Baptists are not Reformed

[Dr. Bob]

We can trace the first English-speaking Baptist assembly (which btw had a fight over Calvinism/arminianism). We can see churches developing in England about the same time as the Anglicans were translating the AV.

By 1644 (prior to the Westminster Confession of the Reformed) the London Baptists joined together to formulate a Confession of Faith of Baptists. It is 100% reformed. Feel free to read it. the 1689 is a revision, worded almost identical to the Westminster so "classier" but still reformed.

Baptists were either Particular (redemption of elect) or General. The founders of the Triannual Mission Program were Particular (Calvinistic). All the founders of the SBC in 1845 were Particular. The reformed within the SBC today call themselves the Founders Movement, in an attempt to turn the Convention back to biblical truth instead of man-centric error.

Sadly, many Baptists today have little doctrinal understanding and flounder in error. But I proudly call myself a "Particular" (not peculiar) Baptist, Calvinistic and Reformed in soteriology.

 

[Rippon]

By 1644 (prior to the Westminster Confession of the Reformed) the London Baptists joined together to formulate a Confession of Faith of Baptists. It is 100% reformed. Feel free to read it.

the 1689 is a revision, worded almost identical to the Westminster so "classier" but still reformed.

Are you saying the 1689 is a revision of the 1644? That is certainly not the case. The 1689 is even closer to the Savoy Declaration than to the WCF.

But I proudly call myself a "Particular" (not peculiar) Baptist, Calvinistic and Reformed in soteriology.

No,I think you're peculiar,f one goes by the KJV sense. But the 2011 NIV brings it home :"God's special possession." (1 Peter 2:9)

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Are you saying the 1689 is a revision of the 1644? That is certainly not the case. The 1689 is even closer to the Savoy Declaration than to the WCF.


No,I think you're peculiar,f one goes by the KJV sense. But the 2011 NIV brings it home :"God's special possession." (1 Peter 2:9)

Ive studied both WMC & 1689 @ a Reformed Baptist Church....almost identical.
Also why are you saying peculiar.? What's the relevance?

 

[Rippon]

Ive studied both WMC & 1689 @ a Reformed Baptist Church....almost identical.

No,you're quite wrong.
You need to refer to chapters 3,6,7,8,15,17 and 20 in the LBC and contrast them with the WCF.
Then, because the LBC has its own unique chapter 20, the WCF does not have a chapter dealing with the same. Chapter 21 in the LBC differs with its counterpart in the WCF chapter 20 --as does 23 (WCF 22),24 (WCF 23),25 (WCF 24),26 (WCF 25) --not surprising! Chapter 28 of the LBC differs with 27 in the WCF as chapter 29 contrasts with 28 in the WCF.

Also why are you saying peculiar.? What's the relevance?

You have to be a careful reader. Look at Dr.Bob's post again.

 

[kyredneck]

"Why do bad things happen to good people?
That only happened once, and He volunteered."

Now that's pregnant.

 

[OldRegular]

No,you're quite wrong.
You need to refer to chapters 3,6,7,8,15,17 and 20 in the LBC and contrast them with the WCF.
Then, because the LBC has its own unique chapter 20, the WCF does not have a chapter dealing with the same. Chapter 21 in the LBC differs with its counterpart in the WCF chapter 20 --as does 23 (WCF 22),24 (WCF 23),25 (WCF 24),26 (WCF 25) --not surprising! Chapter 28 of the LBC differs with 27 in the WCF as chapter 29 contrasts with 28 in the WCF.

You have to be a careful reader. Look at Dr.Bob's post again.

Well I am a "peculiar Baptist" not a reformed Baptist and I have Scripture to prove it. "Peculiar" Baptists did not need to be reformed. They were correct from the start.

Titus 2:14. Who gave himself for us, that he might redeem us from all iniquity, and purify unto himself a peculiar people, zealous of good works.

1Peter 2:9. But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light:

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Well I am a "peculiar Baptist" not a reformed Baptist and I have Scripture to prove it. "Peculiar" Baptists did not need to be reformed. They were correct from the start.

Titus 2:14. Who gave himself for us, that he might redeem us from all iniquity, and purify unto himself a peculiar people, zealous of good works.

1Peter 2:9. But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light:

Your confusing me with this peculiar stuff. My tribe is Welsh....the origional Britons and probably the first Baptists on ihat island. So what do you mean peculiar....rather origional should be the proper placement.

 

[OldRegular]

Titus 2:14. Who gave himself for us, that he might redeem us from all iniquity, and purify unto himself a peculiar people, zealous of good works.

1Peter 2:9. But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light:

The above Scripture show that God's people are a "peculiar people". By this I don't believe they act peculiar, though the behavior of a true believer may seem peculiar to some people. True believers are in the world but they are not to be of the world.

1 John 2:15, 16
15. Love not the world, neither the things that are in the world. If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him.
16. For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world.

 

[JohnDeereFan]

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.

Sorry, Chuck. I'm both Baptist and Reformed.

 

[saturneptune]

100% behind Old Regular. Baptists are distinct and set apart from Protestants. Although everyone mostly in this thread cites weak evidence, how else do you explain the preservation of the NT church as Christ promised from 500-1500 AD. If the local churches were not Baptist, they were our forerunners, and churches of like faith and order? Really, since there were no Protestant churches, how do you think the church got preserved, through the RCC????????????????

Yes, Baptists, or like minded Christians were separate and apart from the RCC, being reformers long before fine, upstanding examples like John Calvin were born. Now, since the Reformation, the role of the Protestant churches in preserving the NT church could honestly be debated, especially in the Presbyterian realm. (conservative that is)

The Baptist local churches of today most closely reflect the what the Lord would have in a local NT church, or I would not be one. Despite loud mouth charlatans like Paul Washer ripping the work of the local churches apart and creating division, the work of the Lord is being accomplished through His local churches for His purposes.

For those that believe the Baptist faith basically started about the time of the Reformation, or shortly before, it would be really interesting what church the Lord used to preserve the NT local church from 500 AD (or whenever the RCC was founded) to the Reformation.

 

[OldRegular]

100% behind Old Regular. Baptists are distinct and set apart from Protestants. Although everyone mostly in this thread cites weak evidence, how else do you explain the preservation of the NT church as Christ promised from 500-1500 AD. If the local churches were not Baptist, they were our forerunners, and churches of like faith and order? Really, since there were no Protestant churches, how do you think the church got preserved, through the RCC????????????????

Yes, Baptists, or like minded Christians were separate and apart from the RCC, being reformers long before fine, upstanding examples like John Calvin were born. Now, since the Reformation, the role of the Protestant churches in preserving the NT church could honestly be debated, especially in the Presbyterian realm. (conservative that is)

The Baptist local churches of today most closely reflect the what the Lord would have in a local NT church, or I would not be one. Despite loud mouth charlatans like Paul Washer ripping the work of the local churches apart and creating division, the work of the Lord is being accomplished through His local churches for His purposes.

For those that believe the Baptist faith basically started about the time of the Reformation, or shortly before, it would be really interesting what church the Lord used to preserve the NT local church from 500 AD (or whenever the RCC was founded) to the Reformation.

:thumbs::thumbsup::thumbs::thumbsup:

 

[Rippon]

"Peculiar" Baptists did not need to be reformed. They were correct from the start.

No group is "correct from the start" as you have said.The term Reformed should not be thought of as an accomplished fact. It should not be considered past tense --but present tense --Reforming. No one group has it all down pat. Of course all of us believe that our beliefs are essentially correct but who among us will dare to say that they will not budge an inch from any ecclesiastical stance if convinced from the Word of God?

 

[quantumfaith]

No group is "correct from the start" as you have said.The term Reformed should not be thought of as an accomplished fact. It should not be considered past tense --but present tense --Reforming. No one group has it all down pat. Of course all of us believe that our beliefs are essentially correct but who among us will dare to say that they will not budge an inch from any ecclesiastical stance if convinced from the Word of God?

:thumbs::thumbs::thumbs:

 

[Rippon]

Here is what John Robinson, known as the pastor of the Pilgrim Fathers said:

"The Lutherans cannot be drawn to go beyond what Luther saw. Whatever part of His will our God has revealed to Calvin, they (Lutherans) will rather die than embrace it; and the Calvinists,you see, stick fast where they were left by that great man of God, who yet saw not all things. This is a misery much to be lamented."

 

[kyredneck]

No group is "correct from the start" as you have said.The term Reformed should not be thought of as an accomplished fact. It should not be considered past tense --but present tense --Reforming. No one group has it all down pat. Of course all of us believe that our beliefs are essentially correct but who among us will dare to say that they will not budge an inch from any ecclesiastical stance if convinced from the Word of God?

:thumbs::thumbs: Agree!

4 But thou, O Daniel, shut up the words, and seal the book, even to the time of the end: many shall run to and fro, and knowledge shall be increased. Dan 12

I'm convinced that we should know more now than then.

 

[Jkdbuck76]

We can trace the first English-speaking Baptist assembly (which btw had a fight over Calvinism/arminianism).

So....we're just doing what our forefathers did? Wow.

 

[kyredneck]

So....we're just doing what our forefathers did? Wow.

65 And he said, For this cause have I said unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it be given unto him of the Father.
66 Upon this many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him. Jn 6

It's just as divisive now as it was then.

 

[Jkdbuck76]

I'm just saying.....it is the same HOT BUTTON. Always will be until Christ returns and tells those who hold [insert theology you don't like here ] are wrong.

 

[kyredneck]

I'm just saying.....it is the same HOT BUTTON....

Yeah, that's what I just said....

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

65 And he said, For this cause have I said unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it be given unto him of the Father.
66 Upon this many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him. Jn 6

It's just as divisive now as it was then.

Nor have they been walking with Him.....yet the name is used and claimed....sad. :tear: