...so, when you say you're 'old school,' like--how 'old school' do you mean?
Because this is what I mean when I say 'old school':
https://www.ericalexander.co.uk/sermons/romans.php
😅
(Fantastic preaching in a thick Scottish brogue complete with horrible sound quality)
#Reformed #Christian #grownostr
I would argue the reformation was in some respects catorizable in the box of "modern Christianity" 👴
Hm, I suppose it depends what you mean by 'modern,' right? Ultimately it was a _return_ to the faith of Augustine, Anselm, etc. vs the innovations (and perversion) of the Roman sect. This _ad fontes_ approach also restarted the study of Scripture and so the church also grew and matured in her understanding of certain things -- e.g., most of the solas of the Reformation were present going way back, but justiifcation by grace through faith alone was more fully understood. But in no sense was it a 'revolution,' as some Romanists would have us believe.
What do you have in mind when you call it "modern" Christianity? --are you saying "modern" in opposition to "ancient"? If so, I think you'll find this podcast episode very surprising: [Defending the Reformation](https://whitehorseinn.org/resource-library/shows/defending-the-reformation/). Rome has done a great job propagandizing in the past few hundred years, but their narrative is deeply flawed. Give a listen and let me know what you think? (It's only 45 mins.)
...then again, if you're coming from a more EO perspective, I think you might equally be surprised by what's in the podcast I mentioned. The Reformers confessed the ancient creeds (Apostle's, Nicene, the definition of Chalcedon, etc.) so--just because we _kept growing_ doesn't mean we're not rooted in the same ancient teachings as the early Apostles held. We didn't grow away or apart from them, but -- as a sapling becomes a mighty oak tree -- we grew further 'up and out' from that sapling. As Scripture exhorts us, to 'move on from the elementary teachings,' and 'grow up into the full measure of that man, Christ Jesus.' Either way, would still be interested in your thoughts...
I'll have to check the podcast out, thanks for the rec.
Not EO, just a run of the mill URCer, but broader point was more in line with your second post - in other words, I think our in our individualistic and generally dispensational by default broader evangelical culture, at least within the US, I think we don't understand the rich heritage we share across millenia back to the early church. And even, in some sense at least, beyond that to our forefathers Abraham, who even then was saved by faith in Christ.
In short, Christianity didn't just start 5 minutes ago, and we didn't just perfect our faith in the last century. It's a pretty cool thing, really.
Fully on board with that, brother!
Amen.
side note, your point, made in particular regarding covenant theology, is well made by Andrew Woolsey in his _[Unity and Continuity in Covenantal Thought: a Study in the Reformed Tradition to the Westminster Assembly (Reformed Historical - Theological Studies)](https://a.co/d/j4tkCd9)_ .
This looks great 🙏
I found it particularly helpful in addressing some of the errors and misreadings (on both sides) of the Federal Vision controversy. Random - also helpful was J. Van Genderen's _[Covenant and Election](https://www.peterreynoldsbooks.com/si/_bf_017803.html)_, which was recommended by Nelson Kloosterman.
