Hi!
reformedtheology.org/SiteFiles/WhatIsRT.html
As a response of sorts to this.
-Tina “I Can Fling Links ALL DAY LONG!!!” G
From your own link…
Generally, all the churches that grew from the sixteenth-century revolt against the Roman church, can be called reformed. However, the term “Reformed” specifically designates that branch of the Reformation of the western church originally characterized by a distinctively non-Lutheran, Augustinian sacramental theology with a high ecclesiology but little regard for ecclesiatical tradition that is not traceable to the Scriptures or the earliest church.
Today, it is probably more appropriate to speak of Reformed theologies, instead of the Reformed theology. Everywhere the Reformed churches have been planted, they have taken on a distinctive character, whether it be in William of Orange’s Holland or in nineteenth century Korea.
One of the difficulties in identifying a Reformed theology is that groups are often “Reformed” in some respects, while affirming doctrinal approaches typical of other theological perspectives in others. Some groups reject infant baptism, but are strict double-predestinarians. Others, while accepting infant baptism, and some belief in predestination, will also include the office of bishop in their church hierarchy—something that might well have confounded some of the original Swiss Reformers (though not Calvin). Or, in rejecting hierarchy, some churches that are attracted to Reformed theology have no connection to other church bodies, and are entirely separationist and congregational. Still other groups that seem distinct from the Reformed family have Reformed roots.
Well, you just confirmed what David Anders wrote…
Calvin shocked me by rejecting key elements of my Evangelical tradition. Born-again spirituality, private interpretation of Scripture, a broad-minded approach to denominations – Calvin opposed them all. I discovered that his concerns were vastly different, more institutional, even more Catholic. Although he rejected the authority of Rome, there were things about the Catholic faith he never thought about leaving. He took for granted that the Church should have an interpretive authority, a sacramental liturgy and a single, unified faith.
I began to grasp the difference between Calvin and his descendants when I discovered his hatred of this theological diversity. Calvin was drawn to Luther’s theology, but he complained about the “crass multitude” and the “vulgar plebs” who turned Luther’s doctrine into an excuse for disorder. He wrote his first major work, The Institutes of the Christian Religion (1536), in part to address this problem.
What most Evangelicals today don’t realize is that Calvin never endorsed private or lay interpretation of the Bible. While he rejected Rome’s claim to authority, he made striking claims for his own authority. He taught that the “Reformed” pastors were successors to the prophets and apostles, entrusted with the task of authoritative interpretation of the Scriptures. He insisted that laypeople should suspend judgment on difficult matters and “hold unity with the Church.”3
intend it.9
Since the eighteenth century, Calvinism has devolved more and more into a narrow set of questions about the nature of salvation. Indeed, in most people’s minds the word Calvinism implies only the doctrine of predestination. Calvin himself has become mainly a shadowy symbol, a myth that Evangelicals call upon only to support a spurious claim to historical continuity.
The greatest irony in my historical research was realizing that Evangelicalism, far from being the direct descendant of Calvin, actually represents the failure of Calvinism. Whereas Calvin spent his life in the quest for doctrinal unity, modern Evangelicalism is rooted in the rejection of that quest.
