Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
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.
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, 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.
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 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.
what do you like the best about God?
what do you like the best about God?
I don't find it especially useful. Even when it's imparted in absolutely good faith, most of it is a logical dead end.is Reformed Theology bad?
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.
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.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.
. . . 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.
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.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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?