Talk:Reformed theology

From Theopedia

Integration

I vote that either the Calvinism article comes over here, or we this article goes of over there. I know Wooster has said this at various times, but I'm thinking it's dumb to have two separate articles when they are basically the same thing (or should be). JordanBarrett (talk) 13:11, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

We need to maintain the distinction of covenantal Reformed folks and other Calvinists, because, of course, not all Calvinists are covenantal. Granted, non-covenantal folks who are Calvinists describe themselves sometimes as Reformed. Both terms have somewhat variable meanings. -Aaronshaf 15:49, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I see Reformed theology as necessarily being confessional (ala the WCF and 2nd London Baptist) and adhereing to Covenant Theology (as Aaron suggested). Thus I find a distinction between Reformed Baptists and Calvinistic Baptists for example. Calvinistic Baptists often eschew Reformed Covenantalism. Reformed theology includes Calvinism, but I guess I'm suggesting that the Reformed tradition is broader than Calvinism -- although I may be wrong. If Calvinism necessarily includes confessionalism and Covenant Theology then I would see them as synonymous. But then what do you call those "5-Pointer and 5-Sola" guys who are not confessional or Covenantal. I call them Calvinists but not Reformed. Just my 0.02. Jim, ... Gomarus 17:47, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps it's my mere opinion, but here it goes: the 5-pointer stuff was a later development in response to Arminius (I assume people know this, if not, cool, if you do, just let me build my case). Thus, it was a later development not by Calvin and is basically his soteriology lumped into a logical set of points. Thus I believe to be truly "Calvinist" is to be Reformed, and that "Calvinism" should not stand for TULIP. I see that this is difficult, as Jim explained, since you have Calvinistic Baptists, however, I think we should either combine them, or if we leave it as is, that we are clearer in our articles as to why they stand separated. As of now, I don't think it's clear. JordanBarrett (talk) 02:07, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you that the 5-Points came after Calvin and his Institutes. There are many, I think, who would generally maintain that Reformed = Calvinism. My distinctions may be a little forced. I merely wanted to get my point expressed and note the difference between Calvinistic Baptists and Reformed baptists. There are also 5-point dispensationalists ala John MacArthur and S. Lewis Johnson who claim(ed) to be Calvinists but were certainly not Reformed. But as you suggest, this is usually limited to Soteriology. The thing is, by and large, Calvinism is associated with the 5-points more than it is recognized in the broader "Reformed" sense. In any case, however, I will not oppose combining the articles, if that is what you guys want to do. I will help where I can. Jim, . . . Gomarus 12:00, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Clarity

OK, I've held my tongue for a while, and even though it appears I'm in the minority by a longshot here, I just have to ask this question: What is the essence of reformed theology? I believe that this article adds a lot of baggage that might be true of many (if not most) people who are part of the reformed tradition, but is nonetheless peripheral to what it really means to be reformed. From my understanding, reformers like Luther, Knox, Calvin, Anselm, Augustine, and Paul were not necessarily hung up on being creedal, confessional, or convenantal. They were committed to the inspiration, authority, and sufficiency of Scripture, the absolute sovereignty of God (vis a vis the depravity and inability of man), the doctrines of grace, and the focus of the local church on exalting God, evangelizing the lost, and equipping the saints. Can someone help me understand when and why these additional elements entered the picture? Humbly, HokieRNB 14:12, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I think there is a distinction which HokieRNB is not allowing for. There are many who would say that "Reformed theology" does not mean "the theology of the Reformers." The latter would better be described as Reformation theology associating it with the 16th century Reformation and the various reformers of that transition period. "Reformed theology," however, is particularly confessional and to be identified with the theology of Reformed Confessions such as Belgic, Westminster, and London Baptist. Also, although the theology of Augustine, Anselm, and Paul may be found represented in Reformed theology, technically they are not listed among the reformers. :-) Open for discussion. Jim . . . Gomarus 15:25, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, thank you for making the distinction between the reformers and those whose thinking was well aligned with them.  :) However, I'm still trying to understand how the title reformed got attached to something that was quite distinct from what is understood as the reformation. (Oh, and you can call me Russell in discussion...) HokieRNB 15:41, 29 September 2006 (UTC)