Is The Reformation Over?

[Flowers]

In reading a Reformed author today (published by P&R), I am struck by this quote:

"...except for Scripture itself, every system of thought is in need of further development. Nothing is a finished product."

And as John Frame has commented: "...I don't believe that Reformed theology is the last word..." (paraphrase). Noted that Frame is thoroughly Reformed and confessional while saying this.

If we're not careful, this kind of talk can get some raised eyebrows in the Reformed world. But is it true? Is the Reformed system complete and not in need of further development? Or is further development needed? If further development is needed in Reformed thought, where do you think it is needed?

 

[TylerRay]

Usually when people talk about further reformation of doctrine and practice today, they are really talking about defecting from Reformed doctrine and practice. When "reformation" involves inserting obedience as a condition of our justification, or celebrating man-made holy days, we are actually abandoning the Reformed faith, not furthering it.

We do need reformation today, and if God grants it, it will look a lot like it did in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries. It will be a return to Scriptural doctrine and worship regulated by the Word of God.

By the way, I don't know who told you that Frame is "thoroughly Reformed and confessional." He makes no bones about disagreeing with the confessions or discounting classical Reformed doctrine.

 

[Dachaser]

Usually when people talk about further reformation of doctrine and practice today, they are really talking about defecting from Reformed doctrine and practice. When "reformation" involves inserting obedience as a condition of our justification, or celebrating man-made holy days, we are actually abandoning the Reformed faith, not furthering it.

We do need reformation today, and if God grants it, it will look a lot like it did in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries. It will be a return to Scriptural doctrine and worship regulated by the Word of God.

By the way, I don't know who told you that Frame is "thoroughly Reformed and confessional." He makes no bones about disagreeing with the confessions or discounting classical Reformed doctrine.

My understanding about him from reading his theology would be that he sees Reformed theology in a broader perspective than others would, as he would allow for say music and worship of a different flavor, and he is more into seeing the unity of the Church among its various members.

 

[Flowers]

Usually when people talk about further reformation of doctrine and practice today, they are really talking about defecting from Reformed doctrine and practice. When "reformation" involves inserting obedience as a condition of our justification, or celebrating man-made holy days, we are actually abandoning the Reformed faith, not furthering it.

I would agree that a defection or an abandonment of the Reformed faith would be a mistake and not a development of the Reformed faith. So there is good reason to be initially skeptical of any idea of development within Reformed theology.

But the Reformers believed they were recovering the Biblical faith. I don't think they believed that they were once and for all expressing the fullness of the Biblical faith in all of its wonderful applications and implications.

We do need reformation today, and if God grants it, it will look a lot like it did in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries. It will be a return to Scriptural doctrine and worship regulated by the Word of God.

So this sounds to me like you don't think there is any need to develop what the Reformers did? Only return to it?

By the way, I don't know who told you that Frame is "thoroughly Reformed and confessional." He makes no bones about disagreeing with the confessions or discounting classical Reformed doctrine.

In my estimation he is thoroughly Reformed and confessional. Others are welcome to disagree. He claims to be Reformed and confessional. As an ordained OPC minister in good standing and theological chair holder at RTS (formerly - he just retired), it appears to me that the majority of folks in the Reformed world agree that he is indeed Reformed.

 

[TylerRay]

I would agree that a defection or an abandonment of the Reformed faith would be a mistake and not a development of the Reformed faith. So there is good reason to be initially skeptical of any idea of development within Reformed theology.

But the Reformers believed they were recovering the Biblical faith. I don't think they believed that they were once and for all expressing the fullness of the Biblical faith in all of its wonderful applications and implications.



So this sounds to me like you don't think there is any need to develop what the Reformers did? Only return to it?

What do you mean, exactly, by developing the doctrine and practice of the Reformers? Can you give an example?

Certainly, there have been wonderful developments of Reformed doctrine and practice over the years, as men learned from and built on the work of the predecessors. However, this comes from working out the implications of Reformed doctrine, not from altering it.

In my estimation he is thoroughly Reformed and confessional. Others are welcome to disagree. He claims to be Reformed and confessional. As an ordained OPC minister in good standing and theological chair holder at RTS (formerly - he just retired), it appears to me that the majority of folks in the Reformed world agree that he is indeed Reformed.

Perhaps we'll need another thread on this topic, but you won't find much sympathy for Frame's doctrine here, I'd wager. His expressed agreement with Norman Shepherd's doctrine of justification and his belief in paedocommunion are enough to disqualify him as "thoroughly Reformed and Confessional." He's actually a minister in the PCA, and the PCA's practice of good faith subscription adds nothing to his credentials as a Confessional Presbyterian.

 

[TylerRay]

Here's a good article from Scott Clark (on the Ligonier website) on the idea of continuing Reformation: Always Abusing Semper Reformanda

 

[Flowers]

What do you mean, exactly, by developing the doctrine and practice of the Reformers? Can you give an example?

Sure. An example might be developing our understanding of how bi-covenantal theology expresses itself throughout the timeline of Scripture. Or our example might be how our doctrine of God, humanity, and sin affects our understanding of the psychology of addiction.

Perhaps we'll need another thread on this topic, but you won't find much sympathy for Frame's doctrine here, I'd wager. His expressed agreement with Norman Shepherd's doctrine of justification and his belief in paedocommunion are enough to disqualify him as "thoroughly Reformed and Confessional." He's actually a minister in the PCA, and the PCA's practice of good faith subscription adds nothing to his credentials as a Confessional Presbyterian.

Ah my mistake. Thanks for the correction. Anyone who has "no sympathy" for Frame's doctrine is too sectarian for me!

 

[TylerRay]

Sure. An example might be developing our understanding of how bi-covenantal theology expresses itself throughout the timeline of Scripture. Or our example might be how our doctrine of God, humanity, and sin affects our understanding of the psychology of addiction.

Sure, that's fine. The problem is that you get guys like Frame and others who want to deny that God is impassible and immutable in the name of further developing Reformed theology. If we're working out the implications of the Scriptural doctrine of God, for example, (as you pointed out) that's great.

 

[RamistThomist]

Unless we want to say that the full Westminster theology was already embedded in Ignatius of Antioch, then we have to allow for development. That's a historical fact. Now, that's not the same thing as should there be development.

 

[Flowers]

Unless we want to say that the full Westminster theology was already embedded in Ignatius of Antioch, then we have to allow for development. That's a historical fact. Now, that's not the same thing as should there be development.

So do you think that Westminster Theology, as it was expressed by the divines, basically completed the task of theology?

 

[RamistThomist]

So do you think that Westminster Theology, as it was expressed by the divines, basically completed the task of theology?

No. Hegel thought that philosophy and theology reached a pinnacle with himself. I try to avoid that type of thinking.

That said, I don't try to "change" or "reform" theology. At least not officially. I am too busy to do that and most people don't want it to happen. I tried to do stuff like that ten years ago. I learned the hard way not to.

 

[TylerRay]

@Flowers, I'm curious to hear your thoughts on the article that I linked to in post six.

Out of curiosity, who was the Reformed author you referenced in the original post?

 

[Flowers]

@Flowers, I'm curious to hear your thoughts on the article that I linked to in post six.

Give me a little while and I'll check it out.

Out of curiosity, who was the Reformed author you referenced in the original post?

Edward T Welch in his book "Addictions - A Banquet in the Grave". In context, he's referring to any man-made system designed to understand and deal with addiction. He reminds us that every man made system is incomplete and in need of development.

Reformed Theology - and Westminster Theology - is a man-made system. We believe it captures Biblical doctrine, but does this mean that it can never be developed? If we think so, I fear we're drifting into a kind of reverence of tradition that the Reformers themselves would've been uncomfortable with.

 

[Flowers]

That said, I don't try to "change" or "reform" theology. At least not officially. I am too busy to do that and most people don't want it to happen. I tried to do stuff like that ten years ago. I learned the hard way not to.

Do you preach and teach regularly? If so, do you ever find Reformed theology in need of further development in any areas? Do you attempt to tackle subjects wherein it appears that not much work has been done?

 

[RamistThomist]

Do you preach and teach regularly?

No.

If so, do you ever find Reformed theology in need of further development in any areas?

I probably do, but when most people hear that they think I am trying to sacrifice to Rome, so I just don't normally announce stuff like that.

Do you attempt to tackle subjects wherein it appears that not much work has been done?

Yes. I've read widely in the church fathers over the past decade. My theology is basically "Cappadocian." I also like Gregory Palamas.

 

[RBachman]

With respects to Frame (I used one of his books in Seminary and thought him the best) there seems little doubt that he now embraces his own special blend of process theology. This blog neatly quotes Frame, but there is much more floating around https://paulhelmsdeep.blogspot.com/2014/04/john-frame-god-time-and-space.html This seems to be a change in his thinking, or possibly a post-retirement nuancing. I don't think that puts him outside the camp, yet, but he is certainly no longer on my 'trusted list'.

[begin sarcastic remark] The mutability of God is a no-go issue for me - it will be soon be followed by 'little silver statues in the church gift shop suitable for enhancing your mid-week home worship.' [end sarcastic remark]

Where the continuation of reformation can add value is not to 'redo' what has been done, but to build on the foundation we have to deal with issues that were not issues in the 16th and 17th centuries: Rights of Man in a global democratic society, LGBTQ, Abortion, euthanasia are just a few. Each one probably deserves a chapter in the revised and expanded WCF (based on the original, not the American version). These are the issues that are/will cause further disunity in the visible reformed church, but if dealt with properly, will also strengthen those of us holding true to the confession. I would add the role of women, but I believe the Confessional documents are pretty clear on this already.

 

[Dachaser]

With respects to Frame (I used one of his books in Seminary and thought him the best) there seems little doubt that he now embraces his own special blend of process theology. This blog neatly quotes Frame, but there is much more floating around https://paulhelmsdeep.blogspot.com/2014/04/john-frame-god-time-and-space.html This seems to be a change in his thinking, or possibly a post-retirement nuancing. I don't think that puts him outside the camp, yet, but he is certainly no longer on my 'trusted list'.

[begin sarcastic remark] The mutability of God is a no-go issue for me - it will be soon be followed by 'little silver statues in the church gift shop suitable for enhancing your mid-week home worship.' [end sarcastic remark]

Where the continuation of reformation can add value is not to 'redo' what has been done, but to build on the foundation we have to deal with issues that were not issues in the 16th and 17th centuries: Rights of Man in a global democratic society, LGBTQ, Abortion, euthanasia are just a few. Each one probably deserves a chapter in the revised and expanded WCF (based on the original, not the American version). These are the issues that are/will cause further disunity in the visible reformed church, but if dealt with properly, will also strengthen those of us holding true to the confession. I would add the role of women, but I believe the Confessional documents are pretty clear on this already.

I have read some of Dr Frame ST, I do not remember him being in the Open theist camp, as he changed his views?

 

[Flowers]

With respects to Frame (I used one of his books in Seminary and thought him the best) there seems little doubt that he now embraces his own special blend of process theology. This blog neatly quotes Frame, but there is much more floating around https://paulhelmsdeep.blogspot.com/2014/04/john-frame-god-time-and-space.html This seems to be a change in his thinking, or possibly a post-retirement nuancing. I don't think that puts him outside the camp, yet, but he is certainly no longer on my 'trusted list'.

[begin sarcastic remark] The mutability of God is a no-go issue for me - it will be soon be followed by 'little silver statues in the church gift shop suitable for enhancing your mid-week home worship.' [end sarcastic remark]

Where the continuation of reformation can add value is not to 'redo' what has been done, but to build on the foundation we have to deal with issues that were not issues in the 16th and 17th centuries: Rights of Man in a global democratic society, LGBTQ, Abortion, euthanasia are just a few. Each one probably deserves a chapter in the revised and expanded WCF (based on the original, not the American version). These are the issues that are/will cause further disunity in the visible reformed church, but if dealt with properly, will also strengthen those of us holding true to the confession. I would add the role of women, but I believe the Confessional documents are pretty clear on this already.

I think the blogger here is just failing to understand Frame. His accusations don't stick. Everything quoted is classic Frame. No post-retirement stuff here.

 

[RamistThomist]

And if we were to further the reformation, we would substantially clarify the doctrine of the Trinity in such a way as to preclude any possiblity of Etern Subordination. That's one example.

Another is whether the civil magistrate can call councils. We would have to finally say yea or nay on that.

Another area is codifying the ancient doctrine of two wills and energies in Christ. This was assumed in the Reformation era, but never fully put into the confessions (I am open to correction on this one).

 

[RBachman]

And if we were to further the reformation, we would substantially clarify the doctrine of the Trinity in such a way as to preclude any possiblity of Etern Subordination. That's one example.

Another is whether the civil magistrate can call councils. We would have to finally say yea or nay on that.

Another area is codifying the ancient doctrine of two wills and energies in Christ. This was assumed in the Reformation era, but never fully put into the confessions (I am open to correction on this one).

You get my vote. These are excellent suggestions. A.though the 23.3 one may raise problems. I think the Divines pretty much said Yea. I happen to agree with this section as being Biblical. But it may be practically challenging - but it always been challenging.

 

[Steve Curtis]

Dr Frame

Better to address/identify him as Rev. or Prof. Frame (he has an honorary doctorate, but admits to not having earned one).

 

[Flowers]

Better to address/identify him as Rev. or Prof. Frame (he has an honorary doctorate, but admits to not having earned one).

Hasn't he earned one? Which of his four massive Theology of Lordship tomes wouldn't stand up in dissertation?

 

[ZackF]

Hasn't he earned one? Which of his four massive Theology of Lordship tomes wouldn't stand up in dissertation?

These works were in no doubt considered in deciding to award the honorary doctorate.

 

[RamistThomist]

He didn't finish his doctorate because he didn't need to. Yale wasn't going to approve his pro-bible views on revelation, and at the same time Westminster was going to hire him.

 

[Dachaser]

He didn't finish his doctorate because he didn't need to. Yale wasn't going to approve his pro-bible views on revelation, and at the same time Westminster was going to hire him.

So are his theological views regarding God, scriptures, and salvation seen as being legit or not?

 

[Dachaser]

And if we were to further the reformation, we would substantially clarify the doctrine of the Trinity in such a way as to preclude any possiblity of Etern Subordination. That's one example.

Another is whether the civil magistrate can call councils. We would have to finally say yea or nay on that.

Another area is codifying the ancient doctrine of two wills and energies in Christ. This was assumed in the Reformation era, but never fully put into the confessions (I am open to correction on this one).

the issues such as the one of eternal subordination/Dual natures of Christ would seem to be better rendered though in Systematic theologies, instead of being further articulated in any Confession.

 

[RamistThomist]

the issues such as the one of eternal subordination/Dual natures of Christ would seem to be better rendered though in Systematic theologies, instead of being further articulated in any Confession.

No. they need to be dealt with in confessions. The problem started because of the theologies. A systematic theology has zero authority on my life. A confession, however, has authority.

 

[RamistThomist]

So are his theological views regarding God, scriptures, and salvation seen as being legit or not?

Are you asking me personally or am I representing the entire Reformed body? I can't answer that in one sentence. It's complicated.

 

[Flowers]

It's hard to get more legit than Frame. Only if you think that the church of Jesus is limited to the Reformed world are you able to nitpick his theology. But if you consider that in the church of Jesus we've got a whole mess of unorthodoxy, I don't see how Frame should not be celebrated as a beacon of light.

 

[ZackF]

In reading a Reformed author today (published by P&R), I am struck by this quote:

"...except for Scripture itself, every system of thought is in need of further development. Nothing is a finished product."

And as John Frame has commented: "...I don't believe that Reformed theology is the last word..." (paraphrase). Noted that Frame is thoroughly Reformed and confessional while saying this.

If we're not careful, this kind of talk can get some raised eyebrows in the Reformed world. But is it true? Is the Reformed system complete and not in need of further development? Or is further development needed? If further development is needed in Reformed thought, where do you think it is needed?

The Reformation was about conforming to God's Word. Since the historical church upheaval know as 'The Reformation' many different things have been subjected to Scripture as they haven't before and in greater detail. I seriously doubt we'll run out of things in the universe to subject to the Word of God. Furthermore in another way, like Israel of old, the Church goes through greater and lesser degrees of faithfulness and size. Reformation is always needed.