Part III: The Reformed Tradition

The Protestant Reformers of the sixteenth century (Martin Luther, Philip Melancthon, John Calvin, Ulrich Zwingli, Theodore Beza, John Knox and others) believed very differently on several issues. However, they all agreed that man was saved by sola gratia (grace alone) through sola fide (faith alone) in sola Christus (Christ alone), and that the Holy Scriptures are the primary source of authoritative truth. This means that man can do nothing to save himself, but it has all been done for him in the person and work of Jesus Christ should he trust in this. Man is required to repent and believe, but the Reformers, on the whole, taught that even these acts were gifts given by God (Acts 11:18, 2 Tim. 2:25, Eph 2:8-9). They did not develop any of these ideas for the first time, but attempted to draw their ideas from Scripture and from some of the early Church Fathers. I am a child of the Reformation because I believe these things.

What is referred to as "Reformed Theology" today is often much more specific than this. It seems that in the centuries following the Reformation that the terms "Reformed" and "Calvinist" became increasingly synonymous. John Calvin agreed with all of the above, but had additional emphases. Today, his theology is often summarized with TULIP (total depravity, unconditional election, limited atonement/particular redemption, irresistable grace, perseverance of the Saints). John Piper facetiously calls himself a "seven-point Calvinist." While I love Piper, I'm not exactly sure what the seven points would be. If you asked Calvin what the five or seven major points of his theology were, I think he would respond much differently than with TULIP. So I don't feel the need to expand or argue the points of TULIP here and now. The Sacraments of baptism and the Lord's Supper were very important to Calvin, and Piper would have a much different view on these things. Both baptism and the Lord's Supper are on the docket for blog posts (see the intro for "Why I Am a Presbyterian").

Calvin emphasized the priesthood of the believer (as did Luther), the idea that Christians may go boldly before the throne of grace in prayer without an intercessor (such as priest), for the great High Priest has gone behind the curtain and now lives to make intercession for his people (Heb. 4:14-16, 6:19). Because of his belief in sola Scriptura, Calvin also was influential in the recovery of the main Biblical languages, Greek and Hebrew.

In the middle of the sixteenth century, Calvin's theology spread from Switzerland through Europe and particularly to Scotland by means of John Knox, who had fled to Geneva because of threats on his life in Scotland. There, Knox was greatly influenced by Calvin. Knox is considered the founder of the Presbyterian Church. This is why, as a Presbyterian, I claim Calvin and Knox.

The emphases and theology of the Reformed tradition remain very present in my church, for the great deal of the liturgy come from Calvin's Switzerland, Knox's Scotland or the Westminster Confession (indisputably influenced by Calvin). The vast majority of the hymns we sing (accompanied by more modern music) come out of Reformed circles in England and Scotland in the 18th and 19th centuries.

The Reformers emphasized the three-fold office of Christ as Prophet, Priest and King. Knox seemed to have focused more than most of the other Reformers on the role of Christ as Priest, the Great High Priest who actively intercedes for his people by the merits of his finished work. This is a concept that has been passed down from Knox through Scottish Presbyterian theologians to my theological man-crush James Torrance. It is in his book, Worship, Community and the Triune God of Grace, that I encountered the idea most richly within the last six months.

Now, someone out there is reading this and asking, "Why do I need to follow a specific tradition or interpretation? Can't I just read the Bible and decide for myself by the guidance of the Holy Spirit?" To ask that shows that you are a child of the Reformation. It was the Reformers who first taught that Scripture could be understood by the common man and it was the Reformers who sought to translate the Bible into the vernacular (the common languages). The answer to the second question is ultimately "yes, you can." But what is specifically 20th or 21st-century about the question is the assumption that your view is equally as valid as Biblical scholars who spend invest their entire lives studying and praying over what the Bible teaches. Wouldn't it be helpful to at least consider what they have to say?

Now, you may object that Biblical scholars in other eras and in other lands have also studied and prayed at length and come to different conclusions. This is true. But the reason I value the ideas coming out of the Reformation so much is because I believe that their presuppositions and emphases were where they were supposed to be. Referencing back to my post, "Helpful Presuppositions to Understanding the Bible", I believe that the Reformers started with (as I said earlier) the person and work of Christ and that the Bible is the authoritative, infallible word of God, a book primarily about God, not man or what man can do to earn God's love. These were the cornerstones of the theology of the Reformers. As they built, these were what they fell back on. Everyone either bases their theology on a specific historical time period or movement (most American Christians today base theirs on the widespread humanism of 21st Century America). In interpretation, one cannot escape presuppositions, so I choose to accept the presuppositions of the Reformation, that the Bible is authoritative and is primarily about Christ's work for us.