Is the Puritanboard Reformed? Some Think Not.

[pastorway]

I sometimes wonder how some of the Reformed Baptists have the patience to stick around.

Most of the members who are Reformed Baptist have left and no longer participate. Those of you who are new miss out on the fact that the board used to be more diverse.

As for other posts here in this thread:

Yes the confessions have their place and are useful. Please do not think I believe otherwise. But even as the confessions profess - the Scripture is the only infallible rule for life and godliness. We should spend more time there and less time depending on the work of others, proving that we can handle the Word of God. This does not reject history - but teaches us how to say what we believe and why we believe it. Remember, the purpose of debate is not to win the debate - but to persuasively affirm the truth of God's Word against other opinions.

My concern about many presuming to be teachers is not that we should not instruct one another but that some (usually who are fairly new to a position) enter that famed "cage stage" and fire bomb anyone who disagrees with them with a total disregard for those who have served long and hard in the trenches of real church life!

And should we be the church here? Well, we know the PB is not a church. However, as for the nature of debate ( I think debate is fine, but in this context, where the boundaries are set as the Reformed Confessions - meaning we are on the same team) our debating should be motivated by the goal of effective discipleship - where we realise that we are in every sense members of one another (1 Cor 12:12-14).

For more on what I have written in that regard (that those new to the board may have never read), please read this to catch the spirit of what I am saying: The Difference between Discipleship and Debate.

Phillip

[Edited on 2-7-06 by pastorway]

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Originally posted by pastorway

I sometimes wonder how some of the Reformed Baptists have the patience to stick around.

Most of the members who are Reformed Baptist have left and no longer participate. Those of you who are new miss out on the fact that the board used to be more diverse.

That's very unfortunate.

Yes the confessions have their place and are useful. Please do not think I believe otherwise. But even as the confessions profess - the Scripture is the only infallible rule for life and godliness. We should spend more time there and less time depending on the work of others, proving that we can handle the Word of God. This does not reject history - but teaches us how to say what we believe and why we believe it. Remember, the purpose of debate is not to win the debate - but to persuasively affirm the truth of God's Word against other opinions.

My concern about many presuming to be teachers is not that we should not instruct one another but that some (usually who are fairly new to a position) enter that famed "cage stage" and fire bomb anyone who disagrees with them with a total disregard for those who have served long and hard in the trenches of real church life!

A hearty I think you've heard me say the same elsewhere. It's the reason why an Elder ought not be a new believer.

And should we be the church here? Well, we know the PB is not a church. However, as for the nature of debate ( I think debate is fine, but in this context, where the boundaries are set as the Reformed Confessions - meaning we are on the same team) our debating should be motivated by the goal of effective discipleship - where we realise that we are in every sense members of one another (1 Cor 12:12-14).

and

Our love for one another should be the evidence of our faith in Christ. I want others to openly rebuke me when I fail that. If I cannot show love for my brothers then what does that say about my love of Christ?

For more on what I have written in that regard (that those new to the board may have never read), please read this to catch the spirit of what I am saying: The Difference between Discipleship and Debate.

Phillip

Thanks Pastor Way. Please don't be discouraged. I'm glad you're here and hope you stick around a lot longer.

 

[satz]

I fully agree that no one, especially no young christian or person should be overly polemic and win-at-all-costs when debating a point. And even if you disagree with them, respect is still due to those more mature either in age or in the faith, and especially to those with ordained positions in the church.

Yet, i do not know if a christian man can ever just 'submit' to his teachers on a doctrinal or practical point. Our consciences can only be bound by the word of God, and if, after going though someone's argument, you are not convinced that he point is made, i do not see how one can possibly just submit to the teaching, regardless of the spiritual character/reputation of the teacher. After all, a point is either biblical or it is not. The man who makes the point does not affect that judgment at all.

Now, i am NOT talking about a) obeying the authority of your pastor physically, even if you are not convinced on the point, b) deciding to 'play it safe' on a certain issue you are unsure of, as per romans 14 or c) physically giving in on a unimportant issue to avoid offending weaker brethen or causing division.

When i say 'physically' what i mean is you may not be convinced that xyz is wrong, but you physically abstain from it for one of the reasons i listed above.

What i do not think is possible is to say ' i don't see how the bible supports abc, yet because Mr X says it does, he must be right because Mr X is far more godly than i'. Isn't this simply trusting men rather than God? Remember, as i said above, there are many reasons why you may want to follow Mr X anyway, but your conscience could never be bound if you are not fully convinced, yourself, from the bible.

The Bereans even double-checked to see if what the Apostle Paul was teaching lined up with the scriptures, and God called them noble for it. And remember that the Apostles worked man signs and wonders in those days, so they had more than a godly reputation to back them up.

Just thinking outloud... (metaphorically speaking )

 

[JohnV]

Mark:

I agree that people should respect each other, and that the young should learn from older people. But the problem is that this is just what has happened in many cases. I've sat with a highly-regarded teacher who, in the end, had nothing better to offer than ad hominen; and this man is teaching our youth. It is very distressing. Our young minds are coming out of their Bible College classes with some of these ideas, ideas put there by older men who ought to know better. You can't blame the zeal of the young, for that is just what they should be: zealous. And you can't blame them for wanting to work out their ideas on discussion boards such as this one: we want them to. And some of the disrespect that is there did not originate in them, but was put there by others.

Our duty as older men is to understand one thing very clearly: no one can change the truth. We know that storms come and go, and that we have to weather them. We know we will, but we have to help the young do so as well. Sometimes they are the storm themselves. But if we're not mature enough to handle that, then we don't have that much depth ourselves.

So it has been my aim to not only address the young with patience, but to aim also at some of those who are leading our young into these traps of ideas. I think that this Board has been of great benefit in that regard. I've been verbally slapped a few times, but "sticks and stones...", I really don't care. I don't want to squash their zeal, but I'm not going to be moved by their arguments either. The fact is, if we don't earn their respect, then we likely won't get it either. It doesn't help that they are taught to disrespect proper authority as far as church is concerned. But that's how I understand some of our young members. Its their responsibility, but not always their fault.

And we should face the facts. Let's answer the hard questions that we have been avoiding for ourselves. If we're going to be an example, then we should have our ducks all lined up too, or at least in line enough to be an example.

I just wanted to say this in defence of our youth, whose ( often wrong ) opinions I value for their vigour in the faith, their disire for the truth of the Word.

 

[Peters]

John, I´ve seen guys on this board, who are not young men, taken out by some theological assassin. The issue extends across the whole board. To be honest, i see the older folks here as the most unteachable. Does that sound arrogant? I don't mean to be.

 

[Peters]

...oh and to Rich. I like that guy

 

[JohnV]

Originally posted by Peters
John, I´ve seen guys on this board, who are not young men, taken out by some theological assassin. The issue extends across the whole board. To be honest, i see the older folks here as the most unteachable. Does that sound arrogant? I don't mean to be.

I was only coming to the defence of our young contributors. And as I said, I too lay blame on some older folk who have a position of responsibility and ought to know better. It is not the fine print of the Reformed faith they are unfaithful to, but it is first principles, principles everyone, even the least of us know. Nevertheless, our young people do have a responsibility to themselves and to others. Some have too much invested in too narrow a view; but that has been put there ( or rather justified by ) older teachers. And that is then their responsibility.

I know, I too will not be moved from some beliefs. On some things I will be quite stubborn. But rest assured that there is also a lot of reserve that is mistaken for stubbornness. When you are older you learn not to say some things as well as to say other things. Not being moved by arguments, without giving a full reply as to why, is not always stubbornness. Sometimes its just wisdom.

And then there are those other times....

 

[Larry Hughes]

JohnV,

I had difficulty understanding your previous post. But what I got out of it is that the doctrinal statements are not so much explicit teachings of Scripture as they are guidelines leaving lots of room, even to go beyond doctrine. Now maybe I read it wrongly. It was hard to follow.

I appreciate your candor and I do admit I struggle with being clear, no doubt you are on the money there. So, as I correct 'what you got' it is understandable given my lack of clarity.

In short, no, that's not at all what I meant. The fault is mine in clarity obviously and none of your own, my appologies. I suspect we actually are in agreement but due to my lack of clarity I see why it seems not.

I don't think creeds, doctrine (and I through in exegesis) are "guide lines" with lots of room. That is really the opposite of what I meant to say. But from lets say a neutral point of view before we ever set forth a doctrine, creed or exegesis, what is its primary and sole purpose? What I was saying is that its primary purpose is protect THE Gospel, the freedom therein, strengthen and sustain faith. It is not to set forth MORE Law to be followed that explicitly or implicitly implies something to be done/believed "in order to be saved" if you will and putting it bluntly. That's from a "what is the formal purpose of a doctrine, creed, confession, exegetical teaching" perspective.

Then we have to from Scripture fill in the content. Now the content from denomination to denomination has varied. Some of the content in some confessions is incorrect in that it doesn't REALLY perform the primary purpose of doctrine, creed, confession, exegisis of protecting the Gospel, the freedom of the Gospel and so forth but rather hinders it. Some creeds, confessions, doctrines and exegetcal efforts actually fail in this.

Everything must be viewed from the Cross else we go away from the Gospel and the Word altogether in principle even if we label it with a true doctrinal label.

E.g. the primary purpose of the doctrine of election for the Christian is NOT to cause unbelief but strengthen it, thus correctly understood it will protect the Gospel, the Gospel freedom, faith. But if the doctrine of election becomes and end unto itself it becomes viewed "legally", to wit; "Am I elect?" "On what basis am I elect?" Thus, the Christian's eyes are off of Christ and onto an otherwise true doctrine. Those very questions reveal a legal view of salvation. "On what basis am I elect?" one searches and aks, but this reveals a legal search...I must find something within me or that I've done to prove my election. "Am I elect", at length attempts to see God nakedly, to know the eternal will and mind of God (which is attempting to be like God and worse a god/ that is to have God's eternal knowledge), it questions God where we cannot and so forth. Again a legal way. But the one understanding election via the Cross of Christ, the Gospel, understands it as a strengthening to that same Gospel and faith. "On what basis am I elect?" Gospel, "None of my own, nothign within, nothing I do past, present of future, these I for sake but nakedly resting and trusting in Christ crucified and risen FOR ME." "How do I know I am elect?" I don't by itself, but I look to, trust and rest (faith) in the Word of the Cross that has come to me INSPITE of me, my life's circumstances, failures, successes, etc... "How do I know I am elect?" The Gospel has COME to me, I didn't find it. That's just one doctrinal point as an example.

In other words doctrine, creeds, confessions, exegesis ALL must protect the Gospel, its freedom and faith...not hinder it. E.g. baptism and the Lord's Supper are FOR the Gospel, not law. But that doesn't mean we have the freedom to do away with them, alter them as they should be and so forth. Now some creeds, confessions, doctrines and exegesis on these issues actually do fail to be Gospel and end up binding a man back into works salvation (I'm not going to debate that here).

I've used this example before and it may be more helpful: When a doctor prescribes you medicine to heal you. You have to take an action to fill the prescription. BUT the primary purpose of the "prescription" (precept or command) is NOT the prescription itself or the doctrine/law the doctor gave you. That does absolutely nothing for you health. But the prescription is given so that you will "get the medicine" and be healed, the purpose of the prescription. I'm not obeying the prescription to please the doctor and by so pleasing him I will be better, that's foolishness. Rather I'm getting the medicine which will heal me freely and I receive it.

Yet foolishly, some approach doctrine, creeds, confessions, exegesis as just "one more thing I've got to do or believe" if I really want to be saved, please God and so forth. Rather than the Cross of Christ alone. There's nothing nakedly wrong with the doctrine but rather man's use of it. Oh, in words they affirm "justification by faith alone" but in practice they are working to heaven. And hence trying to actively please God by "doings" especially "religious doings". To take the Lord's Supper for example as if "I please God" in doing so is to wrongly divide the body of Christ, rather it is receiving the grace therein that I NEED, I literally NEED Christ being a sinner.

As Jesus said, "You search the Scriptures and think that by them you have eternal life, but it is these that continually bear witness to Me." As you see this was to the pharisees who where the exegetes par excellent, their detail of jots and tiddles makes modern exegetes pale by comparison in terms of raw ability and effort. Yet, they searched the Scriptures in a wrong way thinking that by doing so they had life. Jesus says no, no, no, your work and effort is unsurpassed yet you've missed everything for these are not things for you to do, prescriptions, things you must affirm to have life. Rather these are DESCRIPTIONS, proclamations that do so continuously of ME, the One in Whom alone you may have life...the way, the truth and the life.

I hope that helps. But if not you will not hurt my feelings saying so.

Grace and Peace In Christ Alone,


Larry

 

[JohnV]

Larry:

Correct me if I'm wrong, but if I may summarize your post: you are saying that it is relationship with Christ, not just doctrinal knowledge. Doctrinal knowledge will get you into the church, but it will not get you into heaven. True doctrinal knowledge comes from knowing Christ, by believing Him.

If this is what you are saying, in sum, then I would agree with you heartily. This is certainly the one side of the coin, so to speak: the side that we must be concerned with within ourselves mostly, and in others secondarily.

But there is the other side to this, the side that we must also be concerned with. We need to pay attention to the doctrines because they will tell us when we are straying. We stray easily enough, too often guided by our good intentions rather than attention to true right and wrong. Or we may allow one of the handmaidens of theology become her master, such as allowing philosophy to rule over her, changing her ways for us. A good foundation in instruction is of great value.

We may not only be overrun by our own sentiments, but also those of others. And through a solid foundation in the doctrines we are enabled to remain steadfast, instead of being tossed to and fro.

When I was baptized my parents were asked to respond affirmatively to this question, along with two others:

"Do you acknowledge the doctrine which is contained in the Old and the New Testament, and in the articles of the Christian faith, and which is taught here in this Christian church, to be the true and complete doctrine of salvation?"

It was also asked of me when I did a profession of my faith. This still allowed me liberty on some matters as to my conscience and personal gifts from God, but it tied me to the completed canon and the authority of Christ given to the Church. Therefore, in requiring a response from both my parents and myself, there are two parts to this covenant: those oaths given by the responder, and those obligated upon the questioner. The Church is also under oath at the same time.

So when an official of the church comes along with a wind of doctrine, and claims it to be what the Bible teaches, then it is he that has broken oath. The person in the pew is still obligated to maintain those things which he has promised, even if he cannot understand enough to refute the new doctrine. It is enough simply to remain steadfast; it is better if he can also refute the error. And the error may be a view which is not ordinarily wrong in itself, but only that it is just a view, not being specifically taught by Scripture. It is the claim to doctrine that is in error.

So there is great value in being well versed in doctrine. But I agree with you that this comes through a personal relationship with Christ, seeking the Spirit as a person of the Trinity to help in understanding, and not leaning to our own understanding.

Your post has been of great help to me in understanding what you said. I responded to "what I got out of it", not that I really thought you meant that.

 

[Larry Hughes]

JohnV,

Correct me if I'm wrong, but if I may summarize your post: you are saying that it is relationship with Christ, not just doctrinal knowledge. Doctrinal knowledge will get you into the church, but it will not get you into heaven. True doctrinal knowledge comes from knowing Christ, by believing Him.

Yes, great summary! By believing I assume you mean the crucial leg of faith, trusting, nakedly and confidently so. And taking a queue off of your much better summation; that is the real purpose of the doctrine (what should be driving it). And I´m not trying to be polemical nor compromising and I´m CERTAINLY not being anti-doctrine here, nor to be "œloosey goosey" as they say. That´s not at all what I meant to communicate. Rather let us all take a breath and kind of baseline ourselves afresh. The struggle seems to be two fold:

1. Many stand doctrine on its head and function the other way thus they loose sight of doctrines true purpose as Gospel defending and faith building/strengthening. This is revealed by those who ask questions of the form like, "œHow much does one need to know and understand and truly be elect? (or some similar type of question/thought)" That kind of question reveals a wrong grasp of doctrine or as you said knowledge Vs. faith. I´ve done that myself, us black and white "œscientist/analysis" types are prone to wanting to "œget our ducks in a row" and trusting in our hearts on that rather than the cross.

2. Some who may understand its function properly may have "œconstituent elements" (e.g. baptism and etc"¦) of their confession, creed, doctrine or exegesis wrong if examined at length, though they do really mean for them to function properly as Gospel. E.g. concerning a doctrine of cars. For a car to drive correctly it is fitted with certain size tires, air and so forth. This is an element, or sub-doctrine, of the doctrine of cars and it sets forth and teaches that which will keep the car functioning correctly (the essence of the doctrine of cars, like the Gospel to Christian doctrine) concerning this particular element of the over arching doctrine and its proper purpose. (Military persons understand this use of the term "œdoctrine" because the military, whom I work with a lot, use "œdoctrine" for everything that we don´t normally think of when we use the term "œdoctrine"). Now I could come along later and misunderstand this and just use any old tire on a car that is the wrong size. It´s a tire and a tire is a crucial element of the doctrine of cars, but it is a misapplication of an otherwise true thing. I could force it to fit and it would function for a while, but eventually (at length) it will fail because it is wrong and the car will eventually break down. My intent was to use the doctrine correctly, keep the car running, but my mis-use of an element or sub-doctrine has over all cause failure.

We can also, likewise misuse doctrinal elements or sub-doctrines by #1 in a microcosm type of way.

If this is what you are saying, in sum, then I would agree with you heartily. This is certainly the one side of the coin, so to speak: the side that we must be concerned with within ourselves mostly, and in others secondarily.

That´s exactly what I was trying to get at. And the reason I wanted to say it was not to impugn others, point my fingers, but because I´ve seen myself do it far too much, having seen it in myself and learning otherwise and honestly seeing it in others say, "œBrothers, lets take a deep breath here for we are all nipping and biting because we´ve lost sight of the central issue of the Gospel, that´s why our discussions turn from "œworking out the truth together" into "œI´m right and your wrong". And I don´t mean it to compromise a position or to be neutral for the truth of Redemption is singular and unwavering, but we need to NOT loose sight of the central purpose of our faith, the Gospel, Christ crucified and the freedom of the Gospel therein that says, "œSince Christ alone has made you right vertically with God and this you receive by naked trust, you are now free and bound by no religious "œduty" to please God or "œget right". Once we begin to truly "œhear" what the Gospel is saying, other doctrines begin to fall into place because it is ordered correctly and we measure by the Gospel not proof texting. That was Christ´s point in John 5:39 that I quoted. No one is going to convince ANYONE of "œthere side" (dare I use that insidious term) when the over-riding thought is "œWe are right and you are wrong "“ we are on God´s side on this and you are not". Rather, to show where the Gospel is in a position and not in a counter position. It may hurt to find that a position I´ve held forth and cherished is not Gospel, BUT IF men are truly desiring to have the Gospel highest, which Christians should and must (especially pastors and teachers), then when this is shown concerning a specific position or doctrine men will say, "œYou know that is true", the Gospel is there and not here, THAT does strengthen faith. One wins one´s brother by showing the mercy and grace (the Gospel), not by showing how well structured my formula is. And this applies to doctrine, creed, confession and exegesis. I only lament that I took so long myself to see this and have been quite hurtful in the past.

One can argue a truth and be accurate but miss the boat entirely. In science we run into two types. I saw this when I use to do some teaching while in college. There are those who are technically correct, they know the formulas, the math and so forth. They can make A´s on tests and do fairly well in labs. But they don´t get the underlying principles at all. Throw them a situation outside of just getting the information correct and they fail miserably. The second kind of scientist, is the true scientist. These types do understand the math and formulas but they also see very clearly the base principles behind all physics and chemistry or mathematics. Thus, they really understand not just the correct formulas and information but the principles and thrust. The same is in the faith. There are seminary students, lay people, pastors and teachers that can be technical experts with great skill and tools, but they are horrible at the center piece of the faith without which all else, no matter how great the skill, is nothing. Luther called these "œschool boys". And we have the same today.

Divinely administered suffering usually clears this up and makes doctrine true.

But there is the other side to this, the side that we must also be concerned with. We need to pay attention to the doctrines because they will tell us when we are straying. We stray easily enough, too often guided by our good intentions rather than attention to true right and wrong. Or we may allow one of the handmaidens of theology become her master, such as allowing philosophy to rule over her, changing her ways for us. A good foundation in instruction is of great value.

Absolutely, and I did not mean to communicate otherwise. I meant to keep the two in balance. I hope this posting with my #1 and #2 helped that a bit, because we agree. I never meant for compromise just re-centering the "œwhy" of doctrine (Gospel and Gospel freedom). Those that say that there are essentials and non-essentials miss the point. Ultimately all things are essential BUT it must center back on the Cross to be so. That´s why for example why Christian freedom is on one hand unessential if by it I force it upon another effectively making it another law whereby the weaker brother doubts God´s grace toward him. BUT it is absolutely essential if a Christian is restricting a freedom under the guise of protecting and bearing witness to the faith. For the idea that the Kingdom of Heaven is not about eating or drinking is true, BUT it cuts both ways. It is wrong to press a man with a freedom making it a law when a weaker brother doesn´t understand it. But it is worse and contemptible to leave a man in darkness and chains when he is freed by Christ by not teaching the freedom he really has. Placing "œmy example" above "œteaching Christ" is a denial of the Gospel. That´s just one example.

We may not only be overrun by our own sentiments, but also those of others. And through a solid foundation in the doctrines we are enabled to remain steadfast, instead of being tossed to and fro.

A hardy AMEN!

When I was baptized my parents were asked to respond affirmatively to this question, along with two others:

"Do you acknowledge the doctrine which is contained in the Old and the New Testament, and in the articles of the Christian faith, and which is taught here in this Christian church, to be the true and complete doctrine of salvation?"

It was also asked of me when I did a profession of my faith. This still allowed me liberty on some matters as to my conscience and personal gifts from God, but it tied me to the completed canon and the authority of Christ given to the Church. Therefore, in requiring a response from both my parents and myself, there are two parts to this covenant: those oaths given by the responder, and those obligated upon the questioner. The Church is also under oath at the same time.

So when an official of the church comes along with a wind of doctrine, and claims it to be what the Bible teaches, then it is he that has broken oath. The person in the pew is still obligated to maintain those things which he has promised, even if he cannot understand enough to refute the new doctrine. It is enough simply to remain steadfast; it is better if he can also refute the error. And the error may be a view which is not ordinarily wrong in itself, but only that it is just a view, not being specifically taught by Scripture. It is the claim to doctrine that is in error.

Agreed, again I didn´t mean to say otherwise or against this. I´m indebted to you for clearly bringing this aspect out where I failed! You said it in a light that made it more clear to me as well. I would want my children who have been baptized into the church to remain. I´m glad you said this, this was very encouraging to me. I´ll tell you personally why as a side note (and this is not to engender a debate on this post by others, just a personal anecdote from me to you per your clarification here): Actually, on second thought I´ll U2U you on this one, I don´t want to start an unnecessary debate here and loose what we´ve really discussed. (U2U coming).

Your post has been of great help to me in understanding what you said. I responded to "what I got out of it", not that I really thought you meant that.

Likewise.

Thanks, grace and peace,

Larry

 

[daveb]

Based on Matt's definition I think the board is Reformed. Other issues such as EP, Sabbatarianism, etc. seem to be more related the "puritan" aspect of the PB.

What I've been thinking about is "how puritan is the PB"?

 

[Larry Hughes]

We could legitimately ask the question this way:

1. Is PB Magisterially Reformed (Luther, Calvin, Beza, et ali"¦)? OR
2. Is PB Puritan Reformed (English/American Puritans)?

Though the two had much in common their underlying objective versus subjective emphasis was almost at odds.

I'd say PB is more #2 and much less #1, which is not surprising since that is the dominant in American protestantism. The subjective emphasis crosses both neo-calvinistic lines and arminian lines.

L

 

[VictorBravo]

Originally posted by daveb

What I've been thinking about is "how puritan is the PB"?

Daveb, I was thinking the same thing and was going to raise the question, but you beat me.

Vic

 

[NaphtaliPress]

How do you make any determination; based on the percentage of posters that are Puritan? I think this thread has gone a bit overboard. This is a Reformed discussion board according to the rules. I say give it a rest folks.

 

[VictorBravo]

Originally posted by NaphtaliPress
How do you make any determination; based on the percentage of posters that are Puritan? I think this thread has gone a bit overboard. This is a Reformed discussion board according to the rules. I say give it a rest folks.

I agree with you about giving it a rest. But for how you decide on who is Puritan, I vote for checking on the type of hats people wear.

(Except I've been accused of being a Hutterite on that basis).

Vic