Over at The Christian Curmudgeon William H. Smith recently posted a piece entitled, “Can Baptists Be Reformed? Is this a contradiction in terms?”. There is much good to glean from Smith’s piece. I agree with him that the term “Reformed” is being bled of most of its historical and theological meaning. Just a little historical-theological reading (something my Baptist friends need to do more of) will show that the Five Points of Calvinism, though vital to the system of Reformed theology, are not its whole or even its essence. I also agree with Smith on the dangers of revivalism v. an ordinary means of grace ministry. There are some of us Baptists that are “Old Side” when it comes to this issue.
This brings me to the specific issues to which I want to respond. Before doing so, it is probably best to let you know that I will not…
View original post 1,447 more words
The Sovereign Logos 
We can argue for a word to mean anything we want it to, but usage determines meaning. For a long time, Reformed has for a long time meant a variety of things: 1) Reformed Presbyterian Westminster Confession type of belief, 2) Reformed soteriology, 3) Reformed worldview, 4) drawing on the broad Reformation tradition of Calvin and others (e.g., here is where it is stretched the most – applied to Barth, for example – and with reasonable justification, and 5) probably others I’ve forgotten to think of as I type this out. So, it just means what people think it means. That may not make some people happy (and they can argue for a more restricted use), but they will be like the trademark lawyers suing people who say they are “xeroxing” something (while using a Ricoh machine) or who “scotch tape” something with adhesive not manufactured by 3M. At least that’s my opinion.
LikeLike