Given the recent news stories about some of the founders of the so-called Young, Restless, and Reformed movement it seems as if we may be at the tail end of the “Reformed Resurgence” or at least a period of transition. Still, through podcasts like the Reformed Pubcast, Theology Gals, New Geneva, and Biblical and Reformed Podcast (B.A.R.) Christians who had no idea that there was such a thing as Reformed theology, piety, and practice are discovering aspects of it and developing a hunger to learn more. These are valuable gateways to the Reformed confession. A while back I talked with Dawain from the B.A.R. podcast about the state of the Reformed Resurgence and how I became Reformed and other things.
Here is the episode.
The B.A.R. Podcast on Twitter.
Are we seeing a real “Reformed Resurgence”? Or are we seeing folks enamored with the response of the Synod of Dort to the 5 Articles of Remonstrance, but not interested in the Reformed Confessions? I.e., Reformed vs “Calvinist”. I am Presbyterian and I don’t see much interest in the study of Reformed Theology beyond the “TULIP” from these “resurgence” movements. Perhaps I am not being fair?
No, you’re not being too hard. I’ve been arguing that very case for more than decade on the Heidelblog and in Recovering the Reformed Confession.
There’s a library of posts on the HB on this, “Defining Reformed,” not to mention the article I published last year in the collection of essays in On Being Reformed. Follow the link to the resource page.
I am constantly amazed at those ( who claim to be reformed) who refer to John MacArthur as reformed when they know he is dispensational – especially in eschatology.
Hello Dr. Clark, I can’t find a Baxter post I can comment on so here it goes here. I don’t have time to read all of Baxter and I have heard he renounced his Neonomianism later in life. Is this true? Thank you and God bless.
1. Actual Baxter scholars seem to be entirely unaware of this development.
2. His contemporaries and opponents and his successors were unaware of any such development.
3. The claim rests on an inference drawn from a later work not addressing the question directly. Thus, the evidence for this claim is weak.