El Redentor: Jesus Say it!!

martes, 18 de marzo de 2008

Jesus Say it!!

I was dead without opportunity to choose.
My destiny was declared by my dead condition.
What an impossible problem to resolve!
My life was destined for hell.
My motives were wrong, and I was blind and deaf.
How I remember, I was totally dead!

Christ loves me without measure.
How He provides me with life.
His Holy Spirit Illuminates me and gives me a new life.
Nothing could resurrect me, but the Holy Spirit did.
I did not deserve it but the Holy Spirit declares it!

Jesus on the cross suffered for me, I did not deserve it!
What could he have seen in me to save me? Nothing! But he decided it!
What a savior we have who died for us, and we do not love him.
Romans 5:12 declares that He loved us while we were still in sin
I wish to obey, but can I? What a terrible condition controls my life.

That is your condition, remember it!
Just Jesus is your hope let me declare it!
By grace He wants to save you do not forget it!
What are you going to do? It is very important remember it!

Do not give up preach it!
The Gospel THAT Jesus and the Apostles teach it!
That Jesus died and resurrected it!
He is alive just believe it!

Guillermo Martinez

No hay comentarios.:

Publicar un comentario

John Calvin

Calvin was born Jean Cauvin (or Chauvin in standard French, in Latin Calvinus) in Noyon, Picardie, France, to Gérard Cauvin and Jeanne le Franc. A diligent student who excelled at his studies, Calvin was "remarkably religious" even as a young man.[1]
Calvin's father was an attorney who also served as a Noyon Cathedral business administrator and lawyer. In 1523 Gerard sent his fourteen-year-old son to the University of Paris to pursue a Latin, theological education and to flee the plague in Noyon. But when Gerard was dismissed from the Roman Church after disagreements with his clerical employers, he urged Calvin to change his studies to law, and he did.[2] By 1532, he had attained a Doctor of Laws degree at Orléans. It is not clear when Calvin converted to Protestantism, though in the preface to his commentary on Psalms, Calvin said:
"God by a sudden conversion subdued and brought my mind to a teachable frame.... Having thus received some taste and knowledge of true godliness I was immediately inflamed with so intense a desire to make progress therein, that although I did not altogether leave off [legal] studies, I yet pursued them with less ardor."[3]
His Protestant friends included Nicholas Cop, Rector at the University of Paris. In 1533 Cop gave an address "replete with Protestant ideas," and "Calvin was probably involved as the writer of that address."[1] Cop soon found it necessary to flee Paris, as did Calvin himself a few days after. In Angoulême he sheltered with a friend, Louis du Tillet. Calvin settled for a time in Basel, where in 1536 he published the first edition of his Institutes.
After a brief and covert return to France in 1536, Calvin was forced to choose an alternate return route in the face of imperial and French forces, and in doing so he passed by Geneva. Guillaume Farel pleaded with Calvin to stay in Geneva and help the city. Despite a desire to continue his journey, he settled in Geneva. After being expelled from the city, he served as a pastor in Strasbourg from 1538 until 1541, before returning to Geneva, where he lived until his death in 1564.
After attaining his degree, John Calvin sought a wife in affirmation of his approval of marriage over clerical celibacy. In 1539, he married Idelette de Bure, a widow, who had a son and daughter from her previous marriage to an Anabaptist in Strasbourg. Calvin and Idelette had a son who died after only two weeks. Idelette Calvin died in 1549. Calvin wrote that she was a helper in ministry, never stood in his way, never troubled him about her children, and had a greatness of spirit.
Calvin's health began to fail when he suffered migraines, lung hemorrhages, gout and kidney stones, and at times he had to be carried to the pulpit to preach and sometimes gave lectures from his bed.[4] According to his successor, influential Calvinist theologian Theodore Beza, Calvin took only one meal a day for a decade, but on the advice of his physician, he ate an egg and drank a glass of wine at noon. His recreation and exercise consisted mainly of a walk after meals. Towards the end, Calvin said to those friends who were worried about his daily regimen of work amidst all his ailments, "What! Would you have the Lord find me idle when He comes?"[4]
John Calvin died in Geneva on May 27, 1564. He was buried in the Cimetière des Rois under a tombstone marked simply with the initials "J.C.",[5] partially honoring his request that he be buried in an unknown place, without witnesses or ceremony. He is commemorated in the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America's liturgical calendar of saints as a Renewer of the Church on May 27.

[edit] Thought
Part of a series onCalvinism(see also Portal)

John Calvin
BackgroundChristianity St. Augustine The Reformation Five Solas Synod of Dort
DistinctivesFive Points (TULIP)Covenant Theology Regulative principle
DocumentsCalvin's Institutes Confessions of faith Geneva Bible
InfluencesTheodore Beza John Knox Huldrych Zwingli Jonathan Edwards Princeton theologians
ChurchesReformed Presbyterian Congregationalist Reformed Baptist
PeoplesAfrikaner Calvinists Huguenots Pilgrims Puritans Scots
This box: view • talk • edit
See also: Calvin's view of Scripture
Calvin was trained to be a lawyer. He studied under some of the best legal minds of the Renaissance in France. Part of that training involved the newer humanistic methods of exegesis, which dealt with a text in the original language directly via historical and grammatical analysis, as opposed to indirectly via layers of commentators. His legal and exegetical training was important for Calvin because, once convinced of the growing Protestant faith, he applied these exegetical methods to the Scripture. He self-consciously tried to mold his thinking along biblical lines, and he labored to preach and teach what he believed the Bible taught.
While Reformers such as Jan Hus and Martin Luther may be seen as somewhat original thinkers that began a movement, Calvin was a great logician and systematizer of that movement, but not an innovator in doctrine. Unlike Luther and Melanchthon, who underwent many doctrinal changes and sometimes contradicted their previous views, Calvin held essentially the same theology from his youth to his death.[6] He was very familiar with the writings of the early Church Fathers and the great Medieval schoolmen, and he was also in debt to earlier Reformers. Calvin did not reject the Scholastics of the Middle Ages outright but rather made use of them and reformed their thoughts in accordance with his understanding of the Bible. For example, using Anselm of Canterbury's satisfaction view of the atonement, Calvin developed and formalized the doctrine of penal substitution where Christ receives the punishment earned by the elect in their stead.
Calvin had a great commitment to the absolute sovereignty and holiness of God. Because of this, he is often associated with the doctrines of predestination and election, but it should be noted that he differed very little with the other magisterial Reformers regarding these difficult doctrines. Additionally, while the five points of Calvinism bear his name and are a reflection of his thinking, they were not articulated by him, and were actually a product of the Synod of Dort, which issued its judgments in response to five specific objections that arose after Calvin's time.
While Calvin's theological contributions have had a wide influence, his legacy can also be seen in other areas. For example, he placed a high premium on education of the youth of Geneva, and in 1559 he founded the Academy of Geneva, which was a model for other academies around the world and which would eventually become the University of Geneva. Calvin's thought in the area of church polity was seminal as well, giving rise to various Reformed and Presbyterian systems of church government. The Consistory of Geneva, with Calvin at its helm, was influential in sending out scores of missionaries, not only to France, but also to countries as far off as Brazil. Finally, Calvin, knowing the benefits of business, was instrumental in founding and developing the silk industry in Geneva, by which many Genevans reaped monetary benefits.

What does it mean to be Reformed: Really?

Where would we look for resources on Reformed Theology? Where would we findfirst-class Reformed theology articulated in classic form? The answer to this couldbe varied, but historically, the safest place to find Reformed theology is in thewritings of Reformed literature. The thinking reader pauses here for a moment. Stating it that way seems a bit circular. Is it circular? In reality it is a veryvalid answer. Unbiased history should be allowed to speak its mind. I have always found itimportant to be sure that one has their facts straight before they venture into anopinion of an historical term or idea. Historical terms, even though they may beused today, are still founded upon ideas, circumstances, consequences, and a host ofother historical providences. History records the providence of God in the lives ofmen. Theological history, or Church History records this providence more attune tobiblical and spiritual dealings that surround the never-dying souls of men. In anycase, the historical evidence of the following article is a brief survey of whathistory dictates what has always been deemed as "reformed." History can be thejudge in many instances, contrary to popular opinion. History has furnished us withits judgment on how the term "Reformed" should be utilized, and who should utilizeit. Some feel that leaning upon historical information, as argumentation, is fallacious. They believe that since history is ever evolving, or changing as men die and otherstake their place, to set forth an argument based on history would be to arguewithout knowing all the facts, and would be invalid. This kind of thought, though,is faulty at the start, and would actually argue vehemently against Sola Scripturaitself taken to its logical conclusion. Certainly no one knows the future. Thosefuture changes to historical ideas can very well affect the outcome of theologicalstudy done in the past. However, that does not mean the foundations of theologicalstudy, (the deity of Christ, the Trinity, the Fall of Adam, the Covenants,justification, etc.) based on the Bible, and exegeted by historical figuresfaithfully, should be changed. Nor does it mean that those ideas, or foundations oftheological maxims that affected the course of the entire Reformation itself shouldbe overthrown or discarded because contemporary theologians have decided otherwise. There is a great difference in refining theology, as opposed to discarding theologyor changing it completely in a type of revamping. What is missed in this line ofreasoning is that though history evolves and changes shape based on a number ofvarious providences affecting men, the foundation of the Scriptures are immovableand retain their meaning and their intent through every period of history and intoevery age. The truth of the Word exegeted by able scholars and theologians of theReformation is not something that one can change, unless, of course, all theexegetes that formally founded their ideas on the Bible had been erroneous. If thatwere the case, then how are we justified, and who will save us? Maybe we do noteven need to be saved after all? Even if this were the case (which is logicallyimpossible), the logical conclusion of what a defining idea meant to the Reformerswould no longer be valid if it were changed today. If the term "Reformed" meantsomething, historically speaking, and theologically speaking in the age of theReformation, and the term was changed today to mean something else, or discardedaltogether, that would violate the interpretation of that word for the Reformersthemselves. To the Reformers, to the Covenant Theologians of yesteryear, thehistorian would easily find that the term "Reformed" meant something to them. Thequestion of this article is to answer what the term "Reformed" really meant, andshould consequently mean today. To deny the definition of the word is to replace italtogether with some thing else. The definition of the word "Reformed" is not given by whim and fancy of those whowield the term to define the five solas of the Reformation, or the doctrines ofgrace. To use the term to simply refer to those sets of biblical propositions is touse the term as slang. The pastors and theologians of the Reformation, preciselyand forcefully utilized the word "Reformed", and packed it with ideologies andhistory. It was a word that defined the manner of a thinker in that age. He had acertain understanding of the Bible, and a certain set of convictions. Theseconvictions ran much further than our contemporary superficial understanding of theSolas or of the doctrines of grace. The term "Reformed" was used, and should beused, in a much larger context than that. Its definition, as we will see unfoldedin this article, is restrictive and not liberal in its application, but liberal andnot restrictive in its theological propositions. It fought against the ebb and flowof papal dictatorship, heretical controversy and political expediency with a preciseand swift strike of the sword of Word of God. It is a word that defines the edge oftheological difference with razor sharpness. If it were abused today, then that isa detriment to its history. If it were redefined today, then it is at the peril ofthe definer and the Reconstructionism of what others will believe such a termdefined those of the past. The historian, the pastor, the theologian of today mustbe exceedingly careful to have their facts straight on history, for history definesthe idea. Unfortunately, the term Reformed cannot be applied to every Christian who likes tocast it upon their crest. They are very right for desiring it, for who canhistorically counter the greatest revival past that of the coming of the Lord JesusChrist? What doctrinal theme or theological bent will be put in place of it?Arminianism? Dispensationalism? Antinomianism? Romanism? No. The basic system ofthe reformers is set. And this system cannot be applied to every "theological Joe"that would like to claim it. It has already been claimed, and has already beenstamped by the Word of God with approval. Look to the revivals of history forconfirmation. Look to the flourishing of the church. Has Arminianism,Dispensationalism, Antinomianism or Romanism ever had a revival of religion? Nothey have not. (Loraine Boettner in his work, "The Reformed Doctrine ofPredestination" answers that historical question by including an entire chapter onCalvinism in history.) With all that said, we will traverse biblically based history and theology in orderto answer the title of this paper - What does it mean to be Reformed- Really?I do want to ensure the reader that my answer to the questions above ("Where wouldwe look for resources on Reformed Theology?" and, "where would we find first-classReformed theology articulated in classical form?") are validly answered by mystatement "in the writings of Reformed literature." There are three areas thatsafely guide one to prove this out: 1) what classic Reformed Theology teaches, 2)where this "classic" aspect of Reformed Theology emerged from, and 3) what hashappened to the term "Reformed" today. After surveying these 3 areas, I think wewill all have to agree on the basics of "what constitutes Reformed Theology." Wewill know what it really means to be considered a Reformed Theologian, ReformedPastor, or Reformed Believer.There is no doubt that the Reformed Tradition traces its historical roots to thetime of John Calvin (1509-1564). Calvin, though born in Noyon, France, could beconsidered as a "Swiss" reformer due to his long stay at the city-state Geneva inSwitzerland. The term "Reformed" is itself not ambiguous. Even the third andfourth generation reformers (and Puritans) used the term considering men like Calvinand Zwingli as prime examples of the Reformed Tradition of that time. FrancisTurretin uses this term quite extensively in his work on the "Calling of the FirstReformers." Thus, the term was easily acquainted with Protestantism during the 16thcentury as its foundation and root for definition.Reformation Theology should be primarily considered around a biblical zeal to reformthe church. To be Reformed is to continually look to aligning one's self or thechurch at large to the Bible and the teachings of Jesus Christ. Reforming does notmean, however, that we discard the fundamental doctrines of the "Reformed Faith" inorder to continue "reforming" our theology. It refers to defining theology moreclearly in the process of understanding the will of God. The opposite of this wouldbe to remove doctrines that sit as foundational to the Reformed perspective in orderto make new strides in understanding revelation. An example of this may be the NewCovenant Theology which is an extension of "Reformed Baptist" theology now madepopular over the internet. These Baptists believe they have come upon CovenantTheology in a light that remains Baptistic while at the same time clarifyingReformed Theology to understand the New Covenant in that new light. It is not myintention to refute this position at this point. However, in all their attempts atclarity, they are overthrowing the reality of Covenant Theology as the ReformedTradition has stated it and have repackaged Dispensationalism (again!). This is notsemper reformanda (always reforming) but a departure of Reformed Theology. We wouldnot throw away the doctrine of Christology to make room for a new "Jesus Ethic." Rather, we would further define what always exists in the basic formulae of ReformedTheology in this manner. As a result, our Christology would become more precise,not new. This is semper reformanda. Departing from Reformed orthodoxy is movinginto a new teaching or doctrine not aligned with the classic Reformed Tradition. Inother words, Calvin, Luther, Witsius and Owen would not agree with New CovenantTheology, and in their writings this is plain enough.What should we chose as basic principles of the Reformed Tradition? John H. Leithin his paper, "The Ethos of the Reformed Tradition," states 9 points that should beconsidered as primary and essential for those holding to the Reformed Tradition. They are very good starting points in the consideration of this topic. 1) TheMajesty and the Praise of God, 2) The Polemic Against Idolatry, 3) The Working Outof Divine Purposes of History, 4) Ethics: A life of Holiness, 5) The Life of theMind as the Service of God, 6) Preaching, 7) The organized Church and Pastoral Care,8) The Disciplined Life, 9) Simplicity. I would venture to say that most thinkingChristians would agree with all these points as thoroughly Biblical, and even thosethey hold themselves. They would then consider themselves as "Reformed." This is amistake. Until these ideas are defined and explained, there is room for Mormon,Jehovah's Witnesses, and other cults to claim this list as their banner of truth aswell. Thus, let's briefly look at each of these to gain a starting point for basicReformed Theology.First, the Majesty and Praise of God refers to the Creator of the Universe, Godthrough Jesus Christ, who desires all glory and honor form the creatures He hasmade. The glory of God is the chief end of man. It is even more important than thesalvation of a soul. God will have His glory from His creatures. Some glorify Himin hell, others in heaven, but all glorify Him. The ultimate and chief end of thecreation of the world was for His own glory. It was not because He was lonely, orneeded a friend to talk to. Such mindless drivel spreads like wildfire across thechurch today, and such drivel excludes those churches from ever holding forth thebiblical concept of God, and the banner of Reformed Orthodoxy. This primaryideology resonates with an emphasis on the Lordship of God over the entire world. (Rom. 11:36; 1 Cor. 10:31)Secondly, there was the valiant polemic against idolatry. The Reformed Traditiondoes not seek God in idols, bread, wine, golden calves, or images of Jesus. Itnever has. The classic Reformers were exceedingly careful to make their pointsknown in connection with idolatry in any form. It was sin, and an affront to themajesty of Christ. Idols deter men from the spiritual and direct them to thephysical. In their mind, there were those who worshipped the One, True and LivingGod, and then there were those who worshipped idols; whether those idols be cars,jobs, families, or images of God in the form of creatures. That is why theWestminster Confession of Faith (WCF) succinctly states that God is "a most purespirit, invisible, without body, parts, or passions." (Job 11:7-9; Job 26:14; Psa.139:6; John 4:24; 1 Tim. 1:17; John 1:18; Deut. 4:15-16; John 4:24 with Luke 24:39)Thirdly, God works out the divine purpose in and through the vehicle of history. Inthis is related the decrees of God and then the providence of God, and the manner inwhich the divine plan is worked out. Here we find Covenant Theology as a key aspectof the purposes of Redemption and salvation and God's Glory. Here, the outworkingof the divine plan meets with the means by which the Creator and Savior will redeemHis elect. Such working out of His plan is then seen within the spheres ofChristian activity in every area of the Christian's life. Every sphere in which helives and moves and has his being before God is a part of the divine outworking ofsalvation. The Calvinist, though, did not, and does not believe, that He changesthe will of God when he acts or prays. However, he does believe he is an ordainedpart of the decrees and providence of God within the interrelation of providence andcreation towards the redemption of men in the coming of the Savior. (Rom 11:36; ICor. 8:6; Heb. 1:2; John 1:2-3; Gen. 1:2; Job 33:4; Rom 1:20; Jer. 10:12; Psa. 33:5;104:24; Gen 1:1-31; Psa. 33:6; Heb. 11:3; Col. 1:16; Acts 17:24; Exod. 20:11; Neh.9:6; Psa. 145:14-16; Heb. 1:3; Dan. 4:34-35; Psa. 135:6; Acts 17:25-28; Job34:1-41:34; Matt. 6:26-32; 10:29-31; Prov. 15:3; I Chr. 16:9; Psa. 104:24; 145;17;Acts 15:18; Isa. 42:9; Ezek. 11:5; Eph. 1:11; Psa. 33:10-11; Isa. 63:14; Eph. 3:10;Rom. 917; Gen. 45:7; Psa. 145:7)Fourthly, a life of holiness was essential for a life ethic in the ReformedTradition. The Puritans alone penned more practical Christianity than any otherreligious group in the history of the Reformed Tradition (with the exception ofMartin Luther). The life of the Christian is the undeniable truth of Justificationby Faith alone (the pillar of the church) continued in a life of Sanctification andthe conforming of the Christian into the image of Jesus Christ. (Rom. 3:24;5:15-16; 8:30; Rom. 3:22-28; 4:5-8; 5:17-19; II Cor. 5:19, 21; Titus 3:5, 7; Eph.1:7; Jer. 23:6; I Cor. 1:30-31; John 1:12; 6:44-45, 65; Acts 10:43; 13:38-39; Phil.1:29; 3:9; Eph. 2:7-8; I Thess. 5:23-24; II Thess. 2:13-14; Ezek. 36:22-28; Titus3:5; Acts 20:32; Phil. 3:10; Rom. 6:5-6; John 17:17, 19; Eph. 5:26; Rom. 8:13-14; IIThess. 2:13; Rom. 6:6, 14; Gal. 5:24; Rom. 8:13; Col. 1:10-11; Eph. 3:16-19; II Cor.7:1; Col. 1:28, 4:12; Heb. 12:14)Fifthly, the life of the mind as the service of God plays an integral role in theReformed Tradition. There are three reasons the Reformers gave for quality servicebefore God in whatever area a man was called to: education, education, education. Reformers were men who exercised their minds in the pursuit of knowing Christ. Theological education is not enough. Most of the Puritans, and many of the earlyreformers were steeped in classical education (something which seems to be takinghold in today's Reformed Family for the first time in many years.) Learning is theChristian's duty. It is something that should always be sought after, andcontinually improved upon. It is the hallmark of Reformed writing. That is why thegreatest documents of the Christian church were formed in a catechistic manner. Think through the Westminster Confession, the Larger Catechism, the ShorterCatechism, Calvin's Geneva Catechism, Perkin's Fixed Principles of Religion, and thelike. Catechisms ruled the day to teach children, and men how to think throughdoctrine. Even Francis Turretin's 3-volume work on Systematics was written as aCatechism for men to lead their families in theological discourse. How will menever understand propositional truth if they cannot think?Where would you go to find the greatest revival in church history? The sixth pointplaces the emphasis on Reformed Preaching. This is the truth that was "screwed"into the mind of men, to borrow Richard Baxter's illustration. The ReformedPreacher is one who labored to understand the truth of the Word, and then to explainit in such a way as to edify saints and convert the sinner. Preaching itself was atthe heart of Reformed Orthodoxy. Calvin, for example, said he was a theologian inorder to be a good preacher. Do men think this way today? Are pastors firstscholars and then pastors? Or do they go to school for a time, train under basictheology and then go out to minister to the chosen people of God because they havethe gift of being friendly with people? Reformation Preaching was done by scholars- men who were pastors who knew Biblical theology, systematic theology, historicaltheology, biblical languages, and the like. How can someone be a good pastorwithout the use of the tools to be a pastor? The Belgic Confession in Article 31says, "We believe that the ministers of God's Word, the elders, and the deaconsought to be chosen to their respective offices by a lawful election by the Church,with calling upon the name of the Lord, and in that order which the Word of Godteaches. Therefore every one must take heed not to intrude himself by impropermeans, but is bound to wait till it shall please God to call him; that he may havetestimony of his calling, and be certain and assured that it is of the Lord." Thisrequired a time of proper education in order to train up a minister in the propermanner. This way they would have respected the "order in which the Word of Godteaches" for such things.Seventhly, the organized church and pastoral care were emphasized as essential inthe Reformed Tradition. No doubt, the church was an integral aspect of theologysince the Reformers were knee deep in fighting doctrinal battles inside and outsidethe church in "protesting" times. But a clear and concise definition of the churchis needed even today since, for the most part, churches have lost their identitywith Christ as a church as a result of losing their theology. The church has alwaysbeen defined within the context of a covenant family. Smaller covenant familiesmake up the larger covenant family of God. In seeing this, the Reformers dividedthe church into the invisible and visible church. The invisible were those who areelect from all ages, in heaven and on earth. The visible church is the covenantcommunity of covenanted families in the church. The WCF defines the invisiblechurch at length in this manner: "The catholic or universal church, which isinvisible, consists of the whole number of the elect, that have been, are, or shallbe gathered into one, under Christ the Head thereof; and is the spouse, the body,the fullness of him that filleth all in all." It also defines the visible church inthis manner: "The visible church, which is also catholic or universal under thegospel (not confined to one nation, as before under the law), consists of all thosethroughout the world that profess the true religion; and of their children: and isthe kingdom of the Lord Jesus Christ, the house and family of God, out of whichthere is no ordinary possibility of salvation." (Eph. 1:10, 22-23; 5:23, 27, 32;Col. 1:18; I Cor. 1:2; 12:12-13; Psa. 2:8; Rev. 7:9; Rom. 15:9-12; I Cor. 7:14; Acts2:39; Gen. 17:7-12; Ezek. 16:20-21; Rom. 11:16; see Gal. 3:7, 9, 14; Rom. 4:12, 16,24; Matt. 13:47; Isa. 9:7; Luke 1:32-33; Acts 2:30-36; Col. 1:13; Eph. 2:19; 3:15;Acts 2:47)Although the church received great attention theologically, so Pastoral Care, properpastoral care, was extensively explained. One of the best works written on the"Reformed Pastor" is the book entitled "The Reformed Pastor," by Richard Baxter. All pastors would do exceedingly well to read this book and implement the book (justreading it will not help!) The flock of Jesus Christ must be kept safe, not only inleading them down the path of holiness towards Christ, but also in guarding themagainst false teachers which prevailed in the time of the Reformers. That meanspastors must know their flocks well, for they oversee their souls and will give anaccount to God for all those they discipled as a minister.Eighthly, the disciplined life was essential to the Reformed Tradition. Personaldiscipline was a common trait of the reformers and puritans of the Reformation andcontinuing generations. What did that mean? Leith states, "Discipline, as theReformed Tradition has advocated it, can best be understood as the deliberate andeconomic use of the energies and vitalities of human existence in the pursuit ofloyalty to God ad the advancement of God's cause in the world." In essence, it isthe "good steward" before God. He is the one who uses all his resources as a meansto advance the kingdom of God's righteousness in the World. He does this bypractical Calvinism properly understood. Fervent prayer, a hearty devotional life,meditation on the Word, study of the Word, and regular church involvement all pushthe Christian to take heaven by storm.Ninthly, "simplicity" ends the list that Leith formulates as Reformed distinctives. This is the opposition of wastefulness all through the life of the Christian. Whatadvances the Kingdom of God? Should you buy a new DVD or a new theological book? Should you give the money to the poor, or give more of an offering at church nextSunday? The model of Reformation thought is surrounded by the actions ofsimplicity. Leith concludes this section by stating the following, "There is no onemodel of the Reformed Life-style or personality.yet, [these] have persistently andfrequently characterized the Reformed community." This is true. Calvin did notimpose a rigid "Calvin personality" on Luther, and neither did Luther do this toCalvin. However, the distinctives of Reformed Theology could be seen in both theirlives in varied extents, which should suffice the point at hand, at least in thisintroduction.Can you be Reformed and deny Reformed Orthodoxy? This is a daunting question to prove, but a simple one to answer. Inthe introduction we have looked at 9 aspects of classic reformedTheology. However, when the basics of Reformed Theology slowly drop offfrom systematic thought and are left behind, can we still call someoneReformed? If someone were to hold onto 1 of the 9 points articulatedabove, would they be Reformed? No. How about if they held to 5 of the9? Again, the answer is "No." What if they held to 8 of the 9? Finally, the answer is still a resounding "No." You cannot remove anessential aspect of a system of theology and call that system"complete." If one is going to follow the Biblical system of theologypenned by the Reformed and Puritans in consensus, then that is exactlywhat they must do. That does not mean that someone who holds 8 of the 9cannot call themselves "partly Reformed" or "holding to certain, but notall, of Reformed Orthodoxy." It does not even mean they cannot callthemselves "Reformed to some extent." However, it would be impossibleto reject the basics of Reformed Theology and still consider yourself asone who is "Reformed." Without agitating my Baptist brethren, I would like to use the term"Reformed Baptist" as it is coined today, as an example. The ReformedBaptist holds to a number of Reformed truths. This is undeniable. The1689 Baptist Confession of Faith, written by Particular Baptists of thattime, is a "reformed" confession in many areas since it was penned as adocument desiring to mimic the WCF, but remain baptistic. Though it didleave out some important doctrines (like a clear statement onreprobation, and Infant Baptism altogether (actually denying it)) anddid change a number of precise wordings, it still holds a number of"Reformed" truths that remain dear to every "Reformed Baptist's" heart. However, in the fact that a change occurred, such a change, or number ofchanges, should cause the reader to ask the question "What aspects ofReformed Theology did they change and why?" "What did they leave out ofthe complete system of Reformed Orthodoxy as fundamentally articled inthe WCF?" In all fairness, I am dumfounded as to the reason why The1689 Baptist Confession left out a clear and precise definition ofreprobation. This is inexcusable. I have many Baptist friends who feelthe same way. But let us ask for a moment, do "Reformed Baptists"believe in reprobation? Of course they do! (Although, possibly, somemore than others.) I have not met a Reformed Baptist who did notbelieve in reprobation in some form. However, in leaving out theimportant doctrine from their confession, it does raise my eyebrow inwhether they are agreeing with the classic statements of ReformedOrthodoxy found in the WCF. Can you be Reformed and not believe inReprobation? I answer - absolutely not. You cannot be "Reformed" andleave out central doctrines of the Reformed Faith. Why did they do thisthen? Samuel Waldron, a "Reformed Baptist", has a book comparing the 1689Confession to the WCF. He says, "The deletion of paragraph 7 of the WCFserves to weaken the testimony of the Baptist Confession to the doctrineof reprobation." (A Modern Exposition of the 1689 BCF, pages 72-73) True enough. So, we know Reformed Baptists believe in reprobation,although they changed their confession and almost deleted it entirelyfrom their statement of faith. This was a mistake Reformed Baptiststoday acknowledge. What do we do about their denial of another hallmarkof Reformed Theology - Infant Baptism? Here, The 1689 Confessionbecomes weaker on a central aspect of Reformed theology - infantinclusion in the covenant of grace. On Infant Baptism, the fulfillmentof circumcision and inclusion of infants in the covenant as seenthroughout all of the Old Testament (another aspect of classic ReformedTheology), the 1689 Baptist Confession denies completely. It states,"Those who do actually profess repentance towards God, faith in, andobedience to, our Lord Jesus Christ, are the only proper subjects ofthis ordinance [Baptism]." (Chapter 29) Waldron comments on thecleavage between Paedo-Baptists and Baptists. He desires to demonstratethe fundamental difference in Baptist responses to the argument forInfant Baptism. He says, "There is a non-reformed Baptist response." This he assigns to dispensationalists, Anabaptists and Mennonites. Hethen quotes David Kingdon, who wrote "Children of Abraham." He relieson Kingdon to some extent, and then answers the Paedo-Baptist byexplaining that "Reformed Baptists" do not believe that infants areincluded in the covenant in the New Testament. Though he admits thereis"continuity" between circumcision and baptism, he develops this verybriefly. He then makes three arguments against the Paedo-Baptistposition; one concerns New Testament and Old Testament identity, one isaround the logical consequence of the Lord's Supper for Paedo-Baptists,and the third is that the Paedo-Baptists is simply unable to explain theOld Testament teaching. Now in explaining what he means in all this, hesums up his ideas very concisely in this statement that reflects hisposition, "The Abrahamic covenant was a shadowy revelation of thecovenant of grace, but it is quite different from being in every sensethe covenant of grace." (Page 356.) From a classic Reformed Positionthis is absolute "hogwash." Very simply, in his conclusion andsummation with Abraham, he is denying the foundations of ReformedTheology. Let's say for a moment that he is biblically right (whichhistorical Reformed Theology denies), he has still abandoned ReformedTeaching at this juncture, and this is the point. One cannot believe inthe complete system of the Reformed Tradition while at the same timedenying it's essentials. Let's even back up one more step. If ReformedOrthodoxy as a whole includes Infant Baptism, and the Baptist deniesthis, then how could he possibly wave the banner of Reformed orthodoxyin this way? A better question is "why would he want to?" A critiqueof Waldron would be helpful in examining what I believe is a blatantdenial of Covenant Theology. However, the purpose of the paper is notto critique him, but simply place forth the idea of "what constitutesReformed Theology in its true sense?" "Reformed Baptist" then becomes acontradiction in terms if Baptists deny the witness of Reformed Theologythat includes infant inclusion in the covenant; something God commandsall through the Bible. (Gen. 15:1ff; 17:1ff; Isa. 40:13-17; Job 9:32-33;22:2-3; 35:7-8; Psa. 113:5-6; Luke 17:10; Acts 17:24-25; Gal. 3:21; Rom.3:20-21; 8:3; Gen. 3:15; see Isa. 42:6; John 3:16; Rom. 10:6, 9; Rev.22:17; Acts 13:48; Ezek. 36:26-27; John 6:37, 44-45; I Cor. 12:3; Acts2:41; 8:12-13; 16:14-15; Gen. 17:7-14; Gal. 3:9, 14; Col. 2:11-12; Acts2:38-39; Rom. 4:11-12; Matt. 19:13; 28:19; Mark 10:13-16; Luke18:15-17; I Cor. 7:14.) Does this mean everyone should have all their Reformed Theology straightor they deny Reformed Theology? No. What this does mean is that thosewho have not grappled with standard statements of Reformed theology, asexemplified in the WCF from beginning to end (for example), andacquiesce to the standards themselves when they do not understand adoctrine or have not thought through it, should consider themselves"Reformed." A member of a Presbyterian church who holds the standardsas their confession of faith and abides by that confession even thoughthey may not understand all of its intricacies should consider himselfor herself "nominally Reformed." But in denying any major point ofdoctrine in those standards calls the witness of Reformed Theology intoquestion for that person, or group of people. They give up beingReformed and become something else, whatever "else" may be.What is the crucial hallmark of Reformed Orthodoxy?Covenant Theology is the cornerstone of the redemptive witness of the manner inwhich God saves His people. It's a defining factor in the manner Reformed Theologyis laid out for men to understand the plan of redemption. The Bible is filled witha theology dominated by the Law Covenant, and its expressions through the OldTestament and the New Testament, and the Savior who redeems men by fulfilling thiscovenant and by dispensing that Law covenant in grace upon his people. From the OldTestament to the New Testament the idea of covenant is given prominence in theredemptive plan of God. No one in any orthodox camp denies this. The questionrelates to the extent of the association between the Old Testament and the NewTestament. If the classic Reformed position differs from, say, a dispensationalview, then it cannot be called Reformed.In examining this in brief, turning to a historical climax of Covenant Theologywould be helpful. How do we come to an "official" position of Reformed theology? This is the question at hand. We begin, first, by tracing its progression throughchurch history. William Klempa (The Concept of the Covenant, page 96), notes thatAugustine and Irenaeus are really the only two early fathers who utilized thecovenant to any extent in their writing. Thus, it is not surprising to see theReformers and Puritans heavily quoting Augustine (or Austin) in their writings. Irenaeus taught 4 covenants that God made with men: Adamic, Noahic, Mosaic and thecovenant under Jesus Christ. Gabriel Biel, in the 15th Century, made use of theidea of "covenant" to a relationship of justification. The progression continued inOecolampadius (1482-1531) where he argued for the reality of the eternal covenant(or Covenant of Redemption to be later termed), Wolfgang Capito (1478-1541) made useof the covenant all through his commentary work on the Bible, and then came UlrichZwingli who defended the covenant against the Anabaptists. With Heinrich Bullinger(1504-1575) the covenant concept began to take a more systematic shape and form. Bullinger defined God's covenant as follows "God, in making of leagues, as He dothin all things else, applieth himself to our capacities, and imitateth the orderwhich men use in making confederacies.and therefore, when God's mind was to declarethe favour and good-will that he bare to mankind.it pleased Him to make a league orcovenant with mankind." (Klempa, page 97). Calvin then picked up the reigns throughhis Institutes, which is smothered in these covenant concepts. Others wroteextensively on the covenants: Wolfgang Musculus (1497-1563), Martin Buceer(1491-1551), Peter Martyr (1499-1562), and Andrew Hyperius (1511-1564). In peakform the covenant concepts come out in the Heidelberg Catechism written by CasparOlevianus (1536-1587) and Zacharius Ursinus (1534-1583). Here we find therecognized principle of "really" a single covenant of grace running through all ofredemptive history. Expressions of that covenant appear in the Noahic, Mosaic, andso on. Even William Tyndale (1494-1536) utilized the interpretive principle of thecovenant as a hermeneutic for understanding all of Scripture. (See Klempa pages96-99 for more detail.)The covenant was defined by the Reformers, but expanded and detailed by thePuritans, and Dutch Theologians, of the time. Dudly Fenner, William Perkins, RobertRollock, John Preston, William Ames, John Owen, Samuel Rutherford and theWestminster Standards all portray a Paedo-Baptistic, covenantal, Federal Theology infine detail. However, in a cogent and detailed form, there is no better outline ofthis system of thought than in Coccejus' theological "pupil," Herman Witsius. Witsius' The Economy of the Covenants Between God and Man was the pinnacle work forboth Britain and America after its publication. Witsius' book should be considereda standard textbook for Reformed Theology - Covenantal Theology, which includedinfant inclusion in the New Testament covenant. In denying the basic tenants ofwhat inclusion of the covenant means, this then treads upon the meaning of thesacrament (not ordnance), ultimately proving a discontinuity (or "wall") between theOld Testament and New Testament to the extent that some form of dispensationalthought cannot be avoided. It is actually created, even unknowingly, by those whoreject the continued inclusion of infants in the covenant, or of Reformed CovenantalTheology.Covenant/Reformation Theology Teaches That Sacraments are designated in a Two-foldManner as Signs and Seals A unique variation or difference of the Reformed Tradition over and above any othersystem of doctrine is sacramental theology. The sacraments of the Lord's Supper andof Baptism stand out in a very different manner in Reformed Orthodoxy than they doin any other system of thought, be it Roman Catholic, Anabaptist, Baptist, or in theorder of Zwingli. (It may be important to note that in this area of doctrine,Zwingli seemed to have taken a rather lax view of the manner in which the sacramentsminister to us by faith, and the manner in which Christ ministers to His people inthat act of taking the bread and wine.) Having been exposed to variations intheological perspective over the last 16 years of my life, I have seen a greatdifference in the manner that each theological system differs with Reformed Theologyin the way that the sacraments are utilized, and taught in comparison to ReformedOrthodoxy. It is fair to say that many who hold the banner of the Reformed Faith donot believe the doctrine expounded by the Reformers on the sacraments. This is notonly true of those like the "Reformed Baptist" in denying infant inclusion in thesacrament of baptism, which all the Reformers and Puritans labored to expound, butof many reformed brethren in misunderstanding the Lord's Supper and its impact onthe believer.The sacraments are signs and seals of the promises of God working to build up ourfaith. As Calvin asserts, they "are like seals of good will that He feels towardsus, which by attesting that good will to us, sustain, nourish, confirm, andincreases our faith." (Institutes 4.14.7) This does not mean that the sacramentsare magic. But at the same time they are not magic, they are a ministeringsacrament of grace to the believer. G. C. Berkouwer states this succinctly, "They[the sacraments] cannot be detached from the power of God and from the working ofthe Spirit, who convinces us in the sacrament. The administration of the sacramentdoes not fulfill its function with regard to our salvation unless the Spirit asteacher sends his power, the Spirit "by whose power alone our hearts are penetratedand affections moved and our souls opened for the sacraments to enter in"(Institutes 4.14.9)." (Berkouwer, The Sacraments as Signs and Seals, Article). Itis not enough to say that we must sit in the pew and meditate on what the Lord hasdone for us. There must be a real and powerful working of the Spirit of God in andthrough the sacrament to us as we partake by faith. We cannot muster up enoughgrace ourselves to "make the sacrament effectual to ourselves" in strengthening ouralready tainted understanding of God's grace to us. This, then makes thesacraments a useful help to the Christian in that they signify and seal grace to us,and are not, as Zwingli would have us believe, simply a memorial and nothing more ofoutward externalities. Thus, the focus is on God's power to signify and to seal inthe sacraments to those partaking of the supper or of baptism.Yet, many would then reject the Reformed position on the sacraments because it isprimarily an act of God, and not an act of the person that makes this effectual,especially within the realm of Infant Baptism. For example, "Reformed Baptists"believe that infant inclusion in the New Covenant is a fallacy. They would notadminister the sign and seal of the righteousness of faith to any but those who, byprofession, believe in the work wrought of Christ for them. However, this position,from a Reformed perspective, is fallacious, since, it is the very nature of thesacrament to those in the covenant that makes the weightiness of the act in tunewith the seriousness of sin in rejecting the truth of the act. For instance, Esauwas circumcised on the 8th day, along with Jacob. Circumcision is a sign and sealof regeneration (Deuteronomy 10:16; Jeremiah 4:4). A question would be posed, "DidIsaac believe his two children were now in the covenant when he circumcised them?" The answer to this a resounding "Yes." If Isaac then circumcised Esau, and Esauthen later rejects his birthright and loses his blessing, though he sought it withtears, and if he counts the covenant as an unholy thing, does this make his sin allthe more aggravated based on the manner in which the covenant is administered? Theanswer is another resounding "Yes." It is the sign and sealing of the promises ofGod upon a person that makes both baptism and the Lord's Supper such an "ordeal" inthis manner. It is bound in blessing or judgment. Those partaking of thesacraments, whether baptism or the Lord's Supper, are confronted with the realitythat they are signs and seals, and as Berkouwer states, "precisely therein lies thebasis of the serious sin of misusing the sacraments." Turretin also commends this view, as the Reformed view, in speaking of thesesacraments as "signs and seals" in this same manner, which he believes is followingPaul in Romans 4:11. He says they are "elements instituted by God in order tosignify and seal grace; this is the grace of God in Christ, or Christ with all hisbenefits. (Institutes, Volume 3, Page 339.) They are "instrumental" in theministry of the efficient cause of their power, which is God. They are not onlysigns, or badges of profession for the visible church, but they go deeper than that,as Turretin asserts correctly. They are signs of the covenant in the ratificationof the promises made on both sides, on the part of God and the part of men. Helikens the sealing of the sacrament to the visible and external preaching of theword as well. For instance, when the sign and seal of the sacrament is taken in theLord's Supper by a hypocrite, it then does not negate the power or efficacy of thepromises contained in the sacrament. This does not mean the power and efficacy istransferred to a person (that is Romanism) but the reality of it, for those whowould take it by faith, still exists in its objectivity. The Lord's Supper andBaptism are not subjective sacraments in their power. They are objective means. Turretin likens them to the ministry of the Word; some do not convert, or are notconverted, by the message of the Gospel and that does not infer that the Word of Godis preached in vain. It always accomplishes its purposes - a savor of death tosome, and life to others. In the same manner the sacraments are filled with thepower of judgment for those who partake of them in a manner that is not worthy ofthe glory of God and the ratification of the covenant promises - those such as Esau,and the reprobate Israelites. Should, then, the sacraments not be given to thosewho cannot, of their own accord believe - as in the case of infant? Not at all,says Turretin. Baptism should be administered as God commands, which, withinReformed Orthodoxy, would be to infants of believers as well as those who professfaith in Christ. The reality of the ratification of the covenant will be seenlater; whether in judgment or blessing - the terms of covenant promises. Thus, itcan be easily seen in short here that the Reformed take a far different view of thesacraments and their implementation that other theological formulations.The sacraments involve more than a cognitive aspect which men like Zwingli assignedto the Lord's Supper, though he was quite different in his approach to baptism as aresult of Infant Baptism. Infants are unable to cognitively deal with the truthssurround baptism. Does this exclude them from the practice? To understand this, weturn for a moment to see the Reformed idea of the sacrament as a seal, rather thansimply a sign signifying something (which is often the one-sided baptisticposition). Both are important, and both are always present in the administration ofthe sacrament, thus, we must be exceedingly careful not to separate the sign fromthe seal. We may speak of each, and explain each, but both are vital and necessaryto a Reformed position. Even when unbelievers partake of the sacrament, both thesign and seal of the sacrament are initiated by God's promise in the sacrament. Careful now. Do not misunderstand this. There is no magic, again, in thesacrament. But unbelievers, as unbelievers (like Gospel hypocrites who arebaptized) have the sign of the promise of God on them in the promise of judgmentsince they partake in a manner unworthy of the sacrament. They are confronted,again, with the use of the sacrament - for blessing or curse. Baptism or the Lord'sSupper can never be emptied of their power in one manner or another. Men, evengospel hypocrites, are faced with the sign and seal of the Triune God placed uponthem. Will their fruitfulness in it be of eternal life or eternal death? What thendoes baptism seal? Berkouwer states this well, "One can say unhesitatingly thatbaptism is the sign and seal of the promise of God and at the same time thatbelievers are sealed for the day of redemption in their belief, which rests on thispromise." (Page 229)Is the power of God seen in preaching? Of course. Is the power of God seen in thesacraments? Of course. Is this all a matter of God's own work, or is baptism andthe Lord's Supper something we do? Is it just a memorial that we feed on by simplystirring up and exciting our own ideas about what Christ has done for us, as mostReformed Baptist churches believe, or is there something more? Geoffrey Bromiley,in his article "The meaning and Scope of Baptism," explains it this way, "we areforced to conclude that baptism is primarily a sign or seal of God's own work. Saying this, however, is simply another way of saying that it is a sign or seal ofthe covenant and its fulfillment in Jesus Christ. God's reconciling andregenerating work constitutes the fulfillment of the promise that lies at the heartof the covenant and of all God's dealings with his covenant people." The sign andseal of Baptism or the Lord's Supper, then, is effective in and through the work ofChrist upon the soul. Though the power of God is seen in the sacrament, it does notmean that He will always make the promises of the sacrament come to fruition in themanner in which is, to us, positive. We see the "positive nature" of the sacramentsin the acts surrounding and concerning salvation - but this may not necessarily bethe case. This seems to demystify the sacraments altogether, and this, in fact,seemed to be the causes of Zwingli's own abandonment of what is considered "theReformed View" of the sacraments today.It is not the scope of this article to fully exhaust the doctrines surrounding"signs and seals." However, I did mention what has been said due to the need toclarify ideas surrounding "Reformed" doctrine, or those who claim to be Reformed. In summing up the idea that the "Reformed," in sacramental theology, are thosefaithful to the Reformers and the Biblical data they propagated, I turn to BrianGerrish and his article "The Lord's Supper in the Reformed Confessions," for asummary statement. In that article he surveys the Reformed Confessions to arrive ata consensus of the material on the Lord's Supper. He survey's Reformed theologiansand their ideas concerning the Lord's Supper and gives this correct statement, "Theconclusion of this survey of the Reformed confessions is plain. The judgment thatCalvin's eucharistic teaching "must be regarded as the orthodox Reformed doctrine"oversimplifies the evidence." There are certain lines we are able to draw when wedeal with Reformed Theology. When we dig through the evidence, we know what isReformed and what is not by a survey of the history of Reformed Theology. Whendealing with the theology of the Reformers, there are certain aspects that come tothe forefront in determining whether a doctrine has come from the Reformed, or froma deviant source. We should be exceedingly careful when we begin propagating"Reformed" doctrine without knowing what Reformed doctrine is all about. The Lord'sSupper and Baptism as signs and seals is a hallmark of the Reformed faith. Withoutholding the banner on both of these, we could not call ourselves "Reformed" but onthe road to that destination.Where Do We Experience Reformed Theology Today? Reformed orthodoxy can be found in many non-reformed churches today. There are many "Sovereign Grace" Baptist churches that believe in thedoctrines surrounding the Synod of Dordt and the 5 points exemplifyingGod's grace. Though they deny a Reformed liturgical Worship, they stillhold the major doctrines on conversion. Though they deny InfantBaptism, and the sealing of the Lord's Supper, they do believe inprogressive sanctification and the need for full assurance. We couldcall them "reforming" but not "Reformed." Some churches denyconfessionalism (the use of confessions). They believe the Bible, andthe Bible alone, should stand as the churches "official" confession. However, this seems to be stretching things a bit too far, for themoment they begin "defining" what they believe, whether they unanimouslyagree in a church meeting, or write it down, they are still confessingsomething universally agreed to by their congregation and church bodies. These churches may be filled with all sorts of Reformation truths, butstill deny many of the major tenants of Reformed Orthodoxy, includingconfessionalism. There are many Reformed Presbyterian churches who areslowly disregarding the confessionalism of their forefathers. The titleof "Reformed" for them should be stripped away. They are, in a sense,"de-reforming," if there ever was such a thing. In all actuality, thosewho were once on the road of Reformation, and then deny that traditionshould be better deemed backsliders, or apostate, depending on how farthey have gone, than anything else. Some "Reformed Baptist" churchesare more "Reformed" in their zeal for personal holiness than many of thehistorical Reformed denominations. How then, with such a miss-mash ofvaried experiences of Reformed theology can we determine whether or nota church is Reformed? Where do we experience the heart and soul ofReformed Theology? Certainly there are faithful preachers and theologians today that preachand teach Reformed doctrines. Many Seminaries still hold the banner oforthodoxy and are careful to train up young men in a curriculumenveloping all the major tenants of the faith in this manner. Many bookpublishing companies are veering back to reprint and republish many ofthe Reformed and Puritan works. They are making these more availabletoday and more people are buying these books - which is exciting to see! But how could we substantiate what is Reformed and what is not? Ithink our historical journey and brief theological discussion abovegives us a concise inquiry into who was reformed, or consideredreformed, and some of the deviation of what it means to be reformed, aswell as some foundational material concerning Covenant Theology. Allthis does help us come to a decision on what it means to be Reformed. However, it may be finally helpful to turn to the "Reformers" likeCalvin, and mimic their position on doctrine and conformity to the Bibleto determine how we should conclude our survey at who may be deemedReformed today. John Calvin's pamphlet, "The Necessity of Reforming the Church"(published by Protestant Heritage Press, 1995) may be a good plum lineto determine what necessitates that which is Reformed. In his day, hewrote concerning what Protestants saw as deviant in relation to God'sWord, for the further purification of the church at large. What did hethink were the needs? Calvin says, "We maintain, then, that at thecommencement when God raised up Luther and others, who held forth atorch to light us into the way of salvation, and who, by their ministry,founded and reared our churches those heads of doctrine in which thetruth of our religion, those in which the pure and legitimate worship ofGod, and those in which the salvation of men are comprehended, were in agreat measure obsolete. We maintain that the use of the sacraments wasin many ways vitiated and polluted. And we maintain that the governmentof the church was converted into a species of foul and insufferabletyranny." (Page 13) Calvin states that the truths of religion, themain heads of doctrine that Luther, and other Reformers, desired tochange back to conformity with the Bible, were pure worship, the Gospelor salvation, the right use of sacraments, and the government of thechurch (or church discipline). Some may disagree with these importantpoints, but that is immaterial. The Reformers, or the Reformed ingeneral, do not disagree. This was the heart of the Reformation. Calvin understood that there were those who may not agree with him, andin the very next sentence states the following, "But, perhaps theseaverments have not force enough to move certain individuals until theyare better explained." This is true. Unless these doctrines arecarefully expounded, those claiming the "Reformed" banner will alwaysdisagree concerning the extent of these important hallmark doctrines. Calvin then summed up these important truths by asserting the following,"If it be inquired, then, by what things chiefly the Christian religionhas a standing existence amongst us, and maintains its truth, it will befound that the following two not only occupy the principal place, butcomprehend under them all the other parts, and consequently the wholesubstance of Christianity: that is, a knowledge, first, of the mode inwhich God is duly worshipped; and, secondly, of the source from whichsalvation is to be obtained. When these are kept out of view, though wemay glory in the name of Christians, our profession is empty and vain." Worship and salvation occupy the cornerstone of the faith; worshipincludes the sacraments, and salvation includes the manner ofconversion. Those who deny the chief aspects of Christian religion,have a profession that is empty and vain. Calvin then expounded what the Puritans mastered in demonstrating theneed to reform the church - namely, the Regulative Principle. Calvinsaid that "fictitious worship" is to be rejected. He says, "I know howdifficult it is to persuade the world that God disapproves of all modesof worship not expressly sanctioned by his word. The opposite persuasionwhich cleaves to them, being seated, as it were, in their very bones andmarrow, is, that whatever they do has in itself a sufficient sanction,provided it exhibits some kind of zeal for the honor of God. But sinceGod not only regards as fruitless, but also plainly abominates, whateverwe undertake from zeal to his worship, if at variance with his command,what do we gain by a contrary course? The words of God are clear anddistinct, "Obedience is better than sacrifice." "In vain do they worshipme, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men," (1 Sam. 15:22;Matt. 15:9). Every addition to his word, especially in this matter, is alie. Mere "will worship" (ethelothreeskeia) is vanity. This is thedecision, and when once the judge has decided, it is no longer time todebate." Thus, unless God has changed Old Testament worship, or hasgiven us new instructions for worship, fictitious worship is somethingto be rejected, and of the devil. It draws people away from God ratherthan near to Him. Every institution of God through the Bible, unlesseradicated by the fulfillment in Christ, is to be gleaned for its meatfor worship. Both Leviticus 10:3 and Matthew 15:9ff both teach us thatthe Regulative Principle stands firm. Secondly, after a correct form of worship, we come to the manner ofsalvation. Calvin states, "We come now to what we have set down as thesecond principal branch of Christian doctrine: that is, knowledge of thesource from which salvation is to be obtained." He breaks this downinto three sections: individual wretchedness, the animation of therenewed man, and then "From this stage also he must rise to the third,when instructed in the grace of Christ, and in the fruits of his deathand resurrection, he rests in him with firm and solid confidence,feeling assured that Christ is so completely his own, that he possessesin him righteousness and life." In asserting these two important areas, Calvin then further breaks downthe manner in which these take place. For instance, in salvation heconfirms regeneration, justification by faith, and the doctrine ofassurance. Within the realm of worship, he defines a rightadministration of the Lord's Supper and baptism, and the abusessurrounding the ecclesiastical hierarchy of the church. All of theseCalvin saw as of enormous importance. Though he formidably foughtagainst the Roman Catholic abuses of these important and foundationaldoctrines, the point here to be taken is that these were thefoundational and important doctrines of the Christian faith. Without aright administration of the sacraments, without a right administrationof the Gospel, without a right propagation of church discipline, achurch gave up its "Reformed" status and became something "other." Nodoubt, what is given above is a very brief summation, or summary point,of what Calvin argued. He certainly went after simony, clerical abuse,the mass, purified worship, the fruit of doctrine, church discipline,meritorious works, Christ as Mediator and a host of other importantareas of contention for the Reformation.ConclusionIt should be agreed that being "Reformed" meant something to Luther, Calvin andtheir predecessors. It is not something we are allowed to take in "part" in thename of "reforming." We must admit that asking Calvin whether or not an abuse ofthe Lord's Supper is acceptable would be answered by a biblical ferocity. We couldnot agree that Calvin would accept an abuse of the sign and seal of baptism - hewrote extensively against its abuse in 4.16 of his Institutes. We could not agreethat Calvin would allow simony in the church. Such aberrations of Reformeddoctrines fired up the pen of this classic Reformed theologian and pastor. I couldnot, in good conscience, call myself Reformed or claim the Reformed faith if Isimply believed 1/10th of what the Reformation taught. Also, I could not, in goodconscience call myself Reformed or claim the Reformed faith if I simply believed9/10ths of what the Reformation taught, and rejected the other 1/10th out rightly. I must, of necessity, embrace Reformation doctrine to claim the Reformed banner. Inlike manner I cannot believe 4 points of the 5 points of Calvinism and call myself aCalvinist. Those who believe the doctrines of grace know this little ploy used toowell by confused Arminians who say such things. But the orthodox know they arewrong; at the very least they are extremely confused. It is much the same with thedoctrines of the Reformation. You cannot reject Reformed worship, thosefoundational guidelines within the orthodox realm of Reformed doctrine, and say youare Reformed. You cannot discard church discipline and say you are Reformed. Youcannot reject aspects of Covenant Theology and call yourself Reformed. You cannotmisuse the sacraments, or deny them, and call yourself Reformed. Holding to certainbiblical ideologies determines whether one is Reformed or not. In all of this, youmust ask yourself, are you really Reformed?

El Redentor

martes, 18 de marzo de 2008

Jesus Say it!!

No hay comentarios.:

John Knox

John Calvin

Mi amada esposa Josephine y mi querido hijo Andres recien nacido

Guillermo Martinez

En Community group

Es una miniatura

Es un Milagro!

Mi esposa y mi hijo Andres Guillermo

Guillermo y Pancho

Archivo del Blog

John Calvin

What does it mean to be Reformed: Really?