Systematic Theology: Reformed Theology (footnote #1)

We have completed our survey of Reformed Theology, ending with a brief overview of Covenantalism. I would like to add three footnotes about Reformed Theology.

First, Covenantalism is not the majority position in our day. It was for several hundred years until the mid 1800s when a new idea about how to view the entire Bible emerged. Instead of defining the continuing revelation in the Bible, based on biblical covenants, the divisions were catalogued based on dispensations. One popular iteration of this view includes seven dispensations in which God dealt with people differently. Some who embrace this go so far as to say that people who lived in the Dispensation of Law were saved by keeping the Mosaic Law. Of course, this is false since no one has ever been justified by the works of the law (Romans 3:20, Galatians 2:16). Some, in the very fringe of this way of thinking falsely, postulate that Jews are saved by being Jewish, even without Christ (Galatians 3:28).

The most important aspect of this theological debate centers on the notion that there is a difference between Israel and the Church and in how God relates to each. This not only has strong implications regarding eschatology (last things), but it changes how one reads and interprets the Bible (hermeneutics).

Many of those who follow the dispensational view insist that covenantalists espouse “replacement theology,” as though we believe God has broken His promises to Israel in favor of the New Testament Church. This is not so. Covenantalism is rather a theology of inclusion and completeness, not replacement. I say inclusion and completeness because, not only has it always been God’s plan to save people from every tongue, tribe, and nation (Revelation 7:9-10), but the wall of separation that divides Jew and Gentile has been torn down by Christ, and the two have been made one (Ephesians 2:11-22). Additionally, God has grafted the mostly Gentile Church into Israel (Romans 11:17-2,4).

Two closing thoughts: (1) Though covenantalism may be in the minority, I believe it to be much more biblical. (2) We dare not divide the Body of Christ over this as both views are strongly held by serious Christians. R.C. Sproul and John MacArthur were polar opposites on this issue, yet these two brothers were the best of friends.

Next: Eschatology and Baptism.

Systematic Theology: Reformed Theology (6b)

We are in the midst of considering the tenets of Covenantalism. So far we have commented on the Covenant of Redemption between the members of the Trinity. Though there is no specific conversation of such a covenant expressly recorded in the Bible, there are numerous times in the Bible when reference is made to God’s plan of redemption existing in eternity past.

We commented on the Covenant of Works made with Adam, which was subsequently broken by Adam and Eve. There in the Garden of Eden, immediately after the Fall, we read of the first installment of the Covenant of Grace. We commented on the next installments of the Covenant of Grace with Noah, with Abraham, and with Moses.

That brings us to the next installment of the Covenant of Grace, with David. This is recorded primarily in 2 Samuel 7 and 1 Chronicles 17. There are other aspects of this Covenant, but the two primary elements are that the Deliverer was to be (a) from the line of David, and therefore, (b) a King. Though there are some portions of the Davidic Covenant that refer to David’s son, Solomon, there are other details that most certainly do not refer to Solomon, but to David’s “Greater Son,” Jesus.

Likewise, many of the writings of the Old Testament prophets, in which God promised to restore Israel after their times of exile, point to their return recorded in Ezra and Nehemiah. But as it is with the Davidic Covenant and Solomon, many other aspects were not fulfilled in national Israel but in the Deliverer, Jesus, and spiritually, in His Church.

The next and final installment of the Covenant of Grace is in the Person and work of Jesus. This new and everlasting covenant is in Christ’s blood, as He clearly said when He established the Lord’s Supper. God’s people are now living in the New Covenant. This covenant is not with any nationality or ethnicity, but people of every tribe, tongue, and nation who believe in Him—because they have been born again by the Holy Spirit of God. 

Every covenant in scripture, in fact, every page of scripture, is about Jesus the Deliverer. Everything in the Old Testament looked forward and pointed to Him. And everything in the New Testament: (a) points to how He is the fulfillment of every OT covenant and prophecy; (b) instructs us how to live in light of God’s grace received through faith in Christ; and (c) points us to His Second Coming and the establishment of the New Heavens and the New Earth.

Next: Three last follow up items: (1) the most prominent differing view, (2) eschatology; and (3) baptism.

Systematic theology: Reformed Theology (6a)

To recap before moving forward, we have been considering Reformed Theology. We have said that Reformed Theology is Calvinistic, yet not all Calvinists are what might be more formally considered Reformed. We have pointed out two characteristics of Reformed Theology: Confessionalism and Covenantalism. The most recent post explained Confessionalism. This time we will give an overview of Covenantalism.

Covenantal theology views God’s dealings with His people based on “covenants.” Very simply stated, Covenantalism says that there are two basic covenants: Law (with Adam before the Fall), and Grace (with Adam and his descendants after the Fall.)  In each of the successive covenants God made in the Old Testament, the Covenant of Grace was unfolded further until it was completely revealed in the New Covenant in Christ’s blood.

There are slight variations held by different groups of Covenantalism, but I will not venture into these intramural variations of Covenentalism.

Covenantal theology rightly emphasizes continuity between the Old and New Testaments of the Bible.  An important aspect of this belief is the insistence that God has one people of faith made up of Israel and the Church. The one company of the redeemed comes from people of every tribe, tongue, and nation.  God’s one plan for His people began in eternity past in what theologians refer to as the Covenant of Redemption, when the Triune Godhead decreed to save some of fallen humanity by forgiving their sins, thereby putting God’s grace on display.

The next Covenant in time was with Adam. It is the Covenant of Works.  Adam was to obey God and live or disobey and die.  Adam and Eve broke the Covenant of Works in the Garden of Eden, after which death entered the human condition.

The Covenant of Grace was first revealed in Genesis 3:16, when God promised to provide a Deliverer to reverse the Fall and save His people.  That Deliverer is Jesus, the only begotten Son of God. This took place long before Israel existed as a people. 

The next installment of the Covenant of Grace involved Noah (Genesis 9). This too took place long before Israel existed as a people. 

The next installment of the Covenant of Grace was the promises made to Abraham (Genesis 13 & 15), in which God promised that the Deliverer would come from Abraham’s descendants. The Apostle Paul identified Abraham’s Seed as Jesus, not Israel (Galatians 3:16).

The next installment of the Covenant of Grace was given through the Law of Moses (Exodus 20). The Law was not given as a means of salvation, but as a means of revealing to sinful humanity the impossibility of earning salvation through obedience. The redeemed are those who, condemned by God’s Law, cry out to God to do for them what they are incapable of doing for themselves.

God’s Law also promised in Deuteronomy 28 that Israel would enjoy God’s blessing as the result of obedience, or God’s judgment and eventual abandonment as the result of disobedience. Israel disobeyed, and according to God’s promise, they were exiled to Assyria, Babylon, Persia, Greece, and eventually Rome. The promised Deliverer, Jesus, appeared during Israel’s subjugation to Rome.

Whew! This brief overview is getting long! I’ll continue next time…

Systematic Theology: Reformed Theology (5)

We have been considering Reformed Theology, which is Calvinistic. At this point let’s consider the notion that, while all Reformed Theology is Calvinistic, not all Calvinists are Reformed. Though many Calvinistic Christians consider themselves to be Reformed, there are two other distinctives (that many Calvinists reject) that are part of what it means to be Reformed. They are Confessionalism and Covenantalism.

Confessionally Reformed Christians embrace the value of the historic Confessions written in the 16th and 17th Centuries. These confessions include, but are not limited to, the Westminster, the Belgic, and the London Baptist Confessions. Confessional Reformed Christians “subscribe” to one of the confessions, though some take exceptions to one or more points in a confession.

Why Confessionalism? There are two main reasons.

First, the Confessions unite like-minded Reformed Christians on specific doctrines that are either essential to the Christian faith, or to important secondary doctrines that those who subscribe to a particular confession agree on. Ironically, opponents of Confessionalism insist that confessions divide the body of Christ. Proponents of confessions argue that they do not divide the body (not all Christians must be confessional to be Christian!) but the confessions unite like-minded believers in local churches, associations of local churches, and denominations.

Second, confessions anchor modern Christians to our historic Reformational heritage. This is hugely important in an era such as ours in which some believers tend to think (though not consciously), that Christianity began when they were saved! It is important that believers not think we can make Christianity up as we go along.

Our church is Reformed, Calvinistic, and Confessional, subscribing to the London Baptist Confession of Faith of 1689.

Next time: What does it mean to be Covenantal?

Systematic Theology: Reformed Theology (4)

Last time we gave a brief overview of the differences between the Arminian Remonstrance and the Five Points of Calvinism. Because the Calvinistic view was established first among the Reformed, but was objected to by the Arminians, and because our church is Calvinistic, I will provide a little more explanation on each of the Five Points of Calvinism. I will call them not by the more traditional terms (in parentheses), but by terms that are more accurately descriptive;

1.  Pervasive Evil  (Total Depravity)  All men are born sinners, and therefore under condemnation.  This does not mean men are as sinful as they could be, but rather that a) all mankind is sinful, and b) every area of every individual’s being has been adversely affected by sin.  All men are sinners, and therefore are sinful.  The sinful state of the lost is described in Ephesians 2:1-5 as being dead in sin unless God makes a spiritually dead person alive in Christ (Regeneration). (Is. 64:6; Ps. 14:1-3; Rom. 3:10-23)

This refutes the Arminian error that no one is so lost that he cannot believe savingly by an act of his will.

2.  Sovereign Election  (Unconditional Election) Those who are elected by God to be saved were not chosen on the basis of any personal merit, but by God’s sovereign will.  (Acts 13:48)

This refutes the Arminian error that God merely knows who will believe in Christ by an act of his will, and “elects” people to salvation based on their will to be saved and action of believing.

3.  Particular Redemption  (Limited Atonement) Christ came to save those God elected to salvation. All of the elect will be saved, and only the elect will be saved. This is not a limitation on the power of Christ’s atonement, but on the purpose—which is to save the elect. (Jn. 6:39-44; 10:26-28)

This refutes both universalism and the Arminian error that salvation is dependent on the choice of unregenerate people. 

4.  Effectual Calling  (Irresistible Grace)  The sinful nature of the elect is not greater than the grace of God. Those whom God has chosen to save will be saved. Those who die resisting God’s grace were not elect to salvation. God does not save the elect against their wills, rather He graciously overcomes their resistance, giving them the desire and ability to trust in and lovingly follow Christ. This does not mean human beings are not responsible to trust in and follow Christ. But left to ourselves, no one would ever do so except by God’s grace. (Jn. 6:39-44, 10:26-28; Acts 13:48)

This refutes the Arminian error that salvation is left to the choice of unregenerate men.

 5.  Faithfulness Of God (Perseverance of the Saints)  Those who are truly saved will persevere to the end—none of them will fall away—because God is faithful to keep those whom He has saved.  This is due to His faithfulness, not ours!  1 John 2:19, clearly states that those who fall away were never saved in the first place. (Jn. 6:40, 10:27-28; 1 Jn. 2:19)

This refutes the Arminian error that saved people can fall away from saving grace either due to sin, or by rejecting the faith they once claimed to have.

Systematic Theology: Reformed Theology (3)

Both Calvinistic and Reformed Theology agree on the Five Solas and the Five Points of Calvinism. Last time we gave some background on the Five points of Calvinism, pointing out that the Five Points were an answer to the five Articles of the Arminian Remonstrance. This time let’s compare the two.

The Five Articles of the (Arminian) Remonstrance:

a.   Man is never so lost that he cannot choose to do good and to believe;

b.   Election is based on God foreseeing that some will believe in Christ for salvation;

c.   Christ died for all human beings, though only those who believe will be saved;

d.   The sovereign grace of God may be ultimately resisted by those who reject Christ in unbelief;

e.   Believers can fall away, rendering assurance uncertain. 

 The Five Points of Calvinism (in answer to the Arminian Remonstrance):

a.   Total Depravity. All men are sinners and every area of life is tainted by sin, although we are not as sinful as we could be;

b.   Unconditional Election. God elects people to salvation without respect to their merit;

c.   Limited Atonement (or Particular Redemption). Christ died for the elect;

d.   Irresistible Grace. The elect will not ultimately reject grace;

e.   Perseverance of the Saints. The elect will be saved in the end.

Because the Calvinistic view was established first among the Reformed, but was objected to by the Arminians, and because our church is Calvinistic, I will provide a little more explanation on the Five Points of Calvinism in the next post.

Systematic Theology: Reformed Theology (2)

We gave a brief introduction to Reformed Theology last time. This time we will begin with understanding the similarities and differences between Calvinistic and Reformed Theologies. The first similarity, as mentioned last time, is that both hold tightly (along with many other Protestants) to the Five Solas.

A second similarity is that both Calvinistic and Reformed theologies hold to the Five Points of Calvinism. What are the Five Points of Calvinism?

First, the Five Points were not the brainchild of, nor were they written by John Calvin. Calvinism predates John Calvin in that it is Augustinian (St. Augustine, 354-430). Before that, Calvinism is Pauline (the Apostle Paul).

Second, the Five Points were actually written after Calvin died in 1564. The tenets of Calvinism were fairly well known and embraced by Reformed Protestants, though not officially written. One opposing view was later championed by a Dutch theologian named Jacobus Arminius (1560-1609). After both Calvin and Arminius were deceased, a Synod (theological council) met in the Dutch city of Dort in 1618-1619, too consider the matter.

The students of Arminius wrote five articles opposing the standard Reformed/Protestant view of salvation. This document was called the Remonstrance, meaning opposition. The students of Calvin countered the five points of the Remonstrance, point by point, with what we now call the Five Points of Calvinism.

The decision of the Synod strongly favored the Calvinist views in opposition to the Arminian views. The council deemed the Arminian views as serious theological error, anathematizing the Remonstrants (the adherents of Arminianism).

So, what are the five articles of the Remonstrance and the five points of Calvinism? Next time.

Systematic Theology: Reformed Theology (1)

Since the 1970s there has been a growing number of Christians and churches that are embracing Reformed Theology. That is not to say that Reformed Theology began in the 1970s. It did not. Reformed Theology was rediscovered in the 1500s at the time of the Protestant Reformation. It was a rediscovery of the 4th century theology of Saint Augustine, and the 1st century theology of the Apostle Paul in the New Testament.

Reformed Theology can be divided into a number of sub-categories. I will attempt to introduce the chief similarity and some of the the distinctions.

A major similarity is regarding the “Five Solas” of the Reformation, which are:

Sola Scriptura (Scripture alone). The Bible is our only infallible authority for all matters of faith and practice.

Sola Gratia (Grace alone). Salvation is by God’s grace alone, not by any works or effort on our part.

Sola Fide (Faith alone). Salvation is received by faith alone, not by faith plus anything else whatsoever. And saving faith is by God’s grace, it does not originate in lost people.

Solus Christus (Christ alone). Saving faith is in Christ alone, that is, in His person and His finished work, not in faith plus anything or anyone else whatsoever.

Sole Deo Gloria (For God’s glory alone). Because Salvation is solely the work of God, God alone can receive glory for salvation.

Calvinistic and Reformed people and churches must embrace the Five Solas.

Next Time: Calvinism and Reformed—Similarity and differences.

Systematic Theology: Modern Evangelical Theologies (1)

Having considered several unbiblical liberal theologies of the 19th, 20th & 21st centuries, let us be encouraged that there have been several biblical theological schools of thought during the same time. I’ll call these Modern Evangelical Theologies.

Before getting started with the variety of so-called Evangelical theologies, let us understand that the word “evangelical,” though once a rich term, has devolved into an almost meaningless catch-all. Originally evangelical was used to describe Protestants because they were all about the gospel, the evangel. Evangelicals were “gospelers.”

Since the late 20th century, the word evangelical has been somewhat hijacked by just about everyone who is even remotely Christian. There are even Roman Catholics who claim to be evangelicals. The variety of “evangelical” theologies that I will mention will include true evangelicals, and some about which I use the word lightly because their main emphasis is arguably not the gospel.

Contemporary Lutheran Theology.  This embraces the Book of Concord, which contains the Augsburg Confession, the Formula of Concord, and Luther’s Small and Large Catechisms.  Lutheranism rightly opposes the Roman doctrine of the infusion of righteousness, and champions the biblical doctrine of imputation.  Lutherans strictly separate the Law and the Gospel.  Lutherans order salvation so that faith causes salvation, rather than the other way around.

But let us be reminded that Lutheran Theology changed rather quickly after Martin Luther died and was succeeded by Philip Melanchthon. Melanchthon’s theology and emphases were not aberrant, much less heretical. They were more about degrees and nuances that differed from Luther. Practically speaking, in a variety of ways, Contemporary Lutheranism is more influenced by Melanchthon, than by Luther.

There are many subcategories of Contemporary Lutheranism. The two strongest branches represent the polar ends of a spectrum, between which the many smaller and lesser known groups exist:

Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA)

  • Founded in 1988 through the merger of several Lutheran denominations

  • Does not hold to a strict doctrine of inerrancy

  • Allows for same-sex marriage and ordination of LGBTQ+ individuals

  • Focuses on social justice and ecumenical dialogue

  • The ELC is really more liberal than evangelical

  • The nearby Lutheran university is predominantly ELCA and far more liberal than evangelical

Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod (LCMS)

  • Founded in 1847

  • Emphasizes biblical inerrancy and a strict doctrine of justification by faith alone

  • Opposes same-sex marriage and ordination of LGBTQ+ individuals

  • Focuses on confessional orthodoxy and traditional Lutheran worship practices

  • Though the LCMS is much more “formal” than most evangelicals, it is conservative and evangelical

Next time: Reformed / Calvinistic Theologies

Systematic Theology: Liberal Theologies

The nineteenth and twentieth centuries saw the birth (and disastrous consequences) of Liberal Theology. The simple definition of liberal theology is a departure from the authority of Scripture, and then from Scripture altogether. Liberal theology is the antithesis of Systematic Theology.

There are several branches of Liberal Theology, each of which has this in common: they focus too much attention on one point (that may or may not be correct), and in so doing, miss the whole point.  The following is a list and definition of four of the more popular variations, though other variations exist.

Liberation Theology is a Marxist political theology that seeks to overthrow the bourgeois “haves” and empower the oppressed “have nots.” This is “theological socialism.”  Denying numerous basic tenants of the Christian faith, these ideas are embraced mostly in Africa and Latin America, primarily among Roman Catholics and liberal main-line Protestants.

Process Theology, also known as Openness Theology, is based on the philosophy of Alfred North Whitehead and Charles Hartshorne.  The essence of this theology is that “God is becoming” rather than “being.”  It says that God is neither sovereign nor all-knowing.  He does not know the future or how things will turn out in the end. In some cases, everything is left to chance. Inevitably, the absolute free agency of individuals is more celebrated than God’s sovereignty.

Feminist Theology is based on the belief that the gospel has been distorted by the exclusion of women from ministry and insists that males have distorted the truth to subjugate women.  Feminist Theologians are committed to righting this wrong, usually by imposing a decidedly feminine bias in favor of the existing alleged male bias.  This rejects the obvious meaning of the Bible and basic logic.

Minority Group Orientated Theology is based on essentially the same premise upon which feminist theology is perched; except that the male v. female problem is recast in other forms that read the Bible through the eyes of any given minority group from African, to homosexual, and everything in between.  We must read the Bible from God’s perspective, not man’s, much less any particular minority (or “under-represented) group.  This false way of thinking is a variation of Marxism founded upon so-called “Critical [fill in the blank] Theory.”

These are all unbiblical and therefore heretical. BTW: Liberal is also known as progressive. Progressing away from scripture is not good progress. It is destructive!

Next up: we will begin considering several schools of modern Evangelical Theology.

Systematic Theology: Rationalism and Pietism

Having briefly considered the contribution by the English Puritans and the 17th century Confessions of faith, the next wave of theology was a Reaction to Protestant Orthodoxy (Seventeenth and Eighteenth Centuries). This era (18th Century) introduced Rationalism and Pietism.

Rationalism emphasized the supremacy of human reason, with no need for revelation. Deism, a form of Rationalism, teaches that God is impersonal and that all can be discovered through natural means without Scriptures.  This is an intellectual appeal to the human mind. It is opposed to the Bible.

Pietism emphasized personal religious experience.  Pietists continued to believe in Scripture and the importance of revelation.  Their emphasis on experience, however, tended to place experience ahead of Scripture.  This movement emphasized small groups apart from the larger church.  Pietism shunned doctrinal differences as less important.  Pietism sought to equip ministers apart from theological training, relying more heavily (if not exclusively) on Christian experience.  Pietistic ministers had to be good communicators, with messages relevant to the hearers, even if not terribly meaty in content (does this sound familiar in our day?). Pietism emphasized regeneration, but in a new way, through personal experiences like Finneyistic altar calls.[1]  Pietists emphasized the changed life and what salvation could do for people—experientially.  Pietism can be seen in some of the Puritans and then in Wesleyanism.  It evolved into rank experientialism and individualism—which is rampant in our day.

These two pursuits, while different, arrive at a common destination.  The great Benjamin Warfield wrote of these two: “Pietist and Rationalist have ever hunted in couples and dragged down their quarry together.  They may differ as to why they deem theology mere lumber, and would not have a prospective minister waste his time in acquiring it.  The one loves God so much, the other loves Him so little, that he does not care to know Him.” (Warfield, “Our Seminary Curriculum,” Selected Shorter Writings, I, 371)

Note:
[1] Charles Finney (1792-1875) introduced “decisionism,” based emotional appeals to people to “accept Christ” by responding to “altar calls.”  These measures, though considered standard procedure to many modern evangelicals, were unheard of until this time.

Systematic Theology: Protestant Orthodoxy

What happened to the generations after the Reformers (1500s)? The first post-Reformational wave that found the theological shoreline of the Church might be called: Classic Protestant Orthodoxy (A.D. 1550-1700, particularly the English Puritans of the 1600s).

In the 1600s, God gifted His Church with a number of great creeds and confessions in which the doctrines of the Reformers were categorized more systematically. The writers of the creeds and confessions were the spiritual children and grandchildren of the Reformers.  While these men were decidedly reformed theologically, there was a slight measure of discontinuity with the Reformers.  This discontinuity might be summarized like this: “The Reformers confessed their beliefs; the Protestant Scholastics believed their confessions.”   This era reintroduced a measure of the Aristotelianism of Aquinas.

On a personal note: The English Puritans of the 1600s are among my favorite Christians in one of my favorite periods of Church History. To read more about the Puritans, I highly recommend either of the following two books: “A Quest For Godliness” by J.I. Packer (Crossway Books, 336 pages), and “Who Are The Puritans?” by Erroll Hulse (Evangelical Press, 197 pages). Warning: the Puritans are nothing like the caricaturizations that vilified the true Puritans that most today swallow without investigating the truth!

Further, 17th century confessions are of supreme value for at least two reasons. First, they were written by teams of the brightest and most articulate minds in Church history. Second, they give the modern Church a sound and solid rock on which to anchor our beliefs and practices. This is supremely important in our day when so many ignorantly and pridefully desire to cast off anything old, in favor of anything that is new—no matter how unbiblical, untested, and downright foolish it might be.

Next time: Reaction to Protestant Orthodoxy (Seventeenth and Eighteenth Centuries).

Systematic Theology: Calvinism (2)

This blog post is a continuation from the previous post, including two footnotes from Key Points of Calvinism (with two explanatory footnotes), and a personal note from me about Calvinism.

Characteristics of Calvinistic Theology.  To do theology is to listen attentively to Scripture.  Calvinism rejects the scholastic approach (based on reason), emphasizing the authority of God’s Word.  Calvinism reminds us that God is to be adored, not merely investigated.  Theology is an act of worship, not mere intellectualism.  Calvinism rejects the Church Fathers as a final source of appeal for theological understanding, allowing for the fact that they were mistaken in some points, but that Scripture is never wrong.  Calvinism emphasizes the practical application of theology.

On a personal note: Because Calvin and Calvinism are so routinely (and wrongly) vilified, I do not like to talk about Calvinism, preferring the terms “Reformed,” and “the doctrines of grace.” The Reformed doctrines of grace, as distinct from Lutheranism, is claimed by many groups including Presbyterians and Reformed Baptists.

Footnotes (from previous post):
[1] Luther taught that the Law was not valid for this third purpose, since Luther taught that Christians having been freed from the Law entirely.  Reformed (Calvinistic) theology understands only the ceremonial and civil aspects of the Law as being non-binding on Christians, while the moral aspect is timeless.
[2] A very simple explanation of Covenant Theology begins before time with the Covenant of Redemption between the members of the Trinity, in which they set forth the plan to save a people by grace to put grace on display.  The Covenant of Works was between God and Adam in the Garden.  Adam broke the Covenant of Works when he sinned.  God then began unfolding the Covenant of Grace by not killing Adam on the spot, and by promising a Deliverer, who would defeat Satan and redeem God’s people.  In a series of covenants throughout the Old Testament, more of the Covenant of Grace is unfolded, each looking forward to the Deliverer who was to come.  The Covenant of Grace was fully revealed in Jesus Christ, who is the Deliverer who defeated Satan and saved His people from their sins.  The Covenant of Grace will be fully consummated when Christ comes again and establishes the New Heavens and the New Earth.

Systematic Theology: Calvinism (1)

Having considered Lutheranism last time, this time we’ll give attention to the second dominant strain of Reformation Theology: Calvinism. To begin with, John Calvin and Calvinism has become a lightening rod in evangelical Christianity. People tend either to love him, or hate him. Those who hate him almost always make unfair and inaccurate caricaturizations of Calvin and his theology. Those who know the truth about Calvin and Calvinism may not agree with him, but they do not hate him. He was a uniquely godly and gifted man.

John Calvin (1509-1564) was born 26 years after Luther and died 18 years after Luther. His magnum opus, the Institutes of the Christian Religion (ICR) began as a booklet and ended years later as a great multi-volume theological work.  Calvin had a great legal, as well as theological mind.  Calvin added to Lutheranism a more complete “system of theology.”  Some key points of Calvinism are:

  • While Luther emphasized the “Law-Gospel” aspect of theology, Calvin emphasized the absolute sovereignty of God over all things and the covenantal relationship between God and man.

  • Calvin developed and championed the concept of the three-fold office of Christ: (1) Christ the Prophet, (2) Christ the Priest, and (3) Christ the King.  (ICR, II, 15)

  • Calvin gave the Church a more complete doctrine of the Holy Spirit and the sanctifying work of the Holy Spirit.  (ICR, I, 9)

  • Calvin dealt more precisely with election and reprobation.  While Luther taught on election, he said little about those who are not elected to salvation.  Calvin dealt unabashedly with this sticky subject. (ICR, III, 21-24)

  • Calvin argued for three purposes for the Law:  (1) The Law convicts sinners so that they might come to faith in Christ; (2) The Law restrains evil in individuals and in society; (3) The Law remains as a standard for holiness for those who are justified and are being sanctified. [1]  (ICR, II, 7, 12)

  • Calvin developed the doctrine of vocation, which says that no matter what a person’s profession, it is a calling from God and therefore must be done as unto the Lord.  This helped to further remove the wall that separates clergy from laity erected by Roman Catholics and many Protestants. (ICR, III, 10)

  • Calvinism has an extensive teaching on ecclesiology, on church polity, and on church leadership. (ICR, IV, 1, 7-10; IV, 3)

  • Calvinism gave us what has come to be called “Covenant Theology.”[2]

The footnotes will be included with the next blog post…

Systematic Theology: Reformational (Lutheranism)

Having considered the development of Roman Catholic theology during the first fifteen centuries of Christianity, let us now turn our attention to one of the greatest shifts in theology, Reformational Theology, that emerged in the 16th century.

There are two main branches of Reformational Theology: Lutheranism and Calvinism. There were others, but these two were the dominant strains. And it may be surprising to some that though Lutherans and other reformed folk had much in common, there are also a few considerable differences.

While there are many important aspects of Reformational Theology, five of the most important tenets are defined by the five solas of the Reformation as follows:  Sola Scriptura, Sola Gratia, Sola Fide, Sola Cristus, and Soli Deo Gloria.  These are defined as: scripture is the sole authority, salvation is by grace alone, received through faith alone, in Christ alone, and all things are for the glory of God alone.

It is also essential to note the word, “only” is associated with each. This is what fundamentally sets Reformational Theology apart from Roman Catholic Theology. Roman Catholic Theology affirms the essential importance of each, but adds the Roman Church, the Pope, and the sacraments to each. It does not matter what one adds, when one adds anything to the five solas, one has departed from biblical Christianity.

Let’s consider first the Lutheran branch of Reformational Theology:

Martin Luther (1483-1546) was a German Augustinian Monk.  God revealed Himself to Luther, who did not want to break from the Roman Church, but when his newly understood theology was proven to be at odds with the Roman Church, Luther had no choice.  Luther placed a great emphasis on the difference between law and gospel.  He said that a chief mark of a theologian is the ability to distinguish the difference between law and gospel.  Luther championed the biblical concept of justification by grace alone through faith alone.  Another key Lutheran emphasis is the fact that a man may be a “justified sinner,” emphasizing man’s judicial standing as righteous before God, while not yet actually righteous in practice.

The Roman church insisted that man’s practice is everything.  Luther and all true Protestants insist that God’s grace and decree of justification is everything.

Luther was also strong on the subject of predestination, arguing more for this doctrine even than Calvin.  Luther believed in the authority of Scripture; however, he was not convinced that the book of James belonged in the canon because of what appeared to be an irreconcilable difference between James and Paul on the role of works in justification.  Luther did not want to break completely from the Roman doctrine of transubstantiation, inventing the doctrine that has come to be called consubstantiation.[1]

Another doctrine peculiar to Lutheranism that must follow consubstantiation is that of the “communication of attributes of Christ.”  This teaches that after the resurrection of Christ, His human nature took on the divine ability to be omnipresent.  Unless this is true, Christ cannot be physically present in the communion elements in every place the Supper is observed. 

Lutheran theology changed in the 30 years immediately following Luther’s death.  Phillip Melanchthon (1497-1560), Luther’s chief assistant who was a humanistic theologian, along with others, drifted away from Luther’s theology in a number of areas.  There are several important factors to bear in mind when discussing Lutheran Theology:

  • Lutheranism had a rather poorly developed ecclesiology that tends to look rather Roman Catholic.  This was in part because Protestantism was in such turmoil as it discovered its identity apart from the Roman Church.  Along with this, the Lutheran church followed much of the Roman pattern for worship.  The Reformed Church sees the Lutheran Church as being only partially Reformed.  While this may be a failing in Lutheran Theology, it is understandable as the Lutherans were in a learning process.

  • The Lutherans placed great emphasis on the importance and authority of Scripture.  Luther’s commentaries on Scripture are classics.

  • Luther’s emphasis on justification by grace through faith is a priceless legacy given to the Church.

  • Luther’s theology was very experiential and practical.  He was a pastor and he cared how theology was understood practically.  This led to Luther’s emphasis on the fact that Christians are justified, yet still sinners until they are glorified.

Note:
[1] Transubstantiation: the communion elements change into the literal body and blood of Christ.  Consubstantiation: the literal body and blood of Christ are with the communion elements, although they do not change in substance

Next Time: Calvinism

Systematic Theology: Roman Catholic

In this blog post we will explore how theology has been done in the past and how it has changed throughout the centuries, beginning with Roman Catholic theology (First Century A.D.—

Roman Catholic Theology is based on the writings of the Church Fathers, the Councils of the first four centuries (with which Protestants largely agree), Scholastic Theology. (A.D. 1050-1517, the Council of Trent (1545-1563), and Vatican Councils I and II (1870 and 1962-1965 respectively).

The theology produced by the writings of the Church Fathers is both helpful, and somewhat dangerous.  These men were the disciples of the Apostles so they had first-hand access to the men who knew Christ.  As valuable as the writings of these men are, they were not infallible.  As a result, discernment based on the Bible is supremely necessary to know which of these writings are to be followed and which are to be respectfully set aside.  Sadly there are some modern Christians who become enamored with the Church Fathers and end up embracing ideas that are antithetical to Scripture.

The theology of the Church councils of the first four centuries produced orthodox understandings of the Trinity, the deity, person, natures, and wills of Jesus.  All Christians owe a debt of gratitude for the theology forged in the early Church councils.  Many modern heresies are recycled old heresies that were refuted by the Church councils.

Scholastic Theology, beginning with Anselm [1033-1109] tended to be influenced by ancient Greek or other secular philosophies, elevating reason over revelation. Three key examples follow:

  • Peter Abelard (1079-1142) watered down theology with human philosophy.  He believed only what he could understand.  He did not believe in the vicarious death of Christ, insisting that it was only a demonstration of God’s love.  Abelard was excommunicated as a heretic.

  • Peter Lombard (1095-1159) was a student of Abelard.  He wrote the most popular textbook of theology during the middle ages containing the seven sacraments of the Roman system.  Lombard’s doctrine regarding the seven sacraments evolved into the sacramentalism (which teaches salvation is achieved though the seven sacraments of the Roman Catholic church).

  • Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274) wrote Summa Theologiae, the most important theology text from the era, and that which formulated Roman Catholic theology that has lasted ever since.  He wed Greek philosophy and Christianity into a “reasonable theology.”  His faith went beyond reason alone, however.  He taught that truths that could not be comprehended (such as the Trinity) must be believed, not on the basis of God’s Word, not because of Scripture, but because they were taught by the Roman church.  Therefore the Roman church controlled salvation.  Though thoroughly Roman Catholic, Aquinas was a brilliant man whose writings are worthy of being read by carefully discerning Protestants.

The Council of Trent (1545-1563) was convened to counter the Protestant Reformation.  The most notable and damning section of the Council of Trent is anathema (damnation) of the biblical doctrine of Justification by Faith Alone.

Vatican Councils I and II (1870 and 1962-1965 respectively).  Vatican Council I was an attempt to bolster the supremacy of the Roman Catholic Church.  It made outlandish statements about the Pope’s authority over all creation, and that faith in the pope is necessary for salvation.  This council also declared that the Roman church cannot err and that nothing she declares can ever be reversed.  Roman Catholics who know about Vatican Council I are often embarrassed to talk about it.
Vatican Council II was an attempt to make the Roman Catholic Church more accepting.  The theology is not fundamentally changed from Aquinas (and sacramentalism), but is decidedly more liberal.  Without reversing the damnation of Protestants (in Council of Trent), VCII refers to Protestants not as damned, but merely as “separated brethren.”

Next time: Reformed systematics

Systematic Theology: The Purpose and Goal

VIII.  The Purpose and Goal of Systematic Theology.

A.   Is Systematic Theology a science? 

The Christian view of science is that scientific study is an exercise of dominion, since man as the image bearer of God, is called by God to have dominion over the earth (Genesis 1:26-28).  The goal of science is not to use creation to further man’s ideas of what is, or what he thinks should be; but rather, to discover God’s truth.  This concept is captured in the words of the Christian German astronomer, Johannes Kepler (1571-1630). He defined scientific exploration as “thinking God’s thoughts after Him.”

According to this biblical mindset, when done correctly, science is a religious exerciseSystematic Theology is therefore a science that seeks not only to discover God’s creation, but creation’s God. 

B.   Two kinds of knowledge.

  1. Archetypal [1] knowledge is God’s perfect, unlimited knowledge that only God possesses. It is “original,” since He alone is the One from whom all knowledge originates. He knows all because He created all and has never had to discover, or learn, anything.  This kind of knowledge (unique to God), is always true.

  2. Ectypal [2] knowledge is man’s imperfect, limited knowledge whether possessed by revelation or discovery. It may be true, but it may also be false because even at its best, it is merely an imperfect “copy” of God’s archetypal knowledge.  Our best systematic theology is ectypal knowledge, since the theologian is not God.

C.  How do reason and logic relate to Systematic Theology?

Reason is not necessarily an enemy of theology, as long as we do not subject God or His Word to our reason.  We must rather subject our reason to God and to His revelation of Himself in Scripture.  While there may be things about God that do not fit within our reason (e.g., the Trinity), there is no truth concerning God that is contrary to reason.  This demands humility on our part.  This is why care must be given to avoid the temptation to become prideful regarding our theology as though we discovered it.  If it is true, it was revealed by God, leaving no room for self-congratulations.  Systematic Theology must never live to promote a system itself. Rather, Systematic Theology lives to discover and glorify God, which is always a catalyst for humility.

Notes:
[1] Arch is a Greek prefix, meaning eminent, greatest, or principle.
[2] Ec is a Latin prefix, meaning copied, or reproduced as a molding or cast, in contradistinction from the original model.

Systematic Theology: The Action and Development

VI.  The Action of Systematic Theology.

You may have noticed that I have referred to “doing” systematic theology.  That is because systematic theology is in fact something that one does if it is to be beneficial and biblically accurate.  What are we seeking to do when we do systematic theology?  The endeavor is to organize truth into an integrated system of thought.  The goal is not to invent a system.  The goal is to discover and articulate the system that God has placed within Holy Scripture.  All of Scripture is integrated with all other Scripture, allowing for no contradiction.  Therefore, no portion of Scripture must be allowed to be the basis for doctrine if it is interpreted apart from the rest of the Bible.

In case that paragraph didn’t seem important, please re-read it because it is supremely important!

VII.  The Development of Systematic Theology.

While truth does not change, our understanding of truth may change, either in the direction of becoming more accurate, or in the direction of being less accurate.  We prayerfully seek to be increasingly, rather than decreasingly, accurate!

The early Church did not have as great an understanding of certain theological issues as the Church has come to have throughout the last two thousand years.  Many theological truths were hammered out because of the threat of heresy.  As heresy presented itself, the Church was forced to wrestle with issues they did not previously even think of.  The doctrine of the Trinity, the deity, person, natures and wills of Christ are cases in point. 

Culture has been allowed to influence theology—sometimes for the better, oftentimes for the worse.  This is especially dangerous, since Christianity is a culture to itself, established by God.  Whenever the cultures of fallen man are allowed to direct our understanding of God, there is a far greater danger than potential benefit.

Systematic Theology: The Subject & Source

V.  The Subject and Source of Theology. 

What do we study when studying Systematics?  As mentioned previously, we do not begin with what we believe, and then search the Bible to unearth support for support our opinions. This is far too subjective. Rather, the subject matter is, as B.B. Warfield (1851-1921) stated, “God in His nature and in His relations with His creatures.”  The only place we can find information on this is from God’s revelation of Himself.

Theology is the study of God and His dealings with us.  Where do we find the facts?  The facts of God and His dealings with man can only be known correctly based on God’s revelation of Himself.  God has revealed Himself to us in various ways: (1) God’s Creation, (2) God’s Providence in personal experience, (3) God’s Law, (4) God’s Son Jesus Christ, and most importantly, (5) God’s Word, the Bible.  Why is the Bible the most important? Because the Bible is the only objective truth.  The Bible is the most objective source of revelation available to man.  While it can be interpreted in numerous subjective ways, the Bible itself (as long as it is translated accurately) is objective truth. 2 Timothy 3:16-17 speaks of the inspiration, and, therefore, the authority of Scripture.  Isaiah 40:8 testifies of its unchanging character.

The Roman Catholic Church trusts equally in the Bible and the traditions of the Church.  The problem with this position is that the traditions of the Church frequently contradict themselves and the Bible.  Modern evangelicals make a similar mistake regarding the Bible and culture instead of the Bible and church tradition.

Reformation Protestants look to Scripture alone (Sola Scriptura).  While we learn from the history and traditions of the Church, we cannot look to them as authoritative, since they are fraught with error and contradiction.

Systematic Theology: Its Limitations

IV.  The Limitations of Systematic Theology. As important and valuable as systematic theology is, a glaring limitation is that it is done by human beings! We cannot know everything completely as God knows everything because God is infinite and man is finite.

  • There are some mysteries that must remain mysteries, at least until we are glorified.

  • There are some mysteries that we cannot discover because our methods of inquiry are limited and we have insufficient facts.

  • There are some truths that we miss because of the inadequacy of words to accurately convey some truths.

  • There are some truths that we do not comprehend completely because we do not know everything the Bible says.

Even if we could know everything in the Bible, while the Bible tells us everything we need to know, it does not tell us everything we might want to know. It certainly does not tell us everything there is to know; for there are countless things that God has not revealed in the Scriptures.

Some truth that God has revealed is hidden because of the hardness of our hearts. Even with the empowering of the Holy Spirit, there is corruption that remains in our hearts that hinders our complete understanding.

Remembering these limitations assists in keeping us humble.  Not all is revealed; and not all that is revealed is completely understood.

Next time: the subject of systematic theology.