Definition of "Christian"

[DaleCooper]

Divinity of Christ and literal resurrection.  Everything else is secondary.

Historically those were debatable too.

[100% pro-life no matter what]

Genuine question for Del Tachi and ER, as this is a point I've never understood: is the view that "the saved" and "Christians" are the same group of people? It seems to me pretty easy to be Christian but unregenerate, or a Christian who's in serious danger of going to hell when you die. The latter are descriptions of a spiritual or even ontological status; the former is just a description of the worldview someone happens to hold.

Your question boils down to Calvinism vs Arminianism.  The Reformed position would be that they're the same, as regeneration is the work of God to bring a person to salvation.  Arminianism would say regeneration is a post-salvation experience (i.e., a second work of grace.) 

I wouldn't say that completely.  Many Baptists and Baptist-adjacent Christians hold to doctrines like "once saved, always saved" and would reject the differentiation between "Christians" and "people who are Saved" while also not fully endorsing Calvinism and Reformed theology.

Like, I would imagine Billy Graham agreeing with this statement even though he was an Arminian.

[RINO Tom]

Genuine question for Del Tachi and ER, as this is a point I've never understood: is the view that "the saved" and "Christians" are the same group of people? It seems to me pretty easy to be Christian but unregenerate, or a Christian who's in serious danger of going to hell when you die. The latter are descriptions of a spiritual or even ontological status; the former is just a description of the worldview someone happens to hold.

Your question boils down to Calvinism vs Arminianism.  The Reformed position would be that they're the same, as regeneration is the work of God to bring a person to salvation.  Arminianism would say regeneration is a post-salvation experience (i.e., a second work of grace.) 

I wouldn't say that completely.  Many Baptists and Baptist-adjacent Christians hold to doctrines like "once saved, always saved" and would reject the differentiation between "Christians" and "people who are Saved" while also not fully endorsing Calvinism and Reformed theology.

Like, I would imagine Billy Graham agreeing with this statement even though he was an Arminian.

I mean, Baptists just are not Reformed anyway, period.  Even ones who believe in the Five Points.  An essential part of Reformed theology is Covenant Theology, which includes infant baptism.  Calvin and his earliest supporters also “utterly damned” those who said the sacraments were nothing but symbols and condemned them as heretics.

[Del Tachi]

Genuine question for Del Tachi and ER, as this is a point I've never understood: is the view that "the saved" and "Christians" are the same group of people? It seems to me pretty easy to be Christian but unregenerate, or a Christian who's in serious danger of going to hell when you die. The latter are descriptions of a spiritual or even ontological status; the former is just a description of the worldview someone happens to hold.

Your question boils down to Calvinism vs Arminianism.  The Reformed position would be that they're the same, as regeneration is the work of God to bring a person to salvation.  Arminianism would say regeneration is a post-salvation experience (i.e., a second work of grace.) 

I wouldn't say that completely.  Many Baptists and Baptist-adjacent Christians hold to doctrines like "once saved, always saved" and would reject the differentiation between "Christians" and "people who are Saved" while also not fully endorsing Calvinism and Reformed theology.

Like, I would imagine Billy Graham agreeing with this statement even though he was an Arminian.

I mean, Baptists just are not Reformed anyway, period.  Even ones who believe in the Five Points.  An essential part of Reformed theology is Covenant Theology, which includes infant baptism.  Calvin and his earliest supporters also “utterly damned” those who said the sacraments were nothing but symbols and condemned them as heretics.

...sigh

Reformed Baptists are very much a thing. The London Baptist Confession of Faith goes back to 1689!  Reformed Baptists accept the same, singular arc of redemptive history as Presbyterians; they differ only on the specific purpose and efficacy of circumcision (and thus baptism.)  That's a pretty minute difference, and it certainly isn't incompatible with "Covenant Theology" as a Biblical hermeneutic.     

It's unfortunate for someone as dedicated as posting on this board as you are, that your only interest seems to be painting Baptist/Evangelical theology as unseriously as possible.  Religious movements do not grow to amass millions of believers when they are void of intellectual sustenance or historical precedent.  Try to watch less Redeemed Zoomer, ok?   

[RINO Tom]

^ It’s not an insult to call a spade a spade, and RZ is 100% right.  I’m a Lutheran, I have no interest in gatekeeping Calvinism inherently … but Baptists just simply are not part of that theological tradition, even Reformed Baptists.  Baptists came out of the Church of England and had more in common with Anabaptists than any other Protestants.  I don’t think it’s some slight to not call them part of the Reformed family tree.  They’re just something very different.  Are they my cup of tea?  No, but neither are Presbyterians or Anglicans or Catholics.  All still legitimate Christians.

[Skill and Chance]

Genuine question for Del Tachi and ER, as this is a point I've never understood: is the view that "the saved" and "Christians" are the same group of people? It seems to me pretty easy to be Christian but unregenerate, or a Christian who's in serious danger of going to hell when you die. The latter are descriptions of a spiritual or even ontological status; the former is just a description of the worldview someone happens to hold.

Your question boils down to Calvinism vs Arminianism.  The Reformed position would be that they're the same, as regeneration is the work of God to bring a person to salvation.  Arminianism would say regeneration is a post-salvation experience (i.e., a second work of grace.) 

I wouldn't say that completely.  Many Baptists and Baptist-adjacent Christians hold to doctrines like "once saved, always saved" and would reject the differentiation between "Christians" and "people who are Saved" while also not fully endorsing Calvinism and Reformed theology.

Like, I would imagine Billy Graham agreeing with this statement even though he was an Arminian.

I mean, Baptists just are not Reformed anyway, period.  Even ones who believe in the Five Points.  An essential part of Reformed theology is Covenant Theology, which includes infant baptism.  Calvin and his earliest supporters also “utterly damned” those who said the sacraments were nothing but symbols and condemned them as heretics.

...sigh

Reformed Baptists are very much a thing. The London Baptist Confession of Faith goes back to 1689!  Reformed Baptists accept the same, singular arc of redemptive history as Presbyterians; they differ only on the specific purpose and efficacy of circumcision (and thus baptism.)  That's a pretty minute difference, and it certainly isn't incompatible with "Covenant Theology" as a Biblical hermeneutic.     

It's unfortunate for someone as dedicated as posting on this board as you are, that your only interest seems to be painting Baptist/Evangelical theology as unseriously as possible.  Religious movements do not grow to amass millions of believers when they are void of intellectual sustenance or historical precedent.  Try to watch less Redeemed Zoomer, ok?   

TBH I do find the Calvinist Protestant/Augustinian Catholic "strong" view of original sin hard to reconcile with waiting to baptize?  The Arminian Protestant/Eastern Christian view where you aren't held guilty until you have intentionally sinned seems a lot more consistent with the credobaptist approach. 

I do think the criticism of Evangelicals and credobaptists specifically has gotten excessive here.  Coming from a tradition straddles the line between Mainline and Evangelical, I can see why the latter approach is winning in the "marketplace" for converts.  While they do stand out, there's a reasonable "originalist" case for credobaptists.  In Didache, written ~100 AD, the church is only baptizing people who are old enough to decide what to eat (to fast before the baptism).  Reading the document literally as a whole, it further implies this early Christian community was only baptizing people who already understand what rape, fornication, and abortion are.

[Del Tachi]

^ It’s not an insult to call a spade a spade, and RZ is 100% right.  I’m a Lutheran, I have no interest in gatekeeping Calvinism inherently … but Baptists just simply are not part of that theological tradition, even Reformed Baptists.  Baptists came out of the Church of England and had more in common with Anabaptists than any other Protestants.  I don’t think it’s some slight to not call them part of the Reformed family tree.  They’re just something very different.  Are they my cup of tea?  No, but neither are Presbyterians or Anglicans or Catholics.  All still legitimate Christians.

How does adopting Calvinist soteriology and Covenant Theology not place Reformed Baptists within the tradition?  Calvin died almost 500 years ago.  Are his ideas not allowed to influence and spread beyond the specific denominations he founded?  You maybe would have a more credible point if Reformed Baptists were some new, minor movement that popped up in the last 100 years...but they aren't.  Calvinism was influencing and changing Baptist theology in the period when Calvin was still living!

[jojoju1998]

^ It’s not an insult to call a spade a spade, and RZ is 100% right.  I’m a Lutheran, I have no interest in gatekeeping Calvinism inherently … but Baptists just simply are not part of that theological tradition, even Reformed Baptists.  Baptists came out of the Church of England and had more in common with Anabaptists than any other Protestants.  I don’t think it’s some slight to not call them part of the Reformed family tree.  They’re just something very different.  Are they my cup of tea?  No, but neither are Presbyterians or Anglicans or Catholics.  All still legitimate Christians.

How does adopting Calvinist soteriology and Covenant Theology not place Reformed Baptists within the tradition?  Calvin died almost 500 years ago.  Are his ideas not allowed to influence and spread beyond the specific denominations he founded?  You maybe would have a more credible point if Reformed Baptists were some new, minor movement that popped up in the last 100 years...but they aren't.  Calvinism was influencing and changing Baptist theology in the period when Calvin was still living!

If we want to go.... a bit more into details. Reformed Baptists and the European Reformed/Presbyterian tradition do differ on details. For example, the European Reformed/Presbyterian tradition places a higher view on the sacraments, and on the efficiacy of infant baptism, and strict hireachial church structures. Baptists... do not. It's just not in their pedigree.


In the broader view of the world,  both groups would be " reformed " though.

[jojoju1998]

Genuine question for Del Tachi and ER, as this is a point I've never understood: is the view that "the saved" and "Christians" are the same group of people? It seems to me pretty easy to be Christian but unregenerate, or a Christian who's in serious danger of going to hell when you die. The latter are descriptions of a spiritual or even ontological status; the former is just a description of the worldview someone happens to hold.

Your question boils down to Calvinism vs Arminianism.  The Reformed position would be that they're the same, as regeneration is the work of God to bring a person to salvation.  Arminianism would say regeneration is a post-salvation experience (i.e., a second work of grace.) 

I wouldn't say that completely.  Many Baptists and Baptist-adjacent Christians hold to doctrines like "once saved, always saved" and would reject the differentiation between "Christians" and "people who are Saved" while also not fully endorsing Calvinism and Reformed theology.

Like, I would imagine Billy Graham agreeing with this statement even though he was an Arminian.

I mean, Baptists just are not Reformed anyway, period.  Even ones who believe in the Five Points.  An essential part of Reformed theology is Covenant Theology, which includes infant baptism.  Calvin and his earliest supporters also “utterly damned” those who said the sacraments were nothing but symbols and condemned them as heretics.

...sigh

Reformed Baptists are very much a thing. The London Baptist Confession of Faith goes back to 1689!  Reformed Baptists accept the same, singular arc of redemptive history as Presbyterians; they differ only on the specific purpose and efficacy of circumcision (and thus baptism.)  That's a pretty minute difference, and it certainly isn't incompatible with "Covenant Theology" as a Biblical hermeneutic.     

It's unfortunate for someone as dedicated as posting on this board as you are, that your only interest seems to be painting Baptist/Evangelical theology as unseriously as possible.  Religious movements do not grow to amass millions of believers when they are void of intellectual sustenance or historical precedent.  Try to watch less Redeemed Zoomer, ok?   

TBH I do find the Calvinist Protestant/Augustinian Catholic "strong" view of original sin hard to reconcile with waiting to baptize?  The Arminian Protestant/Eastern Christian view where you aren't held guilty until you have intentionally sinned seems a lot more consistent with the credobaptist approach. 

I do think the criticism of Evangelicals and credobaptists specifically has gotten excessive here.  Coming from a tradition straddles the line between Mainline and Evangelical, I can see why the latter approach is winning in the "marketplace" for converts.  While they do stand out, there's a reasonable "originalist" case for credobaptists.  In Didache, written ~100 AD, the church is only baptizing people who are old enough to decide what to eat (to fast before the baptism).  Reading the document literally as a whole, it further implies this early Christian community was only baptizing people who already understand what rape, fornication, and abortion are.

Credo Baptism, and the Paedo Baptism debate in the Reformed context ( and some would say the Catholc context too ) has been misunderstood. The idea isn't about salvation per se. But it's about the covenant of grace. When you are baptized, you are entering into the family of God, the people of God. The visible structrual church. Baptism does not generate faith, but rather it's a sign of being part of the family.

The Arminian vs. Calvinist debate I think has been miscontrued, only because we don't have a concept of a structural hireahcial  church in American Evangelical Protestantism.

[RINO Tom]

^ It’s not an insult to call a spade a spade, and RZ is 100% right.  I’m a Lutheran, I have no interest in gatekeeping Calvinism inherently … but Baptists just simply are not part of that theological tradition, even Reformed Baptists.  Baptists came out of the Church of England and had more in common with Anabaptists than any other Protestants.  I don’t think it’s some slight to not call them part of the Reformed family tree.  They’re just something very different.  Are they my cup of tea?  No, but neither are Presbyterians or Anglicans or Catholics.  All still legitimate Christians.

How does adopting Calvinist soteriology and Covenant Theology not place Reformed Baptists within the tradition?  Calvin died almost 500 years ago.  Are his ideas not allowed to influence and spread beyond the specific denominations he founded?  You maybe would have a more credible point if Reformed Baptists were some new, minor movement that popped up in the last 100 years...but they aren't.  Calvinism was influencing and changing Baptist theology in the period when Calvin was still living!

If we want to go.... a bit more into details. Reformed Baptists and the European Reformed/Presbyterian tradition do differ on details. For example, the European Reformed/Presbyterian tradition places a higher view on the sacraments, and on the efficiacy of infant baptism, and strict hireachial church structures. Baptists... do not. It's just not in their pedigree.


In the broader view of the world,  both groups would be " reformed " though.

But categorizations are about traditions from which you descend.  Baptists just simply did not descend from the Calvinist/Reformed family tree.  They were separatists from the Church of England whose main defining theological beliefs were borrowed from the Anabaptists ... not Calvinists.  I honestly don't even care if people call Reformed Baptists "Reformed," but I do understand why it would annoy a Presbyterian or Dutch Reformed person, as it kind of hijacks their tradition and does give the indication that someone like John MacArthur represents mainstream Reformed thinking.

It's just not comparable to a group like the Congregationalists, who could simplistically be called "English Reformed" in a similar way that German Calvinists are called "German Reformed."  They had theology that was VERY similar to Presbyterians, and they only differed on (1) church governance and (2) actually taking certain things from Calvinist thinking like the regulative principle too far.  I don't feel I am alone here ... look up categorizations/family trees for Protestantism, and the vast majority will have an umbrella term for "Reformed" that will include Presbyterians, Dutch Reformed, Congregationalists, etc., but I have rarely if ever seen Baptists included.  Baptists are their own thing, and that's perfectly fine (it's obviously been extremely successful for them!).