# How to get along with the TR's



## DavidinKnoxville (Jun 14, 2010)

How to Get Along With “TR’s” 

Great post!


----------



## Scott1 (Jun 14, 2010)

It's hard to know what is meant by these terms because they have different meanings to different people.

To be "truly" anything usually has a good connotation.


----------



## lynnie (Jun 14, 2010)

The fact is that LK, based on what I've read here, is exceptionally fair, gracious, thoughtful, and honest, but plenty of folks who do consider themselves TR/TC are arrogant, ungracious, and unfairly accusing. And the old "don't judge the heart" grows a bit thin when they pour out contempt and superiority with nearly every other breath. Hub and I have known our share. GB/LK is not one of them, but they are out there, and they can be pushy. Sad.


----------



## DavidinKnoxville (Jun 14, 2010)

Lynnie,

To be fair; I have found my fair share of evangelicals that have been less than gracious to TR's/Calvinists. They are out there and they can be pushy as well. Ask the SBC Calvinists how gracious they have been treated by the non-Calvinists in their denomination as of late. I quite frankly am tired of this stereotype; as if confessional Christians have the market cornered on this sin. Arrogance is present on both sides of the issue.

As I posted in another thread on LK's Blog, try typing in "Calvinism is evil" into Google and note how many results you get compared to “Arminianism is evil”. (4280 – 6 to save you the trouble).

Thanks for your comments,


----------



## greenbaggins (Jun 14, 2010)

Scott1 said:


> It's hard to know what is meant by these terms because they have different meanings to different people.
> 
> To be "truly" anything usually has a good connotation.


 
I agree that the term could have good connotations, and probably would in a context like the PB. What I have encountered, however, is nothing less than a vitriolic opposition to confessionalism. What's more, anyone who is labelled TR is ostracized and opposed. My experience. Hopefully, not others' experience.


----------



## Herald (Jun 14, 2010)

greenbaggins said:


> Scott1 said:
> 
> 
> > It's hard to know what is meant by these terms because they have different meanings to different people.
> ...


 
Lane, at our monthly church fellowship yesterday afternoon, I was asked by a visiting couple why our church hasn't grown (numerically) over the years. Was it because we lacked programs? Outreach ministries? Youth groups? I replied, "We haven't grown because of what we believe; namely the doctrines of grace, a.k.a. Calvinism." The church that planted us in 2000 turned their backs on us when we embraced Calvinism. We've had people visit and then flee as though our building was on fire when they picked up a copy of the 1689 LBC on the literature desk or heard from the pulpit that we teach divine election. I'm not complaining, simply providing a factual account. The result of all of this is that our church has become more and more Reformed as we come to better understand the scriptures.


----------



## lynnie (Jun 14, 2010)

DavidinKnoxville said:


> Lynnie,
> 
> To be fair; I have found my fair share of evangelicals that have been less than gracious to TR's/Calvinists. They are out there and they can be pushy as well. Ask the SBC Calvinists how gracious they have been treated by the non-Calvinists in their denomination as of late. I quite frankly am tired of this stereotype; as if confessional Christians have the market cornered on this sin. Arrogance is present on both sides of the issue.
> 
> ...



Yup. We had the minister who told hub with a sneer that Calvinism is death and stagnation, and the gal who informed me (with an expression as if I had said I had leprosy) that I needed to read "Why I am not a Calvinist". 

Both sides have their share of arrogance, but it is more out of place for Calvinists. After all, Arminians "made the right choice", but we were dead and had nothing to do with it. Somehow it fits a bit better to be superior when you say that God chose you because He knew you would open the door and respond, than to say you did not deserve to be chosen at all. I would say the burden to be humble should lie heavier on us Calvinists.


----------



## greenbaggins (Jun 14, 2010)

lynnie said:


> DavidinKnoxville said:
> 
> 
> > Lynnie,
> ...


 
I agree. This is Calvin's point over and over and over again both in his commentaries and in the Institutes: a proper doctrine of the Sovereignty of God completely bereaves us of any ground on which we can boast. After all, soli Deo gloria. That was kind of the whole point of the Reformation.


----------



## Bookmeister (Jun 14, 2010)

I am a TR and personally I find too much arrogance in the term. I am proud enough on my own, I don't need a label to puff me up more. I wish we could find a different label so I would sin less!


----------



## R Harris (Jun 14, 2010)

I guess the main thing that I, along with I'm sure others friendly to the TR persuasion, struggle with is frustration and impatience. Let me explain.

I love studying church history, especially the theology positions of key groups and people throughout the history of the Christian church.

One thing that has struck me and indeed terrified me is how far away most reformed people today are from the beliefs of the 16th, 17th, and early 18th century reformers. If they went back in time and attended their worship services, they would be dumbfounded.

I always chuckle when I hear someone proudly stating that they are a "Calvinist." Of course, they usually mean that they follow the "five points" of Calvinism - they are not followers of John Calvin. Sometimes I will say "oh, so you don't use musical instruments in your worship service? You predominantly if not exclusively sing Psalms? You don't observe holidays (holy days) like Christmas or Easter?" They then typically give me a puzzled look, like "what are you talking about?" They don't have a clue about the other 80% of Calvin's beliefs, nor of any other of the major reformers.

Michael Bushell in his book "The Songs of Zion" talks about this at length in his introduction of his second edition. Beliefs that were at one time considered basic and standard to the reformed faith 300-400 years - Psalm singing, no musical instruments, head coverings for women, non observance of non Scripturally mandated holidays, civil governments that are supposed to be theocratic - are all today considered part of a gladly forgotten past. The vast majority of people presently do not want to re-visit these positions and frankly don't really care.

It is somewhat similar to what C.S. Lewis once referred to as "chronological snobbery" - the fact that we are alive today makes us somehow above those who lived in the past. 

So, this is always the question I posit to those who call themselves "reformed" and love to deride the "TRs" - were Calvin, Owen, Rutherford, Edwards, Manton, and a whole host of others dead wrong on all those positions? If you believe they were, then fine - put forth your arguments against theirs (citing them appropriately and in correct context), and clearly demonstrate from Scripture how they were completely off on these doctrines related to the Regulative Principle. If you can show me that, I will more than happily change my positions and move on. Until then, I remain where I am at, and gladly side by them - for I am convinced their positions were (are) Scriptural.

Yes, I agree that there are TRs, theonomists, and others who have not exercised a proper spirit towards others. I have at times, and even though I did so out of an attitude of frustration and impatience, there is still no excuse for it.

I just hope and pray that people would reason together and openly discuss these things. I believe that because their Scriptural beliefs have been abandoned for so long that we are now finally seeing the logical outcome of a society and a Church that has rejected the true faith once for all delivered to the saints. Our society/nation is now more rapidly descending down into the abyss, the Church is nowhere to be found to address the issues, and time is running out.


----------



## JennyG (Jun 14, 2010)

Please - I feel a bit stupid, but what does TR stand for?
Clicked on the thread thinking hmm, I wonder what that is - got all the way down (skimming) and I still don't know, so could someone please put me out of my misery?


----------



## Herald (Jun 14, 2010)

JennyG said:


> Please - I feel a bit stupid, but what does TR stand for?
> Clicked on the thread thinking hmm, I wonder what that is - got all the way down (skimming) and I still don't know, so could someone please put me out of my misery?



Jenny,

TR stands for truly Reformed, as opposed to BR, broadly reformed. Typically TR's are more than just Calvinistic. They also are confessional. But it may also be more than that depending on whether you include baptismal conviction in the definition of TR. BR would be Calvinistic Christians who are Reformed "friendly."


----------



## Curt (Jun 14, 2010)

Herald said:


> Lane, at our monthly church fellowship yesterday afternoon, I was asked by a visiting couple why our church hasn't grown (numerically) over the years. Was it because we lacked programs? Outreach ministries? Youth groups? I replied, "We haven't grown because of what we believe; namely the doctrines of grace, a.k.a. Calvinism." The church that planted us in 2000 turned their backs on us when we embraced Calvinism. We've had people visit and then flee as though our building was on fire when they picked up a copy of the 1689 LBC on the literature desk or heard from the pulpit that we teach divine election. I'm not complaining, simply providing a factual account. The result of all of this is that our church has become more and more Reformed as we come to better understand the scriptures.


 
Not to hijack the thread, but I do need to comment on this entry. It sounds like the experience in our congregation, which was "Truly Word of Life," when I arrived. Now we are reformed - and a lot smaller. I have given serious consideration to putting signs on our lawn stating such truths as, "This is a No-Frills Church," "We preach Christ, and Him Crucified," "Yes, this is the 'Little House on the Prairie' Church you Heard About."


----------



## CharlieJ (Jun 14, 2010)

I don't understand how being Calvinist keeps a church from growing. Reformed Baptist churches are growing like wildfire all over South Carolina. Our PCA church is bursting at the seems, and we don't even have a rock band...


----------



## Herald (Jun 14, 2010)

Charlie, I don't have an answer for that. We've lost more than a few people over our switch to Calvinsim. It is what it is. Maybe part of it is geographical. I don't have an answer.


----------



## Wayne (Jun 14, 2010)

The "TR" designation apparently originates on the campus of RTS/Jackson in the (early?) 1970s. I remember reading once several years back where someone claimed to have been among the students gathered in some office there when the phrase was coined. Or so he claimed. 

In 1977, there was a series of articles and letters on this topic published in _The Presbyterian Journal_. I'm preparing to post those to one of the Historical Center's blogs tomorrow.

All of which to say, there's nothing new under the sun.


----------



## Willem van Oranje (Jun 14, 2010)

Bookmeister said:


> I am a TR and personally I find too much arrogance in the term. I am proud enough on my own, I don't need a label to puff me up more. I wish we could find a different label so I would sin less!


 
From one TR to another, it was meant as a perjurative term, much like the older "protestant" and "calvinist."


----------



## au5t1n (Jun 14, 2010)

Willem van Oranje said:


> Bookmeister said:
> 
> 
> > I am a TR and personally I find too much arrogance in the term. I am proud enough on my own, I don't need a label to puff me up more. I wish we could find a different label so I would sin less!
> ...


 
Not to mention...I don't know...Puritan?


----------



## SolaScriptura (Jun 14, 2010)

I do find it interesting that whenever I've heard someone speak critically of TRs, they haven't spoken against the alleged TR's adherence to the Confession or their Confessional position(s) per se, they speak against their perceived attitude or ethos.


----------



## Willem van Oranje (Jun 14, 2010)

SolaScriptura said:


> I do find it interesting that whenever I've heard someone speak critically of TRs, they haven't spoken against the alleged TR's adherence to the Confession or their Confessional position(s) per se, they speak against their perceived attitude or ethos.



Perhaps because to criticize our doctrine would be to expose themselves as NR? (Not Reformed)


----------



## CNJ (Jun 14, 2010)

I like the Scripture 2 Peter 3 which ends with grow in *grace and knowledge*. I am grateful to the TR for their knowledge and alongside of them we all have to grow in grace. 

In the ten years I have been in a Reformed church, I have had to ask "Am I Reformed enough yet?" I am thinking it is a process. Probably others put that label on pastors and leaders--"Are they TR?"


----------



## Mushroom (Jun 15, 2010)

"Unloving" is always what the other guy is that has a stronger case than you but won't concede so we can all get along.


----------



## Wayne (Jun 15, 2010)

For those interested in the historical background to this debate, I've posted a series of articles and letters from 1977, back when this debate first came into view:

The “TR” Debates (1977) 

Seems as though nothing much has changed.


----------

