# Are you REFORMED or Transformed?



## Ne Oublie (Jan 31, 2010)

Someone I respect and love said something online recently, and as I am often surprised by the things that are said, this one just about shook my head for me. 
I made mention of some things that I thought were important to address in some comments and
was wondering what the people on the PB would say and how they might handle such words.
(I respect and love the man who wrote these words, as I do not desire to bash the man, but I desire to clearly communicate on these things myself and be an encouragement and not to tear down)

That being said, here is the quote below, what say ye?



> People have asked me what theological doctrine do I hold? I hold to the position the early church and Jesus espoused. I AM NOT REFORMED, I AM TRANSFORMED. Rom12:1. Frankly I am fed up over Christians who spend years haggling over doctrine which cause divisions, while satan laughs bringing disunity among the brethren.


----------



## au5t1n (Jan 31, 2010)

He invoked the early church. Ask him to name a single early church father who didn't write a lot about heresy in the church. Then when he tells you he hasn't read any early church writings, say, "I know."


----------



## Edward (Jan 31, 2010)

Not enough here to really tell, but appears to be someone who would value peace over purity. 

There is enough, however, to raise concerns. Is he orthodox, but tolerant of error in others, or does he wish folks to be tolerant of his errors.


----------



## Herald (Jan 31, 2010)

Edward said:


> Not enough here to really tell, but appears to be someone who would value peace over purity.
> 
> There is enough, however, to raise concerns. Is he orthodox, but tolerant of error in others, or does he wish folks to be tolerant of his errors.



Agreed. Difficult to assign motives with just one quote. On the surface it seems to indicate a desire for unity among Christians. Even the purest of denominations contain mixture and error. It's possible to become so fixated on keeping our doctrine pure that we lose sight of our joy in Christ. We can become individuals who are defined by what we are against, as opposed to what we are for. Perhaps we need to employ wisdom and realize that we cannot enlighten everybody. There are Christians I know who are so entrenched in their experiential theology that nothing I say is going to break through. It's fruitless to debate with them all the time. Frankly, "unity" with these individuals is to limit our conversations about spiritual things. Truth is that I don't spend a lot of my time with people who think opposite of me. It's not that I'm uppity, it's just it consumes much of my time to cultivate relationships with brothers and sisters in Christ in my church, where most of my valued relationships reside.


----------



## Ne Oublie (Jan 31, 2010)

Edward said:


> Not enough here to really tell, but appears to be someone who would value peace over purity.
> 
> There is enough, however, to raise concerns. Is he orthodox, but tolerant of error in others, or does he wish folks to be tolerant of his errors.


 
I would say he is tolerant and very loving, which I assume is why he wrote what he wrote. My problem with what he wrote is his lack of defining terms and seemingly pitting doctrine against love and peace. I commented that one cannot know how to love without God defining it for him in His Word, in which includes justice,mercy, and truth. Also, being REFORMED is about being TRANSFORMED into the image of Christ.

I think we could all guess his Theology...

His statement is a doctrine and it will divide and has divided. So, many think that "doctrine" is the problem. When the doctrine that they have chosen has and will cause no less divisions. To me he has done what he says he should not do. Defining the terms helps tremendously. 

...(This is why all who have wives should always talk with your wife before posting or saying anything for that matter. They will help you to define your terms and they will help you be Godly! AMEN!) even as I am writing this I am taking counsel....


----------



## Peairtach (Jan 31, 2010)

> I hold to the position the early church and Jesus espoused.



What position was that? Frankly, since there is more than one doctrinal or ethical question, I would have thought that "Jesus and the early church" espoused position(s) on different subjects.

It's probably getting already more complicated than the quotee would like, but that's just life!

"Primivitism" in theology brings its own problems. Do you really want to be back in the first century with the early church and with your Bible in front of you _without _ all the wonderful illuminatory work that the Holy Spirit has been doing through godly men over the past 2,000 years? Surely it would, at the very least, be despising a great work of the Holy Spirit to ignore the riches that He has provided from the Scriptures?

How is the Church to mature and become the complete man/bride/temple/vine if she keeps pretending she is in the first century and has learnt nothing since then or did not need to learn anything from then onwards?

_And he gave the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, the pastors and teachers, to equip the saints for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ, until we all attain to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to mature manhood, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ, so that we may no longer be children, tossed to and fro by the waves and carried about by every wind of doctrine, by human cunning, by craftiness in deceitful schemes. Rather, speaking the truth in love, we are to grow up in every way into him who is the head, into Christ, from whom the whole body, joined and held together by every joint with which it is equipped, when each part is working properly, makes the body grow so that it builds itself up in love. (Ephesians 4:11-16, ESV) _

The Church is a living, breathing entity that is centuries old and is advancing from the childhood state under Moses to a full and healthy and mature state under Christ. It is a process in history.


----------



## Skyler (Jan 31, 2010)

> People have asked me what theological doctrine do I hold? I hold to the position the early church and Jesus espoused.


 
Oh, good, then he must be a Reformed amillennial credobaptist!


----------



## Edward (Jan 31, 2010)

Ne Oublie said:


> I would say he is tolerant and very loving


 
Sometimes tolerance isn't loving.


----------



## Poimen (Jan 31, 2010)

I would say I am Reformed (theologically) because I have been transformed (inwardly).

Now it is true that some people use the doctrines of grace as a stick with which to beat others with and that attitude contributes to the kind of response we see here. But, as we considered in this thread, we can't avoid these central issues of scripture unless we desire to remain willfully ignorant or, worse, disobedient. 

As far as Satan laughing at divisions amongst Christians, I suppose you could respond by saying that Satan laughs at those who think he laughs at divisions amongst Christians because how do we know if Satan laughs at us? In other words this is pure speculation and divisive since this opinion is not based upon scripture.


----------



## Mushroom (Jan 31, 2010)

> Are you REFORMED or Transformed?


Both, by the grace of God. The terms are not mutually exclusive.


----------



## Iconoclast (Jan 31, 2010)

Doctrine is given to bring unity and protection as Richard and the other men have posted. Peter did not share this mans view of doctrine;


> 15And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you;
> 
> 16As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.
> 
> ...


 Avoiding a creed or confession is itself a creed, so he does not avoid the work of comparing scripture with scripture, he just opens up the possibility of error creeping in to fill the void;


> 27For I have not shunned to declare unto you all the counsel of God.
> 
> 28Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.
> 
> ...


 He might need to re-evaluate his fuzzy headed thinking concerning the "faith once delivered to the saints".


----------



## Ne Oublie (Feb 1, 2010)

OP comment:


> People have asked me what theological doctrine do I hold? I hold to the position the early church and Jesus espoused. I AM NOT REFORMED, I AM TRANSFORMED. Rom 12:1. Frankly I am fed up over Christians who spend years haggling over doctrine that csuse divisions. While satan laughs bringing disunity among the brethren. S...top pushing doctrine and start preaching the simple gospel to the unsaved.



The problem that I have with the OP comment is its being so general. It could sway people to think generally, to think that all doctrine causes division therefore "doctrine bad". I would say that the statement made could cause further division.

I have been guilty many times of speaking generally and not quantifying or qualifying or defining my terms. And I have been told that it can cause confusion. I have found it hard work to be clear and define my words. This is very difficult, I admit. So, I spend a little more time with what I put down to make sure that I don't lead people in generalities, at least, to keep my words accountable. I have found that being flippant in my frustrations does not help the cause of unity. I am working hard at this right now, actually. So, I hope that I my words are fruitful here.
If not...say so, I like correction.

here is his recent statement made after much discussion on the original statement.



> ...I have seen far more than I care to elaborate concerning demonic, foolish, and divisional church splits, that pit brother against brother like Cain against Abel over so called differences in doctrine. I am not talking about major Christians doctrines clearly taught in the Holy Scriptures, but petty interpretations regarding, which day to worship the Lord Saturday or Sunday, the whole rapture of the church issue, water baptism for who and what age, Communion for who and when? Calvin verses Arminius? Seeking the souls of the lost, or not doing so because they are not the, “Elected,” Can you lose your salvation or not, Can Born again Christian be demonized”
> Meanwhile swords are drawn and wounds caused while the kingdom of darkness rejoices that so called Christian that are commanded to love one another look on and laugh, and the unsaved world runs as far from Christianity as their feet can carry them.
> I cringe when... I see a personal denomination, what denomination was Christ, what denomination did he espouse and tell the disciples to promote, What denominations will Jesus call sanctified accepted as legitimate in the Kingdom of heaven and during the rule and reign of Christ in the future? As George Whitefield (1714-1770) once wrote, “nay none but Christians”
> 
> ...



I think remember Machen mentioning something regarding this in Christianity and Liberalism...I will have to find it.

I asked him who decides what the major doctrines are and what the petty interpretations are?


----------

