The day it is acceptable for a Reformed minister to defend Reformed doctrine by quoting Hebrews that Jesus is the same yesterday, today, and forever, and mean by “Jesus” a document produced by human tradition is a day in which the Reformation needs to be declared D. O. A. The day it is acceptable to refer to “our theological foundations,” or “the solid rock amid shifting sands, ” and to refer thereby to human documents rather than to Scripture is a day that has proven the only thing left of the Reformation is a corpse. Any signs of animation thereafter will only be a threat. It will suck the life out of you.
On that day God grant us a steady hand, a sharp eye, and a sharp wooden stake.
The challenge of a godly Reformed pastor, in his preaching, teaching, reading and life, is to model and encourage his congregation to hear the living voice of Scripture through godly teachers of the past, but to detect and reject all worship of the dead. To lead them between the twin evils of revolutionism and traditionalism.
I don’t know the subtext of this post, but I am becoming more and more convinced that there are many in Reformed America who have been praying fervently for a new reformation, and like the Pharisees with Jesus, are rejecting it when it has finally come…
If the confessions are summaries of God’s Word, and if God’s Word never changes, then why do the summaries need to change?
Lee, when did I say anything about our accurate summaries needing to change? When did I say anything about anything needing to change? I simply pointed out that titles for Jesus and Scripture should not be transferred over to human traditions.
Rev. Horne,
Asserting that Scripture is a solid rock and can be expressed in creeds is not the same as calling the creeds the solid rock; it’s merely pointing out they are enduring summaries of the Solid Rock. Even granting that the confessions can be elevated to Scripture’s high stature, which I do not and which no one else I know would, either, I don’t see that that would spell the death knell of reformed faith, as you so dramatically declare.
I readily concede that you did not in this post say that you wanted to change or update any confessions. However, I do believe that such a conclusion can be made based on your previous posts. You argue in favor of N.T. Wright’s view of the righteousness of God and his view of imputation, which have both been condemned as contrary to the Westminster Confession by at least one presbytery in your own denomination. Like the MVP report or not, you must acknowledge that it is not self-evident that Wright’s views harmonize with the Westminster. You seem to show a great deal of respect for John Williamson Nevin, who viewed creeds as “useful” but also as “evil.” You have written that you have some disagreement with Nevin, but you have never stated you disagreed with his creedal views or his life’s work of theological development and progression. You favorably link to a post by Rev. Meyers that states, “If we really embrace the full meaning of the adjective “Reformed,” especially the modus operandi of semper reformanda, then Peter’s new insights into the biblical text ought to be a good thing and goad us on to continuing to reform our theological formulations according to the infallible Word of God.” This is clearly in favor of reformulating the standards in light of new ideas.
These references, all from just the last month, give the impression that, if not in favor of updating the confessions, you would at the least find many, many disagreements with them as they are currently written.
Lee, you state things as fact which are not true and you infer things from these allegations that don’t even follow. I don’t see any reason to say anything more.