Rev. George Gillepsie: This Day in PresByterian History

“Rise, George, and Defend the Blood-bought Church of Christ”

Some thought that he was the one who framed that Shorter Catechism answer about God’s character. Other doubted that he was the author of it.  We may never know for sure, but it was stated that whoever framed the answer to the question, “What is God?” was the youngest minister present on the Assembly committee tasked with the question’s answer. And Rev. George Gillespie was the youngest minister present in that committee of the historic Westminster Assembly. Maybe only eternity will reveal for sure the real author of Shorter Catechism Number 4. Read more here.

You might be a Redneck if...and Proud of It!!

Any number of our cultured readers might be upset if someone called them a “redneck.” And for good reason as this name speaks of someone in a disparaging way. But when you consider the origin of the word, our readers, especially those from a Scotch-Irish background, might to proud of to have someone speak of them in that way. Read more...

A Pastor Ready In and Out of Season: J. C. Ryle’s Warning for His Times...and Ours

I suggest, for one thing, that we ought to exercise a special jealousy over our own personal religion [i.e., evangelical Protestantism].  Let us take heed that it is thoroughly and entire Evangelical.  The times we live in are desperately unfavorable to a sharply-cut, decided, distinct, doctrinal Christianity.  A fog of vague liberalism overspreads the ecclesiastical horizon.  A settle determination to think everybody is right, and nobody is wrong, everything is true, and nothing is false, meets us at every turn.  The world is possessed with a devil of false charity about religion.  Men try to persuade us, like Gallio, that the alleged differences between creeds and schools of thought are only about “words and names,” and that it is “all the same thing.”  In times like these, let us be on our guard, and take heed to our souls—“Watch ye: stand fast in the faith.  Quit you like men: be strong” (1 Corinthians 16:13).  Let us steadfastly resolve to stand fast in the old paths, the good way of our Protestant Reformers.  Narrow, old-fashion, obsolete, as some may be pleased to call that way, they will never show us a better!

J. C. Ryle, Knots Untied, Kindle, loc. 403—412.   

What Are The Contours of Calvinism?

Here’s a bit more from Boettner’s The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination (to view this fine work at Amazon, see linked title in the post below).

In the earlier sections of the book, Boettner labors to demonstrate the necessary foundation required for the weight of the subsequent arguments he develops in defense of the doctrine of Predestination. This foundation is first the superlative vision of God, indicative of Calvin’s systematic exposition of the biblical religion; and secondly, the foundation is the structure—Predestination is merely one part of a system of utter coherence, a “unity of truth," as Van Til would say, which the Westminster Standards maturely summarize.

The question that arises from the conversation is this: Does subscription to the “Five Points” of the Canons of Dort warrant the name “Calvinist” or “Reformed”? Or, to put it otherwise, How many other “points” of the traditional Reformed system and symbols may one dismiss before they must also dismiss the titles “Calvinist” or “Reformed” as badges of honor?

Boettner quotes Kuyper, urging that, “It is a mistake to discover the specific character of Calvinism in the doctrine of Predestination, or in the authority of Scripture. For Calvinism all these are logical consequences, not the point of departure—foliage bearing witness to the luxuriousness of its growth, but not the root from which it sprouted” (p. 6).

Boettner then adds, “In the minds of most people the doctrine of Predestination and Calvinism are practically synonymous terms. This, however should not be the case, and the too close identification of the two has doubtless done much to prejudice many people against the Calvinistic system. The same is true in regard to a too close identification of Calninism and the “Five Points”...While Predestination and the Five Points are all essential elements of Calvinism, they by no means constitute its whole” (p. 7).

If you don’t have Boettner’s book (then I’d recommend getting it!), Kim Riddlebarger has posted Dr. Richard Muller’s article, “How Many Points?”, originally published the Calvin Theological Journal. Boettner only scratches the surface of this question. Muller’s article addresses it head-on. What Boettner can only allude to because of the constraints of his immediate purpose, Muller argues explicitly. Here is an excerpt.

“Calvinism or, better. Reformed teaching, as defined by the great Reformed confessions does include the so-called five points. Just as it is improper, however, to identify Calvin as the sole progenitor of Reformed theology, so also is it incorrect to identify the five points or the document from which they have been drawn, the Canons of Dort, as a full confession of the Reformed faith, whole and entire unto itself. In other words, it would be a major error — both historically and doctrinally — if the five points of Calvinism were understood either as the sole or even as the absolutely primary basis for identifying someone as holding the Calvinistic or Reformed faith. In fact, the Canons of Dort contain five points only because the Arminian articles, the Remonstrance of 1610, to which they responded, had five points. The number five, far from being sacrosanct, is the result of a particular historical circumstance and was determined negatively by the number of articles in the Arminian objection to confessional Calvinism.”