Do you see a real distinction between Reform/Calvinistic Baptists?
- Thread starter Dachaser
- Start date
- Status
arapahoepark
Puritan Board Professor
Yes. They are not 'Reformed.'
Gforce9
Puritan Board Junior
No doubt. Confessionalism vs anti- confessionalism is a serious divide. One says we agree with our brothers of ages past and stand together with them inside the safe guardrails of a stated, orthodox confession, the other travels down the salad bar of theology and takes what he likes and passes over what he doesn't..... but it is he, himself that decides (he is the final arbiter of truth). Michael Horton has commented that evangelical Protestants rail against the papacy (and rightfully so), but fail to recognize the fact that each person acts as his own pope, determining the meaning of Scripture and practice entirely divorced from the accepted testimony of the church universal.... This doesn't even address covenantal matters....at least not directly....
Where this can and has gotten interesting is that we as baptists run into we see each individual as able to understand the scriptures by themselves as what they really mean, as we hold that the Holy Spirit leads and guides us into all truth, but we also do all have some form/statement of beliefs that we agree must be upheld at same time!
Gforce9
Puritan Board Junior
David,
You have illustrated my point. While we would all agree with Luther (against Rome) that individuals can read the Bible for themselves, and come to a basic knowledge of their need and of salvation (you took it farther in your statement above), we confessionalists are adamantly against the shifting sand of "me-and-my-bible" ism so prevalent today, where everyone reinvents god in their own image and after their own likeness. All of us here believe in the Nicean and Chalcedonian pronouncements. If you go into your run-o-the-mill pop-evangelical destinations (I hesitate to blanketely call them churches), you will find few who affirm the two Creeds in favor of "no creed but Christ". Anti-confessionalism is unsafe and self-elevates ones own abilities.....
The 1689 Confession is covenantal. Read ch 7 carefully. Thus I do not hesitate to call myself covenantal and Reformed. That said, there are many confessing Baptists who are Calvinistic but reject the covenant theology of the 1689 confession.
reaganmarsh
Puritan Board Senior
There is a significant difference between being a confessionally Reformed baptist and a soteriologically-Calvinistic baptist. The confessional man is answerable to Scripture alone, but he does not interpret it alone; while the non-confessional man is left to cobble together his theology as best he is able.
That being said, a non-confessional but Calvinistic man who is committed to the sole authority of Scripture is a far different fellow from the typical evangelical; and he is one who, in due time, might well be persuaded to embrace the benefits of robust, historic Reformed confessionalism.
That being said, a non-confessional but Calvinistic man who is committed to the sole authority of Scripture is a far different fellow from the typical evangelical; and he is one who, in due time, might well be persuaded to embrace the benefits of robust, historic Reformed confessionalism.
reaganmarsh
Puritan Board Senior
Amen.
That would seem to be the insurgence currently been happening among the SBC at this present time, as many Baptists in that group are now embracing reformed salvation regarding the 5 points of Grace, but not becoming reformed in sense of holding to Covenant theology and Confessions...
Some of the Baptists who are now acknowledging reformed salvation, while not affirming the Confessions such as 1689, are rewriting and reaffirming their statement of beliefs, that serve a similiar purpose among Baptists...
timfost
Puritan Board Senior
David,
I hear what you're saying, but I fear that such mode of representation poses a problem, namely, that if the Holy Spirit leads one person into this understanding and another in a different understanding, we make the Spirit the author of confusion. This can lead to (and I've seen it first-hand) a rejection of the confessions of others because the "Spirit's message" differed. Since the Spirit is not the author of confusion, as it was argued, the others with a different view could not have the Spirit.
How do you interact with this problem, or have I misunderstood your point?
Thanks!
reaganmarsh
Puritan Board Senior
There are lots of SBC folk (pastors and laity alike) who are hardcore Scofield dispensationalists...and there's the new Dispensational Publishing company.
Many Baptists were particular ones to start out here in the USA, and right after the Civil War, there were bg inroads made to switch to unlimited atonement free will model of salvation. Right now the SBC going through a time when calvinistixc Baptists are trying to get them to move back unto limited atonement, Tulip salvation model, but in fighting going on in the ranks. Dr Moehler is leading that chatge at His Seminary for that...
Dispensational thinking came into vogue by the Plymouth Bethren group, around 1830, by Darby, and the main seminary to advance this has been Dallas theological.
There are differences among Dispensational also, as some still in Scofield camp of saved by Law/Grace, progressive seeing more like we would regarding salvation, and it does seem that them and Covenantpremil/NCT in the center now.
We baptists always have been a confession group, its just that we tended to have statement of beliefs as being that for us....
We tend to have layers of truth among us, as in there are essentials that we must all agree with, such as trinity, Jesus being Messiah, Hos atoning death, resurrection, second coming...
We then have so called grey areas, such as timing of second coming, modes of baptism, church government, as important but we are free to disagree and understand differently..
Where i have gotten into troubles with some is that they call me a "tolerant calvinist", as I do see calvinists and arminians and non Calvinists as being all christians, its just that we understand better salvation as per the scriptures. Some have told ne that is wrong, as just calvinists are really saved, as others teach a false Gospel!
In regard to the Holy Spirit "leading and guiding us into all truth..."- it helped greatly when I realized that this promise in John 16:13 was for the apostles, and pertained to their ministry after Christ's ascension and to the completion of the Scriptures. The promise validates the apostles' teaching as being Christ's teaching; it doesn't apply in the individualistic way that it's now commonly understood. Realizing this was very encouraging, and it paved the way for further reformation in my understanding.
The specific promise was to them true, but we also have the "annoiting" as John calls it from the Holy Spirit, as one of His tasks is to illuminate the truths of the bible to us also...
Pilgrim
Puritanboard Commissioner
Maybe this is a regional thing. Most people in these parts who carry a Scofield are independent fundamentalists or members of independent Bible churches. Maybe you see it more in country SBC churches with older people.
Pilgrim
Puritanboard Commissioner
Dispensationalism did not come out of Baptist circles. In its developed form, it originated in England with the Darby (Plymouth) Brethren who were former Anglicans. It was imported into the USA via Presbyterian churches (particularly the ministry of James H. Brookes in St. Louis, Scofield's mentor) and spread by things like the Niagara Bible conferences that were a precursor to fundamentalism. Many of the early faculty at Dallas Seminary were from a Presbyterian background. This went up into what might be termed the second generation and included Walvoord and Pentecost who were Presbyterians at least originally. They certainly were not confessional Presbyterians, but there were a whole lot more broadly evangelical fundamentalist Presbyterians in those days.
You might want to look at Jeremiah 31:33-34 to compare with 1 John 2:26,27. If you use the 1John text in the same way you used the John 16:13 text, you'd have to say that John in his epistle was doing away with the office of teaching in the church ("ye need not that any man teach you")! Your opening post was about the difference between soteriological-only Calvinism and confessional Reformed Calvinism, and your use of those two Scripture texts highlights the difference pretty well (at least many times).
reaganmarsh
Puritan Board Senior
It may well be a regional or rural matter; but those two categories account for the vast majority of SBC churches.
Last edited:
Good point, as it does seem that Predbyterians and Dispensational are in a sense strange bedfellows!
There is indeed that major difference, as we who are Baptists would tend to see that the primary theology to be held to would be that in the scripture themselves, and do think that in some regards those who are reformed baptists have the best of both theological worlds...
arapahoepark
Puritan Board Professor
You mean rather Scripture itself with no confession added, I assume.
Yes, but even that is really not the whole story, as most Baptists would also tend to agree with their statement of beliefs!
One of the problems that arises in these discussions is that many tend to lump all credobaptists into the category of 'Baptist'. If that is how we are using the word, then the conversations gets very convoluted. 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.
If credobaptism makes you a 'Baptist' then we must include Calvary Chapel, Vineyard, Sovereign Grace, etc. as well.
Any more, I don't immediately consider a church to be a 'Baptist' church unless they have the word 'Baptist' in their name, or they belong to an Association that has the word 'Baptist' in their name.
Rant over...
If credobaptism makes you a 'Baptist' then we must include Calvary Chapel, Vineyard, Sovereign Grace, etc. as well.
Any more, I don't immediately consider a church to be a 'Baptist' church unless they have the word 'Baptist' in their name, or they belong to an Association that has the word 'Baptist' in their name.
Rant over...
Pilgrim
Puritanboard Commissioner
True. But a lot of those country churches are graying and shrinking, with some dying, a trend that is projected to really accelerate in the next decade or so. Other churches that are on the verge of closing the doors are being taken over by larger churches as part of the ever increasing multi-site movement, although I suppose that wouldn't really work in very rural areas. But I'm seeing it more and more with churches that are maybe 20-25 miles outside of a larger town. And I'm seeing it with some city churches as well.
As I'm sure you know, the reason why the new dispensational publishing house you linked earlier was started was due to the perception that dispensationalism is on the wane due to the increased popularity of Calvinism and maybe other factors. I think they are quite right about that in the SBC and in general. The man who started it was pastoring in TX. If he had seen a lot of people in their 20s and 30s carrying Ryrie or Scofield Bibles, would he have felt the need? How many Southern Baptist people who are under 40 do you know who are heavily into dispensationalism, whether pastors or laypeople?
Multitudes had "Left Behind" shoved down their throat in youth group or whatever and have reacted against it, often just avoiding the subject altogether. Stuff like The Gospel Project [for the uninitiated, that's SBC Sunday School material that has been heavily promoted by Lifeway] is heavily influenced by the likes of Goldsworthy and is totally incompatible with dispensationalism.
I've found that many people roughly 45 and younger (referring mainly to pastors, but a lot of laypeople too) have little interest in dispensationalism, especially the pastors. (I'm speaking of online as well as personal acquaintances.) And this is near NOBTS, which I would think is one of the more dispensational friendly SBC seminaries since anti-Calvinism and dispensationalism tend to go hand in hand in the SBC, although there are some exceptions. Among Southern Baptists, a generation has risen up that knows not Criswell and Rogers. The likes of Piper and Platt are their heroes.
A lot of the younger guys I know are either historic premil or amil, including some who aren't that Calvinistic. About the only younger people I come across who are dispensational are influenced by MacArthur. It is generally the charismatics that harp on Israel. (This area is probably more overrun with charismania than some areas in the Southeast.)
I also know some DTS grads who are dispensational but who hardly ever preach on eschatology. At least one of those churches uses the Gospel Project material. I wonder if they realize that the seeds of "replacement theology" are being planted in the minds of their children? It may not refer much, if at all, to eschatology, but the hermeneutic (i.e. "Jesus on every page") that undermines their whole position is there.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
