Should we precisely emulate the Theology/Worship/Confessions of the Reformers and Puritans?

[biblelighthouse]

I highly, greatly, and enormously respect the Reformers and Puritans. If I didn't respect them and predominantly agree with them, then I wouldn't be on this forum.

Nevertheless, I am concerned whenever I hear some people on this forum suggest that we should precisely mimic Reformed/Puritan theology, that our worship should exactly look the way theirs did, or that the confessions have no room whatsoever for improvement. The underlying implication seems to be that the Reformers & Puritans were as close to perfect as is humanly possible, and that improvement is impossible.

If the above statement does not apply to you, then I applaud you. However, if you truly do think that the theology/worship/confessions of the Reformers are humanly unimprovable, then I would like to challenge you to rethink your position.

As someone once said, we may be midgets in comparison to giants like John Calvin and Martin Luther. But even a midget can stand on the shoulders of a giant, thereby being able to see even farther than him.

To help kick off this discussion, I want to commend to you a superb quote by John M. Mason, a Presbyterian pastor from the early 1800s:

Christian Brethren,

We should greatly undervalue our spiritual mercies, were we insensible that "œthe lines have fallen unto us in pleasant places; yea, that we have a goodly heritage." The unadulterated faith once delivered to the saints; that religious polity which Christ has instituted for his Church; and a worship, on the whole, scriptural; are benefits which God bestowed on our fathers, and which by his grace they have transmitted unto us. To insure our peaceful enjoyment of them they underwent no ordinary trials. It is the fruit of their labors, their tears, and their blood, which merit from their posterity an everlasting remembrance.

But, brethren, we should prove ourselves unworthy of such an ancestry, if, under the pretext of prizing their attainments, we become indifferent about our own; if we lose their spirit while we boast of their names: much more, if, falling short of their excellence, we do not endeavor to regain and surpass it. Magnanimous men! they not only cherished their light, but applied it to expose delusion, and to explore the paths of forgotten truth. Far from being satisfied with previous reformation, they inquired if any corruption had been retained, any error unnoticed, any duty overlooked; and exerted themselves to supply the defect, both by condemning what was wrong and by performing what was right. No favorite prepossessions, no inveterate habits, either appalled their courage or paralyzed their efforts. According to their knowledge they cheerfully sacrificed whatever is contrary to the simple and spiritual ordinations of their Lord. Accompanied herein with his blessing, they were eminently successful, and have left us an example, which it is our glory to imitate. And we are to imitate it by comparing with the scriptural pattern that branch of the church to which we belong, that we may discover whether there yet remains aught which needs correction. No opinion can be more dishonorable or dangerous than this, that reformation being already achieved, we have nothing to do but to tread quietly on in the track of precedent. Godliness is not the nursling of tradition. If we have no better reason for our sentiments and practice than that they were the sentiments and practice of our fathers before us, our religion is not a rational but a mechanical service. Christianity allows no implicit faith, except in the divine testimony. It is not enough that a point of doctrine or worship has the sanction of venerable names and ancient custom: these may command respect, but can neither obligate conscience nor relieve us from the trouble of examining for ourselves, because there is no believing by proxy. Like the Bereans, in whom the gospel excited a spirit of noble inquiry, we are to search the scriptures for the warrant both of our religious profession and our religious observances. We are charged to PROVE all things, and to HOLD FAST that which is good. The charge embraces not merely such things as we have not hitherto adopted, but whatever we already possess. "œTry ALL," saith the Holy Ghost, "œhold fast that which abides the trial, and let go the rest." And we shall answer, then, to our Master in heaven, we are bound to review our religious order and usages; and if we shall find them in any particular at variance with his appointments, thankfully to own our mistake and faithfully to amend it. No plea can justify our refusal; for whatever purity we may really enjoy, none of us have the vanity to claim an exemption from error, nor to suppose that the furnace of the sanctuary can detect no dross in our gold. A church may in her leading characters be sound and evangelical, and yet in some parts of her conduct go exceedingly astray.

Please take the time to read the above quote, before jumping into this discussion.

Thank you!

Your brother in Christ,
Joseph M. Gleason

 

[VirginiaHuguenot]

Joseph,

I fully agree with the "Berean principle." However, "theology/worship/confessions of the Reformers and Puritans" is a pretty broad term for a group that was not monolithic. For example, Calvin was not EP but the Scottish Presbyterians and Westminster Standards were. Many Puritans were congregationalists, some were Presbyterian, some were Anglican. Some Reformed confessions were Baptistic or Lutheran, while others were Presbyterian. There were major differences between the Pilgrims and Puritans, between the New England Puritans and the British Puritans, between the Scottish Presbyterians and the Anglicans, between the Continential Reformed and the British/Scottish Puritans, etc. What exactly about Reformed theology, worship and confessions do you disagree with?

[Edited on 12-15-2005 by VirginiaHuguenot]

 

[NaphtaliPress]

I recognize that quote.

Originally posted by biblelighthouse
To help kick off this discussion, I want to commend to you a superb quote by John M. Mason, a Presbyterian pastor from the early 1800s:

Christian Brethren,
snip

 

[biblelighthouse]

Originally posted by NaphtaliPress
I recognize that quote.

Originally posted by biblelighthouse
To help kick off this discussion, I want to commend to you a superb quote by John M. Mason, a Presbyterian pastor from the early 1800s:

Christian Brethren,
snip

Yep, that is a SUPER quote, and I THANK YOU for posting it on your website!

I just didn't cite the quote originally, because I didn't know if you wanted to be drawn into this discussion or not.

Thank you for providing the quote, Chris!

 

[JOwen]

Smoken' quote. It will be in this week's bulitin.

Jerrold

 

[biblelighthouse]

Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot
Joseph,

I fully agree with the "Berean principle." However, "theology/worship/confessions of the Reformers and Puritans" is a pretty broad term for a group that was not monolithic. For example, Calvin was not EP but the Scottish Presbyterians and Westminster Standards were. Many Puritans were congregationalists, some were Presbyterian, some were Anglican. Some Reformed confessions were Baptistic or Lutheran, while others were Presbyterian. There were major differences between the Pilgrims and Puritans, between the New England Puritans and the British Puritans, between the Scottish Presbyterians and the Anglicans, etc. What exactly about Reformed theology, worship and confessions do you disagree with?

Andrew,

Thank you for your excellent post!

I was being intentionally vague. But your post very clearly reveals a major point that I wanted to come out in the discussion. I just get the feeling from some people on this forum (not you) that a person is necessarily "arrogant" if they disagree with the EP of the Puritans, the Presbyterianism of the Presbyterians, or anything specificially in the 3FU or WCF.

But as your post clearly points out, the Anglicans and Lutherans and Congregationalists are reformation churches too!

And yet on this board I so frequently hear talk implying that Anglicans aren't reformed in their worship, Lutherans aren't reformed in their view of the Lord's Supper, that non-EP people aren't "really" reformed, that all reformed churches adhered to a strict version of the RPW, or that a person would have to be arrogant to disagree with the WCF.

In this particular thread, I don't want to concentrate on any particular disagreements I have with the WCF (and my disagreements are few indeed). Rather, I just want to encourage everyone to *consciously* remember that Bible-believing Christians of the Reformation were "not monolithic", just like you said above. Regarding theology, worship, and confessions, they were variegated and multiformed. Their grand areas of agreement did not erase their notable areas of disagreement.

And even in their grand areas of agreement, we need to heed Pastor Mason's warning, and not automatically assume perfection in the theology of the Reformers (or in the theology of the Puritans). If we study hard, and find ourselves in agreement, fine. But if not, the person may not be arrogant . . . rather, he may simply be standing on the shoulders of giants, and purging a small piece of dross he has discovered in the silver he has received. After all, even a 95% pure piece of silver contains 5% impurities. And the silver will NEVER be 100% pure until the second coming of Christ.

 

[R. Scott Clark]

This is the argument frequently made for semper reformanda. The difficulty is that unless there is agreement on certain foundational issues, there is no objective control on where continual "reformation" leads. John Francke and others are proposing a radical re-definition of "evangelical" or even "Reformed" according to Schleiermacher's subjective principle.

Others are pursuing a similar agenda along more conservative lines. E.g., John Frame wants to revise our worship rather radically. He proposes, in effect, a different RPW. He says that the historic application of the RPW to worship only doesn't go far enough, that the RPW should not be applied to worship only but to everything equally.

Thus I buy a blue car or a red car if and only if it is explicitly or implicitly required by the Word of God. Oops! The Scriptures don't tell me which to buy, ergo, I guess Scripture does not tell me as much about worship as I thought. In other words, by applying the RPW to everything, it now applies practically to nothing.

Now, John says that he is merely calling us to be faithful to the semper reformanda principle, that we should be biblical first above everything else, even if it leads to radical change in worship and theology, but Scripture has to be read and interpreted and applied.

We came up, originally, with our RPW by reading Scripture. What we have are dueling hermeneutical systems.

So, I'm sympathetic to those calls for continual Reform that call us back to our foundational principles and to a more faithful application of them in our current context.

Our progam should be that we should be in our age what they were in theirs. We should be as pious, as biblical, as literate, as thoughtful, careful and Reformed as they were.

We cannot build on the foundation of the classical Reformed tradition, whether British or European (the differences are often grossly exaggerated), by removing the foundation. We must build on it, in a way that is consistent with it.

If someone wants to change the foundation, that's another discussion entirely.

rsc

 

[gwine]

Remember that Newton's quote concerning standing on the shoulders of giants works for him because he could be counted among the giants. It's not like he was a dwarf peering just a few miles farther.

 

[biblelighthouse]

Originally posted by R. Scott Clark

We cannot build on the foundation of the classical Reformed tradition, whether British or European (the differences are often grossly exaggerated), by removing the foundation. We must build on it, in a way that is consistent with it.

Are you assuming that the foundation is absolutely perfect, with no possibility of improvement whatsoever? Are you 100% sure that the Reformers made no errors whatsoever in the foundation? (And what exactly differentiates the "foundation" from the rest of theology . . . what do you consider to be the foundation?)

And regarding what you said above about the RPW, are you sure that qualifies as "the" reformed doctrine of worship, rather than just "a" reformed doctrine of worship? The Anglican church is a reformation church. So would you be comfortable with an Anglican form of worship? (I am not saying that I would be comfortable with it . . . I am just challenging you to reconsider the narrowness by which you define that which is "reformed".)




[Edited on 12-15-2005 by biblelighthouse]

 

[biblelighthouse]

Originally posted by R. Scott Clark

Our progam should be that we should be in our age what they were in theirs. We should be as pious, as biblical, as literate, as thoughtful, careful and Reformed as they were.

 

[Arch2k]

Joseph,

I could be mistaken, but it seems that you are confusing "reformed" worship with "protestant" worship. Not all of those who are of the protestant break-off (from Roman Catholicism) can be rightly called reformed. Protestant to be sure, but not reformed. I'm sure that as staunchly paedo-baptist as you are, you would not say that credo can be legitamately called "reformed," would you?

I would highly recommend reading Matt's essay called
What does it mean to be Reformed Really?. To be reformed means to be certain things. I think his conclusion is suitable for this thread:

It should be agreed that being "œReformed" meant something to Luther, Calvin and their predecessors. It is not something we are allowed to take in "œpart" in the name of "œreforming." We must admit that asking Calvin whether or not an abuse of the Lord´s Supper is acceptable would be answered by a biblical ferocity. We could not agree that Calvin would accept an abuse of the sign and seal of baptism "“ he wrote extensively against its abuse in 4.16 of his Institutes. We could not agree that Calvin would allow simony in the church. Such aberrations of Reformed doctrines fired up the pen of this classic Reformed theologian and pastor. I could not, in good conscience, call myself Reformed or claim the Reformed faith if I simply believed 1/10th of what the Reformation taught. Also, I could not, in good conscience call myself Reformed or claim the Reformed faith if I simply believed 9/10ths of what the Reformation taught, and rejected the other 1/10th out rightly. I must, of necessity, embrace Reformation doctrine to claim the Reformed banner. In like manner I cannot believe 4 points of the 5 points of Calvinism and call myself a Calvinist. Those who believe the doctrines of grace know this little ploy used too well by confused Arminians who say such things. But the orthodox know they are wrong; at the very least they are extremely confused. It is much the same with the doctrines of the Reformation. You cannot reject Reformed worship, those foundational guidelines within the orthodox realm of Reformed doctrine, and say you are Reformed. You cannot discard church discipline and say you are Reformed. You cannot reject aspects of Covenant Theology and call yourself Reformed. You cannot misuse the sacraments, or deny them, and call yourself Reformed. Holding to certain biblical ideologies determines whether one is Reformed or not. In all of this, you must ask yourself, are you really Reformed?

I agree with your principle that we should prove all things from scripture, and that it is the only thing that should/can bind our conscience. We must not have an implicit faith in our fore-fathers not matter how bright they were.

However, for people like me, who have been raised Arminian, dispensational etc. etc., the reformed creeds have offered an oasis of stability, because no longer do I have to re-invent the wheel, but can look to those who have gone before me and determine if what they believed is true. As for me, EVERY SINGLE TIME I have believed something contra the Westminster Confession/Catechisms, and TRUELY studied the subject from the scriptures, and from other learned men, it has been ME that has changed, and not the confessions. I am not saying that the WCF is infallible, or should be treated as such, but certainly can be an extremely valuable tool for God's people.

Regards for now.

Jeff

 

[R. Scott Clark]

Are you assuming that the foundation is absolutely perfect, with no possibility of improvement whatsoever?

By foundation, I mean the principles on which we operated, e.g., the Creator/creature distinction, quite possibly the most foundational distinction of all to which Reformed theology alone was consistently faithful and its theological corollary: the distinction between theology as God knows and theology as he reveals it to us and the consequent corollary, Calvin's doctrine of acommodation. Among the foundational notions would be the sola's, the doctrine of two-kingdoms, the RPW, the doctrine of the the means of grace, our doctrinal loci and the like.

Of these what would you like to change?

If you ask Machen what consitutes doctrinal progress he says, in effect, "becoming more consistent with our principles." When Murray defined doctrinal progress, he said something similar. Doctrinal progress does not mean, as some suggest, becoming something other than what we are. For some doctrinal progress means incorporating pentecostalism into our doctrine of the Christian life and worship, or for others it means adopting a theotic view of justification/salvation.

Such moves are are the theological equivalent of dropping a daisycutter on one's house as the first step to home improvement. I don't think our house is a tenament that needs rubbishing.

And regarding what you said above about the RPW, are you sure that qualifies as "the" reformed doctrine of worship, rather than just "a" reformed doctrine of worship?

Yes. We merely tolerated the Anglican RPW (whatever is not forbidden may be done; also the Lutheran principle) as but halfly reformed but it is not ours. This is not some idiosyncratic view. It is the universal testimony of the Reformed confessions from the Belgic, to the Heidelberg to the Westminster Standards.

The Anglican church is a reformation church. So would you be comfortable with an Anglican form of worship?

Sure, I've worshipped with Anglicans and I'm certainly not anglo-phobic, but their forms have to be put to distinctly Reformed use. I have great affection for the BCP -- I recognize that I might feel differently if I were a 17th century Scotsman! -- and we use variations on it regularly in our worship.

The problem with the CoE is not their foms, it is their principle of worship. The 39 Articles are fine, as far as they go. They just don't go far enough. Hence we had the Belgic, the HC, the WCF etc.

We could and probably should have new confessions, if we were consistent with our principles, but first we must recover our principles and stop using idiosyncratic -- rather than confessionally determined -- definitions of what it is to be Reformed. That's another

rsc

 

[JohnV]

Dr. Clark:

We could and probably should have new confessions, if we were consistent with our principles, but first we must recover our principles and stop using idiosyncratic -- rather than confessionally determined -- definitions of what it is to be Reformed.

I'm glad you added that. To me that's not an afterthought, but prerequisite.

I remember my grade twelve math teacher well, for he put a complicated algebraic equation on the side blackboard, taking up all three slates. The conclusion was: "therefore, 1 = 2." His point was that no matter how sophisticated or masterful the argument may be, if it denies the very principles it is based on, it cannot stand. We have to watch for the mistakes, and they are often simple ones, hidden in convoluted arguments. So we have to know what the foundations are before we build on it. Or in this case, rebuild on it.

 

[biblelighthouse]

John,

I will respond to the quote from Matt that you gave:

It should be agreed that being "œReformed" meant something to Luther, Calvin and their predecessors. . . .

We could not agree that Calvin would accept an abuse of the sign and seal of baptism . . .

You cannot reject Reformed worship, those foundational guidelines within the orthodox realm of Reformed doctrine, and say you are Reformed.

You cannot misuse the sacraments, or deny them, and call yourself Reformed. Holding to certain biblical ideologies determines whether one is Reformed or not. In all of this, you must ask yourself, are you really Reformed?

For now, I just want to point out that Matt's argument is self-defeating. He starts the whole argument using Calvin and Luther for examples, and then proceeds to make arguments that would force us to say that Luther himself was not Reformed, and maybe not even Calvin!

Lutherans and Calvins disagree over what baptism accomplishes. Does it therefore follow that Luther (or Calvin) is not Reformed?

Lutherans and Calvinists disagree over the Lord's Supper, too. Is it not a "misuse" of the sacrament to teach that the Lord is physically present in it (or alternatively, to teach that it is not present)? Was Luther un-Reformed? Or was it Calvin?

How about "Reformed worship? Does that entail EP? If so, then *neither* Luther nor Calvin were "Reformed". Or are we just talking about the RPW in general? Even then, would we not have so say that Martin Luther was no "Reformer" at all?

 

[biblelighthouse]

Originally posted by R. Scott Clark

By foundation, I mean the principles on which we operated, e.g., the Creator/creature distinction, quite possibly the most foundational distinction of all to which Reformed theology alone was consistently faithful and its theological corollary: the distinction between theology as God knows and theology as he reveals it to us and the consequent corollary, Calvin's doctrine of acommodation. Among the foundational notions would be the sola's, the doctrine of two-kingdoms, the RPW, the doctrine of the the means of grace, our doctrinal loci and the like.

Most of what you say above I heartily applaud.

But I am curious: are you suggesting EP as part of the RPW?

Originally posted by R. Scott Clark

Such moves are are the theological equivalent of dropping a daisycutter on one's house as the first step to home improvement. I don't think our house is a tenament that needs rubbishing.

I agree with you here. I never suggested the foundation was horribly broken and in dire need of repair. But I still think it is important to realize that man is still fallen, and thus he has not even interpreted foundational things perfectly. Does the clergy/laity distinction bar laymen from being able to administer a valid baptism, or from being allowed to publicly share from the Word of God? Does denying EP mean that one denies the RPW, and is therefore not Reformed? How about paedocommunion? And there are any of a number of other questions that come up in multiple discussions. There are many issues that touch on a *part* of an important doctrine (such as the doctrine of worship or of the sacraments), but still does not threaten to totally smash and overturn the entire doctrine.

I don't think we need to bust up the foundation either. But I do think there are still points that need additional reformation.

Originally posted by R. Scott Clark

This is not some idiosyncratic view. It is the universal testimony of the Reformed confessions from the Belgic, to the Heidelberg to the Westminster Standards.

. . . The 39 Articles are fine, as far as they go. They just don't go far enough. Hence we had the Belgic, the HC, the WCF etc.

We could and probably should have new confessions, if we were consistent with our principles, but first we must recover our principles and stop using idiosyncratic -- rather than confessionally determined -- definitions of what it is to be Reformed.

You talk about the "universal" testimony of the confessions, but then you admit that you don't include the 39 articles as one of them.

That sounds like gerrymandering to me . . . carefully drawing lines around only those confessions you like, and then assigning the term "universal" to everything within those lines.

I'm not trying to be antagonistic; I'm just trying to understand where you're coming from. Why exactly do you count the WCF and 3FU as Reformed confessions, but not the 39 articles? How about the Augsberg Confession or the Formula of Concord? Are those "Reformed" in your book? If so, then what is a truly "Reformed" view of the sacraments, for example?

 

[JohnV]

Something just occurred to me. When I was younger it was a lot easier than it is now. I mean, we just sang praises with all our hearts, without as much regard to the RPW as I do now. Does that mean that my worship wasn't acceptable to God back then? I don't think that being better informed has erased that much of what is not acceptable before God. No matter how much I think I've reformed my life since then, how much of it is reformed in God's eyes? And I am still as much redeemed now as I was then.

Am I more Reformed now than I used to be? I'd like to think so, but that doesn't make my worship any more acceptable. It may be in spirit and in truth more than it used to be, but its still not what it should be. And God took me in way back before I knew all this better understanding. These things are all added benefits of grace, not more acceptable degrees of Reformedness. In that sense the budding believer with all his baggage is more Reformed than the scholar in ecclesiology and theology who has forgotten his first love. Its not what we are, but what God has made us.

 

[biblelighthouse]

Dr. Clark,

I want to add one important thing:

I realize you are a doctor of the church, a professor at one of the best seminaries around, and are an associate pastor to boot.

So I *definitely* understand that I am not on your level. You obviously are far more learned in both the Scriptures and in the confessions than I am.

So please don't think that I'm trying to take you on as an "equal". I realize I am far below you. I just am trying to discuss these things openly with you, and where I see things differently than you, I am saying so. But if I ever come across haughtily, please forgive me. I'm not trying to talk down to you, or even directly across to you. Rather, I am just a student who is trying to talk with you.

Thank you,
Joseph




[Edited on 12-15-2005 by biblelighthouse]

 

[R. Scott Clark]

...are you suggesting EP as part of the RPW?

Historically it has been. For the last 150 years it has been ignored or abandoned. The principle is the principle (see HC 96). We do in worship only what God commands. The only question we ask is: what must we do. Full stop.

Does God require hymns. Perhaps. It depends on how one understands "hymns, psalms and spiritual songs...."

What troubles me is that folk act as if the PRINCIPLE has changed or they simply ignore it and act on contrary principles.

Does the clergy/laity distinction bar laymen from being able to administer a valid baptism, or from being allowed to publicly share from the Word of God? Does denying EP mean that one denies the RPW, and is therefore not Reformed? How about paedocommunion? And there are any of a number of other questions that come up in multiple discussions. There are many issues that touch on a *part* of an important doctrine (such as the doctrine of worship or of the sacraments), but still does not threaten to totally smash and overturn the entire doctrine.

It isn't as if the Reformed haven't commented on these things. If one isn't satisfied with the Reformed answer, fine, I understand but let's not pretend that we're facing in these issues dire questions about which we've never given thought and prayer.

We're not egalitarian democrats. We believe in special and general office. We believe God's Word has commissioned ministers to administer Word and Sacrament. We don't see any biblical teaching regarding lay "ministry."

Good folk can disagree about the application of the RPW, but let's not talk as if we don't know what the principle is or how it's been applied. The fact that, for the last 150 years, we've ignored the RPW doesn't validate our ignorance.

We've ALWAYS regarded paedocommunion as a confusion of initiation with renewal. Our theologians knew about it, commented on and rejected it. The fact that it's finding favor now with the ignorant or the radical means nothing about what means to be Reformed. The folk who are pushing it are not engaging seriously the Reformed tradition and arguments. Indeed, some of them anyway, are just passing through a predestinarian phase (as if that's all there is to being Reformed) to the next way point on their journey.

You talk about the "universal" testimony of the confessions, but then you admit that you don't include the 39 articles as one of them.
... Why exactly do you count the WCF and 3FU as Reformed confessions, but not the 39 articles?

The Anglican Articles are broadly Reformed but they have not been determinative for Reformed theology, piety, and practice the way the Three Forms and Westminster Standards have been.

No knowledgeable Anglican would be offended at my language. When you take the Reformation church history course with Dr Trueman, you'll learn more about this.

How about the Augsberg Confession or the Formula of Concord? Are those "Reformed" in your book? If so, then what is a truly "Reformed" view of the sacraments, for example?

It's Augsburg. These are Lutheran documents. They do not recognize us as fellow Protestants. According to the BoC we are "crafty sacramentarians" (i.e., Zwinglians) because we deny their view of the Supper.

It is not we who do not recognize them, it is the reverse. We've always regarded them, despite their affinity for the Arminians -- the confessional Lutherans defended the Arminians and accused us of being nasty and unfair toward them at Dort -- we've always regarded them as true churches. We included the Augsburg Conf in the Harmony of Reformed Confessions, despite our discomfort for Art 10 on the Supper.

We've always been more open to the Lutherans than they to us. We've always said that we held the same doctrine of justification as they - even though that has never been enough for them to accept us as fellow Protestants. They regard us as "schwermerei" (fanatics - anabaptists). Most confessional Lutherans I know think we're just degrees away from Jimmy Swaggart.

So I don't think I'm being narrow when I exclude the Lutheran confessions from the definition "Reformed." We have distinct views on perseverance, the supper, baptism, the relation of the Spirit to the sacraments and the Word, Christology etc. These are significant differences. They won't even let us commune with them! A recent LCMS textbook calls Calvin a "heretic." Have you ever visited the WELS website? They never met a Calvinist they wouldn't set on fire -- and we worship with the WELS in my hometown when we're there. I've taught in LCMS schools and lectured at LCMS conferences. I'm not a bigot. In my congregation, we commune Lutherans! I do interviews on Lutheran radio shows.

Again, I'm sure you'll cover these things in your systematics and CH classes.

Blessings,

rsc

 

[fredtgreco]

Excellent comments, Dr. Clark.

 

[NaphtaliPress]

Originally posted by fredtgreco
Excellent comments, Dr. Clark.

 

[biblelighthouse]

Originally posted by R. Scott Clark

...are you suggesting EP as part of the RPW?

Historically it has been.

Therefore, are you saying that Martin Luther was not Reformed?

Originally posted by R. Scott Clark

It isn't as if the Reformed haven't commented on these things. If one isn't satisfied with the Reformed answer, fine, I understand but let's not pretend that we're facing in these issues dire questions about which we've never given thought and prayer.

Thank you for your comments, but I wasn't so much focusing on the individual doctrinal questions I raised, as I was focusing on the fact that various questions *can* be asked, without denying the rest of Reformed theology. For example, non-ordained ministers are already allowed to preach the Word from the pulpit; if they started administering sacraments as well, that would be a minor change to Reformed theology, but it would NOT cause the pillars of the Reformation to come crashing down. It would NOT be a destruction of the foundation on which we stand. Rather, it would simply be a repair of a small corner of the foundation, or a "leveling of the foundation", if you will.

In short, my point was to suggest that man has not perfectly understood any doctrine, no matter how deeply engrained it is in the Reformed tradition. So, if Scripture convinces someone that there is a small amount of dross remaining in the silver, he should be conscience-bound to try to purge the dross.

Originally posted by R. Scott Clark

We're not egalitarian democrats. We believe in special and general office. We believe God's Word has commissioned ministers to administer Word and Sacrament. We don't see any biblical teaching regarding lay "ministry."

You don't think laymen are in view in 1 Corinthians 14:26? Regardless of what Paul means by people sharing songs or "words of instruction", the audience in that passage is not a group of ordained ministers.

Originally posted by R. Scott Clark
We've ALWAYS regarded paedocommunion as a confusion of initiation with renewal. Our theologians knew about it, commented on and rejected it. The fact that it's finding favor now with the ignorant or the radical means nothing about what means to be Reformed. The folk who are pushing it are not engaging seriously the Reformed tradition and arguments.

Vern Poythress is a professor at the same seminary as you: Westminster Theological Seminary. Are you suggesting that he is "ignorant", or that he does not "seriously" engage the Reformed tradition and arguments?

Dr. Clark, I highly respect you. But I highly respect Vern Poythress too. And I cannot believe that your colleague, at one of the premiere Reformed seminaries in the world, is either ignorant or unwilling to seriously engage the argument.

Also, with respect, I would suggest that Tim Gallant has explicitly and carefully interacted with Reformed arguments against paedocommunion. Have you read his book? If there is a Reformed argument he has not dealt with, I would like to know what it is.

Originally posted by R. Scott Clark
[re: Augsburg & F. of C.] It is not we who do not recognize them, it is the reverse. We've always regarded them

<snip>

We included the Augsburg Conf in the Harmony of Reformed Confessions, despite our discomfort for Art 10 on the Supper.

We've always been more open to the Lutherans than they to us.

<snip>

So I don't think I'm being narrow when I exclude the Lutheran confessions from the definition "Reformed."

Dr. Clark, thank you very much for your comments on Anglicanism and the 39 Articles. And thank you for the info you give about the Lutheran denominations. You provided some very good info that is quite interesting.

However, in the snippets of your quotes above, do you see what is possibly a double-standard regarding the original Lutheran confessions? On the one hand, you say that we accept them, and you even included the Augsburg in the Harmony of Reformed Confessions. But then you turn around and say that you exclude the Augsburg and F. of C. from the designation of "Reformed". So I'm really not sure where you stand regarding these confessions.

And if you reject these confessions as being "Reformed", then aren't you basically saying that Martin Luther himself was un-Reformed?

Any definition of "Reformed" that excludes one of the great Reformers sounds suspect to me. After all, if we need a word to narrow down the playing field and exclude "those Lutherans", then why not just call ourselves "Puritan"? I don't understand how any *valid* definition of the word "Reformed" can exclude Martin Luther.

But then again I may just be misunderstanding what you are saying, Dr. Clark. If I am misconstruing your words in any way, please forgive me, and please help me understand.

Thank you!

In Christ,
Joseph






[Edited on 12-16-2005 by biblelighthouse]

 

[R. Scott Clark]

Therefore, are you saying that Martin Luther was not Reformed?

Joseph,

The word "Reformed" is not endlessly elastic. We cannot stick under that tent whatever we like.

In the early 16th century, every Protestant was "Reformed," but by the 1540's "Reformed" came to denote a distinct branch of the Protestant church on the basis I mentioned earlier.

This is a basic distinction that, as I said, you will learn from Dr Trueman.

...but I wasn't so much focusing on the individual doctrinal questions I raised, as I was focusing on the fact that various questions....

Well, "Reformed" is a what is known as a "universal" (a name that describes at least two things) and as such it must have "particulars" or else it means nothing. These doctrinal distinctions are those things that make the universal "Reformed" distinct from the universal "Lutheran." The distinction between them is a reality not just a "name" or a figment.

For example, non-ordained ministers are already allowed to preach the Word from the pulpit; if they started administering sacraments as well, that would be a minor change to Reformed theology...

Actually, non-ordained folk are not allowed to preach. They're allowed to exhort. This has been discussed on other threads. It's an anomaly. It´s difficult for sem students to gain experience without exhorting, but it isn´t the official proclamation of the word. Ordination isn´t a mere figment or phantasm. It is a real recognition by the church that someone has a legitimate internal and external call, gifts, and training and is therefore rightly set aside and initiated into a sacred office.

You don't think laymen are in view in 1 Corinthians 14:26? Regardless of what Paul means by people sharing songs or "words of instruction", the audience in that passage is not a group of ordained ministers.

Fine, but it´s a non-starter. We´re not in the apostolic church. Folk had better not be getting up with "œrevelations" and speaking in foreign languages in our churches. Your passage proves too much. You have to prove that Paul intended in the post-apostolic church for ongoing Pentecostal ministry.

Vern Poythress is a professor at the same seminary as you: Westminster Theological Seminary. Are you suggesting that he is "ignorant", or that he does not "seriously" engage the Reformed tradition and arguments?

Actually WTS/PA and WSC are distinct schools. We share some history and a similar name but we have our own boards of directors etc.

I have no idea how Vern is relevant to this discussion. Vern is a NT prof. I don´t think he spends a lot of time reading 16th and 17th century Latin and English texts. That´s okay. That´s not his job.

Vern and I do theology a little differently. Vern is a multi-perspectivalist. I decidedly am not. Multi-perspectivalism leads to a sort of subjectivism that is radically opposed to the historic Reformed method.

Joseph, have you read the van Asselt essay in WTJ of a few years back? Read that, read Muller´s PRRD and get back to me about theological method.

Also, with respect, I would suggest that Tim Gallant has explicitly and carefully interacted with Reformed arguments against paedocommunion.

Jospeh, Tim´s federation found his arguments so persuasive that he´s no longer in the URC! He had opportunity to make his case and failed. Yes, I´ve read Tim´s stuff. No, not every word that flows from his busy keyboard, but enough to see that he isn´t making arguments that haven´t been made for hundreds of years.

That a fellow self-publishes a book and a website does not make his arguments valid or his claims worth attention. There are lots of self-published books to read (or not read).

When you can show me that ANY of our church orders ever permitted paedocommunion then I´ll re-consider. PC-ists and (most) baptists make the same mistake. It´s a confusion of categories. Baptism is covenant initiation and the Supper is covenant renewal. If one makes baptism into covenant renewal then the Supper withers, as it were. If one makes the Supper into covenant initiation, then a similar problem arises. These two sacraments have distinct functions. Candidates for initiation need only be born in a covenant family or need be an unbaptized adult convert. Candidates for the Supper must make credible profession.

Given our distinction between initiation and renewal, given the language of our confessions and catechisms that the Supper is for those who "œdispleased with themselves"¦" it is clear that paedocommunion is an alien understanding of the Supper.

HC 81 says:

81. Who are to come to the table of the Lord?

Those who are displeased with themselves for their sins, yet trust that these are forgiven them, and that their remaining infirmity is covered by the passion and death of Christ; who also desire more and more to strengthen their faith and to amend their life. But the impenitent and hypocrites eat and drink judgment to themselves.

It is not possible for infants to meet these conditions. The Heidelberg church order restricted the Supper to those who´ve made a credible profession of faith. PoF isn´t "œvague" as Tim says. It meant reciting the catechism verbatim! The fact that we don´t do this anymore is a shame on us but it says nothing about what happened then. Joseph, go memorize whatever catechism (Westminster Shorter or HC) your church subscribes, then come back to me about PC.

Herman Bavinck responded to Musculus´ arguments pro paedocommunion thus:

1. In the OT, there was a great difference between circumcision and Passover. Circumcision was for all children of the male gender prescribed, but Passover was "“ not immediately from the institution, but later in Palestine "“ celebrated at the temple in Jerusalem. Many young children were by that very prescription excluded.

2. Much the same, there is a great difference between baptism and Lord´s Supper. Baptism is the sacrament of regeneration, in which the recipient is passive; the Lord´s Supper is the sacrament of the maturing (opwassing) in the communion of Christ, of the nourishing of the spiritual life and assuming understanding, requiring action from those who partake.

3. Christ established the Lord´s Supper in the midst of his younger brothers and sisters, saying to them all: take, eat, drink, and understand, that they are receiving the bread and the wine from his hand. And Paul says that the congregation in Corinth came together to eat and gave no other impression that any who were not mature took part in the Lord´s Supper.

4. In 1 Cor. 11:26-29 the apostle assumes that men surely are able to examine themselves before [partaking of] the Lord´s Supper, so that they could discern the body of the Lord and not unworthily eat and drink. This assumption is entirely held in common to be directed at all participants in the Lord´s Supper, and therefore naturally excluding the children.

5. Abstention from the Lord´s Supper by the children does not cause them to miss out on a benefit of the Covenant of Grace. This would surely be the case if baptism was withheld from them, for this cannot be done by those who believe that the children are outside the Covenant of Grace. But with the Lord´s Supper, the assumption is different. Those who administer to children baptism but not the Lord´s Supper acknowledge that they are in the Covenant and are blessed with all the benefits thereof. He prevents them only a special way whereby those same benefits are signified and sealed, since these do not correspond to their age. The Lord´s Supper gives, however, no other blessing which was not already given forth by faith in the word and in baptism.

Joseph, have you read Turretin, Witsius, Wollebius, Polanus, Calvin, Bucanus, Beza, Olevianus, Ursinus, Zanchi, Owen et al? You would do much better to read the fellows who built our house before you go making radical revisions.

Before you go about re-building the Reformed house you need to take a few years, figure out some basic truths, do some serious reading in the Reformed tradition. Fellows such as TG are not reliable guides!

So I'm really not sure where you stand regarding these confessions.

Lutherans and the Reformed are both confessional Protestant churches. They are distinct Protestant churches. They have distinct, conflicting confessions. All Protestants are not, as the word has been used since the 1540's, "Reformed."

Joseph, Slow down, print out the email and read it again. Read the comments above.

Since 1540 the word "œReformed" has had a fixed meaning. Lutherans don´t consider themselves "œReformed." They would be horrified to see you try to stuff them into our locker.

With all due affection, you aren´t ready to carry on this discussion yet. These are basic historical distinctions. Pick up ANY reputable history of the Reformation and see if they include Luther among the Reformed.

I think we´ve gone [well, I can only speak for myself - I have gone] as far as we can go with this discussion.

Read some of the fellows I´ve listed above, do some historical reading and get back to me in a year or two. I´m not kidding. A year or two. I can´t and won´t teach seminary classes online.

Peace,

rsc

[Edited on 12-16-2005 by R. Scott Clark]

 

[VictorBravo]

Dr. Clark, I'm posting late on this thread because I didn't have the time to articulate all the thoughts I had on the subject, but you hit them all in a more eloquent way than I would have.

I was thinking about all the new movements in Reformed circles. I don't even want to begin to address them until I understand the faith at least as well as a well-catecized child from the 17th century. It seems unwise to try to build on (revise?) the old guys until one understand deeply what they were saying. I, for one, have a ways to go.

That's why I'm very careful about reading the new theologians. After all, I still have 12 volumes of Owen left to read, not to mention reading Calvin's Institutes again. It's hard enough getting up to what used to be the standard, without getting sidetracked on the latest new thing.

Vic

 

[Scott Bushey]

Reopened for more discussion.

 

[biblelighthouse]

Dr. Clark, thank you for all of your comments above. You give me a lot of good things to consider.


I do have a question about one of your statements in particular:

Originally posted by R. Scott Clark

Actually, non-ordained folk are not allowed to preach. They're allowed to exhort. This has been discussed on other threads. It's an anomaly. It´s difficult for sem students to gain experience without exhorting, but it isn´t the official proclamation of the word. Ordination isn´t a mere figment or phantasm. It is a real recognition by the church that someone has a legitimate internal and external call, gifts, and training and is therefore rightly set aside and initiated into a sacred office.

Thank you for this helpful post . . . Are there any articles/books/etc. you can point out which would help me understand this distinction?

When two different people teach from the pulpit, I have never considered the possibility that there could be any difference between the two. In either case, we need to carefully listen, and consider their teaching in the light of Scripture. But if you are saying that an ordained person is doing something at the pulpit that is different from what a non-ordained person does, then I am interested in hearing the Biblical argument for this. This is not an argument I have heard before.




[Edited on 12-16-2005 by biblelighthouse]

 

[biblelighthouse]

{MODERATOR:

Sacrastic post deleted. I am sorry that I thought this was a thread that could continue to be productive. I was wrong. Mr. Bushey was correct. I am reclosing this thread.}

[Edited on 12/16/2005 by fredtgreco]

 

[DTK]

Originally posted by biblelighthouse
Dr. Clark, thank you for all of your comments above. You give me a lot of good things to consider.


I do have a question about one of your statements in particular:

Originally posted by R. Scott Clark

Actually, non-ordained folk are not allowed to preach. They're allowed to exhort. This has been discussed on other threads. It's an anomaly. It´s difficult for sem students to gain experience without exhorting, but it isn´t the official proclamation of the word. Ordination isn´t a mere figment or phantasm. It is a real recognition by the church that someone has a legitimate internal and external call, gifts, and training and is therefore rightly set aside and initiated into a sacred office.

Thank you for this helpful post . . . Are there any articles/books/etc. you can point out which would help me understand this distinction?

When two different people teach from the pulpit, I have never considered the possibility that there could be any difference between the two. In either case, we need to carefully listen, and consider their teaching in the light of Scripture. But if you are saying that an ordained person is doing something at the pulpit that is different from what a non-ordained person does, then I am interested in hearing the Biblical argument for this. This is not an argument I have heard before.

Far be it from me to answer for Dr. Clark, but only to note that this has come to be a classic distinction in Reformed ecclesiology. I was first confronted with it years ago in seminary at RTS Jackson when, while preaching in chapel, Dr. John R. de Witt called attention to this distinction in a very striking way, as I recall. But the gift of exhortation (Romans 12:8) does seem to be distinguished as a gift apart from the ordained ministry, whereas earlier in Chapter 10 Paul argues, And how shall they preach unless they are sent?, i.e., how shall they preach unless such a one is duly set apart and commissioned by the church, i.e., by way of the process of ordination.

DTK