Reformed versus Calvinist

[KJVisTruth]

I have always thought they are basically the same thing. But according to one thread I just saw, a confirmed Calvinist took offense at being called a Reformed. So, I want to know exactly what the differences between these terms are. I understand that Calvinists follow the 5 solas (is this where the term "a 5 point calvinist" came from?) and I have heard of "4 point calvinist"... I am not sure about that even, if it has to do with solas, which sola wasnt included? I have been reading alot of their literature, but they werent really clear about the differences, if any. I suppose thats because I have been on the sites that are pretty much dedicated to the literature alone.

I am looking to be enlightened on this subject, please dont turn this into a debate. Thanks! :hug:

[JimfromOhio]

I can say that a Reformed believer may NOT always "100 % Calvinism" however they do follow many of John Calvin's teachings. People are confused and don't really know Reformed theology. I didn't know until I studied more deeply. After 20 plus years of "ignorance", I finally realized that Reformed theology and my beliefs are so similar.

[Iosias]

The issue is (generally) this...to be a Calvinist one must adhere to TULIP i.e. the so-called "five-points of Calvinism". However this does not mean he is Reformed. Because to be Reformed includes more than just soteriology. It is a view of ecclesiology and all the heads of dogmatic/systematic theology and really emphasises the Covenant.

So you can be a Calvinist without being Reformed however you cannot be Reformed without being a Calvinist.

[BereanTodd]

Reformed theologians (and they will be here soon I'm sure) use the terms interchangably. And to be sure, Calvin was a reformed theology. However to anyone who is not reformed, Calvinism generally refers to the soteriology commonly represented by the acronym TULIP.

A great many people hold to calvinist soteriology while rejecting Reformed theology as a whole. I happen to be one of them. I am an avowed dispensationalist, but in soteriology I am all and always Calvinist.

"4 point" Calvinists and similar terms refer not to the Solas (which all protestants should adhere to and hold up) but rather to the points of TULIP - that is Total Depravity, Unconditional Election, Limited or Purposeful Atonement, Irresistable Grace and Preservation/Perseverance of the Saints. Generally (though not always) if one describes themselves as "4 point Calvinists" they are denying the Limited or Purposeful Atonement of Christ.

[Iosias]

Reformed theologians (and they will be here soon I'm sure) use the terms interchangably. And to be sure, Calvin was a reformed theology. However to anyone who is not reformed, Calvinism generally refers to the soteriology commonly represented by the acronym TULIP.

A great many people hold to calvinist soteriology while rejecting Reformed theology as a whole. I happen to be one of them. I am an avowed dispensationalist, but in soteriology I am all and always Calvinist.

"4 point" Calvinists and similar terms refer not to the Solas (which all protestants should adhere to and hold up) but rather to the points of TULIP - that is Total Depravity, Unconditional Election, Limited or Purposeful Atonement, Irresistable Grace and Preservation/Perseverance of the Saints. Generally (though not always) if one describes themselves as "4 point Calvinists" they are denying the Limited or Purposeful Atonement of Christ.

Therefore you are a Calvinist and not Reformed as explained in my post above :)

[KJVisTruth]

So, the views of ecclesiology and soteriology are the true differences? Being a Calvinist is really basic, sticking to TULIP alone, and being a Reformed is not basic, cuz its more than just sticking to TULIP, correct? If so, Calvinism is an offshoot of Reformism? I was under the impression they occurred at about the same time. How does the Reformed really emphasize the Covenant?

[KJVisTruth]

Reformed theologians (and they will be here soon I'm sure) use the terms interchangably. And to be sure, Calvin was a reformed theology. However to anyone who is not reformed, Calvinism generally refers to the soteriology commonly represented by the acronym TULIP.

A great many people hold to calvinist soteriology while rejecting Reformed theology as a whole. I happen to be one of them. I am an avowed dispensationalist, but in soteriology I am all and always Calvinist.

"4 point" Calvinists and similar terms refer not to the Solas (which all protestants should adhere to and hold up) but rather to the points of TULIP - that is Total Depravity, Unconditional Election, Limited or Purposeful Atonement, Irresistable Grace and Preservation/Perseverance of the Saints. Generally (though not always) if one describes themselves as "4 point Calvinists" they are denying the Limited or Purposeful Atonement of Christ.
Ahh, I see. Thanks for clearing that up, about the 4/5-points of Calvinism.

Another question, are the 5 solas followed by BOTH parties? It seems that if a Calvinist claim to be a 4 point, they are flexible with the 5 solas as well? I understand that the 5 solas are different from TULIP.

[BereanTodd]

The Reformed movement began in Switzerland under Zwingli. Jean Calvi (John Calvin) was basically his successor. So in that sense John Calvin is yes, one of the fathers of the reformed movement, and he is 100% reformed.

However reformed theology includes an ecclesiology, and an overall theological framework. It has no particular eschatology, though it is far more common for them to be amillenial or postmillenial than anything else. It is a replacement theology with respect to Israel. And if one accepted all of Calvin's doctrine then one would be a reformed theologian.

But the key to the discussion is common useage. In common useage outside of Reformed circles, Calvinism refers specifically to the "TULIP" soteriology.

[BereanTodd]

Ahh, I see. Thanks for clearing that up, about the 4/5-points of Calvinism.

Another question, are the 5 solas followed by BOTH parties? It seems that if a Calvinist claim to be a 4 point, they are flexible with the 5 solas as well? I understand that the 5 solas are different from TULIP.

The Solas and the TULIP are completely different. Every protestant should uphold the 5 solas.

Sola Gratia - Grace alone. We are saved only through grace.

Sola Fide - Faith alone. We are saved by faith alone.

Sola Scriptura - The Bible is our only rule and guide for faith. This does not mean that history and tradition are not very important (they are), but that they are subject to the Scriptures.

Solus Christos - Salvation is in and through Christ alone.

Soli deo Gloria - all the glory belongs to God alone, and His glory is generally the intention of His actions.

[Iosias]

So, the views of ecclesiology and soteriology are the true differences? Being a Calvinist is really basic, sticking to TULIP alone, and being a Reformed is not basic, cuz its more than just sticking to TULIP, correct? If so, Calvinism is an offshoot of Reformism? I was under the impression they occurred at about the same time. How does the Reformed really emphasize the Covenant?

A Reformed theologian will hold to:
1. The Spiritual presence of Christ in the Lord's supper
2. The baptism of infants
3. TULIP as found in the Canons of Dordt
4. The regulative principle of worship
5. The unity of the OT and NT through the Covenant of Grace

A Calvinist will hold to TULIP as found in the Canons of Dordt. So when people talk of Calvinism the really mean the soteriology of Calvin alone.

So you will see Reformed is broader than just soteriology. To illustrate this just look at the following links and the topics they look at.
Reformed link:http://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/articles/topic/reformed.html
Calvinism link: http://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/articles/topic/calvinism.html

[KJVisTruth]

A Reformed theologian will hold to:
1. The Spiritual presence of Christ in the Lord's supper
2. The baptism of infants
3. TULIP as found in the Canons of Dordt
4. The regulative principle of worship
5. The unity of the OT and NT through the Covenant of Grace

A Calvinist will hold to TULIP as found in the Canons of Dordt. So when people talk of Calvinism the really mean the soteriology of Calvin alone.

So you will see Reformed is broader than just soteriology. To illustrate this just look at the following links and the topics they look at.
Reformed link:http://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/articles/topic/reformed.html
Calvinism link: http://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/articles/topic/calvinism.html
Awesome info. I am surprised that the Reformed believes in infant baptism.. I thought that was a ritual that only Catholics do. Very interesting.

Thanks for those links, I will definitely check them out. =)

[BereanTodd]

Awesome info. I am surprised that the Reformed believes in infant baptism.. I thought that was a ritual that only Catholics do. Very interesting.

Nope, actually paedobaptism (infant baptism) is the vast majority of Christians. Now I firmly believe that believer's baptism is what is taught in Scripture, however:

-Roman Catholics
-Eastern Orthodox
-Lutherans
-Anglicans/Episcopals
-Presbyterians and other Reformed groups

... all practice infant baptism. I'm not sure what the Methodists practice in regards to baptism. But your believer's baptism is basically baptist, anabaptist, non-denom and Bible churches, and charismatic churches.

[KJVisTruth]

Nope, actually paedobaptism (infant baptism) is the vast majority of Christians. Now I firmly believe that believer's baptism is what is taught in Scripture, however:

-Roman Catholics
-Eastern Orthodox
-Lutherans
-Anglicans/Episcopals
-Presbyterians and other Reformed groups

... all practice infant baptism. I'm not sure what the Methodists practice in regards to baptism. But your believer's baptism is basically baptist, anabaptist, non-denom and Bible churches, and charismatic churches.
Thats true. Now I wanna ask if infant baptism is scriptural. But lets not get away from the OP. lol

Cuz of the ecclesiology difference, do Calvinists still believe in going to church, or is it more about going for leisure and fellowship, not taking ecclesiology seriously?

[JimfromOhio]

Thats true. Now I wanna ask if infant baptism is scriptural. But lets not get away from the OP. lol

Cuz of the ecclesiology difference, do Calvinists still believe in going to church, or is it more about going for leisure and fellowship, not taking ecclesiology seriously?

We have to be careful how we view "infant baptism". Reformed "infant baptism" is NOT the same with Catholic's "infant baptism".

In Reformed Theology, "Infant Baptism" does not SAVE anyone but rather parents understanding God's Covenant regarding the child's future.

I was a Baptist and Anabaptist for almost 40 years until I finally "understood" what Reformed's view of "infant baptism".

[BereanTodd]

Thats true. Now I wanna ask if infant baptism is scriptural. But lets not get away from the OP. lol

Without getting too deep the basic idea is this. The symbol of the Old Covenant was circumcision and it was given to all male children of Israel. The church is spiritual or true Israel, and our sign is baptism, thus our children are all given the sign of our covenant.

Now that is a very short and brief description of why. If we examine baptism in the NT it was always a believer's baptism, there is no evidence for paedobaptism. I believe that believer's baptism is the Biblical example which we are called to follow.

Cuz of the ecclesiology difference, do Calvinists still believe in going to church, or is it more about going for leisure and fellowship, not taking ecclesiology seriously?

No orthodox Christian that I know of teaches that you should not go to church. Church is extremely important, it is stressed in Scripture, and it should remain important today.

[BereanTodd]

We have to be careful how we view "infant baptism". Reformed "infant baptism" is NOT the same with Catholic's "infant baptism".

In Reformed Theology, "Infant Baptism" does not SAVE anyone but rather parents understanding God's Covenant regarding the child's future.

I was a Baptist and Anabaptist for almost 40 years until I finally "understood" what Reformed's view of "infant baptism".


Very good point - the infant baptism I described above is the Reformed view of it. The Catholics believe that it is actually washing away original sin, which is completely different, so reformed and catholic paedobaptisms are different and distinct.

[JimfromOhio]

do Calvinists still believe in going to church, or is it more about going for leisure and fellowship, not taking ecclesiology seriously?

Calvinism believe in the Great Commission. We don't know who are elected to be saved. We just preach the Gospel to ALL and allow God handle the election part. Even though God is in control and He KNOWS who will accept and reject before the earth was even created. Jesus did die for ALL but the atonement is only for the elected (in other words, those who are convicted by the Holy Spirit to accept Jesus as their Lord and Savior, repented and etc).

I want to bring out some of the great names who identified closely to Reformed/Calvinism: John Calvin, Jonathan Edwards, George Whitefield, Charles Spurgeon, James Montgomery Boice, R. C. Sproul, and John MacArthur (somewhat) and many more.

[KJVisTruth]

Now I get the differences of infant baptism, thanks. Why dont Calvinists hold to it though? One of the links that one just provided on this thread, I read somewhere that Calvinism is a religion of faith, whereas Reformism is a religion of faith AND works. Id like to know why that is.

[BereanTodd]

Why dont Calvinists hold to it though?

Reformed Calvinists do hold to it. Those who are not reformed do not because we come from other traditions (who hold the proper view) which teach believer's baptism as the proper Biblical course.

One of the links that one just provided on this thread, I read somewhere that Calvinism is a religion of faith, whereas Reformism is a religion of faith AND works. Id like to know why that is.

I disagree with that assesment. Again Calvinism can not be entirely separated from Reformed doctrine, but as a term in modern useage it applies to the view of salvation (soteriology) that many outside of the reformed faith hold to.

But the Reformed faith holds to the 5 Solas, and what did we allready cover that they meant? Soal Gratia, Sola fide. Salvation is by grace alone through Christ alone.

[Robert_Barnes]

.

[KJVisTruth]

A Reformed theologian will hold to:
1. The Spiritual presence of Christ in the Lord's supper


Thats communion, correct? "The spiritual presence" clearly shows its different from the Catholic's communion. What about Eucharist, if its different from communion in Reformed theology?

[Robert_Barnes]

Reformed Calvinists do hold to it. Those who are not reformed do not because we come from other traditions (who hold the proper view) which teach believer's baptism as the proper Biblical course.


This statement is implicitly false. It implies that the Churches which baptize infants do NOT believe in "believer's baptism". They all most certainly do.

If an adult converts, then the ordu salutis is that they first believe, and then they are baptized.

For the children however, belief is not a prerequisite to baptism, just as belief was not a prerequisite to circumcision in the OT. In Reformed theology, the child is included in the covenant through baptism. The parents then "train up the child in the way that he should go..."

The Refomred view is MUCH closer to the Biblical pattern than the Anabaptist view.

[BereanTodd]

This statement is implicitly false. It implies that the Churches which baptize infants do NOT believe in "believer's baptism". They all most certainly do.

If an adult converts, then the ordu salutis is that they first believe, and then they are baptized.

For the children however, belief is not a prerequisite to baptism, just as belief was not a prerequisite to circumcision in the OT. In Reformed theology, the child is included in the covenant through baptism. The parents then "train up the child in the way that he should go..."

Are those children who had been baptised as infants later re-baptised once they come to faith? Because there is a Biblical order to it ...

The Refomred view is MUCH closer to the Biblical pattern than the Anabaptist view.

The pattern everywhere in the NT is belief first baptism second. Please show me one NT passage of an infant being baptised.

[cygnusx1]

aside from the baptism issue , back to the OP , if a person is a Lutheran , and by that I mean believing in Luthers teaching , is he not Reformed ? :)

[Iosias]

Reformed Calvinists do hold to it. Those who are not reformed do not because we come from other traditions (who hold the proper view) which teach believer's baptism as the proper Biblical course.

I have gotta smile at this :)

[Iosias]

Thats communion, correct? "The spiritual presence" clearly shows its different from the Catholic's communion. What about Eucharist, if its different from communion in Reformed theology?

Yes, Communion, Lord's supper, Eucharist, I am not sure what your question is I am afraid.

[Iosias]

aside from the baptism issue , back to the OP , if a person is a Lutheran , and by that I mean believing in Luthers teaching , is he not Reformed ? :)

Lutherans are not Reformed.

[JimfromOhio]

Lutherans were part of the Reformation but they do not hold Reformed teachings.

[Robert_Barnes]

Are those children who had been baptised as infants later re-baptised once they come to faith? Because there is a Biblical order to it ...



The pattern everywhere in the NT is belief first baptism second. Please show me one NT passage of an infant being baptised.
This isn't the thread for that. But you were trumpeting your position as "the" Biblical position; just thought I'd return the favor.

[KJVisTruth]

Yes, Communion, Lord's supper, Eucharist, I am not sure what your question is I am afraid.
Ohh I guess theres no difference between Communion and Eucharist in all denominations. I thought there was in a few denominations, sorry. =)

[BereanTodd]

aside from the baptism issue , back to the OP , if a person is a Lutheran , and by that I mean believing in Luthers teaching , is he not Reformed ? :)

Nope, Lutherans are Lutherans. The Reformed Theologians draw heritage from the ... Reformed movement, which was parrallell to Luther's move. It began under Zwingli at roughly the same time as Luther, passed to others such as Calvin, and Presbyterians are basically direct descendants of it (being started by reformed believers in Scotland).

[Iosias]

Ohh I guess theres no difference between Communion and Eucharist in all denominations. I thought there was in a few denominations, sorry. =)

It is just a different word describing the same thing :)

[Robert_Barnes]

aside from the baptism issue , back to the OP , if a person is a Lutheran , and by that I mean believing in Luthers teaching , is he not Reformed ? :)
Lutherans are NOT Reformed!

Unfortunately, Lutherans do have the tendency to call anything that is not RC, EO, or Lutheran "Reformed".

Thus, Methodists, Charismatics, whatever: they're all Reformed.

:sigh:

In spite of having the best theology around, Lutherans can be rather dense sometimes.

[KJVisTruth]

Lutherans are not Reformed.
Can you explain why? Wasnt Luther a reformist? I have read some of his writings, although I am not too fond of these.

[JimfromOhio]

Can you explain why? Wasnt Luther a reformist? I have read some of his writings, although I am not too fond of these.

Martin Luther started the Reformation while Lutherans are not Reformed, they do hold similar but not the same teachings. Many of today's Lutheran denominations do not really hold Martin Luther's teachings and only a few actually hold Luther's teachings.

[KJVisTruth]

Martin Luther started the Reformation while Lutherans are not Reformed, they do hold similar but not the same teachings. Many of today's Lutheran denominations do not really hold Martin Luther's teachings and only a few actually hold Luther's teachings.
Ahh I see, thanks. =)

[Robert_Barnes]

Can you explain why? Wasnt Luther a reformist? I have read some of his writings, although I am not too fond of these.
It's the difference between a noun and an adjective.

Yes, Luther was a "reformer", but he was not Reformed.

[BereanTodd]

Can you explain why? Wasnt Luther a reformist? I have read some of his writings, although I am not too fond of these.

Luther started a part of the reformation, at basically the same time in Switzerland Zwingli started one as well. Luther's became Lutheranism and Zwingli's the Reformed movement.

Lutherans basically were Catholics with slight differences on a few issues (consubstantiation as opposed to transubstantiation, matters of justification). They wanted originally to change the RCC, move it back towards the truth (as they saw it).

The Reformed movement under Zwingli was much more radical. They rejected much more of what Roman Catholicism taught and didn't so much change what was wrong with the RCC (in their eyes) as they did try and start all over with a more Biblical model.

Now there was a time where Luther and Zwingli met to try and form some sort of 'union' or 'unity' between themselves, but while Zwingli was willing to forge it, Luther was not. Luther was adamant that Christ was in the Lord's Supper (consubstantiation) while the Reformed movement saw it as symbollic. Luther was not willing to have any fellowship as long as that issue separated them.

[KJVisTruth]

I know this is leading off the OP but I am curious...

Arent most protestant denominations actually Reformed, only not as rigid?

[Robert_Barnes]

Luther started a part of the reformation, at basically the same time in Switzerland Zwingli started one as well. Luther's became Lutheranism and Zwingli's the Reformed movement.

Lutherans basically were Catholics with slight differences on a few issues (consubstantiation as opposed to transubstantiation, matters of justification). They wanted originally to change the RCC, move it back towards the truth (as they saw it).

The Reformed movement under Zwingli was much more radical. They rejected much more of what Roman Catholicism taught and didn't so much change what was wrong with the RCC (in their eyes) as they did try and start all over with a more Biblical model.

Now there was a time where Luther and Zwingli met to try and form some sort of 'union' or 'unity' between themselves, but while Zwingli was willing to forge it, Luther was not. Luther was adamant that Christ was in the Lord's Supper (consubstantiation) while the Reformed movement saw it as symbollic. Luther was not willing to have any fellowship as long as that issue separated them.
Lutherans do not -- and HAVE NEVER -- believed in consubstantiation.

Lutherans believe in the Real Presence of Christ in the Lord's Supper. Christ's body and blood are "in, with, and under" the bread and the wine.

Lutherans adamantly REJECT 'consubstantiation" because it implies and adherence to a scientific explanation for Christ's Presence in the Supper. Lutherans see no need for such an explanation: it is a mystery.

Jesus said, "This is my body," therefore it is his body. The heretic Zwingli changed Christ's words to mean "This represents my body." Like Bill Clinton..."is" doesn't mean "is". Calvin, to his credit, saw Zwingli's interpretation for the lie that it is.

[BereanTodd]

Lutherans do not -- and HAVE NEVER -- believed in consubstantiation.

Lutherans believe in the Real Presence of Christ in the Lord's Supper. Christ's body and blood are "in, with, and under" the bread and the wine.

Lutherans adamantly REJECT 'consubstantiation" because it implies and adherence to a scientific explanation for Christ's Presence in the Supper. Lutherans see no need for such an explanation: it is a mystery.

Sorry, but you are wrong.


Consubstantiation is a theological doctrine that, like the competing theory of transubstantiation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transubstantiation), attempts to describe the nature of the Christian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity) Eucharist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eucharist) in concrete metaphysical (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphysics) terms. It holds that during the sacrament (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sacrament) the fundamental "substance (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Substance_theory)" of the body and blood of Christ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christ) are present alongside the substance of the bread and wine, which remain present. Transubstantiation differs from consubstantiation in that it postulates that through consecration (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consecration), according to some, that one set of substances (bread and wine) is exchanged for another (the Body and Blood of Christ) or, according to others, that the reality of the bread and wine become the reality of the body and blood of Christ. The substance of the bread and wine do not remain, but their accidents (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accident_%28philosophy%29) (superficial properties like appearance and taste) remain.
Consubstantiation is commonly associated with the teachings of Martin Luther (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Luther) and Philipp Melanchthon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philipp_Melanchthon), the latter actually employing the term with the approval of the former. Luther did teach that the body and blood of Christ are present "in, with, and under the forms" of bread and wine, and present-day Lutherans hold to this statement while disagreeing about its exact meaning. Some Lutherans use the term "consubstantiation" [citation needed (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citing_sources)] to refer to this belief, but the theology intended is not always the same as the philosophical theory described above. Luther illustrated his belief about the Eucharist "by the analogy of the iron put into the fire whereby both fire and iron are united in the red-hot iron and yet each continues unchanged," a concept which he called "sacramental union (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sacramental_Union)" , which is analogous to the Hypostatic Union (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypostatic_Union) of Christ's Divine and Human natures . Otherwise , the term Real Presence (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Real_Presence) is also used to describe the Lutheran position in this regard . (Against the Heavenly Prophets (1525) and Confession Concerning Christ's Supper (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confession_Concerning_Christ%27s_Supper) (1528) as quoted in The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, F.L. Cross, Ed., London: Oxford, 1958, p. 337). Consubstantiation is affirmed by a minority of Christians, including some Lutherans and some Eastern Orthodox churches


Lutherans do NOT hold to transubstantiation as does the RCC. Consubstantiation is that Jesus is in the bread and wine, that is what consubstantiation is. It is the Lutheran belief.


Jesus said, "This is my body," therefore it is his body. The heretic Zwingli changed Christ's words to mean "This represents my body." Like Bill Clinton..."is" doesn't mean "is". Calvin, to his credit, saw Zwingli's interpretation for the lie that it is.

Jesus also said "IAM the vine" but I don't think he is literally a plant. He also said "IAM the door" but I don't think that he is either made out of wood nor does he have a handle on him. He said "IAM the bread of life" but I do not expect him to be made of flower or contain leaven.

The fact is that there is symbollic speach that is used at times. The question is whether Jesus' words at the Last Supper were symbollic or not. And that is where our disagreement lies ...

[BereanTodd]

I know this is leading off the OP but I am curious...

Arent most protestant denominations actually Reformed, only not as rigid?

Reformed has nothing to do with being rigid. It is a specific theological framework for understanding Scriptures. Lutherans, Anglicans, Episcopals, Methodists, Baptists, Anabaptists, Charismatics ... none of us are reformed though some of the above may have been influenced on certain issues by reformed thought.

Reformed churches refers specifically to the Reformed movement from Switzerland and the Presbyterians who came out of them, begining in Scotland.

[KJVisTruth]

Reformed has nothing to do with being rigid. It is a specific theological framework for understanding Scriptures. Lutherans, Anglicans, Episcopals, Methodists, Baptists, Anabaptists, Charismatics ... none of us are reformed though some of the above may have been influenced on certain issues by reformed thought.

Reformed churches refers specifically to the Reformed movement from Switzerland and the Presbyterians who came out of them, begining in Scotland.
Oh I didnt mean "being" rigid, only in their theology. I should have used "firm" instead.

Presbyterians were what I was thinking of when I asked, and I wasnt sure about the other protestant denominations.

You all have been real helpful!

[BereanTodd]

No problem. Basically when you think about the Reformation you can think of four major lines of it that sprang up. You had Lutheranism and the Reformed movement that came up at basically the same time. Then you had later on the Anglican movement began in England. Then around the Reformed movement sprang up the anabaptists. From those four families come just about all of the denominations that we have today.

However, only those that draw direct descendancy from the Reformed movement would be described as Reformed Theologians.

[Iosias]

Then you had later on the Anglican movement began in England.

Thomas Cranmer
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Cranmer
http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/historic_figures/cranmer_thomas.shtml

John Hooper
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Hooper

Nicholas Ridley
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicholas_Ridley_%28martyr%29

http://satucket.com/lectionary/Latimer_Ridley_Cranmer.htm

Also Martin Bucer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Bucer)helped write the Book of Common Prayer 1552 :)

[Robert_Barnes]

Sorry, but you are wrong.



Lutherans do NOT hold to transubstantiation as does the RCC. Consubstantiation is that Jesus is in the bread and wine, that is what consubstantiation is. It is the Lutheran belief.




Jesus also said "IAM the vine" but I don't think he is literally a plant. He also said "IAM the door" but I don't think that he is either made out of wood nor does he have a handle on him. He said "IAM the bread of life" but I do not expect him to be made of flower or contain leaven.

The fact is that there is symbollic speach that is used at times. The question is whether Jesus' words at the Last Supper were symbollic or not. And that is where our disagreement lies ...
Excuse me, sir.

I have a Master's Degree in Lutheran Theology. I know better than wikipedia what Lutherans do and do not believe.

The Book of Concord (www.bookofconcord.org (http://www.bookofconcord.org)), which is the definitive belief statement of the Augsburg Evangelical Catholic Church (the Lutherans), NOWHERE uses that word.

I don't care HOW MANY websites you can find that repeat the misinformation: an untruth told 1,000,000 times is STILL an untruth.

[BereanTodd]

I really don't care what degrees you hold. If you do not hold to consubstantiation, then what do you hold? Please describe the differences in consubstantiation and the Lutheran view!

Transubstantiation (RCC) teaches that the bread and wine literally, physically becomes the flesh and blood of Christ.

Consubstantiation teaches that it remains bread and wine, but that Jesus is IN it, that Jesus is with in and under the elements. That is consubstantiation. How does it differ from Lutheran views, since you claim that it does ...

[Iosias]

I really don't care what degrees you hold. If you do not hold to consubstantiation, then what do you hold? Please describe the differences in consubstantiation and the Lutheran view!

Transubstantiation (RCC) teaches that the bread and wine literally, physically becomes the flesh and blood of Christ.

Consubstantiation teaches that it remains bread and wine, but that Jesus is IN it, that Jesus is with in and under the elements. That is consubstantiation. How does it differ from Lutheran views, since you claim that it does ...

Actually I am afraid it has certainly been questioned as to what Luther's view actually was. There was an interesting thread on it in a different forum: http://www.puritanboard.com/showthread.php?t=18911

[Robert_Barnes]

I really don't care what degrees you hold. If you do not hold to consubstantiation, then what do you hold? Please describe the differences in consubstantiation and the Lutheran view!

Transubstantiation (RCC) teaches that the bread and wine literally, physically becomes the flesh and blood of Christ.

Consubstantiation teaches that it remains bread and wine, but that Jesus is IN it, that Jesus is with in and under the elements. That is consubstantiation. How does it differ from Lutheran views, since you claim that it does ...
BOTH transubstantiation (TS) AND consubstantiation (CS) rest on an Aristotelian understanding of substans and accidens.

In TS, the substans of the bread and wine are said to change (into the substans of body and blood), while the accidens (the external features, such as look, smell and tatse) remain the same. (Your definition of TS above -- if not exactly incorrect -- shows a great misunderstanding of the doctrine.)

Lutherans rejected this explanation NOT because it is heretical or even unbiblical, but because it is unnecessary. Using a man-made philosophical system to unravel a biblical mystery is utter nonsense. These things of faith cannot be apprehended by our frail and weak minds.

Lutherans reject CS on two grounds:

CS suggests that the substans of the bread and wine are mixed and co-mingled with the body and the blood creating a new, uber substans. Lutherans DO NOT believe this. We believe that the bread is present, and that Christ's body is Present: but Lutherans do NOT believe that they are MIXED.

But aside from that, Lutherans reject CS for the same reason that they reject TS: no philosophical explanation is necessary. Lutherans simply believe what the Scriptures say.

From the Apology of the Augsburg Confession, Article X, Of the Holy Supper:
Article X: Of the Holy Supper.

54] The Tenth Article has been approved, in which we confess that we believe, that in the Lord's Supper the body and blood of Christ are truly and substantially present, and are truly tendered, with those things which are seen, bread and wine, to those who receive the Sacrament. This belief we constantly defend, as the subject has been carefully examined and considered. For since Paul says, 1 Cor. 10, 16, that the bread is the communion of the Lord's body, etc., it would follow, if the Lord's body were not truly present, that the bread is not a communion of the body, but only of the spirit of Christ. 55] And we have ascertained that not only the Roman Church affirms the bodily presence of Christ, but the Greek Church also both now believes, and formerly believed, the same. For the canon of the Mass among them testifies to this, in which the priest clearly prays that the bread may be changed and become the very body of Christ. And Vulgarius, who seems to us to be not a silly writer, says distinctly that bread is not a mere figure, but 56] is truly changed into flesh. And there is a long exposition of Cyril on John 15, in which he teaches that Christ is corporeally offered us in the Supper. For he says thus: Nevertheless, we do not deny that we are joined spiritually to Christ by true faith and sincere love. But that we have no mode of connection with Him, according to the flesh, this indeed we entirely deny. And this, we say, is altogether foreign to the divine Scriptures. For who has doubted that Christ is in this manner a vine, and we the branches, deriving thence life for ourselves? Hear Paul saying 1 Cor. 10, 17; Rom. 12, 5; Gal. 3, 28: We are all one body in Christ; although we are many, we are, nevertheless, one in Him; for we are, all partakers of that one bread. Does he perhaps think that the virtue of the mystical benediction is unknown to us? Since this is in us, does it not also, by the communication of Christ's flesh, cause Christ to dwell in us bodily? And a little after: Whence we must consider that Christ is in us not only according to the habit, which we call love, 57] but also by natural participation, etc. We have cited these testimonies, not to undertake a discussion here concerning this subject, for His Imperial Majesty does not disapprove of this article, but in order that all who may read them may the more clearly perceive that we defend the doctrine received in the entire Church, that in the Lord's Supper the body and blood of Christ are truly and substantially present, and are truly tendered with those things which are seen, bread and wine. And we speak of the presence of the living Christ [living body]; for we know that death hath no more dominion over Him, Rom. 6, 9.

This you may trust. Wikipedia, you may not trust.

[Robert_Barnes]

Selection from The Conservative Reformation and its Theology, by Charles Porterfield Krauth (1888), pp. 774-776.

N.B.:
when Krauth uses the word "Symbols" he is referring to the Lutheran Confessions (i.e., Book of Concord)

Salmasius (+1653): “Consubstantiation, or fusion of natures, is the commixtion of two substances as it were into one; but it is not this which the followers of Luther believe; for they maintain the co-existence of two substances distinct in two subjects. It is the co-existence, rather, of the two substances than their consubstantiation.” Nothing would be easier than to multiply such citations. . . .

The brethren of the Augsburg confession teach: That the body and blood of Christ are present with the signs in the Supper substantially and corporeally. But here it is to be observed that these brethren do not mean that there is any consubstantiation or impanation. On the contrary, Pfaff, the venerable Chancellor of Tubingen, protests, in their name, against such an idea. He says:
“All ours agree that the body of Christ is not in the Eucharist by act of that finite nature of its own, according to which it is now only in a certain ‘pou’ (somewhere) of the heavens; and this remains that the body of Christ is not in the world, nor in the Eucharist, by diffusion or extension, by expansion or location, by circumscription or natural mode. Yet is the body of Christ really present in the Holy Supper.

“But the inquisitive may ask, How? I answer, our theologians, who have rightly weighed the matter, say that the body and blood of Christ are present in the Holy Supper according to the omnipresence imparted to the flesh of Christ by virtue of the personal union, and are sacramentally united with the Eucharistic symbols, the bread and wine; that is, are so united, that of the divine institution, these symbols are not symbols and figures of an absent thing, but of a thing most present, to wit, the body and blood of Christ, which are not figurative, but most real and substantial.

Wherefore the body and blood of Christ are present, but not by a presence of their own a natural and cohesive, circumscriptive and local, diffusive and extensive presence, according to which other bodies are said to be present but by a divine presence, a presence through the conjunction of the Logos with the flesh of Christ. We, rejecting all other modes of a real Eucharistic presence, hold, in accordance with our Symbolical books, that union alone according to which the body and blood of Christ, by act of the divine person, in which they subsist, are present with the Eucharistic symbols. We repeat, therefore, all those of the Reformed do wrongly who attribute to us the doctrine of consubstantiation, against whom we solemnly protest.”

The adherents of the Augsburg Confession hold that the true and substantial body and blood of Christ . , are received by unbelievers as well as by believers, orally. Pfaff thus expresses it: “Though the participation be oral, yet the mode is spiritual; that is, is not natural, not corporeal, not carnal.”

Not only however have candid men of other Churches repudiated the false charge made against our Church, but there have not been wanting those, not of our Communion, who have given the most effectual denial of these charges by approaching very closely to the doctrine which has been maligned, or by accepting it unreservedly. Lehre and Wehre, II, 2, Feb. 1856, pp. 33-43

If the opponents of the Lutheran Church here in America want to be concise in describing the teaching of Luther, the Augsburg Confession, the Formula of Concord, and the entire old Lutheran church on the Lord’s Supper, especially as regards the manner in which the body and blood of Jesus Christ are present in this sacrament, they commonly resort to the use of the technical terms in our title, consubstantiation and impanation, or also incorporation.

This labeling is still used in the latest edition of the Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge, 1854, edited by J. Newton Brown. Under the entry “Consubstantiation” we read the following: “A tenet of the Lutheran church respecting the presence of Christ in the Lord’s Supper. Luther denied that the elements were changed after consecration, and therefore taught that the bread and wine indeed remain; but that together with them, there is present the substance of the body of Christ, which is literally (!) received by communicants. As in red-hot iron it may be said, two distinct substances, iron and fire, are united, so is the body of Christ joined with the bread.”

Under the entry “Lutheranism” we are told that “It has undergone some alterations since the time of its founder. Luther believed the impanation or consubstantiation.”

It is indeed a pitiable and devastating testimony to the level of theological education in this country when a book claiming to represent that education contains such disfigurements (to say no more) of the teaching of a church that is spread across the entire globe. But it is even more unpardonable and presupposes either the greatest ignorance or evil intent when alleged theologians who call themselves Lutherans are just as incorrect in presenting the teaching of the church whose servants, stewards, and watchmen they want to be.

Alas, this is by no means an infrequent occurrence! The whole so-called “American Lutheran” church, led by such men as Dr. B. Kurtz and Dr. S. S. [wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth]er, dissociates itself, to be sure, from consubstantiation or impanation in the Lord’s Supper, yet, in spite of all protests on the part of Lutherans in this country who are faithful to the Symbols, keeps on boldly accusing these Lutherans and the whole old Lutheran Church that has remained loyal to Luther’s teaching of holding this unbiblical conception oft he presence oft he body and blood of Jesus Christ in the Sacrament of the Altar. This is so notorious that we may dispense with documentation from the Lutheran Observer or the Evangelical Lutheran.

To be sure, the warning has often been issued in recent years against reviving the old controversy about the Lord’s Supper. However, just those who issue this warning keep on attacking the teaching of the Lutheran Church on this point and not only call it a remnant of the papacy and a product of dark and superstitious days, but they also give that teaching a completely false interpretation and then make their renunciation of it a shibboleth of genuine American Lutherans. Who, then, is responsible for stirring up the old conflict? Those who remain faithful to the teaching of our church as deposited in its Symbols and defend it against attacks and distortions? Or is it not rather those who in the midst of our church oppose and misinterpret this teaching as unbiblical and papistic? Every fairminded person, even among our opponents, must concede that it is the latter.

For the moment, we will confine ourselves to rejecting the doctrine of a consubstantiation or an impanation that is imputed to Lutherans who are faithful to the Symbols.

[JimfromOhio]

This thread has turned to a debate rather than helping the OP with answers. Which is why I stop posting.

[Robert_Barnes]

You're right, Jim; and I'm guilty. Signing off...

[Iosias]

A list of Presbyterian and Reformed denominations can be found here (http://www.gracealone.com/denomlist.php). Although it is by no means extensive :)

[Jadis40]

Nope, actually paedobaptism (infant baptism) is the vast majority of Christians. Now I firmly believe that believer's baptism is what is taught in Scripture, however:

-Roman Catholics
-Eastern Orthodox
-Lutherans
-Anglicans/Episcopals
-Presbyterians and other Reformed groups

... all practice infant baptism. I'm not sure what the Methodists practice in regards to baptism. But your believer's baptism is basically baptist, anabaptist, non-denom and Bible churches, and charismatic churches.

Methodists practice infant baptism, but based on the individual, we would also baptize someone who was not baptized as an infant.