Where does reformed tradition help your faith? Where does it become a liability? In light of that, what is the way forward?
Reformed Tradition - Pros and Cons
- Thread starter rapturefish
- Start date
CoffeeSwirls
snaps back wash after wash...
It has helped me immensely, knowing that the heart is turned by God so that my own turnings cannot undo what He has done. This also has freed me to share with others in the confidence that it is never my work that saves anyone. If I were to determine my success while witnessing to anyone based on measurable statistics and not on my obedience to the Lord, I would undermine everything the Bible teaches.
How has it hindered me? Simple. It hasn't. I am free to look upon others, both in the church and outside the church, as individuals and not as targets. Rather than go "forward" implying to something different, I plan on going "onward, ever onward."
I will say that most of the non-pentecostal denominations tend to downplay the work of the Holy Spirit, though I have found a greater appreciation for the spirit since I have accepted the reformed views than when I had a more arminian view.
How has it hindered me? Simple. It hasn't. I am free to look upon others, both in the church and outside the church, as individuals and not as targets. Rather than go "forward" implying to something different, I plan on going "onward, ever onward."
I will say that most of the non-pentecostal denominations tend to downplay the work of the Holy Spirit, though I have found a greater appreciation for the spirit since I have accepted the reformed views than when I had a more arminian view.
Upvote
0
rapturefish said:
I decided to bring in another of your quotes from a recent thread, since I should think that the same purpose is behind each of these questions.
rapturefish said:
I think Spurgeon probably gave better answer that I can. So here's a few quotes that express my thinking on this matter.
"Calvinism did not spring from Calvin. We believe that it sprang from the great Founder of all truth."
"I have my own opinion that there is no such thing as preaching Christ and Him crucified, unless we preach what nowadays is called Calvinism. It is a nickname to call it Calvinism; Calvinism is the gospel, and nothing else. I do not believe we can preach the gospel if we do not preach justification by faith without works; nor unless we preach the sovereignty of God in His dispensation*** of grace; nor unless we exalt the electing unchangeable eternal, immutable, conquering love of Jehovah; nor do I think we can preach the gospel unless we base it upon the special and particular redemption of His elect and chosen people which Christ wrought out upon the cross."
***This is not in any way refering to the modern Dispensational view.
"It is no novelty, then that I am preaching; no new doctrine. I love to proclaim these strong old doctrines, that are called by nickname Calvinism, but which are surely and verily the revealed truth of God as it is in Christ Jesus. By this truth I make a pilgrimage into the past, and as I go, I see father after father, confessor after confessor, martyr after martyr, standing up to shake hands with me. Were I a Pelagian, or a believer in the doctrine of free-will, I should have to walk for centuries all alone. Here and there a heretic, of no very honorable character, might rise up and call me brother. But taking these things to be the standard of my faith, I see the land of the ancients peopled with my brethren; I behold multitudes who confess the same as I do, and acknowledge that this is the religion of God's own church."
Now, I know these deal particularly with the Doctrines of Grace, but for the sake of your question, I will take the liberty of widening their arguement.
Let me before admit that I am a Particular or "Reformed" Baptist, and not a Presby or Continental Reformed. Yet I consider myself a baptist traditionalist, and within the Reformed branch of Protestantism.
I am creedal & confessional, I subscribe to the three ancient creeds, to the 1689 Confession & Catechism, and the longer 1680 Orthodox Catechism. I believe that preaching and the sacraments/ordinances are the means of grace. I believe in historic Congregationism, which is not the modern democracy so rampant in Baptist Churches today, but in the local rule of a puralty of elders. I deny Dispensationism, and believe in an everlasting spiritual Covenant. I am a cessationalist, Amill, and convinced of the regulative principle.
I said all that to say b/c of these convictions I am called a Calvinist (even thought he would have disagreed w/ most the stuff up there). However, I believe these are not the doctrines of Calvin, but the very doctrines of the our Lord Jesus and His ordained apostles.
I would not call these teachings "calvinistic" or "reformed" or even "baptist", I would simply say that these are the Apostolic, orthodox teachings of the Christian Church.
_____________________________________________________________
Beyond that, there are a few things I would classify as particular to the Reformed faith.These are mainly the visual aspect of the outward practice of our religion:
1. Architecture: Trad. Reformed Church architecture is almost gone today, but I hope it will make a come back. The centrality of the raised pulpit. The seperate lectern. The bare and plain Communion table. The choir gallery in the back of the building. I believe that these things aid us to think about worship and the means of grace much more properly. This kind of architecture has a theological purpose beyond the modern quest for good acoustics and a comfortable atmosphere.
2. The Clerical dress: Sadly, rejected by many contemporary Calvinists as too High Church, I think that the old robe has its place in our practice. A plain black Genevan gown helps remind the congregation and the minister of his role in public worship. He is a teacher, hence the scholar's robe. His work is a grave work, hence the plainess of the gown and the dark color. The old preaching tabs could use a revival too. They remind us of the two tablets of the law, which symbolize not only the law itself, but the complete revelation of God to man in His Word. The pastor has a duty to declare the Word of God to the people of God, just as Moses did. The dress shows us that the minister has to fullfill in a NT understanding the role of Priest (the gown), and the role of Prophet (the band and tabs).
3. The Liturgy: Though I believe it is Apostolic to have an orderly weekly liturgy, there are pecularities to those of the Reformed trad. which are not essential to follow step by step, but are nevertheless very helpful to public worship.
These last three things I would classify as Reformed, and not Apostolic. However, all fit into and support orthodoxy. Yet I feel, that these are particular to the Calvinist trad, and therefore not essential.
____________________________________________________
I know that was a long post. Forgive me for the lengthiness, but I thought the question deserved the attention. Thanks for taking the time to read it.
Upvote
0
I thank you for your thoughtfulness in answering the initial query of the post. I see the substance of the gospel is the same for a number of christian denominations, but there is also the outward distinctive rituals and practices, as well as the overall perception of the framework within which the gospel is placed. Other elements such as the perception and reality of the Holy Spirit and how it affects the rest of a christian paradigm are also factors in the life of a believer.
Perhaps I was thinking more in terms of those perceptions and the traditions than the actual gospel itself, of which I believe absolutely. I remember that with the Presbyterian chuch I called home for several years there was the structure of the elders and governmental structure. I remember the heritage-listed building, the style of formal, reverent worship and the view of theology that was conservative and somewhere between cessationist and open but cautious on the matter of spiritual gifts. The paradigm that upholds the word of God highly and the mindset of proactively proclaiming the gospel and upholding the word and truth against the forces of this world. Expository preaching, ministers and teaching is most highly valued. Worship is limited to hymns or reverently sung modern worship songs that fall in the same tradition.
I see how different the perception of the same gospel is with say a Pentecostal church. The word of God is also respected too, just not expository preaching. Instead the word is looked at in terms of spiritual principles. Spiritual gifts are more prominent, the Holy Spirit is seen as a reality in a way that is not in reformed churches. The focus is not so much on defending the truth as proclaiming the victory of God and a mindset that is positive, visionary and intuitive. Hymns come mainly in the form of choruses, but mostly it is modern worship, informal, spontaneous, with free expression or lifting of hands. Speaking in tongues is normative. The same gospel is preached, but there isn't the emphasis merely on salvation but on the victorious life that one begins to move in by way of salvation. In other words, salvation is not 'central' but the mission and purpose of God becomes central with the Holy Spirit. Reformed tradition is strong on God and Jesus focus. Not so much with the Holy Spirit.
Each has their pros and cons. It's just fascinating to see how each incarnation is centred around the same gospel yet somehow so diversely different.
I think architecture is a great way to worship, and I think that should be seen as an opportunity once again. I know that the lack of ornamentation etc was originally a reaction to the excesses of the RC church, but there is merit when every part of a building exudes worship and God-focus the way the temple did in OT times.
Liturgy is helpful when it helps people to worship. When it becomes a rigid tradition people are not keen on changing though it becomes like the nehushtan or brass snake the bronze serpent became.
Same with the clerical dress. It can be worshipful, but kept in perspective as a means.
I'm not sure all these will be adopted the same way in a Pentecostal church, as they will be less formal, more contemporary (and I know I'm talking more about my church than all pentecostal churches) but as long as the same gospel is there that is fine.
blessings,
Perhaps I was thinking more in terms of those perceptions and the traditions than the actual gospel itself, of which I believe absolutely. I remember that with the Presbyterian chuch I called home for several years there was the structure of the elders and governmental structure. I remember the heritage-listed building, the style of formal, reverent worship and the view of theology that was conservative and somewhere between cessationist and open but cautious on the matter of spiritual gifts. The paradigm that upholds the word of God highly and the mindset of proactively proclaiming the gospel and upholding the word and truth against the forces of this world. Expository preaching, ministers and teaching is most highly valued. Worship is limited to hymns or reverently sung modern worship songs that fall in the same tradition.
I see how different the perception of the same gospel is with say a Pentecostal church. The word of God is also respected too, just not expository preaching. Instead the word is looked at in terms of spiritual principles. Spiritual gifts are more prominent, the Holy Spirit is seen as a reality in a way that is not in reformed churches. The focus is not so much on defending the truth as proclaiming the victory of God and a mindset that is positive, visionary and intuitive. Hymns come mainly in the form of choruses, but mostly it is modern worship, informal, spontaneous, with free expression or lifting of hands. Speaking in tongues is normative. The same gospel is preached, but there isn't the emphasis merely on salvation but on the victorious life that one begins to move in by way of salvation. In other words, salvation is not 'central' but the mission and purpose of God becomes central with the Holy Spirit. Reformed tradition is strong on God and Jesus focus. Not so much with the Holy Spirit.
Each has their pros and cons. It's just fascinating to see how each incarnation is centred around the same gospel yet somehow so diversely different.
I think architecture is a great way to worship, and I think that should be seen as an opportunity once again. I know that the lack of ornamentation etc was originally a reaction to the excesses of the RC church, but there is merit when every part of a building exudes worship and God-focus the way the temple did in OT times.
Liturgy is helpful when it helps people to worship. When it becomes a rigid tradition people are not keen on changing though it becomes like the nehushtan or brass snake the bronze serpent became.
Same with the clerical dress. It can be worshipful, but kept in perspective as a means.
I'm not sure all these will be adopted the same way in a Pentecostal church, as they will be less formal, more contemporary (and I know I'm talking more about my church than all pentecostal churches) but as long as the same gospel is there that is fine.
blessings,
Upvote
0
- Jun 26, 2004
- 17,361
- 3,628
- Country
- Canada
- Faith
- Protestant
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- CA-Others
This con could go for any Church, cultural Christianity. I've run into more Dutch Reformed Christians who are Christian only in culture then any other Church group.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
