7 responses

1. 

   dave bish

   18 March 2009

   Much as I like the Spurgeon quote of Calvinism is the gospel, we should recognise that that it is gospel-centricity we should be after… it strikes me that networks, fellowships, churches etc should be centre-bounded sets, with strong bold core convictions that allow us to be biblically narrow to contend for the gospel and biblically broad enough to generously welcome brothers and sisters with whom we differ.

   Reply
2. 

   Phil

   18 March 2009

   Excellent point, well made sir. Couldn’t agree more.

   Reply
3. 

   chris smyth

   18 March 2009

   It’s hard to keep up in the world of New Frontiers blogging! I just came across driscoll’s blog on the time magazines top ten ideas that are changing the world, set the post to come out 9:00 tomorrow morning, all excited that i’ve hit something new and radical here, and now it seems that you guys have been discussing (in far more detail!) it for ever!

   Boy am I going to look silly tomorrow come 9:00am!

   Keep it up Phil, you guys keep blog trainee’s like myself on our toes! Always find your blog very useful mate. Keep it up.

   in him
   Chris

   Reply
4. 

   Phil

   18 March 2009

   Thanks Chris, if it makes you feel any better, I feel like that as well. There are bloggers out that way faster and in touch than me!

   Reply
5. 

   Matthew Hosier

   18 March 2009

   Thanks for the updated version Phil – a helpful clarification!

   I guess part of what we are dealing with is talking about the Reformation, and the ongoing process of reforming the church, as opposed to ‘being Reformed’ which does refer to a particular set of doctrinal statements, E.g, adhering to the Westminster Confession.

   Reply
6. 

   heidelblog

   18 March 2009

   Hi Phil,

   Early in the Reformation the words “Reformed” and “evangelical” were used interchangeably to describe Protestants. By the 1540s, however, though the word “evangelical” continued to be used by the Reformed to describe all confessional Protestants, the word “Reformed” came to denote a specific branch of Protestant churches, those in Switzerland, England, Germany, and elsewhere that identified with Luther’s doctrine of justification but who criticized his Christology and his approach to worship.

   There was a distinct body of confessions that began to emerge as early as 1523. Today the word “Reformed” denotes those churches that adhere to the Heidelberg Catechism, the Belgic Confession, the Canons of Dort and/or the Westminster Standards.

   The word “Reformed’ is a bit broader than the word “Calvinist.” All Cs are R but, historically anyway, not all Rs are Cs. Bullinger and Peter Martyr Vermigli were Reformed but they weren’t Calvinists exactly. Not that there were huge disagreements but they arrived at their views independently of Calvin and their churches (German Swiss) had a different organization.

   In N. American circles today, however, the words Reformed and Calvinist are used interchangeably. The difficulty comes with people such as Driscoll who wish to be considered Reformed, who use that label as a marketing tool to position their congregations and movements, but who dissent from the stuff that actually makes one Reformed.

   If I wear a Manchester United football jersey but don’t follow the team or know the rules of the game, am I a football fan? No. Wearing the jersey isn’t sufficient.

   Those of us who live and work in Reformed Churches value the adjective. It’s not a fad for us because it speaks of who we are, what we believe, how we worship, pray, and relate to other people.

   As to ecumenicity, I hate to sound narrow, but the Synod of Dort convened to address the Arminian question precisely because they believed that the gospel of free grace was at stake. If humans are justified by grace and cooperation with grace then justification is no longer free. I understand that there are “Arminians” who are better than that but it’s not as if there is no substantive issue at stake.

   Cheers,

   Scott

   Reply
7. 

   Phil

   18 March 2009

   Hi Scott, thanks for the comment. I appreciate your clarity and helpful pointers for my understanding of reformation history. I should think before I blog a bit more!

   And Matt, yes that was exactly what I was trying to say, albeit pretty clumsily!

   Reply