C. Matthew McMahon
Christian Preacher
Someone said just today, "This board" referring to the Puritanboard, "is not a good example of reformed theology." I'm curious to find out what people on the Puritanboard think overall.
I know that certain abberations of Reformed Theology have come down to us today. Some people believe that simply holding to election, for example, makes one "Reformed," or even "Calvinistic." I think being a "Reformed Christian" is MUCH more than just that. That's a watered down definition.
RC Sproul in his book "Grace Unknown" gives a very basic and simple overview of Reformed Theology in 5 foundational points, and then in 5 hallmarks of grace in the doctrines of grace. He says that historic Reformed Theology is 1) God centered, 2) Based on the Word of God Alone, 3) Committed to Faith Alone, 4) Devoted to the threfold offices of Christ, Prophet Priest and King, and 5) structured by 3 covenants in "Covenant Theology". (These three covenants Sproul says are the Covenant of Works, Covenant of Redemption, and Covenant of Grace). (I'd agree heartily with him!)
The term "Reformed" though, comes from an antagonistic use that Jochaim Westphal used as a Lutheran Theologian who vehemently disagreed with his contemporary John Calvin over the use of "sacraments" as laid out in the Institutes of the Christian Religion. Those who followed Calvin's ecclesiology, theology, and sacramentaology were "Reformed" and "Calvinistic." And according to Westphal, that was a BAD thing. (Obviously, some still think it is a bad thing today!)
If we traced Covenantal Reformed Theology through history, we would find it beginning with Christ and the Apostles (but that's a given) and then to Augustine and Irenaeus being the first who utilized the "covenant" to any extent in their writing. So, it is not surprising to see the Reformers and Puritans heavily quoting Augustine (or Austin) in their writings. Irenaeus taught 4 covenants that God made with men: Adamic, Noahic, Mosaic and the covenant under Jesus Christ. Gabriel Biel, in the 15th Century, made use of the idea of "œcovenant" to a relationship of justification. The progression continued in Oecolampadius (1482-1531) where he argued for the reality of the eternal covenant (or Covenant of Redemption to be later termed), Wolfgang Capito (1478-1541) made use of the covenant all through his commentary work on the Bible, and then came Ulrich Zwingli who defended the covenant against the Anabaptists. With Heinrich Bullinger (1504-1575) the covenant concept began to take a more systematic shape and form. Bullinger defined God´s covenant as follows "œGod, in making of leagues, as He doth in all things else, applieth himself to our capacities, and imitateth the order which men use in making confederacies"¦and therefore, when God´s mind was to declare the favour and good-will that he bare to mankind"¦it pleased Him to make a league or covenant with mankind." Calvin then solidified this in his Institutes, which is smothered in these "covenantal" concepts. Others wrote extensively on the covenants: Wolfgang Musculus (1497-1563), Martin Buceer (1491-1551), Peter Martyr (1499-1562), and Andrew Hyperius (1511-1564). In peak form the covenant concepts come out in the Heidelberg Catechism written by Caspar Olevianus (1536-1587) and Zacharius Ursinus (1534-1583). Here we find the recognized principle of "œreally" a single covenant of grace running through all of redemptive history. Expressions of that covenant appear in the Noahic, Mosaic, and so on. Even William Tyndale (1494-1536) utilized the interpretive principle of the covenant as a hermeneutic for understanding all of Scripture.
The covenant was defined by the Reformers, but expanded and detailed by the Puritans, and Dutch Theologians, of the time. Dudly Fenner, William Perkins, Robert Rollock, John Preston, William Ames, John Owen, Samuel Rutherford and the Westminster Standards all portray a Paedo-Baptistic, covenantal, Federal Theology in fine detail. However, in a cogent and detailed form, there is no better outline of this system of thought than in Coccejus´ theological "œpupil," Herman Witsius. Witsius´ The Economy of the Covenants Between God and Man was the pinnacle work for both Britain and America after its publication. Witsius´ book should be considered a standard textbook for Reformed Theology "“ Covenantal Theology, which included infant inclusion in the New Testament covenant. In denying the basic tenants of what inclusion of the covenant means, this then treads upon the meaning of the sacrament (not ordnance), ultimately proving a discontinuity (or "œwall") between the Old Testament and New Testament to the extent that some form of dispensational thought cannot be avoided. It is actually created, even unknowingly, by those who reject the continued inclusion of infants in the covenant, or of Reformed Covenantal Theology. In other words, non-reformed folk do not see the covenant, as Fred Greco pointed out well, "as the historical Reformed distinction that the Covenant of Grace has a outward and inward administration, and that the non-elect are not really in the Covenant of Grace, but rather they only partake of its outward administration without the substance. This is the sum of what John means when he says: "They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us. But they went out, that it might become plain that they all are not of us" (1 John 2:19)."
Gabriel Martini said this same thing when he summarized, "People are either legally or communally within the Covenant of Grace."
Dr. Clark, who frequents this board, has an outstnading summary of the historic ideas surrounding Reformed Theology at this link: http://public.csusm.edu/public/guests/rsclark/Sentences.htm
(I just wish I had come up with it first!!)
Jonathan Edwards, following Peter Van Mastricht believed these covenatnal concepts to be the hallmark of biblical Christianity. Van Mastricht, in the book by Soli Deo Gloria called "œA Treatise on Regeneration," says, "œThe Reformed unanimously hold that there is no physical regenerating efficacy in baptism, but only a moral efficacy which consists in its being a sign and a seal of regeneration; that they also hold that the grace of regeneration is not confined to any sacrament, and yet believe that baptism is not a mere naked, useless sign, but a more efficacious sealing of the covenant of grace in regeneration to those who receive it agreeably to its institution, and also to elect infant of believers."
In these "distinctives" of Reformed Theology, one would hold to certain foundational truths that make "Reformed Theology" what it essential is. There should be key unifying concepts around:
Law and Gospel
Justification
The Covenant of Redemption
The Covenant of Works
The Covenant of Grace
The Sacraments and the Church
Without these concepts, one cannot possibly have "Reformed Theology."
Thus, do you think, overall, that this board is a good example, or a bad example of Reformed Theology?
I know that certain abberations of Reformed Theology have come down to us today. Some people believe that simply holding to election, for example, makes one "Reformed," or even "Calvinistic." I think being a "Reformed Christian" is MUCH more than just that. That's a watered down definition.
RC Sproul in his book "Grace Unknown" gives a very basic and simple overview of Reformed Theology in 5 foundational points, and then in 5 hallmarks of grace in the doctrines of grace. He says that historic Reformed Theology is 1) God centered, 2) Based on the Word of God Alone, 3) Committed to Faith Alone, 4) Devoted to the threfold offices of Christ, Prophet Priest and King, and 5) structured by 3 covenants in "Covenant Theology". (These three covenants Sproul says are the Covenant of Works, Covenant of Redemption, and Covenant of Grace). (I'd agree heartily with him!)
The term "Reformed" though, comes from an antagonistic use that Jochaim Westphal used as a Lutheran Theologian who vehemently disagreed with his contemporary John Calvin over the use of "sacraments" as laid out in the Institutes of the Christian Religion. Those who followed Calvin's ecclesiology, theology, and sacramentaology were "Reformed" and "Calvinistic." And according to Westphal, that was a BAD thing. (Obviously, some still think it is a bad thing today!)
If we traced Covenantal Reformed Theology through history, we would find it beginning with Christ and the Apostles (but that's a given) and then to Augustine and Irenaeus being the first who utilized the "covenant" to any extent in their writing. So, it is not surprising to see the Reformers and Puritans heavily quoting Augustine (or Austin) in their writings. Irenaeus taught 4 covenants that God made with men: Adamic, Noahic, Mosaic and the covenant under Jesus Christ. Gabriel Biel, in the 15th Century, made use of the idea of "œcovenant" to a relationship of justification. The progression continued in Oecolampadius (1482-1531) where he argued for the reality of the eternal covenant (or Covenant of Redemption to be later termed), Wolfgang Capito (1478-1541) made use of the covenant all through his commentary work on the Bible, and then came Ulrich Zwingli who defended the covenant against the Anabaptists. With Heinrich Bullinger (1504-1575) the covenant concept began to take a more systematic shape and form. Bullinger defined God´s covenant as follows "œGod, in making of leagues, as He doth in all things else, applieth himself to our capacities, and imitateth the order which men use in making confederacies"¦and therefore, when God´s mind was to declare the favour and good-will that he bare to mankind"¦it pleased Him to make a league or covenant with mankind." Calvin then solidified this in his Institutes, which is smothered in these "covenantal" concepts. Others wrote extensively on the covenants: Wolfgang Musculus (1497-1563), Martin Buceer (1491-1551), Peter Martyr (1499-1562), and Andrew Hyperius (1511-1564). In peak form the covenant concepts come out in the Heidelberg Catechism written by Caspar Olevianus (1536-1587) and Zacharius Ursinus (1534-1583). Here we find the recognized principle of "œreally" a single covenant of grace running through all of redemptive history. Expressions of that covenant appear in the Noahic, Mosaic, and so on. Even William Tyndale (1494-1536) utilized the interpretive principle of the covenant as a hermeneutic for understanding all of Scripture.
The covenant was defined by the Reformers, but expanded and detailed by the Puritans, and Dutch Theologians, of the time. Dudly Fenner, William Perkins, Robert Rollock, John Preston, William Ames, John Owen, Samuel Rutherford and the Westminster Standards all portray a Paedo-Baptistic, covenantal, Federal Theology in fine detail. However, in a cogent and detailed form, there is no better outline of this system of thought than in Coccejus´ theological "œpupil," Herman Witsius. Witsius´ The Economy of the Covenants Between God and Man was the pinnacle work for both Britain and America after its publication. Witsius´ book should be considered a standard textbook for Reformed Theology "“ Covenantal Theology, which included infant inclusion in the New Testament covenant. In denying the basic tenants of what inclusion of the covenant means, this then treads upon the meaning of the sacrament (not ordnance), ultimately proving a discontinuity (or "œwall") between the Old Testament and New Testament to the extent that some form of dispensational thought cannot be avoided. It is actually created, even unknowingly, by those who reject the continued inclusion of infants in the covenant, or of Reformed Covenantal Theology. In other words, non-reformed folk do not see the covenant, as Fred Greco pointed out well, "as the historical Reformed distinction that the Covenant of Grace has a outward and inward administration, and that the non-elect are not really in the Covenant of Grace, but rather they only partake of its outward administration without the substance. This is the sum of what John means when he says: "They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us. But they went out, that it might become plain that they all are not of us" (1 John 2:19)."
Gabriel Martini said this same thing when he summarized, "People are either legally or communally within the Covenant of Grace."
Dr. Clark, who frequents this board, has an outstnading summary of the historic ideas surrounding Reformed Theology at this link: http://public.csusm.edu/public/guests/rsclark/Sentences.htm
(I just wish I had come up with it first!!)
Jonathan Edwards, following Peter Van Mastricht believed these covenatnal concepts to be the hallmark of biblical Christianity. Van Mastricht, in the book by Soli Deo Gloria called "œA Treatise on Regeneration," says, "œThe Reformed unanimously hold that there is no physical regenerating efficacy in baptism, but only a moral efficacy which consists in its being a sign and a seal of regeneration; that they also hold that the grace of regeneration is not confined to any sacrament, and yet believe that baptism is not a mere naked, useless sign, but a more efficacious sealing of the covenant of grace in regeneration to those who receive it agreeably to its institution, and also to elect infant of believers."
In these "distinctives" of Reformed Theology, one would hold to certain foundational truths that make "Reformed Theology" what it essential is. There should be key unifying concepts around:
Law and Gospel
Justification
The Covenant of Redemption
The Covenant of Works
The Covenant of Grace
The Sacraments and the Church
Without these concepts, one cannot possibly have "Reformed Theology."
Thus, do you think, overall, that this board is a good example, or a bad example of Reformed Theology?
Puritanhead has his serious hat on now.
