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

[Pilgrim]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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!