Baptists and Reformed

[Blueridge Believer]

Originally posted by Scott
I thought this was a useful quote from Mike Horton:

It is important to realize that the Calvinistic Baptists hail not from Anabaptism, but from English Puritanism. Unlike the various "sects" of the so-called Radical Reformation, the Baptists were in other respects committed to the magisterial Reformation, but separated from their Reformed churches over the issue of infant Baptism.

See what you started Scott!

 

[Philip A]

Originally posted by JohnV
Instead of accusing each other of not being 'Reformed', lets rather encourage each other to become more 'Reformed'.

More 'Reformed' according to what standard? Who defined what 'more Reformed' looks like? The circle of Baptists that I come from says they are 'more Reformed' than the Reformers, because they didn't stop with baptism, but reformed that too.

I agree wholeheartedly with what you are saying, and that's the whole point. How can we "encourage each other to become more 'Reformed'", when 'Reformed' means whatever I want it to mean, and has no fixed definition?

 

[Larry Hughes]

The problem here is the coveting of the title "reformed".

If "reformed" means: items 1 through 10 and a baptist has 1 item differing from that list then, no a baptist is not reformed in the strictest since of the term.

Is the term "reformed" a broad umbrella and moving target definintion or is it a singular definition. That's a big difference in how one uses it. It is used broadly and singularly narrowly. If it is being used singularly narrow, then no, a baptist is not reformed. If it is broad, then yes a baptist is reformed. It's really quite simple.

Or to look at it from the reverse angle: If the reformed baptist are the definition of reformed, then the "reformed" by title are not reformed by that definition. And if the definition of "reformed" is in its strictest sense that which is reformed baptist, I'm not offended at all at not being refered to as "reformed" in that sense because I do not in the least affirm their forbidding the sacrament of baptism of children of believers.

Luther and confessional Lutherans might own up to the first in time to the title throwing out both baptist and "reformed" (in the narrow sense). So, we have to tightly qualify it. The same goes for the term "calvinist". Is a non-infant baptizing person a "calvinist", would John Calvin agree at all with this. Not based on what he wrote concerning that issue. So, we mis-apply his name there. Yes, there are "calvinist" relative to the non-TULIP folks, but the TULIP would not necessarily put you into John Calvin's understanding of the Scriptures.

I don't find a problem with reformed baptist saying they are reformed baptist because the "reformed" adjective limits the term "baptist" as opposed to other baptist, it is also true that the term "baptist" limits the term "reformed" as opposed to "other reformed".

The bare fact that credo baptizers who also rebaptize and infant baptizers who would not wrestle for the term "reformed" to be on their side manifestly shows that we significantly differ.

No I'm going to go untie the knots in my tongue!

 

[Ivan]

A person on this board once said that I am not Reformed, but confessional.

Okay.

 

[C. Matthew McMahon]

Originally posted by Philip A

Originally posted by polemic_turtle
I love you all, but so much fuss over one word... tsk, tsk.

Not in the least. It is an effort to recover an entire theology that has been eviscerated by two centuries of Revivalism, and this effort is most certainly not aided by every yahoo crack schismatic church leader that preaches the five points, sings "Shine Jesus Shine" for worship, and repudiates everything Calvin wrote in the fourth book of the Institutes.

In contrast, I know that the brethren here love the Reformers, and are following the bible as best as they can, and hate what has happened to the church just as much as everyone else, but there's a lot more at stake than pop theolgy and labels. Words mean things.

My sentiments exactly.

If we lose the meaning behind what "theological ideas and words" mean, then we are left with nothing that means anything.

 

[turmeric]

Did you say something, Josh?

 

[Blueridge Believer]

Originally posted by trevorjohnson
Broadly speaking, I always thought that "Reformed" meant, for one thing, that one admires and adheres to the main points of the Reformation.

We all agree that words have different levels of meaning.

Hey, even you Presbyterians are not members of the "Reformed" Church if you are referring to some denominations that have the word Reformed directly in their titles. You guys are not REFORMED either!


Adhering to the broad implications of the term (that one values the Reformation and its main emphases - the five points and the five solas) calvinistic baptists are "Reformed" .


The Five points and the Five solas had nothing to do with infant baptism last time I checked.




But some folks here seem to want to use this term more narrowly as a means to exclude some from their little party!

Be mindful that it took many outside your "Truly Reformed: exclusionary party to kick you in the pants with reference to foreign missions.





Is this term copyrighted? Does it have a Biblical definition or is it merely a useful term to group persons of somewhat like beliefs?



It was said, "...If we lose the meaning behind what "theological ideas and words" mean, then we are left with nothing that means anything."

This is very true in regards to words and terms derived directly from the Bible, like Trinity and God head and sin, but in referring to a sociologically generated term, largely due to an event in history, names and titles often come about due to shared corporate agreement (i.e. somewhat wiggly).



So, I define "Reformed" as admiring the Reformers and holding to the Five Points and the Five Solas. Therefore I call myself a Reformed Baptist.

God bless you brother!

 

[Hungus]

Just as a historical note the Particular baptists (forefathers of the Reformed Baptists of today) descend from the Anglican Church Parallel to the Church of Scotland (Presbyterian). The second LBC is of course a(n) (adaptation/correction) [pick whichever one you want as there is no point in arguing it] of the WCF by those separatists that stayed in England. Effectively those that left became the Puritans of the US the ones that stayed were the Particular baptists (yes this is a GROSS over simplification as some Puritans stayed and some particular Baptists left). As to Modern Baptist circles Well that originated from 3 different streams. The Anabaptists(Brethren) from the Swiss Reformation, the General Baptists (history unknown to me) and the Particular Baptists (Separatists from the CoE). Today unfortunately Reformed Baptist has come in many circles to mean Calvinistic Baptists which is not the same as the particular baptists but is at least a step in the right direction.

Not that I particularly should be trusted in such matters, as I tend to consider all forms of Chilliaism to be at least borderline heretical, which pretty much colours my thinking in regards to the Brethren movements in total (Mennonites, Brethren, Anabaptists etc)

Fact of the matter is that there are at least 3 different streams even in "Reformed" baptist circles today (Founders[calvanistic baptists], FIRE [1642 LBC], ARBCA[1689 LBC] etc) to try and point at one and say they are all like that .. is in short a very poor idea.

Forgive my ranting I will go back to being ill now ..

 

[BobVigneault]

I think that we need a new word. In the strictest sense none of us is 'reformed' because after all, we are ALWAYS REFORMING. We are always arriving at a new and illumined plateau. To borrow some great thoughts from brother Bushey's website, SemperReformanda.com:

Our battle cry here at Semper Reformanda is much like the cry of the Marines; "Forever Faithfully Reforming". We will die for the cause if need be. .........The modus operandi of Semper Reformanda is to faithfully endeavor to reform the Church of Christ to the Holy Word of God. In this age of relativism, easy believism, and universalism, we have vowed to rightfully reject all things contrary to the word of God and plant our flag in protest.

I'm betting dollars to donuts that we all agree with this.


If not, then it's time to repeat the caution from the great philosopher Emo Philips:

I was in San Fransisco once, walking along the Golden Gate Bridge, and I saw this guy on the bridge about to jump. So I thought I'd try to stall and detain him, long enough for me to put the film in. I said, "Don't jump!" and he turns... I said, "Why the long face?"
He said, "Nobody loves me."
I said, "Are you a Christian or a Jew?"
He said, "A Christian."
I said, "Me too. Protestant or Catholic?"
He said, "Protestant."
I said, "Me too! What denomination?"
He says, "Baptist."
I said, "Me too! Northern Baptist or Southern Baptist?"
He says, "Northern Baptist."
I said, "Me too! Northern Conservative Baptist or Northern Liberal Baptist?"
He says, "Northern Conservative Baptist."
I say, "Me too! Northern Conservative Fundamentalist Baptist or Northern Conservative Reform Baptist?"
He says, "Northern Conservative Fundamentalist Baptist."
I say, "Me too! Northern Conservative Fundamentalist Baptist Great Lakes Region or Northern Conservative Fundamentalist Baptist Eastern Region?"
He says, "Northern Conservative Fundamentalist Baptist Great Lakes Region."
I say, "Me too! Northern Conservative Fundamentalist Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1879 or Northern Conservative Fundamentalist Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1912?"
He says, "Northern Conservative Fundamentalist Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1912."
I said, "Die, heretic!" And I pushed him over!

 

[VirginiaHuguenot]

 

[blhowes]

Originally posted by BobVigneault
If not, then it's time to repeat the caution from the great philosopher Emo Philips:

I was in San Fransisco once, walking along the Golden Gate Bridge, and I saw this guy on the bridge about to jump. So I thought I'd try to stall and detain him, long enough for me to put the film in. I said, "Don't jump!" and he turns... I said, "Why the long face?"
He said, "Nobody loves me."
I said, "Are you a Christian or a Jew?"
He said, "A Christian."
I said, "Me too. Protestant or Catholic?"
He said, "Protestant."
I said, "Me too! What denomination?"
He says, "Baptist."
I said, "Me too! Northern Baptist or Southern Baptist?"
He says, "Northern Baptist."
I said, "Me too! Northern Conservative Baptist or Northern Liberal Baptist?"
He says, "Northern Conservative Baptist."
I say, "Me too! Northern Conservative Fundamentalist Baptist or Northern Conservative Reform Baptist?"
He says, "Northern Conservative Fundamentalist Baptist."
I say, "Me too! Northern Conservative Fundamentalist Baptist Great Lakes Region or Northern Conservative Fundamentalist Baptist Eastern Region?"
He says, "Northern Conservative Fundamentalist Baptist Great Lakes Region."
I say, "Me too! Northern Conservative Fundamentalist Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1879 or Northern Conservative Fundamentalist Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1912?"
He says, "Northern Conservative Fundamentalist Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1912."
I said, "Die, heretic!" And I pushed him over!

[Edited on 10-14-2006 by blhowes]

 

[fivepointcalvinist]

Originally posted by trevorjohnson
Thanks Bruce....

In a sea of people wanting to give out more heat than light, your post was a welcome relief!



I am grateful for the truth that all denominations of the truly Christian share. I also think this:

Why are we always looking for those areas in which to disagree than those areas to agree. I agree with Francis Shaeffer that our love for one another (John 17) is the "Final Apologetic" that will really make an impact on the lost and onlooking world.

Many of you are straining at gnats for the sake of whether baptists can be referred to as Reformed (or even reformed..or even "reformed"). I think that for some of you that this is really a sin of getting our minds off of things that matter..getting into endless arguments and countless geneologies and the like that Pual warned against.

Here is my diagnosis of you all who want to exlcude Reformed baptists from your own definition of Reformed and need to "vent" because you don't want us on the same playground as you:

(1) You exhibit a Country club mentality. If you think that the Baptists are in gross error on ecclesiology, you can still delight in the truth that we do have,

(2) You exhibit spiritual pirde..."Ah...you all [referring to baptists] are not worthy to be called by the same name that we are called..."

(3) You focus on points of difference rather than on points of similarity.

(4) You prefer killing brothers by friendly fire rather than marching shoulder to shoulder towards the fasle beleifs of the rest of the world. Suprise guys....most of the true Christians in the rest of the world do not see your quibbling over words to have any importance. What they do see is that the body of Christ cannot even get along.

(4) You folks that "need to vent" perhaps should adopt some other ideological idol rather to puff yourselves up with rather than the Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ.

(5) Billions of lost people exist, countless people groups exist and yet many of you are armchair theologians that think that holiness has something to do with reading books and knowing archaic terms rather than exhibiting love for the brethren. In the name of discernment you become cold, analytical and arrogant.

 

[Scott Bushey]

Here's my two cents: Trevor, though your post is exhortive, rebuking and convicting, however, shall we abandon truth? The basic premise of this thread is what exactly is reformed and if paedo baptism is an excluding component? Technically speaking, the term itself is reforming, or evolving. Matt's premise simply is that the term is tied to certain fundamental facts. These facts are historic! At the rate we are going, in another generation the term will evolve into including those whom hold to at least one point of the sola's. The brakes need to be applied.

Personally speaking, I have no idea why this topic is again being discussed; it is a road many times travelled here on PB. The original poster should have been referred to the search engine! I agree, the topic divides. It may be truth, but it is obviously not being received by those whom history excludes. I don't see the big deal. Give up the moniker! Embrace 'particular'. Why is this such an assault? If I was a particular baptist, I would have no problem with this. No one is arguing that the particular baptist is not reforming; they are! Praise God!

I guess the best thing that could benefit everyone would be a list of those things that the historic reformed held to. This would at least narrow it down to whom really can hold to the title. You may be right, many churches that are paedo baptist are further from the title than some particulars are.

In conclusion, this thread will be closed as it is getting ridiculous. maybe this post is ridiculous.........

[Edited on 10-14-2006 by Scott Bushey]

 

[ChristopherPaul]

Originally posted by Blueridge reformer

Originally posted by C. Matthew McMahon
How does one define "Reformed"?

Historical Theology and Church History define that for us:

Calvin's Geneva became internationally known especially in light of its academic standing based on Calvin’s work previously accomplished there. We find "Calvinism" for those of the "Reformed" persuasion. Both these terms were first used by Dr. Joachim Westphal (a Lutheran) to refer primarily to the theological and sacramental views of difference between the Reformed and the Lutherans and culminating a great appeal thorough the systematization of the Biblical record and defended itself well against Roman Catholicism – the premier theological force against Protestantism of the day.

Those who followed Calvin's sacramental theologies, his form of church government, and the overarching themes of the Institutes’ theology, were known as "Reformed".

When Westminster wanted to create a church that mimicked the "best Reformed Churches", they were thinking in this manner. The Reformed were already in existence throughout Germany, France, Switzerland, etc. As a result, Westminster mimicked theologically in the WCF and subsequent documents, what it meant to "be Reformed" following those other churches.

When someone says "I'm Reformed" I would argue they are adhering to the Ecclesiology, Sacramentology, and Biblical Theology of The Institutes.

Being Reformed is not being "a 5 Pointer." Arguably - that is simply being Christian!

[Edited on 10-13-2006 by C. Matthew McMahon]

I guess I'll just have to settle for being a christian then!:bigsmile:

 

[ChristopherPaul]

Originally posted by Scott Bushey
The original poster should have been referred to the search engine!

That would have been odd being that Scott simply brought up a quote from Michael Horton.

Scott: “I thought this was a useful quote from Mike Horton:…”

The Prudent Puritan: “Use the search engine!”

 

[Scott Bushey]

Originally posted by ChristopherPaul

Originally posted by Scott Bushey
The original poster should have been referred to the search engine!

That would have been odd being that Scott simply brought up a quote from Michael Horton.

Scott: “I thought this was a useful quote from Mike Horton:…”

The Prudent Puritan: “Use the search engine!”

Chris,
TRUE! However, we all know where this was heading.

 

[turmeric]

Scott, you forgot to lock the door!

Since you did, here's my . It has taken me many years to come to a place where I can understand and subscribe to infant baptism, this has been very recent for me. If it's a stumbling-block, and it is a very real one to folks, they shoul not be compelled or pressured to violate their consciences just so they can claim the moniker "Reformed." I know to most of us it's not a big deal, but I find it hard to believe, knowing my own nature as I do, that we who believe history is on our side and we are "Reformed" don't feel just a tinge of vindication or maybe it's pride! Could it be?

Maybe this kind of topic isn't the best one for an interdenominational message board like this one. This should be a place where partcular baptists and presbyterians and our Dutch and Anglican brethren can explore our similarities and differences without fear.

 

[Scott Bushey]

Originally posted by turmeric
Scott, you forgot to lock the door!

Since you did, here's my . It has taken me many years to come to a place where I can understand and subscribe to infant baptism, this has been very recent for me. If it's a stumbling-block, and it is a very real one to folks, they shoul not be compelled or pressured to violate their consciences just so they can claim the moniker "Reformed." I know to most of us it's not a big deal, but I find it hard to believe, knowing my own nature as I do, that we who believe history is on our side and we are "Reformed" don't feel just a tinge of vindication or maybe it's pride! Could it be?

Maybe this kind of topic isn't the best one for an interdenominational message board like this one. This should be a place where partcular baptists and presbyterians and our Dutch and Anglican brethren can explore our similarities and differences without fear.

And that is exactly what we are doing. But in light of that, let us call the kettle black with accuracy; without being offended. Endeavor together. Strive! Run the race..........

Key turning [click]