In my last post, I mentioned a conversation that I had with a fellow Minister in Chicago yesterday. And, within an hour and a half of conversation, we discussed several topics (one being the basis of the article below). But perhaps the most interesting part of our conversation dealt with the need--if any--of Reformed Theology in the church today.
In one of his comments, he mentioned, "that a church does not need to be Reformed, but it can be Biblical". Now, being a Reformed believer and knowing wholeheartedly that Reformed Theology is Biblical Theology, one has to wonder how such a claim can be made?
For instance, if Reformed Theology teaches that God elects men to salvation before the foundation of the world, and Scripture teaches the same (Ephesians 1:4; 2 Thessalonians 2:13), and any other system teaches the opposite--that would make that system unbiblical right? If Reformed Theology teaches that Christ's death was for a particular people, and the Scriptures support that claim (Matthew 1:21; John 10:11) , then wouldn't another system of belief be unbiblical? Finally (because I can go on forever with this), if Reformed Theology teaches that God is Sovereign and the Scriptures do as well (Isaiah 46:10; Daniel 4:32), then wouldn't anything else be unbiblical?
Now obviously, I may come off as biased here, but I truly believe that Reformed Theology is THE theology of the Bible, and I have the Scriptures and church history to prove it. So, for someone to believe that there are alternate truths out there that can conflict with the theology and still be right, is erroneous, or--dare I say--unbiblical!!!!!!!