The Translation of οὐρανός (ouranos) in the Phrase “New Heavens and New Earth”: An Appeal for Consistency

1. New Heavens Article

Where will believers be spending eternity? Will it be in heaven? Or will it be in a new creation – on a new or renewed earth? One of the key phrases in the New Testament that describe where believers will be spending eternity is the phrase “new heavens and new earth” – or some variation of that phrase.

But what does the phrase “new heavens and new earth” actually mean? While it is difficult to imagine that there would be any difficulty with understanding the second part of the phrase (i.e. “new earth”), there is quite a bit of confusion – at least on a popular level – about what the first part of the phrase means (i.e. “new heavens”).

Some of this is due, no doubt, to an inherited tradition that says that believers will be spending eternity in heaven. But part of the blame, no doubt, has to do with how this phrase is translated in most English translations of the New Testament. In most English translations of the New Testament, this phrase is translated as “a new heaven and a new earth” – or something along those lines.

The key issue here is how the word οὐρανός (ouranos, “heaven, heavens”) should be translated. Should it be translated as “heaven” or should it be translated as “heavens”? While the difference in English, at least from the point of view of spelling, is only an s, the presence or absence of that s makes a tremendous amount of difference in terms of how this phrase is understood – or at least in terms of how this phrase should be understood.

The focus of this post will be on how the NIV, both in the 1984 edition and the 2011 edition, translates the phrase “new heavens and new earth”.[1] The same post could have been written about any number of English translations of the New Testament, but the NIV is a useful version to work with because it is so widely used and because the phrase “new heavens and new earth” is translated quite well when it appears in the Old Testament (Isa. 65:17; 66:2). However, in my opinion, it is translated incorrectly in the two places it appears in the New Testament. This article, in many ways, is an appeal for consistency: the translators of the New Testament should follow the example of the translators of the Old Testament in how they translate the phrase “new heavens and new earth”.

1.  Heaven vs. Heavens in English: What’s the Difference?

We can begin by asking the question – what difference does it make if the word heaven has an s at the end of it or not? In other words, what is the difference between the words heaven and heavens in English?

According to the Oxford English Dictionary, the word heaven without an s refers to “a place regarded in various religions as the abode of God (or the gods) and the angels, and of the good after death, often traditionally depicted as being above the sky.”[2] The word heavens, on the other hand, refers to “the sky, especially perceived as a vault in which the sun, moon, stars, and planets are situated.”[3]

The Cambridge English Dictionary has similar definitions. Heaven without an s is “the place, sometimes imagined to be in the sky, where God or the gods live and where good people are believed to go after they die, so that they can enjoy perfect happiness.”[4] For the word heavens or the heavens, they simply put “sky” as the definition.

It seems clear then, in English, that the word heaven without an s refers to the place where God lives while the word heavens refers to the sky or, more specifically, anything that human beings can see when they look up into the sky.

This leads us, then, to the problem that we’re dealing with in this article, namely, how the NIV translates the word οὐρανός (ouranos, “heaven, heavens”) in the phrase “new heavens and new earth” when it appears in the New Testament. The phrase “new heavens and new earth,” or some variation of that phrase, appears in two passages that are key (or, at least, should be key) for understanding what the New Testament has to say about the final state of believers: 2 Peter 3:13 and Revelation 21:1. The two passages read as follows:

2 Peter 3:13 – But in keeping with his promise we are looking forward to a new heaven and a new earth, where righteousness dwells. (NIV)

Revelation 21:1 – Then I saw “a new heaven and a new earth,” for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away, and there was no longer any sea. (NIV)

Notice that in both passages, the word οὐρανός (ouranos, “heaven, heavens”) is translated as heaven without an s, which would indicate that the word οὐρανός (ouranos, “heaven, heavens”) refers to the place where God lives. So, according to the NIV (whether intended or not), not only will God create a new earth in the final state, he will also create a new heaven. But is this really what the word οὐρανός (ouranos, “heaven, heavens”) refers to in these passages?

2. Does οὐρανς (ouranos, “heaven, heavens”) Refer to the Place Where God Lives in 2 Peter 3:13 and Revelation 21:1?

Despite the NIV’s translation of οὐρανός (ouranos, “heaven, heavens”) as heaven in 2 Peter 3:13 and Revelation 21:1, there can be little doubt that the word οὐρανός (ouranos, “heaven, heavens”) actually refers to the skies or anything that human beings can see when they look up at the skies in these passages. This can be seen for at least three reasons:

(a) First, it can be seen from the origins of the phrase “new heavens and new earth”. While the phrase “new heavens and new earth” was clearly borrowed from Isaiah 65:17 and 66:22, which will be discussed under the next point, the ultimate origin for the phrase “new heavens and new earth” is Genesis 1:1.

In Genesis 1:1, it says, “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” (NIV) The word heavens in this case, as the Old Testament translators of the NIV recognized, refers to the skies or, more specifically, anything that can be seen by human beings when they look up into the skies. Genesis 1:1-2:3 (or thereabouts) is the account of how God made the skies and the earth and then filled them. This is the first creation, the creation that was corrupted by sin in Genesis 3. In Revelation 21:1, God is making a new creation: he is taking the old creation – what the NIV (wrongly) calls the first heaven and the first earth – and he is making something new, reversing the devastating effects that sin had on the old creation.

In this context, it is understandable why God would have to make new heavens: the old heavens and the old earth (i.e. the original creation) had been corrupted by the effects of sin (Rom. 8:22) and needed to be made new. But why on earth (pun intended) would God need to make a new heaven (i.e. the place where he lives)? Was that place corrupted by sin? Was that place in need of restoration for the final state?

The origin of the phrase “new heavens and new earth” in Genesis 1:1 shows quite strongly that the word οὐρανός (ouranos, “heaven, heavens”) in 2 Peter 3:13 and both occurrences of the word in Revelation 21:1 should be translated heavens.

b) Second, it can be seen by how the phrase “new heavens and new earth” is translated by the NIV in Isaiah 65:17 and 66:22. Notice how the word שָׁמַ֫יִם (shamayim, “heaven, heavens”) is translated in these passages:

Isaiah 65:17 – “See, I will create new heavens and a new earth. The former things will not be remembered, nor will they come to mind.” (NIV)

Isaiah 66:22 – “As the new heavens and the new earth that I make will endure before me,” declares the LORD, “so will your name and descendants endure.” (NIV)

Why does the NIV translate the word שָׁמַ֫יִם (shamayim, “heaven, heavens”) as heavens in both of these passages? It is not because the word שָׁמַ֫יִם (shamayim) is not in the singular: the word שָׁמַ֫יִם (shamayim) is virtually always found in this form, regardless of whether or not it refers to heaven or the heavens. The reason שָׁמַ֫יִם (shamayim) is translated as heavens in these passages is likely due to the fact that the Old Testament translators of the NIV recognized the connection with Genesis 1:1 and simply have a good understanding of Hebrew idiom. In Isaiah 65:17 and 66:22 it is clear that God is making new heavens and a new earth, a new creation to replace the old one.

In this regard, it is interesting that the NIV puts quotation marks around the phrase “a new heaven and a new earth,” in Revelation 21:1, indicating that it is a quotation or an allusion to Isaiah 65:17. If the phrase is translated new heavens and new earth in Isaiah 65:17, wouldn’t consistency demand that it be translated the same way in Revelation 21:1? The only reason for translating it differently would be if Greek idiom required that οὐρανός (ouranos, “heaven, heavens”) be translated as heaven in Revelation 21:1 rather than heavens (see discussion below).

c) Third, the context of 2 Peter 3:13 should make it clear that οὐρανός (ouranos, “heaven, heavens”) should be translated as heavens rather than heaven. The word οὐρανός (ouranos) occurs a total of five times in 2 Peter 3 (vv. 5, 7, 10, 12, 13). In every instance except for 3:13, the NIV translates οὐρανός (ouranos) as heavens. Why? Because the context demands it:

2 Peter 3:5 – But they deliberately forget that long ago by God’s word the heavens came into being and the earth was formed out of water and by water. (NIV)

2 Peter 3:7 – By the same word the present heavens and earth are reserved for fire, being kept for the day of judgment and destruction of the ungodly. (NIV)

2 Peter 3:10 – But the day of the Lord will come like a thief. The heavens will disappear with a roar; the elements will be destroyed by fire, and the earth and everything done in it will be laid bare. (NIV)

2 Peter 3:12b – That day will bring about the destruction of the heavens by fire, and the elements will melt in the heat. (NIV)

But after translating the word οὐρανός (ouranos) so consistently as heavens throughout the entire passage, the translators shift inexplicably to the word heaven in verse 13. The context, however, as the NIV itself makes perfectly clear, demands that the word οὐρανός (ouranos) be translated as heavens.

It should be clear, then, that the word οὐρανός (ouranos) in both 2 Peter 3:13 and Revelation 21:1 should be translated as heavens (i.e. the sky) rather than heaven (i.e. the place where God lives).

3. Does Greek Idiom Require that οὐρανς (ouranos) be Translated as Heaven in 2 Peter 3:13 or Revelation 21:1?

But before we can come to a final conclusion, we need to ask whether or not there is anything in the Greek text of 2 Peter 3:13 or Revelation 21:1 that would demand that the word οὐρανός (ouranos) be translated as heaven rather than heavens.

The Greek texts of these two passages read as follows:

2 Peter 3:13 – καινοὺς δὲ οὐρανοὺς καὶ γῆν καινὴν κατὰ τὸ ἐπάγγελμα αὐτοῦ προσδοκῶμεν ἐν οἷς δικαιοσύνη κατοικεῖ.

Revelation 21:1 – Καὶ εἶδον οὐρανὸν καινὸν καὶ γῆν καινήν. ὁ γὰρ πρῶτος οὐρανὸς καὶ ἡ πρώτη γῆ ἀπῆλθαν καὶ ἡ θάλασσα οὐκ ἔστιν ἔτι

The most significant thing to point out on a grammatical level is that the word οὐρανός (ouranos) appears in the plural in 2 Peter 3:13 while in in Revelation 21:1 it appears in the singular.

It should be noted, however, that the issue of whether or not the word οὐρανός (ouranos) is in the singular or in the plural has no bearing on how these words should be understood in 2 Peter 3:13 or Revelation 21:1. There is no one-to-one correspondence between οὐρανός (ouranos) in the plural and heavens with an s in English or οὐρανός (ouranos) in the singular and heaven without the s in English. In other words, the fact that οὐρανός (ouranos) appears in the plural in 2 Peter 3:13 and in the singular in Revelation 21:1 has no bearing on how the word is translated into English.

The word οὐρανός (ouranos) in the singular can refer both to the place where God lives (e.g. Mark 13:32) or the skies (e.g. Heb. 11:12). Similarly, the word οὐρανός (ouranos) in the plural can refer both to the place where God lives (e.g. Mark 11:25) or the skies (e.g. Heb. 1:10).[5] How these forms are translated into English depends on the context where the words are used. As we have already seen, the contexts of 2 Peter 3:13 and Revelation 21:1 demand that οὐρανός (ouranos) be translated as heavens rather than heaven.

Conclusion

Based on these observations it should be clear that the word οὐρανός (ouranos) in 2 Peter 3:13 and Revelation 21:1 should be translated as heavens rather than heaven. This is based on the distinction between heaven and heavens in English, the fact that οὐρανός (ouranos) clearly refers to the skies in both 2 Peter 3:13 and Revelation 21:1, and the fact that if the NIV were consistent in its translation (i.e. if οὐρανός [ouranos] in 2 Peter 3:13 were translated in the same way as the other five uses in the same chapter and if Revelation 21:21 were translated in line with Isaiah 65:17 and 66:22), it would translate οὐρανός (ouranos) as heavens in both passages. The passages would then read as follows:

2 Peter 3:13 – But in keeping with his promise we are looking forward to new heavens and a new earth, where righteousness dwells.

Revelation 21:1 – Then I saw “new heavens and a new earth,” for the first heavens and the first earth had passed away, and there was no longer any sea.

Where, then, will believers be spending eternity? On a new earth. The word heavens in the phrase “new heavens and new earth” simply refers to what believers will see when they look into the sky. When John saw news heavens and a new earth he was saying that he saw a new creation, one that would supersede the one that was made in Genesis 1:1, which, though good, was damaged by sin.

So, for those responsible for translating the NIV (or other versions that have the same or similar issues), it is well worth taking another look at 2 Peter 3:13 and Revelation 21:1 to see if the current translation communicates what was intended by the authors of these verses.

Mark Steven Francois (Ph.D. Graduand, University of St. Michael’s College)

[1] Note that the same problems occur in the 1984 version of the NIV.

[2] https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/heaven

[3] Ibid.

[4] http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/heaven

[5] The use of singular vs. plural seems, in many cases, to be purely stylistic. Matthew and Hebrews, for example, prefer plurals whereas Mark and Luke/Acts prefer the singular.

Thesis Abstract

Website Picture - Thesis

For those of you who are interested in knowing a little bit more about what my dissertation was about (you might regret it!), I’ve posted the abstract for the dissertation below.  The full dissertation will be available on T-Space (University of Toronto) by December.  My plan is to revise it and then publish it in the next year or two.

Abstract:

This study concludes that only three passages from Deuteronomy 28 have a close historical relationship with curses from the Succession Treaty or Loyalty Oath of Esarhaddon (EST): Deuteronomy 28:23-24 (EST 528-533), Deuteronomy 28:53-57 (EST 448-451), and, more tentatively, Deuteronomy 28:25a,26-33 (EST 419-430). A comparison of curses in multilingual texts shows that while some change can occur when curses are translated from one linguistic, cultural, or religious context to another, curses with a close historical relationship to each other are connected through clusters of concrete anchor points including cognate vocabulary, lexical equivalents, similar modes of expression, similar imagery, and shared subject matter. Based on the absence of clusters of concrete anchor points, significant differences in both content and subject matter, and the fact that these differences cannot be adequately explained by normal changes that occur when curses are translated from one linguistic, cultural, or religious context to another, EST 472-493 (=§56) and Deuteronomy 28:20-44, EST 418a-c and Deuteronomy 28:34-35, as well as most of the freestanding parallels between EST and Deuteronomy 28 cannot be said to have a close historical relationship with each other. Based on the fact that Deuteronomy 28:23-24 preserves an earlier form of the curses in EST 528-533 as well as on signs of interference from one or more mediating sources in Deuteronomy 28:27-29, the most likely explanations for the remaining parallels are a mediated non-vertical genetic relationship or a close common tradition. Based on evidence that Deuteronomy 28:25a,26 and 28:30-33 might not, in fact, have a close historical relationship with EST, the best explanation for the parallels between EST and Deuteronomy 28 is a close common tradition. Based on either possibility, attempts to interpret Deuteronomy 28 or the wider context of Urdeuteronomium on the basis of EST are generally misguided.

(c) Copyright by Mark Steven Francois 2017

Ecclesiastical Latin Practice Sheets

Latin Practice Sheets

I have just posted practice sheets for the first, second, and third (“ō” type and “-iō” type), and fourth conjugation verbs in Latin (https://markfrancois.wordpress.com/language-resources/).  The reason I use these practice sheets rather than simply writing my paradigms on a blank piece of paper is that it’s very easy to forget which words I normally use for my paradigm words.  These sheets provide a convenient template for reviewing these verbs.  Answers for the practice sheets can be found in John F. Collins, A Primer of Ecclesiastical Latin (Washington D.C.: The Catholic University of America Press, 1985), 377-88.  Enjoy!

 

New Testament Greek Review Template: Noun Declensions

greek-practice-sheets

I have just posted noun declension practice sheets for New Testament Greek (https://markfrancois.wordpress.com/language-resources/).  The practice sheets provide a template for reviewing first, second, and third declension nouns.  Years ago when I was reviewing Ecclesiastical Latin, one of the main problems I had was that I would always forget which words were used in the textbook for practising paradigms, which made it very difficult to practise paradigms when I didn’t have my textbook handy.  This practice sheet provides the paradigm words used in David Alan Black, Learn to Read New Testament Greek (3rd ed.; Nashville, Tennessee: B&H Academic, 2009), 28, 35-36, 117-18, at the top of each chart and provides space to fill in the entire paradigm.  Answers for the practice sheets can be found on the pages listed above.

New Testament Greek Review Template: The Indicative Mood (Regular)

greek-practice-sheets

I have just posted practice sheets for the indicative mood of the regular verb for New Testament Greek (https://markfrancois.wordpress.com/language-resources/).  The practice sheets provide a template for reviewing the verb λύω according to the six principle parts.  In my opinion, this is the easiest way to review the indicative mood.  Answers for the practice sheets can be found in David Alan Black, Learn to Read New Testament Greek (3rd ed.; Nashville, Tennessee: B&H Academic, 2009), 112-13.

Practice Sheets for the Syriac Alphabet

syriac-practice-sheets

I have just posted practice sheets for the Syriac alphabet on the Syriac Grammar page on Between the Perfect and the Doomed (https://markfrancois.wordpress.com/syriac-grammar/).  These letters are in the Estrangela script and show how letters are written when they are not attached to other letters.

There are three main scripts that are used to write Syriac: the Estrangela script, the Serto script (also referred to as the Jacobite script), and the Nestorian script.  The Estrangela script is the oldest script and is the script used in most scholarly editions of Syriac texts, including the Leiden Syriac Peshitta (the standard critical edition of the Syriac Old Testament) and the various writings in the Corpus Scriptorum Christianorum Orientalium series (e.g. works of Ephrem the Syrian, Syriac historical chronicles, etc.).  It is also the script used in Sokoloff’s A Syriac Lexicon (i.e. the updated version of Brockelmann’s Lexicon Syriacum).

The Estrangela script is a semi-cursive script, meaning that many of the letters are joined together to allow for continuous writing.  However, in certain situations the various letters of the Estrangela script will appear unattached and sometimes have a form that looks different from the form they would normally take when attached to other letters.  If you are learning Syriac, it is important to master these unattached forms.

While the Estrangela script can be written with a normal pen or pencil, you may want to purchase a calligraphy pen/marker in order to make the lines thinner or thicker when needed.  I use a Tombow calligraphy pen.

For those of you who know Hebrew, the fonts used for the Estrangela script are basically identical with how they look in manuscripts.  This is quite different from Hebrew where handwritten letters often look somewhat different from how they appear in printed editions of the Hebrew Bible.  This means that you will have little difficulty reading actual Syriac manuscripts if you master this script.  It also means that your own writing has the potential to look like Syriac writing as it appears in manuscripts.

Just a quick note.  Not everyone forms letters in the Estrangela script in the same sequence that I do for every letter of the alphabet, though most will be the same.  I have chosen this particular order because it allows my letters to be neater and, in the forms that are identical to how they look when they are attached to other letters, they allow the letters to be connected to the next letters more easily.

Enjoy!

 

What Does It Mean To Be Reformed?

reformed

A couple of days ago I listened to a very interesting episode of Mortification of Spin, a podcast for the Alliance of Confessional Evangelicals, about the tenth anniversary of the Young, Restless, and Reformed movement or, at least, the article that gave the name to that movement.

One of the most interesting parts of the discussion was whether or not the Young, Restless, and Reformed movement is really “Reformed” and the clear answer that they gave to that question was, as one “Reformed” theologian would put it, “Nein!”

Well, the issue of what actually makes a person “Reformed” is a pretty familiar topic but I thought that I would add my two cents.  But, instead of dealing with the criteria that they offered in the podcast, I thought it would be interesting to look at three fairly well-established ways that the term “Reformed” has been used (realizing that there are others, of course!) to show that the issue of who is and who is not Reformed is a little bit more complicated than most people think.

1. A Church Body That Holds to the Three Forms of Unity

So here’s the first definition for what it means to be Reformed: a Reformed Church is a church body holds to the Three Forms of Unity. Just in case you aren’t familiar with the Three Forms of Unity, the Three Forms of Unity are the doctrinal statements that are traditionally held by churches in the Dutch Reformed tradition: the Heidelberg Catechism, the Belgic Confession, and the Canons of Dort. In Canada and the United States, if a church is named _________ Reformed Church, you can usually assume that it is a historically Dutch church that holds (or, at least, historically held) to the Three Forms of Unity.

So in this sense, it would be strange for a Baptist or some other type of generic evangelical to refer to themselves as Reformed since I personally don’t know of any Baptist churches that use the Three Forms of Unity or even a modification of the Three Forms of Unity as their official doctrinal statement. And if they were to call themselves “_________ Reformed Church” and put that on their sign, I think that most people would end up being pretty confused.[1]

But, in this sense, it could also be said that Presbyterians aren’t really Reformed either because they hold to the Westminster Confession of Faith and the Larger and Shorter Catechisms rather than the Three Forms of Unity. In a Canadian or American context, if a Presbyterian Church put “__________ Reformed Church” on their church sign it would be just as confusing as a Baptist Church doing the same thing.  Of course, one could argue that the Westminster Standards have essentially the same doctrine as the Three Forms of Unity (which isn’t quite the case).  But, still, if a church was called “___________ Reformed Church,” most people would be surprised if they found out it was a Presbyterian Church.  What about the term “Reformed Presbyterian”?   Well, that just sounds really strange in my ear.

It should be kept in mind, though, that this first understanding of “Reformed” makes most sense in a Canadian or American context because of their very large number of Dutch immigrants that came to both countries. There are other Reformed Churches in Europe who use the term “Reformed” in their names but have historically only held to the Heidelberg Catechism and/or the Second Helvetic Confession.  But we can leave them out for the moment since those churches don’t have as strong of a presence in the United States of Canada (assuming that most people who read this are from those contexts).

 2. A Church Body That Historically Held to the Three Forms of Unity

This second definition is related to the first one. In this case, “Reformed” can refer to a church body that looks back to the Three Forms of Unity as their traditional doctrinal standard but don’t hold to it in any real sense of the term.

Let me give you one example of a “Reformed” theologian that falls into this category. For those of you who know me, you may or may not know this but I’m Dutch (well, part Frisian and part Dutch) on my mother’s side.  My mom’s maiden name is Kuitert.  Well, we have a very, very, very distant cousin named Harry Kuitert (we have a Kuitert family tree website in Dutch that goes pretty far back: http://www.kuitert.kuitert.info/Tjalling%20kwartierstaat%20met%20frame.htm). Harry Kuitert is considered to be a Reformed theologian. He was a professor of theology at the Free University of Amsterdam until 1989 and was actually the successor of G. C. Berkouwer. However, Harry Kuitert denies the deity of Christ, which means that he obviously doesn’t hold to the Three Forms of Unity anymore.  And I’m sure there are many other areas where he disagrees with the Three Forms of Unity. However, he is still considered by many to be a Reformed theologian because he was part of a church that historically held to the Three Forms of Unity.

Something similar can be said of Karl Barth. Karl Barth came from the Swiss Reformed tradition and is usually referred to as a “Reformed” theologian because of the church that he came from. I have to admit, I was taken aback the first time I heard Karl Barth being referred to as a “Reformed” theologian.  But that’s how people refer to him in academic theology.

3. A Church Body That Holds To a Non-Miraculous View of the Sacraments

This final definition will probably get the most objections from all sorts of different angles (and I’m very well aware of how poorly formulated this definition is) but here it is: a Reformed Church is a church body that holds to a non-miraculous view of baptism and the Lord’s Supper.

Now I better pause here and define what I mean by “non-miraculous”. By non-miraculous I mean (a) that they don’t believe in the physical body of Christ being present in the Lord’s Supper and (b) that they don’t believe in baptismal regeneration. Again, I’m aware that “non-miraculous” is probably not the best word to use since (a) Calvin’s view of the Lord’s Supper probably wouldn’t be seen as non-miraculous by its adherents and (b) some historically Reformed beliefs about baptism border on baptismal regeneration for babies who also happen to be elect.

However, from a confessional Lutheran perspective, the term “non-miraculous” fits the bill. In this sense, “Reformed” means to hold to a non-Roman Catholic or non-Lutheran view of the Lord’s Supper and Baptism (restricting ourselves to forms of Christianity that historically have its base in Western Europe). In other words, if you’re not Roman Catholic and you’re not Lutheran, you’re Reformed. The issue here is not which confession of faith you hold to or whether or not you believe in a certain view of predestination/election: the issue is how you view the sacraments.

Now, of course, there would be very few people who call themselves “Reformed” who would define the term “Reformed” in this way, but it makes quite a bit of sense historically.  And even though there are other differences that separate confessional Lutherans from the Reformed (i.e. what is allowable in worship, the form of worship, the relationship between the covenants, church government), historically the most important difference is their views on the sacraments. And I would argue that at least some of these differences stem from differing views of the sacraments, but that is another issue. But the reality is that the sacraments, specifically the Lord’s Supper, were the main point of division between Lutherans and the Reformed during the early years of the Protestant Reformation and, from a confessional Lutheran perspective, still is.

Conclusion

So what does it mean to be Reformed? Well, it depends on who you’re asking and in what context. But I think it’s safe to say that defining “Reformed” as “adhering to the five points of Calvinism,” “believing in a Calvinistic view of election,” or “having a high view of God’s sovereignty” is a relatively new innovation. That’s one reason why Lutherans scratch their heads when people today call Martin Luther a Calvinist or believe that Lutherans today are Calvinists too. I think we can understand what they mean by that– it has to do with a belief in the bondage of the will (i.e. total depravity) and unconditional election – but it still doesn’t make any sense. Perhaps the day will come when the term “Reformed” is universally understood to mean what it means in the term “Young, Restless, and Reformed,” but it is not this day.  So, for at least some in the Young, Restless, and Reformed movement, I would add my “Nein” to the hosts of the Mortification of Spin.

[1] I think the term “Reformed Baptist” is getting close to being established enough for people to understand what that term means. Usually “Reformed Baptist” means “adhering to the 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith,” a Baptist confession of faith based on the Westminster Confession of Faith.