What does it mean to be Reformed?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel
You know you're reformed when...

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

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

[Edited on 7-21-2005 by webmaster]
 
1) Forensic Justification by faith alone
2) Confessional
3) The Pope is The Antichrist
4) That scripture is the infallible rule of faith
5) That faith is a gift of God
6) That the church is the pillar and ground of faith
7) The Substitutionary Atonement of Christ
8) That every man is sinful and in need of the Savior
9) And a few others as well

Blessings.
Tallen
 
Originally posted by webmaster
How long will the primer be? :book2:
Click to expand...

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

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

Blessings.
Tallen
Click to expand...

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

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

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

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

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


[Edited on 7-23-2005 by VirginiaHuguenot]
 
While I acknowledge that it has been a very widespread view in historic Reformed Christendom, but not universal, even in the confessional standards. As far as I can tell, the Second Helvetic Confession, the 1560 Scots Confession do not make that assertion, and even the Belgic Confession is less than explicit.

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

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

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

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

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

That brings us to the present book. It is a partial translation of Francis Turretin's Concerning Our Necessary Secession from the Church of Rome and the Impossibility of Cooperation with Her, published about 1661. Francois Turrettini (1623-1687) was one of the most able defenders of Dortian Orthodoxy, better known among Lutherans as "Five-point Calvinism" or "Tulip Theology." His most important work, Institutio theolgiae elencticae (Three parts, Geneva, 1679-1685), has recently appeared in English translation as Institutes of Elenctic Theology. Now another of his significant doctrinal treatises has appeared. Whether It Can Be Proven the Pope of Rome is the Antichrist is a biblical/ systematic treatment that affirms that the pope is the Antichrist.

Turretin assembles a bevy of scriptural, philosophical, and social arguments to support his contention. Some arguments will sound familiar to Lutheran ears, for example, that the "pope rules as God in the place of God" as testified to in the Scripture. Further, Turretin notes that apostasy is a key trait and that the pope's adversarial nature opposes Christ. Other arguments are more derivative/historical in nature. For example, Turretin finds evidence for the pope's character as the Antichrist in the "common opinion of Protestants." Here he cites the more significant Reformed Confessions (the Helvetic, Belgic, Scottish, and Anglican, among others), as well as the Augsburg Confession and the Magdeburg Centuries from the Lutheran tradition.

Turretin brings all together to bolster his conclusion that separation from the Church of Rome is a confessional necessity. "Having been persuaded that the pope is the Antichrist, and since truly it is clear from the words of Scripture that this be so, we must conclude that our secession from his communion, is consummately necessary and that it is quite impossible that there be a reconciliation between us, if things so remain as they are" (113).
Click to expand...

Francis Turretin himself:

It is the Common Opinion of Protestants [that] the Pope is the Antichrist

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

"Since the Roman Bishop sets himself up as monarch of the worldwide Christian Church, appropriating to himself the supremacy over all churches and pastors, and because his insolence and pride are such that he calls himself God (Can. satis. Dist.96. L.1. Sacr. Caerem. cap. de Bened. ensis); and that he wishes to be worshipped (the Lateran Council, last session, 1.iii.9,10); and that he apportions all power to himself in heaven and earth; and that he disposes of all ecclesiastical matters without restraint, as he wills; and that he establishes the articles of faith as he wills; and that the authority of Scripture is subservient to his authority; and that their interpretation is his to give without restraint, as he wills; and that he exercises the traffic of souls; and that he releases as free, men bound by vows and oaths; and that he institutes new cults in the worship of God; and that pertaining to civil matters, he tramples the legitimate authority of magistrates by giving, taking and transferring kingdoms - we believe and assert that he is the true and real Antichrist, the son of perdition (II Thess. 2:3), foretold in the word of God (Zach. 11:16-17; 1 John 4:3; Rev. 13:11), the Whore clad in purple (Rev. 17:1), sitting on seven hills in the great city (Rev. 17:9), firmly holding authority over the rulers of the earth (Rev. 17:18), and we wait expectantly for God, when according to his promise (which has already begun), finally destroys him, broken and conquered by the Breath of his mouth and by the glory of his coming (II Thess. 2:8)."

One cannot pass from here without mentioning the Augustan Confession, for instance, the fact that it ascribes the marks and signs of Antichrist to the Pope, especially due to his abusiveness (1, 2, 3, 5, 7); that the apology of his confession, offered to the Emperor in the same Augustan councils by the common name of 'confessions,' clearly professes that the Pope is the Antichrist in the sections, On the Church (p. 149), Concerning the Marriage of Priests (pp. 240-41), and Concerning Human Traditions (pp. 208-9), as Nicholas Hunnius offered as firm proof in his censured rebuttal (Jesuit. Cap. 3). Bellarmine acknowledges the consensus of all Protestants in this opinion (book 3, Of the Roman Pontiff, cap. 1). "All heretics of this era teach similar things, especially Luther, The Magdeburg Centuries, Illyricus, Musculus, Beza, Bullinger," etc.
Click to expand...


[Edited on 7-23-2005 by VirginiaHuguenot]
 
Do you at least agree, however, that the doctrine of the Pope as the Antichrist does not belong on a short list of fundamental Reformed doctrines alongside such doctrines as Sola Fide, Confessionalism, Sola Scriptura, the monergistic nature of faith, the authority of the Church, the atonement and original sin? Mind you, I am not against the position that the Papacy is the Antichrist, as I have not exegetically studied it yet; I am only "making a big deal" out of this because this thread seems to be a thread setting out to define the "fundamentals" of the Reformed faith, and because the doctrine of the Papal Antichrist was placed right in the middle of a very brief list of such foundational doctrines.
 
My personal position is that the Westminster Confession of 1646 summarizes what it is we as Reformed Christians are to believe. I recognize that some doctrines are more essential than others. If one is going to provide a "short list" I probably would not include that point. However, in the 17th century (a less pluralistic age) when the religious choices were: Reformed Protestant, Romanism, Anabaptistic (not counting Islam, etc.), I can see why the Reformers made such a big deal about why they felt the need to separate from the Roman Antichrist and to identify him as such. If the Pope was not Antichrist, and Rome was not a synagogue of Satan, Protestantism was wrong to separate. In my view, the church today has lost her moorings somewhat by failing to understand what she Reformed from and why separation and protest were so important. In short, to answer your question, as I said, I would probably not include this point on a short list, but it's in the Confession, and I stick by the Confession. The Westminster Assembly thought it was important enough to mention in its Confession of Faith, although it was non-controversial in the Protestant world at the time. The WCF, btw, was the first confession to affirm a six-day literal creation, although this is a cardinal doctrine of the faith. It does beg the question of what it means to be Reformed, though. Is it the gospel, or the Five Points of Calvinism, or a list of fundamentals, or is it systematic theology of the Bible? If the latter, this doctrine is a key component of Westminster-Puritan-Reformed-Protestant theology.


[Edited on 7-23-2005 by VirginiaHuguenot]
 
Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia
Andrew, does the PRC confess all of the WCF? Including the portions exluded by most American branches of the Presbyterian church?
Click to expand...

Yes, the Presbyterian Reformed Church holds to the entire 1646 Westminster Confession without any exceptions.
 
Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia
Could you explain the part about the government holding Church councils, etc.?
Click to expand...

Do you mean this?

WCF, Chap. 23.3:

III. The civil magistrate may not assume to himself the administration of the Word and sacraments, or the power of the keys of the kingdom of heaven: (e) yet he hath authority, and it is his duty, to take order, that unity and peace be. preserved in the Church, that the truth of God be kept pure and entire; that all blasphemies and heresies be suppressed; all corruptions and abuses in worship and discipline prevented or reformed; and all the ordinances of God duly settled, administrated, and observed.(f) For the better effecting whereof, he hath power to call synods, to be present at them, and to provide that whatsoever is transacted in them be according to the mind of God.(g)

(e) II Chron. 26:18 with Matt. 18:17 and Matt. 16:19; I Cor. 12:28, 29; Eph. 4:11, 12; I Cor. 4:1, 2; Rom. 10:15; Heb. 5:4.
(f) Isa. 49:23; Ps. 122:9; Ezra 7:23, 25, 26, 27, 28; Lev. 24:16; Deut. 13:5, 6, 12; I Kings 18:4; I Chron. 13:1 to 9; II Kings 23:1 to 26; II Chron. 34:33; II Chron. 15:12, 13.
(g) II Chron. 19:8, 9, 10, 11; II Chron. 29 and 30; Matt. 2:4, 5.
Click to expand...

Or this?

WCF, Chap. 31:

II. As magistrates may lawfully call a synod of ministers, and other fit persons, to consult and advise with, about matters of religion;(b) so, if magistrates be open enemies to the Church, the ministers of Christ of themselves, by virtue of their office, or they, with other fit persons upon delegation from their Churches, may meet together in such assemblies.(c)

(b) Isa. 49:23; I Tim. 2:1, 2; II Chron. 19:8, 9, 10, 11; II Chron. 29, 30 chaps.; Matt. 2:4, 5; Prov. 11:14.
(c) Acts 15:2, 4, 22, 23, 25.
Click to expand...

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

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

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

1. Matt. 6:10
2. Eph. 2:2-3
3. Psa. 67:1, 18; Rev. 12:10-11
4. II Thess. 3:1
5. Rom. 10:1
6. John 17:9, 20; Rom. 11:25-26; Psa. ch. 67
7. Matt. 9:38; II Thess. 3:1
8. Mal. 1:11; Zeph. 3:9
9. I Tim. 2:1-2
10. Acts 4:29-30; Eph. 6:18-20; Rom. 15:29-30, 32; II Thess. 1:11; 2:16-17
11. Eph. 3:14-20
12. Rev. 22:20
13. Isa. 64:1-2; Rev. 4:8-11
Click to expand...
 
Originally posted by Me Died Blue
While I acknowledge that it has been a very widespread view in historic Reformed Christendom, but not universal, even in the confessional standards. As far as I can tell, the Second Helvetic Confession, the 1560 Scots Confession do not make that assertion, and even the Belgic Confession is less than explicit.

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

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

Andrew made a good point in that one wouldn't make this an essential article of faith.
 
How can you say that belief in the Pope being the Antichrist is an essential element of being Reformed, when not even all of the historic Reformed confessional standards claim that? That frankly seems rather arbitrary to include.
Click to expand...

Virtually all of the Reformed Confessions either implicitly state such or it is implied. The Anglican, Lutheran, Calvinist, Baptist, Wesleyan and Puritan creeds, confessions, literature and bible marginal notes all state such. That was a universal claim of the Reformers.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

ChristopherPaul
  • Locked
What Does "Glory" Mean?
Replies
3
Views
18K
Scott
Scott
OPC'n
  • Locked
What Does this verse mean?
Replies
4
Views
2K
Pilgrim's Progeny
P
OPC'n
  • Locked
What does this verse mean?
Replies
13
Views
2K
CharlieJ
CharlieJ
Polanus1561
What is a rich one-sentence answer to the question: What does it mean that God is love?
Replies
3
Views
506
davejonescue
davejonescue
Unoriginalname
  • Locked
What does it mean to proceed?
Replies
4
Views
4K
au5t1n
A
Back
Top