# Can Baptists Be Reformed?



## JM (Nov 20, 2006)

Just thought I get things going. The more I reform, the more I become unsure of my Baptistic leanings. 

What do you folks think, can a Baptist be a Reformed Baptist and stay true to Reformed theology and thought?

Peace,

jm


----------



## satz (Nov 20, 2006)

I think this has been discussed before on this board quite a bit.

Just to add another thought, if a baptist is truely convinced and convicted of his baptistic doctrine, why would he even care if others thought he was not reformed? He may admire the reformers on a great many points, but I think he has to admit he differs from them on a great number of doctrines. A truely consistent baptist must, I think, go so far as to say that despite their great contributions to the church, the historic reformers were in error on many things.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Nov 20, 2006)

{edit: Boy, lots of concurrent posts}

Not according to Confessional definitions of what it meant to be Reformed when the idea was coined. If you mean by reformed "Can a Baptist be a predestinarian and agree with other Reformed on a lot of doctrines, be friends, and even call each other Brother..." then the answer is yes.

For my part, I believe a core element of Reformed theology is Covenant theology (and that, also, not the way it has be redefined but was initially so).


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Nov 20, 2006)

Say is strong, say it loud: "I'm Baptist and I'm proud!"


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Nov 20, 2006)

A vain attempt at humor Joshua. It was a restatement of what you said in dorky language.


----------



## Ivan (Nov 20, 2006)

SemperFideles said:


> A vain attempt at humor Joshua. It was a restatement of what you said in dorky language.




Wow! For a second I thought Rich was "confessing" he was a Baptist! Kinda felt the earth tremor here.


----------



## reformedman (Nov 20, 2006)

satz said:


> I think this has been discussed before on this board quite a bit.
> 
> Just to add another thought, if a baptist is truely convinced and convicted of his baptistic doctrine, why would he even care if others thought he was not reformed? He may admire the reformers on a great many points, but I think he has to admit he differs from them on a great number of doctrines. A truely consistent baptist must, I think, go so far as to say that despite their great contributions to the church, the historic reformers were in error on many things.



I agree, being reformed would mean believing similarly as the reformers did, but they made mistakes. 

Richard Baxter was a reformer and so was Luther. diet of worms---->


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Nov 20, 2006)

Frank,

Just a note.

Luther was a "reformer" but not Reformed. He was Lutheran.
Baxter was a Puritan "reformer", but not Reformed.

"Reformed" consists of following Calvin's ecclesiastical theology in the Reformed churches of France, Switzerland and Germany (as it so started) during the Reformation. Theterm was "coined" by a Lutheran writing against Calvin - his name was Jochaim Westphal. He didn't like Calvin's theology of the sacraments very much (and his ecclesiology) and referred to those who followed Calvin as "Calvinists" and "Reformed."


----------



## reformedman (Nov 20, 2006)

Thank you, I knew there were a few meanings, knowing which one is necessary.


----------



## Pilgrim (Nov 20, 2006)

JM said:


> Just thought I get things going. The more I reform, the more I become unsure of my Baptistic leanings.
> 
> What do you folks think, can a Baptist be a Reformed Baptist and stay true to Reformed theology and thought?



A: No.


----------



## reformedman (Nov 20, 2006)

C. Matthew McMahon said:


> .....
> "Reformed" consists of following Calvin's ecclesiastical theology in the Reformed churches of France, Switzerland and Germany (as it so started) during the Reformation. The term was "coined" by a Lutheran writing against Calvin - his name was Jochaim Westphal. He didn't like Calvin's theology of the *sacraments* very much *(and his ecclesiology)* and referred to those who followed Calvin as "Calvinists" and "Reformed."



If it's ecclesiastical differences only, then I'm assuming it doesn't refer to Paedobaptism(sacramental) nor on doctrine (Covenant theology and the differences between the two perspectives). If it doesn't refer to these, then why would you disagree that a reformed baptist can be correctly called reformed?

(Not trying to change the subject but while I'm on paedobaptism I wanted to ask for clarity; when a child that has been paedobaptized as an infant lives a horribly rebellious life and at the age of 30 is regenerated and converted, and becomes a believer, is he to be baptized once again? That's a question I've always wondered about.)


----------



## Pilgrim (Nov 20, 2006)

Sorry for the shortness of my first reply, but this has been discussed often, and probably within the last week on this board. There is far more to Reformed theology and Calvinism than simply the five points, but the current reductionistic usage of both terms has been the cause of much confusion. We now have Reformed Baptists, Reformed Charismatics, etc. Calvin probably wouldn't be thrilled with multitudes calling themselves "Calvinists" to begin with, but I don't think it's going too far to say that if possible he would roll over in his grave at the thought of Reformed or Calvinistic Baptists and Charismatics since there was far more to his theology than simply the five points. 

BTW there are many Particular Baptists, past and present that I have great admiration for. I'm just calling for more precision in the use of terms. And I'm thankful for Baptists, Charismatics and others who have come to embrace the doctrines of grace. Our message (and we believe, the message of the Bible) is simply this: Don't stop with soteriology, but examine your ecclesiology and other areas as well. 

Now, if I may offer some unsolicited advice, I say Baptists, especially those attempting to reform the SBC, should have practical reasons for eschewing the label Reformed or even Calvinistic since many Baptists who are hostile to the doctrines of grace consider Baptists who hold to those doctrines to be little better than "high water Presbyterians" anyway. If you must be a baptist, in my opinion better to just plant your flag and declare what you believe to be the message of the Bible than to throw around buzzwords and labels that tend to be counterproductive. 

I know something of the process you're going through, brother. I was never officially a Baptist in the sense of formally joining a Baptist church, but until a couple of years ago I was strongly baptistic and only came to Presbyterian convictions last year after much deliberation, and in a sense, agony. 

Peace to you.


----------



## Pilgrim (Nov 20, 2006)

reformedman said:


> If it's ecclesiastical differences only, then I'm assuming it doesn't refer to Paedobaptism(sacramental) nor on doctrine (Covenant theology and the differences between the two perspectives). If it doesn't refer to these, then why would you disagree that a reformed baptist can be correctly called reformed?
> 
> (Not trying to change the subject but while I'm on paedobaptism I wanted to ask for clarity; when a child that has been paedobaptized as an infant lives a horribly rebellious life and at the age of 30 is regenerated and converted, and becomes a believer, is he to be baptized once again? That's a question I've always wondered about.)



Ecclesiology here includes baptism, not just church government, if that is your question. 

On the rebellious child being rebaptized, the answer is no, he is not to be baptized once again. To save time, I will quote WCF 28.7-8:



> 7. The efficacy of baptism is not tied to that moment of time wherein it is administered; yet, notwithstanding, by the right use of this ordinance, the grace promised is not only offered, but really exhibited, and conferred, by the Holy Ghost, to such (whether of age or infants) as that grace belongeth unto, according to the counsel of God's own will, in his appointed time.
> 
> 8. The sacrament of baptism is but once to be administered unto any person.



Blessings,


----------



## Pilgrim (Nov 20, 2006)

satz said:


> I think this has been discussed before on this board quite a bit.
> 
> Just to add another thought, if a baptist is truely convinced and convicted of his baptistic doctrine, why would he even care if others thought he was not reformed? He may admire the reformers on a great many points, but I think he has to admit he differs from them on a great number of doctrines. A truely consistent baptist must, I think, go so far as to say that despite their great contributions to the church, the historic reformers were in error on many things.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Nov 20, 2006)

Pilgrim said:


> Sorry for the shortness of my first reply, but this has been discussed often, and probably within the last week on this board. There is far more to Reformed theology and Calvinism than simply the five points, but the current reductionistic usage of both terms has been the cause of much confusion. We now have Reformed Baptists, Reformed Charismatics, etc. Calvin probably wouldn't be thrilled with multitudes calling themselves "Calvinists" to begin with, but I don't think it's going too far to say that if possible he would roll over in his grave at the thought of Reformed or Calvinistic Baptists and Charismatics since there was far more to his theology than simply the five points.
> 
> BTW there are many Particular Baptists, past and present that I have great admiration for. I'm just calling for more precision in the use of terms. And I'm thankful for Baptists, Charismatics and others who have come to embrace the doctrines of grace. Our message (and we believe, the message of the Bible) is simply this: Don't stop with soteriology, but examine your ecclesiology and other areas as well.
> 
> ...



Excellent post.


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Nov 20, 2006)

Once they baptize their children and practice lawful ecclesiology.


----------



## elnwood (Nov 21, 2006)

Pilgrim said:


> Sorry for the shortness of my first reply, but this has been discussed often, and probably within the last week on this board. There is far more to Reformed theology and Calvinism than simply the five points, but the current reductionistic usage of both terms has been the cause of much confusion. We now have Reformed Baptists, Reformed Charismatics, etc. Calvin probably wouldn't be thrilled with multitudes calling themselves "Calvinists" to begin with, but I don't think it's going too far to say that if possible he would roll over in his grave at the thought of Reformed or Calvinistic Baptists and Charismatics since there was far more to his theology than simply the five points.



I for one find terms like "Reformed Baptist" and "Reformed Charismatic" quite useful. As a term, Reformed Baptist means that, aside from Baptist distinctives (baptism of disciples only, autonomous local churches, etc.), they hold to doctrines of Reformed Theology. "Reformed" is an adjective to clarify the type of Baptist.

Is Reformed Baptist an oxymoron? I guess you could see it that way, but the English language is full of those kind of oxymorons, and they serve as useful descriptions, so I don't see any problem with it.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Nov 21, 2006)

elnwood said:


> I for one find terms like "Reformed Baptist" and "Reformed Charismatic" quite useful. As a term, Reformed Baptist means that, aside from Baptist distinctives (baptism of disciples only, autonomous local churches, etc.), they hold to doctrines of Reformed Theology. "Reformed" is an adjective to clarify the type of Baptist.
> 
> Is Reformed Baptist an oxymoron? I guess you could see it that way, but the English language is full of those kind of oxymorons, and they serve as useful descriptions, so I don't see any problem with it.



What if someone is a Reformed Arminian? Is that a useful oxymoron?


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Nov 21, 2006)

Personally, I would just accept someone calling themselves a RB, and consider it a single term, using a compound expression. The "Reformed" part is mainly a soteriological referent, although it also frequently borrows certain elements from the covenant-theology mix. And most RBs use one of the 17th century English Baptist confessions. On that score, the "Baptist" part is expressed. the biggest problem there is that so few Baptists today are confessional, so that term has a lot of other baggage. So I'd reiterate: RB is a useful name.

If you want to get into the historical definitions, that is, going back to the original definitions and about a century of usage, clearly there are issues of terminology. I'm pretty sure that a RB with a reasonably good historical awareness will concede that the 17th century English Baptists were self-consciously rejecting certain doctrines that were distinctively Reformed. And for that reason, they were not reluctant then to differentiate themselves from the "Reformed" church. Now, going on three centuries later, it is helpful to use a word like Reformed and attach it to the description Baptist to help show that there are still old-style Baptists who remain separate from, but not wholly antithetical to, the church movement known as "Reformed".


----------



## Herald (Nov 21, 2006)

WrittenFromUtopia said:


> Once they baptize their children and practice lawful ecclesiology.



This is the only part of the thread that A) Used to cause me anst -but now- B) Causes me to grin. I have my cannons pointed at you, and you have yours pointed at me. Who wins? Both! We both claim the other is wrong (biblically) and ride off into the sunset fully convinced. I've come to the restful conclusion that at this point of my Christian walk, I am in disagreement with others on the topic. Oh, and for those who would say, "But Bill, you just need to study your ecclesiology more." I would say:  

Here is to unity in the areas that we DO agree on!

P.S. My comments are based on Gabe's statement, not the issue of whether Baptists are Reformed.


----------



## Herald (Nov 21, 2006)

Contra_Mundum said:


> Personally, I would just accept someone calling themselves a RB, and consider it a single term, using a compound expression. The "Reformed" part is mainly a soteriological referent, although it also frequently borrows certain elements from the covenant-theology mix. And most RBs use one of the 17th century English Baptist confessions. On that score, the "Baptist" part is expressed. the biggest problem there is that so few Baptists today are confessional, so that term has a lot of other baggage. So I'd reiterate: RB is a useful name.
> 
> If you want to get into the historical definitions, that is, going back to the original definitions and about a century of usage, clearly there are issues of terminology. I'm pretty sure that a RB with a reasonably good historical awareness will concede that the 17th century English Baptists were self-consciously rejecting certain doctrines that were distinctively Reformed. And for that reason, they were not reluctant then to differentiate themselves from the "Reformed" church. Now, going on three centuries later, it is helpful to use a word like Reformed and attach it to the description Baptist to help show that there are still old-style Baptists who remain separate from, but not wholly antithetical to, the church movement known as "Reformed".



 Good post Bruce.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Nov 21, 2006)

Let me just say, for the record, a few things:

1. I much prefer the company of Reformed Baptists to their liberal, dispensational, and confused counterparts.
2. I prefer Reformed Baptists to Charismatics, Pentecostals, and other kinds of "follow your sinful heart" Christianity
3. I prefer them to liberal unbelief
4. I prefer them to green eggs and ham

I would greet them on a plane, I would greet them on a train. 
I would greet them here and I would greet them there. 
I do not like their view of Covenant or Ecclesiology 
but I still love them a lot you see.


----------



## Blueridge Believer (Nov 21, 2006)

A serious question folks. Are the only people who can call themselves reformed subscribers to the WCF? Even the reformers had differences between themselves. I doubt there is a Presbyterian here who would hold to Calvin's view of the sabbath, or Luther's for that matter. Let's face it boys and girls, every dog has fleas. The WCF is not inspired and neither it the LBCF. Calvin is not the end all in theology and neither is Spurgeon.
I love my Presbyterian brethren greatly and enjoy thier fellowship but I'm not going to sprinkle babies. I couldn't find that in the scripture with a lazer beam and a magnifying glass, and guess what, they won't see my postion either.
I'm OK with that. Love them just the same. We share a common heritage in the faith.
If being a Calvinistic Baptist means I'm not reformed then I'll gladly stand next to Bunyan, Gill, and Spurgeon and tread on.
God bless and keep you all. 
BTW, everybody can't be right like me!


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Nov 21, 2006)

Blueridge reformer said:


> A serious question folks. Are the only people who can call themselves reformed subscribers to the WCF? Even the reformers had differences between themselves. I doubt there is a Presbyterian here who would hold to Calvin's view of the sabbath, or Luther's for that matter. Let's face it boys and girls, every dog has fleas. The WCF is not inspired and neither it the LBCF. Calvin is not the end all in theology and neither is Spurgeon.
> I love my Presbyterian brethren greatly and enjoy thier fellowship but I'm not going to sprinkle babies. I couldn't find that in the scripture with a lazer beam and a magnifying glass, and guess what, they won't see my postion either.
> I'm OK with that. Love them just the same. We share a common heritage in the faith.
> If being a Calvinistic Baptist means I'm not reformed then I'll gladly stand next to Bunyan, Gill, and Spurgeon and tread on.
> ...



I knew this was going to come around to this "stop worrying about what Reformed means" post. I think it is helpful to understand why the moniker is useful and this was discussed in a previous post that I won't rehash here. Let's just say that words have consequences though I'm less concerned about Baptists calling themselves Reformed Baptists than some of the new folks hijacking the whole history because at least the Baptists announce their departure by adding the "Baptist" to the term.

Oh, and by the way, it's spelled laser as in "Cool! Sharks with laser beams on their heads." Being Baptist doesn't allow you to change the spelling of a word too.


----------



## Blueridge Believer (Nov 21, 2006)

SemperFideles said:


> I knew this was going to come around to this "stop worrying about what Reformed means" post. I think it is helpful to understand why the moniker is useful and this was discussed in a previous post that I won't rehash here. Let's just say that words have consequences though I'm less concerned about Baptists calling themselves Reformed Baptists than some of the new folks hijacking the whole history because at least the Baptists announce their departure by adding the "Baptist" to the term.
> 
> Oh, and by the way, it's spelled laser as in "Cool! Sharks with laser beams on their heads." Being Baptist doesn't allow you to change the spelling of a word too.




Thanks for helping me with my spelling Col. I miss a word every now and then. Not quite as educated as some. However, I stand by my statement.
If embracing infant baptism and a state chruch is required to be reformed then I gladly reject the moniker.
God bless you brother.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Nov 21, 2006)

Blueridge reformer said:


> Thanks for helping me with my spelling Col. I miss a word every now and then. Not quite as educated as some. However, I stand by my statement.
> If embracing infant baptism and a state chruch is required to be reformed then I gladly reject the moniker.
> God bless you brother.



I'm just busting your chops. I do think words have meanings but I wouldn't be worshipping with Baptists (and non-Reformed ones to boot) if I didn't consider them fellow heirs with Christ.

But I do embrace the promises of God and look forward to seeing my baby girl baptized when we go home on leave in two weeks.


----------



## Blueridge Believer (Nov 21, 2006)

SemperFideles said:


> I'm just busting your chops. I do think words have meanings but I wouldn't be worshipping with Baptists (and non-Reformed ones to boot) if I didn't consider them fellow heirs with Christ.
> 
> But I do embrace the promises of God and look forward to seeing my baby girl baptized when we go home on leave in two weeks.



And I pray God she lives and serves our Lord Jesus Christ faithfully for a 150 years brother! I attended and ARP church for a while. The pastor there is a faithfull man who helped me when I was going through a rough stretch in my life. We are still the dearest of friends and have a meal together on a regular basis. I would rather be in a good sound WCF church than 95% percent of the Baptists out there.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Nov 21, 2006)

SemperFideles said:


> Oh, and by the way, it's spelled laser as in "Cool! Sharks with laser beams on their heads."



You know, I have one simple request. Throw me a bone here. Can we _please_ get a sharks-with-laser-beams-attached-to-their-heads smilie???


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Nov 21, 2006)

SemperFideles said:


> Let me just say, for the record, a few things:
> 
> 1. I much prefer the company of Reformed Baptists to their liberal, dispensational, and confused counterparts.
> 2. I prefer Reformed Baptists to Charismatics, Pentecostals, and other kinds of "follow your sinful heart" Christianity
> ...


 
 

And that was very funny.


----------



## Kevin (Nov 21, 2006)

I prefer to reserve the term 'reformed baptist' for people like me who were baptist & now are reformed .
I try to refer to the (partially)reformed baptists as "Calvinistic Baptists".

However I must confess that handbooks of style and usage are universal in the view that a group aught to be refered to as they would refer to themselves.

Many times I have sat in editorial meetings with newspapers over the coverage a client was recieving. the typical "right-wing, anti-choice, militia, whatever the slur of the day is, and I almost always win the point and force them to change (or modify) coverage by pulling out the style book.

So as much fun as it is to tease baptists about this I think they deserve the moniker in as much as they use it themselves.

So can I combine 2  into one thread and say; Just like the term "christmas" has nothing to do with the "mass' the term "Reformed Baptist" has nothing to do with "reformed"???


----------



## Founded on the Rock (Nov 21, 2006)

I don't think it is fair to simply call them Calvinistic Baptists.

Many RB churches are NOT dispensational. The majority hold to covenant theology (some NCT and others CT) Obviously there is disagreement concerning their understanding of it, but they are still Covenantal. I think the term "Reformed Baptist" is helpful because he helps us to understand that in many ways they follow the Reformers, but at the same time have disagreements with the Reformers. 

It certainly distingushes between from pop-evangelicals and even your Calvinistic dispensationalists (like MacArtuher, or the entire faculty here at Moody).


----------



## Robert Truelove (Nov 21, 2006)

I find the term 'Reformed Baptist' to be a valid description of Baptists who are truely that.

What is it to be truly 'Reformed Baptist'? I think the following are necessary...

1. They must be confessional (1689 London Baptist Confession of Faith)

2. They must hold to the multiplicity of elders.

3. They must refrain from good cigars  and home brew  (I couldn't help myself  )

The 'Baptist' in 'Reformed Baptist' is the qualifier. They couldn't accurately use the word 'Reformed' without qualifying it.


----------



## Me Died Blue (Nov 21, 2006)

Blueridge reformer said:


> Thanks for helping me with my spelling Col. I miss a word every now and then. Not quite as educated as some. However, I stand by my statement.
> If embracing infant baptism and a state chruch is required to be reformed then I gladly reject the moniker.
> God bless you brother.



What do you mean by "a state church"? If you mean a visible Church associated with the state, such a view or practice honestly could not be further from the historic Reformed ecclesiology of the Presbyterian and Continental churches. Furthermore, even the _theocrats_ in those groups have always viewed the Church and state as seperate offices with completely separate roles.


----------



## Blueridge Believer (Nov 21, 2006)

Me Died Blue said:


> What do you mean by "a state church"? If you mean a visible Church associated with the state, such a view or practice honestly could not be further from the historic Reformed ecclesiology of the Presbyterian and Continental churches. Furthermore, even the _theocrats_ in those groups have always viewed the Church and state as seperate offices with completely separate roles.



The part about civil rulers supressing heresey is kind of scary to me. Who determines what is heresey and who gets punished?



III. Civil magistrates may not assume to themselves the administration of the Word and sacraments; or the power of the keys of the kingdom of heaven;[5] yet he has authority, and it is his duty, to take order that unity and peace be preserved in the Church, that the truth of God be kept pure and entire, that all blasphemies and heresies be suppressed, all corruptions and abuses in worship and discipline prevented or reformed, and all the ordainances of God duly settled, administrated, and observed.[6] For the better effecting whereof, he has power to call synods, to be present at them and to provide that whatsoever is transacted in them be according to the mind of God.[7]


----------



## JM (Nov 21, 2006)

I second that.


----------



## smhbbag (Nov 21, 2006)

> Sorry for the shortness of my first reply, but this has been discussed often, and probably within the last week on this board. There is far more to Reformed theology and Calvinism than simply the five points, but the current reductionistic usage of both terms has been the cause of much confusion. We now have Reformed Baptists, Reformed Charismatics, etc. Calvin probably wouldn't be thrilled with multitudes calling themselves "Calvinists" to begin with, but I don't think it's going too far to say that if possible he would roll over in his grave at the thought of Reformed or Calvinistic Baptists and Charismatics since there was far more to his theology than simply the five points.
> 
> BTW there are many Particular Baptists, past and present that I have great admiration for. I'm just calling for more precision in the use of terms. And I'm thankful for Baptists, Charismatics and others who have come to embrace the doctrines of grace. Our message (and we believe, the message of the Bible) is simply this: Don't stop with soteriology, but examine your ecclesiology and other areas as well.
> 
> ...



I absolutely agree about Baptists being better off dropping the words "Reformed" or "Calvinistic." Often, though, I still use them simply because there's not many better options that get the point accross to most people.

A lot of Baptist groups have similar troubles, because "Baptist" is now such a big tent it now means little more than congregationalism and dunking adults-only. The rest is a roll of the dice if you're just going by the name.

I'd love to see the Founders or other "Reformed" Baptists start to really get out their message for what it is. I'm not at all opposed to the use of labels, but the terms have just lost so much meaning, I wonder if they're worth the trouble they cause or impede progress on the issues they address.

Ironically enough, I probably have even more trouble referring to myself as a Baptist than as "Reformed," because I am strongly in favor of Presbyterian ecclesiology....and surprisingly, the Baptist reaction against that, in my experience, has been much stronger than to the Doctrines of Grace or even my Covenant Theology.


----------



## satz (Nov 21, 2006)

Blueridge reformer said:


> The part about civil rulers supressing heresey is kind of scary to me. Who determines what is heresey and who gets punished?
> 
> 
> 
> III. Civil magistrates may not assume to themselves the administration of the Word and sacraments; or the power of the keys of the kingdom of heaven;[5] yet he has authority, and it is his duty, to take order that unity and peace be preserved in the Church, that the truth of God be kept pure and entire, that all blasphemies and heresies be suppressed, all corruptions and abuses in worship and discipline prevented or reformed, and all the ordainances of God duly settled, administrated, and observed.[6] For the better effecting whereof, he has power to call synods, to be present at them and to provide that whatsoever is transacted in them be according to the mind of God.[7]



 

Our present governments will have a lot to answer for, but I do believe that one thing we can be thankful for is that by allowing all religions to do as they like, they allow christians to worship freely as well. That is a lot better than a situation where one group of christians is in power and presecutes others for not holding to its beliefs.


----------



## Me Died Blue (Nov 21, 2006)

Briefly, the more theocratic systems of the early Reformation and Puritan era (including the 1646 WCF) still made very important distinctions between the roles and authorities of Church and state, as seen by the above chapter. Furthermore, the views of many of the theocrats of that time were held largely in accord with their Postmillennial eschatology as well; in other words, such a state of living, though ideal, would only come to be if there were a large portion of believers among the earth's population, such that either the whole or the majority of magistrates in place would be believers.

Even that view, however, is certainly not universal to Reformed theology. One good example of that is the significant changes made to WCF.XXIII in the 1789 revision. The same can be seen with regard to the change in WCF.XXXI on whether the state can call synods. Even before those changes to Westminster, however, the Two Kingdoms perspective had already been very prevalent in the views of many historic Reformed theologians, though someone more knowledgeable on that than myself should explain its historic place.

So in the end, when many of us speak of ecclesiology as being a somewhat common component to Reformed theology (both Continental and Presbyterian) that Baptists do not hold, what is essentially in reference is the presbyterial (little-p) form of church government and a rejection of congregationalism (as well as of episcopacy). Even that, however, is not _universal_ to Reformed theology, as there were a number of independants at Westminster, as well as others who revised the WCF into the Savoy Declaration to fit independency (such as John Owen). So while ecclesiology is indeed an area where confessional Baptists would disagree with the _majority_ of historic Reformed theology, it is still not as universally dividing between the two camps as the differences on the covenant.


----------



## tellville (Nov 22, 2006)

Ah yes, the "Baptists are second rate" thread! 

Jeremy, I don't know what is like in the States, but up until last year I 
thought Presbyterian basically meant you were a rank Liberal! So, I guess I could say "Presbyterian" has lost its meaning as well, at least in certain geographical areas. 

Bruce, excellent post. 

James, I share many of your sentiments. 

In honour of the Colonel's post:

Let me just say, for the record, a few things (tongue in cheek of course!):

1. I much prefer the company of Presbyterians to their liberal, covenentual, and confused counterparts, the Presbyterians. 
2. I prefer Presbyterians to Charismatics, Pentecostals, and other kinds of "follow your sinful heart" Christianity, for example, like the Presbyterians. 
3. I prefer them to liberal unbelief, found in such churches such as Presbyterian churches. 
4. I prefer them to green eggs and ham, usually found at special Sunday morning breakfast at the local Presbyterian church. 

I would greet them on a plane, I would greet them on a dog sled.
I would greet them here and I would greet them in their igloos.
I do not like their view of Ecclesiology
but I still love them a lot you see!


----------



## gwine (Nov 22, 2006)

satz said:


> Our present governments will have a lot to answer for, but I do believe that one thing we can be thankful for is that by allowing all religions to do as they like, they allow christians to worship freely as well. That is a lot better than a situation where one group of christians is in power and presecutes others for not holding to its beliefs.



 Mark. I have heard said and my pastor would agree that the purpose of the civil government is to uphold the second table of the law and the purpose of the church government is to uphold the first.


----------



## Pilgrim (Nov 22, 2006)

jenson75 said:


> Just to clarify, historically, I don't think there was such a term as "Reformed Baptist" - that is a misnomer. Someone half-joked to me that the word was coined by a certain Baptist trying to forge ties between paedobaptists and baptist in an organisation in UK.
> 
> The old fashioned term is "(Strict and) Particular Baptist" or "Calvinistic Baptist". Problem with the first term is the word "particular" which in today's context would turn most people away. Problem with the second is the term "Calvinism" for obvious reasons.
> 
> Personally, I much prefer the older terms. As for their theology, it would be covenant theology, minus the "land promise" - as far as I can tell. Whoever gave that silly idea that "baptists must be dispensational", ought to be taken out and whipped.



For many, the term "Reformed" is even more obscure than Calvinism. Before my conversion, if someone would have used the term Reformed in the context of a conversation about religion, I would have guessed they meant Reformed Judiasm since I would not have naturally associated the term with the Reformation.


----------



## Pilgrim (Nov 23, 2006)

SemperFideles said:


> Let me just say, for the record, a few things:
> 
> 1. I much prefer the company of Reformed Baptists to their liberal, dispensational, and confused counterparts.
> 2. I prefer Reformed Baptists to Charismatics, Pentecostals, and other kinds of "follow your sinful heart" Christianity
> ...


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Nov 23, 2006)

Reformed Baptist is a rather new form of terminology for Confessional Baptists. They were mostly known in history as Particular Baptist if I am not mistaken. They are as old as the WCF Puritans and they were Puritans also. Remember John Bunyan? 

Most people consider the 1689 a Reformed Confession. 1689 Confession of Faith / theopedia.com

Reformed Baptist has only been a recent addition to the churches dictionary I believe. It seems to have appeared on the scene when there was a renewed interest in the 1644 and 1689 Confessions during the 60's. The Baptist Church (mainly the Southern Baptist denomination) had lost it's moorings to confessional Covenantal Calvinistic theology. It had become dispensational semi-pelagian and quite liberal in some areas. So I believe the term was coined in a movement of Calvinistic Baptistic Churches to counter the modern Baptist movement and to pull it's theology back into the 5 sola's that the Church of Christ and the Reformation stands upon. Most Reformed Baptist are confessional and adhere to the 1689 and Covenant Theology. 

Epistimologically their is such a thing as a Reformed Baptist. They are Covenantal in theology adhering to the truths of the 5 solas of the Reformation.

theopedia.com/Reformed Baptist


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Nov 23, 2006)

trevorjohnson said:


> Yes, the term Reformed Baptist is important to distinguish between those Baptists that believe in elders and confessions and those baptists who are buying into New Covenant Theology and still adhere to a single pastor model of leadership.
> 
> Due to the growth of New Covenant Theology, many calvinistic baptists have felt a need to distance themselves and align themselves with a name that shows themselves friendly to confessions and an elder-led congregationalism.
> 
> ...



Talk to the hand you poser!


----------



## Blueridge Believer (Nov 23, 2006)

trevorjohnson said:


> Can't - the hand is chained in the shackles of Presbyterian snobbery.....
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Nov 24, 2006)

trevorjohnson said:


> Can't - the hand is chained in the shackles of Presbyterian snobbery.....
> 
> 
> 
> ...



You forgot about  and . We have to throw you a bone every now and again. Every time the Baptists begin to riot in the PB I do a mad rush to find a famous "Reformed" Baptist. Of course, they are pretty hard to find! 

Maybe I'll institute a subscription-based membership thing for Baptists that allows them to see lots of Baptist icons and has lots of happy forums where we have Dutch Reformed and Presbyterians post nice things like: "We'd be Baptists too but we're too ensconced in tradition" or "Yeah, we know Calvin and Zwingli only stayed paedobaptist because they never shook off Roman Catholicism but Shh!! are you trying to get me in trouble!" or "Golly, I hope that little bit of water we used in the Baptism really worked."


----------



## turmeric (Nov 24, 2006)

Oh come on, Rich, you know most of us are recovering Baptists, even though we may have had several years of sobriety, we're still recovering...oops, wrong support group!
How'd I do that? Was it the liquers I had for Thanksgiving?


----------



## Blueridge Believer (Nov 24, 2006)

I want to go on record by saying that Baptists can never be reformed. I've been on for nearly 23 yrs and all attempts at reforming myself have failed!


----------



## turmeric (Nov 24, 2006)

trevorjohnson said:


> Now, we're talking Rich....
> 
> On a lighter note, since we are an oppressed minority here, can we count this fella as a baptist too?



Trevor, I don't think you Baptists really _want_ the banana guy - he looks Pentecostal to me!


----------



## MrMerlin777 (Nov 24, 2006)

Blueridge reformer said:


> I want to go on record by saying that Baptists can never be reformed. I've been on for nearly 23 yrs and all attempts at reforming myself have failed!




 Come to think of it as a Presbyterian I find it impossible to reform myself as well. Most of the Lutherans and Anglicans I know find it impossible too.


----------



## Pilgrim (Nov 24, 2006)

trevorjohnson said:


> Now, we're talking Rich....
> 
> 
> 
> ...and if you throw us those bones, I'll pretend that the OPC and PCA and most other Presbyterian bodies have sent tens of thousands of folks to the mission field in recent years



I can't speak for the PCA, but for a church that has less than 30,000 members the last time I checked, my understanding is that the OPC has a good number of foreign missionaries considering its size. Not to say more couldn't be done....


----------



## Coram Deo (Apr 8, 2007)

*Opening Can of Worms!*

What is distinctively Reformed? I think alot of baggage that is touted today behind using the word Reformed is over Paedobaptism within their covenantal thinking.... Alot of times it goes like this"

Major Premise: All Reformers were Paedobaptist.
Minor Premise: Baptist are not Covenantalist
Conclusion: Therefore Baptist cannot be Reformed

I believe this to be a grave mistake... It cannot be denied that the major reformers were unanimously against the rejection of infant baptism. While it may be argued that in a way this is begging the question, since there were those in the days of the reformers who were genuine Christians and rejected the practice of infant baptism and were covenantal and are not considered reformers because they were baptists, this is not necessary in order to disprove this argument.

I would argue that to be Reformed one must hold to following doctrines:

5 Solas, 5 points of Calvinism, Moral Law, Regulative Worship and Covenantalism.

What do we I mean by covenantalism, well let me add two great historic quotes from Paedobaptist Covenantalist...

First I would ask that you examine the following quote. Here we have a present-day Reformed Presbyterian Pastor explaining covenant theology by the use of a quotation from a Puritan Divine.


One of the most brilliant illustrations of covenant theology is that used by the Puritan divine Thomas Goodwin. In his exposition entitled Christ Set Forth, he explains that 'Adam was reckoned as a common public person, not standing singly or alone for himself, but as representing all mankind to come of him'. In this he was a type of Christ, who is also a representative figure. This is why the apostle Paul, in 1 Corinthians 15:47, speaks of Adam and Christ as 'the first man' and 'the second Man' respectively 'He speaks of them', says Goodwin, 'as if there had never been any more men in the world, nor were ever to be for time to come, except these two. And why? but because these two between them had all the rest of the sons of men hanging at their girdle.'

Can you visualize the picture which Goodwin draws for us? He imagines two great giants, one called Adam and the other Christ. Each is wearing an enormous leather 'girdle' or belt with millions of little hooks on it. You and I, and all humanity, are hanging either at Adam's belt or at Christ's belt. There is no third option, no other place for us. And God deals with us only through Adam or through Christ. If you are hanging at Adam's belt, you share in the experience of sinful, fallen Adam, and your entire relationship with God is through him. But if you are hanging at Christ's belt, all God's dealings with you are through Christ. When you received Jesus as your Saviour, you were involved in a massive and momentous transfer. The Almighty himself unhooked you from Adam's belt and hooked you on to Christ's. So you now have a different Head, a different Mediator, a new Representative. You have passed from Adam into Christ, and whereas God formerly dealt with you only through Adam, he now deals with you only through his Son. You are in Christ unchangeably and for ever.
[Edward Donnelly Heaven and Hell p. 87, citing ' Goodwin's Works, James Nichol edition, 1862, Vol. 4, p. 31. ]


I whole heartedly agree with Pastor Donnelly, this is the best illustration of the covenant theology of the Bible I have ever seen. But let us examine the truth it portrays. All men were in Adam in the garden. All men fell in Adam when he sinned. All stood in Adam, all fell in Adam, all died in Adam. This is covenant theology. But God chose not to leave His elect in Adam! He unites His elect to Christ in such a way that He took on the guilt of their sins and paid the full penalty for them, and His righteousness is credited as theirs! And what would the Bible set forth as the chord by which the elect are attached to Christ's belt? What does the Bible represent as that by which sinners are united to Jesus Christ? Faith, as Pastor Donnelly points out, "When you received Jesus as your Saviour, you were involved in a massive and momentous transfer. The Almighty himself unhooked you from Adam's belt and hooked you on to Christ's." This is Biblical covenant theology. Does the practice of Disciple's Baptism, only baptizing those who possess a credible profession of that faith which joins the elect to Christ in any way detract from this covenant theology? No. 

Let us continue on to the next witness. John Owen's view of what the Bible teaches about the New Covenant was vastly different from that which is most commonly set forth by Reformed Paedobaptists of our day. In his commentary on Hebrews (my favorite set of books in the world) he takes the same view of the New Covenant that Reformed Baptists are often ridiculed for teaching today. A small handful of quotes should suffice for our purpose.

Reformed Baptists will often point to Hebrews 8 and the description of the New Covenant there. (Not to mention that the entire book of Hebrews is setting forth Christ's work as the mediator of the New Covenant) But, back to the point, we see there that one unique aspect of the New Covenant is that every person properly a member of that covenant will know the Lord in a saving way: verse 11 None of them shall teach his neighbor, and none his brother, saying, "Know the LORD,' for all shall know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them." We point out that all, from the least to the greatest leaves no room for anyone in the covenant who doesn't know God. We are laughed at, accused of non-exegesis, and given the objection: "No one has ever interpreted it that way." Enter John Owen:


"For such a spiritual knowledge is intended as whereby the mind is renewed, being accompanied with faith and love in the heart. This is that knowledge which is promised in the new covenant, and which shall be wrought in all them who are interested therein." (Exposition of Hebrews vol. 6, pp 167,168)

"The whole knowledge of God in Christ is both plainly revealed and savingly communicated, by virtue of the new covenant, unto them who do believe..."(ibid. p 165)

"Where there is not some degree of saving knowledge, there no interest in the new covenant can be pretended."(ibid. p. 167)

"Persons destitute of this saving knowledge are utter strangers unto the covenant of grace; for this is a principal promise and effect of it, wherever it doth take place."(ibid. p. 168)

Here are some other comments exhibiting Owen's view of the New Covenant:


"For all those with whom this covenant is made shall as really have the law of God written in their hearts, and their sins pardoned, according unto the promise of it, as the people of old were brought into the land of Canaan by virtue of the covenant made with Abraham. These are the true Israel and Judah, prevailing with God, and confessing unto his name." (ibid. p 118)

"For by the making of this covenant with any, the effectual communication of the grace of it unto them is principally intended. Nor can that covenant be said to be made absolutely with any but those whose sins are pardoned by virtue thereof, and in whose hearts the law of God is written; which are the express promises of it." (ibid. p. 118)

"Those whose sins are not pardoned do in no sense partake of this covenant; it is not made with them. For this is the covenant that God makes with them, that he will be merciful unto their sins; that is, unto them in the pardon of them." (ibid. p. 169)

Where is Paedobaptism within Covenantalism within these two famous Paedobaptist Divines.... It is not there..... We have seen that the terminology "Reformed Baptist" is a credible and accurate, and in fact necessary term, and I will continue to use Reformed Baptist...

Michael




> rejecting certain doctrines that were distinctively Reformed






Contra_Mundum said:


> Personally, I would just accept someone calling themselves a RB, and consider it a single term, using a compound expression. The "Reformed" part is mainly a soteriological referent, although it also frequently borrows certain elements from the covenant-theology mix. And most RBs use one of the 17th century English Baptist confessions. On that score, the "Baptist" part is expressed. the biggest problem there is that so few Baptists today are confessional, so that term has a lot of other baggage. So I'd reiterate: RB is a useful name.
> 
> If you want to get into the historical definitions, that is, going back to the original definitions and about a century of usage, clearly there are issues of terminology. I'm pretty sure that a RB with a reasonably good historical awareness will concede that the 17th century English Baptists were self-consciously rejecting certain doctrines that were distinctively Reformed. And for that reason, they were not reluctant then to differentiate themselves from the "Reformed" church. Now, going on three centuries later, it is helpful to use a word like Reformed and attach it to the description Baptist to help show that there are still old-style Baptists who remain separate from, but not wholly antithetical to, the church movement known as "Reformed".


----------



## Chris (Apr 9, 2007)

satz said:


> I think this has been discussed before on this board quite a bit.
> 
> Just to add another thought, if a baptist is truely convinced and convicted of his baptistic doctrine, why would he even care if others thought he was not reformed? He may admire the reformers on a great many points, but I think he has to admit he differs from them on a great number of doctrines. A truely consistent baptist must, I think, go so far as to say that despite their great contributions to the church, the historic reformers were in error on many things.


----------

