Reformed Questions

[FaithfulPilgrim]

Hello!

I am interested in Calvinism and am wondering what makes a person "Reformed." I am aware that being a Calvinist does not make you reformed.

I am new at this, so please correct any misunderstandings I have about reformed theology.

I agree with Reformed Calvinists on total depravity and irresistible grace and unconditional election, but I disagree with them on atonement and perserverance of saints. I hold to an Amyraldian view of election and I believe in eternal security as I was brought up Southern Baptist.

For a long time, I was a dispensationalist, but left as it is extreme. I am a premillenialist, but I also see points raised by amillennialists.

Okay, so now that the introduction is out of the way, here are my questions:

1) From the description of the soteriological beliefs I provided above, would you say I am Calvinist and/or reformed?

I think I am a modified (moderate?) Calvinist, but I don't like the label.

2) What makes a person "reformed?" How much can a person deviate from traditional reformed beliefs and still be considered reformed?

3) I am exploring the Reformed Baptists, and they seem to hold to New Covenant Theology, while it seems other Reformed Christians hold to covenant theology. Can you be reformed and disagree with Covenant theology?

 

[hedrick]

There are two ways to approach what it means to be Reformed, which I’ll call descriptive and normative.

What I mean by descriptive is the sort of viewpoint a church historian might take. That would look at the overall tradition you’re from, and at a broad array of beliefs, including not just TULIP but the concept of the covenant, one’s approach to communion, one’s approach to church government, etc. It would ask which Protestant tradition you're most closely tied to.

What I mean by normative is a definition that says you’re Reformed if you accept whatever confession or confessions your church accepts. Most participants here are Presbyterian, so that would be Westminster.

Historically, Amyraldism arose within the Reformed tradition. Traditional Reformed consider it to be false. However many accept that it’s an error among Reformed people, and does not necessarily exclude one from being Reformed. I would take a more description approach to defining Reformed, and thus would look at the whole pattern of someone’s belief, and more important, what tradition they are currently part of. (One cannot be a Reformed Christian in isolation.)

However if you take a normative definition, most likely you would exclude people who hold Amyraldism. I believe most participants here are part of conservative Presbyterian churches. I checked the largest of them (PCA). It does not permit officers to hold Amyraldism, as they consider that it violates the Westminster Confession. The most conservative continental Reformed churches reject it as well, but it appears that the CRC accepts something similar. It wouldn’t be a problem in the Presbyterian Church (USA) and presumably the RCA, but those are “mainline” churches, and would accept more of a historical or descriptive view of what it is to be Reformed, rather than defining it by adherence to a specific confession.

The Reformed tradition includes perseverance of the saints. It’s not clear to me that this is the same thing as eternal security. The form in which I’m aware of eternal security among S Baptists is that once you’ve met the requirements of being saved, you remain saved no matter what. I don’t think that’s a Reformed position, even with my fairly loose definition of Reformed. It permits someone to fall away from the faith but still be saved. The Reformed position says that those whom God calls, he preserves. So they won’t fall away. Thus in the Reformed version you can’t have someone who falls away from the faith and is still saved.

Note that there are Reformed Baptists. As far as I know, they hold to the 5 points. So if they speak of eternal security, it would be the Reformed version.

 

[AMR]

Okay, so now that the introduction is out of the way, here are my questions:

1) From the description of the soteriological beliefs I provided above, would you say I am Calvinist and/or reformed?

I think I am a modified (moderate?) Calvinist, but I don't like the label.

2) What makes a person "reformed?" How much can a person deviate from traditional reformed beliefs and still be considered reformed?

3) I am exploring the Reformed Baptists, and they seem to hold to New Covenant Theology, while it seems other Reformed Christians hold to covenant theology. Can you be reformed and disagree with Covenant theology?

I would like to respond to your questions from a conservative Reformed perspective.

The short answer to your big question, from my perspective, is no, you would not be considered Reformed given your stated views.

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 from the history of the church and 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

Historically speaking, 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 Confession of Faith, 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

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

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

As to the matter of Baptist being Reformed, I think this is a good assessment:
http://thechristiancurmudgeonmo.blogspot.com/2012/06/contradiction-in-terms-anthony-bradley.html

It is one of history's curiosities that, with some pragmatic exceptions, the Reformed stand between two bodies of Christians who in the most formal of senses unchurch the Reformed. On the one side are the Lutherans, who deny that we Reformed practice the Lord's Supper; they refuse us Reformed the table in their communion. On the other side are the Baptists, who deny that the Reformed practice baptism--whether of infants who thus have never been baptized, or of adults who have never been immersed; they refuse us Reformed (either as members, or typically their table) unless we become baptized in their eyes. Between them both, we Reformed have no sacraments or ordinances! We are thus unchurched in the eyes of these two groups. Sigh.

On the other hand, Reformed ecclesiology recognizes both the baptism of the Baptists, and the table of the Lutherans--even when the Reformed practice closed communion. We do not unchurch them. In fact, we recognize as much as we possibly can both to the left and the right, granting charity to even what we consider some very confused representations of Christianity. Our sacramental doctrine is understood to attach very deeply near the root of our doctrine of the church-universal. It is an exhibition of claim to union with Christ. When we ask, "Which Christ?" the answer must be as he is defined by the Creeds and Councils of the early church.

AMR

 

[Don Maurer]

You had answers from the PCUSA, the PCA, and now from someone that leans more to the reformed baptist side.

I agree with Reformed Calvinists on total depravity and irresistible grace and unconditional election, but I disagree with them on atonement and perserverance of saints. I hold to an Amyraldian view of election and I believe in eternal security as I was brought up Southern Baptist.

Those against Calvinism are very fond of redefining the terms in TULIP. For instance, the term "Limited Atonement" is sometimes defined by Arminians as "Christ's shed blood is only of value as a limited number of people." That is a very bad definition. No Calvinist would define the term in that way. If God, in his sovereignty decided to elect another million people, it is not like Christ would have to suffer a little more to save them This concept completely misrepresents "Limited Atonement." One thing I would caution you is taking Arminian redefinitions of the 5 points of Calvin.

Another point is that I do not think the 5 points can be separated. They are actually one harmonous theology.

In fact I would not look at TULIP as the core thought of Calvinism. I would pick the doctrine of regeneration being the cause of faith. Regeneration causing faith is more the center of Calvinistic soteriology. If you connect this thought to TULIP you might have a better understanding of both TULIP and Calvinist soteriology. In the limited atonement, the extent of the atonement includes all those God intends to regenerate. If God intended to regenerate the whole world, then we would have universalism.

An Arminian (especially a Westlian Arminian) can be defined as one who believes in a universal prevenient grace in which free will is restored, but Gods prevenient work of grace can be resisted. Christ dies to make the prevenient work of Grace for all men, and salvation available to all men. My point is that TULIP is not really definitional, unless properly understood.

For a long time, I was a dispensationalist, but left as it is extreme. I am a premillenialist, but I also see points raised by amillennialists.

Okay, so now that the introduction is out of the way, here are my questions:

1) From the description of the soteriological beliefs I provided above, would you say I am Calvinist and/or reformed?

No, neither.

I think I am a modified (moderate?) Calvinist, but I don't like the label.

I too would reject the label "moderate or modified Calvinist." It is frequently an attempt to avoid the term "Arminian."

2) What makes a person "reformed?" How much can a person deviate from traditional reformed beliefs and still be considered reformed?

I have nothing to add to what others said above.

3) I am exploring the Reformed Baptists, and they seem to hold to New Covenant Theology, while it seems other Reformed Christians hold to covenant theology. Can you be reformed and disagree with Covenant theology?

Not all Reformed Baptists hold to New Covenant Theology. Although some Reformed Baptists see it as one of the basis for believers Baptism. Presbyterians seemed split on the question you raise (are reformed Baptists "reformed"). Many would consider reformed Baptists as Reformed, some would not. One way to look at this question would be to study the teachings at Westminster California. They have a Reformed Baptist section to their seminary. I wonder how many of their Reformed Baptist grads are New Covenant?

Faithful Pilgrim, your probably on your way to a Calvinistic Soteriology... : ).

 

[JM]

Better late than never...

Hello!

I am interested in Calvinism and am wondering what makes a person "Reformed." I am aware that being a Calvinist does not make you reformed. I am new at this, so please correct any misunderstandings I have about reformed theology.

IMO, one must be covenantal in their theology, holds to Reformed soteriology and the Regulative Principle of Worship. This may be a little more narrow than some definitions but...

I agree with Reformed Calvinists on total depravity and irresistible grace and unconditional election, but I disagree with them on atonement and perserverance of saints. I hold to an Amyraldian view of election and I believe in eternal security as I was brought up Southern Baptist.

Maybe spend some time working through the underlying principles that lead you to the conclusions you made above. If man lacks the ability to save himself how is he saved? What moves a soul that lays dead in total depravity from being drawn to the Gospel? Would God make a provision to save people He foreknew would never believe? What keeps a Saint from falling completely; works, grace...neither? Both?

For a long time, I was a dispensationalist, but left as it is extreme. I am a premillenialist, but I also see points raised by amillennialists.

Eschatology is probably the last thing one figures out and sound only do so through the lens of the NT. Good luck! (no such thing, it's all Providence)

1) From the description of the soteriological beliefs I provided above, would you say I am Calvinist and/or reformed?

Keeping working through the scripture and the hermeneutics that brought you this far and you will probably, by God's grace, keep going.

I think I am a modified (moderate?) Calvinist, but I don't like the label.

2) What makes a person "reformed?" How much can a person deviate from traditional reformed beliefs and still be considered reformed?

Spend some time reading the old Baptist Confessions of Faith and you will find plenty of theological gems to further your Bible study.

3) I am exploring the Reformed Baptists, and they seem to hold to New Covenant Theology, while it seems other Reformed Christians hold to covenant theology. Can you be reformed and disagree with Covenant theology?

Yours in the Lord,

jm

 

[TaylorSexton]

I disagree with...perserverance of saints...I believe in eternal security

I am failing to understand how these two statements can both stand, unless, of course, you mean by "eternal security" the (typically Southern Baptist) belief that a person is saved no matter what they do in life, as long as they make a confession of faith, which is far and away removed from orthodox Chrstianity, much less orthodox Reformed theology.

1) From the description of the soteriological beliefs I provided above, would you say I am Calvinist and/or reformed?

I would say you are in the camp will Millard J. Erickson who considers himself "moderately Calvinistic," not believing in limited atonement (and possibly having qualifications to other things).

2) What makes a person "reformed?" How much can a person deviate from traditional reformed beliefs and still be considered reformed?

To most, being "officially" Reformed is holding to a Reformed paedobaptist confession (such as the Westminster Confession of Faith or the Three Forms of Unity). Of course, that makes me not Reformed. Personally, I feel some people are a little ridiculous about this distinction.

3) I am exploring the Reformed Baptists, and they seem to hold to New Covenant Theology, while it seems other Reformed Christians hold to covenant theology. Can you be reformed and disagree with Covenant theology?

Historically, Reformed (Particular) Baptists did not hold to New Covenant Theology, but a modified version of covenant theology, with some variant theologians such as John Gill. I would suggest going to this website for very good instruction on the differences between Reformed Baptist covenant theology and Westminster covenant theology, 20th Century Baptist covenant theology, New Covenant Theology, and Dispensationalism. As it stands, I would classify you as moderately Calvinistic. I don't think you can be technically Reformed (of either the paedobaptist or Baptist variety) and deny covenant theology. However, you can be Calvinist and do so, I believe.

I hope this helps.

 

[JM]

Just a note...Gill believed in ONE covenant (including the Mosaic covenant) with many administrations. 17th century Baptists believed the Mosaic covenant was a republication of the covenant of works.

 

[TaylorSexton]

Just a note...Gill believed in ONE covenant (including the Mosaic covenant) with many administrations. 17th century Baptists believed the Mosaic covenant was a republication of the covenant of works.

Yep, that's why I said he is a "variant." This chart represents his view as opposed to the other model.

 

[AMR]

I disagree with them on ... perserverance of saints.

OSAS tends to lead to the view that there is nothing remaining for the believer in their walk of faith. Who denies that there are not a few of those that sign the pledge card or answer a Finneyistic altar call soon show themselves to be not of us for they went out of us?

The reason is that the typical OSAS view, never carefully explained from the pulpit, ends up in error, such as in Keswickian Exchanged Life views that include rationales leading to licentiousness--doing whatever a person wants "now that I am saved and always will be". OSAS fosters the wrong mindset.

Beloved, believers are not mere punctiliar (one-time event) Christians. The Spirit waters and feeds our repentance and faith through the means of grace. These means keep us alive in the faith and are not just a means for starting us in the faith. God commands our ongoing attention to our faith, that we examine ourselves (feed our faith, starve our doubts) to make sure our faith is real. God also provides that which He commands, ordaining the ends as well as the means to the ends—even the believer's conversion (re-birth, faith, sanctification, final glory). Augustine's little prayer sums it up: "O Lord, grant what Thou dost command and command what Thou dost desire." Pelagius never grasped what Augustine meant, failing to see that no one can please God unless God provides us in some manner via His means to meet His requirements.

As Scripture teaches, enduring to the end, holding fast to the faith, abiding in Christ and His Word are vital to one's conversion (“conversion” here meaning the full salvific process). If these evidences of faith do not exist a professing Christian, upon self examination, should question their conversion to prove it out. But in no way whatsoever does this perseverance imply doing good works. Rather it is from the believer’s duty, their “oughtness” that good works springs, and yet even these good works are not at all of themselves, but wholly from the Spirit of Christ.

But, and this is important, there are some who would hold that a true believer may not persevere and can be ultimately lost. Such is but the view originating from Rome that has smuggled into evangelicals who harbor semi-Pelagianism bringing dishonor to God and Our Lord for what He did for us.

At this point, some would then ask, "Well, if the believer will persevere then why do the Scriptures contain admonitions and warning verses for salvation?" In reply I answer, as noted above, God ordains the end but also the means to the end. One of those means of God for His glory is the perseverance of the believer in faith to the end. God effects His means of perseverance in the believer by admonishing them of the consequences of not persevering to the end. We must take these admonishments seriously. Why? Because these admonishments serve as a means to stir up the faithful.

An example from Scripture might help explain. Consider Paul about to be shipwrecked in Acts 27. We read that God had assured Paul that no one would lose their life in that shipwreck. Yet, despite this clear assurance from God, Paul, being stirred up, admonishes those on the ship that unless the persons trying to leave by the lifeboat remain on board, those on the ship would not be saved. Note here that the Apostle was assured of their salvation, Paul knew the means of their salvation, and his warning produced the desired result.

Speaking under the superintended inspiration of the Holy Spirit, Peter tells us that those who are "elect according to the foreknowledge of God" and "begotten again unto a lively hope" are "kept by the power of God through faith unto salvation ready to be revealed in the last time." (I Peter 1:2-5).

Indeed, God's almighty power preserves the true believer so that he or she receives that final and complete salvation that will be revealed at the eschaton. It can be no other way, for the work of salvation is God's work and God's work does not fail.

The teachings of the perseverance of the saints in Scripture is succinctly described in the Westminster Confession of Faith as follows:

Chapter XVII - Of the Perseverance of the Saints.

1. They, whom God hath accepted in His Beloved, effectually called, and sanctified by His Spirit, can neither totally nor finally fall away from the state of grace, but shall certainly persevere therein to the end, and be eternally saved. (Phil. 1:6, 2 Pet. 1:10, 1 John 3:9, 1 Pet. 1:5,9)

2. This perseverance of the saints depends not upon their own free will, but upon the immutability of the decree of election, flowing from the free and unchangeable love of God the Father; (2 Tim. 2:18-19, Jer. 31:3) upon the efficacy of the merit and intercession of Jesus Christ, (Heb. 10:10, 14, Heb. 13:20-21, Heb. 9:12-15, Rom. 8:33-39, John 17:11, 24, Luke 22:32, Heb. 7:25) the abiding of the Spirit, and of the seed of God within them, (John 14:16-17, 1 John 2:27, 1 John 3:9) and the nature of the covenant of grace: (Jer. 32:40) from all which ariseth also the certainty and infallibility thereof. (John 10:28, 2 Thess. 3:3, 1 John 2:19)

3. Nevertheless, they may, through the temptations of Satan and of the world, the prevalency of corruption remaining in them, and the neglect of the means of their preservation, fall into grievous sins; (Matt. 26:70, 72, 74) and, for a time, continue therein: (Ps. 51 title, Ps. 51:1) whereby they incur God’s displeasure, (Isa. 64:5, 7, 9, 2 Sam. 11:27) and grieve His Holy Spirit, (Eph. 4:30) come to be deprived of some measure of their graces and comforts, (Ps. 51:8, 10, 12, Rev. 2:4, Cant. 5:2-4, 6) have their hearts hardened, (Isa. 63:17, Mark 6:52, Mark 16:14) and their consciences wounded; (Ps. 32:3-4, Ps. 51:8) hurt and scandalize others, (2 Sam. 12:14) and bring temporal judgments upon themselves. (Ps. 89:31-32, 1 Cor. 11:32)

AMR