What Is Reformed Theology?

[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.

Always learning in the Scriptures, is not 'always reforming'.

Lees

 

[makesends]

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?

Sounds like either a dishonest question, or you're letting words throw your thinking around. If it was already in Scripture, it is not "new revelation".

"No new revelation" does not mean that God cannot show us new things in Scripture, but that there is no new Scripture, and nothing to displace Scripture. If you don't like the terminology then, at least, be clear about the principle. RT is not the RCC. We cannot add to Scripture, nor improve on anything that God has already said about himself.

 

[makesends]

Always learning in the Scriptures, is not 'always reforming'.

Lees

How's this, then? --Always improving our understanding. Does that work for you?

 

[Josheb]

No, I'm fine.

Lees

Post proves otherwise.

 

[DialecticSkeptic]

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.

Prior to the mid-20th century, there was no such thing as Reformed Baptists. From the 1630s until maybe the 1950s, they were largely known as Particular Baptists and quite distinct from the Reformed camp (having separated over infant baptism, c. 1638). That term "particular" is what set them apart as Calvinist, insofar as they affirmed a particular (i.e., limited) atonement. So, their soteriology is Calvinist but their theology is not Reformed (and their covenant theology was and is... well, weird).

Thus, we have Reformed theology (which is more than just Calvinist) and Particular Baptist theology (which is Calvinist but not Reformed). Their adoption of the term Reformed Baptist has led to needless confusion, especially their dispensationalist wing.

At the time of the Reformation (John Calvin included), wasn't the consensus covenant theology rather than dispensational?

Covenant theology was developed from the 15th century onward by Zwingli, Calvin, Bullinger, Olevianus, Witsius, etc. However, although it was popular, it was certainly not the consensus; let's not forget the Anglican and Lutheran churches of that period. I don't think Lutherans even have a covenantal view of salvation. It has a more promissory focus, emphasizing grace through faith alone and a distinction between law and gospel. If Reformed theology is covenantal, then Lutheran theology is sacramental (but not sacerdotal). As for the Anglicans, the Thirty-Nine Articles do not contain a developed covenant theology but they implicitly reflect covenantal ideas, and the Book of Common Prayer uses covenantal language in its liturgy, particularly in the baptismal service.

Edit: John Nelson Darby began systematizing dispensational ideas circa the 1830s, so 200 years after the development of covenant theology.

 

[DialecticSkeptic]

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'

It's about doctrinal development within biblical boundaries. God is not providing new revelation about himself or salvation in Christ (i.e., closed canon), but our understanding of biblical doctrine can deepen. For example, theological formulations like the doctrine of the trinity were not fully articulated in the early church but were progressively understood by studying scripture. Another example would be the doctrine of justification by faith alone, which was always present in scripture but was clarified and articulated more precisely during the Reformation in response to specific errors of the time. More recently, the development and integrity of scientific inquiry has forced us to reexamine scriptures in light of our hermeneutical and exegetical commitments (e.g., the Bible assumes geocentric language but does not affirm geocentricism).

 

[Lees]

Sounds like either a dishonest question, or you're letting words throw your thinking around. If it was already in Scripture, it is not "new revelation".

"No new revelation" does not mean that God cannot show us new things in Scripture, but that there is no new Scripture, and nothing to displace Scripture. If you don't like the terminology then, at least, be clear about the principle. RT is not the RCC. We cannot add to Scripture, nor improve on anything that God has already said about himself.

I see no dishonesty in the question. And I was not talking about 'adding to Scripture'. Note I said, " how is it that something new revealed in Scripture is not a new revelation?"

And I cited (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:"

Yes, I agree. God reveals new things to us in the Scripture which we didn't know before.

You say, "We cannot...improve on anything that God has already said about himself." What does this mean? As, of course, we cannot improve on what God has given to us in Scripture. But we can improve on our knowledge of God as more is revealed to us in Scripture.

In other words, the Reformation Faith played an improtant role in the history of Christianity, but it did not exhaust the knowledge of God given to us in Scripture. So much there to learn. Correct?

Lees

 

[Lees]

It's about doctrinal development within biblical boundaries. God is not providing new revelation about himself or salvation in Christ (i.e., closed canon), but our understanding of biblical doctrine can deepen. For example, theological formulations like the doctrine of the trinity were not fully articulated in the early church but were progressively understood by studying scripture. Another example would be the doctrine of justification by faith alone, which was always present in scripture but was clarified and articulated more precisely during the Reformation in response to specific errors of the time. More recently, the development and integrity of scientific inquiry has forced us to reexamine scriptures in light of our hermeneutical and exegetical commitments (e.g., the Bible assumes geocentric language but does not affirm geocentricism).

Yes, I agree the Canon is closed. Thus in that degree there is no new written revelation. But God reveals further knowledge of Himself in the Scripture to the believer which he didn't have before. (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 knowledge of him."

That is the way we began our Christian life. (Matt. 16:17) "And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven."

Lees

 

[makesends]

Prior to the mid-20th century, there was no such thing as Reformed Baptists. From the 1630s until maybe the 1950s, they were largely known as Particular Baptists and quite distinct from the Reformed camp (having separated over infant baptism, c. 1638). That term "particular" is what set them apart as Calvinist, insofar as they affirmed a particular (i.e., limited) atonement. So, their soteriology is Calvinist but their theology is not Reformed (and their covenant theology was and is... well, weird).

Thus, we have Reformed theology (which is more than just Calvinist) and Particular Baptist theology (which is Calvinist but not Reformed). Their adoption of the term Reformed Baptist has led to needless confusion, especially their dispensationalist wing.

I consider myself Reformed, if anything, but I don't hold to infant baptism. To me, that is not the distinguishing factor. (Can't say I know what IS, except maybe Covenant theology and a certain degree of high church ritual). (Actually, there are things I very much like about infant baptism, but I also like, even more, the answer of a person to his conscience, in public declaration of his identification with Christ. I'm not opposed to the idea of it being both!)

The Reformed Baptist church I currently attend does emphasize Covenant Theology and uses some degree of ceremony, such as responsive reading from creeds, confessions and catechisms. Notably, they are sober, but not at all liturgical, in the performing of the sacraments.

Covenant theology was developed from the 15th century onward by Zwingli, Calvin, Bullinger, Olevianus, Witsius, etc. However, although it was popular, it was certainly not the consensus; let's not forget the Anglican and Lutheran churches of that period. I don't think Lutherans even have a covenantal view of salvation. It has a more promissory focus, emphasizing grace through faith alone and a distinction between law and gospel. If Reformed theology is covenantal, then Lutheran theology is sacramental (but not sacerdotal). As for the Anglicans, the Thirty-Nine Articles do not contain a developed covenant theology but they implicitly reflect covenantal ideas, and the Book of Common Prayer uses covenantal language in its liturgy, particularly in the baptismal service.

Edit: John Nelson Darby began systematizing dispensational ideas circa the 1830s, so 200 years after the development of covenant theology.

 

[Josheb]

Prior to the mid-20th century, there was no such thing as Reformed Baptists. From the 1630s until maybe the 1950s, they were largely known as Particular Baptists and quite distinct from the Reformed camp (having separated over infant baptism, c. 1638). That term "particular" is what set them apart as Calvinist, insofar as they affirmed a particular (i.e., limited) atonement. So, their soteriology is Calvinist but their theology is not Reformed (and their covenant theology was and is... well, weird).

Thus, we have Reformed theology (which is more than just Calvinist) and Particular Baptist theology (which is Calvinist but not Reformed). Their adoption of the term Reformed Baptist has led to needless confusion, especially their dispensationalist wing.




Covenant theology was developed from the 15th century onward by Zwingli, Calvin, Bullinger, Olevianus, Witsius, etc. However, although it was popular, it was certainly not the consensus; let's not forget the Anglican and Lutheran churches of that period. I don't think Lutherans even have a covenantal view of salvation. It has a more promissory focus, emphasizing grace through faith alone and a distinction between law and gospel. If Reformed theology is covenantal, then Lutheran theology is sacramental (but not sacerdotal). As for the Anglicans, the Thirty-Nine Articles do not contain a developed covenant theology but they implicitly reflect covenantal ideas, and the Book of Common Prayer uses covenantal language in its liturgy, particularly in the baptismal service.

Edit: John Nelson Darby began systematizing dispensational ideas circa the 1830s, so 200 years after the development of covenant theology.

It's about doctrinal development within biblical boundaries. God is not providing new revelation about himself or salvation in Christ (i.e., closed canon), but our understanding of biblical doctrine can deepen. For example, theological formulations like the doctrine of the trinity were not fully articulated in the early church but were progressively understood by studying scripture. Another example would be the doctrine of justification by faith alone, which was always present in scripture but was clarified and articulated more precisely during the Reformation in response to specific errors of the time. More recently, the development and integrity of scientific inquiry has forced us to reexamine scriptures in light of our hermeneutical and exegetical commitments (e.g., the Bible assumes geocentric language but does not affirm geocentricism).

Very well said.

The canon is closed...... but scripture is infinite in meaning and importance, so there is always something more to learn, know, understand, and apply. Sproul used to make a distinction between revelation and "illumination": God has finished revealing Himself, but He continues to illuminate what He has revealed and the more we mine God's word the more they will come to understand.

 

[makesends]

I see no dishonesty in the question. And I was not talking about 'adding to Scripture. Note I said, " how is it that something new revealed in Scripture is not a new revelation?"

And I cited (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:"

Yes, I agree. God reveals new things to us in the Scripture which we didn't know before.

You say, "We cannot...improve on anything that God has already said about himself." What does this mean? As, of course, we cannot improve on what God has given to us in Scripture. But we can improve on our knowledge of God as more is revealed to us in Scripture.

In other words, the Reformation Faith played an improtant role in the history of Christianity, but it did not exhaust the knowledge of God given to us in Scripture. So much there to learn. Correct?

Lees

Correct. I would note, however, that while there will certainly be, as time progresses, varying focuses on different themes found in scripture, and certainly, for example, things that become more clear through current events, I doubt very much there will be new doctrinal themes that were not known before.

As for the "no new revelation" thing, my point is not that God does not reveal things to us, but that the term used by the Reformed is talking about Sola Scriptura.

 

[DialecticSkeptic]

God reveals further knowledge of himself in the scripture to the believer [who] didn't have [it] before (Eph 1:17).

I agree with the concept that you're describing but employing the term "revelation" to denote both concepts can create ambiguity, particularly given the relevance of the divine canon (special revelation) being closed. This is why R. C. Sproul, as @Josheb mentioned, distinguished between revelation and illumination: It articulates the distinction in a way that avoids confusion. God's self-revelation is perfected in the incarnate Son and recorded throughout scripture. However, our understanding and application of that revelation at an institutional and personal level—orthodoxy and orthopraxy—both continue to grow by the Holy Spirit, as illustrated by the three examples I provided.

 

[fastfredy0]

What is Reformed Theology?​

Generally, Reformed theology holds to the authority of Scripture, the sovereignty of God, salvation by grace through Christ, and the necessity of evangelism. It is sometimes called Covenant theology because of its emphases on the covenant God made with Adam and the new covenant which came through Jesus Christ (Luke 22:20).

Authority of Scripture. Reformed theology teaches that the Bible is the inspired and authoritative Word of God, sufficient in all matters of faith and practice.

Sovereignty of God. Reformed theology teaches that God rules with absolute control over all creation. He has foreordained all events and is therefore never frustrated by circumstances. This does not limit the will of the creature, nor does it make God the author of sin.

Salvation by grace. Reformed theology teaches that God in His grace and mercy has chosen to redeem a people to Himself, delivering them from sin and death. The Reformed doctrine of salvation is commonly represented by the acrostic TULIP (also known as the five points of Calvinism):

T - total depravity. Man is completely helpless in his sinful state, is under the wrath of God, and can in no way please God. Total depravity also means that man will not naturally seek to know God, until God graciously prompts him to do so (Genesis 6:5; Jeremiah 17:9; Romans 3:10-18).

U - unconditional election. God, from eternity past, has chosen to save a great multitude of sinners, which no man can number (Romans 8:29-30; 9:11; Ephesians 1:4-6,11-12).

L - limited atonement. Also called a “particular redemption.” Christ took the judgment for the sin of the elect upon Himself and thereby paid for their lives with His death. In other words, He did not simply make salvation “possible,” He actually obtained it for those whom He had chosen (Matthew 1:21; John 10:11; 17:9; Acts 20:28; Romans 8:32; Ephesians 5:25).

I - irresistible grace. In his fallen state, man resists God’s love, but the grace of God working in his heart makes him desire what he had previously resisted. That is, God’s grace will not fail to accomplish its saving work in the elect (John 6:37,44; 10:16).

P - perseverance of the saints. God protects His saints from falling away; thus, salvation is eternal (John 10:27-29; Romans 8:29-30; Ephesians 1:3-14).

Gotquestions.org

 

[Arial]

Prior to the mid-20th century, there was no such thing as Reformed Baptists. From the 1630s until maybe the 1950s, they were largely known as Particular Baptists and quite distinct from the Reformed camp (having separated over infant baptism, c. 1638). That term "particular" is what set them apart as Calvinist, insofar as they affirmed a particular (i.e., limited) atonement. So, their soteriology is Calvinist but their theology is not Reformed (and their covenant theology was and is... well, weird).

Thus, we have Reformed theology (which is more than just Calvinist) and Particular Baptist theology (which is Calvinist but not Reformed). Their adoption of the term Reformed Baptist has led to needless confusion, especially their dispensationalist wing.

I have no quarrel with that but I do have some questions. I understand that Calvinism in the Baptist denomination is "particular" as to limited atonement, and that they differed from Reformed on infant baptism. But didn't Calvin also agree with infant baptism, just differently than the RCC? And since traditional Christianity as it came out of the Reformation, with the exception of some aspects of TULIP, and infant baptism, is held by all traditional denominations, are those doctrines dealing with all aspects of Christianity, not just sorteriology, why does that make the "particular" Baptist not also Reformed in their theology? (That took me awhile to articulate, so I hope it makes sense.)

Thus, we have Reformed theology (which is more than just Calvinist) and Particular Baptist theology (which is Calvinist but not Reformed). Their adoption of the term Reformed Baptist has led to needless confusion, especially their dispensationalist wing.

To bring a couple of well known Calvinist /Reformed into the conversation so that I can get my bearings----. Sproul is Reformed Presbyterian and refers to Reformed theology as Covenant theology. Voddie is Reformed Baptist and also adheres to Covenant theology. John MacArthur is I believe Baptist, but is not Reformed because he is not in agreement with Covenant theology when it comes to eschatology, but is dispensationalist in his overall interpretation of scripture. How does this fit in with what you have said? Or is it just that there is no place to fit everything and every view, people having minds of their own----which there isn't such a place. We are forced to generalized labels most of the time.

Covenant theology was developed from the 15th century onward by Zwingli, Calvin, Bullinger, Olevianus, Witsius, etc. However, although it was popular, it was certainly not the consensus; let's not forget the Anglican and Lutheran churches of that period. I don't think Lutherans even have a covenantal view of salvation. It has a more promissory focus, emphasizing grace through faith alone and a distinction between law and gospel. If Reformed theology is covenantal, then Lutheran theology is sacramental (but not sacerdotal). As for the Anglicans, the Thirty-Nine Articles do not contain a developed covenant theology but they implicitly reflect covenantal ideas, and the Book of Common Prayer uses covenantal language in its liturgy, particularly in the baptismal service.

Edit: John Nelson Darby began systematizing dispensational ideas circa the 1830s, so 200 years after the development of covenant theology.

I agree and am aware. And though I consider Luther the spark that lit the flame of the Reformation, I consider the Creeds that came out of the Reformation, including the Scottish reformation which was a bit later, with the above mentioned persons, and dozens if not hundreds of others by way of preachers, to be the full blown Reformation.


Thanks for all the good info and for dealing with my questions. We need more of this on the forum.

 

[Arial]

In other words, the Reformation Faith played an improtant role in the history of Christianity, but it did not exhaust the knowledge of God given to us in Scripture. So much there to learn. Correct?

It is Reformation theology, not Reformation Faith. That aside: It was not the intent or purpose of the Reformers to exhaust the knowledge of God given to us in Scripture. It was to remove unsound and unbiblical teachings and practices from the church. So it in systematic fashion, took all the teachings and practices back to what is contained within that closed canon. To return it solidly to the foundation that was laid by the Apostles. And to keep the Bible in its entirety consistent with itself, and always consistent with the doctrine of God. What God reveals of Himself.

 

[makesends]

DialecticSkeptic said:
Thus, we have Reformed theology (which is more than just Calvinist) and Particular Baptist theology (which is Calvinist but not Reformed). Their adoption of the term Reformed Baptist has led to needless confusion, especially their dispensationalist wing.

To bring a couple of well known Calvinist /Reformed into the conversation so that I can get my bearings----. Sproul is Reformed Presbyterian and refers to Reformed theology as Covenant theology. Voddie is Reformed Baptist and also adheres to Covenant theology. John MacArthur is I believe Baptist, but is not Reformed because he is not in agreement with Covenant theology when it comes to eschatology, but is dispensationalist in his overall interpretation of scripture. How does this fit in with what you have said? Or is it just that there is no place to fit everything and every view, people having minds of their own----which there isn't such a place. We are forced to generalized labels most of the time.

To be honest, I don't see how Covenant Theology necessarily is eschatologically in opposition to Dispensationalism, but only in opposition to some Dispensationalists. I don't know McArthur's stance well, but I had for many years known only dispensational eschatology, but (mainly) without the notion of a different salvation in the OT vs in the NT. Dispensationalism, in my opinion, while it organizes the whole of Scripture, (minus certain passages it ignores, (snerk snerk!), for application to its eschatology), it is about eschatology, and not so much soteriology or the other disciplines. Covenant Theology I don't see that way at all, or, at most, if it can be said to be eschatological, it is only the final end to which it speaks. How we see it all unfolding just about runs the full spectrum of eschatological notions, yet all within Covenant Theology.

At least, that is my take. I don't see how McArthur is therefore opposed to Covenant theology. I have always assumed his take on eschatology to pretty much fit mine, that the end of God's creating is from beginning to end that we are (and will be) his people and he our God. To me, that is the core of Covenant theology. But I have never formally studied the matter. Correct me, please.

 

[Lees]

Correct. I would note, however, that while there will certainly be, as time progresses, varying focuses on different themes found in scripture, and certainly, for example, things that become more clear through current events, I doubt very much there will be new doctrinal themes that were not known before.

As for the "no new revelation" thing, my point is not that God does not reveal things to us, but that the term used by the Reformed is talking about Sola Scriptura.

"doctrinal themes that were not known before"...when?

Does (Philippians 3:15) specify Sola Scripture? "Let us therefore, as many as be perfect, be thus minded: and if in any thing ye be otherwise minded, God shall reveal even this unto you."

Or, (1 Cor. 2:9-10) "But as it is written, eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him. But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea the deep things of God."

Again, no new revelation pertaining to new Scripture. The Cannon is closed. But plenty of truth in Scripture to be revealed to the individual Christian.

Understanding a truth in Scripture is revelation from God also. Just like knowing the truth about Jesus is a revelation. (Matt. 16:17) Though there was Scripture many missed Him. Yet the Pharisees were well versed in the Scriptures, yet many missed Him.

And the same with the Father. We have the Scripture, of course. Yet, only the Son can reveal the Father to us. (Luke 10:21-22) "In that hour Jesus rejoiced in spirit, and said, I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes: even so, Father, for so it seemed good in thy sight. All things are delivered to me of my Father: and no man knoweth who the Son is but the Father, and who the Father is but the Son, and he to whom the Son will reveal him."

Lees

 

[Lees]

It is Reformation theology, not Reformation Faith. That aside: It was not the intent or purpose of the Reformers to exhaust the knowledge of God given to us in Scripture. It was to remove unsound and unbiblical teachings and practices from the church. So it in systematic fashion, took all the teachings and practices back to what is contained within that closed canon. To return it solidly to the foundation that was laid by the Apostles. And to keep the Bible in its entirety consistent with itself, and always consistent with the doctrine of God. What God reveals of Himself.

And I agree.

Lees

 

[Lees]

I agree with the concept that you're describing but employing the term "revelation" to denote both concepts can create ambiguity, particularly given the relevance of the divine canon (special revelation) being closed. This is why R. C. Sproul, as @Josheb mentioned, distinguished between revelation and illumination: It articulates the distinction in a way that avoids confusion. God's self-revelation is perfected in the incarnate Son and recorded throughout scripture. However, our understanding and application of that revelation at an institutional and personal level—orthodoxy and orthopraxy—both continue to grow by the Holy Spirit, as illustrated by the three examples I provided.

Yet what I have described is how it is described in Scripture. Man in his efforts to 'systematize' his theology does come up with words that make it easier for him to distinguish. Yet that should not discount how Scripture says it.

I don't see why there should be confusion over the revelation of God producing Scripture and the revelation of God to reveal Scritpure.

Lees

 

[Arial]

To be honest, I don't see how Covenant Theology necessarily is eschatologically in opposition to Dispensationalism, but only in opposition to some Dispensationalists.

My understanding, and keep in mind, there are many branches of dispensationalism, but all if I am not mistaken, interpret from a framework of seven dispensations. The underlying principle of doing this is the conviction that God is dealing with mankind in different ways at different times. And though this is absolutely true, and Covenant theology does not deny that, Covenant theology does not use that as the framework of redemption. Instead it uses the way in which God always relates to and forms a relationship with mankind, and creation itself. And that is through covenant.

Dispensationalists do not deny covenant or covenant relationships, but focus on the different dispensations of grace, or relationship. And I will note here that in truth the Bible is eschatological in nature from its outset to its conclusion, as redemption progresses within our history, from its inception in Gen 3:15 with a curse and a covenant promise. "The seed of the woman will crush the serpents head, and the serpent will bruise his heel." (paraphrase).

The opposition between Covenant theology and dispensation interpretation comes when the Dispensation of Law (not sure that is how they identify it but is what it is) the covenant relationship with Israel in the Sinai covenant, separates a section from the whole, in effect dividing or chopping up, the continuous element of redemption played out in our history. It separates Israel and the church.

More later. My dog is imagining things to bark at so my attention will be drawn to the clock. His lunch time. He was successful in his efforts. It isn't really his lunchtime by the clock, but he does not believe in time jumping from daylight savings and back, and so he pays it no mind. I buckle to the expectant eyes or made up intrusions upon our abode, every time.