VirginiaHuguenot
Puritanboard Librarian
Perhaps our Webmaster should write a new article on the meaning of Reformed as he has done so profitably with the word Evangelical. Just a thought. (As if he doesn't have enough projects going already!).
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot
Perhaps our Webmaster should write a new article on the meaning of Reformed as he has done so profitably with the word Evangelical. Just a thought. (As if he doesn't have enough projects going already!).
Luther was definitely not Reformed and modern Lutherans would chafe at the idea of being called Reformed. Historically, the term "Reformed" tended to be associated with Calvinistic reformation and "Lutheran" was associated with the Lutheran churches, which were primarily in the Germanic states. There were bitter theological feuds between Reformed and Lutherans and bitter wars between Lutheran and Reformed countries. They are very different and the praise Luther get from modern Reformed people is somewhat interesting. After all, if a Catholic talks about baptismal regeneration, he is put out of fellowship. Yet, Luther taught and his descendants teach this.
Originally posted by Me Died Blue
Originally posted by Paul manata
Originally posted by Scott Bushey
Paul,
The term is more than a wax nose-no? Historically, it had certian ideas attached to it. For instance, historically speaking, one could not be an anabaptist and be considered 'reformed', correct? Even if this anabaptist held to the DOG"s, they were still not able to seize the title, correct?
Lets approach it from a different standpoint; who then is not reformed?
Paul,
Fred's a lawyer and you sound like one!
Your statements border upon relativism.
[Edited on 11-16-2004 by Scott Bushey]
whatever the case according to your definition Matt (Webmaster) isn't reformed since he's not a presuppositionalist.
You're not since you're are not postmill.
WTS California isn't one of Webmaster's "6 "reformed" seminarys" since they take a framework approach to Genesis 1-3.
And, Martin Lurther, the father of the reformation, isn't reformed because of his views of consubstantion!
Who's covenant theology is "reformed?" Kline's or Murray's?! Wulp, guess one of them isn't reformed.
The PCA isn't a reformed denomination and neither is the OPC since they said Framework was not contrary to the confession!
So, you asked me who wasn't reformed? Well, Scott, may I ask you just *who* exactly *is* reformed.
p.s. Am I reformed? If so then my "relativistic" statement isn't a problem since relativism is reformed![]()
Well, if we were to define the term by the Westminster Standards, most toss-ups of this nature would be clarified.
Originally posted by webmaster
Here is the thing: if Owen is not reformed, who is?
Of course Owen was Reformed. He was also Presbyterian. Now don't get me wrong, he did take some time to dabble with congregationalism, but his writings in the latter years reflect a change back to Presbyterianism.
Originally posted by webmaster
"And, Martin Lurther, the father of the reformation, isn't reformed because of his views of consubstantion!"
Luther was definitely not Reformed and modern Lutherans would chafe at the idea of being called Reformed. Historically, the term "Reformed" tended to be associated with Calvinistic reformation and "Lutheran" was associated with the Lutheran churches, which were primarily in the Germanic states. There were bitter theological feuds between Reformed and Lutherans and bitter wars between Lutheran and Reformed countries. They are very different and the praise Luther get from modern Reformed people is somewhat interesting. After all, if a Catholic talks about baptismal regeneration, he is put out of fellowship. Yet, Luther taught and his descendants teach this.
Slow down there....
Lutherans DO NOT follow Luther (though they would like to think so). Lutherans follow Melancthon who followed Pelagius into Semi-Pelagianism (sadly). Melancthon also acquiesced t MUCH of Rome's theology to try and "make the reformation work" in the absence of Luther. Even Luther took issue with his compromises at Augsburg.
Luther was reformed to a point. When Calvin sent his work on the sacraments to Luther, Luther agreed with him for the most part and applauded his work over Zwingli's de-mystification of the sacraments (something Luther could not handle).
Luther and Calvin agreed on just about everything except some of the nitty gritty aspects of the sacraments.
I would say he was reformed, but one must take into consideration that it was a Lutheran Theologian AFTER Melancthon that called Calvin "Reformed".
As for an article on being Reformed, well, yes I have a brief one out there....
http://www.apuritansmind.com/Baptism/McMahon-WhatDoesItMeanToBeReformed.htm
[Edited on 11-16-2004 by webmaster]
Originally posted by fredtgreco
Originally posted by Me Died Blue
Originally posted by Paul manata
Originally posted by Scott Bushey
Paul,
The term is more than a wax nose-no? Historically, it had certian ideas attached to it. For instance, historically speaking, one could not be an anabaptist and be considered 'reformed', correct? Even if this anabaptist held to the DOG"s, they were still not able to seize the title, correct?
Lets approach it from a different standpoint; who then is not reformed?
Paul,
Fred's a lawyer and you sound like one!
Your statements border upon relativism.
[Edited on 11-16-2004 by Scott Bushey]
whatever the case according to your definition Matt (Webmaster) isn't reformed since he's not a presuppositionalist.
You're not since you're are not postmill.
WTS California isn't one of Webmaster's "6 "reformed" seminarys" since they take a framework approach to Genesis 1-3.
And, Martin Lurther, the father of the reformation, isn't reformed because of his views of consubstantion!
Who's covenant theology is "reformed?" Kline's or Murray's?! Wulp, guess one of them isn't reformed.
The PCA isn't a reformed denomination and neither is the OPC since they said Framework was not contrary to the confession!
So, you asked me who wasn't reformed? Well, Scott, may I ask you just *who* exactly *is* reformed.
p.s. Am I reformed? If so then my "relativistic" statement isn't a problem since relativism is reformed![]()
Well, if we were to define the term by the Westminster Standards, most toss-ups of this nature would be clarified.
But you can't. Being reformed did not even originate in Britain, but on the Continent. So would someone be non-reformed who did not subscribe to the Westminster Confession, but does subscribe to the Three Forms?
This is not an easy question Chris.
Originally posted by Me Died Blue
And while I acknowledge that defining "Reformed" is not as historically or theologically simple as just pointing to Westminster, I must also admit that ever since the first time I read the Three Forms of Unity, I have never thought them to be sufficiently Reformed to a full extent. I mean, as narrow-minded as that sounds, they really barely even touch on covenant theology!
Originally posted by Scott
"Thus, I was not suggesting that the documents themselves ever served as the historical standard for the term "Reformed," but rather the possibility of the theology of those documents being viewed as the confessional theology most in-line with that of the Reformers and Puritans as a whole - hence my comment on them and "Reformed.""
I think you may be missing an institutional link. The goal was to "reform" institutional national churches in their government, theology, worship, and practice. Theology was not abstracted from institutions.
Originally posted by Scott
"Thus, I was not suggesting that the documents themselves ever served as the historical standard for the term "Reformed," but rather the possibility of the theology of those documents being viewed as the confessional theology most in-line with that of the Reformers and Puritans as a whole - hence my comment on them and "Reformed.""
I think you may be missing an institutional link. The goal was to "reform" institutional national churches in their government, theology, worship, and practice. Theology was not abstracted from institutions.
Originally posted by fredtgreco
Originally posted by Me Died Blue
And while I acknowledge that defining "Reformed" is not as historically or theologically simple as just pointing to Westminster, I must also admit that ever since the first time I read the Three Forms of Unity, I have never thought them to be sufficiently Reformed to a full extent. I mean, as narrow-minded as that sounds, they really barely even touch on covenant theology!
Chris,
With all due respect, this is evidence of the problem. You have just made an unhistorical judgment on who is reformed.
Originally posted by maxdetail
This is good advice in all our threads but in defining what it means to be reformed we must draw distinctions between sound and certain doctrine and those that are still open to much questioning and debate. The reformed label can still work if we are will to leave our Yokos at home.
Originally posted by maxdetail
I know everyone would agree with that analysis Chris but I've been dying to use that Yoko illustration for a long time.![]()
Originally posted by maxdetail
And by the way, I have really been impressed with your depth of wisdom, (for such a young fellow) and the way you have conducted yourself on the board. Well done!
Originally posted by maxdetail
(Even though you seem to elevate theonomy to the level of country music. in my opinion, theonomy is definitely a Yoko!)
Originally posted by maxdetail
God bless!
Originally posted by Me Died Blue
The TFU are indeed recognized as being a historic expression of much of the theology of the Reformed faith, but does that necessarily mean that they contain all of the foundational elements key to the Reformed faith? Or might there be some things still missing (e.g. Presbyterian ecclesiology) that would thus render them insufficient to represent the "Reformed" faith to a full extent, even though they are certainly much more in-line with that full definition than is, say, any Arminian statement of faith?
Originally posted by Me Died Blue
Originally posted by fredtgreco
Originally posted by Me Died Blue
And while I acknowledge that defining "Reformed" is not as historically or theologically simple as just pointing to Westminster, I must also admit that ever since the first time I read the Three Forms of Unity, I have never thought them to be sufficiently Reformed to a full extent. I mean, as narrow-minded as that sounds, they really barely even touch on covenant theology!
Chris,
With all due respect, this is evidence of the problem. You have just made an unhistorical judgment on who is reformed.
The TFU are indeed recognized as being a historic expression of much of the theology of the Reformed faith, but does that necessarily mean that they contain all of the foundational elements key to the Reformed faith? Or might there be some things still missing (e.g. Presbyterian ecclesiology) that would thus render them insufficient to represent the "Reformed" faith to a full extent, even though they are certainly much more in-line with that full definition than is, say, any Arminian statement of faith?
Originally posted by fredtgreco
Also, isn't it possible that Westminster represent not what the Reformed faith is, but what the Church confesses (and which may be more precise) ?
Originally posted by Scott Bushey
Seriously guys, not everyone can say they are reformed. Since every Tom, Dick and Harry are ascribing to the title, it brings reproach to that which should not suffer the slander. So, for the sake of ewveryone, I believe we should implement a new descriptive. The term reformed has become convoluted to the point of no return. It is much like thew term 'evangelical'. I will not have anything to do with it as the full boat of the Arminian camp is floating in it.
posted by Fred
I think you are missing the point. To the drafters of the Three Forms, what they wrote was a sufficient representation of the Reformed Faith. To go beyond in requirements of what is Reformed would be to go too far. And they preceded Westminster.