I think the phrase has some value - in the sense of being continually responding to God’s transforming word. But not in the sense of recruiting the magisterial reformation into any church disagreement.

I haven’t seen the book myself (the only copy in existence that I know of is in the Amsterdam University library), and when I lived in Holland it was not something I was looking into, although it came up recently in work in a completely different context, which is why I have spent some time chasing it down.

But as for context…I suspect (and there is a great deal of evidence for this suspicion) that it originates out of the Federal vs. Puritan controversies of the 1650s and 60s. Koelman (who was of the ‘Puritan’ variety) likely was arguing that the Federal Theology of Johannes Coccejus was a form of heterodoxy (if not outright heresy) that needed “reforming” (read: purging).

Best guess.

Can you tell us some of the context for which he coined the phrase? I’m fantasizing, that rather than it being something like “let’s rethink the Trinity,” the conversation may have been something like:

“Gentlemen, I move that we change the tap in the church basement to Heinekken.”

“Outrageous! We’ve always used Grolsch.”

“Ja, but… ecclesia reformata semper reformanda.”

On a more serious note… has your research uncovered any Lutheran, Roman, or Eastern theologian that would refer to his own church as ecclesia reformata?

The *point* of the phrase (which is properly translated as ‘the church reformed and always reforming’) is that even though there had been a reformation, the church is *always* in danger of straying (and indeed does stray) and thus needs always to be called back to the Word of God. In this sense, ‘church’ does not mean specifically the “Reformed Church” but simply the Church of Christ on Earth.

[Go here and] Put them on you iPod. It’s a steal for around 40 bucks.