Can Baptists Be Reformed?

[JM]

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]

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]

{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]

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

 

[Semper Fidelis]

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

 

[Ivan]

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[Pilgrim]

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]

.....
"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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

Excellent post.

 

[WrittenFromUtopia]

Once they baptize their children and practice lawful ecclesiology.

 

[elnwood]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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!

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

And that was very funny.

 

[Kevin]

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"???