What is a Reformed Christian?
4HisGlory asks, "...what exactly makes someone a "reformed Christian" as opposed to a plain "Christian"? Perspective? Theological commitments?..."
Great question. I am not the best person to ask, being newly reformed. However, I know people who are Dispensationalists and call themselves reformed simply because they are Calvinists. I personally do not believe Dispensationalism falls under the rubric of reformed, yet other people may not call me reformed because I'm a credo-baptist.
I do not see theological commitments and perspective as being two independent factors really. It obviously must have some historical relation to what the reformers believed. Yet, to what degree one must agree with the reformers in order to be reformed may be a soritean paradox.
As far as I understand, Luther and Calvin had two different understandings of the details concerning the Lord's Supper. This is an area where you can disagree on a fine point of theology and yet still consider yourself reformed, if for no other reason than that both views were held by reformers.
Ultimately, those who call themselves "reformed" should be more concerned with ideas such as the five Solas and their correspondence with truth. One may say that what makes the reformers reformed was their will to adhere to the truth regardless of tradition or some finite authority on Bible interpretation. In that case, a Dispensationalist may consider himself reformed because he adheres to the truth regardless of the other reformer's traditional teaching.
After all, I think all "reformed" persons would agree to disagree with the original reformers if they found them wrong concerning a minor theological discrepancy. In such a case they may not want to give up the title "Reformed" because, rather than the title demarcating their adherence to exact historical teaching, the title for them would demarcate a commitment to a certain ideal. Nevertheless, it seems to me that even here a Dispensationalist would want to adopt a different title because this is not a “minor” discrepancy in my opinion. Still, “major” and “minor” discrepancies may depend with whom you are talking. Even so, I do not think there is an absolute dichotomy between adhering to an ideal of the reformers and adhering to their historical teaching.
Your thoughts?
Great question. I am not the best person to ask, being newly reformed. However, I know people who are Dispensationalists and call themselves reformed simply because they are Calvinists. I personally do not believe Dispensationalism falls under the rubric of reformed, yet other people may not call me reformed because I'm a credo-baptist.
I do not see theological commitments and perspective as being two independent factors really. It obviously must have some historical relation to what the reformers believed. Yet, to what degree one must agree with the reformers in order to be reformed may be a soritean paradox.
As far as I understand, Luther and Calvin had two different understandings of the details concerning the Lord's Supper. This is an area where you can disagree on a fine point of theology and yet still consider yourself reformed, if for no other reason than that both views were held by reformers.
Ultimately, those who call themselves "reformed" should be more concerned with ideas such as the five Solas and their correspondence with truth. One may say that what makes the reformers reformed was their will to adhere to the truth regardless of tradition or some finite authority on Bible interpretation. In that case, a Dispensationalist may consider himself reformed because he adheres to the truth regardless of the other reformer's traditional teaching.
After all, I think all "reformed" persons would agree to disagree with the original reformers if they found them wrong concerning a minor theological discrepancy. In such a case they may not want to give up the title "Reformed" because, rather than the title demarcating their adherence to exact historical teaching, the title for them would demarcate a commitment to a certain ideal. Nevertheless, it seems to me that even here a Dispensationalist would want to adopt a different title because this is not a “minor” discrepancy in my opinion. Still, “major” and “minor” discrepancies may depend with whom you are talking. Even so, I do not think there is an absolute dichotomy between adhering to an ideal of the reformers and adhering to their historical teaching.
Your thoughts?
posted by JonathanB84 at 8:00 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home