But have I been with you so long an dyet you woudl still refer to em as among teh die hard “Reformed”?

I can tell you they would not accept me within their camp!

But one thing I can tell you is that Calvinists, Arminians, Dispensationalists, NCT folks, CT people, Reformed and Anabatists alike at elast have one thing in common, they all agree that Universalism is a fasle teaching.

Not that it matters, but just for review (most if not all of this has been mentioned over the past 6 months to a year), here is some insight into what I believe:

Here is what I believe about Creeds:

I am not Creedal; meaning that I do not hold to any one Creed exclusively which has been developed by theological councils (modern or ancient), such as any of the London Baptist Confessions, the Westminster Confession, the multitudes of protestant reformation creeds, or the various Roman Catholic council creeds of pre reformation church history etc.. I recognize that many of the Creeds have disagreements with one another. I also recognize that the various creeds are fallible, whereas God’s original word, is infallible, and I choose not to ignore this important fact. I recognize that the various old Creeds are paramount to being books, or treatises, of theological commentary agreed upon by men who were addressing particular, political, doctrinal, and ecclesiastical, issues prevalent during the time of writing. With all of these considerations in mind, I agree that the old Creeds are generally considered to be good resources, and are useful for study and development of one’s theological views. Further, I recognize that everyone holds to some sort of creed, whether existing in written form, or existing in the mind. Knowing this, I do not take lightly the sacred, and infallible word of God, and I agree that it is the foundational Creed that God has given to us for revelation, study, and practice.

Here is what I believe about Charismaticism & Pentecostalism:

Although I am not a cessasionist, I am not what is anachronistically termed Charismatic, or Pentecostal.

Here is what I believe about Covenantalism & Dispensationalism:

I am not what is anachronistically termed Covenantal, or Dispensational. I think that some theological elements in Covenantalism, and Dispensationalism are correct interpretations, but recognize that within the intertwined matrix of each system’s structure there exists certain specious assertions where Scripture is silent, coupled with bad interpretations of existing texts and biblical concepts. I recognize that both Covenantalism, and Dispensationalism with all their various sub-groups are theories.

New Covenant Theology (NCT) The term for what is the Biblical system of thinking that drives my theological presuppositions, hermeneutic, subsequent exegesis, and interpretation of scripture, is what is known as New Covenant Theology (NCT). I recognize that some, but not all views of New Covenant theologians are good. I reject some, but not all, of the views of various New Covenant theologians. The ‘New” in NCT refers to the covenant God promised in Jeremiah namely the covenant in Christ’s blood that He Himself described as new and that the book of Hebrews indicates made the Old Priesthood, Old Covenant and Old Law of no legal binding effect. It is not referring to the newness of NCT nor does it describe a new type of covenant theology. NCT is not a new way of interpreting God’s Word and the truths contained within NCT and proponents of the truths expressed within NCT predate Covenant Theology by at least 1500 years and Dispensationalism by roughly 1800 years.

Here is what I believe about Reformed Views:

Reformed in theology has too many arbitrary definitions given to it by way too many people. Therefore, I will positively state that, when it comes to Reformed views, I adhere to the doctrines of grace; meaning I recognize the biblical facts of what has anachronistically come to be known as TULIP or better yet TUDIP!

Do I consider mvself to be a Protestant?

I do not consider myself to be a “Protestant” as I prefer to refer to myself simply as a Christian or as a follower of Christ.

Although I recognize the great contributions that those who are referred to as “The Reformers” have made to Christian scholarship in the form of a concise codification of the great doctrines of grace known as “TULIP” and the “Five Solas”, I reject the unbiblical system of interpreting scripture developed by these “Protestant” denominations known as Covenant Theology and the false doctrine of infant baptism that has led multiplied millions of people into a Christless eternity by assuming that they are children of God by merely being born to Christian parents and being baptized as an infant. I also reject the Presbyterian form of church government as also being unbiblical as New Testament church government is congregational. Many of the heresies taught by “Protestant” denominations were held onto by the “Reformers” even as they left the false religion of Roman Catholicism. In this we can observe that the “Reformers” only took their “Reformation” to a certain level and that much still needs to be Reformed” in the denominations that sprang from that movement.

It is important to understand that both God’s Word and church history teach us that God is never without a witness and that true believers in Christ have always existed since the beginning of the New Covenant Age that began at the giving of the Holy Spirit on the day of Pentecost. These believers and the biblical churches they formed pre-date the Roman Catholic Heresy and have always taught salvation by grace through faith, believer’s baptism, congregational rule and regenerate church membership.

These followers of Christ rejoiced when they saw Roman Catholic priests such as Luther and others leave the Roman Catholic Church and begin to embrace the doctrines of grace. Their rejoicing soon turned to mourning and grieving as it became clear that the denominations that formed out of the “Reformation” would only reform so far and held onto many Romanist heresies. That mourning also turned to horror as it became apparent that the “Reformers Religion” would be just as bloody and ruthless towards those who teach the whole truth of God’s Word in respect to the gospel of grace, believer’s baptism, congregational rule and regenerate church membership.

The blood of millions of true believers who both the “Romanist Heresy” and the “Reformers” insultingly called Donatists, Paulicians, Albigenses and Ancient Waldenses and others, have been spilled by the hand of the “Reformed.” These true believers came to be known by a regular name that applied to a distinct group. These were simply called “Ana- Baptists” and gradually all other names were dropped. The word “ana” was eventually left off, and they were then simply called “Baptists.”

It is this history of those who adhere to “The Faith delivered once and for all” as handed down by Christ and the Apostles who have never embraced any of the Roman Catholic Heresies in their teachings or practices that I identify with.

Ta Da!

I know, who cares?

Apology accepted. We must forgive one another as Christ has also forgiven us.

I was wandering if any of you die hard “Reformers” out there would be able to humble yourselves enough to admit that you were wrong. Maybe Christ really does dwell in some of you. LOL

I am sorry that I mistook the new anonymous “John” who showed up right after Lionel made it clear that he is not going to allow his blog to continue to be hijacked by you for your own personal agenda.

Please accept my apology.

John-

Why are you so concerned about where brother Lionel attends church?

But since we’re talking about being real, here’s a hypothetical scenario. Suppose someone was struggling with lust and came to the pastor—who happened to have dealt with bad thoughts that week as well–and asked the pastor for help. If the pastor wanted the man to be real in sharing the intimate details of his struggles and yet asked the pastor in return to share and asked “Have you struggled recently with what I’m battling with?”, how would you respond if the pastor was less than comfortable in sharing his thoughts—-or admitting that he still had struggles?

Or if a young man and woman goes up to the pastor/leaders of the church during a conference on sexual purity and asked straight out “What kind of things do you do within your marriage, Minister? Do you and your wife practice Oral Sex? Anal? Use Toys? How often do you have sex and what can I as a single expect when I get married?” and the minister declined to answer the question straight out, what impression would that give? For I’ve seen these scenarios many times—with others often saying “We need to be Holy”…and yet those same people are often wondering why people left the church and went to hear something real from others, even if they were not saved…