Featured Arminian or Semi-Pelagian

I will try.

I think we agree that Reformed Baptists are Calvinists and that they ascribe to Calvinistic soteriology. Do you believe that Reformed Baptists also hold to Calvinistic ecclesiology as expressed by early Calvinism? If so, how do you reconcile Calvinistic ecclesiology with Baptist theology? If not, then the Reformed Baptists are Calvinists but not identical to the Calvinists up through the decades immediately following Beza.

We take the Doctrines of Grace and call it “Calvinism,”…and it is clearly understood in our times. But on this thread we were venturing back to the Synod of Dort and beyond. I was only saying that when we speak of Calvinism we are speaking of its soteriology (as far as I know this remains consistent to a great degree throughout Calvinistic churches). There are, of course, some Calvinists (obviously not Reformed Baptists) who reject the notion that one can reconcile Baptist theology with Calvinism. But within the context of our conversations here (this is a Baptist Board, after all) we generally speak of Calvinism divorced from many of the doctrines that formed its early identity (remember...the Lutherans coined the phrase "Calvinism" as they objected to the Calvin's views of spiritual presence vs sacramental union).

Before we get lost in the sauce, remember this issue arose within this thread simply because I pointed out that Arminanism was not a competing theology that originated and opposed Calvinism from the outside. Early Arminians differed from Calvinism in their soteriology. They maintained a Calvinistic view of secular government being an arm of the Church, of worship, of non-adorned places of worship, a Church-State union, of infant baptism...etc. What we call Calvinism today is not what would be recognizable as Calvinism closer to the Reformation. It has corrected many errors (I believe errors carried over from the RCC...or more precisely, from that worldview) and is the better for it (speaking of Reformed Baptists).

 

The statement only seemingly contradicts what I said earlier… perhaps due to my inability to come up with different words (I used the term “Calvinism” as the theological system known as Calvinism and as we use it to refer to Calvinistic soteriology…I apologize for the lack of clarity).

The term Calvinism as used today does specifically deal with soteriology (to us, anyway). The term Calvinism, however, has not historically referred specifically to soteriology.

 

On that subject…probably. Unfortunately, sometimes I think that we may be in danger of taking both the Lord’s Supper and baptism too lightly. Earlier in his life, Zwingli was closer to baptist doctrine on believer's baptism as well.