What is Reformed Theology?

With the help of William Farel, Calvin brought his understanding of the Reformation to Geneva, Switzerland, and it spread from there. He emphasized, at the risk of me being overly brief, the sovereignty of God, the total spiritual depravity of the human race, the complete authority of the Bible, and salvation completely as a work of God.

Now, we thoroughly believe that faith is the gift of God, and that it is not according to man's will or by human power. And further, we believe that not a single soul would ever come to Christ if not drawn, yea, compelled by divine grace so to do; and therefore all who are saved have to thank the free and sovereign grace of God for it; their song is, and ever shall be, "Not unto us, O Lord, not unto us, but unto Thy name give glory, for Thy mercy, and for Thy truth's sake."

Now, we thoroughly believe that faith is the gift of God, and that it is not according to man's will or by human power. And further, we believe that not a single soul would ever come to Christ if not drawn, yea, compelled by divine grace so to do; and therefore all who are saved have to thank the free and sovereign grace of God for it; their song is, and ever shall be, "Not to us, O Lord, not to us, but to Thy name give glory, for Thy mercy, and for Thy truth's sake."

Ephesians 2:8,9 is to be fully and without question recognized as absolute truth. The grace of God in Christ Jesus, grace shown in the willing sacrifice of the Son of Man at Calvary, is the one and only principle by which God saves men from the guilt of their sins, Human works have no place whatever in this marvelous transaction. Man does not and cannot deserve in the least the blessing of his soul's salvation. Therefore he has nothing whatever to boast of. On God's part, grace saves him. On his part, only faith apprehends this, faith that bows to God and takes Him at His Word. Lest anyone should think highly of himself for having faith, it is added, "and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God." Faith itself is God's gift: it is not a matter of merit on man's part. God's grace both saves and preserves every believer. This is consistent with God's election, of which we have spoken. We are chosen in Christ by God's own pure grace. Nothing is ever to dim the luster of this great fact in the eyes and heart of the child of God.

In Titus 2 the apostle looks at the source of the gospel. It is the grace of God. Lost man needs that saving grace which is only in God and has now appeared free and full in Christ Jesus and His redemption. But here in Romans 1 the stress is on His righteousness, not on His mercy, though indeed it is the richest mercy, but it is much more. In the gospel is His righteousness revealed. The awakened sinner does repent, does detest his sins, judges himself as wholly and nothing but evil in God's sight, and so humbly, thankfully casts himself on Christ. But in the gospel is revealed not the victory of the soul striving against sin, but God's righteous consistency with Himself in revealing to the believer a salvation entirely outside himself and therefore ἐκ πίστεως, by or of faith, out of that principle and no other. Sovereign grace alone could have thought of it, or given it thus freely to him who deserved nothing less; but the conscience of the sinner touched of the Spirit could not have peace whilst a charge of guilt remained. The righteousness of God, without the gospel, would and must have made a short work of the guilty — most have judged them at once and for ever. But the gospel is God's power for salvation because in it is His righteousness revealed in the way of faith. Were it by works of law man must win and merit life, but it is wholly in contrast with such a scheme, and man, being guilty and so lost on any such ground, disappears, save as the object of God's salvation which now triumphs in the blessed fact that it is His righteousness also. Hence it is of faith that it might be according to grace, and so open to any and every believer; for as we are told elsewhere (Gal. 3.) "the law is not of faith;" and it works wrath. (Rom. 4.) Clearly, then, there is great precision, as ever in the language of Scripture. Human righteousness is expressly excluded, as it would be indeed inconsistent with the entire context, which supposes man to be lost, if it were only because the gospel is God's power for salvation: and which immediately after (ver. 18 et seqq.) proceeds to demonstrate the universality and completeness of man's ruin. The gospel is the revelation of divine righteousness. It is God who justifies, and He is just in justifying, him who believes.

This is admittedly a paradox: it seems to be contradictory, but is not. Believers have often had great difficulty with this matter. Some have seen one side so clearly that they deny the other side, or take away its real significance in an effort to make the two fit to their satisfaction. But both are fully true, and not to be tampered with. Some will say that only God's divine choice is to be considered, and therefore that God gave His Son only for the elect. Thus they preach a limited atonement, available to the elect alone and to no others. On the other hand, some insist that salvation depends entirely on the choice of individuals, saying that Christ bore the sins of all, and the one determining factor in their salvation is their own will in either accepting or rejecting the salvation of God. They insist that God leaves this choice entirely to the "free will" of the individual.

E. All that God has spoken — both that “God so loved the world, that he gave his only-begotten Son, that whosoever believes in him, should not perish, but have everlasting life” (John 3:16); and also that “God has chosen us in Christ before the foundation of the world,” &c. (Eph. 1:4.) The Arminian seems to believe only one of these truths; the Calvinist only the other; but, as a Christian, I surely believe both. As I have lately written a tract on “Election,” I would refer you to that small pamphlet. The gospel supper was ample, and all were invited, but all refused. Then infinite, sovereign grace compels some, even the most hell-deserving, to come in. Oh, the riches of His grace!

Shall we disregard these apostolic utterances? Ought they rather to have run something after this fashion: "Men and brethren, you can do absolutely nothing. You are spiritually dead and therefore you must simply wait the pleasure of God. If He has elected you, you will be saved. If not, you will be lost"? Or shall we adopt the opposite view, and do our best to explain away these reference's to God's sovereign work in connection with conversion, saying that they only mean that God, being omniscient, knows the end from the beginning, that He has no particular will as regards anybody, that man is an absolutely free agent, quite capable of choosing the right if put before him in a sufficiently attractive way, and that therefore we ought to do everything possible to make the Gospel palatable and win men?

"Anxious Enquirer." Many seem to feel a difficulty in reconciling these passages to which you refer, namely, John 3:16, and Rom. 8:29-30. But we must remember that no one passage of God's word can possibly clash with another. If they seem to do so, according to our thoughts, it simply proves our ignorance. There is then most perfect harmony between the truth of God's eternal counsels, and the truth of free salvation — between His sovereignty in predestination and election, and the message of His love to a lost world — between His deep and unsearchable purpose, and the glorious display of His character and the activities of His nature. True it is that theologians find difficulty in working both these things into their theological systems; but it is enough for us that both are found in the Holy Scriptures. We are not called to frame systems, but to receive, in artless simplicity, every word that proceeds out of the mouth of the Lord. If this were borne in mind, it would hush the reasonings of many a restless spirit, and remove many a stumbling-block off the pathway of the anxious enquirer. We find one class of theologians who always take up one side of this great question, and present one line of scripture quotations in support of their view. They are right, so far as they go — right in what they hold. But then they reject the other side of the question, and either pass over or explain, in a one-sided manner, a large body of scripture texts which plainly support that side. They are wrong in what they reject. They hold predestination and election, and there they are right. They reject free salvation, and there they are wrong. Then, again, we find another class of theologians, who seem to see only the other side of the question, namely, God's love to the world and free salvation to every creature under heaven, and so far they are right — right in what they hold. But then they reject predestination, election, and final perseverance, and here they are wrong — wrong in what they reject. The former hold divine sovereignty, but deny, virtually, human responsibility. The latter hold human responsibility, but practically ignore divine sovereignty. Those hold the permanency of salvation, but deny its freedom. These hold its freedom, but deny its permanency. We find both in the Word, and believe them. To reconcile them is none of our business. They are reconciled already, inasmuch as they are taught in the Word. It would be a great mercy to souls, as well as a safeguard to truth, if men would preach Christ, and not doctrines or systems of doctrine. Let the teacher unfold doctrine; but let the evangelist preach Christ.

This is a grave practical lesson, and Malachi, I think, is deeply interesting in this way. At the beginning of the history of Jacob and Esau we find the purpose of God before the children were born. Indeed to make election a question of the deserts in the two parties is simply to destroy its nature, if allowed in word. Election is necessarily from God entirely apart from those that are the objects of it, as it means the exercise of His sovereign choice. If there is the smallest ground in the party chosen because of which God chooses, it is not His choice, but rather a moral discernment, which, far from being sovereign, is only an appraisal whether the person deserves or not. One may hold then as strongly as the stoutest Calvinist the free sovereign choice of God, but the reprobation of the wicked which the Calvinist draws from it, as an equally sovereign decree, is in my judgment a grave error. I do not therefore scruple to say a word upon it now, inasmuch as it is an important thing in both doctrine and practice. The idea that, if God chooses one, He must reprobate another whom He does not choose, is a fallacy and without, yea against, scripture. This is exactly where human influence comes in; that is, the petty self-confidence of man's mind. Now I do not see why we as believers should be petty; there is every reason why we should gather what is great for God. To be simple is all well; but this too is a very different thing from being petty, and no reason why we should limit ourselves to ourselves; for what does God reveal His mind for? Surely that we should know Him, and be imitators of Him.