Featured What does Reformed really mean?

If Jesus had not paid for my sins on the cross, I could not believe in him in any true sense. So since I believe and experience his love in my heart, it tells me he paid for my sins. My faith and works are evidence of my salvation. Not the means for obtaining it.

 

TO ME THE WORD REFORMED REFERS TO THE DOCTRINES OF THE REFORMERS, MANY OF THE FIRST GENERATION CHURCHES REMOVED FROM THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH STRUGGELED TO SURVIVE . THE CHURCHES OF THAT DAY AND TODAY ATTEMPT TO GAIN IN SIZE BY PREACHING TO ITCHING EARS, WITH ENTICING WORDS, WITH VAIN PHILOSOPHY, WE MUST THEN BEGIN WITH A WORD FOR WORD TRANSLATION OF THE BIBLE, STUDY TO SHOW OURSELVES APPROVED UNTO GOD, SEARCH THE SCRIPTURES DAILY, AND PRAY FOR GOD TO DIRECT OUR PATHS TO UNDERSTANDING. PRAY GOD WILL DIRECT YOUR PATH TO GOOD COUNSEL. THEY THAT ARE ONLY LOOKING TO LIFT GOD, CHRIST, AND THE HOLY SPIRST NOT THEIR SELF INTEREST. PRAY, GOD BLESS

 

That's not what the Bible says.


But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.
John 20:31 KJV

For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.
Romans 1:16 KJV

In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise,
Ephesians 1:13 KJV

He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.
John 3:36 KJV



Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk

 

Since I can do all of the above, I know Jesus saved me. Or else I could not believe. And I give God all the glory for my salvation. If you choose to do all the above and save yourself, you get the glory, not God.

 

What does Reformed really mean? Nothing in the final judgement;

judgement seat of Christ

2Co 5:10 KJV For we must all (born-again believers - wb) appear before the judgment seat of Christ; that every one may receive the things [done] in [his] body, according to that he hath done, whether [it be] good or bad.

or the Great White Throne judgement.

Rev 20:11-12 KJV And I saw a great white throne, and him that sat on it, from whose face the earth and the heaven fled away; and there was found no place for them. 12 And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is [the book] of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works.

Reformed is a word that Satan has interjected in the Christian community to bring about bickering and confusion.

 

Order of salvation, as shown in those scriptures, is:
IF you believe, THEN you are saved.

Not:
IF you are saved, THEN you believe.

You've got it wrong.

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk

 

You are reading free will into them.

 

Sorry, but you did NOT sit under the preaching of a Reformed preacher. In 60 years under Reformed baptist ministry I have NEVER heard such teaching.

God uses means to the freely proclaimed Gospel to call his elect -

1 Cor. 1:18 For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. 19 For it is written:

‘I will destroy the wisdom of the wise;
the intelligence of the intelligent I will frustrate.’

20 Where is the wise person? Where is the teacher of the law? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? 21 For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe. 22 Jews demand signs and Greeks look for wisdom, 23 but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling-block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles, 24 but to those whom God has called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. 25 For the foolishness of God is wiser than human wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than human strength.​

Respond to the Gospel by repentance & faith & you are saved. Reject the Gospel and you are lost. Note John 3 -

16 16 For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. 17 For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. 18 Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because they have not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son. 19 This is the verdict: light has come into the world, but people loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil. 20 Everyone who does evil hates the light, and will not come into the light for fear that their deeds will be exposed. 21 But whoever lives by the truth comes into the light, so that it may be seen plainly that what they have done has been done in the sight of God.​

 

I am reading the Bible. You are forcing your theology onto the text.

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL

 

I like your points about the birth of religious toleration having British roots, but the reality of the 17th century that the Sepratists were first forced to flee from the United Kingdom to Holland and then on to become the Pilgrims of North America. The North American Colonies are where Quakers and Dutch and Huguenots and Puritains and non-Catholics and non-Anglicans of every flavor fled to avoid persecution in their home countries. Christian tolerance among different denominations became necessary for survival in North America in a way that the United Kingdom has the freedom to “take it or leave it.”

 

I take your points. However, the Pilgrim fathers et al left the persecution, first of James I and then of of Charles I and Archbishop Laud between 1620 and around 1640. My understanding is that all was not always sweetness and light among the different denominations in New England. I seem to recall an instance where a Quaker girl kept coming onto Presbyterian territory to proselytize and they hanged her.

There was religious tolerance in England for all except Roman Catholics under Cromwell, but when Charles II returned things got very bad for Dissenters until James II was kicked out in 1688. After that, as I said, the power of the monarchy was curtailed and religious freedoms steadily improved, though not separation of Church and State, which we still don't have entirely in Britain.

 

If you believe that Reformed Christians don't believe that verse just as it stands, then you know absolutely nothing about the Reformed faith. If you would like to learn something about Reformed Christianity, all you have to do is ask. If you would sooner retain your prejudices, just keep posting.

BTW, if you press the 'caps lock' on your keyboard, you'll find you won't be writing in CAPITALS all the time.

 

Based on my knowledge of church history and such, "Reformed" means that when the Bible finally was translated into the native tongues of Europe, people began reading it and tried to reform the predominant State religious institution of the time...the Roman Catholic Church. Failing that, they separated and went their ways, establishing their own assemblies according to their own understandings of Scripture.

Ultimately, to me, "Reformed" in the traditional sense is Dutch Reformed, Scottish Presbyterian or the like. In the USA, it's Reformed Churches in America, most Presbyterians except PCUSA, and some who call themselves "Reformed Baptists". They almost all hold to infant baptism and Amillennialism.


From my perspective and reading of Scripture, Particular Baptists are as close as it gets to true doctrine and practice.

I also hold that there are potentially born-again believers anywhere the word of God is preached...but I don't think that they will stay in liberal, worldly churches for their entire lives. As I see it, true believers gravitate to the truth of their Saviour's words and seek to obey Him...false believers do not.




Best regards.

 

“Reformed” is someone who believes what they read in the Bible instead of believing what some “Priest” told them (like a Roman Catholic).

 

You can read these passages two ways. Here's an example: "Whosoever believes has eternal life". Free Will says: "whosoever chooses to believe". Grace says "whosoever believes". Clearly, grace depicts believing as a characteristic of those whom God saves. Free Will believes the person becomes the savior when they choose to comply. We should not take the OP off topic, and move this to the Calvinist/Arminian thread. So I won't respond to this any further in this thread.

 

That is precisely what the Bible says:

" Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." ( Hebrews 11:1 )
Faith is the evidence of salvation...not the means of obtaining it.

" He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.
19 And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.
20 For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved.
21 But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God." ( John 3:18-21 )

He that does truth ( the believer ), comes to the Light ( Jesus Christ, John 8:12 ), so that his deeds may be made manifest ( shown to be ) that they are wrought ( worked ) in God.
Good works are evidence that a person is saved ( John 3:21 )...they do not procure salvation ( Titus 3:4-7 ).

So, according to Scripture, 1689Dave has just confessed to the same things that the "Reformers" did...Faith and works are products of being given the gift of eternal life ( John 17:2-3, Romans 6:23, Ephesians 2:8-9 ), they are not the means by which one gains salvation.


This is the essence of what "reformed" really is:

Sola Scriptura ( Scripture alone )
Sola Fide ( Faith alone )
Sola Gratia ( Grace alone )
Soli Deo Gloria ( God's glory alone )
Solus Christus / Solo Christo ( Christ alone )

Let's look at the passages you used above, InTheLight:

Respectfully,

This is what I see...but I wasn't always clear on it, either:

John 20:31 is in the declarative...it declares the reason why the things in verse 30 ( which you didn't post ) were written...so that the reader might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that because they believe, they might have life through His name.

Romans 1:16 is, again, a declarative. The Gospel of Christ is the power of God ( see 1 Corinthians 1:18 ) unto ( up to or to ) salvation to everyone that believes...to the Jew first, and to the Gentile believer.

Ephesians 1:13 states the order of the indwelling of the Holy Ghost, His sealing until the day of redemption ( See Ephesians 4:30 ) not the order of salvation. The order of salvation is Acts of the Apostles 13:48, John 10:26, John 6:29, Romans 8:29-30, 2 Thessalonians 2:13-14, Ephesians 1:4-5, Psalms 65:4.

John 3:36 is, yet again, another declarative...He that believes has ( present tense ) everlasting life. He that does not believe, shall not see that life, but instead has the wrath of God abiding ( resting ) on him. Nothing here about an order of salvation, but a simple fact of Scripture. Those that believe show that they are in possession of eternal life...those that don't are damned to Hell.



His blessings upon you, should that be His will.

 

Highland clearances is that what you call it!?! I call it typical Hanoverian (German) brutality... bloody ba***rds!

 

If we remove the expletive & the *s we are left with bards, & certainly the songs written following the brutality have an enduring quality, even enjoyed in the English court.

Your Tom Lehrer was right when he wrote -
..... he may have won all the battles,
but we had all the good songs.

 

1689 Federalism is rather new to the covenant theology scene. It is an attempt to present a covenant theology that does not share the same framework as Westminster covenant theology. Some of its notable proponents (Rich Barcellos, James Renihan, and Pascal Denault) present 1689 Federalism as existing in form as early as the 17th century. I think their efforts are beneficial. Covenantal Baptists are better served by understanding their unique distinctives as compared to Westminsterism. Baptists are famous for being all over the map when it comes to theology. The real test for 1689 Federalism is whether it is biblical. It is an attempt to establish a covenantal Baptist identity for the sake of doing so or because it is a reflection of what the Bible teaches? While it is still a work in progress, I like what I have seen to this point.

 

Except for themselves! LOL Nothing like eating your own.