REFORMED?
- Thread starter MarcR
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
It is the lake of fire that was created for Satan and his angels.
Hell is not the lake of fire. It gets thrown into the lake of fire also.
As Christians we should take care to use the correct terminology,
but many people do not, falling into talking the way the world does,
the world that is in darkness and ignorant of Christ and Scriptures.
Hell is not the lake of fire. It gets thrown into the lake of fire also.
As Christians we should take care to use the correct terminology,
but many people do not, falling into talking the way the world does,
the world that is in darkness and ignorant of Christ and Scriptures.
How can a corpse seek Him and come to Him by faith?
nekrós (an adjective, derived from nekys, "a corpse, a dead body") – dead; literally, "what lacks life"; dead; (figuratively) not able to respond to impulses, or perform functions ("unable, ineffective, dead, powerless," L & N, 1, 74.28); unresponsive to life-giving influences (opportunities); inoperative to the things of God.
For you to be correct, it would be like going to a morgue and seeing a corpse raise up and then come to life. It would be like Lazarus poking his head out of the tomb and then the Christ bringing him to life. You have the effect before the cause.
That's why we say that your side of the debate has works and not faith. You say that when you did something, God then did His part and saved you. That's wrong. God must first work inside you, bring you to spiritual life, and then you act accordingly. God first acts and gives life, then we responded to that work which He did inside of us.
And you were dead(nekros) in your trespasses and sins,[Eph. 2:1] even when we were dead(nekros) in our transgressions, made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved), and raised us up with Him, and seated us with Him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus,[Eph. 2:5,6] We were nekros and unable to respond UNTIL God first made us alive, and then we responded in faith and repentance, and were saved. This happens in one instance.
nekrós (an adjective, derived from nekys, "a corpse, a dead body") – dead; literally, "what lacks life"; dead; (figuratively) not able to respond to impulses, or perform functions ("unable, ineffective, dead, powerless," L & N, 1, 74.28); unresponsive to life-giving influences (opportunities); inoperative to the things of God.
For you to be correct, it would be like going to a morgue and seeing a corpse raise up and then come to life. It would be like Lazarus poking his head out of the tomb and then the Christ bringing him to life. You have the effect before the cause.
That's why we say that your side of the debate has works and not faith. You say that when you did something, God then did His part and saved you. That's wrong. God must first work inside you, bring you to spiritual life, and then you act accordingly. God first acts and gives life, then we responded to that work which He did inside of us.
And you were dead(nekros) in your trespasses and sins,[Eph. 2:1] even when we were dead(nekros) in our transgressions, made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved), and raised us up with Him, and seated us with Him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus,[Eph. 2:5,6] We were nekros and unable to respond UNTIL God first made us alive, and then we responded in faith and repentance, and were saved. This happens in one instance.
Reformed Baptists believe there are Reformed Baptists. Reformed people say there is no such thing. 
I'm not trained historian, but this is my take on it from what I've read. Feel free to tweak my history if this is your area of study. Historically, early on in the Reformation that is, the Reformed group believed in salvation by faith but did not agree with Luther in consubstantiation-- Luther's belief that while the bread and wine became the body and blood like the RCC taught, that it was also still bread and wine. That was the historical difference between Lutheranism and Reformed early on, back when Zwingli was the key leader.
John Calvin then became the central Reformed leader and theologian. He emphasized the sovereignty of God. Some time after Calvin, the theology got packaged into the 'TULIP' acronymn to summarize Calvinist theology. TULIP doesn't address the issues of transubstantiation, consubstantiation or a spiritual presence in the eucharist, so are TULIP Lutheran's Reformed?
The Reformed groups also believe in infant baptism. Baptists don't, so the historical Reformed people may not accept Baptists as 'Reformed.' The first time I read 'Reformed Baptist', I was thinking 'huh?' and scratching my head. I'd never heard of that. Then I read something from a Reformed person online who wrote that the title 'Reformed Baptist' was rather recent. Is it just a couple of decades old? It refers to Baptists who believe in 'Reformed theology' in terms of soteriology, excluding doctrines related to water baptism, right? It seems to be a new title developed during this recent new Calvinist movement among Baptists and similar groups.
I'm not trained historian, but this is my take on it from what I've read. Feel free to tweak my history if this is your area of study. Historically, early on in the Reformation that is, the Reformed group believed in salvation by faith but did not agree with Luther in consubstantiation-- Luther's belief that while the bread and wine became the body and blood like the RCC taught, that it was also still bread and wine. That was the historical difference between Lutheranism and Reformed early on, back when Zwingli was the key leader.
John Calvin then became the central Reformed leader and theologian. He emphasized the sovereignty of God. Some time after Calvin, the theology got packaged into the 'TULIP' acronymn to summarize Calvinist theology. TULIP doesn't address the issues of transubstantiation, consubstantiation or a spiritual presence in the eucharist, so are TULIP Lutheran's Reformed?
The Reformed groups also believe in infant baptism. Baptists don't, so the historical Reformed people may not accept Baptists as 'Reformed.' The first time I read 'Reformed Baptist', I was thinking 'huh?' and scratching my head. I'd never heard of that. Then I read something from a Reformed person online who wrote that the title 'Reformed Baptist' was rather recent. Is it just a couple of decades old? It refers to Baptists who believe in 'Reformed theology' in terms of soteriology, excluding doctrines related to water baptism, right? It seems to be a new title developed during this recent new Calvinist movement among Baptists and similar groups.
According to History of the Baptists by Thomas Armitage, the Reformers were enemies of the Baptists and Anabaptists, and persecuted them severely to the point of killing them. He provides a record of their atrocities and calls them a "Protestant Inquisition". So "Reformed Baptist" is indeed a misnomer. The Reformers followed the Catholic Church in infant baptism and opposed believer's baptism. Baptists generally reject Five Point Calvinism.
It is caused by the limitations of the English language. 'Sheol' (Hebrew) is substituted for Hades (Greek) and 'Gehenna' (Greek translation from the Aramaic form of the Hebrew ge-hinnom) both meaning Hell
Tartarus used in Greek Mythology. It is said that 'Tartarus' is as far below Hell as Earth is below Heaven. Could this be the Infamous Bottomless Pit: Rev. 20:3
Tartarus used in Greek Mythology. It is said that 'Tartarus' is as far below Hell as Earth is below Heaven. Could this be the Infamous Bottomless Pit: Rev. 20:3
I was asking her that question as she had stated that hell can not be cast into hell. That's why I asked her which 'hell'. Thanks for the info. Oddly, hades means 'place of departed dead'(paraphrasing that) and that's where the rich man went. In that story, he was in flames. Now, some ppl think hades doesn't have fire, but the rich man would beg to differ.
A huge number of Baptist groups came out of a tiny church called Sandy Creek in North Carolina planted during the 1700's by someone who'd been converted through the ministry of George Whitfield. Sandy Creek affirmed doctrines associated with Calvinism. I haven't read where they affirmed Limited Atonement, but I think otherwise they were Calvinist, and they may have believed in Limited Atonement as well. Out of Sandy Creek, we got the Southern Baptists, American Baptists, Conservative Baptists, Independent Baptists, etc.
Reformed Baptists believe there are Reformed Baptists. Reformed people say there is no such thing.
I'm not trained historian, but this is my take on it from what I've read. Feel free to tweak my history if this is your area of study. Historically, early on in the Reformation that is, the Reformed group believed in salvation by faith but did not agree with Luther in consubstantiation-- Luther's belief that while the bread and wine became the body and blood like the RCC taught, that it was also still bread and wine. That was the historical difference between Lutheranism and Reformed early on, back when Zwingli was the key leader.
John Calvin then became the central Reformed leader and theologian. He emphasized the sovereignty of God. Some time after Calvin, the theology got packaged into the 'TULIP' acronymn to summarize Calvinist theology. TULIP doesn't address the issues of transubstantiation, consubstantiation or a spiritual presence in the eucharist, so are TULIP Lutheran's Reformed?
The Reformed groups also believe in infant baptism. Baptists don't, so the historical Reformed people may not accept Baptists as 'Reformed.' The first time I read 'Reformed Baptist', I was thinking 'huh?' and scratching my head. I'd never heard of that. Then I read something from a Reformed person online who wrote that the title 'Reformed Baptist' was rather recent. Is it just a couple of decades old? It refers to Baptists who believe in 'Reformed theology' in terms of soteriology, excluding doctrines related to water baptism, right? It seems to be a new title developed during this recent new Calvinist movement among Baptists and similar groups.
I'm not trained historian, but this is my take on it from what I've read. Feel free to tweak my history if this is your area of study. Historically, early on in the Reformation that is, the Reformed group believed in salvation by faith but did not agree with Luther in consubstantiation-- Luther's belief that while the bread and wine became the body and blood like the RCC taught, that it was also still bread and wine. That was the historical difference between Lutheranism and Reformed early on, back when Zwingli was the key leader.
John Calvin then became the central Reformed leader and theologian. He emphasized the sovereignty of God. Some time after Calvin, the theology got packaged into the 'TULIP' acronymn to summarize Calvinist theology. TULIP doesn't address the issues of transubstantiation, consubstantiation or a spiritual presence in the eucharist, so are TULIP Lutheran's Reformed?
The Reformed groups also believe in infant baptism. Baptists don't, so the historical Reformed people may not accept Baptists as 'Reformed.' The first time I read 'Reformed Baptist', I was thinking 'huh?' and scratching my head. I'd never heard of that. Then I read something from a Reformed person online who wrote that the title 'Reformed Baptist' was rather recent. Is it just a couple of decades old? It refers to Baptists who believe in 'Reformed theology' in terms of soteriology, excluding doctrines related to water baptism, right? It seems to be a new title developed during this recent new Calvinist movement among Baptists and similar groups.
I was under the impression that the Baptists and other denominations mentioned earlier in the thread were founded on the teachings of Jan Huss and Menno Simons 100 years before the Reformation and was unaware of the exception.
I know that Huss and Simons did not teach Calvin's doctrine of specific election nor were they followers of Armeneus.
Reformed Baptists believe there are Reformed Baptists. Reformed people say there is no such thing.
I'm not trained historian, but this is my take on it from what I've read. Feel free to tweak my history if this is your area of study. Historically, early on in the Reformation that is, the Reformed group believed in salvation by faith but did not agree with Luther in consubstantiation-- Luther's belief that while the bread and wine became the body and blood like the RCC taught, that it was also still bread and wine. That was the historical difference between Lutheranism and Reformed early on, back when Zwingli was the key leader.
John Calvin then became the central Reformed leader and theologian. He emphasized the sovereignty of God. Some time after Calvin, the theology got packaged into the 'TULIP' acronymn to summarize Calvinist theology. TULIP doesn't address the issues of transubstantiation, consubstantiation or a spiritual presence in the eucharist, so are TULIP Lutheran's Reformed?
The Reformed groups also believe in infant baptism. Baptists don't, so the historical Reformed people may not accept Baptists as 'Reformed.' The first time I read 'Reformed Baptist', I was thinking 'huh?' and scratching my head. I'd never heard of that. Then I read something from a Reformed person online who wrote that the title 'Reformed Baptist' was rather recent. Is it just a couple of decades old? It refers to Baptists who believe in 'Reformed theology' in terms of soteriology, excluding doctrines related to water baptism, right? It seems to be a new title developed during this recent new Calvinist movement among Baptists and similar groups.
I'm not trained historian, but this is my take on it from what I've read. Feel free to tweak my history if this is your area of study. Historically, early on in the Reformation that is, the Reformed group believed in salvation by faith but did not agree with Luther in consubstantiation-- Luther's belief that while the bread and wine became the body and blood like the RCC taught, that it was also still bread and wine. That was the historical difference between Lutheranism and Reformed early on, back when Zwingli was the key leader.
John Calvin then became the central Reformed leader and theologian. He emphasized the sovereignty of God. Some time after Calvin, the theology got packaged into the 'TULIP' acronymn to summarize Calvinist theology. TULIP doesn't address the issues of transubstantiation, consubstantiation or a spiritual presence in the eucharist, so are TULIP Lutheran's Reformed?
The Reformed groups also believe in infant baptism. Baptists don't, so the historical Reformed people may not accept Baptists as 'Reformed.' The first time I read 'Reformed Baptist', I was thinking 'huh?' and scratching my head. I'd never heard of that. Then I read something from a Reformed person online who wrote that the title 'Reformed Baptist' was rather recent. Is it just a couple of decades old? It refers to Baptists who believe in 'Reformed theology' in terms of soteriology, excluding doctrines related to water baptism, right? It seems to be a new title developed during this recent new Calvinist movement among Baptists and similar groups.
Calvin wasn't present, that i know. and Lorraine Boettner is the man to whom the TULIP acronym is attributed, or perhaps bringing it to 'popularity', not that it's popular with everyone.
The Moravians (who if I am not mistaken practice infant baptism) formed a separate group due to the influence of John Huss. Moravians were from Moravia, or Bohemiah. John Huss died in 1417. He was executed for teaching doctrines that Protestants would later teach about salvation. It is said that Huss said that they might kill this goose (this huss) but in 100 years they would have a swan that they could neither roast nor boil. Huss was burned at the stake. Luther took this prediction as a reference to himself. The Moravians got two bishops to appoint their bishop, and split from Rome. 'Bohemian' became a word that refers to someone who is nonconventional.
Centuries later, Moravian refugees would settle on Count Zinzendorf's property. He was ordained a Moravian bishop in the Lutheran church. The Moravian Brethren were Lutheran in a Lutheran land but I think they had a kind of inter-denominational fellowship that spanned countries.
The Anabaptist groups sprung up during the Reformation. Some of the early prominent groups took over cities, had inviduals who practiced polygamy, and one of them is said to have prophesied that the Turks would invade. After some of the violence of these early anabaptists, the peaceful anabaptists took the brunt of the persecution aimed at them by Reformers (like Calvin). Anabaptists were seen as dangerous anarchist types for a while.
There were a couple of Baptist groups that emerged in England around the same time. One was Calvinist and the other was not. One group was exiled to Germany or Holland. It is unclear whether they had contact with anabaptists, but both groups started teaching credo-baptism. The Baptists that went to the US were of the Calvinist variety.
Shubal Stearns was a member of a Congregational church who responded to George Whitfield's preaching. Later, he was baptized by a Baptist and started a church in North Carolina which was a kind of mother congregation for many of the Baptists in the US and around the world today, and many Baptist denominations and independent groups.
Centuries later, Moravian refugees would settle on Count Zinzendorf's property. He was ordained a Moravian bishop in the Lutheran church. The Moravian Brethren were Lutheran in a Lutheran land but I think they had a kind of inter-denominational fellowship that spanned countries.
The Anabaptist groups sprung up during the Reformation. Some of the early prominent groups took over cities, had inviduals who practiced polygamy, and one of them is said to have prophesied that the Turks would invade. After some of the violence of these early anabaptists, the peaceful anabaptists took the brunt of the persecution aimed at them by Reformers (like Calvin). Anabaptists were seen as dangerous anarchist types for a while.
There were a couple of Baptist groups that emerged in England around the same time. One was Calvinist and the other was not. One group was exiled to Germany or Holland. It is unclear whether they had contact with anabaptists, but both groups started teaching credo-baptism. The Baptists that went to the US were of the Calvinist variety.
Shubal Stearns was a member of a Congregational church who responded to George Whitfield's preaching. Later, he was baptized by a Baptist and started a church in North Carolina which was a kind of mother congregation for many of the Baptists in the US and around the world today, and many Baptist denominations and independent groups.