# What does it mean to be Reformed?



## WrittenFromUtopia (Jul 21, 2005)

What does it mean to be Reformed?

My take:

- Worship according to the RPW (a major tenet of the Reformation was the abolishing of idolatry and the re-focus on God and His Word alone)
- The Five Solas (Faith, Grace, Christ, God's Glory, Scripture alone)
- Calvinistic Soteriology (the "five points") from a Covenantal Redemptive-Historical standpoint/hermeneutic (i.e. not dispensationalism nor Romanism; that is, not Semi-or-Full Pelagianism)
- Presbyterian Church Government (congregations ruled by elders/session, confessing of faith, covenanting together before God)


----------



## daveb (Jul 21, 2005)

I like the way Dr. McMahon summed it up here:

What does it mean to be Reformed Really?


----------



## Myshkin (Jul 21, 2005)

> _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> What does it mean to be Reformed?
> 
> My take:
> ...



I would add a qualification to this: all the above _rightly understood_

 Also, I think what it means to be reformed is not just to be seen and held in the realm of theology, but it also means to be one who is changed and changing (being reformed) by God's grace which exhibits itself in repentance from sin and the cultivation of the fruit of the Spirit towards God and our fellow man. To be Reformed is to be reformed in faith and life. If our reformed doctrine isn't changing our lives and character within, even in the tiniest of degrees, then we are nothing more than very educated heathens.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Jul 21, 2005)

Historically speaking, paedobaptism is as well a component.


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Jul 21, 2005)

Agreed, but I figured that one might get me attacked on here.


----------



## jfschultz (Jul 21, 2005)

> _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> - Calvinistic Soteriology (the "five points")



Ah the cursed 5 points that have led so many to make false claims that they are reformed!



> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> Historically speaking, paedobaptism is as well a component.




Paedobaptism is evidence of a proper and Reformed understanding of God's covenants.


----------



## sastark (Jul 21, 2005)

Holding to a Reformed confession is what makes one Reformed.


----------



## Arch2k (Jul 21, 2005)

Westminster Standards 

or 

3 Forms of Unity


----------



## Scott Bushey (Jul 21, 2005)

> _Originally posted by sastark_
> Holding to a Reformed confession is what makes one Reformed.



Seth,
I disagree. I know many people whom claim 'holding' to a reformed creed yet are far from being actually reformed.


----------



## Arch2k (Jul 21, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by sastark_
> ...



Ah, but confession and belief are far from the same thing.


----------



## sastark (Jul 21, 2005)

Scott, like Jeff said: confession is one thing, belief is another. In order to be Reformed you must believe a Reformed confessions, which is what I meant by "hold to". Sorry if that was unclear.

My point is that the confessions define what it means to be Reformed. If you don't agree with the confessions, you are not Reformed.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Jul 21, 2005)

My response to Matt's article last October.


> Thanks for the Link to your article Dr. McMahon. I also understand there were no Baptist's invited to the Westminster Assembly. The deck was stacked. I understand why also. They were sparse and some were very unscriptural. There were some good ones though. I also understand that theologies were still being developed.
> Tell me. I don't know? Is the WCF the response of the crown to the 1644. You should never put one up on the crown you know. I have been told by some Presbyterian's that the 1689 is a baptized WCF. I still believe Luther and Calvin didn't Reform enough. I just disagree with you. I do not see infant baptism in the scriptures. Sola Scriptura. It isn't even mentioned until Origen. That is what I understand.
> Don't get me wrong. Please understand. I have great respect and love for the WCF and the great men who put it together. I was trained to know Messiah the Prince. My youngest son's name is Samuel Rutherford. God knows who is Reformed in doctrine and who isn't. Be Encouraged Dr.
> For Christ's Crown and Covenant, R. Martin Snyder
> Still a REFORMED Baptist who holds to Covenant Theology.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Jul 21, 2005)

To Jeff and Seth. (Sorry Randy)

[Edited on 7-21-2005 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Jul 21, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> To Jeff and Seth. (Sorry Randy)
> 
> [Edited on 7-21-2005 by Scott Bushey]



No offence taken Scott. I understand why you think that way. I am just a little more Reformed than you guys. I guess I am truly Reformed instead of just reformed.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Jul 21, 2005)

> _Originally posted by puritancovenanter_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> ...



Randy,
Historically, the reformed were paedobaptists...........hate to break your heart. As well, their system of government.


----------



## daveb (Jul 21, 2005)

What about the way one lives?


A life of holiness before God
A disciplined life that engages the mind in the service of God
One whose chief end is to glorify God, and to enjoy Him for ever.


----------



## Arch2k (Jul 21, 2005)

> _Originally posted by daveb_
> What about the way one lives?
> 
> 
> ...



I think that those are very important, but practice seems to me a RESULT of being reformed rather than the ESSENCE of it.

Belief yields obedience.


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Jul 21, 2005)

Actually, I would agree to that assertion, Paul...


----------



## daveb (Jul 21, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by daveb_
> ...



Not only are they important, they are essential. If these things are not present one is not Reformed. One can believe they are Reformed, claim to hold to Reformed Theology but if they do not have the life to match they are not Reformed.


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Jul 21, 2005)

Orthodoxy leads to orthopraxy, among regenerate people.


----------



## Arch2k (Jul 21, 2005)

> _Originally posted by daveb_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel_
> ...



So everytime you sin, you stop being reformed?

Reformed=Christian In my humble opinion


----------



## daveb (Jul 21, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel_
> So everytime you sin, you stop being reformed?



Sorry, that doesn't follow from what I've said.


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Jul 21, 2005)

Yes! I'm reformed!


----------



## Arch2k (Jul 21, 2005)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reformed


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Jul 21, 2005)

Let me make some dancing tulip gifs, and I'll get back with you.


----------



## Arch2k (Jul 21, 2005)

You know you're reformed when...

You know you're reformed when drink beer and discuss theology on your Saturday nights.


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Jul 21, 2005)

You know you're reformed when you hear someone say "good luck!" and you think to yourself "what a pagan."


----------



## daveb (Jul 21, 2005)

> _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> Orthodoxy leads to orthopraxy, among regenerate people.





It's a package deal.


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Jul 21, 2005)




----------



## Me Died Blue (Jul 21, 2005)

I agree that truly believing the Reformed confessional standards means that one has a truly Reformed worldview, and that one really does not have such a worldview if he or she believes differently than the standards. Furthermore, living them is by definition an essential part of _truly believing_ them, since they speak on how we should live, after all. I would also second the recommendation of Matt's article on the subject.

As far as breaking down the Reformed worldview into its "fundamental" doctrinal distinctives among the wide spectrum of professed Christian beliefs, I have a summary of how I personally see that in the table of contents to the Reformed primer I am currently writing:

Chapter 1 "“ The Sovereignty of God
Chapter 2 "“ Covenant Theology
Chapter 3 "“ The Church
Chapter 4 "“ Worship
Chapter 5 "“ God´s Law
Chapter 6 "“ Christian Liberty
Chapter 7 "“ Spirituality
Chapter 8 "“ Confessionalism
Chapter 9 "“ Church History
Chapter 10 "“ A Worldview


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Jul 21, 2005)

How long will the primer be?


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Jul 21, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel_
> You know you're reformed when...
> 
> You know you're reformed when drink beer and discuss theology on your Saturday nights.



I just read through that thread. I must say - my side split as a result of laughing too hard. They were all good, but some of Paul Manata's were hilarious. Paul, thanks for that!  (Still laughing).

[Edited on 7-21-2005 by webmaster]


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Jul 21, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel_
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reformed



It lists the 1689 LBCF.

It forgot the 1644.

They were reforming from Catholicism also.

*The Five solas and Covenant Theology.*

As I said they just reformed a little farther than the Presbyterian's.


----------



## Tallen (Jul 21, 2005)

1) Forensic Justification by faith alone
2) Confessional
3) The Pope is The Antichrist
4) That scripture is the infallible rule of faith
5) That faith is a gift of God
6) That the church is the pillar and ground of faith
7) The Substitutionary Atonement of Christ
8) That every man is sinful and in need of the Savior
9) And a few others as well

Blessings.
Tallen


----------



## Me Died Blue (Jul 22, 2005)

> _Originally posted by webmaster_
> How long will the primer be?



I'm hoping to get it around 100 pages, give or take a little.



> _Originally posted by Tallen_
> 1) Forensic Justification by faith alone
> 2) Confessional
> 3) The Pope is The Antichrist
> ...



How can you say that belief in the Pope being the Antichrist is an essential element of being Reformed, when not even all of the historic Reformed confessional standards claim that? That frankly seems rather arbitrary to include.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Jul 22, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Me Died Blue_
> How can you say that belief in the Pope being the Antichrist is an essential element of being Reformed, when not even all of the historic Reformed confessional standards claim that? That frankly seems rather arbitrary to include.



To the best of my knowledge, every Reformation-era confession or creed or document that addressed the doctrine or identity of Antichrist, identifed the Antichrist as the Pope or Papacy. 

Ex.: Westminster Confession [Presbyterian] (1646), Chap. 25, sec. 6; Savoy Declaration [Congregational] (1658), Chap. 26, sec. 4; The Smalcald Articles (1537) [Lutheran], Article IV; London Baptist Confession (1689), Chap. 26, sec. 4; Second Scots Confession, or National Covenant (1580 and following); Canons of Dordt (1619), preamble; and was clearly understood to be the Roman Papacy in the Belgic Confession (1561), Article 36; the Westminster Directory of Public Worship (1645) and the Westminster Larger Catechism (1649). Not to mention the writings of Martin Luther, John Calvin, John Knox, Ulrich Zwingli, Francis Turretin, John Bunyan, Matthew Henry, Cotton Mather, John Owen, Jonathan Edwards, Robert Dabney, Charles Spurgeon, John Wesley, Charles Hodge and many, many others. 

And as shown in this thread the list of Reformers, Puritans and others in the orthodox stream of Christianity over the centuries have all identified the Pope as Antichrist. That is the consensus of the Reformation. 

I would not say that historicist eschatology is of the essence of what it means to be Reformed, but historically, yes, it's part of the package. Part of being Reformed is understanding what one is "Reformed" from...the Church of Rome.


[Edited on 7-23-2005 by VirginiaHuguenot]


----------



## Me Died Blue (Jul 22, 2005)

While I acknowledge that it has been a very widespread view in historic Reformed Christendom, but not universal, even in the confessional standards. As far as I can tell, the Second Helvetic Confession, the 1560 Scots Confession do not make that assertion, and even the Belgic Confession is less than explicit.

Much more relevant than that, however, my main point is that to give it the emphasis Tallen did above by placing it alongside those other few doctrines as a brief list of the fundamental doctrines to being Reformed is certainly a misrepresentation of its weight and centrality to Reformed theology.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Jul 22, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Me Died Blue_
> While I acknowledge that it has been a very widespread view in historic Reformed Christendom, but not universal, even in the confessional standards. As far as I can tell, the Second Helvetic Confession, the 1560 Scots Confession do not make that assertion, and even the Belgic Confession is less than explicit.
> 
> Much more relevant than that, however, my main point is that to give it the emphasis Tallen did above by placing it alongside those other few doctrines as a brief list of the fundamental doctrines to being Reformed is certainly a misrepresentation of its weight and centrality to Reformed theology.



The authors of the Second Helvetic Confession (Heinrich Bullinger) and the 1560 Scots Confession (John Knox) and the Belgic Confession (Guido de Bres) all believed the Papacy to be Antichrist, and so did those contemporaries who read and adhered to their creeds. 

The 20th century Reformed Church has departed from Reformational thinking on this point, but as I said, historically, it was the consensus of the Reformation that the Papacy was Antichrist.

Book review of Francis Turretin's _Whether it can be proven that the Pope of Rome is Antichrist_ (1661) by Robert W. Oliver:



> That brings us to the present book. It is a partial translation of Francis Turretin's Concerning Our Necessary Secession from the Church of Rome and the Impossibility of Cooperation with Her, published about 1661. Francois Turrettini (1623-1687) was one of the most able defenders of Dortian Orthodoxy, better known among Lutherans as "Five-point Calvinism" or "Tulip Theology." His most important work, Institutio theolgiae elencticae (Three parts, Geneva, 1679-1685), has recently appeared in English translation as Institutes of Elenctic Theology. Now another of his significant doctrinal treatises has appeared. Whether It Can Be Proven the Pope of Rome is the Antichrist is a biblical/ systematic treatment that affirms that the pope is the Antichrist.
> 
> Turretin assembles a bevy of scriptural, philosophical, and social arguments to support his contention. Some arguments will sound familiar to Lutheran ears, for example, that the "pope rules as God in the place of God" as testified to in the Scripture. Further, Turretin notes that apostasy is a key trait and that the pope's adversarial nature opposes Christ. Other arguments are more derivative/historical in nature. For example, Turretin finds evidence for the pope's character as the Antichrist in the "common opinion of Protestants." Here he cites the more significant Reformed Confessions (the Helvetic, Belgic, Scottish, and Anglican, among others), as well as the Augsburg Confession and the Magdeburg Centuries from the Lutheran tradition.
> 
> Turretin brings all together to bolster his conclusion that separation from the Church of Rome is a *confessional necessity*. "Having been persuaded that the pope is the Antichrist, and since truly it is clear from the words of Scripture that this be so, we must conclude that our secession from his communion, is consummately necessary and that it is quite impossible that there be a reconciliation between us, if things so remain as they are" (113).



Francis Turretin himself:



> It is the Common Opinion of Protestants [that] the Pope is the Antichrist
> 
> This is the united and unswerving opinion of Protestants which they themselves expressed in numerous confessions: The Helvetic Confession, Article 17; The Belgic Confession, Article 36; The Scotch Confession, established in the year 1581 in the assemblies of their kingdom, to which the Royal Majesty, his family and others have subscribed, as an example to all good men, to the glory of God; The Bohemian Confession, published in the year 1535, article 3; The Anglican Confession, in the year 1562, to which the Academies of Oxford and Cambridge publicly approve, together with the most learned bishops and theologians. Also, one who alone is the equal of them all, King James VI, in his apology for the Oath of Fidelity, and in his exhortation to the heads of state and princes. The French Churches have sufficiently testified to their belief regarding this topic, when, before the Vapincensi National Synod in the year 1604, an article was approved by unanimous consent, which was added to their Confession, declaring their thoughts in these words:
> 
> ...




[Edited on 7-23-2005 by VirginiaHuguenot]


----------



## Me Died Blue (Jul 22, 2005)

Do you at least agree, however, that the doctrine of the Pope as the Antichrist does not belong on a short list of fundamental Reformed doctrines alongside such doctrines as Sola Fide, Confessionalism, Sola Scriptura, the monergistic nature of faith, the authority of the Church, the atonement and original sin? Mind you, I am not against the position that the Papacy is the Antichrist, as I have not exegetically studied it yet; I am only "making a big deal" out of this because this thread seems to be a thread setting out to define the "fundamentals" of the Reformed faith, and because the doctrine of the Papal Antichrist was placed right in the middle of a very brief list of such foundational doctrines.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Jul 22, 2005)

My personal position is that the Westminster Confession of 1646 summarizes what it is we as Reformed Christians are to believe. I recognize that some doctrines are more essential than others. If one is going to provide a "short list" I probably would not include that point. However, in the 17th century (a less pluralistic age) when the religious choices were: Reformed Protestant, Romanism, Anabaptistic (not counting Islam, etc.), I can see why the Reformers made such a big deal about why they felt the need to separate from the Roman Antichrist and to identify him as such. If the Pope was not Antichrist, and Rome was not a synagogue of Satan, Protestantism was wrong to separate. In my view, the church today has lost her moorings somewhat by failing to understand what she Reformed from and why separation and protest were so important. In short, to answer your question, as I said, I would probably not include this point on a short list, but it's in the Confession, and I stick by the Confession. The Westminster Assembly thought it was important enough to mention in its Confession of Faith, although it was non-controversial in the Protestant world at the time. The WCF, btw, was the first confession to affirm a six-day literal creation, although this is a cardinal doctrine of the faith. It does beg the question of what it means to be Reformed, though. Is it the gospel, or the Five Points of Calvinism, or a list of fundamentals, or is it systematic theology of the Bible? If the latter, this doctrine is a key component of Westminster-Puritan-Reformed-Protestant theology.


[Edited on 7-23-2005 by VirginiaHuguenot]


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Jul 23, 2005)

Andrew, does the PRC confess _all_ of the WCF? Including the portions exluded by most American branches of the Presbyterian church?


----------



## Peters (Jul 23, 2005)

Isn´t every truly regenerate person at least a little bit reformed? :bigsmile:


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Jul 23, 2005)

> _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> Andrew, does the PRC confess _all_ of the WCF? Including the portions exluded by most American branches of the Presbyterian church?



Yes, the Presbyterian Reformed Church holds to the entire 1646 Westminster Confession without any exceptions.


----------



## Peters (Jul 23, 2005)

Andrew, go back to bed man! :bigsmile:


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Jul 23, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Peters_
> Andrew, go back to bed man! :bigsmile:


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Jul 23, 2005)

Could you explain the part about the government holding Church councils, etc.?


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Jul 23, 2005)

> _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> Could you explain the part about the government holding Church councils, etc.?



Do you mean this?

WCF, Chap. 23.3:



> III. The civil magistrate may not assume to himself the administration of the Word and sacraments, or the power of the keys of the kingdom of heaven: (e) yet he hath authority, and it is his duty, to take order, that unity and peace be. preserved in the Church, that the truth of God be kept pure and entire; that all blasphemies and heresies be suppressed; all corruptions and abuses in worship and discipline prevented or reformed; and all the ordinances of God duly settled, administrated, and observed.(f) For the better effecting whereof, he hath power to call synods, to be present at them, and to provide that whatsoever is transacted in them be according to the mind of God.(g)
> 
> (e) II Chron. 26:18 with Matt. 18:17 and Matt. 16:19; I Cor. 12:28, 29; Eph. 4:11, 12; I Cor. 4:1, 2; Rom. 10:15; Heb. 5:4.
> (f) Isa. 49:23; Ps. 122:9; Ezra 7:23, 25, 26, 27, 28; Lev. 24:16; Deut. 13:5, 6, 12; I Kings 18:4; I Chron. 13:1 to 9; II Kings 23:1 to 26; II Chron. 34:33; II Chron. 15:12, 13.
> (g) II Chron. 19:8, 9, 10, 11; II Chron. 29 and 30; Matt. 2:4, 5.



Or this?

WCF, Chap. 31:



> II. As magistrates may lawfully call a synod of ministers, and other fit persons, to consult and advise with, about matters of religion;(b) so, if magistrates be open enemies to the Church, the ministers of Christ of themselves, by virtue of their office, or they, with other fit persons upon delegation from their Churches, may meet together in such assemblies.(c)
> 
> (b) Isa. 49:23; I Tim. 2:1, 2; II Chron. 19:8, 9, 10, 11; II Chron. 29, 30 chaps.; Matt. 2:4, 5; Prov. 11:14.
> (c) Acts 15:2, 4, 22, 23, 25.



The best example of this is the Westminster Assembly, called by Parliament for the purpose of reforming the Church, from which we get the Westminster Confession itself. It is a common misunderstanding that the Puritans and the Westminster Confession teach Erastianism. Nothing could be further from the truth. The Westminster Assembly was called to _oppose_ Erastianism. The Westminster-Presbyterian approach to church-state relations is that both are ordained by God for government to his glory of civil and ecclesiastical affairs. Both institutions are separate and distinct (as noted in the Chap. 23.3) but the magistrate has duties which include protecting the church and the church has duties which include honoring the magistrate and promoting that which is good for civil society. 

The Westminster Larger Catechism (which was not changed by the 1789 American revisions) teaches this as well:



> Q191: What do we pray for in the second petition.?
> A191: In the second petition (which is, Thy kingdom come,)[1] acknowledging ourselves and all mankind to be by nature under the dominion of sin and Satan,[2] we pray, that the kingdom of sin and Satan may be destroyed,[3] the gospel propagated throughout the world,[4] the Jews called,[5] the fulness of the Gentiles brought in;[6] the church furnished with all gospel officers and ordinances,[7] purged from corruption,[8] *countenanced and maintained by the civil magistrate:[9]* that the ordinances of Christ may be purely dispensed, and made effectual to the converting of those that are yet in their sins, and the confirming, comforting, and building up of those that are already converted:[10] that Christ would rule in our hearts here,[11] and hasten the time of his second coming, and our reigning with him forever:[12] and that he would be pleased so to exercise the kingdom of his power in all the world, as may best conduce to these ends.[13]
> 
> 1. Matt. 6:10
> ...


----------



## RamistThomist (Jul 23, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Me Died Blue_
> While I acknowledge that it has been a very widespread view in historic Reformed Christendom, but not universal, even in the confessional standards. As far as I can tell, the Second Helvetic Confession, the 1560 Scots Confession do not make that assertion, and even the Belgic Confession is less than explicit.
> 
> Much more relevant than that, however, my main point is that to give it the emphasis Tallen did above by placing it alongside those other few doctrines as a brief list of the fundamental doctrines to being Reformed is certainly a misrepresentation of its weight and centrality to Reformed theology.



While I wont argue that the the Confessions almost to a man teach that the Pope = antichrist, to make that a major doctrine of Reformed theology is like me saying that one must be postmillennial to be Reformed.

Andrew made a good point in that one wouldn't make this an essential article of faith.


----------



## Tallen (Jul 23, 2005)

> How can you say that belief in the Pope being the Antichrist is an essential element of being Reformed, when not even all of the historic Reformed confessional standards claim that? That frankly seems rather arbitrary to include.



Virtually all of the Reformed Confessions either implicitly state such or it is implied. The Anglican, Lutheran, Calvinist, Baptist, Wesleyan and Puritan creeds, confessions, literature and bible marginal notes all state such. That was a universal claim of the Reformers.


----------

