Reformed vs. not reformed curriculum list.

[mamatohaleybug]

Here's an interesting article that will probably give you more than enough information. :001_smile:

 

Thank you!

[SorrelZG]

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.

 

Can you explain to me why it is more informative to have someone who doesn't share a certain belief explain that belief to you rather than someone who has actually staked their life on it?

 

Personally, I prefer original sources rather than predigested information.

[simka2]

Can you explain to me why it is more informative to have someone who doesn't share a certain belief explain that belief to you rather than someone who has actually staked their life on it?

 

Personally, I prefer original sources rather than predigested information.

 

Because of the bolded. There is to much at stake for you not to be unbiased. Original source documents are saturated with bias, you take that into account when you read them.

 

When I was a Pentecostal I would not have been able to give an unbiased assessment of Pentecostal beliefs.

[MamaSheep]

Because of the bolded. There is to much at stake for you not to be unbiased. Original source documents are saturated with bias, you take that into account when you read them.

 

When I was a Pentecostal I would not have been able to give an unbiased assessment of Pentecostal beliefs.

 

Interesting thoughts. I can see both sides of this argument. On the one hand, someone who is only on the sidelines looking on may have a less complete understanding of any topic than someone who is fully immersed in it. On the other hand, someone who is that fully committed may have a difficult time considering alternate opinions fairly. Then again, on the OTHER other hand, while "belief" may be legitimately considered a form of bias, it does seem to me that "disbelief" is an equally biased position. I can't see "disbelief" as equivalent to objectivity. Nor do I see "belief" as equivalent to objectivity, but it does seem only fair to allow people to define their own beliefs.

Edited June 14, 2011 by MamaSheep

[simka2]

Interesting thoughts. I can see both sides of this argument. On the one hand, someone who is only on the sidelines looking on may have a less complete understanding of any topic than someone who is fully immersed in it. On the other hand, someone who is that fully committed may have a difficult time considering alternate opinions fairly. Then again, on the OTHER other hand, while "belief" may be legitimately considered a form of bias, it does seem to me that "disbelief" is an equally biased position. I can't see "disbelief" as equivalent to objectivity. Nor do I see "belief" as equivalent to objectivity, but it does seem only fair to allow people to define their own beliefs.

 

:iagree:

[katiejean]

I know this is a deep and largely debatable subject and do not wish to insert any negative ideas at all as I strongly believe in each of us seeking out our own salvation and respecting the convictions and beliefs of one another. It is very difficult to explain any religion in a nutshell without doing extensive research for proper understanding.

 

It is very important to have a grasp on these various belief ethics, however, as I'm sure authors with strong roots in one particular faith will definitely weave that into the curriculum and we must be aware just like we are aware that some beliefs we are not in favor of may be taught either blatantly or subtly in ps.

 

Just wanted to throw my $.2 out there for the reformed vs un-reformed convo-again, I'm not a scholar it's just a thought. It was mentioned that the reformed don't believe everyone is meant to be saved. Where as non reformed believe that God wants the whole world to be saved. My idea is that we do all (meaning reformed/non reformed) know and believe God is Sovereign. He knows the beginning from the end. Even though He wants all to come to Him and be saved, He knows there are many who will choose not to. He openly bids all to freely come. Yet, in His omnipotent power, He see's who is, who will, and ultimately who will be saved. As humans it's sometimes difficult for us to wrap our head around that. We then start thinking perhaps He has "chosen" and "designated" which ones will "be given" the mind to make the choice to come to Him. When in reality, everyone has the choice. It's sort of an argument involving predestination. A lot of people believe God has a "list" of those He plans to save. I don't believe this, yet I can see why people would adopt this belief pattern. I believe that God is so Sovereign and powerful that He has the ability to keep Himself from knowing who will choose Him or not and He keeps the door open for them always.

 

Just my little thought on how we little humans may get confused from time to time!

Ultimately, I don't think I'd want a curriculum that is strongly written in either direction as I don't feel it is something I want to burden my children down with. As a

Christian, I want them to know God for who He is, know He loves them and that they have the opportunity to obtain His grace and mercy.

 

I have friends of many various religions and I teach my children to honor and respect them just as we expect to be respected in our belief system.

 

This has been a very thought provoking and informative thread! I value the fact that people are searching and want clarity. I'd really have to sit down and read thru the materials listed to grasp a better understanding on the author's view. Thanks everyone for you input, I've "chewed" on this awhile. ;)

[SorrelZG]

Because of the bolded. There is to much at stake for you not to be unbiased. Original source documents are saturated with bias, you take that into account when you read them.

 

When I was a Pentecostal I would not have been able to give an unbiased assessment of Pentecostal beliefs.

 

 

An assessment based on what? What is being assessed?

 

The question being asked is WHAT the person believes and WHY they believe it. It's just the facts of their belief system and they would know it better than anyone else because they are the ones believing it.

 

It's like the food that hasn't yet been chewed and I'd prefer to chew it myself than eat what someone has chewed for me.

Edited June 14, 2011 by SCGS

[Donna T.]

As a PP as stated round-aboutly, SLs inclusion of certain authors is NOT in itself an endorsement of their beliefs.

 

 

It's not like they're reading these things for fun or indoctrination - the point is education.

 

Ok, that's fine. I personally can't stomach Rushdooney and North. Their teachings make me very, very ill. That is my experience and that is just the truth. Regardless, I love SL and have been happy with the four cores that we have used.

Edited June 14, 2011 by Donna T.

[RootAnn]

*am learning a lot*

Edited June 16, 2011 by RootAnn

[SorrelZG]

Donna T., no, I don't know those authors or SL. I was just pointing out that their inclusion in itself didnt necessitate an endorsement. They may share their beliefs for all I know. "protestant, evangelical" could mean so many things, apparently.

[Donna T.]

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.

 

We are Independent Fundamental Baptists. :D

[silliness7]

It was mentioned that the reformed don't believe everyone is meant to be saved. Where as non reformed believe that God wants the whole world to be saved. My idea is that we do all (meaning reformed/non reformed) know and believe God is Sovereign. He knows the beginning from the end. Even though He wants all to come to Him and be saved, He knows there are many who will choose not to. He openly bids all to freely come. Yet, in His omnipotent power, He see's who is, who will, and ultimately who will be saved. As humans it's sometimes difficult for us to wrap our head around that. We then start thinking perhaps He has "chosen" and "designated" which ones will "be given" the mind to make the choice to come to Him. When in reality, everyone has the choice. It's sort of an argument involving predestination. A lot of people believe God has a "list" of those He plans to save. I don't believe this, yet I can see why people would adopt this belief pattern. I believe that God is so Sovereign and powerful that He has the ability to keep Himself from knowing who will choose Him or not and He keeps the door open for them always.

 

Just my little thought on how we little humans may get confused from time to time!

 

This is a very good explanation of what I believed growing up as a Southern Baptist. We would have some pretty heavy debates in adult Sunday School...preaching to the choir, really, as there were only random people we had "heard" about from someone else who were actually crazy enough to believe in predestination. ;)

 

That was before our transformation to the dark side. :lol:

 

I don't know what in CLP would be too offensive to use unless they have an America is God's Chosen Nation Slant that would really turn people off. I'm not far enough into HOD to know. I wade through this from time to time with the kids though so it's not a deal breaker for me even though I don't agree. I can also believe that God guided Columbus to America (we *have* gotten that far) just as he guided Nebuchadnezzar. He's sovereign over ALL, not just America. I can believe that God has a plan for America's greatness and I can have my suspicions that America may fall and it will ALL be His plan and will ALL be for His glory even as the rise and fall of Rome. He has a plan for China and Nigeria and all the nations too. It is my belief that the Church is God's chosen people and all in my Reformed circle, that I know of, do too.

 

Is it possible that some people confuse Reformed with "America is God's Chosen Nation?" Maybe because some in the Reformed camp think America is God's Chosen Nation (CLP?) and so the muddied waters? I really don't know. Just thinking out loud here.

 

It's curious that I haven't noticed any overtly Reformed-ish type literature in the Bible portion of HOD. Nothing looks alarming. It all looks very good. I obviously will salt and pepper from my own point of view. But if I were picking a Bible for a curriculum I would pick the Jesus Story Book Bible for little ones and The Vos Story Bible for older kids. That would scream REFORMED to me. :001_smile:

[simka2]

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.

 

 

EO and RC as well. I am not sure you can have the term "free will" and "Irresistable" in the same theology. "Freewill" infers the ability to resist. ;)

[SorrelZG]

EO and RC as well. I am not sure you can have the term "free will" and "Irresistable" in the same theology. "Freewill" infers the ability to resist. ;)

 

 

Well, there is the belief that it's the grace that makes one free and able to choose.

[simka2]

Well, there is the belief that it's the grace that makes one free and able to choose.

 

I purposely left out the term grace. I was only speaking to the term "irresistible."

[mommaduck]

We are Independent Fundamental Baptists. :D

 

Most IFB do not believe in Irresistible Grace :confused: (was raised IFB)

[SorrelZG]

I purposely left out the term grace. I was only speaking to the term "irresistible."

 

 

Some would see them as inseparable. As in, it is grace that makes a dead man live again - how does a dead man choose to stay dead or seek the grace to make him alive?

[simka2]

Some would see them as inseparable. As in, it is grace that makes a dead man live again - how does a dead man choose to stay dead or seek the grace to make him alive?

 

Honestly, this logic requires a certain foundational belief in a certain definition of Original Sin and it's consequences. I do not hold to the same interpretation of Original Sin that reformed (and many other Protestant denoms) do, so our thought paths will never meet on this. We start off in different places. ;) That though is an entirely different discussion for a very different thread.

 

Sorry OP, I hope the turn this thread has taken is okay with you.

[SorrelZG]

Honestly, this logic requires a certain foundational belief in a certain definition of Original Sin and it's consequences. I do not hold to the same interpretation of Original Sin that reformed (and many other Protestant denoms) do, so our thought paths will never meet on this. We start off in different places. ;) That though is an entirely different discussion for a very different thread.

 

Sorry OP, I hope the turn this thread has taken is okay with you.

 

 

I was going to point that out but it looked like it was going to take more words than I wanted to type. That and we're already off topic.

[Gailmegan]

Ok, that's fine. I personally can't stomach Rushdooney and North. Their teachings make me very, very ill. That is my experience and that is just the truth. Regardless, I love SL and have been happy with the four cores that we have used.

 

I am about as Reformed as a person can be and I can't stomach them either.

 

There are so many different variations on Reformed. Often Presbyterians refer to themselves as Covenantal, which distinguishes them from Reformed Baptists, in their emphasis on God's covenant community of believers, which includes children.

 

There is no consensus on eschatology - that's for sure. Reformed Baptists may lean toward premillenial, but I'm sure not all are. Presbyterians are pretty equally divided postmillenial and amillenial.

 

And then you have certain camps in and among the Reformed like Federal Vision and Theonomy.

 

So it is very difficult to paint one picture of "Reformed".

 

I do appreciate Bill's attempt at addressing a Calvinist viewpoint, but I have to agree with PPs that his negative bias really colors his description to the extreme that it bears little resemblance to what the Reformed tradition actually teaches.

[Ellesmere]

.

[simka2]

I was going to point that out but it looked like it was going to take more words than I wanted to type. That and we're already off topic.

;)

[twoxcell]

Reformed people are most definitely evangelical, at least the ones I know or are aware of. i.e. my BIL, Todd Freil, Ray Comfort, Kirk Cameron. At least I believe them to be Reformed. As far as HOD I have never seen any mention of a church affiliation, and from what we have done with them I feel that HOD would be usable with most any main stream Christian belief.

[MamaSheep]

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?

 

I'm interested in this too, though for me knowing whether a curriculum is "Reformed" vs. "non-Reformed" is too narrow. There is much in the Reformed perspective with which I don't agree, but there are a great many beliefs that would qualify as "non-Reformed" with which I would be equally at odds. This is one reason I lean toward secular materials. I do want my kids to know about the beliefs of other faiths, but I also want my kids to respect the (in my opinion God-given) right of other people to believe as they may. I don't want to have to constantly be nit-picking and harping on whatever (in my opinion incorrect) religious perspective might be woven into any given educational resource. Not only would it get tiresome after a while, I also don't enjoy sitting around and repeatedly picking at other people's faults. It just doesn't seem kind.

 

My beliefs are definitely NOT Reform, as I believe that God, in His sovereignty and through His grace, has granted mankind free moral agency. In other words, I see free will as arising from God's sovereignty rather than as in opposition or contrast to God's sovereignty, and I see man's free will as being given and maintained by the grace of God--I view the freedom and ability to choose as an umerited gift given to us by a sovereign God. I do see this gift of God's grace as "irresistable" in that we cannot choose to be exempt from free will. God has decreed that we must make choices between good and evil, and there is no way to get out of choosing. (This is, of course, not EVERYTHING I believe about God's sovereignty or grace--both of these concepts are critical to every aspect of my beliefs, including (and especially) my beliefs regarding salvation, which I haven't mentioned here since I was focusing on the relationship I see between soveriegnty/irresistable grace and free will.) I also reject the concepts of total depravity and sola scriptura.

 

And I'm also definitely not Arminian or Anabaptist.

 

I always appreciate when homeschool curriculum providers offer a statement of faith of some kind, as well as an explanation as to how they feel their perspective has informed their materials.

 

But mostly I just look for secular materials and try to give my kids as objective (and kind) an explanation about other people's beliefs as I can manage when the subject arises (as it did the other day when a missions group set up a carnival in the park across the street to call the neighborhood children to come to Jesus). And then I mostly focus on teaching them what I understand to be truth and why, and encourage them to ask God for themselves and seek their own answers.

 

But it sure is nice when educational materials are clearly labeled so we know what we're getting into, that's for sure.

[Gailmegan]

I'm interested in this too, though for me knowing whether a curriculum is "Reformed" vs. "non-Reformed" is too narrow. There is much in the Reformed perspective with which I don't agree, but there are a great many beliefs that would qualify as "non-Reformed" with which I would be equally at odds. This is one reason I lean toward secular materials...

 

...But it sure is nice when educational materials are clearly labeled so we know what we're getting into, that's for sure.

 

I am in the same boat you are in, but on the Reformed side. I use all secular materials because even if something is "Reformed" it could be Reformed Baptist or Theonomist or a zillion other variations of viewpoint.

 

If only every nuance could be labeled and stuck on the front of the book. A girl can dream. ;)

[MamaSheep]

I am in the same boat you are in, but on the Reformed side. I use all secular materials because even if something is "Reformed" it could be Reformed Baptist or Theonomist or a zillion other variations of viewpoint.

 

If only every nuance could be labeled and stuck on the front of the book. A girl can dream. ;)

 

 

Lol...seriously. Those nuances can be subtle. Specific definitions are important, but don't fit well on labels.

[angela in ohio]

:iagree:

 

Eek, I truly hope I didn't offend. I was following the capitalization from the OP and then used "Reformer's" (big R) to reflect what is on Sonlight's website. I'm sorryr.

 

You didn't offend at all. :001_smile: I was just pointing out that when they say reformed, they might not necessarily mean Reformed. I haven't looked closely at Sonlight in years, but I thought it definitely wasn't Reformed. They may have changed, though. They wouldn't be the first homeschool figure to come over (cue celebratory or ominous music, depending on your POV.) ;) Or to only be a few "points."

 

FWIW, we're Reformed Presbyterians, attending a Southern Baptist church, with mostly Catholic and Lutheran friends, neighbors, and family. :D

Edited June 14, 2011 by angela in ohio

[kristinannie]

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

 

 

Thanks for the explanation. I have heard that the Presbyterians (or however you spell it...I wasn't homeschooled :lol:) felt that way. I definitely disagree with that outlook though. I have always wondered what reformed meant and actually thought people were talking about Reform Judaism! Good to know!!!!! :D

[mommaduck]

Reformed people are most definitely evangelical, at least the ones I know or are aware of. i.e. my BIL, Todd Freil, Ray Comfort, Kirk Cameron. At least I believe them to be Reformed. As far as HOD I have never seen any mention of a church affiliation, and from what we have done with them I feel that HOD would be usable with most any main stream Christian belief.

 

Some are and some aren't ;)

[mommaduck]

I am about as Reformed as a person can be and I can't stomach them either.

 

There are so many different variations on Reformed. Often Presbyterians refer to themselves as Covenantal, which distinguishes them from Reformed Baptists, in their emphasis on God's covenant community of believers, which includes children.

 

There is no consensus on eschatology - that's for sure. Reformed Baptists may lean toward premillenial, but I'm sure not all are. Presbyterians are pretty equally divided postmillenial and amillenial.

 

And then you have certain camps in and among the Reformed like Federal Vision and Theonomy.

 

So it is very difficult to paint one picture of "Reformed".

 

I do appreciate Bill's attempt at addressing a Calvinist viewpoint, but I have to agree with PPs that his negative bias really colors his description to the extreme that it bears little resemblance to what the Reformed tradition actually teaches.

 

And then you have your extremists like Outside the Camp, the Steelites, etc.

[twoxcell]

I'm sure that is true Mammaduck. I really don't think we can put anyone in a box so to speak.

[KrissiK]

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. .

:iagree:I really hesitated jumping on this thread because a) I do not find religious debates very helpful and b) I especially don't find reformed/non-reformed debates helpful at all. However, I do agree here. I am very Calvinist, however I must say that many Calvinists I know (including myself) became Calvinists without even knowing it. We embraced the theology waaaay before putting a label on it and trying to define it. I didn't look at the T.U.L.I.P. and say, "Oh, yeah, I agree with that!" When I was growing up "predestination" was a dirty word. But, as an adult I attended Bible Study Fellowship, read Reformed authors (without realizing they were Reformed), etc. etc. and my understanding of Scripture and theology began to fall into place and then all of the sudden someone put a label on it and I realized I was a Calvinist. Using the word "predestination" is explosive and devisive because it can be made to sound like picking sides for an elementary school kick-ball game. "You're in and you're out!" But when you take Scripture as a whole and examine the scope of God's dealings with man and stop trying to proof -text, you see that God chose. God always chose - Abraham, Moses, the Israelites, David, the Disciples, Paul, etc. I don't think it's helpful to condense either doctrinal systems and then say, "What do you believe?" What ever one believes should be based on a thorough understanding and study of Scripture and Salvation.

[Donna A.]

FWIW, we're Reformed Presbyterians, attending a Southern Baptist church, with mostly Catholic and Lutheran friends, neighbors, and family. :D

 

Ahhhhh, that explains the mixed signals I've gotten from your posts! :lol:

[angela in ohio]

Ahhhhh, that explains the mixed signals I've gotten from your posts! :lol:

 

What, don't all the Baptists you know frequently defend Catholics? :D

[Donna A.]

I am about as Reformed as a person can be and I can't stomach them either.

 

There are so many different variations on Reformed. Often Presbyterians refer to themselves as Covenantal, which distinguishes them from Reformed Baptists, in their emphasis on God's covenant community of believers, which includes children.

 

There is no consensus on eschatology - that's for sure. Reformed Baptists may lean toward premillenial, but I'm sure not all are. Presbyterians are pretty equally divided postmillenial and amillenial.

 

And then you have certain camps in and among the Reformed like Federal Vision and Theonomy.

 

So it is very difficult to paint one picture of "Reformed".

 

I do appreciate Bill's attempt at addressing a Calvinist viewpoint, but I have to agree with PPs that his negative bias really colors his description to the extreme that it bears little resemblance to what the Reformed tradition actually teaches.

 

:iagree: Except that many Reformed Baptists are either postmil or amil, as well. We have one family in our church (that I'm aware of) who's premil. Everyone else is either postmil or amil.

[Donna A.]

What, don't all the Baptists you know frequently defend Catholics? :D

 

Now THAT is funny. :biggrinjester:

[Penny from Tenny]

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:

 

 

:iagree:Yes. This....from the perspective of one growing up in a very dispensational, arminian Baptist church who turned to the dark side.

[Penny from Tenny]

nm - I'm tired and I don't think what I wrote made sense.

Edited June 14, 2011 by Penny from Tenny
I don't know...

[Ellesmere]

You didn't offend at all. :001_smile: I was just pointing out that when they say reformed, they might not necessarily mean Reformed. I haven't looked closely at Sonlight in years, but I thought it definitely wasn't Reformed. They may have changed, though. They wouldn't be the first homeschool figure to come over (cue celebratory or ominous music, depending on your POV.) ;) Or to only be a few "points."

 

FWIW, we're Reformed Presbyterians, attending a Southern Baptist church, with mostly Catholic and Lutheran friends, neighbors, and family. :D

Whew, thanks

 

And you sound like you have fun. What a mix!

[kpnick in nc]

Because of the bolded. There is to much at stake for you not to be unbiased. Original source documents are saturated with bias, you take that into account when you read them.

 

When I was a Pentecostal I would not have been able to give an unbiased assessment of Pentecostal beliefs.

 

Interesting thoughts. I can see both sides of this argument. On the one hand, someone who is only on the sidelines looking on may have a less complete understanding of any topic than someone who is fully immersed in it. On the other hand, someone who is that fully committed may have a difficult time considering alternate opinions fairly. Then again, on the OTHER other hand, while "belief" may be legitimately considered a form of bias, it does seem to me that "disbelief" is an equally biased position. I can't see "disbelief" as equivalent to objectivity. Nor do I see "belief" as equivalent to objectivity, but it does seem only fair to allow people to define their own beliefs.

 

:iagree:Wanting my children to be to analyze like this (and like other posts in this thread) is one of my main reasons for homeschooling! Thinking in terms of "worldviews" helps me a lot in analyzing a lot of this!

 

 

I had quoted many others and planned to add to the debate only to read and see all my points addressed. :001_smile:

 

So I'll just talk about what I, as a Reformed Christian, would consider characteristics of a general, Refomed curriculum. DS will be in 1st next year, so this list is mainly out of my head as I've not seen/used much yet.

 

• As many have said, RT really emphasizes God's Sovereignty, so in a history text, for example, I would expect to see the viewpoint that NOTHING happens outside of God's Sovereignty applied throughout.

• I'm guessing that most Reformed curricula would be Young Earth Creationist. Among Reformed believers, there is the same spectrum as among Christians in general, but from what I've seen, it appears that the Reformed types who are making HS curric are also Creationist.

• Reformed Christians like to think (as most everyone here!); I would expect a Reformed curriculum to delve into worldviews of different religions, cultures, schools of thought, etc. There would be acknowledged bias (see my quote from MamaSheep above), but it would be handled using the rules of logic (haven't gotten to that in my self-ed yet so that is as technical as I can be on the spot). A thorough comparison would acknowledge a given worldview's difference from general Christianity as well as it's difference from Reformed Christianity.

• How does the curriculum treat these: Martin Luther, John Calvin, John Knox, Jonathan Edwards, Puritans/Pilgrims? I'm sure there are others, but it's bathtime and I have to finish up!

I'm not saying that these are exclusive to Reformed curriculum, but these are characteristics that I would look for in deciding whether or not it is Reformed.

[MamaSheep]

:iagree:Wanting my children to be to analyze like this (and like other posts in this thread) is one of my main reasons for homeschooling! Thinking in terms of "worldviews" helps me a lot in analyzing a lot of this!

 

 

I had quoted many others and planned to add to the debate only to read and see all my points addressed. :001_smile:

 

 

So I'll just talk about what I, as a Reformed Christian, would consider characteristics of a general, Refomed curriculum. DS will be in 1st next year, so this list is mainly out of my head as I've not seen/used much yet.

 

• As many have said, RT really emphasizes God's Sovereignty, so in a history text, for example, I would expect to see the viewpoint that NOTHING happens outside of God's Sovereignty applied throughout.

• I'm guessing that most Reformed curricula would be Young Earth Creationist. Among Reformed believers, there is the same spectrum as among Christians in general, but from what I've seen, it appears that the Reformed types who are making HS curric are also Creationist.

• Reformed Christians like to think (as most everyone here!); I would expect a Reformed curriculum to delve into worldviews of different religions, cultures, schools of thought, etc. There would be acknowledged bias (see my quote from MamaSheep above), but it would be handled using the rules of logic (haven't gotten to that in my self-ed yet so that is as technical as I can be on the spot). A thorough comparison would acknowledge a given worldview's difference from general Christianity as well as it's difference from Reformed Christianity.

• How does the curriculum treat these: Martin Luther, John Calvin, John Knox, Jonathan Edwards, Puritans/Pilgrims? I'm sure there are others, but it's bathtime and I have to finish up!

I'm not saying that these are exclusive to Reformed curriculum, but these are characteristics that I would look for in deciding whether or not it is Reformed.

 

I don't think you'd get much agreement as to what constitutes "general Christianity".

[kpnick in nc]

A thorough comparison would acknowledge a given worldview's difference from general Christianity as well as it's difference from Reformed Christianity.

 

 

I don't think you'd get much agreement as to what constitutes "general Christianity".

 

Ah, yes... I guess "general Christianity" in my post is an abbreviation of "the Reformed view of the essential Christian worldview." Thanks!

[SorrelZG]

:iagree:Wanting my children to be to analyze like this (and like other posts in this thread) is one of my main reasons for homeschooling! Thinking in terms of "worldviews" helps me a lot in analyzing a lot of this!

 

 

 

I would personally want my child analyzing better than this because the comment Simka made was misconstruing the issue which was not an assessment of a belief system but the mere transference of information about ones individual beliefs for the purpose of the listener's own assessment.

[kpnick in nc]

I would personally want my child analyzing better than this because the comment Simka made was misconstruing the issue which was not an assessment of a belief system but the mere transference of information about ones individual beliefs for the purpose of the listener's own assessment.

 

 

I was referring to MamaSheep's comment about Simka's (I meant to include your pp to Simka's

Personally, I prefer original sources rather than predigested information.

as well, to provide more context, I guess it got lost in all the multi-quotes I deleted :tongue_smilie:).

 

All this to say :iagree:(with all your comments here), even if I wasn't as clear in my original post.

[simka2]

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.

 

Can you explain to me why it is more informative to have someone who doesn't share a certain belief explain that belief to you rather than someone who has actually staked their life on it?

 

Personally, I prefer original sources rather than predigested information.

 

Because of the bolded. There is to much at stake for you not to be unbiased. Original source documents are saturated with bias, you take that into account when you read them.

 

When I was a Pentecostal I would not have been able to give an unbiased assessment of Pentecostal beliefs.

 

I would personally want my child analyzing better than this because the comment Simka made was misconstruing the issue which was not an assessment of a belief system but the mere transference of information about ones individual beliefs for the purpose of the listener's own assessment.

 

 

The bolded that I orginally responded to is an assessment. You have made an assessment. You (or whoever you are reffering to) has made the assessment to stake their life on something. That is emotive and by default biased. My entire response was in support of Shamamama's orginal post and was in no way misconstruing the issue.

[Spy Car]

I'd love it if an adherent to Reformed Theology would give it a go in offering up a clear and plain summary of the worldview.

 

When a website (the one linked to earlier) start out with:

 

"a distinctively non-Lutheran, Augustinian sacramental theology with a high ecclesiology but little regard for ecclesiatical tradition that is not traceable to the Scriptures or the earliest church"

 

I think it is kind of easy to get lost in the weeds.

 

I don't know how the uninitiated could make heads or tails of what is (or is not) Reformed Theology from this.

 

http://reformedtheology.org/SiteFiles/WhatIsRT.html

 

Bill

[Gailmegan]

The bolded that I orginally responded to is an assessment. You have made an assessment. You (or whoever you are reffering to) has made the assessment to stake their life on something. That is emotive and by default biased. My entire response was in support of Shamamama's orginal post and was in no way misconstruing the issue.

 

I am certainly not interested in the back and forth of who misconstrued what, but I am confused about the original argument.

 

Let's pretend you asked about the differences between Theravada Buddhism and Mahayana Buddhism. Would you find my (devout Christian) summary, based on some extensive college courses with a Buddhist professor, or an explanation given by the Dalai Lama to be the more accurate explanation? I may have an intellectual understanding of Buddhism, but that does not mean that I understand the heart of Buddhism in the way that someone who practices it does.

 

To quote Cornelius Van Til, "There are no brute facts". No such thing as a fact that isn't interpreted. We all bring presuppositions to the table. They are part of who we are. Bill's explanation had no less bias than one who "stakes [his or her] life" on the beliefs of the Reformed faith. So considering that there is always a bias, wouldn't the explanation of the person who actually holds the belief be the more true to the belief?

[Gailmegan]

I'd love it if an adherent to Reformed Theology would give it a go in offering up a clear and plain summary of the worldview.

 

When a website (the one linked to earlier) start out with:

 

"a distinctively non-Lutheran, Augustinian sacramental theology with a high ecclesiology but little regard for ecclesiatical tradition that is not traceable to the Scriptures or the earliest church"

 

I think it is kind of easy to get lost in the weeds.

 

I don't know how the uninitiated could make heads or tails of what is (or is not) Reformed Theology from this.

 

http://reformedtheology.org/SiteFiles/WhatIsRT.html

 

Bill

 

I didn't see this before I posted. I agree. It is easy to get lost in the weeds, especially when there are so many varieties of beliefs among those who claim Reformed Theology.

 

I will take your challenge. I will do my best to put something together. But not tonight - I have to go to bed.

[simka2]

I am certainly not interested in the back and forth of who misconstrued what, but I am confused about the original argument.

 

Let's pretend you asked about the differences between Theravada Buddhism and Mahayana Buddhism. Would you find my (devout Christian) summary, based on some extensive college courses with a Buddhist professor, or an explanation given by the Dalai Lama to be the more accurate explanation? I may have an intellectual understanding of Buddhism, but that does not mean that I understand the heart of Buddhism in the way that someone who practices it does.

 

I think if someone interested in reformed theology had the oppurtunity to talk to Ulrich Zwingli they would be very unwise to pass that up. Nowhere did I suggest the "true" original sources were to be set aside in favor of secondary sources.

 

I was refering to a totally different issue. Which was the assumption that simply because one belongs to certain belief system they are a better source for information than someone who does not share that particular belief set.

 

To quote Cornelius Van Til, "There are no brute facts". No such thing as a fact that isn't interpreted. We all bring presuppositions to the table. They are part of who we are. Bill's explanation had no less bias than one who "stakes [his or her] life" on the beliefs of the Reformed faith. So considering that there is always a bias, wouldn't the explanation of the person who actually holds the belief be the more true to the belief?

 

Earlier in this thread a poster stated that they were Christian Reformed and their church definately believes in "Free Will." So, who was the more accurate source? The student of, or the practicioner?

 

Honestly though, it is time for me to be done with this thread.

[Gailmegan]

Earlier in this thread a poster stated that they were Christian Reformed and their church definately believes in "Free Will." So, who was the more accurate source? The student of, or the practicioner?

 

Honestly though, it is time for me to be done with this thread.

 

Ahh, okay, I see what you are saying - that not all who adhere to a particular belief system necessarily understand it. I understand wanting to be done with a thread, but thank you for sticking around to clarify for me. :001_smile:

 

As for your particular example, I do see where the PP was coming from. Many people who believe in predestination also believe in free will. We all are given the choice who to follow, and we all choose to turn away from God. That is our free will being exercised. Not sure if that's how the PP meant it, but I try to give the benefit of the doubt. There truly are so many variations of Reformed. I like the link Bill posted - it shows just how confusing the terminology is. :tongue_smilie: