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.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

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

WCF XXI:1 states, '... The acceptable way of worshipping the true God is instituted by himself, and so limited by his own revealed will, that he may not be worshipped according to the imaginations and devices of men.....' [The 1689 & Savoy Confessions are similar] Since the scriptures make it pretty clear that church worship is not to be led by women, a Reformed church will not choose a woman pastor.

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

Whilst I agree that sprinkling and infant 'baptism' are not found in the Bible, Reformed paedobaptists sincerely believe otherwise and I am not about to judge Someone Else's servant. However, this is the main reason why I am not in a paedobaptist church, and yes, Reformed churches still stand in need of further reformation.

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

Did you accidentally miss out the 'not' here?

 

[Armchair Apologist]

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.

A woman pastor is the sign of a "reformed" church that has apostatized and therefore needs re-reformation if we could use such a term.

The PCA has a bunch of good folk despite some disagreements we may have with them and they are battling with apostacy and false teaching within their own ranks. We Baptists fight the very same battles. I do not believe that the Presbyterians (as a whole) will ever become "Baptist" and I am fine with that. Their position on pedobaptism has been carefully thought out and for better or worse, it is what they believe. I disagree but I can respect their position but I am now straying from the ultimate point I am trying to make here. A biblical church will continually "prove all things and hold fast to that which is right" therefore they are, in fact, always reforming (Semper Reformada) or (if you prefer a more biblical term) earnestly contending for the faith.

 

[Dave...]

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?

Hey AA

Every body says Sola Scriptura, but do they really practice it? Basically, from what I'm seeing today, and Calvin did the same thing, is that for the reformed movement, T.U.L.I.P. is the context in which Scripture is defined, even before the acronym was used. TULIP is basically a collection of cohesive assumptions taken from Scripture at face value, interpreting each passage on an island, and then considered Biblical context, even though those definitions contradict how the context of Scripture would interpret those same passages.

For the new Christian who desires to understand Biblical context, Calvinism and T.U.L.I.P. appear to offer the answer. As I said, a cohesive system of assumed definitions as each passage is only superficially interpreted. When one begins to learn the real context of the Bible, then Biblical context is basically ignored, or pushed aside for the TULIP context.

From my experience, for todays Calvinist, no matter how much Scripture is put before him to contradict his system, he will always revert back to total depravity as his reason for believing what he believes. And their definition of total depravity is unbiblical. At the end of the day, the lens that has been engrained into the minds of those who use it, is the lens that they will always see Scripture from. This started with Catholicism and Calvin, and many of the early reformers.

When we adopt someone else's theology, like people do with Calvin and most of the early reformers, then we also by necessity adopt the lens with which they seen Scripture through. I think it takes great discipline to approach Scripture and allow questions to remain as we learn. To build line upon line precept upon precept. To allow for the system to change, not the Bible. The false lens will not allow that. It stops all Biblical context and is always assumed to be just that, Biblical context. That's when Sola Scriptura is not Sola Scriptura. It's almost like a brain washing.

 

[Van]

The advocates of the TULIP need to reform those doctrines. And the view that only Arminians hold differing views is also false.

Let's go over the scriptural case against the TULIP one more time.

1) Did the Fall, the consequence of Adam's sin, result in humanity being made with "Total Spiritual Inability" such that the lost do not seek God and are unable to believe in Jesus Christ, unless enabled by Irresistible Grace? The answer is NO! Scripture provides numerous examples of lost individuals seeking God and His grace. 2 Thessalonians 2:13 clearly states God chooses individuals for salvation through faith in the truth. Thus they had not been chosen and enabled to believe.

2) When God chooses individuals for salvation, is His choice unconditional, or is it through faith in the truth? The answer is "through faith in the truth." 2 Thessalonians 2:13

3) Did Christ die as a ransom for all, or only for some? The answer is Christ died as a ransom for all, those to be saved and those never to be saved. 1 Timothy 2:4-6; 2 Peter 2:1

4) Are those willing and working to be saved being compelled irresistibly such that false teaching cannot prevent them from entering the kingdom of God? The answer is NO! Scripture teaches that some of those who hear and affirmatively respond to the gospel are not saved. See Matthew 13 and consider the plight of soils #2 and #3. See also Matthew 23:13.

5) The "P" of the TULIP sometimes is presented as Preservation of the Saints, which is True Doctrine. But at other times, the "P" is presented as Perseverance of the Saint, which is False Doctrine. Sometimes members of God's family backslide, then "come to their senses." This is because their faith is protected by the Power of God, such that once saved, always saved. 1 Peter 1:3-5. Once God causes an individual to be spiritually born anew, the individual cannot kill his or her everlasting life in Christ.

If we actually believe in scripture, rather than the traditions of men which make the word of God to no effect, we would agree the TULIP needs to be reformed.

Total Spiritual Inability would become Limited Spiritual Ability, the lost being able to understand spiritual milk, but NOT spiritual solid food (meat).

Unconditional Election for Individual Salvation would become Conditional Election for Salvation through faith in the Truth.

Limited Atonement for some of the lost would become Means of Reconciliation for Everyone, those to be saved and those never to be saved.

Irresistible Grace would become the Gracious Gift of Election for those whose faith has been credited as righteousness.

Perseverance of the Saints would uniformly become Preservation of the Saints.

These designations can be arranged into PEACE

Preservation of the Saints because of the Means of Reconciliation for Everyone of the Lost having Limited Spiritual Ability allows the Conditional Election of believers through the Gracious Gift of Election for salvation.

 

[JonC]

Whilst I agree that sprinkling and infant 'baptism' are not found in the Bible, Reformed paedobaptists sincerely believe otherwise and I am not about to judge Someone Else's servant.

I agree. Some denominitions have women pastors, some sprinkle. It is not up to is to judge Another's servant.

But I have found many apply that only to denominations they identify with in some way (other than Christ). We see this with music, types of buildings, clothes,... a many things.

We can say both issues we discussed are unbiblical. We can even say that having a woman preacher and sprinkling instead of baptizing are false teachings.

But we cannot judge the servants of Another. He will make those who belong to Him stand.

 

[Van]

While we are in the business of reforming the TULIP, lets address two ancillary doctrines:

1) Definition of God's Sovereignty
2) God engaging in time travel because God created time and is therefore "outside" of time.​

Some advocates of the TULIP also say God ordains whatsoever comes to pass, yet in a way so that He is not responsible for sin. This is a non-starter from the get-go. To ordain means to predestine. So if God predestines our every choice to sin, we should not be punished for what God ordained. The actual biblically based doctrine of Sovereignty is: God causes or allows whatsoever comes to pass.

Time-travel theology makes a shambles of the sequence of events given in scripture. The claim is simply a tool to nullify scripture. Yes God created our universe and its time sequence. But that fact does not mean a "spiritual time" doesn't order the sequence in His spiritual realm. Scripture teaches those in the spiritual realm are indeed aware of the passage of "time."