reformed

[msortwell]

Duplicate post deleted.

 

[msortwell]

Right. But our understanding of Scripture changes. Luther and Calvin differed from the Catholic church because of new scholarship on Scripture, particularly a better understanding of the original languages. In the 19th and 20th Cent we learned a lot about the Jewish context in the 1st Cent. The new astronomy and biology, together with archaeology and history have made clear what I think we should have known purely from exegetical grounds: that parts of the OT are not historical.

But part of it just time. The Reformers seriously evaluated some doctrines, but left others essentially unexamined. Their choice was based on the priorities of the Church at the time. In the centuries since, we've had a lot more time to reconsider things in light of Scripture, and to do a better job of separating out what is really mandated by Scripture, and what came from the culture in which early Christianity developed. It's hard to have a very detailed discussion of much of this because of CF rules.

If these changes don't change some aspects of our understanding of Scripture, we're not following in the footsteps of the Reformers, but turning the 16th Cent into a Protestant inerrant tradition.

So . . . Your position is, in part, that humanity has gained sufficient extra-biblical knowledge to conclude that some of the Bible does not mean what it says. Interesting.

 

[FireDragon76]

Sadly, I must confess that my favorite thing about God is that He saved me completely and irrevocably. My theology is God centered.

Isn't that a bit of a tautology? In theory, all theology is God centered.

 

[StillGods]

Jesus did not share your idea on this;
16 Jesus answered them, and said, My doctrine is not mine, but his that sent me.

17 If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself.

i should have clarified (although i would have thought what i meant may have been obvious but to specify... "Calvinist doctrine" has been a distraction away from God for me personally.

 

[StillGods]

i went to what i consider a more normal church recently and it was great... no being condescended to because i am not Calvinist in what i believe, there were no conversations where i feel like i'm being bludgeoned into being converted to Calvinism - i dont enjoy that side of Calvinism at all, it actually physically hurts my soul and i come away wanting to cry because my soul has been beaten up.

so it was really refreshing to simply worship God and listen to a normal challenging and encouraging sermon about Christian discipleship where verses were used in balance and not twisted to death to try and make them fit a Calvinist mindset. i'm sorry to those Calvinist in their leanings but its what happens sometimes in my opinion and so in good conscience i just cant sit longterm under teaching where that happens.

so it was so nice visiting the normal (imo) church, so nice to just be cared about.

 

[msortwell]

Isn't that a bit of a tautology? In theory, all theology is God centered.

Literally, you should be correct. However, I have found that much for what passes as Theology is so strongly influenced by a preoccupation with man/self that the correct focus upon God is lost. What I confess that I stumble into due to lack of mental discipline - a man/self centeredness - is argueably a cornerstone in some "theological" systems.

 

[FireDragon76]

Literally, you should be correct. However, I have found that much for what passes as Theology is so strongly influenced by a preoccupation with man/self that the correct focus upon God is lost. What I confess that I stumble into due to lack of mental discipline - a man/self centeredness - is argueably a cornerstone in some "theological" systems.

I believe this has more to do with the fact that Reformed theology is widespread in the US, due to historical factors, as an alternative to the generic pietism that American evangelicals tend to adopt, than a statement about other approaches to systematic theology.

A certain amount of "What does this matter to me/us?" is an inevitable consequence of theologizing in a world of actual human beings.

 

[hedrick]

The OP doesn’t say what denomination his bad experience was with. A lot of people today seem to be focusing more on TULIP than traditional Reformed denominations do.

It’s useful to ask why Calvin considered election important. The Calvin scholar McNeill said that if you go beyond the Institutes and look at Calvin’s wider work, it appears that for Calvin having God in control was a comfort, because it meant that he could be confident that everything that happened to him, no matter how bad it seemed at the moment, was a gift from God meant to help him. If God isn’t in control, it’s hard to make a statement like that.

I think a lot of Christians agree that God is in control, but feel that he can still allow individuals freedom. Calvinism tries to capture this understanding with compatibilism. I think compatibilism is sensible. It solves the problem of reconciling individual responsibility with ivine control. But it still leaves God choosing to damn certain people, or at least choosing a plan that has certain people damned. I don't think a Calvinist needs to say that God started out with a list of people he wanted to damn and set up his plan to do that. But even if you don't go that far, a lot of Christians have a problem with that.

Ultimately though, if God is omnipotent and omniscient it’s hard to see how you can avoid the concept that his plan includes the identifies of people saved and damned. The attempts to avoid Calvinism always seem to work in part by closing their eyes. The only logically successful attempts I know of challenge omnipotence, omniscience, or both, at least in practice. The mildest of these say that God knows everything that is knowable, but the future isn’t fully knowable. ("Always in motion, the future is.") Other open theists would say it's not that God isn't omnipotent, but that he limits use of his omnipotence to allow room for us to have responsibility.

The danger here, though, is that if God doesn’t have a specific plan, then statements about his long-term plans in Scripture begin to look a bit uncertain. But perhaps God has enough wisdom and power that he can bring any plausible future to the conclusion he wants, even if he doesn’t know exactly how the details are going to turn out.

But that approach does abandon, or at least limit, omniscience and omnipotence. Many people today are willing to do that. Calvin wasn’t, and many today aren’t either. At any rate, I maintain that the only coherent alternatives are individual election or open theism of some sort.

Scripture certainly shows that God is in control. It speaks of predestination in at least some sense. However it also says that God wants everyone to be saved, and doesn't teach predestination to damnation. It doesn't give the kind of philosophical explanation that both Calvinists and their objectors might like. But control on the broad level and not at detail seems the most consistent with Scripture.

Remember that at least in the US, the largest Reformed denominations are actually moderate or liberal. We're willing to consider some limitations to the level of detail of God's supervision.

 

[Mountainmanbob]

Even for the many, many years that I attended non reformed churches inside I was reformed. Once my wife and I found a Reformed Church and attended everything clicked together.
M-Bob

 

[Paidiske]

MOD HAT ON
This thread has had a clean.
Please consider that a desirably reformed posting style​

would refrain from further personal attacks, flaming or goading.​

MOD HAT OFF​

 

[kdm1984]

Reformed/Calvinism (while not exactly the same thing, are generally more or less interchangeable) is like every other Christian group/sect/denomination: it has its good and bad.

The good is they are very focused on seeking internal consistency of doctrine. In a world where there is a lot of lazy Antinomian theology and postmodern relativistic thinking being spewed about, and deluding the gullible masses, the more rigorous approach of the R/C can be very welcome. Indeed, in the NT, Paul made it clear that having sound doctrine is essential for believers. So Reformed/Calvinists are almost always very knowledgeable about the Bible, and we need that especially in our current age.

But knowledge, in and of itself, doesn't save.

The bad is that a great many Reformed/Calvinists, puffed up with knowledge, severely lack love and compassion for others, and as a result I have unequivocally observed them to be the most argumentative and smug of the organized sects/groups, refusing gentle compromise on even the most gray and disputable of matters (Romans 14). In the NT, Paul talks about those who would have all knowledge, but lack love, are like clanging cymbals. R/C frequently have been rightfully criticized for being haughty and pompous, constantly debating with people online, and posting the most arrogant, overwrought, and condescending of screeds. When people dismiss the Reformed/Calvinists, the R/C like to accuse the other party of denying truth. But that's not always why they irritate people: sometimes they refuse to accept that it's their fault for being the clanging cymbals Paul described. Speaking the truth in a more meek and common manner can work wonders, but R/C don't do it enough due to their pride.

By contrast, Christ was humble and used analogies to show people the Truth. He was also patient with His disciples, who frequently lacked understanding. He didn't kick them to the curb for not always "getting" His parables.

In short, by being obsessed with the -ologies of Christendom, the Reformed/Calvinists all too frequently forget that the greatest importance is Christ Himself being Savior. It doesn't take 25 seminary doctorates and left brain dominance to understand that; Peter himself was a simple man.

 

[redleghunter]

The bad is that a great many Reformed/Calvinists, puffed up with knowledge, severely lack love and compassion for others, and as a result I have unequivocally observed them to be the most argumentative and smug of the organized sects/groups, refusing gentle compromise on even the most gray and disputable of matters (Romans 14)

I love you therefore your subjective claim is called into question.

Grace and Peace.

 

[Apologetic_Warrior]

Reformed/Calvinism (while not exactly the same thing, are generally more or less interchangeable) is like every other Christian group/sect/denomination: it has its good and bad.

The good is they are very focused on seeking internal consistency of doctrine. In a world where there is a lot of lazy Antinomian theology and postmodern relativistic thinking being spewed about, and deluding the gullible masses, the more rigorous approach of the R/C can be very welcome. Indeed, in the NT, Paul made it clear that having sound doctrine is essential for believers. So Reformed/Calvinists are almost always very knowledgeable about the Bible, and we need that especially in our current age.

But knowledge, in and of itself, doesn't save.

The bad is that a great many Reformed/Calvinists, puffed up with knowledge, severely lack love and compassion for others, and as a result I have unequivocally observed them to be the most argumentative and smug of the organized sects/groups, refusing gentle compromise on even the most gray and disputable of matters (Romans 14). In the NT, Paul talks about those who would have all knowledge, but lack love, are like clanging cymbals. R/C frequently have been rightfully criticized for being haughty and pompous, constantly debating with people online, and posting the most arrogant, overwrought, and condescending of screeds. When people dismiss the Reformed/Calvinists, the R/C like to accuse the other party of denying truth. But that's not always why they irritate people: sometimes they refuse to accept that it's their fault for being the clanging cymbals Paul described. Speaking the truth in a more meek and common manner can work wonders, but R/C don't do it enough due to their pride.

By contrast, Christ was humble and used analogies to show people the Truth. He was also patient with His disciples, who frequently lacked understanding. He didn't kick them to the curb for not always "getting" His parables.

In short, by being obsessed with the -ologies of Christendom, the Reformed/Calvinists all too frequently forget that the greatest importance is Christ Himself being Savior. It doesn't take 25 seminary doctorates and left brain dominance to understand that; Peter himself was a simple man.

Logically your response is a fallacy called "poisoning the well". Emotionally character assassinations are at odds with the Christian principal of "turning the other cheek" and speaking evil of your brothers and sisters. Factually God is love, and true love and compassion comes from the Spirit of God, and Calvinists, the ones that have truly been saved, have the same Spirit of God working in them to do the good and perfect will of God. On another note, there are countless loving and compassionate people on the broad path leading to destruction. That is loving and compassionate so far as people go, and of course God knows every motivation and the impurity of them, and the conditional nature behind them. God will not be mocked or fooled by token words and actions of "love" and "compassion" from people expecting rewards.

 

[mark kennedy]

Thats not my experience, being knowldgable of Scripture is your best defense against error and establishment theology.

 

[msortwell]

Two points . . .

1. When I was a Baptist making my way toward a Reformed view, I found conservative Presbyterian (e.g., the OPC) very gracious.

2. Calvinism does not equate to Reformed. In my experience, reformed, generally equates to a Calvinist, holding to Covenant Theology.

 

[hedrick]

Logically your response is a fallacy called "poisoning the well". Emotionally character assassinations are at odds with the Christian principal of "turning the other cheek" and speaking evil of your brothers and sisters. Factually God is love, and true love and compassion comes from the Spirit of God, and Calvinists, the ones that have truly been saved, have the same Spirit of God working in them to do the good and perfect will of God. On another note, there are countless loving and compassionate people on the broad path leading to destruction. That is loving and compassionate so far as people go, and of course God knows every motivation and the impurity of them, and the conditional nature behind them. God will not be mocked or fooled by token words and actions of "love" and "compassion" from people expecting rewards.

You seem to be saying that Calvinists are the ones that have been truly saved. I trust you didn’t mean that exclusively.

I understand that no one is perfect, but you seem to be claiming that Calvinists are saved from that, and that their acts are done perfectly. My understanding of Calvinism is that even Calvinists are imperfect, and that justification isn’t based on perfection of actions, even a perfection coming from the Holy Spirit.

This posting actually seems to give some support to some of the bad impressions of Calvinism people have been talking about.

 

[Apologetic_Warrior]

You seem to be saying that Calvinists are the ones that have been truly saved. I trust you didn’t mean that exclusively.

No, that is not what I said. What I mean is that just because a person identifies themselves as a Calvinist, that does not in itself mean the person is saved. A person can attend a Presbyterian Church for years and years, acquire much knowledge even accept the Westminster Confession, without true conversion by the Spirit of God. So I made a distinction between apostates and born again Christians in the Church, which applies throughout Christian Churches globally.

I understand that no one is perfect, but you seem to be claiming that Calvinists are saved from that, and that their acts are done perfectly.

No, I made no such claim and curious as to how and why you read either of these straw men into my post.

This posting actually seems to give some support to some of the bad impressions of Calvinism people have been talking about.

You know what Hedrick, honestly I am getting to the point where I do not care what impressions people get, it is not for me to always be hypersensitive to everyone and try to please everyone, it is an impossible feat. I think I understand your biases against me (you will deny them), though I have tried to befriend you in the past (as a message-board goes), and obviously failed.

 

[mark kennedy]

Isn't that a bit of a tautology? In theory, all theology is God centered.

Not nessacarily, Paul Tillick had a systematic theology that was predicated on the, 'God above God' concept, he argued that arguing for the existance of God was meaningless, the God was being itself. As odd as all that seems its whats known as a dialectic. I wont get into the details but essentially its atheism put in theological language.

 

[kdm1984]

@Apologetic_Warrior I am quoting this part of my post again that you conveniently ignored so as to prove you are the only one committing a straw man here:

The good is they are very focused on seeking internal consistency of doctrine. In a world where there is a lot of lazy Antinomian theology and postmodern relativistic thinking being spewed about, and deluding the gullible masses, the more rigorous approach of the R/C can be very welcome. Indeed, in the NT, Paul made it clear that having sound doctrine is essential for believers. So Reformed/Calvinists are almost always very knowledgeable about the Bible, and we need that especially in our current age.

Had you looked at my post properly and quoted it in its proper contexts, you would have noted that I pointed out BOTH good and bad traits I've come across in Calvinists. Indeed, I started with the good in hopes that people would notice that first.

Nonetheless, proving my point about their bad traits, of course you chose to focus only on the criticism, jump all over it, and get all sensitive and defensive over it, accusing me of a fallacy that doesn't apply whatsoever to my post. If I were trying to poison the well, I would not have listed any good traits, but I did. Moreover, to poison the well means to present irrelevant information about another party. The information I presented was entirely relevant, and your response proves my thesis perfectly.

 

[Apologetic_Warrior]

TULIP came later, the reformation took us back to the church fathers not the apostles.

The Reformation has been encapsulated into five slogan the Latin words Sola Scriptura, Sola Fide, Sola Christo, Sola Gratia, and Sola Deo Gloria. Sola Scriptura means Scripture alone as the standard measure by which to judge all theology after it, the ultimate authority over doctrines, creeds, councils, confessions, etc. So it does not mean the only authority, but the highest authority, the supreme court over lower courts. Sola Fide means faith alone and usually refers to justification by faith alone. Sola Christo means by Christ alone meaning salvation through Christ alone. Sola Gratia means by grace alone meaning salvation by the grace of God alone. And finally Sola Deo Gloria means glory to God alone, meaning in salvation the glory belongs entirely to God alone, as He does not give or leave men room to boast in their salvation. These doctrines if you will, took us back further than the church fathers to the main source, back to the Bible.