Does the reformed church need to be reformed, more?

[JonC]

Sounds like a ploy of satan to me!

ploy
something that is done or said in order to get an advantage, often dishonestly:

They became what the Roman Catholic Church was. I do not think they realized it, even when they were persecuting Baptists.

 

[Armchair Apologist]

Foundationally, there is much to be concerned about in the similarities in the "lens" with which reformers and Catholicism both interpret Scripture and form their doctrines from, especially in Bible translations. There are times in Scripture when linguistically, there's more than one valid option of translation. This is where the "lens" with which we see Scripture comes into play. I believe it's that "Catholic lens" that poisoned the KJV Bible translation, and that poison was unknowingly carried over to many new translations.

Think of the Reformers not as much carrying the Catholic torch in doctrine, rather more so, they are carrying that torch more foundationally. Its a Catholic lens that the early reformers were trying to interpret Scripture from. Thus they both "flattened the transition between the Testaments and minimized the New Covenant reality of the Holy Spirit". This flattening that reformers still promote today serves Catholicism very well. It also keeps the Catholic lens alive and indirectly points people to Catholicism. It's brilliant, if you think about it in terms of spiritual warfare. The spiritual warfare doesn't need Catholic approval to use the Catholic church to poison the reformed well, and as a result, poisoning most reformed believers today, or driving them into the hands of todays Arminianism which is mostly driven by humanism. It's a win win for the bad guys.

The reformers couldn't help but look at things through the "lens" of their Roman Catholic thinking but they realized that in order to overcome this, they must look to the scriptures as the sole, final authority by which everything else was to be measured. When I first came to Christ, it took a while for me to overcome the Roman Catholic "lens" for which I was raised and even longer for me to overcome the IFB "lens" that clouded my thinking and perception of the scriptures! Remember that there was no DTS at the time and Chafer's (and Grudem's and others) Systematic theology was still a few hundred years off. So therefore, by what reliable theological standard were they supposed to measure and view everything?

 

[Martin Marprelate]

As they interpret the Word of God and to include several Roman Catholic doctrines, revised in content, that are not in the Bible.

You keep talking about this as if it were fact, but you never give an example of these R.C. doctrines.

According to the Word of God baptism is immersion (literally, immersing the person).

By your definition Presbyterians are not Reformed and never have been Reformed. Martin Luther and John Calvin were not Reformed.

I have been on the 'Puritan Board' in the past and spent long hours arguing that very point. However, they definitely think that paedobaptism is Biblical. Reformed Presbyterians are not too common on the Baptist Board, so you may not be aware of the aurguments they present. FYI, Martin Luther is not generally viewed as being Reformed, being, as he was, a Lutheran.

I question if your definition is adequate.

Too bad.

But I do agree "Reformed" is not a single denomination.

Good.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Is it true that while some churches within a demonination identify as "Reformed" other churches within the same denonination do not?

Yes it is.

If so, what is the differences in their doctrines, practices or believes?

What tends to happen is that some Reformed churches cease to follow their own Confessions of Faith. The Church of England hierarchy ceased to uphold its own XXXIX Articles, and P.C.U.S.A. abandoned the Westminster Confession. The result is always a downgrade in doctrine and practice.
The most deadly thing any church can say is "We just follow the Bible," because there is no agreement on what the Bible actually teaches, and unless they are rescued they are likely to find themselves far away from what the Bible teaches.
You might do worse than google "Downgrade Controversy" that Spurgeon was involved in towards the end of his life. Baptists were abandoning fundamental doctrines like Penal Substitution, and Spurgeon left the Baptist Union because of it.

 

[Armchair Apologist]

By your definition Presbyterians are not Reformed and never have been Reformed. Martin Luther and John Calvin were not Reformed.

I do not see where Martin Marprelate said anything about Presbyterians not being reformed! Why would you make such a statement?

His response to me was that the Baptists "Completed" the reformation by their insistence upon credobaptism by immersion which, as Baptists, I think we all can agree!

Reformed Baptists and Presbyterians often battle among themselves regarding which one is truly "reformed" but for the most part, I stay out of that argument!

 

[Wesley Briggman]

FYI, Martin Luther is not generally viewed as being Reformed, being, as he was, a Lutheran.

Martin Luther reformed the RCC belief in "transubstantion" to "consubstantion" and ordaining women.

 

[JonC]

I do not see where Martin Marprelate said anything about Presbyterians not being reformed! Why would you make such a statement?

He said a denomination who has a woman as pastor is not Reformed because that is not biblical.

If that is true then a denomination that "baptizes" by sprinkling is not Reformed because that is not biblical.

Obviously Presbyterians who have women ministers are Reformed. I was pointing out the flaw in his statement.