How I came to Reformed Theology
I have to start with a little background....I attended several churches growing up--first Methodist, then several non-denominational Christian churches. I attended a Christian College heavily influenced by Wesleyan thinking. My spiritual growth towards what I now believe began in college--the Lord was very faithful in helping me to grow past an incessant pattern of worry and distrust.
Over time, I realized that the more I trusted in Christ and focused on His provision and His sovereignty in any situation, the more at peace I felt. This trust was in itself a gift, as was the gift of coming to the church I now attend. It was at my present church that I was first exposed to Reformed doctrines and Paul's letter to the Romans sprung to life for me, as if I could not believe that I had ever believed anything else (of course, the near absence of truly expositional preaching was one reason and secondly, that I had never heard any pastor preach completely through Romans).
And what was the "anything else"? I could write a list, but it would take too long--things such as gratuitous evil and other explanations that are man-centered and not God exalting (much less with a basis in Scripture).
For me, the whole of the Gospel has been opened through learning these doctrines, as it encourages one to see the whole Bible (Old and New Testament) pointing to the cross and the glory of God.
For those that are now Reformed, I'm curious to hear about your experience.
Over time, I realized that the more I trusted in Christ and focused on His provision and His sovereignty in any situation, the more at peace I felt. This trust was in itself a gift, as was the gift of coming to the church I now attend. It was at my present church that I was first exposed to Reformed doctrines and Paul's letter to the Romans sprung to life for me, as if I could not believe that I had ever believed anything else (of course, the near absence of truly expositional preaching was one reason and secondly, that I had never heard any pastor preach completely through Romans).
And what was the "anything else"? I could write a list, but it would take too long--things such as gratuitous evil and other explanations that are man-centered and not God exalting (much less with a basis in Scripture).
For me, the whole of the Gospel has been opened through learning these doctrines, as it encourages one to see the whole Bible (Old and New Testament) pointing to the cross and the glory of God.
For those that are now Reformed, I'm curious to hear about your experience.
posted by Dan B. @ 3:37 PM
2 Comments:
At 11:49 AM ,
Anonymous said...
I've been disecting Catholicism lately. I was so against it to begin with, but now I'm more open to the idea it might possible be true. There are still doctrines like petitioning the saints, praying for the dead, etc. that I am not even close to accepting. But something I find mind-boggling is, we evangelicals believe in Scripture Alone (Sola Scriptura), but what did the earliest Christians use before scripture? Tradition? And if they did, where does the Bible (if we believe it's the ultimate authority, we must believe this) tell us to stop trusting tradition? It mentions the old traditions of the OT Levitical laws, but it doesn't really tell us to stop regarding the teachings of the Apostles, which Catholics believe have been passed down from Peter and Paul...And I struggles with that too, but if you really look at historical writings, I think you can find that is true.
At 12:14 PM ,
Dan B. said...
Sarah,
I appreciate your honesty in your post. I too at one time struggled with accepting Catholicism before I came to the understanding that I have now. However, my problem with Catholicism (at least in my own understanding), is that they put tradition on the same level with Scripture. And that means "tradition" that can be promulgated as recent as 10 minutes ago. The Reformers even formulated confessions to articulate their beliefs, but let me be clear: they in no way believed they were on par with the Bible. And anything that was not consistent with Scripture was tossed.
Let's talk about what the Early Church had--the apostles, who talked and walked with Jesus, the Word Himself (See John 1), had the Scripture walking with them. My problem with Catholicism is the promulgation of teaching "from the chair" that is not grounded in Scripture, and the fact that they believe the Pope to be infallible in such circumstances. History bears out where later the Catholic Church "corrected" certain teachings, etc. My point? Tradition (creeds, confessions, etc) has its place, but not to the extent and emphasis that the Catholics give it.
In believing that God is sovereign as I do, I believe that the Bible in its present form are the Scriptures that God ordained for us to have. Tradition, where it strays from the Scripture or adds to it, should not be so trusted. You mentioned several things that you disagree with--if you see these as not consistent with Scripture and seeing how the church arrived at this as acceptable teaching, do you not wonder how they justify the rest (I haven't studied it all that closely, so I am no authority on the subject)?
Good discussion, and I'll pray for you in your search.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home