The question of what constitutes Reformed Theology dominates both academic and popular conversations. There are those who assert quite specifically and confidently that being Reformed involves being Calvinistic, covenantal, confessional, and paedobaptistmal, calling any who fail to uphold these pillars as “not really reformed,” which is surely a surprise to the Reformed Baptists among us. On the other hand, the Foundation Documents of the Gospel Coalition target churches in a more general “Reformed tradition” that would be more inclusive.[1]

There is an historical sense in which those who came after the magisterial Reformers (Luther, Calvin) developed their theology more systematically and took hold of the label “reformed” to distinguish themselves from Anabaptists on the one hand and Lutherans on the other. Such distinctions are useful, but to then insist that no one can use the label unless you meet rather specific markers is overly parochial.

That said, my purpose is to describe broad distinguishing marks of Reformed Theology under the headings of Scripture, God, Man, and Salvation.

Scripture and the Embrace of Mystery

The Reformers had a high regard for the authority of Scripture and theologians that follow in their train imitate this. The doctrine of “sola scriptura” as promoted by Luther and Calvin “did not mean that Scripture was the sole authority; rather, it affirmed that Scripture was the final authority.”[2] In upholding this, Reformers emphasized vernacular translations of the Bible, exegetical commentaries, expository sermons, and works of biblical theology.[3]

Reformed theology is based on the exposition of Scripture rather than reliance on tradition or the rationalization of humanistic thought. This commitment allows the Reformed theologian to affirm biblical truth while embracing mystery. Because our knowledge of God is based on his own revelation (analogical and ectypal, not archetypal),[4] there must necessarily be truths that we can apprehend but not comprehend. Reformed theology is comfortable with this tension and does not succumb to rationalizing thoughts to “make everything fit.”

A case in point is seen in the Westminster Confession of Faith (the statement is repeated in the London Baptist Confession). In Paragraph III, “Of God’s Eternal Decree,” we read, “God, from all eternity, did, by the most wise and holy counsel of his own will, freely, and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass: yet so, as thereby neither is God the author of sin, nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures.”[5] Simply put, the Confession asserts that (1) God ordains whatever comes to pass, and (2) God is not the author of sin, and (3) violence is not done to the agency of men – three assertions that are clearly revealed in Scripture but impossible to synthesize in our finite minds. Reformed theology is not at pains to make these truths dovetail; rather, it is more important to affirm what the Bible affirms.

Sometimes, we are accused of relying too much on “mystery” in our doctrine and making no attempt to reconcile competing truths – a kind of “God in the gaps” hermeneutic, except we are said to fill in the gaps with “mystery.” I admit that this is sometimes the case. We must do all we can to exposit all the relevant texts of Scripture and not flatten our understanding by jumping too quickly to, “It’s a mystery.” But, there is a valid place for affirming the mysteries that are present in the text of Scripture, and we would do well to sound like the Bible in our theology, even when we can’t reconcile our thoughts completely.

A High View of God

When discussing biblical mysteries such as mentioned above, Reformed theology is not uneasy in ascribing to God what God has revealed of himself. Passages that reveal a sovereign God ruling over all things, including the salvation of the elect, are clear testimonies to his rule and reign (e.g., Ps 135:6; Col 1:16-17; Is 45:6b-9; Am 3:6; Eph 1:11; 2 Th 2:13-14). Reformed theology makes much of these teachings and derives great encouragement, comfort, and perseverance from them.

No Christian denies the sovereignty of God. Rather, many define it in such a way that limits the power and authority of the Creator. To them the sovereignty of God may mean that nothing happens unless God allows it to happen, or that he knows what will happen before it does. It may simply mean that no matter what happens, in the end God will have the last word.[6] This is a very passive take on sovereignty. Language such as God “permitting” various events to take place, rather than “ordaining” them is the hallmark of this kind of popular theology. “Those, moreover, who confine the providence of God within narrow limits, as if he allowed all things to be born along freely according to a perpetual law of nature, do not more defraud God of his glory than themselves of a most useful doctrine.”[7]

I find it illuminating that many Christians opt for a low view of God. In considering, for example, God’s election and predestination, Arminian Christians immediately resort to, “What about free will?” without defining what they mean or engaging with the pertinent Scriptures. In considering these things, it is always the character of God that is mitigated and the ability of man that is absolutized. Calvin found this deplorable. “Hence it is, that in the present day so many dogs tear this doctrine [Providence] with envenomed teeth, or, at least, assail it with their bark, refusing to give more license to God than their own reason dictates to themselves.”[8] Regarding eternal election, he considered “ignorance of this principle detracts from the glory of God.”[9] To Reformed theologians, the rally cry is, Let God be God! It is not just that denial of the doctrines of grace is an alternate opinion on secondary matters; it is taking from God his right to choose those upon whom he will have mercy (Ro 9:18) and robbing him of his glory! How can we have any hope or encouragement in the midst of our afflictions if God is not sovereign over all?

Wretched Man that I Am!

Another mark of Reformed theology is a right and biblical view of man – that of being the pinnacle of creation made in the image of God, ruined by the radical nature of sin and its effect on the whole of humanity. “It was the common view from the ancient church to Aquinas and the Protestant Reformers that the whole person is good by created nature and also wholly defiled by sin: corrupt not in its intensity (as if there is no good left) but in its extensity.”[10]

The doctrine of Total Depravity, while not the best nomenclature, is the theoretical launching point of all the doctrines of grace, and thus is seminal to Reformed theology. If fallen mankind’s total being – mind (1 Co 2:14), will (Ro 8:7-8), affections (Ro 1:24, 26), behavior (Ro 1:32) – has been marred by sin, then the radical grace of unconditional election, monergistic regeneration, and effectual calling follows (Note: not only do these doctrines follow logically; they are amply attested to in Scripture.)

We must have the right view of our sinful state if we are to understand and proclaim the gospel. “God’s work of reconciliation and restoration makes no sense unless we have a robust understanding of the crisis.”[11] Only if we grasp what we are saved from can we hope to appreciate our “great salvation” (He 2:3).

Amazing, Invincible Grace

Christians everywhere heartily can sing of amazing grace. For the Reformed theologian, this has an even deeper significance. “For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God” (Ep 2:8). I memorized that verse as a child, long before embracing the doctrines of grace. But “it is the gift of God” took on a much profounder meaning as I realized that I was incapable of generating my own faith apart from his definitive work for me as a chosen child of God.

We often think of grace as a descriptive principle, merely describing salvation as a gracious and free gift that we don’t deserve. But biblically, grace is seen as an operative principle, a word that describes God’s operative work in drawing, calling, and regenerating the elect. Packer and Johnston highlighted this. “To the Reformers, the crucial question was not simply, whether God justifies believers without works of law. It was the broader question, whether sinners are wholly helpless in their sin, and whether God is to be thought of as saving them by free, unconditional, invincible grace, not only justifying them for Christ’s sake when they come to faith, but also raising them from the death of sin by His quickening Spirit in order to bring them to faith.”[12] This is the doctrine of sola gratia, the truth that only through a sovereign act of God do the elect come to saving faith.

I have counted myself a Reformed theologian for many decades in my life. These precious truths, what Calvin called a “most useful doctrine,” have served to increase my faith in God, through times of great sorrow (the loss of our son) to times of great joy (seeing the lost come to Christ). In truth, Reformed theology is biblical theology!

---

[1] “Foundation Documents,” The Gospel Coalition, https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/about/foundation-documents/#preamble, accessed 9/22/2024.

[2] Alistair E. McGrath, Reformation Thought (Hoboken: Wiley Blackwell, 2021), 130.

[3] Ibid. 141-142.

[4] Michael Horton, The Christian Faith: A Systematic Theology for Pilgrims on the Way (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2011), 54ff.

[5] Chad Van Dixhoorn, ed., Creeds Confessions, & Catechisms (Wheaton: Crossway Books, 2022), 189.

[6] Unknown, Tabletalk Magazine (Orlando: Ligonier Ministries, March 2017), 30.

[7] John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion (Peabody: Hendrickson Publishers, 2008), 116

[8] Ibid. 124.

[9] Ibid. 607.

[10] Michael Horton, “Foreword,” in David Gibson & Jonathan Gibson, eds. Ruined Sinners to Reclaim: Sin and Depravity in Historical, Biblical, Theological, and Pastoral Perspective (Wheaton: Crossway Books, 2024), xvi, emphasis his.

[11] Ibid. xvii.

[12] J. I. Packer and O. R. Johnston, “Historical and Theological Introduction,” in Martin Luther, The Bondage of the Will (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 1957, 2012), 58-59.