# Danger of Reformed Traditionalism



## Pilgrim

Dr. Bob Gonzalez of Reformed Baptist Seminary in Greenville, SC has been posting on the dangers of Reformed traditionalism: 

The Danger of Reformed Traditionalism, Part I « RBS Tabletalk

The Danger of Reformed Traditionalism, Part II « RBS Tabletalk


----------



## MW

I've often pondered "When we've been there ten thousand years" in the light of criticisms on traditionalism. The criticism seems somewhat hollow when the possibility of error is removed from the scene. One wonders why such criticism should be considered valid in the realms of earthly experience where knowing the truth has been a reality for generations.

These articles err when they claim the Protestant reformation was not concerned with maintaining tradition. One only needs to take up Calvin's Institutes to derive a sense of continuity with the past.


----------



## ChristianTrader

armourbearer said:


> I've often pondered "When we've been there ten thousand years" in the light of criticisms on traditionalism. The criticism seems somewhat hollow when the possibility of error is removed from the scene. One wonders why such criticism should be considered valid in the realms of earthly experience where knowing the truth has been a reality for generations.
> 
> These articles err when they claim the Protestant reformation was not concerned with maintaining tradition. One only needs to take up Calvin's Institutes to derive a sense of continuity with the past.



I was thinking the same thing about Calvin. He did not write as if he believed he was doing something novel.

CT


----------



## Reformed Baptist

I am not seeing what the author is seeing, but then again, I am not running a seminary. I can agree with the articles in terms of keeping our creeds and confessions in their proper place: under the authority of the Scriptures. 

However, the creeds and confessions themselves state this. Perhaps the author's article is superflouous. This section concerned me:



> This point, I think, definitely requires the most caution and care. I can think of a few areas in the Confession in which greater refinement in doctrinal formulae could be helpful. For example, the 1689’s statements related to covenant theology could use some fine-tuning. I also think the chapter dealing with worship (ch. 22) could be improved in order to address some of the confusion surrounding the Regulative Principle of Worship and its application. But since I’m running out of space (and perhaps the reader’s good favor), I think I’ll leave any elaboration of this point for another occasion.



What about the Covenant Theology of our Baptist forebears needs refining? Is this the creeping in of NCT? Unlikely, but then again the author stated he doesn't want to elaborate at this time. 

Personally, I don't see anything wrong with the confession. Our church, being 1689 Confessional, also publishes for our members our distinctives which includes such things related to our times. My suggestion would be to leave the confession alone. If a church finds themselves needing to revise it, then re-write your own confession and replace it and stop calling yourself 1689 Confessional. 

RB


----------



## Pergamum

armourbearer said:


> I've often pondered "When we've been there ten thousand years" in the light of criticisms on traditionalism. The criticism seems somewhat hollow when the possibility of error is removed from the scene. One wonders why such criticism should be considered valid in the realms of earthly experience where knowing the truth has been a reality for generations.



What exactly do you mean by the above? Please translate for us Ozark hillbillies.


----------



## Pergamum

Reformed Baptist said:


> I am not seeing what the author is seeing, but then again, I am not running a seminary. I can agree with the articles in terms of keeping our creeds and confessions in their proper place: under the authority of the Scriptures.
> 
> However, the creeds and confessions themselves state this. Perhaps the author's article is superflouous. This section concerned me:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This point, I think, definitely requires the most caution and care. I can think of a few areas in the Confession in which greater refinement in doctrinal formulae could be helpful. For example, the 1689’s statements related to covenant theology could use some fine-tuning. I also think the chapter dealing with worship (ch. 22) could be improved in order to address some of the confusion surrounding the Regulative Principle of Worship and its application. But since I’m running out of space (and perhaps the reader’s good favor), I think I’ll leave any elaboration of this point for another occasion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What about the Covenant Theology of our Baptist forebears needs refining? Is this the creeping in of NCT? Unlikely, but then again the author stated he doesn't want to elaborate at this time.
> 
> Personally, I don't see anything wrong with the confession. Our church, being 1689 Confessional, also publishes for our members our distinctives which includes such things related to our times. My suggestion would be to leave the confession alone. If a church finds themselves needing to revise it, then re-write your own confession and replace it and stop calling yourself 1689 Confessional.
> 
> RB
Click to expand...



Is the Pope THE antichrist?

Also, do you have any problems with updating the wording of the confession?


----------



## Reformed Baptist

Pergamum said:


> Reformed Baptist said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am not seeing what the author is seeing, but then again, I am not running a seminary. I can agree with the articles in terms of keeping our creeds and confessions in their proper place: under the authority of the Scriptures.
> 
> However, the creeds and confessions themselves state this. Perhaps the author's article is superflouous. This section concerned me:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This point, I think, definitely requires the most caution and care. I can think of a few areas in the Confession in which greater refinement in doctrinal formulae could be helpful. For example, the 1689’s statements related to covenant theology could use some fine-tuning. I also think the chapter dealing with worship (ch. 22) could be improved in order to address some of the confusion surrounding the Regulative Principle of Worship and its application. But since I’m running out of space (and perhaps the reader’s good favor), I think I’ll leave any elaboration of this point for another occasion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What about the Covenant Theology of our Baptist forebears needs refining? Is this the creeping in of NCT? Unlikely, but then again the author stated he doesn't want to elaborate at this time.
> 
> Personally, I don't see anything wrong with the confession. Our church, being 1689 Confessional, also publishes for our members our distinctives which includes such things related to our times. My suggestion would be to leave the confession alone. If a church finds themselves needing to revise it, then re-write your own confession and replace it and stop calling yourself 1689 Confessional.
> 
> RB
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Is the Pope THE antichrist?
> 
> Also, do you have any problems with updating the wording of the confession?
Click to expand...



I think the Pope/papacy is probably THE Antichrist, yes. And I don't see anything wrong with the wording of the confession. It makes sense to me. But I am not opposed to a revised confession that updates language.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian

Reformed Baptist said:


> Pergamum said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Reformed Baptist said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am not seeing what the author is seeing, but then again, I am not running a seminary. I can agree with the articles in terms of keeping our creeds and confessions in their proper place: under the authority of the Scriptures.
> 
> However, the creeds and confessions themselves state this. Perhaps the author's article is superflouous. This section concerned me:
> 
> 
> 
> What about the Covenant Theology of our Baptist forebears needs refining? Is this the creeping in of NCT? Unlikely, but then again the author stated he doesn't want to elaborate at this time.
> 
> Personally, I don't see anything wrong with the confession. Our church, being 1689 Confessional, also publishes for our members our distinctives which includes such things related to our times. My suggestion would be to leave the confession alone. If a church finds themselves needing to revise it, then re-write your own confession and replace it and stop calling yourself 1689 Confessional.
> 
> RB
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is the Pope THE antichrist?
> 
> Also, do you have any problems with updating the wording of the confession?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I think the Pope/papacy is probably THE Antichrist, yes. And I don't see anything wrong with the wording of the confession. It makes sense to me. But I am not opposed to a revised confession that updates language.
Click to expand...


----------



## Pergamum

Only PROBABLY the Antichrist? Are you really "Confessional" then or just a "1689 Poseur" since you admit doubt where the Confession speaks clearly? Probably ain't get enough is it?


----------



## ManleyBeasley

Reformed Baptist said:


> Pergamum said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Reformed Baptist said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am not seeing what the author is seeing, but then again, I am not running a seminary. I can agree with the articles in terms of keeping our creeds and confessions in their proper place: under the authority of the Scriptures.
> 
> However, the creeds and confessions themselves state this. Perhaps the author's article is superflouous. This section concerned me:
> 
> 
> 
> What about the Covenant Theology of our Baptist forebears needs refining? Is this the creeping in of NCT? Unlikely, but then again the author stated he doesn't want to elaborate at this time.
> 
> Personally, I don't see anything wrong with the confession. Our church, being 1689 Confessional, also publishes for our members our distinctives which includes such things related to our times. My suggestion would be to leave the confession alone. If a church finds themselves needing to revise it, then re-write your own confession and replace it and stop calling yourself 1689 Confessional.
> 
> RB
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is the Pope THE antichrist?
> 
> Also, do you have any problems with updating the wording of the confession?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I think the Pope/papacy is probably THE Antichrist, yes. And I don't see anything wrong with the wording of the confession. It makes sense to me. But I am not opposed to a revised confession that updates language.
Click to expand...


The view of virtually all protestants before the Scofield Bible came out and promoted dispensational futurism was the historicist view. This view states that the Papacy is the Antichrist and that the Popes are the plurality of false teachers and "antichrists" mentioned by Christ and John. The puritans and reformers didn't see one Pope as the antichrist but the position itself as the antichrist/man of sin. Read 2 Thes 2. The man of sin rises out of the "apostasia" (falling away, or divorce) from the truth. He takes his seat in the "temple of God" (apostate church) and claims the authority of God. He was there in Paul's day (he is now being restrained Paul said) and wouldn't be destroyed until Christ's return (proving the "man of sin" is either a currently 2000 year old man or an office held by men). The discretion used in Paul saying "You know what restrains him" indicates reference to the Roman Empire (the only authority this info would need to be hidden from). The man of sin is "slain" by the breath of the Lord (2 Tim 3 shows this is a reference to the scripture) and destroyed by the appearence of His coming as I mentioned before. Paul later exhorts them to hold on to the letters he wrote them (scripture was the source of the reformation and pre-reformers).

1 Tim 4 also talks about the apostasy. It describes those who are part of the "falling away" as "Men who forbid marriage" and "abstain from certain foods". 

The very term "antichrist" doesn't mean openly fighting Christ. The word in context should be translated "vicechrist" (the way we use vice-president). The Latin word for "vice" is "vicar". I believe the Papacy IS the Vicechrist and man of sin.


----------



## tcalbrecht

I find these articles vague and tenuous. The presuppositions and "facts" are questionable. E.g.,



> Another possible reason for the Reformers’ and Puritans’ lack of emphasis on evangelistic outreach and missions may be the fact that they lived in a sacral society (a kind of Christian theocracy). In such a society, every citizen was a member of the church and most would have attended some church. *And yet, most of these citizens were lost.*



How does the good doctor know who was or was not lost 400 years ago on a percentage basis?

From a practical standpoint, how do Baptists, who are congregationally independent by nature, tweak their Confession to suit the majority of other Confessional Baptists?


----------



## ManleyBeasley

That being said, the scripture is the authority. We shouldn't accept the confessions purely at face value but search the scriptures to see if the confessions are true. In my experience of study the 1689 is very much in accordance with scripture. The WCF is great too! I just disagree with infant baptism (obviously).


----------



## JBaldwin

The author said: 


> One of the hallmarks of the Protestant Reformation was a movement away from traditionalism and a return to the Scriptures as the ultimate authority of the Christian church. *This was not a complete rejection of church tradition or legitimate human authority. Rather, it was a conscious effort to reestablish the primacy of Scripture in matters of faith and practice and to subordinate all church tradition to the teaching of Scripture. *It was this restored focus upon Bible’s authority and teaching that gave birth to the Latin phrase, sola Scriptura (the Bible alone).



I did not get the impression that the author was saying that we should throw out all tradition, but exactly what he said, "church tradition should be subordinate to the teaching of Scripture."

While the author does say that he feels the confessions need some tweaking (my paraphrase), and he may or may not be right about that, he does have a valid point. So often in reformed circles (even here on the PB), folks will use the WCF or some other reformed work to back up a viewpoint rather than going back to Scripture. When asked what does Scripture say, the answer comes back (in so many words) "the confessions say the Scriptures say...." 

I did not come to hold to reformed theology by studying Calvin and Luther; I was raised in a fundamental Baptist Church where tradition has become, in many ways, equal to Scripture. I came to believe reformed theology by studying the Scriptures. When I began looking for a church that taught what I believed, the Presbyterian church seemed to teach what I found in the Scriptures. When I read the WCF, it too, seemed to be in agreement with the Scriptures, but I don't put it on the level of Scripture. 

The WCF and all the other writings of the reformers, just as all the commentators and theologians who are out there, were written by mere men who may or may not have had a complete understanding of the Scriptures when they published their works.


----------



## Dr. Bob Gonzales

I appreciate J Baldwin's clarifying remarks regarding the article on Reformed traditionalism I posted. I also make it clear, contrary to Matthew's impression of my article, that the Reformers did attempt to maintain as much as possible a continuity with the past. For instance, I wrote, "The Protestant Reformers were not opposed to all tradition. If you read their writings, you’ll find that they occasionally cite the church fathers and earlier church tradition in a positive light. For instance, both Luther and Calvin had a deep appreciation for the writings of Augustine. They sometimes quoted Augustine to demonstrate that what they were teaching was not entirely novel. But we do not seem to find among the Reformers a pronounced concern or preoccupation to be identified with the Augustinian tradition. We do not find Protestant churches springing up with the name, “The Augustinian Church of Wittenburg,” or “Grace Augustinian Church.” We do not find Luther and Calvin calling the church to return to the writings of Augustine. Rather, the Reformers were primarily concerned to take the church back not to Augustine, not to Athanasius, not to Irenaeus, but all the way back to Jesus, and to Paul, and to John, and to the other biblical writers."


----------



## Dr. Bob Gonzales

I want to assure Geoff that my passing reference to the need to refine the covenant theology of the 1689 is not motivated by an incipient New Covenant Theology. Drs. Waldron and Barcellos, who teach for my seminary, can vouch for that. I'm thinking more of the modern attacks on the "covenant of works." I affirm the covenant of works, and believe its doctrinal formulae in the 1689 could use some modest refinement.


----------



## JBaldwin

Welcome Bob! I see you are new here and a not too far away neighbor.


----------



## Dr. Bob Gonzales

Tom thinks my articles on the danger of Reformed traditionalism are "vague and tenuous. The presuppositions and 'facts' are questionable." Then he cites one statement where I assert that most Englishmen of the 17th century were lost. Well, I didn't intend that statement as a claim to omniscience though I think its veracity is more likely than the opposite proposition, viz., most English citizens were saved. Be that as it may, I'm willing to modify the language in order to avoid the appearance of making an indisputable factual claim. I'm not sure what other statements Tom finds "vague and tenuous."


----------



## greenbaggins

*Reformed Confessionalism on the PB*

I don't think that quoting the confession should be pitted against quoting Scripture. If the confession is a summary of Scripture's teaching, then quoting the confession is a short-hand way of saying "this is what Scripture teaches." Someone who quotes the confession often, of course, should also be someone who has done the exegetical work to prove to his own or her own satisfaction that the confessions do indeed teach what Scripture teaches. But there is no need to avoid succinct summaries of Scripture in the confessions. This is what those who hold to the confessions mean when they quote the confessions. It is the church's way of stating their view of what Scripture teaches. If the confessions need correction, there is a mechanism in place to do that.


----------



## Dr. Bob Gonzales

BTW, I do concede in the article, "I am not an expert in church history, so I can only speculate." So I'm not attempting to dogmatize as to the reasons why a clearer and more comprehensive statement regarding the church's responsibility to engage in evangelistic and missionary outreach failed to find its way into the 17th century confessions. I am, however, arguing that such a statement needs to be there.


----------



## Dr. Bob Gonzales

I agree with Lane's remarks in general. Confessions have both a polemical and pedagogical function (see my series, "On the Validity & Value of Confessions of Faith"). I still contend, however, that the 17th century confessions do not speak to every issue. So one will need to say more than what's said in the WCF in order to present the whole counsel of God. Moreover, we should be modest and concede the high probability that the doctrinal formulae in these confessions are not 100% accurate all the time. Otherwise, we're not too far from Rome's claims, which the Reformers and Puritans earnestly opposed.


----------



## ManleyBeasley

greenbaggins said:


> I don't think that quoting the confession should be pitted against quoting Scripture. If the confession is a summary of Scripture's teaching, then quoting the confession is a short-hand way of saying "this is what Scripture teaches." Someone who quotes the confession often, of course, should also be someone who has done the exegetical work to prove to his own or her own satisfaction that the confessions do indeed teach what Scripture teaches. But there is no need to avoid succinct summaries of Scripture in the confessions. This is what those who hold to the confessions mean when they quote the confessions. It is the church's way of stating their view of what Scripture teaches. If the confessions need correction, there is a mechanism in place to do that.



Any confession is a "summary of Scripture's teaching" according to the *opinion of men*. I do support an appeal to the confessions for certain things (proof of a historical view and proof of a denominational view) but in debating theology and doctrine itself there must be an appeal to scripture. If the person debating does know through study the scriptural basis for the confession's view, why not go to the authoritative source as opposed to a man's interpretation. If I argue with a paedobaptist that credobaptism is the proper way to baptize, appealing to confessions does us no good (the confessions disagree!). Likewise, appealing to confessions for other doctrinal debates does us no good. The only people a certain confession appeals to are people that already agree with it.


----------



## tcalbrecht

Dr. Bob Gonzales said:


> Tom thinks my articles on the danger of Reformed traditionalism are "vague and tenuous. The presuppositions and 'facts' are questionable." Then he cites one statement where I assert that most Englishmen of the 17th century were lost. Well, I didn't intend that statement as a claim to omniscience though I think its veracity is more likely than the opposite proposition, viz., most English citizens were saved. Be that as it may, I'm willing to modify the language in order to avoid the appearance of making an indisputable factual claim. I'm not sure what other statements Tom finds "vague and tenuous."



Dr. Gonzales,

Well, for example, you also wrote:



> As I said earlier, the Protestant Reformers were not opposed to all tradition. If you read their writings, *you’ll find that they occasionally cite the church fathers and earlier church tradition in a positive light*. For instance, both Luther and Calvin had a deep appreciation for the writings of Augustine. They sometimes quoted Augustine to demonstrate that what they were teaching was not entirely novel. *But we do not seem to find among the Reformers a pronounced concern or preoccupation to be identified with the Augustinian tradition. We do not find Protestant churches springing up with the name,* “The Augustinian Church of Wittenburg,” or “Grace Augustinian Church.” We do not find Luther and Calvin calling the church to return to the writings of Augustine. Rather, the Reformers were primarily concerned to take the church back not to Augustine, not to Athanasius, not to Irenaeus, but all the way back to Jesus, and to Paul, and to John, and to the other biblical writers.



I’m not as familiar with Luther as with Calvin, but I’m not sure how you can suggest that the Reformers only occasionally cite the church fathers in their works. Calvin’s _Institutes _and commentaries are replete with references to early church traditions, often positive. One can hardly turn a page without seeing references to the writings of Augustine, Jerome, Chrysostom, Bernard, etc, etc. I believe the same can be said of Turretin and others who wrote extensively in a systematic way. I think we also see this same commitment to earlier Church traditions in the later wrings of men like Charles Hodge in his _Systematic Theology_. 

How folks may have named their churches does not seem to be a good argument for whether the Reformers were committed to Augustinian or any other early theological perspective. Isn’t it a bit anachronistic to suggest the Reformers would have named their local churches after any church father? It’s a weak argument at best.

I think you are minimizing the extent to which the Reformers were indebted to earlier Church tradition for the core of their theology in order to bolster your argument. I believe it was not the intent to take the Church “all the way back to Jesus” so as to ignore all the theological developments and history that had been going on for fifteen centuries. I believe it was their intent to build on the solid foundation and deposit of truth that Christ left with His people. Calvin, et al did not hold a view of the Church as fundamentally apostate and, therefore, all such writings of men were to be avoided. 

Perhaps this is the difference between Reformed/Presbyterian and Baptists views of tradition. The Reformed and Presbyterians like Calvin see themselves in the main of theological tradition going back to the apostles. Baptists, on the other hand, in order to justify their rewrites of the Reformed Confessions, have had to skirt tradition in order to advance hallmark views like believer’s baptism.


----------



## Dr. Bob Gonzales

Tom,

Thanks for helping me to be more precise in my assertions. You are correct in your claim that Calvin's _Institutes_ contains plenty of references to the church fathers. I'm not sure that the positive comments outweigh the negative ones. Be that as it may, my point was not to suggest that the Reformers advanced the position that the church should start from ground zero in her doctrinal formulations. On the contrary, I believe they advocated building on those facets of ecclesiastical dogma and tradition _that were judged to be scriptural_. Accordingly, my point was to underscore their burden to establish and maintain the _primacy_ of Scripture over human tradition. As I said, "The Reformers were _primarily_ concerned to take the church back not to Augustine, not to Athanasius, not to Irenaeus, but all the way back to Jesus, and to Paul, and to John, and to the other biblical writers [emphasis added]."

I am not so sure that my view of tradition greatly differs from that of Reformed/Presbyterians simply because I'm a Baptist. Whether you agree or not, I see myself "in the main of theological tradition going back to the apostles." The fact that you sprinkle babies like the Roman and Orthodox communions does not necessarily mean you stand in their theological tradition since they, historically, have conceived of the nature of baptism somewhat differently (i.e., sacramentalism) and have, accordingly, advanced different arguments for its necessity. With all due respect, the question of baptism is one area where Luther and Calvin fell short in their attempt to give Scripture primacy over ecclesiastical tradition.


----------



## tcalbrecht

Dr. Gonzales,

We seem to be in agreement on many things.



Dr. Bob Gonzales said:


> With all due respect, the question of baptism is one area where Luther and Calvin fell short in their attempt to give Scripture primacy over ecclesiastical tradition.



That’s the crux of the argument. I realize that Baptists claim the Berean high ground when it comes to the issue of baptism, but the fact remains the majority of the Reformation-era confessional Churches did not accept the Baptist arguments. Now, you would argue that they where placing tradition over and against Scripture in this area, while we would argue that we have both Scripture and tradition on our side. We are not forced to play tradition off against Scripture, at least in this area. 

And the fact that the Reformers did not accept all the somewhat recent Roman Catholic details regarding baptism (e.g., baptismal regeneration) is further proof that they did exactly what they were supposed to do: They kept the best and left the rest. They were able to maintain a common practice without having to compromise the Bible. This they were able to do because they could use both Scripture and tradition to help understand the larger matters -- like the nature of the covenant and the one holy catholic Church -- in order to see how details like baptism were to be understood.


----------



## Dr. Bob Gonzales

Fair enough. So too, the framers of the 1689 Baptist Confession purposefully "kept the best [from the WCF and Savoy] and left the rest." Wisely, they recognized and acknowledged that the Presbyterian and Savoy symbols preserved proportionately "the best." So Reformed Baptists owe a great deal to the insights of their paedobaptist brothers. God bless.


----------



## NaphtaliPress

Dr. Bob Gonzales said:


> Fair enough. So too, the framers of the 1689 Baptist Confession purposefully "kept the best [from the WCF and Savoy] and left the rest." Wisely, they recognized and acknowledged that the Presbyterian and Savoy symbols preserved proportionately "the best." So Reformed Baptists owe a great deal to the insights of their paedobaptist brothers. God bless.


Welcome to the board Dr. Gonzales. Guys, we have Baptism forums to discuss this. Take it there.


----------



## Dr. Bob Gonzales

Thanks, Chris, for the welcome and gentle correction.


----------



## Pilgrim

NaphtaliPress said:


> Dr. Bob Gonzales said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fair enough. So too, the framers of the 1689 Baptist Confession purposefully "kept the best [from the WCF and Savoy] and left the rest." Wisely, they recognized and acknowledged that the Presbyterian and Savoy symbols preserved proportionately "the best." So Reformed Baptists owe a great deal to the insights of their paedobaptist brothers. God bless.
> 
> 
> 
> Welcome to the board Dr. Gonzales. Guys, we have Baptism forums to discuss this. Take it there.
Click to expand...


I wasn't sure what forum to post this in, but put it here since Dr. Gonzales' posts in my mind had a lot more to do with the use of confessions than they did with the baptism issue. There are paedos who would agree with him and probably some credos who wouldn't. But if the discussion is going to end up being another paedo vs. credo thread then it should take place in the baptism forum.


----------



## Dr. Bob Gonzales

Sorry, Chris Poe, about my referencing baptism. I was only replying to Tom's previous statement and didn't realize that it wasn't appropriate for this forum. It certainly is not the issue addressed in the posts you introduced here. I will definitely try to abide by the discussion protocols. Apologies to all.


----------



## Pilgrim

Dr. Bob Gonzales said:


> Sorry, Chris Poe, about my referencing baptism. I was only replying to Tom's previous statement and didn't realize that it wasn't appropriate for this forum. It certainly is not the issue addressed in the posts you introduced here. I will definitely try to abide by the discussion protocols. Apologies to all.



No problem. I think Chris Coldwell was probably concerned with yet another baptism debate erupting, and those debates belong in the baptism forum dedicated to debate and discussion of that issue. I wasn't looking to debate baptism by posting the links to your blog articles on traditionalism (which in my view have very little if anything to do with baptism) and I doubt you were looking to debate the issue either but baptism debates can seemingly erupt out of nowhere on the Puritan Board as we PB veterans well know.


----------



## ManleyBeasley

tcalbrecht said:


> Perhaps this is the difference between Reformed/Presbyterian and Baptists views of tradition. The Reformed and Presbyterians like Calvin see themselves in the main of theological tradition going back to the apostles. Baptists, on the other hand, in order to justify their rewrites of the Reformed Confessions, have had to skirt tradition in order to advance hallmark views like believer’s baptism.



I think this is the cause of the baptism issue being brought up. Let's give credit where credit is due!


----------



## tcalbrecht

Dr. Bob Gonzales said:


> Sorry, Chris Poe, about my referencing baptism. I was only replying to Tom's previous statement and didn't realize that it wasn't appropriate for this forum. It certainly is not the issue addressed in the posts you introduced here. I will definitely try to abide by the discussion protocols. Apologies to all.



I didn't realize it either since, in this case, the subject of baptism was incidental to the OP. in my opinion, we could have replaced baptism with congregationalism and had much the same discussion. I was using baptism merely as an example to show the relationship between Scripture and tradition among the Reformers.


----------



## ManleyBeasley

tcalbrecht said:


> Dr. Bob Gonzales said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, Chris Poe, about my referencing baptism. I was only replying to Tom's previous statement and didn't realize that it wasn't appropriate for this forum. It certainly is not the issue addressed in the posts you introduced here. I will definitely try to abide by the discussion protocols. Apologies to all.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't realize it either since, in this case, the subject of baptism was incidental to the OP. in my opinion, we could have replaced baptism with congregationalism and had much the same discussion. I was using baptism merely as an example to show the relationship between Scripture and tradition among the Reformers.
Click to expand...


I wouldn't mind if you did it a little nicer.


----------



## tcalbrecht

ManleyBeasley said:


> I wouldn't mind if you did it a little nicer.



Nicer in what way?  You may contact me privately if you wish.


----------



## Christusregnat

Reformed Baptist said:


> I am not seeing what the author is seeing, but then again, I am not running a seminary.



Neither is he. It's a ministerial academy.

Cheers,


----------



## Herald

Christusregnat said:


> Reformed Baptist said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am not seeing what the author is seeing, but then again, I am not running a seminary.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Neither is he. It's a ministerial academy.
> 
> Cheers,
Click to expand...


Same thing but without the snob appeal.


----------



## Archlute

North Jersey Baptist said:


> Christusregnat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Reformed Baptist said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am not seeing what the author is seeing, but then again, I am not running a seminary.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Neither is he. It's a ministerial academy.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Same thing but without the snob appeal.
Click to expand...


 This thread is bringing out the differences between Reformed Presbyterian and Reformed Baptist opinion in more ways than one!


----------



## Reformed Baptist

Pergamum said:


> Only PROBABLY the Antichrist? Are you really "Confessional" then or just a "1689 Poseur" since you admit doubt where the Confession speaks clearly? Probably ain't get enough is it?



Actually, I used the word probably because of my own deficiency. In other words, the confession is probably right and I am lacking in understanding. 

RB


----------



## Reformed Baptist

Dr. Bob Gonzales said:


> I want to assure Geoff that my passing reference to the need to refine the covenant theology of the 1689 is not motivated by an incipient New Covenant Theology. Drs. Waldron and Barcellos, who teach for my seminary, can vouch for that. I'm thinking more of the modern attacks on the "covenant of works." I affirm the covenant of works, and believe its doctrinal formulae in the 1689 could use some modest refinement.



Thanks for the clarification brother. I figured this was the case. BTW, I am a student at the Midwest Center for Theological Studies and am in Symbolics 1. Studying the confession with Dr. Waldron has been great. 

RB


----------



## Reformed Baptist

North Jersey Baptist said:


> Christusregnat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Reformed Baptist said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am not seeing what the author is seeing, but then again, I am not running a seminary.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Neither is he. It's a ministerial academy.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Same thing but without the snob appeal.
Click to expand...


I am not sure I understand your meaning, but my comment was meant to give the meaning that my lack of "seeing" is probably due to my lack of experience which a seminary dean/ministerial academy would have. 

The sentence was meant to show respect. 

RB


----------



## Herald

Reformed Baptist said:


> North Jersey Baptist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Christusregnat said:
> 
> 
> 
> Neither is he. It's a ministerial academy.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Same thing but without the snob appeal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am not sure I understand your meaning, but my comment was meant to give the meaning that my lack of "seeing" is probably due to my lack of experience which a seminary dean/ministerial academy would have.
> 
> The sentence was meant to show respect.
> 
> RB
Click to expand...



Geoff, I wasn't criticizing you. A seminary/ministerial academy are the same thing in my book. Some of my seminary trained brethren may disagree and that's fine. 

Rock on, brother.


----------



## Herald

Archlute said:


> North Jersey Baptist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Christusregnat said:
> 
> 
> 
> Neither is he. It's a ministerial academy.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Same thing but without the snob appeal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This thread is bringing out the differences between Reformed Presbyterian and Reformed Baptist opinion in more ways than one!
Click to expand...


Adam, I'm glad you saw the humor in my statement. I have nothing against seminaries. I do have a problem with those that would look down their noses at a school like Reformed Baptist Seminary and discount it. That's what the "snob appeal" comment was based on.


----------



## Dr. Bob Gonzales

Geoff,

Are you in residence at MCTS? If so, will I see you in Elementary Hebrew I this fall?

Bob G.


----------



## MW

Dr. Bob Gonzales said:


> I also make it clear, contrary to Matthew's impression of my article, that the Reformers did attempt to maintain as much as possible a continuity with the past.



My overall impression of your article is that it falsely contrasted exegetical theology over against historical and systematic theology. E.g., you write, "In principle no Reformed pastor or theologian would elevate his tradition to the same level as Scripture. But in practice I believe there can be a very subtle tendency in that direction." Reformed tradition by definition seeks to be Scriptural. And systematic theology is by definition a post-canonical formulation which works within the categories of historical thought. Calvin understood this, and didn't simply quote the fathers occasionally, but grounded theological statement in the guiding truth which the Spirit of God had manifested through the ages. He, and the reformed tradition with him, self-consciously stood in the doctrinal and practical attainments of the true church of the centuries.


----------



## MW

Pergamum said:


> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've often pondered "When we've been there ten thousand years" in the light of criticisms on traditionalism. The criticism seems somewhat hollow when the possibility of error is removed from the scene. One wonders why such criticism should be considered valid in the realms of earthly experience where knowing the truth has been a reality for generations.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What exactly do you mean by the above? Please translate for us Ozark hillbillies.
Click to expand...


Truth does not change over time. Ten thousand years in heaven will not require us to re-evaluate our theology, so there is no reason why truth should be held as suspect simply because it has been believed for thousands of years on earth.


----------



## Reformed Baptist

Dr. Bob Gonzales said:


> Geoff,
> 
> Are you in residence at MCTS? If so, will I see you in Elementary Hebrew I this fall?
> 
> Bob G.



I wish I was. I am in Georgia. I am a member at Berean Baptist Church. 

RB


----------



## JohnV

armourbearer said:


> Dr. Bob Gonzales said:
> 
> 
> 
> I also make it clear, contrary to Matthew's impression of my article, that the Reformers did attempt to maintain as much as possible a continuity with the past.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My overall impression of your article is that it falsely contrasted exegetical theology over against historical and systematic theology. E.g., you write, "In principle no Reformed pastor or theologian would elevate his tradition to the same level as Scripture. But in practice I believe there can be a very subtle tendency in that direction." Reformed tradition by definition seeks to be Scriptural. And systematic theology is by definition a post-canonical formulation which works within the categories of historical thought. Calvin understood this, and didn't simply quote the fathers occasionally, but grounded theological statement in the guiding truth which the Spirit of God had manifested through the ages. He, and the reformed tradition with him, self-consciously stood in the doctrinal and practical attainments of the true church of the centuries.
Click to expand...


You might want to reword that, Matthew. There are guests reading this Board too, and they might get the impression that you're saying that the Bible *and* tradition form our doctrinal basis.


----------



## MW

JohnV said:


> You might want to reword that, Matthew. There are guests reading this Board too, and they might get the impression that you're saying that the Bible *and* tradition form our doctrinal basis.



Thanks John. For clarification, the Bible is the supreme standard of truth, the norming norm, while the theological tradition is the subordinate standard, the normed norm. The Bible constitutes the doctrine true, and the tradition delivers the doctrine as truth.


----------



## Pergamum

Welcome Dr. Gonzales.


----------



## ManleyBeasley

armourbearer said:


> JohnV said:
> 
> 
> 
> You might want to reword that, Matthew. There are guests reading this Board too, and they might get the impression that you're saying that the Bible *and* tradition form our doctrinal basis.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks John. For clarification, the Bible is the supreme standard of truth, the norming norm, while the theological tradition is the subordinate standard, the normed norm. The Bible constitutes the doctrine true, and the tradition delivers the doctrine as truth.
Click to expand...


I don't know that Dr. Gonzales was saying anything different than that or accusing anyone of believing tradition was equal to the scripture. It seems that he was saying people were behaving as if tradition were equal by appealing to the authority of the confessions as opposed to the scripture which the confessions refer to. Thats my opinion.


----------



## Iconoclast

Dr. Bob Gonzales said:


> I want to assure Geoff that my passing reference to the need to refine the covenant theology of the 1689 is not motivated by an incipient New Covenant Theology. Drs. Waldron and Barcellos, who teach for my seminary, can vouch for that. I'm thinking more of the modern attacks on the "covenant of works." I affirm the covenant of works, and believe its doctrinal formulae in the 1689 could use some modest refinement.



Welcome to the puritanboard,and thank you for clarifying some aspects of the articles. I think it is hard for someone to question those men who have been trusted guides in so many areas of theology.As if to question a couple of their teachings is to reject wholesale everything they taught.
Sometimes I think of many of the godly teachers who have much truth,yet differ on areas of teaching that God has designed it to happen this way to keep us all humble and constantly seeking His face for additional light in the word.
When anyone gets too proud , to that degree they lose their spiritual sight.
I have enjoyed some of your posts on the other forums,and look forward to your imput here on the board.


----------



## Dr. Bob Gonzales

Thanks for the many greetings and input regarding my posts "On the Danger of Reformed Traditionalism." Much of your input has sharpened my thinking and prompted me to be more careful in my statements. Nevertheless, I still think the general point I was attempting to make is valid. Hopefully, those of you who were concerned about the implications of Part I read Part II. If you read Part II, you'll find some specific examples of what I perceive to be deficiencies in my own 1689 Confession. It doesn't appear that the 1689, Savoy, or WCF adequately articulate and underscore the church's and individual Christian's obligation vis-a-vis evangelistic and missionary outreach. I haven't done a careful study of the Three Forms of Unity to venture an assessment on those continental symbols. I'm curious to get your input. Do you believe the Puritan confessions give sufficient space and attention to what is arguably one of the church's and Christian's central roles in a lost world? Would you agree with the Presbyterian theologian John Frame when he writes, "A church that is not preoccupied with reaching the unsaved is not merely a weak church; it is not properly a church at all"?


----------



## Dr. Bob Gonzales

I'm sorry I haven't figured out how to use the quote feature yet. So I'm copying and pasting. Matthew's "overall impression of [my] article is that it falsely contrasted exegetical theology over against historical and systematic theology. E.g., you write, 'In principle no Reformed pastor or theologian would elevate his tradition to the same level as Scripture. But in practice I believe there can be a very subtle tendency in that direction.' Reformed tradition by definition seeks to be Scriptural." 

First, I think most Christian traditions claim to be Scriptural. For example, "_Bible_ churches" by definition seek to be _biblical_. In the end, we have to measure the claims of any tradition _by the careful exegesis of God's word_. 

Second, when I assert that "in practice I believe than can be a very subtle tendency in that direction," I'm not making a charge against Calvin or the Puritans. I'm referring to subtle tendencies among some of their heirs _in modern times_. I offer two examples in my post.

Third, I'm not denying the fact that the Holy Spirit has taught the church many valuable insights into God's word which have been formulated and embraced as ecclesiastical tradition. Many of these traditions are good summaries of the biblical teaching, as Calvin and our Puritan forefathers recognized. Nevertheless, Calvin and the Puritans only embraced those traditions that they were convinced were consistent with _the exegetical data of Scripture_. Consequently, when they cite the fathers along with Scripture prooftexts, they intend the former only as subordinate grounds for a given doctrine and as secondary witnesses to the truth. As Matthew later acknowledged, the Scripture alone is the _norma normans_, the confessions the _norma normata_. Accordingly, when Herman Hoeksema claims that "sound dogmatics must be faithful to the Reformed creeds and to the dogma of the church" without any qualification, he has, in my mind, blurred an important distinction and betrayed a dangerous assumption, viz, that the Reformed creeds and dogma of the (Reformed) church always summarize accurately and proportionately all the teaching of Scripture. I attempt to show, in my second post, that such is not the case with the 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith. Those of you who hold to the WCF, Savoy, or Three Forms of Unity may feel otherwise about your symbols. But my view of my confession is analogous to my view of the preached sermon--inasmuch as it conforms to the word of God, it carry's God's authority. Of course, the sermon is usually the product of one pastor (along with the help he gets from commentators) whereas a confession is usually the product of many pastors and scholars and therefore is probably more reliable and accurate than a sermon. And it just so happens that I believe the 1689 is highly reliable! (see my "On the Validity & Value of Confessions of Faith," Part I, Part II, Part III, Part IV)

But the bottom line remains the same: _what says the Lord_? The primacy of Scripture was the concern of Luther, Calvin, and the Puritans. As their heirs, it's important that we share and maintain and defend that concern today. If I might quote Professor John Murray again, "When any generation is content to rely upon its theological heritage and refuses to explore for itself the riches of divine revelation, then declension is already under way and heterodoxy will be the lot of the succeeding generation."


----------



## Dr. Bob Gonzales

By the way, how do I post a "thank you" below a given post?


----------



## JBaldwin

Just click the "thanks" in the bottom right-hand corner of the screen.


----------



## JBaldwin

> Would you agree with the Presbyterian theologian John Frame when he writes, "A church that is not preoccupied with reaching the unsaved is not merely a weak church; it is not properly a church at all"?



This could be an entirely new thread and worth the time to consider. Anyone interested?


----------



## Dr. Bob Gonzales

I must be blind, but I can't seem to locate a button that says "thanks." I see one that says, "Reply with quote"; another than says, "Multi-quote this message"; and another that says, "Quick reply to this message." Am I missing something?


----------



## JBaldwin

It's possible that you have to post a number of times before you are allowed to use the "thanks" button.


----------



## NaphtaliPress

Dr. Bob Gonzales said:


> I must be blind, but I can't seem to locate a button that says "thanks." I see one that says, "Reply with quote"; another than says, "Multi-quote this message"; and another that says, "Quick reply to this message." Am I missing something?





JBaldwin said:


> It's possible that you have to post a number of times before you are allowed to use the "thanks" button.


Yes; I think it is 15; maybe 25. I never remember which.


----------



## Dr. Bob Gonzales

Thanks, Joy, for your help. I enjoyed looking over your blog. My wife, oldest son, and daughter are musicians. My daughter plays the violin. I'll have to steer her to your blog.


----------



## Dr. Bob Gonzales

Thanks, Chris. I shouldn't be too far away.


----------



## JBaldwin

Thanks, glad you enjoyed my blog. My daughters are both musicians, too. My oldest plays double bass and cello.


----------



## Dr. Bob Gonzales

Do you know the Mulfingers? They're a family quite proficient in the stringed instruments. Mrs. Mulfinger teachers my daughter, and her daughters have produced several CDs of beautiful music.


----------



## JBaldwin

Bob, I have known the Mulfingers for years. George Mulfinger (now with the Lord) taught me cello years ago, as did his daughter Mrs. Sharon Gerber (more recently). I do known Mrs. Mulfinger as well, though I haven't seen in her a few years.


----------



## Dr. Bob Gonzales

JBaldwin said:


> Would you agree with the Presbyterian theologian John Frame when he writes, "A church that is not preoccupied with reaching the unsaved is not merely a weak church; it is not properly a church at all"?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This could be an entirely new thread and worth the time to consider. Anyone interested?
Click to expand...


Someone might think Frame's overstated the point by using the phrase "preoccupied with." Perhaps "concerned with" might be a better phrase. In any case, I think this would be a good discussion. Should an acknowledgment of and commitment to the Great Commission be a defining mark of a genuine Christian church? And if so, shouldn't we articulate that point in our statement of faith?


----------



## Christusregnat

Dr. Bob Gonzales said:


> I must be blind, but I can't seem to locate a button that says "thanks." I see one that says, "Reply with quote"; another than says, "Multi-quote this message"; and another that says, "Quick reply to this message." Am I missing something?



Bob,

Soon you will see (if you don't yet) a blue button that says "Quote" with an open quote in a black circle before the word "Quote".

That will then put an open quote identifying the person you're quoting, their quotation, and the end quote. For instance, when I quoted you, it started with a left bracket, and then "QUOTE=Dr. Bob Gonzales;465717", and then a right bracket. The actual wording quoted is followed by a left bracket, then /QUOTE, followed by a right bracket.

If you ever want to quote something that you pull out of a book, or from the bible, etc. you would just put the left bracket, the "quote", and then the right bracket. At the end of whatever you've quoted, you do the same thing with the brackets, and put "/quote". Mind you, you don't need the quotation marks that I added for illustration purposes. 

If you're not confused, I envy you 

Cheers,


----------



## NaphtaliPress

Bob,
It should be a distinct thread and feel free to start one. I don't think it was unimportant to the Westminster Assembly. There may indeed be significant differences between how the majority today view how the gospel is to be spread and the Reformed churches during the confession writing era. And didn't it really take English colonization and empire expansion to enable later foreign missionary efforts? But be that as it may, that the spread of the gospel was important and to be prayed for is noted in Westminster Larger Catechism Q&A 191. [191] Qu: What do wee pray for, in the second Petition?
Ans: In the second Petition (which is, thy Kingdome come,) acknowledging ourselves & all mankind to bee by nature under the dominion of sin & Sathan; wee pray, that the Kingdom of sin & Sathan, may bee destroyed, the Gospel propagated throughout the world, the Jewes called, the fullnes of the Gentiles brought in, the Church furnished with all Gospel officers & ordinances, purged from corruption, countenanced & maintained by the Civil magistrate; that the Ordinances of Christ may bee purely dispensed, & made effectual to the converting of those that are yet in their sins, & the confirming[,] comforting, & building up of those that are already converted; that Christ would rule in our hearts here, & hasten the time of his second comeing, & our reigneing with him forever; and that he would bee pleased so to exercise the Kingdom of his power in all the world, as may best conduce to these ends.​Text from my transcription of one of the two surviving Assembly Manuscripts presented to Parliament, this from the one described as in "hand A". For this question there are only cosmetic or small punctuation differences with that in hand 'B'.


----------



## Archlute

Dr. Bob Gonzales said:


> JBaldwin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Would you agree with the Presbyterian theologian John Frame when he writes, "A church that is not preoccupied with reaching the unsaved is not merely a weak church; it is not properly a church at all"?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This could be an entirely new thread and worth the time to consider. Anyone interested?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Someone might think Frame's overstated the point by using the phrase "preoccupied with." Perhaps "concerned with" might be a better phrase. In any case, I think this would be a good discussion. Should an acknowledgment of and commitment to the Great Commission be a defining mark of a genuine Christian church? And if so, shouldn't we articulate that point in our statement of faith?
Click to expand...


John Frame has begun to make something of a name for himself by coming up with provocative statements based upon false premises/dichotomies. He says a lot more ridiculous stuff in his latest Doctrine of the Christian Life than he ever did in his Doctrine of the Knowledge of God, for example. I have become tired of his little tirades against Reformed theology, and honestly think that the PCA would be a lot better off without his frivolous method of doing theology.

Before you can even begin to take Frame's question with any level of seriousness you'd have to ask if preaching the Gospel in a community every Lord's Day qualifies as "reaching the unsaved". If he were to say "yes", then it would have to be said that Frame is once again being provocative for no good reason, since the Reformed already define the key mark of a true church as the right preaching of the Gospel/Scriptures. If, however, he were to make a predictable jab at that as being a good example of that being "Reformed Traditionalism", and that "no", it was not sufficient enough for reaching the lost, and that just preaching alone would not be enough to qualify a church as a true church, apart from other methods of evangelism, then Frame would be in the unenviable position of having to explain himself on a number of points to his fellow presbyters, and would do what he most often does when being asked to clarify on issues like this - equivocate, qualify, take cheap shots at modern Reformed theologians in his footnotes, make chiding comments about traditional Reformed theologians in a "playful manner", and then never finally settle upon any one answer while yet strongly insinuating that the "traditional Reformed answer" could not possibly be correct.

Of course, as Bob noted, that could be the subject of an entirely new thread.


----------



## Dr. Bob Gonzales

NaphtaliPress said:


> Bob,
> It should be a distinct thread and feel free to start one. I don't think it was unimportant to the Westminster Assembly. There may indeed be significant differences between how the majority today view how the gospel is to be spread and the Reformed churches during the confession writing era. And didn't it really take English colonization and empire expansion to enable later foreign missionary efforts? But be that as it may, that the spread of the gospel was important and to be prayed for is noted in Westminster Larger Catechism Q&A 191.



Thanks, Chris. I'd be interested to know more about differences in perspective regarding "how the gospel is spread" between those of the Confessional area and churches today. You're probably right about English colonization being a factor. I'm sorry to be a burden but how does one start a new thread?


----------



## NaphtaliPress

A key focus would be on the ministerial role in spreading the gospel; that is a big one I would think but leave that for the new thread and others to opine. Go here: Evangelism, Missions and the Persecuted Church - The PuritanBoard and you will see a button at the top above the listings of the threads, which says "New Thread". Click it and go from there. First time is a learning experience but it is fairly intuitive.


----------



## Pergamum

I would favor another thread on Frame too.


----------



## Dr. Bob Gonzales

I've started the thread under the title, "Do the Reformed Confessions Affirm the Duty of Evangelistic and Missionary Outreach?"
http://www.puritanboard.com/f71/do-...-duty-evangelistic-missionary-outreach-37503/


----------



## NaphtaliPress

I added the link to it. I also went in and set your preferences to show the advanced editing box for posting. You should see the various formatting and also link adding buttons now.


Dr. Bob Gonzales said:


> I've started the thread under the title, "Do the Reformed Confessions Affirm the Duty of Evangelistic and Missionary Outreach?"
> http://www.puritanboard.com/f71/do-...-duty-evangelistic-missionary-outreach-37503/


----------



## ww

Hey Bob,

Welcome to the PB! It has been quite some time since I made your acquaintance back at BJU but happy to see you now traveling in the Reformed Faith. I became a Calvinist at BJU myself and graduated in 1992 not knowing what to do with it however eventually became a Reformed Presbyterian. In any event it is great to see folks like yourself and Dr Lucas teaching the Truth of God's Word at the Seminary Level after earning your Phd's from the Fortress of Faith. Keep turning them out BJU!


----------



## Dr. Bob Gonzales

Dr. Bob Gonzales said:


> Someone might think Frame's overstated the point by using the phrase "preoccupied with." Perhaps "concerned with" might be a better phrase. In any case, I think this would be a good discussion. Should an acknowledgment of and commitment to the Great Commission be a defining mark of a genuine Christian church? And if so, shouldn't we articulate that point in our statement of faith?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Archlute said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> John Frame has begun to make something of a name for himself by coming up with provocative statements based upon false premises/dichotomies. He says a lot more ridiculous stuff in his latest Doctrine of the Christian Life than he ever did in his Doctrine of the Knowledge of God, for example. I have become tired of his little tirades against Reformed theology, and honestly think that the PCA would be a lot better off without his frivolous method of doing theology.
> 
> Before you can even begin to take Frame's question with any level of seriousness you'd have to ask if preaching the Gospel in a community every Lord's Day qualifies as "reaching the unsaved". If he were to say "yes", then it would have to be said that Frame is once again being provocative for no good reason, since the Reformed already define the key mark of a true church as the right preaching of the Gospel/Scriptures. If, however, he were to make a predictable jab at that as being a good example of that being "Reformed Traditionalism", and that "no", it was not sufficient enough for reaching the lost, and that just preaching alone would not be enough to qualify a church as a true church, apart from other methods of evangelism, then Frame would be in the unenviable position of having to explain himself on a number of points to his fellow presbyters, and would do what he most often does when being asked to clarify on issues like this - equivocate, qualify, take cheap shots at modern Reformed theologians in his footnotes, make chiding comments about traditional Reformed theologians in a "playful manner", and then never finally settle upon any one answer while yet strongly insinuating that the "traditional Reformed answer" could not possibly be correct.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Adam, these are some pretty serious charges against John Frame that seem to indict not just his teaching but his character. Of course, I'm in no position to accept or reject your assessment because I do not know Professor Frame personally nor am I aware of any particular offenses he may have committed within the context of his presbytery. I have read a number of Frame's books and have emailed him on several occasions about certain issues. Though I haven't always agreed with all of his viewpoints, I have still found a substantial amount of common ground. I've also appreciated what I perceived to be an irenic spirit in his writings. But you may know some things I don't know. But I'm not sure this is the best venue to address one's perceived faults regarding another brother's character.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## Dr. Bob Gonzales

whitway said:


> Hey Bob,
> 
> Welcome to the PB! It has been quite some time since I made your acquaintance back at BJU but happy to see you now traveling in the Reformed Faith. I became a Calvinist at BJU myself and graduated in 1992 not knowing what to do with it however eventually became a Reformed Presbyterian. In any event it is great to see folks like yourself and Dr Lucas teaching the Truth of God's Word at the Seminary Level after earning your Phd's from the Fortress of Faith. Keep turning them out BJU!



Hello, brother. Good to hear from you. I too began to move in a Calvinistic than Reformed direction while at BJU, about the same time you graduated. Drs. Terry Rude and Michael Barrett influenced me in that direction. I also began to borrow cassette tapes from Mt. Olive Tape library. Lloyd Jones, Van Til, and Albert Martin became a regular part of my diet. In 1994, I moved to Michigan to attend the Reformed Baptist Church of Grand Rapids where I was eventually ordained. Later I pastored for 3 1/2 years in Bossier City, Louisiana. Then, in 2002, I moved back to Greenville and joined the eldership fo Covenant Reformed Baptist Church. I also finished a PhD at BJU and became the academic dean and professor of Reformed Baptist Seminary. Becky and I have 5 children. God bless, and I hope our paths will cross in the future.


----------



## KMK

Dr. Bob Gonzales said:


> whitway said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hey Bob,
> 
> Welcome to the PB! It has been quite some time since I made your acquaintance back at BJU but happy to see you now traveling in the Reformed Faith. I became a Calvinist at BJU myself and graduated in 1992 not knowing what to do with it however eventually became a Reformed Presbyterian. In any event it is great to see folks like yourself and Dr Lucas teaching the Truth of God's Word at the Seminary Level after earning your Phd's from the Fortress of Faith. Keep turning them out BJU!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hello, brother. Good to hear from you. I too began to move in a Calvinistic than Reformed direction while at BJU, about the same time you graduated. Drs. Terry Rude and Michael Barrett influenced me in that direction. I also began to borrow cassette tapes from Mt. Olive Tape library. Lloyd Jones, Van Til, and Albert Martin became a regular part of my diet. In 1994, I moved to Michigan to attend the Reformed Baptist Church of Grand Rapids where I was eventually ordained. Later I pastored for 3 1/2 years in Bossier City, Louisiana. Then, in 2002, I moved back to Greenville and joined the eldership fo Covenant Reformed Baptist Church. I also finished a PhD at BJU and became the academic dean and professor of Reformed Baptist Seminary. Becky and I have 5 children. God bless, and I hope our paths will cross in the future.
Click to expand...


I believe Pastor John Weaver is also a product of BJU. We use a great deal of BJU materials to homeschool our children.


----------



## Dr. Bob Gonzales

Ken,

Do you know when John Weaver would have graduated? I'm not sure if I know him. But it's a small world.


----------

