Reformed theology and people

[arapahoepark]

Why do you think there aren't many reformed folks? What about seminary professors that aren't reformed that are exegetes and seem to dislike 'systematic theology'? What issues beside the obvious heart issues do you think?

 

[Paul1976]

Most people don't seem willing to take the time to see how a system of theology is developed from scripture. People prefer to decide which theological position sounds best, or accept a pastor taking a verse or two to justify a position. They also seem not to mind when that position requires an interpretation well removed from the plain meaning of dozens of other passages.

We are wired not to like God's sovereignty. When peoples theology is predominantly determined without finding it themselves in scripture, and everyone else is comfortable doing this, you end up with a lot of Christians who think they are "moderate Calvinists" since they believe in eternal security, but have at best an Arminian (and more likely a semi-Pelagian) position with the illogical inclusion of eternal security, and no idea how this differs from perseverance of the saints.

 

[jandrusk]

I know for myself and being in the reformed camp for a few years now is that a certain amount of homework is necessary to understand the differences between the non-reformed position I was currently under. I think the other motivating factor was the love of God and looking to glorify Him by knowing Him and His teachings to the utmost. I think most Americans are not only lazy, but especially laze when it comes to doing homework, even when it comes to thier faith. I have also observed that most of the folks I have encountered in the OPC are not only very literate, but most tend to have a love for reading, especially those sources that expound their knowledge of the savior. I think a reformed education is necessary across this nation as a whole to solve the problem.

 

[A Tulip Not a Daisy]

There aren't many reformed folks because:
1. The self is sovereign, not God. Free-will fantasy lovers abound.
2. Digging deep requires time, effort, and endurance.
3. And most importantly only God can illuminate the Scriptures so that the blind eyes see and the deaf ears hear the doctrines of grace.

 

[py3ak]

Not all the reasons reflect well on us. Reformed churches are not always good at reaching out to their communities. Sometimes visitors come very rarely, and often they never return. We sometimes speak in unintelligible ways, and blame people's failure to understand on their hardness of heart or lack of illumination, instead of on our own method of communication. We can be quick to conclude that someone "is not a good fit" and indulge in a sort of elitism where our churches are really only for the very serious and committed. Sinners needing help sometimes find that they are more welcomed and more looked after somewhere else.

It's not true of all Reformed churches; it's probably not true of any Reformed church in all cases and at all times. But we ought to raise the question whether it is our faults or our virtues that are keeping us small. Assuming it's one or the other probably leads to self-righteousness or undue compromise; raising the question may help us be better about going into all the world to make disciples, or more cheerfully accepting of God's providential circumscription of our role at this time.

 

[Paul1976]

Hi Ellen,

I fully agree with 1) and 2), but am not sure I agree with 3).

Only God (through the Spirit) can give us faith and open our hearts to embrace Christ - there we fully agree. However, few people who experience this understand what God has just done for them as it happens. It takes many of us years to at least partially understand it, and I doubt any of us fully understand it.

My point is that an understanding of what God does is (thankfully) not a prerequisite for God doing it. I believe many who God saves never understand the doctrines of grace as a knowledgeable reformed individual does. (This is not to say that there are not many who believe themselves to be Christians who are not). Similarly, I would be saddened, but not surprised, to learn that some who understand the doctrines of Grace deeply at an intellectual level have never experienced them.

 

[Mushroom]

A dear brother, now a resident of heaven, asked me the first time we talked, after a worship service, why it was that so few professing Christians comprehended the doctrines of grace. He was newly reformed, and also asked why I thought he was so rabid about it. My reply was that he was in the dreaded 'cage-stage' of Calvinism, and that it would subside with time (and I was wrong - the Lord took him home before that time elapsed), and that maybe it was like kids who took everything apart to see how they worked. I was one of those, and so was he, and I think God has given some of His people that kind of need, the need to really understand things in a consistent way. For a long time I considered those who didn't understand things as clearly as me to be lost. I think I know better than that now. So maybe that's what makes us seem insular. But I don't agree that Reformed Churches are less loving or willing to reach out. I think maybe the unintelligible speech may be a valid indictment, but I think more of it has to do with not knowing how to communicate period. Too many INTJ's. Wanting to reach out but not gifted in doing so.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

There are psychological reasons why some are TULIP people (generally speaking), as well as why many aren't. I think that Ruben's observations are quite appropo.

I also agree with the commenters who point to the sovereignty of God in opening people up to receiving his truth. So there are definitely spiritual factors at work.

I want to make an additional proposal that I think is somewhere between both those accurate observations.

A lot of people simply don't accept what the Bible teaches. I know this argument tends to "go both ways," that is, that people who deny TULIP say that TULIP people are ignoring various texts of Scripture that are their go-to verses. However, I don't personally know any TULIP people who actually refuse to deal with so-called "problem texts," or who offer what are transparent desperation moves to avoid the force of certain texts. The Reformed answers to the challenges commonly offered them are not gymnastic, but follow simple rules of logic and argument; in other words, they appeal to the questioner assuming his fundamental agreement with common rules of rational discourse.

I will stick to my guns, and say that when push comes to shove, many folk take the John Wesley option on the Rom.9 passage (for instance), and just say, "I know what it sounds like it's saying. And I don't know what else it could be saying. But I just know it doesn't mean what the Calvinist says it means."

I credit JamesWhite for putting it in just this way as I heard it: that what is hard for men to accept about the Bible's teaching is not typically the truly difficult passages, but that the clear teachings are simply unacceptable. Unbelievers (of the sort made famous by the likes of Christopher Hitchens, a man who must be respected for his unflinching intellectual honesty) are often more willing to accept the Bible's terms than are Christians, because the unbeliever both reads the Bible and openly hates its statements and implications.

Unfortunately, many professing Christians are to a degree (hopefully not to their exclusion from heaven) only willing to accept God's Word on their own terms, and not (absolutely) on his own terms--not on what he has said about himself and about man's relationship to him, plainly revealed on the face of Scripture's witness. That truth hurts.

People are only too willing to latch on to various verses here and there; not bothering to treat Scripture as a single, coherent witness that should be integrated and systematized; and assert a comfortable position that makes men the final arbiters of their destiny. Of course this is a more popular view, in a place and time where objective demands (with their oppressive laws of conformity) have been submerged in a sea of subjective opinions about how reality conveniently conforms to each man's preference.

The actual God of the Bible is Godlike. Coming to terms with him is an actual surrender of one's preferences to his self-witness. Which is, I say, nothing but the fully-orbed whole counsel of God--nothing left out, nothing whitewashed, nothing overlooked or minimized. Which results in a TULIP definition of what salvation actually consists.

 

[SolaScriptura]

Too many INTJ's.

It hope it is a good thing that I'm an ESTJ.

 

[PaulCLawton]

Why do you think there aren't many reformed folks? What about seminary professors that aren't reformed that are exegetes and seem to dislike 'systematic theology'? What issues beside the obvious heart issues do you think?

It's probably all the GMOs people eat these days.

 

[arapahoepark]

Thanks for your answers!
Another question or two for you all. How would you defend the Reformed faith against some who think we've read a 'western' mind into it?

 

[jandrusk]

Thanks for your answers!
Another question or two for you all. How would you defend the Reformed faith against some who think we've read a 'western' mind into it?

Do you mean a post-modern mind? Could you define what a 'western' mind is?

 

[arapahoepark]

Thanks for your answers!
Another question or two for you all. How would you defend the Reformed faith against some who think we've read a 'western' mind into it?

Do you mean a post-modern mind? Could you define what a 'western' mind is?

I mean like East vs. West. The E. Orthodox are always like Christianity is an eastern religion, "we are closer to the Holy land" ergo, we're right. And stuff like that.

 

[MW]

How would you defend the Reformed faith against some who think we've read a 'western' mind into it?

(1.) The "mind" is necessary to the interpretation of Scripture. One mindset or another will influence the interpretation. Why not the western? (2.) Western Christianity has undergone a thorough process of self-examination and come to a consistent understanding of the phenomena of rationality and the hermeneutical principles by which to objectively apply divine revelation. What intellectual tradition can lay claim to the same kind of process or the same kind of results? (3.) The reformation took place in the context of the west and accepted these underlying principles. (4.) The reformed theology gives the best and most consistent account of divine revelation according to these principles. (5.) Both church and society share this intellectual tradition. As it is the duty of the church to bear witness to the truth, and the church itself is western, there is no reason why the church should not boldly assert that which it knows to be true.

 

[Jake]

Rev. Buchanan,

Thank you for your insightful post. I found this to be a great, while still being necessarily charitable, analysis of the prevalent views of soteriology in modern Christianity.

 

[arapahoepark]

Rev. Buchanan,

Thank you for your insightful post. I found this to be a great, while still being necessarily charitable, analysis of the prevalent views of soteriology in modern Christianity.

Indeed. He is very helpful as is Rev. Winzer.

 

[sevenzedek]

It was approximately six years ago that I realized the awful state in which I was. I thought that if God is not a God who can fix me then Christianity must not be real. I realized my brokenness and that I was unable to fix myself. I dare say that, if I was not introduced to the doctrines of grace at that time, I might have walked away from the faith. This was my entrance into accepting God's sovereignty per Romans 9.

Perhaps one of the reasons why people are turned off by reformed teachings on soteriology is because they think they have the moral freedom to choose whatever they want. Are they being honest with themselves? This modern thinking has a death grip on people. Many think that a moral choice is no different than choosing what cereal they want for breakfast. Do they realize they do not have the power to choose to love what they hate? Free-will is only according to one's nature.

Regarding other aspects of the reformed faith, consider the RPW. I think people are turned off by that as well. Many would feel more comfortable in a church that has more to do with man and how everyone can participate. If a new convert goes looking for a new church, they are going to do it on the basis of their old-man thinking and try to find one that feels comfortable. It sometimes takes years for the Bible to inform their consciences about what is right. I have seen many grow into a reformed way of thinking. This has been my journey. My first church was the Church of God denomination. From there I went to a non-denominational church that offered many views. From there I went to an independent Reformed Baptist church. Finally, I believe I have arrived at an Orthodox Presbyterian Church.

Overall, I would say the main reason people reject the reformed faith is because of poor teaching.

 

[Steve Paynter]

With regard to seminary professors - especially in the area of biblical studies, rather than theology - there seems to me to be two cultural problems. The first is that biblical scholars are trained to think in "little bits" ... not the theology of the Bible or the Old or New Testaments, or often not even the theology of Paul or John, but in, for example, the "Son of God Christology in Paul's prison epistles" etc. This, of course, is necessary spade work for eventually crafting one's systematic theology and world-view in as biblically faithful way as possible ... but too often biblical scholars never get around to constructing their systematic theology or world-view ... at least not in their professional writings. It is one of the many impacts of over specialisation that negatively afflicts many academic disciplines.

The second relates to "Reformed" people being happier thinking, talking and writing in systematic theological concepts and terminology, and therefore not meeting the biblical scholar on the ground of the concepts and terminology of the Bible. Sometimes we talk as if our extra-biblical terminology is the way the truth has to be articulated.

This of course is a gross caricature. I would say that Reformed thinking is more prevalent in academic biblical studies than it is - percentage wise - in the church as a whole. I think this reflects well on our tradition of scholarship, and the way we encourage all Reformed Christians to think hard about the Bible and their faith.

---
Steve Paynter,
Church Member,
Victoria Park Baptist Church
Bristol, England

 

[dog8food]

A friend of mine who attended a reformed seminary said he's not reformed partly because this view presents God as a less-loving, angry deity out to get us only to be held back by His Son.

 

[GoodTreeMinistries.com]

I think it is because people do want to believe they are so bad they would never choose God unless something changed in them. Since our very nature is all about ourselves we do not want to think of ourselves as limited somehow. Also it seems that many reformed people do alot of harm when they first understand the doctrines of grace. That is how the reformed view is mistaken most of the time. I have seen alot of arguing between both camps and you do not even see the name of Jesus spoken of. I treasure what God has taught me through others on the reformed view but I know see that if we do not come across with love we are not able to share the truths we know to others. If we cannot say something or do something for the glory of God we should not do it at all! I know in my case it would of been better if I was not allowed to talk about the reformed views for atleast a year after I first knew them.

As to'systematic theology' people do not want to take the Bible literal. They want to be able to pick and choose what to believe based on their views. It seem people want to have some type of new information that makes them look smart in a sense then others!

 

[py3ak]

A friend of mine who attended a reformed seminary said he's not reformed partly because this view presents God as a less-loving, angry deity out to get us only to be held back by His Son.

Sometimes the way people expound the atonement does give that impression; but a proper Scriptural presentation emphasizes that the atonement is the effect of the love of God. This is maintained in the classically Reformed view (held up as such, for instance, by Dickson in Truth's Victory Over Error) that Christ is not the cause of election.

 

[MW]

A friend of mine who attended a reformed seminary said he's not reformed partly because this view presents God as a less-loving, angry deity out to get us only to be held back by His Son.

Sometimes the way people expound the atonement does give that impression; but a proper Scriptural presentation emphasizes that the atonement is the effect of the love of God. This is maintained in the classically Reformed view (held up as such, for instance, by Dickson in Truth's Victory Over Error) that Christ is not the cause of election.

Well noted, Ruben. It sounds like the individual has been exposed to an Amyraldian-type theology which teaches what Hugh Martin called "a covenant of reasonless, arbitrary and capricious judgment."