Reformed theology?

[Lanman87]

I'm not sure if you mean Reformed Theology or Protestant Theology? Reformed Theology is a subset of Protestant Theology in a similar way Thomist and Molinist are a subset of Catholic Theology.

Volumes have been written about Reformed Theology so to answer "What is reformed Theology?" on a message board is indeed a daunting task.

What I will do is give you some difference between Protestant Understanding and Catholic Understanding. Other's on this board can correct me if I misrepresent their understanding.

1. The Universal/catholic Church. In Protestant understanding the universal church is made all genuine believers in Christ. The universal church can be found in various traditions and denominations (including Catholic and Eastern Orthodox). The universal church is the one catholic, apostolic church.

2. The Visible church. The universal church becomes visible anytime Christians gather to worship, serve, preach/teach the word, and give sacraments/ordinances. The Lutheran church on the corner is part of the Visible church because both believers and non-believers can witness the Love of Christ manifest among the faithful. The same is true of the Baptist church down the street and even the non-denominational church in the strip mall next to Subway.

3. The Gates of Hell will never overcome the church. From the time of Christ until the end of the age there will be genuine believers in Christ seeking to advance the Kingdom of God on earth.

4. We believe in one God eternally existing as one essence and three distinct persons: God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit. Each person is fully, equally and eternally God, yet there is one God. Each person has precisely the same nature and attributes and is worthy of precisely the same worship, honor and praise. The entire Christian faith is bound together with the confession of God’s Trinitarian nature (this was from a church's website)

5. Predestination/Grace. There are two threads in Protestant churches concerning Grace and Predestination. These two threads are loosely called Calvinist and Arminian. They are very close the Thomist/Molinism debate in Catholicism. Some groups are staunchly one or the other. Other groups don't take sides in the debate. What has become to be known as "Reformed Theology" is, in most circles, closely related to Calvinism. If you want to know what Reformed Theology teaches I suggest ligonier ministries as they have a lot of Reformed Teaching tools on their website.

6. Salvation. Regardless of which side of the Calvinism/Arminian debate one falls on both agree that all humans are and will be saved by having a living/saving faith in Christ. Both sides agree that nobody comes to faith apart from the work of the Holy Spirit on a persons heart/soul which brings them to faith in Christ. Everyone with a living/saving faith is indwelled with the Holy Spirit, has had his/her heart changed from a heart of stone to a heart of flesh, has been made a new creation in Christ, and their loves and affections are changed so that they desire personal holiness, to share the gospel of Christ with non-believers, and for their "Faith to work through love" by helping those in need or hurting.

7. Christian Unity. All genuine believers in Christ are united by faith, the indwelling Holy Spirit, and love for Christ and each other. While doctrinal difference can and do occur between believers, due to the fact we are all flawed humans and all "know in part" (1 Cor 13:12). All doctrinal difference will be tossed aside when we come into Glory and will "see fully".

Of course, there a dozens of other difference between the Protestant mindset and Catholics.

The Priesthood, two sacraments instead of seven, the meaning of apostolic succession, Mariology, and many others come to mind.

I hope this gives you a started point of the differences.

My personal opinion is that if a Catholic wants to understand Protestants the first thing for them to grasp is the different meaning and usage of the term "catholic church" among non-Catholic Christians.

 

[donadams]

@donadams


Brother, then begin by reading posts 6 and 9.

If you have questions about any of the points there, quote the section of the post and ask.

If you wish to give your view on anything I specifically posted, fine. Just quote the part you wish to respond to and then give your response.




An odd thing for a faithful Catholic to say, but just so I understand your mandated rubric, you wish to only use the words in Scripture as the source and norm (Sola Scriptura - a principle denounced by your church but hey, I'm more than willing). If so, that's fine but it would require you to abandon Catholic epistemology.

We can begin with the nature of the church. BIG subject, but since you demand we stick to the words found in the Bible, we'll see that your church is never mentioned there, at all, for anything. So it's not promised with anything (can't be if it's not even mentioned), not authorized with anything (can't be since it's not even mentioned).

And we can talk about accountability. Scriptures that exempt anyone from that.





Well, you just jumped over everything so far discussed. Is that because you don't want to discuss anything above?

IF you want to skip all the above and move to Soteriology, okay. Sola Fide is one aspect of the Protestant view which is SOLA GRATIA - SOLUS CHRISTUS - SOLA FIDE - SOLI DEO GLORIA. All one inseparable doctrine. And (Catholics tend to miss this point) it ONLY concerns personal justification in the narrow sense, the sense of a changed relationship, what some Protestants call "born again" and some Catholics call "initial grace." It does not concern the whole of our Call or the entirely of soteriology, that's a much bigger subject.

Decide if you want to discuss the church and the issues related to epistemology (see posts 6 and 9) or drop that and look at justification (narrow). It's impossible to mix up everything (and it means we make no progress). I'm not going to bounce all around. Pick a subject to discuss.



IF you want to switch to personal justification (narrow) then I refer you to these..... read these completely

Read posts 1-3 here:

Issues in the Reformation: Salvation

Issues of the Reformation: Salvation This was the KEY ISSUE. It was the one issue over which the church of the day used to excommunicate Luther, split the denomination and drive the Reformation. There were several other main issues (ecclesiology, epistemology and several others), but this was...

www.christianityhaven.com

.

Do you agree with this statement?
Truth must be revealed by God thru Christ to His church (the apostles Jude 1:3) then must be proposed by the church, (Matt 28:19 gal 3:23) without error by the Holy Spirit! (Jn 16:13)

Christ and His church are one! (Acts 9:4 eph 5:31 Jn 15:1-5)

Also what is the rule of faith for Christians?

 

[Albion]

Do you agree with this statement?
Truth must be revealed by God thru Christ to His church (the apostles Jude 1:3) then must be proposed by the church, (Matt 28:19 gal 3:23) without error by the Holy Spirit! (Jn 16:13)

Christ and His church are one! (Acts 9:4 eph 5:31 Jn 15:1-5)

Also what is the rule of faith for Christians?

You posted the same message a few posts back. And then you were answered by both Josiah and myself.

Why not offer your response to those replies now instead of going in circles? Thanks.

 

[SetFree]

What is implied by reformed theology? Thanks

Martin Luther's 95 Thesis, where he listed problems that the Catholic Church needed to correct. One was the idea of the church selling 'indulgences' to get one's dead loved ones out of purgatory.

Because of those things the Catholic Church was doing, having left certain doctrines of the New Testament teaching, certain groups began rebelling against the Catholic Church. They were called Protestants from the idea of 'protest', and thus wars between the two factions broke out. The Protestant movement was thus named the Protestant Reformation.

Many of the Protestants left Europe and came to the Americas because of that Catholic persecution. My ancestors were French Huguenots (first French Protestants) and that's how they got to the American colonies in the later 1500's.

 

[Albion]

So, what would you say are the distinctive beliefs and practices of Reformed Christianity AKA the Reformed movement within Protestantism? It cannot be the rejection of Purgatory or Indulgences.

 

[SetFree]

So, what would you say are the distinctive beliefs and practices of Reformed Christianity AKA the Reformed movement within Protestantism? It cannot be the rejection of Purgatory or Indulgences.

I guess you haven't realized about me yet that I don't play those games of 'MEN's' doctrines. It doesn't mean I'm completely ignorant about various doctrines of men created within various denominations, but most of that is a waste of time. Seek God's Truth in His Holy Writ and which doctrines are true per His Word will be revealed, and the rest can fall like dung on the wayside.

 

[Albion]

I guess you haven't realized about me yet that I don't play those games of 'MEN's' doctrines.

I'm glad for the "heads up," but that's what everyone who has created his own brand of Christianity for himself, and therefore thinks every last denomination is wrong for not agreeing with him, likes to say.

Maybe the rest of us should take it up, too. Whenever there's a disagreement about some doctrine or practice, we'll justify our own personal slant on the subject by saying of the Apostolic Church, the Creeds, and Christianity though the ages, "Well, that's nothing but just a doctrine of MEN!" (As though none of the great figures in Christian history bothered with the Bible themselves.)

I'm completely ignorant about various doctrines of men created within various denominations, but most of that is a waste of time. Seek God's Truth in His Holy Writ and which doctrines are true per His Word will be revealed, and the rest can fall like dung on the wayside.

 

[SetFree]

I'm glad for the "heads up," but that's what everyone who has created his own brand of Christianity for himself, and therefore thinks every last denomination is wrong for not agreeing with him, likes to say.

Whatever you say, but I have no props. If one stays in God's Word as written, they don't need props. I was raised in a mainstream Protestant Church that relied on men's false doctrine of Partial Preterism. They didn't teach much Bible prophecy, mainly just The Gospel and having good works. Can't really argue with that, because that's what all Churches should teach. But teaching the "strong meat" is a requirement too per the New Covenant, and they didn't cover that, just as most Church systems do not.

Maybe the rest of us should take it up, too. Whenever there's a disagreement about some doctrine or practice, we'll justify our own personal slant on the subject by saying of the Apostolic Church, the Creeds, and Christianity though the ages, "Well, that's nothing but just a doctrine of MEN!" (As though none of the great figures in Christian history bothered with the Bible themselves.)

It's clear that above is your 'slandering' with your 'attempting' to bear false witness against me, when you have not countered anything I have taught directly from God's Word. I recognize your type, the jealous sort that's really here to try and get attention for one's self, a pride thing. So while you are vainly trying to discredit me, you show your vanity of trying to exalt yourself. What jealousy! And that kind of jealousy is actually a sign of the lack understanding from God in His Word.

 

[Albion]

Whatever you say, but I have no props. If one stays in God's Word as written, they don't need props.

I take it that when you say "props," you are referring to having an understanding of history, language, culture, and so on.

I was raised in a mainstream Protestant Church that relied on men's false doctrine of Partial Preterism. They didn't teach much Bible prophecy, mainly just The Gospel and having good works. Can't really argue with that, because that's what all Churches should teach. But teaching the "strong meat" is a requirement too per the New Covenant, and they didn't cover that, just as most Church systems do not.

Choosing a more normal church might have made a big difference in your approach, then, and deterred you from thinking that nobody else knows anything and that every last denomination is just playing at "church."

 

[SetFree]

I take it that when you say "props," you are referring to having an understanding of history, language, culture, and so on.

Choosing a more normal church might have made a big difference in your approach, then, and deterred you from thinking that nobody else knows anything and that every last denomination is just playing at "church."

Of course not, I refer to 'props' as MEN'S DOCTRINES, like the false JEWS' RELIGION which is based more on sage traditions with the corrupt Babylonian Talmud writings instead of keeping to God's Word as written.

Bible prophecy for the latter days reveals understanding in God's Word is mostly like a famine, many looking everywhere for it, but not finding it. With that prophecy is that foxes (false teachers) would be teaching their own... word, instead of directly from God's Word line upon line, chapter by chapter.

As a matter of fact, I had one brother who asked me why his Church system didn't teach Bible line upon line like I recommended. So I told him to ask his Sunday school teacher about it. His teacher LAUGHED at him, and said something like, "You must think we have all the time in the world!"

Pitiful, the state of affairs in most Churches today with not covering all of God's Word line upon line. No wonder when one comes to most Christian forums it's pretty much the same thing, someone throws out a single verse from The Bible, and most often taking it of the Scripture context where it appears, and then turns it into a philosophical debate. They do that because that's what their preachers do, which shows they have no intention of actually teaching The Bible the way God showed to do it, line upon line, precept upon precept, here and little and there a little (Isaiah 28).

 

[Albion]

Of course not, I refer to 'props' as MEN'S DOCTRINES,

Right. If the meaning of terms and analogies, etc. used in a first century document aren't exactly what we today might mean by such wording, you'll call the understanding of the Church through the centuries by a putdown like "the doctrines of MEN."

You'll do that simply because you are unwilling to believe that anyone, theologian, university, worldwide church body, or whatever can possibly be correct since it doesn't agree with what you've decided for yourself to believe.

And, by the way, this is what we get from other people, too. While the Lutherans, Anglicans, Catholics, Presbyterians, whatever, are well-informed about the Bible and Christianity, and are comfortable with it even when there are disagreements...there's also the stream of unaffiliated "Christians," many of whom join in order to tell us that he, virtually alone in the world, has the "right" understanding because he read the Bible

And if these Bible readers really did have the familiarity with Scripture that they claim, they could hardly come away having missed the fact that Christ founded a church, that he commissioned leaders for it, that he instituted sacraments for the benefit of his followers, that he instructed his Apostles to spread the world into all nations, and that he also promised that the gates of hell would not prevail against this church.