# PCA and Confessional Subscription



## Me Died Blue

Scott Bushey said:


> Do I really need to spell it out? This is no more than an assertion: The PCA is divided right now on the federal Vision issue. In time, there will be a split over this. A number of the body will head south over this. As well, a section of PCA churches are no longer reformed at all. The confession is no more than a piece of paper. Worship has digressed to the point that even woman are reading scripture from the pulpits. Music being used in the worship services has gone from the psalms & hymns, to contemporary everyday music. It is not difficult to see that in a generation or two the organization itself will no longer function under the auspices of biblical Calvinism.



While I don't want to take the thread on a new track as a whole, I at least felt the need to say something from the "other side" regarding your suggestions, Scott. Respectfully, I would submit that they represent an immense oversimplification of the state the PCA as a whole is actually in right now. Regarding women reading Scripture from the pulpits - if the fact that a very small minority of PCA congregations are practicing it means that the denomination is on the decline as a whole, then by the same logic I think the RPCNA would have gone broad evangelical long ago with their female deacons. But they have not.

Also, regarding the Federal Vision, right now more than ever there are some very good signs regarding the way with which it will be dealt. The study committee is promising, and in many ways even more importantly, the recent documents from the Standing Judicial Commission on Steve Wilkins' case with Louisiana Presbytery point in a similar direction. As Fred explained much better in the thread on that issue, that suggests good things not only about the _doctrinal_ direction of the PCA, but about her _ecclesiology_ as well, in that the GA is still willing to truly exercise its authority even when that means critically and directly confronting significant decisions of lower courts. Even from the times of the formation of the ecumenical creeds, false teachings in the church have never been dealt with in a heartbeat, but have always required the analysis and deliberation of councils, synods and assemblies through due process over a period of time; and that is exactly what is going on surrounding the Federal Vision in the PCA at this time.


----------



## Scott Bushey

Me Died Blue said:


> While I don't want to take the thread on a new track as a whole, I at least felt the need to say something from the "other side" regarding your suggestions, Scott. Respectfully, I would submit that they represent an immense oversimplification of the state the PCA as a whole is actually in right now.



OK



Me Died Blue said:


> Regarding women reading Scripture from the pulpits - if the fact that a very small minority of PCA congregations are practicing it means that the denomination is on the decline as a whole, then by the same logic I think the RPCNA would have gone broad evangelical long ago with their female deacons. But they have not.



I am speaking a few generations down the line.........



Me Died Blue said:


> Also, regarding the Federal Vision, right now more than ever there are some very good signs regarding the way with which it will be dealt. The study committee is promising, and in many ways even more importantly, the recent documents from the Standing Judicial Commission on Steve Wilkins' case with Louisiana Presbytery point in a similar direction. As Fred explained much better in the thread on that issue, that suggests good things not only about the _doctrinal_ direction of the PCA, but about her _ecclesiology_ as well, in that the GA is still willing to truly exercise its authority even when that means critically and directly confronting significant decisions of lower courts. Even from the times of the formation of the ecumenical creeds, false teachings in the church have never been dealt with in a heartbeat, but have always required the analysis and deliberation of councils, synods and assemblies through due process over a period of time; and that is exactly what is going on surrounding the Federal Vision in the PCA at this time.



That may be true however, what will eventually happen is even if the PCA finds Wilkins et. al. guilty, the bottom will fall out and all the FV guys will leave their respective churches for the FVA (Federal Vision of America)


----------



## Me Died Blue

Scott Bushey said:


> I am speaking a few generations down the line.........



Continuing the analogy, the RPCNA has allowed deaconesses since 1888.



Scott Bushey said:


> That may be true however, what will eventually happen is even if the PCA finds Wilkins et. al. guilty, the bottom will fall out and all the FV guys will leave their respective churches for the FVA (Federal Vision of America)



Though I do not personally have as much firsthand familiarity with numerous pastors and elders across the nation, the firsthand knowledge and more widespread network connections of the majority of PCA pastors and elders I _do_ know (in Memphis, in Cincinnati and on the board) seem to indicate that the world of blogdom gives the doctrines associated with the FV movement (and thus the movement as a whole) much more vocal and widespread influence than what they actually have in terms of numerical influence in the churches.


----------



## Scott Bushey

Me Died Blue said:


> Continuing the analogy, the RPCNA has allowed deaconesses since 1888.



OK. Has the RPCNA allowed for as much _evangelical_ infiltration that the PCA has? For instance, in the lobby of one PCA church I found:

1) A rack for Good News Magazines; Published by Calvary Chapel
2) Books by Ann Graham Lotts, Tim Lehaye etc.
3) The leadership I spoke to said that they were involved w/ some ministries that were directly affiliated w/ CC.



> Though I do not personally have as much firsthand familiarity with numerous pastors and elders across the nation, the firsthand knowledge and more widespread network connections of the majority of PCA pastors and elders I _do_ know (in Memphis, in Cincinnati and on the board) seem to indicate that the world of blogdom gives the doctrines associated with the FV movement (and thus the movement as a whole) much more vocal and widespread influence than what they actually have in terms of numerical influence in the churches.



This may be true; I don't know. I bet the numbers are larger than you or I am aware of.


----------



## Theoretical

Scott Bushey said:


> OK
> 
> That may be true however, what will eventually happen is even if the PCA finds Wilkins et. al. guilty, the bottom will fall out and all the FV guys will leave their respective churches for the FVA (Federal Vision of America)



There is one important point in this statement I'd like to address. The PCA has many problems, but the anti-FV actions taken by the SJC might just be a turning point where the denomination can be revitalized. If the adherents of this particular scourge of liberalism and neo-Romanism ends up leaving the denomination (instead of having the orthodox remnant leave, a la PCUS-->OPC). The FV controversy is such a serious battle in the PCA, precisely because if the heresy can be killed in the big conservative Presbyterian denomination, then it will likely lead to similar manueverings in the OPC - or that body's FVers would join CREC or whatever's formed up in the aftermath.

A successful move to expel all FV officers from the Church (including perhaps even a heresy determination), might well lead to a healthy re-evaluation and counterstrike to the creep of liberalism. There is hope for the PCA...that's why one can still serve quite well as a Reformed Chirstian in the PCA, but has no business being in the PCUSA. I'd say with FV the breaking point is when FV becomes an officially and ecclesiastically tolerated view throughout the denomination, especially since it is so subversive to the Gospel and WCF.

On a side note, I too have noticed the broadly evangelical worship songs in my church's liturgy, and it does sadden me as to how theologically barren they are. Not getting into the EP/Non-EP argument, I think it is possible for modern hymns to be written that would be completely fine in a worship setting (from a hymondy perspective) and be every bit as theologically substantive as some of the great hymns. The biggest flaw I see in a lot of instrumental worship choices is the utter banality of so much of the music - there is nothing stirring or inspiring about much of it - it is about as inspiring as bad elevator music most of the time.

The increasing rise of superficial (as described above) contemporary worship (especialy in an emerging church context), and paedocommunion do worry me quite seriously, because both are seriously corrosive flaws that badly weaken the next generation of church members. Some errors can be only minimally damaging to the present adult generation; yet, they can be horribly destructive to the children of believers due to the consequences of these errors.

Perhaps God will be gracious to raise up some new churchmen in the PCA to allow it to return to a stronger theological foundation and more sound pattern of church conduct.


----------



## dannyhyde

Knowing men in the PCA across the country, it seems to me that it is a mixed bag or a big tent, which ever metaphor makes the case best.

In San Diego, there is not one confessional PCA that I know of. If there is one, I will stand corrected.

Here is a link to a "network" of PCA's in San Diego, which seems to utilize an Episcopal government and which worships with the Doobie Brothers' songs and invites women to speak as part of the sermon...http://www.sdreader.com/published/2006-02-23/sheep.html


----------



## Me Died Blue

I am not denying there are indeed more contemporary and loose subscription churches in the PCA than I (and many others) would prefer. I don't believe there to be a problem with contemporary style worship _per se_ or exceptions to the confession _per se_ - as long as the content, the elements and the substance (respectively) are not added to or sacrificed. And I fully grant that the contemporary style and the type and amount of confessional subscription has been taken too far in many cases. But broadly speaking, that being taken to a dangerously unbiblical and imbalanced level is certainly the exception rather than the norm. As such, it is an unjustified leap to draw from it the assumption that the denomination is going to end up being more broad evangelical than Reformed.



Scott Bushey said:


> OK. Has the RPCNA allowed for as much _evangelical_ infiltration that the PCA has? For instance, in the lobby of one PCA church I found:
> 
> 1) A rack for Good News Magazines; Published by Calvary Chapel
> 2) Books by Ann Graham Lotts, Tim Lehaye etc.
> 3) The leadership I spoke to said that they were involved w/ some ministries that were directly affiliated w/ CC.



Likewise, examples like this say _even less_ about the PCA as a whole than do the issues like contemporary worship and confessional subscription. Why? Because compared with those issues, materials like this being promoted are even much more of a rarity, absolutely being the great exception rather than the norm.



dannyhyde said:


> In San Diego, there is not one confessional PCA that I know of. If there is one, I will stand corrected.



What about New Life PCA in Escondido? I know Dr. Dennis Johnson is an Associate Pastor there.


----------



## elnwood

New Life Presbyterian Church of La Mesa is an excellent church. They recently switched from OPC to PCA. I know their pastor, and he is an excellent, faithful Reformed pastor. I also know many of their members.



dannyhyde said:


> Knowing men in the PCA across the country, it seems to me that it is a mixed bag or a big tent, which ever metaphor makes the case best.
> 
> In San Diego, there is not one confessional PCA that I know of. If there is one, I will stand corrected.
> 
> Here is a link to a "network" of PCA's in San Diego, which seems to utilize an Episcopal government and which worships with the Doobie Brothers' songs and invites women to speak as part of the sermon...http://www.sdreader.com/published/2006-02-23/sheep.html


----------



## Semper Fidelis

elnwood said:


> New Life Presbyterian Church of La Mesa is an excellent church. They recently switched from OPC to PCA. I know their pastor, and he is an excellent, faithful Reformed pastor. I also know many of their members.



I know a bit about that Church and the circumstances behind the move to the PCA. I would not be using that Church as an example of Reformed orthodoxy. The Pastor was disciplined for his views on Charismatic gifts. He could have continued in the OPC following his discipline but decided, with the Session, to leave.


----------



## Scott Bushey

SemperFideles said:


> I know a bit about that Church and the circumstances behind the move to the PCA. I would not be using that Church as an example of Reformed orthodoxy. The Pastor was disciplined for his views on Charismatic gifts. He could have continued in the OPC following his discipline but decided, with the Session, to leave.



and now he sits where? In the PCA.


----------



## elnwood

SemperFideles said:


> I know a bit about that Church and the circumstances behind the move to the PCA. I would not be using that Church as an example of Reformed orthodoxy. The Pastor was disciplined for his views on Charismatic gifts. He could have continued in the OPC following his discipline but decided, with the Session, to leave.



I believe you are correct, but that is not the pastor I was thinking of. That pastor has since retired. I think we are using different views of confessional then because they would still consider themselves confessional. I do not know the details of that situation, but I don't think all non-cessationalist views are anti-confessional, i.e. deny the sufficiency of scripture.

New Life Mission Church of La Jolla is PCA also, and I believe they are confessional as well.


----------



## reformedman

I came from a fundamental baptist church, another name for modern-calvinism or 4pointers or actually armenian when you splithairs on each of the points(except the last). The pastor allowed for babydedications and had perhaps 1 or 2 per year of families that went along with it(about 100 members in this church). He would very carefully and always, point out that this in no way was a dedication of the child, but instead was a dedication of the parent. It was a sort of public oath or promise that the parents would make commending themselves to the very serious task of raising up the child in the way it should go. Vows were made and prayers by the pastor and then silent prayer by the congregation. The parents and child would then go back to their seats. 
I just wanted to add my  about how some churches define baby dedication. It would have been better termed parent dedication but since the the main subject is the recent birth of the child and the focus was on the child's upbringing, I guess that's why they called it that.

As far as the PCA thing, I have a PCA 2 blocks away in which I sent my 2 oldest for pre-k. The pastor or pastoress or whatever you call lady pastors was very nice as she introduced herself. I didn't get much of what she said cause I was too busy picking up my jaw from the floor as this was the first time I ever saw a lady pastor face to face. 
Their music and ethic seem to be contemporary from what I saw in the classroom decoration and the music in the background. That gave me a bad taste in my mouth whenever I hear the title, "PCA Church". Only by this forum have I come to understand that not all PCA churches are this way.

Back to the topic, I am in a reformed baptist church and nope, no baby dedications being done there.

my 2 cents


----------



## Kevin

Are you sure it was a PCA church with a woman pastor? Perhaps PCUSA?


----------



## Me Died Blue

elnwood said:


> I believe you are correct, but that is not the pastor I was thinking of. That pastor has since retired. I think we are using different views of confessional then because they would still consider themselves confessional. I do not know the details of that situation, but I don't think all non-cessationalist views are anti-confessional, i.e. deny the sufficiency of scripture.
> 
> New Life Mission Church of La Jolla is PCA also, and I believe they are confessional as well.



I am optimistic about the PCA as a whole, but such views _are_ indeed anti-confessional by historic and current Presbyterian standards. The Westminster Confession (and likewise the 1689 LBC) does not only speak about Scriptural sufficiency (thus implicitly espousing cessationism), but explicitly asserts the cessationist view as well:



> Therefore it pleased the Lord...to commit the same wholly unto writing...those former ways of God's revealing His will unto His people being now ceased.



As such, I would have to agree with those who call any church unconfessional, PCA or not, which in any way practices or endorses charismatic views of revelation.



Kevin said:


> Are you sure it was a PCA church with a woman pastor? Perhaps PCUSA?



I would assume it was indeed PCUSA. No PCA church would be allowed to ordain a female pastor (or ruling elder; or even deacon officially), and I'm pretty sure there are representatives from Presbytery at all ordinations - so it could only be a PCA church if the situation and the actual ordination were unknown to the other members of the Presbytery outside the local session, which would be an unspeakably extraordinary and covered-up situation; so much so, that it essentially would never happen.


----------



## elnwood

Me Died Blue said:


> I am optimistic about the PCA as a whole, but such views _are_ indeed anti-confessional by historic and current Presbyterian standards. The Westminster Confession (and likewise the 1689 LBC) does not only speak about Scriptural sufficiency (thus implicitly espousing cessationism), but explicitly asserts the cessationist view as well:



I would agree that the confession excludes future revelation through prophecy. I do not know if that pastor taught that. But what about praying in tongues? Is that against the Westminster Standards? That is a non-cessationist view, and yet I don't think it bears upon the question of continuing revelation.


----------



## Me Died Blue

elnwood said:


> I would agree that the confession excludes future revelation through prophecy. I do not know if that pastor taught that. But what about praying in tongues? Is that against the Westminster Standards? That is a non-cessationist view, and yet I don't think it bears upon the question of continuing revelation.



The confessional problem for that view is that the phrase "those former ways," in pointing back to the earlier part of section one, is not simply referring to the most basic, bare and plain form of "prophecy," but rather to _all_ of those things through which God chose "at sundry times, and in divers manner, to reveal Himself, and to declare that His will unto His Church." The "divers manner" phrase is what makes it especially clear that the divines did not simply have one specific form in mind when speaking of revelation.

Also, the belief in "private tongues prayer" asserted by contemporary charismatics is essentially a new formulation of the day, as the historic Protestant churches (even beyond the Reformed churches) have until recently always viewed tongues as simply being another form of prophecy, with equal revelatory precision and authority. Furthermore, even the contemporary charismatic churches that hold to a private as well as partially subjective and imperfect element to tongues (and even prophecy as well) nonetheless hold them to still be more than simply the plain thoughts, sayings and prayers of men, and as such believe them to possess a certain revelatory element by the Spirit.

The absolute best contemporary work I could recommend on this issue (continuing revelation, and the nature of prophecy and tongues in relation to it) is O. Palmer Robertson's _The Final Word_. It is only 135 _very_ small pages, but is _packed_ with masterful exegesis and clear explanations of the ramifications of that exegesis for the issues at hand.


----------



## CDM

elnwood said:


> I believe you are correct, but that is not the pastor I was thinking of. That pastor has since retired. I think *we are using different views of confessional then because they would still consider themselves confessional.* I do not know the details of that situation, but I don't think all non-cessationalist views are anti-confessional, i.e. deny the sufficiency of scripture.
> 
> New Life Mission Church of La Jolla is PCA also, and I believe they are confessional as well.



Yeah, my 4 year old son considers himself to be Superman too.


----------



## elnwood

Me Died Blue said:


> The confessional problem for that view is that the phrase "those former ways," in pointing back to the earlier part of section one, is not simply referring to the most basic, bare and plain form of "prophecy," but rather to _all_ of those things through which God chose "at sundry times, and in divers manner, to reveal Himself, and to declare that His will unto His Church." The "divers manner" phrase is what makes it especially clear that the divines did not simply have one specific form in mind when speaking of revelation.
> 
> Also, the belief in "private tongues prayer" asserted by contemporary charismatics is essentially a new formulation of the day, as the historic Protestant churches (even beyond the Reformed churches) have until recently always viewed tongues as simply being another form of prophecy, with equal revelatory precision and authority. Furthermore, even the contemporary charismatic churches that hold to a private as well as partially subjective and imperfect element to tongues (and even prophecy as well) nonetheless hold them to still be more than simply the plain thoughts, sayings and prayers of men, and as such believe them to possess a certain revelatory element by the Spirit.
> 
> The absolute best contemporary work I could recommend on this issue (continuing revelation, and the nature of prophecy and tongues in relation to it) is O. Palmer Robertson's _The Final Word_. It is only 135 _very_ small pages, but is _packed_ with masterful exegesis and clear explanations of the ramifications of that exegesis for the issues at hand.



Hmmm. I don't know Chris. It sounds like you're telling the personal-prayer-language believers, "You may think that your tongues are not receiving revelation, but the bible and the historic church says tongues are prophetic, which is against the confession." I definitely know people who believe in closed-canon, no further revelation from God, but for whatever reason feel spiritually enriched by talking to God in what I consider jibberish. The jibberish is not being interpreted. I don't see how that view affects their view of revelation, because they're not receiving any.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

elnwood said:


> I believe you are correct, but that is not the pastor I was thinking of. That pastor has since retired. I think we are using different views of confessional then because they would still consider themselves confessional. I do not know the details of that situation, but I don't think all non-cessationalist views are anti-confessional, i.e. deny the sufficiency of scripture.
> 
> New Life Mission Church of La Jolla is PCA also, and I believe they are confessional as well.



If they have a new Pastor then I'm not aware of that change. If anything Malladin was probably more of a moderating influence in that Church. It was the Church membership that wanted to leave the OPC to be more free to pursue their desires with respect to worship.

I think Dr. Clark says it best when he says there is more to being Reformed than believing in predestination.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

elnwood said:


> Hmmm. I don't know Chris. It sounds like you're telling the personal-prayer-language believers, "You may think that your tongues are not receiving revelation, but the bible and the historic church says tongues are prophetic, which is against the confession." I definitely know people who believe in closed-canon, no further revelation from God, but for whatever reason feel spiritually enriched by talking to God in what I consider jibberish. The jibberish is not being interpreted. I don't see how that view affects their view of revelation, because they're not receiving any.



You really ought to listen to your Pastor's interview with Dr. R. Scott Clark about a week ago. This is precisely the kind of "navel-gazing, I determine whether I can call myself Reformed" heterodoxy that he is talking about in the interview with Pastor Gene. If you understand where Dr. Clark is coming from then you'll understand where we're coming from.


----------



## elnwood

SemperFideles said:


> You really ought to listen to your Pastor's interview with Dr. R. Scott Clark about a week ago. This is precisely the kind of "navel-gazing, I determine whether I can call myself Reformed" heterodoxy that he is talking about in the interview with Pastor Gene. If you understand where Dr. Clark is coming from then you'll understand where we're coming from.



I listened to part of it. I know where Dr. Clark is coming from. The funny thing is Dr. Clark would not consider Pastor Gene to be Reformed.

The question, then, is what do we use to determine whether someone is Reformed? It can quite easily turn from "I determine whether I can call myself Reformed" to "I determine whether other people are Reformed." We need an objective standard.

Full-subscription to the Westminster Standards (or the Three Forms of Unity, or the London Confession, or the Philadelphia Confession) is probably as good a standard as any. As for private prayer languages, I don't think you can point to a place in the Westminster Standards where the private-prayer-language person says, yes, I disagree with the Standards. And then it becomes "my interpretation vs. your interpretation" of the standards.


----------



## Me Died Blue

elnwood said:


> Hmmm. I don't know Chris. It sounds like you're telling the personal-prayer-language believers, "You may think that your tongues are not receiving revelation, but the bible and the historic church says tongues are prophetic, which is against the confession." I definitely know people who believe in closed-canon, no further revelation from God, but for whatever reason feel spiritually enriched by talking to God in what I consider jibberish. The jibberish is not being interpreted. I don't see how that view affects their view of revelation, because they're not receiving any.



As Rich noted, views such as that are unconfessional no matter which angle one looks at them, and if one aspect of a different version of them is confessional, chances are another aspect of that new version is unconfessional. That is just what it is in this case: If people want to say their praying with tongues is not unconfessional with respect to, say, revelation (by saying they don't view the tongues as revelation), their praying is then unconfessional for another reason, namely that the confession sees tongues precisely as a form of revelation. (And authorial intent is key, otherwise anyone could just read any meaning they want into any and all wording used by the divines, e.g. FV today; and with respect to this issue, that the framers certainly understood tongues by definition to always be a part of the "divers manner" of revelation is clear from their other works of the time.) Either way, their view on tongues is unconfessional, be it either because they believe in continuing revelation or else because they believe tongues are not revelatory.

Dr. Clark's interview is indeed very good as well.


----------



## elnwood

As a further illustration, The Reformed Presbyterian Church in the United States believes that full subscription to the Westminster Standards involves both theonomy and postmillennialism.

http://www.rpcus.com/?id=RPCUS_Distinctives

And, of course, the RPCNA believes that full subscription to the Westminster Standards involves exclusive Psalter.

So even by the Westminster Standards, it is ambiguous whether an amillennialist who denies exclusive Psalter is Reformed.


----------



## elnwood

Me Died Blue said:


> As Rich noted, views such as that are unconfessional no matter which angle one looks at them, and if one aspect of a different version of them is confessional, chances are another aspect of that new version is unconfessional. That is just what it is in this case: If people want to say their praying with tongues is not unconfessional with respect to, say, revelation (by saying they don't view the tongues as revelation), their praying is then unconfessional for another reason, namely that the confession sees tongues precisely as a form of revelation. (And authorial intent is key, otherwise anyone could just read any meaning they want into any and all wording used by the divines, e.g. FV today; and with respect to this issue, that the framers certainly understood tongues by definition to always be a part of the "divers manner" of revelation is clear from their other works of the time.) Either way, their view on tongues is unconfessional, be it either because they believe in continuing revelation or else because they believe tongues are not revelatory.
> 
> Dr. Clark's interview is indeed very good as well.



I just found that the WCF in XXI.III that "prayer ... is to be ... if vocal, in a known tongue." Case closed.


----------



## elnwood

armourbearer said:


> WCF 21:3, "if vocal, in a known tongue."



Beat me to it! Nice job. Thank you!


----------



## Semper Fidelis

elnwood said:


> I listened to part of it. I know where Dr. Clark is coming from. The funny thing is Dr. Clark would not consider Pastor Gene to be Reformed.
> 
> The question, then, is what do we use to determine whether someone is Reformed? It can quite easily turn from "I determine whether I can call myself Reformed" to "I determine whether other people are Reformed." We need an objective standard.
> 
> Full-subscription to the Westminster Standards (or the Three Forms of Unity, or the London Confession, or the Philadelphia Confession) is probably as good a standard as any. As for private prayer languages, I don't think you can point to a place in the Westminster Standards where the private-prayer-language person says, yes, I disagree with the Standards. And then it becomes "my interpretation vs. your interpretation" of the standards.


I'm glad you found the portion that dealt with it. You seem to have missed what Dr. Clark was saying. It's not a matter of whether Dr. Clark would consider Pastor Gene Reformed, it is whether the Confession he subscribes to does. Understand the difference? The Westminster Standards and the Three Forms of Unity are very much aligned doctrinally.

It's quite like a person calling themselves Lutheran who agrees with Luther's formulatation of the freedom of the will but would call the Lord's Supper a bare sign. If we allow each individual to define terms and say "I'm a Reformed Presbyterian" then the term ceases to have meaning.


----------



## elnwood

SemperFideles said:


> I'm glad you found the portion that dealt with it. You seem to have missed what Dr. Clark was saying. It's not a matter of whether Dr. Clark would consider Pastor Gene Reformed, it is whether the Confession he subscribes to does. Understand the difference? The Westminster Standards and the Three Forms of Unity are very much aligned doctrinally.
> 
> It's quite like a person calling themselves Lutheran who agrees with Luther's formulatation of the freedom of the will but would call the Lord's Supper a bare sign. If we allow each individual to define terms and say "I'm a Reformed Presbyterian" then the term ceases to have meaning.



I know what you're saying, Rich. Dr. Clark would say a Baptist is not reformed because he does not subscribe to the Three Forms of Unity. That makes sense.

Although I know some confessional Presbyterians who would not subscribe to all of the Three Forms of Unity, and John Calvin would not subscribe to the Westminster Standards because he was not Sabbatarian. Do Presbyterians define "Reformed" by the Westminster Standards? If so, it seems weird to define Reformed such that Luther, Calvin and Zwingli were not Reformed. But I'd be willing to accept the Dutch Reformed definition and say I'm not strictly Reformed.

As an additional historical note on the private prayer language, for whatever reason, the Savoy Declaration modified that section from "if vocal, in a known language" to "if with others, in a known language." The Second London Baptist Confession follows the Savoy in this change.

I'm not sure what to make of this, but because the changes to the WCF were very deliberate, I would speculate that private prayer language (not prophetic tongues in the assembly, which were forbidden) must have been a debated issue at the time, and that the English Congregationalists, and the Particular Baptists following them, must have considered this a secondary issue where the Presbyterians did not.


----------



## reformedman

Kevin said:


> Are you sure it was a PCA church with a woman pastor? Perhaps PCUSA?



You're right, I just researched to find out, it is pcusa. I wish there were a comparison chart so I could get all these denominations in order by what they believe.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

elnwood said:


> I know what you're saying, Rich. Dr. Clark would say a Baptist is not reformed because he does not subscribe to the Three Forms of Unity. That makes sense.
> 
> Although I know some confessional Presbyterians who would not subscribe to all of the Three Forms of Unity, and John Calvin would not subscribe to the Westminster Standards because he was not Sabbatarian. Do Presbyterians define "Reformed" by the Westminster Standards? If so, it seems weird to define Reformed such that Luther, Calvin and Zwingli were not Reformed. But I'd be willing to accept the Dutch Reformed definition and say I'm not strictly Reformed.
> 
> As an additional historical note on the private prayer language, for whatever reason, the Savoy Declaration modified that section from "if vocal, in a known language" to "if with others, in a known language." The Second London Baptist Confession follows the Savoy in this change.
> 
> I'm not sure what to make of this, but because the changes to the WCF were very deliberate, I would speculate that private prayer language (not prophetic tongues in the assembly, which were forbidden) must have been a debated issue at the time, and that the English Congregationalists, and the Particular Baptists following them, must have considered this a secondary issue where the Presbyterians did not.


Calvin was certainly a Sabbatarian though there is some debate about how strict he was compared to the WCF divines.

Regarding debates in the WCF assembly over the portion that deals with praying in a known tongue, the best person to weigh in for that is NaphtaliPress (Chris Coldwell). I'm going to split this thread off because it is WAY off topic.


----------



## Civbert

reformedman said:


> You're right, I just researched to find out, it is pcusa. I wish there were a comparison chart so I could get all these denominations in order by what they believe.


----------



## NaphtaliPress

Not debated as far as I know. The modern idea of private prayer language was non existent at the time of the Westminster Assembly as far as I know. Most if not all of them would see the other tongues in the NT as other "known languages" where the miracle was the person speaking it did not have to learn it. The other tongues were not nonsense syllables. No time to check facts on this. Sorry. But this was certainly Lightfoot's opinion as I recall. Now, extraordinary providences (so called prophecies of the Reformers and others), that is another subject!
Oh, and who knows what Calvin would have thought of Puritan Sabbatarianism. But keep an eye out for the 2007 issue of _The Confessional Presbyterian_ that gives some clues toward he might have been in much agreement!


SemperFideles said:


> Calvin was certainly a Sabbatarian though there is some debate about how strict he was compared to the WCF divines.
> 
> Regarding debates in the WCF assembly over the portion that deals with praying in a known tongue, the best person to weigh in for that is NaphtaliPress (Chris Coldwell). I'm going to split this thread off because it is WAY off topic.


----------



## elnwood

NaphtaliPress said:


> Not debated as far as I know. The modern idea of private prayer language was non existent at the time of the Westminster Assembly as far as I know. Most if not all of them would see the other tongues in the NT as other "known languages" where the miracle was the person speaking it did not have to learn it. The other tongues were not nonsense syllables. No time to check facts on this. Sorry. But this was certainly Lightfoot's opinion as I recall. Now, extraordinary providences (so called prophecies of the Reformers and others), that is another subject!
> Oh, and who knows what Calvin would have thought of Puritan Sabbatarianism. But keep an eye out for the 2007 issue of _The Confessional Presbyterian_ that gives some clues toward he might have been in much agreement!



It would be nice to see the notes of the signers of the Savoy Declaration to see why they changed the wording. If it weren't changed to allow private prayer language, I don't know why it would have. Would anyone else like to hazard a guess?

As for Calvin, I think he was clearly NOT Sabbatarian. He addresses it in Chapter VIII of the Institutes, Section 28 through 34. Sec. 31: "But there is no doubt that by the Lord Christ's coming the ceremonial part of this commandment was abolished." Sec. 32: "Although the Sabbath has been abrogated ..." Sec. 33: "Yet Paul teaches that no one ought to pass judgment on Christians over the observance of this day, for it is only 'a shadow of what is to come' [Col. 2:17]. For this reason, he fears that he 'labored in vain' among the Galatians because they still 'observed the days' [Gal. 4:10-11]. And he declares to the Romans that it is superstitious for anyone to distinguish one day from another [Rom. 14:5]. Who but madmen cannot see what observance the apostle means?" I don't want to quote the whole section, but it is worth your perusal.

And if it isn't made clear enough, the footnote in the John McNeill edition says: "It is clear from this passage and from sec. 34 that for Calvin the Christian Sunday is not, as in the Westminster Confession XXI. 8, a simple continuation of the Jewish Sabbath 'changed into the first day of the week,' but a distinctively Christian institution adopted on the abrogation of the former one, as a means of church order and spiritual health."

There is no ambiguity. Calvin was not Sabbatarian.


----------



## NaphtaliPress

Well, that is the point of the article to prove in two aspects that Calvin was a proto Sabbatarian in those respects, contrary to prior opinion. The article was vetted through some pretty heavy Calvin scholars. I look forward to the reaction it gets. It has already been established for some decades, since the work of Primus, that Calvin was a practical Sabbatarian in that he believed all work and all recreation should cease on the Lord's day and the day spent in worship. This article advances beyond that to show that in two respects of Puritan Sabbatarianism (contra Primus), Calvin's theology and his practice are reconcilable, and thus he is a nascent Sabbatarian. 


elnwood said:


> As for Calvin, I think he was clearly NOT Sabbatarian. He addresses it in Chapter VIII of the Institutes, Section 28 through 34. Sec. 31: "But there is no doubt that by the Lord Christ's coming the ceremonial part of this commandment was abolished." Sec. 32: "Although the Sabbath has been abrogated ..." Sec. 33: "Yet Paul teaches that no one ought to pass judgment on Christians over the observance of this day, for it is only 'a shadow of what is to come' [Col. 2:17]. For this reason, he fears that he 'labored in vain' among the Galatians because they still 'observed the days' [Gal. 4:10-11]. And he declares to the Romans that it is superstitious for anyone to distinguish one day from another [Rom. 14:5]. Who but madmen cannot see what observance the apostle means?" I don't want to quote the whole section, but it is worth your perusal.
> 
> And if it isn't made clear enough, the footnote in the John McNeill edition says: "It is clear from this passage and from sec. 34 that for Calvin the Christian Sunday is not, as in the Westminster Confession XXI. 8, a simple continuation of the Jewish Sabbath 'changed into the first day of the week,' but a distinctively Christian institution adopted on the abrogation of the former one, as a means of church order and spiritual health."
> 
> There is no ambiguity. Calvin was not Sabbatarian.


----------



## NaphtaliPress

I don't know either; but if you cannot find a single member of the body that made the change that held to such a position in their private works, nor evidence the position existed at the time, it would seem a rather tenous proposition. But that would be what is needed; examine the works of the period from the authors of the Savoy.


elnwood said:


> It would be nice to see the notes of the signers of the Savoy Declaration to see why they changed the wording. If it weren't changed to allow private prayer language, I don't know why it would have. Would anyone else like to hazard a guess?


----------



## R. Scott Clark

Danny and I don't entirely agree on this. I think perhaps it would be more accurate to say that there aren't many _confessionalist_ PCA congregations, but I'm not ready to say that there are not confessional PCA congregations in SD. 

To say that a congregation is not "confessional" is to say that it's not Reformed. That's a serious judgment. 

It's probably true that a number of the congregations may not order their services according to the historic understanding of the RPW. If, on that account a congregation is deemed wholly unconfessional, then a fair number of URC's are unconfessional. I don't know of any URC congregations which worship with complete consistency to the RPW as understood historically. So it's a continuum. On one end of the sub-confessional worship continuum there are "conservative" hymn-singing, piano/organ-playing congregations, and on the other end there are ditty-singing, piano/guitar-playing congregations. 

Nevertheless, it is true that, of all the NAPARC denominations/federations, the PCA most closely reflects American evangelicalism/revivalism. That makes them an easy and fair target of criticism on that account, but my own federation (URCNA), if not _as heavily_ influenced by revivalism (QIRE), is infected with a considerable amount of fundamentalism or the QIRC relative to science and politics/culture. 

I'm not sure it's fair to the San Diego PCA's to do a congregation by congregation analysis of who's "confessional" and who isn't. Mentioning congregations is invidious especially when they are not here to defend themselves. I can think of three congregations in this county that could be fairly described as "confessional" or even "confessionalist." 

I think the bigger and more appropriate question is why are we having this discussion? Why have we come to the place where we can distinguish between "confessional" and "non-confessional" congregations? It's because, as I've already suggested here, nearly all of us, conservatives and progressives, are selectively confessional. 

Am I happy about Reformed congregations adopting quasi-pentecostal views and practices and fiddling with extra-canonical revelation? Not at all! These, however, are just symptoms of a more profound illness. Why do folk think that they can call themselves Reformed and challenge Reformed theology, piety, and practice at such a profound level? It's because we've too long allowed ourselves to be defined by one doctrine! In fact, we have a _theology_ (which is more than one doctrine), a _piety_ (we don't need to borrow from the Pentecostals, the papists -- or even the Anglicans if the Westminster Directory for Public Worship is to be believed), and a practice (we have a way of living and relating nature and grace that is distinct from other traditions; we are sabbath keeping, two-kingdoms holding, two-service holding people).

rsc

ps. re: whether Baptists are Reformed strictly defined. I wouldn't say that folk are not Reformed for not holding the Three Forms or else I should have to say that nearly all Presbyterians are not Reformed! The line has to be the Westm. Standards or the Three Forms or the Second Helvetic or the Scots Confession (1560) or another of the historic Reformed (paedobapist) confessions. 



dannyhyde said:


> Knowing men in the PCA across the country, it seems to me that it is a mixed bag or a big tent, which ever metaphor makes the case best.
> 
> In San Diego, there is not one confessional PCA that I know of. If there is one, I will stand corrected.
> 
> Here is a link to a "network" of PCA's in San Diego, which seems to utilize an Episcopal government and which worships with the Doobie Brothers' songs and invites women to speak as part of the sermon...http://www.sdreader.com/published/2006-02-23/sheep.html


----------



## elnwood

NaphtaliPress said:


> Well, that is the point of the article to prove in two aspects that Calvin was a proto Sabbatarian in those respects, contrary to prior opinion. The article was vetted through some pretty heavy Calvin scholars. I look forward to the reaction it gets. It has already been established for some decades, since the work of Primus, that Calvin was a practical Sabbatarian in that he believed all work and all recreation should cease on the Lord's day and the day spent in worship. This article advances beyond that to show that in two respects of Puritan Sabbatarianism (contra Primus), Calvin's theology and his practice are reconcilable, and thus he is a nascent Sabbatarian.



Calvin affirms Lord's Day practice, but that is different from Sabbatarianism, and Calvin clearly makes the distinction that the Lord's Day is not the continuing Sabbath. In practice, it may look the same, but there is a clear exegetical difference between observing Sunday as a Christian Sabbath and observing the Lord's Day as a strictly Christian institution. His practice may have been in accord with the WCF, but his theology was not, and as far as I know, a full-subscription presbytery will not allow a non-Sabbatarian view even if, in practice, it looks like the Sabbatarian view. So I would gather that John Calvin could not be ordained in, say, the OPC and other full-subscription Presbyterian denominations.

The Abstract of Principles of Southern Seminary takes John Calvin's view of affirming a Lord's Day of rest and worship. Al Mohler gave a chapel sermon on the 4th Commandment and explains in more detail.
http://www.sbts.edu/MP3/fall2006/20060921mohler.mp3


----------



## elnwood

R. Scott Clark said:


> I'm not sure it's fair to the San Diego PCA's to do a congregation by congregation analysis of who's "confessional" and who isn't. Mentioning congregations is invidious especially when they are not here to defend themselves. I can think of three congregations in this county that could be fairly described as "confessional" or even "confessionalist."



Good call, Dr. Clark! Thank you for that word.



R. Scott Clark said:


> ps. re: whether Baptists are Reformed strictly defined. I wouldn't say that folk are not Reformed for not holding the Three Forms or else I should have to say that nearly all Presbyterians are not Reformed! The line has to be the Westm. Standards or the Three Forms or the Second Helvetic or the Scots Confession (1560) or another of the historic Reformed (paedobapist) confessions.



Correct me if I'm wrong, but this seems like circular reasoning. It appears that you are selecting which confessions are Reformed by their content (i.e. paedobaptist), and then you are defining what is Reformed by these confessions. Or, more simply, Baptists are not Reformed because they don't hold to Reformed (paedobaptist) confessions.

I'm looking for an objective standard for Reformed. I think I was more satisfied with the Three Forms of Unity being the standard, since I think they best reflect Calvin's theology.


----------



## NaphtaliPress

Stay tuned for the release of the 2007 Confessional Presbyterian journal.



elnwood said:


> Calvin affirms Lord's Day practice, but that is different from Sabbatarianism, and Calvin clearly makes the distinction that the Lord's Day is not the continuing Sabbath. In practice, it may look the same, but there is a clear exegetical difference between observing Sunday as a Christian Sabbath and observing the Lord's Day as a strictly Christian institution. His practice may have been in accord with the WCF, but his theology was not, and as far as I know, a full-subscription presbytery will not allow a non-Sabbatarian view even if, in practice, it looks like the Sabbatarian view. So I would gather that John Calvin could not be ordained in, say, the OPC and other full-subscription Presbyterian denominations.
> 
> The Abstract of Principles of Southern Seminary takes John Calvin's view of affirming a Lord's Day of rest and worship. Al Mohler gave a chapel sermon on the 4th Commandment and explains in more detail.
> http://www.sbts.edu/MP3/fall2006/20060921mohler.mp3


----------



## NaphtaliPress

NaphtaliPress said:


> Stay tuned for the release of the 2007 Confessional Presbyterian journal.


Ok; I'll go ahead and give the bottom line to whet everyone's appetite for the piece:This essay argues that parts of Calvin’s Sabbath theology have been seriously misunderstood and that he was sabbatarian in both practice and theology. While dealing primarily with Calvin’s own writings, this present work also looks at previous studies by Primus, Gaffin, and Matsuda.15 It will reconsider (1) Calvin’s view of the origin of the Sabbath Day ([universal] creation ordinance or not?) and (2) his understanding of the replacement of the seventh day Sabbath by the Lord’s Day (when and by whom?), and conclude that Calvin does indeed meet the above definitional criteria for sabbatarian theology.
​"John Calvin, the Nascent Sabbatarian: A Reconsideration of Calvin’s View of Two Key Sabbath-Issues" By Stewart E. Lauer. Forthcoming in _The Confessional Presbyterian _volume 3 (2007),


----------



## Me Died Blue

elnwood said:


> Calvin affirms Lord's Day practice, but that is different from Sabbatarianism, and Calvin clearly makes the distinction that the Lord's Day is not the continuing Sabbath. In practice, it may look the same, but there is a clear exegetical difference between observing Sunday as a Christian Sabbath and observing the Lord's Day as a strictly Christian institution. His practice may have been in accord with the WCF, but his theology was not, and as far as I know, a full-subscription presbytery will not allow a non-Sabbatarian view even if, in practice, it looks like the Sabbatarian view. So I would gather that John Calvin could not be ordained in, say, the OPC and other full-subscription Presbyterian denominations.



Any OPC elders or members should correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe exceptions to the confession are allowed there as well. In general, the OPC and PCA are really not as different as people often seem to make them out to be.



elnwood said:


> Correct me if I'm wrong, but this seems like circular reasoning. It appears that you are selecting which confessions are Reformed by their content (i.e. paedobaptist), and then you are defining what is Reformed by these confessions. Or, more simply, Baptists are not Reformed because they don't hold to Reformed (paedobaptist) confessions.
> 
> I'm looking for an objective standard for Reformed. I think I was more satisfied with the Three Forms of Unity being the standard, since I think they best reflect Calvin's theology.



Well, if Calvin were being taken as the standard (which I would say is itself somewhat arbitrary - for example, what about Knox and the Scots?), then the Three Forms would be arbitrary as well, since Calvin himself wrote a large portion of the French (Gallican) Confession of Faith, as well as his catechism.

I don't think a precise definition of just who is "Reformed" and which exceptions to which confessions disqualify that title from applying to churches or people is an easy question that can be clearly seen and answered in the snap of a finger.

Furthermore, while "Reformed" is a useful shorthand term for giving people an initial idea of which body of historic beliefs one associates himself with, I'm inclined to say it is _comparatively_ (not absolutely) unimportant next to the issue of who is _confessional_ with respect to the standards to which his church subscribes. After all, the Church and her adopted beliefs are ultimately more authoritative and important than the various individual theologians who are part of the Church, as helpful and worthy of consideration as they are (see Wayne Wylie's post here). And I would suggest that the proper way to go about persuading people (including individuals as well as church bodies) that one confession is superior to another is not to try and show which confession is more "Reformed," but to argue on the basis of which confession is most biblical, using historical theology alongside as a valuable and in fact even indispensable pointer, but not the _ultimate_ measuring-stick.

That is because, with regard to people like Arminians, classic Dispensationalists, Pentecostals and the like, they're not even going to care at all which one is more "Reformed"; and with regard to people who are sympathetic to much Reformed doctrine like predestinarians, covenantal thinkers and cessationists, they're still trying to decide whether to embrace _all_ Reformed distinctives or not, and which historic "camp" (Reformers, Puritans, Continental, etc.) was most biblical in their understanding of those various distinctives. Hence, the issue of who is "most Reformed" (as opposed to who is _confessional_ and which confessions are the most biblical) does not seem to be the best way of persuading people to hold to them in either type of case.

One past thread that had some good discussion that shed light on this issue is here. (It was a good thread overall, but don't mind many of the ridiculous points I personally attempted to make. At that time I was largely unaware of just how much there is to learn, and how little of it all I really knew and understood - which is still the case, the main difference being that the more I have learned since then, the more I now continue to see the great mass of it that remains to be learned. On the contrary, around the time of that thread, I often took the form of an internet theologian who simply spoke my thoughts as being near fact even when I had no idea what I was talking about.)


----------



## Romans922

Not to just butt in or anything, but I want to say that because of our fallen nature (EVERYONE'S) even the RPCNA and all the other denominations in ALL THE WORLD, even with the confessions, has the possibility of going further liberal and having women speaking from the pulpit, etc. You may say, "NOT POSSIBLE," maybe because you have a perfect polity system. Well, that doesn't matter now does it. Have your perfect polity system, but people will go past that and find a way around it. So please dont be so critical of other denominations, yours is just around the corner (especially if it grows), and maybe we should be praying instead of so criticizing. Now obviously we can be aware of problems in each denomination and see where they can work on things (every denomination has its problems). That is we can discuss this as we are doing, but be careful of our tone and pride that says our denomination is the best and not think that our denomination can come to such horrible things. Im rambling.


----------



## NaphtaliPress

Ramblin or not; these are good things to keep in mind. 


Romans922 said:


> Not to just butt in or anything, but I want to say that because of our fallen nature (EVERYONE'S) even the RPCNA and all the other denominations in ALL THE WORLD, even with the confessions, has the possibility of going further liberal and having women speaking from the pulpit, etc. You may say, "NOT POSSIBLE," maybe because you have a perfect polity system. Well, that doesn't matter now does it. Have your perfect polity system, but people will go past that and find a way around it. So please dont be so critical of other denominations, yours is just around the corner (especially if it grows), and maybe we should be praying instead of so criticizing. Now obviously we can be aware of problems in each denomination and see where they can work on things (every denomination has its problems). That is we can discuss this as we are doing, but be careful of our tone and pride that says our denomination is the best and not think that our denomination can come to such horrible things. Im rambling.


----------



## R. Scott Clark

> Correct me if I'm wrong, but this seems like circular reasoning. It appears that you are selecting which confessions are Reformed by their content (i.e. paedobaptist), and then you are defining what is Reformed by these confessions.



No it's not circular since it is a matter of history and fact that it was paedobaptist churches that wrote the Reformed confessions and it is the Reformed confessions that define what is to be Reformed. The Modern baptist movement dates to a time (early 17th century) after the formation of the Reformed confessions. It was a reaction to certain Reformed doctrines. Those who reject Reformed doctrines cannot be allowed define what "Reformed" is. Baptists may be particular or general but they aren't Reformed, properly defined.



> Or, more simply, Baptists are not Reformed because they don't hold to Reformed (paedobaptist) confessions.



Exactly. To be Reformed one has to hold what the Reformed churches hold. Paedobaptism is essential to being Reformed. To deny paedobaptism is to deny an essential doctrine of the Reformed faith. Predestination is not the definiton of Reformed. It's a necessary but not a sufficient condition.



> I'm looking for an objective standard for Reformed. I think I was more satisfied with the Three Forms of Unity being the standard, since I think they best reflect Calvin's theology.



Yes, but you assume something that is a modern novelty, i.e., that Calvin is the be and end all of "Reformed." Even the early 17th century Reformed did not so regard Calvin. He's a father, perhaps the father, but not the only one and not the defining voice. See Muller's two books _The Unaccommodated Calvin_ and _After Calvin_. 

The divines did not understand themselves to be contradicting the Three Forms.

The Reformed Confessions (of which there are many!) are ecclesiastical statements, not private documents. They are objective. To use one's personal preference for a private person (even Calvin) as the measure of being Reformed is quite a lot more subjective than appealing to public, ecclesiastically sanctioned statements.

rsc


----------



## elnwood

R. Scott Clark said:


> No it's not circular since it is a matter of history and fact that it was paedobaptist churches that wrote the Reformed confessions and it is the Reformed confessions that define what is to be Reformed. The Modern baptist movement dates to a time (early 17th century) after the formation of the Reformed confessions. It was a reaction to certain Reformed doctrines. Those who reject Reformed doctrines cannot be allowed define what "Reformed" is. Baptists may be particular or general but they aren't Reformed, properly defined.



Makes sense, although I would submit that if you consider the Westminster Standards a Reformed confession, the modern Baptist movement preceded that confession. The First London Baptist Confession was written prior to the Westminster Confession.



R. Scott Clark said:


> Exactly. To be Reformed one has to hold what the Reformed churches hold. Paedobaptism is essential to being Reformed. To deny paedobaptism is to deny an essential doctrine of the Reformed faith. Predestination is not the definiton of Reformed. It's a necessary but not a sufficient condition.



I think this gets to the crux of the issue. I don't think it's a matter of holding to what Reformed churches held, because you can get extremely nitpicky on this. You have pointed to paedobaptism as an "essential" of their practice, but not, say, exclusive psalter. What about Presbyterian government? Were the Puritans, who were congregational in polity, Reformed?

It's understandable to select a core group of Reformed doctrines to be essential, and use that as your working definition, but I would like further demonstration of why we can objectively say that paedobaptism is an essential, the doctrines of grace are essential, but, say, exclusive Psalter is not. Or is there breathing room for deciding which of the practices of the Reformed churches are essentials and which are not?


----------



## Pilgrim

Something that I find interesting is the desire on the part of many Particular Baptists today to be considered Reformed. I've done a good bit of reading over the past few years, and I don't think I've ever seen any of the Historic Baptists trying to lay claim to the title "Reformed". Many of them realized what they had in common with the Presbyterians, Independents, etc. but they also were well aware of their differences. In fact, other than the glaring anomaly of Bunyan (who didn't think someone even had to be baptized at all to join the church), they did not regard paedobaptist churches to be true churches and thus the vast majority of them practiced close communion. The Southern Baptist J.L. Dagg was considered something of a moderate on this question, even allowing paedobaptist ministers into his pulpit. But I don't think that even he considered paedo churches to be true churches, although he recognized there were genuine Christians there. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think that even John Quincy Adams, author of "Baptists, the only thorough Reformers" attempted to lay claim to the title Reformed. 

It seems that the term "Reformed Baptist" was adopted sometime within the last 40 years or so by Baptists who had become "Five Pointers" in order to differentiate themselves from the basically Arminian Baptists who utilize Finney's methods. Generally, (after the General Baptists slide into obscurity) from the 17th to the 19th century further qualification than simply the term Baptist wasn't necessary.

Another factor is that the two men probably most responsible for the revival of the Doctrines of Grace in the early to mid 20th Century were A.W. Pink and D.M. Lloyd-Jones. Pink was a Baptist and Lloyd-Jones was a Congregationalist from the Calvinistic Methodist tradition. Neither man emphasized ecclesiology, and Lloyd-Jones himself abandoned infant baptism early on in his ministry, while continuing to reject immersion. Add to this the Banner of Truth Trust, which for all the good it has done has generally avoided potentially divisive ecclesiological issues and has had the effect of propagating a generic "Calvinism" that is heavy on soteriology but virtually silent on ecclesiology. Thus we have the present confusion, where Reformed is used merely to refer to someone who accepts the Five Points.


----------



## R. Scott Clark

Dear Don,

There's a significant difference in kind between questions of _practice_ and a questions of _confession_. 

We confess a principle of worship. The fact that many of us are either inconsistent with our confession or that, in some cases, we disagree over the application of the principle is not the same thing as fundamentally disagreeing over the nature of the covenant of grace.

Between Baptists and Paedobaptists there is a gulf. Either covenant children are such or they are not. Either God commands that we include covenant children in the visible covenant community and recognize their membership in the visible, external administration of the covenant of grace by initiating them through baptism or we do not. 

Most Baptists deny that our infants are covenant children and that, therefore, they have a "right and interest" in the visible administration of the covenant of grace.

Behind this disagreement are disagreements over the nature of the covenant of grace, the nature of the relations between the New and Old Testaments, hermeneutics, and even, to some degree the nature of the church, eschatology (how much of the consummate state should be expected in this life). 

Among the Reformed there is a great need for Reformation of our worship according to Scripture as we confess and understand it, but that's a different matter than who should or should not be baptized.

I'm glad that particular, confessional Baptists, join us in confessing important doctrines, but for us both to use the adjective "Reformed," at the same time to mean significantly different things is to bring into doubt the importance of fundamental questions of Reformed theology, piety, and practice.

As to the relations between the Three Forms and the Westm. Standards, just ask the continental Reformed of the 17th century whether they regarded the Westm. Assembly and the Kirk of Scotland Reformed! Of course they did. I think we all know the answer to the question of how they regarded the particular Baptists. Not long ago the Dutch Reformed referred to all the "evangelicals" (i.e., the Baptists) as "Methodists." 

rsc



elnwood said:


> Makes sense, although I would submit that if you consider the Westminster Standards a Reformed confession, the modern Baptist movement preceded that confession. The First London Baptist Confession was written prior to the Westminster Confession.
> 
> I think this gets to the crux of the issue. I don't think it's a matter of holding to what Reformed churches held, because you can get extremely nitpicky on this. You have pointed to paedobaptism as an "essential" of their practice, but not, say, exclusive psalter. What about Presbyterian government? Were the Puritans, who were congregational in polity, Reformed?
> 
> It's understandable to select a core group of Reformed doctrines to be essential, and use that as your working definition, but I would like further demonstration of why we can objectively say that paedobaptism is an essential, the doctrines of grace are essential, but, say, exclusive Psalter is not. Or is there breathing room for deciding which of the practices of the Reformed churches are essentials and which are not?


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Me Died Blue said:


> Any OPC elders or members should correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe exceptions to the confession are allowed there as well. In general, the OPC and PCA are really not as different as people often seem to make them out to be.
> 
> Well, if Calvin were being taken as the standard (which I would say is itself somewhat arbitrary - for example, what about Knox and the Scots?), then the Three Forms would be arbitrary as well, since Calvin himself wrote a large portion of the French (Gallican) Confession of Faith, as well as his catechism.
> 
> I don't think a precise definition of just who is "Reformed" and which exceptions to which confessions disqualify that title from applying to churches or people is an easy question that can be clearly seen and answered in the snap of a finger.
> 
> Furthermore, while "Reformed" is a useful shorthand term for giving people an initial idea of which body of historic beliefs one associates himself with, I'm inclined to say it is _comparatively_ (not absolutely) unimportant next to the issue of who is _confessional_ with respect to the standards to which his church subscribes. After all, the Church and her adopted beliefs are ultimately more authoritative and important than the various individual theologians who are part of the Church, as helpful and worthy of consideration as they are (see Wayne Wylie's post here). And I would suggest that the proper way to go about persuading people (including individuals as well as church bodies) that one confession is superior to another is not to try and show which confession is more "Reformed," but to argue on the basis of which confession is most biblical, using historical theology alongside as a valuable and in fact even indispensable pointer, but not the _ultimate_ measuring-stick.
> 
> That is because, with regard to people like Arminians, classic Dispensationalists, Pentecostals and the like, they're not even going to care at all which one is more "Reformed"; and with regard to people who are sympathetic to much Reformed doctrine like predestinarians, covenantal thinkers and cessationists, they're still trying to decide whether to embrace _all_ Reformed distinctives or not, and which historic "camp" (Reformers, Puritans, Continental, etc.) was most biblical in their understanding of those various distinctives. Hence, the issue of who is "most Reformed" (as opposed to who is _confessional_ and which confessions are the most biblical) does not seem to be the best way of persuading people to hold to them in either type of case.
> 
> One past thread that had some good discussion that shed light on this issue is here. (It was a good thread overall, but don't mind many of the ridiculous points I personally attempted to make. At that time I was largely unaware of just how much there is to learn, and how little of it all I really knew and understood - which is still the case, the main difference being that the more I have learned since then, the more I now continue to see the great mass of it that remains to be learned. On the contrary, around the time of that thread, I often took the form of an internet theologian who simply spoke my thoughts as being near fact even when I had no idea what I was talking about.)



Chris,

I don't completely disagree with this idea. I don't think the principle issue of concern here is the dictionary definition of Reformed and whether we should string up people who use the term.

As I see Dr. Clark's concern it is the modern idea that each of us is able to go to the "Calvinist Schmorgesborg" and pick what we like: "I'll have a heaping helping of the five points but Covenant Theology, paedobaptism, and sabbatarianism are yucky. None of that for me." If a doctrine is inconvenient, say the Covenant of Works, I can just jettison it and not only claim that I'm Reformed but Presbyterian and "Truly Reformed".

Within the "Reformed Camp" I think this is particularly dangerous. Your average Church goer isn't necessarily studied enough to call a doctrine an error but may not be willing to follow if a pastor just honestly said "We don't agree with the Reformed faith anymore and we're going our own way...." How much confusion would be prevented in the current FV controversy if the men would just admit: "We're not confessional anymore and we're leaving the denomination." Much acrimony would probably be avoided. As it is, people take sides with the personalities they think represent the "truly Reformed".

Frankly a PCA Church I attended in VA was shockingly ignorant of the Confession. Apart from the fact that the Pastor gave really good Sermons and was orthodox, you found a broad Evangelical and even Arminian sentiment in the Sunday School. I love those people but if someone put forward the idea that some of their practices are not strictly "Reformed" I think they would be shocked.

I'm not offering a full blown analysis here but just a few random thoughts. I think Chris Poe's analysis is brilliant.


----------



## JohnV

I've read a smattering of posts from this thread, and I have a question that I think everyone should ask themselves: were you Reformed when you first were saved? Are you Reformed now? 

To your surprise, perhaps, I'd have to answer yes to the first, and no to the second. Yes, I am more Reformed now, but like Chris, I am more reforming than Reformed. But when Christ made me His own, then I was fully Reformed in every way: it depended not at all upon me. Not my views, nor my individual persuasions, not my character, not on anything that was me. It was then that I was fully Reformed. Now I realize how much, out of thankfulness to my Saviour, I need to be sanctified daily. I'm with Chris. I'm sorry, my brother, if I held a grudge, or even seemed to.


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon

Ditto to Dr. Clark.

Good stuff.

I definitely know what the "reforming" baptists are feeling when they are hit with the "You are not Reformed" statement.

When I was a Baptist, three things that really did not sit well with me were simple historic facts I could not get around:

1) I was not in good company, I was in scare company. (i.e. I was not with Augustine, et al., Reformers et al., Puritans et al., Edwards et al., Princeton Theologians, etc. on key doctrinal issues that I did not agree with them on.)

2) My views were relatively new theologically speaking. (i.e. *1689* BCF).

3) If I beleived #1 and #2 then I had to conclude that God allowed the church, for 1689 years after Christ to lay in darkness on the fundamental manner in which Christians and thier families entered the church, and how they viewed the sacraments in general, not to mention the manner of how Redemptive History unfolds covenantally. That imposed some problems on my "Doctrine of God".

I simply avoided those issues as much as I could. ("Me and my Bible" theology was imperative to remain historially consistent).


----------



## elnwood

Pilgrim said:


> Something that I find interesting is the desire on the part of many Particular Baptists today to be considered Reformed. I've done a good bit of reading over the past few years, and I don't think I've ever seen any of the Historic Baptists trying to lay claim to the title "Reformed". Many of them realized what they had in common with the Presbyterians, Independents, etc. but they also were well aware of their differences. In fact, other than the glaring anomaly of Bunyan (who didn't think someone even had to be baptized at all to join the church), they did not regard paedobaptist churches to be true churches and thus the vast majority of them practiced close communion. The Southern Baptist J.L. Dagg was considered something of a moderate on this question, even allowing paedobaptist ministers into his pulpit. But I don't think that even he considered paedo churches to be true churches, although he recognized there were genuine Christians there. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think that even John Quincy Adams, author of "Baptists, the only thorough Reformers" attempted to lay claim to the title Reformed.
> 
> It seems that the term "Reformed Baptist" was adopted sometime within the last 40 years or so by Baptists who had become "Five Pointers" in order to differentiate themselves from the basically Arminian Baptists who utilize Finney's methods. Generally, (after the General Baptists slide into obscurity) from the 17th to the 19th century further qualification than simply the term Baptist wasn't necessary.
> 
> Another factor is that the two men probably most responsible for the revival of the Doctrines of Grace in the early to mid 20th Century were A.W. Pink and D.M. Lloyd-Jones. Pink was a Baptist and Lloyd-Jones was a Congregationalist from the Calvinistic Methodist tradition. Neither man emphasized ecclesiology, and Lloyd-Jones himself abandoned infant baptism early on in his ministry, while continuing to reject immersion. Add to this the Banner of Truth Trust, which for all the good it has done has generally avoided potentially divisive ecclesiological issues and has had the effect of propagating a generic "Calvinism" that is heavy on soteriology but virtually silent on ecclesiology. Thus we have the present confusion, where Reformed is used merely to refer to someone who accepts the Five Points.



According to Samuel Waldron in Baptist Roots in America, "Reformed Baptist" was used as early as the 19th century, citing some records between 1825 and 1840.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

I think this issue becomes unnecessarily ascribed as a "we own the Reformed moniker" issue and deflects from what I believe the principle issue is.

This thread was originally split off from a discussion on the origin and propriety of dedications which led to the issue that there is some theological laxity within the PCA. This has then morphed as well to whether Baptists can call themselves Reformed.

Mixed into that discussion is a warning that we who consider ourselves Reformed not be too smug because we're not saved, after all, because we have the correct theological title but on Christ's sacrifice alone. Well of course I say "Amen" to that but I think it misses the point.

It is a strange irony to me that it is the Reformed who have the privilege of participating in what I believe to be sound Biblical doctrine feel a bit guilty about affirming that what they confess is actually what the Scriptures teach. I certainly recognize that an "Us vs. Them" mentality is always a risk but need we constantly warn against the slippery slope of becoming too proud if we're trying to divide truth from error or detect a potential slide from orthodoxy into liberalism?

I imagine, after all, that there were those who thought it overly punctilious of many in the early part of the 20th Century when "Fundamentalists" in the PCUSA were warning of a denominational slide into liberalism. Not all predictions are borne out precisely but I wonder if some of the Church men were more concerned about the Fundamentalists' "party spirit" about what it meant to be Reformed rather than dealing with the doctrinal slide.

I guess as I read Dr. Clark develop the idea more and look forward to reading his book on the subject it causes me to muse on the importance of affirming the term "Reformed". If the moniker doesn't mean "Biblical Christianity" to those that claim they are faithful to historic Confessions then just jettison the term altogether. If it means anything to us, however, ought we not be jealous to guard it rather than just allow it to be claimed by any? 

In a certain sense the term itself may not be particularly important in and of itself but it has historical and current significance for thousands. I call myself Reformed to distinguish myself, gratefully to God, from being Roman Catholic (which I was for my childhood and early adulthood) as well as from doctrinal confusion in Arminian expressions of Protestantism. I don't agree that I was "more Reformed" when I first was presented the doctrines of Grace by the book _Faith Alone_ but it was like a mountaintop experience - a real epiphany of God's Grace. It started a lifelong process of reformation in my doctrine by the grace of God. I believe He is faithful and has sanctified me so that I am more "reformed" now than I was 10 years ago. It is not a "boot straps" theology after all.

But along the way, I've also been nearly led astray by those that I should have been able to trust as a relative novice in the Reformed faith. The nature of being a sheep in need of a shepherd is that Pastors and Elders wield tremendous influence in theological development. There was a time not so many years ago that I might have been led into the direction of the Federal Vision by men who called themselves truly Reformed.

Now had they just come out and said "We're not Reformed anymore..." it might have made that decision more difficult due to my strong commitment to a Reformed Ecclesiology. Perhaps I could have been persuaded by Scriptural arguments but, you see, I had been previously instructed on what it meant to be "Reformed" and such lessons resonate with the Scriptures. Honestly, when I see a man or group departing from the Reformed faith and they announce it out loud, I spend little or no time investigating "should I follow them" but when I see debates and divisions with a Presbyterian denomination with some men I have held in high esteem for many years saying "...we're the _really_ Reformed and what Calvin intended before modern Presbyterians gooned it up..." it is very insidious indeed.

In other words, I want men, when they're departing from Reformed Confessions to ADMIT IT OUT LOUD. Don't use double-speak, don't re-write history with the mass of uninformed believing you really hold the historical ground left deceived. Say it loud and say it clearly: "We're not Reformed anymore and we invite all like-minded people to follow us...."

I guess I've gotten used to the idea that Baptists absconded the moniker "Reformed" for themselves but the discussion does go to the propriety of that use even if nobody in the Baptist camp that would use the term really cares what Confessional folk think of their use of the term. What I will never get used to is those within the Confessionally Reformed "camp" departing from core strands of Reformed thought and then calling themselves the "really Reformed".


----------



## elnwood

C. Matthew McMahon said:


> 2) My views were relatively new theologically speaking. (i.e. *1689* BCF).



Those views were not so new. The first London Baptist Confession was written in 1644 (two years before the WCF), and the so-called 1689 London Baptist Confession was written in 1677.


----------



## JohnV

> _from Rich_
> when I see debates and divisions with a Presbyterian denomination with some men I have held in high esteem for many years saying "...we're the really Reformed and what Calvin intended before modern Presbyterians gooned it up..." it is very insidious indeed.
> 
> In other words, I want men, when they're departing from Reformed Confessions to ADMIT IT OUT LOUD. Don't use double-speak, don't re-write history with the mass of uninformed believing you really hold the historical ground left deceived. Say it loud and say it clearly: "We're not Reformed anymore and we invite all like-minded people to follow us...."



Perhaps you disagree with the propriety of my statements, but you got the point just fine.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

JohnV said:


> Perhaps you disagree with the propriety of my statements, but you got the point just fine.


I must have misunderstood you John if the bottom line above comports with what your point of you post was.


----------



## JohnV

It does.

I just feel for all those to whom I have written and talked who are struggling with the same doctrines which I have grown up with. For me they're easy, but for them they have to wipe out prejudices that have been ingrained in their heritage. It's not as easy for them, because they have to be that much more certain than I am: they have to deny what they were brought up to believe, whereas I just have to embrace it whether I understand it fully or not. That makes me Reformed then them not? I can't accept that. 

But what irritates me is that I have spent my whole life putting myself to the same struggle that these brothers are going through. I don't need these guys who take some secondary issue and make it mandatory to the faith, such a millennial views, etc. Nor do I need those guys who surreptitiously propagate their own "reformed" theologies without going through proper church channels first. These make is very difficult for us who love the doctrines of grace and wish to help those who are struggling with them for good reason. 

Things are not well in our churches when we see men standing on pulpits bravely preaching their own 'perspectives' or 'presuppositions' as the norm of the gospel of grace, standing upon their liberty of conscience instead of the unity of the Church. Yes, our churches are Reformed, but we continue to have a very hard time of it as long as we have a loose ecclesiology, or a more stringent one that is based upon things not clearly outlined as necessary in our unifying standards of faith. How can I contend for the faith to me searching brothers if the church I am calling them to does not stand behind that very faith I am contending for, if they are deeply divided on secondary things instead of joyfully working out these differences within their greater unity, if they let their personal persuasions make it into their presentation of Christ's gospel to His people? 

Asking what being "Reformed" means within the wrong context is a moot point. I take someone seeking for certainty in the means of grace, wishing to adopt the doctrines of grace, as more Reformed than myself if all I seek is to propagate my own views. May God forbid. I will not seek my own views, but repudiate them. That's what I'm asking my Baptist friends on this Board to do whenever I discuss the issue of baptism with them, and I expect no less from myself. I wish only to embrace God's truth, and not God's revelation as bent by my presuppositions.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

JohnV said:


> It does.
> 
> I just feel for all those to whom I have written and talked who are struggling with the same doctrines which I have grown up with. For me they're easy, but for them they have to wipe out prejudices that have been ingrained in their heritage. It's not as easy for them, because they have to be that much more certain than I am: they have to deny what they were brought up to believe, whereas I just have to embrace it whether I understand it fully or not. That makes me Reformed then them not? I can't accept that.
> 
> But what irritates me is that I have spent my whole life putting myself to the same struggle that these brothers are going through. I don't need these guys who take some secondary issue and make it mandatory to the faith, such a millennial views, etc. Nor do I need those guys who surreptitiously propagate their own "reformed" theologies without going through proper church channels first. These make is very difficult for us who love the doctrines of grace and wish to help those who are struggling with them for good reason.
> 
> Things are not well in our churches when we see men standing on pulpits bravely preaching their own 'perspectives' or 'presuppositions' as the norm of the gospel of grace, standing upon their liberty of conscience instead of the unity of the Church. Yes, our churches are Reformed, but we continue to have a very hard time of it as long as we have a loose ecclesiology, or a more stringent one that is based upon things not clearly outlined as necessary in our unifying standards of faith. How can I contend for the faith to me searching brothers if the church I am calling them to does not stand behind that very faith I am contending for, if they are deeply divided on secondary things instead of joyfully working out these differences within their greater unity, if they let their personal persuasions make it into their presentation of Christ's gospel to His people?
> 
> Asking what being "Reformed" means within the wrong context is a moot point. I take someone seeking for certainty in the means of grace, wishing to adopt the doctrines of grace, as more Reformed than myself if all I seek is to propagate my own views. May God forbid. I will not seek my own views, but repudiate them. That's what I'm asking my Baptist friends on this Board to do whenever I discuss the issue of baptism with them, and I expect no less from myself. I wish only to embrace God's truth, and not God's revelation as bent by my presuppositions.



Roger. I apologize for misunderstanding you and implying something you did not intend in my reply.


----------



## JohnV

I didn't take any offence. I understand your intention to keep this thread on course, because it is a helpful discussion.


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia

elnwood said:


> Those views were not so new. The first London Baptist Confession was written in 1644 (two years before the WCF), and the so-called 1689 London Baptist Confession was written in 1677.



That is still quite a bit "newer" than, say, the 4th Century (which is what I think both Rev. Clark and McMahon are getting at). If the True Church is the True Church, then the beliefs of the True Church should be able to be traced throughout the history of said Church. The Reformed, for the most part, can do this. Infant baptism is a fact of Church history since the apostles. Justin Martyr and others are very early examples of this. Believer's baptism, as it is called, did not exist (exclusively, apart from paedobaptism) until the 17th century, at least, As far as I know. Like Rev. McMahon said, it is a bold claim to make the Church out to be so "lost" on such a pivotal issue as a sacrament for over 1600 years!


----------



## elnwood

WrittenFromUtopia said:


> That is still quite a bit "newer" than, say, the 4th Century (which is what I think both Rev. Clark and McMahon are getting at). If the True Church is the True Church, then the beliefs of the True Church should be able to be traced throughout the history of said Church. The Reformed, for the most part, can do this. Infant baptism is a fact of Church history since the apostles. Justin Martyr and others are very early examples of this. Believer's baptism, as it is called, did not exist (exclusively, apart from paedobaptism) until the 17th century, at least, As far as I know. Like Rev. McMahon said, it is a bold claim to make the Church out to be so "lost" on such a pivotal issue as a sacrament for over 1600 years!



<sigh> I really don't feel like getting into another paedo v. credo argument. But suffice to say, "believer's baptism only" did exist in the early centuries, and a theology of covenantal paedobaptism, one that did not espouse some form of baptismal regeneration (Augustine, even Luther thought baptism imparted saving faith) was never articulated until Zwingli, whose view was in contrast to Luther's view of baptism. Zwingli, of course, was a contemporary of the Anabaptists, and also attacked their view of baptism.

If you want to talk about this more, post a reply in the Baptism forum. It's off-topic. (Not that we weren't already off-topic ...)


----------



## tewilder

Me Died Blue said:


> Also, regarding the Federal Vision, right now more than ever there are some very good signs regarding the way with which it will be dealt. The study committee is promising, and in many ways even more importantly, the recent documents from the Standing Judicial Commission on Steve Wilkins' case with Louisiana Presbytery point in a similar direction. As Fred explained much better in the thread on that issue, that suggests good things not only about the _doctrinal_ direction of the PCA, but about her _ecclesiology_ as well, in that the GA is still willing to truly exercise its authority even when that means critically and directly confronting significant decisions of lower courts. Even from the times of the formation of the ecumenical creeds, false teachings in the church have never been dealt with in a heartbeat, but have always required the analysis and deliberation of councils, synods and assemblies through due process over a period of time; and that is exactly what is going on surrounding the Federal Vision in the PCA at this time.



I wouldn't take too much comfort from this.

Even now, after all these years, there are presbyteries that are doing nothing about it.

But more than that, I suspect this is just the first round. The next thing to come along will be more subtle, and it will be rooted in the seminaries, so that none of the people who love institutionalism and bigness will attack it.


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon

> I think this issue becomes unnecessarily ascribed as a "we own the Reformed moniker" issue and deflects from what I believe the principle issue is.


 
Rich,

That's not why I press the issue. I press the issue because I think, as I did, many out there simply do not have enough history behind them to make judgments that affect real life right now. For some reason (Enlightenment teaching?) people are encased with thinking that if what we believe now is "believed now" then that is what "everyone always beleived." If I knew my views were relatively "new", and someone told me that, I would have had a hard time reconciling my new views to the views of the Church.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

I understand Matt but at the time there were some who were letting the discussion devolve into "who really cares what the term reformed means anway". I was only trying to focus attention on why the discussion was important. The meat of my post was pointing out that the issue of what Reformed means _is_ important in the regard that there are those that hijack the word, pour in a new formula for justification, and claim that it's old.


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia

I think it is safe to assume that ALL of us, Baptistic or not, would agree that essential to the Reformed faith is Covenant Theology and the understanding of God's salvific purposes through covenants. That being the case, covenant succession and God saving people through families is an essential part of being Reformed, which includes paedobaptism.

[edit] Besides, Calvinism only makes sense, theologically, within the context of Covenant Theology. People try to fit it into other "systems" of theology, but it just doesn't work (thus the myriad of Baptists who are "4 pointers" or "3 pointers" or "4.5 pointers"). Reformed theology is much more than Calvinism because Calvinism is not the defining factor of Reformed theology, as Rev. Clark and others have pointed out ... Covenant Theology is; which, by the way, HAS to include covenant succession, paedobaptism, calvinism, etc. etc. etc...

This is why it is so easy to find Baptists who will say they are "covenantal" in their beliefs, but not many who will say they hold to "real" Covenant Theology, through and through... because they CAN'T and continue to refuse the sign of the covenant to their offspring.


----------



## Me Died Blue

WrittenFromUtopia said:


> [edit] Besides, Calvinism only makes sense, theologically, within the context of Covenant Theology. People try to fit it into other "systems" of theology, but it just doesn't work (thus the myriad of Baptists who are "4 pointers" or "3 pointers" or "4.5 pointers"). Reformed theology is much more than Calvinism because Calvinism is not the defining factor of Reformed theology, as Rev. Clark and others have pointed out ... Covenant Theology is; which, by the way, HAS to include covenant succession, paedobaptism, calvinism, etc. etc. etc...



Furthermore (and ironically), the term _"Calvinism"_ is - historically speaking - even _more_ unquestionaly objective than the term "Reformed," as it properly refers specifically to _Calvin's_ overall system of thought and practice. That is why it is ironic and odd that the term "Calvinism" is used in an even more liberal and slang manner than is the term "Reformed" today.


----------



## elnwood

Me Died Blue said:


> Furthermore (and ironically), the term _"Calvinism"_ is - historically speaking - even _more_ unquestionaly objective than the term "Reformed," as it properly refers specifically to _Calvin's_ overall system of thought and practice. That is why it is ironic and odd that the term "Calvinism" is used in an even more liberal and slang manner than is the term "Reformed" today.



Not really all that odd. It's a matter of using a commonly understood term. When people use the terms "Calvinism" and "Arminianism," it is generally understood to be talking about soteriology. As much as the truly Reformed hate the term Calvinism used by dispensationalists and Baptists, it is widely used and understood in that way even by those who are in the Reformed camp. Terms like the "Doctrines of Grace" aren't really understood.

The term "Calvinism" is not really used to mean Covenant Theology. If someone wanted to talk about Covenant Theology, they would just say "Covenant Theology." So "Calvinism" just doesn't work as a term in that context. It is universally understood, like it or not, to mean soteriology only.

Nor should "Calvinism" only be restricted to belief in Calvin's entire system of doctrine. Many Presbyterians call themselves Calvinist and yet don't hold to Calvin's views on the Sabbath, his preferred mode of baptism, or his views on eschatology regarding the papacy, or any number of major or minor points. Further, using someone's moniker rarely means their overall system of doctrine. Someone who holds a Memorialist view of the Lord's Supper is called Zwinglian. Why? Because it was a distinctive part of Zwinglian's theology like the Doctrines of Grace were for Calvin. When Calvinists use the term Arminian, are they saying that Arminians hold to Arminius's entire, or overall, system of doctrine? Of course not -- just the soteriology. To be consistent, you would have to stop using the term "Arminian" to describe Baptists because Arminius was a paedobaptist.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

WrittenFromUtopia said:


> I think it is safe to assume that ALL of us, Baptistic or not, would agree that essential to the Reformed faith is Covenant Theology and the understanding of God's salvific purposes through covenants. That being the case, covenant succession and God saving people through families is an essential part of being Reformed, which includes paedobaptism.
> 
> [edit] Besides, Calvinism only makes sense, theologically, within the context of Covenant Theology. People try to fit it into other "systems" of theology, but it just doesn't work (thus the myriad of Baptists who are "4 pointers" or "3 pointers" or "4.5 pointers"). Reformed theology is much more than Calvinism because Calvinism is not the defining factor of Reformed theology, as Rev. Clark and others have pointed out ... Covenant Theology is; which, by the way, HAS to include covenant succession, paedobaptism, calvinism, etc. etc. etc...
> 
> This is why it is so easy to find Baptists who will say they are "covenantal" in their beliefs, but not many who will say they hold to "real" Covenant Theology, through and through... because they CAN'T and continue to refuse the sign of the covenant to their offspring.



I see a thread split brewing on this...

Some of us like to listen to Gene Cook's program - _The Narrow Mind_. I personally find it a bit strange when you've got a guy that rejects some of the core principles of Covenant Theology saying he holds to Covenant Theology. I'm holding out hope that his continued study will eventually move him fully into Calvinism.


----------



## kvanlaan

I liked the bit about navel-gazing thyself into Reformed Orthodoxy. Very nice.

The whole concept of what is 'Reformed' has, I think, gone off-track in many circles. Remember, the thread on "Rev." Janet Edwards had her commenting that marrying two women was well in line with "our tradition of reforming" (paraphrased). It would seem that many nominal presbyterians today hijack the term to more progressive ends. Instead of viewing 'reform' as a return to scripture for guidance, it is instead a continual revision to what seems right in our own eyes, altogether apart from scripture.


----------



## JohnV

This was already being done in the CRC more than three decades ago. Departing from the Reformed standards was justified by citing the need to be Reformed and reforming. It did no good to ask what it was they were reforming to, for that kind of question just got drowned out by both the liberal and conservative sides of any discussion on the issues. 

No matter what Christian church we are talking about, I believe it does indeed practice a kind of subscriptionism. Even an anti-subscriptionist church has their anti-subscriptionism as a subscriptionist policy. It cannot be avoided. The real problem, as I see it, is how seriously a church takes the subscription that is there. Every church makes a claim to following Biblical authority, but if that is just an empty claim to justify other things then it not so much a matter of whether there is a subscription but rather of what it is they are really subscribing to. 

A church that claims to be reforming ought to clearly show that their intended change is grounded firmly in the Bible, and only in the Bible. In the CRC they were accommodating their reading of the Bible to the modern movements of egalitarianism, feminism, inclusivism, evolutionism, and tolerationism (if that's a word at all.) As the church had to reform and modernize in cosmology in the past, so now it had to modenize in cultural ethics and science, so it was claimed. They were conforming to temporal givens, and calling it a reforming effort. 

That was thirty years or more ago. But we see the same things still going on in different ways. 

When I see a minister on the pulpit proclaiming his own unauthorized though popular views as Biblical doctrine, and his session approving of it, then it is a clear enough indication to me that the leadership of that church does not know what doctrine is. If they cannot tell the difference, then there is a real problem with what they believe they are commissioned by Christ to represent: Christ's gospel; or their own personal convictions. If they cannot tell the difference, then how well do they know doctrine at all?

We do indeed see in our day a plethora of prophets who feel called to minister their church offices to propagate their own personal convictions as necessary unifying precommitments to understanding the Bible. In the face of that, they see not only the confessional standards as subjectively interpreted, but even moreso the Bible. It all seems to depend on how you read them, it seems. So we have so many new apostles with new teachings, teachings which they merely read into the historical writings of the church fathers. People have made not only Calvin, but even Anselm into modern-day presuppositionalists, for example, in order to justify their newnesses with some historical backdrop. All three millennial views make claims on an early church precedent. And for what reason? So they can claim these unnecessary things as necessary, claiming to stand on some grounding of some sort. But this really only indicates what they are really subscribing to, what they are willing to subject even the Bible to. It simply does no good to counter Dispensationalism, which relies heavily upon its eschatological precommitments, with an anti-Dispensational heavy reliance upon another temporal eschatological precommitment. How does that help at all? But we answer their prophets by raising our own; we answer their apostles with our own apostles. And my question is: what is really being subscribed to here? Is this authority from man or from God? 

In the PCA and the OPC there are membership vows expected from every member. It holds them to the standards of Biblical faith as summarized in the WCF, WLC, and the WSC. This, then, holds the teaching elders in these denominations to that same standard, for no teaching elder may lead any of his congregation to deny that to which the members have made their vows. So when a denomination allows for certain views on things, such as the creation days for example, then it is not ruling that alternative views may be taught as the teaching of the Bible, but rather that personally holding this or that view does not violate the standards. I can hold to, say, the Framework Hypothesis, and not be excluded from eligibility for office on that account. But if I teach it as the Bible's teaching on creation, then the FH is only the indicator, but not the issue itself, which disqualifies me from holding an office in the church. I am not qualified because I don't know the limits imposed upon me by the office to represent only Christ, and not myself. In equating the two I show that I am ready and willing to compromise Christ in order to raise my own convictions above the level of personal conviction to the status of Biblical doctrine. I have broken with the subscriptional expectations of the church. Christ did not commission His elders to teach the FH. No one in the church has made vows of subordination to the FH as a part of the doctrinal standard. So I have no business teaching it. And if I have done this then I have broken with the subscription of the church, whether or not the church has an official specific subscription formula. For the church is automatically subscribed to the Bible as her objective standard.


----------

