OK, so you guys want to know why I believe what I post is consistent with Reformed theology. Why do I say that I'm blogging from a Reformed perspective and yet I usually only blog about politics? What does the Iraq war funding bill have to do with Reformed theology? Or gun rights?Or politics in general?
Well, before I can answer those question, you have to understand what Reformed theology is because without that background, you won't understand my reasoning (goes without saying, I would think). So, I decided to give you a quick primer in Reformed theology, just enough to introduce the terms and concepts. The reason I didn't make this fuller is the impatience of the commenters who continue to demand an accounting of my position on almost every post and my fear that if I wrote a more thorough accounting, it wouldn't be read. I'd rather put my time to more useful endeavors. Plus, why reinvent the wheel? If you really want to know more, there are tons of places you can go to read more indepth articles for each of these doctrines. I recommend Monergism.com, they have links to articles covering just about any theological issue you would be interested in. I also recommend Putting the Amazing Back into Grace by Michael Horton. It is one of the best introductions to Reformed theology that I have read.
Reformed theology isn't just about soteriology (the doctrine of salvation). Some who say they are Reformed do so because they believe that the TULIP is biblical but do not subscribe to the rest of the doctrines found in the Westminster Confession of Faith or the other Reformed confessions and catechisms. What is the TULIP? It is an acronym for the doctrines that the Synod of Dort used to refute the five articles of the Remonstrants:
Total Depravity - man was created good but fell in the Garden because of his disobedience. He is now in a state of condemnation and will remain in that state until he turns back to God in obedience. But man is unable to do so because of his fallen nature. He's in rebellion to God and doesn't want to be obedient. Without the intervention of God, man will never turn to God, he does not want to.
Unconditional Election - It is God who chooses who will be saved. He is well within his right as Creator to select those to whom he will be merciful. He does not owe us salvation; each of us will receive what we deserve which is justice. There is no condition that the person has met to merit salvation, election is unconditional. God does not base his election on anything good that the person has done.
Limited Atonement - Christ died for the sins of his people alone. Just as the yearly atonement offering was limited to Israel under the old covenant, Christ's atonement is limited to those who are united with him in his death.
Irresistible Grace - It is God's will to save a people for himself and since he is the Creator, he can accomplish what he wills. He will bring to salvation every single person that he chooses because they cannot resist his will.
Perseverance of the Saints - God will ensure that all of his people will be saved. None will fall away but will be kept until the day of judgment.
I didn't bother with proof texts because I believe that the entire Bible clearly teaches these doctrines and so proof text are really not necessary. But for those of you who are used to a more atomistic view of Scripture, read Romans. These doctrines are clearly taught there.
As I mentioned, Reformed theology isn't just limited to soteriology but encompasses more aspects of God's revelation to man including:
Creation - God created man in his image and to be his vice-regent in his place. We are to have dominion over creation and bear the responsibility for it. This is the creation mandate.
The Fall - Adam was the representative of mankind and in him we all fell. Adam was the only person born with the ability to choose between good and evil, obedience and disobedience. The rest of mankind is born into sin and lacks the ability to choose to be obedient.
Covenants - this is actually a complicated and controversial subject, so I'm going to punt and quote the Confession:
WCF 7.1 The distance between God and the creature is so great, that although reasonable creatures do owe obedience unto Him as their Creator, yet they could never have any fruition of Him as their blessedness and reward, but by some voluntary condescension on God's part, which He hath been pleased to express by way of covenant.The Confession goes on to talk about what the covenant looks like. You can read it here.
Union with Christ - we believe that union with Christ is central to the doctrine of salvation, that it is through our union with Christ that we die with him, are raised with him in newness of life (Romans 6), ascended with him to heaven and are seated on the right hand of God the Father.
The threefold office of Christ: we believe that Jesus came as prophet, priest and king. As prophet, his word is the final word of God, he is the final revelation (Hebrews 1). As priest, he is the sacrifice and the one making the sacrifice for our sin. As king, he is to rule nations with a rod of iron but his kingdom is the church - his kingdom is not of this world.
I could talk about other distinctives like our view of communion, baptism, the nature of God, the nature of man, other aspects of salvation, election (when did election take place before the fall or after, this is another area of controversy in Reformed circles), recreation, etc. but I don't want to keep the commenters waiting any longer. So, here is the basic background on Reformed theology, just enough so that I can reference these terms and you'll have some vague idea what I'm talking about.
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Subscribe
Thanks, Moonshadow. I will add Wills book on the Rosary to my list, along with his new book, "What the Gospels Meant." What I also like about Wills is his insistence that the religious liberals of the Jesus Seminar, for instance, are in their own way just as "literalistic" as conservative biblical literalists. Wills is also very tough on Thomas Jefferson's version of the Gospels.
He says if you cut out all the signs and miracles that Jesus performed and stick with the teachings, what you end up with is a Jesus that wouldn't be able to inspire anyone to "take up their cross and follow Him." I couldn't agree more.
He says instead of arguing about whether Jesus really said this or that, we ought to be trying to discern what Jesus meant. I love his take on Paul, too, because Paul's letters are my favorite part of the New Testament.
"I like Garry Wills, whose views on the NT in "What Jesus Meant" and "What Paul Meant" get him in trouble with literalists and skeptics alike. I view the Bible as a document of the human search for God, not as the literal word of God. But, as an agnostic, I don't have all the answers about what is asserted in the Bible."
So, what do you base your knowledge of God on? What makes you think that the way that I described God is wrong and the way you view him as right?
Thanks, Michele. I appreciate your sticking with this thread because I find the discussion very interesting.
I don't know if either of us is right or wrong about God. Your beliefs about God may be right, and mine may be dead wrong. The reverse may also be true.
I do believe truth exists, and is not relative, but I don't believe that it is given to humans to know the full truth about anything, so my faith is that we all might have a piece of the truth, so that we can learn from each other. "For now we see through a glass darkly," that sort of thing...
Really, I don't believe any of us know what we are talking about when we talk about God. But we do have a record of what other peoples and religious communities have believed. I am making a distinction between certain knowledge and belief as in what we think or hope or feel may be true.
I base my knowledge of God on my attempt to learn from the Bible and from what other people who have written about theology and religion have contributed, from what I learned from my late father, who was a Lutheran pastor, and from my friends, acquaintances, family, and classmates in EFM, and from my life experiences to date.
To me there is God, and then there are human attempts to apprehend God through religions. Truth may be one, but our attempts to reach it, in my opinion, are imperfect. Thanks for listening.
"Really, I don't believe any of us know what we are talking about when we talk about God."
I agree with you there that we don't fully understand God and could never be able to do so. How can the finite ever understand the infinite? Our minds aren't big enough to comprehend God :-) but I believe that God gave us his word to help us understand who he is just enough so that we could worship him in spirit and in truth.
And the fact that Jesus believed that the Scriptures were the word of God and spoke of him (Luke 24) should give followers of Jesus a reason to read at least the Old Testament when they read the Gospels, even those who like to separate Paul from Jesus.
"Thanks, Michele. I appreciate your sticking with this thread because I find the discussion very interesting. "
When life doesn't interrupt blogging, I'm more than happy to have a discussion about the Bible and theology. Especially when it's as civil as your discussions usually are, Alicia.
Thanks, Michele. Back at you. I'm taking a break from EFM next year because it is a 4-year course. We did the OT in the 1st year and the NT in the second, but I decided I could wait a year to tackle "church history."
I agree that the Scriptures are very important, and certainly accept that God can speak through them, even though I sometimes think it was a particular community (ie. the ancient Hebrews) giving us their own take on God.
As an agnostic, of course, I'm not always sure God exists, but I keep searching for Him (or He for me).
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.