Friday, August 28, 2015

On the leaving of a certain Reformed forum

I won't name names because I don't want this to be a "kiss-and-tell."  I decided to leave because my theology--while remaining historically Reformed on most points, and certainly Evangelical Protestant on others--was moving away from "Vanilla Reformed."

I expected them to disagree with me on issues like the charismata and premillennialism.  That didn't bother me.  Recently, however, my theology took a Patristic and Augustinian bent.  I started drawing inferences from what the Church (and yea, even Calvin) taught about the nature of the soul.  It became clear that I had "maxed out their conceptual paradigms." I am not saying they are dumb.  Quite the opposite. I am saying they do not have the conceptual paradigms to deal with, say, Augustinian themes.

This was quite evident in a lot of questions I got.   One thread dealt with whether angels are present in church, based off Hebrews 12.  I heard:  "So, you are saying you can physically see _________?"  To which the answer is, "Of course not."  It's hard to see immaterial entities.  Most fathers (and CS Lewis) hold that when one encounters an angel (or a demon), the spirit-being manipulates matter and space and mind and causes you to be aware of its existence.  This can take physical appearance (Augustine, De Trinitate, Book II) but it doesn't have to.

This is Angelogy 101.

Regarding the charismatic gifts.  Why bother arguing?  The evidence is overwhelming and it is the testimony of global Christendom (regardless of tradition).

I wish them well but in the name of charity and peace it was best I go elsewhere.


  1. I enjoy the reading that forum.

    I love it when debate breaks out between cultural Evangelicalism and 'higher church' Reformed, like on issues about weekly prayer meetings and personal evangelism. I love how the British Evangelicals, who are more immersed in Evangelical culture get really shocked by the 'higher church' Reformed.

  2. The 'ecclesiastical text' issue on there really startedto bother me and then you have some guy say White isn't a scholar merely because he disagrees with him as if it were a gospel issue.

    1. I avoid those like the plague. I choose a text based on lyrical quality and formal equivalence. I am aware of the textual debates, but those are like the comments section of Youtube: painful and unending.