Reformed - Why?

Why defend the Reformed Faith and from what.

Author: Randy Pritts

In an effort to better explain what the Reformed version of Protestant Christian faith is, it may help to explain why we defend it and what we defend it from. The attacks against it today are wide spread, shot privily from several hostile directions, mostly internal from within our fellow Christian ranks. Because of its "Calvinist" leanings, it is largely misunderstood and highly misrepresented. Therefore, this present effort.

Two points of clarification before I begin (because the terms can be so similar):

1. First there was the Protestant "Reformation", the effort by many to reform the Roman Catholic Church from within that was rejected and anathematized by Papal and Magerterium authority. As a result of this Protestant Reformation then came a specific branch of Protestantism referred to as "Reformed".

2. There is a confusion often between being "Reformed" and being "Calvinist", they are frequently thought of as the same thing. "Reformed" in part is "Calvinistic" in addition to being "Covenantal" and "Confessional". One can be Calvinistic without being Reformed, but can't be Reformed without being Calvinistic. Typically however, it is neither the Covenantal nor Confessional aspects that are being so harshly attacked.

Introduction:

The controversy over "Reformed Theology" is by no means a new one. The arguments being made today on both sides are the same exact arguments that were made 400+ years ago. On social media nowadays though it may seem like a jumble of angry words and accusations; no one wants to sift their way through all of that. Luckily, we have both sides from the past much more clearly articulated and scholarly debated. A prime example of this is found in two Belgic documents from the early 17th century:

1. The FiveArticlesOfRemonstrance - Formal Arminian protest to the Dutch authorities 1610 regarding the Calvinistic definition of election adopted in the BelgicConfession#16 .
2. The CanonsOfDort - The formal 1618 response to said authorities by the Dutch Reformed Churches regarding the five articles of Arminian protest.

We can compare each of the two resulting documents side by side, consider the points and the evidence, come to some conclusions of our own. Granted, I don't believe any readers beliefs are going to change in this exercise, but I do believe enough evidence exists to support why and from what the Reformed position can reasonably be defended.

First, here is the article of the Confession they are specifically are objecting to:

Article XVI - Eternal Election

"We believe that, all the posterity of Adam being thus fallen into perdition and ruin by the sin of our first parents, God then did manifest Himself such as He is; that is to say, merciful and just; merciful, since He delivers and preserves from this perdition all whom He in His eternal and unchangeable counsel of mere goodness has elected in Christ Jesus our Lord without any respect to their works; just, in leaving others in the fall and perdition wherein they have involved themselves".

Belgic Confession 1561

I highlighted "all whom he....has elected in Christ Jesus" to draw your attention to the heart of the impending controversy. Note now how the Armenians restate this:

Article I -

"That God, by an eternal, unchangeable purpose in Jesus Christ, his Son, before the foundation of the world, hath determined, out of the fallen, sinful race of men, to save in Christ for Christ's sake, and through Christ, those who, through the grace of the Holy Ghost, shall believe on this his Son Jesus, and shall persevere in this faith and obedience of faith, through this grace, even to the end; and, on the other hand, to leave the incorrigible and unbelieving in sin and under wrath, and to condemn them as alienate from Christ, according to the word of the Gospel in kjv@John:3:36 "He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life; and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him" and according to other passages of Scripture also".

Five Articles of Remonstrance

Both agree on a immutable determination being made by God before the foundations. Both agree salvation is "in Jesus". What changes is the object of said election, one being the individual from the foundation, the other being the method "those...who believe". Is that summary fair enough?

Election may seems like a small enough issue, whom versus whom believe, but it is not when one really thinks about it. There are major implications that result in either direction. In that day it was causing major tension in the Protestant churches and much political unrest. Today, especially on social media, the same issues are bitterly being fought over because of these implications; even in the seminaries and on the pulpits. Same Bible. Practically the same verses. How do honest and sincere Spirit filled Bible believers come to interpret the infallible Scriptures so different?

Let me illustrate further!

It is not really until the fourth article before the two documents begin again to disagree. Article Three establishes the need for some type of "prevenient" (has to happen before this) grace.

ARTICLE IV.

"That this grace of God is the beginning, continuance, and accomplishment of an good, even to this extent, that the regenerate man himself, without that prevenient or assisting; awakening, following, and co-operative grace, elm neither think, will, nor do good, nor withstand any temptations to evil; so that all good deeds or movements that can be conceived must be ascribed to the grace of God in Christ. But, as respects the mode of the operation of this grace, it is not irresistible inasmuch as it is written concerning many that they have resisted the Holy Ghost, kjv@Acts:7:51, and elsewhere in many places".

Five Articles of Remonstrance

The grace being referred to is "saving grace" (Art.III). Protestant tradition declares that salvation is an unmerited grace gifted by God alone, the two sides agree. There is close to similar agreement that before regeneration, because of the effects of sin, there is no ability for the man to come to faith on his own, he must be prepared/assisted/softened by God beforehand in order to believe. This is what the Arminians are referring to as "previnient grace". It is similar to the Calvinistic view except in respect to God's sovereignty and omnipotence a Calvinist would say that God's previnient action is irresistible. Resistible grace versus irresistible grace is essentially where the camps disagree. Here is how the Canon replies:

"That some receive the gift of faith from God, and others do not receive it, proceeds from Gods eternal decree. For known unto God are all his works from the beginning of the world ( kjv@Acts:15:18). Who worketh all things after the counsel of his will ( kjv@Ephesians:1:11). According to which decree He graciously softens the hearts of the elect, however obstinate, and inclines them to believe while He leaves the non- elect in His just judgment to their own wickedness and obduracy. And herein is especially displayed the profound, the merciful, and at the same time the righteous discrimination between men equally involved in ruin; or that decree of election and reprobation, revealed in the Word of God, which, though men of perverse, impure, and unstable minds wrest it to their own destruction, yet to holy and pious souls affords unspeakable consolation".

Article 6 - Canons of Dort

To support this variance the Remonstrance is using kjv@Acts:7:51 specifically. The question we must ask is whether the "ye do always resist the Holy Ghost: as your fathers did, so do ye" reference is same and similar to the issue of installing saving grace? In my opinion it is not, else none Jewish fathers would be saved; they resisted the Holy Ghost because they were not yet regenerated. The verse is indication of the depravity of man not the previnient graced free will resisting saving grace as a whole. Your interpretation may differ.

The attempt no doubt is to give human freewill a choice. Previnient grace having now cleared the deck putting the unregenerate man back at neutral with the ability finally to decide whether to receive saving grace/regeneration or not and go back into reprobation. The Calvinist per se would not disallow freewill, only adding that once the deck is cleared the attraction to God and the potential fulfillment of created design would be so great that the man would irresistibly allow receiving in the affirmative.

ARTICLE V.

"That those who an incorporated into Christ by a true faith, and have thereby become partakers of his lifegiving spirit, have thereby full power to strive against Satan, sin, the world, and their own flesh, and to win the victory, it being well understood that it is ever through the assisting grace of the Holy Ghost and that Jesus Christ assists them through his Spirit in all temptations, extends to them his hand; and if only they are ready for the conflict. and desire his help, and are not inactive, keeps them from falling, so that they, by no craft or power of Satan, can be misled, nor plucked out of Christ's hands, according to the word of Christ, kjv@John:10:28 : "Neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand.". But whether they are capable. through negligence, of forsaking again the first beginnings of their life in Christ, of again returning to this present evil world, of turning away from the holy doctrine which was delivered them, of losing a good conscience, of becoming devoid of grace that must be more particularly determined out of the Holy Scriptures before we ourselves can teach it with the full persuasion of our minds".

Five Articles of Remonstrance

Let us here now praise God! No matter how it was that HE did it, HE did it, the once lost man is now saved. More than likely the man knows very little about the behind the scenes working that took place to get him here (as probably should be). He is saved by grace, praise God! or is he?

We now come to the concept of "assisting grace". Now that one is born again and set on the narrow pathway God's grace continues by assisting the man through his daily struggles and the continuance of his sanctification. We are back to agreement. Then there is the "no man shall pluck them out of my hand" clause; still in agreement, no man shall nor shall Satan. It is not until we get to the "becoming devoid of grace" by one's own defeating actions that the two of us strongly disagree.

Article 11

"And as God Himself is most wise, unchangeable, omniscient, and omnipotent, so the election made by Him can neither be interrupted nor changed, recalled, or annulled; neither can the elect be cast away, nor their number diminished".

Canons of Dort

The Canons go on to say that grace/election is not only uninterrupted, there can grow within a believer a certainty of assurance:

Article 12

"The elect in due time, though in various degrees and in different measures, attain the assurance of this their eternal and unchangeable election, not by inquisitively prying into the secret and deep things of God, but by observing in themselves with a spiritual joy and holy pleasure the infallible fruits of election pointed out in the Word of God such as, a true faith in Christ, filial fear, a godly sorrow for sin, a hungering and thirsting after righteousness, etc."

Canons of Dort

In fact the Canon writers are quite insistent that their doctrine is not only is sound and essential, it is also most healthy:

Article 13

"The sense and certainty of this election afford to the children of God additional matter for daily humiliation before Him, for adoring the depth of His mercies, for cleansing themselves, and rendering grateful returns of ardent love to Him who first manifested so great love towards them. The consideration of this doctrine of election is so far from encouraging remissness in the observance of the divine commands or from sinking men in carnal security, that these, in the just judgment of God, are the usual effects of rash presumption or of idle and wanton trifling with the grace of election, in those who refuse to walk in the ways of the elect".

Canons of Dort

Rather than get into all the theological in and outs of these many issues and debates, which I will do more thoroughly address in a future WhyCalvinism thread, I want to fold in the remainder of the backstory to this defending Reformed discussion.

Council, Confession, Church & State

Having a bit of the flavor of this early 17th century division, let me just say that the two sides have never since come to a theological consensus. Throughout Church history synods/councils have rightly been called and gathered for the purpose of gaining theological consensus. Throughout history there has come a majority consensus on pressing and controversial issues, but so too there has always has been somebody not pleased, somebody banned or excluded or someone that plain walks out. There are still Judaizers, for instance, left over from the first Council of Jerusalem kjv@Acts:15 50AD; still churches not affirming the multiple Councils on Trinity.

One of the chief concerns of many undergoing the Protestant Reformation was that without the Catholic control/authority and Magesterium's/Pope's official singular interpretation there would be wide spread interpretive/structural chaos, divisions, even political unrest, persecutions and bloodshed. Such was the case at the calling of the Synod of Dort 1618-19, which revised/adopted the BelgicConfession from the Synod of Emden 1571, written for the reformed churches in the Dutch Empire by Guido de Bres 1561. For years it had stood as a strong declaration and teaching tool in these churches. As distinctive as the AugsburgConfession was to the German Lutherans, so too were the Belgic/Savoy/French/Geneva and Westminster/London confessions to the Reformed.

At the time of its first writing, the Protestant Reformed of these northern lowlands were being heavily persecuted by the Roman Catholic Church. In a plea for relief the completed work then was presented to Spain's King Phillip II their sovereign with the aim of making their case for acceptance as concise/sound and as possible. King Phillip turned a deaf ear to it however. It is estimated that over 100,000 Reformed Protestants in Netherlands lost their lives during these persecutions; including the life of Bres its author's.

The BelgicConfession was also developed to distinguish the Reformed from a separate branch coming out of the Reformation, the Anabaptists, who were seen as causing division and trouble. Think about it from a monarch's perspective, where there was once one religious body to deal with, now suddenly there is at least four (Roman Catholic, Reformed/Calvinist, Anabaptist, Arminian) to contend and keep the peace of the nation over. The confession went a long ways to ease the minds of the civil potentates that this wasn't some cult or wild and crazy satanic religion, however, it was not explanatory enough decades later to defend itself from the objections of the Remonstrants in regard to Election. Thus, the calling of the Council to be held in Dort. Thus, the Cannon resulted specifically to this defense.

As for the nature of this complaint being raised against it, perhaps it is best stated in the concluding cluases of Article V:

"..that must be more particularly determined out of the Holy Scriptures before we ourselves can teach it with the full persuasion of our minds"

Article V - Five Articles of Remonstrance

The Remonstrants within the officially sanctioned Reformed movement did not see enough scriptural evidence as doctrinal proof and therefore could not continue to teach this BelgicConfession in good conscience.

Perhaps what this boils down to is the difference between the monergistic and synergistic theological views of salvation. Monergism insists that God alone performs the work of salvation beginning to end. Synergism insists upon cooperative effort between the will of God and the will of man.

There are objections that can be rationalized from both sides. One could read the Scriptures from a monergistic bias and be challenged by several apparent contradictions and objections or read from the synergistic bias and be challenged by as many contradictions and objections. This is not the fault of Scripture, as we know it to be complete in regards to "saving knowledge" and infallible, it is a matter imposing one's bias upon scripture (which we are all inescapably prone to do).

Some would like to say "but I am a new creature born and raised by the Holy Spirit, not subject to preconception and bias". Some would say "well you must not be saved because you do not agree with what I believe scripture plainly says". Even this notion of "plain reading" can be flawed (and probably is flawed) knowing the many opposite directions it pulls, the various cults and denominations such belief seems to bring. If this were truly a matter of "plain reading" than wouldn't it be wise to say that the plainest form of unbiased reading would be from the complete Bible novice, else from dissimilar adherent of a different religion? Of course not!

How then do we go about minimizing said bias?

The Reformed of us believe that relief from much of this bias comes in the form of Covenant Theology, taking what we do know to be evident from the scriptures about God's revealed character and attributes, HIS promises and covenants, HIS dealings with man and Israel up to this, placing that into a consistent non-contradictory systematic, allowing the systematic to fill in the pieces where interpretive bias might carnally be extreme.

Reformed Covenant Theology, to get a handle on it, is built upon the foundation of three covenant pillars:

1. The Covenant of Redemption
2. The Covenant of Works
3. The Covenant of Grace

From eternity past to eternity future God has been/is/will be working HIS plan of redemption, which we believe to be fulfilled by the works (obedience specifically of Jesus to the Father) and grace (benefits derived from/imputed/inherited/adopted) applied because of by the Holy Spirit. The interplay and workings of these three covenants in one important sense operate independent of man, but in the same sense man benefits from this inter-working considerably. They have been planned for from the beginning, agreed to by the triune members of the Godhead, always been there; it's just that they have come to earth to be implemented in slow deliberate well spoken motion.

In the Bible, God has made use of several ground level covenants with man, pointing us to a familiarity with these three more spiritually discerned foundational pillars, some conditional (if you do this/I will do that), some unconditional (I will do this regardless). The covenant with Moses and Israel for instance, if you keep my law I will doubly bless or curse based on that, that is a conditional national covenant for temporal reward. There is not a conditional covenant I can think of that man has not failed at and broke. On the other hand, there is not one unconditional covenant that will fail because the burden is entirely upon God's shoulders to perform and fulfill. By these God intends to teach and instruct, paint for us a picture with broad multi-generational strokes.

God, it can be said, is a God of covenants. We are given these broad slow motion pictures as a lens from which to look deeper into HIS will and Word of Scripture, from HIS larger perspective and not so much from the small minded bias of ours.

Certainly, there are other competing systematic theologies. In the past two hundred years one of the most popular has been Dispensationalism. It is not my purpose today to argue between systematics, but to illustrate the need for them. Unlike most private interpretations, systematic theologies have been carefully thought out, well documented, cross-referenced, analyzed and debated, tested/tried/refined, stone sharpening stone. On the internet today it is mostly amateur against amateur, sentiment versus sentiment, meme to meme, angry misrepresentation upon angry misrepresentation, neither one invested nor trained enough to more wisely consider. This is what passes nowadays as the virtues of allegedly "spirit filled" private interpretations.

Rejection of Errors

The CanonOfDort goes much further than just countering the five articulated complaints of the Remonstrants against the long standing BelgicConfession . It goes into direct public rejection of their many theological errors, anticipates their further remonstrance by applying a Covenant Theology systematic and scriptural references to plainly make/teach each point.

Please consider:

• that there are historical indications the Armenians may have been infiltrated by the Roman Catholic Jesuits as a means to the ends of counter reformation.
• that the remonstrants were formally complaining to Church and State authorities to force changes within the already existing Reformed Church. Nor was it a quiet and polite theological disputation being made.
• that the more the Armenian's influence increased (especially amongst the British Anglicans) the more tyrannical religious persecutions increased.
• that since the late 19th century when Armenian/Wesleyan theology truly became dominant in traditionally Covenantial/Confessional branches (Baptist/Presbyterian/Congregationalist etc...), the Church as a whole has fragmented under the weight of post-modernism, dispensationalism, liberalism, nominalism, universalism, deconstructionism, cults etc...

It was the 1618 Synod's intent to once and for all put a damper on this turbulent revolt and injurious consequences. The Synod drew back into the church's Confessional and Covenant Theology backbone to make a five pronged doctrinal defense we would all do well to learn from.

• First Head of Doctrine - Divine Election and Reprobation
• Second Head of Doctrine - The Death of Christ, and the Redemption of Men Thereby
• Third and Fourth Heads of Doctrine - The Corruption of Man, His Conversion to God, and the Manner Thereof
• Fifth Head of Doctrine - The Perseverance of the Saints

Each heading contained a list of relating articles explaining the doctrine (some of which we have already read). At the end of each list of doctrinal article then there came agreed upon supplemental paragraphs divulging the various theological errors the Remonstrants were inherently making. For instance, under heading one it reads:

"Rejection of Errors - The true doctrine concerning election and reprobation having been explained, the Synod rejects the errors of those:"

Then the rejection lists nine paragraphs under heading one exposing the errors and giving the synod's consensus answer. I won't have the time to get to all nine, but I will pull out a sampling so you can get the sense and layout of it. If any of the rejections are of any concern to you, please refer to the complete text (CanonOfDort ) to examine on your own time. I bring this up to say that essentially we have a preassembled list defending the Reformed branch of Christian faith whys and from whats. The Synod foresaw the need in the early 17th century and thankfully the theological arguments really haven't changed all that much.

The first headings rejection of errors begins:

"Rejection of Errors - The true doctrine concerning election and reprobation having been explained, the Synod rejects the errors of those:"

Paragraph 1

Who teach: That the will of God to save those who would believe and would persevere in faith and in the obedience of faith is the whole and entire decree of election unto salvation, and that nothing else concerning this decree has been revealed in Gods Word.

For these deceive the simple and plainly contradict the Scriptures, which declare that God will not only save those who will believe, but that He has also from eternity chosen certain particular persons to whom, above others, He will grant, in time, both faith in Christ and perseverance; as it is written: "I manifested thy name unto the men whom thou gavest me out of the world" ( kjv@John:17:6). And "as many as were ordained to eternal life believed" ( kjv@Acts:13:48). And: "Even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blemish before him in love" ( kjv@Ephesians:1:4).

Canon of Dort - First Head of Doctrine - Divine Election and Reprobation - Rejection of Errors

One cannot say that what the Scriptures means by election is only that God elected the means of salvation before the foundations not the individuals who will receive it, because that plain and simply contradicts the revelation of other key pieces of scripture declaring much more.

Hold that in your head for a moment while we add paragraph two to it.

Paragraph 2

Who teach: That there are various kinds of election of God unto eternal life: the one general and indefinite, the other particular and definite; and that the latter in turn is either incomplete, revocable, non-decisive, and conditional, or complete, irrevocable, decisive, and absolute. Likewise: That there is one election unto faith and another unto salvation, so that election can be unto justifying faith, without being a decisive election unto salvation.

For this is a fancy of mens minds, invented regardless of the Scriptures, whereby the doctrine of election is corrupted, and this golden chain of our salvation is broken: "And whom he foreordained, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified" ( kjv@Romans:8:30).

Canon of Dort - First Head of Doctrine - Divine Election and Reprobation - Rejection of Errors

The fancy invention here is that God elects the means of salvation Jesus with "all" and "whosoever" in mind, but has to wait on the freewill of a man to decide to receive it so as to not step on their freewill, even then it is not fully dispensed until through a process of trial and elimination only those freely true to the faith remain, then upon final inspection God elects those HE will author to a completed finish actually get in.

To the contrary, not only does election go back to the foundations and down to the individuals, election is singular, complete, unconditional, irrevocable, nothing less than God being merciful/gifting/immutable/sovereign. Along with God being God in saving, scripture also suggests the elements involved in election form a singular irreducible chain: foreordaination/calling/justification/glorification.

Do the Scriptures clearly state this? You can line up your handful of scriptures to say that they don't. I can line up my handful of scriptures that suggest to you that they do? But more than that, I can show you out of a tightly knit systematic how such a statement concurs with what we know about God's character and attributes, promises and covenants, dealings with man/Israel. Perhaps you don't like my additional systematics. Fine, then sit me down and show me where my tightly knit systematic is wrong.

The Reformed systematic is built upon the seeking to understand the big picture covenants made between man and God in these Scriptures. God insisted upon these covenants and went out of HIS way to illustrate them and make them plainly known. God, knowing the limitations of the finite mind and propensities for corruption cemented these covenants into place to be the bases for eventual systematics; being HIMSELF a systematic thinker.

Answer me this as to God's instructional covenants, in the case of Eve's Seed crushing the head of the Serpent, does this covenant make any conditional "if" statement that the descendants of Adam would have to choose/perform anything in return freely of their own? The covenant with Abraham, was he chosen because he first believed? was it revocable at any future point (himself or his descendants) if not preformed upon in the right way. The covenant with David, was it non-decisive or conditional or not absolute?

Now then with the covenant with Moses, it was conditional, made either double curse or blessing based on their obedience for all the other nations to see. As for this covenant Israel (representing the best of man), freely sworn to (despite solemn warnings) and attempted utterly failed at their half (throughout their generations). Was the unconditionally elected nation ever of its solemn oath and freewill ever able to discern and to do and sustain to achieve? No, not even for temporal blessing (immediate gratification/feedback)!

What then about the other conditional covenant with Adam? Recall that this was truly freewill before any fall from grace and spiritual death and curse upon his descendants.

What would make us to think then that God's entire plan of salvation start and to the end at any point was left dependent on any remaining sliver of capablility or what man may or may not think or do or desire if he so freely wills? No, instead it is said we've become "gods" in our own eyes.

So then let's briefly scan the remaining list of heading one rejections at what/who else we are defending the Reformed faith from:

• Who teach: That the good pleasure and purpose of God, of which Scripture makes mention in the doctrine of election, does not consist in this, that God chose certain persons rather than others, but in this, that He chose out of all possible conditions (among which are also the works of the law), or out of the whole order of things, the act of faith which from its very nature is undeserving, as well as its incomplete obedience, as a condition of salvation, and that He would graciously consider this in itself as a complete obedience and count it worthy of the reward of eternal life. Paragraph 3
• Who teach: That in the election unto faith this condition is beforehand demanded that man should use his innate understanding of God aright, be pious, humble, meek, and fit for eternal life, as if on these things election were in any way dependent. Paragraph 4
• Who teach: That the incomplete and non-decisive election of particular persons to salvation occurred because of a foreseen faith, conversion, holiness, godliness, which either began or continued for some time; but that the complete and decisive election occurred because of foreseen perseverance unto the end in faith, conversion, holiness, and godliness; and that this is the gracious and evangelical worthiness, for the sake of which he who is chosen is more worthy than he who is not chosen; and that therefore faith, the obedience of faith, holiness, godliness, and perseverance are not fruits of the unchangeable election unto glory, but are conditions which, being required beforehand, were foreseen as being met by those who will be fully elected, and are causes without which the unchangeable election to glory does not occur. Paragraph 5
• Who teach: That not every election unto salvation is unchangeable, but that some of the elect, any decree of God notwithstanding, can yet perish and do indeed perish. Paragraph 6
• Who teach: That there is in this life no fruit and no consciousness of the unchangeable election to glory, nor any certainty, except that which depends on a changeable and uncertain condition. Paragraph 7
• Who teach: That God, simply by virtue of His righteous will, did not decide either to leave anyone in the fall of Adam and in the common state of sin and condemnation, or to pass anyone by in the communication of grace which is necessary for faith and conversion. Paragraph 8
• Who teach: That the reason why God sends the gospel to one people rather than to another is not merely and solely the good pleasure of God, but rather the fact that one people is better and worthier than another to which the gospel is not communicated. Paragraph 9

Remember now these are just the nine rejections to the first heading. There are four more headings of "Who Teach:" rejections. It is a very substantial statement that the Synod wishes to convey.

Why Defend? Here is a similar list. Extracted and collected together like this, hopefully you can begin to see the types of things they are immediately concerned with, the verses that they are considering relevant, and the application of their systematic:

• For by this injurious error the pleasure of God and the merits of Christ are made of none effect, and men are drawn away by useless questions from the truth of gracious justification and from the simplicity of Scripture, and this declaration of the apostle is charged as untrue: "Who saved us, and called us with a holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before times eternal" ( kjv@2Timothy:1:9). Paragraph 3
• For this savors of the teaching of Pelagius, and is opposed to the doctrine of the apostle when he writes: "Among whom we also all once lived in the lust of our flesh, doing the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, even as the rest; but God, being rich in mercy, for his great love wherewith he loved us, even when we were dead through our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ (by grace have ye been saved), and raised us up with him, and made us to sit with him in the heavenly places, in Christ Jesus; that in the ages to come he might show the exceeding riches of his grace in kindness towards us in Christ Jesus; for by grace have ye been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; not of works, that no man should glory" ( kjv@Ephesians:2:3-9). Paragraph 4
• This is repugnant to the entire Scripture, which constantly inculcates this and similar declarations: Election is not of works, but of him that calleth ( kjv@Romans:9:11). And as many as were ordained to eternal life believed ( kjv@Acts:13:48). He chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy ( kjv@Ephesians:1:4). Ye did not choose me, but I chose you ( kjv@John:15:16). But if it is by grace, it is no more of works ( kjv@Romans:11:6). Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and sent his Son ( kjv@1John:4:10). Paragraph 5
• By this gross error they make God to be changeable, and destroy the comfort which the godly obtain out of the firmness of their election, and contradict the Holy Scripture, which teaches that the elect can not be led astray ( kjv@Matthew:24:24), that Christ does not lose those whom the Father gave him ( kjv@John:6:39), and that God also glorified those whom he foreordained, called, and justified ( kjv@Romans:8:30). Paragraph 6
• For not only is it absurd to speak of an uncertain certainty, but also contrary to the experience of the saints, who by virtue of the consciousness of their election rejoice with the apostle and praise this favor of God ( kjv@Ephesians:1); who according to Christs admonition rejoice with his disciples that their names are written in heaven ( kjv@Luke:10:20); who also place the consciousness of their election over against the fiery darts of the devil, asking:Who shall lay anything to the charge of Gods elect? ( kjv@Romans:8:33 ). Paragraph 7
• For this is firmly decreed:He hath mercy on whom he will, and whom he will he hardeneth ( kjv@Romans:9:18). And also this: "Unto you it is given to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given" ( kjv@Matthew:13:11). Likewise: "I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that thou didst hide these things from the wise and understanding, and didst reveal them unto babes; yea, Father, for so it was well-pleasing in thy sight" ( kjv@Matthew:11:25, 26). Paragraph 8
• For this Moses denies, addressing the people of Israel as follows: Behold, unto Jehovah thy God belongeth heaven and the heaven of heavens, the earth, with all that is therein. Only Jehovah had a delight in thy fathers to love them, and he chose their seed after them, even you above all peoples, as at this day( kjv@Deuteronomy:10:14, 15). And Christ said: "Woe unto thee, Chorazin! woe unto thee, Bethsaida! for if the mighty works had been done in Tyre and Sidon which were done in you, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes" ( kjv@Matthew: 11:21). Paragraph 9

Conclusions - Why defend the Reformed Faith & from what?

When I began this present effort it was not my intent to convince or convert potential readers to the "Reformed" way of thinking. My intention rather was to present a plausible God serving case why it is worthy to defend from malicious attack continuing to this day. My hope is that I have presented a case that deserves your further inquiry and a legitimate seat at the table of sincere and honest and intelligent theological debate.

The Reformed position is not the "demon's theology" as has been accused. It is not the position of the antichrist. Its structure is built upon a theocentric and christocentric redemptive covenant theology that leaves God as sovereign, deliberate, immutable, in no way dependent on man, just, holy, full of mercy, evidenced by HIS actions and by plenty of scripture. It relies on the obedient works and merits of Jesus. It relies upon the graces afforded to us by such works of Jesus applied to us by the Holy Spirit. Why wouldn't it be allowed at least the effort of consideration?

To be honest with you, I have not always been Reformed leaning. I have been through several various stages. Little by little I became more and more challenged by certain soteriological questions, answers I found unsatisfactory or lacking from these other theological camps. Little by little, one by one, after much struggling, the pieces of this puzzle began fitting together. Without knowing all that much about it or how to label it I found over time more and more of these answers appeared to be in the shape of being Covenantal. I leaned covenantal first, seeing the value of that lead me to confessional, which lead me to the investigation of what it means to be Calvinist.

I will leave the effort to defend Calvinism to a separate writing.

I have learned a great deal about Reformed in preparation for this present effort, necessitated by the unceasing attacks on social media against it. The world of modern social media unfortunately is world of memes and short witted provocateur takes; not a place for well reasoned/well grounded theological response. People today get their theology from likes and dislikes and numbers following and trending this moment and the silence of not trending later that same day and easily forgot.

People today do not like give themselves labels. In my experience people who like to tear other people down by their labels and not give a label to their own systems of belief are typically hiding something they do not want us to know about them or to counter attack. Often, after a game back and forth of 20 questions, I discover what they are hiding from us are theologies I'm not even sure to call Christian or at very least are way out there on the fringes.

I can't rightly say that "Reformed" holds all of the answers to my remaining questions. Yes there are a few items (fewer and fewer as I progress) where I am still challenged by their answers that I am still struggling with, but still respect. Perhaps that is a good thing not to dwell too firmly in one camp. Perhaps that is an additional benefit to having to stand to defend a defensible position is having to learn the opposition and knowing the remaining bits of ground where you yet cannot.

EDIT:COMPLETE

Comment Board: ReformedWhy

Tags: Christian, Protestant, Reformed, Theology, Doctrine, Grace, Calvinism, Arminianism, Election, Assurance, Synod, Canon, Confession, Remonstrance, ,

Further Resources:

https://theocast.org/introduction-to-covenant-theology - 5 part introductory series on Covenant Theology by Theocast. https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/essay/covenant-theology - Essay by Ligon Duncan at the Gospel Coalition https://www.monergism.com/introduction-covenant-theology - Introduction by J.I. Packer at Monergism https://rts.edu/resources/what-are-some-misconceptions-about-covenant-theology

Child Threads:

New - ReformationWhy New - WhyCalvinism Tue Feb 6 12:54:29 CST 2024