Featured Particular, That Is Reformed Baptists

It depends on how you define the terms.

To many, myself included, you are not Reformed unless you are a Presbyterian, paedo-baptism, Regulative Principle of Worship, cessationist, amillennial. . .

The term "Calvinist" speaks to a person's soteriology only (typically) It doesn't mean that a person takes onboard everything Calvin held to. It just describes one's view of the so-called "five points". Then, we could get into whether or not a person who holds to only 4 of the 5 points is a Calvinist.

I would still refer to 4=pointers as Calvinists. Many would argue that Calvin didn't even hold to Limited Atonement.

Theology is all about distinctions, so this argument regarding Reformed vs Calvinist has everything to do with one's level of distinctions. The folks who use the terms interchangeably are just not making as fine a distinction as the folks who aren't.

 

I can see that having a reasonable discussion with you won't be possible, so I'll avoid further attempts.

 

"Reformed" descriptor used in the Westminster and Savoy formulations was deleted by the Baptists:

see Westminster 24:3 and its analogs Savoy 25:3 and Second London 25:3

 

Considering my screen name, how can I NOT respond?

I am not big "R" reformed as our Presbyterian brethren, but I am very much in the Reformed tradition. I believe in Calvinism, cessationism, and the Regulative Principle of Worship.

The framers of the 1689 LBC we're more concerned about writing a testimony of their faith to try and lessen the attacks made on them by their Presbyterian brethren. There was much confusion about what Particular Baptists believed in the 17th century. I suggest reading the preamble of the 1689 LBC.

With grace, I do disagree about Amyraldians being Calvinists or in the reformed-friendly camp. Denying definite atonement is the domino that brings the other 4 parts of TULIP down.

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk

 

Guilty as charged, your honor.

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk

 

I believe that the term 'Reformed Baptist' (meaning a Baptist in the Reformed tradition) goes back only to the mid 1960s and was coined by Walter Chantry and Geoff Thomas when they were studying at Westminster Seminary.
However, I use the term to describe myself because the older term 'Particular Baptist' tends to suggest a Baptist with fastidious table manners! More recently, I started describing myself as a '1689er,' because 'Reformed' is being downgraded to mean nothing more than someone who isn't liberal.

 

That's basically what Tom Chantry, the historian of the Reformed Baptist movement, says in his book, have you read it?

Definition from Tom Chantry's blog:

chantrynotes.wordpress.com/2015/03/09/defining-reformed-baptist-again

 

Even more than claiming fidelity with Reformed theology, confessionalism is another distinguishing mark.

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk

 

I've read some bits from his blog, but I have also met Geoff Thomas several times at the Aberystwyth Conference. Geoff pastored the Baptist church there for 50 years until two years ago when his grandson took over.

 

Glad to have you as a brother, and you make a good point regarding 4-pointers.

These terms, e.g., Reformed, Calvinist, Doctrines of Grace. . . are shorthand terms we use, but we don't all agree on the meanings of them.

I am a member of a PCA church; however, I have far more in common with "Reformed" or "Calvinistic" brothers than I do with the megachurch insanity common in 90% of US evangelicalism.

 

LOL!!!

 

You're correct. Many of us don't agree, but that's one of the reasons why I believe defining terms is important, nay, essential. Big "R" reformed has historically referred to Presbyterianism. It wasn't Presbyterians who shot fast and loose with terminology, it was Baptists who were drawn closer to many Reformed theological distinctives.

I readily admit that certain strains of Baptists have co-opted the term. Grace Baptist Chuch of Carlisle, PA was the originator of the Reformed Baptist term becoming popular in the United States, of which Tom Chantry was the pastor. Not descending for Presbyterian Reformed tradition, many RB churches took liberties with Reformed theology. For instance, Amyraldianism, a 16th-century teaching, has less to do with Calvinism and more to do with Universalism. Some Baptists believed 4-point Calvinists were actually a thing when in actuality, that "thing" is a departure from orthodox Calvinistic and Reformed beliefs. However, Amyraldians wanted their place at the Reformed table. One of their most often used line of reasoning is that Reformed Baptists cannot agree on terms, so why not allow in those who disregard definite atonement? Enter in Confessionalism.

Let me explain what Confessionalism is not. Confessionalists do not believe the confessions (most often describing the1689 2nd London Baptist Confession of Faith and the Westminster Confession of Faith) are inspired documents. They do believe they are human-authored documents that faithfully state a shared statement of beliefs in the areas of doctrine and practice. Those churches that subscribe to one of these confessions are adding clarity to what they believe. No church or individual is forced to subscribe, although it places the burden of defining terms differently on those who dissent.

I don't know if I helped or confused things with this explanation.

Blessings!

 

If you read back to my initial reply to the OP, I said that to be big R Reformed meant that one was a Presbyterian, first and foremost, along with a few other distinctives. That's the consensus I've seen, and your post confirms that.

 

The deletion by the Baptists of the descriptor "Reformed" as they adapted the Presbyterian and Congregationalist formulations is understood when the above quotation from the Baptists' preface is presented as they wrote it, explaining how they would be retaining the same wording, as much as they could:

[their introductory explanation and the clause taken out and replaced with ellipses in the above quotation are retained and presented in bold below]

for the most part, without any variation of the terms; we did in like manner conclude it best to follow their example in making use of the very same words with them both, in these articles, which are very many, wherein our faith and doctrine is the same with theirs; 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 divers nations and cities: and also to convince all, we have no itch to clog religion with new words, but do readily acquiesce in that form of sound words, which hath been in consent with the holy Scriptures, used by others before us; hereby declaring before God, angels, and men, our hearty agreement with them in that wholesome Protestant doctrine, which with so clear evidence of Scriptures they have asserted