I would like to commend the following book, as being invaluable for several reasons.
The Shaping of the Reformed Baptismal Rite in the Sixteenth Century,
by Hughes Oliphant Old,
published by Eerdmans, 1992
This book is a later companion volume (some 15 years later) to Old's earlier contribution to Reformation studies: The Patristic Roots of Reformed Worship. At this point, despite any disagreements I have with Old, or with the communion he chose to align himself with for so many years (the PCUSA), I think it fair to say that I will purchase (or already own) most books he writes or has written on worship. For example, his ongoing series of volumes (5 comp. of 7 proj.) on the history of The Reading and Preaching of the Scriptures is worth every penny of the ridiculously inflated price Eerdmans places on these paperbacks.
Some reasons:
1) This material expands on his previous, invaluable work.
2) This book unveils the context and the theological reflection ongoing among the 16th century Reformers. In other words, we learn not merely what the Reformers returned to, as they "cleansed" the liturgy of the church, but find how their maturing apprehension of truth exhibited itself in presenting and explaining that to which they returned.
3) We learn how Covenant Theology was not merely an interpretive paradigm for the Reformers (after all, one can scarcely say that such a paradigm erupted de novo, or "fell in the lap," so to speak), but that it was "revealed" in the application of a truly biblical sacramentlogy over against Rome (on one side) and Anabaptism (on the other). So far from today's "controversial covenantalists" really understanding Covenant Theology from an historic Reformed perspective, they are actually bringing their unique (that is, different) formulations and interpretations to the confessions, to the practices, to the historic statements (grossly decontextualized) of the Reformers, in an attempt to appropriate them that they might legitimate their own package under an "umbrella" or "big tent" Reformation.
4) Learning our own history gives us important insights into present theological questions, issues, and debates. Believe me, when you understand what it was the Reformers were defining, and the "over against" positions, you will understand the nature and substance of today's NPP or FV controversies so much better. It really does become obvious what some men today do not understand about their own history; obvious why our creeds, confessions, and practice are what they are, say what they say, or look as they do; obvious that if one understands what Reformed historical doctrine actually teaches, one will either get in line with it (abandoning modern reformualtions), or fight it, or find the present-day communion that shares whatever approach this one prefers to the Reformed historical doctrine.
Whether you are a presbyterian, continental reformed, baptist (English or anabaptist in background), or even pentacostal (in affiliation--I know, I know, don't even go there, jokesters!), if you want to understand this doctrine either historically or for today, I recommend this volume as a piece of your education.
The Shaping of the Reformed Baptismal Rite in the Sixteenth Century,
by Hughes Oliphant Old,
published by Eerdmans, 1992
This book is a later companion volume (some 15 years later) to Old's earlier contribution to Reformation studies: The Patristic Roots of Reformed Worship. At this point, despite any disagreements I have with Old, or with the communion he chose to align himself with for so many years (the PCUSA), I think it fair to say that I will purchase (or already own) most books he writes or has written on worship. For example, his ongoing series of volumes (5 comp. of 7 proj.) on the history of The Reading and Preaching of the Scriptures is worth every penny of the ridiculously inflated price Eerdmans places on these paperbacks.
Some reasons:
1) This material expands on his previous, invaluable work.
2) This book unveils the context and the theological reflection ongoing among the 16th century Reformers. In other words, we learn not merely what the Reformers returned to, as they "cleansed" the liturgy of the church, but find how their maturing apprehension of truth exhibited itself in presenting and explaining that to which they returned.
3) We learn how Covenant Theology was not merely an interpretive paradigm for the Reformers (after all, one can scarcely say that such a paradigm erupted de novo, or "fell in the lap," so to speak), but that it was "revealed" in the application of a truly biblical sacramentlogy over against Rome (on one side) and Anabaptism (on the other). So far from today's "controversial covenantalists" really understanding Covenant Theology from an historic Reformed perspective, they are actually bringing their unique (that is, different) formulations and interpretations to the confessions, to the practices, to the historic statements (grossly decontextualized) of the Reformers, in an attempt to appropriate them that they might legitimate their own package under an "umbrella" or "big tent" Reformation.
4) Learning our own history gives us important insights into present theological questions, issues, and debates. Believe me, when you understand what it was the Reformers were defining, and the "over against" positions, you will understand the nature and substance of today's NPP or FV controversies so much better. It really does become obvious what some men today do not understand about their own history; obvious why our creeds, confessions, and practice are what they are, say what they say, or look as they do; obvious that if one understands what Reformed historical doctrine actually teaches, one will either get in line with it (abandoning modern reformualtions), or fight it, or find the present-day communion that shares whatever approach this one prefers to the Reformed historical doctrine.
Whether you are a presbyterian, continental reformed, baptist (English or anabaptist in background), or even pentacostal (in affiliation--I know, I know, don't even go there, jokesters!), if you want to understand this doctrine either historically or for today, I recommend this volume as a piece of your education.
I do think the difference does boil to down to whether one agrees with where the Puritans went beyond the Reformers in their understanding/application of the RPW, or not. And I believe some differences developed in later periods (commitment to infrequent communion, rejection of the use of the Lord's prayer, etc.). Of course in the area of a cappella singing, there was really a unity there with the Reformers and the Puritans.
