Some churches are Reformed, yet have the same name as a non Reformed church. Some churches make things easy by spelling out the word Reformed in their name or their statement of faith such as these ones
but others hide things in their statement and I have to dig to find out. I can always use the 9 marks website, but that does not find all Reformed churches in an area. So when looking for a Reformed church what do you usually look for if the church does not SPELL OUT TULIP, or Reformed Eschatology in their statement of faith?
This is coincidental. Just yesterday I was looking at Baptist Churches in Kentucky on the Founders site.The following are Calvinistic,if not fully Reformed as a Baptist Church can be.
Baptist Church = BC (no,not before Christ!)
New Hampshire Confession of Faith =NHC. But having that particular confession of faith would not be so strong regarding the doctrines of grace in my estimation.
Abstract of Principles=AP
The Second London Baptist Confession of Faith =1689
Highpoint BC
NHC
First Baptist of Cannonsburg
NHC
Crossroads BC
1689
Pathway BC
1689
Grace BC
Philadelphia Confession
Capital BC
1689
North Oldham BC
AP
Covenant BC
1689
Solid Rock BC
1689
New Hope BC
AP
Grace Immanuel Church
AP
Lexington Bethel BC
NHC
Christ Community Church of Louisville
AP
Clifton BC
I am surprised. Dr.Thomas Schriener is the head Pastor. He is quite Reformed.
Yesterday I listened to one of his messages.
The Reformed BC
1689
Watson Memorial BC
NHC
Muldraugh BC
NHC
Grace Family Fellowship
AP
Eagle Heights BC
AP
The Gathering Community Church
Charleston Confession
Four of the ones on my list did not have the word "Baptist" in their church name.
1689 --8
AP ----6
NHC --4
The exceptions were the Philadelphia Confession of Faith,the Charleston Confession of Faith,and the 1644/46. Dr. Bob's church way out west sticks with the latter.
baptist churches can be either reformed/Reformed by their statement of beliefs, as to me what divides the 2 groups would be on their view and use of the Conessions of faith, and how they view/hold to Covenant Theology!
Seriously? Come on brother, there was absolutely nothing wrong with his post. All he is saying is that she would be challenged intellectually and theologically from the 'Cal' camp. No different than the way you were challenged with DoG and came around.
Tell me exactly what is wrong with his statement? I see nothing derogatory about it whatsoever.
I don't hold to covenant theology and I don't
wrap my beliefs around Confessions of Faith as I view them subordinent to scripture. DoG theology I agree with.....so what's that make me? I would say, NOT Reformed.
The Reformed world does in fact regard the various confessions of faith as subordinate to Scripture. For instance,can you name any Presbyterian denomination that insists otherwise? I would venture to say that the strongest defenders of the Westminster Confession of faith would emphatically say that it is subordinate to the Word of God.
She is very bright, articulate, understands Deterministic theology quite well and is very capable of refuting it both Biblically and logically. Don’t think a Calvinistic Reformed church would want a now 21 year in their Bible studies throwing major monkey wrenches into their plans of trying to convert believers toward following their creedal teachings anyway.
Do you?