cozart’s corner » a call to understanding

a call to understanding

March 6th, 2007

i’ve been reading through Richard Baxter’s The Reformed Pastor, and i was convicted by the passage quoted below. with all the theological battles raging today, particularly in Reformed circles, Baxter’s words here offer striking counsel.

The Scripture sufficiency must be maintained, and nothing beyond it imposed on others; and if papists, or others, call to us for the standard and rule of our religion, it is the Bible that we must show them, rather than any confessions of churches, or writings of men. We must learn to distinguish between certainties and uncertainties, necessaries and unnecessaries, catholic verities and private opinions; and to lay the stress of the Church’s peace upon the former, not upon the latter. We must avoid the common confusion of speaking of those who make no difference between verbal and real errors, and hate that ‘madness formerly among theologians,’ who tear their brethren as heretics, before they understand them. And we must learn to see the true state of controversies, and reduce them to the very point where the difference lieth, and not make them seem greater than they are.

Posted by cozart | | Share on Facebook

4 Comments »

rich says
So what does Paul condemn the Judaizers for in Galatians? Is it not a systematic problem (read: a confessional problem)? If you use a hermeneutic that says that the problem was not a works-justification, then I can use that same hermeneutic to show that the Bible never teaches a WCF view of justification. In which case you are at the tipping point of the entire Reformation.

March 7th, 2007 | #
Wright says
Brandon, This quote from Baxter is very good. I have been doing an article on “Carl Henry and his Critics,” in which I try to respond to accusations made against him even by evangelical theologians. It has been a very sad task for me, as I have had to refute really outrageous criticisms of him by people who should know better. One of the worst was Van Til, followed by his disciple Conn, but others have been equally guilty (such as Bloesch and Ramm, and their disicples, such as Olson and Grenz). I think I have done this to others also. As I have written this article, I have asked God to forgive me for comparable slander and to keep me from repeating this mistake. All too often, we have fallen into the sin that Baxter describes. I think it especially good that you see this at your young age, when most budding theologians (including me at that time!) are so sure of themselves that they mistake proud enthusiasm and self-righteous assurance for true zeal that comes from love for God and other believers. I’m really proud of you for this. Wright

March 27th, 2007 | #
cozart says
rich,

sorry i haven’t responded until now. i just saw your comment. of course i think that the Judaizers were advocating things such as circumcision as necessary for salvation/justification and that Paul rightly condemned them for preaching another gospel. and, with the issue you’re speaking of, i definitely think it is a confessional problem and, more than that, a biblical problem!

my point in posting the quote was, as the title indicates, a call to understanding. to actually have knowledge of what others’ views are before they are condemned. understanding, however, does not mean that others cannot be wrong! it just means that we should not speak (or condemn) out of ignorance or based on hearsay.

this is a widespread problem in Reformed circles that reaches in to areas other than the justification issue, and it’s something i’ve been guilty of myself. that’s why this quote struck me so deeply.

hope you’re doing well. we need to catch up!

May 6th, 2007 | #
rich says
Brandon,

I am sorry as well. I have been unnecessarily suspicious. I agree that the problem was a biblical problem. I also realize that systemetization of Scripture was necessary to Paul’s critique of the Judaizers. But I, least of all Presbyterians, want to say that a confession would be sufficient to prove their error. The Bible is the authority for Christians, and one thing I am frustrated with by the anti-FV folks is their lack of citation of Biblical support for their arguments, merely resorting to the semantics of our confessions to prove their point. I have critiques of some of the FV folks as well, but mostly they are actually critiques of the NPP. I am not pro- or anti- FV, but I am worried about folks in seminary right now, as, from my outside perspective, the critiques of the FV and NPP by our reformed seminaries have not been Biblical critiques. (though I think that our confessions are Biblical. I just think that the confessional language must be shown publicly to be Biblically precise. Again, I think the confessions are precise and Biblical in their precision.)

Well, sorry to get side-tracked. I have been reading a lot of stuff to be in the context of the current debates in Presbyterianism, and it is not necessarily as I suppose. I am going to comment on your B of T conference remarks as well.

June 9th, 2007 | #