Reformed versus Calvinist

[KJVisTruth]

A Reformed theologian will hold to:
1. The Spiritual presence of Christ in the Lord's supper

Thats communion, correct? "The spiritual presence" clearly shows its different from the Catholic's communion. What about Eucharist, if its different from communion in Reformed theology?

 

[Robert_Barnes]

Reformed Calvinists do hold to it. Those who are not reformed do not because we come from other traditions (who hold the proper view) which teach believer's baptism as the proper Biblical course.

This statement is implicitly false. It implies that the Churches which baptize infants do NOT believe in "believer's baptism". They all most certainly do.

If an adult converts, then the ordu salutis is that they first believe, and then they are baptized.

For the children however, belief is not a prerequisite to baptism, just as belief was not a prerequisite to circumcision in the OT. In Reformed theology, the child is included in the covenant through baptism. The parents then "train up the child in the way that he should go..."

The Refomred view is MUCH closer to the Biblical pattern than the Anabaptist view.

 

[BereanTodd]

This statement is implicitly false. It implies that the Churches which baptize infants do NOT believe in "believer's baptism". They all most certainly do.

If an adult converts, then the ordu salutis is that they first believe, and then they are baptized.

For the children however, belief is not a prerequisite to baptism, just as belief was not a prerequisite to circumcision in the OT. In Reformed theology, the child is included in the covenant through baptism. The parents then "train up the child in the way that he should go..."

Are those children who had been baptised as infants later re-baptised once they come to faith? Because there is a Biblical order to it ...

The Refomred view is MUCH closer to the Biblical pattern than the Anabaptist view.

The pattern everywhere in the NT is belief first baptism second. Please show me one NT passage of an infant being baptised.

 

[cygnusx1]

aside from the baptism issue , back to the OP , if a person is a Lutheran , and by that I mean believing in Luthers teaching , is he not Reformed ?

 

[Iosias]

Reformed Calvinists do hold to it. Those who are not reformed do not because we come from other traditions (who hold the proper view) which teach believer's baptism as the proper Biblical course.

I have gotta smile at this

 

[Iosias]

Thats communion, correct? "The spiritual presence" clearly shows its different from the Catholic's communion. What about Eucharist, if its different from communion in Reformed theology?

Yes, Communion, Lord's supper, Eucharist, I am not sure what your question is I am afraid.

 

[Iosias]

aside from the baptism issue , back to the OP , if a person is a Lutheran , and by that I mean believing in Luthers teaching , is he not Reformed ?

Lutherans are not Reformed.

 

[JimfromOhio]

Lutherans were part of the Reformation but they do not hold Reformed teachings.

 

[Robert_Barnes]

Are those children who had been baptised as infants later re-baptised once they come to faith? Because there is a Biblical order to it ...



The pattern everywhere in the NT is belief first baptism second. Please show me one NT passage of an infant being baptised.

This isn't the thread for that. But you were trumpeting your position as "the" Biblical position; just thought I'd return the favor.

 

[KJVisTruth]

Yes, Communion, Lord's supper, Eucharist, I am not sure what your question is I am afraid.

Ohh I guess theres no difference between Communion and Eucharist in all denominations. I thought there was in a few denominations, sorry. =)

 

[BereanTodd]

aside from the baptism issue , back to the OP , if a person is a Lutheran , and by that I mean believing in Luthers teaching , is he not Reformed ?

Nope, Lutherans are Lutherans. The Reformed Theologians draw heritage from the ... Reformed movement, which was parrallell to Luther's move. It began under Zwingli at roughly the same time as Luther, passed to others such as Calvin, and Presbyterians are basically direct descendants of it (being started by reformed believers in Scotland).

 

[Iosias]

Ohh I guess theres no difference between Communion and Eucharist in all denominations. I thought there was in a few denominations, sorry. =)

It is just a different word describing the same thing

 

[Robert_Barnes]

aside from the baptism issue , back to the OP , if a person is a Lutheran , and by that I mean believing in Luthers teaching , is he not Reformed ?

Lutherans are NOT Reformed!

Unfortunately, Lutherans do have the tendency to call anything that is not RC, EO, or Lutheran "Reformed".

Thus, Methodists, Charismatics, whatever: they're all Reformed.



In spite of having the best theology around, Lutherans can be rather dense sometimes.

 

[KJVisTruth]

Lutherans are not Reformed.

Can you explain why? Wasnt Luther a reformist? I have read some of his writings, although I am not too fond of these.

 

[JimfromOhio]

Can you explain why? Wasnt Luther a reformist? I have read some of his writings, although I am not too fond of these.

Martin Luther started the Reformation while Lutherans are not Reformed, they do hold similar but not the same teachings. Many of today's Lutheran denominations do not really hold Martin Luther's teachings and only a few actually hold Luther's teachings.

 

[KJVisTruth]

Martin Luther started the Reformation while Lutherans are not Reformed, they do hold similar but not the same teachings. Many of today's Lutheran denominations do not really hold Martin Luther's teachings and only a few actually hold Luther's teachings.

Ahh I see, thanks. =)

 

[Robert_Barnes]

Can you explain why? Wasnt Luther a reformist? I have read some of his writings, although I am not too fond of these.

It's the difference between a noun and an adjective.

Yes, Luther was a "reformer", but he was not Reformed.

 

[BereanTodd]

Can you explain why? Wasnt Luther a reformist? I have read some of his writings, although I am not too fond of these.

Luther started a part of the reformation, at basically the same time in Switzerland Zwingli started one as well. Luther's became Lutheranism and Zwingli's the Reformed movement.

Lutherans basically were Catholics with slight differences on a few issues (consubstantiation as opposed to transubstantiation, matters of justification). They wanted originally to change the RCC, move it back towards the truth (as they saw it).

The Reformed movement under Zwingli was much more radical. They rejected much more of what Roman Catholicism taught and didn't so much change what was wrong with the RCC (in their eyes) as they did try and start all over with a more Biblical model.

Now there was a time where Luther and Zwingli met to try and form some sort of 'union' or 'unity' between themselves, but while Zwingli was willing to forge it, Luther was not. Luther was adamant that Christ was in the Lord's Supper (consubstantiation) while the Reformed movement saw it as symbollic. Luther was not willing to have any fellowship as long as that issue separated them.

 

[KJVisTruth]

I know this is leading off the OP but I am curious...

Arent most protestant denominations actually Reformed, only not as rigid?

 

[Robert_Barnes]

Luther started a part of the reformation, at basically the same time in Switzerland Zwingli started one as well. Luther's became Lutheranism and Zwingli's the Reformed movement.

Lutherans basically were Catholics with slight differences on a few issues (consubstantiation as opposed to transubstantiation, matters of justification). They wanted originally to change the RCC, move it back towards the truth (as they saw it).

The Reformed movement under Zwingli was much more radical. They rejected much more of what Roman Catholicism taught and didn't so much change what was wrong with the RCC (in their eyes) as they did try and start all over with a more Biblical model.

Now there was a time where Luther and Zwingli met to try and form some sort of 'union' or 'unity' between themselves, but while Zwingli was willing to forge it, Luther was not. Luther was adamant that Christ was in the Lord's Supper (consubstantiation) while the Reformed movement saw it as symbollic. Luther was not willing to have any fellowship as long as that issue separated them.

Lutherans do not -- and HAVE NEVER -- believed in consubstantiation.

Lutherans believe in the Real Presence of Christ in the Lord's Supper. Christ's body and blood are "in, with, and under" the bread and the wine.

Lutherans adamantly REJECT 'consubstantiation" because it implies and adherence to a scientific explanation for Christ's Presence in the Supper. Lutherans see no need for such an explanation: it is a mystery.

Jesus said, "This is my body," therefore it is his body. The heretic Zwingli changed Christ's words to mean "This represents my body." Like Bill Clinton..."is" doesn't mean "is". Calvin, to his credit, saw Zwingli's interpretation for the lie that it is.