Over the past several month's, I've been doing a lot of studying, reading, and praying and all that has led to, what I believe, is the truth of Reformed theology. While I do not by any means claim to be an authority on Reformed theology, I have noticed a few things that seem to distinguish it from other sects of Christianity and religious groups.
I think the first thing to mention when explaining Reformed theology is it's extremely high view of scripture. Chris Rosebrough of Pirate Christian Radio does a show called Fighting for the Faith. During a podcast on October 16, 2008, Rosebrough talked about the Material Principle which is defined as the central doctrine a religion adheres to. He also explained the Formal Principle, which is similar, but is the authority which shapes said doctrine and usually explains where that doctrine comes from. Rosebrough explains that the Formal Principle is usually a text or the teachings of an individual that contains and explains the Material Principle. I thought I remembered him saying that the material principle of Reformed faith is Sovereignty of God and the formal principle is Sola Scriptura, but the PowerPoint slides say something different - however, Rosebrough is Lutheran, which is slightly different than Reformed, so that may explain it.
I have found that one of the mainstay's of Reformed beliefs is a firm belief in what is known as the 5 sola's. They are: Sola Fide (by faith alone), Sola Scriptura (by Scripture alone), Sola Gratia (by grace alone), Solus Christus (through Christ alone), and Soli Deo Gloria (to God alone be the glory). Each of these ideas can be found in the scriptures themselves. They are combined and explain salvation this way: Salvation in Christ Jesus alone by grace alone through faith alone revealed in Scripture alone to God's glory alone. (Just FYI, those words are not mine, but a tweet from a friend of mine, Elise)
Another common statement of beliefs followed by Reformed Christians would be the 5 points of Calvinism, also known as TULIP. TULIP stands for Total Depravity - the concept that even a persons best intentions are rooted in sin and are utterly unable to do anything with pure motives and can do nothing to save him/herself. Unconditional Election - this teaches that God chooses some individuals regardless of anything they have done or said. There is nothing that individual did to merit such election. Limited Atonement - this is the one that I struggled with for a long time and what I think, is a stumbling block for most non-Reformed Christians. Essentially, limited atonement teaches that Christ died, not for everybody on the planet, but only for the elect. (The unconditionally elected.) Irresistible Grace - This means that the elect, no matter how hard they may try to, (and some try really hard) cannot resist God's calling, His love, His mercy, His grace. (Not sure this is a good way to put it, but God relentlessly pursues the elect, and the elect are helpless to stop or resist Him. They cannot say no to God once they are called.) And finally Perserverence of the Saints - this one I don't know exactly how to define... my initial thought is that God will grant the saints (saved) perseverance and endurance to do His will. I've also read that it pertains to salvation, that once you are saved, you cannot lose your salvation because you were elected by God's grace, which is irresistible. I'm guessing the two definitions aren't necessarily mutually exclusive, but they address different things.
As you have probably observed from what I've already said, the doctrine of Calvinism - Predestination, is key to Reformed theology. This is instead of the doctrine of Free-will, which states that salvation is essentially a collaboration or a team effort between God and the individual. Calvinism is not the only sole belief of those who are Reformed, nor is it exclusive to the Reformed, but it is a major part of the beliefs.
Probably the biggest belief of Reformed Christians, the belief by which all other doctrines and beliefs are formed and seen through, is the sovereignty of God - as supported by the Scriptures. God is sovereign, and because of that, He can do whatever He wants. He is also beyond human understanding. We do not understand his ways, even if we spent a lifetime studying them.
Even before I studied Reformed Theology, and before I considered myself Reformed, I remember, for several years emphasizing God's sovereignty, in my notes, devotions, conversations, and so on. Growing up, when asked to describe God, my first comment was always "God is love", but sometime in college, that changed to "God is sovereign". Maybe that was God's way of warming me up to Reformed Theology, because without that basis, I probably would have dismissed the idea when I first heard about it and not bothered studying and talking about it as I have!
All this to say, I do believe that Reformed Theology is Biblically sound and correct, and that is why I now consider myself Reformed.
(To those of you out there who are smarter than me and more knowledgeable than me on this topic, if there's anything I am mistaken about or anything I omitted, let me know!)
A few issues:
ReplyDeleteReformed may be "Christianity" but it is not the faith established by Christ. You can debate the various forms, but it is still one heresy compared to another. Both are wrong. To "reform" means to modify, change, or reconstitute something; in this case - religion.
Point number two is that the "5 Solas" as you refer to them do no coexist together. They are the driving force of various disagreeing Protestant. Basic logic can be utilized to see the term "alone" is used within all of them. Multiple "alones" do not mesh.
You add the sub-texting of "saved" to saints. This is also not only a grave misunderstanding but an injustice to those that have attained this special grace. In fact, until you mentioned it in this blog post I have never, ever, in my entire life heard the term "saint" applied to the entirety of Christiandom.
I still submit to you that you should challenge yourself outside the context of one bad Protestant theology versus another. My sad suspicion is that you won't. And that is not a slight, rather it is my belief that you are quite comfortable with the normalities that Protestantism presents as opposed to the possibility that you may have to extend and change.
As always: With the love of friendship,
N
Nick, I appreciate your comments, but I do disagree with them. First off, however, I have a question... You always refer to Orthodoxy as the original faith/practice as set by the disciples and by Christ Himself. I have done some studying of Orthodoxy, granted, not a huge amount, but I have yet to see any evidence that supports your claim other than the fact that it predates Catholicism. A lot of the practices I have heard described and read about are very European in nature.
ReplyDelete“Reform” does mean to change, in this particular context, “Reformed” meant reforming the church to a more biblical standard. I’m sure that you would not argue that the Catholic Church added many traditions and practices that were not Biblical at all. The idea of reforming the church intended to take the church back to its biblical roots without the Catholic additives.
As far as the 5 sola’s, they can, in fact, coexist together because they refer to different things. Salvation is granted because of Christ alone. It is granted by the Grace of God alone. This is because of the gift of faith alone. (Meaning, God’s grace cannot be earned by works.) It is explained by the Scriptures alone. (Also prophesied about and accomplished according to OT scriptures.) It is done this way not so that man can be exalted, but for the glory of God alone. I’m not sure what you mean by saying “They are the driving force of various disagreeing Protestant”. Most Protestants I know agree with the Sola’s, an exception being Sola Deo Gloria.
The idea that all Christians/saved/elect are Saints is fairly new to me, but after studying the text and the audience Paul was writing to when writing at the Saints, it makes sense, even is obvious, that He was referring to all Christians as Saints. (Most educated/informed Protestants will agree with me, I think.) When Paul was writing his letters, they didn’t have the process the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church have for sainthood. I have never seen anything in the Bible supporting the process of becoming a saint or that some are offered Sainthood and not others. (Admittedly, I’m not familiar at all with the Orthodox method of becoming a Saint, only the Catholic, and I am assuming that the Orthodox method is similar, though I could be wrong, and if I am, I’m sorry!)
Even studying the Greek the NT was written in would render the meaning of Saints to be all believers. (I know I, myself, have not studied Greek, but I have Study Bible Notes written by scholars who have studied it to help me!)
I know it seems that I have not strayed far from my Protestant beliefs that I had before, but it really is a much bigger change than you would expect. The authority I am going by is the Bible. Nowhere in the Bible does it give any indication that other texts are needed in order to understand what is necessary for salvation or for holiness. I know that you hold the Holy Scriptures in high esteem, but you admit, yourself, that they are not sufficient. Therein lies my most basic disagreement with Orthodoxy.
As you said earlier, this is intended with love and friendship as well. I mean no disrespect to you!