On being Reformed....
I came across a great description of Reformed theology on Monergism, the authoritative source for Reformed material on the internet...
What is Reformed Theology?
Reformed theology...
...presupposes God's Word alone as our ultimate authority.
...stresses the sovereignty of God, that is, His reign over all things, meticulously determining (Eph 1:11) all that comes to pass (i.e. God is never taken by surprise).
...emphasizes a Christ-Centered proclamation of the gospel, that salvation is wholly of God, by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone as revealed in the Scripture alone to the Glory of God alone.
...views the Bible as a redemptive-historical organic unfolding of revelation which is structured by three covenants (redemption, works and grace).
It goes without saying that those in the Reformed Tradition hold to the doctrines of grace (the five points of Calvinism), man's helpless condition apart from Christ, the necessity of evangelism and the work of the Holy Spirit who (monergistically) quickens the dead to life through the preaching of the word as God turning their heart of stone to flesh, and opening their eyes to the excellencies of the gospel (uniting them to Christ). In other words, RT stresses the way the objective, written Word together with the inner, supernatural ministry of the Holy Spirit work together. For the Word without the illumination of the Holy Spirit remains a closed book. We (the church) cast forth the seed of the gospel and the Holy Spirit germinates it, so to speak, with the blood of Christ bringing forth life in people from every nation, tribe, language, and people (Rev 14:6). RT traces its historical and theological lineage back to the theology of Christ, Paul, Augustine and to the Protestant Reformation of the 16th Century.
Notice if you will that nowhere in that description do we see a requirement for holding to infant baptism or even holding to the Three Forms of Unity or all or any of the historic Reformed confessions. I find that odd given the insistence of some that part of the ever shrinking definition of who is "Truly Reformed" is holding to the Reformed confessions (except the Baptist ones). Monergism has links to Presbyetrian articles, Lutheran articles and even (gasp!) Baptist articles, all under the umbrella of Reformed. The Hall of Contemporary Reformers includes men like R.C. Sproul and Ligon Duncan, but it also includes men like James White, Albert Mohler and John Piper as well as other Baptists including John MacArthur who I disagree with on Dispensationalism but still recognize as a great Bible teacher, a brother in Christ and someone who holds to much of Reformed theology.
It seems to me that there are two ways in which we can, or should, use the word "Reformed"...
One use is to describe that stream of church tradition that defines church ecclesiology. There are church traditions that come in the form of Lutherans, Baptists and of course Presbyterian/Reformed. In that context, it certainly does make sense to exclude anyone who holds different ecclesiology. Baptists cannot, and should not, hold to Prebyterian & Reformed ecclesiology and sacramentology. But that is one narrow and specific use of the word. Just as Presbyterians baptize people but are not Baptists, others can be Reformed in theology without being Reformed in church government.
The use of Reformed in theology means something different entirely, as we see above. It is still my contention that it is not the holding to Reformed confessions that qualifies one as Reformed. The Reformed people I know, especially the Baptists, agree with most of the historic Reformed confessions and of course agree with or subscribe to the 2nd London Confession, but it is because we are Reformed that we agree with those confessions, we are not Reformed because we agree with them. It is a an issue of cause and effect.
There is a difference between being Reformed in the sense of belonging to the stream of Christian churches that fall into the category of Presbyterian and Reformed, and being Reformed in theology. Sure the old Reformed confessions contain much truth that is also Reformed in theology, but there are plenty of churches in the Presbyerian and Reformed tradition that dunk infants, hold to a liturgical service and post the Westminster Confession that have not a shred of Reformed theology in their teachings on Sunday morning.
Whenever anyone seeks to continually narrow down the definition of "Reformed" from a theological sense to fit one specific denomination or even worse to narrow it down so that only they can wear the SuperReformed suit with the big "R" emblazoned on the chest, making themselves the self-appointed arbiter, definer and defender of Reformed theology, you ought to beware!
I like this from the Reformation Theology blog...
We are a community of confessing believers from diverse backgrounds yet have solidarity in Reformed Theology. Our contributors include a wide diversity of traditions: Baptists, Presbyterians, Charismatic, Non-denominational and Independent. Even though we may have differences on non-essential matters of theology, we are all committed to the Biblical and Christ-exalting truths of the Reformation such as the five solas, the doctrines of grace, monergistic regeneration, and the redemptive historical approach to interpreting the Scriptures.
Sure we have differences, but we are united in the Gospel and in Reformed theology. That is what is the most important thing and it is high time that certain people start to recognize that and stop using the label "Reformed" to beat their brothers in Christ over the head.
No comments:
Post a Comment