Isms, in my opinion are not good. A person should not believe in an ism, he should believe in himself.

Instead of "Calvinism," I greatly prefer "Reformed," for a variety of reasons ... not that there's anything wrong with an ism per se. But that raises another question:

What does it mean to be Reformed?

As a Reformed Baptist this is one of those love/hate conversations. I can't help but jump in, all the while knowing it's an uphill battle.

Some Presbyterians will say Baptists cannot be Reformed because they don't adhere to infant Baptism. Even some Baptists will say that other Baptists are not Reformed if they are not strict sabbatarians.

What does it mean to be Reformed?

How tight do we draw the circle?

This is from our church's "About Us" page ...

We are a Reformed and Southern Baptist Church.

* What does Reformed mean?

First of all, it doesn't mean that we've "arrived." We're not perfect, as individuals or as a church, but we pursue such through reliance on the Holy Spirit. In fact, part of being a Reformed church entails a recognition that it is always in process. Or, as it was put centuries ago, ecclesia reformata semper reformanda est ("The Reformed church is always reforming").

Being "Reformed" means an adherence to and advancement of the theological principles of the Protestant Reformation. This is most clearly seen in our doctrinal statement and in our subscription to the "5 Solas" of the Reformation as expressed in The Cambridge Declaration. It declares that our authority is Scripture Alone by which we hold to salvation by Grace Alone, through Faith Alone, because of Christ Alone. Thus, we proclaim To God Alone Be the Glory! Our theological framework might also be referred to as Calvinistic or Augustinian.

As you can see, I'm thinking the Reformation is better captured by certain principles, rather than the by-products of working out those principles.

Others would obviously answer differently, limiting the label to those embracing certain creeds.

It's a stretch to require adherence to doctrinal statements that the Reformers did not produce nor endorse (e.g., WCF). Sure, much of it gels, but neither Calvin, nor Luther would embrace the WCF's Sabbatarianism, for example.

Also, the term is often employed in such a way that Zwingli would not be included or congregationalists, who would not have embraced a Presbyterian form of government (e.g., Edwards & Owen).

Interesting topic to ponder, especially since the term "evangelical" has received so much etymological discussion. Of course, we could really open a can of words as well with definitions of who is truly covenantal and/or Calvinistic (cf. Are Five Points Enough?).

So, for those of you who claim the label Reformed, what say ye?