# Is The Reformation Over?



## Flowers (Feb 19, 2018)

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

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

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

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


----------



## TylerRay (Feb 19, 2018)

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

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

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

Reactions: Like 5 | Amen 1


----------



## Dachaser (Feb 19, 2018)

TylerRay said:


> Usually when people talk about further reformation of doctrine and practice today, they are really talking about defecting from Reformed doctrine and practice. When "reformation" involves inserting obedience as a condition of our justification, or celebrating man-made holy days, we are actually _abandoning _the Reformed faith, not furthering it.
> 
> We do need reformation today, and if God grants it, it will look a lot like it did in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries. It will be a return to Scriptural doctrine and worship regulated by the Word of God.
> 
> By the way, I don't know who told you that Frame is "thoroughly Reformed and confessional." He makes no bones about disagreeing with the confessions or discounting classical Reformed doctrine.


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

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Flowers (Feb 19, 2018)

TylerRay said:


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



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

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



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



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



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



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

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## TylerRay (Feb 19, 2018)

Flowers said:


> I would agree that a defection or an abandonment of the Reformed faith would be a mistake and not a _development_ of the Reformed faith. So there is good reason to be initially skeptical of any idea of development within Reformed theology.
> 
> But the Reformers believed they were recovering the Biblical faith. I don't think they believed that they were once and for all expressing the fullness of the Biblical faith in all of its wonderful applications and implications.
> 
> ...


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

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



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


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


----------



## TylerRay (Feb 19, 2018)

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


----------



## Flowers (Feb 19, 2018)

TylerRay said:


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



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



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



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


----------



## TylerRay (Feb 19, 2018)

Flowers said:


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


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


----------



## RamistThomist (Feb 19, 2018)

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


----------



## Flowers (Feb 19, 2018)

BayouHuguenot said:


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



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


----------



## RamistThomist (Feb 19, 2018)

Flowers said:


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



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

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


----------



## TylerRay (Feb 19, 2018)

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

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


----------



## Flowers (Feb 19, 2018)

TylerRay said:


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



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



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



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

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


----------



## Flowers (Feb 19, 2018)

BayouHuguenot said:


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



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


----------



## RamistThomist (Feb 19, 2018)

Flowers said:


> Do you preach and teach regularly?



No.


Flowers said:


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



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


Flowers said:


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



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


----------



## RBachman (Feb 19, 2018)

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

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

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


----------



## Dachaser (Feb 19, 2018)

RBachman said:


> With respects to Frame (I used one of his books in Seminary and thought him the best) there seems little doubt that he now embraces his own special blend of process theology. This blog neatly quotes Frame, but there is much more floating around https://paulhelmsdeep.blogspot.com/2014/04/john-frame-god-time-and-space.html This seems to be a change in his thinking, or possibly a post-retirement nuancing. I don't think that puts him outside the camp, yet, but he is certainly no longer on my 'trusted list'.
> 
> [begin sarcastic remark] The mutability of God is a no-go issue for me - it will be soon be followed by '_little silver statues in the church gift shop suitable for enhancing your mid-week home worship_.' [end sarcastic remark]
> 
> Where the continuation of reformation can add value is not to 'redo' what has been done, but to build on the foundation we have to deal with issues that were not issues in the 16th and 17th centuries: Rights of Man in a global democratic society, LGBTQ, Abortion, euthanasia are just a few. Each one probably deserves a chapter in the revised and expanded WCF (based on the original, not the American version). These are the issues that are/will cause further disunity in the visible reformed church, but if dealt with properly, will also strengthen those of us holding true to the confession. I would add the role of women, but I believe the Confessional documents are pretty clear on this already.


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


----------



## Flowers (Feb 19, 2018)

RBachman said:


> With respects to Frame (I used one of his books in Seminary and thought him the best) there seems little doubt that he now embraces his own special blend of process theology. This blog neatly quotes Frame, but there is much more floating around https://paulhelmsdeep.blogspot.com/2014/04/john-frame-god-time-and-space.html This seems to be a change in his thinking, or possibly a post-retirement nuancing. I don't think that puts him outside the camp, yet, but he is certainly no longer on my 'trusted list'.
> 
> [begin sarcastic remark] The mutability of God is a no-go issue for me - it will be soon be followed by '_little silver statues in the church gift shop suitable for enhancing your mid-week home worship_.' [end sarcastic remark]
> 
> Where the continuation of reformation can add value is not to 'redo' what has been done, but to build on the foundation we have to deal with issues that were not issues in the 16th and 17th centuries: Rights of Man in a global democratic society, LGBTQ, Abortion, euthanasia are just a few. Each one probably deserves a chapter in the revised and expanded WCF (based on the original, not the American version). These are the issues that are/will cause further disunity in the visible reformed church, but if dealt with properly, will also strengthen those of us holding true to the confession. I would add the role of women, but I believe the Confessional documents are pretty clear on this already.



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


----------



## RamistThomist (Feb 19, 2018)

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

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

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


----------



## RBachman (Feb 19, 2018)

BayouHuguenot said:


> And if we were to further the reformation, we would substantially clarify the doctrine of the Trinity in such a way as to preclude any possiblity of Etern Subordination. That's one example.
> 
> Another is whether the civil magistrate can call councils. We would have to finally say yea or nay on that.
> 
> Another area is codifying the ancient doctrine of two wills and energies in Christ. This was assumed in the Reformation era, but never fully put into the confessions (I am open to correction on this one).


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


----------



## Steve Curtis (Feb 19, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> Dr Frame


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


----------



## Flowers (Feb 19, 2018)

kainos01 said:


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



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


----------



## ZackF (Feb 20, 2018)

Flowers said:


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



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


----------



## RamistThomist (Feb 20, 2018)

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


----------



## Dachaser (Feb 20, 2018)

BayouHuguenot said:


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


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


----------



## Dachaser (Feb 20, 2018)

BayouHuguenot said:


> And if we were to further the reformation, we would substantially clarify the doctrine of the Trinity in such a way as to preclude any possiblity of Etern Subordination. That's one example.
> 
> Another is whether the civil magistrate can call councils. We would have to finally say yea or nay on that.
> 
> Another area is codifying the ancient doctrine of two wills and energies in Christ. This was assumed in the Reformation era, but never fully put into the confessions (I am open to correction on this one).


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


----------



## RamistThomist (Feb 20, 2018)

Dachaser said:


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



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

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## RamistThomist (Feb 20, 2018)

Dachaser said:


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



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

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Flowers (Feb 20, 2018)

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


----------



## ZackF (Feb 20, 2018)

Flowers said:


> In reading a Reformed author today (published by P&R), I am struck by this quote:
> 
> "...except for Scripture itself, _every_ system of thought is in need of further development. Nothing is a finished product."
> 
> ...



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


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion (Feb 20, 2018)

Flowers said:


> It's hard to get more legit than Frame. Only if you think that the church of Jesus is limited to the Reformed world are you able to nitpick his theology.


*
Moderator Note*:
Yes, Frame is right on some matters, even important matters. He is also quite wrong on some matters, important matters.

For example:
https://www.puritanboard.com/threads/dr-frames-theistic-mutualism.94419/
https://www.puritanboard.com/thread...n-frame-comment-on-the-wcf.47039/#post-598051
https://www.puritanboard.com/threads/john-frame-on-rpw.24744/#post-303951
https://www.puritanboard.com/thread...ns-christless-christianity.54560/#post-705034
https://www.puritanboard.com/thread...ns-christless-christianity.54560/#post-705330

We are warranted to "nitpick" his theology because we have judged it to be wanting in several areas. This is not simply a Reformed matter, but a matter for the church militant. More particularly, this site is decidedly Reformed, confessionally so, hence, defense of well-known men contrary to the view should be met with a wee bit of _trepidation_, not the _stridency_ in your post above. We certainly can do better than Frame when it comes to that which we hold dear.

Reactions: Like 7


----------



## beloved7 (Feb 21, 2018)

The following is from RC Sproul's 'What is Reformed Theology' p64-65
"We respect and submit to lesser ecclesiastical authority, but we are not bound by it absolutely as we are by biblical authority. This is the basis for the Reformation principle of semper reformanda, which indicates that reformation of the churh is an ongoing process. We are always called to seek more and more to bring our faith and practice into conformity to the Word of God".


----------



## Gforce9 (Feb 21, 2018)

beloved7 said:


> The following is from RC Sproul's 'What is Reformed Theology' p64-65
> "We respect and submit to lesser ecclesiastical authority, but we are not bound by it absolutely as we are by biblical authority. This is the basis for the Reformation principle of semper reformanda, which indicates that reformation of the churh is an ongoing process. We are always called to seek more and more to bring our faith and practice into conformity to the Word of God".



I wish to preface this by stating that I believe John Frame to be smart, astute, a Christian, and of benefit in some key areas. I view R.C. Sproul in an even higher light.

There is no doubt that "progress" has been made in theology, even in the past 100 years. Vos's work, Richard Gaffin's work,....much refining has been brought about. The trouble with someone like John Frame's scholarship is that he has redefined terms and has come up with something "new". This is no secret, conspiracy theory or false charge. The WCF in one hand and Frame's book in the other with demonstrate this clearly. I've read his book on worship and his view on the RPW and it is something different from biblical regulation, regardless of the wrapping paper used. 

If what is meant by "reformation" is returning to biblical fidelity, worship, and all things faith and practice, excellent. If it means coming up with something new, shocking, and/or contradictory, and accepted on the basis of one's credentials, I will leave it for evangelicals to slurp up. Reformation isn't coming up with something new, but returning to the faith once delivered. What takes place at a place like Redeemer PCA should scare any confessional Christian.....

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Poimen (Feb 22, 2018)

In many ways, Luther was the quintessential Reformer and was, by God's hand, responsible for the overturn of medieval soteriology. But as one considers the differences between Luther's view of worship and Calvin's you will see that there were a series of reformations that also followed or culminated in _the_ Reformation (even as there were those that preceded it).

The question is: did Calvin and others improve or build on what Luther and others before them accomplished? There was no doubt that Luther's understanding of the Lord's Supper needed to be improved. Likewise, his ecclesiology was barely developed from scripture (other than a clear rejection of papal supremacy).

So now we stand in the 21st century and we cast aspersions on these men but do we understand their work? Have we grappled with it, as they did with their predecessors in their time? Have we spent at least as much time reading them as we do our peers? Copious reading of primary resources has convinced me that most modern Reformed people don't understand and don't appreciate the heritage they have received (and I am quite tired of new theologies and new theologians).

We dismiss them lightly but we haven't even grasped much of what we think we know. And that is only the intellectual side of the matter. Consider the piety of these men; their courage; their love of the gospel; their shed blood (of many generations following).

Try again. Read more; study more; pray more; praise more... if this generation would do these things again we might have another Reformation, perhaps even greater than that of the 16th century and its blossoming in the 17th. Until then, we are divided, insignificant, insipid.

Reactions: Like 4


----------

