That’s a question that needs to uncomfortably confront any of our commitments and loyalties. We don’t stand at the foot of Sinai in the shadow of the golden calf, but there’s plenty of calves erected in our society and hearts and many are willing to break loose before them — there are idols before whom we celebrate, laugh, and dance.

On top of Mount Sinai, Moses received a revelation of Jehovah. The one, true, and living God delivered to him two tablets of stone inscribed by the divine finger that summarized his moral will — epitomized in a love to God and a love to neighbor. But as Moses tarried on the mountaintop the people of Israel grew restless and fashioned for themselves a golden calf and celebrated, laughed, and danced. Moses’ anger burned hot and in a symbolic gesture he shattered the tablets of stone at the foot of the mountain – the covenant was broken. Then he challenged the people of Israel asking: “Who is on the Lord’s side” and only the sons of Levi crossed over, and that day three thousand men on the other side were killed at their hands.
Who is on the Lord’s side? That’s a question that needs to uncomfortably confront any of our commitments and loyalties. We don’t stand at the foot of Sinai in the shadow of the golden calf, but there’s plenty of calves erected in our society and hearts and many are willing to break loose before them — there are idols before whom we celebrate, laugh, and dance.
As summer fades and we slip into our fall routines there’s nothing that will dominate the first day of the week like professional football. Beginning with the NFL draft and marching toward “Superbowl Sunday,” there will be more than 100 million viewers of America’s most popular sport — with last year’s end of the season game drawing 115 million viewers. With religious excitement and commitment the masses will gather in stadiums or around screens to watch what the Wall Street Journal estimated to be a per-game average of eleven minutes of actual action. Those eleven minutes will determine how many Americans decide to spend their Sunday orienting hours around them.
Read More
Related Posts:

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:

When we begin to go through the fifth, sixth, seventh, eighth, ninth, and tenth commandments are we going to find ourselves devoted to what they teach or are we going to make excuses and find loopholes for our feigned obedience to this portion of God’s law? It’s a question every person who names the name of Christ needs to ask of themselves. Do I love the Lord as He presents Himself in His word, or do I seek a god of my own making who can be molded and shaped as circumstances allow? If we confess that Jesus is our Savior we cannot do that unless we hope and desire that He be our King as well. 

As we move into the second table of the law in our walk through the Ten Commandments as they are laid out in the Westminster Larger Catechism our Divines are going to want to take a breath and ask a question about what we are doing. It is always helpful to take stock of where things are going and how things are at the moment. Doing both helps assist in making the way clear for positive growth in the future. As we heard of the dangers of atheism, idolatry, blasphemy, and Sabbath breaking the Love Thy Neighbor part of the Law will of course have its do’s and don’ts as well. However, we need to be careful not to spend all our time on the negatives. For Christians the keeping of the statutes of God is always a blessing to us.
We should always be desiring to be conformed to the image of the Son.
The Bible knows nothing about a stagnant believer. The Pharisees were keen on thinking they had arrived at a perfect knowledge of the truth, and then sought to impose that man-made standard on everyone who encountered them. That is one of the reasons why those born again by the Spirit and by the blood are self-effacing in their consideration of their own walk with Christ. Humility is part and parcel of faith in the risen Lord. As we look at the Catechism question today I want you to take a moment and listen to what the writers of the WLC have to say about how not only we should be using the law daily to put to death sin and live to life eternal, but why our attitude towards obedience should always be one grounded in thanksgiving for the grace granted to sinners such as us. Here is this week’s Q/A:
Q. 122. What is the sum of the six commandments which contain our duty to man?
A. The sum of the six commandments which contain our duty to man, is, to love our neighbor as ourselves, and to do to others what we would have them to do to us.
Now, the build up to that one short question may seem to have been overdone. It doesn’t read like a call to meditation or introspection. All it looks to be communicating is a short statement about what the contents of the rest of the commandments are. Yet, it is vital to understand that when God established the division of the two tables He was intimating something that Jesus explains to the fellow who asked Him what the most important part of the law was for man.
Read More
Related Posts: