reformed

[StillGods]

sadly i cant take seriously Calvinism anymore because of silly little things, like when they say 'world' kosmos in the original language doesnt mean world.
its laughable sadly.
its the silly little things.

 

[bbbbbbb]

sadly i cant take seriously Calvinism anymore because of silly little things, like when they say 'world' kosmos in the original language doesnt mean world.
its laughable sadly.
its the silly little things.

Stumbling blocks, large. small, or silly, are still stumbling blocks.

 

[msortwell]

to me they do contradict though, like really obviously, so i dont see what the point is of having to stretch and twist scripture so much to make it fit a reformed belief system when if you just read the Bible without a reformed mindset it makes sense easily. this is not meant to offend i'm sorry i have hopefully not said this too bluntly.
thank you for replying

If you would be interested in offering up a really obvious contradiction, I will try to demonstrate the point.

 

[Billy Evmur]

If, in fact, scripture contradicts itself, it would be impossible to "just read the Bible without a reformed mindset (and) it makes sense easily". Contradictions never make sense, easily or otherwise.

Where in doctrine does the bible contradict itself?

 

[msortwell]

sadly i cant take seriously Calvinism anymore because of silly little things, like when they say 'world' kosmos in the original language doesnt mean world.
its laughable sadly.
its the silly little things.

I can't disagree with your observation regarding the painful assertion of some in the Calvinist camp regarding the meaning of kosmos. But that is not a fundamental tenet of Calvinism. Calvinism can hold up without redefining "world." Still, we know that 'world' has various meanings in various biblical passages.

 

[StillGods]

i am done with Calvinists.
i spent the morning with a few and it was the nail in the coffin.
back to a normal church for me where I can get back to focussing on God, not doctrine.

 

[msortwell]

Ironic - The concern of most Calvinists is that contrary views are not adequately God centered.

 

[Apologetic_Warrior]

i am done with Calvinists.
i spent the morning with a few and it was the nail in the coffin.
back to a normal church for me where I can get back to focussing on God, not doctrine.

Are you versed in Christian apologetics, Christian philosophy, etc.? If so, I could show you how inadequate the non-Reformed defense of the faith is. Wouldn't you expect the truth to be adequate and defensible? Not just a truth, but Christianity as a whole? What if I told you that the autonomous notions of free will, cannot lead to the objective truth of the person of Christ? Autonomy is rooted in the relativism of subjectivism, but you will not find the notions of "might", "maybe", and other worlds notion of "possibilities" in Scripture, instead we find confidence of faith, assurance of faith, and words like "will" in the sense of an absolute. The writers of Scripture, wrote with the certainty of faith, and not by assuming autonomy, rather by assuming theonomy, a sovereign God, a particular sovereign God, not generic theism, not an unknown deity, or higher power, or a lonely man upstairs hoping, NO, by the certainty of faith in Jesus Christ, they held a level of confidence and assurance to the extent of dying for their faith in Christ. People do not and will not die for uncertainty, for the doubt of might or maybe or possibly, and without certainty, all is reduced to meaningless, pointless, babbling, subjective nonsense that nobody can consistently live according to.

 

[StillGods]

what do you like the best about God?

 

[Apologetic_Warrior]

what do you like the best about God?

Reformed (Anglican) writer John Newton famously explained it best in his hymn "Amazing Grace".

 

[msortwell]

what do you like the best about God?

Sadly, I must confess that my favorite thing about God is that He saved me completely and irrevocably. My theology is God centered. But I rarely live up to what I know is theologically true. I am fully dependent upon His grace.

The day will come when my favorite thing about God will be that He is worthy of all praise and honor and glory simply because by Him all things were created.

 

[StillGods]

.

 

[thecolorsblend]

is Reformed Theology bad?

I don't find it especially useful. Even when it's imparted in absolutely good faith, most of it is a logical dead end.

 

[msortwell]

I don't find it especially useful. Even when it's imparted in absolutely good faith, most of it is a logical dead end.

Interesting. In what way?

 

[ICONO'CLAST]

i am done with Calvinists.
i spent the morning with a few and it was the nail in the coffin.
back to a normal church for me where I can get back to focussing on God, not doctrine.

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.

 

[thecolorsblend]

Interesting. In what way?

Since you ask, I find Reformed Theology to be incomplete. And I'd like to think I know whereof I speak on this because I was raised in a pretty reformed environment. Questions lingered that never really had satisfactory answers.

A good example (which isn't really what you asked for, I know) is sola scriptura. I bought into it when I was younger because it didn't seem like the doctrine had any logical alternative. This was based on the assumptions of a teenager who had never researched any of the alternatives to decide if they're logical or not.

But in any case, I several writings by various Church Fathers and (A) it was clear they didn't believe in sola scriptura (B) they believed in Church authority and (C) the concept of Church authority harmonized better with sacred scripture than sola scriptura.

The same held true of other Reformed ideas. Eventually, I came to the realization that the people who had taught me all this Reformed Theology probably had the most noble intentions but that brand of theology just didn't add up for me anymore (to whatever degree it ever did, tbh).

This isn't too say that RT is utterly worthless. I'm not making that argument. I'm saying it's incomplete and I personally don't find it to be very useful.

 

[hedrick]

In the moderate form used by the Reformers, I think sola scriptura is obviously true. The early church had no need to formulate it, because they weren't in a situation where they had to figure out how to evaluate a church that looked like it had gone astray.

One difficulty with Reformed theology is that it turned into a new Tradition. Originally, the Reformers were willing to make quite substantial changes when the evidence pointed that way. But within a generation or two their conclusions had turned into another Tradition that was no more willing to accept challenge than 16th Cent Catholics. Indeed the modern Catholic church is currently more willing to follow scholarship, history, and science than the people who call themselves Reformed in CF (as long as it doesn't involve sex or gender, and even there most lay Catholics are on board).

I would say the real Reformed Christians today are the mainline churches, and in many respects that includes Catholics, at least in the US and Europe.

 

[msortwell]

Since you ask, I find Reformed Theology to be incomplete. And I'd like to think I know whereof I speak on this because I was raised in a pretty reformed environment. Questions lingered that never really had satisfactory answers.

A good example (which isn't really what you asked for, I know) is sola scriptura. I bought into it when I was younger because it didn't seem like the doctrine had any logical alternative. This was based on the assumptions of a teenager who had never researched any of the alternatives to decide if they're logical or not.

But in any case, I several writings by various Church Fathers and (A) it was clear they didn't believe in sola scriptura (B) they believed in Church authority and (C) the concept of Church authority harmonized better with sacred scripture than sola scriptura.

The same held true of other Reformed ideas. Eventually, I came to the realization that the people who had taught me all this Reformed Theology probably had the most noble intentions but that brand of theology just didn't add up for me anymore (to whatever degree it ever did, tbh).

This isn't too say that RT is utterly worthless. I'm not making that argument. I'm saying it's incomplete and I personally don't find it to be very useful.

You seem to be finding fault with a theological system because, in its full form, it shows its 5 part motto to be short of a fully orbed system of theology. The 5 solas is just a motto that expresses a fundamental philosophy within Reformed Theology - a shorthand means of expressing, in part, that the Scriptures are the one final authority on issues of doctrine (Sola Scriptura). If you would find fault with the theological system itself, you would do better to point out logical inconsistencies within with the theology as it is expressed in one of the widely embraced confessions/catechisms, or in a respected "Systematic Theology" like Berkhof's. You will find that more challenging.

 

[msortwell]

. . . Indeed the modern Catholic church is currently more willing to follow scholarship, history, and science than the people who call themselves Reformed in CF (as long as it doesn't involve sex or gender, and even there most lay Catholics are on board).

I would say the real Reformed Christians today are the mainline churches, and in many respects that includes Catholics, at least in the US and Europe.

I am having trouble understanding why the willingness to "follow scholarship, history, and science" is being forwarded as a measure of the legitimacy of a theological system. The object of interest should be whether or not a particular set of beliefs or a theological system is a faithful attempt to represent the teachings of Scripture.

 

[hedrick]

I am having trouble understanding why the willingness to "follow scholarship, history, and science" is being forwarded as a measure of the legitimacy of a theological system. The object of interest should be whether or not a particular set of beliefs or a theological system is a faithful attempt to represent the teachings of Scripture.

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.