Baptists are not Reformed

[OldRegular]

It is not uncommon for Baptist Churches nowadays to use the name Reformed. I believe this is in part to distinguish them from their Arminian brethren. Essentially all Protestant Churches have something in their practice that is a holdover from Roman Catholicism, Baptists do not. [An exception is the Freewill Baptist Churches who reject the Eternal Security of the Believer.]

That being said I must agree with my good friend Charles H. Spurgeon that Baptists are not reformed.

"We believe that the Baptists are the original Christians.* We did not commence our existence at the Reformation, we were reformers before Luther or Calvin were born; we never came from the Church of Rome, for we were never in it, but we have an unbroken line up to the apostles themselves. We have always existed from the very days of Christ, and our principles, sometimes veiled and forgotten, like a river which may travel underground for a little season, have always had honest and holy adherents.* Persecuted alike by Romanists and Protestants of almost every sect, yet there has never existed a government holding Baptist principles which persecuted others; nor; I believe, any body of Baptists ever held it to be right to put the consciences of others under the control of man.* We have ever been ready to suffer; as our martyrologies will prove, but we are not ready to accept any help from the State, to prostitute the purity of the Bride of Christ to any alliance with Government, and we will never make the Church, the despot over the consciences of men." Metropolitan Tabernacle Pulpit, [London: Passmore & Alabaster, 1861], Volume 7, Page 225.

 

[kyredneck]

OR, I didn't know you were a Landmarkist!

 

[kyredneck]

...and what Spurgeon said may be all well and good and true (somewhat), but Landmarkism ultimately leads to the same exact attitude of the Jews of Christ's day, "think not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham to our father", and forgets that, "God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham".

My experience with Landmarkism has not been good. Some, or most, of it's claims may be true, but the attitude I have found that it ultimately produces is NOT at all well and good, it's just as repugnant as those Sadducees and Pharisees of Christ's day.

 

[OldRegular]

OR, I didn't know you were a Landmarkist!

I am not! But I am a Baptist! I can't help it if the Landmarkists agrees with Charlie and me!

 

[OldRegular]

It is a fact that there have always been dissenters from Rome. Just how much these dissenters differed from the Baptist Faith is unknown. That being said I believe that the Baptist Church adheres closer to Scripture than all others.

Perhaps you should read Hassell's History of the Church of God . Hassell was a member of the Kehukee [North Carolina] Association [Primitive Baptist]

Cushing Biggs Hassell’s thousand-page History of the Church of God (1886) is notable for a single sentence — on page 580, beginning “The nineteenth is the century …”
It’s six pages long, with 3,153 words, 360 commas, 86 semicolons, and six footnotes. Many regard it as the longest legitimate sentence ever published in a book.
Essentially it’s one long indictment of the 19th century, proving for Hassell that “after all our progress, this is still a very sinful and miserable world.” Why he felt he had to show this in a single sentence is not clear.
The entire book may be summed up in the previous phrase, “after all our progress, this is still a very sinful and miserable world.”
Were he alive today, I rather think that the author would have added, "and in spades."

http://books.google.com/books/about/History_of_the_church_of_God.html?id=L_QPAAAAYAAJ

 

[quantumfaith]

OR,

Is there any evidence of such churches existing simultaneous to the RC church, is Mr. Spurgeon speaking of some ethereal "spirit" of Baptists existing in the earliest days?

 

[Rhys]

The Didache, the earliest known manual of church practices (dating to the late 1st or very early 2nd century), recommends pouring only if no 'living water' is available. This document does seem to reinforce the belief that immersion was the standard and preferred mode of baptism in the early church.

Yes, Baptists were 'reformers before Luther or Calvin were born' in that there have always been groups of believers hearkening back to primitive practices - and being roundly persecuted for doing so. But let us not forget that Pope Charlie was also a staunch and avowed self-described Calvinist, and for him - or anyone else - to suggest that the Reformation had no influence on his doctrine is asinine.

 

[saturneptune]

OR,

Is there any evidence of such churches existing simultaneous to the RC church, is Mr. Spurgeon speaking of some ethereal "spirit" of Baptists existing in the earliest days?

Probably no hard evidence. However, Christ promised the NT local church would be preserved, His church. Since the RCC is the main church during that era 500-1500, commons sense says the RCC was not the choice of Christ to preserve the church. Therefore, some group or system of worship had to be in place to preserve the church. I believe they pretty much believed what most Baptists do today.

 

[OldRegular]

OR,

Is there any evidence of such churches existing simultaneous to the RC church, is Mr. Spurgeon speaking of some ethereal "spirit" of Baptists existing in the earliest days?

Landmarkism apparently claims that the existence of a "Baptist like Church" can be traced through history. I doubt that but I believe that God has always had a body of believers who adhered closely to Scripture. As He told Elijah: Yet I have left me seven thousand in Israel, all the knees which have not bowed unto Baal, and every mouth which hath not kissed him. [1 Kings 19:18] It is a historical fact that there have always been dissenters from Rome.

Philip Schaff in his History of the Christian Church makes an apt condemnation of the Roman Church whether intended or not..

Schaff tells us [Volume 2, page 73]:

With Constantine, therefore, the last of the heathen, the first of the Christian, emperors, a new period begins. The church ascends the throne of the Caesars under the banner of the once despised, now honored and triumphant cross, and gives new vigor and lustre to the hoary empire of Rome.

 

[kyredneck]

It is a fact that there have always been dissenters from Rome. Just how much these dissenters differed from the Baptist Faith is unknown. That being said I believe that the Baptist Church adheres closer to Scripture than all others.

Perhaps you should read Hassell's History of the Church of God . Hassell was a member of the Kehukee [North Carolina] Association [Primitive Baptist]

'Hassel's History' is a favorite of mine (my copy is highlighted from cover to cover) and is undoubtedly the reason I would agree with much of what the Landmarkists claim, but, paradoxically, I don't perceive the 'Landmarkist attitude' from either father or son (joint authors) from the book, they are very tolerant and objective with many other's views and delve more so into the truths others presented than their errors. This is typical of mainstream Primitive Baptist theology which is fairly well presented in the book.

 

[OldRegular]

'Hassel's History' is a favorite of mine (my copy is highlighted from cover to cover) and is undoubtedly the reason I would agree with much of what the Landmarkists claim, but, paradoxically, I don't perceive the 'Landmarkist attitude' from either father or son (joint authors) from the book, they are very tolerant and objective with many other's views and delve more so into the truths others presented than their errors. This is typical of mainstream Primitive Baptist theology which is fairly well presented in the book.

My Dad had a copy. When he died it passed down through the brothers. I believe my niece has it now. It was used when he got it and well worn. Amazon has it on their "Kindle" for about $6.00 but there are a lot of typos.

 

[preachinjesus]

It is not uncommon for Baptist Churches nowadays to use the name Reformed. I believe this is in part to distinguish them from their Arminian brethren. Essentially all Protestant Churches have something in their practice that is a holdover from Roman Catholicism, Baptists do not. [An exception is the Freewill Baptist Churches who reject the Eternal Security of the Believer.]

I disagree. The theological heritage of Baptists notes that since their rise in the 1600s out of English Separatism with influences from Anabaptism, there has always been a tension between reformed and non-reformed camps.

In particular, the debate between the General Baptists and Particular Baptists is an early example.

That being said I must agree with my good friend Charles H. Spurgeon that Baptists are not reformed.

Who himself was a Calvinist.

 

[preachinjesus]

Is there any evidence of such churches existing simultaneous to the RC church, is Mr. Spurgeon speaking of some ethereal "spirit" of Baptists existing in the earliest days?

The "Roman" Catholic Church did not exist until after Pope Gregory the Great and wasn't distinguished from the East until after the Great Schism in 1040.

That said, the earliest churches (and Christian communities) were diverse and a loose confederation of aligned sectors throughout the world. Since no Christian structures existed (widely) until after AD 300, the idea that there was a highly structured and hierarchal church in the west and east is not supportable. Additionally, until Nicaea in AD 325 there was no established liturgy, recognized clergy, or institutional supports in Christendom. Multiple "denominations" existed but loosely so.

 

[OldRegular]

I disagree. The theological heritage of Baptists notes that since their rise in the 1600s out of English Separatism with influences from Anabaptism, there has always been a tension between reformed and non-reformed camps.

In particular, the debate between the General Baptists and Particular Baptists is an early example.

I realize there have always been Baptists who disagree on which Doctrine of Salvation was more biblical, those propounded by Arminianism or by Calvinism.

Who himself was a Calvinist.

I am sure that Calvin held certain Doctrines that Spurgeon did not support. I do not consider myself a Calvinist for the same reason!

My point is that most denominations retain some errors of Roman Catholicism: infant baptism, Baptismal Regeneration, hierarchal church governance, etc. I do not see any of these in the Baptist Churches.

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

I do not see any of these in the Baptist Churches.

Neither do I, but now someone will claim they do. :BangHead:

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Neither do I, but now someone will claim they do. :BangHead:

We should ask the Biblicists, oh wait!?!

 

[Rippon]

I am sure that Calvin held certain Doctrines that Spurgeon did not support. I do not consider myself a Calvinist for the same reason!

That makes no make sense. Spurgeon called himself a Calvinist. It did not mean that he agreed with every particular of John Calvin's doctrines.

Here are some C.H.S. quotes:

"It would not be possible for me too earnestly to press upon you the importance of reading the expositions of that prince among men,John Calvin."

"That old truth that Calvin preached,that Augustine preached,is the truth that I must preach today,or else be false to my conscience and my God."

"Calvin is the grandest expositor ever."

"Calvin knew more about the gospel than almost any uninspired man who ever lived."

 

[Rippon]

My point is that most denominations retain some errors of Roman Catholicism:

Among many so-called nondenominational churches which are essentially Baptist (without having Baptist in their name) the errors of Roman Catholicism are not present.

infant baptism, Baptismal Regeneration, hierarchal church governance, etc. I do not see any of these in the Baptist Churches.

Within the wide and diverse world of Baptist churches there are a host of unorthodox teachings. Baptists don't need to pat themselves on the back --there is more than enough error within them.

 

[Rippon]

The General Baptist Declaration of Faith (1660) was "set forth by many of us,who are (falsely) called Ana-Baptists."

In the Preface to the Second London Baptist Confession of Faith (1677) it wa acknowledged that the Westminster Confession of Faith and the Savoy Declaration were sound and their was no desire to separate on the grand principles which united them all.

"And this we did,the more abundantly to manifest our consent with both,in all the fundamental articles of the Christian religion,as also with many others whose orthodox confessions have been published to the world,on behalf of the Protestants in diverse nations and cities...our hearty agreement with them,in the wholesome Protestant doctrine,which,with so clear evidence of Scriptures they have asserted."

These Baptists were not afraid to identify themselves with Protestantism.

I know there is a linkage that modern-day Baptists have with the early Anabaptists. But many of the latter were in deep error. And these days how many of us have any connection with the Amish,Hutterites and Mennonites doctrinally? I think mainly Arminians want to establish a greater bond between modern day Baptists and the early Anabaptists.

 

[OldRegular]

That makes no make sense. Spurgeon called himself a Calvinist. It did not mean that he agreed with every particular of John Calvin's doctrines.

Here are some C.H.S. quotes:

"It would not be possible for me too earnestly to press upon you the importance of reading the expositions of that prince among men,John Calvin."

"That old truth that Calvin preached,that Augustine preached,is the truth that I must preach today,or else be false to my conscience and my God."

"Calvin is the grandest expositor ever."

"Calvin knew more about the gospel than almost any uninspired man who ever lived."

Makes sense to me and I know what Charlie said about Calvinism. I never call myself a Calvinist. He is not the author of the Doctrines of Grace. In fact he is not even the author of TULIP!