Thread: Who Defines "Reformed"?

Originally Posted by VirginiaHuguenot

Originally Posted by armourbearer

Originally Posted by Daniel Ritchie

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

Not on the Church/State issue.

My American denomination adheres to the Establishment Principle.

Mine too.

Originally Posted by VirginiaHuguenot

My American denomination adheres to the Establishment Principle.

I don't mean any disrespect when I ask this: But what does it matter if hold such a view when your denomination isn't the established church?

Originally Posted by CaseyBessette

Originally Posted by VirginiaHuguenot

My American denomination adheres to the Establishment Principle.

I don't mean any disrespect when I ask this: But what does it matter if hold such a view when your denomination isn't the established church?

A witness to the truth, grounded upon God's Word, always matters.

The same question could be directed to any witness to any particular subject where God's Word testifies to the duties of ecclesiastical or civil authority which are, in reality, lacking or deficient. If God requires it, it is better to testify to that truth, according to our place and station, then leave this doctrine, which is part of the whole counsel of God, left unsaid or actively opposed.

Thou hast put all things in subjection under his feet. For in that he put all in subjection under him, he left nothing that is not put under him. But now we see not yet all things put under him. (Heb. 2.8)

Amen, brother. I entirely agree with your response. Probably I didn't form my question properly. Anyway, I don't want to hijack the thread.

Originally Posted by joshua

Is the burden of proof on me to pull all the historical documents to show that they did not call themselves Reformed?

I have already indicated that I'm fine with the term "confessional" baptist and that I agree with Scott's differentiation. However, it is not difficult to see where the confusion comes from as the following quotes come from the Encyclopedia of the Reformed Faith.

By the way, does John Gerstner count as a Truly Reformed guy? This was his take on baptist theologian, Strong . . .

A Baptist leader, Strong was also that tradition’s most celebrated American theologian . . . Strong wrote what may be the most erudite Reformed Systematic theology ever written enriched greatly by his love for, acquaintance with, and participation in contemporary poetry, The Great Poets and Their Theology (1897). His deep influence on Carl Henry, one of the leading Baptist advocates of the Reformed faith today, is quite evident. JOHN H. GERSTNER

McKim, D. K., & Wright, D. F. (1992). Encyclopedia of the Reformed faith (1st ed.) (359). Louisville, Ky.; Edinburgh: Westminster/John Knox Press; Saint Andrew Press.

And, in a discussion of revivalism . . .

At the same time, emphases on providence and predestination have led many Reformed leaders to resist revivalism. As a result of Reformed ambiguity, many Baptists actually moved out of Reformed theology. Communions other than those of the Reformed family have supported revivalism most fervently.

McKim, D. K., & Wright, D. F. (1992). Encyclopedia of the Reformed faith (1st ed.) (325). Louisville, Ky.; Edinburgh: Westminster/John Knox Press; Saint Andrew Press.

And, when discussing "Calvinism in America" . . .

The Puritan and Scotch–Irish forms of Calvinism were organized into Congregational, Presbyterian, and Baptist churches. The Dutch Reformed, German Reformed, and other immigrant groups also established American churches during the eighteenth century.

McKim, D. K., & Wright, D. F. (1992). Encyclopedia of the Reformed faith (1st ed.) (50). Louisville, Ky.; Edinburgh: Westminster/John Knox Press; Saint Andrew Press.

These were all different articles by different scholars, all of them Reformed, writing in the Encyclopedia of Reformed Theology. Hey, guys. Don't beat up us baptists too badly when your own reference books make the same "mistakes."

A few questions and comments:

Is John Owen reformed? Wasn't we a congregationalist?

Who has the right to give us a sliding scale of who is more reformed than others?

Isn't it a prerogative of every group to define themselves as they wish. Presbies may sniffle and moan but if baptists want the category "reformed" in front of their names to identify themselves with the 1689 confession, then the reformed cannot stop them and should stop their whining.

Last time I checked there was no little copyright symbol above the name reformed.

Finally, given the company of those that call themselves "reformed" to include many groups that are grossly deviant in doctrine (whole groups falling away into apostasy), being a baptist who calls himself reformed or calvinisitic puts me in a lot better company.


P.S. Particular Baptist is a brand that is currently being used by many who trace their lineage from the anabaptist tradition. Therefore, this label, too, does not fit, for those that desire a modified WCF and are happy with the 1689. The term Sovereign grace baptist also is sometimes associated with more of a Fundyist and anti-confessional stance and so is not an adequate label. I prefer to simply call myself calvinistic and baptistic.

Earlier in this thread, I suggested Calvinistic Baptist as an appropriate title, even though Reformed is not. Later on, I found Blueridge Baptist's idea to be the best: "confessional baptist."

Interestingly though, Spurgeon (a baptist) had no problem with all of these terms.

Nay, we that are called reformed, are not one whit behind them in all manner of wickedness.

One of his greatest pieces was "A Defense of Calvinism," certainly thinking he was speaking ab out his own view.

“Salvation is of the Lord.” That is just an epitome of Calvinism; it is the sum and substance of it. If anyone should ask me what I mean by a Calvinist, I should reply, “He is one who says, Salvation is of the Lord.” I cannot find in Scripture any other doctrine than this. It is the essence of the Bible. “He only is my rock and my salvation” . . . What is the heresy of Rome, but the addition of something to the perfect merits of Jesus Christ—the bringing in of the works of the flesh, to assist in our justification? And what is the heresy of Arminianism but the addition of something to the work of the Redeemer? Every heresy, if brought to the touchstone, will discover itself here . . . I have my own private opinion that there is no such thing as preaching Christ and Him crucified, unless we preach what nowadays is called Calvinism. It is a nickname to call it Calvinism; Calvinism is the gospel, and nothing else. Heritage of great evangelical teaching : Featuring the best of Martin Luther, John Wesley, Dwight L. Moody, C.H. Spurgeon and others. 1997, c1996. Nashville: Thomas Nelson.

Originally Posted by Pergamum

P.S. Particular Baptist is a brand that is currently being used by many who trace their lineage from the anabaptist tradition.

Pergy,

Really? I have never heard the term used other than to describe Reformational baptists (you know the ones tracing to Luther, Calvin, and Zwingli) AGAINST the anabaptists. In church history it was used to differentiate the Calvinistic baptists who believed in a "particular redemption" (the larger group) from the Arminian ones (the smaller group).

Originally Posted by Pergamum

A few questions and comments:

Is John Owen reformed? Wasn't we a congregationalist?

Who has the right to give us a sliding scale of who is more reformed than others?

Isn't it a prerogative of every group to define themselves as they wish. Presbies may sniffle and moan but if baptists want the category "reformed" in front of their names to identify themselves with the 1689 confession, then the reformed cannot stop them and should stop their whining.

Last time I checked there was no little copyright symbol above the name reformed.

Finally, given the company of those that call themselves "reformed" to include many groups that are grossly deviant in doctrine (whole groups falling away into apostasy), being a baptist who calls himself reformed or calvinisitic puts me in a lot better company.


P.S. Particular Baptist is a brand that is currently being used by many who trace their lineage from the anabaptist tradition. Therefore, this label, too, does not fit, for those that desire a modified WCF and are happy with the 1689. The term Sovereign grace baptist also is sometimes associated with more of a Fundyist and anti-confessional stance and so is not an adequate label. I prefer to simply call myself calvinistic and baptistic.

I have heard others use the term "Historic Baptist" but that can be problematic as well because some will associate it with Landmarkism.

I enjoy using the term Reformed Baptist in conversation with people who ask what I believe. Everyone has heard of Baptist churches. When I say "reformed" They almost always respond with- What do you mean reformed baptist? This tells me that unlike most of the brethren in here ,the person who inquires about the adjective reformed , does not know the difference between , a Baptist, Presbyterian,Christian Reformed ,etc.
So I use it as an opportunity to explain that in general that believer's in these churches are generally more earnest in their desire to search out the truth of scripture.
I then in some way speak to the doctrines of grace. I try to make a simple yet clear explanation of the saving work of Christ.
I point out that I can fellowship with any believer who is saved by the blood of Christ, that we are brother's, even if we might differ on some of what we understand from scripture.
In linking to the term "reformed" I have always tried to lengthen the cord,and strengthen the stakes. What I mean by that is, I like some of what Luther wrote, but I am not Lutheran . Why are we not all Lutherans?
I like what I have read about some of the Scottish Covenanter's in the book Fair Sunshine, Why are we not all Scottish Covenanter's?
Many of my books are written By Presbyterian's. Indeed I am eternally grateful to God that he has used many different living stones, with different levels of maturity to help me learn more about the word of our God.
So in general ,in public, I am not meeting that many persons who make as fine a distinction as some of you brother's are want to do.
If I can plant a seed in someone's mind that God will allow to grow I will rejoice with the angels for that person if and when God gives new life to them.
I would not have a problem with linking a new convert with most of the men in here, because I know that you are in the word,and serious about the command to make disciples. If you are teaching something that needs correction, I am confident that the Spirit of God is able to correct and guide His Sheep, despite some of our failings as we have this treasure in earthen vessels.

Originally Posted by CaseyBessette

Originally Posted by Daniel Ritchie

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.

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'm not sure he would appreciate his name being used at all for "labels", but point well taken.

Originally Posted by Ivan

Originally Posted by CaseyBessette

Originally Posted by Daniel Ritchie

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.

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'm not sure he would appreciate his name being used at all for "labels", but point well taken.

Luther also was amazed that anyone would attach his name to the Church, referring to himself as a Pig if I remember correctly.

Originally Posted by Iconoclast

Why are we not all Scottish Covenanter's?

That would be because we're not Scottish. And yet there is no reason why we should not all wholeheartedly embrace the principles taught in the covenants seeing as they are the very principles taught by the Bible.

Originally Posted by armourbearer

Originally Posted by Iconoclast

Why are we not all Scottish Covenanter's?

That would be because we're not Scottish.

Originally Posted by joshua

Originally Posted by armourbearer

Originally Posted by Iconoclast

Why are we not all Scottish Covenanter's?

That would be because we're not Scottish.

I haven't figured out the Keeling side of my family tree, whether they are Irish or English, but I don't think they came from Scotland.

Originally Posted by R. Scott Clark

On the HB

Historically, there were two group of Reformers: the Magisterial Reformers and the Radical Reformers. The Magisterial Reformers comprised of the Lutherans, Presbyterians, Calvinists and Baptists. The Radical Reformers comprised of the Anabaptists and the Moravian Brethren.

R. Scott, why do you feel only the Presbyterians should have a stake on the term, "Reformed," when historically, Presbyterians were just one of many?

Originally Posted by DMcFadden

Originally Posted by Pergamum

P.S. Particular Baptist is a brand that is currently being used by many who trace their lineage from the anabaptist tradition.

Pergy,

Really? I have never heard the term used other than to describe Reformational baptists (you know the ones tracing to Luther, Calvin, and Zwingli) AGAINST the anabaptists. In church history it was used to differentiate the Calvinistic baptists who believed in a "particular redemption" (the larger group) from the Arminian ones (the smaller group).

In Spurgeon's Day I remember one reference Spurgeon used to identify calvinistic baptists as "Particular" and of course, William Carey's society was the "Particular Baptist Missionary society for the Propagation of the Gospel among the Heathen". So, you are quite right as to the historica use of the term "Particular" baptist.

In our day I usually hear "Particular Baptist" used differently. There is a Particular Baptist Press that is run by a dear brother Gary Long in Springfield, Missouri who strongly seems anabaptist and attempts to trace baptist heritage through the anabaptists rather than the English Baptists it seems. I have talked to others as well who refer to themselves as "Particular" and who prefer to think of their tradition as coming out of continental anabaptism rather than English congregational history.

Originally Posted by Daniel Ritchie

does nit-picking and arguing over labels really bring any glory to God?

Bear in mind that the FV call themselves Reformed

Dr. Clark's OP was directed to the question of who gets to define "reformed." Well, the definition of "reformed" has long been established. Current understandings of the word "reformed" are not definitions, but redefinitions. Many today like to use the word to established their orthodox bona fide's, however if you use the term "reformed" in a manner other that its long established meaning, then you are misusing it, no matter your doctrinal stance. Words are coined to foster communication between people, when you pour your own meaning into words it fosters miscommunication. Thus to call yourself "Reformed Baptist" lays the groundwork for all manner of misunderstanding.

In one sense "reformed" would mean that one's tradition draws from the Reformation, whether that branch is magesterial or radical.

Perhaps a better terminology would be "Reformational Baptist" or "Reforming"...



P.S. What would we call John Owen if we deny that he is Reformed?

Originally Posted by DMcFadden

Originally Posted by Daniel Ritchie

To be perfectly truthful, I do not think posts like this help the cause of Christ in the world; does nit-picking and arguing over labels really bring any glory to God?

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.

Amen!

From a Refor.....er.......calvinis.. . . ..er..... particula.......er...... oh just a Baptist who holds to the doctrines of grace.

Granted I think there is only one way to spit a hair

Blessings,

Originally Posted by AV1611

Originally Posted by Daniel Ritchie

does nit-picking and arguing over labels really bring any glory to God?

Bear in mind that the FV call themselves Reformed

Yes, but they are heretics who deny the doctrines of grace.

Originally Posted by Daniel Ritchie

Yes, but they are heretics who deny the doctrines of grace.

You are saying that you can be Reformed and disagree with the Reformed Standards.

The FV say that they agree with the Reformed Standards insofar as they are biblical but disagree with them where they go against Scripture. They say that the Reformed Standards disagree with Scripture on x, y and z.

You say, the FV are heretics because they disagree with the Reformed Standards on x, y and z.

To which the FV cry, but our presbyteries have changed the Standards on x, y and z.

To which you reply....

The problem is that there needs to be a creed that is a standard, a canon of belief or doctrine. In Reformed circles these are the Westminster Standards and Three Forms of Unity (I would also add the Savoy declaration). Disagree with them and you are not Reformed.

"Our Baptist friends are entitled to think what they will but they are not entitled to fundamentally re-define the adjective “'Reformed.'”

R. Scott's presupposition is evident in this statement: that Baptists may have not been part of the original Reformers, that Baptists never started off liking the term "Reformed" and should not want to today, and that Baptists are now "redefining" it.

Baptists never have and are not now making any attempts to redefine "Reformed." Rather, Baptists believe that the Presbyterians did not "Reform" from the Catholic Church back to the Gospel "far enough," especially on the issue of Baptism.

Remember that the various Reformers all took varying degrees on "how far" to Reform the churches' doctrines and practices from the Catholics. For the Church of England, whether they should be considered as part of the Reformation Protest is debated, their Reformation was just a slight variation from the Roman Catholics. For the Lutherans, they took the issue a bit further. For the Presbyterians, they took it even further. For the Baptists, they took it even further still. For the Anabaptists, they took it too far.

R. Scott's premise seems to be on the belief that only the Presbyterians have a stake on the term "Reformed," when in fact, they are just a little bit more Reformed than the Lutherans, but not enough for the Baptists. Much like the Postmodern who thinks that the earth no longer revolves around the sun, but that the world revolves around the individual, it seems our Presbyterian brothers believe that the term "Reformed" doesn't revolve around all who reformed from the Roman Catholics, but revolves around Presbyterianism.

Originally Posted by AV1611

The problem is that there needs to be a creed that is a standard, a canon of belief or doctrine. In Reformed circles these are the Westminster Standards and Three Forms of Unity (I would also add the Savoy declaration). Disagree with them and you are not Reformed.

Dear AV,

You say, "In Reformed circles", which begs the question which "circles" are you talking about?

I agree with Richard Muller who argues that the "reformed" tradition is made up of those church organizations which adhere to the historic reformed confessions. These are more than simply the WCF and 3FU. They include the Gallic, Scots, 3FU, 39 Articles, and 2nd Helvetic. This is the historic definition of the reformed tradition and it encompasses a degree of latitude, but clearly discounts Arminianism and the like.

See Muller's paper here.

Cheers.

ps: AV, I'll be in Cambridge for the last 6 months of this year, we should catch up some time whilst I'm over.

Originally Posted by JohnOwen007

I agree with Richard Muller who argues that the "reformed" tradition is made up of those church organizations which adhere to the historic reformed confessions. These are more than simply the WCF and 3FU. They include the Gallic, Scots, 3FU, 39 Articles, and 2nd Helvetic. This is the historic definition of the reformed tradition and it encompasses a degree of latitude, but clearly discounts Arminianism and the like.

That is really all I meant albeit stated far better.

Originally Posted by JohnOwen007

ps: AV, I'll be in Cambridge for the last 6 months of this year, we should catch up some time whilst I'm over.

Would be good.

There's no reason for denying that Owen was Reformed!

There's also no reason to include the Anabaptists as "Reformed" since they rejected virtually everything that the Reformed held. The ABs were mystical moralizers. They were social radicals (e.g. communalism, denial of participation in civil society, and even radical revolution).

rsc

Originally Posted by Pergamum

In one sense "reformed" would mean that one's tradition draws from the Reformation, whether that branch is magesterial or radical.

Perhaps a better terminology would be "Reformational Baptist" or "Reforming"...



P.S. What would we call John Owen if we deny that he is Reformed?

Bob Self of ARBCA tells people he is a Baptist who believes in a really BIG God.

Three things re established churches and the definition of Reformed.

1. It seems bizarre to me to hold that it is essential to being Reformed to hold to an established church.

2. The I don't know of any ecclesiastical body that has held that a doctrine of establishment is essential to the Reformed faith. The American covenanters have close ecumenical relations with denominations that deny establishment. If establishment is essential to the Reformed faith I doubt they would have entered into close fraternal relations with groups that deny it.

3. Neither the continental Reformed in Europe and America nor the American Presbyterians have said that, otoh, that holding to establishment disqualifies a denom/fed as Reformed.

Isn't this an area where we can agree to disagree?

rsc

Originally Posted by Southern Presbyterian

Originally Posted by VirginiaHuguenot

Originally Posted by armourbearer

Not on the Church/State issue.

My American denomination adheres to the Establishment Principle.

Mine too.

Adam,

Are you certain that you're giving MGK/the book the most charitable interpretation?

I've only read sections. Frankly I find it very difficult to read. The books that Meredith did without an editor are full of Kline-speak and I haven't spent the time to figure out what he's doing.

I do know, however, that Meredith was quite committed to Van Til's theology and that includes the Creator/creature distinction.

With the language re the HS could it be that he's elaborating on Vos' theory in Bib Theol that the eschaton is a "realm of the HS"?

Republication was widely taught in the 17th century (and implicitly before) among orthodox Reformed divines. The adjective typological is not mere "mitigation"! This is essential to his understanding of the role of the Mosaic covenant. Remember, this is the guy who opposed Norm Shepherd for 30+ years. He didn't cash in justification sola gratia et fide at the end of his life. That's not plausible. The merit he has in mind there is the same sort of thing he said in Kingdom Prologue and elsewhere. It is merit ex pacto, i.e. relative to the typological national, temporary, covenant of works relative to their national status.

if you're going to hit MGK for teaching that then you can go after me too because I've been saying virtually the same thing for years.

Originally Posted by ADKing

Originally Posted by R. Scott Clark

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.

"Seriously heterodox" is over the top. Meredith deserves better treatment whatever disagreements you might have with him.

rsc

Originally Posted by CaseyBessette

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.

Originally Posted by R. Scott Clark

Adam,

Are you certain that you're giving MGK/the book the most charitable interpretation?

I've only read sections. Frankly I find it very difficult to read. The books that Meredith did without an editor are full of Kline-speak and I haven't spent the time to figure out what he's doing.

I do know, however, that Meredith was quite committed to Van Til's theology and that includes the Creator/creature distinction.

With the language re the HS could it be that he's elaborating on Vos' theory in Bib Theol that the eschaton is a "realm of the HS"?

Republication was widely taught in the 17th century (and implicitly before) among orthodox Reformed divines. The adjective typological is not mere "mitigation"! This is essential to his understanding of the role of the Mosaic covenant. Remember, this is the guy who opposed Norm Shepherd for 30+ years. He didn't cash in justification sola gratia et fide at the end of his life. That's not plausible. The merit he has in mind there is the same sort of thing he said in Kingdom Prologue and elsewhere. It is merit ex pacto, i.e. relative to the typological national, temporary, covenant of works relative to their national status.

if you're going to hit MGK for teaching that then you can go after me too because I've been saying virtually the same thing for years.

With all due respect Dr. Clark, there is nothing unclear or uncertain as to what Dr. Kline is saying with respect to the Trinity. I regret that I do not have the book handy or I would quote it here. (Does anyone on the board have this book handy that could quote the relavent section?) I highly suggest taking a look at that section in his book where he deals with "endoxation". Making the claim that the Holy Spirit has embodied himself in created reality in a way analagous to the incarnation is not reformed or Nicene (to refrain from using much stronger language!). There is nothing similar in the writings of Vos

With regard to the Mosaic covenant, I will not speak at length. Suffice it to say I find it dubious that the historical evidence that the language of republication by some 16th and 17th century divines represents "proto-Klineanism" per the work of men like Karlberg. Even individuals like Lee Irons are now looking to John Cameron et.al. for a more plausible source. Witness the fact the even these divines who are appealed to end up with a much more puritan system than Dr. Kline himself.

What troubles me much more than the whole "republication" issue, is the question of merit. No reformed theologian, of whom I am aware, speaks of post-fall merit in the sense of Dr. Kline (other than in the case of our Lord). As sinners, it is impossible for us to do anything meritorious in God's sight. In a strict sense, I think Kline and his followers understand this and that is why they have had recourse to this concpet of merit which is determined "ex pacto" as you put it. That is to suggest, under this typological system, God can accept obedience (mingled with sin as it is in fallen men) as meritorious--not because it is perfect, but because it satisfies his less than perfect standard under a typological system. I am not accusing Dr. Kline of abandoning sola gratia or falling into Sheperdism. But I think his redefinition of merit suggests (however uninetentionally it may or may not be) that God can accept less than perfect obedience as meritorious albeit in a typological system. This I find highly dangerous.

Originally Posted by AV1611

Originally Posted by Daniel Ritchie

Yes, but they are heretics who deny the doctrines of grace.

You are saying that you can be Reformed and disagree with the Reformed Standards.

The FV say that they agree with the Reformed Standards insofar as they are biblical but disagree with them where they go against Scripture. They say that the Reformed Standards disagree with Scripture on x, y and z.

You say, the FV are heretics because they disagree with the Reformed Standards on x, y and z.

To which the FV cry, but our presbyteries have changed the Standards on x, y and z.

To which you reply....

The problem is that there needs to be a creed that is a standard, a canon of belief or doctrine. In Reformed circles these are the Westminster Standards and Three Forms of Unity (I would also add the Savoy declaration). Disagree with them and you are not Reformed.

FVers have denied the central soteriological doctrines of the Confession. This is not in the same league as exclusive psalmody or the establishment principle.

Originally Posted by armourbearer

Originally Posted by Daniel Ritchie

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.

The problem with this analogy is that the managers of the golf course (i.e. the church courts) have redefined the boundaries of the golf course (i.e. the WCF/BC) so that their views are no longer out of bounds.

Not having God, Heaven and Har Maggedon handy, here is a quote from D. Kline in one of his articles on Zechariah's night visions.

There is then an eternally continuing Glory-embodiment of God's Spirit-Presence in creation, shaping creation and constituting it a temple. The primal creation event that brought this Glory-Spirit epiphany into existence (Gen. 1:1) may be called the endoxation of the Spirit. It is comparable to the incarnation of the Son. Incarnate Son and endoxate Spirit are both living embodiments of the God of Glory.

He is only more explicit in the aforementioned book. Here is the source Kerux...The Online Journal of Biblical Theology

Adam,

I think you are quite wrong here. There is nothing heretical in what MGK is saying here about the role of the Spirit. Please re-read Vos' Pauline Eschatology. That is all Meredith is saying here. This is the same sort of language he uses about the Glory-Spirit in creation, the covenant of works, the theophanic manifestations etc. He's describing Zechariah's visions.

He's not saying that the Spirit, in this vision, is conceived as incarnate.

Second, though I don't think it's pedagogically helpful to speak of Israel meriting tenure in the land, as long as we know what he means by it, that it is ONLY relative to the will of God as expressed in the typological, national-status land covenant, then it isn't nearly as problematic as you make it.

FWIW, I think you're over-reacting. You may not like the doctrine of republication but it has a pretty serious pedigree. The Reformed (e.g. Owen, Boston) routinely appealed to the idea of republication to explain the covenant of works. The WCF ch 19 does it!

rsc

Originally Posted by ADKing

Not having God, Heaven and Har Maggedon handy, here is a quote from D. Kline in one of his articles on Zechariah's night visions.

There is then an eternally continuing Glory-embodiment of God's Spirit-Presence in creation, shaping creation and constituting it a temple. The primal creation event that brought this Glory-Spirit epiphany into existence (Gen. 1:1) may be called the endoxation of the Spirit. It is comparable to the incarnation of the Son. Incarnate Son and endoxate Spirit are both living embodiments of the God of Glory.

He is only more explicit in the aforementioned book. Here is the source Kerux...The Online Journal of Biblical Theology

Originally Posted by R. Scott Clark

FWIW, I think you're over-reacting. You may not like the doctrine of republication but it has a pretty serious pedigree. The Reformed (e.g. Owen, Boston) routinely appealed to the idea of republication to explain the covenant of works. The WCF ch 19 does it!

Maybe it depends on what people think it means by republication, i.e. the reason why it was republished.

John Gill is helpful IMO:

The author and giver of this law; God was the author and maker of it; Moses the giver and minister of it from God; it was God that first spoke the ten words, or commands, to the children of Israel; and it was he that wrote and engraved them on tables of stone; the writing was the writing of God, and the engraving was by the finger of God; it was from his right hand this fiery law went: the ministry of angels was made use of in it; it is called, the word spoken by angels; it was given by the disposition of them; it was ordained by them in the hands of a mediator, who was Moses, who stood between God and the people, received the lively oracles from him, and delivered them to them. There was a law in being before the times of Moses; or otherwise there would have been no transgression, no imputation of sin, no charge of guilt, nor any punishment inflicted; whereas death, the just demerit of sin, reigned from Adam to Moses; and besides the positive law, which forbid the eating of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil; and was given as a trial of man’s obedience to the whole moral law, and in the form of a covenant, in which Adam stood as a federal head, to all his posterity; and which covenant he broke, and involved himself and his in misery and ruin. Besides this, there was the law of nature, inscribed on his heart by his Maker, as the rule of his obedience to him; and by which he knew much of God, and of the nature of moral good and evil; and which; though much obliterated by the fall, some remains of it are to be discerned in Adam’s posterity; and even in the Gentiles (Rom. 1:19,20; 2:14,15), and which is reinscribed in the hearts of God’s people in regeneration, according to the tenor of the covenant of grace (Jer. 31:33). Now the law of Moses, for matter and substance, is the same with the law of nature, though differing in the form of administration; and this was renewed in the times of Moses, that it might be confirmed, and that it might not be forgotten, and be wholly lost out of the minds of men; of which there was great danger, through the great prevalence of corruption in the world: and it was written, that it might remain, "litera scripta manet;" and it was written on tables of stone, that it might be the more durable; the apostle says, "it was added because of transgressions," to forbid them, restrain them, and punish for them; and it "entered that the offence might abound," the sin of Adam; that the heinousness of it might appear, and the justness of its imputation to all his posterity might be manifest; as well as all other offences might be seen by it to be exceeding sinful, and righteously punishable: (see Gal. 3:19; Rom. 5:20; Rom. 7:13). It was not delivered as a pure covenant of works, though the self-righteous Jews turned it into one, and sought for life and righteousness by it: and so it engendered to bondage, and became a killing letter; nor a pure covenant of grace, though it was given as a distinguishing favour to the people of Israel (Deut. 4:6,8; Ps. 147:19,20; Rom. 9:4) and much mercy and kindness are expressed in it; and it is prefaced with a declaration of the Lord being the God of Israel, who had, of his great goodness, brought them out of the land of Egypt (Ex 20:2,6,12). But it was a part and branch of the typical covenant, under which the covenant of grace was administered under the former dispensation; and of what it was typical, has been observed before; and a principal end of its being renewed was, that Christ, who was to come of the Jews, might appear to be made under the law, as the surety of his people, the righteousness of which he was to fulfil, and, indeed, all righteousness; being the end of the law, the scope at which it aimed, as well as the fulfiller of it....It [the law] does not continue as a covenant of works; and, indeed, it was not delivered to the children of Israel as such strictly and properly speaking, only in a typical sense; though the Jews turned it to such a purpose, and sought righteousness and life by it: but God never made a covenant of works with men since the fall, in order to their obtaining life and salvation by it; for it never was in the power of man since to perform the conditions of such a covenant; however, it is certain, believers are not under the law as a covenant of works; but under grace as a covenant of grace.

Originally Posted by R. Scott Clark

Adam,

I think you are quite wrong here. There is nothing heretical in what MGK is saying here about the role of the Spirit. Please re-read Vos' Pauline Eschatology. That is all Meredith is saying here. This is the same sort of language he uses about the Glory-Spirit in creation, the covenant of works, the theophanic manifestations etc. He's describing Zechariah's visions.

He's not saying that the Spirit, in this vision, is conceived as incarnate.

Second, though I don't think it's pedagogically helpful to speak of Israel meriting tenure in the land, as long as we know what he means by it, that it is ONLY relative to the will of God as expressed in the typological, national-status land covenant, then it isn't nearly as problematic as you make it.

FWIW, I think you're over-reacting. You may not like the doctrine of republication but it has a pretty serious pedigree. The Reformed (e.g. Owen, Boston) routinely appealed to the idea of republication to explain the covenant of works. The WCF ch 19 does it!

rsc

Originally Posted by ADKing

Not having God, Heaven and Har Maggedon handy, here is a quote from D. Kline in one of his articles on Zechariah's night visions.

There is then an eternally continuing Glory-embodiment of God's Spirit-Presence in creation, shaping creation and constituting it a temple. The primal creation event that brought this Glory-Spirit epiphany into existence (Gen. 1:1) may be called the endoxation of the Spirit. It is comparable to the incarnation of the Son. Incarnate Son and endoxate Spirit are both living embodiments of the God of Glory.

He is only more explicit in the aforementioned book. Here is the source Kerux...The Online Journal of Biblical Theology

Thank you for your interaction Dr. Clark. I will let the topic drop and we will have to agree to disagree. I never used the term "heretical" on purpose. Nevertheless, I do think, if you have not read Dr. Kline's book, you ought to take a look at it before you defend what he is saying. Kline himself makes the analogy to the incarnation. He is in fact teaching that the Spirit is eternally, inseparably "embodied" for lack of the precise term, in a created entity. This is not what Vos was saying. However, if you disagree with this, I suppose we would have to fall back on the exact quotes which I do not have at this time.

I continue to have very strong concern on the issue of merit and believe that when Owen etc. are appealed to with respect to the issue of the republication of the covenant of works it is a matter of formal similarity rather than something the same in substance.

Isn't it interesting that a thread on what and who is genuinely reformed has taken so many different angles?

Originally Posted by Daniel Ritchie

Originally Posted by armourbearer

Originally Posted by Daniel Ritchie

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.

The problem with this analogy is that the managers of the golf course (i.e. the church courts) have redefined the boundaries of the golf course (i.e. the WCF/BC) so that their views are no longer out of bounds.

yes, and what's worse, no golf club manager has the right to redefine the laws of the game - that goes to the Royal and Ancient alone... yet the modern golf course managers are constantly rewriting not only the boundaries of the course (which is IN their purview) but the rules of the game (which is not)!

Originally Posted by toddpedlar

Originally Posted by Daniel Ritchie

Originally Posted by armourbearer

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.

The problem with this analogy is that the managers of the golf course (i.e. the church courts) have redefined the boundaries of the golf course (i.e. the WCF/BC) so that their views are no longer out of bounds.

yes, and what's worse, no golf club manager has the right to redefine the laws of the game - that goes to the Royal and Ancient alone... yet the modern golf course managers are constantly rewriting not only the boundaries of the course (which is IN their purview) but the rules of the game (which is not)!

Since John Knox was a keen golfer, does one have to like golf in order to be Reformed, or is that irrelevant as golf is not in the WCF?

Yes absolutely Daniel. Golf=Reformed
(At least I think so...)