# "Are Baptists Reformed" by Kenneth Good?



## allareguilty (Nov 13, 2009)

Has anyone here heard of this book? Is it good and worth reading? Thanks!!


----------



## LawrenceU (Nov 14, 2009)

I don't think Kenneth Good can reform anyone. Neither can his cousin Being 



Sorry, I couldn't resist. On a serious note, I've not read the book.


----------



## Reformed Thomist (Nov 14, 2009)

I believe that Steele, Thomas, and Quinn's _The Five Points of Calvinism: Defined, Defended, and Documented_ (P & R Publishing, 2004; Second Edition) features a brief mention of this work. If memory serves, it says that Good's book defends the thesis that there are too many significant differences between the Baptist and Reformed traditions to properly label any sort of Baptists '_Reformed_ Baptists'. Baptists and the Reformed are like two distinct species of Christian. The proper label for those Baptists often referred to as RB's, rather, is 'Calvinistic' Baptists (being one distinct subset of the Baptist tradition rather than the Reformed tradition).


----------



## MarieP (Nov 14, 2009)

LawrenceU said:


> I don't think Kenneth Good can reform anyone. Neither can his cousin Being
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, I couldn't resist. On a serious note, I've not read the book.



You are too quick for me, brother!


----------



## Ron (Nov 14, 2009)

Baptists can be Reformed. Their little children just can't be! 

Ron


----------



## SolaSaint (Nov 14, 2009)

Reformed Thomist said:


> I believe that Steele, Thomas, and Quinn's _The Five Points of Calvinism: Defined, Defended, and Documented_ (P & R Publishing, 2004; Second Edition) features a brief mention of this work. If memory serves, it says that Good's book defends the thesis that there are too many significant differences between the Baptist and Reformed traditions to properly label any sort of Baptists '_Reformed_ Baptists'. Baptists and the Reformed are like two distinct species of Christian. The proper label for those Baptists often referred to as RB's, rather, is 'Calvinistic' Baptists (being one distinct subset of the Baptist tradition rather than the Reformed tradition).



Being a baptist from spiritual birth, I must ask what do you and others believe these many significant differences to be. I'm new to reformed theology and so far I don't see much difference other than many of the traditional baptist churches have gone the way of Saddleback theology (yuck). I know baptists usually don't follow paedeobaptism, but many do preach and teach the five solas. Please help me understand the differences for I am looking to attending a reformed church. Thanks


----------



## rbcbob (Nov 14, 2009)

Rick said


> Being a baptist from spiritual birth, I must ask what do you and others believe these many significant differences to be. I'm new to reformed theology and so far I don't see much difference other than many of the traditional baptist churches have gone the way of Saddleback theology (yuck). I know baptists usually don't follow paedeobaptism, but many do preach and teach the five solas. Please help me understand the differences for I am looking to attending a reformed church. Thanks



The first thing that I must say by way of disclosure is that I _have not_ read Good's book (yet). But it should be pointed out before this thread gets much longer that there needs to be a commonly agreed to definition of _Reformed_ before Good's title question can be rightly answered.


----------



## jogri17 (Nov 14, 2009)

sounds like R. Scott Clark's thesis in his good ''Recouvering the reformed confession''


----------



## Mayflower (Nov 14, 2009)

I read most parts of his book and iam partly agree with him, because he is right that baptist are not reformed. I call me myself a calvinistic baptist, but not reformed baptist !
I actually have never read that Charles Spurgeon, Abraham Booth, John Gill and those whom wrote that LBCF 1689 ever called them selfs reformed baptist.


----------



## SolaSaint (Nov 14, 2009)

Should I start a new thread that asks these differences therefore keeping this topic as it is?


----------



## jogri17 (Nov 14, 2009)

Mayflower said:


> I read most parts of his book and iam partly agree with him, because he is right that baptist are not reformed. I call me myself a calvinistic baptist, but not reformed baptist !
> I actually have never read that Charles Spurgeon, Abraham Booth, John Gill and those whom wrote that LBCF 1689 ever called them selfs reformed baptist.



Yes but at the same time if you don't use the term ''Reformed Baptist'' then you have to say that the baptist tradition belongs either to the Anabaptist movement in part OR just 17th century England and I do not think that is necessarly fair given all teh commonalities. Spurgeon has more in common with Jean Calvin than he would with Menno Simmons by far! I think of Reformed like I think of Catholic. 

Refomed = churches that confess the hirstoric confessions 
reformed= persons who stand in the theological tradition of calvin and those who followed them specifically the 5 solas and the canons of the synod of dortretch in order to distinguish them from arminians
Catholic= those who belong to the Roman Catholic Church
catholic= those who confess the ecumenical creeds of the christian Church. 

just my thoughts.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Nov 15, 2009)

I have a blog on this topic. I have not even heard of the book you mentioned. 

Are Covenantal Baptists Reformed in the Historical Understanding of Reformed Theology - The PuritanBoard


----------



## Presbyterian Deacon (Nov 15, 2009)

allareguilty said:


> Has anyone here heard of this book? Is it good and worth reading? Thanks!!



I have read this book. It was many years ago, while I was yet a dispensational baptist. Dr. Kenneth H. Good was the father-in-law of Rev. George H. Heiland (GARBC) -- and I was a member of Heiland's church in Enfield, CT. Dr. Good's more well know book, Are Baptists Calvinists? was instrumental in my transition from Arminianism to Calvinism.

Dr. Good's books are available here: Good Books

"K H GOOD BOOKS was created by Miriam (Good) Boettner and Esther (Good) Heiland for the sole purpose of publishing and distributing the classic writings of their beloved father, Dr. Kenneth H. Good." 

Dr. Good was a minister in the General Association of Regular Baptist Churches (GARBC)for about 50 years until his death in 1991. Dr. Good was a dispensationalist and the conclusion he draws in his book is that though historically some baptist groups have had a "covenantal understanding" prior to the popularity of Darby/Scofield dispensationalism, Baptist are not reformed. 

Is it worth reading? Yes. Dr. Good's tracing of Baptist History and many of his insights into the historical theological understanding of various baptist groups are excellent.


----------



## C. M. Sheffield (Nov 15, 2009)

I get so tired of some Presbyterians getting all bent out of shape over the name "Reformed Baptist." Its not like anyone (including Baptists) can do anything about it. In the end different groups are going to call themselves whatever they want. I can't stand the fact that Pentecostals have hi-jacked the term "Apostolic." But there isn't much I can do about it. In the end, correct theology has less to do with this issue than many of us would like. But it is what it is. 

Why call them _Reformed_ Presbyterians when they're simply holding to the historic Presbyterian faith? Historic Presbyterianism _is_ Reformed. So isn't the modifier _"Reformed"_ redundant? Yes but we understand the reason why it's necessary. Reformed Presbyterians often find it necessary to distinguish themselves form the pagan liberal churches who employ the same nomenclature (i.e. PCUSA). 

So it is with _Reformed_ Baptists. We simply see ourselves as affirming the historic Baptist faith. Why should we have to change our name?! I do not like the name Reformed Baptist but I see the reason for it. The word "Reformed" _modifies_ the word "Baptist." So contrary to what many think, our design is to distinguish ourselves from other Baptist groups that equally employ the name Baptist for the sake of clarity. We are not so much trying to say that we are "Reformed" in the historic theological sense of the Word. Even though we would maintain that we are _the only thorough reformers_. 

"Reformed" is a modifier of "Baptist." Baptist is the primary word. So we are Baptists!


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Nov 15, 2009)

Saw this on the RBLIST. Give it a listen. 

Reformed Forum Credo-Baptism During the Reformation



> *Credo-Baptism During the Reformation
> *
> When approaching the question of credo-baptism during the Reformation, James Dolezal argues for viewing three distinct categories: Anabaptists, general baptists, and particular baptists. The theological differences between these groups are as great as the differences among all forms of paedo-baptism. As such, it is important to trace these three groups separately throughout the Reformation. This informative discussion chronicles this history and concludes with a friendly debate on the issue of credo-baptism from a covenantal position. For credo- and paedo-baptists alike, this discussion will be both engaging and insightful.
> Bibliography
> ...


----------



## Skyler (Nov 15, 2009)

Not all Baptists are reformed by Kenneth Good. Some may be.


----------



## Peairtach (Nov 15, 2009)

They're Reformed in their soteriology but not (fully) Reformed in their ecclesiology.

They don't hold to presbyterian church government but independent church government, they are dispensational in their refusal to baptise babies, and in respect of the relationship with the state, they are voluntarists rather than establishmentarians.

A somewhat truncated Reformation  Which is why many in e.g. the Dutch Reformed Church find the term Reformed Baptist to be an oxymoron. 

I don't say it's an oxymoron. They are our Reformed brothers anyway.


----------



## Herald (Nov 15, 2009)

Of course, we could say that Reformed Baptists are what the uber-Reformed _should _be like.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Nov 15, 2009)

Richard,

Would you say that John Owen or Thomas Goodwin were Reformed? They were congregational.


----------



## Presbyterian Deacon (Nov 15, 2009)

C. M. Sheffield said:


> I get so tired of some Presbyterians getting all bent out of shape over the name "Reformed Baptist." Its not like anyone (including Baptists) can do anything about it. In the end different groups are going to call themselves whatever they want. I can't stand the fact that Pentecostals have hi-jacked the term "Apostolic." But there isn't much I can do about it. In the end, correct theology has less to do with this issue than many of us would like. But it is what it is.
> 
> Why call them _Reformed_ Presbyterians when they're simply holding to the historic Presbyterian faith? Historic Presbyterianism _is_ Reformed. So isn't the modifier _"Reformed"_ redundant? Yes but we understand the reason why it's necessary. Reformed Presbyterians often find it necessary to distinguish themselves form the pagan liberal churches who employ the same nomenclature (i.e. PCUSA).
> 
> ...



As I recall, Dr. Good suggests the better, and more historically accurate modifier would be "Particular" Baptist.


----------



## DMcFadden (Nov 15, 2009)

I agree with the designation on historical grounds but find it even more unhelpful and misleading than "Reformed Baptist." Pretty much every Baptist I have ever known was "mighty particular." That modifier just does not have any semblance of currency in our contemporary English. Today, it conjures up notions of fussy old matrons and lifelong bachelors, not people committed to the Doctrines of Grace.

If the Reformed community does not want to share the shelter of their blanket with their poor Baptist siblings, then "Calvinistic" would seem to be a good alternative. No, it does not say that the Baptist embraces the full panoply of Calvin*ism*. If we did, we would be "Reformed."  Rather, it gives a shading of differentiation from the "other" Baptists. By contrast to the mass of Baptists, "Calvinistic" Baptists are those who uphold certain of the Calvinist distinctives (typically the Dortian soteriology) in their theology.


----------



## Herald (Nov 15, 2009)

DMcFadden said:


> If the Reformed community does not want to share the shelter of their blanket with their poor Baptist siblings, then "Calvinistic" would seem to be a good alternative.



This is the crux of the argument, isn't it? 

Let me pose a question. Why do Reformed Baptists care whether the _proper _Reformed want to share their blanket or not? Do we need their permission? Is there some central Reformed clearing house with whom we need to pass muster? 

btw my obvious sarcasm is directed _only _towards those who get all in a twist when Baptists call themselves Reformed Baptists.


----------



## Damon Rambo (Nov 15, 2009)

I do not know what your Church History classes taught you, but the word "reformed" was not dependent upon the practice of paedobaptism in any class that I have ever taken. The "reformers" were grouped into two groups: the moderate reformers, like Calvin, Zwingli, etc., and the "Radical reformers," who practiced believers baptism.

You may call me a "Radically Reformed Baptist" if you prefer.

It would actually be more correct, in my mind, to call those of the Presbyterian/paedobaptist persuasion "Calvinists" and call the Baptists "reformed" (a much broader term), since Presbyterians agree for the most part 100 percent with Calvin, but not with all the Reformers.


----------



## MW (Nov 15, 2009)

Herald said:


> Is there some central Reformed clearing house with whom we need to pass muster?



Samuel Waldron on the use of source documents in the 1689 Confession (Exposition, pp. 429, 430): "It teaches that these revered fathers in the faith placed no premium on originality and that they rather valued unity and the well-tried paths of doctrine. They were not too good or too smart or so original that they had to state their own faith in their own peculiar way. No, rather they wished to show their unity with their reformed and Puritan brethren. In the preface to the Confession, when first published in 1677, they state that their purpose is to show 'our hearty agreement with them [Presbyterians and Congregationalists] in that wholesome Protestant doctrine which, with so clear evidence of the Scriptures, they have asserted.'"


----------



## Presbyterian Deacon (Nov 15, 2009)

DMcFadden said:


> I agree with the designation on historical grounds but find it even more unhelpful and misleading than "Reformed Baptist." Pretty much every Baptist I have ever known was "mighty particular." That modifier just does not have any semblance of currency in our contemporary English. Today, it conjures up notions of fussy old matrons and lifelong bachelors, not people committed to the Doctrines of Grace.



Granted. Dr Good's suggestion that Particular Baptist was the better title historically included the suggestion that some of his Baptist brethren needed to read some history and find out what it means to be a Particular Baptist. He argued that a Particular Baptist was one who believed in Particular Redemption. Historically, in England -- Particular Baptists stood in contrast to the "General Baptists" (who were Arminian in their soteriology). When the Particular Baptists came to America, they exchanged the term "Particular" with "Regular."

Dr. Good was writing primarilly to his brethren in the General Association of REGULAR Baptists. He was calling for the denomination to return to its historic Calvinistic roots in a time when Arminism was quickly over-taking his beloved denomination. His writing is both passionate and informative.

Though no longer a Baptist, I still think highly of Dr. Good and refer from time to time to his writings, especially his very excellent commentary on Ephesians titled CHOSEN IN HIM: Studies in Ephesians (Published by The Fellowship of Baptists for Home Missions: Elyria, Ohio 1967).


----------



## Herald (Nov 15, 2009)

armourbearer said:


> Herald said:
> 
> 
> > Is there some central Reformed clearing house with whom we need to pass muster?
> ...



Matthew,

That is fine. I can heartily concur with brother Sam. The name of a church, or denomination, does not establish or vacate "hearty agreement." The term "Reformed Baptist" is one of modernity, pointing back to our historical roots. In the United States it has come to define confessional Baptist churches more than just Calvinistic Baptist churches (there is a difference between the two). No confessional Baptist would rightly call John Piper's church a Reformed Baptist Church, even though Pastor Piper is a Calvinist. On the other hand, Trinity Baptist Church of Montville, NJ is very much a Reformed Baptist Church in that it is confessional. It's not the name of the church that makes it Reformed, rather it's the shared acceptance of 1689 LBC.


----------



## DMcFadden (Nov 15, 2009)

Bill,

I am neither offended by my more scrupulous brethren in the Presbyterian camp (after all they have the onerous chore of continuing to remind the world that they are not "those" kind of Presbyterians in the mainlines  ) nor surprised by my orthodox Baptist co-religionists who want to differentiate themselves from "those" other kinds of Baptists in the mainlines.

But, regardless of what you call us, you need us. The world of evangelical Chrisitanity is too beset by the latitudinarianism characteristic of Arminianism. Those of us who recognize the sovereignty of God in creation and redemption, those who revel in the glory of God, and those who share in the Augustinian-Calvinistic thrust in Christian theology need to stick together more than quibble about words and distinctions (in my opinion).


----------



## C. M. Sheffield (Nov 15, 2009)

Another important question to ask with regard to the use of the word "Reformed" is "reformed... according to what?" 

The obvious answer is "according to the Scriptures!" This was central in the thinking of the Reformers (Magisterial & Radical alike). The motto was and is _ecclesia reformata, semper reformanda secundum verbi dei_, which translates, "reformed and always being reformed according to the Word of God." So, if Baptists (or any group for that matter) wish to employ the word "Reformed" in their name in the spirit of the Reformation (i.e. reformed and reforming according to the Word of God) then it is indeed a legitimate use of the word. 

When framed in that manner, I would argue that the word "reformed" is fine just by itself to describe historic Baptist faith and practice. Though I realize the unnecessary confusion it would cause.


----------



## NRB (Nov 16, 2009)

DMcFadden said:


> Bill,
> 
> I am neither offended by my more scrupulous brethren in the Presbyterian camp (after all they have the onerous chore of continuing to remind the world that they are not "those" kind of Presbyterians in the mainlines  ) nor surprised by my orthodox Baptist co-religionists who want to differentiate themselves from "those" other kinds of Baptists in the mainlines.
> 
> But, regardless of what you call us, you need us. The world of evangelical Chrisitanity is too beset by the latitudinarianism characteristic of Arminianism. Those of us who recognize the sovereignty of God in creation and redemption, those who revel in the glory of God, and those who share in the Augustinian-Calvinistic thrust in Christian theology need to stick together more than quibble about words and distinctions (in my opinion).



Amen.


----------



## Prufrock (Nov 16, 2009)

Damon Rambo said:


> I do not know what your Church History classes taught you, but the word "reformed" was not dependent upon the practice of paedobaptism in any class that I have ever taken. The "reformers" were grouped into two groups: the moderate reformers, like Calvin, Zwingli, etc., and the "Radical reformers," who practiced believers baptism.
> 
> You may call me a "Radically Reformed Baptist" if you prefer.
> 
> It would actually be more correct, in my mind, to call those of the Presbyterian/paedobaptist persuasion "Calvinists" and call the Baptists "reformed" (a much broader term), since Presbyterians agree for the most part 100 percent with Calvin, but not with all the Reformers.



Dear brother, the so-called "radical reformers" are not reformers at all: they did not reform the church; most, in fact, rejected the catholic church entirely. I am not entering into this discussion about what Baptists should be called, but the word "Reformed" must have at least *some* meaning, brother, which seems to disappear entirely if early Anabaptist sects can be included in any sense of the term. Luther was a reformer, too. That doesn't make Lutheran churches "Reformed" in any sense of the word. 

The Baptists or "Reformed Baptists" arrived much later on the scene (almost a century) than the so-called Radical Reformers, and held a much different system of belief and practice. 

{_Note that this post is not intended to malign Baptists in anyway; rather, it is a statement about the 16th Century Anabaptist groups, simply stating that they are not Reformed in any sense_}


----------



## NRB (Nov 16, 2009)

Just to add my 2 cents, I always considered todays reformed baptist churches being in the lineage of the Particular Baptists of old.
I can see why they changed "names".

St. Matthew Reformed Baptist Church sounds a bit more "modern" than 1st Particular Baptist Church.
I think a lot of it may be due to simple marketing of a church, and the name helps.
I heard one particular person explain to me at that church that they aren't reformed in the sense of the Protestant reformation, but reformed in the fact that they are reforming the current Baptist faith, and bringing it back to the ways of Particular baptists.
Who knows, but that explaination did make a bit of sense to me once I pondered it a while.

Today's reformed baptist churches(well the one I visited last year) seem very close to what I've read about old Particular Baptist churches.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Nov 16, 2009)

Herald said:


> DMcFadden said:
> 
> 
> > If the Reformed community does not want to share the shelter of their blanket with their poor Baptist siblings, then "Calvinistic" would seem to be a good alternative.
> ...



There is a lot of difference between a Reformed or Particular Baptist than just a Calvinistic Baptist sometimes.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Nov 16, 2009)

Herald said:


> DMcFadden said:
> 
> 
> > If the Reformed community does not want to share the shelter of their blanket with their poor Baptist siblings, then "Calvinistic" would seem to be a good alternative.
> ...



IDK. I Don't Know. Ask a Reformed Latter Day Saint? If you ask if Luther was Reformed what kInd of Answer would you get? He is the great Reformer. Some people just need to get over it in my estimation. Even Luther isn't Reformed. Oh, Well. And I mostly agree. Names? Who cares? What does the Scripture teach and our confessions? I mean Historical Christianity. I do not believe in Solo Scriptura.


----------



## Ivan (Nov 16, 2009)

I don't care what you call me, as long as you don't call me late for supper.


----------



## Herald (Nov 16, 2009)

DMcFadden said:


> Bill,
> 
> I am neither offended by my more scrupulous brethren in the Presbyterian camp (after all they have the onerous chore of continuing to remind the world that they are not "those" kind of Presbyterians in the mainlines  ) nor surprised by my orthodox Baptist co-religionists who want to differentiate themselves from "those" other kinds of Baptists in the mainlines.
> 
> But, regardless of what you call us, you need us. The world of evangelical Chrisitanity is too beset by the latitudinarianism characteristic of Arminianism. Those of us who recognize the sovereignty of God in creation and redemption, those who revel in the glory of God, and those who share in the Augustinian-Calvinistic thrust in Christian theology need to stick together more than quibble about words and distinctions (in my opinion).



Dennis,

Names are so misleading. You don't know anything about a particular church until you've personally examined it. Hey, sort of like a person who calls themselves a Christian. "Not everyone who says to me Lord, Lord..."


----------



## William Price (Nov 16, 2009)

I am a Reformed Baptist. I believe in the historic Baptist doctrine, which is indeed Reformed. Many modern Baptists have walked away from Reformed Theology and are purely Arminian and even Pelagian at times. So, yes, I choose to call myself a Reformed Baptist, because God reformed me, I have studied the doctrine and believe it, and God brought me to a really good Reformed Baptist church.

-----Added 11/16/2009 at 06:17:28 EST-----



DMcFadden said:


> Bill,
> 
> I am neither offended by my more scrupulous brethren in the Presbyterian camp (after all they have the onerous chore of continuing to remind the world that they are not "those" kind of Presbyterians in the mainlines  ) nor surprised by my orthodox Baptist co-religionists who want to differentiate themselves from "those" other kinds of Baptists in the mainlines.
> 
> But, regardless of what you call us, you need us. The world of evangelical Chrisitanity is too beset by the latitudinarianism characteristic of Arminianism. Those of us who recognize the sovereignty of God in creation and redemption, those who revel in the glory of God, and those who share in the Augustinian-Calvinistic thrust in Christian theology need to stick together more than quibble about words and distinctions (in my opinion).





Reformed Theology and practice is under more attack now than I believe at any other time in history. We may differ on the issue of baptism, but we both know the doctrine of the Bible. I will not compromise on what I know to be true. I tried that and just about killed me. 

Truth is truth, and whether Reformed Baptist or Presbyterian, we know the truth about salvation, the sovereignty of God, and the Bible. On this, we should not cause any unneeded division amongst ourselves. Love all my Reformed brethren.


----------



## Skyler (Nov 16, 2009)

Richard Tallach said:


> They're Reformed in their soteriology but not (fully) Reformed in their ecclesiology.
> 
> They don't hold to presbyterian church government but independent church government, they are dispensational in their refusal to baptise babies, and in respect of the relationship with the state, they are voluntarists rather than establishmentarians.
> 
> ...



That's because they Reformed not only their soteriology, they also reformed their ecclesiology and baptism, where the original Reformers went along with the Roman scheme, so Reformed Baptists are actually more reformed than Presbyterians.


----------



## DouglasGregory418 (Nov 16, 2009)

I have argued that baptist cannot be reformed. This is mostly because of the general lack of covenant theology in their circles.
so then what of reformed (confessional) baptist? If they are reformed I feel they are doing so in contradiction.
doesn't mean i don't like some baptist (though I had a few bad experiences with baptists so I do have a slight prejudice)- I just feel they are in err, and should not normally be considered reformed.

I also feel reformed baptists need to proclaim and separate themselves from normal baptists (even SBC which is not a reformed or even good denomination in my opinion)

just my opinion


----------



## William Price (Nov 16, 2009)

My home church identifies itself as independent Baptist. We are very Reformed.


----------



## Damon Rambo (Nov 16, 2009)

Prufrock said:


> Dear brother, the so-called "radical reformers" are not reformers at all: they did not reform the church; most, in fact, rejected the catholic church entirely.


Dear friend,

Neither you, nor your Presbyterian brethren, get to decide who and what reformed is. Long before there was a John Calvin, there was a reformer named Martin Luther. 




> I am not entering into this discussion about what Baptists should be called, but the word "Reformed" must have at least *some* meaning, brother, which seems to disappear entirely if early Anabaptist sects can be included in any sense of the term.


Not all of the so called Anabaptists were as radical as you make them out, although I know many were.

As far as the meaning of "Reformed," I would say looking at the WIDE variety of Churches that claim it, and the wide variety of reformers themselves, it means simply that you hold to the Doctrines of Grace (although they were not clearly articulated until later), the Five Solas, and some form of Confessionalism. Much else would exclude many of the "Reformers" from being called reformed. 

Again, my beloved Presbyterian brethren do not get to determine who is, and who is not, reformed.



> Luther was a reformer, too. That doesn't make Lutheran churches "Reformed" in any sense of the word.


Perhaps not; however, they certainly have more right to the title, if they so desired to stress the point. Luther was indeed a reformer (as was Phillip Melanchton), and was such well before Calvin.



> The Baptists or "Reformed Baptists" arrived much later on the scene (almost a century) than the so-called Radical Reformers, and held a much different system of belief and practice.



Again, there was a very wide variety of belief and practice during the 16th century, and speaking in such exacting terms is rather misleading. Even Luther, early on, declared Baptism of adult believers by immersion to be the "correct sense of scripture". (although he of course flipped later on)



> {_Note that this post is not intended to malign Baptists in anyway; rather, it is a statement about the 16th Century Anabaptist groups, simply stating that they are not Reformed in any sense_}



And again that is misleading. "reformed," in it's loosest sense, is "ecclesia semper reformans, semper reformanda." Always reforming according to the Word of God.

Also, as I already stated, the so called "Anabaptists" were not some easily defined group, nor could it be said that they were not "reformers," in the sense which I used them.

In Summary: As far as the word "reformed" goes, there were many reformers who predated Calvinistic teaching. It is therefore not the right of our Presbyterian brothers to define the term. They may have the word "Calvinist," for they are in primary agreement with what Calvin taught. I am not in primary agreement with what Calvin taught, although I agree with some of it (such as the Doctrines of Grace), so I take the title "Reformed," which historically has referred to all churches (Not just Presbyterians), who adhere primarily to the Doctrines of Grace. 

I will get off of this now...


----------



## C. M. Sheffield (Nov 16, 2009)

DouglasGregory418 said:


> I have argued that baptist cannot be reformed. This is mostly because of the general lack of covenant theology in their circles.



What do you mean here? The Baptist Confession of 1689 and those adhering to it are overwhelmingly covenantal in their theology. Is it your position that only paedobaptists can be considered covenantal in their theology?



DouglasGregory418 said:


> so then what of reformed (confessional) baptist? If they are reformed I feel they are doing so in contradiction.



Could you explain this? I don't understand your point.


----------



## Herald (Nov 16, 2009)

DouglasGregory418 said:


> I have argued that baptist cannot be reformed.
> 
> just my opinion



Yep.


----------



## Prufrock (Nov 16, 2009)

Damon, I'm sorry, but that's just simply not true. Reformed doesn't simply mean "a church that looks up to someone that some people call a reformer." The Lutheran churches are not Reformed. They are Lutheran. The term Reformed is used to distinguish the doctrine and practice of our churches form the Lutheran churches. I also realize very well that all Anabaptists were not "as radical," but that doesn't change the fact that Anabaptist theology is fundamentally at odds with both Reformed and Lutheran teaching; and unfortunately, for the most part, involved a rejection of the catholic church. No definition of Reformed makes any sense if it includes the Lutherans; no definition of Reformed is even close to being coherent if it involves the 16th century Anabaptist groups.

I would recommend considering the writings from the Swiss Reformation in the 1520s and 30s against the Anabaptists, as well as reading their own writings from the period: those of Zwingli and Bullinger should be of especial interest. Just ask either of those two Reformed reformers if the Anabaptists could be considered Reformed!

Also, re: Luther, can you provide a citation for that (credobaptism)? I do not doubt it is possible, but I would like to see it in writing. It must have been *very* early in his career. For, though I am not a student of Luther's works and life, I have studied Melanchthon and his writings quite a bit, and I recall that, by the time the Zwikau prophets came to Wittenberg in 1521 (?) and caused confusion for Melanchthon about baptism, Luther came down exceedingly hard on them for their practice.

Finally, when you say that the Lutherans "certainly have more right to the title, if they so desired to stress the point," this doesn't really make sense. The word "Reformed" isn't a title to which certain individuals have a right or don't have a right: it's a description of a certain system of belief and practice. It is an historical and doctrinal category used to describe one group as opposed to another. And I would encourage you to go as an historically and dogmatically minded Lutheran if he wants to be called Reformed; or better yet, simply try calling him Reformed. The results should be somewhat amusing.

*Edit*
For Luther on Believer's Baptism by immersion, perhaps you are referring to this sermon from 1519? He does therein state that it is in keeping with the nature of baptism to immerse the subject; but it is important to note 1.) That the subject is still infants; and 2.) That he not state that baptism *must* be by immersion.


----------



## Christusregnat (Nov 16, 2009)

Reformed, if memory serves, refers to reforming the visible Catholic Church. I don't think, under such terms, that Baptists would like to be included.

Cheers,


----------



## awretchsavedbygrace (Nov 16, 2009)

Outside of my church there is a sign that says " Reformed Baptist Church". I guess I must be.


----------



## PresbyDane (Nov 16, 2009)

to the PB


----------



## Iconoclast (Nov 17, 2009)

awretchsavedbygrace said:


> Outside of my church there is a sign that says " Reformed Baptist Church". I guess I must be.



Hello Julio,
I think I understand what you mean here. However reading this thread I have a few thoughts.
Just like with any" profession of faith" the scripture describes persons who profess outwardly a thing, but in works they deny their profession.


> 16They profess that they know God; but in works they deny him, being abominable, and disobedient, and unto every good work reprobate.


 Sometimes what the sign says outwardly does not reflect the actual practice of the individual or indivdual persons involved.
Some who will argue for a label or title as to feel secure and identified with a group have not yet internalized what that identification implies in practice.

In many churches who would claim the label christian church, there are sodomites, or woman in the pulpit. some openly deny the scripture out-right.
Taking the word reformed as a "setting things right" several groupd *identify*with that word.
When I look at the Apostles I see by their teaching and practice- reformed baptist teaching. Padeos look and believe they see the 1644 in their practice.
Which confession and creed you hold to be most faithful to the scriptural teaching is one thing. More importantly is perhaps what our lives reflect and teach to those yet outside of saving religion.


> 2Ye are our epistle written in our hearts, known and read of all men:
> 
> 3Forasmuch as ye are manifestly declared to be the epistle of Christ ministered by us, written not with ink, but with the Spirit of the living God; not in tables of stone, but in fleshy tables of the heart.



The *reformers *were greatly used of God to *set things right*
from the error and drifting of the roman church.We are all greatful to God for the correction and sacrifice by these men who lived a good confession in their time. We should pray to use our talents to the full to live such a God glorifying confession.


----------



## allareguilty (Nov 17, 2009)

Re4mdant said:


> to the PB



Thank you Brother!


----------



## SolaSaint (Nov 17, 2009)

A lot of this has done nothing but confuse me. I was born again into a SBC church and have been baptist ever since, even though I currently don't attend a SBC church. I first began learning about reformed theology from a SBC pastor friend. What I have learned in no way has changed my feelings and beliefs about the SBC. I know they don't hold to any reformed confession, but this doesn't mean they aren't reformed in their doctrines. As far as I can tell only the paedo view of baptism is where the SBC differs, and if I'm not mistaken aren't there reformed churches that believe in believers baptism as opposed to infant baptism? 

I would say there are many brothers and sisters in Christ who are reformed in their doctrinal beliefs and belong to churches that don't have as a covenant or confession one of the historic confessions. As far as an individual church or denomination goes, to be considered reformed do the members have to agree to their particular confession or creed? If so, is church discipline being administered when one believes differently? 

I'm going to begin another thread on this with a particular question in mind. 

Thanks All


----------



## Herald (Nov 17, 2009)

SolaSaint said:


> A lot of this has done nothing but confuse me. I was born again into a SBC church and have been baptist ever since, even though I currently don't attend a SBC church. I first began learning about reformed theology from a SBC pastor friend. What I have learned in no way has changed my feelings and beliefs about the SBC. I know they don't hold to any reformed confession, but this doesn't mean they aren't reformed in their doctrines. As far as I can tell only the paedo view of baptism is where the SBC differs, and if I'm not mistaken aren't there reformed churches that believe in believers baptism as opposed to infant baptism?
> 
> I would say there are many brothers and sisters in Christ who are reformed in their doctrinal beliefs and belong to churches that don't have as a covenant or confession one of the historic confessions. As far as an individual church or denomination goes, to be considered reformed do the members have to agree to their particular confession or creed? If so, is church discipline being administered when one believes differently?
> 
> ...



Rick,

Thank God for Calvinistic SBC churches! We need more of them. 

For what it's worth an SBC church that holds to the doctrines of grace is not necessarily Reformed in the Baptist understanding of the term. Reformed Baptist churches have a few things in common; the doctrines of grace being one of them. In addition, Reformed Baptist churches are also confessional, most subscribing to the 1689 Second London Baptist Confession of Faith. Most are covenantal in their theology, eschewing dispensationalism. Calvinistic SBC churches do not necessarily affirm all of these distinctives.


----------



## lynnie (Nov 17, 2009)

Confused? Wait until you end up in your Reformed confessional paedo church and then find out the guy next to you thinks Adam came from apes millions of years ago. And Titus 2 sound doctrine about women at home doesn't really mean it when there are babies. (And some women just adore Beth Moore's humanistic DVDs.) And with some, if you are depressed you take a pill for your brain disease. And you go to the big name Presbyterian church on Sunday with the big national conference speaker preacher, and then work tirelessly for John McCain all month before the election (insert barf smilie here.) And it is totally fine to live in multi million dollar houses and go on Christian cruises and never hear a word about desperate orphans overseas.

I think we need another Reformation all over again frankly, and the current situation in the Reformed community needs much prayer, and I don't think baptism is the reason why, and I don't think we should let it be the central battle like it sometimes seems to be here.


----------



## William Price (Nov 17, 2009)

I have to be honest, that throughout this thread, I have seen some offense, and that is why I have slowed up on my posting on here a bit again. When I came out from Oneness pentecostalism, I was saved by the hand of God through the work and ministry of Paul Washer. Even Paul calls himself a 5 Point Spurgeonist. The fact is, I am Reformed, and I attend a local independent Baptist Church. God opened a door for me to find such a church, which every Sabbath does teach the Bible. The church is Reformed and Baptist.

Those who say I am not Reformed because I am Baptist are so very wrong. Why am I not reformed, because I do not see the practice of paedobaptism? If so, then I shall not be reformed in the eyes of only certain ones. I know to whence God has saved me, and to what doctrine God brought me into. The doctrine is that of reformation Theology, and if I not be accepted by some, then so be it. Such division is not proper, not right, and ungodly beyond contention.

Until later, my friends.


----------



## Zenas (Nov 17, 2009)

Who cares?


----------



## Christusregnat (Nov 18, 2009)

Zenas said:


> Who cares?





> Jeff Williams
> Grace Church
> Searcy, AR


----------



## Zenas (Nov 18, 2009)

I realize you're being facetious. What I really mean is why does being "Reformed" matter? If I were convinced from Scripture that a "Reformed" doctrine were heretical, I would abandon it immediately. Why is it important to be Reformed or determine who is Reformed?


----------



## William Price (Nov 18, 2009)

Christusregnat said:


> Zenas said:
> 
> 
> > Who cares?
> ...



  

Too rich!!!


----------



## darrellmaurina (Nov 18, 2009)

Richard Tallach said:


> They're Reformed in their soteriology but not (fully) Reformed in their ecclesiology. They don't hold to presbyterian church government but independent church government, they are dispensational in their refusal to baptise babies, and in respect of the relationship with the state, they are voluntarists rather than establishmentarians.





PuritanCovenanter said:


> Richard, Would you say that John Owen or Thomas Goodwin were Reformed? They were congregational.



Bingo.

If somebody wants to claim that Cotton Mather, Jonathan Edwards, and David Wells are not Reformed because of their Congregationalism, they've defined the word in ways that I am not at all sure Calvin would recognize. The Westminster Assembly rejected Congregationalism, obviously, but I don't see that the "dissenting brethren" were accused of being non-Reformed because they were not Presbyterian.

Calvinism has five points. Even the Synod of Dort which established those five points was willing to admit the Church of England to the synod despite its episcopalian church government. And ironically, the Dutch state church had within it, at the time of the Synod of Dort, numerous expatriate English Congregational pastors who had organized their own classis known as the "English Synod" that was quite explicitly operating under Congregational principles.

When we act as if Calvinism has fifty points or five hundred, we run the risk of spending more time attacking brothers than building up the church.

Lots of points may be really good on deer trophies, but they're not so good when they lead to needless divisions between brethren. Let's just be thankful for Baptists who want to be Reformed and encourage them to keep studying.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Nov 18, 2009)

Why don't we just concede on both sides that there is an "ecclesiastical/confessional/historical" definition of "Reformed" that is maximal,

and a narrower, more colloquial definition of "Reformed" that affirms soteriological centralities, while denying other points including specific, historic non-negotiables that were as significant to the churches that coined the name, as their soteriological core?

The name "Reformed-Baptist" is a 20th century coinage. "Calvinistic" or "Particular" were the historic monikers for those Baptists who (with or without a Confession) stood in the stream of English Baptist Separatists, leaning upon the gospel-centralities that were the fruit of the Reformation. People need identifiers, something that distinguishes them both to themselves and outsiders.

"Reformed-" in this sense is but an adjective that locates these persons and churches in a narrow path. But it cannot be spoken of _in this sense_ without the hyphen. It needs the "Baptist". WHY? Because if it is taken alone, *then it means what the Reformed Confessions state, and NOT what the Baptist Confessions state, which DENY the Reformed Confessions.* Everyone in the discussion has to realize this, has to ADMIT this.

You simply cannot call yourself "Reformed (no hyphen)" and deny points of doctrine that MUST BE confessed in order to be what that says. Baptists wrote their own Confession, _in the Reformed tradition, YES,_ (just as we are all together in the Catholic tradition, and not of the Orthodox tradition!) where they denied Reformed doctrine, so as to distinguish themselves FROM the Reformed.

Today, history has continued, and "Reformed-Baptist" is now become a term for those who stand with those who 350 years ago took away from the "Reformed" and added the "Baptist". Fine, time marches on. But let's speak from knowledge, clearly, and for clarity's sake and against ignorance.


----------



## alb1 (Nov 18, 2009)

SolaSaint said:


> A lot of this has done nothing but confuse me. I was born again into a SBC church and have been baptist ever since, even though I currently don't attend a SBC church. I first began learning about reformed theology from a SBC pastor friend. What I have learned in no way has changed my feelings and beliefs about the SBC. I know they don't hold to any reformed confession, but this doesn't mean they aren't reformed in their doctrines. As far as I can tell only the paedo view of baptism is where the SBC differs, and if I'm not mistaken aren't there reformed churches that believe in believers baptism as opposed to infant baptism?
> 
> I would say there are many brothers and sisters in Christ who are reformed in their doctrinal beliefs and belong to churches that don't have as a covenant or confession one of the historic confessions. As far as an individual church or denomination goes, to be considered reformed do the members have to agree to their particular confession or creed? If so, is church discipline being administered when one believes differently?
> 
> ...



I can understand your confusion as I spent my first 35 years in SBC churches.
The SBC is a cooperative organizaton of automonous churches. There are a small minority of Calvinistic churches that belong to the organization. The majority of churches in the SBC do not adhere to the Doctrines of Grace and many members don't even know what they are. Calvinism is seen as a threat to the strong evangelistic thrust of the denomination. And a lot of SBC members believe that all Presbyterians were baptized as infants and have never heard the gospel. 

As far as church members adhering to a particular confession, my experience has been that a lot of people are not as deeply confessional as those here on the PB. The Doctrines of Grace are the priority. I've seen people move quite easily from a failed PCA Mission church to Calvinist Baptist churches when there were other PCA or ARP churches nearby. Where they originally Baptist or were they going to baptized again? I started visiting the mission church shortly before it closed so I really don't know.

A lot of my fellow members in the ARP church were shocked to know that there are Baptists who are Calvinists. Sort of the reverse of the no Presbyterian is saved belief from my Baptist days. They believed all Baptists have to be Arminian. One reason is that you can have 3 Baptist churches within a quarter mile of each other. All of their signs out front have ______ Baptist Church on them. One adheres to the Doctrines of Grace and the LBCF but you cannot tell them apart from the external view. I say let them use "Reformed" in their name to seperate themselves for identity purposes. But if they don't that's okay, we'll keep accepting the former Baptists and try to thoroughly reform them.


----------

