Can A Baptist be A cal And NOT be "Reformed?"

Didn't you just answer your own question?

 

What other theological stances are you referring to?

 

Oh ok....Im a Calvi in soteriology , however I do not hold to Covenant or Dispensational Theology (too many ambiguities). I will keep my options on that open there but I consider myself reformed. (& nobody has attacked me on that position.......wait for it....YET! :laugh:

 

How can you be a 4-pointer and be considered "reformed"? There is an interesting discussion on this from Dr. John H. Gerstner where he examines classical dispensationalists, including Chafer, and shows that Chafer actually changes the four points from what was advanced in Dordt, thus could not hold to any of the points. His revisions of the points are significant.

Gerstner notes that dispensationalists often try to unite with Calvinism because of their opposition against Arminians. However, that is about the extent of similarities.

I agree with Gerstner that there are some similarities, but I also believe the differences are quite vast.

 

The problem is two-fold. First, this example is of a person who does not hold to TULIP; therefore, he cannot even be considered in the reformed camp by even your broad definition. Secondly, his definitions of TULIP differ from that defined by the Canons of Dordt; therefore, he rejects the historic definition of reformed theology of TULIP and thus cannot hold to our views. As a result, he cannot be considered reformed as he does not hold to TULIP, and he changes the definitions to help him "agree" with certain points.

While I reject the minimalist definition of reformed theology, this is not even a close example of someone who could be considered to hold our beliefs.

 

Again, you have provided no evidence of anyone who has held to those doctrines as defined by Calvin or the Canons of Dordt that would not be Reformed. You have mentioned Chafer, but he admittingly, from your post, does not hold to those points and he redefines the points he does embrace. Thus, if this is a possibility other than in philosophical theory, you must provide clearly a person who would hold to these principles as conveyed by their historic definition (I think the canons of dordt are the accepted historic definition) and yet still not a Calvinist.

BTW, the subject of this is "Can a Baptist be a Cal and not be reformed?" These are synonymous terms, thus I would ask where in history have these two been divided besides in recent history?

 

You're a what?!!!! You haven't been attacked for this yet???!!!! Well, you are clearly in UTTER ERROR HERE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :laugh: :laugh:

 

Brother, Ive been where you are & struggled with perhaps the same concerns.....here is how I would go about answering you.

The Doctrines of Grace stand or fall together, & together that point to one central truth: "Salvation is all of grace because it is all of God; and because it is all of God, it is all for His glory.

Now to fully appreciate the glory of God in doctrines of grace, it helps to recognize the role of each person in the Trinity in the 5 Points of Calvinism..... election is the choice of God the Father. The atonement is the sacrifice of God the Son. The grace that draws us to Christ & enables us to persevere to the very end is the word of God the HS. Thus salvation is all Gods work from beginning to end---the coordinated work of the triune God--as it must be, if we are to be saved.

So you see that these 5 doctrines are logically & theologically interrelated. They all serve to emphasize the grace of God in salvation.

I dont care how much you think you know, you must study them in earnest & with the HS to make a total connection & begin to understand...that takes time, humility, some inspiration & a hole lot of prayer (on your knees is better). :thumbs:

 

I know that you will do it lovingly however....LOL

 

Here is a chart I found online. I cannot say how accurate it is. The Dispensationalist view is always shown in Red, the Covenant Theology view in Blue.

DISPENSATIONAL THEOLOGY
(Lewis S. Chafer, John Walvoord, Tim LaHaye, John Nelson Darby, C.I. Scofield)

COVENANT THEOLOGY
(Charles Hodge, Loraine Boettner, Louis Berkhof, John Murray, B.B. Warfield)

1. May be Arminian or modified Calvinist. Almost never 5-point Calvinist.
1.Always Calvinist. Usually 5-point.

2. Stresses rigidly 'literal' interpretation of the Bible.
2.Accepts 'normal' interpretation of the Bible text (allows both literal and figurative)

3. Usually does not accept the idea of the 'Analogy of Faith.'
3. Almost always accepts the idea of The "Analogy of Faith."

4. 'Israel' always means only the literal, physical descendants of Jacob.
4. "Israel" may mean either literal, physical descendants of Jacob or the figurative, spiritual Israel, depending on context.

5. 'Israel of God' in Gal 6:16 means physical Israel alone.
5. "Israel of God" in Gal. 6:16 means spiritual Israel, parallel to Gal. 3:29; Rom. 2:28-29 , 9:6; Phil. 3:3.

6. God has 2 peoples with 2 separate destinies: Israel (earthly) and the Church (heavenly).
6. God has always had only 1 people, the Church gradually developed.

7. The Church was born at Pentecost.
7. The Church began in O. T. (Acts 7:38) and reached fulfillment in the N. T.

8. The Church was not prophesied as such in the O.T. but was a hidden mystery until the N.T.
8. There are many O. T. prophecies of the N. T. Church.

9. All O.T. prophecies for 'Israel' are for literal Israel, not the Church.'
9. Some O. T. prophecies are for the literal nation of Israel, others are for spiritual Israel.

10. God's main purpose in history is literal Israel.
10. God's main purpose in history is Christ and secondarily the Church.

11. The Church is a parenthesis in God's program for the ages.
11. The Church is the culmination of God"s saving purpose for the ages.

12. The main heir to Abraham's covenant was Isaac and literal Israel.
12. The main heir to Abraham"s covenant was Christ and spiritual Israel.

13. There was no eternal Covenant of Redemption within the Trinity.
13. The eternal Covenant of Redemption was within the Trinity to effect election.

14. There was no Covenant of Works with Adam in the Garden of Eden.
14. God made a conditional Covenant of Works* with Adam as representative forall his posterity.

15. There was no Covenant of Grace concerning Adam.
15. God made a Covenant of Grace with Christ and His people, including Adam.

16. Israel was rash to accept the Covenant at Mt. Sinai.
16. Israel was right to accept the Covenant Mt. Sinai.

17. The 'New Covenant' of Jer. 31:31- 34 is only for literal Israel and is not the New Covenant of Lk.22:20.
17. The "New Covenant" of Jer. 31 is the same as in Lk. 22; both are for spiritual Israel according to Heb. 8.

18. God's program in history is mainly through separate dispensations.
18. God"s program in history is mainly through related covenants.

19. Some Dispensationalists have said that O. T. sinners were saved by works.
19. No man has ever been saved by works, but only by grace.

20. Most Dispensationalists teach that men in the O.T. were saved by faith in a revelation peculiar to their dispensation, but this did not include faith in the Messiah as their sin-bearer.
20. All men who have ever been saved have been saved by faith in Christ as their sin-bearer, which has been progressively revealed in every age.

21. The O.T. sacrifices were not recognized as the Gospel or types of the Messiah as sin-bearer, but only seen as such in retrospect.
21. O. T. believers believed in the Gospel of Messiah as sin-bearer mainly by the sacrifices as types and prophecies.

22. The Holy Spirit indwells only believers in the dispensation of Grace, not O.T. and not after the Rapture.
22. The Holy Spirit has indwelt believers in all ages, especially in the present N. T. era, and will not be withdrawn.

23. Jesus.made an offer of the literal Kingdom to Israel; since Israel rejected it, it is postponed.
23. Jesus made only an offer of the spiritual Kingdom, which was rejected by literal Israel but has gradually been accepted by spiritual Israel.

24. O.T. believers were not in Christ, not part of the Body or Bride of Christ.
24. Believers in all ages are all "in Christ" and part of the Body and Bride of Christ.

25. The Law has been abolished.
25. The Law has 3 uses: to restrain sin in society, to lead to Christ, and to instruct Christians in godliness. The ceremonial Laws have been abolished; the civil laws have been abolished except for their general equity; the moral laws continue.

26. O. T. laws are no longer in effect unless repeated in the N.T.
26. O. T. laws are still in effect unless abrogated in the N.T.

27. The Millennium is the Kingdom of God. Dispensationalists are always Pre-Millennial and usually Pre-Tribulational.
27. The Church is the Kingdom of God. Covenanters are usually AMillennial, sometimes Pre-Millennial or Post-Millennial, rarely Pre-Tribulational.

28. The O.T. animal sacrifices will be restored in the Millennium.
28. The O. T. sacrifices were fulfilled and forever abolished in Christ.

29. The Millennium will fulfill the Covenant to Abraham. Israel has a future.
29. Christ fulfilled the Covenant to Abraham. Some Covenanters believe in a future for literal Israel, most don"t.

30. David will sit on the Millennial throne in Jerusalem.
30. Christ alone sits on the throne. Saints rule under Him.

Copied, author unknown


* Some theologians such as A.A. Hodge hold to just 1 redemptive covenant - the (eternal) covenant of Grace, others to 2 redemptive covenants (New and Old). See the article The Two Testaments / Two Covenants by F. F. Bruce and The Two Covenants by Philip Mauro.

 

Holding to Covenant theology isn't necessary to be Reformed, is it?

 

The O.T. animal sacrifices will be restored in the Millennium.

Really, thats just nuts!

 

This is accurate:smilewinkgrin:

 

If he was a 4 pointer then he did not hold to the DoG.

 

S. Lewis Johnson, who really appreciated Chafer in many ways "sitting at his feet" as it were, did not,however regard him as a Calvinist. He mentions Chafer in many of his messages.

By the way,John MacArthur regards S.L.J. as being one of the finest preacher/theologians of the 20th century. The later died a few years ago.

I read his transcripts regularly. He was a dispensationalist. A flaw in his otherwise impeccable theology.

 

Definite atonement is a critical part of the DoG. One cannot hold to the DoG without believing in definite atonement. The same as one cannot call themselves a dispensationalist while rejecting the rapture.