It's always helpful to know the point of view of those we converse with in the Church. It either promotes understanding, or else it confirms our suspicions. Either way, we're better able to control our urge to convert others to our point of view: "Oh, he's one of those." So in keeping with our desire for peace if not unity,

I'm a reformed theologian. More than that, I'm a covenant theologian, not a dispensationalist. There's a difference. I subscribe to the Westminster Confession of Faith with few reservations (there is no biblical support for baptism and communion being administered only by a "lawfully ordained Minister of the Word"). That means I'm a systematic theologian. I use biblical theology (the context of the parts) to further my understanding of the whole. I don't use it to break up the whole into separate compartments. Otherwise, I might advocate a number of strange and exotic theories, like the "new perspectives" on Paul. I believe it is wrong to force Scripture into a system, and yet God's message of grace is completely logical and consistent. Thus the system is determined by Scripture, not the other way around.

I'm an amillennialist. Other popular interpretations of revelation and eschatology, such as pre-millennialism and post-millennialism, leave me... dumb-struck. I gladly promote William Hendriksen's excellent work, More than Conquerors, as a reasonable explication of the book of Revelation. 

I believe that the bible is the inerrant word of God in its original autographs, and it is the final source of authority in faith and practice. As such, I subscribe to the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy. I also subscribe to the Chicago Statements on Biblical Hermeneutics and Biblical Application.

For those KJV-only folks out there, I prefer the NKJV to the NASB, yet I was raised on the NIV without sustaining irreparable harm (see the Bible Page). I believe the The Message is a restatement of Scripture rather than a translation or paraphrase. That's why I prefer that it not be used in a worship service, or for bible study. On the other hand, I love to read it. It provides a delightful and lively insight.

I believe that baptism is an outward sign of an inward change, a public demonstration of our identification with Christ. It acknowledges and confirms our covenant relationship with God. It does not save or cleanse. Christ does that. Therefore, whether it is done by dunking or sprinkling, it gets the job done. I've had both, just to quiet my Baptist brethren. 

I believe that I cannot truly know Christ apart from actively participating in a local church body. Thus I am a firm believer in ordination. The laying on of hands in that regard is taking responsibility for what has been taught to the one being ordained; it carries with it the obligation to call that person to account should he depart from what was taught to him. Those who start a ministry ought to submit to the oversight of a local church body, and the local church body ought to be willing to oversee it. 

But that's me...

William H. Gross