# Do you see a real distinction between Reform/Calvinistic Baptists?



## Dachaser (May 19, 2017)

There are many in baptist churches/circles who agree with Calvinism in regards to salvation method God uses in the scriptures, but not in all of the Covenant theology proper. Do you tend to see a real distinction with baptists in that regard?


----------



## arapahoepark (May 19, 2017)

Yes. They are not 'Reformed.'

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## KMK (May 19, 2017)

Just like with Presbyterians, there are many flavors of Baptists.


----------



## Gforce9 (May 19, 2017)

No doubt. Confessionalism vs anti- confessionalism is a serious divide. One says we agree with our brothers of ages past and stand together with them inside the safe guardrails of a stated, orthodox confession, the other travels down the salad bar of theology and takes what he likes and passes over what he doesn't..... _but it is he, himself that decides_ (he is the final arbiter of truth). Michael Horton has commented that evangelical Protestants rail against the papacy (and rightfully so), but fail to recognize the fact that each person acts as his own pope, determining the meaning of Scripture and practice _entirely divorced_ from the accepted testimony of the church universal.... This doesn't even address covenantal matters....at least not directly....

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Dachaser (May 19, 2017)

Gforce9 said:


> No doubt. Confessionalism vs anti- confessionalism is a serious divide. One says we agree with our brothers of ages past and stand together with them inside the safe guardrails of a stated, orthodox confession, the other travels down the salad bar of theology and takes what he likes and passes over what he doesn't..... _but it is he, himself that decides_ (he is the final arbiter of truth). Michael Horton has commented that evangelical Protestants rail against the papacy (and rightfully so), but fail to recognize the fact that each person acts as his own pope, determining the meaning of Scripture and practice _entirely divorced_ from the accepted testimony of the church universal.... This doesn't even address covenantal matters....at least not directly....


Where this can and has gotten interesting is that we as baptists run into we see each individual as able to understand the scriptures by themselves as what they really mean, as we hold that the Holy Spirit leads and guides us into all truth, but we also do all have some form/statement of beliefs that we agree must be upheld at same time!

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Gforce9 (May 19, 2017)

Dachaser said:


> Where this can and has gotten interesting is that we as baptists run into we see each individual as able to understand the scriptures by themselves as what they really mean, as we hold that the Holy Spirit leads and guides us into all truth, but we also do all have some form/statement of beliefs that we agree must be upheld at same time!



David,
You have illustrated my point. While we would all agree with Luther (against Rome) that individuals can read the Bible for themselves, and come to a basic knowledge of their need and of salvation (you took it farther in your statement above), we confessionalists are adamantly against the shifting sand of "me-and-my-bible" ism so prevalent today, where everyone reinvents god in their own image and after their own likeness. All of us here believe in the Nicean and Chalcedonian pronouncements. If you go into your run-o-the-mill pop-evangelical destinations (I hesitate to blanketely call them churches), you will find few who affirm the two Creeds in favor of "no creed but Christ". Anti-confessionalism is unsafe and self-elevates ones own abilities.....

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Stephen L Smith (May 19, 2017)

The 1689 Confession is covenantal. Read ch 7 carefully. Thus I do not hesitate to call myself covenantal and Reformed. That said, there are many confessing Baptists who are Calvinistic but reject the covenant theology of the 1689 confession.

Reactions: Amen 1


----------



## reaganmarsh (May 20, 2017)

There is a significant difference between being a confessionally Reformed baptist and a soteriologically-Calvinistic baptist. The confessional man is answerable to Scripture alone, but he does not interpret it alone; while the non-confessional man is left to cobble together his theology as best he is able. 

That being said, a non-confessional but Calvinistic man who is committed to the sole authority of Scripture is a far different fellow from the typical evangelical; and he is one who, in due time, might well be persuaded to embrace the benefits of robust, historic Reformed confessionalism.

Reactions: Like 5


----------



## reaganmarsh (May 20, 2017)

Stephen L Smith said:


> The 1689 Confession is covenantal. Read ch 7 carefully. Thus I do not hesitate to call myself covenantal and Reformed.



Amen.


----------



## Dachaser (May 20, 2017)

Stephen L Smith said:


> The 1689 Confession is covenantal. Read ch 7 carefully. Thus I do not hesitate to call myself covenantal and Reformed. That said, there are many confessing Baptists who are Calvinistic but reject the covenant theology of the 1689 confession.


That would seem to be the insurgence currently been happening among the SBC at this present time, as many Baptists in that group are now embracing reformed salvation regarding the 5 points of Grace, but not becoming reformed in sense of holding to Covenant theology and Confessions...


----------



## Dachaser (May 20, 2017)

reaganmarsh said:


> There is a significant difference between being a confessionally Reformed baptist and a soteriologically-Calvinistic baptist. The confessional man is answerable to Scripture alone, but he does not interpret it alone; while the non-confessional man is left to cobble together his theology as best he is able.
> 
> That being said, a non-confessional but Calvinistic man who is committed to the sole authority of Scripture is a far different fellow from the typical evangelical; and he is one who, in due time, might well be persuaded to embrace the benefits of robust, historic Reformed confessionalism.


Some of the Baptists who are now acknowledging reformed salvation, while not affirming the Confessions such as 1689, are rewriting and reaffirming their statement of beliefs, that serve a similiar purpose among Baptists...


----------



## jwithnell (May 20, 2017)

Before 1900 or so, wouldn't many Baptists have affirmed a Biblical soteriology? And what was the precursor to modern dispensationalism? I'm not that familiar with the progression of Baptist thought, but do know 20th Century fundamentalism was an aberration.


----------



## timfost (May 20, 2017)

Dachaser said:


> ...we see each individual as able to understand the scriptures by themselves as what they really mean, as we hold that the Holy Spirit leads and guides us into all truth...



David,

I hear what you're saying, but I fear that such mode of representation poses a problem, namely, that if the Holy Spirit leads one person into this understanding and another in a different understanding, we make the Spirit the author of confusion. This can lead to (and I've seen it first-hand) a rejection of the confessions of others because the "Spirit's message" differed. Since the Spirit is not the author of confusion, as it was argued, the others with a different view could not have the Spirit.

How do you interact with this problem, or have I misunderstood your point?

Thanks!


----------



## KMK (May 20, 2017)

Both General and Particular Baptists have been around pretty much from the beginning.

Has not Dispensationalism proven by this point to be an aberration as well? Do any Baptists still use the Scofield Bible?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## reaganmarsh (May 20, 2017)

KMK said:


> Has not Dispensationalism proven by this point to be an aberration as well? Do any Baptists still use the Scofield Bible?
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk



There are lots of SBC folk (pastors and laity alike) who are hardcore Scofield dispensationalists...and there's the new Dispensational Publishing company.


----------



## KMK (May 20, 2017)

I guess I don't get out much. 


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## Dachaser (May 20, 2017)

jwithnell said:


> Before 1900 or so, wouldn't many Baptists have affirmed a Biblical soteriology? And what was the precursor to modern dispensationalism? I'm not that familiar with the progression of Baptist thought, but do know 20th Century fundamentalism was an aberration.


Many Baptists were particular ones to start out here in the USA, and right after the Civil War, there were bg inroads made to switch to unlimited atonement free will model of salvation. Right now the SBC going through a time when calvinistixc Baptists are trying to get them to move back unto limited atonement, Tulip salvation model, but in fighting going on in the ranks. Dr Moehler is leading that chatge at His Seminary for that...

Dispensational thinking came into vogue by the Plymouth Bethren group, around 1830, by Darby, and the main seminary to advance this has been Dallas theological.
There are differences among Dispensational also, as some still in Scofield camp of saved by Law/Grace, progressive seeing more like we would regarding salvation, and it does seem that them and Covenantpremil/NCT in the center now.

We baptists always have been a confession group, its just that we tended to have statement of beliefs as being that for us....


----------



## Dachaser (May 20, 2017)

timfost said:


> David,
> 
> I hear what you're saying, but I fear that such mode of representation poses a problem, namely, that if the Holy Spirit leads one person into this understanding and another in a different understanding, we make the Spirit the author of confusion. This can lead to (and I've seen it first-hand) a rejection of the confessions of others because the "Spirit's message" differed. Since the Spirit is not the author of confusion, as it was argued, the others with a different view could not have the Spirit.
> 
> ...


We tend to have layers of truth among us, as in there are essentials that we must all agree with, such as trinity, Jesus being Messiah, Hos atoning death, resurrection, second coming...
We then have so called grey areas, such as timing of second coming, modes of baptism, church government, as important but we are free to disagree and understand differently..

Where i have gotten into troubles with some is that they call me a "tolerant calvinist", as I do see calvinists and arminians and non Calvinists as being all christians, its just that we understand better salvation as per the scriptures. Some have told ne that is wrong, as just calvinists are really saved, as others teach a false Gospel!


----------



## Jeri Tanner (May 20, 2017)

In regard to the Holy Spirit "leading and guiding us into all truth..."- it helped greatly when I realized that this promise in John 16:13 was for the apostles, and pertained to their ministry after Christ's ascension and to the completion of the Scriptures. The promise validates the apostles' teaching as being Christ's teaching; it doesn't apply in the individualistic way that it's now commonly understood. Realizing this was very encouraging, and it paved the way for further reformation in my understanding.

Reactions: Like 1 | Amen 1


----------



## Dachaser (May 20, 2017)

Jeri Tanner said:


> In regard to the Holy Spirit "leading and guiding us into all truth..."- it helped greatly when I realized that this promise in John 16:13 was for the apostles, and pertained to their ministry after Christ's ascension and to the completion of the Scriptures. The promise validates the apostles' teaching as being Christ's teaching; it doesn't apply in the individualistic way that it's now commonly understood. Realizing this was very encouraging, and it paved the way for further reformation in my understanding.


The specific promise was to them true, but we also have the "annoiting" as John calls it from the Holy Spirit, as one of His tasks is to illuminate the truths of the bible to us also...


----------



## Pilgrim (May 20, 2017)

reaganmarsh said:


> There are lots of SBC folk (pastors and laity alike) who are hardcore Scofield dispensationalists...and there's the new Dispensational Publishing company.



Maybe this is a regional thing. Most people in these parts who carry a Scofield are independent fundamentalists or members of independent Bible churches. Maybe you see it more in country SBC churches with older people.


----------



## Pilgrim (May 20, 2017)

jwithnell said:


> Before 1900 or so, wouldn't many Baptists have affirmed a Biblical soteriology? And what was the precursor to modern dispensationalism? I'm not that familiar with the progression of Baptist thought, but do know 20th Century fundamentalism was an aberration.



Dispensationalism did not come out of Baptist circles. In its developed form, it originated in England with the Darby (Plymouth) Brethren who were former Anglicans. It was imported into the USA via Presbyterian churches (particularly the ministry of James H. Brookes in St. Louis, Scofield's mentor) and spread by things like the Niagara Bible conferences that were a precursor to fundamentalism. Many of the early faculty at Dallas Seminary were from a Presbyterian background. This went up into what might be termed the second generation and included Walvoord and Pentecost who were Presbyterians at least originally. They certainly were not confessional Presbyterians, but there were a whole lot more broadly evangelical fundamentalist Presbyterians in those days.


----------



## Jeri Tanner (May 20, 2017)

Dachaser said:


> The specific promise was to them true, but we also have the "annoiting" as John calls it from the Holy Spirit, as one of His tasks is to illuminate the truths of the bible to us also...


You might want to look at Jeremiah 31:33-34 to compare with 1 John 2:26,27. If you use the 1John text in the same way you used the John 16:13 text, you'd have to say that John in his epistle was doing away with the office of teaching in the church ("ye need not that any man teach you")! Your opening post was about the difference between soteriological-only Calvinism and confessional Reformed Calvinism, and your use of those two Scripture texts highlights the difference pretty well (at least many times).


----------



## reaganmarsh (May 20, 2017)

Pilgrim said:


> Maybe this is a regional thing. Most people in these parts who carry a Scofield are independent fundamentalists or members of independent Bible churches. Maybe you see it more in country SBC churches with older people.



It may well be a regional or rural matter; but those two categories account for the *vast* majority of SBC churches.


----------



## Dachaser (May 22, 2017)

Pilgrim said:


> Dispensationalism did not come out of Baptist circles. In its developed form, it originated in England with the Darby (Plymouth) Brethren who were former Anglicans. It was imported into the USA via Presbyterian churches (particularly the ministry of James H. Brookes in St. Louis, Scofield's mentor) and spread by things like the Niagara Bible conferences that were a precursor to fundamentalism. Many of the early faculty at Dallas Seminary were from a Presbyterian background. This went up into what might be termed the second generation and included Walvoord and Pentecost who were Presbyterians at least originally. They certainly were not confessional Presbyterians, but there were a whole lot more broadly evangelical fundamentalist Presbyterians in those days.


Good point, as it does seem that Predbyterians and Dispensational are in a sense strange bedfellows!


----------



## Dachaser (May 22, 2017)

Jeri Tanner said:


> You might want to look at Jeremiah 31:33-34 to compare with 1 John 2:26,27. If you use the 1John text in the same way you used the John 16:13 text, you'd have to say that John in his epistle was doing away with the office of teaching in the church ("ye need not that any man teach you")! Your opening post was about the difference between soteriological-only Calvinism and confessional Reformed Calvinism, and your use of those two Scripture texts highlights the difference pretty well (at least many times).


There is indeed that major difference, as we who are Baptists would tend to see that the primary theology to be held to would be that in the scripture themselves, and do think that in some regards those who are reformed baptists have the best of both theological worlds...


----------



## arapahoepark (May 22, 2017)

Dachaser said:


> There is indeed that major difference, as we who are Baptists would tend to see that the primary theology to be held to would be that in the scripture themselves, and do think that in some regards those who are reformed baptists have the best of both theological worlds...


You mean rather Scripture itself with no confession added, I assume.


----------



## Dachaser (May 22, 2017)

arapahoepark said:


> You mean rather Scripture itself with no confession added, I assume.


Yes, but even that is really not the whole story, as most Baptists would also tend to agree with their statement of beliefs!


----------



## KMK (May 22, 2017)

One of the problems that arises in these discussions is that many tend to lump all credobaptists into the category of 'Baptist'. If that is how we are using the word, then the conversations gets very convoluted. For example, many consider John MacArthur to be a Calvinistic Baptist, but is he really a 'Baptist' in any historical sense of the word? Grace Community Church, as far as I can tell, does not claim to be a 'Baptist' church.

If credobaptism makes you a 'Baptist' then we must include Calvary Chapel, Vineyard, Sovereign Grace, etc. as well.

Any more, I don't immediately consider a church to be a 'Baptist' church unless they have the word 'Baptist' in their name, or they belong to an Association that has the word 'Baptist' in their name.

Rant over...

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Pilgrim (May 22, 2017)

reaganmarsh said:


> It may well be a regional or rural matter; but those two categories account for the *vast* majority of SBC churches.



True. But a lot of those country churches are graying and shrinking, with some dying, a trend that is projected to really accelerate in the next decade or so. Other churches that are on the verge of closing the doors are being taken over by larger churches as part of the ever increasing multi-site movement, although I suppose that wouldn't really work in very rural areas. But I'm seeing it more and more with churches that are maybe 20-25 miles outside of a larger town. And I'm seeing it with some city churches as well. 

As I'm sure you know, the reason why the new dispensational publishing house you linked earlier was started was due to the perception that dispensationalism is on the wane due to the increased popularity of Calvinism and maybe other factors. I think they are quite right about that in the SBC and in general. The man who started it was pastoring in TX. If he had seen a lot of people in their 20s and 30s carrying Ryrie or Scofield Bibles, would he have felt the need? How many Southern Baptist people who are under 40 do you know who are heavily into dispensationalism, whether pastors or laypeople? 

Multitudes had "Left Behind" shoved down their throat in youth group or whatever and have reacted against it, often just avoiding the subject altogether. Stuff like The Gospel Project [for the uninitiated, that's SBC Sunday School material that has been heavily promoted by Lifeway] is heavily influenced by the likes of Goldsworthy and is totally incompatible with dispensationalism. 

I've found that many people roughly 45 and younger (referring mainly to pastors, but a lot of laypeople too) have little interest in dispensationalism, especially the pastors. (I'm speaking of online as well as personal acquaintances.) And this is near NOBTS, which I would think is one of the more dispensational friendly SBC seminaries since anti-Calvinism and dispensationalism tend to go hand in hand in the SBC, although there are some exceptions. Among Southern Baptists, a generation has risen up that knows not Criswell and Rogers. The likes of Piper and Platt are their heroes. 

A lot of the younger guys I know are either historic premil or amil, including some who aren't that Calvinistic. About the only younger people I come across who are dispensational are influenced by MacArthur. It is generally the charismatics that harp on Israel. (This area is probably more overrun with charismania than some areas in the Southeast.) 

I also know some DTS grads who are dispensational but who hardly ever preach on eschatology. At least one of those churches uses the Gospel Project material. I wonder if they realize that the seeds of "replacement theology" are being planted in the minds of their children? It may not refer much, if at all, to eschatology, but the hermeneutic (i.e. "Jesus on every page") that undermines their whole position is there.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Pilgrim (May 22, 2017)

Dachaser said:


> There are many in baptist churches/circles who agree with Calvinism in regards to salvation method God uses in the scriptures, but not in all of the Covenant theology proper. Do you tend to see a real distinction with baptists in that regard?



To answer your question directly, there certainly is a distinction. Most who are Calvinistic have no interest in full confessionalism, which they would tend to regard as legalism with regard to the 4th commandment, etc. In addition, many would essentially embrace the normative principle of worship (whatever is not forbidden is allowed in worship) as opposed to the Puritan regulative principle of worship (whatever is not found in the Bible by command, example or inference is forbidden). Many embrace what amounts to some kind of New Covenant Theology, even if they don't call it that and even if it isn't particularly systematized. Covenant Theology tends to go hand in hand with upholding the perpetuity of the Moral Law, including the 4th Commandment. Most Calvinistic Baptists tend to take what amounts to a "dispensational" view of the law, even if they aren't dispensational. (A good many modern Presbyterians do too but that is beside the point here.)

Now I'm going to go on a bit of a rant, but it is pertinent and illustrative of the differences between Reformed Baptists and a certain type of Calvinistic Baptist who would appear to have a lot in common with them. It appears that some who would affirm covenantalism in some form have adopted unsound worship practices in the name of catholicity. (Some of the things on that site are commendable, but some of what they promote is alarming, In my humble opinion. And a good many of the men involved likely aren't covenantal, but some are.)

Outside of liberals, is there any precedent in Baptist history, especially Southern Baptist history, for the observance of things like Lent? It is good that many have turned aside from the worst aspects of revivalism and legalism. But why turn to Rome and (at best) high church Protestantism instead of the Puritan spirituality which is ostensibly their heritage? I saw this at NOBTS several years ago (along with promotion of contemplative spirituality) and am dismayed at how widespread it seems to be. You try to talk to some of them about the RPW and older Calvinistic Baptist worship practices and they don't want to hear it. Every year more and more evangelicals from a low church heritage (whether Calvinistic or not) seem to be observing Lent. Is this a thing up north as well? The late Ken Silva, a SBC preacher and "discernment" blogger, used to say that SBC stood for Slowly Becoming Catholic and I think that it is this kind of thing, at least in part, that he had in mind.

Ironically, some of these men are advocates of close communion and do not admit pedobaptists to the Lord's table. I don't want to fall into evil surmising, but could it be that this "catholicity" is an attempt, however unconsciously, to assuage any hard feelings or pangs of conscience about denying table fellowship to their brethren? Can you have a church without baptism? They say that Presbyterian churches, for example, are true churches, but that seems to be very incoherent to me.


----------



## Edward (May 22, 2017)

KMK said:


> For example, many consider John MacArthur to be a Calvinistic Baptist, but is he really a 'Baptist' in any historical sense of the word? Grace Community Church, as far as I can tell, does not claim to be a 'Baptist' church.



Yes, if you want to be a traditional Southern Baptist in Sun Valley, California, it looks like you need to head on over to Headz Up Fellowship. http://www.sbc.net/church/2017012596/headz-up-fellowship (although the website given by the SBC doesn't seem to be working).


----------



## Dachaser (May 23, 2017)

Pilgrim said:


> To answer your question directly, there certainly is a distinction. Most who are Calvinistic have no interest in full confessionalism, which they would tend to regard as legalism with regard to the 4th commandment, etc. In addition, many would essentially embrace the normative principle of worship (whatever is not forbidden is allowed in worship) as opposed to the Puritan regulative principle of worship (whatever is not found in the Bible by command, example or inference is forbidden). Many embrace what amounts to some kind of New Covenant Theology, even if they don't call it that and even if it isn't particularly systematized. Covenant Theology tends to go hand in hand with upholding the perpetuity of the Moral Law, including the 4th Commandment. Most Calvinistic Baptists tend to take what amounts to a "dispensational" view of the law, even if they aren't dispensational. (A good many modern Presbyterians do too but that is beside the point here.)
> 
> Now I'm going to go on a bit of a rant, but it is pertinent and illustrative of the differences between Reformed Baptists and a certain type of Calvinistic Baptist who would appear to have a lot in common with them. It appears that some who would affirm covenantalism in some form have adopted unsound worship practices in the name of catholicity. (Some of the things on that site are commendable, but some of what they promote is alarming, In my humble opinion. And a good many of the men involved likely aren't covenantal, but some are.)
> 
> ...


You are correct in that many calvinistic baptists would tend to see worship as anything not forbidden is acceptable, and also that they tend to see things more akin to some form of Dispensational, and stay away from formal Confessions of the faith!


----------



## Pilgrim (May 23, 2017)

Edward said:


> Yes, if you want to be a traditional Southern Baptist in Sun Valley, California, it looks like you need to head on over to Headz Up Fellowship. http://www.sbc.net/church/2017012596/headz-up-fellowship (although the website given by the SBC doesn't seem to be working).



Well, if you've got biker churches and cowboy churches, why not hip hop churches.


----------



## Von (May 24, 2017)

Just to add something else to the discussion.
With the Dutch Reformed church in South Africa drifting away from what could be called biblical, an exodus of believers have left (of whom I am one) to attend any church that teaches from the Scriptures. Thus we find that many grew up covenantal, but find themselves in baptist churches, for example. We are grateful for calvinistic teaching, but we also are suddenly faced with premillenialism, dispensationalism and teaching against paedobaptism. Some of these we end up holding onto and others we learn to tolerate.


----------



## Steve Curtis (May 24, 2017)

Von said:


> Just to add something else to the discussion.
> With the Dutch Reformed church in South Africa drifting away from what could be called biblical, an exodus of believers have left (of whom I am one) to attend any church that teaches from the Scriptures. Thus we find that many grew up covenantal, but find themselves in baptist churches, for example. We are grateful for calvinistic teaching, but we also are suddenly faced with premillenialism, dispensationalism and teaching against paedobaptism. Some of these we end up holding onto and others we learn to tolerate.


Have you considered the GKSA?


----------



## Von (May 24, 2017)

kainos01 said:


> Have you considered the GKSA?


Thank you for the suggestion. In my situation back then (location, etc) this was never an option. Now after many years in a baptist congregation (friends/family, etc) I am not thinking of moving. Also, as I have said - my theology has incorporated some of the more Baptistic elements. My point was that it is possible to have a mix of Reformed/Calvinistic Baptists even in one congregation.


----------



## Dachaser (May 24, 2017)

Von said:


> Thank you for the suggestion. In my situation back then (location, etc) this was never an option. Now after many years in a baptist congregation (friends/family, etc) I am not thinking of moving. Also, as I have said - my theology has incorporated some of the more Baptistic elements. My point was that it is possible to have a mix of Reformed/Calvinistic Baptists even in one congregation.


There are a few reformed baptists in my area, but would say that the vast number of Baptists in local churches would be more in the tradition of being like a Dr Macarthur, holding to pretty much Baptist doctrines and practices, save for Salvation, as they would have it reformed way!


----------

