What is everyone's definition of a "TR"?

Is it usually used in the context of being a pejorative label?

I'm thinking in the context of PCA but others are welcome to join in if they've had experience with the term in their surroundings.

From what I've noticed, it is usually used as a pejorative term and it also carries a connotation that the person is more reformed than I or professor X.

I've usually heard Greenville Pres. Theol. Sem. referred to in that way if that helps.

wow...35 views and no "takers". Either I didn't ask specifically enough...no one wants to touch this one...we don't know more...or I didn't phrase it in an offensive enough way to get people to defend themselves...

So...wouldn't most people here in PB-land wear the TR label with pride? Or is there a legit bad portion to the label?

I am not TR, but let me take a stab at it and let those who are set me straight.

TR refers to those who fully subscribe to the Westminster standards, and are commited to a distinctively Reformed world life view, and believe in exclusive psalmady in corporate worship.

Most of those who self identify as TR are VanTillian and Post Mil.

... how bout "PR" or "Pretty Reformed" - refering to the winsome appearance of many young PCA pastors and their wives/kids. Now I've heard "PR" tossed around in good humor!

Originally posted by yeutter
I am not TR, but let me take a stab at it and let those who are set me straight.

TR refers to those who fully subscribe to the Westminster standards, and are commited to a distinctively Reformed world life view, and believe in exclusive psalmady in corporate worship.

Most of those who self identify as TR are VanTillian and Post Mil.

Ok,

Here's a quick primer:

The term originated as a badge for the first set of graduates from RTS seminary in the early 70s. It was contrasted to the Broad Evangelicals in the denomination.

It generally refers to those who are Confessional, critical of Sonship, and opposed the broad evangelicalism of the denomination. Greenville is definitely a TR seminary, but that is not a bad thing. At least to me. It is generally used now as an epithet to hurl at someone.

It is not identifable with a millenial view (most TRs I know are Amil), nor EP (most TRs are non-EP, although one could say that almost all EPers are also TR).

When you think TR, think Joey Pipa, Morton Smith, David Coffin (to some extent) and other adherents to confessionalism.

Originally posted by fredtgreco

Originally posted by yeutter
I am not TR, but let me take a stab at it and let those who are set me straight.

TR refers to those who fully subscribe to the Westminster standards, and are commited to a distinctively Reformed world life view, and believe in exclusive psalmady in corporate worship.

Most of those who self identify as TR are VanTillian and Post Mil.

Ok,

Here's a quick primer:

The term originated as a badge for the first set of graduates from RTS seminary in the early 70s. It was contrasted to the Broad Evangelicals in the denomination.

It generally refers to those who are Confessional, critical of Sonship, and opposed the broad evangelicalism of the denomination. Greenville is definitely a TR seminary, but that is not a bad thing. At least to me. It is generally used now as an epithet to hurl at someone.

It is not identifable with a millenial view (most TRs I know are Amil), nor EP (most TRs are non-EP, although one could say that almost all EPers are also TR).

When you think TR, think Joey Pipa, Morton Smith, David Coffin (to some extent) and other adherents to confessionalism.

So...would Vanilla Westminsterian = TR? From what I know of it and from what you confirmed...I would think that it is a good thing.

Why has it gotten bad press? When I hear Joey Pipa's and Morton Smith's name I think stalwart, Godly men.

I guess another way of putting it would be:
Strict Subscriptionist = TR?

[Edited on 10-4-2005 by crhoades]

Originally posted by crhoadesI guess another way of putting it would be:
Strict Subscriptionist = TR?

Yes. It is a badge of honor to those who are TR, but those who are not TR consider TR's to be narrow minded and stuck in the 1600's, even intolerant sometimes.

Originally posted by fredtgreco
Ok,

Here's a quick primer:

The term originated as a badge for the first set of graduates from RTS seminary in the early 70s. It was contrasted to the Broad Evangelicals in the denomination.

It generally refers to those who are Confessional, critical of Sonship, and opposed the broad evangelicalism of the denomination. Greenville is definitely a TR seminary, but that is not a bad thing. At least to me. It is generally used now as an epithet to hurl at someone.

It is not identifable with a millenial view (most TRs I know are Amil), nor EP (most TRs are non-EP, although one could say that almost all EPers are also TR).

When you think TR, think Joey Pipa, Morton Smith, David Coffin (to some extent) and other adherents to confessionalism.

OK. Why is were Sproul and Gerstner not referred to as TR?

Because they are not as strictly confessional as TRs are. After all, Gerstner did not even leave the PCUSA until the 1980s!

And Sproul's emphasis has generally been of a much broader bent - not bad, for he has a great ministry. But when was the last time you heard an extended dissertation on the Confession from Sproul?

It is not bad not to be TR - but it is a certain mindset.

I would recommend Tim Keller's article for more info on TR's.

Just so long as you remember that Tim has significant "skin in the game" so to speak.

Here is a sense in which, I trust, none of us aspires to the term "TR." It reminds me of an anecdote concerning Scottish Presbyterianism from a by-gone day. It is expressed in the words of an anonymous Scot minister who one day makes the following remark to his wife...

"I fear all be heretics save thee and me, and I have my doubts about thee."

Sometimes, I fear, that for some of us that sentiment comes too close to home.

Cheers,
DTK

Originally posted by PastorSean
In our Presbytery TR is often not so much a reference to one's beliefs (or the strictness thereof) but a pejorative term for someone who is particular about their beliefs and acts like an ass about it.

[Edited on 10-4-2005 by PastorSean]

[Edited on 10-4-2005 by PastorSean]

there seems to be two different "strengths of belief" that people have.
one is how strongly you hold to it.
the other is how strongly you come across to other people concerning the strength of your belief. does anyone have a nice label for this "excess certainty" idea?

tia.

Originally posted by rmwilliamsjr

Originally posted by PastorSean
In our Presbytery TR is often not so much a reference to one's beliefs (or the strictness thereof) but a pejorative term for someone who is particular about their beliefs and acts like an ass about it.

[Edited on 10-4-2005 by PastorSean]

[Edited on 10-4-2005 by PastorSean]

there seems to be two different "strengths of belief" that people have.
one is how strongly you hold to it.
the other is how strongly you come across to other people concerning the strength of your belief. does anyone have a nice label for this "excess certainty" idea?

tia.

I think PastorSean nailed such a label