Can you be a Reformed Baptist?

I will get back to the review of Culture Making soon enough. However, this has been on my mind a little bit, and I ran across some old posts and Alpha and Omega Ministries arguing this point. James White seems to have been upset and a little offended by R. Scott Clark not taking the time to notice the difference between covenantal and non-covenantal credobaptists. It seems to have involved Radon Thoughts where you can read some interaction with Clark, and then White has a short follow up. Again this seems to have been two years ago, and Dr. Clark's blog has since been taken down, so I could not read what he wrote originally.

Since I could not read the original blog do not take this as a whole sale defense of R. Scott Clark. That being said, he is right. You cannot be a Credo-Baptist and Reformed. And I think that applies even if I grant everything that James White says. Even if I agree with his take on Acts 2:39 (and he has a point about not quoting the whole verse, although I think quoting the whole thing strengthens the infant baptism position). Even if I agree that a Credo-Baptist can be covenantal in his approach, I don't think that they can be considered Reformed. Why? Because the Reformation defined itself. In the creeds.

Find me one Reformed Creed that allows Credo Baptism only. You can't. You can't because it does not exist. Even the creeds designed to bring people together like the Heidelberg Catechism requires infant baptism. Even the very accepting city of Strassborg penned the Tetrapolitian Confession of 1530 and it requires infant baptism. Radon Thoughts tries to defined Reformed as being covenantal and adherence to the Five Solas, but that is not how the Reformation defined itself. When they drew the boundary lines, they always drew them to exclude Credo Only Baptism. Some the creeds are even what we would consider weak or open on Predestination, but not on infant baptism. It was considered a fundamental to being Reformed.

Randon Thoughts also brings up the 1689 London Confession that is basically the Westminster Confession with a Credo Baptist section on Baptism. But the Reformation is over by this point. The latest date one can place on the Reformation is 1649 when the Peace of Westphalia made the Reformed Faith legal in the German Empire. So this does not count as a Reformational Creed.

James White does claim that such a position as mine is a position of tradition, and thus he would be more in line with the spirit of the Reformation by reconsidering the doctrines according to the Word, and throwing out that which does not fit. However, many have done just that. Arminius believed he did it, and he threw out predestination. Wesley did the same thing. As did George Fox. There have been numerous movements that examined what the Reformation believed and in their opinion it was wrong, so they changed it. But those are all rightly known by other names. The Arminians or Remonstrants, the Methodists, and the Quakers. Why are they not called Reformed? Because they examined the Reformed beliefs, and changed them. Thus they are not Reformed any more! This is what the Baptists did when they made the London Baptist Confession of 1689. They changed it, and today we call them Baptists. Not Reformed Baptists, just Baptists. If you examine a set of beliefs and change some of them because you believe they are wrong, then you don't get to take the name of the set of beliefs you just left behind. It is just how life works.

A Two Kingdoms moment

I will get back to my review of Culture Making, but I had to write about this. The Christianity Today arrived the other day, and it contained an article that lays bare some of what VanDrunen is complaining about. The article by Chuck Colson was the particular offender, although for the first time I remember Colson had a co-author.

The article was about Public Education and how we as Christians have a duty to support it and fix it. Now this is meddling in areas that VanDrunen would claim a liberty of conscious on for sure, but the imperative nature of the article is what was particularly galling. The term "justice" was used. It was actually claimed that lack of educational opportunities was an injustice that Christians had to address. I just cannot see access to education as a matter of justice. Justice is about breaking the law and getting what you deserve. Education has no place in a discussion about justice. The support for such a claim about education? Well, it was not biblical. It was a piece of information about how well rich kids do in school, a quote from Benjamin Rush, and an appeal to history of church support of schooling. Oh yeah, the Waiting on Superman movie was mentioned.

This was a clear Transformationalist article. An attempt to require Christians to fix public education as if it was somehow a gospel duty. Confusing political action about schooling with the Justice of God is not healthy. It is misleading, and it is wrong. Articles like this one make me want to be a Two Kingdoms guy.

Transformationalism - Culture Making

So, as I continue to try and digest this Two Kingdom vs. Transformationalism debate, I need to read more than just Dr. Zylstra. It is not really fair to read full books about Two Kingdom Theology and then read only articles about transformationalism. Although finding books directly about Transformationalism is harder than I thought it would be. It is often assumed, but not defended. I know lots of people who are transformationalists, but they don't write directly about it. Those who have are best avoided such as Doug Wilson, Peter Leithart, N.T. Wright, and others. Avoided not because I couldn't learn from them, but because it fits too nicely into VanDrunene's thesis that Transformationalism leads to unorthodox thinking with regards to Justification by faith.

So, I tried to find an orthodox source. I settled on Andy Crouch's book: Culture Making. He has a blog by the same name, but I won't be talking about anything on the blog, just the book.

Crouch's first section is actually very good. Crouch begins by just laying the ground work before getting into the Bible and such. So he has a rather good discussion about culture and its nature. Crouch defines culture as making something out of the world. Now that is a little bit different than VanDrunen's rather broad definition. Thus, a comparison might be difficult because of differing views of what culture actually is. For instance, VanDrunen clearly believes marriage part of culture, but does that fit into Crouch's definition? I am not sure. That is a problem for later.

What is so great about Crouch's opening is that he argues rather well that culture has to be made or replaced by something new, rather than simply criticized. He actually criticizes Schaeffer and newer writers such as Nancy Pearcy for simply intellectually taking on culture. He uses an example of Tuesday night Chili night at his house. His boys can whine, complain, critique, and even argue against it; however, none of that will change Tuesday chili night. But if the boys were to make their own food and serve it to the parents every Tuesday before the Chili could be made, that would be well received and would change Chili night. He goes a lot deeper than that, but often uses easy to understand examples. He criticizes other methods of engaging culture including boycotts and sub-cultures and it is really very well done. Crouch is a good writer and a pretty easy read.

It takes a couple of chapters of this introductory stuff before Crouch switches over to Scripture. But he leaves you with the sense that culture is being made, and it cannot be stopped. People must do culture. it is part of being human. He has laid the groundwork for his argument. In the next post I will get into his biblical overview of Christians and Culture.

Zylstra Review - Part 3 - Bible texts

Dr. Zylstra only mentions four bible verses in support of his Transformationalist position and his critique of Dr. Van Drunen's Two Kingdom view. Let's just look at each one.

John 3:17 is one he mentions. I can only assume that Dr. Zylstra is referencing the idea that Jesus came to save the world, and by the world Zylstra is taking it to mean culture or the physical stuff in the world. if this verse means those two things then it would attack VanDrunen's idea of this world ending and the things of this ending. It is a central point of the Two Kingdom argument. However, it is hard to read John 3:17 that way. "World" appears here to mean "the people of the nations" or "gentiles" as in addition to Jews. This is how most of the commentators take it. I checked Calvin and Hendrickson, and both read "world" as "gentiles and people of all nations." Context would seem to support Calvin and Hendrickson and is against Zylstra.

Colossians 1:17 is his next verse. Here Zylstra is clearly pointing to the idea that "all things consist". Other translations might have the idea of "carry on" which is what Zylstra wants us to see. That and in the fact that "all" things continue "in Christ". However, again it seems a bit of stretch. VanDrunen never denies the Providential hand of Christ, and that is how Calvin and Hendrickson took it. Zylstra needs this verse to say that things of this culture will continue on in Christ Jesus not just in this world, but into the next. I am not sure all of that meaning can be forced into that passage. The idea of all things being in Christ might could be used by Zylstra, but VanDrunen was adamant that a Christian must do all things as a Christian, so again, I think that this verse falls short.

I Corinthians 15:58 gets closer to supporting Zylstra. Here Zylstra is pointing out that our labor is not in vain. With the obvious implication that a Two Kingdom idea that sees no eternal value in cultural labor would be definition make cultural labor "vain". But does a Two Kingdom idea does not necessitate that it would be in vain. God is still glorified. So this verse does not argue for a transformationalist perspective. However, I do believe that I can agree with Zylstra here that it might have been nice for VanDrunen to have explained how it fits in a 2K perspective.

Zechariah 14:20-21 really stands as his best verse. Here Zylstra argues that God is calling us to make all things Holy to the Lord even the bells on horses, and not just the things of the priests. This actually argues for a Transformationalist understanding in opposition to a Two Kingdoms view. If Zylstra is correct then all of life must be Holy to the Lord, or distinctively Christian, not just subjectively but objectively. Yet, again differing interpretations can be found here. Zechariah 14 can be taken as a description of what the New Heavens and New Earth will be like. There all things will be Holy to the Lord as the entire place will be temple and distinctively Christian. In this view then Zechariah is giving a prophecy of the Day of the Lord and His victory and not giving a command of what we ourselves are to achieve or strive to bring about here on this earth. Zylstra's reading is possible, but not the one I personally take of Zechariah. Which brings up a bigger question . . .

Does Transformationalism go hand in hand with a Post Millennial view point. Does Two Kingdoms go only with an Amillennial view point? This seems to fit with the differing ways of reading Zechariah 14. A Post Mil reading would be that this Day of the Lord would be the ultimate triumph of the church, and the church then makes all things Holy to the Lord. The Amil reading would tend more to a description of the Final Day of the Lord where Christ himself finally returns with the New heavens and new earth. I believe it is an interesting discussion that requires further discussion.

Two Kingdoms - Zylstra Second Article Review

Zylstra's second article in September was worse. This time Zylstra was reviewing Living In God's Two Kingdoms. Zylstra starts off by pointing that VanDrunen believes it is the Two Kingdoms way or the highway (pg.43). While I think that this is overstating it a bit, especially since he works along side transformationalists at Westminster Seminary, he is correct that VanDrunen believe the Two Kingdoms part of a broader frame work. Yet, Zylstra chose to pick on the line about Transformationlism being "not true to Scripture" (pg.13 of Two Kingdoms), and not the more serious claim of NeoCalivinism/Transformationalism not being consistent with justification by faith (made twice pg. 21 and 58). The first I see as simply saying the Bible does not speak the way the Neo Calvinists say it does, and the second I see as a claim of leading to heresy.
Zylstra again attacks VanDrunen for the football thing in the previous book, but then goes on to claim that VanDrunen supports a wing of the Reformed who think Christian schools as "optional quirkiness at best and un-American separatims at worst" (pg.43). He then immediately admits VanDrunen does no such thing by stating openly VanDrunen does not believe it to be anti-patriotic, and then state on pg.44 that VanDrunen would disagree with this characterization and goes on to admit that VanDrunen has no problem with Christian schooling at all, just a problem with requiring it as the only Christian way to educate. So what is the point of making such odd claims in a paragraph earlier? The only options seem to be incompetence or an attempt to poison the well. I do not believe Dr. Zylstra to be incompetent. The next sentences however are vital and I will quote them in full.

"However, Dr. VanDrunen misses (or dismisses) the point that has driven generations of parents to establish and maintain Christian day schools. The point of these dedicated Christian communities is their conviction that Christian perspective on all of life simply is never optional. Educating a child to look at the world through anything less than scripturally shaped lenses is considered a violation of the parents' responsibility to their child, to the Christian community to whom the child belongds, and to the Kingdom of the Christ in whose name the child was baptized. They have always believed that any pedagogical deficiencies in the school should be corrected and any academic lapses should be made up as the child continues to grow. But to disobey the biblical command to train up a child in the way he or she should go simply never entered their Reformed minds. (44)"

Zylstra here claims that anything less than sending your child to a Christian school is a violation of Ephesians 6 and Proverbs. This means that all people who go to public school are sinning. It means that all people who homeschool, like myself, are sinning. He has to be saying that. VanDrunen never states that it would be okay for a Christian parent to raise their child as a pagan or anything less than the fear and admonition of the Lord. Again he says over and over Christians must always act Christianly, including in parenting. The disagreement comes in how that is practically played out. Can a child raise their child up in the way he should go and still send the child to public school? VanDrunen says plainly on page 183 it is a matter of "Christian liberty". I believe that Zylstra has said here that it is not. This is the disagreement. One that I will come back to along with the three scriptures referenced by Zylstra in this article in a later post.
I find this requirement to send ones kids to Christian schools a little ironic since the problem Dort College had in getting started as a Junior College from the CRC. The CRC wished to require people to come to Calvin and would not allow for even a Junior College to be founded. No monetary relief was allowed and people required to contribute to Calvin. This went on for decades before Dordt was able to get established. Now it is Dordt making the requirement argument. Ironic.
One thing left needs to be said about this second article. Zylstra claims that VanDrunen is poisoning the well by using as his examples for Neo-Calvinism NT Wright and the Emergent church, two "bogeymen" as Zylstra calls them (44). While I can share Zylstra's frustration as it would have been nice and easier for me if he interacted more with orthodox Reformed men, the book is intended for a wider audience than the Reformed world. Andy Crouch has written on Transformationalism, but has any one ever heard of Andy Crouch? Not many. When NT Wright and Scot McKnight, and Brian McLaren write books they are on CNN and the Morning Shows and they get articles about them in Christianity Today. That is why those two groups were chosen. I also could not help but wonder at Zylstra's choice of words "bogeyman". Traditionally "bogeymen" were make-believe bad guys, not actual bad guys. NT Wright and the Emergent Church are actual heretics. I wonder if Zylstra agrees. After all he had a man on staff who was a big fan of Wright. Currently that professor is on sabbatical, but he is not being fired for such beliefs.
This is a debate that is important and needs to be had. However, this is not having a debate. This is pure rhetorical punching with no real substance. Perhaps a magazine is just not the format for such thing. But I believe a better attempt at interaction could easily be made. VanDrunen's books are very well argued, even if you disagree with him. And for the most part, fairly neutral in tone. I do wish VanDrunen would write another book where he fleshes out the connection between Transformationalism and denial of Justification by faith alone. But even those claims are so small that most critics miss them. Zylstra did. They are indeed bombshells, but they are not often quoted.

Two Kingdoms - Zylstra Article Review

Okay, so part of my trying to read more and stay up to date has involved the Two Kingdoms debate. I am still trying to work through it, and so I thought I would do so here on my blog. Interaction would be appreciated. This will be a series of blogs.

I have to admit that I was a late comer to this Two Kingdoms debate that seems to rage so hot. And I confess, I am not sure why it is so hot. To me both Neo Calvinist Transformationalism and the Two Kingdoms doctrines are both allowable in at least the Three Forms of Unity bounds, so I don't understand the heat. I understand that their are outliers at both ends that probably do fall outside of confessional bounds, but one cannot define the position through the outliers. So, I will start with the couple of articles critiquing Dr. David VanDrunen in the Pro Rege magazine of Dordt College. Both are by Dr. Carl Zylstra, one from one from June and the other from September.

To be fair, I have met both men. And while I am not sure I fit into a Two Kingdoms mold completely, maybe I am closer to that position. Like I said, I am a late comer to this. It should also be noted for fairness sake that the RCUS has recently defunded Dordt College. That vote has come up I believe 7 times since I have been a member at Synod. I have voted 5 times to continue funding and 2 times to defund. So there you go. Now onto the critique.

Dr. Zylstra's first article sets the tone with the title "Serious Education for Serious Christians". Not exactly a friendly title since the implication is that everyone else is a non-serious Christian. The article is motivated by a reference to Dordt in Dr. VanDrunen's book Natural Law and the Two Kingdoms. This reference is about Dordt College's football program and an attempt to justify it as part of a Biblical Transformationalist Worldview. It also comes in a footnote, but Dr. Zylstra leaves that part out. What is sad is that Dr. Zylstra really seems to miss the point of the book so bad it makes one wonder if he read it. Zylstra states on page 40:

"And indeed the burden of the book in which he makes his critique of Dordt College is to defend his contention that those of us who believe that every occupation in life and every social activity in which we engage should be governed by explicity biblical principles are ourselves the oddballs who really shouldn't claim to be Reformed at all."

Now that is not actually correct. The goal of the book is to chart the doctrine of Two Kingdoms through church history and along with it the use of Natural Law. VanDrunen states in many of his writings that Christians are Christians all the times and thus are always governed by biblical principles in every area of life. Zylstra's quote leaves the impression that VanDrunen would think it okay for Christians to cheat at football (since that is what started this whole article). Not so. In fact, that is not the point of the Two Kingdoms doctrine as I understand it. I believe VanDrunen would say that Christians ought to participate in football, but realize that it does not advance Christ's kingdom when they take a knee and pray after a touchdown, or when play without holding the defensive line. In fact, historically, the Transformationalists have been the ones who avoided football, which is why it was so controversial when Dordt added the program. Some activites Transformationalist have always said could not be redeemed and thus were to be avoided. Football was one of them. Dancing another less we forget Abraham Kuyper's own words. Dordt allows both now.

Zylstra next does something that I find just boarderline insulting. He inserts a paragraph on page 40 that tries to imply VanDrunen supports slavery. The paragraph not only really interrupts the flow of Zylstra's own argument, it reeks of poisoning the well. Yes, VanDrunen covers the Southern Presbyterians in his book. Yes, the Southern Presbyterians believed in the Spirituality of the Church and the Two Kingdoms. Lest we forget they separated into their own denomination when the Gardner Spring resolution made a requirement for Church membership a loyalty oath to the United States. But remember the point of this book was a historical overview. No where does VanDrunen endorse slavery. No where. Slavery is not really even the the content of much the Southern Presbyterian chapter. Also, Zylstra is just wrong when he claims that the Southerns held to a Two Kingdoms view so they could hold slaves without feeling guilty. Contrary to Zylstra they did feel it could be biblically justified. Go read R.L. Dabney's Defense of Virginia and the South if you don't believe me. Such actions on Zylstra's part are just plain sophistry and not worthy of real debate.

Zylstra makes his first biblical defense of Dordt on page 41 by quoting Zechariah 14:20. Zylstra uses that to claim that not only priests wear bells inscribed Holy to the Lord, but also the farm horses and the draft horses. Everyday activies he claims are now to be considered holy to the Lord. It is a goal. This is the best part of his article by far, and gets to the heart of the disagreement I believe. So, I will speak more of this in another post dealing with the Bible quotes specifically.

This article did not do a good job of anything. I do not feel he showed VanDrunen wrong anywhere, nor did he lay a foundation of Serious Education. He did not really even provide a defense for Dordt as a Christian institution. It also seems he should have waited for the next book by VanDrunen because a historical overview book is just not a good one to interact with. And if you do it should be limited to disagreements about the history, charges of misrepresentation, or other similar things. The next post will look at Zylstra's second article which does aim at the Living in God's Two Kingdoms book.

Happy Birthday Belgic Confession

Today, November 1, is the 450th Birthday of the Belgic Confession. This is the day recognized as the day Guido De Bres threw copies of the Belgic Confession over the walls of Doornik in the night while he was fleeing for his life. This is important to remember as you read the Belgic Confession. It is De Bres's defense about why he is Reformed. It is his letter to the rulers who were pushing the Spanish Inquisition as to what they were persecuting.

But the Confession is also a call to all who were still in the Roman Catholic Church. Especially Article 29 about the True and False Church. It is a call that persecution is no reason to remain in a church that denies the gospel. Yes, life would have been easier for De Bres if he had just sat in a pew and not believed the bread was turned into the Body of Christ, but it would have been a sin. Read his call to people in the Roman Church:

As for the false Church, it ascribes more power and authority to itself and its ordinances than to the Word of God, and will not submit itself to the yoke of Christ. Neither does it administer the sacraments as appointed by Christ in His Word, but adds to and takes from them, as it thinks proper; it relies more upon men than upon Christ; and persecutes those who live holily according to the Word of God and rebuke it for its errors, covetousness, and idolatry.

These two Churches are easily known and distinguished from each other.

The two churches are easily known. There was no excuse. All godly men knew the Inquisition was wrong. De Bres just made it plain for all the world to see in the Belgic.

Of course in 1567, Guido De Bres was caught and died for his faith. The Belgic Confession is his testament.

Book Review: Heaven is for Real

As I said earlier, I am trying to stay more up to date with what is going on and with what others are reading. To that I have read a lot of good little philosophy books that teach philosophy using modern culture. The Philosophy of Buffy the Vampire Slayer, Philosophy of the Matrix, of Lost, of Star Trek and of Star Wars. It is a great series that I recommend if you are brushing up on Philosophy. Someone ought to do something similar with theology . . .

But the real reason I am writing is to discuss the popular book Heaven is for Real. If you are unfamiliar with it, it is a book that tells the story of Colton Burpo, a 4 year old (I am not going to double check his age, it is young) who claims to have gone to heaven. Now, it is not a near death experience. He never died or stopped breathing or anything like that. But he was in the hospital after having appendicitis, which burst and poisoned him for 5 days. His father is a pastor in Imperial, NE and writes the book from the view point of he and his wife discovering what Colton experienced through their questioning of him off and on for the next year and a half or so.

The book is well written and anyone with a child will be emotional pulled in as the parent pray for God to spare the life of their child. Seriously that part will make you think about your own kids. Rev. Burpo tries very hard to make Colton's story seem like it would line up with Scripture, and reminds us that there is no way a 4 year old would know this even one who attends Sunday School. At times this will make you think Rev. Burpo should find better Sunday School material, but the point is well taken. At first the claims of Colton do seem to line up with Scripture. But by the end of the book, you can't even pretend that anymore.

Which leads me to a real critique. . . Colton ought to be considered a prophet if you believe everything he says. He speaks to Jesus and the Spirit (who is blue in heaven according to Colton). This book brings up all sorts of canon is closed issues that Rev. Burpo never addresses.

Another point is that Colton says he was in heaven for 3 minutes, but he did a lot of stuff like meet his long dead grandpa, speak with Jesus, learn stuff, pet Jesus's horse, and watch the end of the world battle. He also seems to have some sort of run in with Satan, but maybe that was part of the end of the world battle. Colton always clammed up when they asked him about Satan. Rev. Burpo tries to quote Scripture to make us think that time works differently in heaven, but it is a stretch.

Yet another problem is that a lot of this stuff is extra Scriptural. The dead saints have wings of differing sizes. Colton had them too although Colton was not dead. The final battle included monsters and people, not Jesus coming and winning as Revelation would have it. There are animals in heaven too.

Again, logical problems pop up that Rev. Burpo ignores. Colton says he watched the final battle and it included his father fighting on the side of Christ while women and children watch. My first thought was did Colton see himself fighting on the side of Christ? If not why not? Does Colton dies as a child and therefore has to sit and watch? Well, it is never addressed.

We are supposed to believe Colton's story because he knew things he could not know. He knew that his father was praying and his mom was on the phone while in the operating room. Guessable. But he also knew the dead grandpa, who he rightly identified when he saw a young picture of grandpa. Yes, we all look young in heaven with no glasses. And he also knew about the sister who died in utero before Colton was conceived. He met her in heaven. She did not have a name because the parents never named her. They could not agree on a name.

All of the evidence is emotional, and so is the whole book. I kept coming back to the verses about Lazarus and the rich man in my head. They have Moses and the Prophets, they won't believe a person coming back from the dead. This book will captivate a lot evangelicals, but it will not do a thing for an unbeliever.

Heaven is for real, but don't take Colton's word for it, take God's.

Not the Bartholomew's Day Massacre, but another

I didn't post anything about the Saint Bartholomew's Day Massacre this year, but I thought I would post other massacre's of protestants by Romanists. Perhaps they were inspired by the French, after all the Pope struck a medal for that event.

This is the Magdeburg Massacre or sometimes called the Sack of Magdeburg. This was during the 30 Years' War. Magdeburg was a primarily Protestant city and the Count Tilly brought his army against it and laid siege. The city bravely held out for 7 months, but this was during the part of the war where Protestant resistance was almost non-existent. The Danish had for the most part been handled and it was before Gustavous brought in Sweeden. So no relief ever came for the Protestants of Magdeburg.

The trouble was not the siege, but what happened after. The city of Magdeburg was either 24,000 or 25,000 depending on where you read the stats. The Romanists went through the city and looted it. After it had been thoroughly looted the army wiped out everyone else. Now some of the city was already burning from the attack, but the Romanist then went about destroying what was left. Women, children, men, it did not matter. They killed them all. 20,000 people were killed leaving only 4 or 5,000 people. The city was in ruins and the surrounding area had been pillaged during the siege. The people of Magdeburg continued to die long after the troops left. Apparently it dipped as low as 450 people. It took the Roman army 14 days to haul all the bodies into the river.

Some say that this massacre helped bring Gustavus into the war, but that probably is a bit of an over reach on how religious Gustavus really was. Still, the massacre was immense and today barely makes the history books.

Kingdom of God Conference

October 14-15
Saint John's Reformed Church
Lincoln, NE

Speaker Dr. David VanDrunen Professor at Westminster Seminary California.


This is an important topic that is much discussed these days. Come, hear, and learn.
Meal will be provided on the 15th.

Suggested donation - $10

For Contact information
402-477-7289

Rob Bell, Blogging, and Responsibility

I thought I owed everyone a reason the blogging has been almost non-existent. While there are always several factors, one major one sticks out for me. And yes it does involve Rob Bell. I have been absent from blogging to try and catch up on the trends in the culture so I am better prepared to pastor the church. For me, it meant less blog time. I am just not one of those guys who can do both.

Rob Bell is the perfect example. Now everyone should know that I believe in hell, and Rob Bell is clearly a heretic for denying it. When his book came out the blogosphere erupted in criticism, as it should have. But it should have done it 6 years ago or more when Bell admitted "hell was full of forgiven people" in his book Velvet Elvis. Or when he said the "gospel is you" in his Nooma Video series. But instead we waited until he was a huge mega pastor being invited on CNN to discuss his denial of hell that sparked Newsweek, Time, and the Washington Post to declare hell was dead. It is good he was soundly condemned, but it should have happened much earlier. How does this affect me?

Well, it started back in Herreid, SD. I heard of Rob Bell then. No kidding. A town of 488, and I heard about Rob Bell. Someone asked me about him, and I had never really heard of him. I found out he was associated with the Emergent stuff, and I gave the rejection of that. But the people in Herreid are unfamiliar with terms like Emergent, as I bet most are. But they are familiar with names like Rob Bell. I should have known if someone was known in Herreid, I should know about it. Then I came to Lincoln, NE. Here every youth in the high school class already knew of Rob Bell and asked to use his video series in class. Now I knew I had to do something. A pastor in Sutton had the series and a let me see it. Now, I was ready to talk to the people about it. But this is far too late. I need to be on top of things more. The youth also wanted to see more about Francis Chan, and we had to deal with that as well.

It was somewhere in here that I realized I was behind the curve. The people were exposed before I could get on top of new theological trends. I was reactive, not proactive. I have since trying to be more proactive.

My wife aided in this when she told me, "You need to read this." It was a book that was selling thousands of copies without any push from any publishing house. They were selling because her blog was a success. The blog and book is by Ann Voskamp. The book is called 1,000 Gifts. My wife said that all her "mommy bloggers" are reading it and referencing it. Since then Voskamp has been mentioned twice in World Magazine, and has even written a one page article for it. Voskamp is an emotional writer who will bother linear thinkers. She is emotional more than logical. She does not say anything awful, but her teaching comes more from experience with Scripture backing it up than Scripture informing her experience. She is going to display this way of thinking and living life for many. Anyway the point is that I am ahead of the curve rather than behind.

So, this has meant a lot more reading and a lot more discussions with people. I have been trying to catch up, and blogging is what got the ax. Hopefully I can be a little more active on the blog now, but I hope you will all understand the necessity of what I was doing and forgive the absence.

Reformed Scholasticism - a book and a question or two

I just finished reading a new book by Willem J. Van Asselt, called Introduction to Reformed Scholasticism. It is just coming out and has been highly touted by many around the blogosphere including some good friends whom I respect. However, upon reading the book I was highly disappointed.

First, the book does not adequately explain what is not Scholasticism. He defines scholasticism, but never lets us know of anything that is not scholasticism. He does give a few brief titles, but no definitions and not drawing distinctions between the two (or more positions). By not doing so, I felt I did not have a good introduction to Reformed Scholasticism. This is highly ironic when one understands Scholasticism as a method of using dialectics and presenting objections and answering them.

Second, part of the book tried to give a historical progression, but fails in this. He gives examples from each of his three eras. But since he never talked about dissent or the state of scholasticism, one cannot trace any movement or growth in Scholasticism. Disappointing.

I do feel I know more about Reformed Scholasticism than I did going into the book, but I was hoping for a lot more.

What I would rather talk about though is the seeming acceptance of Reformed Scholasticism almost uncritically. It is almost as if Reformed Scholasticism is having a bit of a revival right now. Now, I can agree it was tarred and feathered for too long and unjustly, but that does not mean it is great, or even good or even desirable.

Van Asselt admits up front in the book he holds Reformed Scholasticism in a positive light. His historical treatment begins in 1560, which is late second generation reformation. It is true that in many ways the Reformation was an outright rejection of Scholasticism. The vast majority of the First Reformers were humanists and deliberately rejected Scholasticism. Indeed they were committed humanists and went to the Scripture for their theology. They focused on grammar and linguistic issues as they developed the theology of the Protestant Reformation eschewing the Scholastic argumentation and teaching. Zwingli and the Zurich bunch were humanists and hated Scholasticism, and not just the excess and the theology. They did not use the methodology either. Nor did Oecolampadius in Basel, nor Haller in Bern. Calvin's Institutes looks nothing like the Institutes of Turretin. Because Calvin did use the Scholastic method. Why are we not wondering and looking more closely at the rejection of Scholasticism by the fathers of the Reformation?

Even if we grant that Reformed Scholasticism changed from Romanist Scholasticism so that it was in service to the text of Scripture as Burnett convincingly argues, it does not remove all concern. Does not method affect content?

Let me illustrate. The Heidelberg Catechism (non-Scholastic document. Van Asselt calls it a Synthetic) is vastly different from the Westminster Catechism (more of a Scholastic influenced document). One of the complaints of Reformers about Scholasticism is that it was speculative, and not practical. The Heidelberg starts off by pointing out the end. It starts where it plans to finish, with Christ and him crucified as our only comfort and hope. You can see that point running throughout the document. You will not find discussions of God's nature or man's chief end in the non-scholastic Heidelberg. The Westminster is going to be a much more thorough theologically, touching the points that the Heidelberg just ignores. Is any of that related to the Scholastic influence of many of the Puritans?

Another example this one from Basel. Oecolampadius was the first reformer there. He was a humanist. He wrote a commentary on Daniel where commenting on 3:24-25 (The three in the furnace), he unashamedly claims the fourth figure is Christ himself. This seems to be the point of the text for Oecolampadius although he does mention that the miracle is done by the true God as opposed to false gods of Babylon. Even the application is Christ centered.
John Jacob Grynaeus, a late 1570's head pastor of Basel who brought the town back from Lutheranism, also wrote on Daniel. Grynaeus was much more scholastic in methodology. He rejects the fourth figure as Christ and spends time discussing efficient, secondary, and final causes of the miracle (Aristotle), and unbelievers. Next is Polanus, who was 1599 and thoroughly Scholastic. His discussion on Daniel included long theological discussions of angels, for he too rejected the figure as Christ, broke things into points and sub point on miracles and angels and the like. A trip into what early reformers might have called speculative theology.

I am not saying I am out right against Reformed Scholasticism, but that just maybe we ought to stop and look at this thing a little bit more

450 Years!!!!

The month of May is the 450 birthday of the Belgic Confession. I will get back to going through the Belgic.

But take the day and read through one of the great Reformation documents.

Looking forward to the church getting at least another 450 years out of the ole Belgic.

Belgic and the French - Defining the Church with Christ

One of the stark differences between the French Confession and the Belgic is the focus the Belgic Confession puts on the Jesus Christ with regard to the Church. We looked at the difference in the view of Rome in the last post, but note the references to Christ in those same paragraphs.

The French Confession Article 28:

"In this belief we protest that when the Word of God is not received and when there is no professed subjection to it, and where there is no use of the sacrament, if we will speak properly, we cannot judge that there is any church. Wherefore we condemn those assemblies in the papacy, because the pure Word of God is banished out of them, and because in them the sacraments are corrupted, counterfeited, falsified or utterly abolished, and because among them, separate and cut themselves off from the body of Christ Jesus. Yet nevertheless, because there is yet some small track of a church in the papacy, and that baptism as it is in the substance, has been still continued, and because the efficacy of baptism does not depend upon him who administers it, we confess that they which are thus baptized do not need a second baptism. In the meanwhile, because of those corruptions which are mingled with the administration of that sacrament, no man can present his children to be baptized in that church without polluting his conscience."

Notice the focus is primarily on the Word of God. They don't receive the Word of God, they banished the Word of God. The body of Christ is mentioned as the church, but that is it. Take a look now at the definition of Church in Article 27.

However, we do believe that we ought to distinguish carefully and prudently between the true and false church, because the word church is very much abused. We say then, according to the Word of God, that the church is an assembly of believers who agree among themselves to follow God's Word, and the pure religion which depends upon it, and who profit by it during their whole life, increasing and confirming themselves in the fear of God, as being persons who daily need a farther progress and advancement in holiness. Yet notwithstanding all their endeavors, they must have recourse to the grace of God for the forgiveness of sins. Nor do we deny but that among the faithful there are some hypocrites or despisers of God or ill-livers; whose wickedness cannot blot out the name of the church.

Again we see here a high focus on the Word of God. Here the church is a band of people following the Word of God upon which true religion depends. Now see the same topics in the Belgic and note the different focus.

The Belgic Article 29.

"We believe that we ought diligently and circumspectly to discern from the Word of god which is the true Church, since all sects which are in the world assume to themselves the name of the Church. but we speak not here of hypocrites, who are mixed in the Church with the good, yet are not of the Church, though externally in it; but we say that they body and communion of the true Church must be distinguished from all sects that call themselves the Church.
The marks by which the true church is known are these: If the pure doctrine of the gospel is preached therein; if it is maintains the pure administration of the sacraments as instituted by Christ; if church discipline is exercised in punishing of sin; in short, if all things are managed according to the pure Word of God, all things contrary thereto rejected, and Jesus Christ acknowledged as the only Head of the church. Hereby the true Church may certainly be known, from which no man has a right to separate himself.
With respect to those who are members of the Church, they may be known by the marks of Christians; namely, by faith, and when having received Jesus Christ the only savior, they avoid sin, follow after righteousness, love the true God and their neighbor, neither turn aside to the right or the left, crucify the flesh with the works thereof. But this is not to be understood as if there did not remain in them great infirmities; but they fight against them through the Spirit all the days of their life, continually taking their refuge in the blood, death passion, and obedience of our Lord Jesus Christ, in whom they have remission of sins, through faith in Him.
As for the false Church, it ascribes more power and authority to itself and its ordinances than to the Word of God, and will not submit itself to the yoke of Christ. Neither does it administer the sacraments as appointed by Christ in His Word, but adds to and takes from them, as it thinks proper; it relies more upon men than upon Christ; and persecutes those who live holily according to the Word of God and rebuke it for its errors, covetousness, and idolatry.
These two Churches are easily known and distinguished from each other.

"

Here we see that the Belgic makes the mark of the Church include a submission to Jesus Christ as Head. The mark of a Christian as receiving Jesus as the only savior and take refuge in Him. The false Church does indeed lower the Word of God, but also refuses the yoke of Christ seen by not administering the sacraments according to Christ. It relies upon men more than Christ. The focus is much less on the Word and much more on Jesus as Savior. The same can be seen when the Belgic defines the word Church.

Belgic Article 27 (only first paragraph)

We believe and profess one catholic and universal Church, which is a holy congregation of true Christian believers, all expecting their salvation in Jesus Christ, being washed by His blood, sanctified, and sealed by the Holy Spirit.

Here the Belgic puts the focus on Christ. A church is a congregation of believers expecting salvation from Jesus and are washed by Him, sealed by the Spirit. The French Confession defined it as believers agreeing to follow God's Word. The Belgic defines the Church by the Savior and the French much more by the Word of God. An interesting difference. One can only guess at the reason. Perhaps it was because the French were still trying to win the Royal family over through argumentation. Thus, they may have wished to stress the Roman church's departure from the Word of God. They may also have had a concern not to alienate to many in the Roman faith by stating or implying that they were not believers in Christ, rather they were simply not following the Word of God. This might explain the inclusion of no need of rebaptism in the French Confession. The Belgic barely address rebaptism in a small phrase at the end of the section on Baptism, but it is addressed to the Anabaptists not to Rome. The Belgic Confession was written during a time of massive persecution by the Spanish, and the Dutch were not trying to win over the royal family. They were not trying to win disputations and colloquies. They may have felt more free to link the persecution of the Reformed Church to a hatred of Jesus Christ himself.

One more place that this can be seen, I believe, is in Article 37 On the Last Judgment. I won't reproduce the whole article, but it is about the return of Jesus Christ. A bodily return. But the main focus of the article is that God will bring punishment on those who "cruelly persecuted, oppressed, and tormented them [elect] in this world." And then the comfort that the judgment brings to elect as the "Son of God will confess their names before God His father and His elect angels". It ends with a call an "ardent desire" to "fully enjoy the promises of God in Christ Jesus our Lord." This relates to the church theme because it is Christ's triumphant return to deliver his elect from the persecution of the wicked. Which ought to include the False Church which Article 29 stated "persecutes those who live holily according to the Word of God". The French Confession does not have a section on the return of Christ.

Now, I don't want anyone to think that I am trying to say that the French Confession does not promote Jesus Christ. It surely does in beautiful articles 12-19 especially. I am speaking here of a difference in emphasis especially as it relates to the Church. The French Confession has a clear exalted view of Jesus, but it does not have the same focus on Jesus when discussing the Church that the Belgic contains.

Hopefully in the next post we will take one last contrast between the French and the Belgic.

The Belgic versus the French on Rome

Calvin did not think a new Confession needed to be written for the churches in the Low Countries, but he did not oppose or condemn it in anyway. It appears that he simply thought the French Confession of 1559 was good enough for the Low Countries as well. Yet, the ministers in the Low Countries seemed to disagree. Perhaps because the situation had radically changed between 1559 and 1561. Geneva was a relative safe spot for the Reformation and Calvin did not experience there any real persecution from the Romanists. This was not the case in Belgium. Even France, which used Calvin's Confession of 1559, was relatively peaceful in that year. But by 1561 persecution had really broken out across France and the first wars of religion were being fought. In 1559 the Colloquy at Poissy was on the horizon and hope for a peaceful settlement still existed. But in 1561, France had seen the Massacre at Vassy, and the beginning of never ending strife had started. The Low Countries were even worse. The Inquisition was occurring and the ministers in the Low Countries often fled into France for safety telling you something about how unsafe the Low Countries really were for Reformed believers. I think that this attitude can be found in the Belgic Confession. Let us compare the French Confession of Calvin in 1559 to the Belgic and how it speaks of the Roman Catholic Church.

As a note, I will be using the French Confession as translated by William Foote in The Huguenots (1870), and the Belgic Confession the Christians Reformed Church 1976 Psalter edition as reprinted in Reformed Confessions of the 16th and 17th Centuries Vol. 2 by James Dennison.

The French Confession speaks directly about the Roman Church in Article 28:

"In this belief we protest that when the Word of God is not received and when there is no professed subjection to it, and where there is no use of the sacrament, if we will speak properly, we cannot judge that there is any church. Wherefore we condemn those assemblies in the papacy, because the pure Word of God is banished out of them, and because in them the sacraments are corrupted, counterfeited, falsified or utterly abolished, and because among them, separate and cut themselves off from the body of Christ Jesus. Yet nevertheless, because there is yet some small track of a church in the papacy, and that baptism as it is in the substance, has been still continued, and because the efficacy of baptism does not depend upon him who administers it, we confess that they which are thus baptized do not need a second baptism. In the meanwhile, because of those corruptions which are mingled with the administration of that sacrament, no man can present his children to be baptized in that church without polluting his conscience."

The Belgic goes head on wit the Roman Church in Article 29. I will start with paragraph 2.

"The marks by which the true church is known are these: If the pure doctrine of the gospel is preached therein; if it is maintains the pure administration of the sacraments as instituted by Christ; if church discipline is exercised in punishing of sin; in short, if all things are managed according to the pure Word of God, all things contrary thereto rejected, and Jesus Christ acknowledged as the only Head of the church. Hereby the true Church may certainly be known, from which no man has a right to separate himself.
With respect to those who are members of the Church, they may be known by the marks of Christians; namely, by faith, and when having received Jesus Christ the only savior, they avoid sin, follow after righteousness, love the true God and their neighbor, neither turn aside to the right or the left, crucify the flesh with the works thereof. But this is not to be understood as if there did not remain in them great infirmities; but they fight against them through the Spirit all the days of their life, continually taking their refuge in the blood, death passion, and obedience of our Lord Jesus Christ, in whom they have remission of sins, through faith in Him.
As for the false Church, it ascribes more power and authority to itself and its ordinances than to the Word of God, and will not submit itself to the yoke of Christ. Neither does it administer the sacraments as appointed by Christ in His Word, but adds to and takes from them, as it thinks proper; it relies more upon men than upon Christ; and persecutes those who live holily according to the Word of God and rebuke it for its errors, covetousness, and idolatry.
These two Churches are easily known and distinguished from each other."

I think an interesting difference in tone more than in substance takes place here. Calvin in the French Confession does make sure to point out that certain assemblies in the papacy banish God's Word, and corrupt the sacraments, but he then goes out of his way to speak about a small track of the church in the papacy, and how there is no need for rebaptism in what seems like perhaps a precaution against Anabaptists or other extreme reformed movements.

The Belgic on the other hand seems to speak in harsher terms about the Roman Catholics. Pointing out directly that the church lowers Jesus Christ putting more faith in man than in the Savior. Refusing to submit to Christ they go a step further and "persecute" those who do submit to that yoke of Jesus Christ. The papacy is condemned outright by making a mark of the true church acknowledging Jesus Christ as the lone head of the church. The Belgic puts a contrast forth that the true Church (the Reformed churches) follow Christ in all things, and the Roman Church rejects Christ and puts more faith in man's power and authority. This is the basis for rejecting Rome as a true church. There is no thought of dangers of Anabaptists or other extremists Protestant groups, but rather the Belgic focuses in on the extreme danger of Roman Catholicism.

Note also the call for people to leave the Roman Catholic Church found in the Belgic. In discussing the true church the Belgic states, "from which no man has a right to separate himself". And with the false church of Rome, "The two churches are easily known and distinguished from each other." In other words, if you are a believer in Jesus Christ, a Christian, you ought to be able to see the difference between the false church of Rome and the true Church, which is persecuted. And there is no reason whatsoever for you not to leave the Roman Church and join the Reformed Church. You can easily know the difference and you have no right to remain separate from a true church. It is true that the French Confession speaks of a polluted conscience if one stays within the Roman Communion, but the French Confession also admits a "small track of a church in the papacy". That is something the persecuted church in the Low Countries does not place in their confession.

The Belgic Confession draws a sharper contrast between Rome and the Reformation and that contrast is based on Christ. One church submits and follows Him, and the other rejects and persecutes Him. This is something that runs throughout the Belgic Confession, as we shall see.

The Belgic versus the French on Rome

Calvin did not think a new Confession needed to be written for the churches in the Low Countries, but he did not oppose or condemn it in anyway. It appears that he simply thought the French Confession of 1559 was good enough for the Low Countries as well. Yet, the ministers in the Low Countries seemed to disagree. Perhaps because the situation had radically changed between 1559 and 1561. Geneva was a relative safe spot for the Reformation and Calvin did not experience there any real persecution from the Romanists. This was not the case in Belgium. Even France, which used Calvin's Confession of 1559, was relatively peaceful in that year. But by 1561 persecution had really broken out across France and the first wars of religion were being fought. In 1559 the Colloquy at Poissy was on the horizon and hope for a peaceful settlement still existed. But in 1561, France had seen the Massacre at Vassy, and the beginning of never ending strife had started. The Low Countries were even worse. The Inquisition was occurring and the ministers in the Low Countries often fled into France for safety telling you something about how unsafe the Low Countries really were for Reformed believers. I think that this attitude can be found in the Belgic Confession. Let us compare the French Confession of Calvin in 1559 to the Belgic and how it speaks of the Roman Catholic Church.

As a note, I will be using the French Confession as translated by William Foote in The Huguenots (1870), and the Belgic Confession the Christians Reformed Church 1976 Psalter edition as reprinted in Reformed Confessions of the 16th and 17th Centuries Vol. 2 by James Dennison.

The French Confession speaks directly about the Roman Church in Article 28:

"In this belief we protest that when the Word of God is not received and when there is no professed subjection to it, and where there is no use of the sacrament, if we will speak properly, we cannot judge that there is any church. Wherefore we condemn those assemblies in the papacy, because the pure Word of God is banished out of them, and because in them the sacraments are corrupted, counterfeited, falsified or utterly abolished, and because among them, separate and cut themselves off from the body of Christ Jesus. Yet nevertheless, because there is yet some small track of a church in the papacy, and that baptism as it is in the substance, has been still continued, and because the efficacy of baptism does not depend upon him who administers it, we confess that they which are thus baptized do not need a second baptism. In the meanwhile, because of those corruptions which are mingled with the administration of that sacrament, no man can present his children to be baptized in that church without polluting his conscience."

The Belgic goes head on wit the Roman Church in Article 29. I will start with paragraph 2.

"The marks by which the true church is known are these: If the pure doctrine of the gospel is preached therein; if it is maintains the pure administration of the sacraments as instituted by Christ; if church discipline is exercised in punishing of sin; in short, if all things are managed according to the pure Word of God, all things contrary thereto rejected, and Jesus Christ acknowledged as the only Head of the church. Hereby the true Church may certainly be known, from which no man has a right to separate himself.
With respect to those who are members of the Church, they may be known by the marks of Christians; namely, by faith, and when having received Jesus Christ the only savior, they avoid sin, follow after righteousness, love the true God and their neighbor, neither turn aside to the right or the left, crucify the flesh with the works thereof. But this is not to be understood as if there did not remain in them great infirmities; but they fight against them through the Spirit all the days of their life, continually taking their refuge in the blood, death passion, and obedience of our Lord Jesus Christ, in whom they have remission of sins, through faith in Him.
As for the false Church, it ascribes more power and authority to itself and its ordinances than to the Word of God, and will not submit itself to the yoke of Christ. Neither does it administer the sacraments as appointed by Christ in His Word, but adds to and takes from them, as it thinks proper; it relies more upon men than upon Christ; and persecutes those who live holily according to the Word of God and rebuke it for its errors, covetousness, and idolatry.
These two Churches are easily known and distinguished from each other."

I think an interesting difference in tone more than in substance takes place here. Calvin in the French Confession does make sure to point out that certain assemblies in the papacy banish God's Word, and corrupt the sacraments, but he then goes out of his way to speak about a small track of the church in the papacy, and how there is no need for rebaptism in what seems like perhaps a precaution against Anabaptists or other extreme reformed movements.

The Belgic on the other hand seems to speak in harsher terms about the Roman Catholics. Pointing out directly that the church lowers Jesus Christ putting more faith in man than in the Savior. Refusing to submit to Christ they go a step further and "persecute" those who do submit to that yoke of Jesus Christ. The papacy is condemned outright by making a mark of the true church acknowledging Jesus Christ as the lone head of the church. The Belgic puts a contrast forth that the true Church (the Reformed churches) follow Christ in all things, and the Roman Church rejects Christ and puts more faith in man's power and authority. This is the basis for rejecting Rome as a true church. There is no thought of dangers of Anabaptists or other extremists Protestant groups, but rather the Belgic focuses in on the extreme danger of Roman Catholicism.

Note also the call for people to leave the Roman Catholic Church found in the Belgic. In discussing the true church the Belgic states, "from which no man has a right to separate himself". And with the false church of Rome, "The two churches are easily known and distinguished from each other." In other words, if you are a believer in Jesus Christ, a Christian, you ought to be able to see the difference between the false church of Rome and the true Church, which is persecuted. And there is no reason whatsoever for you not to leave the Roman Church and join the Reformed Church. You can easily know the difference and you have no right to remain separate from a true church. It is true that the French Confession speaks of a polluted conscience if one stays within the Roman Communion, but the French Confession also admits a "small track of a church in the papacy". That is something the persecuted church in the Low Countries does not place in their confession.

The Belgic Confession draws a sharper contrast between Rome and the Reformation and that contrast is based on Christ. One church submits and follows Him, and the other rejects and persecutes Him. This is something that runs throughout the Belgic Confession, as we shall see.

2011 - 1561 = 450 years of the Belgic Confession

This year is the 450th anniversary of the writing of the Belgic Confession of Faith (unless my math is wrong, which is always a possibility). So, my plan for this blog this year is to mostly discuss the Belgic Confession (I did say mostly so there will be some other stuff like movie reviews and what nots).

For those not familiar with the Belgic Confession, it was written in 1561 by Guy De Bres sometimes called Guido De Bray. Guido was from modern day Belgium, but at that time was part of Spain and under the control of Charles V. As a Reformed believer, he was an outlaw and he fled to England for a time. There he attended John A Lasco's Stranger's Church in London, but would flee persecution there under Queen Mary. This eventually brought him to Geneva, where he would learn under Calvin. De Bres would re-enter the Low Countries to preach the gospel in about 1559. He wrote the Belgic Confession as an apology for the Reformed Faith. It was primarily his work, but seems to have probably at least gotten feed back by several other area pastors. The Confession would be officially adopted by the church in the Low Countries later, but De Bres would be caught and die a martyrs death under the hand of the Spanish Inquisition.

Today the Belgic Confession might be the most subscribed to Reformed document, and is easily the best known Continental Confession. Oddly enough that was not true in its day. Its modern popularity is in large part because of the devastation of the 30 Years' War. Also the Dutch were a more successful group than the Swiss including at staying orthodox. In its day the Second Helvetic Confession was more widely used, but today that document is almost non-existent in churches. It is the Belgic that rules the day.

The guiding point for my first few looks at the Belgic is the point that really interests me right now. The Belgic Confession is not the Gallic Confession written by Calvin in 1559. Calvin appears to actually have been against writing a new confession for the Low Countries. The Belgic clearly follows the outline of the Gallic Confession, but there are real differences, and those are interesting.

So hope on board for my year long look and celebration of the Belgic Confession of Faith.