What is Reformed Theology?
In June, we hosted a public symposium titled “What is Reformed Theology?” featuring Dr. Derek Thomas. There are a lot of ways to answer that question; Dr. Thomas took us on the path of exploring two Reformed catechisms. “Ocular catechisms” to be precise. They are linked here for you to revisit. We had a lot of questions come in that we simply did not have enough time to answer. This month’s blog, therefore, is committed to answering every question that we couldn’t address. I tried in each answer to be brief, fully aware that brevity prevents thoroughness, and brevity also often raises more questions. All the same, I tried to answer just the question at face value and did not try to discern some question behind the question nor anticipate what further questions might arise. I hope these concise answers will be helpful to those who asked them and others.
What is Reformed Theology?
In short, I define Reformed Theology as the doctrinal system that results from an uncompromising commitment to the Bible as the very Word of God. Some of the hallmarks of that doctrinal system are the sovereignty of God in all things (including salvation), a covenantal understanding of redemptive history, a presuppositional apologetic, and a practical ecclesiology governed by the Regulative Principle. Reformed theologians would, of course, argue that all of those distinctives come from the Bible. The following questions revolve mostly about that first hallmark—the sovereignty of God in all things—which is understandable since it touches on the most widely known summaries of Reformed Theology: “the five solas” of the Reformation and the five points of Calvinism (the latter of which is often the primary flashpoint with non-Reformed theologians).
These, now, are the questions guests submitted which were left unanswered that night.
How might Covenant Theology help us in understanding God’s work in salvation? How should we understand Covenant Theology in relation to Reformed Theology?
There are many ways to answer the question “What is Reformed Theology?” One such way is simply to say, “Reformed Theology is Covenant Theology!” I think Reformed Theology is more than that. But it’s certainly not less. Thus, walking through the various covenants of the Bible, and exploring how they interrelate, would be a very helpful rubric for summarizing and pulling together many aspects of Reformed Theology. And one such aspect that would be drawn into such a consideration would be God’s work of salvation. Covenant theologians understand salvation as the reward for covenant members that Jesus—the covenant head—has earned for his people. By his “active obedience” (his intentional law-keeping and righteousness during his life) and his “passive obedience” (his willing reception of the penalty of sin for his people) Jesus has secured and effected salvation for his people. He has not simply made salvation possible, but actual for all those “in Him.” That is how covenants work: the merits of the covenant head are imputed to the covenant members. Thus all those “in Christ” have an imputed righteousness and are therefore forgiven, holy, and righteous in God’s eyes. Moreover, all those “in Christ” also have assurance of salvation, for it is the merit of Christ—not our own merit—that secures our standing before God. And that merit will never fade. He has accomplished the work that the Father gave him to do and has given eternal life to all who the Father has given to him (John 17:1–5). See Romans 5:12–21 for more on the specific logic of covenant heads and covenant members.
Based on the doctrine of election how do we reconcile the Scripture that speaks of God’s will that no man shall be lost?
The way I reconcile these things is as follows: I don’t think it is God’s will that no man shall be lost. People typically point to 2 Peter 3:9 to suggest otherwise. But that verse is not a generic statement over all humanity. Rather, Peter is talking about the elect. God is not willing that any of the elect would be lost. There are two reasons for reading 2 Peter 3:9 this way. (1) Peter clearly believes that there is a definitive group chosen/elected by God whose salvation is secure; see 1 Peter 1:1–7, 1 Peter 1:22–25, 1 Peter 2:9–10, and 2 Peter 1:3–4. It is God’s will to choose, preserve, and ultimately to save. Praise His name! God does all things according to His will. And if He wills to save, save He will. And (2) the specific question Peter is responding to in 2 Peter 3:9 is why has Jesus’ return been delayed? See 2 Peter 3:3–4. Thus, 2 Peter 3:9 is part of Peter’s answer to that question. If Peter’s response to the delay of Jesus’ return amounts to “well, God doesn’t want anyone to perish” then Jesus will never come back! For there will always be unbelief on the earth and so Jesus would have to wait forever. But if Peter means Jesus is waiting for the full number of the elect to come in (i.e., until all the elect “should reach repentance”) then he can also say, as he does in verse 10, that Jesus’ return could be any moment. For no one knows how close the missionary work of the church is to completion. Thus, we keep preaching and reaching until the full number of God’s international worshipping community is filled up according to His sovereign plan. In turn, I think Romans 9 is a better place to look to understand God’s will toward the non-elect. There we learn that the demonstration of God’s glory is His primary objective and that he is glorified both in mercy toward the elect and he is glorified in wrath toward those “made for destruction” (Rom 9:22–23). “So it depends not upon man’s will or exertion, but upon God’s mercy” (Rom 9:16). Jesus said it this way: “All that the Father gives me will come to me, and him who comes to me I will not cast out…I will lose nothing of all that he has given me…No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him. And I will raise him up at the last day…Every one who has heard and learned from the Father comes to me” (John 6:37–45). And “no one can come to me unless it is granted him by the Father” (John 6:65).
What influence should Reformed Theology have on corporate worship?
Reformed Theology begins and ends with the Word of God. Sola Scriptura is the formal ground of all the other “solas.” The slogan emerges from the Reformers’ unflinching view of the Scriptures as God’s Word, and therefore the desire to obey it. For obeying God’s Word is obeying God himself. In turn, such a careful reading of the Bible (and a recovery of learning Greek and Hebrew) led to all the other theological distinctives of the Reformation. To answer the question now, Reformed Theology affects corporate worship in two ways. (1) There is a desire in corporate worship to sing the Word, pray the Word, read the Word, hear the Word, recite the Word, preach the Word, and even (in a manner of thinking) eat, and drink the Word. Reformed corporate worship, therefore, is saturated with the Word of God. It is through such engagement with the Word of God that the rubber of John 10:27 hits the road of real life: “My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me.” And (2) this commitment to the employment of the Word of God means we do all that the Scriptures call us to do in corporate worship, and nothing it does not call us to do. This is often called “the Regulative Principle,” wherein the Bible—and the Bible only—regulates our corporate worship (and church polity, which is also a form of corporate worship). If Jesus rules his people through his Word, then to do anything less or more than what he has called for is to usurp his rule over his people (indeed over the whole world). Reformed theologians have such a view of God’s Word—that to obey it is to obey God himself—that it is used so exclusively in directing and filling out the corporate worship of Jesus’ people.
Where does Perkins situate “regeneration”? Is this “the mollifying of the heart”?
Yes. Some “visual catechisms” have been published updating some of the vernacular (hence the term “visual catechism”). In those updates “mollifying of the heart” has been replaced with “regeneration of the heart.”
Does the infralapsarian view still hold that God’s decree of election stood before the foundations of the earth (i.e., before the fall?)
Yes. In terms of chronology, both supra- and infralapsarian views hold that God’s decree of election stood before the foundations of the earth, and therefore also before the fall. The difference in the two views is how they relate logically to the fall. In what order of logic (not order of time) does God elect? Without a view to the fall? That would be supralapsarianism, making election an act of God’s sovereignty. With a view to the fall? That would be infralapsarianism, making election an act of God’s mercy.
Please explain the use of the word Reformed. When was this word adopted and why?
I’m not sure when it came into common parlance. But the essence of its use is that it is actually an abbreviation for a longer phrase: Reformed According to the Word of God. The Reformers of the 16th and 17th centuries were called such because they did not believe they were doing or creating anything new. But they believed they were re-forming the church to what it once was, having drifted slowly but surely off track throughout the Middle Ages. What is the template for such re-forming? The Word of God, the truth on which the church was originally founded, and therefore the truth on which it can be re-formed. Subsequently, down the ages that era, those people, and their teachings got the monikers “The Reformation,” “The Reformers,” and “Reformed Theology.” So today, when people use the word “Reformed” they could mean a lot of things because the word has been in use for so long. They usually use it over against other systems of doctrine that distinguish its uniqueness (Protestant not Catholic; Calvinist not Arminian; Covenantal not Dispensational; etc.). But at the root of it all is an unrelenting commitment to the Word of God, and that all theology—if we are to have confidence that it is true—must be founded upon and derived from the Christian Scriptures.
I do not see the promise "once saved always saved" here. What does the Reformed church offer me in terms of assurance when I find myself doubting my salvation?
This is a great question because “the assurance of salvation” is one of the most beautiful, reassuring, and God-glorifying doctrines that Jesus wants us to know and trust. I’ll restate Jesus’ words from John 6: “All that the Father gives me will come to me, and him who comes to me I will not cast out…I will lose nothing of all that he has given me…No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him, and I will raise him up at the last day…Every one who has heard and learned from the Father comes to me…no one can come to me unless it is granted him by the Father” (John 6:37–45, 65). Equally, Jesus says, “I am the Good Shepherd; I know my own and my own know me, as the Father knows me and I know the Father; and I lay down my life for the sheep…My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me. I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish, and no one shall snatch them out of my hand. My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all, and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father’s hand.” (John 10:14–15, 27–29). If you have come to Jesus in genuine faith, it is because the Father intentionally drew you to him, and Jesus has secured your redemption and will hold you to the end. Not only is it impossible for the Good Shepherd to lose any of his sheep, in telling us these things we see that Jesus wants us to know of our security in his grip and trust in him all the more. No, “once saved always saved” is not a quote of any biblical verse. But the concept surely is there. And for Reformed Theology, it is grounded in the fact that the God who called and gave His people to His Son, and for whom the Son has laid down his life, the Father and the Son will never abandon. Jesus is unwaveringly zealous to have all for whom he died, all who the Father gave him. Thus, from first to last salvation is an act of God’s sovereign and unimpeachable goodness.
Can someone who disagrees with covenantal eschatology genuinely call themselves Reformed when many Reformed fathers had a covenantal eschatology?
Yes, I think so. This is because Reformed Theology is much bigger than eschatology. And if, as I’ve said many times above, Reformed Theology starts and ends with an unrivaled commitment to God’s Word, then any eschatology that can be articulated from the Word of God can call itself “Reformed.” In short, heading down the road of Reformed Theology does not commit someone to any particular eschatology. Nonetheless, what is sometimes called “Classical Dispensationalism” often finds itself at odds with the classical covenantal Reformed Theology. All the same, many Dispensationalists do have a “Reformed” view of individual/personal salvation.
How does Reformed Theology impact the way I raise my children?
I think it throws us as parents more into prayer and Bible-teaching, and away from pragmatism. To put it another way, an understanding of God’s sovereignty in salvation and our knowledge of the means of opening blind eyes through the Scriptures (see esp. 2 Cor 4:1–6), makes us turn to plea with God for saving mercy on our children and then in eager and expectant faith to expose our children to the His powerful Word. Instead of seeking to get a “decision,” or when we think the time is right to “lead them in the sinner’s prayer,” we wait on God in hope and work with the means He has instructed us. By which of course I mean the Bible, but I would also add living out the Bible within the family culture which would include church membership and participation, regular prayer, humility before and grace towards others, keeping the Lord’s Day sacred, caring for the poor, evangelizing the neighborhood, etc. Thus, our children are exposed to God’s Word explicitly and through our actions. Couple that with prayer, and there you have the twin pillars of Reformed child-rearing. Additionally, a significant portion of the Reformed community believes that God pursues their children in a manner different from the children of non-believers. This adds a great deal of confidence in calling our children to trust, love, and obey Jesus.
Could you expound on what is meant by “bondage under the grave” in the middle Christ-column of Perkins’s ocular catechism?
I think it simply means the Saturday he spent in the tomb. The value of including it is to emphasize Jesus’ genuine experience of death—not just the moment of death, but also a duration of time. There could be more to it than that, but it’s at least that. Thus, Jesus experienced death just as his people do: the experience of dying, a duration of time where body and soul are separated, and then a glorious resurrection. Because of this (and other reasons), Jesus is a perfect High Priest: taking on every aspect of the human experience, yet without sin, and equally raising us to glory with him (Heb 2:14; 4:15). This should give us great confidence in him as our Great High Priest (Heb 4:16)!
You’ve compared these catechisms to the medieval church but how would you differentiate Reformed Theology from other Protestant but non-Reformed churches today?
The way I see it, there are two dividing lines between Protestants today (I’m sure others would point out more, but this is a simplified summary to paint the big picture). (1) Some Protestant churches who inhabit the traditions that emerged from the Reformation do not today believe the Bible is God’s inspired and authoritative Word. Instead, they intentionally mix into their theology, life, and worship all kinds of extraneous religious and philosophical views from the culture around them. Those who consider themselves Reformed today would differentiate themselves from such churches because of their ongoing commitment to Sola Scriptura. (2) Among churches that still take the Bible as God’s authoritative Word a different dividing line has emerged, though it is not as divisive as that first line. It is this: Reformed Theologians do not believe in the ultimate freedom of the human will, and they do believe in God’s sovereignty in salvation. Related, they believe that Jesus died efficaciously for his people. That is to say, he secured actual salvation for his people; he did not merely make salvation possible. Bible-believing churches that nonetheless would not claim the title “Reformed” believe (again, this is a global summary) that Jesus made salvation possible for everyone and sinners must exercise their own free will to choose to believe/follow Jesus. Those discrepancies in views of humanity, God’s sovereignty, and what Jesus specifically accomplished on the cross result in tangible differences in worship and ministry.
Who is more Reformed, Dr. Piotrowski or Dr. Thomas (judged by number of ocular catechisms in their offices)?
The answer must be Dr. Jim Brandyberry, one of ITS’s Church History teachers! He has had a framed copy of Bunyan’s ocular catechism hanging on his wall for over 30 years!
How might the Pactum Salutis (Covenant of Redemption) help one in their assurance of salvation?
See my answer above on “once saved always saved.” That agreement between Father and Son (that the Father will give a people to the Son, that the Son will die for them, that the Son and Father will preserve them) is at the heart of the Pactum Salutis. The upshot is the assurance of those called, atoned for, and kept unto eternal life.
Would Calvin differ with Perkins on how effectual calling relates to the baptism of infant saints?
That, I’m sorry, I don’t know.
Is paedobaptism a necessary implication of Reformed Theology?
Good theologians differ over the answer to this question. Of course, I would say, “No.” I’m a Baptist and I am a Reformed theologian. Dr. Thomas may likely say “Yes” as a Presbyterian. Such differences notwithstanding, as I said with eschatology, Reformed Theology is bigger than one doctrine. It’s a whole system built on the rock-solid foundation of the Word of God. And, as we know, slightly different interpretations of some issues can still result among those who are nonetheless building on the same foundation. If someone can articulate their view of baptism (paedo- or credo-) from the Scriptures, then they are using a Reformed theological method. To put it another way, to adopt a Reformed view of salvation or the covenants does not commit someone to a particular view of baptism.
What is the Reformed view of eschatology?
There isn’t one view of eschatology among the Reformed. It’s a hard topic, and as might be expected we find diversity on eschatology among the Reformed. Most are amillennial, I think. But a sizeable portion are postmillennial or historic premillennial. Dispensationalists may or may not call themselves Reformed for other reasons (see my answer above on divisions between Protestant churches). In short, Reformed Theology does not commit someone to any particular eschatology.
What resources would you recommend for a more in-depth understanding of Reformed Theology? Also, how does Covenantal Theology relate? Are they the same?
One of the best books I’ve read on Reformed Theology is John Piper’s Desiring God. Equally, his The Pleasures of God is also really good. If you haven’t read either of those, take up and read! They’re great books. If you have, then maybe you can press on to John Murray’s Redemption Accomplished and Applied. On Covenant Theology I recommend O. Palmer Robertson’s The Christ of the Covenants. As I’ve mentioned above, Reformed Theology and Covenant Theology are related, but they are not the same thing. One is not simply a synonym for the other. Reformed Theology is a broader and bigger category; Covenant Theology deals with more specific issues. One can be Reformed in many ways but not be Covenantal. However, I think it would be hard to be Covenantal but not Reformed. It’s like all ducks are birds, but not all birds are ducks.
What is the purpose of the General Call?
To glorify God by spreading the truth, and to gather up the elect. For the effectual call happens for the elect as the general call goes out far and wide.
Is it understood that the life of the elect, before the effectual calling, would experientially live like those under the covenant of works?
Yes. I think you can say it like that. While using different terms, that’s the basic sentiment in Col 1:13, “He has delivered us from the domain of darkness and transferred us to the kingdom of his beloved Son.” Those under the broken covenant of works are living in “the domain of darkness.” And such is the experience of all those before they are born again. Regeneration through the effectual call, therefore, is the experiential “transfer to the kingdom of his beloved Son.”
How do you answer the question to an unbeliever: Why would a loving God elect some people and damn others to hell?
The short answer is for his glory—for God is glorified both in judgment and grace. Those who are damned are so because of their sin. Thus, God is glorified in his holy and righteous judgment. Those who are elect are so because of God’s mercy. Thus God is glorified because He is both “just and justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus Christ” (Rom 3:26).