Does the reformed church need to be reformed, more?

[Armchair Apologist]

I guess a big problem here is that many equate Reformed doctrine as being strictly "Calvinist" and perhaps some hard-core "Reformed" types would like to keep it this way calling everyone else aside from their "Reformed" perspective as being semi-pelagian heretics or whatever! I did not approach the question of the OP in such a manner.

If we came to the conclusion that John Calvin got everything right when he wrote his "Institutes," then I guess there is no need for any further reformation and having such a mindset is little better than the Roman Catholics saying that everything was "set in stone" by all the "fathers" and "doctors" of the church right?

Augustinianism and Pelagianism was not completely settled with the Council of Orange (Cassion and Gottschalk are stellar examples) nor can it be settled by some backwoods preecher quoting a few verses in their King James Bible!

Semper Reformada - remember where we came from and be mindful of where we are going

 

[Dave...]

I would like to see a comparisum of "reformed" doctrine and "non-reformed" doctrine within the same denomination.

I view reformed doctrine as a bucket of worms. It condones many liberal theological principles that are not Biblical. Women preachers for one.

That's a big bucket lol

 

[Dave...]

Pointless to continue.

1) You say Jesus is the only elect, then say we become elect when in Him.

2) You say we are chosen but not elect until put in Him.

3) You cited Galatians 3:8, presenting a mistranslation.

The viewpoint that does not mesh with scripture is yours, that is why you have tweaked its meaning.

eklektos - G1588 adjective means "chosen or chosen by God," not "chosen by God and placed into Christ. Your rewrite to nullify scripture.

We receive everything 'in Christ'. Thus they were chosen "through sanctification by the Spirit and belief in the truth".

Being "In Christ": Opinions on the mechanics of election differ across Christian traditions—some view election as unconditional and sovereignly initiated by God before time, while others emphasize that anyone who places their faith in Jesus is brought into union with the Elect One, thereby sharing in Christ's chosen status

 

[JonC]

Yes. According to the reformers themselves, and, in my opinion, the reformation became stagnant soon after it's inception, and a lot of error still remained. The reformation was never meant to stop reforming. To quote Banner of Truth...Writer I. John Hesselink ...

"It is rather audacious to claim that we are reformed. It can also be misleading when we call ourselves Reformed Churches. For this might imply that we believe that our denominations are truly reformed; or, even worse, that at some point in the past we were or became reformed and that the task of reform is basically finished. Whenever we imagine that the word “reformed” refers to an accomplishment rather than a perpetual obligation, we are presumptuous and deluded".

Reformed, But Ever Reforming

It is rather audacious to claim that we are reformed. It can also be misleading when we call ourselves Reformed Churches. For this might imply that we believe that our denominations are truly reformed; or, even worse, that at some point in the past we were or became reformed and that the task of...

banneroftruth.org

“Ecclesia reformata semper reformanda est” – “A reformed church must always be reforming itself.” Luther, Calvin, Knox, they gave us a lot, but they were not infallible. There was still huge chunks of the Bible missing from their theology. There was obvious error. This was a direct result of the Catholic church that they came out of. While their systems of theology give a lot to be thankful for, that same theology had error in it. These theological errors continue to poison Bible translations and the church today. Elevating their writings to a status where they can never be corrected turns those theologians into the very type of unquestionable authority the Reformers sought to dismantle.

"always reforming" does not mean changing core doctrines to fit modern cultural trends. but we must consider things like the Reformers "flattened" the transition between the Testaments and minimized the New Covenant reality of the Holy Spirit, and this is one place of many wwhere the 16th-century Reformation stopped short. This needs to be fixed, not worshipped.

The Reformation would have been a good start. But the "stepchildren" (those a part of the Protestant movement but from outside the RCC) were right that the Reformers stopped short and carried with it too much RCC doctrine.

I do not believe this is something the Reformers could have addressed. They identified problems but still were products of the Roman Catholic Church.

But the next generation at least should have continued the reforming rather than stopping to build upon the foundation the Reformera laid.

The Reformation became stagnant and never took the next steps towards a more biblical doctrine.

There are movements within Reformed churches to "reform the Reformed" and develop a more biblical theology. But they face the resistance the Reformers faced with the RCC, only from the Reformed.

Tradition os a hard nut to crack. Time will tell how far they make it.

 

[Van]

We receive everything 'in Christ'. Thus they were chosen "through sanctification by the Spirit and belief in the truth".

Being "In Christ": Opinions on the mechanics of election differ across Christian traditions—some view election as unconditional and sovereignly initiated by God before time, while others emphasize that anyone who places their faith in Jesus is brought into union with the Elect One, thereby sharing in Christ's chosen status

As I said, it is pointless. The issue is you claimed elect does not simply refer to being chosen by God. That is what the word means. You offered no citation when your "definition" is found.

Citing the bogus views of others, rather than specific scripture such as 2 Thessalonians 2:13, does not move the ball.

Did you accept the meaning given in lexicons for G1588 of "chosen" or "chosen by God?" Nope

Did you cite any published source for the elect only referring to people chosen once they are in Christ. Nope

 

[Dave...]

The Reformation would have been a good start. But the "stepchildren" (those a part of the Protestant movement but from outside the RCC) were right that the Reformers stopped short and carried with it too much RCC doctrine.

I do not believe this is something the Reformers could have addressed. They identified problems but still were products of the Roman Catholic Church.

But the next generation at least should have continued the reforming rather than stopping to build upon the foundation the Reformera laid.

The Reformation became stagnant and never took the next steps towards a more biblical doctrine.

There are movements within Reformed churches to "reform the Reformed" and develop a more biblical theology. But they face the resistance the Reformers faced with the RCC, only from the Reformed.

Tradition os a hard nut to crack. Time will tell how far they make it.

Thanks Jon

My biggest point of contention are the false doctrines that still linger in reformed theology that protect Catholicism. This is evident in the flattening out of the transition from the OT to the NT, which includes the receiving of the Holy Spirit indwelling. This "flattening" is obviously Catholic leftovers in the minds of these early reformers. Reformed theology doesn't need this, nor does it need to protect it, but they are passionately committed to protect it. In this way, the reformed movement today, albeit unbeknownst to many of them, does as much to defend Catholicism, as it does to stand against it. Jon, I'm sure you know Calvinists, and I'm sure that you know a few of those Calvinists who became Catholic. I do. Coincidence?

It's all centered around Calvin's idea of total depravity, which is unbiblical. Whole doctrines are built, like claiming that because the Lamb was slain from the foundations of the world, that means that everything already happened. You know, God is eternal and time is temporal. That way OT believers can be born again, and the flattening of the transition from the OT to the NT is justified, but so is the Priesthood, and all the ceremonial stuff, Catholicism. Nothing changes. Of course the Lamb slain from the foundations of the world is speaking of an eternal decree. Also, man needing to be born again before he believes comes from that same false idea of total depravity that Calvin had. This whole house of cards come down when total depravity is exposed.

It's Catholic leftovers and should have been gone a long time ago.

 

[Dave...]

As I said, it is pointless.

With that we agree.

Van, you seem to have a person and a belief in mind in which you practiced arguing against for a long time. And you seem to want me to be that person. But I am not him.

 

[JonC]

Thanks Jon

My biggest point of contention are the false doctrines that still linger in reformed theology that protect Catholicism. This is evident in the flattening out of the transition from the OT to the NT, which includes the receiving of the Holy Spirit indwelling. This "flattening" is obviously Catholic leftovers in the minds of these early reformers. Reformed theology doesn't need this, nor does it need to protect it, but they are passionately committed to protect it. In this way, the reformed movement today, albeit unbeknownst to many of them, does as much to defend Catholicism, as it does to stand against it. Jon, I'm sure you know Calvinists, and I'm sure that you know a few of those Calvinists who became Catholic. I do. Coincidence?

It's all centered around Calvin's idea of total depravity, which is unbiblical. Whole doctrines are built, like claiming that because the Lamb was slain from the foundations of the world, that means that everything already happened. You know, God is eternal and time is temporal. That way OT believers can be born again, and the flattening of the transition from the OT to the NT is justified, but so is the Priesthood, and all the ceremonial stuff, Catholicism. Nothing changes. Of course the Lamb slain from the foundations of the world is speaking of an eternal decree. Also, man needing to be born again before he believes comes from that same false idea of total depravity that Calvin had. This whole house of cards come down when total depravity is exposed.

It's Catholic leftovers and should have been gone a long time ago.

They do carry over a lot of Catholic doctrine. Most Protestant churches do (they took for granted a lot of Catholic traditions and doctrines).

In many ways Roman Catholics do their doctrine better than Reformed Churches handle their hybrid (neo-Catholic?....not sure what to call these aspects) docrtines so I sm not surprised so many join the Catholic Church.

 

[Armchair Apologist]

Thanks Jon

My biggest point of contention are the false doctrines that still linger in reformed theology that protect Catholicism. This is evident in the flattening out of the transition from the OT to the NT, which includes the receiving of the Holy Spirit indwelling. This "flattening" is obviously Catholic leftovers in the minds of these early reformers. Reformed theology doesn't need this, nor does it need to protect it, but they are passionately committed to protect it. In this way, the reformed movement today, albeit unbeknownst to many of them, does as much to defend Catholicism, as it does to stand against it. Jon, I'm sure you know Calvinists, and I'm sure that you know a few of those Calvinists who became Catholic. I do. Coincidence?

It's all centered around Calvin's idea of total depravity, which is unbiblical. Whole doctrines are built, like claiming that because the Lamb was slain from the foundations of the world, that means that everything already happened. You know, God is eternal and time is temporal. That way OT believers can be born again, and the flattening of the transition from the OT to the NT is justified, but so is the Priesthood, and all the ceremonial stuff, Catholicism. Nothing changes. Of course the Lamb slain from the foundations of the world is speaking of an eternal decree. Also, man needing to be born again before he believes comes from that same false idea of total depravity that Calvin had. This whole house of cards come down when total depravity is exposed.

It's Catholic leftovers and should have been gone a long time ago.

If such is the case, why are most Catholics adamantly anti-Calvinist? The Medieval Church's take on Augustinianism was influenced by Pope Gregory who looked at Augustinianism from Cassion's viewpoint which is blatantly semi-pelagian! Catholics are unapologetically "Synergistic" in their view of one's salvation whereas the Reformers were obnoxiously Monergistic (I.E., the "Five Solae") Perhaps some of the reformers "over-corrected" here and this is a matter that may make for valid discussion but otherwise the argument simply falls apart!

 

[Armchair Apologist]

The Reformation would have been a good start. But the "stepchildren" (those a part of the Protestant movement but from outside the RCC) were right that the Reformers stopped short and carried with it too much RCC doctrine.

I believe they were careful and methodical choosing which battles were most pertinent, etc. What they did not do was throw out the baby with the bathwater and start from square one making things up as they went along as did the restorationists a few centuries later. Remember also that the reformers were not seeking to "break away" from the Church of Rome but rather to reform it hence the term "Reformers."

But the next generation at least should have continued the reforming rather than stopping to build upon the foundation the Reformera laid.

I would argue that they did just that. In Martin Luther's day, the only church that had any hopes of surviving was another "State Church" that could rival and stand up to the Church of Rome. This is what Martin Luther got (Fredrick the Wise and other Germanic princes) as did Calvin and Zwingli having the backing of their respective civil magistrates. It was therefore a necessary evil ordained of God (IMO but should be obvious to all) in order to "Kick Start" the reformation.

We Baptists may choke on this somewhat and I am one who is adamantly for the "Separation of Church and State" but had the reformers went straight to "Baptist" ideology, it would've been a bloodbath right along with the early proto-reformers. Baptists are therefore secondary reformers tied to the "Non-Conformists" and the "Free-Church" movements that came later.

The Reformation became stagnant and never took the next steps towards a more biblical doctrine.

It did become stagnant whereby the reformers got caught up in much of the intellectualism and scholasticism they were trying to get away from with the Church of Rome. I believe that God providentially raised up the Pietists, Moravians, and even the Methodists who insisted that aside from "head knowledge," one must also have an actual conversion "experience" and evidence of a changed life. I think we can all agree that Beza took Calvinism a little too far hence the emergence of the Remostrants and Jacobus Arminius. One may look at Church history and say "What a mess!" but I can see God's hand of providence all throughout!

Remember also that the Remonstrants were looked upon with suspicion by the reformers thinking they were agents of the Jesuits and seeing their arminianism as being a turning back to Roman Catholicism! Somewhat the opposite of what has been proposed here is it not?

There are movements within Reformed churches to "reform the Reformed" and develop a more biblical theology. But they face the resistance the Reformers faced with the RCC, only from the Reformed.

Typical with our sinful human nature is it not? This is why Roger Williams was kicked out of the Massachusetts Bay Colony by the Puritans and why John Bunyan spent all those years in prison!

I do not know of a single "Reformed" person who would regard the Westminster Confession of Faith or the London Baptist Confessions as being equal to scripture but these standards and confessions have also withstood the test of time and they are wise not to simply discard these and start afresh.

 

[JonC]

I believe they were careful and methodical choosing which battles were most pertinent, etc. What they did not do was throw out the baby with the bathwater and start from square one making things up as they went along as did the restorationists a few centuries later. Remember also that the reformers were not seeking to "break away" from the Church of Rome but rather to reform it hence the term "Reformers."

I would argue that they did just that. In Martin Luther's day, the only church that had any hopes of surviving was another "State Church" that could rival and stand up to the Church of Rome. This is what Martin Luther got (Fredrick the Wise and other Germanic princes) as did Calvin and Zwingli having the backing of their respective civil magistrates. It was therefore a necessary evil ordained of God (IMO but should be obvious to all) in order to "Kick Start" the reformation.

We Baptists may choke on this somewhat and I am one who is adamantly for the "Separation of Church and State" but had the reformers went straight to "Baptist" ideology, it would've been a bloodbath right along with the early proto-reformers. Baptists are therefore secondary reformers tied to the "Non-Conformists" and the "Free-Church" movements that came later.

It did become stagnant whereby the reformers got caught up in much of the intellectualism and scholasticism they were trying to get away from with the Church of Rome. I believe that God providentially raised up the Pietists, Moravians, and even the Methodists who insisted that aside from "head knowledge," one must also have an actual conversion "experience" and evidence of a changed life. I think we can all agree that Beza took Calvinism a little too far hence the emergence of the Remostrants and Jacobus Arminius. One may look at Church history and say "What a mess!" but I can see God's hand of providence all throughout!

Typical with our sinful human nature is it not? This is why Roger Williams was kicked out of the Massachusetts Bay Colony by the Puritans and why John Bunyan spent all those years in prison!

I do not know of a single "Reformed" person who would regard the Westminster Confession of Faith or the London Baptist Confessions as being equal to scripture but these standards and confessions have also withstood the test of time and they are wise not to simply discard these and start afresh.

I disagree to a point. Maybe I should say, "in a way".

Take Luther. Luther's focus was justification by faith. He observed the abuses in the Catholic doctrine of indulgences and penance. The Catholic Church often profited from selling justification. There were all kinds of ways men could merit justification.

Look at Calvin. Calvin identified a problem with Aquinas' position. It stood in contrast to Calvin's worldview. Calvin objected to the Catholic Church's ritualistic worship, viewing them as human invention.

But each Reformer had a fairly narrow focus. A lot of the Catholic traditions were assumed by the Reformers. They simply were not questioned.

No Reformer went back to examine the Catholic view of the Fall (a 6th century doctrine), the effect of the Fall on man (a 5th century doctrine). But these Catholic doctrines became cornerstones to their thrology.

Some Reformers did look at baptism, but they backed off.

There are a lot of Roman Catholic doctrines that were simply assumed within their theology.

This is why the Reformation should have continued. But it didn't. It became a stagnated faith, locked into that old bath water, just as trapped in tradition as the Catholic Church.

And it was not all the Reformers' fault. Their churches made them essentually little popes. The larger blame lies with the generations that followed.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

I would like to see a comparisum of "reformed" doctrine and "non-reformed" doctrine within the same denomination.

I view reformed doctrine as a bucket of worms. It condones many liberal theological principles that are not Biblical. Women preachers for one.

Reformed doctrine is not 'denominational.' It means to be reformed according to the word of God. Therefore a church that allows women to preach is not Reformed, whatever denomination it may belong to (1 Tim. 2:12). There are individual Reformed churches within the Church of England, although the denomination as a whole is going to hell on a handcart.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Baptists are therefore secondary reformers tied to the "Non-Conformists" and the "Free-Church" movements that came later.

I see the Particular Baptists as those who completed the Reformation by getting rid of the last vestige of Roman doctrine - infant 'baptism.'