The Highway Forums General Discussion Theology Discussion Forum Doctrinal pride and cold formalism

This is a charge often levelled against Calvinists. And while I (a Calvinist), see a lot of this in nasty sects like the (very muddled) Brethren, I regrettably also think it is true of Calvinists. Hair-splitting over theological minutiae, legalistic straight-jacketing, and "high looks" seem, from my experiences, to be in abundance in almost every denomination to a greater or lesser extent, but this charge of doctrinal pride and cold formalism, at the expense of humility, meekness and agape love, seems sadly true among many, though definitely not all, Calvinists.

flunky,

Pride and arrogance are ugly flaws we see in ourselves as well as others no matter what doctrinal persuation we hold. There is no room for this in a true disciple who holds to the doctrines of grace. We should always be able to give an answer for the hope that is in us but in defending the Reformed faith/Calvinism we should do so with an attitide of humility. Lest our sin of pride become a stumbling block for those who are observing us.

May the Lord help us to deny ourselves, take up our cross, and follow Him daily.


Wes

Wes,

While I heartily agree with what you said, we must also be aware that many people misunderstand the difference between, solidly sticking to the biblical standards and refusing to modify them, and "pride and coldness". If one simply refuses to allow any modification, or "softening" of their stand, they are interpreted as too formal and cold. Society today, wants and "needs" everyone to "give" a little, thus leading, eventually to, "everyone does as their own eyes permit" kind of doctrine. We must not be afraid to stand on solid ground and refuse to "give in".

IN His Hands,

Ruth

I wasn't suggesting we compromise to keep from offending anyone. To do so would be a denial of what we believe to be true. I was referring to our attitude. Pride and coldness can be found in those who defend the truth as well as those who oppose it.


We can't be held accountable for the biases of those who oppose us or their interpretation of our unwillingness to compromise. We can be held accountable for a wrong attitude. If they say our unwillingness to compromise makes us cold, legalistis, and formal then they need to be shown where they error. It doesn't take too long to discern the mindset of those who want to reduce sound biblical doctrine to a warm fuzzy.


Wes

The complaint recently came to my attention when I read about a French Calvinist complaining about other French Calvinists and their doctrinal pride, and it reminded me of my own experiences.

I do think, though, that Calvinists have wrongly been branded "elitest" by Arminians and the unbelieving world beyond purely on the basis of our doctrinal position.

Amen to what you have written! I have come across far too many who seem to believe in "salvation by doctrine," that is, that a person can be saved by believing in the Five Points, etc. It is the Person we believe upon and worship as Lord that saves us, not our expertise in getting all our doctrinal ducks in neat little rows...

-Robin

How true that is . . . on the other side are those who insist that one need not know nor embrace doctrine to be saved. Even the proponents of Sandemanianism (Easy Believism) don't go THAT far. One cannot believe, in the biblical sense, upon the Person without knowledge of that Person. And one cannot/will not believe on a Person unto salvation unless that person has a genuine need to do so. And one will not have a need unless they have knowledge of their hopeless condition and guilt and their being under God's judgment. So, there is definitely a necessity of knowing doctrine when it comes to salvation.

I would have to say there are multitudes more who embrace the latter error than the former. The "just ask Jesus into your heart" crowd is definitely over-represented between the two groups, IMHO. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

In His Grace,

I remember hearing R. C. Sproul once saying something to this effect: "If one claims Christ as Savior, one is immediately involved in doctrine/theology because in order to know Him salvifically one must first know Him and by necessity that requires one to consider His claims. It's not enough to say, "Just give me Jesus." As soon as one begin to answer the question, "Who is Jesus" one is plunged headlong into theology.

So where do you draw the line?

Draw the line? <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/scratch1.gif" alt="" />

Personally, I think that line varies with each individual as the Lord has given the ability to comprehend His truths. But regardless of one's ability, it is a given that there must be some fundamental knowledge, both intellectual and that embraced with the heart (aka: fiducia).

So, where do YOU draw the line, or do you? For example, is it enough for someone to simply profess, "I believe in Jesus" with knowing virtually nothing about His person or work other than He was crucified 2000 years ago?

In His Grace,

Where do you draw the line as in When is a person actually saved? While I was reading through the earlier posts in the thread I was thinking that it didn't match up biblically to expect a person to be up on doctrine to be saved. The woman at the well had a pretty good handle on current theology--as do most atheists and intellectual, er, agnostics?--but she wasn't saved until she actually met Christ and believed him. The Holy Spirit moves a person to Salvation--often in spite of the best efforts of a person or Church. That person believes--or not. (I never could get past that petal on the much maligned tulip.) And most of the aforementioned unsaved theologians have studied up so they can bash Christians making them tough nuts to crack.

That said once they do experience salvation, they're saved. Not that my opinion is going to matter that much when it comes down to sorting sheep from goats, but there you have it.

I think that its also pretty normal to see a newly minted Christian ready to take in the Word of God with both hands. Good doctrine, discipleship and all that too--if not there's a problem.

I think we can all agree that doctrinal knowledge, in and of itself, isn't synonymous with salvation. Nor does one's comprehension of it and/or being able to articulate it, even to great depth, mean that the individual is saved.

Perhaps I'm a little dense, but your reply didn't seem to address this issue of the "line". The questions are: 1) Is it necessary for someone to comprehend and embrace doctrinal truths in order to be saved? 2) If so, what is and how much of that doctrinal truth is necessary for a person to know to be saved? That is why I asked the question above, can one be saved by simply professing, "I believe in Jesus", without having any knowledge of the person and/or work of Christ? And what about the knowledge of God, sin, repentance, judgment, etc.? Can a person be ignorant of any/all of those things and still be saved?

And lastly, it appears that you hold that one is saved through, by, or because of some "experience" <<"once they do experience salvation, they're saved">>. So, what is this "experience" that brings about salvation? Is this experience totally void of the intellect?

In His Grace,

Hey I like those squinty eyes on that icon. Seriously though...

In answer to your questions:
1. No. I think that would be giving people too much credit for something they all too frequently take credit for anyway.

2. The bare minimum, to me, is that they need to know enough to have a good grip on what a sinner is, know that they are one, and have enough on the ball to deduce or admit that they can't do a thing about it without help. They also need to know what Christ has done and who he is and BELIEVE it. At that point if they've got any sense at all and they're under conviction they should know that they need to fall on their face before God and ask for forgivness and Salvation.

More than I thought, but still not a ThD.

Quoth Pilgrim:


If by experience you mean jumping a pew, splashing in the baptistry, and buying a shiny new bonded leather KJV bible so you can dust it off every Easter Sunday, then no. You can't get there from here.

The man born blind in John 9:38 said "I believe" and worshiped him, but he had a great deal of background instruction with regards to the Messiah and probably had thought a great deal about it too. Demons are reputed to be great believers in God, though, so I don't think its enough to just say "I believe."

I'm of the opinion that the Holy Spirit does a great deal of backgroud work and teaching before a person ever reaches the point that they are faced with the decision to believe or not. While I've known a great number of adults whose mental faculties barely qualified for intellect status they still were saved because they recognized what they were and who he was and asked him to save them. Using the word experience was merely mental short hand for something thats indescribable.

doulos,

Thanks for the clarification. I believe we are on the same page. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/bigglasses.gif" alt="" />