What are the basics of Reformed Theology

Ask Mr. Religion

☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) &#9
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Sometimes being a moron is not entertaining.:mmph:
Heh.

Odd that "no creed but the Bible" becomes a shibboleth for those that fail to recognize the corpus of what they write and say, agreeing with this or that, denouncing this or that, effectively becomes their own creed. If they were consistent such persons would never say or write anything but direct quotes from Scripture, never taking the time to explicate what they just quoted and assuming all agree with the same.

The thing about all the Reformed creeds is that they plainly state their subordination to Scripture as Scripture is the only of faith and life. I will readily admit there are some who elevate a creed or confession above its ultimate standard, Scripture. These folks are and have been called out for their error.

Would that we all would summarize what we believe as we study and worship during our walk of faith. The Scripture teaches us to confess that which we believe. How many of us right now could reach for a one or two page summary of Scripture detailing "I believe these things from my study of Holy Writ"? Sadly, only a few. Pointing to the Bible on the coffee table or shelf and exclaiming "I believe this!" or "Just Me and My Bible" may be well-intentioned, yet it is often wrapped up in self-righteousness soon exposed once the person begins to wax eloquent.

Confessing what we believe is not merely a command for oral expression, but also written, the books and parchments, as Paul asked for from Timothy. Indeed, the creeds and confessions define a community of saints seeking like-mindedness and unity, for a church without a creed (written or unwritten) is a church that stands for nothing and falls for everything.

AMR
 

Nick M

Black Rifles Matter
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
John 12

32 And I, if I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all peoples to Myself.”


1 Timothy 2

3 For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, 4 who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.


First Timothy crushes the RCC in the next sentence, but that is another subject. One where cruciform cannot debate and leave links.
 

Ask Mr. Religion

☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) &#9
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Another Reformed distinctive is the teachings of Scripture as relates to Adam's federal headship of all his progeny such that when he sinned all mankind was plunged into sin and corruption. All are born sinners, not born morally neutral, becoming sinners when they sin.

And the Lord smelled a sweet savour; and the Lord said in
his heart, I will not again curse the ground any more for man’s
sake; for the imagination of man’s heart is evil from his youth;
neither will I again smite any more every thing living, as I have
done
(Genesis 8:21).

Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother
conceive me
(Psalm 51:5).

The wicked are estranged from the womb: they go astray as
soon as they be born, speaking lies
(Psalm 58:3).

This is commonly referred to as the doctrine of original sin.

Original sin consists in both (and in order):

1) the guilt of Adam's first sin
2) the want of original righteousness

To those demerits are added all our actual transgressions, so that our full guilt is replete.

From Scripture we find the following abilities possessed by all mankind:

Pre-fall -- able to not sin -- able to sin
Post-fall-- able to sin -- not able to not sin
Regenerate-- able to sin -- able to not sin
Glorified-- not able to sin -- able to not sin

The church has long spoken of these things:
Spoiler

418 AD - Council of Carthage (Early Christian Church)

This council's position on original sin was, even "new-born children... have in them... original sin inherited from Adam".

529 AD - Council of Orange (Early Christian Church)

"... it is the whole man, that is, both body and soul, that was 'changed for the worse' through the offense of Adam's sin..."

"...also that sin, which is the death of the soul, passed through one man to the whole human race..."

1530 - Augsburg Confession (Lutheran Church)

"...since the fall of Adam all men begotten in the natural way are born with sin, ...and that this disease, or vice of origin, is truly sin, even now condemning and bringing eternal death upon those not born again..."

1537 - The Smalcald Articles (Lutheran Church)

"... sin originated [and entered the world] from one man Adam, by whose disobedience all men were made sinners, [and] subject to death and the devil. This is called original or capital sin."

"This hereditary sin is so deep and [horrible] a corruption of nature that no reason can understand it, but it must be [learned and] believed from the revelation of Scriptures..."

1618 - The Canons of Dordt (Reformed Church)

"Man brought forth children of the same nature as himself after the fall. That is to say, being corrupt he brought forth corrupt children. The corruption spread, by God's just judgment, from Adam to all his descendants – except for Christ alone – not by way of imitation (as in former times the Pelagians would have it) but by way of the propagation of his perverted nature."

"Therefore, all people are conceived in sin and are born children of wrath, unfit for any saving good, inclined to evil, dead in their sins, and slaves to sin;..."

"... original sin in itself is enough to condemn the whole human race..."

"... unregenerate man is... totally dead in his sins... [and is] deprived of all capacity for spiritual good..."

1618 - Belgic Confession (Reformed Church)

"... by the disobedience of Adam original sin has been spread through the whole human race."

"It is a corruption of all nature-- an inherited depravity which even infects small infants in their mother's womb, and the root which produces in man every sort of sin. It is therefore so vile and enormous in God's sight that it is enough to condemn the human race,..."

1644 - First London Baptist Confession of Faith (Baptist Church)

"... first Eve, then Adam being seduced did wittingly and willingly fall into disobedience and transgression of the Commandment of their great Creator, for the which death came upon all, and reigned over all, so that all since the Fall are conceived in sin, and brought forth in iniquity, and so by nature children of wrath, and servants of sin, subjects of death,..."

1646 - The Westminster Confession of Faith (Presbyterian Church)

"Our first parents, being seduced by the subtilty and temptations of Satan, sinned, in eating the forbidden fruit."

"By this sin they fell from their original righteousness and communion, with God, and so became dead in sin, and wholly defiled in all the parts and faculties of soul and body."

"They being the root of all mankind, the guilt of this sin was imputed; and the same death in sin, and corrupted nature, conveyed to all their posterity descending from them by ordinary generation."

"Every sin, both original and actual,... bring guilt upon the sinner, whereby he is bound over to the wrath of God, and curse of the law, and so made subject to death..."

1689 - Second London Baptist Confession of Faith (Baptist Church)

"Our first parents, by this sin, fell from their original righteousness and communion with God, and we in them whereby death came upon all: all becoming dead in sin, and wholly defiled in all the faculties and parts of soul and body."

"... and corrupted nature conveyed, to all their posterity descending from them by ordinary generation, being now conceived in sin, and by nature children of wrath, the servants of sin, the subjects of death,..."

In short, the doctrine of original sin means that we are all born sinners and sin because we are sinners. The non-Reformed generally will argue, no, we are sinners because we sin, claiming that no one is born in a state of moral corruption.

This sort of non-Reformed reasoning goes along the lines of reason that, for Adam's guilt to be imputed to his posterity, Adam's progeny would have to actually have committed the act they are being judged for. Of course, with this sort of reasoning, those that disagree with original sin must correspondingly argue if they are consistent, that in order to be counted righteous in Christ (Romans 5) we would have to actually possess the righteousness for which we are reckoned by God.

This idea is very Roman Catholic (and appeals to human philosophy) but does not square with Scripture, which clearly teaches that our righteousness is an alien righteousness, that of Another.

God has revealed that men are guilty in Adam but, correspondingly, they are found righteous in Christ. This is not merely some legal fiction but comes about by union with the party reckoned to. In other words, either we are in the first Adam or in the Second Adam.

Our state, in Adam or in Christ, is one of imputation by God, that is, “to reckon,” “to charge to one’s account”. In dogmatics mediate imputation is via media between Calvinism and Arminianism. It is the view that Adam's guilt is imputed mediately upon the fact that the individual himself sins. The Reformed view is immediate imputation, which means that Adam's guilt is imputed without the mediation of the individual himself sinning. To be "found guilty" is imputation by God of a quality or value. It doesn't matter (in one sense) whether a man is guilty, or thinks himself guilty or not-guilty (refuses the verdict), or accepts the verdict on some other basis. He is guilty because he's been "found guilty" by competent authority (God in this case).

The Scripture teaches us, to begin with, how the situation is, not how it might otherwise be. We are "guilty," born at war with God, because Adam rebelled against God, and God condemned the whole human race to death, right there, right then. Of course, there is mercy present even at that moment, because Adam isn't executed. Adam is given room to repent, and he is allowed to have children (eventually even you and I), so as to give the elect opportunity to live, and to be saved from the condemnation. If God terminates Adam in the garden, then all of us "potential persons" in Adam are also eliminated then and there. We are condemned in solidarity with Adam. And, before someone asks, the matter of the death of infants is discussed here.

And, we are redeemed in solidarity with Christ. We aren't redeemed or justified because we finally start looking good enough for God to accept us. Sanctification doesn't lead to justification. Justification leads to sanctification. Justification is never related to our inherent sanctity, in a like-parallel to our condemnation not on the basis of inherent guilt (primarily) but legal identification. What Adam gives us, in consequence, is a corrupt nature, from which then proceed all our actual sins. Every part of man is affected: intellect (2 Cor. 4:4); conscience (1 Tim. 4:2); will (Rom. 1:28); heart (Eph. 4:18); and the total being (Rom. 1:18-3:20).

Unfortunately, there is a tendency for some to only accept the most obvious evidence for things. Their insistence is equivalent to believing that, unless a police investigator finds a piece of paper next to a victim with a signed and notarized letter from the perpetrator admitting to the crime, that no evidence exists. Yet Our Lord's entire ministry is a testimony to the hardness of the human heart. Put more bluntly, sin is not learned—it is an inbred disposition.

Our Lord spoke of original sin:
"If ye, then, being evil, know how to give good gifts to your children...."

Christ takes it as granted that the people to whom he is speaking are evil. Their evil is just a basic fact that can be assumed, and surrounding which there is no expectation of controversy. He doesn't have to teach original sin in any sort of lengthy way; it was taught in the Old Testament and could be presupposed in Christ's own teaching.

AMR
 
Last edited:

themuzicman

Well-known member
Unfortunately, Calvinists have abandoned the 6th tenant of the reformation: Semper Reformanda. They've gone the way of the RCC in clinging to their councils and traditions over the exegesis of Scripture.
 

Truster

New member
Reformists take the truths out of scripture and commandeer them as belonging to their particular denomination. The truths then become ''statements of faith'' and being born above becomes a doctrine rather than an experience.
 

Ask Mr. Religion

☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) &#9
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Hodge's three-volume Systematic Theology (+1 volume index) is a very good starter set for someone wanting to deepen their knowledge of theology. They are all available for download here:
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/hodge or in book form for under $20 here.

AMR
 

Grosnick Marowbe

New member
Hall of Fame
The fundamental premise of Reformed theology:

God does not love and never intended to save just anyone, even though the Bible says otherwise.

Nothing beyond that point matters.

True. The reformed mindset is extremely confused. They are following a false doctrine and a false gospel. They MUST change the character and intent of the God of the Bible in order to make Him fit their "belief system." I feel I must mention one character flaw that most Calvinists share and that is, "Arrogance."
 

TulipBee

BANNED
Banned
A very good resource on the basics of the Reformed faith can be downloaded for eReaders here:

https://www.monergism.com/basics-reformed-faith

[Note: if you get a link error, just refresh the page as this is a common issue at monergism.com]

AMR
If anyone wants to learn what the Bible really means, they can do a Google search but add an additional script in the search bar. Example, if you really want to know the closest possible truths about born again, you would do a search like this:

born again site:monergism.com

You'll narrow down to the real truths and move on. Don't read the lies at other unfaithful sites.
 
Last edited:

TulipBee

BANNED
Banned
What you probably don't want to hear is reformed theology is just a form of idolatry in which creeds and statements of faith become the idol by which they measure themselves and others. If you subscribe to the creeds or statement then you're in and if not you're out.
Reading your post is idolatry. You would want to rearrange your line in the sand and step way, way, way, way, way, way, way, way, wayx999 back silly boy
 

themuzicman

Well-known member
The issues with Calvinism have to do with its underlying exegesis. Frequently, verses are "interpreted" out of context, in order to fit the Calvinist systematic theology.

https://www.monergism.com/our-faith

Due to the effects of the fall (of Adam) on the mind and will, man's spiritual condition by nature is such that he is dead in trespasses and sins, enslaved to sin, wholly incapable and unwilling to come to God (1 Cor 2:14, Rom 8:7, John 3:19), and under the wrath of God. (Eph.2:1-3; Titus 3:3; 2 Tim.2:26). As such, man is utterly incapable of saving himself, or even to cooperate with God in his salvation.

Sounds good, right?

Let's look at a couple of these verses in context:

2 And I, when I came to you, brothers, did not come proclaiming to you the testimony of God with lofty speech or wisdom. 2 For I decided to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ and him crucified.

1 Corinthians 2 begins by speaking of the gospel, and specifically Paul's method of preaching it to the Corinthians. "Wisdom" is the key term, here, as Paul has just stated that the wisdom of the world is foolishness to God. As such, the gospel was preached without wisdom, but rather in plain speech and in the power of Christ.

Come to verse 6:

6 Yet among the mature we do impart wisdom, although it is not a wisdom of this age or of the rulers of this age, who are doomed to pass away. 7 But we impart a secret and hidden wisdom of God, which God decreed before the ages for our glory. 8 None of the rulers of this age understood this, for if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.

We have a transition to Paul speaking about wisdom "among the mature." Again, not of the rulers, but of God. And Paul goes on the describe this wisdom, which has been clearly contrasted to the preaching of the gospel. Which brings us to the proof text in question:

14 The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned. 15 The spiritual person judges all things, but is himself to be judged by no one.

The Calvinist claims that the "natural person" is the unregenerate, and the "things of the Spirit of God" is the gospel (see quote above). However, the context does not support such a reading. Paul has transitioned to speaking about this wisdom spoken "among the mature." This may or may not refer to the unregenerate, but is clearly not about the gospel.

The "spiritual person", OTOH, judged all things. So, if we are taking the unregenerate/regenerate dichotomy, here, then all Christians should be "spiritual" and be able to grasp these things.

But:

3:1 But I, brothers, could not address you as spiritual people, but as people of the flesh, as infants in Christ. 2 I fed you with milk, not solid food, for you were not ready for it. And even now you are not yet ready, 3 for you are still of the flesh.

When Paul first came, they could not be addressed as spiritual, even though they were "infants in Christ." Being in Christ, would that not indicate that they are already saved? But even this argument is unnecessary, as Paul states that they are "not yet ready." These same Corinthians who are repeatedly called brothers, who are being rebuked as Christians, are not yet ready to receive the "things of the Spirit of God" Paul spoke of in 2:6-16.

So, either we must conclude that the Corinthians were unsaved, and that Paul was in error for rebuking them for failing the body of Christ, or that 1 Corinthians 2:14 isn't speaking about the gospel. It is painfully obvious that the latter is the case, which means we have to conclude that the use of this verse by the article above is improper, because it is not properly exegeted.

Likewise with Romans 8:7. The Calvinist wants to claim that "faith would please God", and those in the flesh are incapable of doing so, however, we have to look at context, again.

Paul begins the chapter:

8 There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus.[a] 2 For the law of the Spirit of life has set you free in Christ Jesus from the law of sin and death. 3 For God has done what the law, weakened by the flesh, could not do. By sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin, he condemned sin in the flesh, 4 in order that the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not according to the flesh but according to the Spirit.


So, the context here is actually those who are no longer under condemnation. Paul then goes on to describe living in the flesh and in the spirit, and then follows up with:

12 So then, brothers,[e] we are debtors, not to the flesh, to live according to the flesh. 13 For if you live according to the flesh you will die, but if by the Spirit you put to death the deeds of the body, you will live. 14 For all who are led by the Spirit of God are sons[f] of God. 15 For you did not receive the spirit of slavery to fall back into fear, but you have received the Spirit of adoption as sons, by whom we cry, “Abba! Father!” 16 The Spirit himself bears witness with our spirit that we are children of God, 17 and if children, then heirs—heirs of God and fellow heirs with Christ, provided we suffer with him in order that we may also be glorified with him.

Paul's purpose isn't to speak of who may or may not come to believe, but rather to exhort the Romans to live in the Spirit, because if they (saved Romans) live in the flesh, they will die. So, they must put to death the deeds of the body.

Thus, the use of this verse to speak about whether one is able to believe is also invalid, because of exegesis.

There are similar issues with Eph 2, Titus 3, and 2 Tim 2.

And therefore the conclusion this paragraph reaches is not supported by the Scripture it cites, and thus is an invalid conclusion.

This happens fairly consistently throughout Calvinism, and is the reason it should be rejected.
 

Ask Mr. Religion

☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) &#9
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
When Paul first came, they could not be addressed as spiritual, even though they were "infants in Christ." Being in Christ, would that not indicate that they are already saved? But even this argument is unnecessary, as Paul states that they are "not yet ready." These same Corinthians who are repeatedly called brothers, who are being rebuked as Christians, are not yet ready to receive the "things of the Spirit of God" Paul spoke of in 2:6-16.

So, either we must conclude that the Corinthians were unsaved, and that Paul was in error for rebuking them for failing the body of Christ, or that 1 Corinthians 2:14 isn't speaking about the gospel. It is painfully obvious that the latter is the case, which means we have to conclude that the use of this verse by the article above is improper, because it is not properly exegeted.
Er, no. One needs to unpack Paul's particular word choices carefully.

Paul’s “wisdom for the mature” (see 1 Cor 2:6) calls upon a metaphor commonly employed in the ancient world to refer to elementary versus advanced teaching, an image that depicted progression in knowledge. In the New Testament the metaphor carries this apparent sense in Heb 5:12-14 (see also 1 Pet 2:2 and forward). Now if the same holds for 1 Cor 3:2, then milk represents Paul’s initial missionary preaching centered on the cross and solid food portrays more advanced teaching, God’s wisdom that unveils the meaning of the cross. But this meaning is difficult to maintain contextually in 1 Corinthians.

In other words, the view that Paul’s initial instruction in the gospel (milk) proclaimed the cross and that the Corinthian’s behavior prevented him from moving to more extensive, advanced instruction misses Paul’s intention. Clearly, the Corinthians failed to make progress, but it was not a failure of knowledge but a failure to comprehend and take upon themselves (receive it) the wisdom of the cross. The evidence for this was their strife and jealousy.

It helps to note that some NT translations give no distinction to two different Greek terms as “worldly” (1 Cor 3:1,3), adopting the position that there is not a significant discernible difference in meaning between the two. Other translations do distinguish the terms, such as the NASB, rendering sarkinos in 1 Cor. 3:1 as “men of flesh” and sarkikos in 1 Cor 3:3 as “fleshly,” which follows the common suggestion that sarkinos carries the idea of “made of flesh,” that is, human, and sarkikos means something a wee bit different, such as “characterized by flesh.”

This can be seen from a few comparisons (emphasis added):

1 Corinthians 3:1-3 (NKJV)
1 Corinthians 3:1 And I, brethren, could not speak to you as to spiritual people but as to carnal, as to babes in Christ.
1 Corinthians 3:2 I fed you with milk and not with solid food; for until now you were not able to receive it, and even now you are still not able;
1 Corinthians 3:3 for you are still carnal. For where there are envy, strife, and divisions among you, are you not carnal and behaving like mere men?

1 Corinthians 3:1-3 (NASB)
1 Corinthians 3:1 And I, brethren, could not speak to you as to spiritual men, but as to men of flesh, as to infants in Christ.
1 Corinthians 3:2 I gave you milk to drink, not solid food; for you were not yet able to receive it. Indeed, even now you are not yet able,
1 Corinthians 3:3 for you are still fleshly. For since there is jealousy and strife among you, are you not fleshly, and are you not walking like mere men?

1 Corinthians 3:1-3 (ESV)
1 Corinthians 3:1 But I, brothers, could not address you as spiritual people, but as people of the flesh, as infants in Christ.
1 Corinthians 3:2 I fed you with milk, not solid food, for you were not ready for it. And even now you are not yet ready,
1 Corinthians 3:3 for you are still of the flesh. For while there is jealousy and strife among you, are you not of the flesh and behaving only in a human way?

1 Corinthians 3:1-3 (HCSB)
1 Corinthians 3:1 Brothers, I was not able to speak to you as spiritual people but as people of the flesh, as babies in Christ.
1 Corinthians 3:2 I gave you milk to drink, not solid food, because you were not yet ready for it. In fact, you are still not ready,
1 Corinthians 3:3 because you are still fleshly. For since there is envy and strife among you, are you not fleshly and living like unbelievers?

1 Corinthians 3:1-3 (ASV)
1 Corinthians 3:1 And I, brethren, could not speak unto you as unto spiritual, but as unto carnal, as unto babes in Christ.
1 Corinthians 3:2 I fed you with milk, not with meat; for ye were not yet able to bear it: nay, not even now are ye able;
1 Corinthians 3:3 for ye are yet carnal: for whereas there is among you jealousy and strife, are ye not carnal, and do ye not walk after the manner of men?

1 Corinthians 3:1-3 (NLT)
1 Corinthians 3:1 Dear brothers and sisters, when I was with you I couldn’t talk to you as I would to spiritual people. I had to talk as though you belonged to this world or as though you were infants in the Christian life.
1 Corinthians 3:2 I had to feed you with milk, not with solid food, because you weren’t ready for anything stronger. And you still aren’t ready,
1 Corinthians 3:3 for you are still controlled by your sinful nature. You are jealous of one another and quarrel with each other. Doesn’t that prove you are controlled by your sinful nature? Aren’t you living like people of the world?

Surprisingly, the NLT actually captures the points I have made above a bit more clearly than the other translations. Then again, the NLT is more of a commentary than an actual translation, but makes the preceding translations more clearly understood as to Paul's inspired intentions behind his word choices. (Using the NLT 2007 or 2015 versions is not a bad thing for someone seeking an inexpensive commentary on the whole Bible in one volume. Yes, it fails miserably at times, but it is quite handy for some of the more difficult traditional translations of particular passages. Using the NLT this way, you can often get the sense of these more tricky passages and then return to your chosen translation for more digging from the hints in the NLT renderings.)

Returning to the passage in question, we can now see that the term “infant” used by Paul carries a negative connotation in many contexts but not always. There is nothing blameworthy in being an “infant in Christ” at the beginning stages of Christian experience, yet when Paul claims in 1 Cor 3:2 that the Corinthians are still not ready for solid food, Paul's use of the term “infantbecomes pejorative in the context of the passage. Note that the “infant” and “adult” metaphor occurs two more times in the letter, at 1 Cor 13:11 and 1 Cor 14:20. Accordingly, the use of "infants in Christ" is Paul's use of a pejorative to highlight the synthetic substitutes which the Corinthians have preferred. It is not that Paul does not or cannot give them wisdom in the form of solid food; it is that they do not recognize what he gives them to be wisdom. Paul wants them to abandon their present behavior so that they can appreciate the milk for what it really is, “solid food.”

AMR
 
Top