No! to "Hypercalvinism"

This post has been revised.

One measuring stick by which to measure any system of theology is to think of the two concepts of: 1)  God's Will, and 2) Freedom, or History, as ordained by God.

Those who inhabit the so-called "calvinistic" systems have to maintain a Scriptural position which affirms God's decree of history, along with the freedom that he has ordained on the created level, and the divine interaction with that creation in the course of history.

This is affirmed by the Westminster Confession, which states that:

God, from all eternity, did, by the most wise and holy counsel of His own will freely, and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass: yet so, as thereby neither is God the author of sin, nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures; nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established. (WCF 3:1).

We could summarize this by saying that God ordained what comes to pass in history, but God also ordained that the process of history be real.  History is not a vapor that dematerializes before the decree of God, but is the reality -- the real process -- which has been ordained to take place by the decree of God, and by which the ends of his decree are met.

It is only in the process of history that prayers make sense.  It is only in the process of history that God's goodness is manifested to the undeserving.  It is only in the process of history that common grace exists -- even a measure of grace to the non-elect.  It is only within time that the love for sinners leads to the propagation of the gospel.  It is only within time that the moral process of growth, conversion and even apostasy can take place, because all this takes place in the visible church, in process of time.  The visible church is not a mistake.  Prayers that ask for anything besides simply "God's will" are not wrong.  We do not preach the gospel to all, only because we do not know who the elect are.  The fact that the non-elect reject all natural and special revelation from God does not mean that God's exclusive motive was damnation when he revealed his goodness to them.

There is a mystery here.  God has ordained the ends.  But, he has also ordained the means to his ends.  How can he make an offer of Christ to those whom he does not call, and yet speak of this offer of Christ as a manifestation of his goodness, when he has ordained eternal suffering for those he knows will not accept it?  But he has done all this.  This is a mystery we cannot solve, and it is not a mystery simply because of our creaturehood, but it is a mystery in God, creation and time, all under the sovereign control of God.

When the ultimate ends of God's decree are used to override his expressed motives in Scripture during the execution of the decree, then elements of the moral significance of history simply vanish.  For one thing, "common grace" vanishes.  But, the church of Christ, and all her members, must play their parts in history, with all tribulations, questions, prayers, and joys.  We have to see that the Triune God, in our Lord Jesus Christ, is truly engaged in the history he has ordained.  We have no "platonic," static Greek God, but an active God involved in history.  History is real -- he has ordained it.  And, history moves to his ordained ends.  But, let us not short circuit the process by intellectually or practically denying the fact that God participates in history with us, as it moves to his ordained ends.

How thankful we ought to be that in the simplicity of his offer of his saving goodness, he has called us unto himself!  And, yet we too cannot deny that he is good, and means to be good, even to those who are not made to submit to his call, by the Spirit.  It is because they reject his real and true expression of real goodness to them that they are condemned.  They end up condemned by their response to his common grace -- but that "common grace" was a real offer of grace to them, from God, in history.

We know that the Triune God lisps to us at our level about himself, when he reveals himself as a moral agent as well as a sovereign.  Let us be content with what he lisps to us in our language, and not break the paradigm by beginning to say, "Well, I know how he really is!" by viewing our present reality only through the decree.

Grace and Mercy, vs. Justice

The opponents of penal substitutionary atonement always complain that this view of the atonement makes the principles of the Christian life be based on justice rather than mercy.  The grace of Christ showered upon us isn't grace, because it has been paid for by the atonement.  It was earned.  It is not mercy.  Therefore, they allege, mercy simply disappears.  The notion of God's pure mercy evaporates from Christianity.

We might laugh at the distortion implicit in this threat, but Calvin and others took it seriously.  Calvin goes over this several times in the Institutes, because this serious threat was issued by the Socinians (Arians, non-Trinitarians) of his day, some of whom he knew personally, because they had passed through Geneva.

Calvin resolved the issue in his own teaching by definitely placing Grace and Mercy above Justice (Institutes, Book II, Chapter 17).  He does not deny justice.  But the satisfaction of justice is subordinate to the manifestation of God's grace and mercy.  This is clearly seen in the main "proof text" for this view, John 3:16.  God sent his only Son to perform the sacrificial death because he, God, loved the world of sinners.  It is does not say that God loved what his Son's work would make of those sinners, though, of course, he did.  The verse says that God loved the world as it was, and therefore, because of his love to a fallen world, out of a desire to show mercy, sent his Son to pay the penalty for their sin.

The fact that mercy is the reigning paradigm in the mind of God should affect quite a few things in our own religion and theology.  For one thing, we must be people of mercy expressed to the unworthy, knowing that the legal issues have been settled by the death of Christ.  This is freeing, because the efforts to express mercy to the unworthy can be quenched by legal scruples.

Another application of the primacy of mercy has to do with our understanding and presentation of the gospel.  We are accustomed to presenting the death of Christ and the gospel in legal terms, as satisfaction for sin, which it is.  But, the divine reason for providing the satisfaction is so that mercy may have free course.  Somehow this should change the way we present the gospel.  Christ died for our sins, because by this means God could show us the mercy he desired to give us.  I think this makes a difference!

In the witness to the world, the divine mercy should be "on top."

This post is continued here:
http://christocentry.blogspot.com/2011/08/covenant-of-works-covenant-of-grace.html

Scripture vs. Theology

It's an old argument -- the Bible vs. "theology."

After 50 years of personal Christianity, a good deal of that time to the present spent reading theology and church history, I find that the "Bible vs. theology" issue is still very much alive.  And, I'm not talking about arguments with folks who are against "theology."  I'm talking about how Protestant theology, supposedly based in Scripture, can run amok on its own trajectory, regardless of what the Scripture plainly teaches.

Just to give concrete context, I've lately been reading some of the arguments about "neo-Calvinism."  But, regardless of the issue of neo-Calvinism, it's clear to me that the broad spectrum of theology in the Reformed "camp" contains many strains, from "neo-Calvinism" to "pietism," which definitely have a life of their own apart from the well-balanced interpretation of Scripture.

We have to see that our difficulty sticking with the Scripture is part and parcel of the spiritual warfare.  In that war, submission to God's Word is not optional.  Therefore, we must pay attention to the study of the Scripture, the history of the interpretation of Scripture (there has been 2000 years of it, since Christ), and, as a consequence of all this, we must understand the theology of Scripture.  We must give divine wisdom and instruction precedence over the Word of Man that passes for "theology" in our circles every day.

Covenant of Works Runs Amok!

I'm studying Herman Bavinck, preparing to teach a little class about the Covenant of Grace.  In process of writing his chapter on the Covenant of Grace, Bavinck(*) begins to wax eloquent about the significance of the Covenant of Works.  Before it's all over he falls into a common Reformed trap of making works, obedience, demands, laws and justice the primary theme of salvation history, rather than making the grace of the Triune God be that theme.  He doesn't mean to be "legalistic," and I do heartily recommend Bavinck's work, but we must always be careful.  In particular, we cannot do without Calvin.  I will quote from them both.  [my highlights and underlines; funny symbols in parentheses are "footnotes"]

Calvin(#) :

Christ [is] Rightly and properly Said to Have Merited God's Grace and Salvation for Us

By way of addition this question also should be explained.  There are certain perversely subtle men who -- even though they confess that we receive salvation through Christ -- cannot bear to hear the word "merit," for they think that it obscures God's grace.  Hence, they would have Christ as a mere instrument or minister, not as the Author or leader and prince of life, as Peter calls him [Acts 3:15].  Indeed, I admit, if anyone would simply set Christ by himself over against God's judgment, there will be no place for merit.  For no worthiness will be found in man to deserve God's favor.  Indeed, as Augustine very truly writes: "The clearest light of predestination and grace is the Man Christ Jesus, the Savior, who brought this to pass by the human nature that was in him, through no preceding merits of works or of faith.  Answer me, I beg of you, whence did that man deserve to be the only-begotten Son of God, and to be assumed into unity of person by the Word co-eternal with the Father?  We must therefore recognize our Head as the very foundation of grace -- a grace that is diffused from him through all his members according to the measure of each.  Everyone is made a Christian from the beginning of his faith by the same grace whereby that Man from his beginning became the Christ."  Likewise, in another passage: "There is no more illustrious example of predestination than the Mediator himself.  For he who made righteous this man of the seed of David, never to be unrighteous, without any merit of his will preceding, of unrighteous makes righteous those who are members of that Head," etc.

In this passage Calvin clearly teaches (in his and Augustine's opinion) that Christ was instantaneously perfect from the instant of the Incarnation.  There is nothing here about his having to obey a Covenant of Works in order to achieve active righteousness, so that he would be able to give the same to his saints.  Is Christ tempted and tested?  Of course.  Does he need to persevere in his human nature?  Absolutely.  Does he learn obedience through suffering?  Yes, yes.  But, is he "acquiring" active obedience which he otherwise did not have from the moment of the Incarnation?  Absolutely not.  The grace of the Incarnation, the grace inherent in the God-man, and which he gives to us, was perfect from the first instant of the existence of his human nature.  It is by this grace, and being crammed full of this grace, that he blots out our transgressions by his obedience (not by "acquiring merit" through his obedience, to put to our account).

The main point I'm making here, however, is not to argue principally about the covenant of works.  It is to argue that Bavinck, compared to Calvin, legalizes the grace of God in some of his concepts and language, in a way shared by many Reformed of his era.

Calvin goes on:

Hence it is absurd to set Christ's merit against God's mercy.  For it is a common rule that a thing subordinate to another is not in conflict with it($).  For this reason nothing hinders us from asserting that men are freely justified by God's mercy alone, and at the same time that Christ's merit, subordinate to God's mercy, also intervenes on our behalf.  Both God's free favor and Christ's obedience, each in its degree, are fitly opposed to our works.  Apart from God's good pleasure Christ could not merit anything; but did so because he had been appointed to appease God's wrath with his sacrifice, and to blot out our transgressions with his obedience.  To sum up: inasmuch as Christ's merit depends upon God's grace alone, which has ordained this manner of salvation for us, it is just as properly opposed to all human righteousness as God's grace is.

As a consequence, one sees that Calvin places God's grace "on top."  And, since there is a need for the sacrifice to meet the terms of justice, that is provided, too, but subordinately.  There is nothing here to interfere in any sense with the preeminence of grace.  Even the justice of God, which is met by the Mediatorial death on the Cross, is subordinate to the divine intention to display grace from all conceptual angles.

Bavinck:

...  The doctrine of the covenant of grace first emerged for the purpose of maintaining the essential unity of the Old and the New Testaments.  In keeping with this, also the relation between God and humans before the fall was portrayed as a covenant, specifically a covenant of works.  Reflection on the similarity and difference between the covenant of works and the covenant of grace then led to the insight that the covenant of grace, insofar as it was made with Christ, was a covenant of works. ... 

What Bavinck is saying here is that justice is "on top" in the picture of God's saving operations, not mercy.  Mercy is a secondary benefit for us.  Whereas Calvin brought in justice and the sacrifice of Christ as subordinate to God's mercy, Bavinck has described this saving transaction as entirely a matter of justice, with mercy as a side-effect (for us).  The fact that grace comes to us through Christ then becomes strange, in view of the fact that all the internal "mechanism" of salvation is presented in the covenant of works as a matter of obedience, works, law and justice.  But, if the legal side, and not the merciful side, is the preeminent thought, then in spite of all the assertions that there is mercy for us, things are going to ultimately turn around and become legal for us, too.  Bavinck does not personally intend this, but it still happens.

There is a lot more of this in Bavinck than I can quote here.  But, this doesn't mean that Bavinck is an ungracious person.  The rationalistic and justicial passion has just captured him in this connection and he is running "amok" with it, along with most of his fellow 19th century Reformed theologians, I suppose. 

 Bavinck:

...  In Scripture there are only two covenants, two ways to heaven for human beings, the covenant of works, and the covenant of grace.  The covenant of works is the way to heaven for the unfallen, the covenant of grace that for the fallen humans.  The covenant of works was made with humankind in Adam, the covenant of grace was made with humankind in Christ.  He, and he alone, is the substitutionary and representative head of humankind.  ...  Just as the Father had ordained the kingdom for him, so he ordains it for those who have been given to him.  He distributes the benefits he has acquired(@) as an inheritance. ... In both cases [the covenant of redemption and the covenant of grace] it is the mystical Christ, Christ as the second Adam, who acts as the negotiating party (%). ... And, since (as is evident from 1 Cor 15:45ff) Adam was a type of Christ even before the fall, so the covenant of grace was prepared, not first by Noah and Abraham nor first by the covenant of grace with Adam, but already in and by the covenant of works.  God, who knows and determines all things and included also the breach of the covenant of works in his counsel when creating Adam and instituting the covenant of works, already counted on the Christ and his covenant of grace(&).

The exhortation I leave you with is to begin to see and perceive whether squeezing soteriology through the mold of the Law, while making grace subordinate, truly comports with the tenor of the teaching of Scripture, or Reformation theology.  Isn't it rather the case that mercy and grace triumph, and that justice must be satisfied so that mercy and grace may triumph?

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have everlasting life. (John 3:16)

The "giving" of the Son (for the satisfaction of justice) was motivated by love for the world, which is the preeminent motive in the mind of God.  As a consequence we are delivered from legalism in our Christian lives.


(*) Herman Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics, v 3, ch 5, p 227-8 and elsewhere, Baker Edition.
(#) John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, book 2, ch 17, McNeil Edition.
($) Calvin is reconciling mercy and grace by subordinating one to the other instead of leaving them parallel with one another, which causes the conflict he describes.
(@) He didn't have them by nature, because he had to earn them by obedience to the covenant of works.  Compare with Calvin and Augustine discussed previously.  There is both an anthropological and Christological distinction between these two views, and therefore the distinction between Calvin and Bavinck is likely not a minor matter, but may have ramifications as yet unsounded.
(%) I.e., negotiating with God the Father.  Are "negotiations" required?
(&) He means the "covenant of grace" towards us, but as far as Christ himself was concerned it was all covenant of works.

The TULIP vs. Reformed Theology (revised)

It seems to me (as a person knowledgable about Reformation times and its theology, both Lutheran and Reformed), and also somewhat knowledgable concerning the 19th century American Princetonian Theology (and its competing Mercersburg Theology), that mainstream "orthodox Reformed theology" as we know it in our place and time in the Reformed Church at large has fallen into reductionism and serious theological imbalance.

What has happened, as I think I see it, is that the mainstream American vision (the Princetonian Theology) has evolved from the original Reformation form into a system of thought which is simply "evangelical," in the 19th and early 20th century sense, to which is added the "Five Points of Calvinism."

The key theological concept which distinguishes this kind of "Reformed Theology" appears to me to be "Particularism."  One can read B B Warfield's Plan of Salvation, for instance, and this is plain to see.  He makes the virtual definition of Reformed Theology to be Particularism.

However, one seeks in vain for this "look and feel" in the Reformation versions of Reformed Theology.  Particularism is there, but within Scriptural bounds.  Predestination and election are taught, but this is by no means a monopoly of the Reformed theology!  Observing that God does not preach the gospel to all nor does he save all those to whom the gospel is preached, and also having Scriptural doctrines about this is far from making the Reformed Theology simply a vehicle for preaching Particularism.

Therefore, I believe that our "modern" inheritance from the Princetonian legacy, as valuable as it is, is a serious distorting emphasis within the theological system which we profess to represent.  True Reformed Theology is "catholic," offers the Gospel to all who hear it, and is not simply a vehicle for making a hobby-horse of Particularism.

Truth is, the evangelical+5point notion of Reformed Theology is seriously affected by the spirit of Revivalism, Americanism, and too much Rationalism.  The Revivalism and Americanism are inimical to the true Reformational and Reformed idea of the institution of the Church.  And, the Rationalism is the fruit of the proximity of the Enlightenment.  If the mind of man can solve all mysteries (as the Enlightenment postulated), then it is tempting to think that the mind of man must be able to fight back using the same tools in the defense of Christianity, as 19th (and 18th) century Reformed Theology evidently thought.  Perhaps no one ever thought that the human mind could thereby unwittingly be overextended into realms beyond its competence, and that to attempt to defend Christianity by using the same methods and tools as the world would be an error, and might even lead to spiritual and intellectual disaster.

One can see the visible affect of the pre-eminence of American Reformed "Particularism" from "outside the camp" by reading Francis Pieper's Christian Dogmatics.  His main "enemy" in this work of American Confessional Lutheranism is the Particularism of the Reformed Church.  To Pieper, Particularism as preached by the Reformed Church is the single greatest error of that church, and the one which most radically de-Christianizes and refutes it.  Now, as surely as Mr. Pieper's complaints need to be taken seriously by the Reformed, this is surely a powerful 19th century style response to the 19th century over-emphasis on Particularism in the American Reformed Church.  This "Particularist Reformed" spirit still lives on among the Reformed in the 21st century, especially in the more Baptistic circles.  But to many Reformed thinkers nowadays this definition of the meaning of "Reformed," and the rationalistic tactics that go along with it, is beginning to be recognized as old-fashioned.

In this post-Enlightenment age when we have been freed not from the use of the mind but from rationalism, we need to rethink our theology in a manner which more meekly evaluates our rational capabilities, more highly evaluates the meaning of Scripture, and which avoids the "five-point trap" of thinking that only those points adequately characterize the whole of Reformed Theology.

There is a world of books out there about this.

One could profitably begin with D G Hart's biography:
     John Williamson Nevin, High Church Calvinist.

Predestination and Evangelism (rev. 7 Oct 2010)

You'll have to pardon me for making this post a little technical, but I think the big words are useful in this post.  I'll try to define them, for my purposes, as I write.

One of the theological struggles of the Reformed theology is to properly maintain the visibility and relationship of both particularism and universalism.  In the context of the doctrine of salvation, we may speak of "election," or predestination to salvation, which is God's choice of those sinners upon whom he will have mercy.  This is a kind of particularism.  Yet many Scripture passages show God making a universal offer of salvation to all the sinners who hear the gospel preached.  This is a kind of universalism -- not meaning that all get saved willy nilly, but meaning that all are in principle offered the free grace of the Gospel. 

The problem here is to ask how the particularism of election and the universalism of the gospel offer are to be reconciled with one another.  What is the balance?  How to we keep one aspect of the truth from being emphasized in some manner which is wrongly at the expense of the other?

It's pretty simple to envision the consequences of imbalance toward predestination.  When the divine predestination dominates, then the question that will be asked implicitly is whether the people I propose to witness to are elect.  I think this is "subliminal."  The consequence will likely be the downplaying of evangelistic efforts.  God is in charge.  Let him bring them.  If they show an interest, we'll try to take them in.  Why spend your effort on so many who are likely non-elect? 

Now it sounds like I'm mocking, but I'm serious.  I think I'm describing a position that is implicitly held in the heart, though never expressed verbally, nor consciously acknowledged.  What else can happen if you think God really doesn't express love to all who hear the gospel offer, or that his gospel call to everyone who hears is not a bona fide offer?  You really cannot say to anyone that "God loves you and offers a wonderful plan for your life," if you wonder if it's true! You don't dare say to someone what you're actually thinking: "Christ's death may or may not be for you, but if you believe that it is for you, then you will be saved by it!"

This way of thinking is all wrong.

No matter how true predestination is -- and it is very true -- it is still the case that a bona fide offer of the gospel is made by God to all sinners who hear the gospel preached.  If God is going around having the gospel preached all over the place and making bona fide offers of salvation to all who hear, who could ever think that love for sinners, and recognition of their real need for the gospel, should somehow be stifled by the doctrine of predestination?  

To think so is contrary to every decent Reformed doctrinal statement ever written on the subject.  The Westminster Confession says, referring to Adam's breaking of the Law of God:

WCF 7:3  Man, by his fall, having made himself uncapable of life by that covenant [of creation], the Lord was pleased to make a second,(1) commonly called the Covenant of Grace, whereby He freely offereth unto sinners life and salvation by Jesus Christ, requiring of them faith in Him, that they may be saved;(2) and promising to give unto all those that are ordained unto eternal life His Holy Spirit, to make them willing, and able to believe.(3)

(1) Gal. 3:21; Rom. 8:3; Rom. 3:20,21; Gen. 3:15; Isa. 42:6.
(2) Mark 16:15,16; John 3:16; Rom. 10:6,9; Gal. 3:11.
(3) Ezek. 36:26,27; John 6:44,45.

You will notice that the offer of salvation is made by God (through his preachers).  The genuineness of the offer cannot be denied by saying that it's the preachers' offer, and they don't know who the elect are, and therefore they have to preach to everyone.  That's not the Confession's point, and that's not God's point!

No matter how predestination and gospel preaching may seem to conflict in our rationality, we have to accept the Scripture presentation of both sides of this issue.

Both are simply true.

How Scripture Regulates Worship

It seems to me that a good deal of our inherited practice of the Regulative Principle of Worship (RPW) is based on patternistic observations in the New Testament.  There are a lot of patterns that can be discerned in connection with worship practices, and a good deal of difference of opinion, and sometimes schism, can originate over varying conceptions of the relative importance of different aspects of the patterns seen.

I would suggest is that it's better to look at the theological reasons for any patterns.  The theology behind a pattern is the cause of the visible practice.  If we would stop looking at the "outside" of liturgical behavior observed in the Scriptures, and start looking at the "inside" -- the reasons for things being done the way they are -- we would tend to make more valid progress.

Example:  Musical Instruments

In the Temple they used musical instruments.  In the Apocalyse they are seen using musical instruments.  In the earthly teaching of Christ and his apostles, and in the historical records of Acts and the Epistles, no instruments are seen.  There were no (known) instruments in the synagogue.  Does this mean there should be no instruments used in the worship of the church on earth?

The patternistic response to outward forms is to say that there should be no instruments.  The response that makes sense, however, is to say that God has ordained the existence of musical instruments, and they are permitted in worship.  It is our job as mature sons to use them wisely.

The same logic can be used for church choirs, for creating "new songs" (instead of singing only psalms), and for using a patterned worship with lots of sung and verbal interactions, etc.

Sometimes, in the RPW discussion, it is asserted that the Temple worship was precisely specified to the smallest detail, and so we should take the same approach to the New Testament worship.  However, a real study of actual material (such as from Edersheim, The Temple - Its Ministry and Services), will show that the Mosaic institutes prescribed certain portions of the Temple liturgy in precise detail, but that a very considerable part of it had to be instituted by well-instructed elders and priests.  There's just not enough Mosaic instruction to prescribe every aspect of the liturgy of the Tabernacle or the Temple in real life.

And, too, what did the Temple priests do when they made a mistake?  It's easily verified that there is little in the inspired Scripture to cover all kinds of liturgical mistakes in detail.  Recovering the integrity of broken ceremonies was necessary, and also had to be instituted by authority (see the Mishnah for samples).

Concerning liturgical rigidity, the Lord himself was prone to allow such things as celebrating the Passover in the wrong month, or letting unclean people eat the Passover, or letting the show-bread be eaten by non-priests -- for good reasons at the time.  I'm sure there are other instances of this.  Therefore, the idea that we deal with a God who is absolutely so rigid in his liturgical requirements as to strike people down for merely formal or patternistic discrepancies is just not in accord with his character.  There is almost always a discernable moral component of sin in such cases.  It is true that there are a very few instances of the Lord appearing to be rigid -- but he is mostly not.  A close inspection of the lapses and irregularies in Tabernacle and Temple worship throughout the Old Testament shows considerable misbehavior that little is said about by the Lord.  He's infinitely more concerned about their idolatry than he is their formal worship.

This is no excuse to cavalierly disobey him in the liturgy of that worship that he specifies for us in the Scripture, but let us honor him for who he really is, and obey him for the right reasons.  Especially in the New Covenant, we are freed from the servility that was intentionally inculcated by the Law in this respect.  We should have the maturity to make mature use of the Scripture in discerning what worship must be.

The Regulative Principle of Worship (Edited)

The writing has been revised to speak more accurately and clearly.

It's in accord with so-called "Reformed" fundamental theological principles to emphasize continuity in the purposes and accomplishments of our redeeming God from Eden to the New Jerusalem, but not such that we are blind to the transcendent glory of the New Covenant.  We study to rightly teach the real center of the Scriptural doctrine of covenantal continuity and covenantal distinction.

On this basis it is clearly the case that our professed "Regulative Principle of Worship" (RPW) needs re-thinking.  This is because our tradition of the RPW unduly discounts the worship principles of the Old Testament when formulating the worship principles of the New.  That is, there is too much covenantal discontinuity.

In Reformation time, the thought in Lutheranism was to very conservatively reform the inherited catholicism, especially after the fruits of radicalism were seen.  The thought in "reformed" areas, on the other hand, was to almost entirely "reboot" the church on Scriptural principles, which, in liturgical detail, mainly meant New Testament principles of worship.

The downside of the "reformed" approach is that there isn't a lot of data in the New Testament which can thoroughly and cogently define what the whole, integrated New Testament order of worship should look like, in the very practical sense.  We just have pieces of it.  The implementation of the RPW on this ground tends to be accomplished by looking for things that are essential elements (such as Paul's recitation of the history of the institution of the Lord's Supper in 1 Cor 11), and making use of hints and remarks in the Scripture text about various ongoing practices in the churches.  However, these may often not be explained in enough detail to enable us to understand how to formulate a whole worship service.  Clearly, the church had a form of worship, but it is hard to tell what it was in detail from the New Testament only.

We can say for sure, however, that Jewish worship informed church worship.  And, Jewish worship which was imitated by the church wasn't limited to the synagogue, as some try to teach.  The New Testament is full of "temple language" when referring to the church, and it is therefore clear that the New Testament "synagogues of God" partook of both the practice of the synagogue and the practice of the Temple.

It has to be the case, then, that the reformation of New Testament worship must take into account the moral law inherited in the worship principles which are found in both Testaments!  The church's worship is connected with the sacrifice our Lord made as high priest in the Temple of Heaven, to which we ascend each Lord's day!

The original conception of the RPW was, I suppose, a good experiment.  But, a thorough inspection of that early history shows that in the most idealistic sense, the experiment was a failure (see Horton Davies, Worship of the English Puritans, for a sympathetic but revealing disclosure of this).  Surely, some of the reasons for this failure were due to the reaction against incorporating historic principles of worship (from the Temple) into the worship of the New Covenant.

Nowadays, most talk about the RPW among Reformed folks (or the "Church of Christ," which also has a stake in this) has hardened into a tradition -- a tradition which differs a good deal from church to church, in those churches which profess to abide by it.  Therefore, it has been, and is, an excuse for personal and corporate schism, and is so even today with some of my own friends.

This RPW tradition has historically served to drive out much art and beauty, often instruments and choirs, sometimes hymns, almost always cyclic feasts centered on the life of Christ, and much verbal congregational participation in the worship of God.  Until the liturgical revolution of the 20th century (which didn't happen in "evangelical" churches), the RPW tradition often served to make the protestant church into primarily a lecture hall.  Much of the breezy mod worship seen today, and perhaps much of pentecostalism, too, could be a reaction against this error, but they have not found the way to go.

What we need to discern in Scripture is the true RPW -- not just an aesthetic jump to ancient forms.  We need a thinking reformation of worship, which incorporates beauty and corporate response as a reflection of God and his Glory -- based on the whole Scripture.

-------------------------------------------------------------

It is said that the last Mass in Zurich was very well attended.

After that, the activity at church meetings seems not to have been described by ordinary citizens as "worship."  It was described as "listening to sermons."  They certainly needed the sermons for their basic instruction, because Scripture teaching had been absent from the church so long.  We need the sermons, too.  But we ought to get back to a holistic conception of worship!

It's been 50 years since this goy was last invited to worship in the (conservative) synagogue (kippa and all).  And, of course, the "modern" synagogue is certainly not the ancient synagogue, but it used a prayer book, appeared to be extremely ritualistic to that low-church protestant, a good deal of everything was sung, and almost all the words were, I think, in Hebrew.

The Commercial Theory of the Atonement and "Limited Atonement"

The so-called Commercial Theory of the Atonement is based on calculation:  Christ died for the elect, which are a number of discrete persons, each with a list of sins.  If God had decided to add another person to the count of the elect, then Christ would have had to die "more," since there would have been more persons (or sins) to die for.  The idea behind this is that the moral deficit caused by sinners can be counted, and that the atoning death of Christ distinctly makes up for that deficit, count for count, or head for head.

This is not right.

God himself, in his word, has no trouble making the application of the sacrifice of Christ elastic enough to cover his expressed purposes in every scriptural context, whether it is the redemption of his people (the elect; 1 Cor 15:3), or the redemption of the whole world (2 Cor 5:18).  

It's clear from this that Christ's death is of such infinite value that describing its value in terms of counting up men's sins is absurd.  The infinite value of the death could redeem one -- or all.

It's also clear that the death is advertised with a good will from God to all who hear the gospel, as if it were offered directly and honestly to them (2 Cor 5:20).  Christ wept over the Jerusalem that rejected him (Luke 19:41).  Therefore, his death is plainly portrayed in the preaching of the gospel as offered to, and applicable to, all who hear the gospel.

Christ's death is also described in scripture as made for the benefit of his people, every one of whom he forcefully and irrevocably delivers from death and the devil, and from all the wrath of God, in order to bring all of them perfect into his fellowship (John 17, entire chapter).

Application:

When people speak of "limited atonement," we need to keep all this in mind.  The best explanation of "limited atonement," is that the atonement, among all its purposes, is definitely and primarily directed to the salvation of the elect.  The atonement is otherwise unlimited in its intrinsic value, supporting a well-meant offer from God toward anyone who hears the gospel.  This is actually the doctrine of the Reformed Confessions, and is Charles Hodge's version of orthodox "4.5" point Calvinism in the Princetonian sense.

See Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology, vol. 2, p. 544-562; that is, Part III, Chapter VIII, "For Whom Did Christ Die?", for a discussion of all this from almost every imaginable angle, including amazing pronouncements, such as, "every non-elect person who believes will be saved," and "every elect (and mentally adult) person who does not believe will be lost."

Calvinism and Freedom

It ought to strike anti-"Calvinists" hard, that historically the greatest proponents of republican freedom (and responsible free enterprise and commerce) are precisely the ones who have entertained the greatest emphasis on the Sovereignty of God, understood from a Scriptural standpoint.  This doctrine is the most powerful engine of freedom that the world has ever seen (or ever will see).

Those who complain about the alleged "islamic" tendency of this doctrine, and its opposition to "freedom," need to take heed and compare the ideals and fruits of the Christian and the Islamic cultures, and recognize that ideals of freedom and progress have been brought to pass (imperfectly) only under Augustinian and Calvinistic principles.

It's obvious on this ground that the doctrines of the Sovereignty of God in Calvinism and in Islam, having such differing effects, are entirely at odds with one another.

The Central Tenet of Calvinism

Both pro- and anti-Calvinists nowadays seem to agree that the Sovereignty of God is perhaps the central thread of what it means to be a "Calvinist."

I'm not sure that Calvin would say it that way.

As were all Augustinian and Paulinist followers of the doctrine of Christ, Calvin was a definite believer in the sovereignty of God in predestination to glory or damnation.  But it is my strong opinion, based on reading the Institutes, that Calvin would much prefer to give preeminence to the Goodness of God.

This helps deflect the claims of Remonstrants, "Arminians" and others that Calvinism is "Islamic."  ("Islam" refers to "submission.")  The accusation of an "Islamic" tendency is tied up with that quality of religion resulting from a God-view primarily calling for submission (regardless of my doom), to that quality of religion resulting from a God-view primarily calling for gratitude for his Goodness.

Westminster and Free Will

The Westminster Standards teach "Free Will."

What is meant is that Adam sinned by the exercise of his Free Will.  Likewise, men act in accordance with their nature, in exercising their wills freely, whether they are good or evil.  Evil men cannot rise to will the good, because they don't want to.  Those made good by grace can freely will the good, because they want to, but only in part, as they are empowered by the Holy Spirit.  In the resurrection we will be truly and entirely free to will only the good.

Thus, there are two senses of freedom when "Free Will" is spoken of.  The first sense is the ability of the uncoerced will to act in accordance with its own nature, whether good or evil.  The second sense, seeing that true freedom is only freedom to do the good, is that true freedom was only had by Adam before he sinned, and is only had by us in part, when empowered by the Spirit, and will be had by us perfectly in the resurrection.

True freedom (to freely do the good) and false freedom (to freely fall short) both take place within the sovereign ordinance of God.  So, every instance of true freedom acting to do the good is an act freely done which is ordained by God.  Do not miss this.  The acts, which to a free man are truly free, are from God's perspective ordained.  True freedom and divine sovereignty are simultaneous.

WCF 5:2 "Although, in relation to the foreknowledge and decree of God, the first cause, all things come to pass immutably, and infallibly; yet, by the same providence, He ordereth them to fall out according to the nature of second causes, either necessarily, freely, or contingently."

God immutably decrees the events which come to pass truly freely. The language of the Confession agrees that man is free to act in accordance with his nature, and that our good works are freely done, by the power of the Spirit.  Men are free, but God is most free.  Note the use of the term "most free" when reading the Confession.

From above, God governs through his providence, determining all things that come to pass.  From below, we are truly free to act in accordance with our nature.  And, if freed by Christ, we are truly free to do the good.

The Confession is not teaching determinism.  It is not teaching that there is no free will.  On the contrary, it is teaching that there is free will.  But, there is also divine sovereignty. The point here is that divine sovereignty and human freedom both are true.  The sovereignty of God is a mystery, because by his sovereignty he makes us truly free, in our own sphere, while remaining sovereign over all the actions of truly free men.

This mystery cannot be resolved.  Though it is an irresolvable mystery, it is also truth in which we can rest.  Any human attempt to resolve this mystery will lead to a distortion.  It will lead to a determinism which denies Scriptural freedom and responsibility in the Christian life, or to a determinism that denies God's free and well-meant offer of the gospel.

The mystery is manifest in Christ's own deportment.  Christ mourns over his rejection by Jerusalem, but then later sovereignly prays for "his own," and not for the world.

In the myriad sides of his own behavior, he shows himself the sovereign comforter in whom we can rest.

He infallibly calls many who hate him into his fellowship -- but not all.   Yet, he receives all those who desire him, and weeps over those who reject him.