The result of re-forming what was believe about God came to be called “Reformed Theology.” What had been accepted as fact was being poured back into the mold of Scripture to restore the original shape God had revealed in his written word....We have enough to deal with in working to understand what God tells us in his written word. We dare not presume upon those things which remain unrevealed. When human inventions distort what God has said we need to be reformers for our present age. All that we believe must be poured back into the mold God has given so that a purified theology comes out, a set of beliefs that are formed by nothing less than, nothing more than, what God has revealed to us in his word. That is what we mean by “Reformed Theology.”
Scripture was and is the mold that reforms our beliefs, after the fire of the Holy Spirit burns in our hearts and minds to melt down our hardened doctrines, and get rid of the dross of accumulated traditions.
4 comments:
We dare not presume upon those things which remain unrevealed.
He needs to define "unrevealed" because Reformed theologians have made inferences from Scripture using reason. That is, have gone beyond the text so long as it's logical. Still, the result isn't binding.
If memory serves, double predestination is one such conclusion - the logic of which Catholics and most Presbyterians/Baptists reject.
I'm not a Calvinist, but here's an article by R.C. Sproul about double predestination; he thinks it is the only logical conclusion. http://www.the-highway.com/DoublePredestination_Sproul.html
I know that Sproul is the best-known proponent of double predestination. I merely used double predestination as an example of where the Reformed have gone beyond Scripture using logic.
I'm not saying Burridge subscribes to double predestination. My point is that there are some Reformed conclusions - like double predestination - that may not, in my opinion and in the opinion of others, be prudently drawn.
My point is that there are some Reformed conclusions - like double predestination - that may not, in my opinion and in the opinion of others, be prudently drawn.
I can agree with you there. I was thinking the same thing when I read the post. I admire Calvinists as good apologists, but don't agree with their conclusions (the TULIP). I agree with Bob's statement that you quoted, but don't know that the Reformed have stuck to that.
Post a Comment