The Christian Library
12.09.2005
The muscular, early-Zwinglian type
>Josh and I have fought, and fought, and fought over all things Lutheran. But when I first met him 2 years ago, he was already talking about the attempt of some Reformed Baptist quarters to police the rest of the reformation.
http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2005/12/why-johnny-cant-read.html
As a recent very much outsider let me say that when I first looked over and "got the measure" of the field (the Protestant field) it was the Reformed Baptists who were defending in the most non-wobbly way the doctrines of grace and the five solas. The Presbyterians are likely to defend the doctrines of grace then to demonstrate they can't discern a common snake in the tent on a subject as central as justification (not to mention their often crank-like excursions into, and sympathies for, liberal politics, a not-insubstantial sign of the same kind of wobbliness found in one's theology. Obviously not all Presbyterians are liberal, but I tended to see seemingly theologically conservative Presbyterian pastors spouting the usual left-wing political views when goaded by something in that direction.)
There is a question in all this, though, that Steve Hays brings up by saying he is able to "move freely" between different Calvinist groups and all that (which there's nothing wrong with), but it does by default place him at some point vertical to all those different groups. I would suggest there is a muscular "early-Zwingli" type in the Calvinism camp (of which I see myself as one of). I say "muscular" because it is fueled by an assurance of regeneration and faith that many other Protestants seem to lack to some degree or another. The Reformed Baptists are obviously the closest as a defined group to this muscular "early Zwinglian" type; but I think the type itself in its purity disdains to be labeled because they - we - ARE able to justify BIBLICALLY our position of being above the fray, so to speak, and not having a problem with other Calvinist approaches to the sacraments, for instance, as long as they are not of the nature of baptismal regeneration or something else obviously doctrinally false.
I think a mark is this: an RB who comes into a real understanding of classical covenant theology and can see it not solely in the context of sacraments or ecclesiology. This puts one in this above category, this "early-Zwinglian" category.
Zwingli was a soldier, and he was arguably the earliest and most bold and doctrinally pure reformer, in his early days. He changed, of course, but it's early Zwingli that defines the type as I'm describing it.
http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2005/12/why-johnny-cant-read.html
As a recent very much outsider let me say that when I first looked over and "got the measure" of the field (the Protestant field) it was the Reformed Baptists who were defending in the most non-wobbly way the doctrines of grace and the five solas. The Presbyterians are likely to defend the doctrines of grace then to demonstrate they can't discern a common snake in the tent on a subject as central as justification (not to mention their often crank-like excursions into, and sympathies for, liberal politics, a not-insubstantial sign of the same kind of wobbliness found in one's theology. Obviously not all Presbyterians are liberal, but I tended to see seemingly theologically conservative Presbyterian pastors spouting the usual left-wing political views when goaded by something in that direction.)
There is a question in all this, though, that Steve Hays brings up by saying he is able to "move freely" between different Calvinist groups and all that (which there's nothing wrong with), but it does by default place him at some point vertical to all those different groups. I would suggest there is a muscular "early-Zwingli" type in the Calvinism camp (of which I see myself as one of). I say "muscular" because it is fueled by an assurance of regeneration and faith that many other Protestants seem to lack to some degree or another. The Reformed Baptists are obviously the closest as a defined group to this muscular "early Zwinglian" type; but I think the type itself in its purity disdains to be labeled because they - we - ARE able to justify BIBLICALLY our position of being above the fray, so to speak, and not having a problem with other Calvinist approaches to the sacraments, for instance, as long as they are not of the nature of baptismal regeneration or something else obviously doctrinally false.
I think a mark is this: an RB who comes into a real understanding of classical covenant theology and can see it not solely in the context of sacraments or ecclesiology. This puts one in this above category, this "early-Zwinglian" category.
Zwingli was a soldier, and he was arguably the earliest and most bold and doctrinally pure reformer, in his early days. He changed, of course, but it's early Zwingli that defines the type as I'm describing it.
Archives
