On EPC media files, Don Fortson, Reformed Theological Seminary:
http://www.epc.org/mediafiles/unity-of-essentials--don-fortson-07-23-09.pdf
If there’s a phrase that I think characterizes the EPC on the Reformed spectrum of churches, it would be
“Moderate Calvinism.” We do find ourselves in the middle between more conservative Reformed
bodies and the wide‐open almost anything goes mainline Reformed churches. On one hand, we
represent a kinder, gentler Calvinism; on the other hand, we are biblical Calvinists that believe Scripture
gives us the last word, not culture and not even our heritage.
Maintaining that middle ground takes some effort. We’ve worked on it for 28 years. We worked
through the charismatic issue, the women’s issue, our relationship to the Westminster Confession,
differences over worship and ministry philosophy. We’ve all got strong feelings about these things but
on the whole the EPC Spirit has been to trust each other, speak well of fellow elders, and show charity in
attitude and action. We’ve not done it perfectly but we’ve tried awfully hard to live up to our motto: In
essentials, unity; in non‐essentials, liberty; in all things charity.”
This excerpt further represents the difficulty with the grounding of this denomination.
There is no such thing as "moderate Calvinism" any more than there is "moderate pregnancy."
Why would a denomination want to position itself away from "more conservative Reformed bodies"? What do they even mean by 'conservative'?
This is the code language that somehow adhering to the confession is too strict, the implication we ought have more liberty on its doctrines, not contend ("fight") about doctrine, but just "love" one another.
Scripture certainly tells us to love one another and it certainly tells us to contend for its truth, and to base our lives on these both.
Many problems here from a confessional reformed point of view:
1) The unity of the church must be grounded on doctrinal agreement (its confession)
2) The doctrines (Westminster Confession) are the system of doctrine we confess
This kind of language is typical of what we see in our generation- wanting to have it both ways- to be bound by Scripture, not too much. To believe in God's Sovereignty but to subjectively evaluate it.
The reference to "We worked through.... our relationship with the Confession," illustrates the point- it compares that to other major doctrine (e.g. charismata). How did they "work through"?
By avoiding taking a binding, confessional stand. Really they have avoided dealing with the substance and application, proclaiming that somehow to be more spiritual, more like Mr. Calvin.
(I would say this is a misunderstanding of Scripture... and of Mr. Calvin).
It is NOT reformed (confessional) to avoid taking a unified, accountable stand on:
1) "charismatic issues"
Whether special revelation ordinarily comes outside of Scripture through tongues and interpretation
2) "the women's issue"
Whether God created women in creation or ordained in His church for women to be ordained to ecclesiastical authority over men
3) "our relationship to the Westminster Confession"
Whether every statement or proposition contained is inter related, confessed doctrine that summarizes the doctrine of Scripture
4) "differences over worship"
Whether there is a "regulative principle of worship" at all
5) "ministry philosophy"
Whether one does not believe in infant baptism, a high view of the church, etc.
This is exactly why, a request for ordination in the PCA from someone coming out of this background would have to be very, very carefully evaluated.
I'm reminded of a quotation attributed to D.L. Moody,
Going to church doesn't make one a Christian any more than going into a garage makes one an automobile.
Saying one is "reformed" doesn't make one reformed.
Particularly, when in the next sentences, one places oneself AWAY from the reformed denominations.
My advice would be similar to Glenn's.
Consider your future- seek God and being willing to suffer for it. Start right.
