A simple question

[jamantc]

Is it time for a reformation of the protestant church as it was with the catholic church? Traditions seem be creeping their way into the church more and more and appears to become more of the gospel among people than scripture itself!

 

[1watchman]

Reformation of Protestantism is not needed, but rejection of it; for God did not give us Protestantism nor any other movement of men (various hierarchies by many names) ---only His Word, which is not widely accepted by professing Christians in the world.

If one reads the Gospels and the Epistles one can see what God intended for His testimony in the world (and some good ministry on that is at the site: biblecounsel.net). A return to Scripture-only is the only way to be in conformity to the mind of God, I see.

 

[jamantc]

I agree 100% with that. A rejection would still be a reformation in itself I would suppose. Another agreement, scripture is not longer taught today in most churches, just tradition. Many of today's Christians don't even know what it is they believe, they believe only what they have been taught due to negligence of not reading their bibles daily and searching the scriptures for truth. It is a shame that the reformers lead us away from the corrupt harlot the catholic church to be a part of today's corrupt harlot, the protestant church

 

[DeaconDean]

If one reads the Gospels and the Epistles one can see what God intended for His testimony in the world (and some good ministry on that is at the site: biblecounsel.net). A return to Scripture-only is the only way to be in conformity to the mind of God, I see.

I am a Southern Baptist, raised an Indepenant Baptist.

Since when have we (Baptists) strayed from "Sola Scriptura"?

From 1608 in London, until the Baptist Faith and Message of 2000, that is still a principle we hold to.

That is my rule, so when have we gotten away from that?

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[DeaconDean]

I agree 100% with that. A rejection would still be a reformation in itself I would suppose. Another agreement, scripture is not longer taught today in most churches, just tradition. Many of today's Christians don't even know what it is they believe, they believe only what they have been taught due to negligence of not reading their bibles daily and searching the scriptures for truth. It is a shame that the reformers lead us away from the corrupt harlot the catholic church to be a part of today's corrupt harlot, the protestant church

See, I disagree.

From 1608 and the 2nd London Cofession, Baptists have traditionally been "Calvinistic" in theology.

Its only been in the last century that Arminianism has gained the upper hand.

If you'll read any one of the historic confessions here:

American Baptist Confessions of Faith | The Reformed Reader

This will show/prove the Calvinistic backgound of Baptists.

The popuilar belief used to be that God acts monergistically.

Now, the church is swaying towards the Arminian view, man working in co-operation with God.

I don't see it, and have never accepted it.

But you are right on one thing, it has been said that only 8% of the people in church actually read their bible, and only 4% understand it.

That means 92% of the people in church just accept as fact anything that comes out of the pulpit or Sunday school class.

And that, is sad.

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[DeaconDean]

Rather than use the term "reformation", what I see is a genuine need for "revival" in the church today.

The church today, as I see it, is what I term the "I" generation.

It is preached, what can "I" do, rather than what has "God" done.

Just like a thread in the Soteriology section, the pervasive attitude today is "God needs man", not the other way around.

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[jamantc]

85% of southern Baptist are Armeninian. Sola Scriptura can be claimed, but it doesn't mean it's being preached when in today's churches, as you stated, it's "I" and God needing man and not vice versa. I could use the term revival, but a true revival will bring with a reformation or rejection of most of today's protestant views. 90% of claiming Christians do not read scripture today. 60% of today's Christians believe abortion, adultery, and divorce is a common way of life and that homosexuality is not a sin. 40& of today's Christians believe there is no absolute truth and that the Bible is a guidance book and is not set in stone so that it may change when society changes. Where have southern Baptist strayed? By not preaching the true word of scripture and claiming it as absolute authority in the life of the Christian. Do I enjoy being Baptist? I sure do, but as Al Mohler stated, there is some things that we as Baptist could return to that our Baptist forefathers would never have accepted, but their church was not of the world only in it.

 

[mont974x4]

Since protestant churches aren't as connected in polity like the RCC was 500 years ago, and still is, I think its difficult to make such a blanket statement.

I am a member of an Ev Free church, but my ordination is SBC and our senior pastor came from the Gen Baptists. In the last 2 years the traditions and sacred cows have been steadily getting knocked down. I would say that we are being reformed, and it is bringing revival. It is painful, we have lost several people, but overall we are refocusing on the Gospel....keeping Christ at the center of what we do.

Having talked to several area pastors I have learned that we are not only church in our area in this transition...whatever you choose to call it.

 

[jamantc]

Since protestant churches aren't as connected in polity like the RCC was 500 years ago, and still is, I think its difficult to make such a blanket statement.

I am a member of an Ev Free church, but my ordination is SBC and our senior pastor came from the Gen Baptists. In the last 2 years the traditions and sacred cows have been steadily getting knocked down. I would say that we are being reformed, and it is bringing revival. It is painful, we have lost several people, but overall we are refocusing on the Gospel....keeping Christ at the center of what we do.

Having talked to several area pastors I have learned that we are not only church in our area in this transition...whatever you choose to call it.

I am not sure which you are calling blanket, but the number I provided is what I wrote down in church a few weeks back during preaching. The preacher says these are numbers he got from an SBC meeting he attended at the local convention in our state (not the armeniian numbers, but the others numbers...the SBC puts Calvinist in the 10% range in the SBC). Love and peace in our Savior Christ Jesus

 

[mont974x4]

I apologize for the confusion. I was not addressing any number. I was addressing the "reformation of the protestant church" comment.

 

[jamantc]

It is ok my friend.

 

[OzSpen]

85% of southern Baptist are Armeninian.

Do you mean Arminian?

So is being an Arminian Baptist anathema in this directory?

Oz

 

[Awaken4Christ]

I am baffled at the associations people make of the words "Reformed" and "Sola Scriptora" and "Calvinism"as if they unequivocally belong together.

Why cant an Armenian church be reformed and still Armenian? You see I think the Divisions of Calvs and Arms is mostly to do with disagreements about extended or "higher" knowledge. I believe both can be considered reformed and keep their differences to a degree. reformed In my opinion should be at its core "Sola Scriptora". What is at the heart of the Bible? Its Jesus. Its Understanding God's Love, Mercy and Justice. All true believers Know God is powerful. Monergism vs Synergism I believe is not at the top of the list of what you NEed TO KNOW. The specifics of how God exercises his sovereignty is not the top of the list. Believing in Chirst, hopelessly yet encouragingly trying to follow his example through our lives, Glorifying God and Praising him and being thankful for Christ. Those things are top of the list.

I think Armenians get the bad rap because they are associated with the "be like the world" types.
Calvs don't get too pompous just yet.. Your camp tends to be associated with the "legalism" types.
I think you can find plenty of each type in both camps though.

I choose not to follow exactly either path. Because neither exegesis from camp "a" or camp "c" convinces me. And seriously, just by saying this, I think there miight even be some calvinist who would say "so the Bible doesn't convince you?"As if Calvinism= the Bible when it should be the Bible=Bible. Statements like that just hurts me beyond belief.

I think Armenians need to take the word "reformed" back and share that word with other calvs who want to become CHRIST centered. Actually I take it back, lets not even call it reformed but being :"Christ Centered" and "Sola Scriptora".

 

[SeventhValley]

It is more correct to say some Baptists have been Calvinistic while others have been Arminian since the beginning. Not saying which is correct just saying Baptists have both strains of thought since our inception.

Not to mention the addition of revivalist theology(pentecostal) in some baptist circles.

 

[SeventhValley]

As far as reformed...

You have reformation theology...Lutheran,Calvinist,Arminian.

and you have Reformed theology(tulip)

A reformed Arminian would be another term classical Arminian.

Although for some Reformed means Calvinist minus Lutherans and Arminians.

 

[JM]

 

[OzSpen]

I am baffled at the associations people make of the words "Reformed" and "Sola Scriptora" and "Calvinism"as if they unequivocally belong together.

Why cant an Armenian church be reformed and still Armenian? You see I think the Divisions of Calvs and Arms is mostly to do with disagreements about extended or "higher" knowledge. I believe both can be considered reformed and keep their differences to a degree. reformed In my opinion should be at its core "Sola Scriptora". What is at the heart of the Bible?

Reformed is the broader term and includes both Calvinism and Arminianism. To his dying day, Jacob Arminius was a Dutch Reformed minister / theological professor. Many too often associate Reformed with Calvinism.

I am a Reformed Arminian in some of my theological views, but that does not make my views Calvinistic in soteriology. There are both Arminian and Calvinistic Methodists, Arminian and Calvinistic Baptists, etc. I find it more accurate on this forum to discuss the differences between Arminians and Calvinists and not to use the term Reformed as there are Reformed in both Arminian and Calvinistic camps.

By the way, the correct spelling for the theological position is Arminian and not Armenian. Armenians are people from the country of Armenia.

In Christ,
Oz

 

[JM]

I'm sure the Arminians believe they have the freewill to call themselves whatever they want but it's a little disingenuous considering they remonstrated against the soteriology of the Reformed church.

If you are a Baptist and Arminian you are not Reformed.

jm

 

[OzSpen]

I'm sure the Arminians believe they have the freewill to call themselves whatever they want but it's a little disingenuous considering they remonstrated against the soteriology of the Reformed church.

If you are a Baptist and Arminian you are not Reformed.

jm

I happen to be Baptistic and Reformed Arminian. I'm as Reformed as the Dutch Reformed minister and theologian, Jacob Arminius. The Reformed Arminian position on eternal security is expounded along with 3 other views in this publication.

I am Baptist, Arminian and Reformed. That's a historically and theologically accurate statement.

Oz


Zondervan

 

[jamantc]

Jacobus Arminius was reformed until he studied Pelagius' work and denounced all 5 points of Calvinism and denied to study under Calvinistic view any further. The Baptist Confession of Faith until changed in current years was basically the same as London Confession of Faith for Baptist. You may view yourself reformed, but if you are Arminian in thought, you are not reformed. I would have found someone other than Norm Geisler to associate my reformed views with. John MacArthur, RC Sproul, Steve Lawson, Timothy Keller, Mark Dever are reformed. John Wesley even stated he was not reformed and that is why he didn't agree with Calvin or his 5 points.