Calvinism ≠ Reformed

[Mark Quayle]

I make you laugh far to much mark

yes you do

 

[JLB777]

There are lots of people teaching many things, and many “labels” are given to people and groups, however the Lord is the One we follow, not men.


Now I plead with you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment. For it has been declared to me concerning you, my brethren, by those of Chloe’s household, that there are contentions among you. Now I say this, that each of you says, “I am of Paul,” or “I am of Apollos,” or “I am of Cephas,” or “I am of Christ.” Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul? 1 Corinthians 1:10-13

• Now I plead with you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment.

There is one doctrine that is common to all who are of the household of faith; the doctrine of Christ.


Whoever transgresses and does not abide in the doctrine of Christ does not have God. He who abides in the doctrine of Christ has both the Father and the Son. 2 John 9

• and does not abide in the doctrine of Christ does not have God.

There is only one group of people who will receive eternal salvation.


And having been perfected, He became the author of eternal salvation to all who obey Him, Hebrews 5:9


Let’s say we just decide that because so and so has done us wrong, that we have decided to hate him. We have no longer chosen to obey the Lord’s command to love, and forgive.


Whoever hates his brother is a murderer, and you know that no murderer has eternal life abiding in him. 1 John 3:15


No murderer has eternal life remaining in him.


He who says, “I know Him,” and does not keep His commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him. But whoever keeps His word, truly the love of God is perfected in him. By this we know that we are in Him. 1 John 2:4-5


“I know Him” means I have eternal life.


Those who say I have eternal life, but don’t obey Him, are liars and the truth is not in him.


Obeying Him is how we love; is the scriptural definition of love.


If you love Me, keep My commandments. John 14:15


For this is the love of God, that we keep His commandments. And His commandments are not burdensome. 1 John 5:3


His commandments are not burdensome.




JLB

 

[JLB777]

I believe it was R. C. Sproul that asserted that "Reformed" is a nick-name for Covenant Theology.

Reformed Theology with John MacArthur, RC Sproul, Spurgeon & Puritans

How can such a group exist? How can someone interested enough in theology to create such a group included Dr. MacArthur within it?

I have benefitted often from John MacArthur's teaching. But that teaching should be considered with the understanding that John MacArthur is a dispensationalist. He is NOT reformed. He is a Calvinist but he is NOT reformed. Being reformed necessitates holding to some form of covenant theology.

What part of the scriptures do you believe needs to be reformed?



JLB

 

[FireDragon76]

It depends on who's doing the definition, as there is no authority on who is and isn't "reformed." Largely the distinction seems to be an attempt to replace "fundamentalist" given the pejorative tone that word has come to. The term itself is ambiguous enough to not speak to a specific theological issue and is more of a blanket term that people choose to self-identify as which hasn't fully been elaborated.



It's been my experience that the dividing line with "Reformed" is often either people whose theology is firmly "fundamentalist" or firmly 5-point Calvinist who have come to be bristled by the negative associations that those labels have developed seeking a new tent to camp in. It's simply not defined enough to truly elaborate theological divides and often the issues that are seen as paramount will vary from person to person making different delineations.

I agree. Arminius was technically "Reformed" also (just with a slightly different soteriology) which would make Methodists "Reformed" in the broader sense, as well.

I would use "Reformed" in contradistinction to "Lutheran" or "Roman Catholic".

 

[atpollard]

I would use "Reformed" in contradistinction to "Lutheran" or "Roman Catholic".

So "Lutherans" are really "Catholic" [like the RCC and EOC] ... you better not let them hear you say that.

 

[FireDragon76]

So "Lutherans" are really "Catholic" [like the RCC and EOC] ... you better not let them hear you say that.

Lutherans do regard themselves as catholic, yes.

BTW, I am a Lutheran.

As the Nicene Creed says:

"We believe in One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church".

 

[atpollard]

What part of the scriptures do you believe needs to be reformed?

The reformed believe that the CHURCH needs to be reformed from the TRADITIONS back to the teachings from SCRIPTURES ... Hence the 5 Solas:

• Sola Scriptura (scripture alone ... no church traditions co-equal in authority)
• Solus Christus (Christ alone) ... salvation needs nothing added to the work of Christ.
• Sola Fide (faith alone) ... we receive redemption through trusting in Christ alone [faith].
• Sola Gratia (Grace alone) ... we are justified based on grace, not upon any works.
• Soli Deo Gloria (Glory to God Alone) ... Only if our salvation is by grace alone will God alone receive all the glory.

 

[atpollard]

Lutherans do regard themselves as catholic, yes.

BTW, I am a Lutheran.

As the Nicene Creed says:

"We believe in One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church".

Martin would disagree (based upon his writings).

 

[FireDragon76]

Martin would disagree (based upon his writings).

No, Luther never denied that he was catholic. He didn't set out to start a new religion.

 

[Lost Witness]

Sola Gratia (Grace alone) ... we are justified based on grace, not upon any works

Works are involved it's just the LORD who does them in us and through us...

 

[atpollard]

No, Luther never denied that he was catholic. He didn't set out to start a new religion.

He didn't SET OUT to burn all the Jews in their synagogues either ... after the RCC tried to assassinate Luther, his views seem to have shifted a bit on the Pope and the One True Mother Church.

Fortunately, I am a baptist ... so YOUR Reformation means little to me: y'all tried to kill US at every opportunity throughout history just because we tried to DO what the Bible SAYS (rather than your "old man traditions"). We prefer the "Apostolic Traditions" recorded in God's word ... so keep the Book of Concord with our blessings (a Baptist Distinctive: "Individual Soul Liberty") and we will keep our 66 book Bible in its place.

 

[atpollard]

Works are involved it's just the LORD who does them in us and through us...

It was a 'snippet' summary. A more detailed explanation of each of the 5 Solas seemed out of place. If anyone REALLY want more information on Sola Gratia ... knock yourself out HERE:

Sola Gratia: Christians Are Saved by the Grace of God Alone​

.

 

[FireDragon76]

He didn't SET OUT to burn all the Jews in their synagogues either

Luther never burned the Jews in synagogues.

... after the RCC tried to assassinate Luther, his views seem to have shifted a bit on the Pope and the One True Mother Church.

Luther did regard the Pope as an antichrist, but he never rejected his baptism, nor did he reject the validity of Rome's sacraments. He was not a Puritan and didn't see the Pope and Church as synonymous.

Fortunately, I am a baptist ... so YOUR Reformation means little to me: y'all tried to kill US at every opportunity throughout history just because we tried to DO what the Bible SAYS (rather than your "old man traditions"). We prefer the "Apostolic Traditions" recorded in God's word ... so keep the Book of Concord with our blessings (a Baptist Distinctive: "Individual Soul Liberty") and we will keep our 66 book Bible in its place.

Uh... OK. I actually have nothing against Baptists. North American Lutherans, as far as I know, have never persecuted Baptists. It's usually been more like the other way around, if anything. Lutherans have tend to be misunderstood by the dominant Anglo culture. I've had Baptists come to my door and tell me that maybe my religion isn't good enough, that maybe I need to "accept Jesus into my heart" (of course this is silly as we accept Jesus literally every week through Word and Sacrament).

The Baptist movement comes out of the English Dissenters, not Anabaptists, anyways. In that sense they have more in common with Congregationalists. The Zwicknau Prophets and Anabaptists that Luther criticized don't have much in common with English Baptists. They even baptized adults differently (not by immersion, but by effusion or pouring of water). English Baptists started almost a century after Luther, in very different circumstances, just before the English Civil War.

 

[Bob corrigan]

I believe it was R. C. Sproul that asserted that "Reformed" is a nick-name for Covenant Theology.

Reformed Theology with John MacArthur, RC Sproul, Spurgeon & Puritans

How can such a group exist? How can someone interested enough in theology to create such a group included Dr. MacArthur within it?

I have benefitted often from John MacArthur's teaching. But that teaching should be considered with the understanding that John MacArthur is a dispensationalist. He is NOT reformed. He is a Calvinist but he is NOT reformed. Being reformed necessitates holding to some form of covenant theology.

I wish people would stop using "reformed" as another word for predestination. Luther wanted to reform the Catholic Church, not break away. He made a clean break only after the Catholic Church declared him a heretic and sentenced him to death. Most of the original reformers started off as Catholics. Reformed has nothing to do with predestination.
MacArthur has created his own version of predestination. MacArthur preaches "Lordship Salvation," which teaches that along with getting saved a believer has to take another step and voluntarily "submit" to Jesus, along with becoming a disciple. Predestination teaches that God doesn't love all people, only the sheep. MacArthur teaches that God has different degrees of love but doesn't hate anyone.
How many people know that dispensationalism didn't exist before the late 1800s was created by John Darby, who also created the rapture based on a so-called vision of a 16-year-old young lady? This was bought into by Scofield, who introduced it in his study bible, published in 1909. It was a huge seller and prompted the Dallas Theological Seminary to start teaching both. My point is why was there no mention or teaching of these two subjects before John Darby? None of the thousands of preachers, priests or , theologians that existed and studied and taught Scripture for almost 1900 years after the ascension of Christ knew nothing about dispensation or the rapture? Matthew Henery, Matthew Poole, John Gill, Wesely, Spurgeon, Edwards, Whitfield, or Warfield never mentioned or taught these two subjects. Still, we are supposed to believe that God, Jesus, the Holy Spirit and, Paul knew about these things, but they were kept secret until "revealed" to John Darby. I mean, anybody can believe what they want, but, come on!

 

[FireDragon76]

I wish people would stop using "reformed" as another word for predestination. Luther wanted to reform the Catholic Church, not break away. He made a clean break only after the Catholic Church declared him a heretic and sentenced him to death. Most of the original reformers started off as Catholics. Reformed has nothing to do with predestination.
MacArthur has created his own version of predestination. MacArthur preaches "Lordship Salvation," which teaches that along with getting saved a believer has to take another step and voluntarily "submit" to Jesus, along with becoming a disciple. Predestination teaches that God doesn't love all people, only the sheep. MacArthur teaches that God has different degrees of love but doesn't hate anyone.
How many people know that dispensationalism didn't exist before the late 1800s was created by John Darby, who also created the rapture based on a so-called vision of a 16-year-old young lady? This was bought into by Scofield, who introduced it in his study bible, published in 1909. It was a huge seller and prompted the Dallas Theological Seminary to start teaching both. My point is why was there no mention or teaching of these two subjects before John Darby? None of the thousands of preachers, priests or , theologians that existed and studied and taught Scripture for almost 1900 years after the ascension of Christ knew nothing about dispensation or the rapture? Matthew Henery, Matthew Poole, John Gill, Wesely, Spurgeon, Edwards, Whitfield, or Warfield never mentioned or taught these two subjects. Still, we are supposed to believe that God, Jesus, the Holy Spirit and, Paul knew about these things, but they were kept secret until "revealed" to John Darby. I mean, anybody can believe what they want, but, come on!

Just the provenance of the Dispensationalist doctrine should be enough to turn away the wary. And none of the churches associated with it have particularly good fruit.