The Concept of Reformed Theology

It is important to note that I unabashedly approach my theology from a Protestant-Reformed perspective. After all, I have been a Protestant pastor in the Evangelical Free Church of America for nearly a decade. Although I left the pastorate to pursue analytic theology and apologetics (I am no longer employed as a pastor), I am still active in the denomination. Although I affirm Mere Molinism (based upon a couple ideas advanced by a Spanish Jesuit), I am not a Jesuit. I am Reformed. I am not a Catholic. I am Reformed. I am not a Calvinist, but I am still Reformed. I practice Reformed theology. With the concept of what Luther accomplished in mind, I consider myself to be “Conceptually Reformed.” Others claim to be “Confessionally Reformed.” What is the difference? What does it mean to be “Reformed”? Who makes the rules? Is there a “Reformed Pope”?

Conceptually Reformed

I contend that there are at least two different manners in which the word "Reformed" can be used. The idea of what it means to be "Conceptually Reformed" is described nicely by North-West University (the same Reformed institution in which I attained my PhD in theology). NWU describes what it means to practice Reformed theology as follows:

The Faculty of Theology of the North-West University practises the science of Theology on a Reformational foundation. In this way it recognises its historical links with the Reformation of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries,

implies recognition that the Word of God, the Bible, originated through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit and that the Bible is therefore inspired and authoritative. In our practice of Theology as a science, we recognise and respect the Reformed view of God and the written Word of God as the particular revelation of God. This is the basis on which all paradigms (including our own) are subjected to constant critical and reformative study.”

With this in mind, I strive to practice theology on a Reformational foundation

,

which entails a constant and critical examination of even my own Reformed beliefs. More importantly, this would also include the constant and critical examination of confessions such as the Westminster Confession of Faith (WCF). If a Reformed theologian is willing to question the WCF, then this kind of Reformer is not "confessionally Reformed."

Confessionally Reformed

The theologian who claims to be “confessionally Reformed” bases theological beliefs upon a strict interpretation of every word, jot, and tittle of what they rightly claim is a non-inspired document written by fallible men back in the 1600s. The strict confessionalist seems to have effectively left one Pope for another. The Westminster Confession of Faith is their “Pope.” Oliver Crisp notes the following in his book, Deviant Calvinism:

The Westminster Confession has a greater authority in the

Reformed communities for which it is a subordinate doctrinal standard than, say, the work of a particular theologian, for the work of no single theologian is theologically binding in Reformed theology in the way that the confessions are (p. 74).

We ought not be theologically

bound

to a non-inspired and man-made document. It is much better to be “Conceptually Reformed.” This is the case because we recognize the value and importance of the Reformation. We agree with Luther’s original approach that utilizes the God-given tools of logic and reason to compare and contrast a particular theology (including what was written in the WCF) with the whole of God’s inspired Word. The conceptual Reformer values the confessions such as the WCF, but realizes that these "subordinate standards" are not inspired, inerrant, or theologically binding. Thus, we are FREE to not accept every word, jot, or tittle of the confessions and still keep our “Reformed cards.” We are Reformed and continually Reforming based upon Sola Scriptura (a constant, critical, and careful examination of God's inspired Word). God created humanity in His image and likeness and gave us the power to understand His Word. Thus, if I handle The Bible carefully, responsibly, and do my due diligence, then

I can

interpret it correctly (antecedent conditions are not sufficient to necessitate false theological beliefs). I do not need the confessions or any other "subordinate standard" to tell me how to interpret God's inspired Word. I do not need the Pope. Indeed, I have the God-given power to judge, evaluate, and criticize both the Westminster Confession of Faith and the Pope himself. Based upon this

concept

of what it means to be Reformed . . . I am my own Pope! Stay reasonable (Isaiah 1:18), Dr. Tim Stratton

Notes

From North-West University website: http://theology.nwu.ac.za/theology-reformational-foundation.