# On this Reformation Day - a look back, and forward



## Pergamum (Oct 31, 2007)

Looking back on Reformation Day is a joyous occasion.

There is Biblical support for commemorating [ast events too. The Israelites made monuments to remind them of being delivered from Egypt and going forward towards the Promised Land. Celebrating Reformation Day is like unto this.


However, what do you all think of this: 

We reformed folks continually look BACKWARD and peer into the PAST. Most of our authors are old and dead and 300 years old that we read. We take our identity from a reaction against the mainstream church of that day. OUr very identity is pulled out of reaction and struggle against the norm. Most of our debates are mere repeats of past debates waged multiplied times before. People seem to think that the 1600's was the IDEAL time for theological purity.


How does this affect our present identity? 

Because of our birth and origins, does this make us into a backward looking and reactionary bunch?



How do we look FORWARD and into the FUTURE on this Reformation Day?


As we celebrate the Reformation that led to the English Bible HUNDREDS of years ago, most languages of the world still do not even have a NT in their vernacular. Much of the world if Islamic and Islam is the largest religion in the world (yet we still look on the Pope as Antichrist).



This is not to say that Christianity is outdated, but is there something in the DNA of the "Reformed" faith that freezes our faith in those times. Did we solve it all in the 1600's and what more is there for God to do through His church? WHat issues? What frontiers? etc....


----------



## etexas (Oct 31, 2007)

Pergamum said:


> Looking back on Reformation Day is a joyous occasion.
> 
> There is Biblical support for commemorating [ast events too. The Israelites made monuments to remind them of being delivered from Egypt and going forward towards the Promised Land. Celebrating Reformation Day is like unto this.
> 
> ...


I do not feel we are frozen...the Church is 2000 years old. Is it not sometime and often true that the past both by looking at succeses and failures is a good place to chart our future?


----------



## Pilgrim's Progeny (Oct 31, 2007)

etexas said:


> I do not feel we are frozen...the Church is 2000 years old. Is it not sometime and often true that the past, both by looking at succeses and failures, is a good place to chart our future?





Though, I do believe we could stand to be more pro-active.


----------



## etexas (Oct 31, 2007)

Paul G. Woods said:


> etexas said:
> 
> 
> > I do not feel we are frozen...the Church is 2000 years old. Is it not sometime and often true that the past, both by looking at succeses and failures, is a good place to chart our future?
> ...


True enough...but think about it the way we approach our "personal" lives.....I mean when I look at the present or near future I and pretty much all people will look on thing they have done in the past. I did this and it was a blessing and a true sucess OR I once did that and boy was that a MISTAKE. Think about if your mind ONLY worked in the present....you wake up don't know your wife, don't know the dog's name...whatever...I know it sounds like a sillly example and perhaps is.....but if you reflect on that....it is Nightmarish. How much then the Church....the faith is linear we have a real past a real present and a real future..all are factors, all are important.


----------



## Pergamum (Oct 31, 2007)

Etexas: Yes, the church is 2000 years old but most of the people we read are from a short period of time that was fairly chaotic. THis board is even called the "Puritan" board. Our past and our reaction against Rome is our BIGGEST defining trait as far as our identity. I.e. we are defined by a reaction and a criticism of the standing order. Does this affect us presently and how does it affect us as we look to the future?


----------



## Davidius (Oct 31, 2007)

Christianity is a religion about looking back. It is not post-Enlightenment progressivism. We uphold the faith that has been handed down once for all. We look particularly to the teachers of the 16th and 17th centuries because they are those closest to us who expounded true doctrine clearly. We look to them because they help us to look even further back to the crucifixion and resurrection of Christ.


----------



## etexas (Oct 31, 2007)

CarolinaCalvinist said:


> Christianity is a religion about looking back. It is not post-Enlightenment progressivism. We uphold the faith that has been handed down once for all. We look particularly to the teachers of the 16th and 17th centuries because they are those closest to us who expounded true doctrine clearly. We look to them because they help us to look even further back to the crucifixion and resurrection of Christ.


Well stated Brother. I do think also we do not define ourselves as some anti-Roman reaction....the reformation was pulling down the shrouds of superstition and Idolatry that gradually crept into the church...I think it fair to say we do look back 2000 years.


----------



## Pilgrim (Nov 17, 2007)

I disagree that "Most of our authors are old and dead and 300 years old that we read." I can think of several prominent members of this board of whom that may be the case but I submit it is not the case with most Reformed pastors and certainly not most church members. The NT is 2000 years old and the OT much older in many cases. Should we disregard those along with the "powdered wig guys"? 

Brother, as usual you may have a point but also as you so often do you paint with too broad a brush here, which probably causes some of those you are trying to reach to tune you out.


----------



## Pergamum (Nov 17, 2007)

MOST, but not ALL of the authors we value are old and dead, aren't they? Do a numerical count and tally up the results.



How should I rephrase to not sound so reactionary about the reactionary-ness of the reformed?


----------

