Reformed tradition teaches that human beings are [totally depraved](https://www.focusonthefamily.com/family-qa/the-fall-of-man-and-total-depravity/) , and cannot even come to faith without God's assistance. Their *reason* rejects God's supremacy, their *will* refuses God's invitation, and their *emotion* recoils against God's goodness. This is because human beings are born "in Adam", who "died" spiritually because of the Fall and we live under the power of sin. But once God "breathes" spiritual life into the elect, and the elect then comes to faith and becomes conscious of his/her new status in Christ, the elect is now in the *sanctification* stage working with the grace of the Holy Spirit to become more and more reformed in character. Then after death, in the elect's *glorification* stage I assume he/she will live eternally like the perfect human Jesus with *full functioning reason, will, and emotion as originally created in the image of God*, similar to how Jesus lived on earth without original sin (see [Nathaniel's answer to another question](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/61910/10672)) . My question is: **since we are in the "*already, but not yet*" stage, how do we understand the causes and the nature of progressive recovery / healing in our reason, will, and emotion, considering that the *telos* of our redemption is to go back to the original design as exhibited in the perfect humanity of Jesus?** In other words, since the goal of God's redemptive work is to "Un-Fall" us, since we are *already* justified, and since the clarion call is to "imitate Jesus", wouldn't it make sense to expect *palpable* and *measurable* progress in our earthly experience of our reason, will, and emotion? If so, then naturally we seek to understand the *theological causes* and the *practices* that engender those effects. I would like a documented answer quoting a **21st century scholarly (published) work** of a Reformed theologian who **explicitly links** sanctification to *progressive restoration* in reason, will, and emotion, by describing how sanctification works toward the healing, in the Reformed tradition.

As stated for instance [here](https://christianpure.com/learn/protestant-christian-vs-reformed-christian/) and many other places, Reform Christianity has as one of its central precepts predestination, i.e. Gd has already chosen some of us for salvation and some for damnation. Logically, this would lead me to be a fatalist: nothing I can do will change my fate. How does Reform Christianity so vehemently argue against fatalism at the same time? This is not a smug rebuttal (which would be naive) but rather a genuine request for the details. The way I see it, this is all a side effect of the I suppose well meaning starting point of the sovereignty of Gd, logically leading to predestination - from here, there is either some nebulous cop-out or indeed an elaborate reconciliation of this and avoiding fatalism which I would find great intellectual satisfaction in learning.

I'm interested in exploring a theological understanding of work from a Reformed perspective. Most of the literature I find tends to be sociological, especially Weberian, but I'm specifically looking for theological treatments grounded in the Reformed tradition. Ideally, I’d like recommendations that are not politically driven or overtly proselytizing, but instead focus on biblical and theological foundations for work, vocation, and labor in Reformed thought. What are some good books or authors to start with?

I am attempting to explore the differences in theology between various western theological christian positions. And I would like to know according to the Catholic Church’s perspective, what teachings or beliefs of the Presbyterian Church are considered heretical and in what way. I would like to get a list of these in an easy to read list or table. An entry could be something like this example: - The denial of the Real Presence in the Eucharist (sacramental symbolism) is deemed heretical because it rejects the belief that the bread and wine become Christ’s actual Body and Blood during Mass. This matters because the Eucharist as a central sacrament for salvation and communion with Christ according to the Catholic Church.

When I read Rev 20:11-15 to answer [another question](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/107604/10672) an idea occurs to me. Maybe there are two books at play in the Great White Throne Judgment, the book of life (criteria for salvation) and what appears to be the "books of works" (title not given), noting the phrase "another book" and the plural form of "books" in v. 12. Here's the CSB translation: > 11 Then I saw a great white throne and one seated on it. Earth and heaven fled from his presence, and no place was found for them. 12 I also saw the dead, the great and the small, standing before the throne, and **books were opened**. **Another book was opened, which is the book of life**, and the dead were judged according to **their works by what was written in the books**. 13 Then the sea gave up the dead that were in it, and death and Hades gave up the dead that were in them; each one was judged according to their works. 14 Death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. This is the second death, the lake of fire. 15 And anyone whose name was not found written in the book of life was thrown into the lake of fire. Is it possible that the "book of life" is the criteria of inclusion for going to heaven while the "book of works" (for lack of a better name) is for giving rewards for the "treasures in heaven" (Matt 6:19-21) that one has accumulated while on earth, namely good works out of faith? That the "book of works" contain everything that God sees we do in secret (Matt 6:4) and the unrewarded suffering we do for Christ (Matt 5:10-12)? One is also reminded about Paul talking about how the works of God's servants (who labor in the field of harvest) will be tested by fire (1 Cor 3:10-15). Or is my speculation in the preceding paragraph unwarranted because I'm mixing un-relatable concept of "works" from 3 completely different *genres* (a gospel, an epistle, and an apocalypse)? Am I guilty of reading Matthean / Pauline concepts into Revelation or am I to be applauded for doing ["inductive Bible study"](https://biblestudy.tips/inductive-bible-study/) ? My question: **Compare and contrast Reformed and Catholics view on the role of both books mentioned in the Great White Throne Judgment, especially with regards to "merit" and "reward".** What I'm trying to ascertain: - **For Reformed**: what is the use of the *other* books since it appears that what matters is only whether the names are found in the "book of life"? - **For Catholics**: does the church use the *other* books in connection with the doctrine of good works, **EITHER** with regards to the treasury of merit **OR** with regards to justification by faith and works? **OR BOTH?** *Note*: - For the sake of answerability, I only ask to contrast the Reformed position and the Catholic position as a minimal scoping, although additional position(s) are welcome as a bonus. - To defend that this Q is not opinion-based, I require citations from published Reformed and Catholic theologians.

In the Reformed view of predestination and human will, could we say that human will consists of two inseparable parts — a detached will, as the capacity to deliberate or step back from objects, and an oriented will, as the capacity to unite with or choose an object apparently good? If so, would it be accurate to say that any exercise of the will that *chooses* something other than God represents a false or incomplete use of that will, since only God constitutes the true end that fulfills and rightly orients it as true freedom? In this view, God would be not merely one object of choice, but the very source and end of a properly ordered will. All other created goods—wealth, pleasure, ideologies—represent only *apparent* fulfillments. That would mean that, apart from union with God, human willing collapses into a kind of existential fragmentation: always active, but never truly free. This would imply that: 1. Human beings retain a capacity to will and choice (and thus remain morally responsible) *even in their fallen state*, but this will is fundamentally misoriented since *any* object is going to be a sinful one. 2. Only God's grace restores the true orientation of the will, reordering it toward its proper end in Him (= freedom). 3. Thus, God is not the author of our sin (since our willing as a capacity of abstraction from any object, though corrupted, remains our own), but He alone is the author of our salvation (since only He can rightly reorient the will). Would this framework be consistent with Calvinist theology? Or does it risk introducing assumptions that conflict with doctrines such as total depravity or monergistic regeneration?

As the gospel spread beyond Israel to the Gentile world, many began to ask important questions about God's promises to the Jewish people. In *Exodus 4:22*, God declares, *“Israel is my firstborn son,”* highlighting Israel’s special place in His redemptive plan. But with the coming of Christ and the message of salvation extended to all nations, we now see Christians referred to as adopted sons and daughters of God through faith. This raises important theological questions: Has Israel’s special status been replaced by the Church? Do Gentile believers now stand in place of Israel as God's chosen people? Or does Israel still hold a distinct role in God's unfolding story? This topic invites reflection on God's faithfulness, the unity of His promises, and how both Jews and Gentiles fit into His plan through the gospel of Jesus Christ.

According to reformed theology, in the Savoy Declaration of Faith, Chapter 26 (*Of the Church*), paragraph 4, the Pope is the Antichrist. >There is no other Head of the Church but the Lord Jesus Christ; nor can the Pope of Rome in any sense be head thereof; but is that antichrist, that man of sin, and son of perdition, that exalteth himself in the Church against Christ, and all that is called God, whom the Lord shall destroy with the brightness of his coming. Also in the 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith, Chapter 26 (*Of the Church*), paragraph 4, we found the same, the Pope as the Antichrist. >The Lord Jesus Christ is the Head of the church, in whom, by the appointment of the Father, all power for the calling, institution, order or government of the church, is invested in a supreme and sovereign manner; neither can the Pope of Rome in any sense be head thereof, but is that antichrist, that man of sin, and son of perdition, that exalts himself in the church against Christ, and all that is called God; whom the Lord shall destroy with the brightness of his coming. But how can he be **THE** Antichrist, as 2 Thessalonians 2: 2-9 says, if it is talking about a position and not a person. Would not be more in line with the concept of the spirit of the antichrist, of which it is spoken of in 1 John 2: 18-19 and 1 John 4: 2-3. How can this paragraph be interpreted? The Pope is *an* antichrist or the Pope is *the* Antichrist?

Scriptures have clear evidence that God has already chosen some individuals for salvation. Here are some references... "When the Gentiles heard this, they began rejoicing and glorifying the word of the Lord; and **as many as had been appointed to eternal life believed.**" (Acts 13:48) "And the Lord said to Paul in the night by a vision, “Do not be afraid any longer, but go on speaking and do not be silent; for I am with you, and no man will attack you in order to harm you, **for I have many people in this city**.” (Acts 18:9-10) "For those whom He foreknew, **He also predestined** to become conformed to the image of His Son, so that He would be the firstborn among many brethren; and these whom He predestined, He also called; and these whom He called, He also justified; and these whom He justified, He also glorified." (Romans 8:29-30) The above verses provide us ample evidence that God in His sovereignty chooses some individuals for salvation. Them He justifies and glorifies. Then we also see in the Scriptures... "And He said to them, “Go into all the world and **preach the gospel to all creation.** The one who has believed and has been baptized will be saved; but the one who has not believed will be condemned." (Mark 16:15-16) “For God so loved the world, that He gave His only Son, so that **everyone who believes in Him will not perish, but have eternal life.**" (John 3:16) According to the reformed theology how can the above both sets of verses be reconciled?

**I ask Reformed Protestants** because at a time of worship with Reformed Protestants two days ago, I heard the preacher twice say that “Christ perfectly kept the law on our behalf”. Once during his prayer, and again during his sermon, making the claim that when believers do sin, Jesus having perfectly kept the law means that we will be pardoned due to that. I have searched the phrase “the blood of Christ” (and what it does for believers), but **nowhere can I find any phrase about Jesus perfectly keeping the O.T. law to ensure forgiveness for their later sins**. I list 12 verses on the blood of Christ to illustrate the importance the Bible gives to it: Acts 20:28; Ephesians 1:7; Colossians 1:14 & 20; Hebrews 9:12 & 14 & 22, & 12:24; 1 Peter 1:19; 1 John 1:7; Revelation 1:5 & 7:14. (Not an exhaustive list.) But nowhere do I read anything about Jesus keeping the law perfectly so that we can have (daily?) sins after conversion ‘covered over’. So, ***can anyone give me any such scriptures***, please? I am concerned in case such an idea implies that the blood of Christ is not entirely sufficient.

Given various quotes and hymns from the mid 1700s onward, it seems some Reformed Protestants were showing how the Old Testament law only served to make it impossible to find the liberation that the gospel of Christ brings. From then, even till today, a popular claim in many Reformed Protestant circles is that the Law of Moses is the believers’ ‘rule of life’ – meaning the Ten Commandments which have the moral essence. One example of such a claim was a sermon preached on behalf of the Evangelical Association on 16th August, 1787 at a chapel in Artillery Lane. There it was stated from the pulpit that, *“The moral law is the foundation of all religion, both moral and divine.”* To substantiate it, the way Moses struck the rock so that water gushed out, was paralleled with Christians ‘smiting the law’ by keeping it, to get refreshing comforts from doing that. Another preacher of the time wrote at length about such claims. One instance was where he said, “A friend of mine once asked a certain divine in London what he thought of the law as the believer’s only rule of life. He replied, *"The believer must look with one eye to Christ, and with the other to the law."* (The author’s friend said to the divine that, then, every believer must be cross-eyed!) *Law and Grace Contrasted* William Huntington – Addresses, p.125, edited and abridged version published in 1999 **Was there something of a battle going on between two groups of Reformed Protestants on the matter of Mosaic law-keeping, and if so, why?**

Both high and low Calvinists from this Wiki say that God authorized the Fall, by which all deserve to be condemned. Me: If there is no predestination at all, both Cain and Abel will end up in hell. From this link Calvinists teach that Ephesians 2:8 declares that *faith is given to the elect only.* Now, Hebrews 11:4 says: > By *faith* Abel brought God a better offering than Cain did. ([NIV](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Hebrews+11%3A4&version=NIV) , italics added) Me: because there is predestination, Abel will end up in heaven while Cain will still end up in hell. But [Genesis 4:7](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=genesis+4%3A7&version=NIV) says: > If you do what is right, will you not be accepted? But if you do not > do what is right, sin is crouching at your door; it desires to have > you, but you must rule over it. (NIV) My question: If God alone before the creation had already decreed that Cain would end up in hell, and that's why He will never give Cain faith, why did God say what He did to Cain in Genesis 4:7?

> And the keeper of the prison awaking out of his sleep, and seeing the prison doors open, he drew out his sword, and would have killed himself, supposing that the prisoners had been fled. But Paul cried with a loud voice, saying, Do thyself no harm: for we are all here. Then he called for a light, and sprang in, and came trembling, and fell down before Paul and Silas, And brought them out, and said, **Sirs, what must I do to be saved? And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house.** - Acts 16:27-31 "What must I do to be saved?" is the question put to them. Isn't the Calvinist answer, "There is nothing that you can do ."? Paul and Silas answer, "Believe...and you will be saved.". Isn't the Calvinist answer, "You cannot believe unless God spiritually regenerates you first .". If Paul believed and taught Calvinism, why did he respond in a way that appears to give the jailer a decision to make? A background, related question would be, why, if Paul was Calvinist, did he expend effort in trying to persuade men? Persuade,in Koine Greek, means much the same as it does in modern English: cause (someone) to do or to believe something through reasoning or argument. How does Calvinism expound on this passage of Scripture and the notion of "persuading" men?

While reviewing the superb answers to this question about *free will* , I was inspired to leave a comment for Ian that I realized ought to be its own question. As I understand (and possibly misunderstand) Reformed theology, "works" are things that we do, and as such are not included in that which provides justification nor salvation. I then consider the act of will that is making a choice to open one's heart to Jesus Christ, a decision that I finally made in my late 40's to accept salvation through Him alone. Thus began my walk in Faith (though I keep stubbing my toes on those rocks in the road ...). It appears to me that my choice, my decision to accept Salvation through Jesus Christ is a Work since it is something that involved my agency. From a more Determinist and Calvinist perspective, how does my acceptance of Jesus Christ *not* classify as a Work, since it was something that I did but that I could have chosen not to do? (If other Reformed denominations view this differently, that perspective would also be appreciated in contrast). From my perspective, I feel like I've tripped over a contradiction in the general case of not being saved nor justified by Works, yet it took my agency to accept Christ as my Savior. (It is quite possible that I simply don't understand the theology well enough, hence the question). How does the Reformed/Calvinist theology resolve this (seeming) contradiction? ----------------------------- I am under the impression that there are other Reformed denominations than Calvinist, but that may be wrong so the bottom line question needs to be answered from the PoV of Calvinist/Reformed theology. (I am seeking more help in chat to get my terminology right on this). I note that this question is related to my question in addressing the free will issue.

One of the objections to the Catholic and Orthodox churches is that they use statues/icons as part of worship. (These objects are within churches, believers tend to have a few, etc) > John Calvin - Institutes of the Christian Religion, Book I, Chapter 11, "Impiety of Attributing a Visible Form to God—The Setting Up of Idols a Defection from the True God." But if you go to a reformed church, they have stained glass windows, depicting people or biblical events. It is even possible and likely that a picture book Bible could be there. ### So what exactly is the difference from the reformed protestant position? #### The "Epiphany" Window in the United Reformed Church in Somersville NJ See here for details. // *Side note, I do not understand why they call this the Epiphany window... it looks like the Nativity to me.* ### Mosaic Icon of the Theophany in the Monastery of Osios Lukas ### My old church First Presbyterian Church of Pittsburgh, above the massive organ pipes. Seriously, I crawled around up there... it's huge. This building was finished by them in 1905, and they claim their roots go back to 1758 on their website. ### Every Orthodox Church has this Icon of Jesus Pantocrator on the ceiling. This one is in St. Petersburg in a Russian Orthodox Church. ### St. Giles Cathedral - The Cradle of Presbyterianism in Scotland. The North Transept Window - Jesus Walking on the Sea ### Orthodox Icon of Jesus walking on the Sea, (from the website of the Orthodox church of Osaka )

Other questions have covered: - [Biblical basis and our duties](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/48414/10672) of being priest - How being members of this royal priesthood of all believers is [different than specific roles in a church](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/23627/10672) My question is: What is the mature 21st century Reformed theology on: 1. WHAT our duties are TODAY as priests in the [Priesthood of all Believers](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Priesthood_of_all_believers) , and 1. Complete DOCTRINE that cover *all* relevant OT and NT verses interpreted from Reformed perspective, which needs to cover: - Specific Reformed-style typology from OT priesthood - Formal definition of New Covenant "priest" and how it is considered "exclusionary" compared to the "inclusionary" Catholic version - How this priesthood is contrasted to the roles mentioned in the New Testament (largely covered already in the 2nd question linked above) - Identifying what our duties are *now* vs. *future* (after the second coming) - *Practical priestly significance* (to others) of having direct access to God - Relationship to *spiritual gifts* - New Testament equivalent of offering *spiritual* sacrifices - Implications of the *meaning of worship*, whether individually or corporately (since worship WAS part of temple priestly function) - Prophetic and teaching roles to announce Jesus to the unconverted world - Being agents of reconciliation to the world - Relationship to our other duties to be disciples of Christ, etc. - How are we to be stewards of creation, thus recovering Adam's original calling - Etc. Resources in the first linked question (such as [this](https://web.archive.org/web/20160427191009/https://ifwe.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/Priesthood-of-All-Believers_Final.pdf)) already have the kernel of an answer but it is not specific to Reformed theology. I'm also asking for a formal definition such as what one would read out of a 21st Reformed Systematic Theology book that has taken into account new Biblical research for better understanding of Second Temple Judaism. Thus, **citations** from those kinds of books (or a journal paper equivalent) would be expected in an answer. Some resources that can be consulted by an answer: - A 2021 *Christianity Today* article [5 Books that Portray the Priesthood of All Believers](https://www.christianitytoday.com/2021/09/5-books-priesthood-of-all-believers-cliff-warner/) (not specific to Reformed theology, though)

I believe God did not coerce the thief to the right to confess that Jesus is the Messiah, he did it because he loved the truth and out of his free will, the thief to the left also did not mock Jesus because the devil incited him but most probably because he wanted to appease the crowd. The actions of these two thieves , one in repentance and the other in rebellion caused them to go to different places in the afterlife. How do Calvinists who say God has already chosen the elect and our free will doesn't matter defend this? Also if God interferes with your free will to achieve a result where you go to heaven, then the race of salvation is not fair, or if He interferes with your free will to make you go to hell, makes him a crucial factor in your condemnation, which is not the case .

Reflecting on Matthew 9:38, Matthew 10:1-42, and Luke 10:2, who is the Lord of the Harvest, God the Father or God the Son? Or both together along with the Holy Spirit due to the nature of the Trinity? Jesus in Matthew 9 says to pray to the Lord of the Harvest to send workers out into the harvest. In the Lord’s Prayer, Jesus had instructed his believers to pray to the Father. Then in Matthew 10, Jesus sends his disciples out into the harvest. This would seem to indicate that Jesus is the Lord of the Harvest, as he is answering this prayer and doing the sending. Was Jesus in an indirect way in Matthew 9 asking his disciples to pray to him? Or is the Father the Lord of the Harvest, who made the decision to send out laborers, told Jesus, and Jesus is merely revealing the Father’s decision? Please cite Reformed sources.

As far as I have been able to determine, **John Calvin** never created a succinct, ordered list of the steps of salvation (though one could be derived from statements in his *Institutes*). Who was the first Reformed scholar to propose such a concise list and call it the *Ordo Salutis*? Some possibilities that I have seen suggested (by an AI but without sources) are **Zacharias Ursinus** and **Herman Bavinck**. This is a variation on an earlier question: https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/83126/what-is-the-most-authentic-reformed-ordo-salutis

This question follows on from a comment made in the previous closed question . The Wikipedia article on the subject of *ordo salutis* quotes and lists the following, in the following order, as 'Calvinistic' : >Predestination Election Calling Regeneration Faith Repentance Justification Adoption Sanctification Perseverance Glorification This list is attributed by Wikipedia to : >"The 'Order of Salvation'" In Feinberg, John S. (ed.). The Cross and Salvation: The Doctrine of Salvation. Wheaton: Good News Publishers. pp. 36–44. ISBN 978-1-58134-812-5. Would Reformed Calvinistic Baptists consider this to be the correct and definitive *ordo salutis* or is there another, or others, considered more authentic ?