Every year or so I find myself crawling back to a definition of the word Reformed that I first wrote up a couple of years ago. I find it worthwhile to revisit this every twelve months or so. With the amount of reading and studying I do in a year, I feel it is interesting to turn to this definition to see what I would change and what I would refine. I also find it humbling to see which parts of the definition I may have emphasized at the expense of others. And so today I thought I would define the word Reformed, trusting that the readers of this site will find it helpful. While Calvinism and Reformed are not fully synonymous, most people understand them to be so. Because the differences between them are subtle, I will use them synonymously.
It is important to understand that because the Reformed tradition arose from the Protestant Reformation, the term Reformed was not defined from within a void. Rather, it was defined as a biblical response to the excesses and perversions of the Roman Catholic Church. The Reformers, having returned to Scripture, attempted to carefully and faithfully rebuild the church upon the teachings of the New Testament. Thus by affirming Reformed theology, a person is implicitly denying certain other theologies, such as Catholic theology (which Reformed theology rose in opposition to) and Arminian theology (which later rose in opposition to Reformed theology). While Calvinism predates Arminianism, it was only codified in the five points after the rise of Arminianism. There is a sense in which Calvinism is both a cause of and the reaction to Arminianism. Or perhaps we could say that Arminianism is a response to Reformed theology, and the codification of Calvinism is a response to Arminianism.
There are many expressions of the Christian faith that are based at least partially on the teachings of Jesus Christ and the Bible. These are separated into four main divisions: Eastern Orthodox, Roman Catholic, Protestant and Cults. Protestantism can be fairly readily divided into two camps: Arminian and Reformed. The vast majority of Protestants hold to Arminian doctrine. We will concern ourselves today with the minority who consider themselves Reformed. These tend to be people who attend Presbyterian or Reformed Baptist Churches, though they may be found in other churches as well. Sadly, there are many churches that were once Reformed and may still use the title, even if they have long since abandoned the theology.
It is surprisingly difficult to find a worthwhile definition of Reformed. While many people claim to understand the Reformed faith and are eager to provide a definition, few seem to be both fair and adequate. Here are a couple of examples culled from a Google search:
- A term used to refer to a tradition of theology which draws inspiration from the writings of John Calvin (1510-64) and his successors. The term is generally used in preference to “Calvinist.”
- Referring to the Reformation, it’s theology, and/or those subscribing to it. Also used to differentiate a,) Calvinism from Lutheranism, or b.) Continental European Calvinism from Scottish Calvinism, aka Presbyterianism.
Those are both concise definitions but ones that do not capture the full sense of the word. A far better and more complete definition is found at Five Solas. There Professor Byron Curtis, a professor at Geneva College breaks the definition into four parts which I will expound in some detail. The first two parts define foundational Protestant beliefs and the second two are exclusively Reformed. According to Curtis, to be Reformed is:
- To confess the consensus of the five first centuries of the church:
- Classic theism: One omnipotent, benevolent God, distinct from creation.
- Nicene and Chalcedonian Trinitarianism: one God in three eternally existent persons, equal in power and glory.
- Christ, the God-Man, the one mediator between God & the human race, incarnate, crucified, resurrected, ascended, & coming again.
- Humanity created in the image of God, yet tragically fallen & profoundly in need of restoration to God through Christ.
- The Visible Church: the community of the redeemed, indwelt by the Holy Spirit; the mystical body of Christ on earth.
- The one, holy, catholic, and apostolic church.
- The Sacraments: visible signs and seals of the grace of God, ministering Christ’s love to us in our deep need.
- The Christian life: characterized by the prime theological virtues of faith, hope, and love.
It would be correct to say that, to this point, we are dealing with a statement of the Protestant faith more than a statement of the Reformed faith. From this list we see that Reformed Christians adhere to all the foundational beliefs taught in the Bible. These beliefs were the foundation of the early church and are based on the teachings of the Bible as interpreted by the apostles and early church fathers. Many of these beliefs were changed or lost as the Catholic Church grew in power and authority from the fifth century onwards. Throughout history there were isolated and often-persecuted pockets of non-Catholic believers who held to many or all of these points of doctrine, but they were largely lost until their rediscovery at the time of the Reformation.
We will find that Professor Curtis’ definition is based largely upon a Presbyterian understanding of several doctrines. Reformed Baptists may take issue with the sacraments being signs and seals. I would suggest that Reformed believers will have a high view of two sacraments, though they may differ somewhat on just how they are to understood and how they are to be administered.
- To confess the four solas:
- The authority of Scripture: sola scriptura (Scripture alone)
- the basis of salvation: Sola Gratia (Grace alone)
- the means of salvation: Sola Fide (Faith alone)
- the merit of salvation: Solus Christus (Christ alone)
Again, these form the basis for Protestantism as much as they do for the Reformed tradition, though sadly the majority of Protestants will never encounter the terms. These are the principles that drove the Protestant Reformation of the 16th century and separated it from the Roman Catholic Church. These four points of doctrine are based entirely on the Bible and were the theological driving force behind the newly formed Protestant movement.
- To confess the distinctives of the Reformed faith:
- In salvation: monergism not synergism. God alone saves. Such monergism implies T.U.L.I.P., the Five Points of Calvinism from the Synod of Dordt:
T = Total Depravity U = Unconditional Election L = Limited Atonement, or, better, Particular Redemption I = Irresistible Grace P = Perseverence and Preservation of the Saints
These five distinct points of doctrine are also known as the five points of Calvinism as they were first articulated by John Calvin after the Reformation was in full-swing. They are based entirely on the Bible. When people speak of being Reformed these five points of doctrine are most often what they are referring to. Most evangelical (non-Reformed) churches do not hold to all of these points. Some hold to two or three (and occasionally even four), but most reject them in favor of Arminian theology which is, at heart, synergistic, relying on a cooperative effort between man and God.
- In salvation: monergism not synergism. God alone saves. Such monergism implies T.U.L.I.P., the Five Points of Calvinism from the Synod of Dordt:
- Other Reformed Distinctives:
Professor Curtis goes on to list other points of doctrine he believes are Reformed distinctives. They include: The Regulative Principle of Worship, Covenant theology (The Church is the New Israel - we most often see an expression of this theology in infant baptism, but it also impacts eschatology and many other doctrines) and Life is religion (Christians have neither jobs nor careers; they have vocations (callings)). I would not consider adherence to these principles necessary to consider oneself Reformed and I suspect the majority of Reformed Christians would agree with me. It is these distinctions that provide some of the differences between Calvinist and Reformed.
- Finally: in everything, Soli Deo Gloria - to God alone be the glory in all things.
This is, once more, something all Christians would claim, either explicitly or implicitly. In all areas of life we are to give glory to God alone.
So what does this all mean? To be Reformed is to adhere to the purist teachings of the Bible - to affirm the doctrine taught by Jesus, Paul and the apostles. Scripture is considered the ultimate authority in matters of life and faith and all Reformed doctrine is founded on the Bible. I am convinced that Reformed doctrine is nothing more than the teachings of Jesus, the Apostles and the totality of the Scriptures. Were it not for human sin we would have to make no distinction between biblical Christianity and the Reformed faith.
If you are interested in learning more about the Reformed tradition, there are many excellent resources availble to you. Here are a few favorites:
- Christian Handbook by Peter Jeffery - an excellent little book I reviewed here that introduces Christian beliefs from a Reformed perspective (A very brief review).
- Putting Amazing Back Into Grace by Michael Horton. This is an excellent, fun introduction to the Five Points (my review).
- Desiring God by John Piper - not for the faint-of-heart but does a great job of explaining Reformed principles (Discerning Reader reviews).
- What Is Reformed Theology? by R.C. Sproul (Discerning Reader reviews).
- The Doctrines of Grace by James Boice (Discerning Reader reviews).





Comments (48) »
1. Bibliomaniac
June 21, 2006
10:57 AM
Tim said: “While many people claim to understand the Reformed faith and are eager to provide a definition…”
Count me among those who are NOT eager to provide a definition. I’d much rather focus on being known as a Christian who wholeheartedly follows the Word rather than using elusive labels such as Reformed. Those who call themselves Reformed are all over the board in regard to different issues…which muddies up the water quite a bit.
2. Tim Challies
June 21, 2006
11:00 AM
“I’d much rather focus on being known as a Christian who wholeheartedly follows the Word rather than using elusive labels such as Reformed. Those who call themselves Reformed are all over the board in regard to different issues…which muddies up the water quite a bit.”
And those who consider themselves Christian are not all over the board?
3. Bibliomaniac
June 21, 2006
11:03 AM
Oh yes, Tim, they most definitely are all over the board.
But it’s sad that we as Christians talk in terms of Baptist distinctives, Reformed distinctives, etc. as opposed to BIBLICAL distinctives.
One of the things I appreciated most about growing up under MacArthur’s ministry is it was all about the Word—not about labels and distinctives.
4. Tim Challies
June 21, 2006
11:15 AM
It must have been about distinctives. You said so yourself when you wrote, “as opposed to BIBLICAL distinctives.” Reformed distinctives, which MacArthur adheres to, are merely a succinct way of summarizing a series of doctrines. I am attempting, in this article, to define what we mean when we say we are “Reformed.” We use labels all the time and I don’t think they are a bad thing…
5. Bibliomaniac
June 21, 2006
11:22 AM
I agree that labels do have their place. They serve as a valuable shorthand in discussions such as this.
But wouldn’t it be more desireable to title the article “What It Means to Be Biblical” rather than “What It Means to Be Reformed”? And within the article, you admit that it’s surprisingly difficult to find a worthwhile definition of what it means to be reformed. Why do you suppose that is?
As for MacArthur, you must be careful about how you state his adherence to Reformed distinctives. He differs from Reformed thinking in two distinct areas: ecclesiology and eschatology. This alone shows the difficulty of applying such a label.
6. Dallas Pymm
June 21, 2006
11:39 AM
I use the term Reformed or Calvinist quite often when describing my beliefs. Sadly, very few people I meet, Christian or not, even know what the terms mean. I certainly did not until I met and became friends with a few Christians who professed reformed theology.
When I am asked what does reformed mean, I usually explain that I believe in the Biblical principles that began and rooted the protestant reformation.
I here the same objection from a few free willers I know that using labels is harmful. I think this is foolish because the normal response from anyone hears “Christian” as the response to the question “what religion are you?”, is ” what denomination, or something to that nature.
We use labels all the time for time sakes, and this is productive.
“To be Reformed is to adhere to the purist teachings of the Bible - to affirm the doctrine taught by Jesus, Paul and the apostles.”
Sounds great Tim. I said something of the sorts to a free willer(I say free willer because most of them either do not know what an Arminian is, or refuse to link their beliefs with him) I know and was labeled arrogant. C’mon, There are much better reasons to label me arrogant than this. :o)
7. Tim Challies
June 21, 2006
11:46 AM
“He differs from Reformed thinking in two distinct areas: ecclesiology and eschatology.”
But you’ll notice that my definition does not include either of these. That is why I keep returning to it. I am seeking a shorthand to what people can expect from someone who is labelled “Reformed.” I don’t think you’ll find consistency in eschatology or ecclesiology among those who call themselves Reformed.
8. Bibliomaniac
June 21, 2006
11:59 AM
Tim: Yes, I noticed your definition does not include either of these, and I greatly appreciate you making that important distinction.
What’s difficult is that when people ask whether I am Reformed, I cannot say yes because if I do, they IMMEDIATELY say, “Oh, then you believe Covenant Theology,” which I don’t.
Though I agree completely with the consensus you gave of the first five centuries, and I agree with the solas you listed, Christians such as myself don’t dare say we’re Reformed because far too many people then wrongly assume we’re Covenant Theologians. I face this problem even among Reformed people themselves.
Hence, one of the reasons for my dislike of the label.
9. 4ever4given
June 21, 2006
12:43 PM
Would you consider defining “Truly Reformed” for me because there seems to be an even more contentious air with that term.
10. Tim McGilvreay
June 21, 2006
12:54 PM
To Dallas:
I have also found that the friends of ours who are “Arminian” absolutely abhor such labels. They do not believe they are Arminian nor Calvinist. I see two parts to this in speaking with them:
1) History is seen as not really important. Whether there is a history behind the traditions we hold to is meaningless.
2) Labels are derogatory. To try and summarize someone’s position as being essentially “Arminian”, even if they do not agree with the entire sum and substance of the Remonstrance is seen as not only silly but often mean.
So, yeah.. I can sympathize. It is often hard to talk with someone who insists that they do not hold to a tradition of any sort. It takes patience… patience and love which I need desperately to learn more of.
11. Tim Challies
June 21, 2006
12:57 PM
“Would you consider defining “Truly Reformed” for me because there seems to be an even more contentious air with that term.”
That is a term that seems to be considered an insult. I don’t know of a formal definition, but it seems that lots of ex-Calvinists and anti-Calvinists use it to refer to anyone more conservative than they are. It’s the kind of insult you can feel pretty good about, actually. Many would actually take it as a compliment. I’ve never been labelled such by anyone whose opinion means much to me…
12. Frank Martens
June 21, 2006
1:15 PM
I guess my understanding of the definition of reformed, from reading from various “reformed” authoris included the views of ecclesiology and eschatology.
So… is this a perception thing? Because everyone that I’ve run into that calls themselves reformed don’t differ in their view of ecclesiology and eschatology.
13. Dallas Pymm
June 21, 2006
1:19 PM
Here is a link to Monergism’s Hall of Contemporary Reformers. It lists each person beliefs on various things and they differ quite a bit, but they are all thought of as Reformed from what I hear people say.
http://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/articles/bio/contempreform.html
14. WES
June 21, 2006
1:25 PM
Tim, do you every read/review fiction?
15. Tim Challies
June 21, 2006
1:45 PM
“Tim, do you every read/review fiction?
On occasion, yes.
16. Peter D. Nelson
June 21, 2006
2:09 PM
Tim thank you for that piece I’ve posted a link to it on my website. I’ve had many people ask me what does “Reformed” mean and this is the best and most concise explanation that I have seen.
17. Kim K.
June 21, 2006
2:26 PM
It’s easy to condemn “labels”, but a good definition is always helpful. When I say I hold to reformed theology most people ask “reformed what?” The term is practically unheard of around here. (I grew us where there was a Reformed, Christian Reformed, Protestant Reformed, Netherlands Reformed on every corner.)Also, if I mention Calvinism, people seem to go nuts and start going on about hyper-Calvinism - again, without really knowing anything about it. I’ve found that people who know the least about reformed/Calvinist theology are the loudest to condemn it.
18. Steve Sensenig
June 21, 2006
2:43 PM
I am convinced that Reformed doctrine is nothing more than the teachings of Jesus, the Apostles and the totality of the Scriptures. Were it not for human sin we would have to make no distinction between biblical Christianity and the Reformed faith.
I’m not sure I understand the second sentence I quote here. It makes it sound like Reformed believers have a pure doctrine untainted by sin, and that everyone else is still tainted by sin, and therefore hasn’t caught on to “the teachings of Jesus, the Apostles and the totality of the Scriptures.” But I’m not sure that’s what you meant to communicate.
The Reformers, having returned to Scripture, attempted to carefully and faithfully rebuild the church upon the teachings of the New Testament.
I think this might be naive. The Reformers still held onto a lot of the post-Constantine ecclesiology that had built up into the RCC of their day. In fact, they were pretty doggone upset by the so-called “Radical Reformers” who attempted to do exactly what you say the Reformers did.
That’s not to say the Reformers didn’t do a lot of good. But I would suggest that their impact was a whole lot more related to soteriology than ecclesiology.
steve :)
19. Brandon Porter
June 21, 2006
4:09 PM
Steve,
It does seem that there are many stirrings toward ecclesiology being brought more front and center in Reformed theology. Mark Dever at 9marks.org, for one, seems to be helping to lead the way here.
Brandon
20. Steve Sensenig
June 21, 2006
5:12 PM
Brandon,
I agree. And I applaud these stirrings. My comment was in reference to the 16th-century reformers who definitely made some much-needed reformations in soteriology, but not so much in ecclesiology (in my humble opinion).
steve :)
21. Thabiti
June 21, 2006
6:12 PM
Tim,
Thank you for the very concise and helpful post. I rarely shy away from the label “Reformed” or “Calvinist,” though I know that when I use it I need to be prepared to do a little elementary education about both my position and sometimes the other person’s position. This reflection of yours will be very helpful in future conversations.
Thank you for serving the Body,
Grace and peace,
Thabiti
22. Jabbok
June 21, 2006
7:24 PM
I’ve often said that most Christians who would call themselves “Calvinists” are not truly “Reformed” in their theology. I personally believe the two go hand in hand and those who claim to be Calvinists but not Reformed really don’t “embrace” Calvinism. They simply like the idea of it.
I was surprised, Tim, that you didn’t mention one of the major tenants of being Reformed, i.e. “Covenant Theology”, since you recently reviewed Michael Horton’s Book: God of Promise.
I don’t believe that one has to embrace all the facets of Covenant Theology to be “Reformed” but I do believe that those who are truly reformed in their theology lean more in this direction than towards Dispensationalism.
23. seeker
June 21, 2006
7:45 PM
What about the fifth sola, Soli Deo Gloria? Do some people only list four, while others five?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_solas
24. Jabbok
June 21, 2006
9:01 PM
oops, I spoke too soon. After re-reading I saw that you did mention Covenant Theology. My bad!
25. donsands
June 21, 2006
9:46 PM
To be Reformed is usually equated with predestination I would have to say. God predetermines salvation. God has mercy on whom He will. Non-reformed belivers do not believe this. They believe in much of the same doctrines, but we definitely disagree here.
I have many Non-Reformed friends in Christ, and this is the great divide: Predestination.
Whether Calvinist vs. Non-Calvinist, or Reformed vs. Non-Reformed, for me the one doctrine that seperates the Reformed believer is that he or she believes God is 100% sovereign, and that He elects those whom He wills to for salvation. He owes no one this blessed salvation, and He would be no less just to require every one of us to give an account of our sins, which would bring swift condemnation upon each and evryone of us. But He determined to save a people for Himself, and for His glory.
It truly is amazing love, and amazing grace that saves a wretch like me.
26. Tim Challies
June 21, 2006
9:46 PM
seeker - point five above was: “Finally: in everything, Soli Deo Gloria - to God alone be the glory in all things.”
27. diablaazul
June 21, 2006
9:55 PM
Tim, you (or Professor Curtis? It’s unclear) write, following point 1):
These beliefs were the foundation of the early church and are based on the teachings of the Bible as interpreted by the apostles and early church fathers. Many of these beliefs were changed or lost as the Catholic Church grew in power and authority from the fifth century onwards. Throughout history there were isolated and often-persecuted pockets of non-Catholic believers who held to many or all of these points of doctrine, but they were largely lost until their rediscovery at the time of the Reformation.
Speaking as a (medieval) historian, I can tell you that the above statement is entirely false. There is not a single bullet under point 1 which does not describe Catholic (and Eastern Orthodox) doctrine after the 5th century. Neither the Catholic nor Orthodox Churches ever persecuted anyone for holding to the doctrines listed under that point. Any credible church historian (Protestant, Catholic, Orthodox) will tell you as much. It’s ludicrous to speak of Nicene and Chalcedonian Trinitarianism, or the sacraments, or a belief in the visible church as being “rediscovered” by the Reformers.
It’s statements like this that make it very difficult for some Catholics to take Protestant objections seriously. It’s not too much to ask that y’all bother to get your historical facts straight.
28. debtor2grace
June 21, 2006
10:35 PM
I think the whole “what is/what is nor Reformed” is about the most BORING unedifying discussion anyone could ever have. I am so glad I’m not in college any longer. I grew very wearyo the theological eggheads (as I called ‘em) walking about with their stack of theology books under their arms trying to out-debate one another and turning to this author or that author for support…suspiciously absent was the Bible.
By the way, I think to be truly considered “Reformed” one would have to adhere to paedobaptism, the one doctrine which binds all traditional Reformed denominations throughout history. The Baptists never started calling themselves Reformed until fairly recently in an effort to differentiate themselves from the arminians who now run their denomination. I’m Baptist by the way :)
29. Steve Camp
June 22, 2006
9:22 AM
Tim:
This is a wonderful and much needed post—thank you dear brother for the time you invested in producing this biblical and historically rich article.
Yours for the Master’s use,
Steve Camp
2 Cor. 4:5
30. Dan Hames
June 22, 2006
9:35 AM
“The Church is the New Israel - we most often see an expression of this theology in infant baptism”
I’ve never seen this link before. Can you explain it please?
Thanks,
Dan
31. Dan Hames
June 22, 2006
9:35 AM
“The Church is the New Israel - we most often see an expression of this theology in infant baptism”
I’ve never seen this link before. Can you explain it please?
Thanks,
Dan
32. Tim Challies
June 22, 2006
9:41 AM
“I’ve never seen this link before. Can you explain it please?”
Essentially, because the church is the New Israel, and because Jewish infants were circumcised as a sign of their entrance into the covenant with God, so infants today should be baptized and should be made a part of the visible church.
33. Brian Thornton
June 22, 2006
1:32 PM
Essentially, because the church is the New Israel, and because Jewish infants were circumcised as a sign of their entrance into the covenant with God, so infants today should be baptized and should be made a part of the visible church.
The problem with this thinking is that the church, under the convenant of grace, is NOT a one-to-one correlation with Israel, which was under the convenant of works. Many problems arise from translating the practice of circumcision to the ordinace of baptism.
1. Only males were circumcised under the old covenant…how does this translate over to females being baptised as infants under the new covenant?
2. Although all males were indeed circumcised under the old covenant, NOT all of them were part of the true church. Baptism was NEVER meant to be a one-to-one replacement of the practice of circumcision…it was never God’s design to baptise children of the flesh under the convenant of grace. ALL examples in Scripture of those being baptised are those who have professed Christ…there are NO examples contrary to this…NONE.
One may make inferences that children were baptised as part of some of the households that are documented as being baptised in Acts, but NONE of those accounts specifically shows children or infants being baptised…NOT ONE.
34. Joel
June 22, 2006
2:14 PM
The Reformers still held onto a lot of the post-Constantine ecclesiology that had built up into the RCC of their day.
Steve, it’s a minor picky on my part, but the ecclesiology didn’t change significantly with Constantine’s legalization. The legal status of the Church changed, vis-a-vis the pagan establishment, but the structure by that time was more or less as it is today, and had been for a century or more. Although of course the question of who was and wasn’t in communion came up a lot more after Nicea, when it was poossible to hold councils and hash them ouu.
35. Dan Hames
June 22, 2006
2:16 PM
Tim,
Thanks for the explanation. I wondered if it would be that. It makes sense, but for the record I think I’m with Brian. I guess that makes me Calvinist, but not properly Reformed.
Though Brian, one thing with your reasoning… if all infants in biblical Israel were circumcised, not all of them were elect, right? So even circumcision for them wasn’t a definite sign of their salvation- unlike believers’ baptism today.
One other question for anyone who would like to respond somehow: Is it technically possible to be generally Reformed, yet believe in an ongoing purpose of sone kind for ethnic Israel, without being DIspensationalist?
36. Jeri
June 22, 2006
2:33 PM
Dan Hames,
John Macarthur believes in a future restoration for Israel, and so does AL Mohler. I couldn’t really explain their views, you’d have to read what they have to say about it themselves. That’s how I understand what the Bible has to say about it, too. I don’t fit the description of dispensationalist, though.
37. Brian Thornton
June 22, 2006
7:28 PM
Though Brian, one thing with your reasoning… if all infants in biblical Israel were circumcised, not all of them were elect, right? So even circumcision for them wasn’t a definite sign of their salvation- unlike believers’ baptism today.
Dan,
Thanks for the questions. I am by no means the most articulate when it comes to this topic, so please keep that in mind. Regarding your question above, a couple of thoughts.
1. All infants in Israel were NOT circumcised…only the males. I’m not sure how that even plays out in the thinking of the paedo-baptist concerning all of this.
2. You are correct that not all of those circumcised were elect. But, contrary to the sign of circumcision, baptism in Scripture is ALWAYS an outward sign of an inward change. Our paedo-baptist friends cannot provide even one example of it being otherwise…regardless of what their reasoning is, there is NO direct biblical support for it.
As I’ve heard Mark Dever say about this issue, BOTH paedo-baptists and credo-baptists baptize those who end up being not of the elect…the main difference is that the paedo-baptist does it willingly and knowingly, whereas the credo-baptist does not…except, of course, for the increasing problem of credo-baptists who willingly and knowingly baptize ANYONE who raises their hand in response to an invitation, even at ridiculously low ages.
38. Jerry Morningstar
June 22, 2006
10:53 PM
I once heard MacArthur say that he is occasionally asked if he is dispensational or Reformed. He said that he is like the guy in the Civil War with Union pants and Confederate shirt - they’re shooting at him from both sides! You would have to classify his theology as reformed in soteriology [doctrine of salvation] and dispensational in eschatology [last things]. Anyone pre-trib rapture is pretty much dispensational. However - you can believe in a future for Israel - and not be Pre-trib or dispensational. I believe John Piper would fit there. The term is Historic Pre-mill. He believes in a future for Israel - not because of a clear cut distinction between Israel and the church - but because of Romans 11:25, 26.
39. Jeri
June 22, 2006
11:05 PM
Yes, I think the historic pre-mill description fits me, too. That’s just what I see in Scripture.
40. Mark Tubbs
June 23, 2006
4:33 AM
Sorry for the late post - my wife gave birth to our second child yesterday. I want to comment on the premise of self-evaluation rather than the specific process that Tim followed, which is, I think, totally valid. At Bethlehem Baptist’s yearly missions conference, John Piper evaluates his call to ministry, asking whether God is calling him to a different form of missions. So whatever the process, Tim’s willingness to self-evaluate is admirable. Let’s not knock it.
41. Allan
June 23, 2006
6:19 AM
I find that while a scriptural case may be made for Sola Scriptura, there is plenty of room for variance in its definition. In fact I don’t know if Sola Scriptura CAN be defined using the Scriptures.
I’d be interested if someone has one.
The classic creeds seem only intent on defining it as saying the 66 books which the NT Church finally settled on as inspired were to be used as the ONLY INFALLIBLE AUTHORITY and RULE of faith and practice, NOT the final thing God would ever say to His Church.
So that if someone, like the Bereans did, believed God was speaking to them, they were to employ the infallible WRITTEN word to JUDGE the (possibly fallible) spoken word.
42. Joel
June 23, 2006
12:08 PM
I find that while a scriptural case may be made for Sola Scriptura, there is plenty of room for variance in its definition. In fact I don’t know if Sola Scriptura CAN be defined using the Scriptures.
Allan! It’s a breakthrough! I’ve been waiting for you to admit that. Let me direct you to a priest in your neighborhood… :P
On a more serious note, I don’t think you can use Sola Scriptura as a mark of Reformednessosity, because all Protestants believe they hold to Sola Scriptura. The only way I can think of to describe the distinction is that Calvinists interpret according to Calvinist presuppositions, and Arminians according to their own presuppositions, but both would say they rely only on the clear teaching of scripture. (Yes, Romanists interpret according to presuppositions too, but we don’t deny that.) Lutherans would say they hold to Sola Scriptura (heck, they coined the phrase), but nobody would confuse their theology with Calvinism.
Out of curiosity, why is Calvinism the only Protestant theology that gets to be called “Reformed” rather than by the name of its propounder? Luther started the whole Reformation thing, and Arminius was a later product of it, which would seem to make their movements “Reformed” as well. And even the Anglicans came about as a result of the Reformation, yet nobody calls them “Reformed.” (And these days, they could sure use some reforming!) So why is Calvinism called “Reformed” while other fruits of the Reformation are not?
43. Tim Challies
June 23, 2006
12:49 PM
“Allan! It’s a breakthrough! I’ve been waiting for you to admit that. Let me direct you to a priest in your neighborhood… :P”
Do note that Allan didn’t deny that a person can make a case for sola scriptura from Scripture…just that it’s hard to define. I would agree with that, at least to some extent. I’d love to make a case for it and a case for how we can define it from Scripture. Maybe I can find time to write that next week.
I do believe that a good bit of the argument for sola scriptura is based on necessary deduction. After all, if the Bible isn’t authoritative, what is? A long line of flawed and contradictory ex cathedra statements? Human reason? Still small voices?
44. Jerry Morningstar
June 23, 2006
5:01 PM
Good point, Tim.
I tried to give some thoughts on Sola Scriptura in a comment under your beast article. [around comment 90] My guess is you would probably agree. Anyway - I think Jesus gave the principles that implied Sola Scriptura for the church.
45. dprocket
June 25, 2006
2:14 PM
I’m surprised on here that so many people are in agreement on one area: I would consider myself Calvinistic, but I have a hard time with the label because I don’t believe in Limited Atonement in the way I understand it taught by many.
I’m surprised that there are so many on here who have NOT mentioned this. Perhaps I don’t understand fully the Calvinistic view on this, so I’m nt dogmatic…but I do not accept that Christ died only for the elect. Christ died for the sins of ALL men, and he is drawing ALL men to himself and it is his will that ALL will be saved. Does that mean all will? Of course not! But again, I struggle with the idea that atonement is limited to the elect when Christ died for ALL.
46. donsands
June 25, 2006
6:39 PM
dprocket,
As a Calvinist, how do you explain God saving His elect people?
47. Kyle
June 25, 2006
8:14 PM
1. All infants in Israel were NOT circumcised…only the males. I’m not sure how that even plays out in the thinking of the paedo-baptist concerning all of this.
In Christ there is neither male nor female—the group of appropriate recipients for baptism was expanded, from the old dispensation of circumcision limited to proselytes and the male infants of Jews, to the new dispensation of gospel baptism extended to converts and the children of all believers regardless of nationality.
48. Matt
June 28, 2006
1:54 PM
You could not be more right! THE BIBLE NEVER ONCE SAYS THAT INFANTS WERE BAPTIZED!
It also doesn’t say that they were not. Not once. But it does say that entire households were baptized after the head of the household learned of Jesus Christ. Does that mean that all of those in the household were also believers? Or could it be that he would instruct and build up a Christian family? (By the way, it took 1500 years for the anabaptists to come forward and say that infant baptism was wrong. Prior to that, there was no objection that was taken seriously. Polycarp was a disciple of John’s and he was baptized as an infant. Don’t you think that one of Jesus’ disciples would have said that he needed to be re-baptized if the first one was not valid because it happened while he was an infant?)
If you want to say that you have to believe in order to express this as a sign through baptism, then you are will to say that there is something that you can do to earn your salvalation. Grace alone through faith is what saves all believers. If baptism is a gift and not a work then God is still in control. The cross is insignificant if we could have done something on our own to earn eternal life. We can’t be good enough, pray long enough, or obey the commandments strictly enough to earn one day in paradise. Because we are sinful beings, we were doomed to hell. Because of Adam we as humans became sinful, but through Jesus we were reborn. Jesus said that we needed to believe and be baptized in order to be saved. And even baptism is a gift that God gives to us. It’s nothing that we do! It’s still about God and His grace. So to demand that we reach some point in our life when we feel good enough to be baptized and we want to tell the world about it through some public proclimation that puts the focus back on us, takes that gift away from God and puts it back on something that we are doing that is good.
Were you a part of your family when you were born or when your were old enough to know that you were part of that family?