Could be wrong but I think Dean's point is "fully" (Baptism being context), and I fully agree with you on soteriology as already expressed in this thread.
No disagreement here.
Before I became a Calvinist, Geisler was like my go to source for apologetcs, philosophy, and other issues. After becoming a Calvinist, though I still own the resources I had purchased, they're of little value to me, I mean they can be useful, but I take little pleasure in having to sort out the wheat from the chaff, and there are other resources, more reliable and trustworthy resources to go to. A few years ago I thought I would listen to Geisler on Calvinism, and I say thought because upon listening for a short time I had to turn that garbage off, it was literally giving me a headache the manner he approached the whole subject matter. So yeah, Geisler turned out to be a major disappointment to me personally, and it is a shame that he has referred to himself as a "moderate Calvinist" because he clearly is not, and being a man of his understanding and intelligence, it borders on bearing false witness.
Let me put this another way.
When I started seminary classes, I had already been a Christian/Baptist for 30 plus years. When it came time to take the Systematic Theology class, I was so excited.
You see, its not enough for me to hear the preacher say this or that on a particular doctrine. I wanted not only to see what smarter people than myself said, but also what the scriptures say for themselves.
And this is where Systematic Theology is a giant plus. Regarding this subject, although I don't have as many books on the subject as say my brother twin1954, I do possess somewhere between 30 and 40 volumes by various authors on just this subject alone.
I have Systematic Theology books from the Baptist side, Calvinist side, Arminian side, Catholic side, Presbyterian side, Methodist side, and even some from the viewpoint of Neo-orthodoxy.
And here again, it boils down to this, we are talking about theology in its fullest meaning. Not one single theology professor from Christ's time, up to today, January 31, 2018, have any theologian had a theology that was 100% correct.
The only person who qualified for that, was/is the Son of the Living God.
If I disagree with John Calvin on his personal theology regarding "infant baptism" or his personal view regarding "real presence" that should not be a disqualifier for me to be or call myself a "Calvinist".
Since my thread in the Baptist area spurred this, let me quote you what I said, and the response I got.
DeaconDean:
"Some Baptists would deny that we are Protestant. Some affirm it.
Nevertheless, the statement was made:
"Protestants, Catholics, and Orthodox Christians all affirm the real presence of Christ in holy communion even though they hold very different views about the meaning of "real presence"."
I deny it, but, what are your views.:
In order to protect the opponent, I will omit the name, but will mention the Denomination.
Presbyterian:
"If you deny it then you cannot call yourself a Calvinist. He affirmed it."
Like I said, I have "Institutes" and have read it, and studied it.
Unless I'm sadly mistaken, or perhaps I fell asleep, and "glazed" over it, I do not recall John Calvin supporting the RCC's position of "real presence".
Here is what I know:
"Calvin followed Augustine in defining a sacrament as “a visible sign of a sacred thing” or as a “visible word” of God. The sacraments, according to Calvin, are inseparably attached to the Word. The sacraments seal the promises found in the Word. In regard to the Lord’s Supper, more specifically, it is given to seal the promise that those who partake of the bread and wine in faith truly partake of the body and blood of Christ. Calvin explains this in terms of the believer’s mystical union with Christ. Just as baptism is connected with the believer’s initiation into union with Christ, the Lord’s Supper strengthens the believer’s ongoing union with Christ.
All of this raises a question. How does Calvin understand the nature of Christ’s presence in the Supper? According to Calvin the sacraments are signs. The signs and the things signified must be distinguished without being separated. Calvin rejects the idea that the sacramental signs are merely symbols (for example, Zwingli). But he also rejects the idea that the signs are transformed into the things they signify (for example, Rome). Calvin argues that when Christ uses the words, “This is my body,” the name of the thing signified (“body”) is applied to the sign (the bread).
Calvin repeatedly stated that his argument with the Roman Catholics and with Luther was not over the fact of Christ’s presence, but only over the mode of that presence. According to Calvin, Christ’s human body is locally present in heaven, but it does not have to descend in order for believers to truly partake of it because the Holy Spirit effects communion. The Holy Spirit is the bond of the believer’s union with Christ. Therefore that which the minister does on the earthly plane, the Holy Spirit accomplishes on the spiritual plane. In other words, those who partake of the bread and wine in faith are also, by the power of the Holy Spirit, being nourished by the body and blood of Christ.
This, of course, raises a second question regarding the mode by which believers partake of the body and blood of Christ. Zwingli had argued that to eat and drink the body and blood of Christ was simply a synonym for believing in Christ. Calvin begged to differ. He argued that the eating of the body of Christ is not equivalent to faith; instead, it is the result of faith. Calvin often used the term “spiritual eating” to describe the mode by which believers partake, but he is careful to define what he means. He asserts repeatedly that “spiritual eating” does not mean that believers partake only of Christ’s spirit. “Spiritual eating” means, according to Calvin, that by faith believers partake of the body and blood of Christ through the power of the Holy Spirit who pours the life of Christ into them.
Calvin also rejected the idea that we partake of the body and blood of Christ with the mouth. Not only Rome, but Luther and his followers, asserted the doctrine of oral manducation (that is, oral eating). According to the Lutherans, the body of Christ is orally eaten, but it is a supernatural or hyperphysical eating rather than a natural or physical eating. Both believers and unbelievers receive the body of Christ according to the Lutherans, although unbelievers receive it to their own judgment. Calvin denied that unbelievers receive the body of Christ at all. According to Calvin, the body and blood of Christ are objectively offered to all, but only received by believers.
According to Calvin, the Lord’s Supper is also “a bond of love” intended to produce mutual love among believers. It is to inspire thanksgiving and gratitude. Because it is at the very heart of Christian worship, Calvin argued that it should be observed whenever the Word is preached, or “at least once a week.” It should be shorn of all superstition and observed in its biblical simplicity. Calvin considered the Lord’s Supper to be a divine gift given by Christ himself to His people to nourish and strengthen their faith. As such, it is not to be neglected, but rather celebrated often and with joy."
Source
Even at that, what defines a "Calvinist"?
Adherence to the T.U.L.I.P outline?
Adherence to "Institues"?
I must remind you that the T.U.L.I.P. outline came some 54 years
after the death of John Calvin.
But let me also remind you of what a dear brother here, of whom I would accept correction from, said about me:
"... you are a staunch and faithful Calvinist."
And I will, until proven 100% wrong, defend the Calvinist, and Baptist position until the day I die.
God Bless
Till all are one.