Calvinist? Reformed? Covenant?
Forum category
Could someone please either:
—Concisely (ha) differentiate between and/or define the terms Calvinism, Reformed theology, and Covenant theology OR
—point me to a thread where this is discussed?
My eyes are crossing.
Thanks in advance from me, and my optician. :)
—Concisely (ha) differentiate between and/or define the terms Calvinism, Reformed theology, and Covenant theology OR
—point me to a thread where this is discussed?
My eyes are crossing.
Thanks in advance from me, and my optician. :)
- 8 views
Diane, these terms are always evolving, but I’ll try to give what I think is a fairly widespread and representative understanding of them.
1. Calvinism. Originally, the term was used by Lutherans to describe Protestants who followed Calvin’s understanding of the Lord’s Supper rather than Luther’s. In the 1700’s, it referred to orthodox Reformed and Puritan beliefs against the theological threats of the day - deism, Arminianism (loose term), Anglicanism, etc. Today, most people use it much more narrowly to refer to the soteriological doctrines defended by the Synod of Dordt against the Arminian Remonstrants. So, it usually refers to the “five points” plus a few closely related ideas.
2. Reformed. The word “reformational” generally refers to all the theology that came out of the Reformation - Lutheran, Reformed, and sometimes even Radical. However, “Reformed” designates the form of Protestantism that originated in Switzerland and was perhaps best systematized by Calvin. At the time, though, Calvin was one theologian among many others - Bullinger, Bucer, Farel, Peter Martyr Vermigli, Oecolampidus, etc. Reformed theology is quite similar to Lutheranism but differs noticeably on the sacraments and on principles of worship. If you want to find out more about Reformed doctrine, I suggest reading the historic Reformed Confessions - Westminster, Belgic, Heidelberg Catechism, Canons of Dordt. http://reformed.org/documents/index.html Also, some modern neo-orthodox theology (Barth) claims to be Reformed, but the word in that case means something very different.
3. Covenant Theology. Covenant theology is a way of understanding the biblical history. Very broadly speaking, there was a Covenant of Works with Adam as the covenant head. He broke it, and all who were covenantally united to him (everyone) were cursed because he was cursed. There is also the Covenant of Grace, which runs through all of human history since the Fall. Christ is the head of the covenant of grace, and all who are united to him covenantally partake of the reward which he gained through his perfect obedience to the Father. The various epochs of biblical history are differing administrations of the one CoG. Covenant theology was systematized by 17th century theologians, mostly Dutch.
–—
So, a Reformed person is one (in my opinion) who subscribes to a Reformed Confession. Among other things, this would include believing in Calvinism, Covenant theology, the Regulative Principle of Worship, and the communication of grace in the sacraments. One can be a “Calvinist” or a “Covenant theologian” without being fully Reformed.
1. Calvinism. Originally, the term was used by Lutherans to describe Protestants who followed Calvin’s understanding of the Lord’s Supper rather than Luther’s. In the 1700’s, it referred to orthodox Reformed and Puritan beliefs against the theological threats of the day - deism, Arminianism (loose term), Anglicanism, etc. Today, most people use it much more narrowly to refer to the soteriological doctrines defended by the Synod of Dordt against the Arminian Remonstrants. So, it usually refers to the “five points” plus a few closely related ideas.
2. Reformed. The word “reformational” generally refers to all the theology that came out of the Reformation - Lutheran, Reformed, and sometimes even Radical. However, “Reformed” designates the form of Protestantism that originated in Switzerland and was perhaps best systematized by Calvin. At the time, though, Calvin was one theologian among many others - Bullinger, Bucer, Farel, Peter Martyr Vermigli, Oecolampidus, etc. Reformed theology is quite similar to Lutheranism but differs noticeably on the sacraments and on principles of worship. If you want to find out more about Reformed doctrine, I suggest reading the historic Reformed Confessions - Westminster, Belgic, Heidelberg Catechism, Canons of Dordt. http://reformed.org/documents/index.html Also, some modern neo-orthodox theology (Barth) claims to be Reformed, but the word in that case means something very different.
3. Covenant Theology. Covenant theology is a way of understanding the biblical history. Very broadly speaking, there was a Covenant of Works with Adam as the covenant head. He broke it, and all who were covenantally united to him (everyone) were cursed because he was cursed. There is also the Covenant of Grace, which runs through all of human history since the Fall. Christ is the head of the covenant of grace, and all who are united to him covenantally partake of the reward which he gained through his perfect obedience to the Father. The various epochs of biblical history are differing administrations of the one CoG. Covenant theology was systematized by 17th century theologians, mostly Dutch.
–—
So, a Reformed person is one (in my opinion) who subscribes to a Reformed Confession. Among other things, this would include believing in Calvinism, Covenant theology, the Regulative Principle of Worship, and the communication of grace in the sacraments. One can be a “Calvinist” or a “Covenant theologian” without being fully Reformed.
My Blog: http://dearreaderblog.com
Cor meum tibi offero Domine prompte et sincere. ~ John Calvin
Thank you for the insight. On the Calvinism point, you mention the TULIP “plus a few closely related ideas”…what would they be? And then “hyper-Calvinism” would be what?
As far as “reformed” goes, that idea seems to be a bit more “squishy” (my impressive theological term). I appreciated your last paragraph in light of this. That was very helpful, as I have seen these terms all used in the same discussion and sometimes seemingly interchangeably. Would these reformed confessions you mention be fairly consistent with one another? Knox and Zwingli…they fit in that group, right?
On the “regulative principle of worship”…I just educated myself on this new (to me) term. Can you tell me what this looks like, say, in your church?
Thanks.
As far as “reformed” goes, that idea seems to be a bit more “squishy” (my impressive theological term). I appreciated your last paragraph in light of this. That was very helpful, as I have seen these terms all used in the same discussion and sometimes seemingly interchangeably. Would these reformed confessions you mention be fairly consistent with one another? Knox and Zwingli…they fit in that group, right?
On the “regulative principle of worship”…I just educated myself on this new (to me) term. Can you tell me what this looks like, say, in your church?
Thanks.
"I pray to God this day to make me an extraordinary Christian." --Whitefield http://strengthfortoday.wordpress.com
The closely related ideas would be whatever is necessary to flesh out a full doctrine of salvation consistent with what was affirmed at Dordt. It is important to remember that Dordt did not give a full positive explanation of Reformed (oops, there I go) doctrine, but responded particularly to the criticisms of the Remonstrants. Calvinists would also believe in an ordo salutis (order of salvation), the concept that you can logically (but not necessarily chronologically) distinguish and relate the many operations involved in God’s saving someone. The best contemporary explanation of ordo salutis is John Murray’s Redemption Accomplished and Applied, a fairly brief and very accessible work. Calvinist’s also believe that “union with Christ” is the central soteriological concept. All of the benefits of salvation are “in Christ.”
Hyper-Calvinism is usually understood as denying one or both of these ideas. 1) Men have a moral duty to believe the gospel. 2) Christians have a moral duty to preach the gospel to all. There is a stimulating book written about this - Spurgeon v. Hyper-Calvinism by Iain Murray.
As to “Reformed,” once again, I think the place to go is the Reformed confessions. The cofessions, though often different in order and sometimes in emphasis, are almost entirely in agreement. Westminster Seminary California, for example, simultaneously holds to the Westminster Confession and to the continental Reformed standards, the Three Forms of Unity - Heidelberg Catechism, Belgic Confession, Canons of Dordt. During the 17th century, Reformed theology was almost identical throughout Scotland, England, France, Switzerland, Germany, and the Netherlands. Such widespread unity in doctrine is almost unimaginable today. Yes, Knox was Reformed. So was Zwingli, although he was very early in the Reformation and some aspects of his theology were overshadowed by Calvin and Bucer, both more inclined toward Luther in a number of ways.
The RPW, on the other hand, is currently in a state of disarray. The basic premise is that only those elements commanded or derived by good and necessary consequence is permissible in corporate worship. The purpose is to avoid will-worship, as well as wounding people’s consciences. For the most strict RPW advocates, this means musical instruments and non-inspired songs are prohibited, as are any “Christian” holidays such as Christmas and Easter. Most contemporary Reformed churches have denied that those are necessary consequences of the RPW. However, many still won’t officially recognize secular days such as Mother’s Day or Independence Day in corporate worship. Some don’t do any “special music.” Most refuse to allow drama in church. Most prohibit images of Christ. Many use specific liturgies such as the Genevan order or the Scottish order. Almost all applications of the principle are contested. I won’t comment too much on my particular church, since these issues can be touchy in certain presbyteries. However, I’ll give you a link to one of my church’s orders of worship. http://www.downtownpres.org/our-most-recent-order-of-worship
If you want to get more detailed info on the RPW, I’d suggest reading the essay I’m putting at the end of this post, or one of the many links on monergism.com
Hope this helps. As you so aptly expressed, definitions of all kinds are indeed squishy.
The Scriptural Regulative Principle of Worship:
http://www.westminsterconfession.org/worship/the-scriptural-regulative-…
Hyper-Calvinism is usually understood as denying one or both of these ideas. 1) Men have a moral duty to believe the gospel. 2) Christians have a moral duty to preach the gospel to all. There is a stimulating book written about this - Spurgeon v. Hyper-Calvinism by Iain Murray.
As to “Reformed,” once again, I think the place to go is the Reformed confessions. The cofessions, though often different in order and sometimes in emphasis, are almost entirely in agreement. Westminster Seminary California, for example, simultaneously holds to the Westminster Confession and to the continental Reformed standards, the Three Forms of Unity - Heidelberg Catechism, Belgic Confession, Canons of Dordt. During the 17th century, Reformed theology was almost identical throughout Scotland, England, France, Switzerland, Germany, and the Netherlands. Such widespread unity in doctrine is almost unimaginable today. Yes, Knox was Reformed. So was Zwingli, although he was very early in the Reformation and some aspects of his theology were overshadowed by Calvin and Bucer, both more inclined toward Luther in a number of ways.
The RPW, on the other hand, is currently in a state of disarray. The basic premise is that only those elements commanded or derived by good and necessary consequence is permissible in corporate worship. The purpose is to avoid will-worship, as well as wounding people’s consciences. For the most strict RPW advocates, this means musical instruments and non-inspired songs are prohibited, as are any “Christian” holidays such as Christmas and Easter. Most contemporary Reformed churches have denied that those are necessary consequences of the RPW. However, many still won’t officially recognize secular days such as Mother’s Day or Independence Day in corporate worship. Some don’t do any “special music.” Most refuse to allow drama in church. Most prohibit images of Christ. Many use specific liturgies such as the Genevan order or the Scottish order. Almost all applications of the principle are contested. I won’t comment too much on my particular church, since these issues can be touchy in certain presbyteries. However, I’ll give you a link to one of my church’s orders of worship. http://www.downtownpres.org/our-most-recent-order-of-worship
If you want to get more detailed info on the RPW, I’d suggest reading the essay I’m putting at the end of this post, or one of the many links on monergism.com
Hope this helps. As you so aptly expressed, definitions of all kinds are indeed squishy.
The Scriptural Regulative Principle of Worship:
http://www.westminsterconfession.org/worship/the-scriptural-regulative-…
My Blog: http://dearreaderblog.com
Cor meum tibi offero Domine prompte et sincere. ~ John Calvin
Charlie did an excellent job. I would only add a smidge (another theological term I learned in Bible college) to the discussion on the term reformed. Many people use this word very loosely, whether from lack of knowledge or lack or precision I do not know. In common useage today, you will often hear people refer to reformed theology meaning only the Calvinistic soteriology, or doctrines of grace. This is common in fundamental baptist circles. Others will use the term, more accurately, to refer to both the calvanistic soteriology and covenant theology. The primary difference between covenant theology and dispensational theology is the understanding of the relationship between national Israel and the church. Covenant theologians view the church as the replace ment of national Israel as God’s people. They find spiritualized application of the OT promises made to Israel being extended to the church today. Dispensationalists view national Israel as still God’s earthly people, with all of the OT promises still intact and awaiting fulfillment in the millenial kingdom. The church is an entirely separate group representing God’s spiritual people. Please forgive me if I have oversimplified someone’s personal beliefs. This is a gross generalization for purposes of brevity.
Why is it that my voice always seems to be loudest when I am saying the dumbest things?
[Chip Van Emmerik] Charlie did an excellent job.Agreed
[Chip Van Emmerik] Covenant theologians view the church as the replace ment of national Israel as God’s people.But they would deny the “replacement” term, as http://heidelblog.wordpress.com/2008/09/14/covenant-theology-is-not-rep… this article does.
p.s. Charlie, could you add links to the articles and books you mentioned in your post?
CanJAmerican - my blog
CanJAmerican - my twitter
whitejumaycan - my youtube
I have read through all the posts, and am grateful for this discussion. I need to get my kids packed up for ice skating, but will return to comment and, of course, ask more questions. :) Thank you, all.
"I pray to God this day to make me an extraordinary Christian." --Whitefield http://strengthfortoday.wordpress.com
Here are some informational resources, for those who would want them. Let me start by recommending one book that has recently come to the fore as something of a confessional Reformed manifesto: Recovering the Reformed Confession by R. Scott Clark (link at bottom). While Clark has his own eccentricities in certain details, I think the thrust of the book well represents many conservative Reformed. Anyone who reads it will gain a good sense of the Reformed identity.
RRC by R. Scott Clark: http://www.amazon.com/Recovering-Reformed-Confession-Scott-Clark/dp/159…
For historic Reformed confessions and documents, check here: http://reformed.org/documents/index.html
For somewhat broader Reformed views on almost everything (good section on covenant theology), look here: http://monergism.com/
For confessional Reformed forum interaction, go here (I am a member): http://www.puritanboard.com/
For free Reformed seminary classes, search “Reformed Theological Seminary” on iTunes, or go to one of these: http://worldwide-classroom.com/ http://www.tnars.net/
If you want anything else, just let me know.
RRC by R. Scott Clark: http://www.amazon.com/Recovering-Reformed-Confession-Scott-Clark/dp/159…
For historic Reformed confessions and documents, check here: http://reformed.org/documents/index.html
For somewhat broader Reformed views on almost everything (good section on covenant theology), look here: http://monergism.com/
For confessional Reformed forum interaction, go here (I am a member): http://www.puritanboard.com/
For free Reformed seminary classes, search “Reformed Theological Seminary” on iTunes, or go to one of these: http://worldwide-classroom.com/ http://www.tnars.net/
If you want anything else, just let me know.
My Blog: http://dearreaderblog.com
Cor meum tibi offero Domine prompte et sincere. ~ John Calvin
[Charlie] The closely related ideas would be whatever is necessary to flesh out a full doctrine of salvation consistent with what was affirmed at Dordt. It is important to remember that Dordt did not give a full positive explanation of Reformed (oops, there I go) doctrine, but responded particularly to the criticisms of the Remonstrants. Calvinists would also believe in an ordo salutis (order of salvation), the concept that you can logically (but not necessarily chronologically) distinguish and relate the many operations involved in God’s saving someone. The best contemporary explanation of ordo salutis is John Murray’s Redemption Accomplished and Applied, a fairly brief and very accessible work. Calvinist’s also believe that “union with Christ” is the central soteriological concept. All of the benefits of salvation are “in Christ.”You know, I wonder if we need an SI wiki. :) I’ve needed to look up several terms in this investigation, which is good for me. Some of this I’ve forgotten from Systematic Theology etc. from simple lack of use. My mind seems to retain only what’s needful for the next 24-hr span of time anymore… I’ve tried googling “union with Christ” and the definitions I’m coming up with are pretty redundant…IOW, they are using the term within the definition, and so not really defining the term. Help?
Hyper-Calvinism is usually understood as denying one or both of these ideas. 1) Men have a moral duty to believe the gospel. 2) Christians have a moral duty to preach the gospel to all. There is a stimulating book written about this - Spurgeon v. Hyper-Calvinism by Iain Murray.I’ve often wondered about this term…didn’t know if it just meant those people who adhere to Calvinism, plus buy the John Calvin bobbleheads, etc. or what. I’d be interested in looking at this book you mention. Spurgeon is one of my favorite authors, and I understand there is some controversy regarding his position on all of this. But that’s another bunny trail. I did look at an article at the Spurgeon Archives once —” http://www.banneroftruth.org/pages/articles/article_detail.php?41] Are You Sure You Like Spurgeon ?” Interesting.
As to “Reformed,” once again, I think the place to go is the Reformed confessions. The cofessions, though often different in order and sometimes in emphasis, are almost entirely in agreement. Westminster Seminary California, for example, simultaneously holds to the Westminster Confession and to the continental Reformed standards, the Three Forms of Unity - Heidelberg Catechism, Belgic Confession, Canons of Dordt. During the 17th century, Reformed theology was almost identical throughout Scotland, England, France, Switzerland, Germany, and the Netherlands. Such widespread unity in doctrine is almost unimaginable today. Yes, Knox was Reformed. So was Zwingli, although he was very early in the Reformation and some aspects of his theology were overshadowed by Calvin and Bucer, both more inclined toward Luther in a number of ways.I remembered Knox and Zwingli from Baptist History, but that is all a blur now, sad to say…some twenty years ago. Ugh. Much of this is fascinating to me, considering my family’s roots in Lutheranism. I don’t think we’ll again know “widespread unity in doctrine” (seems there’s more varieties and flavors as the years go by) that’s worth a hoot…until we meet in glory. I so look forward to that.
The RPW, on the other hand, is currently in a state of disarray. The basic premise is that only those elements commanded or derived by good and necessary consequence is permissible in corporate worship. The purpose is to avoid will-worship, as well as wounding people’s consciences. For the most strict RPW advocates, this means musical instruments and non-inspired songs are prohibited, as are any “Christian” holidays such as Christmas and Easter. Most contemporary Reformed churches have denied that those are necessary consequences of the RPW. However, many still won’t officially recognize secular days such as Mother’s Day or Independence Day in corporate worship. Some don’t do any “special music.” Most refuse to allow drama in church. Most prohibit images of Christ. Many use specific liturgies such as the Genevan order or the Scottish order. Almost all applications of the principle are contested. I won’t comment too much on my particular church, since these issues can be touchy in certain presbyteries. However, I’ll give you a link to one of my church’s orders of worship. http://www.downtownpres.org/our-most-recent-order-of-worshipOkay, this makes sense. This is where the use of Psalters comes from. “Most refuse to allow drama in church” - no church splits, eh? ;) Thanks for the link to your order of worship. I enjoyed looking at that. I confess, the neat packaging of things appeals to the perfectionist in me. I like the “decently and in order” feel, as well as the reverence. I enjoyed attending Faith Free Presbyterian Church in Greenville for some time, largely for this reason. Concentrated focus on holiness…little time for “hooplah”. I came to a point, though, where I did not know where I stood regarding all of this that we are discussing here. I read Packer’s Evangelism and the Sovereignty of God…talked with Dr. Mike Barrett about it. Because I was not fully confident that I was on board, I then began attending an IFB church. So, this quest for knowledge is not only so I can appear as if my head is screwed on straight when using this terminology, but also because I want to give more time to meditating upon it for myself. My husband and I have talked some about this, and he was interested in a concise discussion of these ideas as well. One of my general conclusions in my meanderings thus far is that many IFB people are more Calvinistic than they’d perhaps like to admit. :)
Great links. I’m fairly certain I’ve been to monergism.com before. I’ll take a look. I hoped you would respond to my post…I knew you’d address it thoroughly, without making me feel like an idiot. :) I was not disappointed. Thank you.
"I pray to God this day to make me an extraordinary Christian." --Whitefield http://strengthfortoday.wordpress.com
Thanks for that clarification. That was helpful, especially in light of a study on the various millenial positions that we have been doing on Sunday nights at church. Appreciate it.
"I pray to God this day to make me an extraordinary Christian." --Whitefield http://strengthfortoday.wordpress.com
[Diane] One of my general conclusions in my meanderings thus far is that many IFB people are more Calvinistic than they’d perhaps like to admit.You’re correct. Many are afraid of the word, but if you use words like monergism, doctrines of grace, etc. nobody objects.
My brother prayed at our niece’s wedding reception over the weekend, and I gave a short speech on behalf of our family. We both “preached” in our prayer and speech, and it was strongly Calvinistic. But because we didn’t use the word Calvinism, nobody objected to anything we said and some actually commended us for what we said.
CanJAmerican - my blog
CanJAmerican - my twitter
whitejumaycan - my youtube
I’ve tried googling “union with Christ” and the definitions I’m coming up with are pretty redundant…IOW, they are using the term within the definition, and so not really defining the term. Help?Is this another one of those squishy terms? I found this at monergism.com:
Sinners are right with God because of what Christ did in their stead. Imputation of Christ’s righteouness exists because of our union with Christ. Because we are in Christ, all of Christ’s redemptive blessings are now ours — including our righteous standing before the Father as the New Adam.This is something unique to reformed belief? I never understood it to be so. Charlie wrote:
Believers who are not Calvinistic do not view this as “central”? I apologize…I’m not catching what you’re throwing. :(
Calvinist’s also believe that “union with Christ” is the central soteriological concept. All of the benefits of salvation are “in Christ.”
"I pray to God this day to make me an extraordinary Christian." --Whitefield http://strengthfortoday.wordpress.com
This is another term I don’t get. When I hear it, I think Catholicism. When I google this term, I come up mainly with Roman Catholic websites. Huh? :~
I understand partaking of the sacraments to be points of obedience. Baptism identifies us publicly with the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ, and is a testimony of our faith in Him. Communion is how God condescends to our pitiful, forgetful hearts and beckons us to remember the most significant event in history, and in our lives as believers…to consider the price of our redemption, to consider the state of our hearts before Him and seek cleansing in order to enjoy the full measure of blessing in fellowship with Him.
Where does the bestowing of additional grace come in? Am I understanding it, and just not calling it “communication of grace”?
I understand partaking of the sacraments to be points of obedience. Baptism identifies us publicly with the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ, and is a testimony of our faith in Him. Communion is how God condescends to our pitiful, forgetful hearts and beckons us to remember the most significant event in history, and in our lives as believers…to consider the price of our redemption, to consider the state of our hearts before Him and seek cleansing in order to enjoy the full measure of blessing in fellowship with Him.
Where does the bestowing of additional grace come in? Am I understanding it, and just not calling it “communication of grace”?
"I pray to God this day to make me an extraordinary Christian." --Whitefield http://strengthfortoday.wordpress.com
[Diane Heeney] This is another term I don’t get.Calvinism affirms that regeneration precedes faith, and that faith is a gift of God. In regeneration, the heart of stone is replaced by a heart of flesh (Eze 11:19), which restores to man the capacity to freely choose Christ. It was this capacity that Adam lost because of his sin. My favorite analogy of this is in the story of Lazarus being raised from the dead. Christ stood at his grave and commanded him to “come out” (John 11:43). His physically dead body came to life (was regenerated) and he was able and willing to obey the command. Also note that the command was irresistible. The dead, the lame, the blind, those with leprosy, etc. never refuse the healing Christ offers.
A.W. Pink in http://www.reformed.org/books/pink/saving_faith/ Studies on Saving Faith, Part 2, Chapter 4 - Its Communication , writes:
Saving faith is not a native product of the human heart, but is a spiritual grace communicated from on High.and
One who is physically dead is incapable of doing anything; so he who is spiritually dead is incapable of any spiritual exercises. First the giving of life unto dead Lazarus, and then the removing of the grave-clothes which bound him hand and foot. God must regenerate before there can be a “new creature in Christ Jesus.” The washing of a child follows its birth.It is by means of the proclaimed Gospel (1 Cor 1:21) that grace is communicated to the heart of sinners, and those who believe are saved.
CanJAmerican - my blog
CanJAmerican - my twitter
whitejumaycan - my youtube
Just found a website that has a number of Pink’s books available in PDF format. Studies on Saving Faith is included in the list.
http://www.davidcox.com.mx/library/authors/Pink/arthur_pink.htm
http://www.davidcox.com.mx/library/authors/Pink/arthur_pink.htm
CanJAmerican - my blog
CanJAmerican - my twitter
whitejumaycan - my youtube
Diane,
First, union with Christ. I think all, or at least the very large majority, of Christians believe in union with Christ. However, in Reformed theology, union is taken to be a single concept to which all the aspects of salvation can be related. Adoption is in Christ. Justification is in Christ. Etc. This view contrasts with Lutheranism, which views justification as the source of all the believer’s blessings. At the end of this post is a page with some audio lectures. I would suggest listening to the two by Sinclair Ferguson, though of course you are free to listen to whatever you choose :)
Concerning the communication of grace in the sacraments, the Reformed hold that properly partaking of the sacraments is a vehicle through which God strengthens our faith. The emphasis in the sacraments should not be on our obedience, although we do obey when we take them, but rather on benefiting from what God has given us. The sacraments preach Christ to us, and by partaking of them (or witnessing a baptism) we receive strength from Christ. They are often called a “visible word” and no one would say that the point of preaching is our obedience in listening to it.
Union with Christ resources: http://thegospelcoalition.org/resources/category/courses/a/series/union…
First, union with Christ. I think all, or at least the very large majority, of Christians believe in union with Christ. However, in Reformed theology, union is taken to be a single concept to which all the aspects of salvation can be related. Adoption is in Christ. Justification is in Christ. Etc. This view contrasts with Lutheranism, which views justification as the source of all the believer’s blessings. At the end of this post is a page with some audio lectures. I would suggest listening to the two by Sinclair Ferguson, though of course you are free to listen to whatever you choose :)
Concerning the communication of grace in the sacraments, the Reformed hold that properly partaking of the sacraments is a vehicle through which God strengthens our faith. The emphasis in the sacraments should not be on our obedience, although we do obey when we take them, but rather on benefiting from what God has given us. The sacraments preach Christ to us, and by partaking of them (or witnessing a baptism) we receive strength from Christ. They are often called a “visible word” and no one would say that the point of preaching is our obedience in listening to it.
Union with Christ resources: http://thegospelcoalition.org/resources/category/courses/a/series/union…
My Blog: http://dearreaderblog.com
Cor meum tibi offero Domine prompte et sincere. ~ John Calvin
Thank you John Brian for the analogy. I had never heard this applied in this way and it does illustrate this truth well. I have read some things by A. W. Pink and have enjoyed them. I will look into this Pink link (sounds Seuss-ish don’t you think?). ;)
Charlie, I appreciate the audio links as well. I am a busy homeschooling mom with 3 children (the youngest of whom is pictured with me to the left), and I have additional challenges as well. I love to study, when time permits…which is not often. I love to read, but of necessity I do it in the wee early or wee late hours. All that to say, if I can find helpful resources that cut to the chase, fairly and accurately, I am most grateful. We do not begin school again until tomorrow, so perhaps this afternoon I can look at some of these things.
In your brief explanation of communication of grace, I was reminded of this poem which has long resonated with me:
Charlie, I appreciate the audio links as well. I am a busy homeschooling mom with 3 children (the youngest of whom is pictured with me to the left), and I have additional challenges as well. I love to study, when time permits…which is not often. I love to read, but of necessity I do it in the wee early or wee late hours. All that to say, if I can find helpful resources that cut to the chase, fairly and accurately, I am most grateful. We do not begin school again until tomorrow, so perhaps this afternoon I can look at some of these things.
In your brief explanation of communication of grace, I was reminded of this poem which has long resonated with me:
Oh, the bitter shame and sorrow That a time could ever be When I let the Saviour’s pity Plead in vain, and proudly answered, “All of self and none of Thee.”
Yet He found me; I beheld Him Bleeding on the accursed tree; Heard Him pray, “Forgive them, Father;” and my wistful heart said faintly, “Some of self and some of Thee.”
Day by day, His tender mercy, Healing, helping, full and free, Sweet and strong, and, oh, so patient, Brought me lower, while I whispered, “Less of self and more of Thee.”
Higher than the highest heavens, Deeper than the deepest sea, Lord, Thy love at last has conquered; Grant me now my soul’s desire, “None of self and all of Thee.” ~Theodore Monod
"I pray to God this day to make me an extraordinary Christian." --Whitefield http://strengthfortoday.wordpress.com
I am looking at Erickson and Thiessen this morning, which I have on hand from college. Trying to hunt down my Grudem as well.
A general question, though: Does someone who adheres to reformed theology then claim in effect that there is no mystery remaining between the concepts of the free will of man and the sovereignty of God?
Also, I am trying to find scriptural support for the idea of communication of grace in the sacraments. I am finding discussions of the concept, but not much scripture cited.
A general question, though: Does someone who adheres to reformed theology then claim in effect that there is no mystery remaining between the concepts of the free will of man and the sovereignty of God?
Also, I am trying to find scriptural support for the idea of communication of grace in the sacraments. I am finding discussions of the concept, but not much scripture cited.
"I pray to God this day to make me an extraordinary Christian." --Whitefield http://strengthfortoday.wordpress.com
Concerning sovereignty and free will, “mystery” is something of an ambiguous term. Reformed theology acknowledges that God is sovereign, meaning that the decree of God is the first cause of everything that happens in the universe. On the other hand, within God’s decree is embedded human free will. “Free will” according to Reformed theology is the creature’s ability to act in accordance with its own desires. The will is free from external compulsion, though not from internal depravity. Reformed theology does not teach “libertarian free will,” which is basically the idea that if you did X at time Y, but could somehow rewind to time Y, there is a real possibility that you could choose Z or D or P, even with all the circumstances the same. Classic defenses of the Reformed doctrine would be Luther’s The Bondage of the Will, Calvin’ Concerning the Eternal Predestination of God, and Edwards’ The Freedom of the Will.
On the sacraments, I don’t think you’re going to find a verse saying, “The Lord’s Supper is a means of grace.” But, once you start thinking about what the sacraments mean, what function they serve in the church, why they were instituted, and how they are similar to other institutions in other periods of redemptive history, it’s an easy conclusion. Both the sacraments are pictures of what God does for us in Christ. They are visible representations of the gospel and confirmations of our participation in it. If the audible preaching of the gospel is a means of grace to the believer (and who would deny that?), then the visual representation has the same effect.
On the sacraments, I don’t think you’re going to find a verse saying, “The Lord’s Supper is a means of grace.” But, once you start thinking about what the sacraments mean, what function they serve in the church, why they were instituted, and how they are similar to other institutions in other periods of redemptive history, it’s an easy conclusion. Both the sacraments are pictures of what God does for us in Christ. They are visible representations of the gospel and confirmations of our participation in it. If the audible preaching of the gospel is a means of grace to the believer (and who would deny that?), then the visual representation has the same effect.
My Blog: http://dearreaderblog.com
Cor meum tibi offero Domine prompte et sincere. ~ John Calvin
Well, one thing is certain…I’ll not get this sorted out in an afternoon. :D
From what I’ve read on free will, reformed theology teaches that the only choice one can make prior to the heart being “quickened” is for evil. God then regenerates the heart and makes it possible for one to have faith. That irresistible grace is not about the Holy Spirit forcing one into conversion but rather that it is His power to eventually overcome the resisting of the wayward hearts of those who are elect.
But if these souls are elect from the foundation of the world, then the understanding is that there is absolutely nothing of man in this, right? One who is elect has no choice but to be saved, simply put? Or is this “hyper Calvinism”? I can see how this could translate into a very passive Christianity.
Another curiosity…what is a “reformed Baptist”? What is it that someone is attempting to synthesize by trying to be both? I hear numerous IFB’s say they are a 3-pt Calvinist or whatever. I am probably 4 or 4.25 pts. :) Do “reformed Baptists” somehow ascribe to all 5 pts.? I didn’t know that was possible. Am I really showing my ignorance in this thread? Probably so.
Anyway, I have plenty to chew on for awhile. I thank everyone for all the information, time and thought. It may be after the kids are grown and gone before I can get through reading all that has been suggested here!
I’ll watch with interest for what transpires in Jerry’s new thread.
From what I’ve read on free will, reformed theology teaches that the only choice one can make prior to the heart being “quickened” is for evil. God then regenerates the heart and makes it possible for one to have faith. That irresistible grace is not about the Holy Spirit forcing one into conversion but rather that it is His power to eventually overcome the resisting of the wayward hearts of those who are elect.
But if these souls are elect from the foundation of the world, then the understanding is that there is absolutely nothing of man in this, right? One who is elect has no choice but to be saved, simply put? Or is this “hyper Calvinism”? I can see how this could translate into a very passive Christianity.
Another curiosity…what is a “reformed Baptist”? What is it that someone is attempting to synthesize by trying to be both? I hear numerous IFB’s say they are a 3-pt Calvinist or whatever. I am probably 4 or 4.25 pts. :) Do “reformed Baptists” somehow ascribe to all 5 pts.? I didn’t know that was possible. Am I really showing my ignorance in this thread? Probably so.
Anyway, I have plenty to chew on for awhile. I thank everyone for all the information, time and thought. It may be after the kids are grown and gone before I can get through reading all that has been suggested here!
I’ll watch with interest for what transpires in Jerry’s new thread.
"I pray to God this day to make me an extraordinary Christian." --Whitefield http://strengthfortoday.wordpress.com
[Diane Heeney] Well, one thing is certain…I’ll not get this sorted out in an afternoon. :DDiane, one thing that I think is good to remember is that you can’t learn difficult things the easy way. In other words, you can’t understand Reformed theology without doing a good bit of primary source interaction. However, I also don’t think people need to read stacks and stacks of books to get a grip on it. People simply need the right materials, those primary texts that serve as the benchmarks and standards for conversation. The historic confessions provide that. I would strongly, ardently advise you simply to read the confessions. Read the Westminster Confession of Faith and (since you are Baptist) the London Baptist Confession of Faith (1689). I’ve already linked to them earlier in this thread. Seriously, the WCF is about 20 pages printed, far shorter than any book on the subject. The LBCF is (purposely) almost identical to the WCF, except in the sections on the sacraments and the church.
From what I’ve read on free will, reformed theology teaches that the only choice one can make prior to the heart being “quickened” is for evil. God then regenerates the heart and makes it possible for one to have faith. That irresistible grace is not about the Holy Spirit forcing one into conversion but rather that it is His power to eventually overcome the resisting of the wayward hearts of those who are elect.
But if these souls are elect from the foundation of the world, then the understanding is that there is absolutely nothing of man in this, right? One who is elect has no choice but to be saved, simply put? Or is this “hyper Calvinism”? I can see how this could translate into a very passive Christianity.
Another curiosity…what is a “reformed Baptist”? What is it that someone is attempting to synthesize by trying to be both? I hear numerous IFB’s say they are a 3-pt Calvinist or whatever. I am probably 4 or 4.25 pts. :) Do “reformed Baptists” somehow ascribe to all 5 pts.? I didn’t know that was possible. Am I really showing my ignorance in this thread? Probably so.
Anyway, I have plenty to chew on for awhile. I thank everyone for all the information, time and thought. It may be after the kids are grown and gone before I can get through reading all that has been suggested here!
Early Baptist history records two groups: general and particular Baptists. The general Baptists were (basically) Arminian, whereas the Particular were Calvinist. The Generals basically all died out, falling to unitarianism. The Particulars took a nasty turn with Hyper-Calvinism but survived, fathering pretty much all the Baptists today. Almost all American churches were Calvinist until the mid-18th century, when Wesleyan Methodism gained ground and some Anglicans were turning Arminian (rationalist really). Until the mid-19th century, there was still a very large contingent of Calvinists. With the advent of Finney and his Pelagian revivalism, many adherents of all denominations threw off their historic orthodoxy for the general standpoint of “revivalism.” So, yeah, historically speaking, there were lots of Reformed (or Calvinistic) Baptists. There still are, including Al Mohler, former president of the SBC, and Mark Dever, founder of Together for the Gospel.
My Blog: http://dearreaderblog.com
Cor meum tibi offero Domine prompte et sincere. ~ John Calvin
Charlie,
My opening comment in my last post was absolutely, positively in jest. I understand it requires study. Perhaps it does not appear that I am in earnest, but I am. The first time I studied this it was not to absorb it, but to regurgitate it on tests. I did well in Systematic…but retained very little, I’m ashamed to say. Many of you men here live this. It is fresh. I wish I had more time for it. I am sorry I can’t converse more intelligently; I don’t know all the names and correct terminology…but this is why I began this thread. :)
I spent some time in the WCF at monergism.com today. I like the fact that they have all the scripture footnoted. I also spent some time looking at the TULIP points to be sure I had an adequate understanding of them. Thanks for pointing me in that direction. Much of the rest of the day was spent in ministering to my own little “congregation” of three here in the home. I’ll just take my time and work through these excellent resources.
Thanks for your patience.
My opening comment in my last post was absolutely, positively in jest. I understand it requires study. Perhaps it does not appear that I am in earnest, but I am. The first time I studied this it was not to absorb it, but to regurgitate it on tests. I did well in Systematic…but retained very little, I’m ashamed to say. Many of you men here live this. It is fresh. I wish I had more time for it. I am sorry I can’t converse more intelligently; I don’t know all the names and correct terminology…but this is why I began this thread. :)
I spent some time in the WCF at monergism.com today. I like the fact that they have all the scripture footnoted. I also spent some time looking at the TULIP points to be sure I had an adequate understanding of them. Thanks for pointing me in that direction. Much of the rest of the day was spent in ministering to my own little “congregation” of three here in the home. I’ll just take my time and work through these excellent resources.
Thanks for your patience.
"I pray to God this day to make me an extraordinary Christian." --Whitefield http://strengthfortoday.wordpress.com
[Diane Heeney]I hope it’s possible :)
Another curiosity…what is a “reformed Baptist”? What is it that someone is attempting to synthesize by trying to be both? I hear numerous IFB’s say they are a 3-pt Calvinist or whatever. I am probably 4 or 4.25 pts. :) Do “reformed Baptists” somehow ascribe to all 5 pts.? I didn’t know that was possible.
I subscribe to all 5 points (as I understand them) but do not attend a Reformed Baptist church. I am reformed in my soteriology, but not (at least not yet) reformed in my eschatology.
Also check out the http://www.reformed.org/documents/canons_of_dordt.html Canons of Dordt (as if you don’t already have enough reading). They combine points 3 and 4 and do not follow the TULIP order.
Also check out the http://www.reformed.org/documents/canons_of_dordt.html Canons of Dordt (as if you don’t already have enough reading). They combine points 3 and 4 and do not follow the TULIP order.
[Diane] I don’t know all the names and correct terminology…So if we make up new words you won’t know that we’ve just made them up!
CanJAmerican - my blog
CanJAmerican - my twitter
whitejumaycan - my youtube
Diane,
Dave Doran has written an excellent article regarding the sovereignity of God and the spread of the gospel in the DBTS journal. This addresses some of your questions about Calvinism and evangelism/missions. Doran (and DBTS) are Baptists who are also Calvinistic (at least 4 or so points of the TULIP ;-)).
http://www.dbts.edu/journals/2004/Doran.pdf
Dave Doran has written an excellent article regarding the sovereignity of God and the spread of the gospel in the DBTS journal. This addresses some of your questions about Calvinism and evangelism/missions. Doran (and DBTS) are Baptists who are also Calvinistic (at least 4 or so points of the TULIP ;-)).
http://www.dbts.edu/journals/2004/Doran.pdf
Kent McCune I Peter 4:11
[JohnBrian] I subscribe to all 5 points (as I understand them) but do not attend a Reformed Baptist church. I am reformed in my soteriology, but not (at least not yet) reformed in my eschatology.Thanks for that link. I have taken some time this morning to look at this. It is very readable and helpful. I need to go back and look at the “Rejection of the Errors” sections more closely, as time permits.
Also check out the http://www.reformed.org/documents/canons_of_dordt.html Canons of Dordt (as if you don’t already have enough reading). They combine points 3 and 4 and do not follow the TULIP order.[Diane] I don’t know all the names and correct terminology…So if we make up new words you won’t know that we’ve just made them up!
As far as eschatology is concerned…(wow, do I even want to ask? I already have enough “homework”!) you are speaking of the Covenants? Is there more? The dispensational ideas Bro Chip addressed in post #4?
And…you can make up all the new words you like….I’ll work on mastering a facial expression that exudes intelligence in spite of my ineptitude. :|
@ Bro Kent: Thanks! I’ll check it out. I have appreciated what I have read at Dave Doran’s site. I also thought about investigating what Dr. Minnick has to say on this.
"I pray to God this day to make me an extraordinary Christian." --Whitefield http://strengthfortoday.wordpress.com
[Brian Jo]In most of the IFB churches I’ve been in, it probably wouldn’t fly is what I meant to suggest. So, these individuals must want to align with reformed theology to some degree and still retain (I’m guessing) their own position on, say, mode of baptism and…what else?[Diane Heeney]I hope it’s possible :)
Another curiosity…what is a “reformed Baptist”? What is it that someone is attempting to synthesize by trying to be both? I hear numerous IFB’s say they are a 3-pt Calvinist or whatever. I am probably 4 or 4.25 pts. :) Do “reformed Baptists” somehow ascribe to all 5 pts.? I didn’t know that was possible.
"I pray to God this day to make me an extraordinary Christian." --Whitefield http://strengthfortoday.wordpress.com
[Diane Heeney]My understanding of a Reformed Baptist is that he is one who would hold to the historic reformed confessions except in mode of baptism and form of church government (he would be in basic agreement with the Second London Baptist Confession of 1689). You will hear people call themselves Reformed Baptists who only mean that they are soteriological calvinists. True reformed baptists would accept covenant theology (including eschatology) and most of them would adopt some form of the RPW.[Brian Jo]In most of the IFB churches I’ve been in, it probably wouldn’t fly is what I meant to suggest. So, these individuals must want to align with reformed theology to some degree and still retain (I’m guessing) their own position on, say, mode of baptism and…what else?[Diane Heeney]I hope it’s possible :)
Another curiosity…what is a “reformed Baptist”? What is it that someone is attempting to synthesize by trying to be both? I hear numerous IFB’s say they are a 3-pt Calvinist or whatever. I am probably 4 or 4.25 pts. :) Do “reformed Baptists” somehow ascribe to all 5 pts.? I didn’t know that was possible.
I myself find that I have much more agreement with conservative Presbyterians than many baptists. So no, you wouldn’t find very many of these in IFB’s.
Thanks Brian Jo for clearing that up. Yes, I need to look at that SLBC too. Did some reading about the history behind it.
"I pray to God this day to make me an extraordinary Christian." --Whitefield http://strengthfortoday.wordpress.com
Discussion