Daniel Robbins asked in response my previous post “Why I Embraced Reformed Theology”:

What personally showed you the importance of reformed theology? No need to go into extreme detail (like sharing information about specific events, etc.) but it would be nice to understand what led you to view reformed theology as being so necessary for the modern church. If everyone had perfect theology, then there wouldn’t be a need for an emphasis on reformed theology or any other theological movement, so you must be seeing things in today’s church that you feel needs to be addressed. Would be cool to hear your opinion on this and how you feel that a refocusing on reformed theology could help correct this.

Daniel,

In short reformed theology addresses the rampant misunderstanding of the gospel throughout the modern church. Reformed theology begins and ends at the gospel and strives to get it right not only in its preaching but also in its application.

Of all the doctrines of reformed theology the one that most are convicted of first is the doctrine of salvation (soteriology). Realize that the reformers were coming out of the Roman Catholic Church. The Roman church did not accept the biblical concept of the imputation of Christ’s righteousness in justification. They believe that though sins were forgiven on the Cross (and continually through the sacraments)- righteousness and holiness needed to be worked for in order to enter heaven. What we couldn’t complete on earth could be finished in purgatory.

Using the scriptures alone, sola scriptura, the reformers contended that salvation was by grace alone, through faith alone in Christ alone. They recognized that while justification was not of works, sanctification and glorification were part of the package and were inseparable.

So far you might not recognize anything different than what the majority evangelical church adheres to. But the reformers in their biblical analysis of the doctrines of salvation also recognized something that modern evangelicalism denies. Modern evangelicalism parts from the reformers in the following area which I will argue compromises the holy character of God, the unending measure of his grace, the understanding of our fallen nature and finally the gospel message.

What the reformers recognized that modernism denied was the total depravity of man. Modern evangelical’s will agree in the semantics but not in its definition. According to reformed theology: the fall put man at enmity with God. We are dead in trespasses and sin, incapable and unwilling to desire, seek or please God apart from His sovereign intervention, regeneration.

In opposition to this, modern evangelicals hold to a semi-pelagian view, a view much closer to Roman Catholicism than biblical Christianity. Pelagius was a heretic who denied original sin in the early fourth century. While modern evangelicals do not entirely deny original sin they DO deny its extent. Rather than concluding that man is dead and helpless, they would much rather describe him as sick. According to modernism, man is in control of his destiny, he is not hopelessly dead in need of a miraculous resurrection, he is sick and can take his medicine.

Because modern evangelicals would place man in a hospital sick bed rather than in a casket, they must also deny that salvation was fully accomplished for us on the cross. In their view the cross of Christ did not literally save anyone, it merely brought the possibility of salvation, or the medicine for salvation. In the final analysis man must complete the final step of salvation and take his medicine. They limit the atonement in its saving POWER and assign man one last work in salvation to complete. Essentially the reason you are saved and someone else is not, is not because God was more gracious to you as the scriptures teach, it is because YOU made the right choice… and unfortunately that leaves YOU something to boast about.

Reformed theology states that the atonement of Christ was unlimited in POWER and did accomplish salvation for ALL of whom it was intended. Christ had a specific people in mind when he went to the cross and no work was left for man to complete. My repentance and apparent choice of God was not my doing but it was in fact God drawing me. As water takes no part in being drawn from a well, so too we take no part in being drawn to Himself in regeneration. Instead of limiting the atonement in POWER, as modern evangelicals do, it’s limited in SCOPE as the scriptures do (John 17:9; Matthew 1:21).

Modern evangelicals raise the complaint, why evangelize and why pray if God has already chosen? We do so because we really believe God is the one who works in salvation. If a modern evangelical did not live in a world of theological contradictions he would have a hard time answering the question himself, “why pray?” If you were to believe that God does not change peoples minds and that men must ultimately make the right decision- then prayer is hopeless because God does not intervene. Reformed theology holds at its very core that GOD DOES INTERVENE. That’s why we pray!

The doctrines associated with salvation in reformed theology are also referred to as the Doctrines of Grace because it really puts man in his rightful place as depraved. With that black and dirty backdrop of mans depravity the grace of God is made so much clearer and amazing because He not only died to make salvation possible for me but He also lifted me out of my wretched condition and saved me! My salvation was 100%, completely, in His hands. Now you see why those puritan hymn writers could write such amazing songs.

Those who hold to the semi-pelagian view see man in need to partner with God in the work of salvation (it takes two). This false view is called synergism. Granted, while some truly strive to give God the glory and honor: many change the gospel message in attempt to reach those who may want the carnal benefits of salvation but not God Himself. Why? Because if man must partner with God to save himself the “evangelist” is forced to make appeal to sinful flesh and present fringe benefits as the gospel in order to render a “decision”. It’s no longer a requirement that God be doing a work: the stance is that all men have the capacity to make the right choice and whatever the “evangelist” can do to move them- whether right or wrong motivation- all the better.

Followed in the same train of thought comes the false belief that Jesus can be Savior but not Lord (separation of justification and sanctification). Since the effectual call of the Holy Spirit is rejected by semi-pelagians men are lured into accepting some sort of “Jesus” who brings only fringe benefits and a free ticket out of hell. Many of these “converts” have no desire to be reconciled to God. Repentance from their rebellious life towards God is an optional second step. They accept the “Jesus” of their imaginations and go on hating God with a false assurance of post-mortem salvation. Those who don’t bear fruit are thought to be “carnal christians”: no present work of sanctification is going on in their life because regeneration was replaced with an experience of “accepting Jesus into their heart”. See my post on the False Gospel vs. the True Gospel.

Reformed theology frees me to pray and preach the true gospel of reconciliation knowing that God has chosen to accomplish His will through man. We then approach it #1) humbly- knowing by the grace of God I am what I am; #2) humbly- knowing any fruit is on account His sovereign will.. and #3) with the understanding that I will be successful in the endeavor. It frees me from the fear of rejection or lack of numbers because God in His sovereignty does the work! I don’t have to modify it, I don’t need eloquence or cultural relevance. I just preach it the way the apostles did.

Soteriology (doctrine of salvation) only scratches the surface of reformed theology. When a church could get something so central and basic as the gospel wrong, it only follows that there must be more as well.