Would someone please list and explain them.
What are the basics of Reformed Theology
- Thread starter Bright Raven
- Start date
Actually I was looking for truth and doctrine.
The Messiah is the Truth and He teaches His own, just as He promised or pre-evangelised.
Ask Mr. Religion
☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) 	
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
In forums like this one where theological discourse is taking place, precision of word usage is important, in fact vital, for proper discussion. We cannot communicate effectively if we are all using words with multiple meanings to everyone involved. Accordingly, yours is a very good question!
In proper theological discourse, the words "Calvinist" and "Reformed," should not be left naked and unqualified, as they mean something specific and we should take the time to understand their meaning as understood by those steeped in the domain under discussion.
Quite plainly, a Calvinist is someone who affirms the doctrines of grace commonly defined by the acrostic, TULIP.
These doctrines of grace ended up be summarized in an acrostic, TULIP, by a Pastor in the early 1900s as a nifty memory aid. Unfortunately, not a few think the mnemonic TULIP was something Calvin originated. He did not. The actual components underlying what was to be called TULIP actually were from a meeting some fifty-four years after the death of Calvin. A synod in Dort was held (1618) to address the position of the followers of the teachings of Arminius. Soon after the death of Arminius his followers organized a Remonstrance (a formal protest), presenting five points to the Church of Holland seeking to have its catechism and Belgic Confession revised. Those five points of Arminius' followers (the Remonstrants) were:
1. God elects or reproves on the foreseen faith or unbelief.
2. Christ died for all men although only believers are saved.
3. Man is so depraved that divine grace is necessary to bring man unto faith.
4. This grace may be resisted.
5. Whether or not all who are truly regenerate will certainly persevere requires further investigation.
At Dort these points of the Remonstrants were thoroughly answered:
https://www.wscal.edu/about-wsc/welcome-to-wsc/doctrinal-standards/canons-of-dort
The word Reformed means those that affirm—without taking major scruples—one of the historical confessions of the Reformation era (Second Helvetic Confession, the Belgic Confession, the Heidelberg Catechism or the Westminster Standards), all of which which necessarily includes the doctrines of grace as well as specifics related to church polity, principles of worship, baptism, and much more.
For the Westminster Standards (WCF, WLC, WSC), see:
http://www.creeds.net/Westminster/contents.htm
For an nice exposition of the Westminster Larger Confession, see:
http://www.reformed.org/documents/shaw/
So, given the above, it helps to remember that...
All Reformed are Calvinists.
Not all Calvinists are Reformed.
Most Reformed have no quibbles with anyone who wants to appropriate these labels for themselves in ordinary conversations. But when he or she enters the realm of theological discussion, they should expect to be questioned about how and why they are using these words when their discussion takes a turn outside the bounds of the historical meaning of these words to the theologically informed.
For a more detailed explanation about what it means to be "Reformed":
http://the-highway.com/how-many-points_Muller.html
And on the topic of the soteriological views of the Reformed, see Packer's famous introduction to John Owen's
The Death Of Death in the Death of Christ:
http://gospelpedlar.com/articles/Salvation/introessay.html
AMR
In proper theological discourse, the words "Calvinist" and "Reformed," should not be left naked and unqualified, as they mean something specific and we should take the time to understand their meaning as understood by those steeped in the domain under discussion.
Quite plainly, a Calvinist is someone who affirms the doctrines of grace commonly defined by the acrostic, TULIP.
These doctrines of grace ended up be summarized in an acrostic, TULIP, by a Pastor in the early 1900s as a nifty memory aid. Unfortunately, not a few think the mnemonic TULIP was something Calvin originated. He did not. The actual components underlying what was to be called TULIP actually were from a meeting some fifty-four years after the death of Calvin. A synod in Dort was held (1618) to address the position of the followers of the teachings of Arminius. Soon after the death of Arminius his followers organized a Remonstrance (a formal protest), presenting five points to the Church of Holland seeking to have its catechism and Belgic Confession revised. Those five points of Arminius' followers (the Remonstrants) were:
1. God elects or reproves on the foreseen faith or unbelief.
2. Christ died for all men although only believers are saved.
3. Man is so depraved that divine grace is necessary to bring man unto faith.
4. This grace may be resisted.
5. Whether or not all who are truly regenerate will certainly persevere requires further investigation.
At Dort these points of the Remonstrants were thoroughly answered:
https://www.wscal.edu/about-wsc/welcome-to-wsc/doctrinal-standards/canons-of-dort
The word Reformed means those that affirm—without taking major scruples—one of the historical confessions of the Reformation era (Second Helvetic Confession, the Belgic Confession, the Heidelberg Catechism or the Westminster Standards), all of which which necessarily includes the doctrines of grace as well as specifics related to church polity, principles of worship, baptism, and much more.
For the Westminster Standards (WCF, WLC, WSC), see:
http://www.creeds.net/Westminster/contents.htm
For an nice exposition of the Westminster Larger Confession, see:
http://www.reformed.org/documents/shaw/
So, given the above, it helps to remember that...
All Reformed are Calvinists.
Not all Calvinists are Reformed.
Most Reformed have no quibbles with anyone who wants to appropriate these labels for themselves in ordinary conversations. But when he or she enters the realm of theological discussion, they should expect to be questioned about how and why they are using these words when their discussion takes a turn outside the bounds of the historical meaning of these words to the theologically informed.
For a more detailed explanation about what it means to be "Reformed":
http://the-highway.com/how-many-points_Muller.html
And on the topic of the soteriological views of the Reformed, see Packer's famous introduction to John Owen's
The Death Of Death in the Death of Christ:
http://gospelpedlar.com/articles/Salvation/introessay.html
AMR
Last edited:
Would these be considered reformed;
Sola Scriptura
Sola Fide
Sola Gratia
Solus Christus
Ask Mr. Religion
☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) 	
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
If you add, Soli Deo Gloria, then, yes, the historical teachings of the Reformation behind these Five Solas, comprises the basic tenets of the Reformed faith.
See also:
https://www.monergism.com/search?keywords=Sola+Scriptura&format=All
https://www.monergism.com/search?keywords=Sola+Fide&format=All
https://www.monergism.com/search?keywords=Sola+Gratia&format=All
https://www.monergism.com/search?keywords=Solus+Christus&format=All
https://www.monergism.com/search?keywords=Soli+Deo+Gloria&format=All
(Note: you may have to refresh the browser page if you get a link not found error)
For a terse, but very accurate systematic theology of all things Reformed, Berkhof is where one with deep theology interests should turn as a starting point. Below one can find online, pdf, and epub versions of his book:
https://www.biblicaltraining.org/library/systematic-theology-louis-berkhof
Similarly, the short version of just the basics is found here:
https://www.biblicaltraining.org/library/summary-christian-doctrine-louis-berkhof
Berkhof is basically channeling his theological mentor, Bavinck, whose Reformed Dogmatics was not yet available in English when Berkhof authored his books. Bavinck's four-volume work can be obtained here:
http://www.amazon.com/Reformed-Dogmatics-4-Volume-Set/dp/0801035767/
(Note: individual volumes can be purchased separately at Amazon.com)
For a more devotional level of Reformed reading, à Brakel is the place to go:
http://www.abrakel.com/p/christians-reasonable-service.html
AMR
Last edited:
they call themselves reformed
because
they don't want to explain calvinism
and
that is the truth
because
they don't want to explain calvinism
and
that is the truth
They mix law with the evangelism thus condemning themselves and those that follow them.
They love titles. Reverend Doctor being a firm favorite.
Last edited:
popsthebuilder
New member
What's so bad about Calvinists, or reformed?
Ask Mr. Religion
☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) 	
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
We Reformed and/or Calvinists are a decided minority at this site, which has a large contingent of open theists. That alone would account for the anti-Calvinist tenor here and about.
AMR
They are unredeemed, unconverted and uninspired. Experts at cut & paste and quoting creeds, but are strangers to the covenant of grace.
Ask Mr. Religion
☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) 	
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Another item worth noting is that from a church perspective Reformed is generally associated with conservative Presbyterianism, as in the NAPARC churches. These Presbyterians are not to be confused with the Presbyterian Church USA [PC(USA], a liberal group that has long since abandoned its confessional basis.
To get a sense of the environment out there, see:
https://web.archive.org/web/20160909182121/http://www.tateville.com/churches.html
Another distinctive among the Reformed is the Regulative Principle of Worship (RPW).
Briefly stated, the RPW is a positive command, approved example, and deduced by good and necessary consequence. There are elements and circumstances. Circumstances must be ordered by Christian prudence and the light of nature, according to the general rules of the Word.
From the RPW we can only institute those elements in worship which God has explicitly laid down in Scripture. Within the RPW, there is an important distinction between elements and circumstances of worship: elements have to do with that which is directly concerned with the worship of God (Word and prayer), while circumstances are, well, circumstances (e.g., where you worship, when you worship, whether you use pews or not, etc.).
The elements of Worship are listed in the Westminster Confession of Faith itself. They are the following (WCF 21.5):
You will not find any of the usual happy-clappy instances of worship—e.g., Finneyism's lachrymose altar calls while "Just As I Am" is being played on an organ, rock bands, images of the Persons of the Trinity—and other grievous aromas reaching God's nostrils within a conservative Reformed (Presbyterian) church. The normative worship principle is, if Scripture does not forbid it then it is permissible. On the other hand the regulative principle is, if Scripture does not command it then it is forbidden. The normative principle is for all of life whereas the regulative principle is for faith and worship.
AMR
To get a sense of the environment out there, see:
https://web.archive.org/web/20160909182121/http://www.tateville.com/churches.html
Another distinctive among the Reformed is the Regulative Principle of Worship (RPW).
Briefly stated, the RPW is a positive command, approved example, and deduced by good and necessary consequence. There are elements and circumstances. Circumstances must be ordered by Christian prudence and the light of nature, according to the general rules of the Word.
From the RPW we can only institute those elements in worship which God has explicitly laid down in Scripture. Within the RPW, there is an important distinction between elements and circumstances of worship: elements have to do with that which is directly concerned with the worship of God (Word and prayer), while circumstances are, well, circumstances (e.g., where you worship, when you worship, whether you use pews or not, etc.).
The elements of Worship are listed in the Westminster Confession of Faith itself. They are the following (WCF 21.5):
5. The reading of the Scriptures with godly fear, (Acts 15:21, Rev. 1:3) the sound preaching (2 Tim. 4:2) and conscionable hearing of the Word, in obedience unto God, with understanding, faith and reverence, (James 1:22, Acts 10:33, Matt. 13:19, Heb. 4:2, Isa. 66:2) singing of psalms with grace in the heart; (Col. 3:16, Eph. 5:19, 13, James 5:13) as also, the due administration and worthy receiving of the sacraments instituted by Christ, are all parts of the ordinary religious worship of God: (Matt. 28:19, 1 Cor. 11:23-29, Acts 2:42) beside religious oaths, (Deut. 6:13, Neh. 10:29) vows, (Isa. 19:21, Eccl. 5:4-5) solemn fastings, (Joel 2:12, Esth. 4:16, Matt. 9:15, 1 Cor. 7:5) and thanksgivings upon special occasions, (Ps. 107, Esth. 9:22) which are, in their several times and seasons, to be used in an holy and religious manner. (Heb. 12:28).
You will not find any of the usual happy-clappy instances of worship—e.g., Finneyism's lachrymose altar calls while "Just As I Am" is being played on an organ, rock bands, images of the Persons of the Trinity—and other grievous aromas reaching God's nostrils within a conservative Reformed (Presbyterian) church. The normative worship principle is, if Scripture does not forbid it then it is permissible. On the other hand the regulative principle is, if Scripture does not command it then it is forbidden. The normative principle is for all of life whereas the regulative principle is for faith and worship.
AMR
Last edited:
Ask Mr. Religion
☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) 	
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Two other Reformed distinctives would be paedo-baptism and covenantalism.
For two useful summaries, see:
Paedo-baptism
http://rscottclark.org/2012/09/a-contemporary-reformed-defense-of-infant-baptism/
Covenantalism
http://rscottclark.org/2012/09/theses-on-covenant-theology/
Within the Reformed community an in-house debate centers around who is TR (Truly Reformed) or BR (Barely Reformed).
See:
http://heidelblog.net/2008/04/who-or-what-defines-reformed/
A very good book on the whole matter can be had in electronic form for a dollar or so (as of the date of this post) here:
http://www.amazon.com/Recovering-Reformed-Confession-Theology-Practice-ebook/dp/B00BPG5DAK/
AMR
For two useful summaries, see:
Paedo-baptism
http://rscottclark.org/2012/09/a-contemporary-reformed-defense-of-infant-baptism/
Covenantalism
http://rscottclark.org/2012/09/theses-on-covenant-theology/
Within the Reformed community an in-house debate centers around who is TR (Truly Reformed) or BR (Barely Reformed).
See:
http://heidelblog.net/2008/04/who-or-what-defines-reformed/
A very good book on the whole matter can be had in electronic form for a dollar or so (as of the date of this post) here:
http://www.amazon.com/Recovering-Reformed-Confession-Theology-Practice-ebook/dp/B00BPG5DAK/
AMR
Last edited:
Sometimes being a moron is not entertaining.:mmph:
point 1, to my way of thinking may be taken if one will assume God has perfect justice.
point 2 is certainly true
point 3 is also certainly true
point 4, not when Grace is the result of salvation
point 5, I believe preservation is never lost once God has given Grace to the born again Christian.
Sorry there are so many useless responses here, at least Bright Raven wants to understand and debate proper!