When I first got into Reformed Theology I was fairly immature spiritually and found myself siding with Martyn Lloyd Jones over J.I.Packer and John Stott in a debate that happened before I was born. MLJ wanted Anglicans to come out of their mixed denomination and work alongside their evangelical brothers and sisters in the independent church. Stott and Packer both insisted on remaining with their denomination to change it. I have since grown to appreciate J.I Packer and John Stott and do believe that God calls people to work in the Anglican church. This month Evangelical Nows published an interview with Packer about his battle within the Canadian Anglican communion. Packer is fighting a battle with the liberals and has been for sometime. I admire his fight for a tradition that he obviously loves and feels very much as home. I noticed though that he called the Anglican Church, The English version of the reformed faith. I believe Packer is wrong on several counts. The 39 articles although reformed are fairly broad and reflect something of Elizabeth the 1st 'middle way' for the church of England. The CofE has always been a mixed bag, The Westminster Confession of Faith was written during the height of the Puritan era and was intended as a corrective to the 39 articles, this was a truly reformed confession and was written in England (with help from several Scot's including Samuel Rutherford), by Independents, Presbyterians with some Anglican influence. The WCF was never accepted by the Anglican Church because of the via media but its influence is still felt within England through the Savoy Confession and the Baptist Confession of 1689. It is Purtianism and its heirs in the Independent churches that better reflect the English reformed tradition. I am thankful that there are Reformed ministers in the CoE but the CoE, if it is a reflection of English reformed faith it is only one reflection and not THE expression of it.
Shalom
Stephen
4 comments:
I beg to differ from you somewhat, but then you might expect that from a Presbyterian!
1) The Presbyterians were Anglicans who wanted to reform church government and forms of worship. It would be wrong to think of English Presbyterians sitting outside of the Church of England like the Independents were. Expulsion did not happen till 1662.
2) The heirs of the reformed tradition are the Reformed/Presbyterians. It was interesting to me that recently at a Midlands Gospel Partnership meeting a man who was speaking, a Baptist, was calling on all of us to read the theological greats - Hodge, Warfield, Murray - all Presbyterians! The great reformed tradition is alive and well and promoted by Presbies. I could be controversial and say that no Baptist can truly call himself reformed, but that is another debate!
Blessings...
Hi Stephen,
You would agree with my main point that the CoE is not The only expression of Reformed Theology in England though? As you are aware there are no where near as many presbyterians in England than in either Wales or Scotland. The reformed cause was taken up by the Puritans which includes the Presbyterians at some point.
As a Baptist I would call on people to read the greats, Calvin, Hodge, Spurgeon, Grudem. All reformed from varied traditions. I like that in the fourth section of Calvin's insistutes he argues for credo baptism! :-)
If reformata is a big part of the reformed tradition then the 1689 London confession is the most truly reformed of all the C17th confessions. :)
God Bless
Stephen
Howdy Bro,
Well, it was complicated. There were a variety of theological avenues followed. I guess it depends how you want to define 'Reformed'. If you mean not the Catholics, Lutherans or Radicals, then yes there are other streams in the Reformed tradition. But historically 'Reformed' has been applied to churches in the Calvinian tradition. That's the direction the Assembly was going. Clearly there were baptists who thought differently by the 1644 LBC
As I understand it the term 'Reformed Baptist' is a 19th century innovation. Prior to that they were 'Particular'. Perhaps you can correct or clarify.
Do you have a reference for the credo-baptist comment of Calvin? Having just read the 4th book in the last couple of weeks I'm afraid I missed it. I am sure he did not mean it the way you mean it if he did!
S.
Hi Stephen,
I have only read it in the last few weeks, let me see I think its 4xv 7. I was a little cheeky in the next section he goes on to argue for infant baptism, interestingly not from scripture and not in terms of a fully developed covenant theology (that developed after Calvin and maybe from him).
Bunyan would be both a puritan and a baptist prior to the development of the Baptist Union and any splinter groups.
There are a couple of interesting books on the development of Calvinistic baptists. One is the reformers and their Stepchildren by Leonard Verduin. Verduin also wrote a book that I haven't been able to get a hold of called the anatomy of a hybred. Tom Nettles also has an excellent book BY His grace and for His glory. so i recognise to be baptist and Calvinist don't go together in the same as being presbyterian and reformed. That said some of the biggest Arminians have come from the presbyterian tradition but I wont hold that against you or your tradition.
I have learnt this year there are many reformed theologies as the Engish Purtian tradition is different to the Dutch. The Dutch is different to the Princetonians etc.
I became reformed through reading Lloyd Jones and Spurgeon. Later helped by R C Sproul and Jonathan Edwards. I differ with my Presbyterian brothers here in the Highlands on two issues, baptism and church government.
I think the baptists divided into particular and strict away from the B.U. The particular baptists and the strict would be Calvinistic. I think sometimes hyper Calvinistic.
I believe Calvinism is just another way to define biblical Christianity.
God Bless bro!
Stephen
Post a Comment