04-25-2008, 02:29 PM
|
 | Norseman Moderator | | Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: Speedway, Indiana
Posts: 10,580
Thanks: 1,671
Thanked 1,901 Times in 1,045 Posts
| |
Quote:
Originally Posted by aleksanderpolo  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,
Are all Covenants the same? Are covenants purely that of grace or works? Are some Covenants mixed with Law and Gospel? Are all covenants either conditional or unconditional? Are the Abrahamic, Mosaic, Noahic, Davidic, and New Covenants either law or gospel, conditional or unconditional? Which is which?
|