# Reformation



## Ivan (Dec 8, 2004)

I wasn't sure where to put this, so I chose here.

What will it take for there to be a Reformation in our day?

A rather vague question, but I wanted to state it what way.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Dec 8, 2004)

Prayer; lots of it.


----------



## Ivan (Dec 8, 2004)

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> Prayer; lots of it.



Foundational. Indeed that is where is starts. 

Any other comments?


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Dec 8, 2004)

Not necessarily in this order, some things:

Prayer
Pastors who do not have a fear of men, are well trained, and can preach.
Theologians who are not just academic, but want the church to change as well as the pastors who preach to them.
Pastors and theologians who have devotions, not just pass off thier sermon or exegesis on thier books as thier morning devotion, but have a living relationship with Christ (no revival without that).
A church that is well trained in the Law/Gospel.
A church that rejects Contemporay Theology, but uses Reformed truths to arrest culture.
The Sovereign work of the Holy Spirit in applying the cross to the church.
The Sovereign work of the Spirit in enacting revival.


----------



## Ivan (Dec 8, 2004)

> _Originally posted by webmaster_
> Not necessarily in this order, some things:
> 
> Prayer
> ...



YES!! I agree and certainly the last two items mentioned. I think we can do all of the other things you mentioned and Reformation (or Revival) will not automatically come. Many of my Baptist brethren think there is a formual for revival. Do this and do that and revival MUST come. Not so!

I believe in the sovereignity of God!


----------



## sastark (Dec 8, 2004)

First and foremost: The work of the Holy Spirit.

How is that work brought about? Through the preaching of the Word.

In my opinion, all other things are secondary.


----------



## Me Died Blue (Dec 8, 2004)

> _Originally posted by sastark_
> First and foremost: The work of the Holy Spirit.
> 
> How is that work brought about? Through the preaching of the Word.
> ...



I don't think it's accurate to include prayer in what is "secondary" to the preaching of the Word, as prayer is one of the very things that can bring about sound preaching of the Word itself in God's providence. So in that sense, they work equally together.


----------



## FrozenChosen (Dec 8, 2004)

-Church members who decide that they will do their best to be a slave ONLY to the Gospel, not the culture.

-Church members who live a life pleasing to God by redeeming the time, striving for excellence in God's name in everything they do.

-Church members who see themselves as a body of believers and not a handful of lone ranger Christians


----------



## Ivan (Dec 8, 2004)

<<I don't think it's accurate to include prayer in what is "secondary" to the preaching of the Word, as prayer is one of the very things that can bring about sound preaching of the Word itself in God's providence. So in that sense, they work equally together.>>

The apostles were all about prayer and the ministry of the Word.


----------



## Ivan (Dec 8, 2004)

> _Originally posted by FrozenChosen_
> -Church members who decide that they will do their best to be a slave ONLY to the Gospel, not the culture.
> 
> -Church members who live a life pleasing to God by redeeming the time, striving for excellence in God's name in everything they do.
> ...



Hmmm...these things sound more like the results of Reformation and Revival.


----------



## openairboy (Dec 8, 2004)

> _Originally posted by webmaster_
> Not necessarily in this order, some things:
> 
> Prayer
> ...



I absolutely agree you, Webmaster, but I'm curious, at least in the Reformed circles that I am in, can the very nature of our theology (or outworking) prevent revival? This is what I mean: Most men I know that are interested in Reformed theology simply see it as a means of living by "grace", which means we can see whatever movies we want, smoke, go to bars, drink beer, even in excess, cuss, and we are just redeemig it all for Jesus. Most "Reformed" folk mock everything else as being pietistic, simplistic, and, the worst word to be slandered with, "fundamentalist". 

I rarely come across Reformed men that ache and pang for revival. If you do, then you are seen as an Arminian and not understanding grace. There seems to be no life with the Holy Spirit.

No tears are ever shed for revival and the lost.

openairboy


----------



## openairboy (Dec 8, 2004)

Would we make a distinction between Revival and Awakening? I usually have seen a revival as what occurs in the Church, and Awakening is what occurs to the unregenerate, a quickening work of the Spirit in the unregenerate.

openairboy


----------



## Me Died Blue (Dec 8, 2004)

> _Originally posted by openairboy_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by webmaster_
> ...



Then they are not truly _Reformed_, but are simply abusing the Reformed doctrine of Christian liberty for their own flesh. Let's see, didn't Paul say something about using our freedom to indulge the flesh? So no one is actually _Reformed_ in any sense whatsoever if they pick and choose Reformed doctrines, like supposedly embracing Christian liberty and yet ignoring the life of holiness or the mortification of sin. It's a misrepresentation and an insult for such people to associate themselves with the historic Reformed faith.


----------



## sastark (Dec 8, 2004)

Chris,

Good point about prayer. I'll revise my list: 

The Work of the Holy Spirit through the preaching of the Word and prayer.


----------



## Irishcat922 (Dec 8, 2004)

A modern Luther.


----------



## openairboy (Dec 8, 2004)

> _Originally posted by Me Died Blue_
> Then they are not truly _Reformed_, but are simply abusing the Reformed doctrine of Christian liberty for their own flesh. Let's see, didn't Paul say something about using our freedom to indulge the flesh? So no one is actually _Reformed_ in any sense whatsoever if they pick and choose Reformed doctrines, like supposedly embracing Christian liberty and yet ignoring the life of holiness or the mortification of sin. It's a misrepresentation and an insult for such people to associate themselves with the historic Reformed faith.



I agree, but they just look at you, shake their head in pity, and suggest that you haven't learned to live by "grace".

openairboy


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Dec 10, 2004)

> _Originally posted by Ivan_
> I wasn't sure where to put this, so I chose here.
> 
> What will it take for there to be a Reformation in our day?
> ...



I recommend reading _The Puritan Hope_ by Iain Murray.


----------



## sastark (Dec 10, 2004)

> _Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot_
> I recommend reading _The Puritan Hope_ by Iain Murray.



I second that recommendation!


----------



## crhoades (Dec 10, 2004)

Agreed with everything above. To look at this from the man's responsibility perspective:

Hard Work.

Without denigrating prayer and the grace empowering of the Holy Spirit, sometimes Christians get in the rut of pray and wait. 

Look at Luther and Calvin. What prodigious men! Look at our own webmaster who cranks out some throughput. Back in the day, the number of tracts, treatises, pamphlets that were produced was amazing. Watching the Luther movie recently reminded me of Luther being hidden away, laboriously copying away at making a German Bible. Which brings me too...

A lot of times we reformed folk talk and write to other reformed folk. We have to be good communicators of the gospel to the unbelieving world. Enter apologetics. We need more people in the pew capable of challenging unbelieving thought at every level. {not to turn this into an apologetics thread but look at Antony Flew recently. Classical apologetics leads to deism. We need men and women trained in presuppositional apologetics. - My conviction which I know is debateable by some on this board}.


----------



## Me Died Blue (Dec 10, 2004)

Great points, Chris. So often the hope of modern reformation is much easier spoken of, even by those of us truly passionate about it, than acted upon.


----------



## openairboy (Dec 10, 2004)

> _Originally posted by crhoades_
> Agreed with everything above. To look at this from the man's responsibility perspective:
> 
> Hard Work.
> ...



Chris,

Thanks a lot for your words. I have been in an absolute funk, slothfulness, and lazy in recent weeks. There has been very little pursuit of the Lord and great frustration with myself and everything around me. These words were a splash of cold water on my face.

Thanks a lot,
Keith


----------



## Bernard_Marx (Dec 10, 2004)

I know that I seldom post here, but I'll throw in my two cents. 

I think that in order for their to be a reformation that is lasting we need the church to return to its confessional roots. New theologies these days don't seem to have a very long shelf-life, praise God. But if we're going to see a lasting impact we'll need to have it written down.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Dec 10, 2004)

Tom,
What are the chances if the church you speak of have no idea of their confessionalism? Where would you begin?


----------



## JohnV (Dec 10, 2004)

I think that Reformation will depend on how we respect the Word. In our time the perspicuity of Scripture, the suffiency of Scripture, and the centrality of Scripture are in trouble. Every church, Reformed or not, thinks it is being true to Scripture, just like every cabinet shop wants to say that it puts out only quality cabinets. We hold to these terms, but they are only relative terms anymore. The Bible is clear only on matters we ourselves are clear on; the Bible is sufficient only is we have been sufficed; and it is only as central as we like to make it. 

I other words, we have to get back to the classical system of theology. We have to be ready to face the hard questions, even at cost to our own theologies.

You will notice that the Reformation was not a matter of generalized ideas, but of very specific protests to the theology of the time. I think we need to do the same again. We can't just say, "The centrality of the Word", if that has only as much content to it that we ourselves are ready to give it, and no more. The normativity of Scripture is another case in point, come to think of it. What exactly do we men by that, if everyone is seeing a different norm?


----------



## Bernard_Marx (Dec 10, 2004)

Scott,

Good question. Oddly enough I find myself in such a situation at this moment...I am living in a house full of charismatics. To talk with them about the historical faith is challenging. I remember talking about the Apostle's Creed one day and one of my roomies saying that it was wrong to pen something that the Bible alreadt said and that to confess anything but the Bible is wrong.

But there is some hope. I've begun by talking about how it is that cults and heresies begin typically when people believe that they've got something on 2,000 years of historical development regarding theology. It's been somewhat fruitful. I suggest this is a good place to begin.

Tom


----------



## JohnV (Dec 10, 2004)

Good stuff, Tom! That's right on.

You can also call their bluff about Apostles' Creed.


----------



## Bernard_Marx (Dec 11, 2004)

John,

How can I do that?

Tom


----------



## RamistThomist (Dec 11, 2004)

Me and my Bible Christian: You don't need creeds. That is just what other people have said. All you need is the word of God. It is what's inspired.

Classical Christian: So you are telling me to hold to a creed?

MEBC: No! I said just go by the word alone!

CC: But don't you see? In telling me that I should only hold to inspired statements, you contradict yourself in that you are an uninspired source tellling me that I should only listen to inspired sources. Now, I will ask you a question, "Christian, give me a summary of what you believe."

_By this time you have given him enough rope to hang himself. People like this usually don't know their bible that well; so he, like most Christians, will not quote 100% scripture at you. Hold him to that, for his case rests on him giving you nothing but the Bible. If you really want to stick a monkey-wrench in it, ask him questions that can only be answered by valid inferences from the Bible and not Scripture quotations alone (ie., ethics of abortion, cloning, etc.)_


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Dec 11, 2004)

> _Originally posted by Draught Horse_
> Me and my Bible Christian: You don't need creeds. That is just what other people have said. All you need is the word of God. It is what's inspired.
> 
> Classical Christian: So you are telling me to hold to a creed?
> ...



You said it, Jacob!


----------



## JohnV (Dec 11, 2004)

Good answer, Jacob.

Basically, Tom, it comes down to this when I take up the issue with some of these types. They usually call themselves non-doctrinal. "So OK, that's your first doctrine: no doctrine," and I put an imaginary paper onto a notepaper spike. "What's the next one? I may not do that? OK, [slap] that's number two. Oh, you don't do that? OK, where is that in Scripture? It isn't? OK, that's number three. Oh, you object again? What reason, and where in Scripture? OK, that's number four. You know, we're going to have about a hundred and fifty seven of these before we ever get to there being one Father, creator of Heaven and earth, and I can prove that from Scripture." and so on and so on. Their anti-doctrine gets pretty tiresome to them really quick. But I only do this if they get really belligerant or talk down the nose. Usually a quick lesson in what a creed is my first option. 

Any confession or creed that relies on its own content, as they think ours does, is against Scripture; and that is what they object to. And they are quite right. And the thing to do is to show them gently that it is rather their creedal system that does that, not ours. No creed but Christ is either the exact same as equating faithfulness with unfaithfulness, or it is a creedal system of its own. The Reformed system, on the other hand, is a system where all propositions are necessarily Biblically asserted propositions, not man-asserted propositions. In other words, we have to show them that what they really object to is their own standards. Do they object to the Apostles' creed? Well, so do we, (what they mean by it) and that's why we have it and hold to it (what we mean by it. ) Sounds contradictory to them at first; but its their contradiction not ours, and that's what we try to show them. 

I refer you to the thread on bi-nity for further and more nitty-gritty argumentation. Just the bare argument itself. Use the critical rule found in the Christ's second coming; will it be Premillennial thread.

[Edited on 12-12-2004 by JohnV]

[Edited on 12-12-2004 by JohnV]


----------



## just_grace (Dec 12, 2004)

*What will it take...*

God's Good Pleasure and Grace.

Prayer? Are we not doing that anyway?

David


----------



## heywhatsup (Dec 25, 2004)

> _Originally posted by Irishcat922_
> A modern Luther.



granted a Luther, Calvin, and Knox would do the trick....especially in reference to the reformation..

but oh, but oh...how we could use a jonathan edwards


----------



## heywhatsup (Dec 25, 2004)

> _Originally posted by Irishcat922_
> A modern Luther.



can anyone say john piper? 

i think the western christian should heed his call...oh how he expounds the truth of Gods Glory...

God through the preaching/teaching of this man has brought and is bringing reformation to this oft dry soul and wandering heart.


----------



## Ivan (Dec 25, 2004)

> _Originally posted by heywhatsup_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Irishcat922_
> ...



 

For whatever reason, I have only "discover" John Piper within this year. I have been blessed tremenously by the writings of this man. I plan to read one of his book a month.

Of course, we all know that Piper did his doctoral dissertation on Edwards. I can't say that Piper is the Edwards of our day, but Piper knows Edwards and we are blessed thereby!


----------

