Thread: Danger of Reformed Traditionalism

I've often pondered "When we've been there ten thousand years" in the light of criticisms on traditionalism. The criticism seems somewhat hollow when the possibility of error is removed from the scene. One wonders why such criticism should be considered valid in the realms of earthly experience where knowing the truth has been a reality for generations.

These articles err when they claim the Protestant reformation was not concerned with maintaining tradition. One only needs to take up Calvin's Institutes to derive a sense of continuity with the past.

Originally Posted by armourbearer

I've often pondered "When we've been there ten thousand years" in the light of criticisms on traditionalism. The criticism seems somewhat hollow when the possibility of error is removed from the scene. One wonders why such criticism should be considered valid in the realms of earthly experience where knowing the truth has been a reality for generations.

These articles err when they claim the Protestant reformation was not concerned with maintaining tradition. One only needs to take up Calvin's Institutes to derive a sense of continuity with the past.

I was thinking the same thing about Calvin. He did not write as if he believed he was doing something novel.

CT

I am not seeing what the author is seeing, but then again, I am not running a seminary. I can agree with the articles in terms of keeping our creeds and confessions in their proper place: under the authority of the Scriptures.

However, the creeds and confessions themselves state this. Perhaps the author's article is superflouous. This section concerned me:

This point, I think, definitely requires the most caution and care. I can think of a few areas in the Confession in which greater refinement in doctrinal formulae could be helpful. For example, the 1689’s statements related to covenant theology could use some fine-tuning. I also think the chapter dealing with worship (ch. 22) could be improved in order to address some of the confusion surrounding the Regulative Principle of Worship and its application. But since I’m running out of space (and perhaps the reader’s good favor), I think I’ll leave any elaboration of this point for another occasion.

What about the Covenant Theology of our Baptist forebears needs refining? Is this the creeping in of NCT? Unlikely, but then again the author stated he doesn't want to elaborate at this time.

Personally, I don't see anything wrong with the confession. Our church, being 1689 Confessional, also publishes for our members our distinctives which includes such things related to our times. My suggestion would be to leave the confession alone. If a church finds themselves needing to revise it, then re-write your own confession and replace it and stop calling yourself 1689 Confessional.

RB

Originally Posted by armourbearer

I've often pondered "When we've been there ten thousand years" in the light of criticisms on traditionalism. The criticism seems somewhat hollow when the possibility of error is removed from the scene. One wonders why such criticism should be considered valid in the realms of earthly experience where knowing the truth has been a reality for generations.

What exactly do you mean by the above? Please translate for us Ozark hillbillies.

Originally Posted by Reformed Baptist

I am not seeing what the author is seeing, but then again, I am not running a seminary. I can agree with the articles in terms of keeping our creeds and confessions in their proper place: under the authority of the Scriptures.

However, the creeds and confessions themselves state this. Perhaps the author's article is superflouous. This section concerned me:

This point, I think, definitely requires the most caution and care. I can think of a few areas in the Confession in which greater refinement in doctrinal formulae could be helpful. For example, the 1689’s statements related to covenant theology could use some fine-tuning. I also think the chapter dealing with worship (ch. 22) could be improved in order to address some of the confusion surrounding the Regulative Principle of Worship and its application. But since I’m running out of space (and perhaps the reader’s good favor), I think I’ll leave any elaboration of this point for another occasion.

What about the Covenant Theology of our Baptist forebears needs refining? Is this the creeping in of NCT? Unlikely, but then again the author stated he doesn't want to elaborate at this time.

Personally, I don't see anything wrong with the confession. Our church, being 1689 Confessional, also publishes for our members our distinctives which includes such things related to our times. My suggestion would be to leave the confession alone. If a church finds themselves needing to revise it, then re-write your own confession and replace it and stop calling yourself 1689 Confessional.

RB

Is the Pope THE antichrist?

Also, do you have any problems with updating the wording of the confession?

Originally Posted by Pergamum

Originally Posted by Reformed Baptist

I am not seeing what the author is seeing, but then again, I am not running a seminary. I can agree with the articles in terms of keeping our creeds and confessions in their proper place: under the authority of the Scriptures.

However, the creeds and confessions themselves state this. Perhaps the author's article is superflouous. This section concerned me:

This point, I think, definitely requires the most caution and care. I can think of a few areas in the Confession in which greater refinement in doctrinal formulae could be helpful. For example, the 1689’s statements related to covenant theology could use some fine-tuning. I also think the chapter dealing with worship (ch. 22) could be improved in order to address some of the confusion surrounding the Regulative Principle of Worship and its application. But since I’m running out of space (and perhaps the reader’s good favor), I think I’ll leave any elaboration of this point for another occasion.

What about the Covenant Theology of our Baptist forebears needs refining? Is this the creeping in of NCT? Unlikely, but then again the author stated he doesn't want to elaborate at this time.

Personally, I don't see anything wrong with the confession. Our church, being 1689 Confessional, also publishes for our members our distinctives which includes such things related to our times. My suggestion would be to leave the confession alone. If a church finds themselves needing to revise it, then re-write your own confession and replace it and stop calling yourself 1689 Confessional.

RB

Is the Pope THE antichrist?

Also, do you have any problems with updating the wording of the confession?

I think the Pope/papacy is probably THE Antichrist, yes. And I don't see anything wrong with the wording of the confession. It makes sense to me. But I am not opposed to a revised confession that updates language.

Originally Posted by Reformed Baptist

Originally Posted by Pergamum

Originally Posted by Reformed Baptist

I am not seeing what the author is seeing, but then again, I am not running a seminary. I can agree with the articles in terms of keeping our creeds and confessions in their proper place: under the authority of the Scriptures.

However, the creeds and confessions themselves state this. Perhaps the author's article is superflouous. This section concerned me:



What about the Covenant Theology of our Baptist forebears needs refining? Is this the creeping in of NCT? Unlikely, but then again the author stated he doesn't want to elaborate at this time.

Personally, I don't see anything wrong with the confession. Our church, being 1689 Confessional, also publishes for our members our distinctives which includes such things related to our times. My suggestion would be to leave the confession alone. If a church finds themselves needing to revise it, then re-write your own confession and replace it and stop calling yourself 1689 Confessional.

RB

Is the Pope THE antichrist?

Also, do you have any problems with updating the wording of the confession?

I think the Pope/papacy is probably THE Antichrist, yes. And I don't see anything wrong with the wording of the confession. It makes sense to me. But I am not opposed to a revised confession that updates language.

Only PROBABLY the Antichrist? Are you really "Confessional" then or just a "1689 Poseur" since you admit doubt where the Confession speaks clearly? Probably ain't get enough is it?

Originally Posted by Reformed Baptist

Originally Posted by Pergamum

Originally Posted by Reformed Baptist

I am not seeing what the author is seeing, but then again, I am not running a seminary. I can agree with the articles in terms of keeping our creeds and confessions in their proper place: under the authority of the Scriptures.

However, the creeds and confessions themselves state this. Perhaps the author's article is superflouous. This section concerned me:



What about the Covenant Theology of our Baptist forebears needs refining? Is this the creeping in of NCT? Unlikely, but then again the author stated he doesn't want to elaborate at this time.

Personally, I don't see anything wrong with the confession. Our church, being 1689 Confessional, also publishes for our members our distinctives which includes such things related to our times. My suggestion would be to leave the confession alone. If a church finds themselves needing to revise it, then re-write your own confession and replace it and stop calling yourself 1689 Confessional.

RB

Is the Pope THE antichrist?

Also, do you have any problems with updating the wording of the confession?

I think the Pope/papacy is probably THE Antichrist, yes. And I don't see anything wrong with the wording of the confession. It makes sense to me. But I am not opposed to a revised confession that updates language.

The view of virtually all protestants before the Scofield Bible came out and promoted dispensational futurism was the historicist view. This view states that the Papacy is the Antichrist and that the Popes are the plurality of false teachers and "antichrists" mentioned by Christ and John. The puritans and reformers didn't see one Pope as the antichrist but the position itself as the antichrist/man of sin. Read 2 Thes 2. The man of sin rises out of the "apostasia" (falling away, or divorce) from the truth. He takes his seat in the "temple of God" (apostate church) and claims the authority of God. He was there in Paul's day (he is now being restrained Paul said) and wouldn't be destroyed until Christ's return (proving the "man of sin" is either a currently 2000 year old man or an office held by men). The discretion used in Paul saying "You know what restrains him" indicates reference to the Roman Empire (the only authority this info would need to be hidden from). The man of sin is "slain" by the breath of the Lord (2 Tim 3 shows this is a reference to the scripture) and destroyed by the appearence of His coming as I mentioned before. Paul later exhorts them to hold on to the letters he wrote them (scripture was the source of the reformation and pre-reformers).

1 Tim 4 also talks about the apostasy. It describes those who are part of the "falling away" as "Men who forbid marriage" and "abstain from certain foods".

The very term "antichrist" doesn't mean openly fighting Christ. The word in context should be translated "vicechrist" (the way we use vice-president). The Latin word for "vice" is "vicar". I believe the Papacy IS the Vicechrist and man of sin.

I find these articles vague and tenuous. The presuppositions and "facts" are questionable. E.g.,

Another possible reason for the Reformers’ and Puritans’ lack of emphasis on evangelistic outreach and missions may be the fact that they lived in a sacral society (a kind of Christian theocracy). In such a society, every citizen was a member of the church and most would have attended some church. And yet, most of these citizens were lost.

How does the good doctor know who was or was not lost 400 years ago on a percentage basis?

From a practical standpoint, how do Baptists, who are congregationally independent by nature, tweak their Confession to suit the majority of other Confessional Baptists?

That being said, the scripture is the authority. We shouldn't accept the confessions purely at face value but search the scriptures to see if the confessions are true. In my experience of study the 1689 is very much in accordance with scripture. The WCF is great too! I just disagree with infant baptism (obviously).

The author said:

One of the hallmarks of the Protestant Reformation was a movement away from traditionalism and a return to the Scriptures as the ultimate authority of the Christian church. This was not a complete rejection of church tradition or legitimate human authority. Rather, it was a conscious effort to reestablish the primacy of Scripture in matters of faith and practice and to subordinate all church tradition to the teaching of Scripture. It was this restored focus upon Bible’s authority and teaching that gave birth to the Latin phrase, sola Scriptura (the Bible alone).

I did not get the impression that the author was saying that we should throw out all tradition, but exactly what he said, "church tradition should be subordinate to the teaching of Scripture."

While the author does say that he feels the confessions need some tweaking (my paraphrase), and he may or may not be right about that, he does have a valid point. So often in reformed circles (even here on the PB), folks will use the WCF or some other reformed work to back up a viewpoint rather than going back to Scripture. When asked what does Scripture say, the answer comes back (in so many words) "the confessions say the Scriptures say...."

I did not come to hold to reformed theology by studying Calvin and Luther; I was raised in a fundamental Baptist Church where tradition has become, in many ways, equal to Scripture. I came to believe reformed theology by studying the Scriptures. When I began looking for a church that taught what I believed, the Presbyterian church seemed to teach what I found in the Scriptures. When I read the WCF, it too, seemed to be in agreement with the Scriptures, but I don't put it on the level of Scripture.

The WCF and all the other writings of the reformers, just as all the commentators and theologians who are out there, were written by mere men who may or may not have had a complete understanding of the Scriptures when they published their works.

I appreciate J Baldwin's clarifying remarks regarding the article on Reformed traditionalism I posted. I also make it clear, contrary to Matthew's impression of my article, that the Reformers did attempt to maintain as much as possible a continuity with the past. For instance, I wrote, "The Protestant Reformers were not opposed to all tradition. If you read their writings, you’ll find that they occasionally cite the church fathers and earlier church tradition in a positive light. For instance, both Luther and Calvin had a deep appreciation for the writings of Augustine. They sometimes quoted Augustine to demonstrate that what they were teaching was not entirely novel. But we do not seem to find among the Reformers a pronounced concern or preoccupation to be identified with the Augustinian tradition. We do not find Protestant churches springing up with the name, “The Augustinian Church of Wittenburg,” or “Grace Augustinian Church.” We do not find Luther and Calvin calling the church to return to the writings of Augustine. Rather, the Reformers were primarily concerned to take the church back not to Augustine, not to Athanasius, not to Irenaeus, but all the way back to Jesus, and to Paul, and to John, and to the other biblical writers."

I want to assure Geoff that my passing reference to the need to refine the covenant theology of the 1689 is not motivated by an incipient New Covenant Theology. Drs. Waldron and Barcellos, who teach for my seminary, can vouch for that. I'm thinking more of the modern attacks on the "covenant of works." I affirm the covenant of works, and believe its doctrinal formulae in the 1689 could use some modest refinement.

Welcome Bob! I see you are new here and a not too far away neighbor.

Tom thinks my articles on the danger of Reformed traditionalism are "vague and tenuous. The presuppositions and 'facts' are questionable." Then he cites one statement where I assert that most Englishmen of the 17th century were lost. Well, I didn't intend that statement as a claim to omniscience though I think its veracity is more likely than the opposite proposition, viz., most English citizens were saved. Be that as it may, I'm willing to modify the language in order to avoid the appearance of making an indisputable factual claim. I'm not sure what other statements Tom finds "vague and tenuous."

I don't think that quoting the confession should be pitted against quoting Scripture. If the confession is a summary of Scripture's teaching, then quoting the confession is a short-hand way of saying "this is what Scripture teaches." Someone who quotes the confession often, of course, should also be someone who has done the exegetical work to prove to his own or her own satisfaction that the confessions do indeed teach what Scripture teaches. But there is no need to avoid succinct summaries of Scripture in the confessions. This is what those who hold to the confessions mean when they quote the confessions. It is the church's way of stating their view of what Scripture teaches. If the confessions need correction, there is a mechanism in place to do that.

BTW, I do concede in the article, "I am not an expert in church history, so I can only speculate." So I'm not attempting to dogmatize as to the reasons why a clearer and more comprehensive statement regarding the church's responsibility to engage in evangelistic and missionary outreach failed to find its way into the 17th century confessions. I am, however, arguing that such a statement needs to be there.

I agree with Lane's remarks in general. Confessions have both a polemical and pedagogical function (see my series, "On the Validity & Value of Confessions of Faith"). I still contend, however, that the 17th century confessions do not speak to every issue. So one will need to say more than what's said in the WCF in order to present the whole counsel of God. Moreover, we should be modest and concede the high probability that the doctrinal formulae in these confessions are not 100% accurate all the time. Otherwise, we're not too far from Rome's claims, which the Reformers and Puritans earnestly opposed.

Originally Posted by greenbaggins

I don't think that quoting the confession should be pitted against quoting Scripture. If the confession is a summary of Scripture's teaching, then quoting the confession is a short-hand way of saying "this is what Scripture teaches." Someone who quotes the confession often, of course, should also be someone who has done the exegetical work to prove to his own or her own satisfaction that the confessions do indeed teach what Scripture teaches. But there is no need to avoid succinct summaries of Scripture in the confessions. This is what those who hold to the confessions mean when they quote the confessions. It is the church's way of stating their view of what Scripture teaches. If the confessions need correction, there is a mechanism in place to do that.

Any confession is a "summary of Scripture's teaching" according to the opinion of men. I do support an appeal to the confessions for certain things (proof of a historical view and proof of a denominational view) but in debating theology and doctrine itself there must be an appeal to scripture. If the person debating does know through study the scriptural basis for the confession's view, why not go to the authoritative source as opposed to a man's interpretation. If I argue with a paedobaptist that credobaptism is the proper way to baptize, appealing to confessions does us no good (the confessions disagree!). Likewise, appealing to confessions for other doctrinal debates does us no good. The only people a certain confession appeals to are people that already agree with it.

Originally Posted by Dr. Bob Gonzales

Tom thinks my articles on the danger of Reformed traditionalism are "vague and tenuous. The presuppositions and 'facts' are questionable." Then he cites one statement where I assert that most Englishmen of the 17th century were lost. Well, I didn't intend that statement as a claim to omniscience though I think its veracity is more likely than the opposite proposition, viz., most English citizens were saved. Be that as it may, I'm willing to modify the language in order to avoid the appearance of making an indisputable factual claim. I'm not sure what other statements Tom finds "vague and tenuous."

Dr. Gonzales,

Well, for example, you also wrote:

As I said earlier, the Protestant Reformers were not opposed to all tradition. If you read their writings, you’ll find that they occasionally cite the church fathers and earlier church tradition in a positive light. For instance, both Luther and Calvin had a deep appreciation for the writings of Augustine. They sometimes quoted Augustine to demonstrate that what they were teaching was not entirely novel. But we do not seem to find among the Reformers a pronounced concern or preoccupation to be identified with the Augustinian tradition. We do not find Protestant churches springing up with the name, “The Augustinian Church of Wittenburg,” or “Grace Augustinian Church.” We do not find Luther and Calvin calling the church to return to the writings of Augustine. Rather, the Reformers were primarily concerned to take the church back not to Augustine, not to Athanasius, not to Irenaeus, but all the way back to Jesus, and to Paul, and to John, and to the other biblical writers.

I’m not as familiar with Luther as with Calvin, but I’m not sure how you can suggest that the Reformers only occasionally cite the church fathers in their works. Calvin’s Institutes and commentaries are replete with references to early church traditions, often positive. One can hardly turn a page without seeing references to the writings of Augustine, Jerome, Chrysostom, Bernard, etc, etc. I believe the same can be said of Turretin and others who wrote extensively in a systematic way. I think we also see this same commitment to earlier Church traditions in the later wrings of men like Charles Hodge in his Systematic Theology.

How folks may have named their churches does not seem to be a good argument for whether the Reformers were committed to Augustinian or any other early theological perspective. Isn’t it a bit anachronistic to suggest the Reformers would have named their local churches after any church father? It’s a weak argument at best.

I think you are minimizing the extent to which the Reformers were indebted to earlier Church tradition for the core of their theology in order to bolster your argument. I believe it was not the intent to take the Church “all the way back to Jesus” so as to ignore all the theological developments and history that had been going on for fifteen centuries. I believe it was their intent to build on the solid foundation and deposit of truth that Christ left with His people. Calvin, et al did not hold a view of the Church as fundamentally apostate and, therefore, all such writings of men were to be avoided.

Perhaps this is the difference between Reformed/Presbyterian and Baptists views of tradition. The Reformed and Presbyterians like Calvin see themselves in the main of theological tradition going back to the apostles. Baptists, on the other hand, in order to justify their rewrites of the Reformed Confessions, have had to skirt tradition in order to advance hallmark views like believer’s baptism.

Tom,

Thanks for helping me to be more precise in my assertions. You are correct in your claim that Calvin's Institutes contains plenty of references to the church fathers. I'm not sure that the positive comments outweigh the negative ones. Be that as it may, my point was not to suggest that the Reformers advanced the position that the church should start from ground zero in her doctrinal formulations. On the contrary, I believe they advocated building on those facets of ecclesiastical dogma and tradition that were judged to be scriptural. Accordingly, my point was to underscore their burden to establish and maintain the primacy of Scripture over human tradition. As I said, "The Reformers were primarily concerned to take the church back not to Augustine, not to Athanasius, not to Irenaeus, but all the way back to Jesus, and to Paul, and to John, and to the other biblical writers [emphasis added]."

I am not so sure that my view of tradition greatly differs from that of Reformed/Presbyterians simply because I'm a Baptist. Whether you agree or not, I see myself "in the main of theological tradition going back to the apostles." The fact that you sprinkle babies like the Roman and Orthodox communions does not necessarily mean you stand in their theological tradition since they, historically, have conceived of the nature of baptism somewhat differently (i.e., sacramentalism) and have, accordingly, advanced different arguments for its necessity. With all due respect, the question of baptism is one area where Luther and Calvin fell short in their attempt to give Scripture primacy over ecclesiastical tradition.

Dr. Gonzales,

We seem to be in agreement on many things.

Originally Posted by Dr. Bob Gonzales

With all due respect, the question of baptism is one area where Luther and Calvin fell short in their attempt to give Scripture primacy over ecclesiastical tradition.

That’s the crux of the argument. I realize that Baptists claim the Berean high ground when it comes to the issue of baptism, but the fact remains the majority of the Reformation-era confessional Churches did not accept the Baptist arguments. Now, you would argue that they where placing tradition over and against Scripture in this area, while we would argue that we have both Scripture and tradition on our side. We are not forced to play tradition off against Scripture, at least in this area.

And the fact that the Reformers did not accept all the somewhat recent Roman Catholic details regarding baptism (e.g., baptismal regeneration) is further proof that they did exactly what they were supposed to do: They kept the best and left the rest. They were able to maintain a common practice without having to compromise the Bible. This they were able to do because they could use both Scripture and tradition to help understand the larger matters -- like the nature of the covenant and the one holy catholic Church -- in order to see how details like baptism were to be understood.

Fair enough. So too, the framers of the 1689 Baptist Confession purposefully "kept the best [from the WCF and Savoy] and left the rest." Wisely, they recognized and acknowledged that the Presbyterian and Savoy symbols preserved proportionately "the best." So Reformed Baptists owe a great deal to the insights of their paedobaptist brothers. God bless.

Originally Posted by Dr. Bob Gonzales

Fair enough. So too, the framers of the 1689 Baptist Confession purposefully "kept the best [from the WCF and Savoy] and left the rest." Wisely, they recognized and acknowledged that the Presbyterian and Savoy symbols preserved proportionately "the best." So Reformed Baptists owe a great deal to the insights of their paedobaptist brothers. God bless.

Welcome to the board Dr. Gonzales. Guys, we have Baptism forums to discuss this. Take it there.

Thanks, Chris, for the welcome and gentle correction.

Originally Posted by NaphtaliPress

Originally Posted by Dr. Bob Gonzales

Fair enough. So too, the framers of the 1689 Baptist Confession purposefully "kept the best [from the WCF and Savoy] and left the rest." Wisely, they recognized and acknowledged that the Presbyterian and Savoy symbols preserved proportionately "the best." So Reformed Baptists owe a great deal to the insights of their paedobaptist brothers. God bless.

Welcome to the board Dr. Gonzales. Guys, we have Baptism forums to discuss this. Take it there.

I wasn't sure what forum to post this in, but put it here since Dr. Gonzales' posts in my mind had a lot more to do with the use of confessions than they did with the baptism issue. There are paedos who would agree with him and probably some credos who wouldn't. But if the discussion is going to end up being another paedo vs. credo thread then it should take place in the baptism forum.

Sorry, Chris Poe, about my referencing baptism. I was only replying to Tom's previous statement and didn't realize that it wasn't appropriate for this forum. It certainly is not the issue addressed in the posts you introduced here. I will definitely try to abide by the discussion protocols. Apologies to all.

Originally Posted by Dr. Bob Gonzales

Sorry, Chris Poe, about my referencing baptism. I was only replying to Tom's previous statement and didn't realize that it wasn't appropriate for this forum. It certainly is not the issue addressed in the posts you introduced here. I will definitely try to abide by the discussion protocols. Apologies to all.

No problem. I think Chris Coldwell was probably concerned with yet another baptism debate erupting, and those debates belong in the baptism forum dedicated to debate and discussion of that issue. I wasn't looking to debate baptism by posting the links to your blog articles on traditionalism (which in my view have very little if anything to do with baptism) and I doubt you were looking to debate the issue either but baptism debates can seemingly erupt out of nowhere on the Puritan Board as we PB veterans well know.

Originally Posted by tcalbrecht

Perhaps this is the difference between Reformed/Presbyterian and Baptists views of tradition. The Reformed and Presbyterians like Calvin see themselves in the main of theological tradition going back to the apostles. Baptists, on the other hand, in order to justify their rewrites of the Reformed Confessions, have had to skirt tradition in order to advance hallmark views like believer’s baptism.

I think this is the cause of the baptism issue being brought up. Let's give credit where credit is due!

Originally Posted by Dr. Bob Gonzales

Sorry, Chris Poe, about my referencing baptism. I was only replying to Tom's previous statement and didn't realize that it wasn't appropriate for this forum. It certainly is not the issue addressed in the posts you introduced here. I will definitely try to abide by the discussion protocols. Apologies to all.

I didn't realize it either since, in this case, the subject of baptism was incidental to the OP. IMO, we could have replaced baptism with congregationalism and had much the same discussion. I was using baptism merely as an example to show the relationship between Scripture and tradition among the Reformers.

Originally Posted by tcalbrecht

Originally Posted by Dr. Bob Gonzales

Sorry, Chris Poe, about my referencing baptism. I was only replying to Tom's previous statement and didn't realize that it wasn't appropriate for this forum. It certainly is not the issue addressed in the posts you introduced here. I will definitely try to abide by the discussion protocols. Apologies to all.

I didn't realize it either since, in this case, the subject of baptism was incidental to the OP. IMO, we could have replaced baptism with congregationalism and had much the same discussion. I was using baptism merely as an example to show the relationship between Scripture and tradition among the Reformers.

I wouldn't mind if you did it a little nicer.

Originally Posted by ManleyBeasley

I wouldn't mind if you did it a little nicer.

Nicer in what way? You may contact me privately if you wish.

Originally Posted by Reformed Baptist

I am not seeing what the author is seeing, but then again, I am not running a seminary.

Neither is he. It's a ministerial academy.

Cheers,

Originally Posted by Christusregnat

Originally Posted by Reformed Baptist

I am not seeing what the author is seeing, but then again, I am not running a seminary.

Neither is he. It's a ministerial academy.

Cheers,

Same thing but without the snob appeal.

Originally Posted by North Jersey Baptist

Originally Posted by Christusregnat

Originally Posted by Reformed Baptist

I am not seeing what the author is seeing, but then again, I am not running a seminary.

Neither is he. It's a ministerial academy.

Cheers,

Same thing but without the snob appeal.

This thread is bringing out the differences between Reformed Presbyterian and Reformed Baptist opinion in more ways than one!

Originally Posted by Pergamum

Only PROBABLY the Antichrist? Are you really "Confessional" then or just a "1689 Poseur" since you admit doubt where the Confession speaks clearly? Probably ain't get enough is it?

Actually, I used the word probably because of my own deficiency. In other words, the confession is probably right and I am lacking in understanding.

RB

Originally Posted by Dr. Bob Gonzales

I want to assure Geoff that my passing reference to the need to refine the covenant theology of the 1689 is not motivated by an incipient New Covenant Theology. Drs. Waldron and Barcellos, who teach for my seminary, can vouch for that. I'm thinking more of the modern attacks on the "covenant of works." I affirm the covenant of works, and believe its doctrinal formulae in the 1689 could use some modest refinement.

Thanks for the clarification brother. I figured this was the case. BTW, I am a student at the Midwest Center for Theological Studies and am in Symbolics 1. Studying the confession with Dr. Waldron has been great.

RB