Jump to content

The Protestant Community

Christian and Theologically Protestant? Or, sincerely inquiring about the Protestant faith? Welcome to Christforums the Christian Protestant community. You'll first need to register in order to join our community. Create or respond to threads on your favorite topics and subjects. Registration takes less than a minute, it's simple, fast, and free! Enjoy the fellowship! God bless, Christforums' Staff
Register now

Fenced Community

Christforums is a Protestant Christian forum, open to Bible-believing Christians such as Presbyterians, Lutherans, Reformed, Baptists, Church of Christ members, Pentecostals, Anglicans. Methodists, Charismatics, or any other conservative, Nicene- derived Christian Church. We do not solicit cultists of any kind, including Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, Eastern Lightning, Falun Gong, Unification Church, Aum Shinrikyo, Christian Scientists or any other non-Nicene, non-Biblical heresy.
Register now

Christian Fellowship

John Calvin puts forward a very simple reason why love is the greatest gift: “Because faith and hope are our own: love is diffused among others.” In other words, faith and hope benefit the possessor, but love always benefits another. In John 13:34–35 Jesus says, “A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another.” Love always requires an “other” as an object; love cannot remain within itself, and that is part of what makes love the greatest gift.
Sign in to follow this  
William

Always Abusing Semper Reformanda

Recommended Posts

Staff

by R. Scott Clark

 

 

The Reformation churches have some wonderful slogans that are chock full of important truths. Sometimes, however, these slogans can be misconstrued, misreported, and misunderstood. With the possible exception of sola Scriptura (by Scripture alone), none of these slogans has been mangled more often toward greater mischief than ecclesia reformata, semper reformanda (the church reformed, always reforming). According to historian Michael Bush, much of what we think we know about this slogan is probably wrong. The phrase is not from the sixteenth century. I have searched hundreds of documents in a variety of languages from the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, and the phrase ecclesia reformata, semper reformanda does not occur in them. Neither does the phrase semper reformanda (always reforming). Certainly, the Reformed writers spoke of a “Reformed church” and of the necessity of reformation. But men such as Calvin, who published a treatise on the need for reformation in 1543, did not use the phrase. The Dutch Reformed minister Jodocus van Lodenstein (1620-77) first used something like it in 1674 when he juxtaposed “reformed” with “reforming,” but he did not say, “always.”

 

The Dutch Reformed theologian Jacobus Koelman (1632-95) expressed similar ideas and attributed them to his teacher Johannes Hoornbeek (1617-66), who himself was a student of the great Gijsbertus Voetius (1589-1676). None of them added the phrase secundum verbum Dei (according to the Word of God). The source of that phrase is almost certainly the twentieth-century Princeton Seminary professor Edward Dowey (1918-2003).

 

Van Lodenstein and the others were part of a school of thought in the Netherlands that was closely connected to the English Reformed theology, piety, and practice represented by such writers such as William Perkins (1558-1602) and William Ames (1576-1633). They identified themselves as part of a “Further Reformation” (Nadere Reformatie). Like Perkins, Ames, the divines of the Westminster Assembly (1643- 48) in the British Isles, and the great international Synod of Dort (1618-19), this school of thought was concerned that the church not lapse back into error and darkness. It wanted the church to continue to pursue purity of doctrine, piety, and worship.

 

The full phrase ecclesia reformata, semper reformanda secundum verbum Dei (the church reformed, always reforming according to the Word of God) is a post-World War II creature. It was given new impetus by the modernist Swiss Reformed theologian Karl Barth (1886-1968), who used variations of the phrase with some frequency. Mainline (liberal) Presbyterian denominations have sometimes used variations of this phrase in official ways.

 

In effect, the phrase is most commonly taken to mean “the church is reformed but needs to be changed in various ways.” It is frequently invoked as a way of expressing dissatisfaction with Reformed theology as received and expressed by the Reformed churches in the Reformed confessions (for example, the Belgic Confession, 1561; the Heidelberg Catechism, 1563; the Westminster Standards, 1648). Thus, in 1967, the United Presbyterian Church in the USA rejected the historic Christian and Reformed understanding that Scripture is the inerrant (does not err), infallible (cannot err) Word of God written. Ironically, under the modern misunderstanding of the phrase the church reformed, always reforming, the denomination moved away from the Reformed view and adopted a view taught by the Anabaptist radical Thomas Müntzer (1489-1525) that the Reformers knew and rejected.

 

When Calvin and the other Reformed writers used the adjective reformed, they did not think that it was a thing that could never actually be accomplished. Late in his life, Calvin remarked to the other pastors in Geneva that things were fairly well constituted, and he exhorted them not to ruin them. He and the others thought and spoke of reformation of the church not as a goal never to be achieved in this life, but as something that either had been or could be achieved because they believed God’s Word to be sufficiently clear. That is, what must be known for the life of the church can be known and, with the help of God’s Spirit and by God’s grace alone, changes could be made (and were being made) to bring the doctrine, piety, and practice of the church into conformity with God’s will revealed in Scripture. That’s why they wrote church orders and adopted confessions—because they believed that reformation was a great but finite task.

 

They did not imagine that the theology, piety, and practice of the church Reformed according to Scripture was inherently deficient such that it needs to be augmented by other traditions. Unlike many today who invoke these words, the Reformed did not see reform as a justification for eclecticism, borrowing a bit of this and a bit of that for a theological-ecclesiastical stew. They were not narrow, however. They were catholic (universal) in their theology, piety, and practice. They sought to reform the church according to the Scriptures, but they paid close attention to the way the early fathers read and applied Scripture, and, where those interpretations withstood scrutiny (sola Scriptura), they adopted or restored them.

 

Another of the more pernicious abuses of the slogan semper reformanda in recent years is its invocation by adherents of the self-described Federal Vision movement. The adjective federal in this context has nothing to do with civil politics; rather, it refers to Reformed covenant theology. The advocates of the Federal Vision adopted this name for their movement to highlight either the need to change Reformed theology or to recover an earlier version, depending upon which of them you ask. They agree, however, that every baptized person is given a temporary, conditional election, regeneration, justification, union with Christ, adoption, and so on. After baptism, it is up to the Christian to do his part to retain what was given by grace. They speak of the “objectivity of the covenant.” They typically do not accept the Reformed distinction between the covenants of works and grace, between law and grace, or between law and gospel. They reject the Reformed doctrine that there are two ways of communing in the visible covenant community (the church): inwardly and outwardly. According to the Federal Vision, no one is finally regenerate, elect, or justified until the last day. They either redefine or mock the historic understanding of justification by divine favor alone (sola gratia) through faith alone (sola fide) as “easy believism.” Like the modernists who would take us back to the Anabaptists on the doctrine of Scripture, advocates of the Federal Vision seek to take us back to the pre-Reformation church in the doctrine of salvation, and as they do so, they invoke the slogan ecclesia reformata, semper reformanda.

 

When Calvin and others in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries wrote of the church reformed and of the necessity of reforming the church, they were expressing their consciousness that, because of sin and its effects, the church tends toward corruption. Within just a few decades of recovering the gospel of free acceptance by God through faith alone, the Protestants nearly lost that precious truth in the 1550s. Reformation can be and has been achieved in this life, but it is not easy to retain it. By the time of late-seventeenth-century Geneva, the church had enjoyed the ministry of some of the most courageous ministers and professors in the Reformation: William Farel, John Calvin, Pierre Viret, Theodore Beza, and Francis Turretin, to name but a few. By the early eighteenth century, however, the Reformation was virtually extinct in Geneva, and has not yet been fully recovered.

 

There is much truth in the slogan the church reformed, always reforming, but it was never intended to become a license for corrupting the Reformed faith. We should understand and use it as a reminder of our proclivity to wander from that theology, piety, and practice taught in Scripture and confessed by the church. Certainly, our confessions are reformable. We Protestants are bound to God’s Word as the charter and objective rule of Christian faith and practice. Should someone discover an error in our theology, piety, or practice, we are bound by our own confessions and church orders to hear an argument from God’s Word. Should that argument prevail, we must change our understanding or our practice. But we should not, under cover of this late-seventeenth-century slogan, subvert what Scripture teaches for a continuing, never-ending Reformation that leads us away from the heart and soul of what we confess.Ÿ

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Similar Topics

    • SHOCK REPORT: Pope Francis Dismissed High-Ranking Cardinal For Imposing A 'Zero Tolerance' Policy On Sexually Abusing Prelates

      A recent report from LifeSiteNews claims that a "highly placed Vatican source" said that a prominent Cardinal was demoted by Pope Francis for following protocol regarding sexually abusing prelates. View the full article

      in Political Conservative News

    • Abusing Grace

      by Jeremiah Johnson and Wayne de Villiers     You’ve likely heard the phrase too much of a good thing applied to junk food feasts, chocolate binges, and all-night movie marathons. But what about theology? Is it possible to put too much emphasis on an aspect of biblical truth? What is the cost of theological tunnel vision?   The Hypergrace movement offers us a compelling case that it’s possible (and detrimental) to overemphasize an aspect of God’s truth. They are sound enough on the doctrines of man’s sinfulness, God’s sufficient grace, and the imputation of Christ’s righteousness. But they tend to ignore (and sometimes overtly deny) other vital aspects of gospel truth—and thereby their teaching undermines the work of sanctification in the Christian life.   As we saw last time, they overstress the principle of remaining sin in believers, and they caricature God’s grace. They ignore or downplay God’s transforming work of regeneration and the believer’s new nature in Christ. In fact, it’s hard to spot any difference in their descriptions of sinners before and after salvation. Shying away from any exhortations to obedience, they prefer to speak only of the application of God’s grace. Such a view of grace effectively becomes little more than an unlimited “Get Out of Jail Free” card.   Distorted Good Works   But it’s not just their understanding of regeneration that is skewed—their overemphasis on grace also distorts practical matters like holiness and obedience.   Here’s Tullian Tchividjian, one of the leading voices in the movement, describing what prompts him to stop sinning:   If I’m being unkind to [my wife], and she reciprocates my unkindness with kindness, that doesn’t make me want to be more unkind! It convicts me for being unkind and makes me want to be kind. . . . What happens to your heart when you are on the receiving end of forgiveness and you don’t deserve it? . . . It does something inside of you that makes you love God and others more. It unleashes an other-worldly love that comes one way from God and spills out from our lives into the lives of other people. [1]   True enough, but in the Hypergrace model, no motive other than unmerited grace is ever seen as a legitimate reason to call people to repentance or obedience. Tchividjian makes that same point in the foreword to Elyse Fitzpatrick’s book, Give Them Grace.   It’s the gospel (what Jesus has done) that alone can give God-honoring animation to our obedience. The power to obey, in other words, comes from being moved and motivated by the completed work of Jesus for us. [2]   Fitzpatrick has also emerged as a vocal proponent of the Hypergrace movement, and she echoes some of the same sentiments in her own teaching. “How can you think about all that Christ has done for you, about your Father’s steadfast, immeasurable, extravagantly generous love and still live [in sin]?” [3]   While it would be foolish to argue against the value of sincere responses to God’s grace, or that the Spirit is unable to work through such responses, it’s biblically invalid to say gratitude is the only possible response to the gospel, or that it is the only proper motive for obedience in the believer’s life. Obedience to Christ might be provoked by any number of legitimate motives—including fear of God’s displeasure or the sheer abhorrence of evil (Jude 23). Above all, we must not shy away from encouraging one another to love and good works (Hebrews 10:24). Christians are supposed “to do good, to be rich in good works” (1 Timothy 6:18). Indeed, we should be zealous for good works (Titus 2:14).   As we saw last time, good works are what we were regenerated for. The new birth equips and enables us for righteousness:   Even when we were dead in our transgressions, [God] made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved). . . . For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand so that we would walk in them. (Ephesians 2:5, 10)   Our obedience is the fruit of the work God accomplished in us. He has transformed us for the sake of godliness.   And I will give them one heart, and put a new spirit within them. And I will take the heart of stone out of their flesh and give them a heart of flesh, that they may walk in My statutes and keep My ordinances and do them. Then they will be My people, and I shall be their God. (Ezekiel 11:19-20)   The good works believers do are not merely an optional response that has to be worked up within us. They are the inevitable proof of God’s ongoing work in us, sanctifying and refining us in the image of His Son for the testimony of His Word.   Skewed Sanctification   Of course, overemphasizing the role of grace also distorts your understanding of sanctification. Here’s one example from Tchividjian.   One of the insinuations whenever the doctrine of sanctification is discussed is that my effort, my works, my pursuit of holiness, my faith, my response, my obedience, and my practice of godliness keep me in God’s good graces. This, however, undermines the clear Biblical teaching that things between Christians and God are forever settled because of what Jesus has accomplished on the cross. . . . When we imply that our works are for God and not our neighbor, we perpetuate the idea that God’s love for us is dependent on what we do instead of on what Christ has done. [4]   That’s a false dichotomy. Jesus said good works that serve our neighbor also serve and honor Him (Matthew 25:40). Many critics have pointed out that Tchividjian’s teaching seems to lean decisively toward antinomianism—the belief that God’s law doesn’t apply to Christians. Tchividjian denies those claims, but as you can see above, his teaching on sanctification raises more questions than it answers. Is pursuing holiness always a legalistic attempt to win God’s favor? And is there any effort the believer puts into his spiritual growth that isn’t immediately dismissed as works righteousness?   The apostle Paul says there is: “Therefore, having these promises, beloved, let us cleanse ourselves from all defilement of flesh and spirit, perfecting holiness in the fear of God” (2 Corinthians 7:1). In his epistle to the Philippians, Paul makes it clear that he has not arrived spiritually, but he’s always disciplining himself for greater godliness.   Not that I have already obtained it or have already become perfect, but I press on so that I may lay hold of that for which also I was laid hold of by Christ Jesus. Brethren, I do not regard myself as having laid hold of it yet; but one thing I do: forgetting what lies behind and reaching forward to what lies ahead, I press on toward the goal for the prize of the upward call of God in Christ Jesus. (Philippians 3:12-14)   Was he guilty of pursuing righteousness by works? It’s hard to imagine that such a statement would escape the Hypergrace teachers’ scorn if anyone other than an inspired apostle said it. And while they may not wish to argue with the apostle, no Hypergrace teacher is likely to give much emphasis to that text or others like it.   Underestimating Sin   The difference between Paul’s teaching on sanctification and Hypergrace doctrine is that while Paul recognized and confessed his sinfulness, he didn’t embrace it or use it as an excuse for his failures. He was in anguish over it (Romans 7:21-24). There is great value in that kind of grief. In fact, it is yet another valid motive for repentance (2 Corinthians 7:9).   The Hypergrace movement has a somewhat lower view of sin and repentance. Here’s an illustration of repentance from Elyse Fitzpatrick, “Lord forgive me for my sin today. Thank you that you love me in spite of all my failures.” [5]   That is not repentance. There’s not a hint of godly sorrow or true remorse—just another invocation of casual pardon.   Contrast that to the pleading of David in Psalm 51.   Be gracious to me, O God, according to Your lovingkindness; According to the greatness of Your compassion blot out my transgressions. Wash me thoroughly from my iniquity And cleanse me from my sin. For I know my transgressions, And my sin is ever before me. Against You, You only, I have sinned And done what is evil in Your sight, So that You are justified when You speak And blameless when You judge. (Psalm 51:1-4)   That ought to be the response of every believer to his or her sin. We need to be broken and contrite over our sin. After all, sin is contrary to our new nature, indicative of our old corruption, and a blight on the testimony of God’s Word and His church. We need to repent of it earnestly—not sweep it thoughtlessly under a rug, and call that “grace.”   In his commentary on Romans 7, John MacArthur writes this about the believer’s reaction to his sin:   Every well-taught and honest Christian is aware that his life falls far short of God’s perfect standard of righteousness and that he falls back into sin with disturbing frequency. He is no longer of his former father, the devil (John 8:44); he no longer loves the world (1 John 2:15); and he is no longer sin’s slave—but he is still subject to its deceit and is still attracted by many of its allurements. Yet the Christian cannot be happy with his sin, because it is contrary to his new nature and because he knows that it grieves his Lord as well as his own conscience. [6]   Yes, we need to have a proper understanding and appreciation for God’s grace, and the comfort and security it provides. But we also must have a biblical, balanced view of our sin—and particularly how to deal with it for the sake of greater spiritual growth and godliness. Failing to understand how the two correspond in God’s sanctifying work distorts your entire view of the Christian life.   For more information on the Hypergrace movement, and in-depth discussion on their teaching, we recommend the following resources. [Gabe, I’ll give you the titles and links and let you sort out how to best display them]

      in Apologetics and Theology

    • Always Abusing Semper Reformanda

      by R. Scott Clark   The Reformation churches have some wonderful slogans that are chock full of important truths. Sometimes, however, these slogans can be misconstrued, misreported, and misunderstood. With the possible exception of sola Scriptura (by Scripture alone), none of these slogans has been mangled more often toward greater mischief than ecclesia reformata, semper reformanda (the church reformed, always reforming). According to historian Michael Bush, much of what we think we know about this slogan is probably wrong. The phrase is not from the sixteenth century. I have searched hundreds of documents in a variety of languages from the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, and the phrase ecclesia reformata, semper reformanda does not occur in them. Neither does the phrase semper reformanda (always reforming). Certainly, the Reformed writers spoke of a “Reformed church” and of the necessity of reformation. But men such as Calvin, who published a treatise on the need for reformation in 1543, did not use the phrase. The Dutch Reformed minister Jodocus van Lodenstein (1620-77) first used something like it in 1674 when he juxtaposed “reformed” with “reforming,” but he did not say, “always.”   The Dutch Reformed theologian Jacobus Koelman (1632-95) expressed similar ideas and attributed them to his teacher Johannes Hoornbeek (1617-66), who himself was a student of the great Gijsbertus Voetius (1589-1676). None of them added the phrase secundum verbum Dei (according to the Word of God). The source of that phrase is almost certainly the twentieth-century Princeton Seminary professor Edward Dowey (1918-2003).   Van Lodenstein and the others were part of a school of thought in the Netherlands that was closely connected to the English Reformed theology, piety, and practice represented by such writers such as William Perkins (1558-1602) and William Ames (1576-1633). They identified themselves as part of a “Further Reformation” (Nadere Reformatie). Like Perkins, Ames, the divines of the Westminster Assembly (1643- 48) in the British Isles, and the great international Synod of Dort (1618-19), this school of thought was concerned that the church not lapse back into error and darkness. It wanted the church to continue to pursue purity of doctrine, piety, and worship.   The full phrase ecclesia reformata, semper reformanda secundum verbum Dei (the church reformed, always reforming according to the Word of God) is a post-World War II creature. It was given new impetus by the modernist Swiss Reformed theologian Karl Barth (1886-1968), who used variations of the phrase with some frequency. Mainline (liberal) Presbyterian denominations have sometimes used variations of this phrase in official ways.   In effect, the phrase is most commonly taken to mean “the church is reformed but needs to be changed in various ways.” It is frequently invoked as a way of expressing dissatisfaction with Reformed theology as received and expressed by the Reformed churches in the Reformed confessions (for example, the Belgic Confession, 1561; the Heidelberg Catechism, 1563; the Westminster Standards, 1648). Thus, in 1967, the United Presbyterian Church in the USA rejected the historic Christian and Reformed understanding that Scripture is the inerrant (does not err), infallible (cannot err) Word of God written. Ironically, under the modern misunderstanding of the phrase the church reformed, always reforming, the denomination moved away from the Reformed view and adopted a view taught by the Anabaptist radical Thomas Müntzer (1489-1525) that the Reformers knew and rejected.   When Calvin and the other Reformed writers used the adjective reformed, they did not think that it was a thing that could never actually be accomplished. Late in his life, Calvin remarked to the other pastors in Geneva that things were fairly well constituted, and he exhorted them not to ruin them. He and the others thought and spoke of reformation of the church not as a goal never to be achieved in this life, but as something that either had been or could be achieved because they believed God’s Word to be sufficiently clear. That is, what must be known for the life of the church can be known and, with the help of God’s Spirit and by God’s grace alone, changes could be made (and were being made) to bring the doctrine, piety, and practice of the church into conformity with God’s will revealed in Scripture. That’s why they wrote church orders and adopted confessions—because they believed that reformation was a great but finite task.   They did not imagine that the theology, piety, and practice of the church Reformed according to Scripture was inherently deficient such that it needs to be augmented by other traditions. Unlike many today who invoke these words, the Reformed did not see reform as a justification for eclecticism, borrowing a bit of this and a bit of that for a theological-ecclesiastical stew. They were not narrow, however. They were catholic (universal) in their theology, piety, and practice. They sought to reform the church according to the Scriptures, but they paid close attention to the way the early fathers read and applied Scripture, and, where those interpretations withstood scrutiny (sola Scriptura), they adopted or restored them.   Another of the more pernicious abuses of the slogan semper reformanda in recent years is its invocation by adherents of the self-described Federal Vision movement. The adjective federal in this context has nothing to do with civil politics; rather, it refers to Reformed covenant theology. The advocates of the Federal Vision adopted this name for their movement to highlight either the need to change Reformed theology or to recover an earlier version, depending upon which of them you ask. They agree, however, that every baptized person is given a temporary, conditional election, regeneration, justification, union with Christ, adoption, and so on. After baptism, it is up to the Christian to do his part to retain what was given by grace. They speak of the “objectivity of the covenant.” They typically do not accept the Reformed distinction between the covenants of works and grace, between law and grace, or between law and gospel. They reject the Reformed doctrine that there are two ways of communing in the visible covenant community (the church): inwardly and outwardly. According to the Federal Vision, no one is finally regenerate, elect, or justified until the last day. They either redefine or mock the historic understanding of justification by divine favor alone (sola gratia) through faith alone (sola fide) as “easy believism.” Like the modernists who would take us back to the Anabaptists on the doctrine of Scripture, advocates of the Federal Vision seek to take us back to the pre-Reformation church in the doctrine of salvation, and as they do so, they invoke the slogan ecclesia reformata, semper reformanda.   When Calvin and others in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries wrote of the church reformed and of the necessity of reforming the church, they were expressing their consciousness that, because of sin and its effects, the church tends toward corruption. Within just a few decades of recovering the gospel of free acceptance by God through faith alone, the Protestants nearly lost that precious truth in the 1550s. Reformation can be and has been achieved in this life, but it is not easy to retain it. By the time of late-seventeenth-century Geneva, the church had enjoyed the ministry of some of the most courageous ministers and professors in the Reformation: William Farel, John Calvin, Pierre Viret, Theodore Beza, and Francis Turretin, to name but a few. By the early eighteenth century, however, the Reformation was virtually extinct in Geneva, and has not yet been fully recovered.   There is much truth in the slogan the church reformed, always reforming, but it was never intended to become a license for corrupting the Reformed faith. We should understand and use it as a reminder of our proclivity to wander from that theology, piety, and practice taught in Scripture and confessed by the church. Certainly, our confessions are reformable. We Protestants are bound to God’s Word as the charter and objective rule of Christian faith and practice. Should someone discover an error in our theology, piety, or practice, we are bound by our own confessions and church orders to hear an argument from God’s Word. Should that argument prevail, we must change our understanding or our practice. But we should not, under cover of this late-seventeenth-century slogan, subvert what Scripture teaches for a continuing, never-ending Reformation that leads us away from the heart and soul of what we confess.Ÿ

      in Soteriology and Reformation Theology

×

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.