Reformed Stuff

For those Reformed folks out there note the following:

An interesting short essay by John Frame on Law and Gospel (HT: Jason Hood). This reminds me that I can do magic in Presbyterian churches. I can turn Presbyterians into Baptists simply by setting bread and wine before them on a table. I can also turn some Presbyterians into Lutherans just by uttering the words "Law" and "Gospel".

Michael Horton has a new theology book coming out call The Christian Faith which is previewed at Koinonia.

By far the best little introduction to Reformed Theology that I've come across in recent years is by R. Michael Allen. The chapter on creeds and confessions and their proper use alongside Scripture is worth the price of the book!

This time ... I mean it!

Okay folks. As a Reformed Evangelical I am naturally concerned about the state of the Reformed Evangelical church all over the world. But lately I have spent too much time offering my commentary on debates in conservative circles in the USA. I've tried to be a peace maker and a defender of those who are in my opinion wrongly criticized over secondary issues. But truth be told, it is bringing out the worst side of my personality when I'm in defensive mode and I find myself engaging too polemically when it is me or my friends who are the subject of discussion. I want to be known for what I'm for, not who I am against. Moreover, I'm also outside of the American context which could mean on the one hand that I approach these issues with fresh insight, though it could also mean on the other hand that I have an ignorance of the dynamics and culture of these people and places. In addition, I'm probably not achieving much. People who were already evangelically broad will like my evangelical breadth, while for those who are more conservative my posts only succeeded in keeping their disgust fresh. But there's no point preaching to the choir or kicking the goads. So thanks for the emails encouraging me to stand up for a moderate and catholic evangelical position. Sorry for the offense I've caused to anyone else. I shall refrain from all future commentary and remarks about the situation in the conservative reformed churches of the USA. Save this last one, go and read Gal. 6.15, "But if you bite and devour one another, watch out that you are not consumed by one another" (ESV). I'd like to formally apply for associate membership in the EPC and AMiA if they'll have me. From now on I'm sticking to biblical studies, theology, and the life of the pan-evangelical Christian churches. And this time I mean it!

Meaning of "Reformed"

I could never be an American Presbyterian. I don't believe in subscription. Don't get me wrong, subscription to the Westminster Confession, that's fine, it's my objection to the mandatory subscription to World Magazine that probably keeps me from being acceptable in those circles. But in the midst is an on-going identity crisis as what it means to be "Reformed" and can those who are "Reformed" be "Evangelical", and if so, in what sense. John Frame responds to a book written by R. Scott Clark about these very issues. This is very much an insider debate in the USA because outside of conservative American Presbyterian circles people generally don't write books on who is in and who is out; those of us who live as religious minorities in either secular or Muslim countries have bigger priorities like survival, evangelism, and discipleship. The whole debate is very personal and vitriolic too and I don't want to take sides because there is a lot more than meets the eye here and I haven't fully read both sides of the argument so I'll reserve judgment. However, I tip my hat to Frame's points about the diversity within the Reformed tradition, the danger of treating the Confessions like inerrant Scripture, the Reformed need for catholicity, and the lack of charity that exists among certain doctrine warriors. Frame's review is lengthy, but the final section on "Two Visions of the Reformed Faith" is well worth looking at. To know what the fuss is about, you can read Clark's book Recovering the Reformed Confession.

Cyril Lucaris - Orthodox and Calvinistic

Sometime ago I read Bob Letham's book Through Western Eyes about the Eastern Orthodox church and blogged on it here. One character in the OC that I find fascinating is Cyril Lucaris (1572-1638) who was a Calvinistic Orthodox Patriarch of Constantinople. He wrote an interesting confession of faith that gives one pause for thought on how Calvinism can be expressed in eastern language. Less we get too excited, I would point out that Cyril's positions were opposed at the 1672 Jerusalem Synod with the Confession of Dositheus which doesn't hold back on the polemics!

Is there any hope for a Reformed-Orthodox reapproachment? Well, Anglicanism might be the best conduit in town for that dialogue. I note that Nashotah House (an Anglo-Catholic Seminary) and St. Vladamir's Seminary in the USA have a formal agreement to work towards unity. At the ACNA assembly this year metropolitan Bishop Jonah called for full communion with the new Anglican province (though he did call Calvinism a heresy along the way). I also note, with due understanding but with genuine disappointment all the same, that NT scholar Edith Humphrey has left the Anglican Diocese of Pittsburgh and been received into the Orthodox Church (see her explanation here). Hopefully she'll be involved in Anglican/Orthodox discussion somewhere along the line. Michael Horton suggested possible eastern influences on Calvin's view of the eucharist in his excellent book, People and Place. I would also draw attention to a piece written by Jack D. Kinneer called A Calvinist Looks at Orthodoxy, which is significant because Kinneer is an OPC member and he studied at St. Vladamir seminary. How do you get John Calvin and John Chrysostom to sit at the one table and what would they agree on?

Michael Horton on Semper Reformanda

Not long ago I set my M.Th students an essay on "How does Semper Reformanda shape reformed theological method?" My interest in the phrase is that it gets used as a license to abandon historic Christianity by liberal theologians, or else it gets used in the sense of finding new ways of maintaining the status quo because Reformed theology is already "done" according to some conservatives. Interestingly enough, Michael Horton has a good piece on the meaning of Semper Reformanda including historic use and modern abuse of the phrase. At the end of his short article Horton closes with these words:

This perspective keeps us from making tradition infallible but equally from imbibing the radical Protestant obsession with starting from scratch in every generation. When God's Word is the source of our life, our ultimate loyalty is not to the past as such or to the present and the future, but to "that Word above all earthly pow'rs," to borrow from Luther's famous hymn. Neither behind us nor ahead of us, but above us, reigns our sovereign Lord over His body in all times and places. When we invoke the whole phrase -- "the church Reformed and always being reformed according to the Word of God" -- we confess that we belong to the church and not simply to ourselves and that this church is always created and renewed by the Word of God rather than by the spirit of the age

In Defence of John Piper and N.T. Wright

R. Scott Clark offers some criticisms of John Piper relating to his status as "Reformed" and his apparent softness on the New Perspective on Paul (NPP) and Federal Vision (FV). Clark makes every effort to be gracious in his criticisms, but I felt that many of his points seemed somewhat unfair or grounded on dubious assumptions. In defence of John Piper then:

1. On "Reformed", Clark objects to this description being applied to those outside the Presbyterian and Confessional churches. This is why Clark writes: "Are there as many definitions of 'Reformed' as there are definers or is there is fixed, stable, public, ecclesiastical definition of the adjective? I say the latter is the case." Now every time Clark writes the word "Reformed" I feel like quoting the movie the Princess Bride - "You keep using that word, but I do not think it means what you think it means!" Now far be it for me to lecture a historical theologian on adjectives of the Reformation, but surely, just from usage alone, we can observe that "Reformed" is a polysemous term. From my fallible experience and limited readings, I think that "Reformed" has three primary usages: (1) it can be used historically to signify those Christian groups that emerged during or from the Reformation (Lutheran, Anabaptist, Presbyterian, Anglican, etc.), (2) it can be used theologically to describe those who hold to a Calvinistic and Covenantal theology (though we could ask which part of Calvin is essential and whose covenant theology - e.g. Kline or Murray - is pristine?); and (3) it can be used ecclesiologically to describe those churches that stand in the Continental/Scottish Presbyterian tradition. To say that Piper is "Reformed" it is to mean it in the sense of (2) not (3). I suspect that many do not like applying the term "Reformed" to Calvinistic and Confessional Baptists because it lowers the currency of the term "Reformed," which they feel should be reserved exclusively for themselves (I have to confess that this entire discussion reminds me of Paul's debate in Romans 2 about who is a true "Jew" and Philippians 3 about who is the true "circumcision"). I can resonate against making the term nebulous, but I doubt that Clark's own idea of "Reformed" matches the historical and public reality of how the adjective is used.

On an adjacent point, and maybe Baptist historians can help me with this one, traditionally Calvinistic and Confessional Baptists have been called (or called themselves) "Particular Baptists" and I do wonder when and why the label "Reformed Baptists" can into widespread currency. I don't hear about Particular Baptists anymore. Has the title "Reformed Baptist" come into common usage in order to differentiate themselves from "General Baptists" (i.e. Arminians) and to demonstrate a close affinity with Presbyterian/Anglican/Lutheran churches who they feel that they have more in common with? Interesting question, and I don't know the answer.

People might also be interested to know that the World Reformed Fellowship includes Presbyterians, Anglicans, and Reformed Baptists! Look at the doctrinal basis of the WRF:

- We affirm the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments to be the God-breathed Word of God, without error in all that it affirms.
- We stand in the mainstream of the historic Christian Faith in affirming the following catholic creeds of the Early Church: The Apostles Creed, the Nicene Creed, and the Chalcedonian Definition.
- More specifically, every voting member of the WRF affirms one of the following historic expressions of the Reformed Faith: The Gallican Confession, The Belgic Confession, The Heidelberg Catechism, The Thirty-Nine Articles, The Second Helvetic Confession, The Canons of Dort, The Westminster Confession of Faith, the London Confession of 1689, or the Savoy Declaration.

It is with great pleasure that I point out that in the WRF, Baptist and Anglican confession are right there beside the WCF and Heidelberg Catechism! Isn't that just wonderful. Evidently Clark does not represent the views of Presbyterians across the world, but only one narrow portion of it.

2. Clark takes exception to John Piper refusing to call N.T. Wright's and Douglas Wilson's gospel the "another gospel" indicted in Galatians 1. Clark writes: "I was troubled by the question and the implication of his answer that we all know what 'another gospel' is and it isn’t that which is taught by N. T. Wright or by Doug Wilson." However, we do know what the other gospel was, it was teaching the Galatians that they had to be circumcised, and to become Jews, in order to become children of Abraham. N.T. Wright and Doug Wilson, as far as I'm aware, do not teach this. Wright's definition of gospel works well in Rom. 1.3-4, 2 Tim. 2.8 (and I have a juicy Luther quote which sounds just like Wright), but I side with Piper in that I don't think it works in 1 Cor. 15.3-8. The gospel has to include both the person and work of Jesus Christ. Sadly, Reformed preachers tend to focus on the work of Christ (i.e. atonement theology) and Wright has rightly brought the person (Messiah, Lord, plus the underlying narrative) back into the picture, which is great, but he still needs to integrate it more closely to the cross and resurrection in his definition of gospel.

3. Clark writes: "Paul identifies one quality of their message as 'craftiness' (πανουργια) that corrupts the mind. Arguably both the FV and NPP are 'crafty' and 'corrupting'." Now I simply don't know enough about the FV so I won't comment there. But to call Wright "crafty" and "corrupting" seems a bit on the unfair side. There have been several good criticisms of N.T. Wright (as opposed to vitriolic ones), I think esp. of Doug Moo and Tom Schreiner, but nowhere do these acidic phrases come up. Wright claims he's getting back to Scripture and not relying on tradition - something most exegetes like to think of themselves as doing - so Wright is hardly unique in claiming to be going back to the sources. Did not Calvin and Luther think of themselves in a similar fashion? The other problem is that Clark simply regards NPP, FV, and Norman Shepherd has some kind of homogenous entity or simply variations on a theme, which strikes me as entirely inaccurate and careless. What is more, is everything in the NPP or FV wrong or equally as bad? Augustine saw Romans as being dominated by the Jew-Gentile question and Calvin was relatively aware of the ethnic dimension to Paul's debates in his Galatians commentary. So Augustine and Calvin would affirm constituent concerns of the NPP, even if not everything! I can't help but think that the old addage of baby and bathwater should cause Clark to seriously qualify his statements about NPP and FV.

On top of that, Clark states that the FVs "advocacy of paedocommunion is certainly corrupting of the Reformed faith as confessed by the churches," yet I would point out that it is possible to advocate Paedocommunion without buying into any of the FV arguments. For case in point, Bishop Glen Davies (Anglican Bishop of North Sydney) has written some excellent pieces on that back in the early 1990s in Reformed Theological Review. Clark also states, "It is beyond question that the NPP is an all-out assault upon and rejection of Paul’s doctrine of justification sola fide," yet consider Jimmy Dunn's remarks (and don't take this as an endorsement of everything Jimmy says): "I have no particular problem in affirming that the doctrine of justification (in its fully orbed expression) is articulus stantis et cadentis ecclesiae; I am astonished by and repudiate entirely the charge that the ‘new perspective on Paul’ constitutes an attack on and denial of that Lutheran fundamental … The point I am trying to make is simply that there is another dimension (or other dimensions) of the biblical doctrine of God’s justice and of Paul’s teaching on justification which have been overlooked and neglected, and that it is important to recover these aspects and to think them through afresh in the changing circumstances of today’s world. In a word, I seek not to diminish let alone repudiate the doctrine of justification (mē genoito), but to bring more fully to light its still greater riches." I'd hardly call that a siege tower against Geneva or Wittenberg.

In sum, I think Clark is unfair to Piper because he thinks that Piper does not put the goal posts of orthodoxy in the right place and so allows too many people onto the playing field. Whereas I think that Piper has a good grasp of what the disqualifying issues are and renders judgment appropriately. I think Clark is unfair to Wright because his criticisms are anchored in harsh rhetoric and vague generalisations. To be fair to Clark, this was a blog post and not monograph, but in whatever format criticisms need to be objective and accurate. I hope I have been objective and accurate in my criticism of Clark and I'm sure he'll correct me where I'm not!

Update: Whereas I've criticized Wright's definition of gospel as too reliant on Rom. 1.3-4 and not taking into account 1 Cor. 15.3-5, in the comments section Trevin Wax alludes to a CT interview with N.T. Wright where Wright defines the gospel as: "The gospel is the royal announcement that the crucified and risen Jesus, who died for our sins and rose again according to the Scriptures, has been enthroned as the true Lord of the world. When the gospel is preached, God calls people to salvation, out of sheer grace, leading them to repentance and faith in Jesus Christ as the risen Lord." Incidentally, Piper's definition is as follows: "The heart of the gospel is the good news that Christ died for our sins and was raised from the dead. What makes this good news is that Christ’s death accomplished a perfect righteousness before God and suffered a perfect condemnation from God, both of which are counted as ours through faith alone, so that we have eternal life with God in the new heavens and the new earth."

New Reformed Journal

I've just learned of the launch of a new British Reformed Evangelical Journal named Ecclesia Reformanda. It has a good editorial team including HTC's own Ros Clark. The front webpage states:

Ecclesia Reformanda is a new journal for pastors, theological students, and scholars, that seeks to serve the Church in its ongoing reformation according to God’s Word. The editorial board believes that historic Reformed theology offers the best expression of the theology of Scripture, and so the journal is confessionally Reformed. However, a genuinely Reformed theology is always looking for God to shed new light on his Church from his Word. It is therefore always reforming.

Ecclesia Reformanda is distinctively Reformed, with a contemporary cutting edge. It presents some of the best in British Reformed thinking and writing to serve the Church, her teachers, and her Lord.

The journal covers all of the theological subdisciplines, and early issues will include articles on intertextuality in Romans 2, poetry in James, the place of children in the new covenant according to Jeremiah 32, Jim Jordan’s hermeneutics, Herman Bavinck’s theological method, and John Owen’s doctrine of justification. Future editions will contain articles on ethics, public theology, and pastoral counselling.

Doctrine without Scripture?

Sometime ago I was reading the website of a Reformed Institution that had a page detailing its official views on justification. There is nothing at all wrong with saying where you stand on controversial issues. I could agree with some of the statements, some I could agree with if they were qualified, some I could not accept, and some were just flat out strange. But as I read this document with all of its assertions about justification, I noticed that it cited many catechisms and confessions but it did not cite Scripture even once in the entire document. This left me concerned and confused (that is PC for it scared the daylights out of me).

What role does Scripture have in Reformed theology? The approach taken in the anonymous document mentioned above is concerning because: (1) It replaces Scripture with the Confessions. (2) It makes the Confessions the mediator of Scripture. (3) It assigns, by implication, the authority of Scripture to the Confessions. (4) It turns the Confessions and its modern devotees into a new magisterium and thus undermines everything that the Reformers themselves fought against and even died for, the authority of Scripture in the life of the church: Sola Scriptura.

Let me head off two potential objections. First, that the Confessions are a summary of what Scripture teaches. Yes and No! The Confession constitute an attempt to summarize and systematize the teaching of Scripture. As such, I can happily sign my name on the dotted line underneath the WCF because I believe, all things being even, that it represents the mind of Scripture. However, the Confessions are also interpretations of Scripture by fallible human beings and they place Scripture in a theological framework also developed by human beings. Thus, they are one step removed from Scripture itself. To cite the Confession then is not the same as citing Scripture and neither should we ever presume to think so. Second, we all interpret Scripture in light of some tradition and there is no neutral perspective and no strictly biblicist approach to interpretation. I concede as much. The Confessions and Catechisms represent the fallible attempt of men and women to articulate the infallible truths of Scripture. The Confessions/Catechisms represent the mind of the Reformed Tradition. Tradition is a tool for reading Scripture. We should read Scripture in light of our Tradition, but we should also read Tradition in light of Scripture!

For those in the Reformed churches, I ask you, should we cite the Confessions rather than Scripture in our doctrinal forumulations? I say unto you: "nay" and "over my dead body"!

1. We have the example of the Bible itself where theological truth is defined by that which is "according to the Scriptures" (e.g. 1 Cor. 15.3-8) and theological truth is apprehended by being good Bereans and "searching the Scriptures" (e.g. Acts 17.11).

2. The example of the Reformers themselves would lead us to believe that Scripture must be primary in our theological formulations and church life (not just derivative from commentaries on Scripture). Calvin himself said: “Let us not take it into our heads . . . to seek out God anywhere else than in his Sacred Word, or to think anything about him that is not prompted by his Word, or to speak anything that is not taken from that Word.”

3. Semper Reformanda means testing our doctrine, polity, liturgy, and church life to make sure that it is in line with Scripture not in line with the Confessions (not rehearsing the mantra that the Confessions are substantially without error and engaging in deviant labelling of those who disagree).

4. This perspective is also the view of one of the Reformed Confessions. Let me cite to you the 1560 Scots Confession XVIII:

When controversy arises about the right understanding of any passage or sentence of Scripture, or for the reformation of any abuse within the Kirk of God, we ought not so much to ask what men have said or done before us, as what the Holy Ghost uniformly speaks within the body of the Scriptures and what Christ Jesus himself did and commanded. For it is agreed by all that the Spirit of God, who is the Spirit of unity, cannot contradict himself. So if the interpretation or opinion of any theologian, Kirk, or council, is contrary to the plain Word of God written in any other passage of the Scripture, it is most certain that this is not the true understanding and meaning of the Holy Ghost, although councils, realms, and nations have approved and received it. We dare not receive or admit any interpretation which is contrary to any principal point of our faith, or to any other plain text of Scripture, or to the rule of love.

Once upon a time, men could make doctrines for the Christian religion without reference to Scripture. It was called the Dark Ages. For the sake of the Reformation of the church, I urge my brothers and sisters in the Reformed churches to give serious consideration to the relationship between Scripture and Confession and not elevating (in practice especially) the latter over the former. Otherwise we will wake up one day and find ourselves enslaved to a new magisterium that claims to be biblical, but in practice, is far from it. There endeth the lesson.

N.T. Wright Blurbs

IVP USA has uploaded endorsements for Wright's new book. It includes a very colourful blurb from Scot McKnight which has prompted some discussion over at Between Two Worlds and Heidelblog.

95 Theses

I came across this totally cool rap called "95 Theses" (HT: Jason Hood).



Happy Reformation Day. Long live the Reformation!!

Reformed AND Evangelical?

Sometime ago I was concerned and confused when I read this: "Great changes frequently go unnoticed when they happen. The true nature of such changes become evident only after the fact. For example, by rights, had the papacy been as powerful in the sixteenth century as it was in the thirteenth century, it seems incredible that Luther would have survived to challenge the existing order in the way he did. In fact, few were conscious of the weakness of the papacy in the sixteenth century, but it was weak and the Reformation survived. Most recently, the true weakness of Soviet-bloc communism was made manifest only by the refusal of certain nations and peoples to submit to Moscow. In a similar way, modernity has been mortally wounded, and the need for the broad evangelical coalition has passed. It is time for Reformed Christianity to move out of the evangelical ‘big tent’ and back into our own churches and to take up our confessions again and recover our own grammar, theology, and piety (R. Scott Clark, “How We Got Here.” Covenant, Justification, and Pastoral Ministry, pp. 11-12)". Let me add that (from the few pages that I've browsed through so far) this volume looks like an exceptional modern exposition of the Lutheran view of justification as applied to intra-American Presbyterian debates. Luther would undoubtedly be proud, though Calvin perhaps more circumspect. But for a far more upbeat view on being "Reformed" and "Evangelical," I strenuously recomend the post over at JT's blog on the subject - it is refreshing, exciting, and edifying stuff. In preparing a course on Romans in the Reformed tradition, I was most pleased to read Charles Hodge's comments the about godly evangelical men he disagrees with on the interpretation of the "wretched man" in Romans 7.

Scott Clark has also advocated that Reformed Baptist are not actually Reformed in the strictest sense of the term. His definition of Reformed means "one must hold to every point of doctrine in the Reformed confessions in order to be Reformed". Few problems: (1) The Reformed faith has no magisterium to determine which confessions are Reformed. So how about the 1689 LBC? Sounds good to me, thoroughly calvinistic, some covenantal elements are there too. All in favour say, "Spurgeon". Jests aside, are some confessions more reformed than others, in which case it would mean that there is an inner-confessional canon within the confessions? This "canon" might appear in other documents too enabling us to broaden the number of "Reformed confessions" depending on how one defines the intra-reformed canon. (2) I have never met someone who holds to the entire WCF from the Pope is the anti-Christ to strict sabbatarianism. Now I think Scott would reply that it refers to the Reformed confessions as received by the churches and they have the right to modify elements if they so wish. But this is the bit I do not understand. Being Reformed means holding to the confession, but churches can change the confession and still be reformed. If the church holds to a confession that it has changed, modified, or edited, then of course they are holding to "every point of the Reformed confession". I think Scott's definition of Reformed has gone from strictly narrow to meaninglessly broad simply for the fact that any one can adhere to a confession that they've tinkered with. Undoubtedly it is not that simple, there are probably some bits that no-one is allowed to change, but I think this is the logic of his own position. (3) Does anyone have the chuzpah to go up to John Piper and Don Carson and inform them that they are not really reformed? Good luck. All-in-all, please pity us. Being Reformed Baptist ain't easy. Presbyterians don't want you, general Baptists view you with suspicion. Maybe we should just convert to Presbyterianism or Anglicanism to find a shelter for ourselves.

Masters in Reformed Theology

About time for some institutional promo. HTC runs a Masters in Reformed Theology which can be done full-time in one year or part-time over two years. The modules are run by week long intensives about six times per year. Modules include:

Method in Theology & Dissertation Colloquium
Dr Jamie Grant; Dr Michael Bird.

Scottish Covenant Theology
Professor A.T.B. McGowan

History of Reformed Theology
Dr Gerald Bray

Reformed Theology & Pastoral Ministry
Professor A.T.B. McGowan

Calvin & Calvinism
Professor Paul Helm

Zwingli and the Swiss Reformation
Dr Nick Needham

Romans in the Reformed Tradition
Dr Michael Bird

It also includes 20, 000 word dissertation.

You can learn more about the course here. It is possible to take single modules out of interest if you have an undergraduate theology degree with honours already. Students from outside the UK are welcomed to apply! The next cohort of students start 1st of September 2008 so be sure to apply before then.

McCormack weighs in on Enns

Bruce McCormack (of Princeton Theological Seminary and a world leader in studies on Karl Barth) has weighed in on the Peter Enns debate at WTS-Philly, with a guest-post over at Arthur Boulet’s blog. McCormack argues that the Westminster report against Enns does not reflect a Reformed christology, but instead a Lutheran or even Eastern Orthodox christology. Do read!

HT: Ben Myers

Systematic Theology vs. Biblical Theology

I remember reading Mark Seifrid's 1992 monograph Justified by Faith where Seifrid commented that alot of the debate about the New Perspective on Paul comes down to a difference between those who want to read their Bible's historically and those who want to read the Bible theologically. This is particularly true in the Reformed world and is confirmed to me by two things:

(1) I read one book about the NPP which attacked the 18th century German scholar J.P. Gabler for allegedly trying to prevent systematic theology from being a tool for the church. That is just patternly false (if you don't believe me go read D.A. Carson's article on NT Theology in DLNTD or better yet go read Gabler yourself!) as Gabler wanted a biblical theology that would engage with what the biblical writers were actually saying on their terms and in their language and without having to conform to the categories, language, or findings of systematic theology. Importantly, Gabler also believed that good biblical theology should feed into systematic theology; he was not against systematic theology, on the contrary, he wanted to see it refined and become more biblically informed!

(2) Those who engage daily in the practice of biblical studies and having to actually study the Greek text of the NT in its historical context have a tendency to be more sympathetic to what the NPP is saying even if they do not fully agree with their findings. In contrast, those whose loyalty is primarily towards a theological system rather than to Scripture, have been particularly aggressive and scathing in their criticism (one or two particular books come to mind).

The difference is between those who say (1) "my authority is Scripture and I am willing to affirm a Confession in so far as it coheres and comports with Scripture"; and (2) those who say "my authority is Scripture as understood by the Confession". These are not the same thing. The second position is not "truly reformed" and it treats the Confession rather like the Mishnah of the Rabbis or the Magisterium of the Roman Catholic Church. Note: for more on the positive role and limitations of Reformed Confessions see Andrew McGowan's forthcoming book, The Divine Spiration of Scripture and his book Always Reforming.

I believe Stanley Hauerwas once said that "New Testament scholars ought to be lined up and run off of a cliff!" I would retort by saying that sometimes I think that all Systematic Theologians should be beaten to death with a soggy fish! Let me say that Systematics is a good thing, we need Systematics to have a comprehensive world view, to bring Scritpure together, and to answer questions not raised in Scripture. BUT, Systematics cannot demand that exegesis and historical study conform to its system. Theology may be the "Queen of the Sciences" but she is a puppet Queen sustained by the strings of exegesis and by the hands of biblical scholars.

As such I was pleased to read Reggie Kidd's recent contribution to the debate. This quote shows that while some theologians want to cleanse their denomination of certain types, even naming evangelicals as the bad guys, there are those of us who remain committed to the Bible, the evangelical tradition, and historic Orthodoxy. Reggie said this:

Battle as relentlessly and courageously as the Church of England’s N.T. Wright does to champion the view that Paul’s theology is animated by a comprehensive and integrated story of promise and fulfillment — scoring points against both the postmodern deconstruction of the biblical meta-narrative and the dispensational fracturing of the singular story of “the Israel of God” into dichotomous stories of “Israel” versus the “church” — and what do you get from your potential allies in the conservative reformed world? How about getting dismissed as importing an alien biblical theology into the established categories of systematic theology, as being vague about the atonement, and as compromising biblical authority? While we build careers at our potential friends’ expense, the hostile armies and navies amass. Nice work.

Read the comments section with some big names weighing into the debate: Doug Green, Steve Taylor, John Armstrong, John Frame, Scot McKnight etc. Do read the whole post! And for the otherside of the argument read the response by R. Scott Clark.

Jensen on being "Reformed"

Peter Jensen, Anglican Archbishop of Sydney, has a lecture on Why I am a Reformed Christian. Please listen to it if you are so inclined.