Reformed Reaction to CT Cover Story (audio)

I'm getting an error 404 from that first link Dr. Scott.

Is this it?

http://www.start.urclearning.org/audio/Reformed_Renaissance.mp3

Yes it is. Listening now. Reformed vs. reformed.

[Edited on 9-25-2006 by BobVigneault]

 

Next to being converted, best thing that ever happened to me.

 

So Scott are you saying that a Reformed Baptist church is not a legitimate church because it only holds to some of the doctrinal distinctives of the Reformed faith but not all the ecclesiastical distinctives?

 

So where they miss out on legitimacy is not that they don't administer the sacrament but that they interpret the word 'pure' differently than the big 'R' Reformed.

You're still my hero Scott but that surprised me.

 

Be careful! These guys are radicals! I know.

 

This reminds me of friends in SBC churches that do their best to "buck the trends" (i.e., rock music 'worship,' women praying and reading Scripture during a consecrated worship time, etc ...), and get branded as divisive and troublesome. The problem is, though, they themselves aren't even "Reformed," because they are denying Reformed theology by even BEING in an SBC church, an autonomous, schismatic body that has separated itself from accountability to the visible church through its independence (not to mention lack of confessionalism, etc.). I feel bad for all those that stick around because they think it is THEIR responsibility to "change" the church for the better... when these people are not even ordained ministers of the gospel. They need to follow God's revealed will and be part of the true Church and worship God according to Spirit and Truth ... NOT act as something they have no place imitating.

The best decision I ever made was leaving my "home" SBC church and joining with the Reformed Church, only to await several years of training and spiritual growth before I could, myself, "go and change the Church." But, I won't be trying to change any church that has rejected the Confessions and tenets of Reformed Theology, I will be doing my best, by God's grace, to continue to reform the Reformed Church, according to God's Truth and our Confessions and Tradition.

[Edited on 9-25-2006 by WrittenFromUtopia]

 

Dr. Clark (or anyone else up to the task),
Could you expand your thoughts on the fact that you refer to them as brothers yet they are not part of a true church. What is living to Christ outside of the church? Help me if I have misunderstood.....
thx,
Theologygeek

 

This smacks of inverted Landmarkism, in my opinion. Whatever side of the baptism question I find to be wrong, I believe I shall confess it to be mistaken, but not try to push them into becoming really reformed or really Reformed( either side might consider themselves to be "really" reformed, either in the historical sense or in the bare sense of what you hold to be more "reformed" ).

It's probably just about as appealing to most credos as it would be to you if we were to tell you you needed to join the radical reformers( anabaptist ) cuz' everybody knew they had less in common with the Roman church than anybody else and that's what really matters. Ultimately, historically true statements about theological trends must give way to what we each find to be in the Bible. As I believe the point of most Baptist confessions has been, we're not that different than you and usually acknowledge your contributions to Christian theology. Just a modified view of ecclesiology and the ordinances. No doubt it's a very good thing we're able to hold our own services in our own chapels, seeing as we disagree over how the church should be run, but I'm hesitant to appreciate statements which separate Christians to such a degree over temporary ordinances. :twocents:

 

Who turned this into another baptism thread?! Good grief, y'all!

 

Oy vey!

 

Maybe I've mistaken the general drift of this thread with those you'd find in the ecclesiology forum where you're expected to disagree. However, when someone uses the phrase "true church" and contrasts it with someone who at least looks like they're going in the right direction and sneers at their attempts to fix the church they attend rather than start off from scratch at another church with another paradigm, it has a tendency to irritate.

Some have a harder time with this than others, I reckon. I believe I've already reacted enough against Landmarkist sentiments from the baptist side to be disgusted when I see what appears to be the same smug attitude on the side I tried to incorporate into my Christian walk even if I never end up agreeing totally. Can you sympathize with what I'm getting at?

Now, I can smile with those that smile or groan with those who groan when Brother Piper is taken to be a Puritan born after his time or something like that. He's a leader in his own sense amongst his own people, but I don't really get the same things from him that I get from the good oldies. But, I can also feel a little perplexed when the word "narrow" is used to describe the scope of what is considered to make one "reformed" today, when what they include in their definition to make it truly "broad" is basically that what each counts as Christian baptism occurs at differing points of life. It happens once, usually, and once done, we walk through life with the same Christ, spending the majority of our Christian lives doing exactly the same things.

I hope it's not actually so big a deal that I can't walk in Christian fellowship with brothers of a different persuasion without being accused of only going "half-way" if I'm persuaded from the Bible that you've gone too far. I'm sort of biased against such arguments which are based upon historical theology rather than actual exegesis because it seems to put undue emphasis upon tradition.

[Edited on 9-26-2006 by polemic_turtle]

 

I agree with you 100%, but this is . They ain't gonna change...we ain't gonna change. Don't worry about it.

 

yea, I know that's why we have the horse around. He sure takes a beating sometimes. :-\

 

I remember talking about this before. Okay, I'm not reformed or Reformed. As I recall, you said that confessional was a better term.

Therefore, I am a confessional Baptist (LBCF, 1689).

 

Just to clarify, WCF chapter 25 does not define "true and false churches" in the same way as the BC. I only bring this up because this debate is beginning to make itself more vocal in Reformed circles around here, and I think that it has the potential to bring about some unhealthy acrimony and unnecessary division.

WCF 25.4 & 25.5 allow for there to be a range of purity regarding the vital elements of a church, including the administration of baptism, which would then place those congregations under the lable of "less pure" regarding that function of the church.

I do not believe that many WCF churches would be willing to call our baptist brothers a "synagogue of Satan" due to a flawed administration of one sacrament.

Sorry, Dr. Clark, but on this one point I will have to voice my humble objection!

 

[Edited on 9-26-2006 by Ivan]

 

"As for the false church, it assigns more authority to itself and its ordinances than to the Word of God"
( The priority of the mass over the preaching of the Word )

"it does not want to subject itself to the yoke of Christ;"
( But rather to the Pope or a magistrate. )

"it does not administer the sacraments as Christ commanded in his Word;"
( Though there is difference of opinion on how the ordinance of baptism is applied, to whom, and when, I don't believe we're dealing with an error on the level of the Mass, which is an ordinance bloated into the worship of physical elements. There is no false worship taking place, merely a difference of when the elect of God should follow the Lord in baptism and with how much water. Barely the doctrine of a church standing or falling, in my opinion. )

"it rather adds to them or subtracts from them as it pleases;"
( Like the seven sacraments of the Roman church, which we're united in repudiating. )

"it bases itself on men, more than on Jesus Christ;"
( The alleged apostolic succession of the Roman church from which they derive what they think to be authority to speak ex cathedra. )

"it persecutes those who live holy lives according to the Word of God"
( This is a charge which some of the earliest reformers who persecuted the Anabaptist folk could better be charged with than any Baptist than I know of. Some 3000 were executed, right? I know there were Libertines, but I don't think all 3000 that faced martyrdom were of that bent. The Baptist ecclesiology doesn't lend itself to union with the other kingdom, so I can't imagine a case where the Baptists would be guilty of this in a lethal sense. Let's not talk about Mister Munster, alright? What a nut. )

"and who rebuke it for its faults, greed, and idolatry."
( We're on the same page as far as I know. )

Well, that's what I think, anyway. I appreciate your sensitivity in responding as you did. I'll continue to think about it.

 

I can't help but notice that after while, not only do these baptism arguments go in circles but they sound a lot like Abbot and Costello doing "Who's On First?"

 

Dr. Clark, would you say the following are required to be truly Reformed:

What we have come to recognize as Calvinism, A Reformed view of the sacraments, and a Reformed view of Church polity (whether Anglican, Presbyterian, or Congregational), and a Reformed eschatology (wheter historic pre, post, or amil)?

Would this be an accurate representation of the classical definition? Or is the definition more specific or broad?

 

I don't know!

Third base!

 

The audio clip in question is dedicated to this topic. The show is clarifying how the Christianity Today article lumps anyone who is agrees with Dort as Reformed when the reformation involved much more than soteriology.

Christianity today's "poster boys" for Calvinism are John Piper, Mark Dever, CJ Mahaney, Al Mohler, and Ligon Duncan (I think that was all of them). Except for Duncan, all these guys are Baptists who, as Dr. Clark pointed out, would not even be invited to the Westminster Assembly.

They agree with TULIP, but not with Reformed theology.

 

I just read this article today, and before I even listen to this discussion I already agree with them. The article mentions unity between the reformed and the non. I agree with the learned Owen that we should rather proclaim a Jihad against them and offer up true Christianity.

From his Introduction to "A Display of Arminianism":

:Owen: