|
| Christian news worldwide |
 Home |
 Archives |
 Subscriptions |
 Adverts |
 Find a church |
 About us |
 Contact us |
 Site Map |
 PrintableVersion Rigide Calvinisme in a softer dresseThe Moderate Presbyterianism of John Howe, 1630-1705History buffs’ delightRIGIDE CALVINISME IN A SOFTER DRESSE This volume appears in the series of Rutherford Studies in Historical Theo-logy, and is an adapted version of David Field’s doctoral studies. It is not, therefore, a book for the average church member, but for the serious student who desires to give time to the study of the life and beliefs of John Howe, and the period of time in which he lived (1630 to 1705). There is some obvious application to issues that beset the modern church, but such applications are not the main reasons for writing a doctoral thesis. Howe is rightly presented to the reader as a godly Christian man of great moderation, striving constantly for increased nonconformist unity. One could wish that modern nonconformists were less satisfied with the fractured state of their witness. It would be fair to say that Howe testifies against division — then and now. Sadly, the moderation of John Howe embraced matters of belief. This means that the orthodox Presbyterianism of the Westminster Confession is called ‘High Calvinism’. Theologians like John Owen and Robert Traill, who like many others wrote against what they saw as a downgrade, must also wear the label ‘High Calvinist’, according to Dr. Field. These distinctives of Howe’s moderation are mainly Amyraldianism, usually seen as a way of avoiding belief in particular redemption, Neonomianism, which can be seen as making saving faith into a ‘new law’, plus opposition to Antinomianism and reluctant dissent in the Restoration period. The reader will see why this type of moderation was short-lived! Examining and explaining these opinions would make this review inordinately long… The main protagonists for these views were Howe and Baxter. It is surely incorrect to try to associate the illustrious name of Matthew Henry with these opinions. Very few modern believers hold to these distinctives. Meanwhile the theology of the Westminster Confession persists as strong and useful as ever. This book will be of considerable interest to the student of church history, particularly after the restoration of King Charles II in 1662. The theological deviations from orthodox Presbyterianism may interest others. The information about Howe himself is well presented. The reviewer would hope that the book occupies a place in every college and university library. Don Stephens,
|
|
