CHRISTIAN AND REFORMED TODAY, by John Bolt, published by Paideia Press, Jordan Station, Ontario, Canada, 1984, 158 pp., paper.

This is an important and exciting little book. In it Dr. John Bolt, who has taught as a professor of religion and theology at Calvin College and now does so at Redeemer College in Hamilton, Ontario, attempts to answer the question, “What does it mean to be Christian and Reformed today?” It is the substance of a series of popular lectures previously presented before some churches and school organizations. He cautions us that “this volume is not be be seen as a complete book of dogmatics but rather as an attempt to penetrate to the heart of the Reformed vision” (p. 12). The need for such an effort as this, especially in our day of growing confusion is evident. The Scriptures enjoin us to “always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have” (1 Peter 3:15). Many within our churches are ill-equipped to give such an account of their faith, and this booklet is an interesting and laudable attempt to help them to do so.

A Basic Question

The writer must first face the question of what it means to be “Reformed.” His chapter headed by the question shows that its answer is by no means self-evident even to people who are members of one or another kind of “Reformed church”—much less to the general public. “Drawing fro m the three great Reformed thinkers who I know best, John Calvin, Abraham Kuyper and Herman Bavinck, as well as from the Reformed Confessions,” he suggests “as a definition of ‘Reformed’: A Reformed person is trinitarian in theology and catholic in vision” (p. 20).

A Deficient Answer

A most significant characteristic of this proposed “definition” is that it makes no mention of the Bible! The point is the more striking when one considers that this section of the discussion is dealing with “the question of what determines and who finally decides what is ‘Reformed’.” Why is the Bible not included in this fundamental definition of Reformed? The answer seems to be suggested in a following observation that “the Scripture principle is acknowledged even by such sectarian groups as Jehovah’s Witnesses (one of the most orthodox statements on biblical inerrancy that I have on file came from the Watchtower Society!). The formal principle, sola and tota scripture . . . is thus of vital importance but it is not enough–one needs to spell out the material content of that affirmation” (p. 21). But the fact that some people outrageously pervert the teachings of the Bible and that in defining the Reformed faith we have to say more than that it is Biblical certainly are not adequate reasons for failing to state, at the outset, as a fundamental principle that our faith aims to be nothing more and nothing less than the teachings of God’s Word. That was the principle that directed and drove the Reformers in their divergence from the traditions and abuses that were destroying the faith and life of the Christian church in their time. B. B. Warfield, in his essay on “John Calvin the Theologian” (from which Dr. Bolt quotes extensively later in his book (pp. 76, 77], in Calvin and Augustine pp. 487ff.) found the distinguishing character of Calvin to be that “he was distinctly a Biblical theologian, or . . . by way of eminence the Biblical theologian of his age. Whither the Bible took him, thither he went: where scriptural declarations failed him, there he stopped short. It is this which imparts to Calvin’s theological teaching the quality which is its prime characteristic and its real offense in the eyes of his critics—I mean its positiveness. There is no mistaking the note of confidence in his teaching, and it is perhaps not surprising that this note of confidence irritates his critics. They resent the air of finality he gives to his declarations, not staying to consider that he gives them this air of finality because he presents them, not as his teachings, but as the teachings of the Holy Spirit in His inspired Word.” “And it was just because he refused to go one step beyond what is written that he felt so sure of his steps.” In the light of this fact—evident to anyone who is familiar with Calvin’s Institutes or Commentaries—it would seem necessary that if we are to properly define this kind of faith and life we must begin, with Calvin, by grounding it in what God Himself says.*

It becomes increasingly evident that current demoralization of our churches-as of many others—is directly traceable to the failure to make this our starting point. We may talk, as this book ably does, of basic doctrines which Calvin and the other Reformers taught, but if we fail to emphasize, as Calvin and the others did, from where they had derived them and why they must adamantly hold to them, we thereby, perhaps inadvertently, help to cut the ground from under them. If our churches are to experience a renewed commitment to the Reformed faith and life, we will have to explicitly ground the testimony to that faith exactly where the Reformers found and grounded it, not in the wavering opinions and changing fancies of men, but in what God plainly said and says. That may arouse resentment and criticism few things exasperate people more than that in our time when “Everybody has a right to his own opinion” rules in the churches, as in the world, but God’s Word does not permit us to back away from its authoritative claim. It supplies the only sure ground. That seems to be vanishing from the sight of our confused and demoralized churches. We will have to call attention to that if we are going to give them any real help in their predicament.

This point is worth belaboring. For a half century I have increasingly observed that among us, where the Reformed teachings are still taught they are rarely grounded, as Calvin and the other Reformers grounded them , step by step, in the plain teachings of the Bible. “We don’t have to go to that trouble; we had professors who did that for us in seminary!” One veteran minister retorted when the need for doing this was suggested. A new Calvin College professor almost two decades ago, when asked about his impressions of teaching there, observed that in his Presbyterian background he was used to hearing everything referred to the Bible, while at Calvin points under discussion were treated by appealing to philosophical principles. The accuracy of his observation has often been confirmed. It is not merely current advocates of change who take this approach: many of those trying to preserve the “Reformed heritage,” in the past as well as today, have really contributed to the present confusion by failing to ground what they believed and taught in the Bible as their Reformed ancestors did. We have fallen into an unhealthy traditionalism, which has provoked the present anti-traditional reaction. We have gotten so far away from the real Reformed faith that one who insists that we must ground our faith not only in tradition and creed, but in the Bible, may be suspected as almost heretical (called a “Biblicist” or “Fundamentalist”). The fact that this book dedicated to a revival of the Reformed faith, does not treat its Biblical basis as fundamental is a telling exhibit of our common “Christian Reformed” weakness. That fundamental failure must be exposed and corrected if we are to have real reformation and revival. A well-developed presentation of the principal doctrines of the faith, no matter how well done, will not carry authority or much conviction if it is grounded on only one among a variety of traditions. No matter how carefully a building is built, it is not likely to be more stable than flimsy foundations.

We Must Start Here

When Luder G. Whitlock, President of the Reformed Theological Seminary at Jackson, Mississippi, addressed himself in the seminary’s bulletin to the question, “What does it mean to be ‘Reformed’?” he began, “The Reformation insisted on the final authority of Scripture rather than tradition or reason. Therefore, we view the Bible as God’s inerrant Word and as the norm for all that we believe or do. To be Reformed means a commitment to study the Scriptures regularly with a willingness to change our thoughts or actions as necessary to conform to the Bible. Simply put, to be Reformed is to be biblical.” One suspects that that forthright commitment to God’s Word may have something to do with the phenomenal rise of that institution in the last two decades in which our denomination has especially revealed its growing demoralization.

A Worthwhile Book

Following that expression of commitment to the Bible , Mr. Whitlock’s statement goes on to observe that “flowing from this is our conviction that all of life must be lived in obedience to the Lord as He reveals His will and character in the Bible. Here is a comprehensive, inclusive view of the Christian life.” Dr. Bolt’s book (after its deficient beginning) proceeds in a similar vein to deal in successive chapters with, “God the Father, Creation and Culture,” “God the Son, Redemption and Discipleship,” and “God the Holy Spirit, Sanctification and Holiness.” The treatment of this material is in many ways admirable. His observations about the importance of Creation and the Old Testament in our Christian perspective are well developed, a discussion of Calvinism and Capitalism is to the point, and one on Common Grace and Worldliness is equally appropriate. In this section a point might have been made of the fact that when we begin with the confession, “I believe in God the Father, Almighty Maker of heaven and earth,” it seems glaringly inappropriate that a number of our Christian professors range themselves on the side of the evolutionists in opposition to those who would stress creation—and that at a time when secular scientists are beginning to expose the falseness of evolutionary theory.

The discussion of the doctrine of the Son gets similar development, noting particularly the Christian’s commitment both to a variety of responsibilities in creation and to his missionary duties. The chapter on the Holy Spirit notes John Calvin’s extensive treatment of that subject and stresses the Christian’s call to holy living. This brings up the subject of the churches’ change from former condemnations of worldliness to the current reaction. Although the writer expresses some appreciation of the old warnings against worldliness, there was, I believe, in those decisions a certain ambiguity about the way to apply them to which his forthright condemnations of their “legalism” does not do justice. His treatment of the Pentecostal movement is well done.

The subsequent chapter on Reformed Christian Education is a somewhat independent lecture. After noting the stress the Reformed Churches have placed on education the discussion deals with the grounding of such education in God’s covenant . Dr. Bolt tends to endorse N. Beversluis’ grounding of that education in “the covenant of works.” This strikes one as a doubtful business, especially in the light of that “covenant of works” scanty ground in the Bible and its inappropriateness in the Christian life . In this connection he brings up the Bible’s teaching about God’s Kingdom. He sharply criticizes Beversluis’ and Wolterstorfrs proposal to make the “transformation” of culture the aim of Christian education, because of its secular sociological character and its neglect of the antithesis God has established between those who serve Him and those who do not. Dr. Bolt cites the talk of “redeeming the dance” as an example of the resulting confusion. He points out that viewing the kingdom of God as a “transformation” of culture makes that kingdom “an entity which man builds on earth”—a notion “completely foreign to the Scriptures” which never “speak of the kingdom of God as a human achievement” (p. 108).