Should we encourage a broad idea of Reformed?

cygnusx1 · Jul 25, 2004

It seems to me that we should encourage a broad idea of Reformed otherwise it all becomes a bit insular,dry and non-challenging.

By that I mean I welcome many who are on a voyage of discovery (we all Are) that may include an understanding that is different to ours......
Do we really want to be automatons, thinking the same thoughts, holding identical doctrines etc,or should we learn from each others slightly different understanding and progressive developement?

I welcome all Reformed Christians , be thay 1 point,2 3 4 5 0r even 25 point,so long as they are not pushing Heresy,or destroying faith,I think it's furtile soil, we need, not sterile thinking.....

But What Do YOU think?

cajunhillbilly · Jul 25, 2004

I tend to have a very broad and accepting attitude to other Christians. Anyone who can in all honesty say that they are relying only on the merits of Christ alone to be acceptable to God, I accept as a brother in Christ. I am Reformed in my theology, but I do not believe you need to be Reformed to be saved. Only God knows the heart of any professed believer.

Gabriel · Jul 25, 2004

For purposes of discussion without conflict, we request that only those of the Reformed pursuasion debate here. However, I am pretty liberal in who I allow to call themselves Reformed when engaged in conversation here. For instance, I would not call someone who believes in predestination and pre mil totally Reformed, but I would consider them close enough to allow them to discuss theology here. After all, if a nugget of truth is present in them, how would that nugget become whole but through teaching?

Additionally, infant baptism is a subject that many who would call themselves Reformed have very different opinions on. However, I wouldn't banish anyone for a view that is different from mine. It is OK to be wrong here. As long is it is done respectfully and earnestly.

ksen · Jul 26, 2004

Gabriel said:
For purposes of discussion without conflict, we request that only those of the Reformed pursuasion debate here. However, I am pretty liberal in who I allow to call themselves Reformed when engaged in conversation here. For instance, I would not call someone who believes in predestination and pre mil totally Reformed, but I would consider them close enough to allow them to discuss theology here. After all, if a nugget of truth is present in them, how would that nugget become whole but through teaching?

Additionally, infant baptism is a subject that many who would call themselves Reformed have very different opinions on. However, I wouldn't banish anyone for a view that is different from mine. It is OK to be wrong here. As long is it is done respectfully and earnestly.

I consider myself a 4-Point Amyrauldian, Pre-Mill, Dispy-Doodle.......can I still play over here, or will my Tulip get clipped?

Gabriel · Jul 26, 2004

ksen said:
I consider myself a 4-Point Amyrauldian, Pre-Mill, Dispy-Doodle.......can I still play over here, or will my Tulip get clipped?

Hmmm We may have to beat you into submission first.

ksen · Jul 26, 2004

Gabriel said:
Hmmm We may have to beat you into submission first.

Ok, but make sure you only use sticks that have the Servetus(tm) seal of approval.

cygnusx1 · Jul 26, 2004

ksen said:
I consider myself a 4-Point Amyrauldian, Pre-Mill, Dispy-Doodle.......can I still play over here, or will my Tulip get clipped?

Hi brother ksen,hope you are well!!

Yes,I can definately see the appeal, I was moving in that direction for a few years, but eventually I came back to the Tulip position,so Now I can roast you over a BBQ

No , but really, I think the issue of the extent of the Atonement is really a very deep issue..............I thought about it today,and If we think about the word 'World' and the word 'all' men...........then consider the usual Calvinist response....."all without distinction Not all without exception"....."the world" means all nations.....you follow so far?
Good!

Well now ask yourself is there a president for taking a universalistic word or phrase and re-interperating it in a more focused definite particularist way?

Indeed there is,read the beginning of Romans 9,then read it in the context of "universalistic passages" what do we get? Clarity!!

If God said "Not all Israel are Israel", then not all men are all men,for then all Israel would have to be all Israel otherwise the word Of God would have failed,and we know that the death of Christ accomplshes all that it was meant to accomplish.

Hope this helps!

ksen · Jul 28, 2004

cygnusx1 said:
Hi brother ksen,hope you are well!!

Yes,I can definately see the appeal, I was moving in that direction for a few years, but eventually I came back to the Tulip position,so Now I can roast you over a BBQ

No , but really, I think the issue of the extent of the Atonement is really a very deep issue..............I thought about it today,and If we think about the word 'World' and the word 'all' men...........then consider the usual Calvinist response....."all without distinction Not all without exception"....."the world" means all nations.....you follow so far?
Good!

Well now ask yourself is there a president for taking a universalistic word or phrase and re-interperating it in a more focused definite particularist way?

Indeed there is,read the beginning of Romans 9,then read it in the context of "universalistic passages" what do we get? Clarity!!

If God said "Not all Israel are Israel", then not all men are all men,for then all Israel would have to be all Israel otherwise the word Of God would have failed,and we know that the death of Christ accomplshes all that it was meant to accomplish.

Hope this helps!

Hi Cygnus! Did you survive being without CF yesterday alright?

I understand the "all" argument that you presented and pretty much believe what you wrote about it.

My understanding of Limited Atonement is that Christ's Atonement was sufficient for all but is only efficient for the Elect.

Is that enough to earn me my fifth petal?

cygnusx1 · Jul 28, 2004

ksen said:
Hi Cygnus! Did you survive being without CF yesterday alright?

Click to expand...

Hi Brother ksen,well I had a panic attack then withdrawal symptoms,then worst of all paranoia.

I understand the "all" argument that you presented and pretty much believe what you wrote about it.

My understanding of Limited Atonement is that Christ's Atonement was sufficient for all but is only efficient for the Elect.

Is that enough to earn me my fifth petal?

Click to expand...

We will have to hold a private seminar, synod ,debate, on that question.

I hear what you are saying but there is an objection to even that.

Iosias · May 18, 2013

cygnusx1 said:
I welcome all Reformed Christians , be thay 1 point,2 3 4 5 0r even 25 point,so long as they are not pushing Heresy,or destroying faith,I think it's furtile soil, we need, not sterile thinking.....

AmericanSamurai · May 18, 2013

I dunno, I don't think encouraging "broad" ideas is the answer, because when it comes down to it, details matter.

Iosias · May 19, 2013

AmericanSamurai said:
I dunno, I don't think encouraging "broad" ideas is the answer, because when it comes down to it, details matter.

I don't think Cyg meant not having details, he was speaking of broad in the sense of not excluding people from being Reformed because we disagree with them on something. So one could be an Anglican, Baptist, Calvinist, Charismatic, Conservative, Liberal, Moderate, Presbyterian, etc and still be Reformed.

student ad x · May 21, 2013

Iosias said:
I don't think Cyg meant not having details, he was speaking of broad in the sense of not excluding people from being Reformed because we disagree with them on something. So one could be an Anglican, Baptist, Calvinist, Charismatic, Conservative, Liberal, Moderate, Presbyterian, etc and still be Reformed.

Bumping a nearly 10 year old dead thread back to life........

The PCUSA needs to get their "house" back to the historic Christian Protestant Reformed faith........... liberalism, dispensationalism, charismata & credo-baptists are outside the Reformed faith.

Iosias · May 21, 2013

Surely one can be Reformed and liberal and one can also be Reformed and charismatic?

student ad x · May 21, 2013

Even when I considered my theology Particular Baptist I've said in the past and believe that it is possible to have a Calvinistic soteriology with a myriad of baggage on top, like the credo-baptists, yet not be Reformed. Dispensationalism, Charismata and our 20/21st century sensibilities to include unrepentant homosexuals @ the Lord's Table is not of the Reformed faith. These folks need to be rightly classified, which like other theologues of which I agree.......... as Calvinistic or as I would classify the complete Calvinistic genre: Sovereignists.
........................... soli deo gloria

crimsonleaf · May 21, 2013

student ad x said:
Bumping a nearly 10 year old dead thread back to life........

The PCUSA needs to get their "house" back to the historic Christian Protestant Reformed faith........... liberalism, dispensationalism, charismata & credo-baptists are outside the Reformed faith.

While I know that some hold that credo-baptists are non-Reformed, it puts me (a Reformed Baptist) in an awkward position, as I hold to all five points of TULIP, making me a Particular Baptist rather than General Baptist.

As most of the discussions (and differences in general) that we have on here are soteriology based, the question of paedo vs credo almost never comes up, and some will know that I stand shoulder to shoulder with other Calvinists when debating salvation, our single, strongest distinction. I certainly believe that if you can have a Reformed paedobaptist you can have a Reformed credobaptist, as the Reformation dealt principally with matters other than baptism.

student ad x · May 21, 2013

crimsonleaf said:
While I know that some hold that credo-baptists are non-Reformed, it puts me (a Reformed Baptist) in an awkward position, as I hold to all five points of TULIP, making me a Particular Baptist rather than General Baptist.

Awkward, certainly.

As most of the discussions (and differences in general) that we have on here are soteriology based, the question of paedo vs credo almost never comes up, and some will know that I stand shoulder to shoulder with other Calvinists when debating salvation, our single, strongest distinction.

There is more to the Reformed faith than soteriology. Covenantalism, Confessionalism etc. As for CF discussions on baptism, they are heated, folks get honked off or wrote up for playing badly, leaving Soteriology for arguing, and playing badly and getting wrote up.

........ I certainly believe that if you can have a Reformed paedobaptist you can have a Reformed credobaptist, as the Reformation dealt principally with matters other than baptism.

The arguing of logical inference asside, God's people have practiced the sacrament of infant baptism for a very long time. Credo-Baptists have no origin point to return/reform to.

Yes, yes sola scriptura.............. not solo!

crimsonleaf · May 21, 2013

Then, in order to co-exist, we'll have to agree to differ.

Should we encourage a broad idea of Reformed?

Jacob the twister.....

Regular Member

I Once Was Lost, But Now Am Found

Wiki on Garth!

I Once Was Lost, But Now Am Found

Wiki on Garth!

Jacob the twister.....

Wiki on Garth!

Jacob the twister.....

Senior Contributor

the super dry member

Senior Contributor

Senior Contributor

Senior Contributor

Senior Contributor

crimsonleaf

Guest

Senior Contributor

crimsonleaf

Guest

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency