Quote:
Originally Posted by Daniel Ritchie  Sorry Dennis I was not addressing any of your replies in my comments. To be truthful I would prefer it if we limited our definition of Reformed to a more general adherance to Calvinistic doctrine, RPW, and covenant theology - if we go much further than that, we could end up in endless wars over what it is to be Reformed, with everyone accusing everyone else of not being Reformed. IMHO, the 1689 is a Reformed Confession. |
But Daniel, in order to call Confessional Baptist "Reformed" under your criteria, you will have to redefine "Calvinistic" as merely 5 point (excluding Calvin's view of the sacrament, for example). And redefine Covenant theology to include views that see Abrahamic and Mosaic covenant as having different substances than the New Covenant. But that's the point of the post: Who gets to re-define "Reformed", "Calvinistic", "Covenant theology"? Those who are historically associated with the label? Or those who are historically outside the definition of the label?
Ya, I agree that "labeling" itself is not glorifying God. But what are the alternatives? The label "Evangelical" or "Christian" has already lost its meaning in our day because of endless relabeling. I certainly don't want to see someone call themselves "Calvinistic Open-theist".
__________________
Polo
Layman, Chinese Evangelical Church/Independent
San Diego
For from him and through him and to him are all things. To him be glory forever.
(Romans 11:36)