Several days ago (June 2) I wrote ten questions about conservative Reformed movements that I think beg for careful thought and discussion by serious Christians within these various movements.

While I’m at it, there is one more question that makes me wonder even more:

Would it be more accurate to refer to some conservative Reformed spokesmen, not as TR (Truly Reformed), but rather as VR (Viciously Reformed), or perhaps as AR (Angrily Reformed)?

There is very often more psychology involved in these debates than theology, at least in one fairly observable sense. Time and again I have watched as fear, insecurity and the need for approval and control all drive such debaters and their agendas. For folks who confess the sovereignty of God it does make you wonder a great deal.

Related Posts


  1. Skylinerfan June 19, 2006 at 7:41 am

    Mr. Armstrong,
    You are certainly correct in noting that a more accurate designation of some should be VR or AR. Having frequented a number of blog sites in the past couple of years I have been amazed at the way some, who may not cross every “t” or dot every “i”, in accordance with the Westminster Standards have been treated. The language on some blogs leaves much to be desired. I am amazed at how some seem to think that the defense of the truth requires a kind of language which consigns those who differ to the realm of the unlearned or incorret at best or to the realm of the heritic at worst. I have no problem with those who may disagree with me or with one another. I would hope, though, that our debates would be conducted in a way that reflects the Christian virtues and the character of Christ within us. As one post noted when a new blog was launched a couple, “When you are a pyromanic, all the world looks like a pile of kindling wood.”

  2. Scott M June 19, 2006 at 2:22 pm

    I read your article posted 2 Jun and I must say it was very good. You were vilified on some Blogs and I mistakenly wrote into one to make an argument for your observations… there was no room for discussion and my post was “sliced”. I was told that I should probably move on for daring to question the status quo.

  3. Guilty June 19, 2006 at 3:32 pm

    I’m pretty vicious when confronting those who self-identify as Reformed or Calvinst while putting forth doctrine that is Roman Catholic, and doing it using mealy, sophistic language and attitude. Yeah.

  4. Scott M June 19, 2006 at 8:50 pm

    Is being “vicious” one of the fruits of the Spirit?

  5. G.L.W.Johnson June 20, 2006 at 9:40 am

    John, I notice you signed and wrote aglowing endorsement for the P&PT document, but hardly a week goes by that you don’t take a shot at your former colleagues and friends that you now snidely call “scholastic and sectarian Calvinists”. I do think however, you are on to something with your latest comments about insecurity etc. It’s not all that uncommon for people to impute to others the sins of their past.

  6. Doctor Fundamentalis June 20, 2006 at 12:10 pm

    As a boy I once threw a brick at a wasps nest, it was a big mistake. Generally if you leave them alone they don’t get angry and sting you. Isn’t it the same with theology?

  7. Martin Downes June 23, 2006 at 5:20 am

    It seems that Ron Gleason has sharply disagreed with your ten questions to ponder. Is that what you mean by AR/VR? Will you be responding to him?

Comments are closed.

My Latest Book!

Use Promo code UNITY for 40% discount!

Recent Articles