Does the reformed church need to be reformed, more?

[Dave...]

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.

 

[Marooncat79]

We must constantly be critiquing out worship ie songs prayers etc and be willing to return to a regulative principle of worship when we start drifting

 

[Dave...]

We must constantly be critiquing out worship ie songs prayers etc and be willing to return to a regulative principle of worship when we start drifting

Do you think that the acronym T.U.L.I.P., as the fixture that it is today, would be counter productive to “A reformed church must always be reforming itself."? It's like a fixture that should not be one. Scripture is sufficient to interpret Scripture. Martin Luther would have considered infant baptism a fixture, so would Calvin, though not for justification. This is the problem with fixtures outside the Bible defining Scripture. They aren't Scripture. But most of todays Calvinists treat T.U.L.I.P. that way.

I wouldn't call todays reformers 'Sola Scriptura'. They are more 'Sola Systema'. The system is the fixture that defines Scripture, and in my opinion, has become an idol in and of itself.

Try to get a Calvinist to see Scripture apart from using the systems interpretation of total depravity as a foundation to interpret it. They won't, and they can't, It just won't happen. Their definition of total depravity is off. This is simply replacing the Catholic church with the system. That's not allowing for any reformation from the opinions of Scripture from the first reformers. It stonewalls any corrections.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Do you think that the acronym T.U.L.I.P., as the fixture that it is today, would be counter productive to “A reformed church must always be reforming itself."? It's like a fixture that should not be one. Scripture is sufficient to interpret Scripture. Martin Luther would have considered infant baptism a fixture, so would Calvin, though not for justification. This is the problem with fixtures outside the Bible defining Scripture. They aren't Scripture. But most of todays Calvinists treat T.U.L.I.P. that way.

The 1689 Baptist Confession begins by saying, 'The Holy Scripture is the only sufficient, certain, and infallible rule of all saving Knowledge, Faith and Obedience.' That is outside the Bible. Should we not have any statements of what we believe because we might change our minds and 'reform' ourselves in a diffrent direction? The problem with the 1689 Confession is not what's in there but what isn't. There's nothing about same-sex 'marriage' or women in the pastorate. It needs updating in that direction.
I am entirely happy with the TULIP acronym, save that I would maybe change the L for an E for 'Effectual,' but T.U.E.I.P. doesn't have the same ring to it. If someone shows me from the Bible that it's wrong, then we would need to change it, but in 35 years, no one has.

I wouldn't call todays reformers 'Sola Scriptura'. They are more 'Sola Systema'. The system is the fixture that defines Scripture, and in my opinion, has become an idol in and of itself.

Are you quite sure that it's not you who is 'Sola Systema'?

Try to get a Calvinist to see Scripture apart from using the systems interpretation of total depravity as a foundation to interpret it. They won't, and they can't, It just won't happen. Their definition of total depravity is off. This is simply replacing the Catholic church with the system. That's not allowing for any reformation from the opinions of Scripture from the first reformers. It stonewalls any corrections.

This is nonsense. The reasons that Reformed folk support the term 'Total Depravity' is that they see it in the Bible. If they cease to see it there, no doubt they will stop upholding it. If you don't see it, I feel sorry for you, but it's OK.

 

[Dave...]

The 1689 Baptist Confession begins by saying, 'The Holy Scripture is the only sufficient, certain, and infallible rule of all saving Knowledge, Faith and Obedience.' That is outside the Bible. Should we not have any statements of what we believe because we might change our minds and 'reform' ourselves in a diffrent direction? The problem with the 1689 Confession is not what's in there but what isn't. There's nothing about same-sex 'marriage' or women in the pastorate. It needs updating in that direction.

I wrote...""always reforming" does not mean changing core doctrines to fit modern cultural trends." for that reason.

But the early reformers were defending Catholicism as much as standing against it. They just didn't realize it. The foundation with which Catholicism is built is still there in the reformed theology, and even today. That's why I call the reformed movement "Catholic light" Things like flattening the transition from the OT to the NT is very much a necessity for Catholicism. This sets up the Priesthood as still functional for starters.

These early reformers had access to what other did not. But I don't think that necessarily makes them great theologians. They were the ones of their time that people looked to for answers. Everyone else that disagreed with Catholicism was murdered, and their works probably destroyed.

Like i said, we have a lot to be thankful for from the early reformers, but their theology was still very poisoned by Catholicism.

I am entirely happy with the TULIP acronym, save that I would maybe change the L for an E for 'Effectual,' but T.U.E.I.P. doesn't have the same ring to it. If someone shows me from the Bible that it's wrong, then we would need to change it, but in 35 years, no one has.

That's the point, it doesn't really allow for changes for obvious reasons. Total depravity means total inability. It's not what people define it as today. The inability is with our ability to do good according to the righteous standards of the Law. Thus, we cannot justify ourselves. "No not one...". Todays definitions go way beyond that and contradict Scripture.

People do start with the premise that TULIP is true, but it's not. I have proven it, but it just gets ignored. Mostly it's just people who look at a list of Scripture that appears to say what the claims that are made about it say, but when we begin to look at the context of those verses individually, the definitions of those passages in many cases teaches the exact opposite of todays claims of total depravity. The system is used to define Scripture. Ive said it many times, there is a lot of assuming in those definition of those lists of Scripture. When we look for the clear Scripture that is foundational to all those assumptions, we cannot find it.

Are you quite sure that it's not you who is 'Sola Systema'?

Pretty sure.

This is nonsense. The reasons that Reformed folk support the term 'Total Depravity' is that they see it in the Bible. If they cease to see it there, no doubt they will stop upholding it. If you don't see it, I feel sorry for you, but it's OK.

This is exactly why people still believe it. Because they want to. Not because Scripture teaches it.

God hardens hearts that He claims would otherwise believe. Is this total depravity?

God hardens hearts that He claims would otherwise believe. Is this total depravity? Try to keep an open mind. Try to be good Bereans, if you can. Speak hypothetically, if you need to. Why does Satan, or the god of this age need to blind people who, according to reformed theology, already lack...

www.baptistboard.com

As it is written: "There is none righteous, no, not one; There is none who understands; There is none who seeks after God.

Romans 3:10-11 As it is written: "There is none righteous (does good), no, not one; There is none who understands; There is none who seeks after God. The immediate context. Vs. 9 "We" Paul is referring to Jews. "Them" is referring to Gentiles. Both Jew and Gentile under the same condition...

www.baptistboard.com

Total depravity or total inability?

Total depravity is not really a Calvinist doctrine. The "T" in Tulip actually stands for total inability. Arminians do believe in total depravity/inability. Inability is actually the correct way of stating it. Lets see how your understanding of others beliefs stand up to these. Lets start out...

www.baptistboard.com