Wouldn't Presby christians be Only true calvinists?

[Iconoclast]

Check out this chart where Greg Nichols of Grand Rapids Reformed Baptist Church admits adherence to 'Presbyterial' governance of the local church. He dismisses Baptist congregationalism as an 'error'.

Thank you for this excellent link Jerome......:thumbs::thumbs:

 

[Iconoclast]

I am a Reformed Baptist. If anybody doesn't like that (and Matthew MacMahon doesn't!), then tough bananas.
The Particular Baptists are the true Reformed people. They are the ones who have completed the Reformation by doing away with the last bastion of Romanism, infant 'baptism.' :thumbs:

Steve

I have heard Matthew Mcmahon give a lecture on why RB are not truely "reformed". He likens it to a chess board in which you remove a couple of the main pieces,,so you can no longer say you are playing chess.
Dr,Mcmahon is a well educated...well read, and solid brother in Christ.
. This whole topic is interesting in that baptists in truth did not actually reform. That is to say...the reformers.... reformed from out of the roman church. Baptists, or as they were called anabaptists, existed outside of the roman church to start with. They did not need to reform from the Rc church
they just needed to get a better grip on the doctrine.
This is not quite the "trail of blood" from where landmarkism would come from.nevertheless there were believers who were persecuted by the Roman church...and then also wrongly by the reformers.
These believers were more of a mix, of doctrinal truth mixed with error.
RB baptists.....sort of look to these groups....and yet ...see the wisdom of most of the reformers in that some of the arminian false ideas needed to be winnowed out...like that chaff that they are....and yet , the root teaching of believers baptism was always there.
Particular ...or what are now called RB...have sought to glean from each group....what the scripture teaches....using some of the base teaching the reformers saw....and yet keep th edistiction of believers baptism.

Matt Wade......You might not enjoy this...but the presbyterians who remain faithful to God and His word are stronger than 80% of the baptists I meet as I travel around in that they can freely discuss God's covenant promises to believers and the families.

Most baptists that you meet today give a response that is similar to John's disciples that were found in Acts 19...except they would say........WE HAVE NOT EVEN HEARD THAT THERE IS A COVENANT!

 

[Iconoclast]

Yes, he's the guy you see walking down the street wound tighter than a drum, protecting the learned from the unlearned. But I digress.
Anyway, another good question, a companion to the OP in this thread is why do the conservative Presbyterian relate to the puritan banner when in historical context, the puritans were mainly a reform movement within the COE. True, some within that movement sought COE reform in the direction of the Presbyterian model but still to make the modern day connection is somewhat of a head scratcher.

Thomas,
Behind your keyboard you can make such a statement...but face to face with open bibles I can assure you.....DR. Mcmahon would totally eat your lunch and then some.
For you to casually dismiss men who are given to study sort of reduces your credibility. In other words....take something matthew writes on a puritans mind, and show biblical where he has gone off.
I could be wrong...but I do not think you would make much progress.
Have you ever emailed , or contacted such a person...or met with someone face to face...and tried to engage them biblically???

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Dr,Mcmahon is a well educated...well read, and solid brother in Christ.

Having had quite a few run-ins with MacMahon on the Puritan Board a year or three ago, I will agree that he's well educated, but he would do better to study his Bible than Witsius and Turretine whom he's not bright enough to understand. I have told him this personally so I'm not knocking him behind his back.

This whole topic is interesting in that baptists in truth did not actually reform. That is to say...the reformers.... reformed from out of the roman church. Baptists, or as they were called anabaptists, existed outside of the roman church to start with. They did not need to reform from the Rc church
they just needed to get a better grip on the doctrine.
This is not quite the "trail of blood" from where landmarkism would come from.nevertheless there were believers who were persecuted by the Roman church...and then also wrongly by the reformers.
These believers were more of a mix, of doctrinal truth mixed with error.
RB baptists.....sort of look to these groups....and yet ...see the wisdom of most of the reformers in that some of the arminian false ideas needed to be winnowed out...like that chaff that they are....and yet , the root teaching of believers baptism was always there.
Particular ...or what are now called RB...have sought to glean from each group....what the scripture teaches....using some of the base teaching the reformers saw....and yet keep th edistiction of believers baptism.

It is my case that the early Particular baptists took the Reformation to its logical zenith by ridding it of the last bastion of medieval Romanism. They did so on the basis of the Reformed Principle of Worship as the following article shows:-
http://pastorsteveweaver.files.wordpress.com/2012/01/weaver_january-2012.pdf

R.B.s like Kiffin, Keach, Collins and others were true Reformers and Puritans. It's good that their works are slowly being republished. IMO they stand comparison with the best of the Paedobaptist Puritans.

Steve

 

[Luke2427]

Luke, are you referring to your knowledge of that specific church in Penn.?

No, Sir. I am referring to the statement that reformed baptists tend to be more amiable toward the presbyterian form of church government than they are toward congregationalism.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

I am a Reformed Baptist. If anybody doesn't like that (and Matthew MacMahon doesn't!), then tough bananas.
The Particular Baptists are the true Reformed people. They are the ones who have completed the Reformation by doing away with the last bastion of Romanism, infant 'baptism.' :thumbs:

Steve

But Steve, you must understand Dr. McMahon's own history to appreciate his current stance with Presbyterians....at one point he WAS a Baptist pastor. So I can read the guys work & get some some prospective while being very comfortable in my own faiths stance. Ole Matt aint changin my opinion! Heck he is even entertaining when he attempts to push his weight around.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

But Steve, you must understand Dr. McMahon's own history to appreciate his current stance with Presbyterians....at one point he WAS a Baptist pastor. So I can read the guys work & get some some prospective while being very comfortable in my own faiths stance. Ole Matt aint changin my opinion! Heck he is even entertaining when he attempts to push his weight around.

Brother, I'm not the boss of you. If like his stuff then read and be blessed. I can think of about a hundred people I would sooner read than him, but there we are. His Simple Overview of Reformed Theology is just horrendously bad IMO.

Steve

 

[thomas15]

Iconoclast,

Here we find agreement...

..... I could be wrong...