to redefine what?

Blessings,

So, for clarification, are you saying you aren't sure? I am pretty sure that the term reformed wasn't as much of an issue in terms because it was used in relation to the Radical Reformation and that the Credo's didn't want to be aligned with it. Particular wasn't used in reference to the Reformers but was in reference to oppose to the Radical Reformation and its arminianism. Just like the original 1644 and 46 Baptist Confessions were written. They were products in reference to oppose the radical reformation. I do know this for a surety.

Radical Reformation

__________________
Casey Bessette
Westminster OPC • West Suburbs of Chicago

Yes, we should be able sing God's Word in response to God's Word.

I think you want "magnificat" (magnifies).

Yes, I'm arguing that non-canonical songs should not be used in stated services.

rsc

__________________
R. Scott Clark, D.Phil
Professor of Church History and Historical Theology

"For Christ, His Gospel, and His Church"
Associate Pastor
Oceanside URC
The Heidelblog
Office Hours Podcast

Answer my questions Polo. I am not redefining Reformed. I acknowledge most of what Dr. Clark has acknowledged. There is a difference between Reformed Theology and Credo Covenant Theology. But did you notice that I do believe in one overarching Covenant of Grace in both the Old and New Covenants. Not all Presbys agree on the Covenants and who are actual members in the Covenant of Grace. Some Presby's do believe that the Covenant of Grace is only made up of those who are the elect.

You need to answer my questions. You are the one claiming a major unity that I am not so sure every Reformer or Presby would acknowledge.

Well, we've been round this pole a few dozen times. Kline held to the pactum salutis, the covenant of works as distinct from the covenant of grace in a time when precious few, including some regarded as stalwarts of orthodoxy, were holding to the historic, biblical distinction between grace and works as expressed in covenant theology.

He also held that the covenant of works was republished under Moses.

This too is an historic position (if contested by many).

In his later years he began to associate the decalogue more or less exclusively with Moses which led, in my view, some unhappy consequences which, despite my affection for MGK, I haven't hesitated to criticize.

His later view of the Sabbath and the other such questions is not inherent to the historic Reformed covenant theology. The mainlines of his covenant theology were quite confessional.

rsc

The term Calvinist - as it is used today - refers to someone who holds to the five points, hence, there are numerous books called the five points of Calvinism.

I admit that there has to be some definition of what it is to be Reformed, what I do not like is the "I am more Reformed than you" approach.

__________________
Daniel Ritchie
Saintfield, Northern Ireland - Queen's University, Belfast:History/Politics
Member of Dromara Reformed Presbyterian Church of Ireland (Covenanter)

Calvin wrote in the Institutes about a lot more than just soteriology (the "five points") -- I wonder if he'd appreciate his name being limited to represent only that.

I always associate "Reformed" with those*purifying* distinctives from Roman Catholocism.

If I saw credo-baptists as anabaptists, I would distinguish between "Reformed" and "Baptist"...As is, I see Reformed as a larger banner encompassing things like soteriology, the five solas, and TULIP...beneath that banner you have the particularizing distinctions: Presbyterian, Baptist, etc. Historically, I'm not completely right...but what's the point in confusing anybody further when the whole idea of a sovereign God is so foreign to evangelicalism (another word you'd be hard-pressed to define )

Let's get this into a different thread and not to go . But basically, if I am not mistaking your view (please correct me if I am), you believe that the covenant of grace is made with elect only. Therefore you believe that Ishmael or Esau were not in the covenant of grace in any way. And the circumcision they received signify something other than the covenant of grace. This view is already different from the historical casting of the covenant theology. Not to mention that covenant theology inevitably leads to paedobaptism, which you reject. So, whether you view is right or not, you are already redefining what "covenant theology" means.

Not all Presbys are "Reformed", that's the implication of Dr. Clark's post, if they do not adhere to the historical Reformed confessions or covenant theology. Just because someone sprinkle their infant doesn't make them "Reformed".

I agree with what you are saying, but this view can also lead to "I am better than those 'I am more Reformed than you' people", can't it? I guess the only way to prevent this is to see "Reformed" as just what it is: a label, not someone who is superior to others (but of course we all believe that we are more biblical than others :P). I don't have problem with "Confessional Baptist", and I don't see this label inferior to "Reformed Baptist".

[quote=aleksanderpolo;396205]No I am not redefining what CT means. I hold to the Covenant of Redemption, covenant of Works, and Covenant of Grace. I just don't hold to Paedo CT. Credo CT has been around since the Confessions. Read Nehemiah Coxe.

CT doesn't necessarily lead to paedoism as you suggest or I would hold to it. And yes this is off topic. So if you want just go look where we discuss this.

In his last book God, Heaven and Har Maggedon Kline advocates the principle of merit in the Mosaic covenant (although attempting to mitigate the force of this word by attempting to describe this works covenant as typological, it is still implicit that the merit aspect is not typological it is merit under a typological system) and furthermore ascribing merit to Abraham in the Abrahamic covenant! This is certainly beyond the accepted reformed definitions across the board of the concept of merit as well as the Abrahamic covenant irrespective of one's view of the Mosaic covenant.

Furthermore in the same book, Kline criticizes the Nicene creed and desires to reformulate it in such a way that the Holy Spirit is the second person of the Trinity and the Son the third. He teaches that the Holy Spirit became eternally embodied in a created entity (calling this endoxination) in a way analogous to the incarnation of the Son!

Whatever one may say of Dr. Kline's earlier writings, towards the end of his life he became seriously heterodox, challenging not only standard reformed teachings but also catholic ones as well.

__________________
Rev. Adam King
Minister in the RPCNA
Pastor,Trinity Reformed Church
Wichita, KS

No, I'm not saying that. I'm certain that they didn't call themselves Reformed. But as aforementioned, it's not on top of my priority list to make a stink about it.

Since the five points came to prominence after his death I guess we will never know.

Then I would appreciate your help in showing me your findings.

Is the burden of proof on me to pull all the historical documents to show that they did not call themselves Reformed?

I am just asking for help. BTW it would be proof to what you are saying though. I only know what I have read concerning the Radical Reformation and the Particulars. I had never heard that the Particulars didn't think they were not reformed. I am just asking so that I might be clear. That is why I want the references you are leaning upon. You seem to know more about it than I do. I am asking for my benefit.

My "reference" is merely that they didn't call themselves Reformed.

Randy, it will be great if you can move this discussion about Abrahamic covenant into another thread, but since you quote Genesis 17, it will be beneficial to look at Genesis 17:7.

Genesis 17:7 And I will establish my covenant between me and you and your offspring after you throughout their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be God to you and to your offspring after you.

1. The Covenant God established with Abraham in Genesis 17 was an everlasting one, not a temporary land/offspring covenant that expired. There was no mention of a separated, land/offspring covenant established anywhere in the text. God's promise of land and offspring was shadow and benefits of the covenant of grace, not the substance of a different covenant. From the text, God established a covenant with Abraham, not two covenants with Abraham.
2. Ishmael received the covenant sign.
3. Therefore Ishmael was in this everlasting covenant.

Combine with Genesis 17:21, then we know Ishmael was in the covenant of grace, but not of the covenant of grace. Your insistence that there are two covenants established with Abraham is because of your baptistic presupposition that conflate the sign and things signified.

I know you like to quote Coxe, care to show me your finding that his "covenant theology" is the historical covenant theology held by most covenant theologian in church history?

As I said Polo.... Go back and do a search for our past discussions. Look for Mike Renihan's (John Tombes) posts also on Genesis 17.

Randy, I read the past discussion. You just stated that you "believed Abrahamic covenant is ..." without really arguing for your position. You just keep asking people to go back and read Coxe or past discussion as if the conclusion is reached, but it's not. Go back to the past discussion, like this one: Was Esau in The Covenant? and argue exegetically, from the text, not just state you belief, that God established two covenants with Abraham, and that Coxe's view of covenant is the historical definition of covenant theology, please?

But again this is , sorry Dr. Clark.

To echo the sentiments of your fine post linked in the OP -- the American churches do not get to define whether theocratic elements are objectionable or not. The establishment principle is reformed. Those who reject it are not.

__________________
Yours sincerely,


"Illum oportet crescere me autem minui."

So the (conservative) American Presbyterian churches are not Reformed?

Not on the Church/State issue.

So are they not Reformed, or not Reformed on the church/state issue?

The issue is one of historical identification. The question is, Who decides what is reformed? My answer is, Not those who reject the establishment principle. Those who reject the establishment principle seek to redefine reformed faith and life, and thereby place themselves outside the reformed tradition. Should clarification be asked, as you have done, I qualify that it is specifically on the issue of Church and State. But whether a man hits his golf ball out of bounds by an inch or a hundred feet makes no alteration to the fact that his ball is out of bounds and he has no right to redefine the golf course in order to call his ball in play.

It still is not altogether clear to me how Dr. Clark's use of the Confessions as received by the churches really definitively sets out what it means to be Reformed. I understand that the animus imponentis can clarify how a particular clause or chapter is to be understood, but I had thought that this was on points where there was ambiguity. If the American Presbyterians reject the Establishment principle or say that denial of creation in the space of six days is all right, why do they get to use the term "Reformed" of themselves? It seems like it comes down to a circular argument in that the Reformed Confessions define what it means to be Reformed; but those confessions are to be taken as received by the Reformed Churches; and if those churches receive them in a contradictory manner? How does this not come down to, "If a church says it is Reformed and receives a Reformed confession then the changes it makes to the Confession are OK and it is still Reformed." Help me out: what am I missing here?

__________________
Ruben
Moderator
F.P.C.I.
Indiana

Vanities and disguises have covered us, and thereby we are naked; licenciousness hath inflam'd us, and thereby we are frozen; voluptuousness hath fed us, and thereby we are sterved, the fancies and traditions of men have taught and instructed us, and thereby we are ignorant.
John Donne

Board Rules - Signature Requirements - Suggestions?

Calvinistas Conversando
Teología en Mexico
The Howling Wilderness

My American denomination adheres to the Establishment Principle.

__________________
Andrew