What Is "Reformed Theology"????

[Major]

"Reformed theology" includes any system of belief that traces its roots back to the Protestant Reformation of the 16th Century. Of course, the Reformers themselves traced their doctrine to Scripture, as indicated by their credo of “sola scriptura,” so Reformed theology is not a “new” belief system but one that seeks to continue apostolic doctrine.

Generally speaking, "Reformed theology" holds to the........
1. authority of Scripture,
2. the sovereignty of God,
3. salvation by grace through Christ, and the
4. 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.

The Reformed doctrine of salvation is commonly represented by the acrostic TULIP which also is known as the five points of Calvinism.............
T - total depravity.
U - unconditional election. G
L - limited atonement.
I - irresistible grace.
P - perseverance of the saints.

SO, is Reformed Theology actually Calvinism in a different name???

NO!. Calvinism and reformed theology are not the same thing.

Calvinism is certainly a major tenant of Reformed theology, but it is not the whole of reformed theology. So, in other words, everybody who is reformed is a Calvinist, but not everybody who is a Calvinist is reformed.
Source: https://theocast.org/are-calvinism-and-reformed-theology-the-same-thing/

 

[forgiven61]

NO!. Calvinism and reformed theology are not the same thing.

for the most yes they are

 

[Siloam]

the Reformers themselves traced their doctrine to Scripture, as indicated by their credo of “sola scriptura,”

Sola Scriptura is one of the five Sola's

The five solas state that
Salvation is
> by grace alone,
> through faith alone,
> in Christ alone,
> as revealed by Scripture alone,
> to the glory of God alone.

This is properly a unified statement and not a collection of lesser truths. It is specifically about salvation. It is a grave mistake to take any one of these out of this context and treat it as a singular truth.
There are additional problems with taking sola scriptura out of this context and making it a stand alone foundation.

The first is that it precludes taking into account general revelation, when the Bible itself expects us to learn much about God thru His creation (Romans 1:20).


Alsp using sola scriptura in insisting on scripture alone for all discussion of truth is ultimately self defeating. I would also note that when Paul was addressing the first two solas (grace & faith) in Ephesians 2-8,9 he did not feel the need (nor was he led) to add the word "alone". I would approach additions or modifications to scripture such as inserting “alone” as commentary and with at healthy measure of skepticism, else we would be forced to reject the other three solas not mentioned in Ephesians as superfluous. Since at best this means the word “alone” is more commentary inserted by the reformers than scripture since the solas themselves whether individually or as a single group are not found in scripture Sola Scriptura is thus outside of its own dictum. Sola scriptura argues against itself.

But by acknowledging grace and faith as necessary and sufficient for salvation, but not requiring absolute exclusion of other considerations (not insisting on “alone”), we are free to point out the authority (scripture), the means (Christ), and the aim (Glory of God) of our salvation.

So what's the point?

When we want to learn about the creator, we can include the evidence from creation by which God also expects us to learn about Him. But note that there is a shift when turning to evidences from nature.

While scripture tells about God's relationship with man, Creation tells us about God quite apart from our salvation. That does not make it unreliable. It only means that we learn of some of the attributes of God that are not primarily concerned with our salvation.

Ultimately the truth about salvation as put forth in the Bible is congruent with truth about God as revealed in creation.

But just as our understanding of works requires an understanding of both Ephesians and James and requires more complex judgement than "works saves no-one" but modifies that with James which declares that works demonstrates faith to others; so our understanding of creation must ultimately be found compatible from both scripture and evidences in creation.

Just as we do not reject James because some find it different from Ephesians, but we modify our understanding of works in Gods plan for our lives; so we modify our understanding of creation to embrace both special revelation (Scripture) and general revelation (the natural world).

 

[Major]

Sola Scriptura is one of the five Sola's

The five solas state that
Salvation is
> by grace alone,
> through faith alone,
> in Christ alone,
> as revealed by Scripture alone,
> to the glory of God alone.

This is properly a unified statement and not a collection of lesser truths. It is specifically about salvation. It is a grave mistake to take any one of these out of this context and treat it as a singular truth.
There are additional problems with taking sola scriptura out of this context and making it a stand alone foundation.

The first is that it precludes taking into account general revelation, when the Bible itself expects us to learn much about God thru His creation (Romans 1:20).


Alsp using sola scriptura in insisting on scripture alone for all discussion of truth is ultimately self defeating. I would also note that when Paul was addressing the first two solas (grace & faith) in Ephesians 2-8,9 he did not feel the need (nor was he led) to add the word "alone". I would approach additions or modifications to scripture such as inserting “alone” as commentary and with at healthy measure of skepticism, else we would be forced to reject the other three solas not mentioned in Ephesians as superfluous. Since at best this means the word “alone” is more commentary inserted by the reformers than scripture since the solas themselves whether individually or as a single group are not found in scripture Sola Scriptura is thus outside of its own dictum. Sola scriptura argues against itself.

But by acknowledging grace and faith as necessary and sufficient for salvation, but not requiring absolute exclusion of other considerations (not insisting on “alone”), we are free to point out the authority (scripture), the means (Christ), and the aim (Glory of God) of our salvation.

So what's the point?

When we want to learn about the creator, we can include the evidence from creation by which God also expects us to learn about Him. But note that there is a shift when turning to evidences from nature.

While scripture tells about God's relationship with man, Creation tells us about God quite apart from our salvation. That does not make it unreliable. It only means that we learn of some of the attributes of God that are not primarily concerned with our salvation.

Ultimately the truth about salvation as put forth in the Bible is congruent with truth about God as revealed in creation.

But just as our understanding of works requires an understanding of both Ephesians and James and requires more complex judgement than "works saves no-one" but modifies that with James which declares that works demonstrates faith to others; so our understanding of creation must ultimately be found compatible from both scripture and evidences in creation.

Just as we do not reject James because some find it different from Ephesians, but we modify our understanding of works in Gods plan for our lives; so we modify our understanding of creation to embrace both special revelation (Scripture) and general revelation (the natural world).

I do not agree brother.

Sola Scriptura was the motivation behind Luthers Protestant movement against the Roman Catholic Church.
The Protestants believe in Scripture alone—that means Scripture is "sufficient." It has all we need. So it seems like Sola Scriptura doesn't work then who do you believe? God or MAN.

Sola Scriptura is the doctrine that Scripture alone is the sole, infallible rule of faith for the church.

Sola Scriptura means that Scripture doesn't need any help from the Pope or the rulers of the Roman Catholic Church, in order to tell us everything we need to follow Jesus. And the Bible doesn't need their permission, either. There is nothing that needs to be added to God's written word, the Bible.

 

[LearningToLetGo]

Sola Scriptura means that Scripture doesn't need any help from the Pope or the rulers of the Roman Catholic Church, in order to tell us everything we need to follow Jesus. And the Bible doesn't need their permission, either.

I'm reading about the Councils of Nicaea (325) and Carthage (419) wherein the bishops and other elders of Roman Catholicism determined what was and what was not to become the New Testament. This has always been a sticky issue for me since without the RC we would not have the NT, so how can we then say that since we have the NT we no longer need the RC?

 

[ButterflyJones]

Reformed theology is that what arrived as the Protest-ant (Protestant) Reformation.

Then denominations started to form after. Many.

 

[Major]

I'm reading about the Councils of Nicaea (325) and Carthage (419) wherein the bishops and other elders of Roman Catholicism determined what was and what was not to become the New Testament. This has always been a sticky issue for me since Calvinism and reformed theology are not the same thing.

May I say to you with all due love and respect............"without the RC we would not have the NT," is just not a correct statement!

We must be very careful not to digress into a Catholic verses Protestant conflict here.

In reality, the Bible is inspired and has authority, not because a church declared it so, but because God made it so. God delivered it by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit and declared that it would abide forever.

2 Tim. 3:16 says.........."All scripture is inspired of God...".

2 Peter 1:21 says........ "...Holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit.".

Matt. 24:35 says............."Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will not pass away."

1 Peter 1:24-25 says..... "The grass withered, and the flower has fallen--but the word of the Lord endures forever.".

The idea that the Bible exists because of the Catholic church is simply wrong. May I say to you that the thesis from which you posted your thought is rooted in the Catholic teaching and their assumption that the Bible is authoritative only because of the Catholic Church.

That is categorically erroneous! The Bible does not owe its existence to the Catholic Church, but to the authority, power and providence of God.

IT is conversations like this one in which we MUST sit aside our pre-disposed thoughts and give our brains a chance to be used by the Holy Spirit so the we can grow and learn.

At 1st view, in my humble opinion, It would seem unnecessary for the Catholic Church to make the boastful claim of giving the Bible to the world when both it and so-called Protestantism accept the Bible as a revelation from God.

So WHY is the claim made???? It is a question that must be answered!

There can only be ONE answer and it is an attempt to weaken the Bible as the sole authority and to replace it with their man-made church traditions. If it is true that we can accept the Bible only on the basis of the Catholic Church, doesn't that make the Catholic Church superior to the Bible?

This is exactly what the Catholic church want men to believe. Their problem is that their doctrine comes from their own human reasoning rather than from God. Their logic is a classic example of their "circle reasoning." They try to prove the Bible by the church (can accept the Bible only on the basis of the Catholic Church) and prove the church by the Bible ("has ever grounded her doctrines upon it").

Such is absurd reasoning which proves nothing. Either the New Testament is the sole authority or it is not. If it is the New Testament, it cannot be the church, and if it is the church, it cannot be the New Testament.

I hope that you will understand this as a conversation and not an attack on YOUR faith or the Catholic Church. DO THE WORK for yourself. Investigate, ask questions, seek answers not dogma.

 

[Major]

Reformed theology is that what arrived as the Protest-ant (Protestant) Reformation.

Then denominations started to form after. Many.

That is pretty much the case.

You see, before the Reformation, the only church was the Catholic church. What it said was LAW even if what it said was not Biblical or correct. THAT is why Martin Luther posted his 99 thesis!

Sola Scriptura means that we do not need MAN to tell us mans doctrines when God has given us His doctrine in His written Word!.

Sola Scriptura simply means that all truth necessary for our salvation and spiritual life is taught either explicitly or implicitly in Scripture. It is not a claim that all truth of every kind is found in Scripture. The most ardent defender of sola Scriptura will concede, for example, that Scripture has little or nothing to say about DNA structures, microbiology, the rules of Chinese grammar, or rocket science. This or that “scientific truth,” for example, may or may not be actually true, whether or not it can be supported by Scripture—but Scripture is a “more sure Word,” standing above all other truth in its authority and certainty.

 

[Big Moose]

I'm reading about the Councils of Nicaea (325) and Carthage (419) wherein the bishops and other elders of Roman Catholicism determined what was and what was not to become the New Testament. This has always been a sticky issue for me since without the RC we would not have the NT, so how can we then say that since we have the NT we no longer need the RC?

You have to roll back a bit to when the churches were first starting through the first 150 plus years, A.D. 60-200. The opening to Luke's Gospel gives us some of what was going on.
Luke 1
1 Many people have set out to write accounts about the events that have been fulfilled among us. 2 They used the eyewitness reports circulating among us from the early disciples. 3 Having carefully investigated everything from the beginning, I also have decided to write an accurate account for you, most honorable Theophilus, 4 so you can be certain of the truth of everything you were taught.

So the Apostles were spreading the Gospel of Jesus around and starting churches in different locations. People wanted written accounts of what happened to learn and teach about Jesus. So accounts were written. These were copied and distributed to the churches and to any new church that popped up. Now Christianity wasn't legal yet, so Christians were sneaking this stuff around the authorities. This kinda gives us an idea of what laws we should follow and the ones we shouldn't. Next, the Apostles and others sent letters to individual churches and just individuals for instruction and exhortation. The letters which were obvious Holy Spirit inspired were shared with other churches and all these things were passed around and shared with others. Now, not all letters were found to be divinely inspired and were not kept by many of the churches. The Catholic Church was not organized yet, so it was not part of this scripture building process as an entity. A good number of these churches became what would be known as the Catholic Church, so there is overlap. But the New Testament was being formed and assembled before or as the RCC was formed.

I would say that the RCC was used as an organization by God to codify the New Testament as it had come to be known and used by the Christian churches throughout the known world. We would have had the NT without the RCC. God just saw to it that the RCC worked to do this at the time.

I think a case could be made that the NT caused the formation of the RCC, not the other way around.

 

[LearningToLetGo]

We would have had the NT without the RCC.

I don't know if we would have had the New Testament per-se. We would still have the OT, of course, and probably a series of independent writings that would have been accumulated into various anthologies over the years, but who's to say what those anthologies would have contained.

 

[Major]

You have to roll back a bit to when the churches were first starting through the first 150 plus years, A.D. 60-200. The opening to Luke's Gospel gives us some of what was going on.
Luke 1
1 Many people have set out to write accounts about the events that have been fulfilled among us. 2 They used the eyewitness reports circulating among us from the early disciples. 3 Having carefully investigated everything from the beginning, I also have decided to write an accurate account for you, most honorable Theophilus, 4 so you can be certain of the truth of everything you were taught.

So the Apostles were spreading the Gospel of Jesus around and starting churches in different locations. People wanted written accounts of what happened to learn and teach about Jesus. So accounts were written. These were copied and distributed to the churches and to any new church that popped up. Now Christianity wasn't legal yet, so Christians were sneaking this stuff around the authorities. This kinda gives us an idea of what laws we should follow and the ones we shouldn't. Next, the Apostles and others sent letters to individual churches and just individuals for instruction and exhortation. The letters which were obvious Holy Spirit inspired were shared with other churches and all these things were passed around and shared with others. Now, not all letters were found to be divinely inspired and were not kept by many of the churches. The Catholic Church was not organized yet, so it was not part of this scripture building process as an entity. A good number of these churches became what would be known as the Catholic Church, so there is overlap. But the New Testament was being formed and assembled before or as the RCC was formed.

I would say that the RCC was used as an organization by God to codify the New Testament as it had come to be known and used by the Christian churches throughout the known world. We would have had the NT without the RCC. God just saw to it that the RCC worked to do this at the time.

I think a case could be made that the NT caused the formation of the RCC, not the other way around.

On the contrary, and I do not say this to be argumentative in any way but even a cursory reading of the New Testament will reveal that the Catholic Church does not have its origin in the teachings of Jesus or His apostles from the New Test.

In the New Testament, there is no mention of the papacy, worship/adoration of Mary (or the immaculate conception of Mary, the perpetual virginity of Mary, the assumption of Mary, or Mary as co-redemptrix and mediatrix), petitioning saints in heaven for their prayers, apostolic succession, the ordinances of the church functioning as sacraments, infant baptism, confession of sin to a priest, purgatory, indulgences, or the equal authority of church tradition over and above Scripture. So, if the origin of the Catholic Church is not in the teachings of Jesus and His apostles, as recorded in the New Testament, what is the true origin of the Catholic Church?

Source: https://www.gotquestions.org/origin-Catholic-church.html
For the first 280 years of Christian history, Christianity was banned by the Roman Empire, and Christians were terribly persecuted. This changed after the “conversion” of the Roman Emperor Constantine. Constantine provided religious toleration with the Edict of Milan in AD 313, effectively lifting the ban on Christianity. Later, in AD 325, Constantine called the Council of Nicea in an attempt to unify Christianity. Constantine envisioned Christianity as a religion that could unite the Roman Empire, which at that time was beginning to fragment and divide. While this may have seemed to be a positive development for the Christian church, the results were anything but positive. Just as Constantine refused to fully embrace the Christian faith but continued many of his pagan beliefs and practices, so the Christian church that Constantine and his successors promoted progressively became a mixture of true Christianity and Roman paganism.

 

[LearningToLetGo]

May I say to you with all due love and respect............

You may, and I respect your knowledge on this subject greatly.

 

[Major]

You may, and I respect your knowledge on this subject greatly.

Thank you! I am blessed to talk with you!

I do not like to argue or be confrontational but I do want to be factual and most of all Biblical!

In these conversations and forums, way tooooo many people are unable to lay aside their bias and consider facts instead of feelings and emotions.

 

[crossnote]

, in other words, everybody who is reformed is a Calvinist, but not everybody who is a Calvinist is reformed.
Source: https://theocast.org/are-calvinism-and-reformed-theology-the-same-thing/

I wouldn't see it that way. Lutherans are Reformed but definitely aren't Calvinists.

 

[Major]

I don't know if we would have had the New Testament per-se. We would still have the OT, of course, and probably a series of independent writings that would have been accumulated into various anthologies over the years, but who's to say what those anthologies would have contained.

We would have had both as both come from the Lord Jesus Christ and it is HIM who is in control.

God works all things according to his will. Here’s Ephesians 1:11:........
“In him we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to the purpose of him who works all things according to the counsel of his will.”

Let me say it again. He works all things according to the counsel of his will. I think that means he always controls everything.

 

[Major]

I wouldn't see it that way. Lutherans are Reformed but definitely aren't Calvinists.

Lutherans are reformed??? I am sur that is the case in name but there are difference related to issues such as predestination and Christology, the Lutheran’s distinctive view of the sacraments is the primary doctrinal divide with those of the Reformed tradition.

I would say that Lutherans still retain many Catholic-influenced aspects of religion that are considered ‘pre-Reformation.’

At least the ones I am familiar with that is.

 

[crossnote]

I would say that Lutherans still retain many Catholic-influenced aspects of religion that are considered ‘pre-Reformation.’

At least the ones I am familier with that is.

When it comes to 'justification by faith alone' they are 180 deg. from Rome. True, they have some of the outward trappings of Rome, but at their core, they are anything but, ... Chemnitz, in his famous work on the Council of Trent, made a clear separation. Unfortunately, many 'Protestants today (including some Lutherans), have a desire to return to 'Mother Church'.

 

[crossnote]

I don't know if we would have had the New Testament per-se. We would still have the OT, of course, and probably a series of independent writings that would have been accumulated into various anthologies over the years, but who's to say what those anthologies would have contained.

The OT was written by Jews and predominantly the NT.
I don't understand where Rome is coming from when they say 'they gave us the Scriptures'.

 

[Major]

When it comes to 'justification by faith alone' they are 180 deg. from Rome. True, they have some of the outward trappings of Rome, but at their core, they are anything but, ... Chemnitz, in his famous work on the Council of Trent, made a clear separation. Unfortunately, many 'Protestants today (including some Lutherans), have a desire to return to 'Mother Church'.

So then, are we in agreement that Lutherans still retain many Catholic-influenced aspects of religion that are considered ‘pre-Reformation.’

 

[Major]

The OT was written by Jews and predominantly the NT.
I don't understand where Rome is coming from when they say 'they gave us the Scriptures'.

They are coming from the position that what "WE" the Catholic church says has more authority that the Scriptures themselves.

The Septuagint Version was translated by seventy scholars at Alexandria, Egypt around the year 227 B.C., and this was the version Christ and His apostles used. Christ did not tell the people, as Catholics do today, that they could accept the Scriptures only on the basis of the authority of those who gathered them and declared them to be inspired.

He urged the people of His day to follow the Old Testament Scriptures as the infallible guide, not because man or any group of men has sanctioned them as such, but because they came from God. Furthermore, He understood that God-fearing men and women would be able to discern by evidence (external and internal) which books were of God and which were not; thus, He never raised questions and doubts concerning the gathering of the inspired books.

Again, we all must set aside pre-biased opinions and consider facts. If there is to be any questions asked If the Bible is a Catholic book, then...........
Why does the Bible nowhere in it mention the Catholic Church?
Why is there NO mention of a pope?
Why is there NO mention of a Cardinal?
Why is there NO mention of an archbishop?
Why is there NO mention of a parish priest.?
Why is there NO mention of the position of a Nun?
Why is there NO mention whatsoever of calling the clergy "father"?
Why is there NO mention of auricular confession?
Why is there NO mention of indulgences?
Why is there NO mention of prayers to the saints?
Why is there NO mention of veneration/ adoration of Mary?
Why is there NO mention of the veneration of relics and images?

These are just SOME of the questions that must be answered IF the Bible is a Catholic book produced by the Catholic Church!