Neil Cullan McKinlay over at Show Off The Ben recently posted about what it means to be reformed and why no baptist can be called reformed. (link) In his basic argument he surmises that to be reformed or a Calvinist, (he seems to use the terms interchangeably after the second paragraph) one must be a pedobaptist, presbyterian, and a theonomist. It seems that these are fundamental features of what it is to be reformed in his mind. Rather than enter the debate, which is expanded upon here from R.Scott Clark's version, I would simply like to list a number of folks who are not reformed by these standards.
Johnathon Edwards (Congregationalist), John Owen (Congregationalist), George Whitefield (Methodist), Richard Baxter (Non-Conformist), John Milton (Congregationalist), C.H. Spurgeon (Baptist), John Frame (Non-Theonomist), AW Pink (Baptist), John Flavel (Non-Conformist), John Eliot (Congregationalist), John Piper (Baptist), James R. White (Baptist), Graeme Goldsworthy (Anglican), Henri Blocher (Baptist), Dr. Ligon Duncan (Non-Theonomist), Isaac Watts (Congregationalist), J.I. Packer (Anglican), strangely enough The Presbyterian Church of America (Non-theonomist). and ironically R. Scott Clark (Non-Theonomist since his two kingdoms theology is inconsistent with theonomy as described). Now it is best not to call any of these people reformed... or we could take reformed to mean adherents to Covenant Theology, the doctrines of grace, the concept of "semper reformanda," rather than a specific sect of presbyterian churches. Hey that's just me.
0 comments:
Post a Comment