Are all Cavinists reformists?

[TwinCrier]

Or are all reformists Calvinists or are the two totally unrelated?

 

[strengthinweakness]

It depends on what you mean by "reformists." Calvinists hold to the Biblical Gospel of God's sovereign grace that was recovered during the Protestant Reformation. The Catholic Church taught that man's will was only partially weakened by the Fall, and that man is still morally free enough to choose or reject God. The Protestant Reformers, such as John Calvin, taught (as the Bible does) that because of the Fall, man has become an utter slave to sin, and that it takes a sovereign act of God's grace in the sinner's heart to change that heart from a stance of complete rebellion against God to joyful acceptance of Him and His provision of salvation through Jesus Christ. According to the Reformers (and again, the Bible), man can do absolutely nothing to earn salvation, and no amount of good works can make man righteous in God's eyes. Man can only have righteousness accounted to him by the substitutionary death of Christ, who lived the perfect life that man could never live, and who died in the place of all who would repent of their sins and trust in Him for salvation, sanctification, and eternal life with God. By contrast, Catholics believe that Christ died for everyone but that his death was not literally "substitutionary," in the sense that He didn't actually die in the place of particular sinners, purchasing and securing their salvation. Catholics believe that Christ's death gives to man the option of choosing salvation but that it doesn't secure salvation for any particular sinner. According to this thinking, salvation is secured only when a sinner "cooperates" with God's grace and "accepts" salvation through Christ. The Protestant Reformers believed that the Bible teaches that man is utterly dead in his transgressions, and that he is, again, enslaved to sin, and both unwilling and unable to "cooperate" with God's grace. The Reformers believed (again, from the Bible) that grace is only truly grace when it is sovereignly granted by God to sinners who are utterly lost, depraved, and hardened in sin (as all sinners are). However, God is not obligated to grant grace to any sinner, much less to each and every sinner. Grace is only grace when it is undeserved and unmerited. Therefore, God grants free grace to some sinners (who are called "the elect" and "objects of mercy" in the Bible-- see Romans 9) to show His mercy (which no one deserves), and He dispenses His perfect justice to other sinners ( who are called "objects of wrath," also in Romans 9) to show His wrath towards sin (which everyone deserves).

The truly valid question, Biblically speaking, is not "Why does God only show mercy to certain sinners?" but rather, "Given that we are all slaves to sin from birth and rebels against God, why does God show mercy to any of us?" God is merciful to grant undeserved grace, and He is just to punish sin. These are the truths of "Calvinism," and John Calvin, as a Protestant Reformer, taught these truths because he found them in the Bible. It is true that anyone who repents of sin and trusts in Christ will be saved-- but how does a lost, depraved, dead-in-transgressions sinner come to repent and trust in Christ in the first place? It is either through his own good, wise, praise-worthy choice (and lost sinners can do nothing truly good, according to the Bible-- man's "righteousness" is like filthy rags), or it is by and through God's grace, which turns hearts of stone to hearts of flesh. Calvinists believe the latter. Calvinists are "Reformers," but not in the sense of wanting to "reform" anything about the Gospel. They are "Reformers" in the same historic sense as the Protestant Reformation, which recovered and defended the Gospel of God's free, sovereignly granted grace at a time when that Gospel had become obscured. Sadly, it has become obscured again in our time, as many evangelicals react strongly against it, embracing teachings which are actually much closer to the historic teachings of the Catholic Church.

 

[mlqurgw]

Strengthinweakness has done a great job of answering your question as to what being Reformed is. But if your question is whether all Calvinists are Reformed the answer is yes and no. It depends on what you mean by Calvinist. I do hold to what is commonly called the five points of Calvinism but differ in my view of covenant theology. Because of my view of Baptist history I do not consider myself Reformed. Those who are truly Calvinists, in the sense of holding to John Calvin's theology, are Reformed.

 

[Cajun Huguenot]

Or are all reformists Calvinists or are the two totally unrelated?

All Reformed Christians are Calvinists, but not all Calvinists are Reformed.

Calvinism, strictly speaking, deals with the part of God and man played out in Salvation. Reformed is much more than that. It is a theological system that sees the centrality of "covenant" in God's relationship to His Church (as individuals, a community and generationally)and the world.

mlqurgw is correct. When strictly defined, a Baptist-Calvinist (and there are several versions of these) is not truly Reformed, even those who hold to some aspects of Covenant theology. I love my Baptist-Calvinists brethren, and there are many of them who hold to certain aspects of Covenant theology, but by rejecting paedobaptism, they show a denial of the historc reformed position of the covenants generational promises.

These same Baptists Calvinists choose to be called "Reformed Baptist" and I do honour that desire and am happy to refer to them that way, but (as noted earlier) strictly speaking they are not Reformed as Calvin and the early Reformed Christians understood the term.

I hope that helps


Coram Deo,
Kenith

 

[strengthinweakness]

Strengthinweakness has done a great job of answering your question as to what being Reformed is. But if your question is whether all Calvinists are Reformed the answer is yes and no. It depends on what you mean by Calvinist. I do hold to what is commonly called the five points of Calvinism but differ in my view of covenant theology. Because of my view of Baptist history I do not consider myself Reformed. Those who are truly Calvinists, in the sense of holding to John Calvin's theology, are Reformed.

Not to start too much of a "side conversation," but I am curious, mlqurgw-- what are your views of Baptist history and covenant theology? I consider myself a Reformed Baptist who subscribes to the five points of Calvinism and who (from what I currently understand of eschatology-- that study is "in process" for me) believes that all Christians everywhere are the new, "spiritual" Israel. I believe that God's covenant with Israel, as a nation, has been superceded due to the large majority of Israelites rejecting Christ as the Son of God, the second person of the Trinity. His new covenant is with all believers in Christ. Does this make me truly Reformed? As a Baptist, I obviously do not believe that the Bible teaches the baptism of infants. Not intending to start any debates here-- just curious as to what you yourself believe and your understanding of what does and does not make a Christian "Reformed."

 

[mlqurgw]

Not to start too much of a "side conversation," but I am curious, mlqurgw-- what are your views of Baptist history and covenant theology? I consider myself a Reformed Baptist who subscribes to the five points of Calvinism and who (from what I currently understand of eschatology-- that study is "in process" for me) believes that all Christians everywhere are the new, "spiritual" Israel. I believe that God's covenant with Israel, as a nation, has been superceded due to the large majority of Israelites rejecting Christ as the Son of God, the second person of the Trinity. His new covenant is with all believers in Christ. Does this make me truly Reformed? As a Baptist, I obviously do not believe that the Bible teaches the baptism of infants. Not intending to start any debates here-- just curious as to what you yourself believe and your understanding of what does and does not make a Christian "Reformed."

I hold to the spiritual kinship view of Baptist history which means that we were never a part of the Roman church. therefore we are not Reformed. Reformed Baptists generally take a different view of Baptist History, the English Seperatist I believe. Here is a link to help you understand the difference:
http://www.reformedreader.org/history/bryan/ch01.htm

Reformed theology came out of the Reformation and is generally consistent with the teachings of John Calvin. Reformed theology is normally paedobaptist as that is the historical theology of the reformation. Reformed theology and Covenant theology are usually considered the same thing. I differ in the belief in the covenant as it is applied to the children of believers and the view that baptism is a seal of the covenant. I also differ in the view that the Lord's supper and baptism are sacraments by which grace is imparted to those who participate. I hold that the Covenant of Grace does not supercede but was before the law and the other covenants. I am not sure if this is different or not but I believe that all the other covenants were simply an outworking of the Everlasting Covenant of Peace.

While I do adamantly hold to and believe the 5 points I do not consider myself a Calvinist nor a Reformed Baptist. Reformed Baptist normally hold to the London confession and Presbyterians hold to the Westminster. I hold to neither. I do agree with them in many respects but I hold to no confessions. I also differ with most Reformed Baptists and Presbyerians on the Law. Cajun Heugonot is correct that a Baptist isn't strictly Reformed.

EDIT: Please excuse my spelling errors as I am just too tired or too lazy at the moment to correct them.

 

[Bob Moore]

... I believe that God's covenant with Israel, as a nation, has been superceded due to the large majority of Israelites rejecting Christ as the Son of God, the second person of the Trinity. His new covenant is with all believers in Christ. Does this make me truly Reformed?

I do not think so. God is nowhere near done dealing with Israel. If He was, then why (for one thing) will He send out the 144,000 of Israel during the tribulation?

... just curious as to what you yourself believe and your understanding of what does and does not make a Christian "Reformed."

It is really quite simple. As a Baptist I think you will appreciate what Spurgeon said when asked by a skeptic what he thought of Calvin's theology. "It is nothing more than Biblical Christianity." And I dare say that Calvin's view is "Reformed". Because that might be a little obscure to some I will clarify by saying that the Reformed view is that view which believes that the Scriptures are painfully plain on the major points, and that to deny (as a certain major denomination does) what the Scripture plainly says (to all comers: spare me semantic attacks) is folly. So called 'Reformed' theology is nothing more than the acceptance of what the Bible says, shorn of the manipulative opinions of men.

 

[strengthinweakness]

Bob, I never said that God will have absolutely no more dealings with Israel at all. Perhaps I was not sufficiently clear. I do not believe that He still has the covenant with Israel, as a specific nation, that He had in the Old Testament. His covenant now is with all believers in Christ, not "physical Israel," (as stated in Romans 10) but those who have repented of sin and trusted in Christ as Lord and Saviour. This is why I think that evangelicals making a huge deal out of the actual land which makes up Israel (and supporting Israel, politically, regardless of how she treats our Palestinian brothers and sisters in Christ) is silly, and sometimes, sad. I don't believe that God is nearly so concerned with a person's nationality or with a piece of land as He is with all of those people who are His own by grace through faith in Christ. Yes, God has a remnant whom He will bring out of Israel as believers in Christ. I believe them to be a future part of His new covenant which actually already exists. This covenant is with Christians everywhere, not with any certain people in any particular part of the world. Anyway, I said in my earlier post that I wasn't intending to start any debates. I still do not wish to do so. Christians can legitimately agree to disagree on this point.

 

[edie19]

I have nothing but the deepest respect for Kenith - I've learned a lot reading his posts.

Not to beat a dead horse - but I am a Calvinist (all 5 points, I don't believe there is truly any other kind), I am Reformed (thank you very much Luther, Calvin, Knox and our other Reformed and Puritan forefalthers), I am Baptist (by that I mean credo) and I believe in Covenantal theology.

From the Westminster:

Baptism is a sacrament of the new testament, ordained by Jesus Christ, not only for the solemn admission of the party baptized into the visible church; but also, to be unto him a sign and seal of the covenant of grace, of his ingrafting into Christ, of regeneration, of remission of sins, and of his giving up unto God, through Jesus Christ, to walk in newness of life. Which sacrament is, by Christ's own appointment, to be continued in his church until the end of the world.
​

I agree with that statement 100% - but in the new covenant we are told to know the Lord (John 17:3) - an infant can't know the Lord, cant give up unto God, cant walk in newness of life - so (IMNSHO) credo-baptism is part of the new covenant.

 

[Cajun Huguenot]

I have nothing but the deepest respect for Kenith - I've learned a lot reading his posts.

Not to beat a dead horse - but I am a Calvinist ....

edb19,

Thanks. I love my Reformed Baptist brethren and have great respect for so many of them . I have learned from sermons, books and discussions with these brethren.

My point in only on what I believe is a technical level.

I think I've now made that point enough (perhaps too much).

Coram Deo,
Kenith

 

[edie19]

edb19,

Thanks. I love my Reformed Baptist brethren and have great respect for so many of them . I have learned from sermons, books and discussions with these brethren.

My point in only on what I believe is a technical level.

I think I've now made that point enough (perhaps too much).

Coram Deo,
Kenith

I hope that you don't think I was attacking you - because that certainly wasn't my intent. We've had this discussion elsewhere and I think have dealt respectfully with each other. We both believe we're right and both back up our position Scripturally (and historically). I believe we can agree to disagree on this one area of Reformed/Calvinist/Covenantal doctrine.

Well - I'm off to go shopping for dinner (I'm feeding a bunch of reformed Baptists tonight). This will probably be one of our topics of discussion - I frequently take stuff from CF to my pastor and church buddies.

edie

 

[Cajun Huguenot]

Thanks for the note. I did not think you were attacking me. But I am concern that I don't offend either.

The point, for me, is a technical yet important one. Athe the same time I don't want to look like I am hammering on my dear brothers and sisters in the Reformed Baptist camp.

Thanks,
KEnith

I hope that you don't think I was attacking you - because that certainly wasn't my intent. We've had this discussion elsewhere and I think have dealt respectfully with each other. We both believe we're right and both back up our position Scripturally (and historically). I believe we can agree to disagree on this one area of Reformed/Calvinist/Covenantal doctrine.

Well - I'm off to go shopping for dinner (I'm feeding a bunch of reformed Baptists tonight). This will probably be one of our topics of discussion - I frequently take stuff from CF to my pastor and church buddies.

edie

 

[Bob Moore]

I do not believe that He still has the covenant with Israel, as a specific nation, that He had in the Old Testament.

With respect, I believe you are mistaken. Take this passage: Exodus 12:17, And ye shall observe the feast of unleavened bread; for in this selfsame day have I brought your hosts out of the land of Egypt: therefore shall ye observe this day throughout your generations by an ordinance for ever. If God did not intend to keep His covenantal relationship with Israel then his command "therefore shall ye observe this day throughout your generations by an ordinance for ever" would have been deceptive because Israel, as a nation, still assumes that God meant that command to be obeyed. There are many other passages as well that speak of "ordinance forever", and "througout your generations".

The old covenant, all of it, still applies to those who are under of it. Parts of it still apply to those who are in Christ.

 

[Bob Moore]

This is why I think that evangelicals making a huge deal out of the actual land which makes up Israel...

What they (and I) are making a deal of comes from this: Genesis 15:18, In the same day the LORD made a covenant with Abram, saying, Unto thy seed have I given this land, from the river of Egypt unto the great river, the river Euphrates: . Abraham's seed are still there, and it is still their land.

(and supporting Israel, politically, regardless of how she treats our Palestinian brothers and sisters in Christ) is silly, and sometimes, sad.

Perhaps a little more clarification here? There are some Palestinian Christians, but your average Palestinian is certainly not my brother or sister in Christ.

I don't believe that God is nearly so concerned with a person's nationality or with a piece of land as He is with all of those people who are His own by grace through faith in Christ.

Yes He is concerned with His own, but He is also concerned with His honor and glory. God does not make promisses that He does not keep. Nor does He say one thing and do another as men frequently do. God gave that land to the Jews, (more than they presently occupy), and gifts that God gives can not be nullified by the will of man.

 

[Cajun Huguenot]

Hey Bob,

I find your comments very interesting.

I do support Israel as a Western Democracy (mostly) in the Middle East, but I don't believe modern Israel fits the requirements to possess that land.

In the New Testament we find that the land promises to Abraham are expanded to all the world (Rom 4:13) and the same is true of the promise made in the 5th Commandment; it too is expanded into the whole world (Eph 6:1-3).

Beside these, the land promises to Israel is tied to covenant faithfulness. Modern Israel was founded by mostly secular Jewish people. It does not meet the requirements of the Old Covenant.

With that said I support Israel in many ways, but they have treated their Palestinian neighbours horribly. THe Palestinian Christians were hit the hardest by Israels actions and their numbers in that are have dropped dramatically since Israel was founded in 1948.

All that GOd says is yeah and Amen and God has provedintially caused modern Israel to be established. We Christiains need to deal with Israel and the Palestinians in a godly manner and not just support Israel because it is Israel.

In Christ,
Kenith

 

[Bob Moore]

Hey Bob,

I find your comments very interesting.

I do support Israel as a Western Democracy (mostly) in the Middle East, but I don't believe modern Israel fits the requirements to possess that land.

Romans 3:3-4 For what if some did not believe? shall their unbelief make the faith of God without effect? God forbid: yea, let God be true, but every man a liar; as it is written, That thou mightest be justified in thy sayings, and mightest overcome when thou art judged.

In the New Testament we find that the land promises to Abraham are expanded to all the world (Rom 4:13)

For the promise, that he should be the heir of the world, was not to Abraham, or to his seed, through the law, but through the righteousness of faith. As you know, there are quite a few differing views of this passage. But the promisses spoken of here are not the same as the promise of the land being theirs forever.

and the same is true of the promise made in the 5th Commandment; it too is expanded into the whole world (Eph 6:1-3).

I do not believe the two things are related in any but a tenuous way. We know that certainly some aspects of the older covenant still apply and the 5th Commandment is one of them. But that Commandment is part of the moral law, and is not covenantally restricted. The promise of the land was to Abraham and his seed, forever. There is no indication in the text that it was to be construed as expanding to the whole world.

Beside these, the land promises to Israel is tied to covenant faithfulness.

The text does not say so. God knew at the time He made the promise that Israel would fall away (repeatedly). Yet He still said, "Unto thy seed I have given..."

Modern Israel was founded by mostly secular Jewish people. It does not meet the requirements of the Old Covenant.

Yes it was, and Israel is a secular nation. But God is still true even though every man is a liar.

With that said I support Israel in many ways, but they have treated their Palestinian neighbours horribly.

I don't think Israel has vowed to exterminate them as the Palastinians have Israel. Further, there are no such historical people as the 'Palastinians'. They are a political construct only for the purpose of displacing Israel. They are politial tools and little else. That of course does not justify ill treatment, but if they want to live in peace let them do so. But they do not want peace. They want the land.

All that God says is yeah and Amen and God has provedintially caused modern Israel to be established. We Christiains need to deal with Israel and the Palestinians in a godly manner and not just support Israel because it is Israel.

Can't argue with that! But if push comes to shove I will support Israel over any foreign claims.

 

[strengthinweakness]

Perhaps a little more clarification here? There are some Palestinian Christians, but your average Palestinian is certainly not my brother or sister in Christ.

Bob, with respect (as you said to me, and thank you for saying it, my brother ), I do not wish to debate the other parts of your posts, not because I have no sound Scriptural basis to debate them, but because I never wanted to go in the direction of a debate on this thread in the first place. My reason is that the thread was started by a non-Reformed Christian to answer a specific question. I asked a question of mlqurw, in relation to something that he wrote, and said that I did not intend to start too much of a side discussion, as related to the OP. However, unwittingly, such a side discussion has begun, and I do not wish to be a part of it. No offense intended, brother. If you would like to have this discussion in another thread, perhaps I will start one at some point, or if you wish, you could begin one. For here and now, though, I will stay out of this "newer" discussion.

I will address your question about my "Palestinian brothers and sisters in Christ" comment, because I do not want my statement to be misunderstood in any way, shape, or form. I was definitely referring to Palestinian believers in Christ. All Christians are my brothers and sisters, regardless of where they may live.

 

[Bob Moore]

To whom it may concern:

It is getting a little old to be dealing constantly with an unresponsive site. Whoever is messing with the code might want to consider taking some lessons.

 

[Bob Moore]

Bob, with respect (as you said to me, and thank you for saying it, my brother ), I do not wish to debate the other parts of your posts, not because I have no sound Scriptural basis to debate them, but because I never wanted to go in the direction of a debate on this thread in the first place. My reason is that the thread was started by a non-Reformed Christian to answer a specific question. I asked a question of mlqurw, in relation to something that he wrote, and said that I did not intend to start too much of a side discussion, as related to the OP. However, unwittingly, such a side discussion has begun,

My apologies. A fault of mine is that I will often follow where a conversation goes. One of the major problems with the limited thread format is that reasonable discussion is frequently limited or cut off by conventional restrictions. that is one reason I prefer the interactive lecture format. No one is left wondering what someone meant. .

No offense intended, brother.

And certainly none taken.

If you would like to have this discussion in another thread, perhaps I will start one at some point, or if you wish, you could begin one.

I would like that. So, will you begin or shall I?

I will address your question about my "Palestinian brothers and sisters in Christ" comment, because I do not want my statement to be misunderstood in any way, shape, or form. I was definitely referring to Palestinian believers in Christ. All Christians are my brothers and sisters, regardless of where they may live.

I never thought otherwise. I was addressing those who think (and there are a lot of such here) that professing to know Christ and actually knowing Him are the same thing.

Keep on bringing the good questions and comments. I look forward to your posts.

 

[mlqurgw]

I asked a question of mlqurw, in relation to something that he wrote,

Did I give a satisfactory answer?