OFF TOPIC for a moment:
I notice that, as we have removed those from the forum who clearly stand for false doctrines, LIKE the reformed position, here we are, all of us ultimately in agreement on the subject at hand, and still we are fighting over such things as, 'should we even care what a reformed person believes about his words' and 'does it matter how they define terminology?'. Are are all of us against the doctrine, all agree it is wrong, but now, we aregue over how we deal with it. That's pretty sad, folks.
I guess it boils down to, do we want to successfully discuss the subject with a Calvinist or not? If not, that's fine, it doesn't matter how they define terms, let them continue. If you want to discuss it with them, you'd best understand what they mean when they talk, or there's going to be a lot of confusion.
Like many false groups, Mormons, JW's Catholics, etc, Calvinists change the meanings of biblical terminology to fit their doctrine. Ask a Mormon about gospel, and they will say they believe it. If we don't know that for them, the gospel is all about one's way of life, and not the death for our sins, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ, we might well go on our merry way thinking they are saved. A good example there is Glenn Beck. So with the Calvinist, if we want to discuss it, we'd best understand what they mean when they speak.
I guess my point it, after reading so much here, we all seem to agree-but we are arguning minute, non-issues about the subject at hand. Are we so desirous to argue that even in agreement we must argue?