Featured John Calvin did not press the five points of Calvinism!

No thanks.

 

Please explain yourself. You are being cryptic once more. And your poor sentence structure doesn't help matters either. ;-)

 

YIKES!!! It wouldn't do at all to resemble in any way those wascally (GASP!) ARMINIANS!!! :smilewinkgrin:

 

Yes, a disturbance in the Calvnistic Force cryptically expressed I detected.

 

Can't speak for the Orthodox Presbyterians but the Dutch Reformed would consider any Baptist calling himself a Calvinist utterly incorrect. This comes as Baptists usually define their Calvinism on the Canons of Dort. While the DR look to it and the other historic Reformed confessions.

 

:thumbsup:yes...it should be very clear by now:wavey:

 

There are historic reasons for that. In our day however the real reason for the objection is they do not like how RB"s hold to believers baptism and many of the biblical themes they do, but have a updated view of the covenants.

 

:thumbsup::applause::wavey:

 

I was only trying to answer JonC's question no more no less.

 

Your answer was fine. I like labels and using them. Over time I have noticed however that some want to claim ownership for the labels as if the labels were inspired as scripture was.

A Reformed Baptist did not have to "reform" from the RC church. Many want to suggest that the term "reformed" has to mean exactly what the Christian reformed say it means...or the Presbyterians.....Dutch reformed, etc.

In our day the term RB.....means they identify with Christians who hold to reformed teaching.....on most issues. Those who are RB.....reserve the right to go where they see scripture go....even if Calvin, and Knox, and others did not see the scripture that way.

With any Christian teacher or trusted guide.....their writings were not inspired...so if they trigger thoughts that make a person study things out a bit more they have done their job.

Those who post against these writings or sermons usually go on to share ignorance of truth as they despise the efforts of godly men.

read through the posts of those who mock and ridicule such teaching and you quickly see a falling away from historic orthodox teaching...and soon ignorant posts are offered...suggesting God is or could possibly be the "author of sin" or that Jesus could have sinned...or had sinful flesh...all manner of vile posting.

Then they mock a quote or link from a proven God given teacher just because he is human:thumbsup: We see it on display here quite often.

 

Incorrect. Much of the content of the Reformed confessions such as the Belgic Confession and Heidelberg as well as the WCF are in substantial agreement with the London Confession of 1689.

Gatekeepers like R.Scott Clark would say we are not allowed in their club. ;-)

But we (Reformed,Calvinistic or Particular Baptists) beg to differ. We are at one with them soteriologically.

 

Baptists? No. Most Baptists want to have nothing to do with the Canons of Dort. Calvinistic or Reformed Baptists don't narrowly define their Calvinism along the lines of the Canons of Dort alone. Our Calvinism is much broader and deeper than that. It's not a one-dimensional thing. It's multifaceted.

See my comments in my prior post.

 

I attended the Philadelphia Conference for Reformed Theology several times in the late 80's and early 90's. It wasn't uncommon for an Alistair Begg to be along the side of Michael Horton. Today Presbyterians such as Sproul, and Duncan are standing with MacArthur,Piper and Dever.

Most Presbyterians recognize Gill and Spurgeon as being strongly Reformed.

Timothy George,D.A. Carson,James White and other Baptists are seen as Reformed spokesmen. I don't think too many Presbyterians are complaining about their doctrine. The commonalities outweigh the differences quite a bit.

 

My comment addressed why the Dutch Reformed think Baptists can't properly call themselves Reformed. I didn't say they were correct in their opinion. And even if they don't agree with them, Baptists do tend to think of Calvinism (rightly or wrongly) in terms of the 5 Canons of Dort.

 

JonC

This while at face value is true...in practice....there is almost no difference from what I can see...at all.

No one wants to say it....but quite frankly...reformed, sovereign grace, or particular Baptists believe they see it in the Apostolic church. They believe it has been rescued by the reformers and these truths were put back in place.

.

the main difference is what constitutes a church? believers only? or believers and their children as in the Ot model? this also leads into are their unsaved persons in the Covenant?

Their were always those who welcomed the teaching,and those who opposed it. it just did not become as clear initially.

 

Then don't read it....problem solved