Regardless of what pop publishers print words have historic meaning. If you study the Reformed Confession three points jump out: Regulative Principle of Worship, Covenant Theology and Calvinism. This is extremely reductionism but at the very least, these three points are always included in the Reformed Confessions.
Quotes from another thread:
http://www.christianforums.com/t7786016/
The first question is whether affirming the five heads of doctrine of the Synod of Dort (1619) is sufficient to be Reformed? Obviously not. A good number of people who could not be reasonably defined as Reformed have affirmed those points long before the Reformation. There was a vigorous predestinarian theology at different points in the middle ages. Gottschalk of Orbais in the 9th century taught the substance of the five points but we would not allow him into a Reformed pulpit. Thomas Aquinas taught predestination and arguably limited atonement in the 13th century. There were several late medieval proponents of a high Augustinian soteriology from whom the Reformation learned but who would not be Reformed. So it is with Piper. Intersection is not identity. A necessary condition is not a sufficient condition. A race car must have an engine. Thats a necessary condition but an engine is not a sufficient condition because not every engine is a racing engine. There are other components (e.g., suspension, frame, the cockpit) to a race car that distinguish it from other cars. End quote
Would Gottschalk be considered "Reformed?" By the way you are defining the term it seems so.
Again, I feel Trueman sums it up. I was hoping we could agree on precise theological language to describe different beliefs but it doesn't seem we agree on the important of such precision.
Yours in the Lord,
JM the Seventh Day Baptist (Well, I agree with 95% of what Seventh Day Baptists believe, so I'll just borrow their name.
)
Rev. Winzer explains that it is extreme individualism, associated with Arminianism, that is to blame for the hijacking of theology terms:
Here's another way to look at the use of the word. I see it more clearly after having read the quote:
Might I suggest that the problem is not reductionism in the first instance, but individualism. Once the individual becomes the point of reference for terms then the terms are reduced to their lowest common denominator.
The term "Reformed" relates to a "Church" which came out from the corrupt Church of Rome and was constituted a distinct and unified confessing body of people in opposition to the Roman communion. It is a term of ecclesiastical and confessional identification.
Yours sincerely,
Rev. Matthew Winzer
Australian Free Church,
Victoria, Australia
"Illum oportet crescere me autem minui."
That is what I was workin toward. Most Christians assume a radical individualism which allows for every person to define their faith without any outside authority. When I used the phrase "baptist if in their thinking" this is what I was trying to convey. Most Presbyterains are radical individualists just like the standard American (free will) Baptist. Words like Reformed are now being redefined to allow a more broad use when it really means something very specific.
So, rather than stealing the term Reformed, Freewill Baptist is more historically accurate.
Yours in the Lord,
JM (the Particular Baptist)
