# Reformed Baptist = Oxymoron?



## Javilo (Apr 2, 2010)

It seems to me that Reformed Baptist is an oxymoron because doesn't reformed
mean that one accepts infant baptism? So what would a person who accepts the
five points of Calvinism - TULIP and the five solas of the reformation be called, if 
they bellieve these things but adhere to only adult baptism by immersion?
Maybe simply a Calvinistic Baptist? I've also heard of Particular Baptists but that is only
one of the five points. It would be good to know how to label such a person without
incorrectly using the term "Reformed". I think that John Macarthur almost falls into
this category except for his dispensationalism. Never heard him put any kind of
denominational label on himself except for IFCA which isn't really a denomination.


----------



## au5t1n (Apr 2, 2010)

I can just picture every Baptist on the board rolling their eyes when they see the title of this thread. 

Now to answer your question, if a Baptist or Baptist church believes in the RPW, covenant theology, etc. - key distinctives of the Reformed theological tradition - then the title must be accurate at least to a degree.


----------



## matt01 (Apr 2, 2010)

Javilo said:


> It seems to me that Reformed Baptist is an oxymoron because doesn't reformed
> mean that one accepts infant baptism? So what would a person who accepts the
> five points of Calvinism - TULIP and the five solas of the reformation be called, if
> they bellieve these things but adhere to only adult baptism by immersion?



{eye roll} Does it really matter what this person (group) is referred to as? The topic has been covered here a number of times. Here is a short statement of faith from a church that I was formerly a member of: 



> Our doctrinal statement, the Second London Baptist Confession of Faith of 1689, can be summarized in five points. We call them “The Five Points of Reformed Baptists.” These points are: Reformed, Calvinistic, Covenantal, Baptist, and Puritan.
> 
> *We adhere tenaciously to the five, Latin solas of the Protestant Reformation: sola Scriptura (Scripture alone is our rule for faith and practice); sola fide (justification is through faith alone); sola gratia (salvation is by grace alone); solus Christus (salvation is by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone); and soli Deo gloria (to God alone be glory).
> *We are Calvinistic in that we uphold the Five Points of Calvinism: total depravity; unconditional election; limited atonement; irresistible grace; and the perseverance of the saints.
> ...


----------



## au5t1n (Apr 2, 2010)

Plus, I would be a little weirded out if someone introduced himself to me as an "Otherwise Reformed Baptist."


----------



## Herald (Apr 2, 2010)

John,

Personally, you can call RB's whatever you want. It makes little to no difference to most RB's. We don't seek approval to sit at the Reformed table. A few months ago there was a heated PB thread that centered on some comments by R. Scott Clark, professor at Westminster Seminary, CA. The thread accomplished little more than to warrant a study on global warming because of all the hot air it generated.

RB's are covenantal in addition to Calvinistic. John MacArthur is a Calvinist, but he is not covenantal. Many paedos on this board consider RB's part of the Reformed family, some do not. But since RB's aren't asking permission from paedos, the subject is moot.


----------



## Osage Bluestem (Apr 2, 2010)

I think I might be a Baptist. I need to pray on it some more though.


----------



## Ivan (Apr 2, 2010)

Moot, indeed.


----------



## dudley (Apr 2, 2010)

austinww said:


> I can just picture every Baptist on the board rolling their eyes when they see the title of this thread.
> 
> Now to answer your question, if a Baptist or Baptist church believes in the RPW, covenant theology, etc. - key distinctives of the Reformed theological tradition - then the title must be accurate at least to a degree.



I agree with my PB brother Austin. I am a Presbyterian but also subscribe to the LBC. I was Baptised as a Baptist.


----------



## Herald (Apr 2, 2010)

Ivan said:


> Moot, indeed.



Ivan, and if moot doesn't work, maybe an alligator filled moat will.


----------



## Herald (Apr 2, 2010)

Herald said:


> John,
> 
> Personally, you can call RB's whatever you want. It makes little to no difference to most RB's. We don't seek approval to sit at the Reformed table. A few months ago there was a heated PB thread that centered on some comments by R. Scott Clark, professor at Westminster Seminary, CA. The thread accomplished little more than to warrant a study on global warming because of all the hot air it generated.
> 
> RB's are covenantal in addition to Calvinistic. John MacArthur is a Calvinist, but he is not covenantal. Many paedos on this board consider RB's part of the Reformed family, some do not. But since RB's aren't asking permission from paedos, the subject is moot.


 
Oh, and I was guilty for much of that hot air. This time I won't be.


----------



## au5t1n (Apr 2, 2010)

Herald said:


> Ivan said:
> 
> 
> > Moot, indeed.
> ...


 
Well, we have a waterfall.


----------



## Iconoclast (Apr 2, 2010)

Sometimes we speak of grace. Sometimes we speak of saving grace, common grace,irresistible grace,electing grace, sovereign grace, each with a slightly different twist. Ideally "grace" should cover it, but we make distinctions.
Reformed in part means setting things right. Historically it has a meaning in reference to the church yes.

In terms of baptists, there are Reformed Baptists,Particular baptists,Calvinistic baptists General baptists,primitive baptists, free will baptists, conservative baptists,southern baptists,new covenant baptists,etc,etc. The terms help clarify things among the baptists themselves as well as other believers,in the same way a confession of faith does.
Padeos seem to have many labels also. opc, arp, pca,etc. We all have our reasons .
Many Reformed Baptists feel closer to faithful padeo-brethren, than to many of these other "baptists". 
If I had to relocate suddenly, and visit local baptist churches who had clowns, and puppets, and altar calls....I would have no trouble fellowshipping with the padeo's, understanding they were using the 1644 confession, before I would defile myself in a place that would not regard the word of God as it is in truth.


----------



## JML (Apr 2, 2010)

Probably. Doesn't bother me if people don't consider Baptists truly reformed. It's just a term.


----------



## Ivan (Apr 2, 2010)

austinww said:


> Herald said:
> 
> 
> > Ivan said:
> ...


 
After you've been here (Puritan Board) and have heard the same discussions over and over again, it became truly burdensome.


----------



## au5t1n (Apr 2, 2010)

Ivan said:


> austinww said:
> 
> 
> > Herald said:
> ...


 
I've read some of the old discussions and think I know what you mean. But this was meant to be a rather poor mode-of-baptism joke. Get it? The Baptists have a moat and the Presbyterians have a waterfall? Okay, it's not that funny, I know.


----------



## VictorBravo (Apr 2, 2010)

Besides, there is the delightful double entendre. In my case, I started out a Baptist, but then I reformed. It's a great conversation starter. . . .


----------



## Herald (Apr 2, 2010)

VictorBravo said:


> Besides, there is the delightful double entendre. In my case, I started out a Baptist, but then I reformed. It's a great conversation starter. . . .


 
Indeed. The Presbyterians think they're tough on Baptists? They ain't go nuttin on mainstream Baptists towards RB's.


----------



## Montanablue (Apr 2, 2010)

austinww said:


> Ivan said:
> 
> 
> > austinww said:
> ...


 

I got it. It was a _little_ funny


----------



## Marrow Man (Apr 2, 2010)

If it is an oxymoron, it's not as bad as "Independent Presbyterian."


----------



## JM (Apr 2, 2010)

I'm just a Baptist. I don't see a need to add "Reformed."


----------



## Kiffin (Apr 3, 2010)

Just to stir the pot...

I wish there was a credobaptist (strictly) Presbyterian group. I see a lot of strength in Presbyterian polity.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Apr 3, 2010)

I agree with you Ej. But just so you all know I did blog on the issue and I agreed with Dr. R. Scott Clark. But really. Come one. This is a lame duck issue. I know Reformed Baptists who are much more Reformed than most Presbyterians and Paedo Baptists. Let's just look at the largest Paedo Presbyterian denomination, the PCUSA. 

First off we Reformed Baptists are not Morons. LOL

I know some pretty significantly smart men of God who are Reformed Baptist or Particular Baptist. I don't care what you want to call us. 

http://www.puritanboard.com/blogs/puritancovenanter/covenantal-baptists-reformed-historical-understanding-reformed-theology-316/


----------



## AThornquist (Apr 3, 2010)

Just call me a Christian.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Apr 3, 2010)

*and \\\*



AThornquist said:


> Just call me a Christian.


That would be nice if it was that easy. But the term itself has been so prostituted it means more than it should. Kind of like the term Reformed. I believe that is Dr. R. Scott Clark's point also.


----------



## AThornquist (Apr 3, 2010)

Yeah, you're right. It's such a shame that the name "Christian" doesn't often reflect what Scripture meant.


----------



## P.F. (Apr 3, 2010)

For what it is worth, "Particular Baptist" does not mean simply that the Baptist in question holds to one of the five points. It's an older term that was applied to Baptists who held the doctrines of grace in contrast to Baptists who were "General Baptists" of an Arminian, Remonstrant, Semi-Pelagian, or sadly even Pelagian flavor. So, if your conscience would be offended by calling them "Reformed," "Particular Baptists" is a suitable alternative.


----------



## Marrow Man (Apr 3, 2010)

PuritanCovenanter said:


> I agree with you Ej. But just so you all know I did blog on the issue and I agreed with Dr. R. Scott Clark. But really. Come one. This is a lame duck issue. I know Reformed Baptists who are much more Reformed than most Presbyterians and Paedo Baptists. Let's just look at the largest Paedo Presbyterian denomination, the PCUSA.


 
Randy, believe it or not, the ARP had a memorial come up in one of its presbyteries a few years ago to take the name "Presbyterian" out of the ARP name, returning it to its original (1782) name, the "Associate Reformed Church" (despite its Scottish/Presbyterian roots). It failed miserably, of course, but the reasoning was because the name "Presbyterian" has become so tainted by the mainline denomination in our day.

BTW, I think Scott Clark is perfectly fine with Reformed Baptists using the historical name, Particular Baptists. Of course, that has odd connotations in our current day (sort of like the change in the meanings of words like "awful" and "condescend") -- it makes it sound like someone is just a fussy or picky Baptist.


----------



## nnatew24 (Apr 3, 2010)

Just to stir the pot a bit: 'reformed' is certainly a historical term (which seems to derive from the 5 solas and the confessions that come out of the time of the reformation), but can't it refer to actual 'reformation' too? That is, the reformers were reforming the church. So if paedobaptism is a left-over Roman Catholic practice that was overlooked by the Reformers, then it would make Reformed Baptist the truly 'reformed'. 

But I agree with others on this board, it the term paedobaptism is synonymous with 'reformed', 'baptist' is just fine with me.


----------



## Marrow Man (Apr 3, 2010)

nnatew24 said:


> Just to stir the pot a bit: 'reformed' is certainly a historical term (which seems to derive from the 5 solas and the confessions that come out of the time of the reformation), but can't it refer to actual 'reformation' too? That is, the reformers were reforming the church. So if paedobaptism is a left-over Roman Catholic practice that was overlooked by the Reformers, then it would make Reformed Baptist the truly 'reformed'.
> 
> But I agree with others on this board, it the term paedobaptism is synonymous with 'reformed', 'baptist' is just fine with me.


 
A couple of problems with this: 1) Paedo-baptism is not a "left-over Roman Catholic practice", and anyone who has studied the difference between the Roman Catholic practice and the Reformed practice would see a vast difference, aside from the subjects; likewise, it would be silly for me, for instance, to compare Mormon baptist and Baptist baptisms simply because the subjects are the same. 2) There are more differences than simply paedo-baptism, as this essay from Richard Muller suggests:



> I once met a minister who introduced himself to me as a “five-point Calvinist.” I later learned that, in addition to being a self-confessed five-point Calvinist, he was also an anti-paedobaptist who assumed that the church was a voluntary association of adult believers, that the sacraments were not means of grace but were merely “ordinances” of the church, that there was more than one covenant offering salvation in the time between the Fall and the eschaton, and that the church could expect a thousand-year reign on earth after Christ’s Second Coming but before the ultimate end of the world. He recognized no creeds or confessions of the church as binding in any way. I also found out that he regularly preached the “five points” in such a way as to indicate the difficulty of finding assurance of salvation: He often taught his congregation that they had to examine their repentance continually in order to determine whether they had exerted themselves enough in renouncing the world and in “accepting” Christ. This view of Christian life was totally in accord with his conception of the church as a visible, voluntary association of “born again” adults who had “a personal relationship with Jesus.” In retrospect, I recognize that I should not have been terribly surprised at the doctrinal context or at the practical application of the famous five points by this minister — although at the time I was astonished. After all, here was a person, proud to be a five-point Calvinist, whose doctrines would have been repudiated by Calvin. In fact, his doctrines would have gotten him tossed out of Geneva had he arrived there with his brand of “Calvinism” at any time during the late sixteenth or the seventeenth century. Perhaps more to the point, his beliefs stood outside of the theological limits presented by the great confessions of the Reformed churches—whether the Second Helvetic Confession of the Swiss Reformed church or the Belgic Confession and Heidelberg Catechism of the Dutch Reformed churches or the Westminster standards of the Presbyterian churches. He was, in short, an American evangelical.



Whether you accept Mueller's assessment or not, his point is that being "Reformed" means more than simply holding to the "Five Points" of Calvinism (since Calvinism has more than five points!).


----------



## Kiffin (Apr 3, 2010)

Marrow Man said:


> 2) There are more differences than simply paedo-baptism, as this essay from Richard Muller suggests:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Well, the church that Mueller is responding to is:

1) Dispensational
2) premillennial
3) Hyper-Lordship
4) Anti-confessional

Umm...I'm sure a lot of us "Reformed credos" on the PB are NOT what has been described above. Actually, we try to distance ourselves from them. We, Reformed baptists, are stuck in reformation purgatory. For the most part, the only thing that we have in common with our "other" baptist brethren, is baptism. On the otherhand, we find a lot in common with our Presbyterian brothers, but disagree on baptism.

Nobody likes us!


----------



## Rich Koster (Apr 3, 2010)

Feel free to quote me on this:


----------



## Marrow Man (Apr 3, 2010)

Kiffin said:


> Well, the church that Mueller is responding to is:
> 
> 1) Dispensational
> 2) premillennial
> ...


 
Fair enough; having sat through a church history class taught by a Baptist (undoubtedly from this group) who tried to explain the difference between General and Particular Baptists and was absolutely awful in doing so, I somewhat understand the frustration. But the group that Mueller is responding to also views the church as a voluntary association of adult believers where the sacraments are called ordinances and not "means of grace," along with a view a discontinuous (in some sense) view of the covenant of grace. Thus, the issue is not merely one of a disagreement on baptism. As Bill Brown and I agreed on another thread, the issue is actually a disagreement on other areas of doctrine (the nature of the covenant, the nature of the church) and baptism is more a fruit of that difference.

But, for the record, I am quite fond of Reformed Baptists. I like you, I really like you!


----------



## DMcFadden (Apr 3, 2010)

Bigoted? I'm not bigoted. Some of my best friends are paedo baptists. But, despite the fine historical work by Drs. Muller and Clark, as long as "Reformed" includes the likes of Karl Barth, the PCUSA, and some of the most "progressive" voices in American Protestantism . . . I won't feel too bad being excluded from the "club." I'm a (PB) Baptist. Which, although it might not get me into Marrow Man's heaven (  ), Lane Keister says that if I ever change my baptism views, the PCA would take me. 

Frankly, after five mispent decades in the braod evangelical movement, I don't take much offense at being denied the use of sectarian subcategories. I have tons of experience homogenizing everything. When I hear "Reformed" my mind runs to Princeton seminary, Barth, neo-orthodoxy, John Frame, van Til, James Daane, R. Scott Clark, the contemporary "goddess" movement in the PCUSA, Westminster Seminary, a lawsuit at Erskine, R.C. Sproul, RCA's Robert Schuller, Calvin, gay emphasis/diversity week at Calvin College, Jonathan Edwards, Jack Rogers, nominal Protestantism in Grand Rapids, wars over EP, and the "Five Points" . . . all mixed up in one homozenized soup.

* Tim, no offense intended. You are one of my absolute favs. Your integrity and scholarship impresses me, especially for an Erskine guy.


----------



## Marrow Man (Apr 3, 2010)

DMcFadden said:


> I'm a (PB) Baptist. Which, although it might not get me into Marrow Man's heaven (  ), Lane Keister says that if I ever change my baptism views, the PCA would take me.







> * Tim, no offense intended. You are one of my absolute favs. Your integrity and scholarship impresses me, especially for an Eskine guy.



No offense taken. I'm an _Erskine_ man. The "r" is for Reformed. 

Your point about what constitutes "Reformed" in the mind of some is well put and well taken. We have lost the fight the second we include Barth and his legacy into the fold. But this isn't restricted to "Reformed" -- it is always amazing how Calvin is marshaled to the side of anyone who holds any position as proof they are right. True enough, ia Baptist of the sort Mueller describes would have been run out of Geneva. What would Calvin have really thought of a Barth?


----------



## DMcFadden (Apr 3, 2010)

Tim,

Sorry for the typo (I do know how to spell it).

in my opinion, the energy of the Reformed respecting brand infringement would better be directed at the so-called "new Calvinists" than "Reformed Baptists." Talk about evangelifish! In many cases, you could give just about any braod evangelical a copy of R.C. Sproul or Piper and they would proclaim themselves "Reformed."


----------



## Marrow Man (Apr 3, 2010)




----------



## Herald (Apr 3, 2010)

DMcFadden said:


> Tim,
> 
> Sorry for the typo (I do know how to spell it).
> 
> in my opinion, the energy of the Reformed respecting brand infringement would better be directed at the so-called "new Calvinists" than "Reformed Baptists." Talk about evangelifish! In many cases, you could give just about any braod evangelical a copy of R.C. Sproul or Piper and they would proclaim themselves "Reformed."



Boy, have I found that out. As I've continued to reform in my doctrine I realize how impotent my theology has been. A low view of God (and His holiness), deficient orthodoxy, twisted soteriology, private interpretation of scripture; I'm sure it's only been by God's grace that my faith hasn't been shipwrecked. Sproul, more so than Piper, has been an asset to my reforming faith, but he is not the epitome of Reformed Theology, nor do I believe he would want that title. Confessionalism has helped me ground my belief system in something greater than my vacillating mind.


----------



## Marrow Man (Apr 3, 2010)

Bill, I only wish more Presbyterians were that committed to biblical confessionalism.


----------



## Skyler (Apr 3, 2010)

Hay, watch who you call a moron there.

But yeah, I think I might be an "Otherwise Reformed Baptist". That's going in my signature line. 

And finally: {eyeroll}

Hope that answers your question.


----------



## puritanpilgrim (Apr 7, 2010)

Wow. Never seen this before.


----------



## Grimmson (Apr 7, 2010)

John Lanier said:


> Probably. Doesn't bother me if people don't consider Baptists truly reformed. It's just a term.







JM said:


> I'm just a Baptist. I don't see a need to add "Reformed."




Like it or not what we call ourselves does have significance. It connects us to our own heritage, to our past. Being a Baptist is a loaded term that communicates what you believe on certain issues. These categories helps us to communicate our beliefs and give some credence by not standing independently on our own with a bible in hand. I do not think it is wise to just call ourselves a Baptist; particularly in light of the fact that the term by itself holds little meaning, because of the large wide variety of Baptist out there. I think Reformed Baptist should call themselves Particular Baptist because it connects us to the roots of our own past and gives I think a better description to what particular Baptists specifically believe. Even with the reformed Baptists there is no concrete standard confession of faith. We need as a whole try to create a standard unity that we could all draw from. Reformed also has it own sets of historical confessional meanings that should be respected and not high jacked, assuming that we want to be respected as well. 



Kiffin said:


> Just to stir the pot...
> 
> I wish there was a credobaptist (strictly) Presbyterian group. I see a lot of strength in Presbyterian polity.


 Totally agree


----------



## JML (Apr 7, 2010)

How about Strict and Particular Reformed Congregational Covenantal Calvinistic amillennial Baptists falsely called Anabaptists not to be confused with General Arminian Antinomian Dispensational Semi-Pentecostal Baptists?


----------



## Herald (Apr 7, 2010)

David,

Most Reformed Baptist churches subscribe to the 1689 LBC. I believe the 1689 LBC to be a "concrete standard confession of faith." Is it perfect? No. It's a man made document, just like the WCF. However, I do believe it is the most faithful explanation of what RB's believe. As far as Particular Baptist vs. Reformed Baptist; I defer to the Reformed Baptist moniker. Particular Baptist seems to be a UK term. Reformed Baptist seems to be the American equivalent. I have no problem keeping it that way.


----------



## JM (Apr 7, 2010)

Grimmson said:


> I think Reformed Baptist should call themselves Particular Baptist because it connects us to the roots of our own past and gives I think a better description to what particular Baptists specifically believe.



I wish it was as simple as that...but as you noted, terms can be loaded but some have lost there meaning. Placing "Particular" before Baptist does very little in the wide world of evangelical thought since the term "Particular" has lost its meaning. 

I think John is on to something, "How about Strict and Particular Reformed Congregational Covenantal Calvinistic amillennial Baptists falsely called Anabaptists not to be confused with General Arminian Antinomian Dispensational Semi-Pentecostal Baptists."


----------



## Grimmson (Apr 7, 2010)

Herald said:


> David,
> 
> Most Reformed Baptist churches subscribe to the 1689 LBC. I believe the 1689 LBC to be a "concrete standard confession of faith." Is it perfect? No. It's a man made document, just like the WCF. However, I do believe it is the most faithful explanation of what RB's believe. As far as Particular Baptist vs. Reformed Baptist; I defer to the Reformed Baptist moniker. Particular Baptist seems to be a UK term. Reformed Baptist seems to be the American equivalent. I have no problem keeping it that way.


 
First of all, holding to the 1689 LBC has not official been established as a requirement for being classified as a Reformed Baptist. It is a general trend and a good trend. I subscribe to it myself. The problem is in relation to concrete terms. There is no uniformity established to this process of subscription. Also most of us hold to the RPW as well. However it has not been an established requirement for being called an Reformed Baptist as well. Personally I like to see the leaders carrying this title to get together and establish a required uniformity towards a confession of faith and views of worship for the sake of establishing a clear message of unity. Second of all, historically, particular Baptists was also a title applied here in the US. Reformed Baptist as a title didnï¿½t emerge until recent times, like mid to late 1960s. Therefore implying that Particular Baptist can be applied both here in the USA and in the UK, just as it was established prior to the falling out of this usage in the 19th century and eradicated by the 20th century here in the US.




JM said:


> Grimmson said:
> 
> 
> > I think Reformed Baptist should call themselves Particular Baptist because it connects us to the roots of our own past and gives I think a better description to what particular Baptists specifically believe.
> ...



The term ï¿½particularï¿½ is still being used in relation to the atonement today. At least I still use the term. It is a good description it which we can historically connects ourselves to. And at the same time not try to peddle our thoughts as new or inventive, which from a history of doctrine perspective can be quite dangerous. New titles or names have many times put into question the orthodoxy of a given movement, regardless if they claim to be Christian. I just recommending a recovery of our own roots and establish a unity in what we practice and confess together; instead of the different messages and options in what makes up a RB, which can be confusing for those that do not know any better. I would recommend if we are to use the term reformed, then it should be applied not as reformed in the context of the established tradition of the Council of Dort, but instead a reform of present Baptist churches, which theologically would be categorically different then assocating directly with Dort; which is why are Reformed CRC, URC, and so brothers are becoming increasingly frustrated with us, because of their own usage of the term and us trying to redefine the term in relation to the historical reformed tradition compared to a Baptist position. With this said, then we may even possibly consider writing are own confession of faith and catechisms to go with it.


----------



## Kiffin (Apr 7, 2010)

How about "London Baptists"?

I think it has a ring...


----------



## Herald (Apr 7, 2010)

Grimmson said:


> First of all, holding to the 1689 LBC has not official been established as a requirement for being classified as a Reformed Baptist. It is a general trend and a good trend. I subscribe to it myself. The problem is in relation to concrete terms. There is no uniformity established to this process of subscription. Also most of us hold to the RPW as well. However it has not been an established requirement for being called an Reformed Baptist as well. Personally I like to see the leaders carrying this title to get together and establish a required uniformity towards a confession of faith and views of worship for the sake of establishing a clear message of unity. Second of all, historically, particular Baptists was also a title applied here in the US. Reformed Baptist as a title didn't emerge until recent times, like mid to late 1960s. Therefore implying that Particular Baptist can be applied both here in the USA and in the UK, just as it was established prior to the falling out of this usage in the 19th century and eradicated by the 20th century here in the US.



David,

We're Baptists, not Presbyterians. There is no ecclesiastical authority, outside of the local church, that can determine what a church calls itself. Reformed Baptist has come to describe confessional subscription and a covenantal view of scripture. Reformed Baptist seems to have more gravitas than Particular Baptist in the United States. Organizations, such as ARBCA, are carrying the Reformed Baptist label internationally. It's not a matter of which Baptist label is better. The fact is that Reformed Baptist has come to describe the majority of confessional and covenantal Baptist congregations in the United States. There are plenty of Calvinistic Baptist churches that are neither confessional nor covenantal. The Founders Movement has plenty of these congregations, so does Sovereign Grace, Free Grace, and some Primitive Baptist churches. The reason Reformed Baptist appeals to me is that it emphasizes early confessional Baptist faith and practice, and highlights our place among other denominations within the Reformed community.


----------



## JM (Apr 7, 2010)

Kiffin said:


> How about "London Baptists"?
> 
> I think it has a ring...


 

I can dig it. lol 

Can we get a list of these names so we can vote on'em?

Covenantal Baptist
Confessional Baptist
Particular Baptist
Strict & Particular Baptist
Confused Baptist
General Baptist
Regular Baptist
Grace Baptist
Old School Baptist
Primitive Baptist (I like it, it makes me think of Baptists who camp or spend time outdoors)
Calvinistic Baptist

Please add.


----------



## Peairtach (Apr 8, 2010)

I think we could all be more Reformed and more sanctified.

---------- Post added at 01:10 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:08 PM ----------




JM said:


> Kiffin said:
> 
> 
> > How about "London Baptists"?
> ...



Sovereign Grace Baptist?


----------



## C. M. Sheffield (Apr 8, 2010)

Grimmson said:


> First of all, holding to the 1689 LBC has not official been established as a requirement for being classified as a Reformed Baptist. It is a general trend and a good trend. I subscribe to it myself. The problem is in relation to concrete terms. There is no uniformity established to this process of subscription. Also most of us hold to the RPW as well. However it has not been an established requirement for being called an Reformed Baptist as well.



No, but full subscription to the BCF is required for a church to join ARBCA. And they have issued a position paper affirming the RPW. Now they aren't the only RBs out there but they are the largest association of them.


----------



## waynedawg (Apr 8, 2010)

Herald said:


> VictorBravo said:
> 
> 
> > Besides, there is the delightful double entendre. In my case, I started out a Baptist, but then I reformed. It's a great conversation starter. . . .
> ...



This is very true!


----------



## rbcbob (Apr 8, 2010)

John Lanier said:


> How about Strict and Particular Reformed Congregational Covenantal Calvinistic amillennial Baptists falsely called Anabaptists not to be confused with General Arminian Antinomian Dispensational Semi-Pentecostal Baptists?


 
Could you be a little less ambiguous brother. Such lack of specificity!


----------



## Grimmson (Apr 8, 2010)

Herald said:


> Grimmson said:
> 
> 
> > First of all, holding to the 1689 LBC has not official been established as a requirement for being classified as a Reformed Baptist. It is a general trend and a good trend. I subscribe to it myself. The problem is in relation to concrete terms. There is no uniformity established to this process of subscription. Also most of us hold to the RPW as well. However it has not been an established requirement for being called an Reformed Baptist as well. Personally I like to see the leaders carrying this title to get together and establish a required uniformity towards a confession of faith and views of worship for the sake of establishing a clear message of unity. Second of all, historically, particular Baptists was also a title applied here in the US. Reformed Baptist as a title didn't emerge until recent times, like mid to late 1960s. Therefore implying that Particular Baptist can be applied both here in the USA and in the UK, just as it was established prior to the falling out of this usage in the 19th century and eradicated by the 20th century here in the US.
> ...


 
I know we are not Presbyterians; however should this stop us from gathering together as an association of churches to establish categorically the meaning of terms of what makes someone a Reformed Baptist? Baptist theology does not prevent us from gathering together as a council to discuss such things within our associations. Words do in fact have meaning and we must apply the reality of such. Therefore applying the need for us to be able to apply a definitional defense for why we call ourselves what we call ourselves in relation to a objective, vs. subjective, view of history. One or two churches cannot apply such a defense, but needs to be done by such as the ARBCA, which I think they have been doing to a degree. I would be hesitate to call myself a Reformed Baptist because the early confessional Particular Baptists did not call themselves reformed purposely to my knowledge. There was a clear separation from the reformed tradition as a community. I think this reality should place into our minds the question of what the term reformed historically refers to and if the 17th century Baptists would associate themselves with us. My argument is, as hopefully I have made, one based on the meaning in history.

Associations like ARBCA developing such definitions are not giving them ecclesiastical authority concerning the practice of the local church. Churches, however, should not be seen standing alone locally and need to be connected to some body like an association. It also implies there needs to be established a sense of common definitions for the sake of communication, so that those outside and inside our traditions will not be confused over what is believed and practiced as the representative. Departure from what then is classified should result in removal from the association, which an association does of the right, for the sake of a defense of orthodox and plain communication. We may not like the idea of being removed from an association, but it should not be a local church alone that decides theologically what to call themselves in the scope of a broader theological context in relation to the teaching of scripture and doctrine in a systematic and historical fashion. There needs to be communicated in union the one faith that we all share and every church that has a similar title for themselves should want to join together for the sake of continuing the proclaimation of the gospel.


----------



## nasa30 (Apr 9, 2010)

Grimmson said:


> Herald said:
> 
> 
> > Grimmson said:
> ...



As has been said before, you will only get what you are looking for by forming a presbyterian Credo church. Little p presbyterian. ARBCA is the closest thing out there right now. The group that has the authority to remove another church from the association means that the local church has placed themselves under their authority. Little p presbyterian.


----------



## ReformedChapin (Apr 9, 2010)

A group of friends of mine came out of Calvary Chapel. As you can imagine most (excluding me) are credo. The funny thing is that I tell them I don't consider them reformed, and many of them don't make a big deal out of the title either. Many of them are still struggling with the Dispensational vs covenant issue anyways. I think most people (credo) are just trying to be faithful to their biblical convictions the terms will vary sporatically.


----------



## JM (Apr 10, 2010)

> All of this is to say that the early Baptist churches in America needed each other! They needed each other in ways that Baptist churches today, with their access to information and education, can hardly imagine. Therefore, in its first half-century the Philadelphia Association addressed itself to the things that were "wanting" in the churches. What was "wanting" were answers to questions regarding baptism, ordination, church disputes, and theological issues. The association virtually served as a *"Baptist Bishop,"* always functioning, however, in an advisory rather than judicial or legislative manner.



Baptist Classics: Shurden on Philadelphia Baptist Association


----------



## Bald_Brother (Apr 11, 2010)

Herald said:


> Confessionalism has helped me ground my belief system in something greater than my vacillating mind.


 
Precisely!


----------



## puritanpilgrim (Apr 13, 2010)

OB...Original Baptist


----------

