Is Reformed Theology a good theology?

[Mark Quayle]

Reformed Theology (RT) offers a full and insightful explanation of the Gospel's deep meaning.
There is no wrong teaching in RT.

I wouldn't go that far. But it does offer insightful explanation, or more to the point, it comes from a different mindset —a different 'worldview'— from the humano-centric self-determinism from which Arminianism and Pelagianism descend. To say it offers a full explanation —no, it is not a comprehensive theology. It is, however, a good focus on the Doctrine of God, and therefore, as a result, the Doctrine of Man and God's purpose in creating and means of accomplishing what he has Covenanted to do: God With Us

Rev 21
"...'Look! God’s dwelling place is now among the people, and he will dwell with them. They will be his people, and God himself will be with them and be their God.'"

 

[Mark Quayle]

Your post appears to endorse a form of theological relativism.

Explain, or maybe, define, what you mean by theological relativism.

Theology, as relates to doctrine, always falls short of communicated facts, even to those who write the creeds and confessions, nevermind to those who read and recite them. We do the best we can. But truth is never relative. I don't endorse any notion that the Church can construct 'truth statements' equal to or better than what God has written by plenary verbal inspiration, not to be added to.

 

[BBAS 64]

Is Reformed Theology a sound and reliable theological framework?
What specific recommendations or methods do you propose that I adopt in order to achieve a nearly perfect and comprehensive understanding of the Bible, ensuring that my interpretation aligns closely with the original intent and meaning of the Scriptures?

Good day, LayHong

I do not believe your question is about "theology" but one of hermeneutics.

You may find this useful: What Is Hermeneutics?

In Him,

Bill

 

[LayHong_Loves_Christ]

In Reformed theology, God grants us our minds to be used under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, enabling us to understand His Word in the Bible accurately and with pure motives. The essence of this theology is to apply that understanding to live a holy life.

 

[LayHong_Loves_Christ]

1. Five Solas:
   • Sola Scriptura (Scripture alone)
   • Sola Fide (Faith alone)
   • Sola Gratia (Grace alone)
   • Solus Christus (Christ alone)
   • Soli Deo Gloria (To the glory of God alone)

 

[Mark Quayle]

In Reformed theology, God grants us our minds to be used under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, enabling us to understand His Word in the Bible accurately and with pure motives. The essence of this theology is to apply that understanding to live a holy life.

The essence of Reformed Theology is God working out what he has planned from the beginning, in complete sovereignty. The point-of-view is not about what we necessarily must do —obeying— nor even about what we find ourselves doing —worshiping and loving him— nor even about our failings and getting up and continuing on in Christ anyway, but about Christ —God himself— and watching him accomplish what he has said he will do.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

Explain, or maybe, define, what you mean by theological relativism.

Theological relativism is the idea that religious truths and beliefs aren't absolute but can vary based on cultural or personal contexts. Imagine having the same spiritual experience interpreted in different ways depending on where you are or who you talk to. It challenges the notion of a single "true" religion and suggests that different beliefs can be valid for different people.

 

[JM]

Should we ask our Lutheran and Catholic brethren here, such as @JM and @RileyG ? Lutherans and Catholics may have slightly different viewpoints from Evangelical folks. I am Catholic myself, but not a hardcore one.

Because of sin no one can have a nearly perfect anything including theology or understanding of the Bible. That's near gnosticism to suggest otherwise.

 

[AlexB23]

Because of sin no one can have a nearly perfect anything including theology or understanding of the Bible. That's near gnosticism to suggest otherwise.

I agree entirely, and wish that other folks did too. There is no such thing is a perfect theology or understanding of the Bible.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Theological relativism is the idea that religious truths and beliefs aren't absolute but can vary based on cultural or personal contexts. Imagine having the same spiritual experience interpreted in different ways depending on where you are or who you talk to. It challenges the notion of a single "true" religion and suggests that different beliefs can be valid for different people.

Lol, ok. Truth is absolute. Religious beliefs, not so much. Spiritual experience is not definitive. There is only one truth, and only one way to the Father and Creator.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

Because of sin no one can have a nearly perfect anything including theology or understanding of the Bible. That's near gnosticism to suggest otherwise.

Yet the Church can be called pure and unblemished which implies perfection of at least the same kind as Job possessed, right?

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

Lol, ok. Truth is absolute. Religious beliefs, not so much. Spiritual experience is not definitive. There is only one truth, and only one way to the Father and Creator.

Scripture describes the Church as holy, unblemished, and pure, and the Lord declares that the gates of hell shall not overcome it. Given that these are infallible and divinely inspired statements, they must be true and remain so through the ages, from when the Lord Jesus Christ first uttered them to the present. Since these declarations pertain to both the Church's moral and doctrinal integrity before God, it follows that Church doctrine is not only possibly true but necessarily so. The issue at hand is not individual experience, unless one argues that scripture implies ecclesiological dogmas are simply aggregates of individuals' experiences and notions.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Scripture describes the Church as holy, unblemished, and pure, and the Lord declares that the gates of hell shall not overcome it. Given that these are infallible and divinely inspired statements, they must be true and remain so through the ages, from when the Lord Jesus Christ first uttered them to the present. Since these declarations pertain to both the Church's moral and doctrinal integrity before God, it follows that Church doctrine is not only possibly true but necessarily so. The issue at hand is not individual experience, unless one argues that scripture implies ecclesiological dogmas are simply aggregates of individuals' experiences and notions.

I'd have to see which references you are referring to before saying more than just that you yourself qualified it, in your post above this one, and in the same way as an elder must be blameless.

While it is true that 'in Christ' she is holy, unblemished and pure, in practice she is far from it, until the resurrection.

To jump from that to ...the RCC is holy, unblemished and pure, and her dogmas are declared as infallible and divinely inspired as Scripture's statements, is a perverse twist of Scriptural principle.

The RCC is not The Church, just for starters. But even statements by The Church, that is, by the Body of Christ, all the Redeemed, are not authoritative, nor truth, in the sense that Scripture is.

 

[LayHong_Loves_Christ]

Theology helps us understand the words of God, as intelligent theologians, guided by the Holy Spirit, have written and interpreted the Scriptures. Therefore, their writings serve as indirect guidance from the Holy Spirit to us.

With an obedient heart, you will discover the truth.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

Yet the Church can be called pure and unblemished which implies perfection of at least the same kind as Job possessed, right?

For Job see Job 1:1,8

Job 1:1-8 RSV-CE There was a man in the land of Uz, whose name was Job; and that man was blameless and upright, one who feared God, and turned away from evil. ... (8) And the LORD said to Satan, "Have you considered my servant Job, that there is none like him on the earth, a blameless and upright man, who fears God and turns away from evil?"​

Scripture describes the Church as holy, unblemished, and pure, and the Lord declares that the gates of hell shall not overcome it. Given that these are infallible and divinely inspired statements, they must be true and remain so through the ages, from when the Lord Jesus Christ first uttered them to the present. Since these declarations pertain to both the Church's moral and doctrinal integrity before God, it follows that Church doctrine is not only possibly true but necessarily so. The issue at hand is not individual experience, unless one argues that scripture implies ecclesiological dogmas are simply aggregates of individuals' experiences and notions.

I'd have to see which references you are referring to before saying more than just that you yourself qualified it, in your post above this one, and in the same way as an elder must be blameless.

While it is true that 'in Christ' she is holy, unblemished and pure, in practice she is far from it, until the resurrection.

To jump from that to ...the RCC is holy, unblemished and pure, and her dogmas are declared as infallible and divinely inspired as Scripture's statements, is a perverse twist of Scriptural principle.

The RCC is not The Church, just for starters. But even statements by The Church, that is, by the Body of Christ, all the Redeemed, are not authoritative, nor truth, in the sense that Scripture is.

From a Catholic perspective, the Church is seen as the Body of Christ, drawing from scriptural teachings like 1 Corinthians 12:27 and Ephesians 1:22-23. This view holds that the Church, in its essence, is holy and perfect because it is Christ’s body, though the members of the Church (the people) are still on the path of spiritual growth and perfection.

1 Corinthians 12:27 RSV-CE (27) Now you are the body of Christ and individually members of it.​

Ephesians 1:20-23 RSV-CE (20) which he accomplished in Christ when he raised him from the dead and made him sit at his right hand in the heavenly places, (21) far above all rule and authority and power and dominion, and above every name that is named, not only in this age but also in that which is to come; (22) and he has put all things under his feet and has made him the head over all things for the church, (23) which is his body, the fulness of him who fills all in all.​

The Church is both a divine institution and a community of believers, sanctified by Christ and continuously renewed through the Holy Spirit. Catholics believe in the Church's mission to continue Christ's work on Earth, providing sacraments, teachings, and a community of faith.

These are some key Catholic Church conciliar documents that support the teaching on the perfection of the Church as the Body of Christ:

1. Lumen Gentium (Dogmatic Constitution on the Church): This document from the Second Vatican Council emphasizes that the Church is holy because it is the Body of Christ, and it is continually being perfected through the Holy Spirit [Lumen gentium].
2. Ecclesia de Eucharistia (On the Eucharistic Celebration and the Mission of the Church): This encyclical by Pope John Paul II highlights the Church's role in bringing about the perfection of the faithful through the Eucharist.
3. Perfectae Caritatis (Decree on the Adaptation and Renewal of Religious Life): This decree from the Second Vatican Council discusses the call to holiness and perfection for all members of the Church, especially those in consecrated life [Perfectae caritatis].

These documents collectively underscore the Church's mission to lead its members towards spiritual growth and perfection in Christ.

 

[hedrick]

Indeed, the term "Roman Catholic" is used by many, with varying capitalization, but the Catholic Church refers to itself simply as the Catholic Church, as evidenced by the title of its catechism.

The PCUSA has an agreement with someone on mutual reception of baptism. The group identifies itself in that document as Roman Catholic.

As I understand it, there are a number of churches that are all in communion with the Pope. By far the largest is the Roman Catholic Church. In many cases when people talk about Catholic theology they mean things that are common to all of those groups. But there is still a specific Roman Catholic Church. Local congregations often list themselves as Roman Catholic churches, because in fact that's the specific church they are part of.

 

[hedrick]

As to the OP's question: There aren't a lot of major theological traditions among Protestants. There are groups with specific beliefs and practices that they have justification for. But that doesn't constitute a complete and coherent theology. Lutherans are another such group, and I think Wesleyan / Arminian theology also qualifies. In any tradition like that there are strengths and weaknesses.

I don't accept TULIP now, though I did at one time. But I like the tradition's emphasis on grace, Calvin's appreciate of God's single covenant with his people, and Calvin's emphasis on our spiritual union with Christ as the basis for Christian life are important. But I don't know that we're better than the othre two major traditions. When looking at a tradition, there's a tendency to look at its most controversial aspects. That's not a fair approach. Calvin and the Reformed tradition are more than TULIP. (Indeed Calvin is probably TUIP.)

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

The PCUSA has an agreement with someone on mutual reception of baptism. The group identifies itself in that document as Roman Catholic.

As I understand it, there are a number of churches that are all in communion with the Pope. By far the largest is the Roman Catholic Church. In many cases when people talk about Catholic theology they mean things that are common to all of those groups. But there is still a specific Roman Catholic Church. Local congregations often list themselves as Roman Catholic churches, because in fact that's the specific church they are part of.

The term "Roman Catholic" is often used in a non-offensive manner. However, since some may have alternative motives for its usage, referring to it simply as the Catholic Church can be beneficial.

 

[hedrick]

One other comment in reaction to the OP: While there are only a few major Protestant theological traditions, many of the issues starting in the 20th Cent cut across those distinctions: critical scholarship, accepting scientific accounts of origins, our view of gender and sex. Both sets of views on these issues occur in all major traditions, including Catholic. In many ways this distinction (or to be honest, spectrum of views) is more important than the differences among Reformed, Lutheran, and Arminian.

 

[The Liturgist]

One other comment in reaction to the OP: While there are only a few major Protestant theological traditions, many of the issues starting in the 20th Cent cut across those distinctions: critical scholarship, accepting scientific accounts of origins, our view of gender and sex. Both sets of views on these issues occur in all major traditions, including Catholic. In many ways this distinction (or to be honest, spectrum of views) is more important than the differences among Reformed, Lutheran, and Arminian.

Well, the dichotomy you speak of is manifested by a tendency of the declining liberal mainline churches to coalesce and unite with churches that previously held to theological positions they disagreed with, for example, the ecumenical relations between liberal Anglicans and liberal Calvinists and liberal Luthernas.

Thus it could be regarded as its own separate movement, Modernism, and as such is something to be rejected, in that it has spread across denominational lines and also across what would in theory be the cloest modern analogue to the autocephalous local churches of the Patristic era.

But conversely, this causes one to hope for a healing of the schisms among traditional Christians, and I think we are seeing that, for example, in the enormous increase in conversions of Christians to more traditional liturgical churches like the Orthodox Church in recent years.