Congregational Polity and Being Reformed

[Scott Bushey]

Fred,
So, MacArthur is reformed? What about Sprouls congregationalism? Sorry. See, this is my point. The definition has a degree of standards as it did before the anabaptists disented. The anabaptists are NOT reformed (even if they still held to the D's of G.) They departed from orthodoxy. MacArthur and Sproul in fact have also disented; whether they did it conciously or subconciously is irrelelvent. We need to clear away the fog and what you call 'blurry' in order to again gain some degree of standards. Macarthur, Sproul and the like are not correct in their theology and much of it stems from this principle. We reformed ARE the standard; we must set the plum line and challenge the rest of the body to follow suit. Complacency and relativism is not the answer.

[Edited on 11-16-2004 by Scott Bushey]

 

[JohnV]

In my area Baptist is synonymous with Arminianism. Funny, isn't it? Arminianism was born in the Reformed faith, and you would think that they would seek justification for themselves by remaining related to the Reformation. Without the Reformation they are in the rhubarb patch. But the Baptist in our area are actually the Anabaptists the Reformation rejected. I think it is a curious, and yet quite obvious relationship. (Reformed Baptists in our area is a recent development. Many don't even know they're around yet, so this aura of synonymity is not on them. )

But I agree with you Scott. Reformed standard is more than what the churches in our time and our place represent. The church has a long history, and they still bear witness to us what the standard of faith is. Following leaders and setting up different sections of the church without due Church authority does not necessarily constitute a continuation of that standard. Sometimes is does, but not always. It still has to agree with all the Reformed church, not just the prevailing one in our time.

 

[fredtgreco]

Originally posted by Scott Bushey
Fred,
So, MacArthur is reformed? What about Sprouls congregationalism? Sorry. See, this is my point. The definition has a degree of standards as it did before the anabaptists disented. The anabaptists are NOT reformed (even if they still held to the D's of G.) They departed from orthodoxy. MacArthur and Sproul in fact have also disented; whether they did it conciously or subconciously is irrelelvent. We need to clear away the fog and what you call 'blurry' in order to again gain some degree of standards. Macarthur, Sproul and the like are not correct in their theology and much of it stems from this principle. We reformed ARE the standard; we must set the plum line and challenge the rest of the body to follow suit. Complacency and relativism is not the answer.

[Edited on 11-16-2004 by Scott Bushey]

Scott,

Macarthur is not reformed because he has dispensational leanings -i.e. in areas besides ecclesiology.

Here is the thing: if Owen is not reformed, who is? Modern Presbyterians who ignore the 2nd commandment? The 4th? I can assure you that there are only a very few actual Presbyterians in the PCA and OPC. Was Hodge unreformed because of his views on Church boards (as over against Thornwell) ?

Here is the problem: I understand standards. But when we keep drawing the circle smaller and smaller, we are left with almost no one. Do you really want to say that you are Reformed and like the Still Waters folks and not like Sproul? If that is the case, I don't want to be reformed. Do you HAVE to be a theonomist? If you're not, then all Bahnsen's, Morecraft's, Rushdooney's and North's followers call you non-Reformed. Do you HAVE to dissent from the U.S.? If you're not, then the entire covenanter tradition calls you non-Reformed. Can you be a non-presuppositionalist? If you're not, then almost the entire OPC considers you non-Reformed. Do you believe in common grace? Then forget about the PRC and certain Dutch circles.

You see it is a never ending spiral in my opinion, in a world where if we took all the Savoy, 1689, WCF, Three Forms confessing folks, we would be ablout 2-5% of Christendom in the US. Not of the world, of the US. So I find it hard to attack Congregationalists with that kind of ferver. Especially when there are "Presbyterians" who are today espousing all kinds of wacky stuff - baptismal regeneration, works to stay in the covenant, the elect falling away, no invisible church, baptizing entire nations without a profession of Christ by them, and so on.

The world is a dangerous place, and frankly, I don't think RC Sproul is a big danger.

 

[RamistThomist]

Originally posted by fredtgreco
Here is the thing: if Owen is not reformed, who is? Modern Presbyterians who ignore the 2nd commandment? The 4th? I can assure you that there are only a very few actual Presbyterians in the PCA and OPC. Was Hodge unreformed because of his views on Church boards (as over against Thornwell) ?

Fred, I am new to the PResbyterian Church; could you give me an example of Presbyterians violating the second (and fourth) commandments? I have to admit that I at one time had an idyllic view of Reformed churches.

 

[Me Died Blue]

Originally posted by Finn McCool

Originally posted by fredtgreco
Here is the thing: if Owen is not reformed, who is? Modern Presbyterians who ignore the 2nd commandment? The 4th? I can assure you that there are only a very few actual Presbyterians in the PCA and OPC. Was Hodge unreformed because of his views on Church boards (as over against Thornwell) ?

Fred, I am new to the PResbyterian Church; could you give me an example of Presbyterians violating the second (and fourth) commandments? I have to admit that I at one time had an idyllic view of Reformed churches.

The second commandment being violated includes all violations of the RPW, since going beyond Scripture's prescribed worship is making our own "image" of worship per se. Furthermore, "The Passion" is a great example. As to the fourth commandment, there seem to be very few people today who consider the Sabbath relevant, much less fully applicable to the entire day.

Fred, I see your point, and realize that it is not ecumenical or relativistic, but is simply an absolute necessity unless we want to get nitty-gritty in an almost cultic way, like SWRB.

I'm still having trouble discarding ecclesiology in particular as a key pillar, though, because it is one of the the very doctrines that classifies a church as, well, a true church. If ministers are not required to be lawfully called (and not Independent) in order to truly be considered "Reformed," we could in theory end up having to refer to schismatics of all types as "Reformed." In other words, if independents may be considered truly Reformed just as much as Presbyterians, by what authority do they even proclaim God's word as a representative for the church, which is His primary means of ministering to His people?

[Edited on 16-11-2004 by Me Died Blue]

 

[Scott Bushey]

Whatever the case, we have redefined the term to fit the season. To me, this is unacceptable. Maybe what we need to do is define the term in light of the original idea.

[Edited on 11-16-2004 by Scott Bushey]

 

[fredtgreco]

Moderators Note:

I have moved this excellent discussion to the Ecclesiology Forum, since it really belongs here rather than in apologetics. Hopefully this will make it easier to be found in the future.

 

[Scott Bushey]

Just for the record, I have no problem with abandoning the title if the shoe does not fit.

 

[fredtgreco]

Originally posted by Scott Bushey
Just for the record, I have no problem with abandoning the title if the shoe does not fit.

Do you mean abandoning the title "Reformed" ?

 

[Scott Bushey]

Yes. Absolutely. I want to start a trend.............

 

[Me Died Blue]

Originally posted by Scott Bushey
Yes. Absolutely. I want to start a trend.............

I'm not following you on this one...please elaborate...

 

[fredtgreco]

Originally posted by Scott Bushey


Whatever the case, we have redefined the term to fit the season. To me, this is unacceptable. Maybe what we need to do is define the term in light of the original idea.

[Edited on 11-16-2004 by Scott Bushey]

But don't we do this all the time? Isn't it the case with "Puritan" for example?

 

[Scott Bushey]

not really. My view of a puritan is pretty fixed. That is why Matt asks, "Is your mind a Puritans Mind?". It is a standard.


There comes a time when one is no longer a puritan and no longer reformed.

[Edited on 11-16-2004 by Scott Bushey]

 

[fredtgreco]

Originally posted by Scott Bushey
not really. My view of a puritan is pretty fixed. That is why Matt asks, "Is your mind a Puritans Mind?". It is a standard.


There comes a time when one is no longer a puritan and no longer reformed.

No, I think you miss what I mean. By historical definition, neither you nor Matt (nor I) could be a Puritan. That is, unless you are English. And an exclusive psalmist.

 

[crhoades]

Yeah...I think I'm dropping the word reformed too...Just doesn't cut it for me anymore. Instead I think I'll call myself:

Super-duper 10^10000000000, truly, totally, really, historically, puritanically, fanatically, covenanted, Dutch, Scottish, Irish, Southern, reformedist, reforming, reformed brother in the whole world -universe of all time.

 

[RamistThomist]

Would the term "classical" Christian work?

 

[VirginiaHuguenot]

Originally posted by crhoades
Yeah...I think I'm dropping the word reformed too...Just doesn't cut it for me anymore. Instead I think I'll call myself:

Super-duper 10^10000000000, truly, totally, really, historically, puritanically, fanatically, covenanted, Dutch, Scottish, Irish, Southern, reformedist, reforming, reformed brother in the whole world -universe of all time.

Chris,

It's difficult for me to tell where you are coming from...

 

[crhoades]

Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot

Originally posted by crhoades
Yeah...I think I'm dropping the word reformed too...Just doesn't cut it for me anymore. Instead I think I'll call myself:

Super-duper 10^10000000000, truly, totally, really, historically, puritanically, fanatically, covenanted, Dutch, Scottish, Irish, Southern, reformedist, reforming, reformed brother in the whole world -universe of all time.

Chris,

It's difficult for me to tell where you are coming from...

Just adding a touch of ye ol' sarcasm in my sleep deprived state.

I believe we should be confessional. I believe we should seek to continually reform our life and doctrine on a continual basis. I think we should speak the truth in love to help others do the same. I love the "reformed" faith and the church.

I guess where I'm twitching is trying to be more reformed than thou. I just don't want to see us make a reformed mishnah or anything. In a certain sense we could just say Christian and leave it at that. Of course a few hours later of defining what a person means when they say Christian a person could just say, "why didn't you just say "reformed"?" So I'm definitely NOT a no creed but Christ type of guy.

I just don't want to see us get into the Jew/Gentile, Clean/Unclean, Wheat/Tare, - Reformed/Non-Reformed dialectic.

I want to thank JohnV for his continued efforts at pointing out about sticking to the confessions and not going further than them in an official manner. I also appreciate his continual attention to love being the fulfillment of the law in most theonomy discussions. Guess I'm just advocating love and grace in discussions of other people or other churches who doesn't quite measure up to whatever our definition of reformed is. I'm not saying that anyone isn't doing that.

Hope I'm making sense.

 

[BobVigneault]

I am of Apollos!

 

[Scott Bushey]

Originally posted by fredtgreco

Originally posted by Scott Bushey
not really. My view of a puritan is pretty fixed. That is why Matt asks, "Is your mind a Puritans Mind?". It is a standard.


There comes a time when one is no longer a puritan and no longer reformed.

No, I think you miss what I mean. By historical definition, neither you nor Matt (nor I) could be a Puritan. That is, unless you are English. And an exclusive psalmist.

Correct.

 

[Scott Bushey]

Seriously guys, not everyone can say they are reformed. Since every Tom, Dick and Harry are ascribing to the title, it brings reproach to that which should not suffer the slander. So, for the sake of ewveryone, I believe we should implement a new descriptive. The term reformed has become convoluted to the point of no return. It is much like thew term 'evangelical'. I will not have anything to do with it as the full boat of the Arminian camp is floating in it.

 

[VirginiaHuguenot]

I still find meaning in the word Reformed. Can we start with the Five Points of Calvinism, and move from there to the Westminster Confession as general and historical definitions of what it means to be Reformed?

It is true that words change their meaning over time. In the early Reformation, followers of John Calvin were known as Lutherans before they were called Huguenots or Calvinists. The Reformed branch of the Reformation was originally distinguished from the Lutheran branch, although Luther, as noted earlier, is the "father" of the Reformation.

Many terms such as Puritan were pejorative in origin and later became a badge of honor. We need to be humble about our use of descriptive terms, but they can have historical and relevant meaning. If Reformed loses its original meaning like the word Evangelical has, then we will need a better word to replace it. As for me, I don't think that day has yet come, but I can see it on the horizon.

 

[crhoades]

I don't think this is wrong to do...If it is, please correct me and I'll delete it.

The Parable of the Presbyterian and the Congregationalist

9To some who were confident of their own righteousness and looked down on everybody else, Jesus told this parable: 10"Two men went up to the temple to pray, one Presbyterian and the other a Congregationalist. 11The Presbyterian stood up and prayed about[1] himself: 'God, I thank you that I am not like other men--Dispensationalists, Arminians, Evidentialists--or even like this Congregationalist. 12I fast twice a week and give a tenth of all I get.'
13"But the Congregationalist stood at a distance. He would not even look up to heaven, but beat his breast and said, 'God, have mercy on me, a sinner.'
14"I tell you that this man, rather than the other, went home justified before God. For everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, and he who humbles himself will be exalted."

I would gladly trade my learning and piety for John Owen's anyday.

 

[crhoades]

Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot
I still find meaning in the word Reformed. Can we start with the Five Points of Calvinism, and move from there to the Westminster Confession as general and historical definitions of what it means to be Reformed?

It is true that words change their meaning over time. In the early Reformation, followers of John Calvin were known as Lutherans before they were called Huguenots or Calvinists. The Reformed branch of the Reformation was originally distinguished from the Lutheran branch, although Luther, as noted earlier, is the "father" of the Reformation.

Many terms such as Puritan were pejorative in origin and later became a badge of honor. We need to be humble about our use of descriptive terms, but they can have historical and relevant meaning. If Reformed loses its original meaning like the word Evangelical has, then we will need a better word to replace it. As for me, I don't think that day has yet come, but I can see it on the horizon.

I agree that the day hasn't come yet either. What if the current controversy surrounding justification gets even more muddied? Do we abandon the term "justification"? I doubt anyone would go for that. I think we should continue setting forth what it means to be reformed. Calvinists/Reformed used to be world changers. They engaged culture, they were the strongest missionaries, they were the most learned. I pray that God sends more Machens our way - or that he would transform us into one.

 

[Me Died Blue]

Originally posted by crhoades
I don't think this is wrong to do...If it is, please correct me and I'll delete it.

The Parable of the Presbyterian and the Congregationalist

9To some who were confident of their own righteousness and looked down on everybody else, Jesus told this parable: 10"Two men went up to the temple to pray, one Presbyterian and the other a Congregationalist. 11The Presbyterian stood up and prayed about[1] himself: 'God, I thank you that I am not like other men--Dispensationalists, Arminians, Evidentialists--or even like this Congregationalist. 12I fast twice a week and give a tenth of all I get.'
13"But the Congregationalist stood at a distance. He would not even look up to heaven, but beat his breast and said, 'God, have mercy on me, a sinner.'
14"I tell you that this man, rather than the other, went home justified before God. For everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, and he who humbles himself will be exalted."

I would gladly trade my learning and piety for John Owen's anyday.

I don't think your post is "wrong" per se, but I frankly do see it as basically irrelevant and non-applicable, since the discussion is not about pride, but about the extent and accuracy of a term.

 

[Me Died Blue]

Originally posted by Paul manata

Originally posted by Scott Bushey
Paul,
The term is more than a wax nose-no? Historically, it had certian ideas attached to it. For instance, historically speaking, one could not be an anabaptist and be considered 'reformed', correct? Even if this anabaptist held to the DOG"s, they were still not able to seize the title, correct?
Lets approach it from a different standpoint; who then is not reformed?

Paul,
Fred's a lawyer and you sound like one!

Your statements border upon relativism.

[Edited on 11-16-2004 by Scott Bushey]

whatever the case according to your definition Matt (Webmaster) isn't reformed since he's not a presuppositionalist.

You're not since you're are not postmill.

WTS California isn't one of Webmaster's "6 "reformed" seminarys" since they take a framework approach to Genesis 1-3.

And, Martin Lurther, the father of the reformation, isn't reformed because of his views of consubstantion!

Who's covenant theology is "reformed?" Kline's or Murray's?! Wulp, guess one of them isn't reformed.

The PCA isn't a reformed denomination and neither is the OPC since they said Framework was not contrary to the confession!

So, you asked me who wasn't reformed? Well, Scott, may I ask you just *who* exactly *is* reformed.


p.s. Am I reformed? If so then my "relativistic" statement isn't a problem since relativism is reformed

Well, if we were to define the term by the Westminster Standards, most toss-ups of this nature would be clarified.

 

[BobVigneault]

I don't think the day has come to jettison the word 'reformed'.
As a SPECIFIC badge or title it certainly doesn't carry as much meaning as it used to, but as a shorthand it is very helpful.

I am reformed as opposed to the arminian camp I came out of.
I am reformed because the label "Calvinist" is so misunderstood.

My wife works in a 'christian' bookstore and loves her arminian, anti-calvinist employers. Recently a old friend came into the store and they got to talking about churches. After a few buzzwords were passed back and forth, my wife leaned across the counter and whispered, "Are you reformed?"

Our friend replied yes and my wife said, "So are we!" Our friend started to cry. She had begun to believe they were the only ones and she was so lonely and starved for fellowship.

Point is, the 'reformed' label still carries a lot of meaning for the newly reformed and those who have come out of arminian churches. You guys who have grown up in reformed churches and know nearly everything there is to know have forgotten what it's like to have 'the lights turn on' and discover the GLORY of God for the first time.

You guys look at the label from the point of view of all of our differences (according to the grace God has given each of us) within the reformed community. But for those who look at the reformed faith from the darkened alleys of arminianism, this new faith is majestic.

To me, reformed still means, the most pure expression of the Gospel.
I'm babbling. Peace out.

 

[Scott]

Modern Christians tend to view Reformed as a synonym for the 5 points of Calvinism but that is not what it meant at the Reformation. "Reformed" needs a noun to follow it and that noun is church. The Reformation was a European event that involved the Reformation of institutional national churches. The American experience is different in that for the most part it involved immigration or attempts not to Reform but to reinvent churches along primitive lines.

A congregational or parachurchly piety is not Refomed as it is not reforming the church and are not part of the institutions being reformed. They are divorced from the rest of Christendom.

That does not mean that they are all bad, even as the good Samaritan was not all bad. Indeed, the Samaritan was better than the leaders of Israel. That does not make the Samaritan an Israelite, though. And affirming the 5 points of Calvinism does not make one Reformed, at least in a historical sense (perhaps the word has multiple definitions).

If "Reformed" means the five points, then what exactly is being reformed? It is as if "Reformed" means trying to reform Arminianism. That is not the thrust.

[Edited on 11-16-2004 by Scott]

[Edited on 11-16-2004 by Scott]

 

[Scott]

"And, Martin Lurther, the father of the reformation, isn't reformed because of his views of consubstantion!"

Luther was definitely not Reformed and modern Lutherans would chafe at the idea of being called Reformed. Historically, the term "Reformed" tended to be associated with Calvinistic reformation and "Lutheran" was associated with the Lutheran churches, which were primarily in the Germanic states. There were bitter theological feuds between Reformed and Lutherans and bitter wars between Lutheran and Reformed countries. They are very different and the praise Luther get from modern Reformed people is somewhat interesting. After all, if a Catholic talks about baptismal regeneration, he is put out of fellowship. Yet, Luther taught and his descendants teach this.

 

[C. Matthew McMahon]

Here is the thing: if Owen is not reformed, who is?

Of course Owen was Reformed. He was also Presbyterian. Now don't get me wrong, he did take some time to dabble with congregationalism, but his writings in the latter years reflect a change back to Presbyterianism.

Historically speaking:

Calvinism was introduced by the Lutheran polemicist Joachim Westphal to refer to the theological, and in particular the sacramental views of the Swiss Reformers and especially John Calvin. The introduction of the term was used to "stigmatize Reformed theology as a foreign influence in Germany."

So, apply this historically to the "reformed."