Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Calvinism/Arminianism Debate' started by Yeshua1, Feb 26, 2014.
Reformed is a Baptist holding to Covenant theology
reformed baptist one who holds to DoG!
Neither. I see myself as a Christian by faith, a Baptist by preference, a dispensational premillennialist by knowledge, and a brother to everyone who believes in Christ as Savior and Lord, whether we see eye to eye on doctrine or not..
Ahhhh, I believe in the 5 distinct Biblical teachings that are named The Doctrines of Grace---YES. Does that make me Reformed? I am a Baptist Christian, one who's ancestors were long before the RCC took up residence......so we did not reform out of the RCC. We were there before them & we kept a distance, for which we were persecuted.......so NO, I am not reformed. God love anyone though that can break away from the RCC (Hus, Wycliffe, Luther, Knox etc), all deserve credit.
I'm thinking about starting to refer to you guys that always insist in rejecting the term "Calvinism" as "TULIPers" to save time and keep things on topic. Would that work?
I'm not sure who "gave" you TULIPer holders the name of The Doctrines of Grace but it has always seemed as an attempt to monopolize on "grace" as "your" doctrines with the use of a non-transparent title. YES, I am huge on "my" doctrines of grace - actually my doctrines of grace are broader being they are more inclusive because they are openly and honestly preached as being a genuine offer of grace to ALL men.
Do you think I might be able to use the title too?
I often refer to TULIPer doctrines of grace as The Doctrines of Deterministic or Specially Pre-selected Grace to be more transparent about the distinction. How does that work for you?
I'd buy that if you want me to. I hold to doctrines of grace and a non-Calvinistic position of reformed, does that make me reformed too?
Oh, well, Nah-nevermind, I didn't even ever reform from out of the RCC either so maybe we do have something in common after all regarding seeing ourselves as reformed. :thumbs:
No....But Monergists....better yet, Old School Baptists---thats technically correct.
actually I would say you are the one who is Deterministic, and not I.
Ohhh, you dont want me to define you do you?
Again, if your asking me, I dont see my self as Reformed.....see above explanation. From my perspective, the term REFORMED is a whole other ball game (IE, infant baptism, sacraments, Catechisms etc) Talk to my wife she is reformed....Dutch Reformed & there is a whole different way of going about it (to be kind). Here ya go, she would never consent to believers baptism. Rather she is a staunch Paedo.
Can't you think of something more generic so we don't have to play this game of guess what you should refer to as my position? ..and I"M NOT A ________!!!!
That would have to be quite a stretch...especially since you "believe in the 5 distinct Biblical teachings" aka...TULIP doctrines that all must necessarily logically hinge to strict form of determinism.
Probably not, knowing where it might lead with you.
Yeah, well, keeping all you TULIPer's titles separate can be a quite a challenge. I was just hoping maybe all you guys realize the dilemma here.
You like apples Benjamin?
Though I am anti-paedobaptist, I have zero problem being called a calvinist. If one holds to the five points, they pretty much one anyways.
Do you hold lock step to all Calvin's teachings like Presbyterians do?
We just say "Reformed Baptist".
No. I don't view baptism akin to circumcision as they did. But that doesn't cause me to stagger if I'm called a calvinist either.
I don't understand all the paranoia of a label...
no one else believes this definition
Aren't there many who hold to be a true calvinists, must be reformed, and accept all of that theology?
While others hold to it mainly referring to views on Sotierology and Doctrines of grace though only?
Would John Mcarthur be a calvinist or not then?