“If Mark Driscoll presented himself for membership in St Peter’s in Calvin’s Geneva, he would have been rejected. Why? He doesn’t believe the faith confessed by the church. He would have been rejected by the consistories and synods in the Netherlands, France, and by the sessions in Scotland. They would not have recognized his confession as Reformed.
The ugly truth is that too many Reformed folk are too excited that a prominent leader in evangelicalism, someone with increasing visibility in the media, identifies himself as Reformed. Pastor Driscoll feels comfortable co-opting the adjective “Calvinist” because real Calvinists, those who actually believe and practice what Calvin believed and practiced, let him use it.“
“I look forward to the time when God will equip his church to write new confessions. The Reformed confessions of the 16th and 17th centuries are wonderful documents that have served the church well. But we need confessions that speak to the issues of our own time: abortion, postmodern ideology, egalitarianism, new spiritualities, ecumenism, the gifts of the Spirit, common grace, the precise role of the Mosaic law the status of non-Christian religions, the obligation of Christians to the poor, the nature of worship, biblical standards for missions and evangelism, and, indeed, the nature of confessional subscription. We need confessions also that can state the old Reformed and biblical doctrines in contemporary language and support those doctrines with the biblical scholarship that has developed over the last 400 years. Perhaps we are not ready yet to write new confessions, granted the spiritual immaturity of the contemporary church and the proliferation of denominational division. But if we are ever to reach the point at which new confessions can be written, we need to train pastors and teachers for the church who are able to develop doctrinal formulations from the Word of God itself. And we need to graduate students who understand that the 16th and 17th century confessions are not the final word, that there is much more that God calls us to say to the church and to the world.”
Loading tweets...
8 comments
heidelblog says:
April 16, 2009 at 2:54 pm (UTC 10 )
Hi,
I appreciate this. I agree and disagree with my old friend John. We do need new confessions and we are ready to write them. Sorry to be a pain about this but, as I noted in RRC, the very same arguments that are used against writing confessions today could have been used against writing them in the 16th and 17th centuries.
I agree that we always need to mature, but I fear that for John, “mature” means, “agrees with me.
You mean that Bob Godfrey, Mike Horton, Lig Duncan, Hywel Jones, R C Sproul, and Sinclair Ferguson are immature? I think fellows like that are quite capable of sitting at a table and writing a confession.
Best,
Scott
michael jensen says:
April 16, 2009 at 10:00 pm (UTC 10 )
Do you have to have the L in TULIP to be in the club?
mark says:
April 17, 2009 at 3:14 am (UTC 10 )
Hi Scott,
Thanks for your thoughtful comment – much appreciated. Can I also mention that I’ve found your blogposts on the “New Calvinism” quite helpful.
As an Anglican, coming from down under Australia, I’m not all that familiar with the background of confessional disagreements in the United States. So, no finger-pointing at Horton et al. from this quarter! In fact, I’ve really appreciated their work, especially Horton
I suppose I’m just trying to grapple with confessions and movements and where to draw the line with respect to terminology. And that’s why something in what Frame writes (here’s the link) resonates with me. Thus, my appreciation for his and Poythress’ multi-perspectivalism.
If there’s such a ground-swell of interest in “Calvinism” at present, do you see a way forward with some sort of unity or confessional statement? Perhaps a Gospel Coalition? Or perhaps you’ve covered it in RRC and I just haven’t read it!
Thanks again for your thoughts.
And Michael, no I’m not sure you need an L to be in, but perhaps a DA or a PR would do! That said, I suppose TUDAIP and TUPRIP don’t quite have the same ring
heidelblog says:
April 18, 2009 at 10:48 pm (UTC 10 )
Michael,
If the Reformed Churches get to define “Reformed,”
then, with all due respect to the host, yes, one does need to hold the “L.” If the Reformed Churches of the NL, England, Germany, and France agreed on the “L” then it isn’t an obscurity or a disputed point like the logical order of the decrees etc. It’s a basic point. The Westminster agreed and thus the English and Scottish Reformed/Presbyterian Churches agreed. The American Presbyterian Churches adopted the Westminster Confession and thus they agreed. This is a universal Reformed doctrine since before 1619.
Mark, Yes, the book was written in my own context but folk from the UK and other contexts have found it useful.
I’m quite familiar with John’s work. He was my prof and we were colleagues for a few years. I wrote the book as an alternative to his approach to theology and to many of his conclusions which are leading us away from the Reformed Confessions on several points.
Cheers!
Scott
psychodougie says:
April 23, 2009 at 12:58 am (UTC 10 )
top stuff mark.
i know you like to bandy around ‘reformed’ as a term for all things good and biblically faithful, but i get that heidelblog et al are saying is that you are only allowed to use it if it’s signing up to what the reformed churches back in the day defined as reformed.
i don’t know how that works with ecclesia reformata, semper reformanda (yes, i get my latin out of a bottle in the cupboard – i have no idea if that’s right!), but the ‘always reforming’ part would say that frame is on the right path – how are we reforming today in light of current questions?
should we follow the emergent/emerging definition – are you are reformed church, or a reforming church?!
mark says:
April 23, 2009 at 10:16 pm (UTC 10 )
Scott, thanks for your post! Yes, I’m sure your technically right about the historical need for doctrine of Limited Atonement in the reformed tradition – I was more suggesting that perhaps the terms particular redemption or definite atonement might be more helpful in our current day. For some strange reason, the word ‘limited’ has quite negative connotations with my generation (just as ‘limited’ choices leading to freedom in the Christian life). Anyway, thanks for your help with thinking about this. I’d appreciate more of your thoughts on here!
And Dougie, yes I do generally agree with Scott about the confessions thing. They are good and give meaning to a term like Reformed – rather than let the term be a slippery, fairly meaningless term synonymous to Protestant.
Similarly, where Karl Barth makes one ‘incisive deviation’ from the reformed understanding of election and thus leads away from the ‘L’ of limited atonement, is he therefore reformed? I’d probably have to agree with Scott and say no. Is he vaguely reformed? Perhaps, but that depends on whether you want to allow that category!
I reckon you’re bang on about the need to be always reforming (in fact, John Frame did the preface to the recent book called Always Reforming!!!). Perhaps the aim would be to be Reformed AND always reforming!
mark says:
April 23, 2009 at 10:16 pm (UTC 10 )
Scott, thanks for your post! Yes, I’m sure your technically right about the historical need for doctrine of Limited Atonement in the reformed tradition – I was more suggesting that perhaps the terms particular redemption or definite atonement might be more helpful in our current day. For some strange reason, the word ‘limited’ has quite negative connotations with my generation (just as ‘limited’ choices leading to freedom in the Christian life). Anyway, thanks for your help with thinking about this. I’d appreciate more of your thoughts on here!
And Dougie, yes I do generally agree with Scott about the confessions thing. They are good and give meaning to a term like Reformed – rather than let the term be a slippery, fairly meaningless term synonymous to Protestant.
Similarly, where Karl Barth makes one ‘incisive deviation’ from the reformed understanding of election and thus leads away from the ‘L’ of limited atonement, is he therefore reformed? I’d probably have to agree with Scott and say no. Is he vaguely reformed? Perhaps, but that depends on whether you want to allow that category!
I reckon you’re bang on about the need to be always reforming (in fact, John Frame did the preface to the recent book called Always Reforming!!!). Perhaps the aim would be to be Reformed AND always reforming!
Matthew Moffitt says:
April 27, 2009 at 11:28 pm (UTC 10 )
“The Westminster agreed and thus the English and Scottish Reformed/Presbyterian Churches agreed. The American Presbyterian Churches adopted the Westminster Confession and thus they agreed. This is a universal Reformed doctrine since before 1619.”Can I point out that to heidelblog that the Westminster Confession was written in the 1640′s, 20+ years after TULIP was worked out.