Of Christian Liberty and Liberty of Conscience: An Exposition of the LBCF XXI

Posted by deangonzales on March 14, 2010
1 Comment

Modern Christians seem to avoid the doctrine of Christian liberty. The subject is rarely discussed in any systematic theologies. Even practical books on Christian living often gloss over the topic. For some, the doctrine of Christian liberty is just not that important in relationship to other doctrines of the faith. For others, the doctrine of Christian liberty is too controversial. Consequently, many modern Christians fail to give this doctrine the attention it deserves. In contrast, the Reformers and the Puritans saw the doctrine of Christian liberty as central to the Christian faith. Martin Luther wrote an entire book on this subject.¹ John Calvin devoted an entire chapter in the Institutes to “Christian Freedom,” and he argues that any summary of gospel teaching must include this topic.² John Owen referred to Christian liberty as “the second principle of the Reformation.”³ And the Westminster divines and Baptist Puritans agreed by according the doctrine of Christian liberty an entire chapter in our Confession of Faith.⁴

I believe the Reformers and Puritans had Scriptural warrant for their emphasis upon Christian liberty. Following the claims of Jesus Himself (John 8:32-36), the apostle Paul assured believers that Christ had saved them for freedom (Rom. 6:18, 22; 2 Cor. 3:17; Gal. 5:1, 13). In light of this, it is vital that the modern church regain a proper understanding of and appreciation for the doctrine of Christian liberty. We must not allow potential controversy or abuse to keep us from enjoying the blessings Christian liberty was designed to attain.

I.     The Nature of Christian Liberty (para. 1)

The liberty which Christ hath purchased for believers under the gospel, consists in their freedom from the guilt of sin, the condemning wrath of God, the rigour and curse of the law, and in their being delivered from this present evil world, bondage to Satan, and dominion of sin, from the evil of afflictions, the fear and sting of death, the victory of the grave, and everlasting damnation: as also in their free access to God, and their yielding obedience unto Him, not out of slavish fear, but a child-like love and willing mind.
All which were common also to believers under the law for the substance of them; but under the New Testament the liberty of Christians is further enlarged, in their freedom from the yoke of a ceremonial law, to which the Jewish church was subjected, and in greater boldness of access to the throne of grace, and in fuller communications of the free Spirit of God, than believers under the law did ordinarily partake of.

The first paragraph consists of two parts. The first part describes Christian liberty under the gospel. The second part alludes to Christian liberty prior to the gospel under the law, and then compares the two. For our purposes, we’ll consider the teaching of this entire paragraph under three headings:

A. The basis of Christian liberty: Christ’s saving transaction

The paragraph begins by identifying Christ’s redemptive work on behalf of believers as the basis of Christian liberty (John 8:36; Gal. 3:13). This implies two complementary truths. First, all men outside of Christ are in bondage and do not enjoy true freedom. Second, only those who believe in Christ, whom Christ purchased with His own blood, can truly enjoy the benefits of Christian liberty. What are those benefits?

B. The essence of Christian liberty: Freedom from … freedom for …

The essence of Christian liberty may be viewed from two perspectives:

1.  Negatively, Christian liberty is …

Firstly, freedom from the guilt of sin, both subjective and objective guilt: “freedom from the guilt of sin, the condemning wrath of God, the rigour and curse of the law” (John 3:36; Rom. 5:1; Gal. 3:13). Secondly, Christian liberty is freedom from the power of sin: “delivered from this present evil world, bondage to Satan, and dominion of sin” (Gal. 1:4; Eph. 2:1-3; Col. 1:13; Rom. 6:14-22).  Thirdly, Christian liberty is freedom from the punishment of sin: “from the evil of afflictions,⁵ the fear and sting of death, the victory of the grave, and everlasting damnation” (Psa. 119:71; Rom. 8:18-28; 1 Cor. 15:54-57; Heb. 2:14-15).

2.  Positively, Christian liberty is …

Freedom for Godward communion and for heartfelt obedience: “as also in their free access to God, and their yielding obedience unto him, not out of slavish fear, but a child-like love and willing mind” (Eph. 2:18; 3:12; Rom. 8:15; 1 John 4:18).

In summary, Christian liberty consists in our freedom from the bondage of sin and our freedom to know and please God which Christ has purchased for all who believe in Him. But that raises an important question: Did Old Testament believers experience this freedom?

C. The development of Christian liberty: From law to gospel

It’s common for modern Christians to downplay any fundamental continuity between the Old Testament and New Testament saint. Consequently, some view Christian liberty as the experience of only the New Testament believer.⁶ The Puritans, however, did not view the Old and New Testaments in terms of two distinct religions with different religious experiences. Rather, they saw an organic unity with development and progression. As a result, they saw the benefits of Christian liberty as “common also to believers under the law for the substance of them.” That is, the blessings of Christian liberty belonged to the Old Testament saint in essence. On the other hand, the Puritans also recognized that such blessings have been “enlarged” for the New Testament believer. Thus, Christian liberty as experience by the Old Testament saint and the New Testament saint differs not so much in kind but in degree.

In his exposition of the confession, Sam Waldron identifies Jesus’ words in John 8:32 as the key text for this understanding of Christian liberty.⁷ In that text, Jesus asserts that it is the truth of the gospel that sets men free.  The Old Testament saint did know and embrace gospel truth (Gal. 3:8, 16). Therefore, the Old Testament saint experienced a freedom commensurate with the truth revealed to him. Conversely, the New Testament saint has received more gospel light than the Old Testament saint. Therefore, he no longer has to depend upon the shadows of Old Testament ceremonial laws. Now he can see the light of the glory of God directly shining from the face of Jesus Christ (2 Cor. 3:7-4:6). Furthermore, the New Testament saint’s experience of Christian liberty is potentially, in the language of the Confession, “greater” and “fuller.”⁸

II.   The Boundaries of Christian Liberty (para. 2)

God alone is Lord of the conscience, and hath left it free from the doctrines and commandments of men which are in any thing contrary to his word, or not contained in it. So that to believe such doctrines, or obey such commands out of conscience, is to betray true liberty of conscience; and the requiring of an implicit faith, an absolute and blind obedience, is to destroy liberty of conscience and reason also.

Paragraph two addresses what modern Christians often have in view when discussing the topic of Christian liberty, namely, liberty of conscience. However, liberty of conscience is actually just one facet of Christian liberty. In particular, liberty of conscience addresses the boundaries of Christian liberty.⁹

A. Positively, God’s Word is the sole authority of a liberated conscience.

The second paragraph begins with an obvious yet profound assertion: “God alone is Lord of the conscience.” And according to the Confession’s opening chapter, God administers His lordship over the conscience through the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments. Thus, liberty of conscience is a corollary of sola Scriptura. It was this great truth that emboldened Luther to stand firm at the Diet of Worms.¹⁰

B. Negatively, human standards are not the authority of a liberated conscience.

If God’s word is the ultimate authority for a liberated conscience, then the believer is “free from the doctrines and commandments of men which are in anything contrary to his Word, or not contained in it.” This does not mean the believer is free from all appropriate forms of human authority (see paragraph 4 of Westminster Confession of Faith below). Nevertheless, it does mean that the believer is free from human authority when it usurps the place of divine authority (Matt. 15:9; Acts 4:19; 5:29; 1 Cor. 7:23). Two implications follow. First, we may believe human doctrines and obey human standards only insofar as they are consistent with God’s word (Gal. 1:10; 2:3-5; Col. 2:20, 22-23). Second, we should not require others to render implicit faith or blind obedience. That is, we should not demand another man believe and obey our teaching as biblical and divinely authoritative without seeking to demonstrate that such doctrines and commands are based on God’s word (Isa. 8:20; Acts 17:11; 2 Cor. 1:24; 1 John 4:1-6).

III.  The Abuses of Christian Liberty (para. 3 [and WCF 4])

Historically, the doctrine of Christian liberty has been a bulwark against the authoritarian abuses of both church and state. Yet, history also demonstrates that one extreme may also give rise to another. Not surprisingly, some Anabaptist sects and radical revolutionaries used the doctrine of Christian liberty as a pretense for licentious and lawless conduct.¹¹ As a result, the Puritans felt constrained to address these abuses of Christian freedom.

A. A licentious disregard for genuine biblical morality (para. 3)

They who upon pretense of Christian liberty do practice any sin, or cherish any sinful lust, as they do thereby pervert the main design of the grace of the gospel to their own destruction, so they wholly destroy the end of Christian liberty, which is, that being delivered out of the hands of all our enemies, we might serve the Lord without fear, in holiness and righteousness before Him, all the days of our lives.

The main design and goal of Christian liberty is not freedom to do as I (autonomously) please (cf. 1Pet. 2:16; Gal. 5:18).  This is nothing more than license to sin, and, as G. I. Williamson points out, “License is that vain and deceiving thing which Satan has offered as a substitute. It is the suggestion that sinful man be unrestricted in setting his own moral standards and doing his own will.”¹² The design and goal of Christian liberty is, rather, freedom to do what pleases God. The liberated Christian has become the “servant of righteousness” (Rom. 6:18, 22).

B. A lawless disregard for God-ordained human authority (para. 4)

[And because the power which God hath ordained, and the liberty which Christ hath purchased are not intended by God to destroy but mutually to uphold and preserve one another; they who, upon the pretense of Christian liberty, shall oppose any lawful power, or the lawful exercise of it, whether it be civil or ecclesiastical, resist the ordinance of God.  And for their publishing of such opinions, or maintaining of such practices, as are contrary to the light of nature, or to the known principles of Christianity, whether concerning faith, worship, or conversation; or to the power of godliness; or such erroneous opinions or practices, as, either in their own nature, or in the manner of publishing or maintaining them, are destructive to the external peace and order which Christ hath established in the Church; they may lawfully be called to account, and proceeded against by the censures of the Church, and by the power of the Civil Magistrate.]

As the brackets indicate, this last paragraph is found in the Westminster Confession but was omitted in the Savoy and the 1689. The reason for this omission was probably due to the teaching of the second half of the paragraph, which, in its original historical context, implied the establishment of one state church and allowed for the intervention of the state in punishing heresy. In other words, this paragraph was seen as an open door to the intrusion of the state in matters that are purely ecclesiastical. The American Presbyterians partly acknowledged this problem with the paragraph by omitting the last phrase with its proof-texts.

Properly interpreted, this paragraph is primarily concerned with the due recognition of God-ordained authorities, especially ecclesiastical and civil. Christian liberty does not free me from my responsibility to parental, ecclesiastical, or civil authorities. To the contrary, the believer must as a matter of conscience acknowledge God-ordained human authority (Rom. 13:5; Eph. 6:1; Heb. 13:17; 1 Pet. 2:13-16). That’s the real burden of this paragraph, and that burden still needs to be sounded today. Even the second half and last phrase might be interpreted in such a way that does not imply the abuses feared by the Congregationalists and Baptists.¹³ Yet, because of potential abuse, I believe the best solution would have been to drop the second half of the paragraph and retain the first.

Bob Gonzales, Dean
Reformed Baptist Seminary

1. Luther entitled the book Christian Freedom and dedicated it to Pope Leo X. In Philip Schaff’s estimation, the book “breathes the spirit of a genuine disciple of St. Paul” and “takes rank with the best books of Luther.” History of the Christian Church (1910; reprint, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987), 7:224. [↩]
2. See Book III, Chapter 19 of The Institutes of the Christian Religion, ed. John T. McNeill (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1960), 1:833-49. Calvin opens this chapter by referring to the doctrine of Christian liberty as “a thing of prime necessity” and “an appendage of justification.” (p. 833). [↩]
3. See Volume XV of The Works of John Owen (1850-53; reprint, Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 1965), pp. 402-04. [↩]
4. Dr. James Renihan is the Professor of Historical Theology at the Institute of Reformed Baptist Studies and a modern authority on the 1689 Confession. He treats the chapter 21—“Of Christian liberty”—as the major heading under which chapters 22 through 30 are subsumed. [↩]
5. When the Confession asserts that the believer has been freed from “evil afflictions,” it means punitive afflictions.  Believers may and do suffer remedial and pedagogical afflictions (Psa. 119:67, 71). [↩]
6. I am thinking primarily of the unbiblical dichotomy between the age of law and the age of grace advocated by some more classical dispensationalists. [↩]
7. See A Modern Exposition of the 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith, 2nd ed. (Durham: Evangelical Press, 1995), p. 258. [↩]
8. Of course, the New Testament believer’s actual experience of Christian liberty is not only conditioned upon the degree of gospel truth revealed but also upon his response to that truth. Thus, we must beware of the assumption that New Testament believers are automatically more spiritual than Old Testament believers (though on a corporate level this assumption is correct). Waldron’s caution is appropriate: “Beware of excessive depreciation of the privileges of Old Testament saints. They knew the truth and it set them free. As to their actual experience and holiness, some of them may have exceeded many New Testament saints! The fact that ‘ordinarily’ and corporately New Testament Christians have larger endowments of knowledge and the Spirit does not mean that they universally exceed the Old Testament saints in practical godliness or experience” (p. 260). [↩]
9. Sam Waldron is certainly correct to see liberty of conscience as resting upon the foundation of Christian liberty since man’s conscience cannot be free until he has been loosed from the shackles of sin (pp. 260-61). It seems to me, however, that the paragraph is not addressing the believer’s conscience per se but rather the rule which may properly bind the believer’s conscience. [↩]
10. Luther’s famous words were, “Unless I am refuted and convicted by testimonies of the Scriptures or by clear arguments (since I believe neither the Pope nor the councils alone; it being evident that they have often erred and contradicted themselves), I am conquered by the Holy Scriptures quoted by me, and my conscience is bound by the word of God: I cannot and will not recant any thing, since it is unsafe and dangerous to do anything against the conscience. Here I stand. God help me! Amen.” (cited in Schaff, 7:304-05). [↩]
11. The Anabaptists of Munster and the Fifth Monarchy Men of England provide historical examples. [↩]
12. The Westminster Confession of Faith for Study Classes (Philadelphia: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1964), p. 148. [↩]
13. For example, the teaching of this fourth paragraph including the last phrase is defended by Robert Shaw (An Exposition of the Westminster Confession of Faith [1845; reprint, Ross-shire, U.K.: Christian Focus Publications, 1992], pp. 209-12) and by G. I. Williamson (pp. 154-57). [↩]

Missionary Profile: Preaching Christ Among Unreached Tribes in Southeast Asia

Posted by deangonzales on March 11, 2010
Be the First to Comment

I am Trevor Johnson, a sinner saved by grace and for the service of the Lamb. I am a missionary  sent by my home church of Bible Baptist Church of Maplewood Saint Louis (www.oldgospel.org), through the help of World Team Mission (www.worldteam.org). I was saved at age 18 after doubting even the existence of God. I believed myself to be a product of the primordial ooze, and I acted consistently with this belief for a time.

My wife, Teresa, a patient and durable woman, has blessed me in marriage now for 10 years and we have two children, Noah (5) and Alethea (2), who own the nicknames of “The Peanut” and “The Turkey” respectively. We want more children. At least 15 more.

I served 5 years as an active duty army officer and am also a pilot. I loved the army, was honored to serve, volunteered an extra year after 9/11, but I am also glad that I am out and that I am now free to serve a greater Commander. After military service, I finished a Masters through Reformed Theological Seminary, but don’t worry, I am still a Baptist (if Sinclair Ferguson can’t put together a convincing argument for the pedobaptist position, then nobody can). Teresa and I gained linguistic training through SIL and then we embarked for language school in Indonesia. Despite linguistic training, we still made many language gaffes, such as calling the “village head” the “village coconut.” Being a missionary means learning how to be humble.

Teresa and I are both registered nurses, but Teresa is my superior in this field and I bow to her medical decisions. She beats on a skillet every day at 4pm in the village to summon the sick and treat them from our front porch. Many people complain of evil spirits, but we tell them there is no medicine for that except for prayer. Malaria, fevers, malnutrition, infected wounds and even worms are common-place.

I sweat and labor among a remote tribal group tucked away into a dark interior corner of SE Asia. This tribal group inhabits fetid jungle, largely swamp, and exists in constant fear due to animistic superstitions, still offering pig fat to appease local spirits. Still being wholly ignorant of the germ theory of disease, these tribal peoples believe that diseases are caused by witchcraft, a belief leading to the murder of the accused witch. Most importantly, these unreached clans still do not know their Creator God or His Son Jesus Christ.

My area of ministry is 22 hours hike upriver from the nearest bush airstrip, so we have opened up a water strip nearer to us, wading the river and heaving logs from the bottom to clear a straight section of water so that a floatplane can safely land. The tribal clans lack nourishment, so we have experimented with fruits and vegetables. Tomatoes and watermelon all failed, but we are able to grow abundant corn and roast our own peanuts, in addition to long beans and kangkung (swamp grass). The people are wholly illiterate, so we are sending in teachers to assemble and teach the tribal children. In classrooms lacking a single nail, fashioned together totally by vines, this tribal group is struggling forward in its first steps towards reading the Word of God for themselves. I am struck that in Matthew 9, Jesus went teaching and healing the people in all the villages. I cannot separate my preaching from humanitarian works. Our Gospel results in aggressive social action and mercy ministries. I see no dichotomy between good words and good works and I have never been able to “just preach the Gospel” in this context. I believe all of us should be zealously seeking to bless this lost and dying world, by whatever means possible.

I try not to be a Lone Ranger in ministry. In the book of Acts, the Apostle Paul was not a loner either. He travelled with co-workers and ministered in the context of an apostolic team. I am taking highland tribal Christians, from regions where the Gospel has, in fact, penetrated, and I am equipping, mentoring, and melding these highland evangelists into an indigenous evangelistic church-planting team in order to reach the lowland unreached tribals with the Gospel. Through this evangelistic task force, we want to occupy and saturate these lowland swamp areas with a Gospel witness. Together we form a church-planting team of about 20 evangelists and teachers. Instead of pastoring an individual church, I split my time between evangelizing this unreached tribe, and in circulating and teaching this network of highland Christian evangelists. As I bless these evangelists and teach then, they bless and teach these unreached clans. That way the work becomes gradually less dependent upon me. If the Lord should take my life or my health, by this strategy the Gospel can continue to march forward without me.

If I ever became a pastor, I would be failing in my job. I invest myself in indigenous leaders who can minister and pastor on their own. Yes, I do directly evangelize my tribe, but I primarily pour my life into these national Christians so that the Gospel may become multiplicational and replicational, so that the truth may reproduce and spread long after I am gone.  II Timothy 2:2 is my missions motto; “And the things that thou hast heard of me among many witnesses, the same commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also.” The discipleship model of Jesus towards His disciples is my methodological ideal, and I strive not merely to share academic lessons, but also my meals, my travels, my very life, with these indigenous evangelists so that I may strengthen them and become a “force-multiplier” for the Gospel in a dark land.

Finally, I am convinced that missionaries are not merely to focus on peoples “over there.” If God has called me as a missionary, I must also bless my partnering churches here in the West by stirring them up to greater missionary zeal and in making missions practicable and real to people, clearing the road so that others, too, may come and share in the joys and the trials that I have experienced. I am mindful that in the history of missions, God has raised up missionaries by the means of other missionaries. As fallible and average as I am, the Lord has used me. He has granted me ministry fruit. And if the Lord can use me, then I am proof that He can use many of you. We are ordinary people who serve an extraordinary God, who delights to use weak vessels to spread His glory to the uttermost ends of the earth. I am living proof of the mercy of God, and the Lord has been pleased to use me. He will be pleased to use you as well.

My final plea to you regarding missions is this:

If you can go, do not be content merely to support. If you can support missions, do not be content merely to pray for missions. If you can pray, do not be content merely to sit idly by and watch. Be as involved as you can be. Seek to place yourself the closest to the frontlines as possible. The Lord may eventually afflict me and break my health, and yet “Though he slay me, yet will I trust him.” While I am young and healthy, I am determined to serve in the hardest place that I can find, out of joy and utter thanksgiving for Him who Has given me so much. I am mindful that we are as a mist and a vapor on the earth and that we must work while it is day, for the night comes when no man can work. We must redeem the time because the days are evil. We must use our short and limited lives while we have them.

Let me also say a word about the missionary call. If you want to serve in missions, don’t wait for the audible voice of God or a dramatic emotional experience. If your desire to go to the nations is seconded by Scripture and the larger Body of Christ, starting with your local church, then seek to go. Let’s de-mystify the missionary call. Let’s create a climate of sending. In Acts 13 we see the deliberate strivings of a church seeking to please God, and I would plead to pastors and leaders to lead from the front. We who believe in the sovereignty of God know that victory is assured. Our cause cannot fail. We could be sending out 10 times our present numbers!

Email me at: oct31st1517@hotmail.com. I desire to bless and serve you and be a resource for anyone wanting to go into missions. You can also keep up with our missionary efforts by following our entries on our family blog.

“Uncool People Need Jesus Too”: An Acts 29 Network Pastor Offers a Caution to His Colleagues and Provides an Example of a Healthy and Humble Self-Critical Posture

Posted by deangonzales on March 6, 2010
3 Comments

According to the Westminster Confession of Faith 25.5 (see also LBCF 26.3), “The purest Churches under heaven are subject both to mixture and error.” There are at least two ramifications that flow from this doctrinal assertion. First, no church or ecclesiastical organization should assume the posture of having arrived at complete doctrinal and spiritual maturity–including Reformed churches and organizations! Hence, when we take too much pride in being “ReformED,” we run the risk of losing sight of the Reformation principle of semper reformanda (”always reforming”) and of assuming the rather haughty posture that we’ve got a “corner on the truth.” As a result, we can tend to spend too much time criticizing others and develop an unhealthy resistance to receiving criticism (whether from outside or inside our circles). Second, since we’re not immune to errors and imbalances and weaknesses, we should be just as ready to learn from others outside our ecclesiastical circles as we are eager to help them see their faults. In other words, we shouldn’t assume that we’re the only ones who have something profitable to bring to the table, that everyone else needs to keep quiet and learn from us. Rather, while we may have some insights and wisdom to offer our evangelical brothers, we can expect they probably have some things to teach us as well.

With the preceding remarks in view, I’d like to commend to you two recent blog entries by one of our seminary students, Bill Streger, Pastor of Kaleo Church in Houston, which is part of the Acts 29 Network, an association of pastors and churches focused on reaching the unchurched and planting churches. In the first entry, entitled, “Uncool People Need Jesus Too” (see link below), Bill directs a caution to pastors within his own ecclesiastical circles. Basically, he warns them against allowing a good thing (i.e., a burden and effort to reach the younger “hip” generation) to develop into an imbalance (i.e., a failure to be burdened for and reach people who may not be young and “hip”). In the second entry, entitled, “What I Actually Meant” (see link below), Bill provides some qualifying remarks to clarify the intent of his original post. He assures his colleagues (some of whom took offense at his first post) that he was offering the admonition not as a broad-brush critique of the whole movement but as a general caution regarding a potential pitfall into which some may unwittingly fall.

Personally, I didn’t need Bill’s qualification. I understood that his remarks were simply a generalization and that he wasn’t impugning the motives of those whom he was warning. Moreover, I understood the cautions as coming from one who was overall appreciative of the good in his ecclesiastical circles but who simply wanted to encourage biblical balance and maturity. Nevertheless, as one who has sometimes offered self-criticisms of my own “movement,”¹ I know what it’s like to be misunderstood. Of course, this is not to say that I’m always above reproach in the way I communicate criticisms. Sometimes I fail to make necessary qualifications. This is why I appreciated Bill’s humble willingness to post a second entry in order to clarify his intentions and even concede that he could have said it better the first time. In the end, though, I think every church, denomination, or ecclesiastical “movement” ought to remain self-critical in the spirit of semper reformanda. If you read both of Bill’s posts, you’ll see that he highly esteems the Acts 29 Network, its leaders, and the brothers who are part of it. But he also recognizes the truth expressed in the Puritan confessions, namely, that no church or body of churches has “fully arrived.” Consequently, he’s willing to be self-critical in the interests of helping his church and his sister churches to become aware of pitfalls and to grow in “the knowledge of the Son of God, to mature manhood, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ” (Eph 4:13, ESV).

I believe that we, as Reformed Baptists, can profit from Bill’s caution against the tendency to be trendy and to mimic other ministries in ways that are unwarranted or imbalanced. Perhaps more importantly, we can profit from Bill’s willingness to be self-critical. There’s always a danger of becoming so enamored with our strengths that we become blind to our weaknesses. May the Lord help us!

“Uncool People Need Jesus Too” by Pastor Bill Streger

“What I Actually Meant” by Pastor Bill Streger

Your servant,
Bob Gonzales, Dean
Reformed Baptist Seminary

1. For example, see my “The Danger of Reformed Traditionalism, Part 1, and Part 2. [↩]