The Highway Forums General Discussion Theology Discussion Forum Reformed Baptists

No, I never said he was a Reformed Baptist (this is a Bible Church, a Community Church). I was responding to Robin's earlier response as I was claiming that many Dispensationalists are 4 and even 5 point Calvinists.

Yes, met him last December (December 2006) in Texas.

Pilgrim - let me review my Chafer books. I apologize if I spoke incorrectly, misrepresenting Chafer as a 4 pointer if he is not.

Then you still don't get the point. A Calvinist is much more than just holding to the five points. Just like a Reformed Baptist has a certain meaning. You toss out these terms: hot realizing that what you are saying has no contextual meaning in terms of the historic use of Calvinist.

Tell me li0scc0 did Chafer hold to the regeneration prior to repentance or after repentance? If prior then he could possibly be called an Amyraldite, (Amyraldism being the proper term for those holding to a "4 point Calvinism") since Moses Amyraut still held to regeneration before repentance. If however, he does not then he is something else all together.

The generally accepted viewpoint, right or wrong, is that a Calvinist is somebody who holds to the 5 Points of Calvinist, commonly referred to as "TULIP". A 4 pointer is one who holds to 4 of the 5 points, 99% of those 4-Pointers reject the Limited or Definite Atonement.

Thus I - as well as pretty much everybody, uses this language to refer to Calvinism. If the entire system of Calvin's theology MUST be included within the definition of Calvinism, then REformed Baptists are not Calvinists as they reject paedo-Baptism.

Boanerges - since you asked, Chafer held to regeneration PRIOR to repentance as he describes in his section on Regeneration in Systematic Theology, Volume 6, beginning on page 104.

Well Steve, then he is holding to Amyraldianism and not Calvinism.

Now you may ask well why not call it four point Calvinism? Again Calvinism means something and to remove one of the core doctrines from it makes it something else. To show my hidden geek side: (dramatic music please) if while programming I leave out a critical function call that is necessary for the program to work correctly and then say to my customer that it works according to the parameters he specifies I would be calling it something while it in fact did something entirely different (this is called lying).

In the same way Calvinism is defined in a precise way. To remove one of its core truths and still call it Calvinism is to lie.

Generally accepted by who? Do you see Reformed Baptists holding to this? Or are you imposing your own generalities upon those who call themselves Reformed Baptist?

Steve let me point you to a link: What is a Reformed Baptist? This is a fairly good description what it means to be a Reformed Baptist, and what most Reformed Baptists hold as core teachings.

And as for Calvinism being only what Calvin taught then all of the Presbyterians, Congregationalists, and Reformed Baptists are not Calvinist because they don't hold to the jot and tittle of the Institutes. Ask and see. All my paedobaptist brothers here don't agree 100% with John Calvin. So the sine qua non of Reformed Theology isn't just the teachings of Calvin. Personally speaking, I define Reformed Theology as the Five Solas, TULIP, regulated worship and the biblical view of the Law, Gospel, Justification, and Sanctification and always reforming.

Actually this article proves my point that a Baptist can't, by definition, truly be 'Reformed'. They can change the definition if they want to (and have), but they really can't be Reformed by the generally accepted definition of the term. Because most folks (as the article states) include paedo-Baptism into the thought of being Reformed.

By the same definition a Dispensationalist could not truly be Reformed. They are totally different.

And thus back to the original definition...can a Dispensational Premillennialist be a Reformed Baptist? I will 100% change my answer. No they cannot. They cannot be Reformed as by the proper definition of Reformed. But so too a Baptist cannot really be Reformed.

Boanerges - I am definitely not Reformed, and definitely not by your definition. I like your definition, but I can't say it is generally accepted. The Regulated Worship portion excludes Reformed Anglicans/Episcopals. You leave out paedo-Baptism, which is a huge part of the Reformed view of the Covenant. One who is Reformed, consistently, will hold to paedo-Baptism, as it is consistent with the view of the Covenant.

Well as to the paedo-baptism I will obviously disagree that it is the sine qua non of Reformed theology and that battle has been fought in these forums before so no need to beat that horse.

However, to see you rethink your position is reward in itself.

I went to your blog & tried to respond but your date of birth only goes back to 1930------after reading your ranting about the older generation, you do really hate us don't you. Too bad, I had some interestingt information re your social security comments--which were for the most part good

In reply to:

I have no idea who this is directed at (although I have a rant in my blog about social security kinda stuff), but I assure you that no one here hates old folks! Caring for the elderly is a defining value of Christians. The only question is whose responsibility it is to provide for the poor, help the infirm, educate children, etc. It's my job, not the government's. I could do it a whole lot better if not for the money the gummint confiscates at gunpoint (yes, I meant that - try not paying your taxes and see what I mean) and squanders with such abandon.

Um, were we talking about Reformed Baptists here?

I suggest anew thread in the Open Forum if y'wanna talk about socialized retirement or whatever...

-Robin