Very confused new Christian here, seeking greater understanding.

[Dok Bantis]

Greetings, everyone.

I've recently rededicated myself to Christ and am admittedly still quite ignorant regarding many points of Christian theology. In my search for faithful, Bible-believing Christian teachers, I've found some folks on YouTube whom I've come to have a great deal of respect for. (As just one example, Pastor James White has been instrumental in bringing me back to the Christian faith after a number of years in very deep and very dark apostasy.)

After a bit, I noticed that most of the teachers I admire most call themselves Reformed. This is where my confusion begins, unfortunately. My impression thus far is that there is a large amount of crossover between Christians who identify as Reformed and those who call themselves Calvinists. It is my understanding thus far that everyone who is Calvinist is Reformed, but not everyone who is Reformed is Calvinist.

Could some of you good folks help to identify what separates "Reformed Christians" (non-Calvinist) from what I have always just known as "Evangelical" Christians?

This may seem like a bit of a strange question, but as I am building a library of resources (mostly non-academic at this point), I would like to have an idea where any particular author is coming from.

I hope that I am being clear enough, but I fear that I'm having trouble even formulating my question clearly.

Restated: I started out simply seeking good, "small o" orthodox Christian teachings and found myself mostly amongst Reformed pastors. However, I don't think that I believe in some of the tenets of Calvinism. Would I be very much out of place in a "plain old non-denominational" Christian church?

Thanks for your patience with my ignorance and for any assistance you may be able to provide.

 

[disciple Clint]

Greetings, everyone.

I've recently rededicated myself to Christ and am admittedly still quite ignorant regarding many points of Christian theology. In my search for faithful, Bible-believing Christian teachers, I've found some folks on YouTube whom I've come to have a great deal of respect for. (As just one example, Pastor James White has been instrumental in bringing me back to the Christian faith after a number of years in very deep and very dark apostasy.)

After a bit, I noticed that most of the teachers I admire most call themselves Reformed. This is where my confusion begins, unfortunately. My impression thus far is that there is a large amount of crossover between Christians who identify as Reformed and those who call themselves Calvinists. It is my understanding thus far that everyone who is Calvinist is Reformed, but not everyone who is Reformed is Calvinist.

Could some of you good folks help to identify what separates "Reformed Christians" (non-Calvinist) from what I have always just known as "Evangelical" Christians?

This may seem like a bit of a strange question, but as I am building a library of resources (mostly non-academic at this point), I would like to have an idea where any particular author is coming from.

I hope that I am being clear enough, but I fear that I'm having trouble even formulating my question clearly.

Restated: I started out simply seeking good, "small o" orthodox Christian teachings and found myself mostly amongst Reformed pastors. However, I don't think that I believe in some of the tenets of Calvinism. Would I be very much out of place in a "plain old non-denominational" Christian church?

Thanks for your patience with my ignorance and for any assistance you may be able to provide.

Unfortunately hardly anyone anymore agrees on the strict definition of terms when it comes to Theology. So reformed can mean anything from the classic understanding of Calvinist to who knows what. My suggestion, find out what local churches you might be interested in attending, many churches have online sermons available for you to listen to, sample them, find the one or two you like, attend a couple of services, see what seems to fit. Many churches also publish online an outline of what they believe, if you know what you believe that can be helpful for matching up your needs. I would suggest that you sit down with the pastor and explore those believes that are important to you. Once you find a good fit get active in the church and grow with it.

 

[Andrewn]

My impression thus far is that there is a large amount of crossover between Christians who identify as Reformed and those who call themselves Calvinists. It is my understanding thus far that everyone who is Calvinist is Reformed, but not everyone who is Reformed is Calvinist.

Reformed = Calvinist

Why Do Calvinists and Arminians Disagree So Strongly?

 

[JM]

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

 

[JM]

Greetings, everyone.

I've recently rededicated myself to Christ and am admittedly still quite ignorant regarding many points of Christian theology. In my search for faithful, Bible-believing Christian teachers, I've found some folks on YouTube whom I've come to have a great deal of respect for. (As just one example, Pastor James White has been instrumental in bringing me back to the Christian faith after a number of years in very deep and very dark apostasy.)

After a bit, I noticed that most of the teachers I admire most call themselves Reformed. This is where my confusion begins, unfortunately. My impression thus far is that there is a large amount of crossover between Christians who identify as Reformed and those who call themselves Calvinists. It is my understanding thus far that everyone who is Calvinist is Reformed, but not everyone who is Reformed is Calvinist.

Could some of you good folks help to identify what separates "Reformed Christians" (non-Calvinist) from what I have always just known as "Evangelical" Christians?

This may seem like a bit of a strange question, but as I am building a library of resources (mostly non-academic at this point), I would like to have an idea where any particular author is coming from.

I hope that I am being clear enough, but I fear that I'm having trouble even formulating my question clearly.

Restated: I started out simply seeking good, "small o" orthodox Christian teachings and found myself mostly amongst Reformed pastors. However, I don't think that I believe in some of the tenets of Calvinism. Would I be very much out of place in a "plain old non-denominational" Christian church?

Thanks for your patience with my ignorance and for any assistance you may be able to provide.

Reformed Christianity is small 'c' catholicism. It's orthodox biblical teaching. The best place to start is with the Reformed Confessions of Faith and work through them, taking time to look up the scriptural texts to 'show thyself approved.'

Tabular Comparison of 1646 WCF and 1689 LBCF

Calvinism is based in covenant theology, covenant theology is grounded in scripture (sola scriptura). Scripture teaches us to look to Christ alone (sola Christus) for salvation and that salvation is by grace alone (sola gratia) through the instrumentality of faith (sola fida). All of this is for the glory of God alone (soli Deo gloria).

Yours in the Lord,

jm

 

[Dok Bantis]

Thanks for the replies thus far.

From what I'm seeing elsewhere, the debate over the five points seems to require one to be quite theologically knowledgeable. I'd be embarrassed to even wade into those waters. For example, my simple and naïve understanding sees no conflict between the issues of human free will and God's omniscience. Of, I should say that I think the apparent conflict arises as a result of differences between human perspective and God's perspective.

Though I suppose that does raise the issue of what it means for God to have created the overwhelming majority of humanity with the foreknowledge that they were doomed to an eternity in Hell. Hmmmm, I see the issue. But if God is truly omniscient, I don't know of any way around that issue. It seems to me that human free will must be enacted on the human scale - despite the fact that our freely-made choices can never surprise God.

Well, I said that I'd be embarrassed to wade into these waters, but I immediately waded into them.

 

[JM]

Thanks for the replies thus far.

From what I'm seeing elsewhere, the debate over the five points seems to require one to be quite theologically knowledgeable. I'd be embarrassed to even wade into those waters. For example, my simple and naïve understanding sees no conflict between the issues of human free will and God's omniscience. Of, I should say that I think the apparent conflict arises as a result of differences between human perspective and God's perspective.

Though I suppose that does raise the issue of what it means for God to have created the overwhelming majority of humanity with the foreknowledge that they were doomed to an eternity in Hell. Hmmmm, I see the issue. But if God is truly omniscient, I don't know of any way around that issue. It seems to me that human free will must be enacted on the human scale - despite the fact that our freely-made choices can never surprise God.

Well, I said that I'd be embarrassed to wade into these waters, but I immediately waded into them.

Polemics and apologetics are not for everyone so don't feel bad if you're not a theology nerd. The body is made up of many parts, God created you with specific strengths, so play to those strengths. Just don't feel bad because Reformed folks tend to be stuffy, Spoke-like logic freaks who like to argue from their faux leather armchair lol That is usually a phase that fades with time. At the end of the day we are all struggling to live according to God's word, to reach the lost, to love God with all of our hearts, to seek His face, to shun sin, to walk in the Spirit...we are all in desperate need of Jesus.

 

[The Righterzpen]

@Dok Bantis - To "simply" things a little bit. The term "reformed" comes from "The Reformation". The intent of "the Reformation" was to "reform" the Roman Catholic Church. This is where the term "reformed" originated from.

The Reformation though brought about / into light all different kinds of Protestant churches. (Lutherans, Anglicans Presbyterians, Baptists etc) There were "puritans" and then there were "liberals". Following the Reformation were several revivals. The greatest most far reaching began to come to pass starting in the later half of the 18th century.

These revivals later morphed into what we'd call "Pentecostalism" today.

Now "reformed" gets connected to "Calvinism" because Calvin was one of the early "reformers". There were other "branch off" groups who were also part of the Reformation. (We have the Huguenots in France. The puritans in England (who came to the Americas). Later we have the Methodists.

Presbyterianism is a form of church governance; not actually a "theological doctrine". Presbyterian tend to differ from Baptist in the way churches are run. Presbyterians have an ecclesiastical hierarchy where Baptists and "non-denominational" usually don't. Episcopal Anglican and Lutheran churches also have an ecclesiastical hierarchy; but theirs more resembles Roman Catholicism's ecclesiastical hierarchy than Presbyterianism does.

Reformed churches tend to be Presbyterian in church governance; but not all Presbyterian churches are "reformed" in doctrine (as related to John Calvin). There are also "reformed baptist" churches as well as "reformed non-denominational" churches.

So that's where the term "reformed" comes from.

And as was mentioned by JM; many "reformed" churches follow what's called "Covenant Theology". Covenant Theology though involves doctrines related to form and who (and why babies) are baptized and this is why Reformed Presbyterian churches differ from Reformed Baptist churches.

Now to understand the difference between Reformed Presbyterian and Reformed Baptist will depend on how those who claim these labels view the Old Testament. Covenant Theology tends to "morph" circumcision with baptism. They believe that since infant males were circumcised as part of the OT covenant that infant children "should" be baptized as part of the NT covenant. Covenant theology is kind of a "family system"; where as baptists believe one is to be baptized upon their own personal profession of faith.

Now personally, I believe Presbyterianism is the more Biblical form of church governance; but I'm more in the "believer's baptism" camp than I'm in the "baptize infants" camp.

Now my view of "covenant theology" is that it's all one covenant. The OT and NT are two different sides of the same coin. The redemption plan; which is the "covenant" made among the members of the Godhead is the driving force behind the message of the combined Old and New Testaments.

I do understand the "reasoning" behind why reformed Presbyterians baptize infants. Although even when I went to an Orthodox Presbyterian Church; I did not have my son baptized until he made his own profession of faith. He was baptized at a christian music festival by a "run of the mill" evangelical baptist preacher in a hotel swimming pool.

He was baptized at this festival because the OPC church we attended would not baptize him unless he formally joined the church. Well, he's developmentally disabled and he was not going to get up in front of everyone to be baptized and "make a formal confession of faith". Now he had "made profession of faith" before the church session and the preacher was willing to baptize him in a private setting with only a few church members who he knew well and who knew him; but the session refused to do this. We eventually left that church; but there was a lot going on there. That particular church has a lot of issues with "church politicking" and "who gets to be in charge of what".

I'd confronted the session with the fact that the only people who were at the Ethiopian eunuch's baptism were him and Philip; but they weren't willing to heed Scripture. And if they really "practiced" covenant theology; I was still the head of his household and I'd continue to be the head of his household until either I die or he dies. So because I'd already formally joined that church; there was no reason they should treat his baptism any differently than they'd treat an "infant baptism"; outside of the caveat of listening to his own profession of faith. Because he is a member of my household; according to their "covenant theology rules" there is no reason for him to have to "join the church" as an individual.

And here's the danger you will likely run into with established denominations. Their institutes of men tend to override Scripture "in practice".

On the "flip side" of this though; you also run into more of a risk with a baptist type preacher becoming authoritarian; because there is no "regulating" hierarchy to keep preachers from "running amok" because Baptist churches tend to be independent churches.

 

[The Righterzpen]

@Dok Bantis - Now as per your question about "Calvinism" verses "Free will"; I think you are "on the right track" in the context of the semantics of "word meanings".

I.E. what do we mean by "free will"?

Yes, there are entities who have wills that are independent from the "will of God" and they are certainly capable of making decisions apart from the wishes of God (as well as the wishes of other entities); but that state of personal autonomy is not unique to humans. (Ever train an animal?) My cat very vocally exercises a "free will".

But theologically speaking; "free will" is not defined by the ability to exercise an independent volition. Theologically, a "free will means a will that is not encumbered by sin or the fall. And by that definition the only human who ever had a totally free will was Christ.

Even animals don't have a "free will" theologically speaking because they are still affected by the fall.

Adam didn't even really have a "free will" in the fact that he was a temporal being created into an environment that made it possible for him to transgress. Adam, unlike Jesus did not have a Divine nature. Inevitably, the only thing Adam could do was "fall".

So one's will is not "free" post fall because all of Adam's progeny are corrupted by the evil that became known to man through Adam's transgression. We all have a fallen nature before we actively sin. And because of that fallen nature is why we will sin. And this is why theologically speaking; none of us have a "free will" and we need regeneration to even be able to "contemplate" obeying God.

And in order to be regenerated; one has to be "elect". This is where "predestination", "election" and "limited atonement" come in.

Now on top of this; there is a difference in the relationship of the Holy Spirit to the post-Pentecost NT believer that was not also true of the OT believer. OT believers were not "indwelt" by the Holy Ghost and this is because the atonement was yet to be completed "in time".

This does not mean that OT believers were not elect and that they were not atoned for. Their relationship to the Holy Spirit was just different than post-Pentecost NT believers.

We now have the power to consistently obey God; and with the exception of what Paul calls "the sin that remains" we have what is closest to a "free will" that is possible for fallen humanity to have this side of eternity.

And here is why the "material world" aspect of the death, burial and resurrection of Christ is so important. Without the material aspect of the redemption plan (including the return of Christ and the recreated cosmos where there is no death and sin) our redemption means nothing. This is why Paul says: "that if Christ not be raised, you are dead in your sin and your faith is in vain".

Redemption has to "come into the real world" and the part of that we see in this life is "sanctification". Sanctification involves "repent" and "believe". Those two elements will be present in the life of a genuine believer.

Repentances means to "turn" from one's sin. And here is where the attitude and lifestyle of a believer is going to be notably different than the attitudes and lifestyle of an unbeliever.

Now there are a lot of externally moral (looking) unbelievers; but they lack trust in the atoning work of Christ (thus commonly have "works gospels") and their repentance produces no real change in their attitude or lifestyle. They are generally very self righteous, ridged and lack compassion.

On the flip side of that are the "antinomians". These are the "sin more so grace abounds" philosophical adherents. These people tend to exhibit no real lifestyle change in regards to morality. They know Scripture has moral parameters. Some how in their minds though; they've deceived themselves into thinking those moral parameters don't really apply to them.

These people may appear to have "compassion" which generally though manifests as emotional volatility if one "strikes the wrong cord" with them. These are the people who tend to accuse others of being "judgemental" when they are confronted with the Scripture passages that demand morality should be a practicing part of a believer's life.

And here is the "material world" manifestation of the difference between a life powered by the indwelling Holy Spirit and one who does not have the benefit of the indwelling Holy Spirit. No genuine believer today though is not indwelled by the Holy Ghost post conversion.

Actually conversion usually comes shortly after regeneration. The Holy Ghost quickening someone to spiritual life is what brings about conversion. This is the "real world" manifest reaction of being predestine and elect. This only happens because one has been atoned for. In regeneration comes the "making alive" of the will as the individual's "dead nature" is resurrected. Dead men don't have a will to obey God. This is why believers must be elect and predestine to redemption.

Now how one's will and actions play into the punishment the unregenerate reap in eternity, is the other side of this coin. The wages of sin is death. Punishment is a wage that's earned based on the actions a person decides to engage; on account of their fallen nature. This is true despite the fact that "theological speaking" they do not have a "free will".

What they do have though is a conscience and a "witness" that tells them God is real and He demands obedience. They know that; even if they profess that they can't follow it. A "seared conscience" doesn't mean lack of understanding of right and wrong. A seared conscience is simply the refusal to obey what one knows is the difference between right and wrong. Thus the plight of what psychology calls "the narcissist"; be they "criminal narcissists" or not. They know; they just don't care.

Now the good news for those who have a genuine conviction that they rightfully deserve to be condemned; is that Christ was condemned on behalf of those who hold the conviction that they need redemption. A lot of people "understand" that they need redemption but are not "convicted" that they need redemption. "Believing the gospel" is not simply giving intellectual ascent to the idea that one is a sinner and worthy of God's wrath. Belief involves conviction of sin. That comes about from regeneration. Regeneration produces the power to overcome sin; making repentance noticeable in "real world application".

Now the goodness of God can allow for "moral reformation" outside of the reality of a genuine rebirth. Lots of sinners turn their lives around outside of trusting Christ. We see this in philosophy and psychology. People who undergo that process outside of regeneration, tend to see themselves though as the source of their reformation and not the gracious goodness of God who did indeed guide them along the way. For the reality is that all God has to do is to remove His hand of restraint and the totality wickedness of the fallen nature quickly manifests itself. God performs this grace upon us as societies though; for His own purposes of gathering His elect.

 

[Dok Bantis]

@The Righterzpen thank you much for such an informative post. I've read it once, but know that I'll need to read it more than once in order to understand it more fully.
I will share with you the fact that I have spent decades searching everywhere but in Christ for what I know I need. What made me end up rejecting every other path, every other faith, is the sense that no other faith offers redemption, and what I need is redemption.
Is it possible to know whether one is one of the elect? It seems that believing that one has "a genuine conviction that they rightfully deserve to be condemned" could be quite an unreliable method.

 

[The Righterzpen]

@The Righterzpen thank you much for such an informative post. I've read it once, but know that I'll need to read it more than once in order to understand it more fully.
I will share with you the fact that I have spent decades searching everywhere but in Christ for what I know I need. What made me end up rejecting every other path, every other faith, is the sense that no other faith offers redemption, and what I need is redemption.
Is it possible to know whether one is one of the elect? It seems that believing that one has "a genuine conviction that they rightfully deserve to be condemned" could be quite an unreliable method.

Yes, it is possible for an individual to know whether or not themself is elect. That is often a process that takes the time of recognizing sanctification; sometimes over the course of years.

Some people's turn around in life is dramatic and for them, it may require waiting on seeing if the change "sticks".

Other people, it's more the process of a change in how they think; especially if their life has been pretty much absent of behaviors that are generally recognized as "sinful lifestyles". A lot of abuse survivors fall into this category, as a lot of their struggles are "between their ears".

Battling depression is a common issue that often interferes with a person's perception of their security. "Have I really been redeemed?" People can still struggle with this doubt; even when there is evidence of faith and real change in their life.

Especially people who endured some form of abuse as children. They can have a hard time shaking the perception that everything that happened to them is their fault and they are just the worst people in the whole world. One may feel that way, even when they can intellectually see that things that happened to them were indeed the action of someone else.

They "get stuck" in what psychology would call "the egocentric child stage". Abuse is a factor that interferes with the developmental phase of self autonomy. "I'm a separate entity from your actions and your rage (or inappropriate sexual behavior) is not my fault." Understanding and internalizing self autonomy is a neurological brain development thing. It's part of "Attachment theory"; which affects people's perception of God as well as their perception of self and how they relate to others.

And that breadth of psychological obstacles can be hard to untangle as that "psychological profile" relates to theology. Evil is not just a philosophical concept. It's a real "thing" and has real consequences in people's lives.

Now to "have a genuine conviction that they rightfully deserve to be condemned" applies to one's understanding of the need for redemption in the first place. A lot of people deceive themselves into believing they don't need God. They aren't sinners; why do they need a savior. That's a different "psychological profile".

But a "genuine conviction" is also determinate upon a rightful understanding of what condemnation is incurred for in the first place.

Most adults can reason that a four year old should not incur condemnation for a parent beating them. Children often "misbehave" for reasons other than rebellion and sin. They get tired. They get overwhelmed. Their capacity to cope becomes over taxed. They don't have the cognitive or vocabulary capacity to express what they need. They don't have the reasoning capacity to control themselves. And if parents don't have the emotional capacity (often due to their own mental health) to teach the kid coping skills; the only capacity the child is left to resort to is having a meltdown.

The kid gets frustrated with themselves for their "inability to behave" (because the parent's reaction is usually unpredictable). And thus the kid retains a pathological belief that everything is their fault. And that belief is not centered in reality, because the kid can't reason out reality.

Scripture speaks of "Godly sorrow" that leads to repentance. There is an ungodly sorrow; just as there's a false repentance. How many people do you know who are only sorry getting caught and not genuinely sorry for what they did. Pedophiles are notorious for this form of false repentance. Genuine repentance creates a change in behavior. Yet moral reformation can also create a change in behavior. The difference is that genuine repentance springs out of faith (which is connected to one's understanding of their relational position to God)

In genuine repentance; the imputes to change is rooted in love. Fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom. But the end of wisdom is love because "perfect love casts out fear". This is eventually what's learned in the sanctification process and is the source of a believer's security.

 

[hedrick]

One characteristic of Reformed Christianity is that its churches use confessions. Thus the obvious response to the OP is to point him to confessions.

The most common one used in the US is probably the Westminster Confession (The Westminster Confession of Faith (1647) by Westminster Divines), because Presbyterians are probably the most common Reformed group, but for a generic Reformed confession, it might be better to point to Heidelberg (Heidelberg Catechism) or more briefly, Calvin's French Confession (The French Confession of Faith - A. D. 1559 - John Calvin).

Note that many churches from the Reformed tradition are now mainline. Of them, the PCUSA has been the best at defining confessions to represent the mainline Reformed faith. Thus to represent that branch I would point to the Confession of 1967 (Confession of 1967).

 

[hedrick]

Here’s a nice summary of what Reformed means, from the conservative side. What Does the Term "REFORMED" Mean?

 

[Daniel Marsh]

Greetings, everyone.

I've recently rededicated myself to Christ and am admittedly still quite ignorant regarding many points of Christian theology. In my search for faithful, Bible-believing Christian teachers, I've found some folks on YouTube whom I've come to have a great deal of respect for. (As just one example, Pastor James White has been instrumental in bringing me back to the Christian faith after a number of years in very deep and very dark apostasy.)

After a bit, I noticed that most of the teachers I admire most call themselves Reformed. This is where my confusion begins, unfortunately. My impression thus far is that there is a large amount of crossover between Christians who identify as Reformed and those who call themselves Calvinists. It is my understanding thus far that everyone who is Calvinist is Reformed, but not everyone who is Reformed is Calvinist.

Could some of you good folks help to identify what separates "Reformed Christians" (non-Calvinist) from what I have always just known as "Evangelical" Christians?

This may seem like a bit of a strange question, but as I am building a library of resources (mostly non-academic at this point), I would like to have an idea where any particular author is coming from.

I hope that I am being clear enough, but I fear that I'm having trouble even formulating my question clearly.

Restated: I started out simply seeking good, "small o" orthodox Christian teachings and found myself mostly amongst Reformed pastors. However, I don't think that I believe in some of the tenets of Calvinism. Would I be very much out of place in a "plain old non-denominational" Christian church?

Thanks for your patience with my ignorance and for any assistance you may be able to provide.

T.U.L.I.P. or, The Five Points of Calvinism
TULIP: PDF Download - Bethlehem College and Seminary