reformed denominations

[papakapp]

I have been mostly lurking around this forum for a couple weeks now. Oh, and I do hold reformed theology. I must say, you guys seem more level headed than the people in most of the other forums around here. I agree with what is said most of the time. However, there is one thing that seems to keep popping up that I can't quite understand. I grew up in a community that was not big on reformed theology. I left that ans started going to a non denominational reformed church. They are much more bold regarding the authority of scripture and I like that. Anyway, heres the beef:

Why do people like so much to see what this denomination says, or what that denomination says, or this church leader or that one? I would say that I am first a Bible literalist, and I only call myself reformed because after I found out what the Bible teaches, I saw that reformed theology was pretty much in line with what I believed. Maybe is would not be as noticable for a person who grew up in a reformed church, but why is there this seemingly extra allegience to denominations that were set up long after the apostles wrote the New Testament?
It makes perfect sense to me to see the reformers come along and steer people back closer to the center of what the Bible teaches, but why all the factions and extra names, or adjectives attached to the title 'Christian'?

 

[Jon_]

I have been mostly lurking around this forum for a couple weeks now. Oh, and I do hold reformed theology. I must say, you guys seem more level headed than the people in most of the other forums around here. I agree with what is said most of the time. However, there is one thing that seems to keep popping up that I can't quite understand. I grew up in a community that was not big on reformed theology. I left that ans started going to a non denominational reformed church. They are much more bold regarding the authority of scripture and I like that. Anyway, heres the beef:

Why do people like so much to see what this denomination says, or what that denomination says, or this church leader or that one? I would say that I am first a Bible literalist, and I only call myself reformed because after I found out what the Bible teaches, I saw that reformed theology was pretty much in line with what I believed. Maybe is would not be as noticable for a person who grew up in a reformed church, but why is there this seemingly extra allegience to denominations that were set up long after the apostles wrote the New Testament?
It makes perfect sense to me to see the reformers come along and steer people back closer to the center of what the Bible teaches, but why all the factions and extra names, or adjectives attached to the title 'Christian'?

This is a very good and valid question. To many people on the outside, it looks like Reformers value confessions, creeds, and denominations above Scripture or the Gospel. The very opposite is actually the case. One of the problems is that there are so many differences on doctrine these days. You've got Baptist, Penecostal, Charismatic, Presbyterian, Lutheran, Nondemoninational (which is really "what-you-see-is-what-you-get"). And even among these broad denominational lines you have maybe dozens or more factions. Nearly all of these distinctions are due to doctrinal disputes. Splitting the church is one of the enemy's key strategies to discouraging believers.

Ironically, because there are so many labels out there these days, it becomes important to know which ones are consistent with the bible. For instance, the Presbyterian church has had a long and virtuous history of upholding orthodox Reformed doctrine, but this is not unanimously the case. There are more than a few Presbyterian denominations that are quite liberal and unorthodox in their theology (including some universalist influences). Knowing the distinctions and labels and such helps one to know which denominations are consistent with the truth of Scripture.

This is one of the primary reasons why I vehemently defend the Reformed and Calvinist labels. Once you compromise Calvinism by including those positions that omit a point or two, you have compromised the entire label. You then need additional labels to clarify your position: "I'm a five-point Calvinist." For me, this is redundant. Calvinism is five-point Calvinism. Anything else is not Calvinism. Nevertheless, I find that I often have to qualify this label with orthodox (Calvinism) to mean five-point. Just as some Wesleyans don't like being labeled Arminians, I don't like being lumped together with Amyraldans.

The "allegiance" to a particular denomination exhibited by Reformers is not really an allegiance to a denomination, but a commitment to maintaining the purity of the label and that for which it stands. For example, Reformed (to me) means Calvinism, paedobaptism, Amillennialism, etc., so if someone comes along and calls themselves a Reformed Postmillennialist, I contend with their label because I consider it contradictory. My contention is two-fold. One, that their eschatology is incorrect. Two, that they are trying to associate their incorrect eschatology with Reformed doctrine, which clearly teaches Amillennialism. Hence, their error is two-fold. Things like this are one of the reasons why there are so many denominations, and, consequently, why knowing what delimits them is so important.

Soli Deo Gloria

Jon

 

[papakapp]

I am a 5 point calvinist as well. However, I do not think the Bible can be summed up by those five points. I am forced to conclude that, while many 5 point calvinists do agree with the Bible on those points that are not discussed by the five points of calvinism, they, at the very least, place their emphasis there.
This serves to either mitigate other parts of the bible, or otherwise elevate the teaching and biblical commentary of one man above the commentary of other men, to the point where it is not yet on par with the Bible, but it is closer than other men have achieved. - Neither of which is desirable.

I will give a true, but extreem example. This example is not the norm, but is is the ultimate conclusion of this line of thinking. It happened in a Protestant reformed church in my area to a good friend. The pastor would not perform a marriage ceremony unless the groom went through the catechism class [again]. Apparently he had not learned enough the first time. This prospective groom's brother was telling me the situation. I had never heard of the catechism before so I asked what it was. He gave me this little study book with all these questions in it and all the

answers. I read the book, quite bemused. I had never encountered teaching likt that before. After reading the book I said "Well on page (so and so) of this book it teaches that the Bible is the highest authority. Why does your brother have to read this book again if this book points you to the Bible? Shouldn't your pastor be telling him to read the Bible if he is telling him anything?" Long story short, the church split over this issue.

How would you apply what Paul says in 1 Corinthians

1Brothers, I could not address you as spiritual but as worldly—mere infants in Christ. 2I gave you milk, not solid food, for you were not yet ready for it. Indeed, you are still not ready. 3You are still worldly. For since there is jealousy and quarreling among you, are you not worldly? Are you not acting like mere men? 4For when one says, "I follow Paul," and another, "I follow Apollos," are you not mere men?
5What, after all, is Apollos? And what is Paul? Only servants, through whom you came to believe—as the Lord has assigned to each his task. 6I planted the seed, Apollos watered it, but God made it grow. 7So neither he who plants nor he who waters is anything, but only God, who makes things grow. 8The man who plants and the man who waters have one purpose, and each will be rewarded according to his own labor. 9For we are God's fellow workers; you are God's field, God's building.

Paul and Peter disagreed with each other regarding associating with Gentiles. Did Paul start the church of the Pauline ?Christians and let Peter start the church of the Petrine Christians? no, the Bible tells us that Paul went to Peter and confronted him to his face. The Bible teaches this elsewhere and the Bible also teaches us that if we cannot win over the person we are trying to win over, that we should treat them as a complete outsider. The Bible never teaches us to accept apostate doctrine from other Christians, but just take a slightly different name to distinguish ourselves. I am well aware that not all denominations are apostate, but the Bible teaches us that we can welcome brothers with whom we have differences, because "God can make them stand" (Romans 14:4) So, the Bible teaches that there are open handed issues where we can disagree, but still have Christian fellowship. The Bible also teaches that there are closed handed ittues where we must break fellowship. And the Bible teaches that Paul and Apollos did not want denominations named after them.
So, even though it is out culture, and it is incredibly common to have different denominations, is it something where we just shrug out shoulders and say "Yeah, it gives the church a black eye, but what are you going to do?" or do we take a stand, at the very least in our personal lives?​

 

[Jon_]

I am a 5 point calvinist as well. However, I do not think the Bible can be summed up by those five points. I am forced to conclude that, while many 5 point calvinists do agree with the Bible on those points that are not discussed by the five points of calvinism, they, at the very least, place their emphasis there. This serves to either mitigate other parts of the bible, or otherwise elevate the teaching and biblical commentary of one man above the commentary of other men, to the point where it is not yet on par with the Bible, but it is closer than other men have achieved. - Neither of which is desirable.

Ah, I think I see where some of your struggle may lie. No, Calvinism does not answer all biblical questions. In fact, it never did and was never intended to. Calvinism is a soteriological (of or pertaining to salvation) doctrine. That is why I always try to distinguish Calvinism with Reformed Theology. Calvinism is the Reformed doctrine of soteriology. Reformed Theology encompasses all of the other tenets of Chrstian doctrine, Paterology, Christology, Pneumatology, Hermeneutics, Ecclesiology, Eschatology, et cetera-ology.

It should also be noted that Calvin is certainly not magnified (not in my mind) or glorified in anyway for having been the man to have systematized the doctrine of soteriology. Calvin was simply a very blessed and very greatly used servant of God. No Reformer would place Calvin above the Scriptures, though. His service was in his brilliant exegesis and authoring of the soteriology that bears his name, but even this was a gift of God because he would have been unable to do so apart from the enabling grace of the Holy Spirit.

I will give a true, but extreem example. This example is not the norm, but is is the ultimate conclusion of this line of thinking. It happened in a Protestant reformed church in my area to a good friend. The pastor would not perform a marriage ceremony unless the groom went through the catechism class [again]. Apparently he had not learned enough the first time. This prospective groom's brother was telling me the situation. I had never heard of the catechism before so I asked what it was. He gave me this little study book with all these questions in it and all the

answers. I read the book, quite bemused. I had never encountered teaching likt that before. After reading the book I said "Well on page (so and so) of this book it teaches that the Bible is the highest authority. Why does your brother have to read this book again if this book points you to the Bible? Shouldn't your pastor be telling him to read the Bible if he is telling him anything?" Long story short, the church split over this issue.​

Well, I can't really comment on the event that you are describing, except to discuss why catechal material is used. We read the catechisms (probably one of the Westminster ones in this case) because of the excellence with which they summarize the bible on specific points of doctrine. Now, ordinarily, they are used primarily to teach children because (at least at the time of their writings) adults would be expected to know everything contained therein and more. New believers might also be taken through a catechism class so that they would at least have a foundational understanding of Christianity with which to begin.

The benefit of confessions, creeds, and catechisms is not self-merited. That is, they have no value in and of themselves. Their benefit derives from the brevity but completeness with which they address doctrinal issues. In many cases, one might have to study many, many verses of Scripture to meet the same conclusion. Now, granted, this is preferable, but as I had pointed out, in the case of young children and new believers, we would rather they start with foundational knowledge than to frustrate them by saying, "Here, read this," and then throwing a 12 lb., 2000 page bible at them. It is also important to establish a place at which to start. The above illustration of just telling a new believer to read his bible is quite unhelpful. Where does he begin? How should he read it? What is he looking for? Why should he read? All of these questions can be answered with a little instruction (a catechism, for example), and the believer can be given some foundational knowledge that he can use to begin his life-long journey into the words of our Lord.

How would you apply what Paul says in 1 Corinthians

1Brothers, I could not address you as spiritual but as worldly—mere infants in Christ. 2I gave you milk, not solid food, for you were not yet ready for it. Indeed, you are still not ready. 3You are still worldly. For since there is jealousy and quarreling among you, are you not worldly? Are you not acting like mere men? 4For when one says, "I follow Paul," and another, "I follow Apollos," are you not mere men? 5What, after all, is Apollos? And what is Paul? Only servants, through whom you came to believe—as the Lord has assigned to each his task. 6I planted the seed, Apollos watered it, but God made it grow. 7So neither he who plants nor he who waters is anything, but only God, who makes things grow. 8The man who plants and the man who waters have one purpose, and each will be rewarded according to his own labor. 9For we are God's fellow workers; you are God's field, God's building.

Ah, Chapter 3. A wonderful statement of the value of pursuing spiritual growth and leaving behind the secular influences that once dominated our lives. I especially love v. 6, "I have planted, Apollos watered; but God gave the increase."

I would quite conclusively say that the benefits of catechal instruction include the spiritual growth of the new believer. God commands us to know him and search after him with our whole heart. Down to its core, theology is the study of God. From theology we come to know and understand him. And the more we understand him, the more we know his character and attributes, the more we fear and love him and desire to live our lives for him. The example of 1 Cor. ch. 3 is a perfect one because it shows what happens when believers are left without instruction. It is well to tell a new believer to read his bible, but it is also frustrating for him. He may begin his pursuit with great vigor, but after a while he will doubtless begin thinking, "What am I looking for?" I know of no men who arrived at a comprehensive, systematic theology by studying the Scriptures in a vacuum, free of outside influence.

Paul and Peter disagreed with each other regarding associating with Gentiles. Did Paul start the church of the Pauline ?Christians and let Peter start the church of the Petrine Christians? no, the Bible tells us that Paul went to Peter and confronted him to his face.

But Peter repented. Let me ask you this, what would have happened had Peter not repented? Do you think Paul would have just given up and then gone along with what Peter was doing? No, then you really would have had the first denominational split of the church.

The Bible teaches this elsewhere and the Bible also teaches us that if we cannot win over the person we are trying to win over, that we should treat them as a complete outsider. The Bible never teaches us to accept apostate doctrine from other Christians, but just take a slightly different name to distinguish ourselves.

I heartily agree, which is why I fight to maintain the purity of the Reformed and Calvinist labels. I do not want to see them distorted by the influence of apostate doctrines. It is, of course, those denominations that break off from Reformed denominations to assimilate apostate doctrines that are taking the new name.

I am well aware that not all denominations are apostate, but the Bible teaches us that we can welcome brothers with whom we have differences, because "God can make them stand" (Romans 14:4) So, the Bible teaches that there are open handed issues where we can disagree, but still have Christian fellowship. The Bible also teaches that there are closed handed ittues where we must break fellowship. And the Bible teaches that Paul and Apollos did not want denominations named after them. So, even though it is out culture, and it is incredibly common to have different denominations, is it something where we just shrug out shoulders and say "Yeah, it gives the church a black eye, but what are you going to do?" or do we take a stand, at the very least in our personal lives?

The Corinthian struggles of Pauline and Apollonian loyalty were founded purely out of strife and worldly ambition. Some may have argued that their conversion was by Paul and that they were higher in the church as a result because Paul was the greater apostle. Others might have argued that Apollos was a Gentile, and so his conversion is stronger for the Gentiles than Paul's, who was a Jew. These kinds of absolutely nonsensical, useless arguments are the kind that Paul was attacking. First of all, they all begin from false premises, so they are all simply wrong. But second of all, Paul and Apollos were simply servants of God. None of the Corinthians should be called followers of Paul because Paul was a follower of God. God alone is worthy to receive praise and glory for their conversions.

I just takes time, my friend. I do not like the denominational factionalism that affects the modern church today anymore than you do. I would much rather that every congregation were simply a part of "the church" and that they all taught the same doctrine and all worshiped consistently. That is simply not the case, though. One of God's blessings to the Reformed is that he has chosen us to maintain his treasured knowledge of true doctrine on earth, while he has purposed the rest to varying degrees of deception. That is his divine prerogative and he is worthy of praise for it. But with that blessing comes great obligation. Knowing the truth, we are not to abandon it by accepting false doctrines simply for the sake of peace. Paul did not do this. Paul attacked false doctries with great vigor. He also wrote that such that do not repent of their lies are to be set apart from the church. To the Reformed this means that we are not to bow on the truth of the doctrine that we have been given. Consequently, we are much more inclined to polemics than, say, Methodists (Whitefieldians excepted! ), but it is only because the bible calls us to do so.

Soli Deo Gloria

Jon​

 

[papakapp]

I heartily agree, which is why I fight to maintain the purity of the Reformed and Calvinist labels. I do not want to see them distorted by the influence of apostate doctrines. It is, of course, those denominations that break off from Reformed denominations to assimilate apostate doctrines that are taking the new name.


Paul and Apollos were simply servants of God. None of the Corinthians should be called followers of Paul because Paul was a follower of God. God alone is worthy to receive praise and glory for their conversions.


Soli Deo Gloria

Jon

Okay, let me get this straight...
1) Calvin was a man, blessed by God to synthesize Scriptures at a crucial time
2) Calvinist labels should remain true to their calvinist roots
3) Paul was a man, blessed by God to write scriptures at a crucial time
4) Since Paul was pointing to God, followers of Paul should more accurately be called followers of God.

I can see only two directions for this line of thinking to go...

5a) Followers of Calvin are not followers of God, therefore the term calvinist is more accurate than the term 'follower fo God'
5b) Followers of Calvin are followers of God, but calvin gets a little more credit for writing "the institutes" than Paul gets credit for writing portions of the New Testament; therefore, it is okay to take Calvin's name, and give him a little of the same sort of Glory that Paul was trying to remove from his shoulders and give back to God.

Which is more desirable?

 

[Jon_]

Okay, let me get this straight...

I can't help but shake my head at this. Perhaps I have not been entirely clear. Perhaps you refuse to acknowledge the point I am trying to make. Allow me to clarify.

1) Calvin was a man, blessed by God to synthesize Scriptures at a crucial time

I'm not quite sure what is meant by "synthesize," but Calvin was nothing more than a servant of God appointed at a time when a servant such as him was desperately needed.

2) Calvinist labels should remain true to their calvinist roots

The only reason we preserve the label is by necessity of distinction. Just as the label "Christian" sets us apart from other world religions, the label "Calvinist" sets our true soteriology apart from erroneous soteriologies.

I can see only two directions for this line of thinking to go...

5a) Followers of Calvin are not followers of God, therefore the term calvinist is more accurate than the term 'follower fo God'

Ridiculous, as you are well aware.

5b) Followers of Calvin are followers of God, but calvin gets a little more credit for writing "the institutes"

What? Who in the world is indicating that Calvin gets any "credit" for writing anything? Those parts of his doctrine that we deem excellent and commendable are so because they are found in the Scriptures, and most of these in the Pauline works. Calvin doesn't get anymore credit than Paul, or any other apostle. It is all the work of God. Apart from the Holy Word through which any true doctrine is tested, we would not even bear creedance to any author on the matter.

than Paul gets credit for writing portions of the New Testament;

Paul, just as Calvin, gets no credit for what he has written other than being the servant and the vessel appointed to the task.

therefore, it is okay to take Calvin's name, and give him a little of the same sort of Glory that Paul was trying to remove from his shoulders and give back to God.

I haven't the foggiest clue where you are getting this notion that Calvin is somehow glorified for his work. Are there perhaps weak men who would place their adherence to Calvin above their admiration for the Father? I don't know. I suppose it might be possible. But on the whole this is a gross distortion of the Reformed view.

What is being leveled here is a charge of idolatry and if I were the one making it, I would think long and hard about the justification for such a charge. On what evidence do you base your assumption that Calvinists in somewise exalt John Calvin?

Which is more desirable?

That men would make more learned use of their tongues.

Soli Deo Gloria

Jon

 

[papakapp]

I can't help but shake my head at this. Perhaps I have not been entirely clear. Perhaps you refuse to acknowledge the point I am trying to make. Allow me to clarify.

okay, and I assure you I am nt trying to incite anything

I'm not quite sure what is meant by "synthesize," but Calvin was nothing more than a servant of God appointed at a time when a servant such as him was desperately needed.

that's pretty much what I meant

The only reason we preserve the label is by necessity of distinction. Just as the label "Christian" sets us apart from other world religions, the label "Calvinist" sets our true soteriology apart from erroneous soteriologies.

And here is the problem... This is what I was trying to get at before, in my previous post. The Bible teaches two different avenues the Christian is permitted to take, given divisions in the church.

The first direction is to accept people with minor differences as brothers and sisters in Christ. This is clearly stated in 1 Corinthians when Paul chastizes the Corinthian church for saying "I follow Paul" or "I follow Apollos". If a person reads that text and comes to the conclusion that it is still okay to say "I follow Calvin" They are simply in error. It could not possibly be more clear and no amount of church tradition, or how many good things in the past have happened within this denomination will change that. In fact, 1 Peter 2 even talks about the fallacies of following tradition.

The second direction a person can take, if they encounter true apostacy from a person is to:
1) approach them discretley
2) approach them in a more public setting
3) have nothing to do with them.

I will say it again. There is no provision found anywhere in the Bible whereby a Christian can take any name other than that of Christ. If you disagree, please don't insult me, or pretend that I am not sophisticated enough to understand your point. I would humbly ask you to either attack my premise, or my conclusion using exclusively Biblical support.

Ridiculous, as you are well aware.

agreed

What? Who in the world is indicating that Calvin gets any "credit" for writing anything? Those parts of his doctrine that we deem excellent and commendable are so because they are found in the Scriptures, and most of these in the Pauline works. Calvin doesn't get anymore credit than Paul, or any other apostle. It is all the work of God. Apart from the Holy Word through which any true doctrine is tested, we would not even bear creedance to any author on the matter.

If a person calls themself a Calvinist, is that not credit? Especially given the text to which we have been refering "One says 'I am of Paul', another, 'I am of Apollos'." How can it be more clear?

Paul, just as Calvin, gets no credit for what he has written other than being the servant and the vessel appointed to the task.

If that is really true, then I will say this: As an outsider, Calvinists could sure do a better job of getting that message across. They seem to defend the name of Calvin more than they defend the name of Jesus. (don't get mad, you will only prove my point)

I haven't the foggiest clue where you are getting this notion that Calvin is somehow glorified for his work. Are there perhaps weak men who would place their adherence to Calvin above their admiration for the Father? I don't know. I suppose it might be possible. But on the whole this is a gross distortion of the Reformed view.

I hope so. Let's assume that it really is a misunderstanding on my part. Wouldn't you be curious to know te details of the misunderstanding so as to avoid it in the future?

What is being leveled here is a charge of idolatry and if I were the one making it, I would think long and hard about the justification for such a charge. On what evidence do you base your assumption that Calvinists in somewise exalt John Calvin?

Hmm... Let me define idolatry according to my paragigm. There were lots of idols refrenced in, and out of the Bible. There was baal, the god of the gnp, Diannah, the goddess of sex, Gad, nebo, the god of gambling or chance and the god of knowledge, there was Artemis the god of youth and so on. All these idols are still around today. youth, gambling, sex, you name it, we still have it. I have noticed on three occasions when I travel home from a third world country, the amount of idolatry in US shopping malls is almost overwhelming. The fashion, the consumption, the decdence, the women dressed up for the purpose of being seen and idolized. It is a more overpowering sensation than the first time I walked into a night club (which I do not do anymore)

We, in the US are massive consumers of idolatry in the form of sex, fashion, youth, money and so on. Christians are not immune from it. In fact, it is so close to us that Christians do not even notice it all the time. So yes, all Christians are hopelessly sinful in all areas including idolatry. Fortunately, Jesus came and died and paid the price for our sins while we were still sinners. Even now, Christians are not perfected. They are in a proces, becoming perfected but no one alive has attained that perfection. Praise the Lord that the blood of Jesus covers our sins in those areas of sin that HE has conquered for us and also those areas that we are still sinning!!

So yeah, to insert any adjectives alongside the title Christian is idolatry when it was inserted in the first place at the point of a Church split.
This is true because splitting from an apostate church demands no title other than Christian; and splitting from a non-apostate church is sinful according to Romans 14.

And I am not saying that all calvinists idolize Calvin. I am saying that taking any name other than Christian has its historical roots in some form of sin. Honestly, Are you really trying to deny that?
To argue that different names are necesary in order to distinguish orthodox churches from apostate either gives too much credence to apostate churches, or denys other factions of orthodox churches. (boy that was an oxymoron, but you get my point)
To argue that different names are necesary in order to distinguish orthodox churches from other orthodox churches is to deny the sufficiency of Christ.

That men would make more learned use of their tongues.

I'm doing the best I can.

Soli Deo Gloria

Jon

 

[papakapp]

double post, can a mod delete this?

 

[Jon_]

<snip>

Okay, I think I understand where you are coming from now. It seems that your main contention is that we should not use any labels at all besides the "Christian" label. Allow me to say that I heartly agree that no other label really, spiritually, means anything besides Christ. Calvinism does not save people. Amillennialism does not save people. Being baptized as an infant does not save people. Only the will of the Father, the sacrifice of the Son, and regeneration by the Holy Spirit save people.

However (you must've seen that coming ), you have a majority of Christians out there today that are preaching another Gospel (not the Gospel that Paul preached--hence, let them be anathema). For example, there is the Catholic Church, the Orthodox Church, the Anglican Church, an untold number of Arminian Protestant churches. The overwhelming majority of the people in the ranks of these institutions simply do not acknowledge the biblical Gospel message. Instead, they base their faith on humanistic concepts such as "free will," or other such deviltries. All of these people claim the label "Christian," and by way of this, seek to deceive and pollute other Christian minds, however innocuous the distinctions in doctines may seem.

We then have here quite a problem. Since the majority of "Christians" believe and preach an unbiblical Gospel, how are we to know those who proclaim the truth, but that they further distinguish themselves? No Reformed person would deign the label, Christian. In fact, if it were the case that one could use only a single term to describe their religious beliefs, I am confident that every true Reformed Christian would label themselves a Christian. But the problem still remains that there are over a billion people on this earth that claim to be Christians that practice something completely other than the Christianity proclaimed by the Bible.

Now, arguing the merits of attributing one's soteriological system to a specific person we could do. We could also argue about whether or not it is right to even use the label Reformed as supplementary to Christian. You would argue 1 Cor. ch. 3 condemns such distinctions, I would show that you are misapplying the passage. Not much would come of it, I am afraid. Instead, please accept only my clarifications on why the Reformed call themselves such and why we feel it is necessary for such distinctions to be made. Whether or not you agree with it is inconsequential to whether or not you understand the application, which is all I sought to teach.

I can conclude it all in a simple illustration. If I were to ask you what soteriological system you professed, how would you go about explaining it apart from simply labeling it "Calvinism"? I doubt that most people would have the patience to listen (and that you would always have the patience to explain) all the tenets of Calvinism everytime the question were addressed. So, if only as a means of simply describing more complex systems (which of course, is precisely what the label "Christian" does) with brevity, labels have their merits.

Soli Deo Gloria

Jon

 

[papakapp]

Now, arguing the merits of attributing one's soteriological system to a specific person we could do. We could also argue about whether or not it is right to even use the label Reformed as supplementary to Christian. You would argue 1 Cor. ch. 3 condemns such distinctions, I would show that you are misapplying the passage. Not much would come of it, I am afraid. Instead, please accept only my clarifications on why the Reformed call themselves such and why we feel it is necessary for such distinctions to be made. Whether or not you agree with it is inconsequential to whether or not you understand the application, which is all I sought to teach.

I can conclude it all in a simple illustration. If I were to ask you what soteriological system you professed, how would you go about explaining it apart from simply labeling it "Calvinism"? I doubt that most people would have the patience to listen (and that you would always have the patience to explain) all the tenets of Calvinism everytime the question were addressed. So, if only as a means of simply describing more complex systems (which of course, is precisely what the label "Christian" does) with brevity, labels have their merits.

Soli Deo Gloria

Jon

Here is the heart of it.

I tell people I hold to "reformed soteriology" I am refrencing a historical event Where God used a number of people to bring His church closer to His will. There is no idolatry in referencing the reformation.

If I told people I was a "Calvinist" I would be referencing a man that is not Jesus. That is not inconsequential. It may seem subtle but I can tell you from experience that the shift of focus is enough to remove some of the glory that God deserves and, to outsiders, make Calvinism look like a church that has orthodox theology, but their motives are tied to a man who died hundreds of years ago-and stayed dead.

The church is called to bring the gospel to the people, not a history lesson. There is nothing wrong with history unless it supplants Jesus.

 

[Paleoconservatarian]

We name our four gospels after men. However, when we speak of the Gospel of Matthew, no one blames us for referencing Matthew instead of Christ. Do you have a problem with that?

 

[Jon_]

Here is the heart of it.

I tell people I hold to "reformed soteriology" I am refrencing a historical event Where God used a number of people to bring His church closer to His will. There is no idolatry in referencing the reformation.

If I told people I was a "Calvinist" I would be referencing a man that is not Jesus. That is not inconsequential. It may seem subtle but I can tell you from experience that the shift of focus is enough to remove some of the glory that God deserves and, to outsiders, make Calvinism look like a church that has orthodox theology, but their motives are tied to a man who died hundreds of years ago-and stayed dead.

The church is called to bring the gospel to the people, not a history lesson. There is nothing wrong with history unless it supplants Jesus.

Well, I can understand that you think of it that way, but it is simply your opinion. Most of us do not see it the same way that you do. Therefore, if one cannot label out of faith, then do not label. Likewise let him label who may do so in faith. So as not to cause you to stumble, I would readily use "Reformed" as this is preferential to "Calvinism." But I would say a few more things before I leave off this discussion.

Bringing up how unbelievers perceive this is an interesting argument. In the first place, as they are wicked God-haters every last one, we could not care less what they think of us. However, the Bible also says that we are to abstain from every appearance of evil. Now, is this commandment to prevent unbelievers (who have evil opinions of us to begin with) from developing bad impressions of us or to prevent believers from suspecting each other of sinfulness? It is clearly the latter, as the opinions of unbelievers are inconsequential to our walk with Christ. We will be mocked, attacked, and persecuted by unbelievers. Their innate hatred of God extends to Christians as well. Therefore, we are unconcerned with their impressions of us.

Instead, we should be concerned only with the opinions of our brothers in Christ, lest we cause them to stumble. Now, in Christian circles, we are fully aware and familiar with the fact that God has historically used many different men to instruct and correct his children. From the early church fathers fighting against the many anti-Trinitarian heresies to the Reformers who threw off the idolatrous practices of the Catholic Church, God has continually used men at his pleasure to keep his saints on the right path. The same was true in ancient Israel, when God used the prophets to proclaim his will to his people.

Take a look at the Israelites themselves. There were twelve tribes all told, with each one being named after the father of the tribe. The Levites were the priesthood, for example, decending from Levi. Paul tells us in Romans that those who believe in Jesus Christ are of the seed of Abraham and are thus his children. Does it rob God of glory to say we are children of Abraham? Of course not. Why? Because we understand that Abraham was simply a servant of God and that the seed of Abraham are simply the fulfillment of God's promise. The same can be said for "Calvinists." We do not glorify Calvin for any particular work that he did. Instead, we glorify God for using his servant Calvin to articulate biblical soteriology so well. We glorify God for using his servants, the Reformed, to continue teaching biblical doctrines in a postmodern world where liberal "meology" (as opposed to "theology") seems to have a stranglehold on the church. God receives the glory for all this, not his servants. Our glory is in Christ alone.

This is not to say that none idolize Calvin. It would not surprise me to learn that there are some who do. Nevertheless, it is profoundly wrong to assert that we should not identify with Calvin because of this element. It is certainly wrong to argue that it may cause an "appearance of evil" to the unregenerate because their view of Christians is already evil. They will distort anything they can to mock and defame Christians. It is inaccurate to argue that it causes other Christians (in general, not specifically) to stumble because the distinctions are understood to be a difference in belief in doctrine, not a difference in the following of teachers. Calvin was not the only person to teach "Calvinism." That the soteriology bears his name is nothing more than an historical recognition of Calvin as the first teacher of the system as we know it. It is a label of convenience of identity and no more. No one would argue that Calvinists are not Christians simply because they identify with Calvin's soteriology. Instead, they would argue that their belief in Calvin's soteriology is damning, or that their refusal to accept Papal authority is what damns them, etc. Those who know what the label means knows that those who are Calvinists proclaim to be Christians.

As for those who do not know what the label Calvinist means and assume that Calvinists place Calvin above Christ, then they are in the wrong and not the Calvinist. Their assumption has caused them to make an erroneous conclusion. Instead of seeking out the true meaning of the term, they decided what it meant to themselves and passed judgment based on that assumption. This is simply an indefensible position.

In any case, I have no trouble saying "Reformed," and it is indeed the label that I prefer, but at the same time, one could make the argument that while it no longer appears that one man is receiving glory, many men or one particular event is receiving glory above Christ. For you to make the assertion that any label besides "Christian" robs God of glory, but to then say that "Reformed" is okay is to contradict yourself. There is no subtle distinction. Either something points to God or it does not. If referencing the Reformation can point to God, then referencing Calvin can likewise point to God. Any argument in favor of one form over the other would simply beg the question.

Anyway, this is where I stand on the issue.

Soli Deo Gloria

Jon

 

[papakapp]

Well, I can understand that you think of it that way, but it is simply your opinion. Most of us do not see it the same way that you do. Therefore, if one cannot label out of faith, then do not label. Likewise let him label who may do so in faith. So as not to cause you to stumble, I would readily use "Reformed" as this is preferential to "Calvinism." But I would say a few more things before I leave off this discussion.

good point

Bringing up how unbelievers perceive this is an interesting argument. In the first place, as they are wicked God-haters every last one, we could not care less what they think of us.

I am a wicked God hater too. And so are you, and everybody else.

However, the Bible also says that we are to abstain from every appearance of evil. Now, is this commandment to prevent unbelievers (who have evil opinions of us to begin with) from developing bad impressions of us or to prevent believers from suspecting each other of sinfulness? It is clearly the latter, as the opinions of unbelievers are inconsequential to our walk with Christ. We will be mocked, attacked, and persecuted by unbelievers. Their innate hatred of God extends to Christians as well. Therefore, we are unconcerned with their impressions of us.
Instead, we should be concerned only with the opinions of our brothers in Christ, lest we cause them to stumble. Now, in Christian circles, we are fully aware and familiar with the fact that God has historically used many different men to instruct and correct his children. From the early church fathers fighting against the many anti-Trinitarian heresies to the Reformers who threw off the idolatrous practices of the Catholic Church, God has continually used men at his pleasure to keep his saints on the right path. The same was true in ancient Israel, when God used the prophets to proclaim his will to his people.

okay, this is slightly tangential, oh well.

From the above paragraps we have learned that
1) christians should shun non christians because they are sinners
2) prophets proclaimed God's will to God's people

Are you sure?

Jeremiah 29:1-15

Jerimiah tells the israelites not to shun the pagan culture of Babylon, but to live with them

Jonah

The entire book of Jonah is devoted to reforming Gentiles (and Jonah)

Deuteronomy 32:43 tells Gentiles to rejoice

Psalm 117:1 tells Gentiles to praise God

In Isaiah 11:10, Isaiah tells the Gentiles have hope.

I am sorry, but you are very much in the wrong here. In fact, unless you are a Messianic Jew, you are lucky that some of your church fathers did not agree with you. There has never been a time when jews, Christians, or anybody was called to build a proverbial wall to prevent outsiders from corrupting clean Christians. Not even Calvin taught that. We are all dirty. Living in culture does not contaminate the human heart. Even if you were all alone on a desert island, you still would be contaminated with sin. With that in mind it is illogical to presume that avoiding sinners facilitates avoiding sin.

Take a look at the Israelites themselves. There were twelve tribes all told, with each one being named after the father of the tribe. The Levites were the priesthood, for example, decending from Levi. Paul tells us in Romans that those who believe in Jesus Christ are of the seed of Abraham and are thus his children. Does it rob God of glory to say we are children of Abraham? Of course not. Why? Because we understand that Abraham was simply a servant of God and that the seed of Abraham are simply the fulfillment of God's promise. The same can be said for "Calvinists." We do not glorify Calvin for any particular work that he did. Instead, we glorify God for using his servant Calvin to articulate biblical soteriology so well. We glorify God for using his servants, the Reformed, to continue teaching biblical doctrines in a postmodern world where liberal "meology" (as opposed to "theology") seems to have a stranglehold on the church. God receives the glory for all this, not his servants. Our glory is in Christ alone.

This is not to say that none idolize Calvin. It would not surprise me to learn that there are some who do. Nevertheless, it is profoundly wrong to assert that we should not identify with Calvin because of this element. It is certainly wrong to argue that it may cause an "appearance of evil" to the unregenerate because their view of Christians is already evil. They will distort anything they can to mock and defame Christians. It is inaccurate to argue that it causes other Christians (in general, not specifically) to stumble because the distinctions are understood to be a difference in belief in doctrine, not a difference in the following of teachers. Calvin was not the only person to teach "Calvinism." That the soteriology bears his name is nothing more than an historical recognition of Calvin as the first teacher of the system as we know it.

(Actually, Augustine would be the first, but I won't fauld a Calvinist for not knowing that )

It is a label of convenience of identity and no more. No one would argue that Calvinists are not Christians simply because they identify with Calvin's soteriology. Instead, they would argue that their belief in Calvin's soteriology is damning, or that their refusal to accept Papal authority is what damns them, etc. Those who know what the label means knows that those who are Calvinists proclaim to be Christians.

As for those who do not know what the label Calvinist means and assume that Calvinists place Calvin above Christ, then they are in the wrong and not the Calvinist. Their assumption has caused them to make an erroneous conclusion. Instead of seeking out the true meaning of the term, they decided what it meant to themselves and passed judgment based on that assumption. This is simply an indefensible position.

In any case, I have no trouble saying "Reformed," and it is indeed the label that I prefer, but at the same time, one could make the argument that while it no longer appears that one man is receiving glory, many men or one particular event is receiving glory above Christ. For you to make the assertion that any label besides "Christian" robs God of glory, but to then say that "Reformed" is okay is to contradict yourself. There is no subtle distinction. Either something points to God or it does not. If referencing the Reformation can point to God, then referencing Calvin can likewise point to God. Any argument in favor of one form over the other would simply beg the question.

Anyway, this is where I stand on the issue.

Soli Deo Gloria

Jon

 

[papakapp]

We name our four gospels after men. However, when we speak of the Gospel of Matthew, no one blames us for referencing Matthew instead of Christ. Do you have a problem with that?

Of course not, If Matthew wrote the book, read Matthew. If Luke wrote the book, read Luke.

The problem is, if after reading those books you decide you are a Lukian, or a Matthewmetician in stead of a Christian Matthew does not point to Himself, he points to Jesus. Same for Luke, same for Calvin.

You have an excellent observation, but a pathetic conclusion. The very fact that we read, and have read Matthew for thousands of years and still call ourselves Christian is an excellent argument that we should also read Calvin, and continue calling ourselves Christian.

 

[Jon_]

I am a wicked God hater too. And so are you, and everybody else.

You hate God? Then you are not my brother.

I once hated God, but because he loved me, he, by merit of his grace alone regenerated me through the power of his Holy Spirit and bestowed upon me the gift of salvific faith. Now, though I once hated God and tried to remove his image from myself, I love him and embrace his sovereign grace.

I would hope that you see the folly in your comment. We are all sinners, but God's elect do not hate him.

okay, this is slightly tangential, oh well.

This was a lead-in to the point I was making.

From the above paragraps we have learned that
1) christians should shun non christians because they are sinners

Christians have nothing in common with non-Christians. I never said "shun"; moreover my point was not at all intended to be universal. Of course we evangelize the heathen.

2) prophets proclaimed God's will to God's people

I never said the prophets spoke only to God's people.

(Rom. 9:7 KJV) Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called.​

They are not all Israel who were born to Abraham, yet the prophets proclaimed to all of Israel (et al.).

Are you sure?

I'm sure that you're putting words into my mouth. And if that is going to constitute the soul of your rebuttal simply because I disagree with your ridiculous and thoroughly refuted notion that Calvinism shouldn't be known as Calvinism, then I am done with you.

I am sorry, but you are very much in the wrong here.

You put words into my mouth and completely misrepresent my point and I'm the one who's in the wrong? Please.

In fact, unless you are a Messianic Jew, you are lucky that some of your church fathers did not agree with you.

I'm lucky, am I? Well, I don't believe in luck. I believe in Providence. Additionally, you are against misrepresenting me in implying that I think we should not evangelize non-Christians. I never said that, never even said anything that would imply it. Your accusation here is slanderous and offensive and I hold you accountable for your sin.

I also forgive you of it.

There has never been a time when jews, Christians, or anybody was called to build a proverbial wall to prevent outsiders from corrupting clean Christians. Not even Calvin taught that.

Not even I taught that.

We are all dirty. Living in culture does not contaminate the human heart. Even if you were all alone on a desert island, you still would be contaminated with sin. With that in mind it is illogical to presume that avoiding sinners facilitates avoiding sin.

Now you're assuming that my intent in saying that Christians have nothing in common with non-Christians is because they influence us to sin. Again, you're putting words into my mouth and throwing out a red herring, attacking an argument that I hadn't even made.

(Actually, Augustine would be the first, but I won't fauld a Calvinist for not knowing that )

You're a moron. (Moron, of course, coming from the Greek moros--meaning dull, stupid, blockhead, or fool--which is a biblically applied term of derision for those who think themselves wise, cf. 1 Cor. 3:18.)

You also must not read very well because I specifically said:

That the soteriology bears his name is nothing more than an historical recognition of Calvin as the first teacher of the system as we know it. (emphasis added)

You have completely ignored the main thrust of my argument and instead built a throng of straw men. Since you have added absolutely nothing to the discussion, but have revealed yourself to be thoroughly ignorant on the very subject in which you maintained wisdom, I am very much done talking to you.

Soli Deo Gloria

Jon

 

[AndOne]

Jon - I know you can fight your own battles quite eloquantly but I just have to comment on this one...

From the above paragraps we have learned that
1) christians should shun non christians because they are sinners
2) prophets proclaimed God's will to God's people

Are you kidding me?? This is the conclusion that you draw from reading jon's post? Nowhere in the entire post did he even hint at either of these rediculous claims.

There has never been a time when jews, Christians, or anybody was called to build a proverbial wall to prevent outsiders from corrupting clean Christians. Not even Calvin taught that.

And how did you come to conclude that this is what Jon was trying to imply. I've been interacting with Jon for quite some time on these boards and I can quite assure you that your assessment of his post could be furthest from the conclusion that you draw here. It is a blatant misrepresentation of what he was trying to point out - namely that our major concern is with what God thinks of us vice the unbeliever. That doesn't mean, nor does it in the remotest imply that we should not love the unbeliever nor try to evangelize him. A major problem with Christians in this day and age - is that they DO care what the unbeliever thinks of him - which is why all too often a watered down, incomplete gospel is often presented to them.

 

[Jon_]

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Behe's Boy again.

Dang it! You'll have to settle for "honorable" rep, Dave.

Thanks for setting the record straight.

Soli Deo Gloria

Jon

 

[Imblessed]

Dang it! You'll have to settle for "honorable" rep, Dave.

Thanks for setting the record straight.

Soli Deo Gloria

Jon

I repped him for you Jon! he he, de-ja-vu.......


feeling a bit picked on lately Jon? Poor guy....here's a hug

 

[Jon_]

I repped him for you Jon! he he, de-ja-vu.......


feeling a bit picked on lately Jon? Poor guy....here's a hug

Thanks, Windi!

I don't mind getting shot at. I got my Shield of Faith at the ready.

Soli Deo Gloria

Jon