What Is Reformed Theology?

[Arial]

To define Reformed theology is somewhat complex. I will post a video in the video section that is well worth the watch, both for the Reformed and those opposed to it. For those who stand against it, it will be helpful to know what it is before they argue against it. In the meantime I will hit the highlights.

I will start with what it is not.

It is not a denomination within Christianity. It is not separate from Christianity.

It is a theology and doctrinal statements are derived from that theology.

It is systematic in arriving at all it teaches.

What does it mean that it is systematic? Think of it as systems. There are systems involved at arriving at any conclusion, be it science, math, engine building and repairing, history etc. A system compiles all the data available, then seeks to ascertain how all the pieces fit together and come up with a consistent, workable, system. And this is what the Reformers did with the Bible. The first and central doctrine was the doctrine of God. Who does he say he is? Rather than list all the scriptures that reveal God in his attributes as that would require an inordinate amount of space, I will simply state the conclusions. He is creator of all things, he is Sovereign over all creation, he governs it, all creation is subject to him, nothing comes to pass against his sovereign will, he is immutable, self existent, eternal, omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent. Everything is by him, to him, and for him. Therefore, every doctrine derived from the Bible as being his inerrant word, must remain consistent with his self revelation. The scripture must always remain consistent with itself. From there, the "parts" were gathered and then systematically put together in a consistent whole as to doctrine. What is found as overall, is that God has a plan of Redemption and the Bible is focused on that plan from beginning to end.

This differs from other theologies and doctrinal assertions, in that what we often find is that though they agree with all of the above concerning God, when they arrive at the doctrinal aspect in interpretation of scripture, their doctrine of God is set aside. This is seen in "Yes, of course God is sovereign but he sovereignly chose to allow the will of man to take precedence over his sovereignty." "Yes God is omniscient but he only knows what he is able to see coming to pass in the future, and that all subject to the will of man."

Out of this systematic theology and the doctrines it produces came the doctrines of grace. These were articulated by Calvin and later classified as the doctrines of grace under the acronym TULIP. But they were by no means the work of Calvin alone, though now it is referred to as Calvinism, and the entire teachings of Reformed theology reduced to only the doctrines of grace. And it is in this TULIP that resistance is met in the modern church, as though that was all there was to it. Even though where the resistance is found, there is also agreement of some of it. Most denominations agree with the Christian doctrine of Total Depravity. Most agree with some form of Unconditional Election, though not in the same way as Reformed theology teaches it. Most balk severely at Limited Atonement, even though they also present a limited Atonement. In Reformed theology the atonement is limited to those God elected as being the ones' Christ died for. In the other view it is limited to those who choose to believe.

Many disagree with Irresistible grace by confusing it with "resisting the Spirit." On perseverance of the saints there is a split, the ratio difficult to pin down.

But the TULIP itself is very systematic within the acronym and utterly consistent with the doctrine of God.

It is because of its systematic approach, that Reformed theology is rock solid, never resting on shifting sands. And it is why it is impossible to successfully argue against systematically, exegetically, or with apologetics that remain consistent with the doctrine of God.

 

[makesends]

To define Reformed theology is somewhat complex. I will post a video in the video section that is well worth the watch, both for the Reformed and those opposed to it. For those who stand against it, it will be helpful to know what it is before they argue against it. In the meantime I will hit the highlights.

I will start with what it is not.

It is not a denomination within Christianity. It is not separate from Christianity.

It is a theology and doctrinal statements are derived from that theology.

It is systematic in arriving at all it teaches.

What does it mean that it is systematic? Think of it as systems. There are systems involved at arriving at any conclusion, be it science, math, engine building and repairing, history etc. A system compiles all the data available, then seeks to ascertain how all the pieces fit together and come up with a consistent, workable, system. And this is what the Reformers did with the Bible. The first and central doctrine was the doctrine of God. Who does he say he is? Rather than list all the scriptures that reveal God in his attributes as that would require an inordinate amount of space, I will simply state the conclusions. He is creator of all things, he is Sovereign over all creation, he governs it, all creation is subject to him, nothing comes to pass against his sovereign will, he is immutable, self existent, eternal, omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent. Everything is by him, to him, and for him. Therefore, every doctrine derived from the Bible as being his inerrant word, must remain consistent with his self revelation. The scripture must always remain consistent with itself. From there, the "parts" were gathered and then systematically put together in a consistent whole as to doctrine. What is found as overall, is that God has a plan of Redemption and the Bible is focused on that plan from beginning to end.

This differs from other theologies and doctrinal assertions, in that what we often find is that though they agree with all of the above concerning God, when they arrive at the doctrinal aspect in interpretation of scripture, their doctrine of God is set aside. This is seen in "Yes, of course God is sovereign but he sovereignly chose to allow the will of man to take precedence over his sovereignty." "Yes God is omniscient but he only knows what he is able to see coming to pass in the future, and that all subject to the will of man."

Out of this systematic theology and the doctrines it produces came the doctrines of grace. These were articulated by Calvin and later classified as the doctrines of grace under the acronym TULIP. But they were by no means the work of Calvin alone, though now it is referred to as Calvinism, and the entire teachings of Reformed theology reduced to only the doctrines of grace. And it is in this TULIP that resistance is met in the modern church, as though that was all there was to it. Even though where the resistance is found, there is also agreement of some of it. Most denominations agree with the Christian doctrine of Total Depravity. Most agree with some form of Unconditional Election, though not in the same way as Reformed theology teaches it. Most balk severely at Limited Atonement, even though they also present a limited Atonement. In Reformed theology the atonement is limited to those God elected as being the ones' Christ died for. In the other view it is limited to those who choose to believe.

Many disagree with Irresistible grace by confusing it with "resisting the Spirit." On perseverance of the saints there is a split, the ratio difficult to pin down.

But the TULIP itself is very systematic within the acronym and utterly consistent with the doctrine of God.

It is because of its systematic approach, that Reformed theology is rock solid, never resting on shifting sands. And it is why it is impossible to successfully argue against systematically, exegetically, or with apologetics that remain consistent with the doctrine of God.

Not at all to take away from anything you said, all of which I love, here, but:

This theology, or, should I say, the totality of all the tenets within it, produces in the believer the most intense Joy, and the most solid satisfaction, of any of the theologies I have studied or heard of. It alone depends entirely on the grace of God, the person being helplessly thrown upon the mercy of God alone. Nothing we can do will recommend us to God. Only his election of his own, which is as sure as God's own being, differentiates what will happen to each of us.

This, that which he began in creating, is what he will see through, and the fact that his enormous (infinite) joy and satisfaction with the work of his hands, that we his people can delight in, takes the whole force of our existence from the temporal to the eternal. We are in this world, but we don't belong here anymore than Jesus did. We are only his purpose for us. And that is, for lack of better words, "streamlined", clean surfaces, able to slide through the turbulence of this world unperturbed, and the most satisfying point of view that man can have in this temporal world.

 

[Arial]

Not at all to take away from anything you said, all of which I love, here, but:

This theology, or, should I say, the totality of all the tenets within it, produces in the believer the most intense Joy, and the most solid satisfaction, of any of the theologies I have studied or heard of. It alone depends entirely on the grace of God, the person being helplessly thrown upon the mercy of God alone. Nothing we can do will recommend us to God. Only his election of his own, which is as sure as God's own being, differentiates what will happen to each of us.

This, that which he began in creating, is what he will see through, and the fact that his enormous (infinite) joy and satisfaction with the work of his hands, that we his people can delight in, takes the whole force of our existence from the temporal to the eternal. We are in this world, but we don't belong here anymore than Jesus did. We are only his purpose for us. And that is, for lack of better words, "streamlined", clean surfaces, able to slide through the turbulence of this world unperturbed, and the most satisfying point of view that man can have in this temporal world.

Agreed. I do not understand why people so argue for synergism, why they balk at the idea that it is all of God. Why they kick against the goads at the thought that God chose them and that is why they believe, in violation of their free will. (Even refer to it as God dragging us kicking and screaming into the kingdom. Why would one kick and scream at being rescued from the kingdom of darkness?) Wasn't that the very temptation the serpent put before Eve? In essence---"Eat the forbidden fruit and you will be free!"

Personally when I first began to grasp the teachings of Reformed theology, I sighed a great sign of relief---the heavy yoke lifted! For the first time I felt that I was standing on solid rock, because I know I cannot trust myself, and I realized----that is not the point. In God we trust and he is faithful, even when we are not. He will do a work in me, and lead me in straight paths. And for the first time, the words that say God loves me meant something beyond the definition of the words.

 

[DialecticSkeptic]

Not at all to take away from anything you said, all of which I love, here, but:

This theology, or, should I say, the totality of all the tenets within it, produces in the believer the most intense Joy, and the most solid satisfaction, of any of the theologies I have studied or heard of. It alone depends entirely on the grace of God, the person being helplessly thrown upon the mercy of God alone. Nothing we can do will recommend us to God. Only his election of his own, which is as sure as God's own being, differentiates what will happen to each of us.

This, that which he began in creating, is what he will see through, and the fact that his enormous (infinite) joy and satisfaction with the work of his hands, that we his people can delight in, takes the whole force of our existence from the temporal to the eternal. We are in this world, but we don't belong here anymore than Jesus did. We are only his purpose for us. And that is, for lack of better words, "streamlined", clean surfaces, able to slide through the turbulence of this world unperturbed, and the most satisfying point of view that man can have in this temporal world.

Reminds me of something James R. White said once, I think in the The Potter's Freedom:

The doctrines of grace are the biblical teachings that define the goal and means of God's perfect work of redemption. They tell us that God is the one who saves, for his own glory, and freely. And they tell us that he does so only through Christ, only on the basis of his grace, only with the perfection that marks everything the Father, Son, and Spirit do. The doctrines of grace separate the Christian faith from the works-based religions of men. They direct us away from ourselves and solely to God's grace and mercy. They destroy pride, instill humility, and exalt God.
​

Note: The doctrines of grace pertain narrowly to soteriology (Calvinism), not broadly to theology (Reformed).

 

[Lees]

A question: Does 'Reformed Theology' believe there is nothing more to be learned from the Bible than that which the Reformation produced?

Lees

 

[DialecticSkeptic]

A question: Does 'Reformed Theology' believe there is nothing more to be learned from the Bible than that which the Reformation produced?

Lees

There is a well-known phrase in Reformed theological circles:

• Ecclesia reformata, semper reformanda secundum verbum Dei.

In translates into English as, "The Reformed church, always being reformed according to the word of God." It originated in the mid-17th century among Dutch Reformed theologians, particularly Jodocus van Lodenstein, to encourage continued spiritual and doctrinal renewal, both institutionally and personally, in light of God's Word.

The phrase emerged in response to concerns that the Reformation was not a one-time event but an ongoing process. Van Lodenstein and others emphasized that mere doctrinal correction was not enough; the church had to continually align itself with scripture in both faith and practice. It emphasizes the need for the church to remain vigilant against complacency, corruption, and deviation from biblical truth.

 

[Arial]

Note: The doctrines of grace pertain narrowly to soteriology (Calvinism), not broadly to theology (Reformed).

I understand the doctrines of grace to pertain narrowly to soteriology, but I do not understand the statement "broadly to theology (Reformed)". Could you clarify your meaning for me?

 

[Lees]

There is a well-known phrase in Reformed theological circles:

• Ecclesia reformata, semper reformanda secundum verbum Dei.

In translates into English as, "The Reformed church, always being reformed according to the word of God." It originated in the mid-17th century among Dutch Reformed theologians, particularly Jodocus van Lodenstein, to encourage continued spiritual and doctrinal renewal, both institutionally and personally, in light of God's Word.

The phrase emerged in response to concerns that the Reformation was not a one-time event but an ongoing process. Van Lodenstein and others emphasized that mere doctrinal correction was not enough; the church had to continually align itself with scripture in both faith and practice. It emphasizes the need for the church to remain vigilant against complacency, corruption, and deviation from biblical truth.

When you say, 'doctrine renewal...in light of God's word'...are you saying, 'no, Reformed theology does not believe that there is nothing more to be learned then that which the Reformation produced'?

In other words, there is more to learn in Scripture then that which the Reformation produced.

Lees

 

[DialecticSkeptic]

I understand the doctrines of grace to pertain narrowly to soteriology, but I do not understand the statement "broadly to theology (Reformed)". Could you clarify your meaning for me?

I said that the doctrines of grace don't pertain broadly to theology (Reformed). The doctrines of grace—namely, the five points of Calvinism—pertains to just soteriology, basically (and a fraction of anthropology). That leaves a lot of other theological concerns unaddressed, like theology proper, eschatology, Christology, ecclesiology, etc. Another way of expressing my meaning is like this: "Reformed theology includes Calvinism, but Calvinism does not encompass Reformed theology."

 

[DialecticSkeptic]

When you say, 'doctrine renewal...in light of God's word'...are you saying, 'no, Reformed theology does not believe that there is nothing more to be learned then that which the Reformation produced'?

In other words, there is more to learn in Scripture then that which the Reformation produced.

Lees

Reformed theology does not claim that everything to be known was fully discovered during the Reformation. Rather, it holds that the church must continually return to and be shaped by the scriptures. The Reformation provided crucial corrections, but the process of refining our understanding in light of God's word is ongoing. This means we are always seeking to apply biblical truth more faithfully, without adding new revelations or straying from God's revealed will.

Reformed theology does not claim that the church has nothing more to learn beyond what the Reformation produced. Rather, it holds that the church must continually examine itself and align with scripture, which is the final authority—not the conclusions of the Reformers or any human tradition (including out confessional standards, which are themselves subordinate to scripture). The Reformation provided vital corrections, but human understanding is always limited and subject to refinement.

While the core doctrines of the faith—such as justification by faith and the authority of Scripture—are firmly established, the church must continually seek to grow in its understanding and application of biblical truth in different times and contexts. This process of "semper reformanda" (being reformed) does not mean introducing new revelation but striving to understand and apply God's word more faithfully ("secundum verbum Dei").

In short, Reformed theology teaches that the church must always be reforming, not according to human ideas or cultural pressures (e.g., gender idealogy), but according to the unchanging truth of God's Word.

 

[Josheb]

For those who stand against it, it will be helpful to know what it is before they argue against it.

I've met many who stand against Reformed Theology that do not find knowing it before they argue against it helpful .

Just saying.

 

[Josheb]

When you say, 'doctrine renewal...in light of God's word'...are you saying, 'no, Reformed theology does not believe that there is nothing more to be learned then that which the Reformation produced'?

In other words, there is more to learn in Scripture then that which the Reformation produced.

Lees

What is it about "always being reformed according to the word of God," and "to encourage continued spiritual and doctrinal renewal, both institutionally and personally, in light of God's Word," that leads you to think RT believes there's nothing more to learn? How could anything that is always being reformed and encouraged to continued spiritual renewal ever believe there was nothing more to learn?

Or... maybe you'd like to reword that question?

 

[Arial]

I've met many who stand against Reformed Theology that do not find knowing it before they argue against it helpful .

Just saying.

My experience is "most". Problem is they think they know all about it. So, I stand by my position (and I am not saying you were arguing against it) that if they really understood it, there would be no way to argue against it. Not in any reasonable logical way. Every argument that is given against it, in my experience, refuses to acknowledge the shortcomings of the arguments presented against it. They aren't systematically worked through. They refuse to see that what they are saying contradicts other scriptures, will not see or acknowledge that they have violated the doctrine of God, they often defy all logic, and the conclusions of their own position is never followed to its natural conclusion---at which point, if it were, they would perhaps say, "Oh no! That can't be."

 

[Arial]

I said that the doctrines of grace don't pertain broadly to theology (Reformed). The doctrines of grace—namely, the five points of Calvinism—pertains to just soteriology, basically (and a fraction of anthropology). That leaves a lot of other theological concerns unaddressed, like theology proper, eschatology, Christology, ecclesiology, etc. Another way of expressing my meaning is like this: "Reformed theology includes Calvinism, but Calvinism does not encompass Reformed theology."

OK. You may be right. I will have to look into it. I always considered Calvinism and Reformed as the same thing. However there are just "plain" Calvinists and Reformed Calvinist---the difference being in infant baptism and eschatology primarily. So. Dunno. At the time of the Reformation, John Calvin included, wasn't the concensus Covenant theology rather than Dispensation?

 

[Josheb]

Good op.

However, Reformed Theology, being a systematic system is a systematic theology that is all-encompassing, not merely about salvation, and Arminius was Reformed. He simply departed from the Calvinists of his day when it came to the nature of God's work and the degree of human volitional agency in salvation. His Theology, Christology, Pneumatology, hamartiology, ecclesiology were all consistent with classic Reformed Theology. Arminius was Dutch Reformed, studied under Theodore Beza and, like both Luther, Calvin and Beza (along with a host of others) stood firmly against the abuses of the Roman Catholic Church (RCC) and the Anabaptists (which is where the Reformation gets its title). He thought the use of the Belgic Confession to criticize his views was misguided. Beza once wrote in a letter of recommendation....

"Let it be known to you that from the time Arminius returned to us from Basel, his life and learning both have so approved themselves to us, that we hope for the best from him in every respect, if he steadily persists in the same course, which, by the blessing of God, we doubt not he will; for, among other endowments, God has given him an intellect well-suited both to the apprehension and to the discrimination of things. If this henceforward be regulated by piety, which he appears assiduously to cultivate, it cannot but happen that this power of intellect, when consolidated by mature age and experience, will be productive of the richest fruits."​

Arminius had been an apologist for Calvin and Beza for twenty years. The problem is, to use Beza's vernacular, his previously well-suited intellect did not remain regulated by piety . The problem, a very serious problem, theologically speaking, to teach an unregenerate man could live according to the Law of Moses, be convicted by the Holy Spirit and experience both God's grace and rebirth (but not be regenerate). He was met with accusations of Pelagianism but insisted his views were consistent with the Heidelberg Confession. The controversy worsened when he began to teach justification by faith apart from an emphasis on God's eternal decree and from there his views on divine sovereignty, grace, predestination, and the sinner's volitional agency pertaining to salvation increasingly distanced from Calving, Beza and the growing monergistic position. Despite that, he remained an Augustinian theologian. He also sought later in life to revise both the Belgic and the Heidelberg confessions (odd for a man who previously claimed reliant consistency).

Unblessedly, it only takes one mucked up doctrine to qualify as a heretic and he came pretty close if not fully qualified.

That sad conclusion to his life said, there is much in his 25 "Public Disputations" that is completely consistent with Reformed Theology. In Disputation 11: On the Free Will of Man and Its Powers, he articulated a position wholly consistent with what we today call, "Total Depravity."

"In this state [the sinful state], the free will of man towards the true good is not only wounded, maimed, infirm, bent, and weakened; but it is also imprisoned, destroyed, and lost. And its powers are not only debilitated and useless unless they be assisted by grace, but it has no powers whatever except such as are excited by Divine grace. For Christ has said, "Without me ye can do nothing." St. Augustine, after having diligently meditated upon each word in this passage, speaks thus: "Christ does not say, without me ye can do but Little; neither does He say, without me ye can do any Arduous Thing, nor without me ye can do it with difficulty. But he says, without me ye can do Nothing! Nor does he say, without me ye cannot complete any thing; but without me ye can do Nothing." That this may be made more manifestly to appear, we will separately consider the mind, the affections or will, and the capability, as contra-distinguished from them, as well as the life itself of an unregenerate man."​

The divide between Calvin's views and Arminius' views widened after both men were dead. Sadly, many modern self-styled Arminians don't have a clue this is what Arminius taught. They're really Wesleyans, Provisionists, Traditionalists, or semi- or fully Pelagian and do not realize it.

For those who stand against it, it will be helpful to know what it is before they argue against it.

100% correct.

It is not a denomination within Christianity. It is not separate from Christianity.... It is systematic in arriving at all it teaches.

100% correct....... and Calvin was particularly rigorous and prolific. To understand Calvin's Calvinism, it best to read his commentaries on the books of the Bible over His "Institutes of the Christian Religion" because the Institutes was written as a treatise on reforming the RCC whereas his commentaries are firmly rooted in the text of scripture from whence his doctrines were formed. Even with Calvin there are a few things with which Reformed Theology today would disagree.

Note: The doctrines of grace pertain narrowly to soteriology (Calvinism), not broadly to theology (Reformed).

100% correct.

 

[makesends]

A question: Does 'Reformed Theology' believe there is nothing more to be learned from the Bible than that which the Reformation produced?

Lees

Always reforming. The tenets are not my anchor nor my reference for interpretation and use of scripture, but commentary and encouragement. They, generally, say better than I can, what I want to say.

 

[makesends]

DialecticSkeptic said:
Note: The doctrines of grace pertain narrowly to soteriology (Calvinism), not broadly to theology (Reformed).

100% correct.

As stated, yes. But the principles behind TULIP --particularly, the self-interested self-motivated sovereign and omnipotent action of God-- which principles are behind every one of the five points, are pervasive in the rest of Reformed Theology. So much so that I have been hard pressed to see much difference between the monergism of Salvation and the monergism in any virtue I pursue, in all facets of Sanctification, and in all theory behind WHY God would do this and what he is doing --Covenant Theology.

 

[Josheb]

DialecticSkeptic said:
Note: The doctrines of grace pertain narrowly to soteriology (Calvinism), not broadly to theology (Reformed).

As stated, yes. But the principles behind TULIP --particularly, the self-interested self-motivated sovereign and omnipotent action of God-- which principles are behind every one of the five points, are pervasive in the rest of Reformed Theology. So much so that I have been hard pressed to see much difference between the monergism of Salvation and the monergism in any virtue I pursue, in all facets of Sanctification, and in all theory behind WHY God would do this and what he is doing --Covenant Theology.

Theology
Christology
Pneumatology
Anthropology
Hamartiology
Soteriology
Ecclesiology
Eschatology
Bibliology​

To name, just a few; and each with their own sub-doctrines. Reformed Theology encompasses all of these. Reformed soteriology is just a small portion of its larger systematic theology of Reformed Theology, of which Theology is also just another part of Reformed Theology. Confused? Capital "T" Theology (the study of God and His nature) is not the same as small "t" theology (the systematic theory of religious belief).

 

[Lees]

Reformed theology does not claim that everything to be known was fully discovered during the Reformation. Rather, it holds that the church must continually return to and be shaped by the scriptures. The Reformation provided crucial corrections, but the process of refining our understanding in light of God's word is ongoing. This means we are always seeking to apply biblical truth more faithfully, without adding new revelations or straying from God's revealed will.

Reformed theology does not claim that the church has nothing more to learn beyond what the Reformation produced. Rather, it holds that the church must continually examine itself and align with scripture, which is the final authority—not the conclusions of the Reformers or any human tradition (including out confessional standards, which are themselves subordinate to scripture). The Reformation provided vital corrections, but human understanding is always limited and subject to refinement.

While the core doctrines of the faith—such as justification by faith and the authority of Scripture—are firmly established, the church must continually seek to grow in its understanding and application of biblical truth in different times and contexts. This process of "semper reformanda" (being reformed) does not mean introducing new revelation but striving to understand and apply God's word more faithfully ("secundum verbum Dei").

In short, Reformed theology teaches that the church must always be reforming, not according to human ideas or cultural pressures (e.g., gender idealogy), but according to the unchanging truth of God's Word.

What do you mean, 'without adding new revelations', in your first paragraph?

Which you repeat in your third paragraph. 'does not mean introducing new revelation'

If the Chuch is to continually return and be shaped by the Scriptures, and not everything was 'fully discovered', how is it that something new revealed in Scripture is not a new revelaltion?

(Eph. 1:17) "That the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give unto you the spirit of wisdom and revelation in the knowlege of him."

Lees

 

[Lees]

What is it about "always being reformed according to the word of God," and "to encourage continued spiritual and doctrinal renewal, both institutionally and personally, in light of God's Word," that leads you to think RT believes there's nothing more to learn? How could anything that is always being reformed and encouraged to continued spiritual renewal ever believe there was nothing more to learn?

Or... maybe you'd like to reword that question?

No, I'm fine.

Lees