Danger of Reformed Traditionalism

[ManleyBeasley]

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

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

 

[tcalbrecht]

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

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

 

[ManleyBeasley]

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

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

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

 

[tcalbrecht]

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

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

 

[Christusregnat]

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

Neither is he. It's a ministerial academy.

Cheers,

 

[Herald]

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

Neither is he. It's a ministerial academy.

Cheers,

Same thing but without the snob appeal.

 

[Archlute]

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

Neither is he. It's a ministerial academy.

Cheers,

Same thing but without the snob appeal.

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

 

[Reformed Baptist]

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

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

RB

 

[Reformed Baptist]

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

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

RB

 

[Reformed Baptist]

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

Neither is he. It's a ministerial academy.

Cheers,

Same thing but without the snob appeal.

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

The sentence was meant to show respect.

RB

 

[Herald]

Neither is he. It's a ministerial academy.

Cheers,

Same thing but without the snob appeal.

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

The sentence was meant to show respect.

RB

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

Rock on, brother.

 

[Herald]

Neither is he. It's a ministerial academy.

Cheers,

Same thing but without the snob appeal.

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

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

 

[Dr. Bob Gonzales]

Geoff,

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

Bob G.

 

[MW]

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

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

 

[MW]

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

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

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

 

[Reformed Baptist]

Geoff,

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

Bob G.

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

RB

 

[JohnV]

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

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

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

 

[MW]

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

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

 

[Pergamum]

Welcome Dr. Gonzales.

 

[ManleyBeasley]

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

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

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

 

[Iconoclast]

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

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

 

[Dr. Bob Gonzales]

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

 

[Dr. Bob Gonzales]

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Dr. Bob Gonzales]

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

 

[JBaldwin]

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

 

[JBaldwin]

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

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

 

[Dr. Bob Gonzales]

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

 

[JBaldwin]

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

 

[NaphtaliPress]

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

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

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

 

[Dr. Bob Gonzales]

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