Why Reformed Soteriology Matters - by Keith Mathison

Found here. Our comments in bold.

------------------

We have commented on some of the author's other articles, and without exception we have also found them to be obtuse and uninformative. 

There are times when the author is completely inscrutable. He uses terminology he doesn't explain, refers to the theology of others but doesn't explain, and quite simply, doesn't actually explain anything. Nothing. 

Plus, he quotes but a single Scripture, one that doesn't explain his presentation. On that basis we must deem this Bad Bible Teaching.

He does provide a quote from the Canons of Dordt. So that the reader understands, Centuries ago, Reformed/Calvinistic theologians gathered together in something called the Synod of Dordt to refute the teachings of a theologian named Arminius. The Canons of Dordt were the defenses of Calvinistic/Reformed doctrine and the refutations of Arminius. In addition, Arminius was declared a heretic.

--------------------------

As we have seen throughout this short series of articles, maintaining a biblically faithful soteriology (Undefined word. For the benefit of the reader, soteriology is the study of salvation. However, the author will never explain the "biblically faithful" view of the study of salvation.)

is not something that can be taken for granted. In the Old Testament, many Israelites misunderstood the nature of the Mosaic covenant (Undefined term.)

and fell into a legalistic understanding of salvation. Others fell into blatant idolatry. During his ministry, Paul expressed amazement at how quickly those whom he himself had taught were turning away to a different gospel (Gal. 1:6).

In the early church, Pelagianism and semi-Pelagianism (Undefined terms.)

became a problem that never truly disappeared. (Why were they a problem? Please explain.)

Even though both were initially condemned, by the time we reach the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, semi-Pelagianism was the dominant view, and some were flirting with full-blown Pelagianism. Under the influence of various pagan ideas, salvation began to be understood in terms of an elevation of human nature that was accomplished through the administration of the sacraments (Undefined term. What are the sacraments, and why are they relevant? Please explain.)

by the ordained priesthood of the Roman Catholic Church. This ecclesio- (?) 

sacerdotal (??) 

soteriological system (??? Three question marks regarding the terminology of a single phase. We hope the author improves.) 

completely replaced biblical soteriology over the course of the Middle Ages. (How and why did this happen? Please explain.

Please also explain the "biblical soteriology" that was lost.)

Today, the biblical doctrine of justification (What is this doctrine, and how does it connect to soteriology? Please explain.)

continues to come under attack and to be either rejected or revised. (Revised in what way? Please explain.)

1. Reformed soteriology matters because it maintains fidelity to biblical teaching. (That is, Reformed soteriology is biblical because it is Reformed soteriology. This is a tautology.)

This teaching emphasizes and insists on the differences between salvation by works and salvation by grace. (What are those differences? Please explain.)

It maintains a firm Augustinian (What is "Augustinian?")

rejection of Pelagian and semi-Pelagian ideas. (What are some of those ideas, and why should they be rejected? Please explain.)

It also rejected the ontological (?)

conception of justification (??)

that had crept into the Roman Catholic Church and returned to a biblically covenantal (???)

understanding of God’s redemptive grace. (????)

(Wow. We got up to four question marks on just this one sentence. What a mess it is.)

2. Reformed soteriology matters because it was rooted in decades of exhaustive and extensive exegetical labor by hundreds of Reformed theologians and ministers. (That is, there were lots of Reformed theologians who all agreed that Reformed soteriology was correct.)

It was not something that one random “influencer” proposed without thinking it through. (Is there some sort of non-reformed soteriology which was a product of a random, unthinking influencer? What is the nature of this non-reformed soteriology as compared to Reformed? Please explain.)

The decades of careful exegetical labors resulted in a comprehensive covenant theology (What is covenant theology? Wasn't the topic Reformed soteriology? Please explain.)

that made the difference between the pre-fall state and the post-fall state perfectly clear. (What are those differences? Please explain.)

It forced the church to remember the biblical distinction between works and grace and between the law and the gospel. (What are those relevant differences? Please explain.)

3. Reformed soteriology also matters because it is intimately connected with every other theological loci. (That is, Reformed soteriology cannot stand on its own, it needs an entire sympathetic Reformed theological framework to support it.

At this point we must ask, does the author use terminology to clarify and explain, or is he attempting to sound scholarly and deep? Really, no one uses the word "loci." Using the word does not clarify. It's actually pretentious and pompous.)

It maintains the biblical connections between the doctrine of the Trinity, the divine decree, creation, providence, the doctrine of man and the fall, the person and work of Christ, the application of salvation in the ordo salutis, (?? What is the ordo salutis, and how does that apply to all these other elements? Indeed, what are the crucial distinctions between these elements and completing soteriologies? How does Reformed soteriology impact all these areas? Please explain.)

the church and her sacraments, (The second appearance of this word, still undefined.)

and the last days.

Unlike Arminian soteriology, (The first and only use of this phrase. This is the first time the author directly admits to an alternative soteriology. So, what are the features of this soteriology, and how does it differ from reformed soteriology? Please explain.)

for example, Reformed soteriology doesn’t introduce incoherencies and self-contradictions into its system of theology. (What are those self-contradictions, and how does Reformed soteriology better maintain its coherence?)

It doesn’t have the Father intending one thing with regard to salvation and the Son intending something completely different. (Is this what Arminian soteriology does? Please explain. Oh. That's all he will tell us about this other soteriology.)

4. Ultimately, Reformed soteriology matters because the gospel matters.

All the sons and daughters of Adam and Eve are born dead in sin, enemies of God, and without hope unless God does something. But thanks be to God, He did do something in and through the person and work of Jesus Christ, and we are now called to proclaim this good news. Paul summarizes the good news in the first epistle to the Corinthians. It is the message

that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. Then he appeared to more than five hundred brothers at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles. (1 Cor. 15:3–7) (Hooray! Our first [an only] Scripture, though oddly, the author does not use it to demonstrate any aspect of Reformed soteriology.)

Jesus is the one way of salvation for lost humanity. No one comes to Father except through Him (John 14:6). (How does the author's explanation of point #4 differ from Arminianism? Please explain.)

As the Canons of Dordt explain: (We were forced to explain this at the beginning. The author has yet to explain anything.):

It is the promise of the gospel that whoever believes in Christ crucified shall not perish but have eternal life. This promise, together with the command to repent and believe, ought to be announced and declared to all nations and people, to whom God in his good pleasure sends the gospel. (Second Head of Doctrine, Art. V) (This seems to be pretty conventional. Does Arminianism differ in some way? Please explain. You're almost to the end and we have learned nothing.)

Reformed soteriology matters because it forces us to maintain this biblical gospel (Reformed soteriology is biblical and we presume Arminianism is not. But we don't know why. How is that so? Please explain.

Oh. he's done. He will not explain.)

and helps us to avoid the many pitfalls that have tempted the church throughout the centuries. (What pitfalls are those, and how does Reformed soteriology avoid them? Please explain. 

Oh...)

Soli Deo Gloria!