Becoming Reformed/Stages/the PB

Becoming Reformed/Stages


  • Total voters
    72
  • Poll closed .
Status
Not open for further replies.
I was somewhere between "fully Reformed" and "strongly Reformed" when I joined. I guess it depends on what it means here to be Reformed. Are we just speaking in Sotierology, or with some of the other WCF/LBC bells and whistles as well?
 
First I was Pentecostal, then I was LCMS Lutheran, and then I joined the OPC 7yrs ago. When I joined the group, I was already Reformed. However, I'm learning a lot by being on the board.
 
I would say that I was already of a reformed mindset. This board has caused me to think about somethings that I had not thought about before. Neither my husband or I grew up reformed. Thankfully, God set us on the path together where one did not pass the other in understanding and acceptance.
 
Since some of my brethren do not believe that a Calvinist baptist is really Reformed, I chose: "I had strong Reformed leanings when I joined." I am still a baptist but have learned a great deal on the PB.

It's okay Dennis. I feel your pain. I actually came up with my own designation. There's WCF-Reformed and Baptist-Reformed In my humble opinion. It's a subjective term any how.
 
If we fully subscribe to the 1689, for the purposes of PB membership, are we then fully reformed?

Pergy,

You've been around a lot longer than I have. But, the way some use the term around here, no a Calvinistic baptist would not be considered TR regardless of how strictly he subscribes to the 1689. I seem to remember reading someone quite important at PB who argued: Calvinist soteriology leads to Reformed ecclesiology and Coveant federal theology applied to baptism. Unless someone buys the whole package, runs the reasoning, one may be Calvinistic but not Reformed.

Frankly, that does not offend me at all. I am so blessed to be part of PB, that our intramural squabbles over baptism don't really matter to me. If my TR brethren would prefer to call me a Calvinist, so what? As it stands, the Geislers and Hunts think we are all nuts anyway.
 
I aint clicking on any of them. I am a Particular Baptist historically. A Reformed Baptist by todays name. I came here a Covenantal Confessional Baptist. I didn't know what NPP or New Covenant Theology was because of other things I had been dealing with for years. But I quickly got up to speed here. I have learned a lot since I have been here though.

I was familiar with Presbyterianism when I got here. I had been a member in the RPCNA and was a PCA member around the time I joined.

One of my first experiences here was when Matt told me I wasn't Reformed.... Really...
 
If we fully subscribe to the 1689, for the purposes of PB membership, are we then fully reformed?

I would say "yes" but WCF-Reformed brethren would probably say "no." But that is their definition of what Reformed means. That's why I said earlier the term is subjective.
 
If we fully subscribe to the 1689, for the purposes of PB membership, are we then fully reformed?

I'm making a list of characteristics found in the confessions and in many Reformed churches. I'll post the list and see which ones people think are necessary to have be considered Reformed.
 
My stages have been progressive...

Started Dispensational Arminian Immersionist Baptist Fundamentalist Normative Principled

Left Arminianism about 11 years ago.

Left Dispensationalism (Separation of Israel/Church, Rapture) about 4 years ago

Left the Most of Normative Principle of Worship about 4 years ago

Joined Puritanboard.. Following Influences from the Puritanboard and From Church/Pastor Friends...

Left Fundamentalism (No Alcohol, No Tobacco) about 2 years ago

Left Dispensational aspects of the Songs of Zion, Eucharistic Presence, and the Spirit Dwelling within Old Testaments Saints about 2 years ago and the Spirit part 1 year..

Left Immersionism Last 2 Months Ago

Left CredoBaptism This Month


Add in my Theonomy understandings and I believe I can finally say "Truly Reformed" :cool: :lol:

Son, you've been doing a lot of "leaving" over the last several years. Having a commitment problem? :lol:

:rofl:
 
If we fully subscribe to the 1689, for the purposes of PB membership, are we then fully reformed?

I would say "yes" but WCF-Reformed brethren would probably say "no." But that is their definition of what Reformed means. That's why I said earlier the term is subjective.

As a Reformed Baptist is someone who believes in the 5 points of Calvinism and the regulative principle, then I have no problem saying that they are Reformed.
 
If we fully subscribe to the 1689, for the purposes of PB membership, are we then fully reformed?

I'm making a list of characteristics found in the confessions and in many Reformed churches. I'll post the list and see which ones people think are necessary to have be considered Reformed.

Okay, that sounded a lot smarter before I actually went and did it. I'm sure that someone here who has studied Reformed theology even a little more than I have would be able to answer Pergamum's question.
 
If we fully subscribe to the 1689, for the purposes of PB membership, are we then fully reformed?

I would say "yes" but WCF-Reformed brethren would probably say "no." But that is their definition of what Reformed means. That's why I said earlier the term is subjective.

As a Reformed Baptist is someone who believes in the 5 points of Calvinism and the regulative principle, then I have no problem saying that they are Reformed.
I agree with my Buddy Daniel here. What objections would those who do not agree bring into play????:detective: (I was not a member then:but I know there was a strong Reformed Baptist voice on the PB in the early days.:book2:
 
I have learned a wealth of knowledge by means of the PB (books, resourses, comments etc.). I would say it has been one of the greatest factors in taking me from Calvinistic, to confessionally reformed.

I would have to agree with the above.
 
In the poll, I clicked strong Reformed leanings. I consider myself a "Reformed" Baptist a la 1689 LBCF, but have also been told Baptists are not TR. :rolleyes:
 
Which shouldn't bother Baptists at all. It didn't bother them from the framing of the 1689 to less than a hundred years ago. They were content with Particular Baptists. :2cents:

Ha. It doesn't bother me -- just a sentiment I run into on occasion. So, for the paedo's sake I didn't click "fully Reformed." :cheers2:
 
Which shouldn't bother Baptists at all. It didn't bother them from the framing of the 1689 to less than a hundred years ago. They were content with Particular Baptists. :2cents:

Ha. It doesn't bother me -- just a sentiment I run into on occasion. So, for the paedo's sake I didn't click "fully Reformed." :cheers2:

Amen. Depends upon your context. If I were talking to McLaren, Pentecostals, or most run-of-the-mill Arminians, I would probably explain my position as "Reformed." But, for the sake of the "weaker brethren" :lol: on the PB I call myself a Calvinist. Actually, that is OK by me. The TR can be like Southern Baptists at times in that they will be shocked to find out that they are not the only group in heaven. :rofl:

Just kidding, guys. I look at some of you TRs and say "I'm not worthy" (and really mean it).
 
Which shouldn't bother Baptists at all. It didn't bother them from the framing of the 1689 to less than a hundred years ago. They were content with Particular Baptists. :2cents:

Ha. It doesn't bother me -- just a sentiment I run into on occasion. So, for the paedo's sake I didn't click "fully Reformed." :cheers2:

Amen. Depends upon your context. If I were talking to McLaren, Pentecostals, or most run-of-the-mill Arminians, I would probably explain my position as "Reformed." But, for the sake of the "weaker brethren" :lol: on the PB I call myself a Calvinist. Actually, that is OK by me. The TR can be like Southern Baptists at times in that they will be shocked to find out that they are not the only group in heaven. :rofl:

Just kidding, guys. I look at some of you TRs and say "I'm not worthy" (and really mean it).
Don't feel bad! I was an Anglican when I first joined: my FIRST post was to wish everyone blessings for Ash Wed. and a Blessed Lenten Season! MAN! I was in for a shock! I was so dumb I thought all Christians did it!:lol: Sigh, the memories!:)
 
Ha. It doesn't bother me -- just a sentiment I run into on occasion. So, for the paedo's sake I didn't click "fully Reformed." :cheers2:

Amen. Depends upon your context. If I were talking to McLaren, Pentecostals, or most run-of-the-mill Arminians, I would probably explain my position as "Reformed." But, for the sake of the "weaker brethren" :lol: on the PB I call myself a Calvinist. Actually, that is OK by me. The TR can be like Southern Baptists at times in that they will be shocked to find out that they are not the only group in heaven. :rofl:

Just kidding, guys. I look at some of you TRs and say "I'm not worthy" (and really mean it).
Don't feel bad! I was an Anglican when I first joined: my FIRST post was to wish everyone blessings for Ash Wed. and a Blessed Lenten Season! MAN! I was in for a shock! I was so dumb I thought all Christians did it!:lol: Sigh, the memories!:)

:lol: You really "put your foot in it" there brother. :oops:
 
The TR can be like Southern Baptists at times in that they will be shocked to find out that they are not the only group in heaven. :rofl:

One of the Teaching Elders in our denomination likes to say, "You don't have to be Presbyterian to go to heaven. But why take a chance?" :lol:

And seriously, there are shinning examples of Godliness on both "sides of the aisle" here at the PB. I count it a great blessing to be allowed to be a participant.
 
I checked "strong Reformed leanings" as the best description for me. I had already committed to the WCF but had areas that needed deeper study for full understanding. It also took a while to distinguish the historical meaning of "Reformed" from the many meanings poured into the word by those who eschewed the historical definition and reinvented it.
 
If we fully subscribe to the 1689, for the purposes of PB membership, are we then fully reformed?

I would say "yes" but WCF-Reformed brethren would probably say "no." But that is their definition of what Reformed means. That's why I said earlier the term is subjective.

As a Reformed Baptist is someone who believes in the 5 points of Calvinism and the regulative principle, then I have no problem saying that they are Reformed.


I have a problem with your definition Daniel because there are many Baptists who are not Covenant Theologians but claim to be Reformed Baptists. I like What David Charles wrote concerning what a Reformed Baptist is.

The five points of Reformed Baptist Churches « Reformed Baptist Fellowship

Reformational

Calvinistic

Puritan

Covenantal

Baptist
 
I would say "yes" but WCF-Reformed brethren would probably say "no." But that is their definition of what Reformed means. That's why I said earlier the term is subjective.

As a Reformed Baptist is someone who believes in the 5 points of Calvinism and the regulative principle, then I have no problem saying that they are Reformed.


I have a problem with your definition Daniel because there are many Baptists who are not Covenant Theologians but claim to be Reformed Baptists. I like What David Charles wrote concerning what a Reformed Baptist is.

The five points of Reformed Baptist Churches « Reformed Baptist Fellowship

Reformational

Calvinistic

Puritan

Covenantal

Baptist

I suppose I was arguing from the perspective that what made the Reformed historically distinctive from Episcopalians and Lutherans was adherence to the regulative principle, while all sides were (initially at least) Calvinisitic in their soteriology. However, with the rise of Dispensationalism, it may be necessary to add some sort of commitment to Covenant Theology as well. I dunno? :confused::scratch: Mind you, is it possible to be a Calvinist at all and hold to Dispensationalism (at least the early, extreme forms of it - I would grant that Progressive Dispensationalists could be Calvinists?).
 
John MacArthur emerged from seminary as a standard issue dispensationalist. Of late, most would acknowledge him to be a Calvinist. As for his dispensationalism, it is a very "leaky" (to use his own term) kind these days. Nevertheless, his Shepherd's conference message last year argued that Calvinists should be consistent and become premillennial.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top