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.

>Although in relation to the foreknowledge and decree of God, the first cause, all things come to pass immutably and infallibly, yet by the same providence he ordereth them to fall out, according to the nature of second causes, either necessarily, freely, or contingently. - Westminster Confession of Faith 5.2 Please give an example of a secondary cause that is contingent and tell on what it is contingent.

>God, in his ordinary providence, maketh use of means, yet is free to work without, above, and against them, at his pleasure. - Westminster Confession of Faith 5.3. I have three related questions - 1. What does it mean that "God...maketh use of means"? 2. What is meant by "without, above, and against them"? 3. What does it mean for God to "work...above" means? **Conclusions** A sick person prays and then goes to the doctor. If the doctor provides the correct treatment and the patient recovers, the doctor is the "means". If the doctor is clueless, but the patient recovers anyway, this is "without means". If the doctor applies an incorrect treatment that should make the condition worse, but the patient recovers anyway, this is "against the means". If the doctor applies a treatment that should not cure the condition but only alleviate the symptoms, but the patient recovers anyway, this is "above the means".

What is the Biblical justification that God controls every detail of the future (as accepted by Reformed Theology)? I'm sure that this has been asked, but I can't find it. Tim Keller cites two verses from Proverbs 16. >The plans of the heart belong to man, but the answer of the tongue is from the Lord. - Proverbs 16:1 >The heart of man plans his way, but the Lord establishes his steps. - Proverbs 16:9. I think I have found both a better exposition of my question and the answer here - https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/4098/102058 My thanks to Mike Borden for giving me the word, "sovereignty", which led me to this question and answers.

> And, behold, the word of the LORD came unto him, saying, This shall not be thine heir; but he that shall come forth out of thine own bowels shall be thine heir. And he brought him forth abroad, and said, Look now toward heaven, and tell the stars, if thou be able to number them: and he said unto him, So shall thy seed be. And he believed in the LORD; and he counted it to him for righteousness. - Genesis 15:4-6 > What shall we say then that Abraham our father, as pertaining to the flesh, hath found? For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory; but not before God. For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness. Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt. But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness. - Romans 4:1-5 > This only would I learn of you, Received ye the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith? Are ye so foolish? having begun in the Spirit, are ye now made perfect by the flesh? Have ye suffered so many things in vain? if it be yet in vain. He therefore that ministereth to you the Spirit, and worketh miracles among you, doeth he it by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith? Even as Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness. - Galatians 3:2-6 Does Reformed Theology (RT) assert that God made/caused/enabled Abraham to believe the promise God made in a primary fashion? What I mean is, one might say that the giving of a promise creates an opportunity for the choice to believe without directly causing that belief to occur in the same way that the prohibition in the Garden of Eden created an opportunity for Adam to choose but God didn't make Adam disobey. I think that RT affirms the latter (please correct me if I'm wrong). Does RT reject the former and assert that Abraham in no way would or could have believed unless God enabled/gave that ability to him? If yes (which I am sort of expecting) then a good answer will explain why real choice occurred in Genesis 3 but not in Genesis 15 and also whether God activated something latent in Abraham or gave him something brand new. In other words, did Adam's ability to make an actual choice disappear from humanity, go dormant, or something else? Bonus points for explaining (if yes) why Abraham's first act with his God-given faith was to ask for proof of God's re-iteration of his promise from Genesis 12:7. If God gave Abraham faith to believe (which Abraham played no part in), why was it a faith that doubted? > And he said unto him, I am the LORD that brought thee out of Ur of the Chaldees, to give thee this land to inherit it. And he said, Lord GOD, whereby shall I know that I shall inherit it? - Genesis 15:7-8

In providing a Reformed Theology answer to a question on God's sovereignty, [@Sampson writes](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/4102/10672) : >Further, God's decree does not strive against man's will, in that man is forced into doing all that God decrees man will do, but instead man's will is determined by the decree. We willingly do that which God has decreed we will do (yet not necessarily that which God has prescribed). From a Reformed Theology point of view, what is the difference between "decreed" and "prescribed"? **Answer** I have extracted the following from Anne's answer - "Decreed" is God's unavoidable will. "Prescribed" is the rules God gives to men to follow. So, it goes like this - God gives mankind a rule to follow. God decrees that "John" will violate that rule. God arranges that John's free will cause him to violate the rule (sin). John's free will causes him to sin. God punishes John for this sin. God is not the author of sin.

In Reformed teaching, how can we discern when a doctrine is genuinely grounded in Scripture versus when we’ve gone beyond what the text actually says (1 Cor 4:6)? As a lay student seeking to handle God’s Word reverently, how can I develop the habit of distinguishing between what Scripture explicitly states and what comes from common assumptions or inherited interpretations—so that I do not “go beyond what is written,” especially on topics that the Bible addresses only briefly or selectively, particularly from a Reformed view?

In some Reformed/Calvinist circles, a theological framework called the [Federal Vision](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Vision) (FV) has led to significant internal debate over the true nature of the covenant between God and man, and, by extension, the role of faith and works in justification and salvation more generally. I'm currently reading a book by an FV opponent, David J. Engelsma, called [*Federal Vision: Heresy at the Root*](https://books.google.com/books?id=SqTGMQEACAAJ) . In chapter 6 he seems ready to address the following challenge: > Some of the proponents of the federal vision are decisional regenerationists; others hold to presupposed regeneration. How can you say that both hold to the same view of the covenant? But Engelsma's response does not shed much light on the difference between these views – he simply continues to group them together and critiques FV more generally. That's less than satisfying, so my question here is: **according to FV proponents, what are the perceived differences between decisional regeneration and presupposed regeneration views?** What impact do these differences have on the doctrine of the covenant held by different FV proponents?

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've been told that it's rare to find someone who combines Dispensationalism and Reformed/Calvinistic doctrine (such as John MacArthur). Why is this? What ideas don't mesh well?

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?

In the 1800s there were movements which aimed at recovering the Unity of the Body of Christ, which movements separated from denominational allegiances to found something better : >Several movements originated around 1830, seeking spiritual renewal and purer fellowship. The Strict Baptists took shape as a distinct body; those associated with Edward Irving formed churches governed by apostles and claiming a restoration of the spiritual gifts and ministries mentioned in the New Testament (they were later known as the Catholic Apostolic Church); what became known as Anglo-Catholicism took shape in the Church of England; and the Brethren came into existence. > >Their earliest meetings were in Ireland (Dublin especially) and Plymouth (giving rise to the designation ‘Plymouth Brethren’). Their aim was to provide a fellowship in which all true believers could worship together, gathered round the Lord’s Table, and study the Scriptures without being divided by differing denominational allegiances. Brethren History.org None of these movements seems to have achieved their objective, the Brethren having formed several 'exclusive' groups and a loosely affiliated 'open' following which does not have the coherence that the original Plymouth movement sought. My question is whether the Reformed tradition feels that they have achieved what Brethrenism sought in the 1800s. Setting aside the clear distinction between Reformed Presbyterianism (which holds to infant baptism) and Reformed Baptists (who hold to adult baptism) is the Reformed movement as a whole, in the opinion of its Leaders, a suitable expression of the Unity of the Body of Christ ? I am not asking for opinions of individuals, I am strictly seeking what the *Leaders of the Reformed movement* express in regard to their own quest for the Unity of the Holy Spirit and for the Unity of the Body of Christ.

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.

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?**