During one of James White's videos, he called me reformed, among many, many other careless or purposeful errors. I said I wasn't. Then he came back in another video to "correct" it by saying he was relieved I wasn't. OK. So I'm not reformed or restless or unfortunately young. Why not? This will be short, because I want to give you less than the cliffs notes.
One, I'm Baptist. That might rile reformed Baptists, but Baptist history is not reformed. We never needed reformation. I don't trace my history through the reformation. Our doctrine was never lost. I don't believe in that. True churches have always been around since Christ and those are my forefathers.
Two, I take a literal interpretation of scripture, that is, I believe in premillennialism and I guess I should just say that I'm dispensationalist, which is nothing more than a structuring of what already existed, the literal interpretation of scripture. These first two relate. If you are Baptist, you predate the allegorical interpretation that characterized the state church or Roman Catholicism, which is also amillennialism. I'm not going to go further here, even though I'd like to.
Three, I don't think that doctrines were lost to be found. They weren't altogether perverted to be reformed or regained. I'm less than reformed in that my doctrine isn't reformed, but I'm also saying that I'm more than the reformed, because my ecclesiology and eschatology are literal and historical, true to the Word of God. I take the prophetic passages grammatically and historically. I am not state church or never have been.
Four, I don't believe the truth was preserved in Roman Catholicism.
There it is in four reasons. I could give more, but this really does cover it. Now I'm teaching Hebrews in eight minutes.