what are our biggest faults

erin74 · Sep 16, 2005

I often wonder, especially in light of the attacks and accusations we receive, what our biggest faults are in light of our theology? What are we accused of, and what is the kernel of truth we need to take away from it?

I think sometimes for me it is a certain arrogance in knowledge, and so an impatience with those who believe differently.... and also sometimes I think we all can be so caught up with understanding the word, that we don't always submit to it ourselves in our behaviour....

do you think this is a fair assessment? what other thoughts do people have? and what remedies?

Cajun Huguenot · Sep 16, 2005

erin74 said:
I often wonder, especially in light of the attacks and accusations we receive, what our biggest faults are in light of our theology? What are we accused of, and what is the kernel of truth we need to take away from it?

I think sometimes for me it is a certain arrogance in knowledge, and so an impatience with those who believe differently.... and also sometimes I think we all can be so caught up with understanding the word, that we don't always submit to it ourselves in our behaviour....

do you think this is a fair assessment? what other thoughts do people have? and what remedies?

The Calvinists I've known do tend to be bookish. We (as a whole) study and read more than lots of our evangelical brethren. That is why many of us are Calvinists we, often reluctantly, studied our way into this doctrine. Knowledge can, and often does, buff up. Some times we can and do come across as buffed up. That ain't good.

BUT, the Doctrines of election and predestination will ALWAYS rub men the wrong way. As someone once said (maybe Spurgeon) We are all, because of our sinful natures, natural born as Arminians, it is grace alone that makes us Calvinists.

These doctrines will always be hated by men and this is especially so in our own individualistic, democratic and egaliterian age. Lets face the Doctrine of election is not a Doctrine that egaliterians, democrats (little d), or "rugged individualists" cozy up to and accept.

Part of the problem is sin on our part, for which we need to repent. But even without that sin, when we present these docteines in the most humble way, even then we will be seen as arrogent by those who hate these teachings.

We must be humble in the face of such opposition and ranker. We should expect it and be ready to respond in a Godly way.

Those are my thoughts.

Coram Deo,
Kenith

Foundthelight · Sep 17, 2005

We also, in the arrogance of our knowledge, act as though the understanding of the salvation process is necessary for salvation. In effect that those who don't believe as we do, such as the Arminians, can't possibly be saved due to their misunderstanding. If this were true then the simple-minded and uneducated could never be saved.

I know that this impression is false. But, we do sometimes come across this way in our arguments. And if we do feel that way we need to re-examine ourselves.

We know that this understanding is not necessary from the evidence in the Book of Acts. Did those who came to faith on the day of Pentecost understand? Did Cornelius or Lydia understand the process?

The Holy Spirit regenerated these people in their ignorance allowing them to come to faith. Let us not judge other's salvation based on Arminian, or Reformed, or Catholic. Let us rather accept that the Holy Spirit can work regeneration in the hearts of all whom are Elect regardless of the minor differences in understanding.

It is not our judgements that count, but God's Grace.

JJB · Sep 17, 2005

I do think pride can take it's toll on our message. But we are not the only ones who struggle with pride. I have been called dull-witted and other "brotherly love" names from an Universalist who frequents SR. Pride is a stumbling block to any who have a "learned" nature.

Pride's attendants are impatience, belittling and Arminianism. It places limits on ppl's patience in that they limit the company they keep to only those who are of the same caliber. How can you help the less fortunate if you don't know any? The impatience is expressed in condescension. Arminianism, I hope, is self-explanatory.

In actuality, the message of God's gift of faith is very humbling.

Two cents, please.

I know I've been guilty of pride and have seen and participated in the attendant fall.

Cajun Huguenot · Sep 17, 2005

JJB said:
I do think pride can take it's toll on our message. But we are not the only ones who struggle with pride. I have been called dull-witted and other "brotherly love" names from an Universalist who frequents SR. Pride is a stumbling block to any who have a "learned" nature.

Pride's attendants are impatience, belittling and Arminianism. It places limits on ppl's patience in that they limit the company they keep to only those who are of the same caliber. How can you help the less fortunate if you don't know any? The impatience is expressed in condescension. Arminianism, I hope, is self-explanatory.

In actuality, the message of God's gift of faith is very humbling.

Two cents, please.

I know I've been guilty of pride and have seen and participated in the attendant fall.

Amen to the posts above. We Calvinists SHOULD be the most humble of Christians, because we know that who we are is because of God's grace ALONE. We are not smart enough to figure things out. The Lord has granted us eyes to see (in this area) what many of our brethren do not yet see. This should humble us and cause us to be "long suffering" and not puffed up with a short fuse.

In Christ,
Kenith

reformedfan · Sep 17, 2005

the criticism i've heard actually uttered against the Reformed is that their belief in the sovereignty of God & advancement of Christ's kingdom makes us a lil reluctant to tell people what to do, life wise. So a parent that is opposed to one of their kids wanting to go into the military, f'rinstance, won't be able to just march him into the pastor's office & have the pastor say, 'yeah, do what yer parents want', cuz God's will getting done is the only important thing & who is anyone to say what that is or isn't, etc.

That's a bad example, but ya follow me?

Received · Sep 18, 2005

Yes, the Calvinists I have known tend to have an arrogant streak, but presumably this isn't from their Calvinism, but some deeper psychological malfunction. For instance, to declare, without humor, that "recognize that all Christians will be Calvinists in glory," is the greatest expression of contempt concealed in weakness that I can comprehend.

The greatest historical problem with the reformed stance, as I see it, has to do with their interpretation and how this relates to their conclusion that their practical aspect -- their social intervention -- is relatively low. I speak as this relates to churches, not individuals; an individual may be called by God to be very much left to himself; but the church always should work towards society.

I speak of all of this in reference to myself, if you will, for I do indeed have an aspect of Calvinism in me; you may argue that one is either completely a Calvinist or not, and I respond: so much the worst for you.

Cheers,

John

Imblessed · Sep 18, 2005

Received said:
The greatest historical problem with the reformed stance, as I see it, has to do with their interpretation and how this relates to their conclusion that their practical aspect -- their social intervention -- is relatively low. I speak as this relates to churches, not individuals; an individual may be called by God to be very much left to himself; but the church always should work towards society.

Cheers,

John

can you explain this please? are you saying reformed churches don't reach out to society? Are not evangelical enough? something else?

and speaking of reformed, do you mean strictly reformed churches ie: Presbyterian, or are you including say, Calvinistic Baptist churches in this?

Received · Sep 18, 2005

Reformed as in anyone who upholds Calvinistic doctrines; perhaps this is a warping of the term. And, yeah, they don't tend to put emphasis on reaching out; I remember one church who abstained entirely from missions for approximately 10 years because they didn't feel themselves "predestined" to do so. That, of course, is an extreme example.

cygnusx1 · Sep 18, 2005

My biggest fault is that I am too tolerant .........................

Paleoconservatarian · Sep 18, 2005

One of my biggest faults is that I am too hesitant. I always feel too inadequate to teach the gospel, to engage in discourse, and so on. I'm always telling myself, "If I can just understand this one concept better, then I'll be ready..." or "let me just read one more book, or memorize one more passage..." or "let me hone my presentation/develop my argument just a little better" and I end up never doing anybody any good. And I wouldn't say that this is a problem of me being too humble. It's just the opposite. I am too proud. My pride is so great that I find myself acting as though God's grace isn't enough, that He can't work through me until I learn more.

jazzbird · Sep 18, 2005

Received said:
Reformed as in anyone who upholds Calvinistic doctrines; perhaps this is a warping of the term. And, yeah, they don't tend to put emphasis on reaching out; I remember one church who abstained entirely from missions for approximately 10 years because they didn't feel themselves "predestined" to do so. That, of course, is an extreme example.

Hmmm...interesting. I have not had this experience personally. The Baptist Calvinist church I spent many years in supports (I believe) 39 missionaries plus local evangelizing programs. The Presbyterian church I now belong to supports a smaller number of missionaries, as we are a small congregation who meets in a school, but we do regular missions trips, outreaches within our society, etc. I would guess that perhaps your observations have to do more with particular churches than a group as a whole.

I agree with what others have stated as far as the cerebral quality of many Reformed and how that can lead to intellectual arrogance and/or too much thinking and not enough action.

Cajun Huguenot · Sep 18, 2005

Hello Recieved,

I have to agree with Jazzbird. The Church you mention would be on the Hyper side of Calvinism if that was their position. The Evangelistic thrust of the Gosple is clear and if you know history you will find that Calvinism has always been on the front lines of evngelism and missions.

King Francis I of France complained in Calvins day that Geneva was raining ministers on France. THe Reformed Church spread far and wide across Europe because the Calvinist thrust of evangelism THis is why the Reformed section Switzerland (which was sourounded on all sides by Roamn Catholic lands was so influential in so many far flung sections of Europe, England, Scotland, Hungary, Poland, Netherlands and France all had strong Reformed movements and most underwent serious persicution.

The Great Awakening was a mostly Reformed Movement on this side of the Atlantic and a good bit on the other side as well. the Great 19th century missionary movement was lead by Reformed/Calvinistic Christians like Dr. Stanley Livingstone, William Carey (ok Carey begin's a bit earlier), Adoniram Judson, Hudson Taylor, etc...

Even today the Evangelism Explosion movement came from Reformed/Presbyterian Pastor D. James Kennedy.

Coram Deo,
Kenith

Received said:
Reformed as in anyone who upholds Calvinistic doctrines; perhaps this is a warping of the term. And, yeah, they don't tend to put emphasis on reaching out; I remember one church who abstained entirely from missions for approximately 10 years because they didn't feel themselves "predestined" to do so. That, of course, is an extreme example.

ScottishJohn · Sep 18, 2005

Hi Guys!

My first shot at posting in here. I can give you my experience of what I think is wrong my church: I have been a member for the Church of Scotland for about 13 years. I have been an employee of the Church of Scotland for 3. My father is a minister within the Church of Scotland and has been for nearly 30 years. What is wrong with our branch of the reformed church is that there is no room for God. There are so many commitees so much intelligence and the church is slowly dieing from inaction. We have meeting after meeting after meeting, and achieve nothing. All the good stuff that is happening within the Church of Scotland happens in isolated pockets because of good leadership, and in spite of the wider church.

There is a fear of making decisions, a policy of managed withdrawal, and we are now at the point where I truly believe the Church of Scotland has to die a death only to be reborn in a new form. Our emblem is the burning bush. Our motto 'nec tamen consumebatur' (neither was it consumed). Well we are being consumed, consumed by pride, inaction and a belief that tradition is more important than evangelism. We desperately need some leadership, but the presbyterian system seems to prevent any effective change. For the past 5 years the most popular phrase a our General Assembly is 'rearranging the deckchairs on the titanic'.

Would have preferred my first post to be more positive but hey tell it like it is!

JimfromOhio · Sep 18, 2005

My wife and I are considering a new home church that is connected with Presbyterian Church in America. So, I am not aware of what are our (Semper Reformanda - Reformed) biggest faults YET. However, I grew up as an Baptist and attended an Anabaptist church for years, I can tell you some the faults within those denominations.

Imblessed · Sep 19, 2005

Received said:
Reformed as in anyone who upholds Calvinistic doctrines; perhaps this is a warping of the term. And, yeah, they don't tend to put emphasis on reaching out; I remember one church who abstained entirely from missions for approximately 10 years because they didn't feel themselves "predestined" to do so. That, of course, is an extreme example.

I would say that yes, that is an extreme example, and judging all Calvinistic/reformed churches from that one is pretty narrow.

Some of the greatest evangelicals ever were reformed/calvinistic. I've seen evidence of "arminian" churches who have the same problem of not reaching out, and I don't think it has much to do with "feeling predestined to evangelize". I think it has to do with the people within the church, and whether they have a good leader, or whether they are willing to do the sacrifice necessary to reach out.

Our church is one of the most evangelical churches in our town(and our town has one of the highest ratios of churches per mile anywhere).

Now, I will agree that there are "bad apples" in every denomination--I'm guessing the presbyterians didn't get the name "frozen chosen" for no reason---but over all, I think your assumption of our churches not being outreach enough is erronous.

Imblessed · Sep 19, 2005

Paleoconservatarian said:
One of my biggest faults is that I am too hesitant. I always feel too inadequate to teach the gospel, to engage in discourse, and so on. I'm always telling myself, "If I can just understand this one concept better, then I'll be ready..." or "let me just read one more book, or memorize one more passage..." or "let me hone my presentation/develop my argument just a little better" and I end up never doing anybody any good. And I wouldn't say that this is a problem of me being too humble. It's just the opposite. I am too proud. My pride is so great that I find myself acting as though God's grace isn't enough, that He can't work through me until I learn more.

I know exactly how you feel. Trusting God on this point has been my one MAJOR issue. I'm too much of a control freak.......

Received · Sep 19, 2005

Imblessed said:
Some of the greatest evangelicals ever were reformed/calvinistic. I've seen evidence of "arminian" churches who have the same problem of not reaching out, and I don't think it has much to do with "feeling predestined to evangelize". I think it has to do with the people within the church, and whether they have a good leader, or whether they are willing to do the sacrifice necessary to reach out.

Our church is one of the most evangelical churches in our town(and our town has one of the highest ratios of churches per mile anywhere).

Now, I will agree that there are "bad apples" in every denomination--I'm guessing the presbyterians didn't get the name "frozen chosen" for no reason---but over all, I think your assumption of our churches not being outreach enough is erronous.

Well, this all depends on the paradigm one is comparing something to, as well as the situation one finds oneself in.

The view is not erronous, according to my context (and remember, I'm not looking at it historically, but contemporaneously), and according to my paradigm: scripture. Basically everywhere in my context has lack of social consideration. Why do I place emphasis on the reformed stance?

I think the problem might be that you are considering the relation between denominations, and thus finding my point something moot, and I admit that it is; but compare it with the scriptural commands: make disciples of the nations, and who is the farthest from this? I find it to be the reformed stance. No, let us get more technical -- not those who uphold reformed values, but those churches that place absolute and extreme emphasis on theological upbringing as superseding a potential motivation for consideration of evangelism. There, that sounds a good deal better.

I simply find the absolute emphasis on scriptural interpretation to a psychological negation in any motivation to -- pursue anything other than scriptural interpretation. The effect can be so easily perceived here: individuals who place more emphasis on scriptural interpretation or theology (or philosophy or psychology, etc.) tend to be (but not always) individuals who lack any fruits that extend to fulfilling Christ's most practical demands: love your neighbor, love your God. In some extremes, you will have individuals who, through some extreme exegesis, conclude that by virtue of their emphasis on scriptural interpretation, toying with theology, they are therefore loving God, and therefore loving their neighbors. This leads to some very nasty and fastidious Christians, who entertain what I would call the logical positivism of contemporary theology -- that is to say, they will never listen to anyone unless they are presented with sound interpretations that fit their interpretations -- that is, are proofs to them -- as reasons to listen to such a person. These sorts of people thus close out the rest of society that differs with them with no hope of return, denying their humanity, given that anyone who doesn't interpret things as are clear in scripture (that is, as I perceive them to be clear in scripture) cannot be worthy of being considered, therefore anathema to them, and anathema to anyone who would help them. This is why placing intepretation highest is a difficulty, because there is a tendency to eventually, after conglomerated a big mass full of glittering theology to one's eyes, to thus conclude that the position that upholds such theology must be right.

But consider: they are called the "frozen chosen" as a whole, not as an exception; the exceptions seem, to me, to be precisely those admirable saints you mention, and specific churches, which I have no doubt you are a part of. But let us be realistic: this isn't limited to the reformed stance; it pervades denominations that are outgrowths of protestantism: baptists, methodists, etc. The reason the reformed stance is considered "frozen" is because their specialty is related to inwardness, to interpretation and contemplation over theological ideas; meanwhile, baptists talk and are utterly idiosyncratic a crowd (trust me, I have one foot in the water there), as are other denominations that appear to be excluded from the "frozen" group. These other denominations find it natural to go about their faith in an external way. I'm just saying that the emphasis the reformed stance tends to put -- specifically in presbyterianism -- any other concern in the back window; one comes to believe that words are enough, and these words get so caught up in one's head that they prevent any spiritual growth. The more intellectual one gets in a theological sphere the less he or she seems to have a concern for others in a sense that transcends this sphere: in a sense that involves loving one's neighbor, emitting fruits of the spirit, and so on. I guess you could say the more one is tempted to be an aesthetic type of person: who sits around, reading books and studying theology, eventually becoming convinced that Christianity is really just reading books and studying theology as sufficient to getting all the words right, thus becoming less likely to succeed in other areas, the more important ones. And this all relates to evangelism; the lack of concern for others given the preoccupation with theological meticulousness keeps one from finding any reason for being motivated to seek others in the hope of, whether directly or indirectly (and the indirect the vehicle of divinity), presenting the gospel.

Again, your church is claimed an exception, and I don't doubt it. Most of the non-denominational churches based on Calvinistic creeds tend to be rather good supporters of evangelism, and getting out there and changing one's life to change others.

I guess a good question to ask is: have there been any Calvinists that have wrote extensively on spiritual disciplines? The concept was reintroduced by Richard Foster, a Quaker, in the 70s, and seems to have little support in reformed churches. Of course, the lack of support -- the lack of establishing the spiritual disciplines as necessary for spiritual maturity -- spreads all across Christian lines. But my focus is how this relates to the already present focus by those of the reformed branch on exegesis, theology, and even Christian philosophy. My point is: those who are of the reformed tradition, especially the presbyterians, given that their doctrine focuses most on the intellect, seem proportionately uninterested in things that don't do with the intellect, and this includes spiritual discipline and evangelism -- two points that were more central to Jesus' message, I would think, than methodical interpretation.

Cajun Huguenot · Sep 19, 2005

Recieved,

Have you read The Tragedy of American Compassion, Freedom, Justice and Hope: Toward a Strategy for the Poor and the Oppressed, or
Renewing American Compassion all by Marvin Olasky (Prof at U.T. and a PCA Elder at a Church in Austin) How about Bringing in the Sheaves or the Micah Mandate by Greorge Grant? These books an authors come quickly to mind I am sure I could name more with a little time.

In Christ,
Kenith

Received · Sep 19, 2005

But: reformed individuals who write on subjects has no relevance to the overall congregation involved in hyper-doctrinal forms of reformed theology that I am attempting to point out. And, as hedging of my own bet as this may sound, the simple reading of books on evangelism is no proof that it affects one's evangelism; it could easily fit according to the scriptural emphasis, detached from practicality.

Now it sounds like I'm putting up a claim and being incredulous towards any other claims. I suppose the reason is that the only solution I can find is evidence of individuals engaging in the practicality of the gospel; and this is pretty much a difficulty considering it is in my context that this would have to happen.

I always cause problems.

what are our biggest faults

Ministry is about people not structures.

Cajun's for Christ

St. Peter's R.C. Church, Delhi, NY

Well-Known Member

Cajun's for Christ

Senior Veteran

True love waits in haunted attics

Reformed Baptist with a Quaker heritage

True love waits in haunted attics

Jacob the twister.....

God's grandson

Senior Veteran

Cajun's for Christ

Contributor

Life of Trials :)

Reformed Baptist with a Quaker heritage

Reformed Baptist with a Quaker heritage

True love waits in haunted attics

Cajun's for Christ

True love waits in haunted attics

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency