There Is No Reformed Faith

(This post is an edited version of two earlier posts – one from May 2010 and the other from January 2011.)

[[UPDATE: 12/8/12 - Please note Dr. R. S. Clark's comments below; he's a dear friend of mine and his notes below are worth considering.  This is a discussion worth having in a cordial, brotherly way.  I do not claim to have the last word, nor do I think the last word has been spoken on this topic.]]

I’m not entirely comfortable with the term “the Reformed Faith.”  I cherish, teach, and defend Reformation truths, but I avoid using the term “the Reformed Faith.”  I don’t think it is helpful.  I like how Mike Horton explains this topic.

“Although we do not have a God’s-eye perspective, we do belong to a community that is defined by the inbreaking of the age to come that relativizes all times and places, putting in jeopardy all of our cherished locations in this age.  It even challenges our tendency to find our ultimate identity in our own denomination or tradition.  While vigilant to uncover our own prejudices that work against it, we strive toward a catholic hearing of God’s Word.  From this perspective we should not speak of a Reformed faith or an Orthodox theology or a Lutheran confession, but of a Christian faith, theology, and confession, from a Reformed, Orthodox, or Lutheran perspective.”  Michael Horton, People and Place (Louisville: WJK, 2008), 210.

Horton says the following elsewhere:

“In my view, it is inappropriate for us to refer to our [Reformed/Presbyterian] confession as the Reformed Faith.  The Reformed churches did not (and do not) believe that they were confessing the Reformed Faith, but that they were confessing the ‘undoubted Christian Faith’ in their confessions and catechisms.  There is a reason that this wing of the Reformation called itself ‘Reformed.’  Unlike the Anabaptists, Reformed churches understood themselves as a continuing branch of the catholic church.  At the same time, the Reformed wanted to reform everything ‘according to the Word of God.’  Not only our doctrine, but our worship and life must be determined by Scripture and not by human whim or creativity.” Always Reformed (Escondido: Westminster Seminary California, 2010), 123.

I don’t mean to be a semantical nitpicker, and I realize I may be in the minority here, but for reasons Mike Horton noted I dislike the term “the Reformed Faith.”  Instead, I use other terms like “the Reformed tradition,” or “the Reformed part/branch of Christianity,” or “the Reformed perspective” or something similar.   So I don’t use the term “the Reformed Faith” on this blog or in my other writings.  Now you know…the rest of the story.

shane lems

Scripture, Scope, and Confessions

Here’s a great section from Michael Horton’s The Christian Faith.  It is found under the topic of Scripture – specifically the sufficiency, clarity, and scope of Scripture (p. 197).

“Like its sufficiency, the clarity of Scripture is inseparable from its scope.  If we come to the Bible looking for answers to our own questions that it does not address explicitly, treating it as an encyclopedia of general knowledge, we will draw from it conclusions that it does not intend.  For instance, if we seek from Scripture infallible information concerning the age of the earth, we will miss the point of the passages we are citing.  Passages of this kind require more interpretive skill than do the abundant and obvious declarations of the gospel.”

“The tragic fact that Rome has condemned as heretical the clear teaching of the gospel is the most decisive challenge to its claim to be the church’s infallible teacher of God’s Word.  The same must be said, also with great sorrow, for any Protestant body that strays from the clearest declarations of God’s grace in Jesus Christ.  If the gospel is not known and proclaimed in its purity and simplicity, it is the teacher rather than the text that is unclear.”

“The churches of the Reformation embrace ecumenical creeds and agree on specific confessions and catechisms.  However, they do this not because they think that Scripture is insufficient, difficult, or inconsistent and required an infallible interpreter.  Rather, they require communal subscription to these confessions precisely because they believe the Scriptures are so clear and consistent that their principle teachings can and should be summarized for the good of the whole community, children as well as adults.”

Michael Horton, The Christian Faith, p.197.

shane lems

Applications & Implications of the RPW

Based on the 2nd commandment and other biblical texts and stories, historic Reformed and Presbyterian churches have taught and practiced the Regulative Principle of Worship: we are to worship God in no other way than he has commanded in his word (HC Q/A 96, WLC Q/A 109).  There are several different applications and implications of the RPW.  Here are a few based on Exodus 32 and some other verses.

1) True worship is not a democratic endeavor.  What is right and proper in Christian worship is not based on what a majority of people think is right and proper.  Many Israelites approved of the golden calf but it was still blatantly disobedient and offensive to Yahweh.

2) True worship does not cater to the consumer.  What people want or are looking for should not determine how Christians’ worship God.  True Christian worship isn’t based on what attracts people – such as entertainment, celebrity, comfort, and what is the most fun or relevant.  Israel no doubt enjoyed the rowdy party around the golden calf, but Yahweh still detested the calf and Israel’s worship.

3) True worship is not grounded on emotions and feelings.  Just because a person feels like a certain style of worship is good doesn’t make it so.  Feelings, emotions, and experiences can be false or sinful and should not drive our worship principles.  The Israelites felt the need to have the golden calf since Moses was taking so long, but it was still a breach of God’s command and thus a terrible sin that was punished severely.

4) True worship is not a matter of preference.  The standard for true worship is not what I like, what you prefer, what the youth want, or what unbelievers will be attracted to.  Aaron’s preference was to throw a wild party for Yahweh around the calf, but Moses still told Aaron that he had sinned against Yahweh.

5) True worship is (obviously!) a matter of truth.  Christians must worship the triune God in Spirit and truth – God’s word is truth (Jn. 4:23 & 17:17).  In other words, worship must be clearly biblical: in worship we must sing the truth, pray the truth, preach the truth, and listen to the truth.  If something is not commanded in Scripture, it cannot be part of corporate worship.  Reformed churches are reformed – and always reforming – according to the word of truth.  This also has to do with one of the solas: Sola Scriptura.  The word is our ultimate authority.  In worship, we should want to do what God wants us to do: “thy will be done” even applies to worship.

6) True worship forbids formality.  A person can worship the true God using true words, but the heart might still be far from the Lord (Is. 29:13).  Just going through the motions of corporate worship is not true worship.  So we must repent of formality, hate it, fight it with a renewed appreciation for the gospel of sovereign grace, pray that our hearts would be “in” worship, and prepare our hearts for corporate worship.

There are more implications and applications of the RPW (I encourage you to think of some).  These are some evident ones based on the following resources I’ve read over the years: Give Praise to God, A Better Way, With Reverence and Awe, Dining with the Devil, and The Necessity of Reforming the Church, among others.

shane lems

Death: Not A Passing Away

Though I don’t want to become a word nazi, I believe the term “passing away” is neither a good nor helpful way to speak of death.  Because of its use in Eastern mystical religions and because of its checkered religious  history in Western culture, I try to avoid the term and simply say “death” or “died” instead.  Here’s how Michael Horton explains it.

“…Death is not ‘passing away,’ and it is certainly not an illusion.  For believers, it is ‘the last enemy’ that must be destroyed (1 Cor. 15:26).  We share in Christ’s death and therefore also in his life (Rom. 6:1-12; Phil. 3:10).  Therefore, by looking to our head, we already know the outcome of this struggle, and so there is no reason for believers to fear death’s ultimate triumph (Ps. 23:4, Heb. 2:15, Rom. 8:38-39, etc.).  For unbelievers, this death is merely the harbinger of ‘the second death’: everlasting judgment (Rev. 20:14).

“Part of the curse is the separation of soul from body (Gen. 2:17, 3:19, 22; Rom. 5:12, 8:10, 1 Cor. 15:21).  Death is an enemy, not a friend (1 Cor. 15:26) and a terror (Heb. 2:15), so horrible that even the one who would triumph over it was overcome with grief, fear, and anger at the tomb of his friend Lazarus (Jn. 11:33-36).  Jesus did not see death as a benign deliverer, the sunset that is as beautiful as the sunrise, or as a portal to ‘a better life.’  Looking death in the eye, he saw it for what it was, and his disciples followed his example.  After the deacon’s martyrdom, we read, ‘Devout men buried Stephen and made great lamentation over him’ (Acts 8:2).”

“The reason that believers do not mourn as those who have no hope (1 Thes. 4:13) is not that they know that death is good, but that they know that God’s love and life are far more powerful than the jaws of death.  Although believers, too, feel its bite, Christ has removed the sting of death (Jn 14:2-4, Phil. 1:21, 1 Cor. 15:54-57, etc.).  That is because ‘the sting of death is sin, and the power of sin is the law.  But thanks be to god, who gives us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ’ (1 Cor. 15:56-57).  Downplaying the seriousness of the foe only trivializes the debt that was paid and the conquest that was achieved at the cross and empty tomb” (p. 911).

This quote was taken from Michael Horton’s The Christian Faith (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2011).

shane lems

Pink on God’s Sovereignty as the Foundation

A. W. Pink’s fine book, The Sovereignty of God, is a great resource for studying the truth of God’s absolute power, might, and dominion.  However, I believe Pink overstates the place of God’s sovereignty in theology.  Notice how he describes it.

“The doctrine of God’s sovereignty lies at the foundation of Christian theology, and in importance is perhaps second only to the divine inspiration of the Scriptures.  It is the centre of gravity in the system of Christian truth; the sun around which all the lesser orbs are grouped; the cord upon which all other doctrines are strung like so many pearls, holding them in place and giving them unity.  It is the plumb line by which every creed needs to be tested; the balance in which every human dogma must be weighed” (p. 139).

I don’t mean to be too hard on Pink – these are only a few lines from a very helpful book.  God’s sovereignty is certainly an essential truth of the Christian faith.  But these lines should make us think.  Is God’s sovereignty the central dogma in theology?  Typically, historic Reformed theology has resisted the urge to make one doctrine central.  For example, if you read the Westminster Standards, the Three Forms of Unity, the 39 Articles (etc.) you will not find one doctrine emphasized above all.  Reformed theology is balanced; it refuses to overemphasize one doctrine at the expense of others.  (Interestingly, Pink never even mentions anything about the covenants in his book on God’s sovereignty.)

Typically what happens when someone overemphasizes one doctrine, his theology becomes lopsided.  The Calvinist becomes a hypercalvinist when he views everything through the lens of election.  The Lutheran becomes a pessimist when he constantly talks about depravity.  The evangelical becomes a legalist when he only thinks about the law.  The Arminian becomes a pelagian when he always emphasizes free will.  The premillennialist loses focus on the gospel when he becomes enamored with end times prophecies.  Some popular Christian teachers have a single slogan that drives their ministry, which usually causes them to forget about other important Christian truths.  The list goes on.

When it comes to a “central dogma” in theology, I agree with Richard Muller’s explanation.

“Neither the methods inculcated [instilled] by the Reformers nor the more scholastic forms used by their successors led toward the establishment of dogmatic focal points from which entire bodies of doctrine could be developed – nor, specifically, did the scholastic method of the Reformed orthodox either conduce to rationalism or to the development of a predestinarian or ‘decretal’ theology.  Claims such as these…are fundamentally anachronistic.  Indeed, the evidence indicates that the scholastic method of the Reformed orthodox…militated against rationalism and against the dogmatic deductivism of such theological models as the central dogma hypothesis. …The very method of their theology, the gathering of topics or loci drawn out of their exegetical work, stands in the way of such [central dogma] models for theological system” (Post Reformation Reformed Dogmatics, 1.39).

In other words, Reformed systematic theology historically has not gravitated towards one central doctrine.  Their mature theological and exegetical methods did not allow them to focus on one biblical truth and downplay or ignore others.  This is one thing I deeply appreciate about Reformed theology: it displays maturity by discussing the whole counsel of God in a balanced, biblical manner.

shane lems