Tabrett Posted June 12, 2011 Share Posted June 12, 2011 (edited) I keep reading posts about people wanting a reformed curriculum. Not really understanding what make a curriculum reformed, I thought it would help to make a list of reformed and not reformed curricula. So...what curricula are and are not? Edited June 12, 2011 by Tabrett Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blessedmom3 Posted June 12, 2011 Share Posted June 12, 2011 (edited) I know a few from my own research . Not totally reformed , but with a reformed flavor :) : TOG Veritas Press HOD Christian Liberty Press Covenant Home Non reformed : Sonlight MFW FIAR WP P.S Reformed curriculum is created by authors who are reformed believers , even though they do not impose their beliefs in their curriculums ( TOG, CLP or HOD ) Edited June 12, 2011 by blessedmom3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Delighted3 Posted June 12, 2011 Share Posted June 12, 2011 Covenant Home is definitely is definitely reformed. It says this on their website. Welcome to Covenant Home Curriculum, providers of a complete, eclectic, classical approach, Pre-school through 12th grade curriculum for home educators with a reformed Christian world view. HTH, Joy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tess in the Burbs Posted June 13, 2011 Share Posted June 13, 2011 Well I read on the SL sight this spring about their beliefs and there was a sentence at the end saying if you had to force them to say their theology it would be reformed. Shocked me!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MerryAtHope Posted June 13, 2011 Share Posted June 13, 2011 Well I read on the SL sight this spring about their beliefs and there was a sentence at the end saying if you had to force them to say their theology it would be reformed. Shocked me!!! Huh, I missed that. Do you remember where? I actually just started going to a reformed church and they focus a lot on the Westminster Catechism, which SL uses in Core 200. I haven't used the hs level cores yet though, and I don't focus on the guide much in the younger levels (and what I have used doesn't really focus on theology most of the time...). It's pretty easy to use SL whatever your beliefs I think--read books & discuss from your POV. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PollyOR Posted June 13, 2011 Share Posted June 13, 2011 Huh, I missed that. Do you remember where? I actually just started going to a reformed church and they focus a lot on the Westminster Catechism, which SL uses in Core 200. I haven't used the hs level cores yet though, and I don't focus on the guide much in the younger levels (and what I have used doesn't really focus on theology most of the time...). It's pretty easy to use SL whatever your beliefs I think--read books & discuss from your POV. http://www.sonlight.com/faq-about-sonlight.html About Sonlight FAQs and Policies Other Questions About Sonlight What religion does Sonlight Curriculum uphold? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
silliness7 Posted June 13, 2011 Share Posted June 13, 2011 I'm going out on a limb and guessing that the folks at Classical Academic Press are reformed. They put out Latin for Children and Song School Latin, Art of Argument etc. Their Bible curriculum is called God's Great Covenant and this is from the author's blog. God’s Great Covenant is a four-book series that relates the narrative of the Bible chronologically with an emphasis upon God’s covenant relationship with His people and His sovereign Kingship over all the earth. Designed for children beginning at the second grade level, the books make difficult truths simple while at the same time explaining deep theological truth through the vehicle of a story, because, of course, the Bible is ultimately God’s story. Someone else may know more about this particular publisher than I do. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tess in the Burbs Posted June 13, 2011 Share Posted June 13, 2011 I'm going out on a limb and guessing that the folks at Classical Academic Press are reformed. They put out Latin for Children and Song School Latin, Art of Argument etc. Their Bible curriculum is called God's Great Covenant and this is from the author's blog. they are, but gosh, I just looked at it this week, but don't remember where on the site...I know someone will post it though :tongue_smilie: Honestly, I think there are a lot of reformed publishers out there Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tabrett Posted June 13, 2011 Author Share Posted June 13, 2011 What does MFW teach that would make it 'not reformed'? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MerryAtHope Posted June 13, 2011 Share Posted June 13, 2011 Thanks! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KrissiK Posted June 13, 2011 Share Posted June 13, 2011 A Beka and BJU are absolutely not reformed! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
simka2 Posted June 13, 2011 Share Posted June 13, 2011 Well I read on the SL sight this spring about their beliefs and there was a sentence at the end saying if you had to force them to say their theology it would be reformed. Shocked me!!! "Reformer" not "Reformed." The context is with Reformer being contrasted with Catholic. They would probably have been better of with the term Protestant, but then I am sure it would have made things difficult for the Catholics. It is my impression that they were trying to stay clear of the term "Protestant." Not that they were hinting at reformed theology. Anyway, that is just how I read it. ;) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Donna A. Posted June 13, 2011 Share Posted June 13, 2011 What does MFW teach that would make it 'not reformed'? They're definitely not Calvinistic. A Calvinist wouldn't put such a big emphasis on the single verse John 3:16 throughout an entire year's curriculum. ;) As well, MFW uses several extra-biblical books that a Reformed person would not choose. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chicagoshannon Posted June 13, 2011 Share Posted June 13, 2011 A Beka and BJU are absolutely not reformed! :lol::iagree: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kristinannie Posted June 13, 2011 Share Posted June 13, 2011 What does reformed even mean? I am Catholic so I just don't understand at all! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mamatohaleybug Posted June 14, 2011 Share Posted June 14, 2011 What does reformed even mean? I am Catholic so I just don't understand at all! :iagree:Well, except for the being Catholic part. I'm LDS and have no idea what "reformed" or "not reformed" means. Can someone explain, somewhat briefly? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sbgrace Posted June 14, 2011 Share Posted June 14, 2011 (edited) Catholic materials would certainly not be reformed but neither would materials coming from an Armenian type perspective. So not all Protestant materials would be Reformed. For example: Rod and Staff isn't Reformed but Armenian in perspective and they haven't been mentioned yet. (they are Anabaptist/Menonite specifically I think?) I won't attempt to answer what Reformed is given we come from an Armenian perspective! I do think many Christian homeschool materials come from the Reformed (or Calvanist) perspective it seems. Edited June 14, 2011 by sbgrace Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
silliness7 Posted June 14, 2011 Share Posted June 14, 2011 :iagree:Well, except for the being Catholic part. I'm LDS and have no idea what "reformed" or "not reformed" means. Can someone explain, somewhat briefly? Here's an interesting article that will probably give you more than enough information. :001_smile: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spy Car Posted June 14, 2011 Share Posted June 14, 2011 (edited) What does reformed even mean? I am Catholic so I just don't understand at all! :iagree:Well, except for the being Catholic part. I'm LDS and have no idea what "reformed" or "not reformed" means. Can someone explain, somewhat briefly? The short answer. The "Reformed" basically believe that people are born "totally depraved," that is to say they are too sinful to choose God of their own freewill, so God needs to choose them. They are different from "Evanglicals" (who essentially believe everyone can be saved if they choose to believe in God/Jesus) in believing that Jesus did not die to save everyone, but only those God chooses to save through "Grace." When you see "Grace" this is what it means in a Reformed context. God chooses some, but not others. It is called "limited atonement." They also believe in something called "unconditional election" which means they did nothing special to win God's Grace, as everyone is totally depraved, they were just chosen for some reason known only to God while others are not. Of course they expect their children will also be "chosen" but.... Emphasis on John 3:16 bugs the Reformed because in this worldview God does not "love the world" he picks some to have near him and he rejects others. Not everyone will be saved--and that is by God's choice, just the elect of God will be saved. Those he chooses can not resist being chosen. This is called "irresistible grace." He wants you and you are his, no free will either way in the matter. Some half-way reject this and say people don't have the free-will to choose God, but they have the free-will to reject him, but it is a step away from straight Calvinism. There is also the belief that once saved means always saved (preservation of the saints). Of course people can turn out not to be saved, but that means they never really were saved in the first place rather than having been saved and losing that salvation. It's the simplified version, but will give you the general idea. Bill Edited June 14, 2011 by Spy Car Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Donna T. Posted June 14, 2011 Share Posted June 14, 2011 (edited) The short answer. The "Reformed" basically believe that people are born "totally depraved," That is to say they are too sinful to choose God of their own freewill, so God needs to choose them. They are different from "Evanglicals" (who essentially believe everyone can be saved if they choose to believe in God/Jesus) in believing that Jesus did not die to save everyone, but only those God chooses to save through "Grace." When you see "Grace" this is what it means in a Reformed context. God chooses some, but not others. It is called "limited atonement." They also believe in something called "unconditional election" which means they did nothing special to win God's Grace, as everyone is totally depraved, they were just for some reason known only to God chosen while others are not. Of course they expect their children will also be "chosen" but.... Emphasis on John 3:16 bugs the Reformed because in this worldview God does not "love the world" he picks some to have near him and that he rejects others. Not everyone will be saved--and that is by God's choice, just the elect of God will be saved. Those he chooses can not resist being chosen. This is called "irresistible grace." He wants you and you are his, no free will either way in the matter. Some half-way reject this and say people don't have the free-will to choose God, but they have the free-will to reject him, but it is a step away from straight Calvinism. There is also the belief that once saved means always saved (preservation of the saints). Of course people can turn out not to be saved, but that means they never really were saved in the first place rather than having been saved and losing that salvation. It's the simplified version, but will give you the general idea. Bill Very good job, great explanation. The Reformed turn the "gospel" (the "GOOD NEWS") into very bad news for alot of people. We are non-Reformed Baptists, we believe that those who are saved can not become unsaved because when one trusts/believes on Christ, he is born again, given a new spiritual life, and his new life/nature is everlasting, it can't then turn around and die or else it wasn't truly everlasting and then the Lord would be a liar. But, we are not Reformed because we believe God is not willing that any should perish but that all should come to the knowledge of His Glory, just as the Bible says but I'm too tired to look up Scripture references to prove it. The only Christian curriculum provider that I know of who explicitly state they are not Calvinists are WinterPromise, BJU, & Abeka. As for Sonlight, they would have to be Reformed, in my opinion. No one who isn't Reformed could stomach the teaching of Rushdooney and North whom SL apparantly have endorsed by including their works in their curriculum. Edited June 14, 2011 by Donna T. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NorCalMom Posted June 14, 2011 Share Posted June 14, 2011 The short answer. The "Reformed" basically believe that people are born "totally depraved," that is to say they are too sinful to choose God of their own freewill, so God needs to choose them. They are different from "Evanglicals" (who essentially believe everyone can be saved if they choose to believe in God/Jesus) in believing that Jesus did not die to save everyone, but only those God chooses to save through "Grace." When you see "Grace" this is what it means in a Reformed context. God chooses some, but not others. It is called "limited atonement." They also believe in something called "unconditional election" which means they did nothing special to win God's Grace, as everyone is totally depraved, they were just for some reason known only to God chosen while others are not. Of course they expect their children will also be "chosen" but.... Emphasis on John 3:16 bugs the Reformed because in this worldview God does not "love the world" he picks some to have near him and he rejects others. Not everyone will be saved--and that is by God's choice, just the elect of God will be saved. Those he chooses can not resist being chosen. This is called "irresistible grace." He wants you and you are his, no free will either way in the matter. Some half-way reject this and say people don't have the free-will to choose God, but they have the free-will to reject him, but it is a step away from straight Calvinism. There is also the belief that once saved means always saved (preservation of the saints). Of course people can turn out not to be saved, but that means they never really were saved in the first place rather than having been saved and losing that salvation. It's the simplified version, but will give you the general idea. Bill Yes...excellent explanation as to why I am no longer part of the reformed church. Although, I do not reject all reformed theology. Very helpful post, Bill. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
silliness7 Posted June 14, 2011 Share Posted June 14, 2011 The short answer. The "Reformed" basically believe that people are born "totally depraved," that is to say they are too sinful to choose God of their own freewill, so God needs to choose them. They are different from "Evanglicals" (who essentially believe everyone can be saved if they choose to believe in God/Jesus) in believing that Jesus did not die to save everyone, but only those God chooses to save through "Grace." When you see "Grace" this is what it means in a Reformed context. God chooses some, but not others. It is called "limited atonement." They also believe in something called "unconditional election" which means they did nothing special to win God's Grace, as everyone is totally depraved, they were just chosen for some reason known only to God while others are not. Of course they expect their children will also be "chosen" but.... Emphasis on John 3:16 bugs the Reformed because in this worldview God does not "love the world" he picks some to have near him and he rejects others. Not everyone will be saved--and that is by God's choice, just the elect of God will be saved. Those he chooses can not resist being chosen. This is called "irresistible grace." He wants you and you are his, no free will either way in the matter. Some half-way reject this and say people don't have the free-will to choose God, but they have the free-will to reject him, but it is a step away from straight Calvinism. There is also the belief that once saved means always saved (preservation of the saints). Of course people can turn out not to be saved, but that means they never really were saved in the first place rather than having been saved and losing that salvation. It's the simplified version, but will give you the general idea. Bill It is a simplified version and while nothing in Bill's post is blatantly false his bias does shine through, and I don't think one can get the general idea of reformed theology from it. The beauty of reformed theology is it's focus on God's Sovereignty. A focus that is drawn out of the Scriptures themselves. Without a proper understanding of the sovereignty of God then it is very easy to go off on a man-centered theology. What's in it for ME? How is this fair to Joe down the road? How is Suzie's dignity and autonomy preserved in HER salvation? And before you know it God's grace is shunned for man's choice. And this man-centeredness is what makes me wonder if HOD is a reformed curriculum. I'm just beginning our HOD journey and enjoying it very much. But the way the author uses the Bible in her companion reading program (DITHOR) makes me wonder. It is overly man-centered in her treatment of Bible stories. She doesn't say anything WRONG. I just think the emphasis is way off. Oh well. We'll be tweaking some MFW this year too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sbgrace Posted June 14, 2011 Share Posted June 14, 2011 (edited) And this man-centeredness is what makes me wonder if HOD is a reformed curriculum. I'm just beginning our HOD journey and enjoying it very much. But the way the author uses the Bible in her companion reading program (DITHOR) makes me wonder. It is overly man-centered in her treatment of Bible stories. She doesn't say anything WRONG. I just think the emphasis is way off. Oh well. We'll be tweaking some MFW this year too. Rebecca, you could ask her? I don't know that she's made a statement. I will say, though, that some of her choices (Christian Liberty Press) seemed quite Reformed to me. Reformed enough I couldn't use it and I'm not overly picky in this area. I can't imagine someone not Reformed in perspective selecting those materials for their curriculum honestly. Edited June 14, 2011 by sbgrace Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
katiejean Posted June 14, 2011 Share Posted June 14, 2011 Yes I'm curious what is "not reformed"? I have only paid attention to secular vs non secular. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
katiejean Posted June 14, 2011 Share Posted June 14, 2011 Nevermind, I understand now. It would definitely need some researching to truly understand the differing doctrines. It's interesting how even in secular curriculum one must pay attention and study to be certain he or she is in agreement with the author's view. Thanks for the clarification! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Annabel Lee Posted June 14, 2011 Share Posted June 14, 2011 While you are all "here", I have an OT question. What would a belief system that holds both free will/evangelical and God's Soveriegnty & Irresistable Grace to be true be? Both perspectives are found in the Scriptures, so I'm wondering if there is a name for the belief that both are true without negating the other. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mom&nana Posted June 14, 2011 Share Posted June 14, 2011 The short answer. The "Reformed" basically believe that people are born "totally depraved," that is to say they are too sinful to choose God of their own freewill, so God needs to choose them. They are different from "Evanglicals" (who essentially believe everyone can be saved if they choose to believe in God/Jesus) in believing that Jesus did not die to save everyone, but only those God chooses to save through "Grace." When you see "Grace" this is what it means in a Reformed context. God chooses some, but not others. It is called "limited atonement." They also believe in something called "unconditional election" which means they did nothing special to win God's Grace, as everyone is totally depraved, they were just chosen for some reason known only to God while others are not. Of course they expect their children will also be "chosen" but.... Emphasis on John 3:16 bugs the Reformed because in this worldview God does not "love the world" he picks some to have near him and he rejects others. Not everyone will be saved--and that is by God's choice, just the elect of God will be saved. Those he chooses can not resist being chosen. This is called "irresistible grace." He wants you and you are his, no free will either way in the matter. Some half-way reject this and say people don't have the free-will to choose God, but they have the free-will to reject him, but it is a step away from straight Calvinism. There is also the belief that once saved means always saved (preservation of the saints). Of course people can turn out not to be saved, but that means they never really were saved in the first place rather than having been saved and losing that salvation. It's the simplified version, but will give you the general idea. Bill Thank you Bill for explaining this since it's meaning has always eluded me. Well then, I am definitely NOT reformed. :) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sahamamama Posted June 14, 2011 Share Posted June 14, 2011 Here's an interesting article that will probably give you more than enough information. :001_smile: It is a simplified version and while nothing in Bill's post is blatantly false his bias does shine through, and I don't think one can get the general idea of reformed theology from it. I thought Bill's post was fair-handed, and less obviously biased than a link to the Institute for Reformed Theology -- not exactly a neutral source. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Donna A. Posted June 14, 2011 Share Posted June 14, 2011 Bill stated one thing that isn't true.... or at the very least, implies some bias. He said that Reformed folks are "different from Evangelicals". Reformed people ARE evangelical. Yes, I know OF some Calvinists who think we don't need to do any evangelizing, but that's over-generalizing based on SOME. We believe strongly in missions and evangelism.... we just DO it differently than Arminians do. (As an example, John Bunyan and Charles Spurgeon were both Calvinists, and most definitely evangelical!) But the fact is, I also know some Arminians who don't do much evangelizing, whether it be because of fear or because of their own self-interests and busyness and "free will" to do whatever they want (or NOT do whatever they don't want... you know, because of their own free will :D ). Sadly, I also know some Arminians who don't evangelize their own children because they don't spend time in the Word and don't know HOW to evangelize. So, while Bill may not have meant this at all, I just wanted to offer some clarification because whenever the word "evangelical" is thrown out, all kinds of misconceptions arise in people's minds. :001_smile: Also, this wasn't from Bill, but someone mentioned the Anabaptists.... they would not call themselves Protestant because Protestants are those who "came out of the Reformation". Protestants would include Lutherans, Methodists, Presbyterians, Reformed Baptists, and many others, but not Anabaptists. And not all Protestants are Calvinistic. I don't believe Lutherans or Methodists are Calvinists, for example. And in all honestly, probably the simplest response to a Catholic as to "what is reformed?" would be to say "remember Martin Luther?" ;) Of course, this opens up a whole 'nother can of worms. FYI for those who don't know, since we're on the subject.... Calvinism was not something that was created just to aggravate the Arminians. :tongue_smilie: Calvin wrote his 5 points in response to the 5 points that Arminius wrote declaring that the already widely accepted view of the Doctrines of Grace were wrong. Calvin wrote "TULIP" for the purpose of defending and explaining the Doctrines. He didn't make them up out of thin air. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Donna A. Posted June 14, 2011 Share Posted June 14, 2011 I thought Bill's post was fair-handed, and less obviously biased than a link to the Institute for Reformed Theology -- not exactly a neutral source. I would expect that a Reformed person or website would give more a accurate explanation of what they/we believe than someone who doesn't even claim to be a Christian. Though I agree that Bill's explanation wasn't *too* far off factually.... but I also agree with the poster who said that his bias clearly shows. ;) This was evident in the way he worded his post. He made it sound so.... negative and mean. :001_huh: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heidi Posted June 14, 2011 Share Posted June 14, 2011 (edited) nm. Edited June 14, 2011 by hmsmith Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SorrelZG Posted June 14, 2011 Share Posted June 14, 2011 (edited) What confuses me is all the different definitions of "Reformed". From what I've seen, Presbyterians don't consider "Reformed Baptists" to be Reformed. For them "Reformed" is a package deal including ones convictions about baptism and end times. On top of that, every "reformed" person I know believes what Donna T. believes as she stated it in regards to the Scripture reference (I mean, she's quoting Bible leaving the clear insinuation that all people who call themselves "Reformed" don't believe what is clearly written in Scripture which is not the way to have gracious and open discussion about doctrinal differences). Every person I know who calls themselves "reformed" is also evangelical. In fact, my "reformed baptist" church is going out into the community this evening to share the Gospel with neighbors in great hope of seeing the Lord work. In a very small nutshell the point of dispute comes down to "Who initiates the salvation of an individual - God or the individual?" ETA: The author's of HOD identify themselves as protestant, evangelical - not reformed. I have been to the website for the church they go to and (if I'm at the right website :lol:) I can't see anything in their statement of faith that conflicts with my convictions. Edited June 14, 2011 by SCGS Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heidi Posted June 14, 2011 Share Posted June 14, 2011 (edited) nm Edited June 14, 2011 by hmsmith Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chicagoshannon Posted June 14, 2011 Share Posted June 14, 2011 Bill is a bit off in his explanation. We absolutely believe in Free Will. Also my denomination, Christian Reformed, is absolutely evangelistic! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DawnM Posted June 14, 2011 Share Posted June 14, 2011 As long as a curriculum is not blatantly Reformed in their teaching I can handle using it. I had no idea SL was Reformed, but since that isn't as overt, I am fine with it. Dawn Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
angela in ohio Posted June 14, 2011 Share Posted June 14, 2011 Reformed: VP (Omnibus, etc.) Logos Press Covenant Home Christian Liberty Press TOG Not Reformed: A Beka BJU MFW Sonlight any Catholic curriculum, obviously Memoria Press has a mix of Catholic, Reformed, Orthodox, and Lutheran folks. I haven't seen anything that would be a problem for Reformed folks (like with A Beka, etc.,) but it's not from that perspective. Like others, I would guess CAP is Reformed. And BTW, evangelical is not the opposite of Reformed. :confused: Arminian is the opposite of Reformed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TracyP Posted June 14, 2011 Share Posted June 14, 2011 The short answer. The "Reformed" basically believe that people are born "totally depraved," that is to say they are too sinful to choose God of their own freewill, so God needs to choose them. They are different from "Evanglicals" (who essentially believe everyone can be saved if they choose to believe in God/Jesus) in believing that Jesus did not die to save everyone, but only those God chooses to save through "Grace." When you see "Grace" this is what it means in a Reformed context. God chooses some, but not others. It is called "limited atonement." They also believe in something called "unconditional election" which means they did nothing special to win God's Grace, as everyone is totally depraved, they were just chosen for some reason known only to God while others are not. Of course they expect their children will also be "chosen" but.... Emphasis on John 3:16 bugs the Reformed because in this worldview God does not "love the world" he picks some to have near him and he rejects others. Not everyone will be saved--and that is by God's choice, just the elect of God will be saved. Those he chooses can not resist being chosen. This is called "irresistible grace." He wants you and you are his, no free will either way in the matter. Some half-way reject this and say people don't have the free-will to choose God, but they have the free-will to reject him, but it is a step away from straight Calvinism. There is also the belief that once saved means always saved (preservation of the saints). Of course people can turn out not to be saved, but that means they never really were saved in the first place rather than having been saved and losing that salvation. It's the simplified version, but will give you the general idea. Bill This is the best "in a nutshell" explanation I have seen yet on these boards. While you are all "here", I have an OT question. What would a belief system that holds both free will/evangelical and God's Soveriegnty & Irresistable Grace to be true be? Both perspectives are found in the Scriptures, so I'm wondering if there is a name for the belief that both are true without negating the other. :bigear: This probably comes pretty close to describing me. I say probably because I start to feel like I am in over my head the deeper I get into these issues. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spy Car Posted June 14, 2011 Share Posted June 14, 2011 (edited) Bill stated one thing that isn't true.... or at the very least, implies some bias. He said that Reformed folks are "different from Evangelicals". Reformed people ARE evangelical. Yes, I know OF some Calvinists who think we don't need to do any evangelizing, but that's over-generalizing based on SOME. We believe strongly in missions and evangelism.... we just DO it differently than Arminians do. (As an example, John Bunyan and Charles Spurgeon were both Calvinists, and most definitely evangelical!) But the fact is, I also know some Arminians who don't do much evangelizing, whether it be because of fear or because of their own self-interests and busyness and "free will" to do whatever they want (or NOT do whatever they don't want... you know, because of their own free will :D ). Sadly, I also know some Arminians who don't evangelize their own children because they don't spend time in the Word and don't know HOW to evangelize. So, while Bill may not have meant this at all, I just wanted to offer some clarification because whenever the word "evangelical" is thrown out, all kinds of misconceptions arise in people's minds. :001_smile: I use the term "Evangelical" as it is commonly understood in the American context referring to those Protestant Christians who believe the in spreading the good news they can help others see the Truth and that those exposed by their missionizing efforts will choose Jesus as their personal saviors of their own free will. I doubt that the average "Evangelical" (term used in above context) knows an Arminian from an Armenian. This is a term used by Calvinists and the Reformed to refer to those they think are wrong-headed in believing in individual free-will as a component part of salvation. I understand the complicated answer as to how people who don't believe people have choice can be subject to evangelizing efforts (the "elect" are acting as the agents of the "holy ghost/holy spirit") but as you say there are some Calvinists who think we don't need to do any evangelizing since if God is Sovereign and they believe in the Doctrine of "Irresistible Grace" then human efforts to "win souls" seems like a paradox. In any case using the term "Evangelical" was meant to differentiate between what most casual Americans associate with the beliefs of Evangelical Christians (and you would call "Arminians") that includes salvation through the free-will act of choosing Jesus as a personal savior an the belief anyone can be saved through their own choice, and the doctrines of the Reformed. There is a difference. Bill Edited June 14, 2011 by Spy Car Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Donna A. Posted June 14, 2011 Share Posted June 14, 2011 I doubt that the average "Evangelical" (term used in above context) knows an Arminian from an Armenian. This is a term used by Calvinists and the Reformed to refer to those they think are wrong-headed in believing in individual free-will as a component part of salvation. Actually, Calvinists use the term to refer to those who agree with the teachings of Jacobus Arminius, just as Calvinists are those who agree with the teachings of John Calvin. Both men wrote a "5-point essay" defining what they believe, and the scripture they believe teaches those doctrines. And FTR, Arminians think that Calvinists are "wrong-headed" in believing that God would dare to be sovereign enough to bestow His grace upon ANYONE, particularly a man or woman dead in their sins. So it works both ways, according to your definition. :confused: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spy Car Posted June 14, 2011 Share Posted June 14, 2011 Actually, Calvinists use the term to refer to those who agree with the teachings of Jacobus Arminius, just as Calvinists are those who agree with the teachings of John Calvin. Both men wrote a "5-point essay" defining what they believe, and the scripture they believe teaches those doctrines. And FTR, Arminians think that Calvinists are "wrong-headed" in believing that God would dare to be sovereign enough to bestow His grace upon ANYONE, particularly a man or woman dead in their sins. So it works both ways, according to your definition. :confused: The difference is Calvinists tend to describe themselves as Calvinists, and generally speaking (because I'm sure there are exceptions) most born-again type Evangelical Christians do not call themselves Arminians and many (most) have likely never heard of Jacobus Arminius. Both groups think the theology of the other is wrong-headed, I'll grant you that. Bill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SorrelZG Posted June 14, 2011 Share Posted June 14, 2011 The difference is Calvinists tend to describe themselves as Calvinists, and generally speaking (because I'm sure there are exceptions) most born-again type Evangelical Christians do not call themselves Arminians and many (most) have likely never heard of Jacobus Arminius. Both groups think the theology of the other is wrong-headed, I'll grant you that. Bill Bill may have a point. When I was an Arminian I'm pretty sure it was a Calvinist who told me so. :lol: I, personally, appreciated the education. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Donna A. Posted June 14, 2011 Share Posted June 14, 2011 What confuses me is all the different definitions of "Reformed". From what I've seen, Presbyterians don't consider "Reformed Baptists" to be Reformed. For them "Reformed" is a package deal including ones convictions about baptism and end times. You're right on the breadth of the term "Reformed". That's one reason there's so much confusion about what it means.... There are differing views of the end times among both the Presbyterians and the Reformed Baptists. What we have in common across the board, though, is our belief in Soteriology. On baptism, that's absolutely true. We do not believe in infant baptism, which comprises a big part of Presbyterian beliefs. We believe that a person has to CHOOSE (*gasp!*) to be baptized once he or she has been regenerated by faith in Christ. ;) However, Reformed Baptists ARE Calvinistic, as are Presbys. Also, many Reformed Baptists disagree with the Arminian view of end times (or even John MacArthur's view, and he's a Calvinist). From the Presbys I know (and we were Presby at one time), they don't all agree on the end times, either. There are several different views of the end times besides just Dispensationalism. Heck, even Dispensationalism has its different twists! (Classic, Progressive, and I'm not sure what else.) Our church adheres to the 1689 London Baptist Confession which is *very* similar to the Westminster. Baptism is the main difference. That said, other "Reformed Baptist" confessions have been written since that time, and I don't know what they say. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Donna A. Posted June 14, 2011 Share Posted June 14, 2011 Bill may have a point. When I was an Arminian I'm pretty sure it was a Calvinist who told me so. :lol: I, personally, appreciated the education. Yes, that is a good point and is true (that most Arminians have never heard the term and don't know that they ARE Arminians). Many don't even know what "Dispensationalism" is because those churches only teach one view and never even say what it's called, let alone that any other view exists. Oh, the word "reformed" may be mentioned once in a while, but when we were in Arminian/Dispensational churches, we were never allowed to touch a book or commentary written by a Reformed person. We were just supposed to believe what the pastor told us and leave it at that. It was actually very cult-like. I used to wonder why they attempted to forbid us from studying (and avoided teaching us) church history. If they're so certain that their view is right, then what are they afraid of? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
teamturner Posted June 14, 2011 Share Posted June 14, 2011 The topic of reformed theology has been discussed in great depth in many threads. Just do a search in the general discussion board for more info. :001_smile: Besides "reformed" another search phrase you might use is the "dark side." (it's a bit of a joke) HTH! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Donna A. Posted June 14, 2011 Share Posted June 14, 2011 The difference is Calvinists tend to describe themselves as Calvinists, and generally speaking (because I'm sure there are exceptions) most born-again type Evangelical Christians do not call themselves Arminians and many (most) have likely never heard of Jacobus Arminius. Both groups think the theology of the other is wrong-headed, I'll grant you that. Bill This is true. :001_smile: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Donna A. Posted June 14, 2011 Share Posted June 14, 2011 And let me just say that I in no way think of our Arminian brothers and sisters as not loving Christ. I would look for spiritual fruit in a believer's life, regardless of whether they agree with all 5 points of Calvinism or not. I would NOT dare to make an assumption about anyone's salvation, though, based generally on what we Calvinists believe to be a wrong teaching of HOW we come to Christ. The point is that we do. :grouphug: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ellesmere Posted June 14, 2011 Share Posted June 14, 2011 As long as a curriculum is not blatantly Reformed in their teaching I can handle using it. I had no idea SL was Reformed, but since that isn't as overt, I am fine with it. Dawn Just to clarify (not an argument),SL states on their website that they line up closely with a reformer's view, but I don't think that is equal to being "reformed". At least, they are not outright calling themselves "Reformed" and that may be since they do try to be usable by secular or even non-protestant teachers. They are, however, definitely protestant and evangelical. Their Bible/missionary content will focus that way, but they do include a book co-written by a Catholic as they believe that to be a better source for understanding Catholic beliefs. (We aren't "Protestant Evangelical" or "Reformed", if that matters at all.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
angela in ohio Posted June 14, 2011 Share Posted June 14, 2011 Just to clarify (not an argument),SL states on their website that they line up closely with a reformer's view, but I don't think that is equal to being "reformed". At least, they are not outright calling themselves "Reformed" and that may be since they do try to be usable by secular or even non-protestant teachers. The big R and little r can be just as confusing as the bic C and little c in Catholic. :D I've not heard that Reformed folks aren't Protestant Evangelicals or born-again Evangelical Christians before. That's a new one for me. I feel like a Catholic who has just been told they aren't a Christian. :D Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
simka2 Posted June 14, 2011 Share Posted June 14, 2011 The big R and little r can be just as confusing as the bic C and little c in Catholic. :D I've not heard that Reformed folks aren't Protestant Evangelicals or born-again Evangelical Christians before. That's a new one for me. I feel like a Catholic who has just been told they aren't a Christian. :D :iagree:Brilliant!!!! That was what I was trying to say earlier. I just couldn't get to the heart of it. :D Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SorrelZG Posted June 14, 2011 Share Posted June 14, 2011 As for Sonlight, they would have to be Reformed, in my opinion. No one who isn't Reformed could stomach the teaching of Rushdooney and North whom SL apparantly have endorsed by including their works in their curriculum. As a PP as stated round-aboutly, SLs inclusion of certain authors is NOT in itself an endorsement of their beliefs. Their website is clear about it: "We do, however, sell books by people from other perspectives than our own. It is our opinion that students should learn different perspectives on important issues. We also prefer to use books from authoritative voices from these perspectives when possible. For example, we would rather carry a book on Catholicism written by a Catholic defending his own view than one written by a Protestant telling what the Catholic view is." There are thankfully people who can "stomach" teachings that differ greatly to their own as it promotes gracious, open discourse. I can't imagine expecting, even hoping, that a non-believing (or different believing) friend or relative would listen to what I had to say if my own disposition toward them was, "I can't even stomach what you believe so I'm not going to subject myself to it by listening to you." (this is the impression your choice of words leaves) It's not like they're reading these things for fun or indoctrination - the point is education. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.