Difference between Baptists and Reformed Baptists

Status
Not open for further replies.
I said this early that we need to be careful not to confuse Reformed Baptist churches with Calvinistic Baptist churches. A major difference is that reformed Baptist holds to a historical confession of faith, such as the Second London Baptist Confession.

The problem is they all have "Reformed Baptist Church" on their sign out front. How can you tell the difference unless you walk in the door and talk to them?

What is a Reformed Baptist Church?
Substance of a Sermon Preached by the Late Pastor William Payne of Burlington, Ontario, Canada​

If I were to be asked, "What kind of a church are you?" I would not hesitate to reply, "We are a Baptist church!" We hold to those truths which have sometimes been referred to as "Baptist Distinctives." I would also reply that we are a "Reformed Church" inasmuch as we hold to the great doctrines of the Reformation in the areas concerning the salvation of men. In this sense, I am not at all averse to our church being referred to as a "Reformed Baptist Church" and I want to speak on the subject, "What is a Reformed Baptist Church?"

I. THE SCRIPTURES

First of all, a Reformed Baptist Church is a local church which acknowledges the supreme authority of Holy Scripture. In all matters of faith, that is in the things we believe, and of practice, that is the things which we do, our sole authority is the Word of God. If something, whether of faith or practice, is contrary to the Bible then no matter who pleads for it, no matter what clever arguments are produced in favor of it, we cannot endorse it.

We recognize that in the operation of a local church there may be items introduced for which there may be no specific Biblical warrant; for instance, I am thinking of a church secretary as an illustration. It would be hard to find chapter and verse which states that we ought to have one, but we recognize that such things are necessary, and in accordance with the Biblical principle that all things should be done decently and in order.

However, we would state emphatically that when there is no express Biblical warrant for something we are not going to look upon it as sacred and binding. When the Word of God does not warrant something we are not going to be brought under bondage to it; but where the Scriptures clearly call for something, no consideration ought to make us do without it. We desire to have our conscience bound to the Word of God, for there we believe is true freedom. It is my opinion that a number of items in present day Baptist churches have no true Biblical warrant; they are a part of the church because they were introduced some years ago and are now "Baptist tradition." Perhaps many people take it for granted that they are Scriptural, but if they were challenged to produce Scriptural evidence for these practices they would be hard pressed to find any.

In other areas there are things which Scripture clearly calls for which have dropped out of most modern Baptist churches, and we ought to call for them to be brought back. The eldership would be an example of this point. Baptist churches used to have an eldership years ago; in most Baptist churches today you cannot find it. But we believe that if we are going to be truly patterned on the New Testament churches we need to return to the concept of eldership. The Scriptures present it; we ought to have it!

So Reformed Baptists are to be governed by not tradition, not by the opinion of men, not be sentiment, nor by pragmatism, but by the Word of God alone. We believe in the authority of Scripture, and we desire in our church life to be patterned after and conformed to the Word of God. We should always be seeking for God to deepen our understanding of His Word, and we should always be ready to reform any of our practices if it becomes apparent that we are out of line with the Scriptures. The attitude which says, "It doesn't matter what the Bible says, this is the way we have always done it," is to us frightening, indeed sinful. It must be "to the law and to the testimony" or "what saith the Scriptures?"

II. PREACHING

Secondly, Reformed Baptists believe in the pre-eminence of the preaching of the Word of God. We believe that the preaching of the Bible must have the central place in our services. We believe that nothing can or should take the place of the preaching of the Word!

Our conviction is that the church of Christ has suffered because she has downgraded the preaching of the Word. We believe that seminaries and Bible Colleges ought to be pre-eminently places where preachers are produced and encouraged. We believe that God's people everywhere ought to be encouraged to pray that God would endow men with gifts of preaching, and that He would give to His churches preachers, great preachers, many preachers. We believe that there is a need in the churches of Christ for a fresh realization of the importance of the preaching of the Word of God, and that young men ought to be encouraged to study theology, church history and the sermons of great preachers of the past; that they ought to work hard to become good preachers of the Bible.

III. THE DOCTRINES OF GRACE

Thirdly, Reformed Baptists unashamedly declare their belief in those doctrines which are sometimes called the doctrines of grace. By this expression we mean in particular the doctrines of total depravity, unconditional election, definite atonement, effectual calling, and the perseverance of the saints. We rejoice in those glorious truths which uphold the sovereignty of God in the salvation of men, and which so gloriously affirm the great central reality that salvation is all of grace, and that salvation is of the Lord!

We rejoice that the doctrines of grace are clearly set forth in the Second London Confession of Faith of l689, and in many other historic Baptist creeds. We note that in l861 when Charles Spurgeon opened the great Metropolitan Tabernacle in London, England, that he celebrated the occasion by having sermons preached by esteemed guests on each of those distinctive doctrines. And yet it is not because Spurgeon, or any other Baptist preached these doctrines that we believe them. It is not just because these doctrines are found in the historic Baptist creeds, though we rejoice that that is the case, but it is because the doctrines are so clearly presented in the Holy Scriptures that we believe them.

We recognize that we live in an age when these great fundamental truths are ignored, and even blatantly denied by many professing the name "evangelical" and the name "Baptist." We know that they are unpopular truths, but truths they are, and we receive them and rejoice in them.

We would like to emphasize also that we not only believe them but we further believe that they ought to be clearly preached and taught from the pulpit!

We have a tragic situation today when men in the pulpits say that they believe the doctrines of grace but they refuse to preach and teach them to their people.

The result is that the churches are full of people uninstructed in the great truths of the Scriptures (and of the historic Baptist faith), and these people then imbibe the very opposite doctrines--which they easily receive over the radio and via religious periodicals. Often when a man comes into such a congregation and preaches the truths of grace, uproar and opposition ensue. This is tragic, but common. We believe that our day needs the doctrines of grace, and that our people need to be instructed in them.

IV. EVANGELISM

In the next place, we would like to affirm that Reformed Baptists believe in the necessity and responsibility of evangelism. We have no more liking for Hyper-Calvinism than we have for Arminianism.

We do NOT believe that there is an inconsistency between God's sovereignty in the salvation of His chosen people and His command to us to preach the gospel to every creature. If there seems to be a difficulty in our minds reconciling any of the truths of His Word, we see it as the result of the darkness of our own understanding, and we believe that our duty is to obey the Word whether we understand it all or not. We believe in evangelism!

Now it is true that we do NOT believe in much that goes under the name of evangelism in this twentieth century. We believe that much that is called evangelism today is little more than psychology and salesmanship; we are appalled by the superficial work which goes under the name of evangelism; we are appalled by the pressures, gimmicks and schemes all calculated to produce "decisions" and impressive statistics but which work havoc in the souls of men. No!

Because we believe in evangelism does not mean that we are going to cooperate with every scheme which bears that name. We believe that in evangelism as in everything else, as we said earlier, we must be governed by the Word of God. The message of evangelism must be according to the Scriptures, and the method of evangelism must be governed by the Word of God! nevertheless, we repeat that we do believe in evangelism, and our prayer is that God would ever keep us mindful of the need to evangelize. May God ever give us a burden to evangelize, knowing that it is for His glory and for the salvation of men.

We believe that it is our responsibility to make known the gospel first in our own community, and in the United States at large, and indeed in all the world. We believe in missions, home and foreign and we believe that we ought to seek the souls of men in every way that is consistent with the Word of God.

V. WORSHIP

Finally, let me say that a Reformed Baptist Church is a local church with a serious approach to worship. The God we worship is a God of majesty, glory and holiness. And the God of the Bible is One before Whom the angels of heaven constantly cry, "Holy, Holy, Holy" they worship Him day and night; He is great and greatly to be praised. We believe that when we come together to worship this great and glorious God of the Bible we ought to do so with reverence and with godly fear. We believe that there ought to be a sense of AWE in our hearts when we gather to worship this God!

You say, "But surely there must be joy as well." Yes, indeed, we agree, but equally surely it must be a joy which is a joy in God; a joy not arising from some natural "good feeling" but a joy arising out of the knowledge of the Lord, and a joy tempered and controlled by reverence.

We believe that there is a world of difference between a "dead" service and a serious, spiritual service. The first is not desired; the second is. Now because of this desire for serious worship, we believe that anything which would detract from that ought not to be allowed among us. Frivolity and childishness seem to us to be out of place and incongruous with the worship of God.

We also believe that our music in the church ought to be governed by the great central fact of the One whom we worship. So much of the music invading the churches today seems little more than carnal imitation of the world. There is very little difference between that which is presented on the church platform and that which is presented on the television or the worldly floor show--except of course, that "religious" words are uttered rather than "secular" ones. But the spirit is of the world; the appeal is to the flesh. This we abhor and reject as having no place in the worship of God. That which is sacred ought not to be prostituted and used as entertainment. If men want to be entertained let them be honest enough to go to some secular hall of amusement and be entertained; let them not pretend to be worshipping or in a service when entertainment is the order of the day. No! When we gather to worship, we want to keep the world out; we want to appeal not to the flesh but to the spirit; we want not the sophistication of the world but the simplicity of Christ. Oh that when we worship we might feel the awe of God in our souls; Oh that we might see something of the glory seen by Isaiah and by the servants of God of old!

This, then, is the kind of church we are seeking to build. Other things could be said, but we have sought to touch on some of the basic points. May God raise up many such churches all over the land and all over the world which desire the same things and strive towards them. May God be pleased to visit His people again with showers of blessing that God might be glorified in and through His Church!
 
I realize that the Reformed Baptist churches are bound together by a common confession, but I would like to see more effort to bind together in more visible ways for outreach and fellowship together. I'm not sure what the best ways to accomplish this would be, perhaps others can contribute some application.

I'm not sure about other parts of the world, but here in NJ they seem to be far apart. The commute would eat up much valuable time and $ to make it a regular thing.
 
I realize that the Reformed Baptist churches are bound together by a common confession, but I would like to see more effort to bind together in more visible ways for outreach and fellowship together. I'm not sure what the best ways to accomplish this would be, perhaps others can contribute some application.

I'm not sure about other parts of the world, but here in NJ they seem to be far apart. The commute would eat up much valuable time and $ to make it a regular thing.

There are several annual and/or regional pastors conferences for Reformed Baptists. There have been as well in the past annual family conferences but the economy has put a pinch on that.
 
The best way? Become Presbyterian. ;)


There currently is an effort now to of reformed Baptist churches to “bind together”. We see that with the following associations:
Association of Reformed Baptist Churches of America (ARBCA)
Association of Reformed Baptist Churches of Quebec
Fellowship of Reformed Baptist Churches in New Zealand
International Fellowship of Reformed Baptists

. . .

Perhaps the reason why you do not see this is you do not know the efforts right now that are in play.
Hi, Mr. Jolley. Oh, I'm aware of such efforts. The problem is, my friend, such efforts are ultimately futile due to the persistence of congregational autonomy. I was blessed to formerly be a member of a Baptist congregation that was led by a plurality of elders, godly men. But what beyond that? To whom could I appeal, then, if justice was not met in their ruling (which it would have been, but we can't know the hearts of every local session throughout the world). Due to pervasive forms of autonomy, ultimately a local church may do what it likes, without fear of any permanent reprisal. Why? Because it has no higher accountability. If a local session wants to conspire against a family or an individual member not for any biblical reason, but because of some other reason, to whom may the family or individual go? It just breaks down. All the "Associations" in the world do not equal an ecclesiastical court body that can handle appeals and matters of the church at large.

Just my :2cents:

Josh, dear brother, do you not see that your argument is self defeating. Reformed Baptists, qua Baptists understand the Scriptures to place final FALLIBLE HUMAN authority in the elders of the particular flock, not in a FALLIBLE HUMAN authority yet above them.

Let me reword your argument that you may see this:

To whom could I appeal, then, if justice was not met in their ruling (which it would have been, but we can't know the hearts of every LOCAL SESSION throughout the world). Due to pervasive forms of autonomy, ultimately a LOCAL CHURCH may do what it likes, without fear of any permanent reprisal. Why? Because it has no higher accountability. If a LOCAL SESSION wants to conspire against a family or an individual member not for any biblical reason, but because of some other reason, to whom may the family or individual go? It just breaks down. All the "ASSOCIATIONS" in the world do not equal an ECCLESIASTICAL COURT BODY that can handle appeals and matters of the church at large.

To whom could I appeal, then, if justice was not met in their ruling (which it would have been, but we can't know the hearts of every PRESBYTERY throughout the world). Due to pervasive forms of autonomy, ultimately a PRESBYTERY may do what it likes, without fear of any permanent reprisal. Why? Because it has no higher accountability. If a PRESBYTERY wants to conspire against a family or an individual member not for any biblical reason, but because of some other reason, to whom may the family or individual go? It just breaks down. All the PRESBYTERIES in the world do not equal an COLLEGE OF CARDINALS or THE POPE that can handle appeals and matters of the church at large.
 
Just because there is a higher church court above the local eldership does not keep a congregation, or even a denominational group, orthodox. Not in the least.
 
It's not self defeating, being my whole point that there is appeal beyond the mere local level. Beyond the parties involved. I've never said or implied that human courts are infallible. I'm aware that they are not. I'm aware that there are rogue denominations who have done wickedly upon individuals, families, and even local churches. My point is that local autonomy gives no room for appeal beyond the local session.

I appreciate the attempt to clarify, truly I do, but it still misses the point. Understanding that there is no Scriptural human authority beyond the elders who rule the local church, Baptists recognize that it then rests in the hands of the Chief Shepherd, Jesus Christ. To appeal to other bodies, however sincere and impartial they may be, is both to move beyond biblical constituted authority as well as subject ourselves to an infinite process of appeal.
 
. . . Understanding that there is no Scriptural human authority beyond the elders who rule the local church . . .
Not all of us understand it that way. ;) Of course, I suppose that's for a different thread. We Presbyterians also believe that ultimate decisions lie in the hands of the Great Shepherd as well, lest it be thought otherwise.

Of course, I'll stop sidetracking and hijacking this baptist thread anyway. :)

Josh, you gotta be one of my favorite Presbyterians!
 
The best way? Become Presbyterian. ;)


There currently is an effort now to of reformed Baptist churches to “bind together”. We see that with the following associations:
Association of Reformed Baptist Churches of America (ARBCA)
Association of Reformed Baptist Churches of Quebec
Fellowship of Reformed Baptist Churches in New Zealand
International Fellowship of Reformed Baptists

. . .

Perhaps the reason why you do not see this is you do not know the efforts right now that are in play.
Hi, Mr. Jolley. Oh, I'm aware of such efforts. The problem is, my friend, such efforts are ultimately futile due to the persistence of congregational autonomy. I was blessed to formerly be a member of a Baptist congregation that was led by a plurality of elders, godly men. But what beyond that? To whom could I appeal, then, if justice was not met in their ruling (which it would have been, but we can't know the hearts of every local session throughout the world). Due to pervasive forms of autonomy, ultimately a local church may do what it likes, without fear of any permanent reprisal. Why? Because it has no higher accountability. If a local session wants to conspire against a family or an individual member not for any biblical reason, but because of some other reason, to whom may the family or individual go? It just breaks down. All the "Associations" in the world do not equal an ecclesiastical court body that can handle appeals and matters of the church at large.

Just my :2cents:

Josh,

i don't see the cooperation among RB churches as ultimately futile. I'm somewhat biased in my comments because I am favor of our church joining ARBCA. I am impressed with the cooperation among ARBCA churches, even while each church remains congregational. Congregationalism has inerent weaknesses that need constant attention; not unlike similar problems at the presbytery level in Presbyterian denominations. These weaknesses should keep us humble and ever dependent on God.

I will make the argument that RB churches should seek each other out. Cooperation and support on doctrinal positions, missions, pastoral/elder training, common practices etc. will strengthen each church without a loss of scripturally-bound autonomy. But RB churches need to learn from their larger SBC brethren. Founders churches are trying to recapture the prominence their beliefs once held in the SBC, but they are fighting a battle against entrenched churches that are resisting change tooth and nail. Every human institution is subject to these problems to greater or lesser extents. RB associations are no exception. Semper Vigilans.
 
Just because there is a higher church court above the local eldership does not keep a congregation, or even a denominational group, orthodox. Not in the least.
Which was something I neither said or implied.

Oh, I wasn't suggesting that. I know you better than to do that. But, it is often implied by others. That is why I posted the statement. The heart of man is wicked, and wicked hearts will always find a way to corrupt the doctrine and practice of the church regardless of leadership structure.
 
Josh, with particular Baptist in mind I presented a case where a local church was having a problem with their pastor and the church turned to the association which excommunicated the pastor. You may not have read all of my second post and missed that section, because I see you didn’t quote that. This is a direction that some RB want to go, not so they can be judged by a court, but for accountability on the local level by other pastors that may not be a part of the church. This is very much different then most Baptist churches and is even radical to the SBC; who promote such strong self freedom instead of interdependence on each other for the common goal of proclaiming Christ, the sole purpose of these associations historically.

Josh am sorry if you think its futile, but perhaps this that this is your own tradition bleeding through and blinding you instead of being open minded to God’s will then this area. Remember the words of Gamaliel, “if this plan or this undertaking is of man it will fail, but if it is of God you will not be able to overthrow them. You may be found opposing God.”(Acts 5:38-39) So I suggest be very careful what criticisms you place on the development of associations as reformed Baptist grow and mature to their more historical faith. For even the Presbyterian model, as brother Bob points out, has its issues to and we can see that within their own history. In the end we must realize that true justice comes from God and not from sinful man. We must keep are attention placed on scripture for the transforming of our minds instead of a government of men or ruling class in and out of the church for what is right. These structures did not prevent the rise of liberalism within the Presbyterian churches, a type of liberalism that was different and more accelerating in damage of the denial of key fundamental doctrine then we saw in Baptist circles. Not to say liberalism didn’t affect Baptist churches; it did, but differently.

There are many differences with RB with Baptist churches as a whole. It is a growing and still developing body, looking at our previous fathers of the faith and scripture. And perhaps it is not as systematically categorized as I thought, which was helpful thing to realize in the audio clip posted to the string. If we want to talk about the difference between the Presbyterian model of church government with the RB view in I would suggest we start that thread up sometime here soon, that way brother Josh and tell us what he really thinks about RB. :lol:

And Bill, great response. :agree::applause:
 
For what it's worth I purposely put this thread in this forum so all could interact. There are many learned Presbyterians who have an in-depth knowledge of Baptist ecclesiology and could add much value to the discussion.
 
Hi, Mr. Jolley. Oh, I'm aware of such efforts. The problem is, my friend, such efforts are ultimately futile due to the persistence of congregational autonomy. I was blessed to formerly be a member of a Baptist congregation that was led by a plurality of elders, godly men. But what beyond that? To whom could I appeal, then, if justice was not met in their ruling (which it would have been, but we can't know the hearts of every local session throughout the world). Due to pervasive forms of autonomy, ultimately a local church may do what it likes, without fear of any permanent reprisal. Why? Because it has no higher accountability. If a local session wants to conspire against a family or an individual member not for any biblical reason, but because of some other reason, to whom may the family or individual go? It just breaks down. All the "Associations" in the world do not equal an ecclesiastical court body that can handle appeals and matters of the church at large.

Just my :2cents:

Josh,

i don't see the cooperation among RB churches as ultimately futile. I'm somewhat biased in my comments because I am favor of our church joining ARBCA. I am impressed with the cooperation among ARBCA churches, even while each church remains congregational. Congregationalism has inerent weaknesses that need constant attention; not unlike similar problems at the presbytery level in Presbyterian denominations. These weaknesses should keep us humble and ever dependent on God.

I will make the argument that RB churches should seek each other out. Cooperation and support on doctrinal positions, missions, pastoral/elder training, common practices etc. will strengthen each church without a loss of scripturally-bound autonomy. But RB churches need to learn from their larger SBC brethren. Founders churches are trying to recapture the prominence their beliefs once held in the SBC, but they are fighting a battle against entrenched churches that are resisting change tooth and nail. Every human institution is subject to these problems to greater or lesser extents. RB associations are no exception. Semper Vigilans.

Bill I do not wish to undermine in any way the good work that ARBCA and others are attempting. I pray God's good favor upon their sincere efforts. However I do not find warrant for them in Scripture and our church declines to participate.

It is ironic but I find the arguments of the Presbyterian J.H. Thornwell to be insightful and convicting in this area. In his 1841 ARGUMENT AGAINST CHURCH-BOARDS he said:

"It appears to us that this whole system involves an abandonment of the great principle that it is the duty of the Church, as such, in her ecclesiastical capacity, to conduct every department of the work which the Saviour (sic) has committed to her."

"One of (the) charges against Boards was, that they give us a set of ecclesiastical officers and courts separate from those acknowledged in our Standards. This (he) denies, and insists upon it, that those engaged in the service of the Boards are Ministers and Elders of the Church, and do not cease to be such in consequence of their relations to the Boards. The service of the Boards, let it be remembered, becomes their calling—their distinct vocation. Is it the service to which they were ordained? Is it not a very different employment from the usual duties of a Ruling Elder, Bishop or Evangelist?"

… Bishops, Elders, and Deacons … these officers … are treated in our Constitution as abundantly adequate to meet all the exigensies of the Church, and to do all that God requires her to do in her ecclesiastical capacity. We profess to trace this system to the Scriptures. We believe that it embodies the leading principles of Church government established by the Apostles of the Lord; and we cannot question its sufficiency without bringing a serious and blasphemous reproach upon the Spirit of inspiration.
– James Henley Thornwell, volume 4 Collected Writings

Bob,

I'm not disputing the issue of boards (as defined in your post). ARBCA affiliation in no way transfers the functions of the church to an ecclesiastical hierarchy. ARBCA's only authority is accepting, rejecting, or dismissing a church from membership.
 
Josh am sorry if you think its futile, but perhaps this that this is your own tradition bleeding through and blinding you instead of being open minded to God’s will then this area.
Friend, my tradition has always been baptistic up until a few years ago, so there's no blinding or lack of open-mindedness going on, though I appreciate your desire to admonish me.
Josh, I don’t think it matters if you been a Presbyterians 3 years or 10. We can still be blinded by our traditions. As James White has said many time, “Those who do not recognize their traditions are the most enslaved by them.” I this that a major difference between fundamentalist Baptist and reformed Baptist as the fact we recognize what our traditions that guide us instead of just crying out Scripture alone, as if their theological backgrounds are not at play.
In the end we must realize that true justice comes from God and not from sinful man. We must keep are attention placed on scripture for the transforming of our minds instead of a government of men or ruling class in and out of the church for what is right.
And no orthodox Reformed Presbyterian would assert otherwise, but we do believe in Christ's visible kingdom here on earth and that the keys have been given to shepherds in order to rightly facilitate ecclesiastical matters.
Are you saying Baptist do not believe Christ has a visible/spiritual kingdom on earth and the keys have been given to the pastors to “rightly facilitate ecclesiastical matters”?
These structures did not prevent the rise of liberalism within the Presbyterian churches, a type of liberalism that was different and more accelerating in damage of the denial of key fundamental doctrine then we saw in Baptist circles. Not to say liberalism didn’t affect Baptist churches; it did, but differently.
Friend, structures and models don't prevent or cause anything. Rather, the men who are either enforcing or not enforcing said structures are the ones responsible.

I do agree that the responsible must be placed in those enforcing certain structures, however I do find it interesting how certain systems has their own particular brand of trouble, just as rise of fundamentalism by the Baptist and the rise of German Higher criticism as promoted by Union Seminary . Where one side takes an anti-intellectualism perspective, a no creed but Christ, Presbyterians circles go overboard and from there and go outside and destroy the written word through their intellectual endeavors. RB I think is a move towards a balance of the intellect, teaching church history and systematics, along side with trying to remember the simplicity of the Gospel and that of many scriptural passages. In fact, that may be a reason why some RB churches still seems slightly fundamental, because of their own historical roots and as they mature certain aspects of that as a church should fad away; such as issues like drinking.

I still trying to remain to the point of this thread and that specifying the difference between PB and other Baptist Churches. So please do not see this as a personal attack.
 
Last edited:
Here's an observation of mine:

It seems that the Refomed Baptist churches I've visited in the past were much more strict in their subscription to and application of their confessional standards than virtually all the PCA churches I've visited.

Another observation:

I've never been to, or even heard of, a self-consciously Reformed Baptist church that was trying to be "cool." On the other hand, I can think of numerous PCA churches that seem to want to emanate "cool and sophisticated cultural relevance."

Absolutely same experience - visited an older daughter and son-in-law's Baptist church in Charleston SC, with a Reformed Baptist pastor. The quotations in the service bulletin, and used in the service, from John Owen, Valley of Vision prayers, Spurgeon, etc., were enough to make most pca folks around my place blush. We even had a sermon at our pca church recently with one comment being how the Spurgeon way of preaching wouldn't address our culture now. :owen::spurgeon::ditto:
 
I have had a chance to visit several of the Arbca churches and have been encouraged with what is taking place.
Some other reformed baptist churches stay seperate from any association.
the ArBCA website posts sermons from there general meetings.
Any of you brethren in SC, who want to get a better handle on it,you can visit Bob Selph in Taylors, or the PB 's own DR.Bob Gonzales in Easley.
Many of the RB works are small assemblies. Most all would desire to have a plurality of elders. Most all are spoken against by the other baptist churches in the area .
I have interacted with some baptist pastors on sermonaudio, who speak against the grace of God saying we are aligning ourselves with the padeo's and Calvin as if it were a wicked thing. They made some ad-homeinm attacks and told me I needed to understand baptist history .
If no Rb church is in an area, I would be more comfortable in any of the Padeo churches represented here on the PB than in some of these fundementalist type church's.
On the downside some of the members in the RB church's who are regular attenders have come out of other backrounds and might not have as good a grasp of the RB distinctives as they should.
Another characteristic of RB's is they have many Puritan's and padeo books in their library,and enjoy the help and teaching in them where the arminian types avoid these writings as error.
 
To keep it to the original question.

the difference between reformed baptist and "regular" baptists is obviously the "reformed" part.

Seeing that there are only two major schools of theology, reformed and dispensational, regular baptists who are not reformed are usually dispensational.

Although reformed baptists hold to the 5 points, dispensationalists may or may not hold to any or all of the 5 points, as dispensationalisism has no requirement in its theology for any of the points. I've experienced both sides as I was in a dispensational church, a reformed baptist church, and am now currently PCA and happily married to a RB while going to a dispensational baptist college (yeah, big mistake, i know!)
 
To keep it to the original question.

the difference between reformed baptist and "regular" baptists is obviously the "reformed" part.

Seeing that there are only two major schools of theology, reformed and dispensational, regular baptists who are not reformed are usually dispensational.

Although reformed baptists hold to the 5 points, dispensationalists may or may not hold to any or all of the 5 points, as dispensationalisism has no requirement in its theology for any of the points. I've experienced both sides as I was in a dispensational church, a reformed baptist church, and am now currently PCA and happily married to a RB while going to a dispensational baptist college (yeah, big mistake, i know!)

John Piper is a perfect example of a Calvinistic Baptist who is not Reformed. What makes Reformed Baptists different than their Calvinistic brethren is confessionalism. The 1644 and 1689 LBC's provide a distinct direction towards Puritanism and the Reformation. John MacArthur, while not officially a Baptist, is Baptistic. He's not Reformed in that he still holds to dispensationalism and is not confessional.
 
Here's an observation of mine:

It seems that the Refomed Baptist churches I've visited in the past were much more strict in their subscription to and application of their confessional standards than virtually all the PCA churches I've visited.

Another observation:

I've never been to, or even heard of, a self-consciously Reformed Baptist church that was trying to be "cool." On the other hand, I can think of numerous PCA churches that seem to want to emanate "cool and sophisticated cultural relevance."

Our PCA church is "cool" about ten years ago we started singing three "worship praise songs" before the invocation. Most of the families that pushed for this addition have left but we still do it "because that's what we (the session) decided to do."
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top