I keep hearing people talking about "the Reformed view" on such-and-such a thing, normally to lend a (not-so-)subtle ad hominem weight to their own position.
It's starting to get a little irritating.
It should be perfectly obvious to anyone who's actually read anything from before 1800 that our Reformed forefathers differed considerably on a wide range of issues, including matters on which some contemporary blogologians seem to regard as settled beyond a glimmer of intra-Reformed dispute.
Fortunately, Mark Jones has read some of the original texts, and provides a long and intriguing list of matters that were far from settled by the middle of the 18th century. The issues include aspects of baptism, ecclesiology, justification, the mosaic covenant, the extent of the atonement, the beatific vision, sanctification, the Sabbath, worship, the free offer of the gospel, assurance, the order of the divine decrees, and (gasp!) the inspiration of the Hebrew vowel points.
It seems to me that some folks need to do a lot more thinking before dismissing others chaps as "not Reformed."