THE LOVE OF THE WORD "REFORMED"...

If any man speak, let him speak as the oracles of God; if any man minister, let him do it as of the ability which God giveth: that God in all things may be glorified through Jesus Christ, to whom be praise and dominion for ever and ever. Amen. (I Peter 4:11)



We often hear the term "reformed" as an adjective to another word - "reformed theology", "reformed church", "reformed view", etc.  Why is this word "reformed" so important, that it seems to be necessary to use constantly?


Those who use the term tell us that it is just a convenient way to summarize a certain set of views, similar to the use of the word "calvinism".  At first, this sounds reasonable.  After all, is there is anything wrong with using acronyms and other words to clarify to others what we mean?  The simple answer is yes, when it comes to Bible truths there is. Since the truths of God are so beyond our reasoning to understand, we must, like sheep, stay close to the shepherd, even in our vocabulary.  If we knew the entire mind of God, then, we might be justified in using words that are not used in scripture, keeping the nuances of our words in agreement with scripture.  But we do not, in this life, possess this knowledge.  So, like two lines which are not parallel but appear to be, as time and further thought passes, the lines drift apart.  Soon, our terms stop reflecting the views of the apostles.


In an amusing and at the same time sad article titled, It Takes Time To Become Reformed, R. Scott Clark, Professor of Church History, at Westminster Theological Seminary, states:

The Reformed tradition and churches come out of the great stream of Christianity with roots in the Fathers, in the medieval church, and, of course, the Reformation.

We notice certain things already.  First, amazingly enough nowhere in this definition does Dr. Clark mention Jesus Christ, or, the apostles.  The roots of the church he speaks about lie in the "Fathers", the medieval (Roman Catholic) church and the reformation.  Of course, we are sure that he would not deny, when asked, if they trace themselves back to Jesus and the apostles, but this definition reveals what it really means to be reformed.  It appears to be a Freudian slip, if such a term is still acceptable in psychiatric parlance.  We shall analyze these roots later on.  The second observation, involves his use of the term "Fathers", which definition he obtained from the Catholic church and not the Bible.  Are we not instructed to call no man Father? (Matthew 23:1-11). We will cite an example of where terms, even Biblical ones, can slowly, be twisted to mean things they were never meant to mean.  In an article titled, Call No Man Father, Bishop Robert H. Brom of San Diego in 2004, covers this topic. Mr. Brom (he is no Bishop to us), correctly states that 

...to forbid it would rob the address "Father" of its meaning when applied to God, for there would no longer be any earthly counterpart for the analogy of divine Fatherhood. The concept of God’s role as Father would be meaningless if we obliterated the concept of earthly fatherhood.

Mr. Brom also correctly states that: 

...in the Bible the concept of fatherhood is not restricted to just our earthly fathers and God. It is used to refer to people other than biological or legal fathers, and is used as a sign of respect to those with whom we have a special relationship. 

He cites passages that exemplify this idea (Gen 45:8; Job 29:16; Is. 22:20-21).  Mr. Brom goes on to say correctly:

...it also applies to those who have a fatherly spiritual relationship with one. For example, Elisha cries, "My father, my father!" to Elijah as the latter is carried up to heaven in a whirlwind (2 Kgs. 2:12). Later, Elisha himself is called a father by the king of Israel (2 Kgs. 6:21). 

So far so good.  Brom then continues to Paul's use of the term.

The New Testament is filled with examples of and references to spiritual father-son and father-child relationships. Many people are not aware just how common these are, so it is worth quoting some of them here.

He cites examples, correctly understood (I Cor. 4:17; I Tim. 1:2; II Tim. 1:2; I Tim. 1:18; II Tim. 2:1; Phil. 2:22; Titus 1:4; Philem. 10).  Peter, also used these terms as did Paul I Pet. 5:13.  Even churches were called Paul's children (II Cor. 2:14; Gal. 4:19); John, also used this term (I John 2:1; 3 John 4; I John 2:13-14).  All is well and good so far.  But here, comes the subtle turn into error:

By referring to these people as their spiritual sons and spiritual children, Peter, Paul, and John imply their own roles as spiritual fathers. Since the Bible frequently speaks of this spiritual fatherhood, we Catholics acknowledge it and follow the custom of the apostles by calling priests "father." Failure to acknowledge this is a failure to recognize and honor a great gift God has bestowed on the Church: the spiritual fatherhood of the priesthood.

All believers are priests.  We have no mention of any Elder in the churches being called father, not even Timothy.  To further prove when this term "church fathers" originated we have two sources.  The first source is the Catholic Encyclopedia under the heading The Apostolic Fathers:

Christian writers of the first and second centuries who are known, or are considered, to have had personal relations with some of the Apostles, or to have been so influenced by them that their writings may be held as echoes of genuine Apostolic teaching. Though restricted by some to those who were actually disciples of the Apostles, the term applies by extension to certain writers who were previously believed to have been such, and virtually embraces all the remains of primitive Christian literature antedating the great apologies of the second century, and forming the link of tradition that binds these latter writings to those of the New Testament. 

The name was apparently unknown in Christian literature before the end of the seventeenth century. The term Apostolic, however, was commonly used to qualify Churches, persons, writings, etc. from the early second century, when St. Ignatius, in the exordium of his Epistle to the Trallians, saluted their Church "after the Apostolic manner." In 1672 Jean Baptiste Cotelier (Cotelerius) published his "SS. Patrum qui temporibus apostolicis floruerunt opera", which title was abbreviated to "Bibliotheca Patrum Apostolicorum" by L. J. Ittig in his edition (Leipzig, 1699) of the same writings. Since then the term has been universally used.

Interestingly enough, the second source, Google's Book tool Ngram agrees with the encyclopedia, as can be seen when it traces the use of that term in its millions of books scanned:

Dr. Clark's definition is a perfect example of how reformers speak.  They idolize the reformation as their beginning.  They, by the very definition of the word, reformed acknowledge the Roman Catholic Church as their mother church, which had stopped being a true church of Christ at least 1100 years ago.  To us, it is similar to applying makeup on a corpse by the undertaker.  The corpse  may look better, but it is still dead.  Therefore, any offspring it produces will also be dead like the mother.  We are not referring to the men, but to their denominations and organizations.  Luther, Calvin, Zwingli and Knox came to understand some of the great doctrines of the apostles, but they were never properly baptized, instead, accepting the infant baptism of the Roman Catholic Church through its priests and popes.  They themselves were former Catholic priests.  There was a group of reformers, in England, the so-called "non-conforming" ones, who realized the the Church of England and its mother, the Roman Catholic Church were the "synagogues of satan", but, they failed to seek the true churches of Christ which were under their noses (which they persecuted and defamed) and be properly baptized and constituted.

One hears reformed people speaking, and they are easily spotted. The educated ones especially, like using Latin terms, Sola Scriptura, Soli Fide, Soli Deo Gloria, and all the other solas, as if speaking these phrases in Latin gave them some sort of magical power, in contradiction to the apostolic practice of using the common or vulgar Greek of their day.  Many of them dress in robes with collars to separate themselves from the "laymen".  Where do we see these articles of clothing in the New Testament?  Where do we even see the distinction between laity and priest?  If you have laity you must have clerics presiding over them since the word laity in Latin comes from the Greek word meaning common people.  All we know of the children of God, in the New Testament, is that they were called saints or brethren, not people.  Of course to be fair, not all reformers use the term laity.  We are told that:

Presbyterians do not use the term "lay". Thus the Church of Scotland has "Readers", men and women set apart by presbyteries to conduct public worship. This arises out of the belief in the priesthood of all believers. Ministers are officially 'teaching elders' alongside the 'ruling elders' of the Kirk Session and have equivalent status, regardless of any other office. In the Church of Scotland, as the Established church in Scotland, this gives ruling elders in congregations the same status as Queen's chaplains, professors of theology and other highly qualified ministers. All are humble servants of the people in the congregation and parish. Ministers are simply men and women whose gift is for their role in teaching and possibly pastoral work. They are thus selected for advanced theological education. All elders (teaching and ruling) in meetings of Session, Presbytery, or Assembly are subject to the Moderator, who may or may not be a minister but is always an elder.

But alas, like all other groups, who come from their mother, with time, they will eventually revert back to the likeness of their parents.  So we find this website:

All of this emphasis on the reformation and the term reformed, becomes a subtle worship of a historical epoch and its men.  You will hear Calvin, Luther and others quoted on the seemingly same footing as Christ and the apostles.  The conscious, or at least subconscious, impression left, seems to give glory, focus and attention not to Christ, but to the reformers their creeds, their sayings and their movement.

The third interesting observation, of the definition, given by Dr. Clark, relates to the use of the word "tradition".  If, we are speaking strictly in terms of the New Testament (Sola Scriptura), then there is no "reformed tradition".  The only tradition mentioned is that delivered by Paul, to the churches, in his letters (II Thes 2:15; II Thes. 3:6; I Cor. 11:2).  Since Dr. Clark's tradition is rooted beginning with the "church fathers" onward, then by definition it is a human tradition (Col. 2:8) and it is at least, in some parts, "...according to the elemental spirits (or rudiments) of the world".  In other words, it is the teaching of devils (I Tim 4:1).  This statement, when read may appear overly harsh at first, but upon careful reflection, we believe it will ring true.

It is fascinating to learn that the word Greek word used in the New Testament translated tradition (paradosis) is used in only three places in the Septuagint (Greek translation of the Old Testament done before Jesus was born) (Judges 11:30; Jer. 32:4; Jer. 41:2).  The word is not used in the Septuagint, in the same sense as in the New Testament, as referring to the traditions or teachings of the Jews.  It seems, that sometime after the exile, in what is called the  "intertestamental period" (the period of Jewish history between Malachi and Matthew), this Greek word began to be used of the teachings of the Pharisees which the Jews began to follow.  So, we have Jesus referring to the "tradition of the elders".  These traditions had progressed and expanded to the point that they violated "the commandment of God" (Matt. 15:2).  It is ironic, that the Jews, who back then, and today, are very carefully about adding anything to the word of God, had done so according to Jesus.  This idea was repeated by Jesus in other parts of the Gospels (Matt. 15:6; Mark 7:3; Mark 7:8, 13).  All the mentions of "traditions" in the Gospels refer to man-made traditions.  It is only in the Epistles, that we begin to see, a Christian tradition, delivered by the apostles.  Any other tradition, that did not come from the apostles was a man-made tradition, based on philosophy and vain deceit (Col. 2:8).  We fear the reformed brethren have done the same thing, in adding things to the word of God, even though their tradition professes allegiance exclusively to the scriptures.

For those who glory in the history of the Reformation, we caution them to read how they treated other believers.  We refer the reader to an article posted here written by Elder Gilbert Beebe.

On a final word, we beseech our reformed brethren (we call them brethren because we believe that many of them are true believers), that the next time they glory in the term reformed, or quote with reverence the words of Calvin, Luther, etc., they remember these verses of scripture:

Ye are the light of the world. A city that is set on an hill cannot be hid. Neither do men light a candle, and put it under a bushel, but on a candlestick; and it giveth light unto all that are in the house. Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven. (Matthew 5:14-16)

Having your conversation honest among the Gentiles: that, whereas they speak against you as evildoers, they may by your good works, which they shall behold, glorify God in the day of visitation. (I Peter 2:12)

I am the LORD: that is my name: and my glory will I not give to another, neither my praise to graven images. (Isa. 42:8)

After all SOLA SCRIPTURA!!