John Stevens recently drew followers of his Facebook page to a quote from Sinclair Ferguson
Within Reformed theology there has always been a diversity of viewpoint on various issues. Being aware of this saves us from naively (but dogmatically!) saying, “The Reformed view is…..” when all we are entitled to say is, “The view held by a number of Reformed writers with whom I agree is….”!’[1]
I think this is a helpful corrective to what can be a tendency in some Reformed circles and indeed more widely within Evangelicalism to seek to be guardians of orthodoxy, especially when that orthodoxy is narrowly defined and based on historical traditions whether recent or ancient rather than on Scripture. At its worst, we see brothers in Christ accusing each of f heresy either explicitly or implicitly.
I’ve found it fascinating and concerning in equal measure to see one example of Reformed debate risk heading down these lines namely the conversation about concupiscence. Some people have been keen to talk about a Reformed Doctrine of Concupiscence. I’m not sure there is such a thing, rather there are many examples of Reformed theologians using the word and talking about sin temptation and desire. Indeed, in a few cases I’ve looked at there seems to have been a conflation in debate about historical or Biblical texts between temptation/desire and arguments for and against original sin and Total Depravity.
Ferguson is right in my opinion to remind those of us who consider ourselves of the diversity that there is in the tradition. It is a tradition that includes for example both Zwingli and Calvin’s views on communion and John Stott and Martyn Lloyd Jones’ views on baptism in the Holy Spirit. We cannot dogmatically announce that the Reformed view is x.
At the same time it is worth remembering that there are boundaries to what it means to be Reformed, just as there are boundaries to evangelicalism and yes to Christianity itself. We can recognise for example that Luther and Wesley were both Protestant but not Reformed and nor would their followers claim to be. There are limits to what counts as the Reformed view. It is instructive to note that those who take an Arminian position on Free Will and Predestination are considered to belong outside of the Reformed Tradition. However, the discussion about Definite Atonement takes a different view. Even back during the controversies around the Synod of Dort there seemed to be recognition that there were differences of opinion here and today, there are 4 point Calvinists who dislike the term Limited Atonement and its formulations. I think though that at the same time, there needs to be some form of recognition there that Atonement is mafe effective for the elect not just possible by Christ’s death. Additionally, it would be difficult to argue from a reformed perspective for universal salvation so that in a sense, we all recognise that the scope of atonement is limited. The question then is “who limits” and from a Reformed perspective, I believe that we would all want to say “God because He is sovereign.”
When attempting to help students a Oak Hill Theological College navigate the debate about men and women in leadership back in the 90s, David Peterson would sometimes set out a diagram (I’ve used a derivation of this) which set where he considered the Biblical boundaries to be and then suggested that within them was a “field of play” in other words there was room for difference and diversity. Similarly, Mike Ovey when teaching on the Trinity would suggest a triangle rather than a quadrant, again setting out the field of play based on No denial of oneness, distinction and equality . Sadly those who got involved in the EFS squabbles never seemed to have got that memo!
In the same way, I think that we might talk about a Reformed field of play. I’m sure at some point, someone can crystalise this into a diagram with neat definitions and determine whether or not the boundaries form a triangle, quadrant or perhaps a pentagon (let the reader understand). However, in general, I think that the Reformed field of play must properly honour the glory of God recognising his sovereignty, to treat seriously the nature and consequences of sin in terms of Total Depravity and so to acknowledge that we are unable to save ourselves so that it is all about grace and faith.
I think that these kinds of parameters keep the sense of being Reformed meaningful. There is a Reformed perspective whilst allowing for diversity and debate within the Reformed Tradition.
[1] Sinclair Ferguson, The Whole of Christ, 117.
Faithroots 