Tags
Why Are You ‘Reformed’?
I would really like to encourage all my readers to answer this. I am truly interested in your reasons. I ask this question because, quite frankly, it puzzles me.
We don’t need to call ourselves ‘Reformed’ if we believe in the doctrines of grace do we? If we are ‘Calvinists’, do we still need to refer to ourselves in twitter/facebook profiles as ‘reformed’? I mean, what is the purpose?
If we are truly saved, are we not truly aware that we are saved by grace alone, and because of our total depravity prior to that, are we not now aware that we could not save ourselves, but that it was an act of sovereign grace alone that we are indeed saved?
So why the label of ‘Reformed’? If we declare ourselves ‘Reformed’ what are we being reformed from? Keep in mind that many obvious, well-known heretics wear the same label.
Seriously, it’s 2012, the Reformation is long over.
Thoughts?
Related articles
- The Value of Christian Biography (5ptsalt.com)
I’m not overly fond of labels, but how else do we distinguish ourselves from the arminian tide that continues to sweep over the church. Luther stood against the vagaries of the works gospel of his day and as far as I see , that same need still exists today. So if being reformed is a recognition of sovereign grace , then reformed is a label that I’ll wear.
Many well known heretics wear the label ‘Reformed’. Luther didn’t need a ‘new label’ did he other than ‘Christian’? As for recognition of the doctrines of sovereign grace, is not ‘Christian’ enough?
I call myself “Reformed” because that is the terminology I learned when I discovered- well, Reformed theology. I attend the local Reformed Presbyterian Church,which traces its heritage back to the Scottish Covenanters, and is still true to the Westminster Standards, the regulative principle of worship and exclusive Psalmody. The legacy which has come down to us from the Reformation is still very much alive in our church. I also prefer Reformed to Calvinist, which sounds like we follow the teachings of Calvin rather than the Scriptures. The teachings we learned from the Scottish church and Westminster, from Calvin and Augustine we believe are true to the doctrine and precepts of the apostles and prophets and ultimately our Lord Himself or we would not have preserved it so faithfully. As for it being 2012, in my opinion, seeing the state of the church today, I believe the heritage of the Reformation is needed as much today as in the 16th century.
I use the label Christian first. Because yes it is enough. That doesn’t mean that labels should not be used for the sake of Biblical views, etc. Shouldn’t it be enough for the Methodist or Presbyterians to use the label Christian? Of course, but their views differ, so in that regard there has to be some sort of different label or distiction. I don’t agree with the last statement… The Reformation stood for something that we cannot move past… No doubt it’s over, at least the event, but we still need those precepts, the five solas,etc, of “reforming” in general… And the label reformed just so happens to encompass (for the most part) what I believe as a Calvinist, or vise versa. Are their heritics who are “reformed”, yeah, but their are also “Christians” who are heritics…
I am a Baptist. I have never thought of myself as a Reformed person. I don’t totally avoid the term, but I do think “Reformed Baptist” as a hybrid expression suggests someone who fundamentally is Presbyterian who happens to believe baptism is for believers and by immersion. I appreciate Reformed folk and have friends among them, but don’t confuse me for one. I am self-consciously a Baptist. I am a Baptist who believes God is sovereign and salvation is by free grace.
I am not one who avoids the use of “labels” as though the practice was inherently suspicious and divisive. What are “labels” but words expressing ideas?? How do we communicate without “labels??” So, is it wrong as some suggest to call yourself a Baptist (or whatever) instead of simply a Christian? Not in my book. The “Church of Christ” so called (the Campbellites) argueably have the BEST name but what of it? They are heretics because baptismal regeneration is heretical. I am leary of people who claim to avoid labels. They tend to either think fuzzy or hide and obfuscate their distinctive doctrines behind their deliberate lack of clarity Rather – give me a man or woman who says, “Yeah, I believe in ________, what of it?” – instead of the man who or woman who tries to figure ways to manipulate language with feigned concern so as to have an appearance of doctrinal vagueness or neutrality and allegiance to some form of doctrine-less emasculated “Christianity.”
I am a Reformed Baptist who takes very seriously the presuppositional differences between Presbyterian Covenant Theology and Baptist Covenant Theology. I am just as happy – maybe more so – being called a Covenant Baptist.
Calvinism is a sub-set of Reformed or Covenant Theology, not an equivalent. One can be a Calvinist – right in soteriology, as John MacArthur is – yet not Reformed; which brings the 5 Solas and that brings a lot. This is where Luthor got left behind. And we should hold to a 6th principle – Semper Reformanda – or we will get stuck as the Presbyterians in the 17th century, defending our confession as much or more than we defend the Scriptures.
texasbaptist54 – question for you. I am also a Texas Baptist
The question: Do you think the term “Baptist” describes a specific theological perspective or set of doctrines?
Manfred, gee, I am so simlistic that you are going to have to describe (while speaking slowly) the difference between “specific theological perspective” and “set of doctrines.” I would have thought the difference between those two things was akin to the difference between liberal and Democrat. Let me at least give you this answer: I think “Baptist” at it’s best and soundest is simply a nickname for a solid comprehensive understanding of Bible.
Maybe I’m too simple minded, but can the “where is that in the bible” test be applied here? I see Christ and the apostles using no labels (other than the name of Christ). I do see the doctrine of Christ, and I do see the doctrines of heretics and demons in scripture, but I don’t see all of these other names. I must admit that some of the arguments for wearing labels “sound” good, but our reasoning is not to be the standard, right? Where in the bible are they used, condoned, or commanded?
Nevertheless the foundation of God standeth sure, having this seal, The Lord knoweth them that are his. And, Let every one that nameth the name of Christ depart from iniquity. (2Tim 2:19)
Jonathan – every one of us has presuppositions that affect how we perceive things, including the Bible’s truths. Categories and creeds help us think in concrete terms about such things and avoid the error of fuzzy thinking about justification, for example. People calling themselves Christian include Mormons, Roman Catholics, and all sorts who follow man rather than God. Confessions and creeds help a local body have critical and important doctrines in common understanding so that fellowship can be close and in the unity of faith.
Hi Manfred,
I wasn’t arguing against creeds and confessions. I really hadn’t thought that far! Like I said, I’m simple-minded.
I Don’t have a problem with summarizing orthodox biblical teaching into a creed or confession. I have found them helpful. However, when I want to evaluate a practice as right or wrong, I go to scripture to discern that.
It was more the labels I was talking about. Our host asked specifically about the label “reformed”. Now, I have great respect for the reformers and what they taught. But anything they taught that was truthful was already taught by scripture. They didn’t come up with it on their own, and my respect for them notwithstanding, I will not wear the name of a man or group of men, especially when I cannot agree with *every one* of their teachings.
As far as the point you made about cults using the label Christian, I agree that all manner of blasphemers and heretics will wear the name of Christ. That is nothing new. There have been false teachers wearing the name of Christ since apostolic days. But even in those times, we do not see God’s people inventing names for themselves to distinguish them from false converts and false teachers or cults.
There are heretics among those who call themselves “reformed” today. Will the “truly” reformed now have to find another label for themselves to further distinguish themselves from the false?
Though you make good points, you still have not offered scriptural support for referring to yourself by a name other than Christ’s.
After reading the comments I would like to add one more thing. The use of “labels” in regards to making clear what certian sects of Christianity believe will more than likely always exist, because they all believe different, they think their right, and they will label themselves differently. In a way it’s good that clarity is there, but at the same time it’s a shame that we all are perverted from one central truth- Christian. It’s almost like the label Christian has no meaning today because it has been so perverted, and it can mean so many different things(according to the worlds view). I think a very healthy cure for all this debate on using labels can be resolved by using the label Biblical. Then, those who are differnet in label can go to the Scriptures and hash it out rather than arguing over whether their “label” is right, etc… Just a thought.
texasbaptist54 – Pre-trib dispensationalism is an example of a “specific theological perspective” while congregational autonomy with elders is an example of a “set of doctrines.” There are general Baptists, specific or particular Baptists, democratic Baptists and elder-rule Baptists. The list of variance within the Baptist community goes on and on. Hence, the usefulness of accurate labels that describe what specific theological perspective and/or set of doctrines one holds to.
Manfred:
1. I assume the original question “Do you think the term ‘Baptist’ describes a specific theological perspective or set of doctrines?” presupposes an answer that signifies…something profound, but what that “something” is – is still unclear to me, But then, I might have easily fit into the cast of Hee Haw, so what do I know? I honestly don’t understand the distinction, thus I don’t understand the question.
2. Your example only confuses me. How about a definition rather than an example. One’s view of the eldership and ones eschatology do not seem to me naturally divided between “theological perspective” and “set of doctrines.” Both could be described, I would think as either. Unless you mean “theological perspective” as some sort of an abstraction and “set of doctrines” as a straight list of specifics. But since I don’t use those terms in quite that fashion, I am unsure.
3. And finally, if I keep up this thread of conversation, Joel is going to spank me. And I may deserve it. Joel has a set of comment doctrines that are synonymous with his comment perspectives!
lol, uh-huh.
tex – at the risk of enjoying Joel spanking you, here’s a definition of theology from James P. Boyce:
“THE word Theology means literally a discourse concerning God but in analogy with other words, as geology, chronology and biology, it means the science which treats of God. It naturally concerns itself with such questions as these: Is there a God; can he be known; what is his nature, and character; what are the relations he sustains to the universe, particularly to intelligent beings possessed of spiritual natures, and above all, as most important to us, to men; in what ways has he made himself known; and especially in what aspect does he reveal himself to them as sinner. This is Theology proper.”
“Doctrine” means the teachings that define terms or practices that are oft misunderstood by people who care not to humbly dig into the Bible. Hence, the issue of what the role and rule of elders as an example. Or the depravity of man.
Now – Joel, I will sit back and watch
Oh, I’m not saying a word here…yet, ha.
Oh Manfred, you made this far too easy to challenge! If one is to take the Boyce definition as the fullness of the defintion of the word “theology,” then theology does not concern itself with anything save the attributes of God, and it would thus be improper to have a “theology of the church,” or “theology of hell.” Or a “theology of ANYTHING not specifically and narrowly dealing with the nature of God. I respect Boyce, but whence this narrow view?? Sorry, don’t buy it.
If your definition of theology was thin, your definition of doctrine is somewhat odd -”define term or practices that are oft misunderstood by people who care not to humbly dig into the Bible??” Say what??
Doctrine is litterally just “teachings.” You know Manfred, like the “teachings” of theology!!!
Tex – I never said Boyce’s definition is the fullness of the definition of the word “theology” – it is A definition. In its broadest sense and most literal sense, theology is the study of God. Biblical Theology is the study of God’s redemptive plan as revealed over time in the Bible. Systematic Theology is the study of what the entire Bible has to say about a given topic. Do you not read?
Now Manfred, that was flat slippery. You give a definition, I challgenge it…then you backpedal and say it’s not the fullness of the defintion…thus essentially agreeing with me anyway!!— without really correcting yourself!! I read quite well thank you – started reading in the 1950′s and have actually been known to read a book or two. But before this descends into a playground level “yo’ Mama” session, and you start to feel compelled to make statements more snide than “do you not read?” I will reluctantly, though hardly with angst, leave you with your labored and aritifcial disctinctions concerning doctrine and theology. Wish you well, buddy.
To entirely change the comment conversation, I want to answer the question of the original post from a young woman’s perspective. I am not a regular reader of this blog, but I come here time and again, so I thought I’d put in my two cents…especially since I really don’t have much more than that!
I call myself “Reformed” (with the captial “R”) because I am Presbyterian and stand in the tradition of the Protestant Reformation. It is a label, as has been already said here, but the simple reason why I use this particular label is because this is a way to quickly–if not fully, completely, and totally–identify my own distinctions from other Christians, particularly in this generation of enervated “Christianity”. I understand the problem with “labels” (in some part due to their ability to contribute towards some version of some “cult of personality” (a term one of my pastors uses)), but I find that identification of one’s self as well as one’s understanding of others is often immensely helped by labels, such as “Army brat” (which I also wear)…. They help people to understand a little bit about one another without having to start at square one with each person every time…
And maybe that all isn’t a good reason, but that’s why I call myself Reformed, even though many liars also use the same label.
(Also, the term itself lends itself well to reminding me that reformation is persistent, individual, and daily before it ever sweeps a family, a church, a community, or a nation….)
Thank you, Savannah. Well said.
Semper Reformanda
Soli Deo Gloria