Originally Posted by Tom
Apparently because I agree with people like AW Pink on this issue, I am accused of siding with Presbyterians.
They are trying to tell me that although Pink was a Credo-Baptist, he agreed more with Presbyterians, than the LBCF on the issue.
That is news to me though, because I have studied through Sanuel Waldron's "A Modern Exposition of the LBC and it seems to be exactly in line with Pink

And I have been accused of being a closet Baptist because I strongly reject any notion of presumptive regeneration and that children need to hear the gospel, repent and believe upon Christ unto justification. And I am strongly criticized by all the Dutch Reformed churches because I do not believe the Heidleberg Catechism should be used to teach children because it assumes the reader is a believer. Same Waldron is one of the "good guys" among Baptists, IMO.

Originally Posted by Tom
Haha, now because I call myself a Reformed Baptist, a Reformed Presbyterian has come along and saiid that the terms Reformed and Baptsts are "Oxymorons" and that I am closer to being Duspensational than Reformed.
The went on to say only Presbyterians who Postmil, Theonomists and CT are Reformed.
Lol, seems like he doesn't believe a lot of the signers of the WCF were Reformed.

Well, that's an old age topic of dispute. It all boils down to one's definition of the word "Reformed". But I'm curious as to this person's church affiliation. "Reformed Presbyterian" is of a more recent designation and several denominations use it. And their respective theological beliefs different, and on a few matters radically so. The fact that this person brought in "Theonomists" speaks much, as most are belligerent, condescending, and sectarian. I'm not sure what "CT" means? shrug

[Linked Image]

simul iustus et peccator

[Linked Image]