the singularity of being and nothingness
Reformed Armour
Ok, I ran across this humorous picture the other day, and just couldn’t resist spoofing it to my own ends.
Enjoy!
Print article | This entry was posted by existdissolve on June 13, 2010 at 11:54 pm, and is filed under Theology. Follow any responses to this post through RSS 2.0. You can leave a response or trackback from your own site. |
about 14 years ago
You must be Emergent…so much anger 😉 Nice try anyway.
about 14 years ago
LOL, Emergent, really? The Reformed really don’t have any creativity whatsoever, do they? Only pat answers for everything.
“I disagree with this, therefore it must be [fill-in-blank-with-whatever-caricature-is-currently-popular-in-Reformed-thought].”
🙂
about 14 years ago
Thanks. You’re a little angry, possibly immature, and a little rude. I presume you are young since your exercised characteristics suggest so and I assume from the fact that do not like the reformed perspective that you are probably Emergent if anything (many young people are today).
BTW, I am not a typical reformed Christian. I like the way they explain some things from scripture but not others (eschatology especially). I am more of a dispensationalist.
Don’t believe the lies of McLaren, Pagitt, Bell, Jones, Warren, and others. You cannot make up your own rules. God is sovereign.
Peace.
about 14 years ago
@Truthinator–
If I am young and immature, then by counterpoint you must be old and irrelevant 🙂
Every Reformed person I’ve ever met says they are not the “typical” Reformed Christian, yet their responses and ultimate conclusions directly contradict them.
I have no time for the likes of McLaren, Warren and the others you mentioned. To me, they are on the intellectual and methodological level of most Reformed writers, each equally incapable of holding together a philosophically coherent argument in the midst of their self-justifying hermeneutics. Whether its pop-theology or the pseudo-intellectualism of the Reformed crowd, each leaves a great bit to be desired.
RE: the rules, I’m glad to know that. I suppose I should seek counsel from you, then, as to the litany of rules that I should follow? After all, the notion of divine sovereignty is hardly self-evident, so the fact that my understanding of it conflicts directly with yours would seem to suggest that I’ve just not yet found the right ones. It’s good to know that your theological paradigm encapsulates within itself such objective knowledge.