Michael “iMonk” Spencer occasionally uses the term “TR” as short-hand for “truly reformed”. I have borrowed (stolen?) the moniker from him now and then. He recently posted an explanation/clarification of what he means by “TR”, and I realize that (in retrospect) I missed part of the definition. While there is a good deal of similarity between what Michael sees as a “TR” and what I saw when I used the term, I realize that — to some degree — I was mis-using it.

So, since we certainly don’t have enough already, I’ve decided to come up with my own acronym that better reflects what I mean. While I have no illusions that it will be popping up on others’ blogs (I don’t have the blogospheric influence that Michael does), maybe it will, at least, tick off some of those to whom it applies. The new acronym?

Drumroll, please.

QR

Now that the excitement of revealing a new acronym is starting to wane, I’ll explain the details. Much of this will be re-run material from other posts, but I wanted to bring it all together.

“QR” is short for “Quote Reformed”, i.e. those who claim to be theologically reformed, but (by any honest definition) aren’t really. While there is a great overlap between TRs and QRs, I think it’s necessary to better define QRs, as they are the Rs with which I am most concerned.

In short, reformed doctrine comes down to God’s sovereignty. QRs most often reference TULIP (yet another acronym, describing the tenets of Calvinism — to which I also ascribe) as the most defining aspect of their “reformedness”. TULIP is simply how God’s sovereignty applies to salvation.

Sadly though (and here is where the “Q” half of “QR” comes into play), QRs recognition of God’s sovereignty stops at the salvific ramifications. Although this is illogical, the God of QR-dom is a total wimp when it comes to anything beyond salvation.

(Please keep in mind — while much of the following describes unscriptural activities, they are made much worse when they are perpetrated by those who specifically claim to not be doing so — namely the QRs.)

QRs often run watch-blogs. While I have come to the conclusion that watch-blogging is — in one sense — pointess, I also have to re-iterate that incessant focus on the problems of the church (which is all that watch-blogging is about) “belies a fatalism which, in turn, belies a very low view of God and His power“.

QRs love to play the “guilt by association” game. If person A finds truth in something that person B said, by the QR’s weird definition, person A must endorse and ascribe to every last word that person B ever said, wrote, or thought. As I have noted before:

GBA is not so much reflective of the accuser’s low view of [person B], as it is reflective of their low view of God and His apparent inability (in the accuser’s eyes) to use [person B] — with whom the accuser may not agree 100% — in [person A's] life.

Similarly, QRs often are claiming that “God can’t” use many other things to His glory, either, be it a musical genre or even (gasp) something that an unsaved person says or writes. This is an issue that they’d never admit to (in so many words), but this is really what it amounts to.

Also tied into the GBA idea is that QRs often put many humans above God. Implicit to GBA is the assumption that (the afore-mentioned) person A is 100% reliable and everything he says or writes should be taken as gospel. (That is, until he quotes person B and the QRs throw him under the bus. Then mysteriously, he somehow goes from demi-god to persona non grata in 3 seconds). But until he messes up in the QRs’ eyes, they see no need to be Berean about person A’s statements or writings. This is — quite simply — idolatry. Last time I checked, that was a bad thing.

Imbalance in the elevation of humans isn’t limited to living people in the QR world, either. QRs often place Calvin above God. While they’d never admit to such a thing, how else would one explain rancorously dividing the body over TULIP? Granted, there are many Armininians who do the same thing (witness the White/Caner cage-match for both sides of the ugliness), but QRs would probably expect such imbalance from “the other side”.

Partially in response to Michael’s post, Glenn Lucke notes another fallacy/irony among TRs that is just as applicable among QRs. Many QRs see epistemological humility as a lack of faith or simply down-right relativistic and heretical. As Glenn hints at (and Michael very plainly says), there is significant irony in this idea. QRs claim to ascribe to the total depravity of man, yet somehow believe that they can totally understand all truth on this side of heaven. In a sense, QRs are even exalting themselves to be (at least) equal with God. And we all know how well that worked out for Lucifer.

(Did I just equate QRs with Lucifer? Out loud, even? Oh, that’s gonna get me in trouble.)

QRs love externals. This, of course, flies in the face of God’s sovereignty, as externals are something that man can easily change without any help from God. I have noted the accompanying fallacies of such thinking here, here, and here.

Earlier, I implied that QRs at least buy into God’s sovereignty when it comes to salvific ramifications. In retrospect, I have to back off of that implication. Whether it’s the watch-blogs’ snarky addition of quotation marks around the word Christian or simply outright denial of the salvation of others, many QRs claim to have a divine knowledge of who God has saved. This is nothing short of putting oneself on an equal plane with God.

(Did I just equate QRs with Lucifer again? I’d better quit while I’m ahead. There’s a part of my flesh that longs to be reviled by the QRs as much as Michael is reviled by the TRs. But that’s pretty high aspirations for a mere tavern lackey.)

QR : coming to a blog near you — or maybe not.