What do Christians who belong to such churches call themselves? Do they call themselves Presbyterians? Reformed Christians? All three? None of the above? Am I going to offend someone by using the wrong term? Further complicating the matter is that, as Brian Johnson pointed out, the word 'Reformation' would certainly include Luther, who would not now be called Reformed or Presbyterian. I would define someone who is Reformed as a " covenantal Calvinist ". I would define a Presbyterian as one who subscribes to the presbyterian form of church government , especially the plurality of elders elected by congregations and the connectedness of the wider Church.
It is representative, like the American republic. You could argue, actually, that some of the Dutch Reformed denominations such as the RCUS and URCNA are presbyterian in their polity, and there's some truth to that, even if their names for things are a bit different. In summary: the words are not exactly synonymous, though they are certainly related in church history. The typical Reformed or Presbyterian, rather than getting all uptight about whether you're using the words accurately or not, would, I hope, just try to explain it to you!
Labels can be helpful, but they are only labels; sometimes they are not so helpful. Presbyterian is a name that defines a large body of believers. As in all large groups, there will be vastly different opinions and beliefs of its members.
Some members within a single Presbytery local group of Pressie churches will hold to the Westminster Standards as mentioned helpfully above and would be considered reformed in their stance. Other members of the same Presbytery might reject the standards of Westminster and thus would not be considered reformed and I would argue not truly Presbyterian in an historical sense, since they have rejected the standards of Presbyterianism.
So, Not all Presbyterians are reformed if they disagree with the Westminster Confession as their standard. And certainly there are many, many Christians from other non-Presbyterian denominations who would be reformed and agree with the Synod of Dordt , but do not necessarily hold to the Westminster Confession of Faith as their standard e.
Reformed Baptists, Dutch Reformed Church. They have other standards such as the Baptist Confession and the Heidelberg Catechism. Calvinism would, broadly speaking, be that set of doctrines as taught by John Calvin in his Institutes. These are considered to be a Reformed understanding of Scripture and one of the best Systematic theologies ever written. For an excellent summary of Church History and how some of these terms came into being have a look at Sketches from Church History by S.
It is an excellent summary of how the Church developed since the Apostles. The Presbyterian Church U. Part of the Reformed tradition, it is the largest Presbyterian denomination in the U. To the point of "reformed church" this is a good description: The Reformation began as an attempt to reform the Roman Catholic Church, by priests who opposed what they perceived as false doctrines and ecclesiastic malpractice—especially the teaching and the sale of indulgences or the abuses thereof, and simony, the selling and buying of clerical offices—that the reformers saw as evidence of the systemic corruption of the Church's Roman hierarchy, which included the Pope.
If the aforementioned labels seem too specific, but Christian seems too broad, Evangelical Calvinist may be appropriate for those who are Calvinistic, and Reformed i. There are many, for example, who espouse Calvinistic theology, Covenant Theology, and Presbyterian polity, but may differ in Baptism, and may not categorically affirm Confessionalism either Presbyterian, Reformed, or Baptist.
They may even differ in views on the Charismata. Yet, the term " Evangelical " though having developed negative connotations and stereotypes in recent decades is a legitimate and respectable term which has described Protestant Calvinists Jonathan Edwards, George Whitefield, John Stott and D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones, most notably for centuries.
While it can also encompass other theological systems e. It's not a dumb question at all. Here's a simple answer that I think may help clarify. Presbyterian is simply one denomination under one much larger umbrella which is used to categorize a framework or lens for viewing God, the world and scripture.
Think of two frameworks like we have mammals and reptiles. Another way of putting this is that Dispensationalism is another lens or system of theology.
Baptist is the largest and most well known denomination which is dispensational. In the same way, - most Baptists hold a dispensational view of theology - but not all dispensationalists are Baptist denomination. There are Reformed Baptists, and independents, and Evangelical Free, and Christians who are Calvinist but not officially part of a denomination. The table below contains a list of terms, including their broad and general use. Presbyterians are Calvinists. Members of Presbyterians churches have professed their belief in the theological tenets that Calvin articulated.
There is freedom on third order matters. Part of the debate over terms relates to how Calvinism is defined. The acronym stands for:. Others believe that T. First, pastors ; then doctors ; next elders ; and fourth deacons. Hence if we will have a church well-ordered and maintained we ought to observe this form of government. Pastors, elders, and deacons are offices found in other Protestant forms of church government.
Calvin, however, made a distinction between two different kinds of church elders. One kind of elder preached and taught the church. The other kind helped provide oversight of the congregation.
Good thoughts both and — Michael J — indeed yes, vexing that Calvin chose to burn another Christian — irritant and curmudgeon that he was.
All that. Michael E — not sure I understand your critique. Please feel free ha! I came to the blog, seeking answers. As a young Christian, I am expected to confirm soon, but the idea seems scary to me. The writer makes it seem like we only have free will because, by this point, it is meaningless. This cancels out the value of free will. It also denies the idea of there being a Hell. God had created us. Since I already am promised heaven, just by existing, nothing I do can take heaven away from me.
What then is this human life for? Does sin just mean being a bad child? Is God going to love me despite sin? These questions are making me question my faith. Please, someone shed some light. Wow — what excellent questions, and what an excellent quest you are on. A few somewhat brief comments here in response…and perhaps others wish to weigh in.
OK — perhaps another way to explain it in response to your comment above is to use the analogy of a very human relationship: that of a parent to a child. I will only love you if you play by my rules, if you do what I want you to do, only then will I love you. That is not really love, is it? For love to BE love, it must be freely given, without condition. Love is not a transaction; it is something we get for free, in order for it to be what it is. This is the kind of love we speak about when we talk of grace.
So following on the above example as it applies to free will. We could ask the question — in what does freedom consist? If you assert that I will attain heaven if I abstain from bad behavior sin and if I exhibit positive behavior good works ; and if you assert that I will avoid hell by the same means my behavior , am I really free?
These are actually the stimuli that govern animal behavior — instincts governed by pain and pleasure. Can we be free under these conditions? I and I believe Apostle Paul would say — certainly not!
In what does true freedom consist then? Freedom for the Christian consists not in trusting that our own good behavior gets us love; true freedom consists in the faith that we are already loved, regardless of what we do. And if you truly trust the love your parents have for you — appreciate it, give thanks for it, relish it, would you not then be inclined to exhibit behavior that is pleasing to them? Do things that are consistent with who you are, but in relationship to your parents who love you?
I realize — this is a whole different way of thinking, when our natural human tendency is to think of everything as a transaction, involving reward and punishment. We cannot fix that our selves; it requires divine help, in the form of this transforming love.
What about that. It must be that God has a different fate for them. But surely your analogy of parenthood raises another question. Yes, good parents love their children even when they behave badly. This is the cruelty of the predestinarian argument in a nutshell. God made it simple. In it He has left instructions for how to be with Him thru Eternity. God has to be absolutely fair. Abraham believed God demonstrated Faith and it was counted to him as righteousness.
That is not so for non-believers. Rejection of Jesus as being Who He said He is is the only thing that will get one an eternal trip into Hell which is eternal separation from God.
Did you read all three? It makes more sense if you start at the first one and read them all through. Hope this helps. God never promised to anyone that just because you exist means you go to heaven. Faith and faith alone in Jesus is the only way to get into heaven. My mind is blown. What does Calvin have to do what with GOD says?
Almost as strange as Catholicism throws Mary into the Trinity somehow just because she was a virgin when she gave birth to Jesus. Nobody else! I was seriously mortified by the theology.
Salvation is open to all. Anybody reading it anymore? Jennifer, one of the dangers of Christian faith is thinking we know exactly what God thinks which is so often simply…what WE think! The Bible is easy to interpret: it matches my own views, biases, perspectives. That is rather dangerous. That requires us to be humble, and to be open, and able to receive the divine help we need to rightly interpret the Word of God.
Humility is the only way that grace can find us, and that we can indeed choose God, for indeed I heartily agree with you, salvation IS open to all! I am doubtful of that. Not our own good works, our own smart understanding…even our own good and holy choices.
We are saved by God in Christ alone. I once read a poster that has always stuck with me: a mind is like a parachute. It only functions when open. I pray that God will indeed shed light on your own quest and journey to know what is true, Jennifer. He has also predestined non-believers those who reject Jesus of Nazareth as being the Son of God Who paid the penalty for all sins when He voluntarily died in our place as a perfect Sacrifice for the sins of the whole world.
Jeffrey I like your parachute comment. Umbrellas too, like parachutes function properly only when open. That is the sign of the cross that Catholics make on their body when they pray. Father touch forehead , Son touch lower breastbone and Holy Spirit touch both shoulders. Coming from a Catholic perspective…We are made in the image and likeness of God, therefore not innately sinful but innately good. We inherited our sinful nature Original Sin from Adam and Eve.
God loves us unconditionally…even when we sin. We freely choose heaven or hell. God does not desire our damnation but his justice demands it when we reject him. We are given gifts of grace…true. It is up to us whether to accept or reject. We make these choices every day. God is also infinitely merciful, and willing to forgive, even in the last moment of our lives. True love is a choice. We make it veryday in our family life as we do in our relationship with God.
Also, no piece of paper church indulgence will guarantee our salvation. For one thing, an indulgence can only be granted to someone in a proper state of grace.
This can not be properly understood from a Protestant understanding. We have a different understanding of Church and magesterial authority. The Church does admit terrible abuses of indulgences before the reformation.
There are abuses in every church including the Catholic Church. Also, I need to respond to Jennifer. The Catholic Church does not throw Mary into the Trinity.
0コメント