"Reformed" "Reform" in name of church always mean the Pastor is Calvinistic in doctrine?

[MarkRohfrietsch]

I see that ain't Zwinglian did precisely as you predicted - got upset and walked away. That's a pity, but I have encountered the same situation all too often. The simple reality is, in my experience, that those who loudly proclaim transsubtantiation and insist that the bread becomes the real body and flesh of Jesus Christ and the wine becomes the real blood of Jesus Christ, actually do not believe that they are eating human flesh and drinking human blood. They fall back on the Aristotelian argument that the "accidents" of the eucharist, while remaining physically unchanged, have "spiritually" been transformed into the genuine flesh and blood of Jesus Christ.

Scripture also tells us that if people don't listen, we should shake the dust off of our feet, and move on.

 

[bbbbbbb]

Scripture also tells us that if people don't listen, we should shake the dust off of our feet, and move on.

Yes, there is that. However, it is no excuse to get upset and deride others who disagree. For example, although I disagree with Lutheranism on several counts, I hold Lutherans, especially those such as yourself, in high esteem.

 

[Neostarwcc]

When a church name includes the word "reformed" or "reform" does that always mean (or to a very high degree) that the Pastor will be Calvinistic in doctrine?

Yes, many reformed Churches will be Calvinistic in their theology and church practices. Although many Calvinists prefer the title "reformed" because people typically don't know what reformed theology is but, have heard of John Calvin and those of us who can follow a "tyrant" like him. So yeah, Calvinist and Reformed are the exact same things.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

Yes, there is that. However, it is no excuse to get upset and deride others who disagree. For example, although I disagree with Lutheranism on several counts, I hold Lutherans, especially those such as yourself, in high esteem.

Thanks, I meant no offense, rather just making a point that one does need to take Scripture in it's entirety not just the bits that one thinks they understand. Not understanding does not invalidate Scripture. Nothing invalidates Scripture.

 

[bbbbbbb]

Thanks, I meant no offense, rather just making a point that one does need to take Scripture in it's entirety not just the bits that one thinks they understand. Not understanding does not invalidate Scripture. Nothing invalidates Scripture.

Absolutely true, although for some Scripture and Sacred Tradition are intimately intertwined.

 

[Hazelelponi]

Since you asked the question; Scripture is clear and sternly admonishes us regarding no discerning Christ's body and blood.

When the initial poster asked I was happy to try and openly discuss in the hopes of seeing this in a different light, but that moment is very definitely over.

It was just a stupid thought of mine that such a discussion could even be had. I have a tendency toward optimism that the world loves reminding me is futile.

I thank you for your post however.

God bless you.

All this makes me seem the church as a bunch of camps that hate each other and I can't see His Church that way... I just can't. I can't cry any more.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

Absolutely true, although for some Scripture and Sacred Tradition are intimately intertwined.

Agreed. Each supporting the other. The "real presence" is Scriptural and Scripture supports it by the admonitions regarding discerning that presence and regarding worthy reception. Along with those warnings there are also the promises of grace through the reception. Each supporting the other. Not tradition.

The Liturgy of the (Lutheran) Mass is tradition, but the words are from Scripture as are most of the prayers; those that are not point to Christ, and as such neither conflict with Scripture, nor are they forbidden by it.

Other (Catholic) traditions such as the veneration of the Eucharist outside of the context of the Mass; Scripture says we are to eat and drink it; not sit, stare and venerate it; this is not why our Lord gave it to us.

I don't consider Confessional Lutherans "reformed as such" rather I view us as the "restored" holy Evangelical (Bible Based) Catholic and Apostolic Church.

Reformed can encompass all forms of Christianity outside of Catholic, Orthodox, and Confessional Lutherans. Any Churches that are influenced by Calvinism, Arminianism, Anabaptism I would consider "reformed" including Anglicanism (with some exceptions).

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

When the initial poster asked I was happy to try and openly discuss in the hopes of seeing this in a different light, but that moment is very definitely over.

It was just a stupid thought of mine that such a discussion could even be had. I have a tendency toward optimism that the world loves reminding me is futile.

I thank you for your post however.

God bless you.

All this makes me seem the church as a bunch of camps that hate each other and I can't see His Church that way... I just can't. I can't cry any more.

What is the purpose of Christ's Church if not to be an instrument of the the Holy Spirit and to bring Salvation to all. This only happens through repentance, and in order to facilitate repentance. How does the Church do this? Through admonishing errors and preaching the promise of the Gospel. Last I looked, this applies to protestants, Catholics, Orthodox, Calvinists etc.

This is theology, we discuss both our similarities and differences. It's what happens here.

 

[bbbbbbb]

Agreed. Each supporting the other. The "real presence" is Scriptural and Scripture supports it by the admonitions regarding discerning that presence and regarding worthy reception. Along with those warnings there are also the promises of grace through the reception. Each supporting the other. Not tradition.

The Liturgy of the (Lutheran) Mass is tradition, but the words are from Scripture as are most of the prayers; those that are not point to Christ, and as such neither conflict with Scripture, nor are they forbidden by it.

Other (Catholic) traditions such as the veneration of the Eucharist outside of the context of the Mass; Scripture says we are to eat and drink it; not sit, stare and venerate it; this is not why our Lord gave it to us.

I don't consider Confessional Lutherans "reformed as such" rather I view us as the "restored" holy Evangelical (Bible Based) Catholic and Apostolic Church.

Reformed can encompass all forms of Christianity outside of Catholic, Orthodox, and Confessional Lutherans. Any Churches that are influenced by Calvinism, Arminianism, Anabaptism I would consider "reformed" including Anglicanism (with some exceptions).

Thank you. As we both agree, there is a very fine line between veneration (respect) and worship (idolatry). When the Eucharist is venerated I agree completely with you that this is not at all why our Lord gave it to us. A similar aspect developed with the veneration of various relics. Louis IX of France drained his treasury to accumulate a collection of relics which he housed in the Sainte Chapelle.

Not to be outdone, much later, Henry VII of England constructed King's College Chapel in Cambridge.

Today, the Sainte Chapel has become one of the tourist destinations in Paris and not a site of significant Christian pilgrimage. King's College Chapel, however, still functions pretty much as intended.

 

[Valletta]

Thank you. As we both agree, there is a very fine line between veneration (respect) and worship (idolatry).

I am sorry for anyone that struggles with idolatry, but let me state there is NOT a fine line between the worship given to God and any other form of honor or respect. For example, respect and honor your parents, but realize your parents were created by God and are like specks of dust in the universe. But God loves the specks.

 

[FreeinChrist]

ADVISOR HAT

This thread had a small clean up of posts that were off topic or disruptive.

IF you are going to out a member on ignore, just do it and don't announce it.

Don't talk about a member as if they were banned from a discussion and can't see it (or 'as if they are not there').

The rules have this:
​

Disruptive Behavior, Campaigning, Staff Disciplinary Action​

To maintain the peace and harmony on CF you must refrain from doing the following on the public forums:​

​

• Making posts that speak of any Staff action either with you or another member (including any bans, warnings, or editing or removal of posts).
• Do not add comments to posts once the thread has been closed for review. A closed thread means there should not be any further comment. Commenting in closed threads can result in a ban.
• Complaining about another members posts/threads, Christian Forums or its Staff.
• Spite reports - e.g. reporting in retaliation, multiple reports on a member using opposing arguments but are not violations, or repeatedly reporting a member in harassment.
• Attempting to undermine these rules or policies via campaigns, petitions, or protests is not allowed.

If you feel the need to discuss another member's behavior, or have a issue about CF, its Staff or Policies, please make a Ticket in Support and discuss it in private with our Admins and Advisors.​

 

[FireDragon76]

This is mostly true for most Reformed denominations. The one exception that I have come across is the Reformed Church in America which is Reformed in tradition only.

The Reformed tradition is not a closed tradition. The confessions are not considered inerrant/infallible, but are always subjected to scholarly study of the Scriptures.

 

[bbbbbbb]

The Reformed tradition is not a closed tradition. The confessions are not considered inerrant/infallible, but are always subjected to scholarly study of the Scriptures.

It depends on who you ask. There are some Reformed traditions, such as several Presbyterian denominations who cling firmly to their confessions. In the case of the Presbyterians, that would be the Westminster Confession of Faith. Although not considered to be infallible, it is also not subject to amendment or rewriting, as was the infamous situation created by the Confession of 1967 and other Confessions written to replace and/or modernize the Westminster Confession.

 

[FireDragon76]

It depends on who you ask. There are some Reformed traditions, such as several Presbyterian denominations who cling firmly to their confessions. In the case of the Presbyterians, that would be the Westminster Confession of Faith. Although not considered to be infallible, it is also not subject to amendment or rewriting, as was the infamous situation created by the Confession of 1967 and other Confessions written to replace and/or modernize the Westminster Confession.

"Infamous"? That reflects a Fundamentalist perspective. In the Reformed tradition, new confessions are developed to respond to evangelical and pastoral needs as they arise.

 

[bbbbbbb]

"Infamous"? That reflects a Fundamentalist perspective. In the Reformed tradition, new confessions are developed to respond to evangelical and pastoral needs as they arise.

That is a matter of perspective. By 1967 all of the fundamental Presbyterians (as defined by the Five Fundamental Doctrines developed in the early twentieth century by Presbyterians) were found in small Presbyterian denominations such as the Bible Presbyterians, Orthodox Presbyterians, and Presbyterian Church in America.

The Presbyterian Confession of 1967 proved to be the spark that began the chain reaction in which United Presbyterians either as individuals or as congregations began leaving, either to join relatively conservative denominations or to form new Presbyterian denominations. The net result is that the PCUSA is a shadow of its former self and its confessions are pretty irrelevant. They are probably as relevant as the political platforms of the political parties - expressing the goals and aspirations of a vocal minority, but not of any actual use.

 

[FireDragon76]

That is a matter of perspective. By 1967 all of the fundamental Presbyterians (as defined by the Five Fundamental Doctrines developed in the early twentieth century by Presbyterians) were found in small Presbyterian denominations such as the Bible Presbyterians, Orthodox Presbyterians, and Presbyterian Church in America.

The Presbyterian Confession of 1967 proved to be the spark that began the chain reaction in which United Presbyterians either as individuals or as congregations began leaving, either to join relatively conservative denominations or to form new Presbyterian denominations. The net result is that the PCUSA is a shadow of its former self and its confessions are pretty irrelevant. They are probably as relevant as the political platforms of the political parties - expressing the goals and aspirations of a vocal minority, but not of any actual use.

Is that really due to the confessions of 1967? Or more fundamental demographic and cultural changes in the wider society? I think it's the latter. Don't fall for the post hoc, ergo propter hoc fallacy.