We need a Calvinism that grows out of its own inherent genius, a Calvinism that shows a coherence in its life, ministry and message. We need Calvinism, therefore, that at every point and in every way seeks to ask how do we build organically on the insights into Scripture that our forbears have given us. As Calvinists, we want to avoid a kind of eclecticism that goes through the religious world gathering tidbits here and there and in an artificial way tries to connect them to the Reformed heritage we have inherited.
via Joshua Judges Ruth: Always Reformed & Courageous Calvinism, II.
Already you have all you want! Already you have become rich! Without us you have become kings! And would that you did reign, so that we might share the rule with you!
I can only hope I’m misunderstanding the quotation. I’ve been frustrated with a seeming lack of knowledge in the Reformed Tradition on the part of teachers. I think more study of the Reformation puts one in a better position to really benefit from other traditions, rather than simply be affected by them.
But we do not want to despise the work of the Spirit in other Christian ecclesiastical traditions (who is looking at “religious world gatherings?). It should be desirable to benefit from the interaction. Don’t know if that counts as the undesirable “eclecticism” or not.
ADDENDUM
More had been added to the quotation:
Now, in calling for a consistent Calvinism, we are not saying that there is nothing to learn from others. We need to resist our all too present Reformed tendencies to be smug and self-satisfied. We need to listen to brothers and sisters of other traditions. We need to weigh what they would say to us. We need clearly to recognize the reality of genuine Christianity in other traditions that can speak to us and can help us. But if we are committed, as Westminster Seminary is, to the fact that historic confessional Calvinism is the fullest and most faithful form of Biblical teaching, then we must evaluate what we are hearing from other traditions by that root of faith from which we seek to grow and to be sure that we are being consistent Calvinists. We need courage then, to be consistent Calvinists.”
I’ve witnessed this kind of thing in my PCA church. The reformed tradition is all-sufficient and needs no help from or interaction with others. And by “reformed tradition,” what is usually meant is a narrow “confessionalist” sect.
I was in a discussion recently with some people complaining about the FV “misuse” of historical reformed sources. They claimed FV men use quotes from the reformers out of context (of course nothing specific was mentioned). I asked if they had ever read Luther’s writings on baptism. One person responded that “we are presbyterians, not Lutherans.” I didn’t ask if he also rejected Luther’s views on justification and law/gospel.
I think this growing provincialism and tribalism may be a sign of a dying tradition. I love the genuine and broad reformed tradition and believe it should be built upon, but the way to progress is not by drawing the boundaries ever tighter or through endless reprints of the puritans. Your recent post about Moscow being the new “intellectual capital” of reformed thought is probably pretty accurate.
I don’t think you are misreading the quotation, Mark. I think, as your previous commentator said, the emergence of this kind of attitude as “the Reformed” position is a bad omen.