# Is the Puritanboard Reformed? Some Think Not.



## C. Matthew McMahon (Feb 5, 2006)

Someone said just today, "This board" referring to the Puritanboard, "is *not a good example of reformed theology*." I'm curious to find out what people on the Puritanboard think overall.

I know that certain abberations of Reformed Theology have come down to us today. Some people believe that simply holding to election, for example, makes one "Reformed," or even "Calvinistic." I think being a "Reformed Christian" is MUCH more than just that. That's a watered down definition.

RC Sproul in his book "Grace Unknown" gives a very basic and simple overview of Reformed Theology in 5 foundational points, and then in 5 hallmarks of grace in the doctrines of grace. He says that historic Reformed Theology is 1) God centered, 2) Based on the Word of God Alone, 3) Committed to Faith Alone, 4) Devoted to the threfold offices of Christ, Prophet Priest and King, and 5) structured by 3 covenants in "Covenant Theology". (These three covenants Sproul says are the Covenant of Works, Covenant of Redemption, and Covenant of Grace). (I'd agree heartily with him!)

The term "Reformed" though, comes from an antagonistic use that Jochaim Westphal used as a Lutheran Theologian who vehemently disagreed with his contemporary John Calvin over the use of "sacraments" as laid out in the _Institutes of the Christian Religion_. Those who followed Calvin's ecclesiology, theology, and sacramentaology were "Reformed" and "Calvinistic." And according to Westphal, that was a BAD thing. (Obviously, some still think it is a bad thing today!)

If we traced Covenantal Reformed Theology through history, we would find it beginning with Christ and the Apostles (but that's a given) and then to Augustine and Irenaeus being the first who utilized the "covenant" to any extent in their writing. So, it is not surprising to see the Reformers and Puritans heavily quoting Augustine (or Austin) in their writings. Irenaeus taught 4 covenants that God made with men: Adamic, Noahic, Mosaic and the covenant under Jesus Christ. Gabriel Biel, in the 15th Century, made use of the idea of "œcovenant" to a relationship of justification. The progression continued in Oecolampadius (1482-1531) where he argued for the reality of the eternal covenant (or Covenant of Redemption to be later termed), Wolfgang Capito (1478-1541) made use of the covenant all through his commentary work on the Bible, and then came Ulrich Zwingli who defended the covenant against the Anabaptists. With Heinrich Bullinger (1504-1575) the covenant concept began to take a more systematic shape and form. Bullinger defined God´s covenant as follows "œGod, in making of leagues, as He doth in all things else, applieth himself to our capacities, and imitateth the order which men use in making confederacies"¦and therefore, when God´s mind was to declare the favour and good-will that he bare to mankind"¦it pleased Him to make a league or covenant with mankind." Calvin then solidified this in his _Institutes_, which is smothered in these "covenantal" concepts. Others wrote extensively on the covenants: Wolfgang Musculus (1497-1563), Martin Buceer (1491-1551), Peter Martyr (1499-1562), and Andrew Hyperius (1511-1564). In peak form the covenant concepts come out in the Heidelberg Catechism written by Caspar Olevianus (1536-1587) and Zacharius Ursinus (1534-1583). Here we find the recognized principle of "œreally" a single covenant of grace running through all of redemptive history. Expressions of that covenant appear in the Noahic, Mosaic, and so on. Even William Tyndale (1494-1536) utilized the interpretive principle of the covenant as a hermeneutic for understanding all of Scripture.

The covenant was defined by the Reformers, but expanded and detailed by the Puritans, and Dutch Theologians, of the time. Dudly Fenner, William Perkins, Robert Rollock, John Preston, William Ames, John Owen, Samuel Rutherford and the Westminster Standards all portray a Paedo-Baptistic, covenantal, Federal Theology in fine detail. However, in a cogent and detailed form, there is no better outline of this system of thought than in Coccejus´ theological "œpupil," Herman Witsius. Witsius´ _The Economy of the Covenants Between God and Man_ was the pinnacle work for both Britain and America after its publication. Witsius´ book should be considered a standard textbook for Reformed Theology "“ Covenantal Theology, which included infant inclusion in the New Testament covenant. In denying the basic tenants of what inclusion of the covenant means, this then treads upon the meaning of the sacrament (not ordnance), ultimately proving a discontinuity (or "œwall") between the Old Testament and New Testament to the extent that some form of dispensational thought cannot be avoided. It is actually created, even unknowingly, by those who reject the continued inclusion of infants in the covenant, or of Reformed Covenantal Theology. In other words, non-reformed folk do not see the covenant, as Fred Greco pointed out well, "as the historical Reformed distinction that the Covenant of Grace has a outward and inward administration, and that the non-elect are not really in the Covenant of Grace, but rather they only partake of its outward administration without the substance. This is the sum of what John means when he says: "They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us. But they went out, that it might become plain that they all are not of us" (1 John 2:19)."

Gabriel Martini said this same thing when he summarized, "People are either legally or communally within the Covenant of Grace."

Dr. Clark, who frequents this board, has an outstnading summary of the historic ideas surrounding Reformed Theology at this link: http://public.csusm.edu/public/guests/rsclark/Sentences.htm

(I just wish I had come up with it first!!)

Jonathan Edwards, following Peter Van Mastricht believed these covenatnal concepts to be the hallmark of biblical Christianity. Van Mastricht, in the book by Soli Deo Gloria called "œA Treatise on Regeneration," says, "œThe Reformed _unanimously hold_ that there is no physical regenerating efficacy in baptism, but only a moral efficacy which consists in its being a sign and a seal of regeneration; that they also hold that the grace of regeneration is not confined to any sacrament, and yet believe that baptism is not a mere naked, useless sign, but a more efficacious sealing of the covenant of grace in regeneration to those who receive it agreeably to its institution, and also to elect infant of believers."

In these "distinctives" of Reformed Theology, one would hold to certain foundational truths that make "Reformed Theology" what it essential is. There should be key unifying concepts around:

Law and Gospel 
Justification 
The Covenant of Redemption 
The Covenant of Works 
The Covenant of Grace 
The Sacraments and the Church

Without these concepts, one cannot possibly have "Reformed Theology."

Thus, do you think, overall, that this board is a *good example*, or a *bad example* of Reformed Theology?


----------



## Scott Bushey (Feb 5, 2006)

Members online at the moment of post being placed:

Bladestunner316, blhowes, C. Matthew McMahon, db, Draught Horse, faydawg67117, LawrenceU, matthew, NaphtaliPress, Plimoth Thom, Puritanhead, Scott Bushey 

Within 4 minutes of Matts post 2 people voted that it is NOT a good example:

These are the members that are presently online. Who said that it is a bad example and why?





[Edited on 2-6-2006 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Feb 5, 2006)

Fess up. Don't be shy.


----------



## Puritanhead (Feb 5, 2006)

It's too Presbyterian... otherwise no cause for complaint.


----------



## blhowes (Feb 5, 2006)

I cannot tell a lie...twasn't me


----------



## Scott Bushey (Feb 5, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Puritanhead_
> It's too Presbyterian... otherwise no cause for complaint.



Ryan,
Does that detract from the historic reformed framework, or is that just a personal complaint?

This is not an inquisition. But the statement has been made and needs to be either supported or recanted.

[Edited on 2-6-2006 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## Bladestunner316 (Feb 5, 2006)

Ok I fess up I said the board was a good example of Reformed Theology :bigsmile: 

blade


----------



## Bladestunner316 (Feb 5, 2006)

I don't know how this issue got started as I was not involved in the discussion. 

blade


----------



## cultureshock (Feb 5, 2006)

In my experience with reading this board, even since before I registered as a member, I have thought that sometimes the posts are infected with biblicist and fundamentalist types of interpretation, which I consider to be contrary to Matthew's definition of "Reformed". However, many biblicists and fundamentalists (who are quite present in our Reformed churches) confess, in word, the same theological points you have used to define "Reformed". However, I would suggest that it is possible to use the language of Matthew's definition of "Reformed", while at the same time mistaking the sola Scriptura principle for a fundamentalist and biblicist approach, which differs from a truly "Reformed" approach to Scripture alone.

I didn't vote, because I have seen some good and some bad in fairly balanced measure.

Brian

[Edited on 2-6-2006 by cultureshock]


----------



## matt01 (Feb 5, 2006)

I didn't vote "yes", but I definately didn't vote "no". That being said, does the person necessarily _have_ to admit it? There might be a reason to remain silent.


----------



## Peter (Feb 5, 2006)

What's a "biblicist" and a "fundamentalist" approach? If that means someone who believes the bible and its fundamentals (in additiion to Reformed distinctives) count me in.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Feb 5, 2006)

> _Originally posted by matthew_
> I didn't vote "yes", but I definately didn't vote "no". That being said, does the person necessarily _have_ to admit it? There might be a reason to remain silent.



Matthew,
No one needs to admit anything. However, if a judgment is made of this nature, one would think that to make such a charge, it could be adequately defended. As I said, this is not an inquisition but as a way to understand hiow one comes to their conclusion. The assertion is just that, an assertion that history does not support.

[Edited on 2-6-2006 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## matt01 (Feb 5, 2006)

Thank you, Scott. I agree that it would be good for the person to explain why they voted the way they did. If the board is in fact a poor representation of the Reformed faith, I would like to do something to change. At the same time, I can understand why some would be willing to give an opinion, without having the board at large know who they are.


----------



## Peter (Feb 5, 2006)

According to Matts definition, yes, though there is disagreement on the sacraments. I would also add that the Regulative Principle of Worship has been a defining characteristic of the Reformed Faith. On the PB there is a wide range of opinion concerning the application of the RPW but general consensus that the principle is true.


----------



## LadyFlynt (Feb 5, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Peter_
> What's a "biblicist" and a "fundamentalist" approach? If that means someone who believes the bible and its fundamentals (in additiion to Reformed distinctives) count me in.





I believe the Reformers, Puritan/Covenanters/and otherwise were pretty fundamentalistic. I don't see how being a fundamentalist is contrary to being reformed.


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Feb 5, 2006)

Since we have to clear ourselves now since names were named, Twas not me, and I don't plan to vote.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Feb 5, 2006)

> _Originally posted by matthew_
> Thank you, Scott. I agree that it would be good for the person to explain why they voted the way they did. If the board is in fact a poor representation of the Reformed faith, I would like to do something to change. At the same time, I can understand why some would be willing to give an opinion, without having the board at large know who they are.



As I said, this is not an inquisition. Private is as private does. But, thats the point; if it is not a good example, by voting that way in not supporting it is silly-no? Thats the issue. It's a non sequitur.


----------



## cultureshock (Feb 5, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Peter_
> What's a "biblicist" and a "fundamentalist" approach? If that means someone who believes the bible and its fundamentals (in additiion to Reformed distinctives) count me in.



In my understanding, "biblicist" and "fundamentalist" refer to a very literalistic reading of Scripture, which I believe is more the result of Modern rationalism (like Descartes) than Reformed Christian presupposition. Such a reading often absolutizes passages that are not intended to be absolute, and ignores the context of redemptive progression in favor of treating passages as timeless, eternal truth prooftexts (in cases when the author, especially the ultimate author, i.e., the Holy Spirit, has not intended them as such). I'm all for taking the Bible seriously, but in order to do so, we must pay attention to context all the more seriously, and thus, study hard to reach at the Spirit's authorial intention!

I realize this is a sweeping generalization, but generalization is what Matthew is asking for.

Brian


----------



## Peter (Feb 5, 2006)

I'd also say practical piety has been a key note of the Reformed Faith. That is, living out doctrinal truths in every day life. Focus on holiness and sanctification, killing vice and quickening virtues. This is where the PB is weakest, myself included. I'm not commenting on the personal lives of our members (which I know nothing of) just reflecting on how quickly we are to exonerate practices our Reformed forefathers would have condemned. The present trend is to call everything "Christian liberty". 

[Edited on 2-6-2006 by Peter]


----------



## pastorway (Feb 5, 2006)




----------



## Peter (Feb 5, 2006)

> _Originally posted by cultureshock_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Peter_
> ...



I agree with you that this is bad but I dont think it is a problem here. I see the opposite problem of over mystifying everything the bible says much more of a problem in the Reformed churches.


----------



## Puritanhead (Feb 5, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Puritanhead_
> ...



That was a joke... No, it doesn't detract _from the historic reformed framework_. 

I think the Puritanboard is Reformed.

If you want me to be serious. I sometimes wonder whether the requirement that one affirm the WCF, 1689, or Three Forms of Unity is a bit too inclusive. There are people who put qualifiers on their affirmations (e.g. not sure about anti-papal affirmations in confession). There are people who are not quite there yet-- and have questions, but strong Reformed leanings. I sometimes wonder about that as a requirement... I have NOT lived under the banner of having the Puritanboard full of contentious Arminians and dispensationalists who like to argue with us, so I might chew my tongue if you had no confessional standard. I just don't know about it... perhaps it should be a flexible rule. Most Reformed newbies just don't know what it means. The PB is not a church as you guys point out, so I am not sure how rigorous one should be about confessions, but I realize no standards could be a problem as well. 

I also hear more about Federal Vision / Auburn Avenue than I care too hear. I just stop visiting those threads. I think everyone knows they undercut covenant theology. Some able theologians may care to reform the unorthodoxed, but I just grow indifferent to trying to reform the unorthodox...

[Edited on 2-6-2006 by Puritanhead]


----------



## Puritanhead (Feb 5, 2006)

This board is a good example of Reformed Theology.


----------



## Puritanhead (Feb 5, 2006)

Scott and Matthew,

 Puritanhead has his serious hat on now.

How about the moderators spearheading some threads that will might draw out and recover some Reformed distinctives and hallmarks of the faith? And we do this every so month with various spiritual mentors (e.g. pastors, deacons, etc.) taking helm in discussion. Sometimes, we lose sight of the Reformed distinctives. Like the Gospel which we are to preach it to ourselves continually, likewise we need refreshers on Reformed distinctives and the Reformation as well. We're still Reforming!

One of the great errors of Romanism and the medieval church was the sacred-secular dichotomy. Too often that mentality even creeps in among Protestants and evangelicals. I've felt in my life, and admit it as I wrestled with a perceived calling to pastoral ministry. It wrings out problems. As Boice and Ryken note in their book _The Doctrines of Grace_:


> "The Roman Catholic Church had drawn an absolute distinction between the sacred and the secular: whatever religious leaders did was sacred; everything else was secular. Although, this distinction was rejected by Calvin (and by Luther, its overthrow was completed by the Puritans, who made secular work part of a person's sacred calling. Every job, no matter how mundane, was intrinsically important because it afforded the opportunity to glorify God and to love one's neighbor. Cotton Mather wrote, "Every Christian ordinarily should have a calling. That is to say, there should be some special business... wherein a Christian should for the most part spend the most of his time; and this, that so he may glorify God."



This is so true, and we can glorify God in whatever we do. We just need to set our sights on his promises, serve him in love, and heed his commandments. What we need is a passion for discipleship instilled among all believers.

I think we should also be more willing to constructively criticize our own forefathers and recognize the periodic errors of our forefathers. Being Reformed is not about following the Covenanters, Cromwell and Calvin down to every scintilla of dogma they espoused-- or defending everything they did and said. I am proud to have discovered an English Puritan and Scotch-Irish Covenanter and Welsh Presbyterian pedigree in family tree all the same.

[Edited on 2-6-2006 by Puritanhead]


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Feb 5, 2006)

On the notes thus far, I'd like to see more threads on personal piety and some discussion on that note. (What to do, what we do, how we do it, what we can do to improve it, etc.)


----------



## SolaScriptura (Feb 5, 2006)

> _Originally posted by C. Matthew McMahon_
> Someone said just today, "This board" referring to the Puritanboard, "is *not a good example of reformed theology*."



What were the reasons given for this statement?


By the way, I haven't voted. 

I don't really feel satisfied with the choices:

I think that this Board does accurately represent historic Reformed theology - at least, it is presented by several key folks.

However, on the con side, I think that many on this Board consistently represent very rigid interpretations of things like Sabbath observance, the RP, EP, women's roles, etc... Though the more... strict... interpretations have a legitimate place under the "Reformed umbrella," all too often proponents of these views use rhetoric that either explicitly or implicitly makes it clear that they think divergent views are not Reformed at all. This myopic understanding on the part of some is, in my opinion, why many could visit the Board and come away thinking that the Board is a bad example of Reformed theology.

Though, again, because several of the key posters consistently stress the core tenets of Reformed theology, I'd say that in that sense this Board does articulate it quite well.

[Edited on 2-6-2006 by SolaScriptura]


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Feb 5, 2006)

The very fact that there are differences of opinon here is a strength, not a weakness. Already a bunch of people who call themselves "reformed" can't be a part of the discussion--they aren't church members, they won't subscribe to a confession, etc. But hundreds can and do, and that from all across a spectrum of church affiliations, and exercising what to my mind is a fairly generous orthodoxy.

Scott,
I think calling people out or demanding that they put down a reason or an answer is counter-productive. Why should they? And your "list" of those who were online at the time is kind of gestapo, doncha think?

If there were never any disagreements or space to learn and grow, this would be a dull place, as well as *not* being a good example of Reformed theology.


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Feb 5, 2006)

I think the board is Reformed, according to the regular definition of the word in our context. Those who like to redefine words in recent days of theological reflection would probably not agree with our definition of "Reformed," but that doesn't matter, really. Disagreeing with something does not make it not so.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Feb 5, 2006)

I really like this board because of the discussions and issues it wrestles with.

I think the breadth of discussion is really good already. It reflect folks' interests and "where they're at". While articles might be useful to bring back up Reformed distinctives, I'm not sure how well read they'll be as opposed to the threads that people jump into because of their specific interest in that information.

For instance, I've recently jumped into a couple of forums I haven't looked at since I joined the board and found folks that I have never seen in the Covenant and Theological forums where I spend a good portion of my time. I probably need to develop a taste for some other issues but I'd need to make an effort to look around places I don't normally visit to find some of those threads that will make me more broadly Reformed.

I also want to  Ben's comment above about some of the imperialism on this board. I understand some of the passion but it is frustrating sometimes that there are so many convictions in such diverse areas that the breadth and width of one's liberty, if taken all together, would be a dot.

That all said, I used to spend time in technology forums and grew increasingly weary of all the pagans with foolish ideas. They're especially overrun with teenage children. This place is a breath of fresh air and I have gotten some great insights into Scripture here and some resource recommendations from some Brothers here.

I must also add that I really enjoy the Baptists here. Pastor Way, Martin Marpelete, Mocha, Trevor Johnson, and others that I've run across (and run aground with on a couple of occassions) have sharpened my theology in a way it would not have if left unchallenged. I always enjoy the posts by Matt, Bruce, Scott, Fred, R. Scott Clark, Ben and others I agree with but its easy to enjoy stuff that resonates.

Thanks for this forum. If it's not *perfectly* Reformed then it reflects the fact that those who are posting are yet unperfected.


----------



## LadyFlynt (Feb 5, 2006)

Ben, I don't see where holding to certain "strict" views anywhere near implies a contrary view is a deviation from Reformed theology or thinking. By the same means, as shown earlier in this thread, those that hold "loose" views can imply that those contrary to them are deviating from Reformed theology and thought. Personally, I don't like either term as generally both are holding strictly to one thing or another.


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Feb 5, 2006)

and  Rich. No one is "perfectly" Reformed, or Biblical, even if they dot all their "i's" and cross all their "t's". None of us will ever have a perfect theological understanding this side of glory. Someone who would make a sweeping judgment of this board as not being properly Reformed (obviously intended as a judgment or insult of sorts, I would presume?) should realize what they are really doing.



> Matthew 7:1 "œJudge not, that you be not judged. 2 For with the judgment you pronounce you will be judged, and with the measure you use it will be measured to you. 3 Why do you see the speck that is in your brother's eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye? 4 Or how can you say to your brother, "˜Let me take the speck out of your eye,´ when there is the log in your own eye? 5 You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother's eye.


----------



## JohnV (Feb 6, 2006)

Matt:

Without reading the replies to your initial post, I'd like to give you my impression.

This Board is definitely Reformed. Especially at first we had a very Reformed doctrine and sense of community. As time allowed many more members to join, any who fall definitionally under the Reformed faith, we have also grown in diversity. This has taxed and tested our Reformedness. As well, as some discussions progressed some things became as if established by proof, when in fact the opposition merely backed off for any number of reasons. This would give the conception of raising secondary issues to primary level, when in fact it was only our own exuberance on some issues that caused that notion. 

By and large, I think that collectively we were already a poor specimen of what Reformedness is before the Puritan Board came to be. For example, I was shocked to discover that the Westminster arguments for church government are quite Dutch, not modern-day Presbyterian. I am utterly ashamed of the lack of knowledge of what the RPW really is. And I just can't fathom that the very first rule of preaching the Word is so well known and yet also so little known at the same time by the same people, even by ruling bodies. In our day we are not very good representatives of the Reformed faith that has been handed down to us. 

And yet, in spite of all the failings, we as a Puritan Board have not failed to hold the right doctrines highly, and to protect and value a solid Reformed community. We give and take correction with grace for the most part. And some of us have had to make apologies, and did so more than willingly. 

The Reformed faith is not found in the level of doctrinal standard, or in the art of persuasion, or in particular band-wagon issues; it is found in a desire to be open to the leading of the Spirit in knowing and applying the Word for ourselves, and then relating our joyous discoveries to others. Taking correction, or posting our views unafraid of being corrected by our beloved friends; these make us definitely Reformed. Just because I know the five solas, know the five points of TULIP, and am quite familiar with the Confessions, these things don't necessarily make me Reformed. But if I hold some strange view, and someone points me to Scripture, and I submit to its authority without trying to subject Scripture to my point of view, then I am on my way to understanding the Word. I am, in fact, reforming. And that makes me Reformed. I am tied together with those who hold the complete doctrines of salvation, being taught in a Christian church, and embraced by a fellowship of faith.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Feb 6, 2006)

> _Originally posted by LadyFlynt_
> Ben, I don't see where holding to certain "strict" views anywhere near implies a contrary view is a deviation from Reformed theology or thinking. By the same means, as shown earlier in this thread, those that hold "loose" views can imply that those contrary to them are deviating from Reformed theology and thought. Personally, I don't like either term as generally both are holding strictly to one thing or another.


As I generally agreed with what I _thought_ he meant, I read Ben as saying not that he believed they had no right to have more strict views and call themselves Reformed but that some with strict views tend to cast those with looser views outside the camp. I don't want to go into specific cases here to detract from the intent of the thread. I just think there are some who grant very little or no liberty in debatable matters.


----------



## JohnV (Feb 6, 2006)

I too am not casting a vote, simply because of the wording. I think this Board is a good *example* of Reformed folk labouring together with each other, sharing our struggles. But I have trouble thinking we are a good example of Reformed *doctrine*. In my opinion we're missing some things in that regard. We seem, though, to have the community aspect in better shape than our doctrinal understanding.


----------



## cultureshock (Feb 6, 2006)

> _Originally posted by SolaScriptura_
> However, on the con side, I think that many on this Board consistently represent very rigid interpretations of things like Sabbath observance, the RP, EP, women's roles, etc... Though the more... strict... interpretations have a legitimate place under the "Reformed umbrella," all too often proponents of these views use rhetoric that either explicitly or implicitly makes it clear that they think divergent views are not Reformed at all. This myopic understanding on the part of some is, in my opinion, why many could visit the Board and come away thinking that the Board is a bad example of Reformed theology.



Amen to this. Even within the borders of confessionalism, there is some room for diversity of opinion. I'd like to see a little more openness in this regard (again, a generalization).

I have benefitted greatly from this board in general, though.

Brian

[Edited on 2-6-2006 by cultureshock]


----------



## Scott Bushey (Feb 6, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Contra_Mundum_
> 
> 
> Scott,
> I think calling people out or demanding that they put down a reason or an answer is counter-productive. Why should they? And your "list" of those who were online at the time is kind of gestapo, doncha think?



Counter productive? I don't think so. Gestapo like? I could find a better description. Knee-Jerk is better. If I had to do it again, I wouldn't have done that. Oh well, I need reforming!

[Edited on 2-6-2006 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## SolaScriptura (Feb 6, 2006)

> _Originally posted by SemperFideles_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by LadyFlynt_
> ...



Rich: Exactly.


----------



## LadyFlynt (Feb 6, 2006)

Oh, well, I never cast them outside the camp of Reformed thought...just disagree with them and their view of scripture and application in those areas...


----------



## tcalbrecht (Feb 6, 2006)

> _Originally posted by cultureshock_
> In my experience with reading this board, even since before I registered as a member, I have thought that sometimes the posts are infected with biblicist and fundamentalist types of interpretation, which I consider to be contrary to Matthew's definition of "Reformed".



Do you have any examples to substantiate this charge?


----------



## SolaScriptura (Feb 6, 2006)

> _Originally posted by tcalbrecht_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by cultureshock_
> ...



I do...


----------



## Peters (Feb 6, 2006)

Here, the reformed confessions are scrutinized, explained and quoted just as much as the Scriptures so, if this board isn´t the best example of Reformed Theology, it´s certainly on its way.


----------



## cultureshock (Feb 6, 2006)

> _Originally posted by tcalbrecht_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by cultureshock_
> ...



I believe so. It usually occurs in the context of ethical discussions, but other places as well.

Just to clarify my earlier post, I was speaking in the theoretical, so as to say that _in theory_, a fundamentalist hermeneutic strays from the Reformed understanding of sola Scriptura. That is not to say that fundamentalist _people_ are not Reformed _people_...just that fundamentalism, as a theological approach, stands, fundamentally, in tension with confessional Reformed thought (especially at WCF 1.7, I would argue). Yet, although the two are inconsistent in theory, the two often coexist in the same real person.

Brian


----------



## tcalbrecht (Feb 6, 2006)

> _Originally posted by cultureshock_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by tcalbrecht_
> ...



I think it would be helpful to have some specific examples to understand your frame of reference. Where was the text of the Bible used in a demonstrably non-Reformed way?


----------



## Archlute (Feb 6, 2006)

Brother Brian, 

As a fellow student, I must take issue with your concerns. I hear the terms 'fundamentalist', 'biblicist', 'rationalist', etc. tossed around here on campus all too often, and I believe that it usually is an indication that the student's understanding of the proper use of Scripture for moral direction and certainty is lacking, by confessional reformed standards. As well, and I am not here implying that this is true in your case, I believe that a number of students here parrot these terms, having heard them from their professors and other students, without really understanding what they mean, nor the implications encompassed by that label. I also believe that many a faithful reformed Christian has been ridiculed, or made to feel ignorant or backwards, just because they have sought to order their dealings in this life according to the rule of Scripture in both its explicit and implicit uses. 

It should be noted by more of us that: 

The WCF 1.6 states that "The whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for His own glory, man's salvation, faith, _and life_, is either expressly set down in Scripture, _or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture_. 

WLC#5 tells us that one of the principial areas of revelation given to us in Scripture is "...what duty God requires of man."

WLC#91 tells us that the duty which God requires of man is "...obedience to His revealed will."

WLC#97 states that even to the regenerate, while being delivered from it as a covenant of works, the moral law is useful to "...provoke them to more thankfulness, and to express the same _in their greater care to conform themselves thereunto as the rule of their obedience_."

The way that some attack a spurious 'rationalism' in regards to systematics and causuistry, and press a redemptive-historical reading of Scripture beyond its rightful bounds, is in my opinion, a sorry detriment to reformed theology and practice. Our confessional standards are defended and illustrated by well-thought out prooftexting which, if employed by someone in the church to defend a personal argument regarding Christian practice, would be seen as an illegitimate use of Scripture.

Dr. McMahon, in his above post, noted a need to develop more theads regarding reformed piety. The difficulty in doing this with many modern reformed folk, however, is that the older hermeneutic exemplified by the Westminster Assembly, is rejected as a proper way of reading Scripture. This means that one of the foundations of Puritan and Reformed piety, namely the art of Biblical causuistry, is dead in the water. I find it no coincidence that modern reformed Christians, to my admittedly limited knowledge, have not been able to articlate any well-written work of Christian moral practice, in relation to the 21st century, as Baxter and others did in their time. When redemptive-historical categories are misused, the ability of pastors to preach sanctifying law to the health of their congregation, and the ability of the church to appropriate the implications of Scripture in their daily workings, becomes seriously hindered. 

This also has a very negative effect upon the study and promulgation of Systematics. I have heard numerous occasions where reformed Christains, who have been subjected to heavy doses of this hermeneutic, have been able to deny key doctrines of our standards, as well as to comfortably assimilate themselves into the culture of this world, by claiming that they were appealing to a 'literarily sensitive, bibilical-theological, redemptive-historical, etc.' reading of Scripture, as opposed to a 'biblicistic, fundamentalist, rationalist, systematic theological, etc.' "distortion" of the Word.


Again, I'm not saying that you hold to the implications of these lines of thought, but I would have us contemplate why our reformed bodies seem to be so far from the learning and holiness of our forebears, and what affect our modern 'reformed' hermeneutics may have upon the health of our churches.

P.S The 'settlers' have landed...


----------



## raderag (Feb 6, 2006)

I would say it is a good example of reformed theology, but that it is more narrowly english reformed. There are very few continental reformed folks here.


----------



## kevin.carroll (Feb 6, 2006)

> _Originally posted by raderag_
> I would say it is a good example of Reformed theology, but that it is more narrowly english reformed. There are very few continental reformed folks here.



That's a pretty good insight. One of the challenges with nailing down the definition is that definitions are sometimes a little subjective. Am I not Reformed because I think the Divines were out to lunch when they called the Pope, THE Anti-Christ (vs. AN anti-Christ)? Some would say yes, and others, no.

Some here would probably look askance at our Baptist brethren. I mean, for heaven's sake, how can you be Reformed and not baptize infants? (In that vein, I had a fun conversation once with a Reformed Baptist who refused the moniker, "Reformed." He did so because, he maintained, that Baptists never came out of the RCC!)

Some think you're only Reformed if you adhere to a particular brand of Reformed tradition: e.g. EP, non-involvment in government, etc. Still others associate being Reformed with following in the steps of of the Puritans.

In some ways all of these are too narrow in that they view being Reformed in a static fashion. But is not the point of being Reformed to be ever reforming?

Enough pontificating. I voted yes. I have learned immensely from all of you, even if I have not always agreed with you. In the final analysis, I would be comfortable calling someone "Reformed," who held to the Five Solas.

Finally, I note that no one owned up to the "No" votes...though based on the options, I imagine I could guess one or two!

[Edited on 2-6-2006 by kevin.carroll]


----------



## Steve Owen (Feb 6, 2006)

Guilty as charged! 

Martin


----------



## historyb (Feb 6, 2006)

From a newbie I voted yes. I been on another forum that is not reformed and there is a huuuggge difference.


----------



## matt01 (Feb 6, 2006)

> This board is a good example of Reformed Theology. 29 (78.38%) ----------------------------
> This board is a bad example of Reformed Theology. 8 (21.62%)



A relatively small percent of the membership has voted, and of those who have voted it seems that less than 1/4 think the board is a bad example. Nevertheless, it is somewhat disturbing to see.


----------



## Archlute (Feb 6, 2006)

Oops. Forgot to mention my vote. I voted yes, but I feel that the question is a little ill put. I would prefer to say that the board is a good example of _discussing_ reformed theology, since, technically, we are not producing academic treatises here, but rather we are largely discussing things that have already been written. Reformed theology, classically speaking, is already set in our confessions (whether WCF, 3FU, or LBC), we are merely explicating or debating it.


----------



## Larry Hughes (Feb 6, 2006)

From a layman, for better or worse as I understand such things, I think these are the key land marks of Reformed:

Law and Gospel 
Justification 
The Covenant of Redemption 
The Covenant of Works 
The Covenant of Grace 
The Sacraments and the Church

I admit I'm a lay person but I'll throw in what I hope to be helpful and not harmful. As to form the site is great it contains much of the doctrines of grace. Form wise it holds, I think to be reformed. However, based upon much postings it practices, I think, not so reformed but rather legal. The central issue of the reformation was "justification by faith alone" (the standing and falling of the church), and though this is formerly upheld by doctrinal structure here, I think functionally this site does lean away from that. Like I said I mean this to be constructive not destructive.

What do I mean? I'll try but brevity and succintness is not my best suite, a gift I wish I had better.

Creeds and doctrine are merely, when all boiled down, said and done nothing more than summaries of what a group understands the Word of God to be teaching. But to what end? Something that is often lost in discussions of doctrine and creeds is the real purposes for such in the first place? Because like Scripture, there are two primary ways to "œread", teach and understand creeds and doctrine regardless of specific content. The content should reinforce the primary purpose but sometimes this content differs in "sub-doctrinal" differences if you will. Our language almost reaches its limits here. In short there is a legal way and a gospel way to "œview"œ them. And this leads to the central doctrine upon which the church stands or falls and is indeed visible to its call (proclamation of Christ crucified) or hidden.

Creeds/doctrine/confessions if they are at a minimum conceptually (viewed) correct, even if the specific contents differ (differences between two or more denominational specifics within creeds/doctrine, etc"¦), are first and foremost to be guardians of the Gospel and the freedom derived there from. That is pretty much the soul purpose of the church and its creeds and doctrinal formulations, to safe guard the Gospel and its freedom. Here´s where the language reaches its limits and "œmental" errors slip in as to how doctrine is to be understood fundamentally, which in turn spills over into the specific content of a creed (specific content are elements like election, regeneration, and etc"¦); doctrine and creeds have to be preserved in this format, a teaching/doctrinal format. And such formats have a kind of legal structure to them by their design in order to teach "doctrine". The danger lies in assuming by this teaching/legal structure that THIS is the correct way to view such. In other words, just like Scripture from which such doctrinal summaries are derived, by its inherent legal like structure, it is assumed that such are "œprescriptive" rather than "œdescriptive". The out come of the former view, prescription, is that just like misreading the whole of Scripture a creed or doctrinal sub-point becomes merely "œanother thing I have to believe to be saved". Or at least implied. That is "œworks" which have merely moved from actions taken morally to the work of affirming creeds and doctrines x, y and z (without the Gospel front and center). 

This we see in questions which betray it when we find those who ask, "œHow much is necessary for a person to know to really be regenerate." Such questions betray a blindness to that which saves, the proclamation of the Good News. Rather creeds and doctrines are to be helpers, strengtheners and sustainers of faith, not against faith or some new law. Faith meaning sheer naked trust in Christ alone FOR ME, sans works of any kind pre or post conversion.

Perhaps an earthly example will help. If a king has issued nothing but laws for a long time that if disobeyed are punishable by pain of death that is pure law. But then one day he issues a new precept and that precept is pure freedom. Now the Freedom precept is formulated and written in a "œlegal" format and principle but its purpose is not "œmore law" to be followed "œor else". Rather its principle is freedom from the laws before. 

Now the people treasuring this wonderful gift will guard it and find ways to help do so (resummarize and reteach it down the ages, refresh it if you will). It is a doctrine or one might even say a "œprinciple", but it is a doctrine of freedom not another "law" to be affirmed by "me". Rather a doctrine of freedom that PROCLAIMS, "YOUR free, now live." 

When the people of freedom formulate other summary creeds, as enemies of this doctrine of freedom arise, they will restate and exposit its meaning in new ways (the freedom) to defend the principle and better understand the freedom of this Doctrine of Freedom. But in no way are these new summary creeds to be considered new laws that bind, rather doctrinal summary creeds that say and raise up the freedom of the source Doctrine of Freedom. No true doctrine should be lost but the essence behind them must be to the freedom. E.g. election and regeneration alone is but sheer law and death to the doer/old man. But viewed through the unconditional trusting in the cross, to the believer/new man (not the doer/old man), the same are sheer Gospel.

This is much the purpose of confessions, creeds and doctrines be they WCF, LBCF, Augsburg CF, HBCF and so forth. Now some may be better than others at getting to the source defense, the true naked undiluted unconditional free Gospel, and some content in some may be wrong (because not all say exactly the same thing) - BUT the thrust of them MUST be toward the Gospel and freedom therein defended, else they are to be rejected. 

Now, 100s of years later we come on the scene trying to recapture this. But if many are not careful, due to our legal religious fraud (the old Adam) nature and the inherent doctrinal/legal structure of such creeds, confessions and doctrines, we will set them forth as nothing more than legal defenses and not Gospel defenses. 

That´s the danger. If the devil can legalize the Bible to men´s minds we would indeed be great fools to think that he wouldn´t do the same with our rickety by comparison summary creeds and doctrinal teachings. His whole intent is to hide the Gospel and set forth a legal way to God which really leads to hell, misery and wrath. This is especially dangerous and tempting to men who have a strong "œreligious bone" in their make up.

And this is what we see when for example we head down a path that dwells on something like "œregeneration" nakedly and God casts us down upon our foolish speculations into eternity (to be like God having His knowledge/the prime sin). It is a true doctrine but only so much in scripture is given us on this, to dwell on and try to "œget it understood exactly right" IS to peer nakedly at God. It is to build a Tower of Babel and go the way of Cain and attempt see God´s face nakedly, to seek eternal knowledge that God alone has and cease to be happy with being the creature under God by seeking the eternal knowledge of God in order to "œknow good and evil for ourselves, to question God, be like God and at length be our own god. The reason "œregeneration" remains a mystery is because THAT is NOT what we are to be constantly looking at or teaching or proclaiming, rather we are to constantly be looking at, teaching, proclaiming and defending is Christ and Him crucified and risen FOR US and others. And even if we dare to look at this particular doctrine of regeneration it MUST be through the cross. 

In this example why? Because to look at it nakedly or diverted is to miss it ENTIRELY and all sorts of absolutely idle speculations arise as many discussion here end up and prove, with venom and hatred at the heart of it (and I to have done this). To understand it right we must look at it through the cross, the one looking through the cross, nakedly trusting sans works period is the reborn man, the naked and confident truster in Christ crucified and risen for me ALONE.

In summary those today who see creeds, confessions and singular doctrines apart from the Gospel and these creeds, confessions and doctrines purpose primarily apart from defending the Gospel and the freedom therein miss it altogether. The churches purpose is to set forth the freedom of Jesus Christ purchased by His blood by the simple means God has set forth, NOT to set up a new legal systems that can be gotten from any other fallen religion or philosophy from fallen man and Satan. 

The fall of man and primary sin that begets all other sin is not that man seeks too little or the baser things of the world, rather that man seeks too high, higher than given, to be like God and to know what God knows, knowledge of good and evil so man can be at length his own god - and to NOT be satisfied with being the CREATURE of God and do his creaturely duty, the quite simple things of life, caring for the earth, family and neighbor. That´s were we fell from and my main concern with this board for the parts I've partaken.

Again, I hope this to be constructive not destructive or accusatory, for I myself struggle with the same legal bone, we all do for this is how the old Adam is "hard wired". This is our greatest exegetical struggle and error to over come.

Grace, peace and blessings in Christ alone

Ldh


----------



## pastorway (Feb 6, 2006)

Maybe it would have been better to use the terms "balanced" in the place of good and "imbalanced' in the place of bad.

For all the good that this board can fascilitate I think presents an imbalanced view of Reformed Theology. 

Those who are the most narrow in their beliefs seem to dominate the discussion. Minority and even extreme positions have become the norm for debate. It has become over the last few years rather _fundamentalist_. And yet interstingly at the same time Christian Liberty is often misunderstood and used as a license for indulging the flesh. Any call for humbly setting aside a liberty is scorned, as if liberty is our right even if it does offend others. It is almost as if the weaker brother is told to "Grow Up" and "Get Over It" in a most unloving manner. As long as we are _free_ it cannot be a sin, can it?

Rather than exegeting Scripture and proving we can rightly handle the Word of God too often there are tomes of quotes from theologians and confessions that speak for us thrown into the discussions and debates, often with no context. As if history is never wrong. That, and there is almost never an admission that those who have held to Reformed Theology through the ages have been much more divided over issues. In fact, we would be hard pressed to come up with a working definition of Reformed Theology that everyone could agree with! Everybody thinks they are the ones really reformed and everybody else who differs with them is misguided, ignorant, wrong, stubborn, schismatic, or worse.

Is is also imbalanced in that it is an environment hostile to Baptists. Admit it - many here do not view Baptists as truly or really reformed. When the board was started even the owners were Reformed Baptists. Now, if the PB was started today, I really wonder if Baptists would be included! 

I have expressed these opinions before and I did vote that this tends to be a bad example. But as I stated, the term I would rather have used is imbalanced. Not all here is bad. There are fruitful discussions. There is some good fellowship. But overall it is a lot of arguing over words from which come envy, strife, reviling, and evil suspicions. Many are not teachable. Many presume to be teachers when they shouldn't. Many try to bind consciences with the words of men instead of the Word of God.

We need to see more of the Fruit of the Spirit and more Grace if we want this to be a good example for Reformed Theology, because if taken for what it teaches reformed theology should never lead to divisions, cantankerous arguments, factions, and pride. Why are so many reformed churches hard, dead, cold, and fractured? Pride and self-righteousness - both by-products of truth without love.

A good example of Reformed Theology would look more like the NT church and less like the Civil War. It would be more concerned with the gospel and less with defending the confessions of men. It would be more loving of weaker brothers and less likely to cause people to get angry! It would be more willing to stand with those who agree on the essentials even while disagreeing with the non-essentials. 

And maybe that is a clue - making non-essentials an essential for fellowship - that _is_ imbalanced and bad. 

Phillip


----------



## cultureshock (Feb 6, 2006)

If you're wondering what I mean by "fundamentalist" or "biblicist" on this thread, see this other thread for explanation: http://www.puritanboard.com/forum/viewthread.php?tid=16430

Remember that there are many forums on the puritanboard, and what each person sees will largely depend on which forums they frequent and which threads they stay up on, which is one reason this poll is valuable.

Brian


----------



## JohnV (Feb 6, 2006)

Phillip:

You said


> Rather than exegeting Scripture and proving we can rightly handle the Word of God too often there are tomes of quotes from theologians and confessions that speak for us thrown into the discussions and debates, often with no context. As if history is never wrong.


A Reformed Church reproves and corrects and teaches. It does not throw people out on spurious grounds, whether an explicit boot or an implicit boot. I agree. A person may not be excluded because "He is not one of us", but only because "He has no part in Christ."

The Church is Christ's Church, not ours. So I agree that the Confessions are often not respected for what they really are, the Church's documents. As a matter of fact, the have come about, not because we had men like Luther or Calvin, but because history has revealed so much wrong to us. The Church responded to these wrongs through her confessional statements, to correct and lead her people strictly according to Scripture. 

So my response to your post is that you have it right in blaming people who misrepresent the Confessions and Scripture, not blaming the Confessions, as the Church's confessions, themselves.


----------



## Larry Hughes (Feb 6, 2006)

Once again: Like I said, it is the lack of Gospel (THE Gospel), not the lack of sin & Law preaching. One gets PLENTY of that here, hence its very legal, pietistic and wearisome nature out weighs the Grace. That's the negative.

The positive is the occasional fellowship that does occur, I've come to embrace many good brothers on all sides and even in disagreement.


----------



## cultureshock (Feb 6, 2006)

Pastorway, I appreciate this post:



> _Originally posted by pastorway_
> Those who are the most narrow in their beliefs seem to dominate the discussion. Minority and even extreme positions have become the norm for debate. It has become over the last few years rather _fundamentalist_. And yet interstingly at the same time Christian Liberty is often misunderstood and used as a license for indulging the flesh. Any call for humbly setting aside a liberty is scorned, as if liberty is our right even if it does offend others. It is almost as if the weaker brother is told to "Grow Up" and "Get Over It" in a most unloving manner. As long as we are _free_ it cannot be a sin, can it?



Some of the tensions experienced here, I think, may result from the question of what is the intended nature of the puritanboard. Is this a theological debate board for opposing views to hash out their differences? Is it a fellowship board for those of like mind to relish in common beliefs? It has served both of these functions, in different ways, in different places, and at different times.

We are encouraged to debate and discuss issues over which there is sharp disagreement. On many of these issues, especially liberty-type issues, one side is right and the other is wrong--either the issue at hand is a matter of liberty, or it is not. And on this board, _we are expected not to be relative_. This causes tension, because one side (the "stricter" position) by default holds a position that, by implicature, accuses the other of sinning. Ordinarily, it is the duty of the so-called "stronger brother" not to take offense at such declaration, but to dwell in peace, letting the issue alone. This is what should happen when the stricter brother practices his or her conscience in private, and does not make a big deal about it.

However, throw into the mix the fact that this messageboard stands in the public eye for those from the outside to visit and read. This makes the discussion of liberty issues into something beyond private practice. They have, instead, become public declarations--at the same time public condemnations and affirmations concerning what others might consider to be matters of conscience.

As long as the expectations for this board include (1) debating issues over which there is sharp disagreement, (2) not adopting a postmodern, relative stance, and (3) a public forum that anyone can read, even from the outside; and (4) there remains diversity among members of the board and (5) members choose to go ahead and debate issues of disagreement instead of simply discussing what we already agree upon, I think this tension will always be present to some extent. This tension not necessarily a bad thing, but might even be one of the strengths of this board--that we have Christian men and women who are concerned about truth, and not shrugging their shoulders in relativism.



> _Originally posted by pastorway_
> Rather than exegeting Scripture and proving we can rightly handle the Word of God too often there are tomes of quotes from theologians and confessions that speak for us thrown into the discussions and debates, often with no context. As if history is never wrong. That, and there is almost never an admission that those who have held to Reformed Theology through the ages have been much more divided over issues.



This is an invaluable point. In general, it seems that every Reformed group prides themselves as the real Reformed group. Yet, if we use the definition proposed by Matthew at the beginning of this thread, I think "Reformed" would include a broad variety of Christian men and women; probably everyone on this board.



> _Originally posted by pastorway_
> Many presume to be teachers when they shouldn't. Many try to bind consciences with the words of men instead of the Word of God.



Here's a question, though: Once you've written _any prescriptive statement_ in cyberspace, haven't you, in a sense, automatically become a teacher (thus, pointing back to what I wrote earlier on this post)? I admit I struggle with what should my role be on the puritanboard. If I were to treat the puritanboard like the church, I would keep silent. But the puritanboard is not the church; it is an internet forum. Again, what is the nature of this message board? What is it supposed to be? We're not supposed to be relative, but then, we are supposed to debate. This automatically produces tension.



> _Originally posted by pastorway_
> A good example of Reformed Theology would look more like the NT church and less like the Civil War. It would be more concerned with the gospel and less with defending the confessions of men. It would be more loving of weaker brothers and less likely to cause people to get angry! It would be more willing to stand with those who agree on the essentials even while disagreeing with the non-essentials.



Again, I respond by asking what the puritanboard is supposed to look like? The church isn't a forum for debate, but the puritanboard is. So why should we expect the puritanboard to look like the church? I agree that tempers shouldn't flare as often as they do (pointing at myself first), but this is something that we, as less-than-glorified saints will always deal with, to some extent, on this side of heaven.

Brian


----------



## JohnV (Feb 6, 2006)

Larry:

I had difficulty understanding your previous post. But what I got out of it is that the doctrinal statements are not so much explicit teachings of Scripture as they are guidelines leaving lots of room, even to go beyond doctrine. Now maybe I read it wrongly. It was hard to follow. 

But if I have it right, then this is some of what I have to stand against. A minister is not a man licenced to give us his opinion on the Bible. That's not his office. Conversion comes by hearing the Word, through the illumination of the Spirit. Why should the Spirit take the side of man? Why would the Spirit champion one man's opinions over another? His interest is for us to believe Christ, and to abide in His Word. Abiding in His Word is not merely trying to find consistency in our own views, but in leaving them to embrace His. 

You've got to have content to what "gospel" means. It can't mean whatever fancies people, no matter how sincere they may seem.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Feb 6, 2006)

Good post Brian!


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Feb 6, 2006)

Pastor Way,

There is much in your post that we all need to hear and take serious stock of. I know that, for my part, I do that which I don't want to do and don't do the things I want to do. I thank Christ who is sanctifying me in that regard. Forums are an especially easy place to say things because the person is distant. It's the nature of sin. Killing another man is very hard to do in hand to hand combat. Most men run from it. Killing another man from thousands of miles away by the push of a button is relatively easy.

I sometimes wonder how some of the Reformed Baptists have the patience to stick around. I do think you're at a disadvantage here. I don't want to justify any sinful actions but you must admit that your minority status is at least a reflection of your minority status generally within the Reformed community. I don't know if the proportion of Baptists here is lesser or greater than the population of the Reformed at large. I would not seek to minimize the real sin when it occurs but simply being outnumbered in a debate on the nature of the Covenant is not always evidence of real imbalance. If the number of Baptists on the board was proportionally greater than the population then one could argue an imbalance in membership here in your favor. Further, by simple post count in the Covenant forum, a case could be made that it was statistically skewed _in favor_ of the Reformed Baptist position when we start counting noses of the population that subscribes to those views. 

I've also seen a fair share of comments from credo-Baptists that eschew paedo-Baptistic positions as inherently un-Biblical and instable with regard to the faithfulness of the Church. With respect to that conviction, folks can be pretty unwavering and some might consider them unteachable. If the board was predominantly Baptists, some might consider it imbalanced because it didn't reflect the real demographic makeup of Reformed folk and the views of paedobaptists would be ganged up on. For my part, I take Baptist convictions for what they are and don't read into them too much. I don't expect them to be "friendly" to the idea of baptizing their children.

Regarding Confessions, I find it interesting how often some take shots at the Westminster Standards and eschew those who quote it. The attitude is often "I quote Scripture" and "You quote the Confession". I find the practice very uncharitable most of the time and a bit arrogant some of the time. Not only is there a distinct disdain for the WCF itself but the person who they imply has never evaluated the WCF and its conformity to the Scriptures. I am very likely to err if I base all my conclusions simply on my understading of my personal reading of Scripture. Does it not help if I consult Confessions and other wise teachers of the past to check my homework? Insofar as some become slavish to the WCF and the writings of past theologians I would agree with your complaint but I also wish to point out that I've seen, more than a few times, the WCF quoted in the right spirit to have it receive a self-righteous "How about some Scripture..." reply in return.

I guess in the end we're left with the fact that the board is comprised of Sinners. I take the good with the bad. I appreciate the passion and the fact that there are Baptists here to mix it up. If I agreed with the Baptists then I would be one but I have repeatedly affirmed that I consider you all Brothers in Christ. I've also seen some very great examples of charity and repentance when we offend one another. I have personally made a real effort to be more charitable as I went through a stretch where my posts were very much the opposite at times.

As challenging issues are discussed then sparks are going to fly and stupid and sinful things are going to be said. While there are those who display an unteachable spirit, even those sins are sanctified by the grace of God. I look at Paul's account of how he had to rebuke Peter for compromising the Gospel and realize that such things happen while we are yet unperfected. In the end, however, I'd rather be on a board with Christians who goon things up sometimes because I learn so much from some of them and I also learn how to be longsuffering and patient, which I am not nearly enough.

[Edited on 2-7-2006 by SemperFideles]


----------



## satz (Feb 6, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> Good post Brian!







> Here's a question, though: Once you've written any prescriptive statement in cyberspace, haven't you, in a sense, automatically become a teacher (thus, pointing back to what I wrote earlier on this post)? I admit I struggle with what should my role be on the puritanboard. If I were to treat the puritanboard like the church, I would keep silent. But the puritanboard is not the church; it is an internet forum. Again, what is the nature of this message board? What is it supposed to be? We're not supposed to be relative, but then, we are supposed to debate. This automatically produces tension.



I think this question might be a good one to settle, regarding the role those who are younger should play here and how they should post.


----------



## pastorway (Feb 6, 2006)

> I sometimes wonder how some of the Reformed Baptists have the patience to stick around.



Most of the members who are Reformed Baptist have left and no longer participate. Those of you who are new miss out on the fact that the board used to be more diverse. 

As for other posts here in this thread: 

Yes the confessions have their place and are useful. Please do not think I believe otherwise. But even as the confessions profess - the Scripture is the only infallible rule for life and godliness. We should spend more time there and less time depending on the work of others, proving that we can handle the Word of God. This does not reject history - but teaches us how to say what we believe and why we believe it. Remember, the purpose of debate is not to win the debate - but to persuasively affirm the truth of God's Word against other opinions.

My concern about many presuming to be teachers is not that we should not instruct one another but that some (usually who are fairly new to a position) enter that famed "cage stage" and fire bomb anyone who disagrees with them with a total disregard for those who have served long and hard in the trenches of real church life!

And should we be the church here? Well, we know the PB is not a church. However, as for the nature of debate ( I think debate is fine, but in this context, where the boundaries are set as the Reformed Confessions - meaning we are on the same team) our debating should be motivated by the goal of effective discipleship - where we realise that we are in every sense members of one another (1 Cor 12:12-14). 

For more on what I have written in that regard (that those new to the board may have never read), please read this to catch the spirit of what I am saying: The Difference between Discipleship and Debate.

Phillip

[Edited on 2-7-06 by pastorway]


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Feb 6, 2006)

> _Originally posted by pastorway_
> 
> 
> > I sometimes wonder how some of the Reformed Baptists have the patience to stick around.
> ...


That's very unfortunate.



> Yes the confessions have their place and are useful. Please do not think I believe otherwise. But even as the confessions profess - the Scripture is the only infallible rule for life and godliness. We should spend more time there and less time depending on the work of others, proving that we can handle the Word of God. This does not reject history - but teaches us how to say what we believe and why we believe it. Remember, the purpose of debate is not to win the debate - but to persuasively affirm the truth of God's Word against other opinions.





> My concern about many presuming to be teachers is not that we should not instruct one another but that some (usually who are fairly new to a position) enter that famed "cage stage" and fire bomb anyone who disagrees with them with a total disregard for those who have served long and hard in the trenches of real church life!


A hearty  I think you've heard me say the same elsewhere. It's the reason why an Elder ought not be a new believer.



> And should we be the church here? Well, we know the PB is not a church. However, as for the nature of debate ( I think debate is fine, but in this context, where the boundaries are set as the Reformed Confessions - meaning we are on the same team) our debating should be motivated by the goal of effective discipleship - where we realise that we are in every sense members of one another (1 Cor 12:12-14).


 and 

Our love for one another should be the evidence of our faith in Christ. I want others to openly rebuke me when I fail that. If I cannot show love for my brothers then what does that say about my love of Christ?


> For more on what I have written in that regard (that those new to the board may have never read), please read this to catch the spirit of what I am saying: The Difference between Discipleship and Debate.
> 
> Phillip


Thanks Pastor Way. Please don't be discouraged. I'm glad you're here and hope you stick around a lot longer.


----------



## satz (Feb 6, 2006)

I fully agree that no one, especially no young christian or person should be overly polemic and win-at-all-costs when debating a point. And even if you disagree with them, respect is still due to those more mature either in age or in the faith, and especially to those with ordained positions in the church.

Yet, i do not know if a christian man can ever just 'submit' to his teachers on a doctrinal or practical point. Our consciences can only be bound by the word of God, and if, after going though someone's argument, you are not convinced that he point is made, i do not see how one can possibly just submit to the teaching, regardless of the spiritual character/reputation of the teacher. After all, a point is either biblical or it is not. The man who makes the point does not affect that judgment at all.

Now, i am NOT talking about a) obeying the authority of your pastor physically, even if you are not convinced on the point, b) deciding to 'play it safe' on a certain issue you are unsure of, as per romans 14 or c) physically giving in on a unimportant issue to avoid offending weaker brethen or causing division.

When i say 'physically' what i mean is you may not be convinced that xyz is wrong, but you physically abstain from it for one of the reasons i listed above.

What i do not think is possible is to say ' i don't see how the bible supports abc, yet because Mr X says it does, he must be right because Mr X is far more godly than i'. Isn't this simply trusting men rather than God? Remember, as i said above, there are many reasons why you may want to follow Mr X anyway, but your conscience could never be bound if you are not fully convinced, yourself, from the bible.

The Bereans even double-checked to see if what the Apostle Paul was teaching lined up with the scriptures, and God called them noble for it. And remember that the Apostles worked man signs and wonders in those days, so they had more than a godly reputation to back them up.

Just thinking outloud... (metaphorically speaking )


----------



## JohnV (Feb 6, 2006)

Mark:

I agree that people should respect each other, and that the young should learn from older people. But the problem is that this is just what has happened in many cases. I've sat with a highly-regarded teacher who, in the end, had nothing better to offer than _ad hominen_; and this man is teaching our youth. It is very distressing. Our young minds are coming out of their Bible College classes with some of these ideas, ideas put there by older men who ought to know better. You can't blame the zeal of the young, for that is just what they should be: zealous. And you can't blame them for wanting to work out their ideas on discussion boards such as this one: we want them to. And some of the disrespect that is there did not originate in them, but was put there by others. 

Our duty as older men is to understand one thing very clearly: no one can change the truth. We know that storms come and go, and that we have to weather them. We know we will, but we have to help the young do so as well. Sometimes they are the storm themselves. But if we're not mature enough to handle that, then we don't have that much depth ourselves. 

So it has been my aim to not only address the young with patience, but to aim also at some of those who are leading our young into these traps of ideas. I think that this Board has been of great benefit in that regard. I've been verbally slapped a few times, but "sticks and stones...", I really don't care. I don't want to squash their zeal, but I'm not going to be moved by their arguments either. The fact is, if we don't earn their respect, then we likely won't get it either. It doesn't help that they are taught to disrespect proper authority as far as church is concerned. But that's how I understand some of our young members. Its their responsibility, but not always their fault. 

And we should face the facts. Let's answer the hard questions that we have been avoiding for ourselves. If we're going to be an example, then we should have our ducks all lined up too, or at least in line enough to be an example. 

I just wanted to say this in defence of our youth, whose ( often wrong ) opinions I value for their vigour in the faith, their disire for the truth of the Word.


----------



## Peters (Feb 7, 2006)

John, I´ve seen guys on this board, who are not young men, taken out by some theological assassin. The issue extends across the whole board. To be honest, i see the older folks here as the most unteachable. Does that sound arrogant? I don't mean to be.


----------



## Peters (Feb 7, 2006)

...oh and  to Rich. I like that guy


----------



## JohnV (Feb 7, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Peters_
> John, I´ve seen guys on this board, who are not young men, taken out by some theological assassin. The issue extends across the whole board. To be honest, i see the older folks here as the most unteachable. Does that sound arrogant? I don't mean to be.



I was only coming to the defence of our young contributors. And as I said, I too lay blame on _some_ older folk who have a position of responsibility and ought to know better. It is not the fine print of the Reformed faith they are unfaithful to, but it is first principles, principles everyone, even the least of us know. Nevertheless, our young people do have a responsibility to themselves and to others. Some have too much invested in too narrow a view; but that has been put there ( or rather justified by ) older teachers. And that is then their responsibility.

I know, I too will not be moved from some beliefs. On some things I will be quite stubborn. But rest assured that there is also a lot of reserve that is mistaken for stubbornness. When you are older you learn _not_ to say some things as well as _to_ say other things. Not being moved by arguments, without giving a full reply as to why, is not always stubbornness. Sometimes its just wisdom. 

And then there are those other times....


----------



## Larry Hughes (Feb 8, 2006)

JohnV,



> I had difficulty understanding your previous post. But what I got out of it is that the doctrinal statements are not so much explicit teachings of Scripture as they are guidelines leaving lots of room, even to go beyond doctrine. Now maybe I read it wrongly. It was hard to follow.



I appreciate your candor and I do admit I struggle with being clear, no doubt you are on the money there. So, as I correct 'what you got' it is understandable given my lack of clarity.

In short, no, that's not at all what I meant. The fault is mine in clarity obviously and none of your own, my appologies. I suspect we actually are in agreement but due to my lack of clarity I see why it seems not.

I don't think creeds, doctrine (and I through in exegesis) are "guide lines" with lots of room. That is really the opposite of what I meant to say. But from lets say a neutral point of view before we ever set forth a doctrine, creed or exegesis, what is its primary and sole purpose? What I was saying is that its primary purpose is protect THE Gospel, the freedom therein, strengthen and sustain faith. It is not to set forth MORE Law to be followed that explicitly or implicitly implies something to be done/believed "in order to be saved" if you will and putting it bluntly. That's from a "what is the formal purpose of a doctrine, creed, confession, exegetical teaching" perspective.

Then we have to from Scripture fill in the content. Now the content from denomination to denomination has varied. Some of the content in some confessions is incorrect in that it doesn't REALLY perform the primary purpose of doctrine, creed, confession, exegisis of protecting the Gospel, the freedom of the Gospel and so forth but rather hinders it. Some creeds, confessions, doctrines and exegetcal efforts actually fail in this.

Everything must be viewed from the Cross else we go away from the Gospel and the Word altogether in principle even if we label it with a true doctrinal label.

E.g. the primary purpose of the doctrine of election for the Christian is NOT to cause unbelief but strengthen it, thus correctly understood it will protect the Gospel, the Gospel freedom, faith. But if the doctrine of election becomes and end unto itself it becomes viewed "legally", to wit; "Am I elect?" "On what basis am I elect?" Thus, the Christian's eyes are off of Christ and onto an otherwise true doctrine. Those very questions reveal a legal view of salvation. "On what basis am I elect?" one searches and aks, but this reveals a legal search...I must find something within me or that I've done to prove my election. "Am I elect", at length attempts to see God nakedly, to know the eternal will and mind of God (which is attempting to be like God and worse a god/ that is to have God's eternal knowledge), it questions God where we cannot and so forth. Again a legal way. But the one understanding election via the Cross of Christ, the Gospel, understands it as a strengthening to that same Gospel and faith. "On what basis am I elect?" Gospel, "None of my own, nothign within, nothing I do past, present of future, these I for sake but nakedly resting and trusting in Christ crucified and risen FOR ME." "How do I know I am elect?" I don't by itself, but I look to, trust and rest (faith) in the Word of the Cross that has come to me INSPITE of me, my life's circumstances, failures, successes, etc... "How do I know I am elect?" The Gospel has COME to me, I didn't find it. That's just one doctrinal point as an example.

In other words doctrine, creeds, confessions, exegesis ALL must protect the Gospel, its freedom and faith...not hinder it. E.g. baptism and the Lord's Supper are FOR the Gospel, not law. But that doesn't mean we have the freedom to do away with them, alter them as they should be and so forth. Now some creeds, confessions, doctrines and exegesis on these issues actually do fail to be Gospel and end up binding a man back into works salvation (I'm not going to debate that here).

I've used this example before and it may be more helpful: When a doctor prescribes you medicine to heal you. You have to take an action to fill the prescription. BUT the primary purpose of the "prescription" (precept or command) is NOT the prescription itself or the doctrine/law the doctor gave you. That does absolutely nothing for you health. But the prescription is given so that you will "get the medicine" and be healed, the purpose of the prescription. I'm not obeying the prescription to please the doctor and by so pleasing him I will be better, that's foolishness. Rather I'm getting the medicine which will heal me freely and I receive it. 

Yet foolishly, some approach doctrine, creeds, confessions, exegesis as just "one more thing I've got to do or believe" if I really want to be saved, please God and so forth. Rather than the Cross of Christ alone. There's nothing nakedly wrong with the doctrine but rather man's use of it. Oh, in words they affirm "justification by faith alone" but in practice they are working to heaven. And hence trying to actively please God by "doings" especially "religious doings". To take the Lord's Supper for example as if "I please God" in doing so is to wrongly divide the body of Christ, rather it is receiving the grace therein that I NEED, I literally NEED Christ being a sinner.

As Jesus said, "You search the Scriptures and think that by them you have eternal life, but it is these that continually bear witness to Me." As you see this was to the pharisees who where the exegetes par excellent, their detail of jots and tiddles makes modern exegetes pale by comparison in terms of raw ability and effort. Yet, they searched the Scriptures in a wrong way thinking that by doing so they had life. Jesus says no, no, no, your work and effort is unsurpassed yet you've missed everything for these are not things for you to do, prescriptions, things you must affirm to have life. Rather these are DESCRIPTIONS, proclamations that do so continuously of ME, the One in Whom alone you may have life...the way, the truth and the life.

I hope that helps. But if not you will not hurt my feelings saying so.

Grace and Peace In Christ Alone,


Larry


----------



## JohnV (Feb 8, 2006)

Larry:

Correct me if I'm wrong, but if I may summarize your post: you are saying that it is relationship with Christ, not just doctrinal knowledge. Doctrinal knowledge will get you into the church, but it will not get you into heaven. True doctrinal knowledge comes from knowing Christ, by believing Him.

If this is what you are saying, in sum, then I would agree with you heartily. This is certainly the one side of the coin, so to speak: the side that we must be concerned with within ourselves mostly, and in others secondarily. 

But there is the other side to this, the side that we must also be concerned with. We need to pay attention to the doctrines because they will tell us when we are straying. We stray easily enough, too often guided by our good intentions rather than attention to true right and wrong. Or we may allow one of the handmaidens of theology become her master, such as allowing philosophy to rule over her, changing her ways for us. A good foundation in instruction is of great value. 

We may not only be overrun by our own sentiments, but also those of others. And through a solid foundation in the doctrines we are enabled to remain steadfast, instead of being tossed to and fro. 

When I was baptized my parents were asked to respond affirmatively to this question, along with two others:

"Do you acknowledge the doctrine which is contained in the Old and the New Testament, and in the articles of the Christian faith, and which is taught here in this Christian church, to be the true and complete doctrine of salvation?"

It was also asked of me when I did a profession of my faith. This still allowed me liberty on some matters as to my conscience and personal gifts from God, but it tied me to the completed canon and the authority of Christ given to the Church. Therefore, in requiring a response from both my parents and myself, there are two parts to this covenant: those oaths given by the responder, and those obligated upon the questioner. The Church is also under oath at the same time. 

So when an official of the church comes along with a wind of doctrine, and claims it to be what the Bible teaches, then it is he that has broken oath. The person in the pew is still obligated to maintain those things which he has promised, even if he cannot understand enough to refute the new doctrine. It is enough simply to remain steadfast; it is better if he can also refute the error. And the error may be a view which is not ordinarily wrong in itself, but only that it is just a view, not being specifically taught by Scripture. It is the claim to doctrine that is in error. 

So there is great value in being well versed in doctrine. But I agree with you that this comes through a personal relationship with Christ, seeking the Spirit as a person of the Trinity to help in understanding, and not leaning to our own understanding. 

Your post has been of great help to me in understanding what you said. I responded to "what I got out of it", not that I really thought you meant that.


----------



## Larry Hughes (Feb 9, 2006)

JohnV,



> Correct me if I'm wrong, but if I may summarize your post: you are saying that it is relationship with Christ, not just doctrinal knowledge. Doctrinal knowledge will get you into the church, but it will not get you into heaven. True doctrinal knowledge comes from knowing Christ, by believing Him.



Yes, great summary! By believing I assume you mean the crucial leg of faith, trusting, nakedly and confidently so. And taking a queue off of your much better summation; that is the real purpose of the doctrine (what should be driving it). And I´m not trying to be polemical nor compromising and I´m CERTAINLY not being anti-doctrine here, nor to be "œloosey goosey" as they say. That´s not at all what I meant to communicate. Rather let us all take a breath and kind of baseline ourselves afresh. The struggle seems to be two fold: 

1. Many stand doctrine on its head and function the other way thus they loose sight of doctrines true purpose as Gospel defending and faith building/strengthening. This is revealed by those who ask questions of the form like, "œHow much does one need to know and understand and truly be elect? (or some similar type of question/thought)" That kind of question reveals a wrong grasp of doctrine or as you said knowledge Vs. faith. I´ve done that myself, us black and white "œscientist/analysis" types are prone to wanting to "œget our ducks in a row" and trusting in our hearts on that rather than the cross.

2. Some who may understand its function properly may have "œconstituent elements" (e.g. baptism and etc"¦) of their confession, creed, doctrine or exegesis wrong if examined at length, though they do really mean for them to function properly as Gospel. E.g. concerning a doctrine of cars. For a car to drive correctly it is fitted with certain size tires, air and so forth. This is an element, or sub-doctrine, of the doctrine of cars and it sets forth and teaches that which will keep the car functioning correctly (the essence of the doctrine of cars, like the Gospel to Christian doctrine) concerning this particular element of the over arching doctrine and its proper purpose. (Military persons understand this use of the term "œdoctrine" because the military, whom I work with a lot, use "œdoctrine" for everything that we don´t normally think of when we use the term "œdoctrine"). Now I could come along later and misunderstand this and just use any old tire on a car that is the wrong size. It´s a tire and a tire is a crucial element of the doctrine of cars, but it is a misapplication of an otherwise true thing. I could force it to fit and it would function for a while, but eventually (at length) it will fail because it is wrong and the car will eventually break down. My intent was to use the doctrine correctly, keep the car running, but my mis-use of an element or sub-doctrine has over all cause failure.

We can also, likewise misuse doctrinal elements or sub-doctrines by #1 in a microcosm type of way.



> If this is what you are saying, in sum, then I would agree with you heartily. This is certainly the one side of the coin, so to speak: the side that we must be concerned with within ourselves mostly, and in others secondarily.



That´s exactly what I was trying to get at. And the reason I wanted to say it was not to impugn others, point my fingers, but because I´ve seen myself do it far too much, having seen it in myself and learning otherwise and honestly seeing it in others say, "œBrothers, lets take a deep breath here for we are all nipping and biting because we´ve lost sight of the central issue of the Gospel, that´s why our discussions turn from "œworking out the truth together" into "œI´m right and your wrong". And I don´t mean it to compromise a position or to be neutral for the truth of Redemption is singular and unwavering, but we need to NOT loose sight of the central purpose of our faith, the Gospel, Christ crucified and the freedom of the Gospel therein that says, "œSince Christ alone has made you right vertically with God and this you receive by naked trust, you are now free and bound by no religious "œduty" to please God or "œget right". Once we begin to truly "œhear" what the Gospel is saying, other doctrines begin to fall into place because it is ordered correctly and we measure by the Gospel not proof texting. That was Christ´s point in John 5:39 that I quoted. No one is going to convince ANYONE of "œthere side" (dare I use that insidious term) when the over-riding thought is "œWe are right and you are wrong "“ we are on God´s side on this and you are not". Rather, to show where the Gospel is in a position and not in a counter position. It may hurt to find that a position I´ve held forth and cherished is not Gospel, BUT IF men are truly desiring to have the Gospel highest, which Christians should and must (especially pastors and teachers), then when this is shown concerning a specific position or doctrine men will say, "œYou know that is true", the Gospel is there and not here, THAT does strengthen faith. One wins one´s brother by showing the mercy and grace (the Gospel), not by showing how well structured my formula is. And this applies to doctrine, creed, confession and exegesis. I only lament that I took so long myself to see this and have been quite hurtful in the past. 

One can argue a truth and be accurate but miss the boat entirely. In science we run into two types. I saw this when I use to do some teaching while in college. There are those who are technically correct, they know the formulas, the math and so forth. They can make A´s on tests and do fairly well in labs. But they don´t get the underlying principles at all. Throw them a situation outside of just getting the information correct and they fail miserably. The second kind of scientist, is the true scientist. These types do understand the math and formulas but they also see very clearly the base principles behind all physics and chemistry or mathematics. Thus, they really understand not just the correct formulas and information but the principles and thrust. The same is in the faith. There are seminary students, lay people, pastors and teachers that can be technical experts with great skill and tools, but they are horrible at the center piece of the faith without which all else, no matter how great the skill, is nothing. Luther called these "œschool boys". And we have the same today. 

Divinely administered suffering usually clears this up and makes doctrine true.



> But there is the other side to this, the side that we must also be concerned with. We need to pay attention to the doctrines because they will tell us when we are straying. We stray easily enough, too often guided by our good intentions rather than attention to true right and wrong. Or we may allow one of the handmaidens of theology become her master, such as allowing philosophy to rule over her, changing her ways for us. A good foundation in instruction is of great value.



Absolutely, and I did not mean to communicate otherwise. I meant to keep the two in balance. I hope this posting with my #1 and #2 helped that a bit, because we agree. I never meant for compromise just re-centering the "œwhy" of doctrine (Gospel and Gospel freedom). Those that say that there are essentials and non-essentials miss the point. Ultimately all things are essential BUT it must center back on the Cross to be so. That´s why for example why Christian freedom is on one hand unessential if by it I force it upon another effectively making it another law whereby the weaker brother doubts God´s grace toward him. BUT it is absolutely essential if a Christian is restricting a freedom under the guise of protecting and bearing witness to the faith. For the idea that the Kingdom of Heaven is not about eating or drinking is true, BUT it cuts both ways. It is wrong to press a man with a freedom making it a law when a weaker brother doesn´t understand it. But it is worse and contemptible to leave a man in darkness and chains when he is freed by Christ by not teaching the freedom he really has. Placing "œmy example" above "œteaching Christ" is a denial of the Gospel. That´s just one example.



> We may not only be overrun by our own sentiments, but also those of others. And through a solid foundation in the doctrines we are enabled to remain steadfast, instead of being tossed to and fro.



A hardy AMEN!

When I was baptized my parents were asked to respond affirmatively to this question, along with two others:



> "Do you acknowledge the doctrine which is contained in the Old and the New Testament, and in the articles of the Christian faith, and which is taught here in this Christian church, to be the true and complete doctrine of salvation?"
> 
> It was also asked of me when I did a profession of my faith. This still allowed me liberty on some matters as to my conscience and personal gifts from God, but it tied me to the completed canon and the authority of Christ given to the Church. Therefore, in requiring a response from both my parents and myself, there are two parts to this covenant: those oaths given by the responder, and those obligated upon the questioner. The Church is also under oath at the same time.
> 
> So when an official of the church comes along with a wind of doctrine, and claims it to be what the Bible teaches, then it is he that has broken oath. The person in the pew is still obligated to maintain those things which he has promised, even if he cannot understand enough to refute the new doctrine. It is enough simply to remain steadfast; it is better if he can also refute the error. And the error may be a view which is not ordinarily wrong in itself, but only that it is just a view, not being specifically taught by Scripture. It is the claim to doctrine that is in error.



Agreed, again I didn´t mean to say otherwise or against this. I´m indebted to you for clearly bringing this aspect out where I failed! You said it in a light that made it more clear to me as well. I would want my children who have been baptized into the church to remain. I´m glad you said this, this was very encouraging to me. I´ll tell you personally why as a side note (and this is not to engender a debate on this post by others, just a personal anecdote from me to you per your clarification here): Actually, on second thought I´ll U2U you on this one, I don´t want to start an unnecessary debate here and loose what we´ve really discussed. (U2U coming).



> Your post has been of great help to me in understanding what you said. I responded to "what I got out of it", not that I really thought you meant that.



Likewise.

Thanks, grace and peace,

Larry


----------



## daveb (Feb 9, 2006)

Based on Matt's definition I think the board is Reformed. Other issues such as EP, Sabbatarianism, etc. seem to be more related the "puritan" aspect of the PB.

What I've been thinking about is "how puritan is the PB"?


----------



## Larry Hughes (Feb 9, 2006)

We could legitimately ask the question this way:

1. Is PB Magisterially Reformed (Luther, Calvin, Beza, et ali"¦)? OR
2. Is PB Puritan Reformed (English/American Puritans)?

Though the two had much in common their underlying objective versus subjective emphasis was almost at odds.

I'd say PB is more #2 and much less #1, which is not surprising since that is the dominant in American protestantism. The subjective emphasis crosses both neo-calvinistic lines and arminian lines.

L


----------



## VictorBravo (Feb 9, 2006)

> _Originally posted by daveb_
> 
> What I've been thinking about is "how puritan is the PB"?



Daveb, I was thinking the same thing and was going to raise the question, but you beat me.

Vic


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Feb 9, 2006)

How do you make any determination; based on the percentage of posters that are Puritan? I think this thread has gone a bit overboard. This is a Reformed discussion board according to the rules. I say give it a rest folks.


----------



## VictorBravo (Feb 9, 2006)

> _Originally posted by NaphtaliPress_
> How do you make any determination; based on the percentage of posters that are Puritan? I think this thread has gone a bit overboard. This is a Reformed discussion board according to the rules. I say give it a rest folks.



I agree with you about giving it a rest. But for how you decide on who is Puritan, I vote for checking on the type of hats people wear.

(Except I've been accused of being a Hutterite on that basis).

Vic


----------

