Reformed vs. not reformed curriculum list.

[Spy Car]

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 it might be highly possible you might be better suited to giving a fellow American a quick (and generally correct) outline of the differences between Theravada Buddhism and Mahayana Buddhism in terms that are easily understood by non-practitioners of Buddhism. Does that mean you know as much about the heart of Buddhism as the Dalai Lama, doubtful.

 

I am sure I don't have the same deep grasp of some nuances of RT that the author of the article lined to on the website has--but his "explanation" would border on "gibberish" for most people.

 

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?

 

It remains to be seen.

 

Bill

Edited June 15, 2011 by Spy Car

[Spy Car]

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.

 

Sleep well, and I look forward to reading a better summary than my own.

 

Bill

[SorrelZG]

It is in the same spirit that I choose living books over text books. People who don't understand what they actually believe are not the people one would want to go to learn from -- for one, I wouldn't do my research on a forum and thread like this but I would expect the reformed theology website should know what it's about (but I wouldn't rely upon a single source).

 

Kpnick, sorry for misconstruing your post. :lol: I also want my children to read more thoroughly than I do.

 

 

Oh, and yes, someone aligning themselves with reformed theology can also say they believe in free will -- just because one defines terms differently (and we all realize that's a big reality here and none of us are interested in getting into it) doesn't mean they don't know what they're talking about. They may not, but one can't jump to that conclusion rightly, all things considered.

Edited June 15, 2011 by SCGS

[SorrelZG]

I think it might be highly possible you might be better suited to giving a fellow American a quick (and generally correct) outline of the differences between Theravada Buddhism and Mahayana Buddhism in terms that are eerily understood by non-practitioners of Buddhism. Does that mean you know as much about the heart of Buddhism as the Dalai Lama, doubtful.

 

I am sure I don't have the same deep grasp of some nuances of RT that the author of the article lined to on the website has--but his "explanation" would border on "gibberish" for most people.

 

 

 

It remains to be seen.

 

Bill

 

 

I get this point. The issue comes down to how badly one really wants to know and understand. I confess that, for better or worse, I'd prefer the summary on Buddhism.

 

Due to my belief in predestination I figure if I really am meant to more fully grasp Buddhism then my mind will change about that at some point and I'll deal with it then. I'm completely content with that plan. :lol:

[Donna A.]

Due to my belief in predestination I figure if I really am meant to more fully grasp Buddhism then my mind will change about that at some point and I'll deal with it then. I'm completely content with that plan. :lol:

 

:lol::lol::lol:

[Gailmegan]

I am cheating. John Richard de Witt wrote a 24-page booklet, "What is the Reformed Faith?" in 1981. Out of all that I have read, I find his explanation to be most helpful, so I am going to summarize it.

 

When discussing the identity of the Reformed faith, it is important to point to its roots in the Protestant Reformation and to important figures whose teaching are formative. Calvin, Luther, Augustine, Anselm and The Westminster Divines are most notable. The documents which cover much of the doctrine of the Reformed faith also need to be acknowledged: The Belgic Confession, the Heidelberg Catechism, the Second Helvetic Confession, the Canons of Dort and the Westminster Confession and Catechisms.

 

In order to arrive at the heart of Reformed teachings, we point out the essential teachings that these documents have in common:

 

1. The authority of Scripture as the Word of God.

 

2. The sovereignty of God.

 

3. The invincibility of God's grace (Jesus did accomplish all that he set out to accomplish in saving his people from their sins). *

 

4. The Christian life is not one of asceticism or mysticism, but a very real grounding in this world, alongside all humanity, but also as part of a community of faith.

 

5. The relationship between law and gospel. The moral law (as spelled out in the 10 commandments) is God's standard for how all the world ought to live. Since no one is able to do so perfectly, the law shows the need for salvation as a gift, not as something that can be earned by merit. For those who have embraced the gift of the gospel of salvation in Christ alone, by faith alone, the law provides guidelines and conviction of how to live out that faith.

 

6. The cultural mandate. Just as Christians are not to withdraw from the world for the sake of personal holiness (4 above), they are actually called to transform the world. Christians need to feed the hungry, defend the persecuted, and challenge tyrants.

 

7. The importance of preaching the Word of God. This includes expositing (using exegesis and consistent hermeneutics to understand its meaning), applying, and proclaiming the Word of God.

 

* This point would include the doctrines of the Canons of Dort, which are often referred to as the five points of Calvinism. Although those points are important to a full understanding of salvation by grace alone, they were never intended to be the basis of a particular theology and were only systematized in the context of a response to the teaching of the followers of Arminius. They are often claimed to be essential to the Reformed faith, but as demonstrated here, they are merely one small piece of the bigger picture of what is Reformed doctrine.

[Spy Car]

I am cheating. John Richard de Witt wrote a 24-page booklet, "What is the Reformed Faith?" in 1981. Out of all that I have read, I find his explanation to be most helpful, so I am going to summarize it.

 

When discussing the identity of the Reformed faith, it is important to point to its roots in the Protestant Reformation and to important figures whose teaching are formative. Calvin, Luther, Augustine, Anselm and The Westminster Divines are most notable. The documents which cover much of the doctrine of the Reformed faith also need to be acknowledged: The Belgic Confession, the Heidelberg Catechism, the Second Helvetic Confession, the Canons of Dort and the Westminster Confession and Catechisms.

 

In order to arrive at the heart of Reformed teachings, we point out the essential teachings that these documents have in common:

 

1. The authority of Scripture as the Word of God.

 

2. The sovereignty of God.

 

3. The invincibility of God's grace (Jesus did accomplish all that he set out to accomplish in saving his people from their sins). *

 

4. The Christian life is not one of asceticism or mysticism, but a very real grounding in this world, alongside all humanity, but also as part of a community of faith.

 

5. The relationship between law and gospel. The moral law (as spelled out in the 10 commandments) is God's standard for how all the world ought to live. Since no one is able to do so perfectly, the law shows the need for salvation as a gift, not as something that can be earned by merit. For those who have embraced the gift of the gospel of salvation in Christ alone, by faith alone, the law provides guidelines and conviction of how to live out that faith.

 

6. The cultural mandate. Just as Christians are not to withdraw from the world for the sake of personal holiness (4 above), they are actually called to transform the world. Christians need to feed the hungry, defend the persecuted, and challenge tyrants.

 

7. The importance of preaching the Word of God. This includes expositing (using exegesis and consistent hermeneutics to understand its meaning), applying, and proclaiming the Word of God.

 

* This point would include the doctrines of the Canons of Dort, which are often referred to as the five points of Calvinism. Although those points are important to a full understanding of salvation by grace alone, they were never intended to be the basis of a particular theology and were only systematized in the context of a response to the teaching of the followers of Arminius. They are often claimed to be essential to the Reformed faith, but as demonstrated here, they are merely one small piece of the bigger picture of what is Reformed doctrine.

 

Sorry, but I'd call that an epic-fail. It is buried in "gobbledygook."

 

Like this:

 

This includes expositing (using exegesis and consistent hermeneutics to understand its meaning), applying, and proclaiming the Word of God.

 

And terms like "the Sovereignty of God" are pretty meaningless catch-phrases unless one explains what that actually they mean in plain terms (which I at least attempted, but this summery skirts).

 

Not good enough.

 

Bill

Edited June 15, 2011 by Spy Car

[Gailmegan]

Sorry, but I'd call that an epic-fail. It is buried in "gobbledygook."

 

Like this:

 

This includes expositing (using exegesis and consistent hermeneutics to understand its meaning), applying, and proclaiming the Word of God.

 

And terms like "the Sovereignty of God" is a pretty meaningless catch-phrase unless one explains what that actually means in plain terms (which I at least attempted, but this summery skirts).

 

Not good enough.

 

Bill

 

Okay, I'm willing to play along. I suppose I was assuming a basic understanding of certain concepts and terminology. My goal was to highlight that the RT is much bigger than TULIP. Besides fleshing out "sovereignty" and explaining "exegesis" and "hermeneutics" are there any other areas you would like me to revise?

[Spy Car]

Okay, I'm willing to play along. I suppose I was assuming a basic understanding of certain concepts and terminology. My goal was to highlight that the RT is much bigger than TULIP. Besides fleshing out "sovereignty" and explaining "exegesis" and "hermeneutics" are there any other areas you would like me to revise?

 

The whole thing. Explain the basic core beliefs of Reform Theology as if your audience has no understanding of any catch-phrases. Put it in plain terms. Deal with the five points of Calvinism and what they mean in an easy to understand way.

 

Assume no basic understanding of any of these concepts or the theology behind them. I would really (sincerely) love to hear it.

 

Bill

[Spy Car]

The whole thing. Explain the basic core beliefs of Reform Theology as if your audience has no understanding of any catch-phrases. Put it in plain terms. Deal with the five points of Calvinism and what they mean in an easy to understand way.

 

Assume no basic understanding of any of these concepts or the theology behind them. I would really (sincerely) love to hear it.

 

Bill

 

ETA: I would also like a compare and contrast with non-Reformed Protestant thought, what you might call "Arminan" (but can't in the summary unless you "explain it") and I, as form of "short-hand" called "Evangelical" (which however imperfect was an attempt to draw the same distinction I would ask you to draw).

[Spy Car]

Oops, I meant to "edit" and not quote myself. Sorry.

 

Bill

[SorrelZG]

ETA: I would also like a compare and contrast with non-Reformed Protestant thought, what you might call "Arminan" (but can't in the summary unless you "explain it") and I, as form of "short-hand" called "Evangelical" (which however imperfect was an attempt to draw the same distinction I would ask you to draw).

 

Personally I would prefer an "Arminian" responded, point by point, with what they believe in contrast once the reformed perspective has been laid out .. or vice versa, whatever. It could be like a layman's version of the whole Dort thingamajig (must I define that? :lol:) where both sides come together and lay out their beliefs but in common/high-frequency words.

[Gailmegan]

The whole thing. Explain the basic core beliefs of Reform Theology as if your audience has no understanding of any catch-phrases. Put it in plain terms. Deal with the five points of Calvinism and what they mean in an easy to understand way.

 

Assume no basic understanding of any of these concepts or the theology behind them. I would really (sincerely) love to hear it.

 

Bill

 

 

ACK! :tongue_smilie:

 

All right. Is it okay if I stick with the same seven points but break them down more and then point out with each one what makes it distinct from other Christian schools of thought/practice?

 

Sheesh. This is quite a task. I won't be tackling it in the next few hours. I promised the boys we would go to the pool and play some Wii, so my screen time is up for now.

[Spy Car]

Personally I would prefer an "Arminian" responded, point by point, with what they believe in contrast once the reformed perspective has been laid out .. or vice versa, whatever. It could be like a layman's version of the whole Dort thingamajig (must I define that? :lol:) where both sides come together and lay out their beliefs but in common/high-frequency words.

 

I'm with you. As long as the "distinctive" features of Reformed theology as they contrast with common assumptions that are made about "born-again" style Evanglical Protestantism in the lay-public are sharply drawn.

 

Bill

[Spy Car]

ACK! :tongue_smilie:

 

All right. Is it okay if I stick with the same seven points but break them down more and then point out with each one what makes it distinct from other Christian schools of thought/practice?

 

Sheesh. This is quite a task. I won't be tackling it in the next few hours. I promised the boys we would go to the pool and play some Wii, so my screen time is up for now.

 

It is a task. At your leisure. I hope you enjoy your day :001_smile:

 

Bill

[Gailmegan]

Personally I would prefer an "Arminian" responded, point by point, with what they believe in contrast once the reformed perspective has been laid out .. or vice versa, whatever. It could be like a layman's version of the whole Dort thingamajig (must I define that? :lol:) where both sides come together and lay out their beliefs but in common/high-frequency words.

 

Could be fun. :D

 

But the thing is, this is still limiting RT to my point #3. Each of those seven points excludes certain other Christian faiths. RT is much bigger than this one issue.

[mamatohaleybug]

:lurk5:

[TracieT]

Marking my spot for when the full explanation comes. :) I'm learning a lot from this thread. I have some friends who are apparently Reformed (didn't know that's what they were), but they are definitely not evangelical. Which made sense to me since they (from what I understood) believe God chooses you. I figured "yeah, why would they evangelize if a person can't choose God on their own anyway?", but maybe I'm misunderstanding something! Can't wait to hear more!

[angela in ohio]

A note to those looking for more explanation: There have been several really, really long threads here over the years with some very smart ladies explaining Reformed theology, as well as many questions answered.

[twoxcell]

Marking my spot for when the full explanation comes. :) I'm learning a lot from this thread. I have some friends who are apparently Reformed (didn't know that's what they were), but they are definitely not evangelical. Which made sense to me since they (from what I understood) believe God chooses you. I figured "yeah, why would they evangelize if a person can't choose God on their own anyway?", but maybe I'm misunderstanding something! Can't wait to hear more!

 

 

My understanding of this is that yes there are those who are elect, or predestined "3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places in Christ, 4 just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before Him in love, 5 having predestined us to adoption as sons by Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the good pleasure of His will, 6 to the praise of the glory of His grace, by which He made us accepted in the Beloved."Ephesians 1:3-6

but it is the job of those who already repented to go and proclaim the good news so those who will repent can hear "So faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ."Romans 10:17

No one except God knows who the elect are. I have no idea if I'm reformed or not, but I do agree with them on some things.;)

[Donna A.]

My understanding of this is that yes there are those who are elect, or predestined "3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places in Christ, 4 just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before Him in love, 5 having predestined us to adoption as sons by Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the good pleasure of His will, 6 to the praise of the glory of His grace, by which He made us accepted in the Beloved."Ephesians 1:3-6

but it is the job of those who already repented to go and proclaim the good news so those who will repent can hear "So faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ."Romans 10:17

No one except God knows who the elect are. I have no idea if I'm reformed or not, but I do agree with them on some things.;)

 

Very good. :001_smile: Yes, we do believe in the mandate to be witnesses and share the good news of the Gospel and love of Christ in various ways, including but not limited to missions, preaching and teaching, financial support of both the local church and missionaries, hospitality, and oh, we even give out tracts sometimes! :D (Of course, they don't have the Romans Road on them. We believe the WHOLE Bible is good for evangelizing. ;) ) And believe it or not, there ARE many Reformed missionaries out there. Our church supports several of them, in fact.

 

I would say for those friends of the pp who are NOT evangelizing... well, they're wrong. :glare:

[twoxcell]

Very good. :001_smile: Yes, we do believe in the mandate to be witnesses and share the good news of the Gospel and love of Christ in various ways, including but not limited to missions, preaching and teaching, financial support of both the local church and missionaries, hospitality, and oh, we even give out tracts sometimes! :D (Of course, they don't have the Romans Road on them. We believe the WHOLE Bible is good for evangelizing. ;) ) And believe it or not, there ARE many Reformed missionaries out there. Our church supports several of them, in fact.

 

I would say for those friends of the pp who are NOT evangelizing... well, they're wrong. :glare:

 

My BIL has been exploring Reformed theology for about a year now, and has been won over to it so to speak. He has had some long discussions with my dh about it so that is where I have learned this from. I have also been watching Wretched a lot because of him. My BIL runs a street witnessing team, and preaches Repentance and Belief. No sinners prayer because that is not found in the Bible. Who knows he may just convince my dh and I yet. As for right now I'm somewhere in the vastness between Calvanism, and Arminianism, but probably closer to Calvin.:001_cool:

[Gailmegan]

A note to those looking for more explanation: There have been several really, really long threads here over the years with some very smart ladies explaining Reformed theology, as well as many questions answered.

 

 

Fantastic! If you share a link to these wonderful explanations, then I won't have to write mine out.

[Spy Car]

I'll try to explain my (puny-minded) understanding of the difference on evangelizing between "Evangelical Christians" (used as a synonym for Arminians) and the Reformed from my outsider perspective, and the (to the extent I get it wrong) I can be beaten around the ears.

 

Evangelical Christians are usually passionate about sharing the "good news" and believe that they (though their efforts) can potentially reach people who might not have otherwise be reached (and saved) without their efforts. And they believe that those who are reached are then capable of seeing the light and may then (hopefully) choose Jesus as their saviors. Now the Evengelicals would certainly pray for God to lead them and give them strength in their missions and that relationship would fill them with the passion and energy to carry on when it might be difficult because they were going to reach souls that might otherwise be lost.

 

The Reformed on the other hand believe that God will reach those he wants to reach. That doesn't mean that the Reformed will not act as "Evangalists", they will. But when they are doing so it is because God (through the person of the Holy Spirit) is using them as a vessel or as an agent in "reaching" a person God has already chosen to be one of his elect. So there is no "accidental" quality to these evangelizing efforts--they are all part of God's sovereign plan and he sometimes (often) uses people to do his will.

 

Is that fair?

 

Bill

Edited June 15, 2011 by Spy Car

[twoxcell]

That sounds very fair to me SpyCar.:)

[Spy Car]

Fantastic! If you share a link to these wonderful explanations, then I won't have to write mine out.

 

You don't get off that easy :tongue_smilie:

 

Bill

[SorrelZG]

I'll try to explain my (puny-minded) understanding of the difference on evangelizing between "Evangelical Christians" (used as a synonym for Arminians) and the Reformed from my outsider perspective, and the (to the extent I get it wrong) I can be beaten around the ears.

 

Evangelical Christians are usually passionate about sharing the "good news" and believe that they (though their efforts) can potentially reach people who might not have otherwise be reached (and saved) without their efforts. And they believe that those who are reached are then capable of seeing the light and may then (hopefully) choose Jesus as their saviors. Now the Evengelicals would certainly pray for God to lead them and give them strength in their missions and that relationship would fill them with the passion and energy to carry on when it might be difficult because they were going to reach souls that might otherwise be lost.

 

The Reformed on the other hand believe that God will reach those he wants to reach. That doesn't mean that the Reformed will not act as "Evangalists", they will. But when they are doing so it is because God (through the person of the Holy Spirit) is using them as a vessel or as an agent in "reaching" a person God has already chosen to be one of his elect. So there is no "accidental" quality to these evangelizing efforts--they are all part of God's sovereign plan and he sometimes (often) uses people to do his will.

 

Is that fair?

 

Bill

 

 

I smell foul doctrinal error.... or I minor typo.

 

 

Sorry, I couldn't help myself. :lol:

[Spy Car]

That sounds very fair to me SpyCar.:)

 

It could probably be (rightly) critiqued for underestimating the extent to which "Evangelical Christians" feel themselves called by God to act as evangelists and also feel they are part of his plan, but what can you do? :tongue_smilie:

 

Bill

[Spy Car]

I smell foul doctrinal error.... or I minor typo.

 

 

Sorry, I couldn't help myself. :lol:

 

Let's say it only reflects the bias of the author towards gender-neutral language and it should in no measure reflect badly toward Arminians (or Armenians :tongue_smilie:)

 

Bill

[twoxcell]

It could probably be (rightly) critiqued for underestimating the extent to which "Evangelical Christians" feel themselves called by God to act as evangelists and also feel they are part of his plan, but what can you do?

 

Yes I'm sure it could but for a brief paragraph coming from a non-believer(corect me if I'm wrong on that.), I found it fair indeed.

[TracieT]

I'll try to explain my (puny-minded) understanding of the difference on evangelizing between "Evangelical Christians" (used as a synonym for Arminians) and the Reformed from my outsider perspective, and the (to the extent I get it wrong) I can be beaten around the ears.

 

Evangelical Christians are usually passionate about sharing the "good news" and believe that they (though their efforts) can potentially reach people who might not have otherwise be reached (and saved) without their efforts. And they believe that those who are reached are then capable of seeing the light and may then (hopefully) choose Jesus as their saviors. Now the Evengelicals would certainly pray for God to lead them and give them strength in their missions and that relationship would fill them with the passion and energy to carry on when it might be difficult because they were going to reach souls that might otherwise be lost.

 

The Reformed on the other hand believe that God will reach those he wants to reach. That doesn't mean that the Reformed will not act as "Evangalists", they will. But when they are doing so it is because God (through the person of the Holy Spirit) is using them as a vessel or as an agent in "reaching" a person God has already chosen to be one of his elect. So there is no "accidental" quality to these evangelizing efforts--they are all part of God's sovereign plan and he sometimes (often) uses people to do his will.

 

Is that fair?

 

Bill

 

As an "evangelical," I'm not sure I agree. We don't believe our actions will "get people saved." We don't do it of our own accord and as a side note, ask God to help. We do it because God commands it and like someone else quoted, faith comes by hearing.

[twoxcell]

As an "evangelical," I'm not sure I agree. We don't believe our actions will "get people saved." We don't do it of our own accord and as a side note, ask God to help. We do it because God commands it and like someone else quoted, faith comes by hearing.

 

That's true also, and I think that both groups motivations for evangelism may be very similar. I'm feeling where they really differ is wether or not any one can be saved or only those whom God has Predestined.

[kpnick in nc]

I'll give it a try. The jargon is there, but I've tried to step back and define each term/use it in a clear context. I'm sure I've overlooked something since what is clear to one is not clear to all! This is mostly in my words, so it is more of a digested layout. I've tried to be clear about what spiritual death is and the role of regeneration in a person's salvation. I've also put in Bold the theological terms for navigation.

 

I don't think this is as long-winded as it looks. :tongue_smilie:I have not presented in-depth explanations, proofs, etc. This is long enough... I typed in Word then pasted, so I had to re-format.;)

 

 

1. God is a spiritual being Who created everything and sustains everything. He has total authority and power over the universe; this is commonly called the Sovereignty of God. The extent of that power and authority, especially over our wills, is a point of disagreement among many groups of Christians. I'm stopping here on purpose; the term has been defined, and I will refer to it later.

2. God made Adam and Eve, and they lived in the Garden of Eden. There was a tree in the middle of the Garden that God told them to eat from. Life was good.

3. They disobeyed – this is called the Fall. Adam and Eve went from a state of being “holy and happy†to a state of being “sinful and miserable†(language borrowed from Catechism for Young Children). There was no sin in mankind before this point.

 

 

• Physical death (not immediately following the Fall)
  
• Spiritual death (immediately following the Fall)
  
  • A corruption of every part of man’s being (mind, will, heart, you get the point).
    
  • The pervasiveness of this corruption is what is referred to as Total Depravity. The word “total†is describing parts of a person affected and describing that the corruption is beyond our power to reverse.
    
  • All mankind inherits this spiritual corruption from Adam – this is the concept of Original Sin.
    
  • Before a person is converted to Christianity, he is “spiritually dead.†Not spiritually sick or weak, but dead. The image of a corpse is often used to convey this.
    
    • a. In the same way that a physical corpse cannot respond to environment, one who is spiritually dead cannot respond favorably to the Word of God without regeneration (explained later).
      

     

     

     

   

   

   

 

4. Salvation from a Reformed point of view. This is a breakdown of the Calvinist version of the Order of Salvation (a cross-denominational term used to describe a list of the steps/components of salvation – one can find comparable lists for other viewpoints.)

 

 

• Calling
  
  • i. Outer or External – Universal proclamation of the Gospel (what we commonly call evangelism). We are called to go into all the world and make disciples. .
    
  • ii. Inner or Internal – encompasses parts of the U, L, and I of TULIP
    
    • 1. God chose who would receive this call before Creation – aka Predestination or Election. Being part of the elect has nothing to do with what the person will do/will choose. It is unconditional, not based on foreknowledge.
      
    • 2. The Holy Spirit works in the elect person’s heart, mind, will, etc to bring about a response of belief. There is overlap with Regeneration.
      
    • 3. The Inner Calling is effectual and irresistible. Whom God wants to save, He will save. The person believes because God has called. To say otherwise is to deny His Sovereignty (again = His complete authority and power).
      

     

    [*]iii. Imagine two people hearing the same Gospel presentation. One believes, the other doesn’t. Both received the Outer Calling, but only the believer received the Inner Calling. The Outer Calling is issued to bring out the elect (I know that’s a blanket statement , but I’m trying to move on…)

     

   

   

  [*]Regeneration – this refers to the work done by the Holy Spirit to bring a person from spiritual death to life. There is a new birth to reverse the corruption inherited from Adam. Man is passive.

   

 

 

 

• This regeneration will look different in different people – ranging from the very dramatic (“I was a God-hating, party animal until I hit rock bottom. Someone shared the gospel with me, and I was a new person!â€) to the very subtle (“I grew up going to church, learning the Bible, knowing who God is, I don’t know when I was ‘saved.’â€) These two people are equally passive in their regeneration.
  
  

 

 

 

• Faith – Very quickly, believing that the work of Jesus Christ is necessary to have a relationship with God and to avoid His wrath. This comes AFTER (and as a result of) regeneration in a Reformed understanding of salvation. The ability to believe is possible only due to Regeneration. One of the most obvious differences between Reformed and Armenian views.
  

 

 

 

• Repentance – in short, person believes, hates sin, wants to obey God out of love, acknowledgement of Who He is, etc. This would be where a ‘sinner’s prayer’ falls.
  
• Justification – refers to atoning work of Christ (paying for penalty of sin). Believe in Jesus – sins are forgiven…(Justification is by faith - so there is overlap).
  
  • Here is where Limited Atonement falls. Basically, the work of Christ has paid for ALL sins of the elect.
    
  • ii. Unlimited atonement, by contrast, would be the covering of all sins of all people. The Reformed person usually believes that unlimited atonement would result in no need for hell. If the work of Christ covers all sin for all people, even unbelief would be covered, and therefore, not punishable by eternal separation from God (which is hell).
    

   

   

  [*]Sanctification – the growth of a Christian; work of the Holy Spirit over time.

  [*]Preservation/Perseverance – Since God has called, regenerated, justified, and sanctified an elect person, I think it follows that that person will persevere/be preserved. To say that falling away is a possibility is to deny the Sovereignty of God.

  [*]Glorification – happens at 2nd coming of Christ; reversal of physical death, etc.

   

 

[Spy Car]

As an "evangelical," I'm not sure I agree. We don't believe our actions will "get people saved." We don't do it of our own accord and as a side note, ask God to help. We do it because God commands it and like someone else quoted, faith comes by hearing.

 

I admit (have admitted in a previous post) that this is a short-coming of my summary. I over-simplified to make a contrast and could have done better in this regard.

 

Bill

[SorrelZG]

That's true also, and I think that both groups motivations for evangelism may be very similar. I'm feeling where they really differ is wether or not any one can be saved or only those whom God has Predestined.

 

 

.. or, does God save people because they choose to believe in Him as their Savior or do they believe in Him as their Savior because He chose them.

 

 

I think we are motivated by the same promises and commands of Scripture but there are extremes on both ends - I've known Amrinians who wouldn't pray for evangelism efforts because God has nothing to do with it - it's the person's own choice. On the other hand I've known HyperCalvinists who won't evangelize because God is going to save who He's going to save and means have nothing to do with it.

[silliness7]

I'll give it a try. The jargon is there, but I've tried to step back and define each term/use it in a clear context. I'm sure I've overlooked something since what is clear to one is not clear to all! This is mostly in my words, so it is more of a digested layout. I've tried to be clear about what spiritual death is and the role of regeneration in a person's salvation. I've also put in Bold the theological terms for navigation.

 

I don't think this is as long-winded as it looks. :tongue_smilie:I have not presented in-depth explanations, proofs, etc. This is long enough... I typed in Word then pasted, so I had to re-format.;)

 

 

1. God is a spiritual being Who created everything and sustains everything. He has total authority and power over the universe; this is commonly called the Sovereignty of God. The extent of that power and authority, especially over our wills, is a point of disagreement among many groups of Christians. I'm stopping here on purpose; the term has been defined, and I will refer to it later.

2. God made Adam and Eve, and they lived in the Garden of Eden. There was a tree in the middle of the Garden that God told them to eat from. Life was good.

3. They disobeyed – this is called the Fall. Adam and Eve went from a state of being “holy and happy†to a state of being “sinful and miserable†(language borrowed from Catechism for Young Children). There was no sin in mankind before this point.

 

 

• Physical death (not immediately following the Fall)

• Spiritual death (immediately following the Fall)
  • A corruption of every part of man’s being (mind, will, heart, you get the point).

  • The pervasiveness of this corruption is what is referred to as Total Depravity. The word “total†is describing parts of a person affected and describing that the corruption is beyond our power to reverse.

  • All mankind inherits this spiritual corruption from Adam – this is the concept of Original Sin.

  • Before a person is converted to Christianity, he is “spiritually dead.†Not spiritually sick or weak, but dead. The image of a corpse is often used to convey this.
    • a. In the same way that a physical corpse cannot respond to environment, one who is spiritually dead cannot respond favorably to the Word of God without regeneration (explained later).

     

     

   

   

4. Salvation from a Reformed point of view. This is a breakdown of the Calvinist version of the Order of Salvation (a cross-denominational term used to describe a list of the steps/components of salvation – one can find comparable lists for other viewpoints.)

 

 

• Calling
  • i. Outer or External – Universal proclamation of the Gospel (what we commonly call evangelism). We are called to go into all the world and make disciples. .

  • ii. Inner or Internal – encompasses parts of the U, L, and I of TULIP
    • 1. God chose who would receive this call before Creation – aka Predestination or Election. Being part of the elect has nothing to do with what the person will do/will choose. It is unconditional, not based on foreknowledge.

    • 2. The Holy Spirit works in the elect person’s heart, mind, will, etc to bring about a response of belief. There is overlap with Regeneration.

    • 3. The Inner Calling is effectual and irresistible. Whom God wants to save, He will save. The person believes because God has called. To say otherwise is to deny His Sovereignty (again = His complete authority and power).

     

     

    [*]iii. Imagine two people hearing the same Gospel presentation. One believes, the other doesn’t. Both received the Outer Calling, but only the believer received the Inner Calling. The Outer Calling is issued to bring out the elect (I know that’s a blanket statement , but I’m trying to move on…)

     

   

  [*]Regeneration – this refers to the work done by the Holy Spirit to bring a person from spiritual death to life. There is a new birth to reverse the corruption inherited from Adam. Man is passive.

   

 

 

 

• This regeneration will look different in different people – ranging from the very dramatic (“I was a God-hating, party animal until I hit rock bottom. Someone shared the gospel with me, and I was a new person!â€) to the very subtle (“I grew up going to church, learning the Bible, knowing who God is, I don’t know when I was ‘saved.’â€) These two people are equally passive in their regeneration.

 

 

 

• Faith – Very quickly, believing that the work of Jesus Christ is necessary to have a relationship with God and to avoid His wrath. This comes AFTER (and as a result of) regeneration in a Reformed understanding of salvation. The ability to believe is possible only due to Regeneration. One of the most obvious differences between Reformed and Armenian views.

 

 

• Repentance – in short, person believes, hates sin, wants to obey God out of love, acknowledgement of Who He is, etc. This would be where a ‘sinner’s prayer’ falls.

• Justification – refers to atoning work of Christ (paying for penalty of sin). Believe in Jesus – sins are forgiven…(Justification is by faith - so there is overlap).
  • Here is where Limited Atonement falls. Basically, the work of Christ has paid for ALL sins of the elect.

  • ii. Unlimited atonement, by contrast, would be the covering of all sins of all people. The Reformed person usually believes that unlimited atonement would result in no need for hell. If the work of Christ covers all sin for all people, even unbelief would be covered, and therefore, not punishable by eternal separation from God (which is hell).

   

  [*]Sanctification – the growth of a Christian; work of the Holy Spirit over time.

  [*]Preservation/Perseverance – Since God has called, regenerated, justified, and sanctified an elect person, I think it follows that that person will persevere/be preserved. To say that falling away is a possibility is to deny the Sovereignty of God.

  [*]Glorification – happens at 2nd coming of Christ; reversal of physical death, etc.

   

 

 

 

You took on quite a challenge and I thought you did a wonderful job. I know that took a lot of time. Good work!

 

:cheers2:

[Donna A.]

I admit (have admitted in a previous post) that this is a short-coming of my summary. I over-simplified to make a contrast and could have done better in this regard.

 

Bill

 

I actually thought that last post was a great comparison and very fair. :thumbup1:

 

As to the wording about "getting people saved", oh yes, they're definitely out there. In MY experience in Arminian churches (though they would never call themselves that) prior to going over to the dark side, we heard that phrasing used quite regularly.

[joyfulhomeschooler]

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.

:iagree: This is why we didn't go with it and instead went with MFW. MFW does use CLP Pioneers and Patriots in the adventures program, but so far we haven't hit anything reformed in this book... some of the book is skipped though. MFW is definately non-reformed

[silliness7]

:iagree: This is why we didn't go with it and instead went with MFW. MFW does use CLP Pioneers and Patriots in the adventures program, but so far we haven't hit anything reformed in this book... some of the book is skipped though. MFW is definately non-reformed

 

What is it about CLP's version of reformed that is so distasteful to people? I haven't caught up with it yet either.

[Spy Car]

What is it about CLP's version of reformed that is so distasteful to people? I haven't caught up with it yet either.

 

It is because they promote ultra-far right "Christian Reconstructionism" and Dominionism and people like Gary North, and they frankly scare people to death.

 

Bill

[silliness7]

It is because they promote ultra-far right "Christian Reconstructionism" and Dominionism and people like Gary North, and they frankly scare people to death.

 

Bill

 

Is Christian Reconstructionism/Dominionism a uniquely Reformed concept? I'll have to google it.

 

ETA: I've read 2 articles. Now I"m an expert. :lol: Kidding.

But from what I"ve read it seems CR/D was a subset of Reformed thinking. Meaning only those of the Reformed persuasion held to it but not all, and it is not a defining feature. Currently however, it is taking a wider hold in non-reformed evangelical circles particularly charismatics. (That's not to imply there aren't reformed charismatics out there, but that's GOT to be a whole 'nother topic. :001_smile:)

Edited June 16, 2011 by silliness7

[Annabel Lee]

I am thoroughly and completely befuddled. I read many of the previous posts on the general board concerning Reformed faith, Calvinism, & Arminianism. Someone used the term "argument" in a pp, but I see this as an informative discussion (perhaps I'm naive, but I like it here) and enjoy reading posts treating it as such.

 

I am 100% confused. I grew up IBF (Independent Fundamental Baptist) where much of their doctrine was actively taught (saved by faith, once saved always saved, full-water immersion baptism of people old enough to make conscious choice for salvation, and much more). Around Jr. High age, my mom moved us to a Community Church of God and while they didn't give as much straight-forward doctrinal teaching, I caught wind of a conversation in which the pastor's wife told my mom salvation could be lost (aka, "falling from grace"). Meanwhile, I was attending a church-school at a local "Non-Denominational" church, which I also attended with school friends sometimes. I attend that church now, and I think I chose it in my early adulthood exactly because it is so vastly different from the church of my youth (and also because people I dearly love go there).

 

I didn't know anything of RT or Arminianism when I made that decision. My current church very much lives up to it's "Non-Denominational" title, although they do hold to certain practices and not others, but as of late I want answers. I've asked questions but been directed back to the Bible, the book of John specifically, but that just created more questions. I was *this close* to attending a Catholic service with a friend on Sunday this past weekend. She said since it's a very informal Catholic church and I'd be sitting with her, it would be OK, but that in some very formal Catholic churches you don't just visit to find out more. Honestly asking - how do I find out then? Do some of the more formal RT churches lean this way also, and do they offer classes at a different time? About a year ago I went through a phase of longing to go back to the IBF church so my kids would hear more doctrinal teaching, but there were other issues with that particular church that changed my mind. So you see, I'm all over the place, and it's not a fun place to be. :(

 

In addition to the Bible, what can I read to help me sort through all this? So many of you sound as if you've had years of education (even if from the pulpit or church classes) on this. Here I am, supposed to be giving my kids their spiritual education (because they don't get many specifics from our non-denom. church which claims that is the parent's duty - and I agree, but what if the parent is unsure?), but I'm still wading through this mire. Blech. Titles & authors, anyone - for both POVs and for inbetween but clearly defined POVs? TIA.

Edited June 16, 2011 by Annabel Lee

[SorrelZG]

It is because they promote ultra-far right "Christian Reconstructionism" and Dominionism and people like Gary North, and they frankly scare people to death.

 

Bill

 

 

I've heard North mentioned a couple of times now and I've never heard of him but I have some contact with the Reconstructionism thing and that whole ... subgroup of reformed theology ... gives me a dark, ick feeling. I googled and I see he's Van Tillian which I am certainly not (not that you have to be Van Tillian to be a Reconstructionist) but I'm getting the feeling that at this point in my paragraph I may as well be typing blahblahblah blah blah blahblah.

 

To simplify .. I'm reformed and I stay away from that particular branch of reformed also. There is actually some reformed things I will steer clear of moreso than Arminian things because they'll be addressing my children as if they're Christians rather than evangelizing them.

[SorrelZG]

Is Christian Reconstructionism/Dominionism a uniquely Reformed concept? I'll have to google it.

 

ETA: I've read 2 articles. Now I"m an expert. :lol: Kidding.

But from what I"ve read it seems CR/D was a subset of Reformed thinking. Meaning only those of the Reformed persuasion held to it but not all, and it is not a defining feature. Currently however, it is taking a wider hold in non-reformed evangelical circles particularly charismatics. (That's not to imply there aren't reformed charismatics out there, but that's GOT to be a whole 'nother topic. :001_smile:)

 

 

As I understand, the church to which the author of TOG attends (last I heard they were a part of CJ Mahaney's church) is a reformed charismatic church. I know they're reformed and baptist and are more "charismatic" than my church (I don't know where I personally stand on the issue) but I think that just means that they're non-cessationist which doesn't necessarily mean what most of us might associate with the term "charismatic". That's another term I've started needing people to define when it comes up in conversation. But anyway .. total tangent .. :tongue_smilie: I'm just all "blahblah blah blah" this morning. :lol:

[TracieT]

I actually thought that last post was a great comparison and very fair. :thumbup1:

 

As to the wording about "getting people saved", oh yes, they're definitely out there. In MY experience in Arminian churches (though they would never call themselves that) prior to going over to the dark side, we heard that phrasing used quite regularly.

 

Sure, they're out there. Just like "christians" who protest military funerals. It doesn't mean that's what the Bible teaches, though.

[mommaduck]

In addition to the Bible, what can I read to help me sort through all this? So many of you sound as if you've had years of education (even if from the pulpit or church classes) on this. Here I am, supposed to be giving my kids their spiritual education (because they don't get many specifics from our non-denom. church which claims that is the parent's duty - and I agree, but what if the parent is unsure?), but I'm still wading through this mire. Blech. Titles & authors, anyone - for both POVs and for inbetween but clearly defined POVs? TIA.

 

Skip the current books. Skip even the Reformers (though I like Ryle). Start reading the ECFs (early church fathers). Look up books that say Ante-Nicene Fathers.

 

(Glad to now be in a church that was pre-Calvin/Arminian argument...the argument doesn't exist)

[silliness7]

I am thoroughly and completely befuddled. I read many of the previous posts on the general board concerning Reformed faith, Calvinism, & Arminianism. Someone used the term "argument" in a pp, but I see this as an informative discussion (perhaps I'm naive, but I like it here) and enjoy reading posts treating it as such.

 

I am 100% confused. I grew up IBF (Independent Fundamental Baptist) where much of their doctrine was actively taught (saved by faith, once saved always saved, full-water immersion baptism of people old enough to make conscious choice for salvation, and much more). Around Jr. High age, my mom moved us to a Community Church of God and while they didn't give as much straight-forward doctrinal teaching, I caught wind of a conversation in which the pastor's wife told my mom salvation could be lost (aka, "falling from grace"). Meanwhile, I was attending a church-school at a local "Non-Denominational" church, which I also attended with school friends sometimes. I attend that church now, and I think I chose it in my early adulthood exactly because it is so vastly different from the church of my youth (and also because people I dearly love go there).

 

I didn't know anything of RT or Arminianism when I made that decision. My current church very much lives up to it's "Non-Denominational" title, although they do hold to certain practices and not others, but as of late I want answers. I've asked questions but been directed back to the Bible, the book of John specifically, but that just created more questions. I was *this close* to attending a Catholic service with a friend on Sunday this past weekend. She said since it's a very informal Catholic church and I'd be sitting with her, it would be OK, but that in some very formal Catholic churches you don't just visit to find out more. Honestly asking - how do I find out then? Do some of the more formal RT churches lean this way also, and do they offer classes at a different time? About a year ago I went through a phase of longing to go back to the IBF church so my kids would hear more doctrinal teaching, but there were other issues with that particular church that changed my mind. So you see, I'm all over the place, and it's not a fun place to be. :(

 

In addition to the Bible, what can I read to help me sort through all this? So many of you sound as if you've had years of education (even if from the pulpit or church classes) on this. Here I am, supposed to be giving my kids their spiritual education (because they don't get many specifics from our non-denom. church which claims that is the parent's duty - and I agree, but what if the parent is unsure?), but I'm still wading through this mire. Blech. Titles & authors, anyone - for both POVs and for inbetween but clearly defined POVs? TIA.

 

That's a really hard question to answer. Like a pp mentioned I came to a Reformed understanding of the Scriptures after doing some Bible studies. One was Max Lucado and another was Beth Moore. Neither of which are Reformed. :lol: It wasn't actually something they said, it was more my response to it. It was my own stuyding to try to understand what they were saying. In hindsight, I wasn't responding to just that, but really to the whole of my religious experience thus far. It really was through my own struggles and prayers and Bible reading that I found some peace - coming to grips with some issues. I remember when I learned that there was an actual term for the way I was thinking and an entire branch of Christianity that thought that way. It was like a delicious warm breeze on a Spring day. :001_smile:

 

I'm still learning though. There is much that I don't know yet. I can really identify with wanting to raise my kids with true Christian teaching and yet feeling so inadequate. We actually did move 800 miles so we could find mentors for ourselves and especially for our kids. That was truly an answer to prayer as we felt like we were floundering trying to learn about Reformed Christianity in a community (rural small town) in which there weren't any churches to support us.

 

That was 6 years ago and I'm finally feeling more comfortable to branch out on my own with curricula. I feel like I can spot the issues that don't line up and talk intelligently with my kids about them. They're getting good at spotting things too and I'm really grateful for our church that has given all of us good theological teaching.

 

I really don't know of a resource that will help you sort out ALL of the different branches of Christianity out there. But this Reformed site I enjoy. It uses terminology and explanations (for the most part) for those who are trying to figure stuff out...Layperson speak. I hope others will direct you to other resources so you feel like you're getting all sides. If that's what you're looking for.

 

I too was nervous about visiting a reformed church for the first time. When we moved we visited a TON and they all were very typical of "evangelical" churches (because most Reformed peoples are also Evangelical, as pointed out earlier) They make visitors feel welcome, chat you up, ask you to come back, put you on their mailing list, visit from a minister (o.k., not all visited) Of course, if there was a church we didn't get a good vibe from we did not give our address and so no contact was possible. Just saying if you want to be kind of anonymous you can. Although we visited one Presby church that only had about 30 in attendance and NO children. We most certainly stood out and got multiple invitations to lunch. :lol: Very friendly!

Edited June 16, 2011 by silliness7

[Gailmegan]

I've heard North mentioned a couple of times now and I've never heard of him but I have some contact with the Reconstructionism thing and that whole ... subgroup of reformed theology ... gives me a dark, ick feeling. I googled and I see he's Van Tillian which I am certainly not (not that you have to be Van Tillian to be a Reconstructionist) but I'm getting the feeling that at this point in my paragraph I may as well be typing blahblahblah blah blah blahblah.

 

To simplify .. I'm reformed and I stay away from that particular branch of reformed also. There is actually some reformed things I will steer clear of moreso than Arminian things because they'll be addressing my children as if they're Christians rather than evangelizing them.

 

No, CR is NOT VanTillian. Well, I can't say that they don't personally claim to be, but Westminster Theological Seminary as a whole, and as individual professors have repeatedly come out against CR/Theonomy.

 

It is definitely a subset, and NOT one that defines RT in any way.

[silliness7]

I found this interesting article from a Fundamental Baptist site warning others about the infiltration of Reformed Homeschool curriculum. There's a blurb about Sonlight too. Interesting.

 

ETA: Found this thread kind of on topic. I think I remember reading that the first time around. It was fun to re-read it.

Edited June 16, 2011 by silliness7

[silliness7]

No, CR is NOT VanTillian. Well, I can't say that they don't personally claim to be, but Westminster Theological Seminary as a whole, and as individual professors have repeatedly come out against CR/Theonomy.

 

It is definitely a subset, and NOT one that defines RT in any way.

 

Van Tillian is a new term for me.

To google or not to google. :confused: