The Catholic Church maybe one big tent but there are many problems in it, the forced Latinization of the 60’s is def one of them. The Baltimore Cathechism remains a matter that is controversial.

To cut a very long story short, after the 1054 split much of the Church that remained loyal to the Pope in the East was abused by the Western Bishops because they were such a small community.

What’s insulting about an abbreviation? RC= Roman Catholic? I’m surrounded by anti-Catholicism and that abbreviation has never been used in an insulting way, and it’s never been used as anything other than shorthand here at IM.

Where’s the insult? I call my own denomination the SBC all the time.

Reformed theology is challenging for people outside of it, I mean most Perbetyrians don’t even teach the TULIP anymore. You are bound to run in to walls of ignorance.

Me being guilty of that myself by Eric pointing out that Calvin him self did not come up with the TULIP but it was rather a condenced summary of his theology.

I agree with you about the “ungraceful” behavior of *some* Calvinists (I can’t say for Lutherans; I’ve haven’t yet noticed that sort of behavior from them). As others on here have noted, some contemporary Catholic apologists speak and act in the same “ungraceful” ways. The difference, though, is that I can’t imagine anyone here actually bashing *Catholicism itself* (not the behaviors of individual Catholics but the belief system itself) and being allowed to do it, as a few people on this thread (not Michael) have been allowed to do regarding Calvinism (otherwise known by some as TULIP).

Calvinism is not always bad. Some Calvinists, however, wield their theology and the supposed proof texts like a cudgel to beat down anybody they perceive as “the opposition.” Lutherans can be the same way, and they tick me off, too. The only difference between the Calvinists I bash and the Lutherans I bash is that the world is used to ignoring the Lutherans because we don’t say much to anybody outside of the in-house crowd.

What I’ve noticed lately, though, is that pastors are avoiding their responsibility to shepherd their flock by hiding behind their theology of the ministry. And I really don’t like that.

Pax Christi, y’all!!

Anyway, to paraphrase Alistair Begg, Biblical learning is for *living.* The point of theology is to know God and His attributes and ways more deeply (in the context of a real, vital relationship with Him), *so as to* apply that knowledge to one’s actual words, thoughts, and deeds. If studying theology doesn’t make a Christian a more humble, loving person, both in relation to God and to other people, then it has been misused and/or misunderstood. Theology, ultimately, is for actual practical application in one’s living. Otherwise, it can be positively dangerous to one’s spiritual health and life, both temporally and eternally.

Justin Taylor recently posted an incredible passage from a book about the point of theology being practical application. I tried to post the link here yesterday, but it seemed to be too long, and the post didn’t even make it through apparently. If you want to read it, go to Justin’s blog (”Between Two Worlds,” found on Michael’s blogroll), and do a search for “The Answer to Practical Problems Must Involve Robust Doctrine.” Believe me, it’s worth the time to read this outstanding (and for some “theology-heads,” maybe life-changing!) passage.