Reformed Theology vs. the Reformed Attitude

I'm a little confused. You appear to have lifted part of a blog and made it your own.

It was written by a pastor named Bruce, who calls himself the JollyBlogger. After he relates the conversation, he goes on to say that he is Reformed.

mandym, are you Bruce? If you are, fine, but you need to make that clearer. If not, please cite Bruce's blog as your source. Otherwise, it's plagiarism.

I realize you provided a link, but those who don't click it are going to think those are your words.

 

I must lead a sheltered life. I know a bunch of Calvinists and not a single one of them is arrogant, judgmental or self-righteous. They are some of the humblest, Christ-honoring people I've ever known. I guess they're out there, just never ran across them.

Now, I will say this. When people discover and embrace the Doctrines of Grace, they think it's the greatest thing since pockets on a shirt. And they want to tell everybody they know about it. This may be off-putting to some folks, especially non-Cals



I remember my own situation as a newly-minted DoG. My Non-Cal pastor rolled his eyes when he saw me coming.

As one preacher said about another who was a free worshiper and quite vocal: If anybody makes heaven, he will--if he doesn't overshoot it. That was my problem. In my zeal to tell everybody about my discovery, I may have overshot it.

Frankly, I can't imagine why any Calvinist would be arrogant-or want to be.

 

This was also in the blog:

there can and does seem to be a stage cage reaction many times,when someone finds out how much truth has been hidden from them. The eat it up really fast ,and sometimes the wisdom how to present these truths does not catch up to the head knowledge. it is a growth in grace that is needed.

the same can be said of ex-roman catholics, who almost get violently mad against all things catholic when Jesus sets them free.

sometimes calvinists who first come to truth, get attacked from all sides instead of encouraged by other brethren. They react and defend them selves,rather than stick with the claims of truth.

Hey Mandy....I also found this in the article....
you probably did not post this part because you were afraid to run out of space!

This is a good reminder to all;

This is a fair article as we all need to be reminded of this danger.

 

Here is another danger with labels and names.

Reformed theology is not necessarily "calvinism" being as the label implies as coming out of the Reformation which is distinct (but not separate) from calvinism.

I don't accept the "reformed" label either as the Reformation IMO was a failure.

The mainline churches of the Reformation to this very day retain many of the graveclothes of the Church of Rome: Pado-baptism (a disguise for baptismal regeneration), transubstantiation (disguised as consubstantiation), sacramentalism, a socerdotal/ministerial priesthood, etc, etc.

True many have the label "reformed" and don't hold these errors of Rome but redefine out the romish error. e.g. Bible Presbyterian churches view paedo-baptism as a Christian parental "covenant promise" with confirmation of the batizee to follow in later years.

That is not to say I can't/wont visit a reformed church and even have a time of fellowship. A Baptist local church which calls itself "reformed" is probably ok.

I accept the label "baptist" because of the baptist distinctives which represent the true infrastructure of the autonomous local church.

However it is also inadequate seeing the "Heinz 57 variety" (actually many more) syndrome of baptistic bodies and I often must correct wrong assumptions concerning what my personal detailed view of "Baptist" entails and use the "distinctives" to clarify my position.

HankD

 

Apparently this Rob Sclapfer guy is going post modern

http://phillipjohnson.blogspot.com/2005/06/quick-and-dirty-calvinism.html

And he is a real hit with the Presbyterians:

http://www.puritans.net/news/discerningreader121504.htm

Looks like he's trading up to a more Volume readership. Could it be a monitory decision for more Ca Ching? Hmmmmmm! :smilewinkgrin:

 

I think that there is a nuanced issue at hand in regard to the old-line terms like Calvinism and Arminianism. They no longer fully fit the picture of a BIBLICAL church that sees God as ultimately sovereign in more than just soteriology.

I disavow the term "Calvinism" though by most definitions I are one. Why? Simply, theology has pressed forward in the past 500 years and we can now set aside pejoratives and major on biblical theology instead of re-hashing old and worn ideas including the following (non-inclusive) list:

Unity over division.
God's sovereignty to man's will, even if that will is perfectly bent toward God.
Spiritual gifts over ceasationism, but also acknowledge that some gifts are misunderstood and that the use in some cases is anti-biblical in nature.
A confessional congregation that yet retains the priesthood of all believers.
Community to individuality.
The gospel as the means to life instead of the route to death.
A plurality of leaders in the local church.
The work of an apostle in the true biblical sense, i.e., one who is a messenger to God's people, yet un-called, in order that they might hear the gospel and become a NT church.
Prayer (with the sharing of the gospel) as the primary evangelistic tool that leads to salvation, and the primary weapon of spiritual warfare.

All of the above and more could be seen in traditional Calvinism, but not in a biblical sense, in that the congregations that best practiced Calvinism also tended to leave off some of the very biblical doctrines and practices listed above. I do not see many of the practices above in Arminian, Semi-Pelagian, Pelagian, or no-name theology churches.

 

Maybe I just looked at it wrong. I'm wondering, did anybody else think mandym was the author of the post, and realized it was a quote only after clicking the link. And would you have known mandym was not the author had you not clicked the link?

I'm just wondering if I'm the only one who drew that conclusion.

 

I thought so as well, but realized after reading a bit that was not the case.

 

I gathered the same conclusion. I also gathered the OP is a little inflammatory and quite judgmental and condeming in approach toward the Calvinist/DoG brehthren, and feel that is its main objective, and is unnecessary.

- Peace

 

It is quite easy to insert an article in quotes, then cite a link. Let me or anyone else that understands the process to help if you need the help.

 

Part of it is the way you come across with it in what portions you've posted, which I for one find unnecessary and instigative, the other part is it looks as if it's an attempt to come across as from you. Just because you think these things are true or correct doesn't mean it's OK. I believe it is unnecessary and misrepresents the good Christian calvinist/DoG brethren on the BB and elsewhere.

Furthermore, the many brothers and sisters who post on here make it very apparent when quoting others.

 

Are you possibly writing a book yourself my Brother in Christ. You appear to have a good outline as well as substance.

Best of luck if you are:love2:

 

It appears to me that you guys are making a mountain out of mole hill to avoid discussing the content presented. I think its clear that mandym wasn't intending to mislead, and now you all know it was a quoted OP, so move on.

I also think its interesting that some of you are offended by what two reformed believers see as a problem within your ranks, especially since some of what they are recognizing is a text book example of what we too often experience here.