There has not just been a blurring of Reformed confessional boundaries but, also, some churches and presbyteries have intentionally erased their doctrinal walls of protection. None of this is surprising once we consider that the formal teaching of systematic theology has at many institutions been relegated to historians rather than theologians. This phenomenon has opened the door to subjective and more novel takes on settled matters of theological intricacy. Stated differences and exceptions to confessional standards are not taken seriously. Pastors and ruling elders needn’t be acquainted with their confessions, let alone be theologians, as long as their views can be accompanied by a fragile appeal to confessional standards being a “consensus document” along with citing a scattered few seventeenth century theologians who held to sometimes esoteric views that did not win the confessional day.

In recent years the debates of the Reformation period have taken priority over the theology of the debates. Somehow possessing vast acquaintance with multiple sides of doctrinal disputes has in some circles become more academically impressive and pastorally relevant than possessing an intimate working-understanding of which doctrines are theologically Reformed and defensible. Consequently, there has not just been a blurring of Reformed confessional boundaries but, also, some churches and presbyteries have intentionally erased their doctrinal walls of protection. None of this is surprising once we consider that the formal teaching of systematic theology has at many institutions been relegated to historians rather than theologians. This phenomenon has opened the door to subjective and more novel takes on settled matters of theological intricacy. Stated differences and exceptions to confessional standards are not taken seriously. Pastors and ruling elders needn’t be acquainted with their confessions, let alone be theologians, as long as their views can be accompanied by a fragile appeal to confessional standards being a “consensus document” along with citing a scattered few seventeenth century theologians who held to sometimes esoteric views that did not win the confessional day. One can now earn an honorary degree of “Reformed orthodoxy” merely by possessing an air of historical understanding without actually subscribing to much of what was once upheld as Reformed theology.
A way back?
If we are to recapture objective confessional theology, we must stop confusing Reformed theology with Reformed theologians. The former is an objective consideration whereas the latter is a subjective matter of degree. A pastor can be more or less Reformed, but a doctrine either is or is not Reformed. Conflating the two leads to recasting “Reformed” theology in terms of a multitude of broadly based theologians rather than the particular Reformed confessions that were providentially produced by and through them.
From hereafter I’ll be referring to the Westminster standards as representative of confessional Reformed theology in the context of churches that on paper subscribe to it.
In ascertaining whether a particular doctrine is Reformed or not, we mustn’t fall prey to misleading slogans that deflect and obfuscate rather than define and defend. It is irrelevant that “good men have been on both sides of the issue” or that the doctrine under consideration is “not a test of orthodoxy.” It doesn’t even matter whether the doctrine in view is correct! When determining whether a particular doctrine is Reformed or not, the only question of relevance is whether the doctrine is contained in or necessitated by the confession of faith.
Reformed theology is just that, the theology of a Reformed confession. A doctrine is Reformed if it agrees with or is implied by confessional theology. Whether one’s professed theology is Reformed must be measured against an objective standard. Otherwise, what are we even talking about? Moreover, an acceptable doctrine might not be defined or implied by the confession. We may call such doctrine extra-confessional, but not all extra-confessional doctrines are un-confessional. Amillenialism and Postmillenialism are extra-confessional because the confession doesn’t take a position (implied or otherwise) on the triumph of the gospel in the world; whereas premillennialism is not only extra-confessional, it is also un-confessional because of the general resurrection and single judgement (WLC 87, 88). So, just because William Twisse was historical premillennial doesn’t mean he or his eschatology is Reformed in this regard. Similarly, the baptismal regeneration doctrine of Cornelius Burgess, which contemplates an infusion of grace for the elect at the font, is not Reformed because it’s not confessional.
It should be apparent, if we were to allow the unfiltered theology of the Westminster Divines to define Reformed Theology for us, our confession would not be a fair representation of Reformed theology! Our confession could become contra-Reformed depending upon the particular theologian to which one might appeal for doctrinal precedent. Consequently, true Reformed theology cannot be defined by particular Divines but instead must be elucidated by the doctrinal standards they produced.
Fence posts:
A “consensus” document does not preclude certain doctrines from having won the day. Certain Divines championed what is now settled un-confessional doctrine.
Regarding confessional status, any (a) direct contradiction of the confession or (b) extra-confessional teaching that leads to intra-confessional doctrinal contradiction may be confidently rejected for being un-confessional even if not explicitly refuted by the church’s standards (regardless if a delegate to the assembly held the view in question). Otherwise, we unnecessarily introduce incoherence and confusion into our system of doctrine. Also, any doctrine that is theologically derivable from other confessional doctrines must be considered no less confessional than the doctrines from which they come. Otherwise, we would not be able to refute on confessional grounds doctrinal claims that oppose the necessary implications of our own theology!
Let’s put some meat on the bones by making the abstract practical:
Any view of free will (e.g. libertarian freedom) that by implication entails that God is contingently infallible, not exhaustively omniscient, or undermines God’s independence and aseity, must be rejected as un-confessional. Conversely, if compatibilist type freedom is the only type of freedom that comports with confessional theology proper and the theological determinism of the divine decree (WCF 3.2), then such a doctrine of free will is Reformed and none other.
Even though the Divines didn’t have the advantage of the philosophical refinements of the past three hundred years, their system of doctrine requires the compatibility of free will, moral accountability and God’s determination of all things (including the free choices of men). Consequently, adherence to the Westminster standards in toto entails a rejection of libertarian Calvinism and, therefore, requires an affirmation of something else. (Richard Muller and Oliver Crisp are simply mistaken.)
So it is with John Davenant’s hypothetical universalism, which leads to intra-confessional doctrinal incoherence. If the salvation of the non-elect is not metaphysically possible, then hypothetical universalism’s most distinguishing feature (i.e., the possibility of the salvation of “vessels of wrath”) is false. After all, if it were truly possible that the non-elect might be saved, then God who believes all truth would believe contrary truths: (a) Smith might believe and (b) Smith won’t believe. Consequently, Davenant’s view of the atonement undermines a confessional understanding of God, and on that basis alone is un-confessional and must be rejected as being outside the Reformed tradition.
Read More

Related Posts:

God is grieved when we turn to worship anything but him. Ezra’s visceral sorrow reflects the size of the offense against the Lord. In this text, we see the people’s need for a savior—we are “before [God] in our guilt,” as no one “can stand before [God] because of this” (Ezra 9:15). The need for forgiveness and transformation is gigantic. And God has provided! Jesus is the one who was consumed in anger, he was the remnant that was eliminated in our place (Ezra 9:14).

It’s unlikely that Ezra 9 tops anyone’s list of favorite chapters in the Bible. But with regard to grief over sin, few sections of Scripture are more instructive.
By way of background, Ezra is sent from Babylon to Jerusalem roughly 70 years after the first exiles made the journey. Ezra is both a priest and a scribe, and he will teach the law to the people in the rebuilt temple of God. Ezra 8 describes the travel to the holy city, then Ezra 9 opens with a bombshell.
The Faithlessness of the People
Ezra is told that many Israelites “have not separated themselves from the peoples of the lands with their abominations” (Ezra 9:1). They have married women from the surrounding nations who do not worship God. And it gets worse: “And in this faithlessness the hand of the officials and chief men has been foremost” (Ezra 9:2).
Ezra’s response is dramatic.
As soon as I heard this, I tore my garment and my cloak and pulled hair from my head and beard and sat appalled. Then all who trembled at the words of the God of Israel, because of the faithlessness of the returned exiles, gathered around me while I sat appalled until the evening sacrifice. (Ezra 9:3–4)
This is no run-of-the-mill sin. The identity and integrity of this new Jerusalem settlement is being compromised by these marriages. The issue is not mainly cultural or ethnic—it is about worship. Every spouse has enormous religious influence on their partner, and Israel’s history is peppered with unfaithfulness to God beginning with a marriage outside the faith.
Ezra grasps the severity of the situation, and he is undone. He is as torn up as his garment and facial hair.
While his ministry seems to have born fruit—witness those gathered with him who revere God’s word—the unearthing of sin this pervasive is devastating.
Communal Sin
Ezra sat appalled in his grief for a while. Then at the evening sacrifice (a public event), he fell on his knees to pray (Ezra 9:5).
O my God, I am ashamed and blush to lift my face to you, my God, for our iniquities have risen higher than our heads, and our guilt has mounted up to the heavens.  (Ezra 9:6–7)
Read More
Related Posts:

Disney made its bed. They picked a side. Now, Chapek and every other CEO choosing politics over parents will have to live with it. In the meantime, Harding insisted, Americans can’t let up. “[The Left has made] Disney, which is in every home in America… part of their arm of influence. If we do not make this the last stand — [if we] do not make this a turning point, I believe it could be too late to recover from it.”

Apparently, Disney isn’t planning to make nice with parents anytime soon. Thanks to bombshell video, leaked Tuesday, Americans are starting to understand just what kind of Fantasyland the company is. Corporate President Karey Burke painted a horrifying picture of the company’s future projects, insisting on an employee Zoom call that she wants a “minimum of 50 percent of its characters to be LGBTQIA” and other minorities. “I’m here as the mother of two queer children,” Burke said, “one transgender child and one pansexual child.” And “going forward,” she insisted, those are the stories Disney should be telling.
The video, which had almost two million views in less than 24 hours, was the latest crack in what’s quickly becoming an irreparable split with America. Disney CEO Bob Chapek, who’s tried to overcorrect for his silence on the Florida parental rights bill, has managed — in four short weeks — to turn the company from a moderately woke entertainment giant into public enemy number one. Now, as more trickles out about what’s really going on behind the scenes, most parents are saying they want no part of the empire Walt built.
As pathetic as Chapek’s public groveling has been to witness, it’s the internal activism that’s truly concerning. Apart from Burke, Disney’s television animation executive producer, Latoya Raveneau, spent portions of that same meeting bragging about her indoctrination tactics. “Our leadership over there has been so welcoming to my not-so-secret gay agenda,” she gushed. “Wherever I could I was adding queerness. No one would stop me and no one was trying to stop me.”
When they aren’t busy turning princes into princesses (or banning the words “boys and girls” at theme parks), Disney is vowing to take on Florida’s Parental Rights in Education policy. In its latest “huh?” moment, the company issued a formal statement pledging to fight a law that — ironically — Disney never opposed until it passed. “Our goal as a company is for the law to be repealed by the legislature or struck down in the courts, and we remain committed to supporting the national and state organizations working to achieve that.”
Good luck, Governor Ron DeSantis (R-Fla.) fired back. Our state, he insisted, is not run by “California corporate executives.” “We will continue to recognize that in the state of Florida, parents have a fundamental role in the education, health care and well-being of their children. We will not move from that. I don’t care what corporate media outlets say. I don’t care what Hollywood says. I don’t care what big corporations say. Here I stand. I’m not backing down.”
Later Tuesday, after insisting that Disney’s threats had “crossed a line,” DeSantis pointed to the company’s hypocrisy. “They actually do Disney cruise to the nation of Dominica, which criminalizes homosexuality. So they’re fine doing that and lining their pockets.” Same with the Chinese Communist Party, where they do tens of billions of dollars in business. “Maybe,” he joked, instead of banning K-3rd grade lessons about sex and gender, Florida should have done a bill outlawing “talk on the Uyghur abuse in China. Disney would have supported that legislation, because they don’t want to say a word about that.”
In the meantime, let’s hope Chapek’s job was worth the price Disney is paying. Christopher Rufo, the conservative journalist who posted the company’s Zoom call, said he’s been inundated with comments from mom groups and other consumers who are cutting the cord with Disney over its ideological hostage-taking. Florida Rep. Joe Harding (R) is just one of the leaders who can’t believe the company is willing to alienate so many people to placate an angry few. “What it tells you,” he warned on “Washington Watch,” “is that right now, their intent is not even necessarily political wins. I mean, there’s been polling that’s shown that the majority of Democratic primary voters actually agree with this bill. So the way the Left has doubled down is even more alarming, because I believe they are willing to die on this hill. They are [very] dug in on indoctrinating our children.”
The goal is to cut parents out completely, so the Left can lead children down this dangerous path. But unfortunately for them, there’s no appetite for the outrageous brand of extremism they’re pushing. Part of that is thanks to DeSantis, who’s simply refused to back down in the face of the mob. “Our governor, he’s a lion,” Harding agreed. “On these conservative issues, we’ve never had a governor in any state that’s this bold and this fearless.” And because of that, we see an outpouring of parents across the country demanding more bills like this one.
Read More