Particular, That Is Reformed Baptists

[Rippon]

Someone said the following on a now-closed thread:

"I am not 'Reformed.' I am an Historic, Particular Baptist. Nothing 'Reformed' about me or what I believe."

I believe that this individual is confused or redefining words for convenience sake.

If one were to go back to historic Particular Baptists they were indeed Reformed, or Calvinistic Baptists. They would not have renounced those terms as applied to themselves.

Men such as Benjamin Keach ,William Kiffin, Nehemiah Coxe and Hercules Collins were all Reformed and weren't ashamed to avow it.

The 1644(46) and 1689 Confessions of Faith were all Calvinistic in nature. The London Confession (1689) was a modification of the Savoy Declaration of Faith (1658) which was itself a modification of the Westminster Confession of Faith. The latter two being most certainly Calvinistic i.e. Reformed.

True history should not be altered to suit the taste of moderns.

 

[thatbrian]

Someone said the following on a now-closed thread:

"I am not 'Reformed.' I am an Historic, Particular Baptist. Nothing 'Reformed' about me or what I believe."

I believe that this individual is confused or redefining words for convenience sake.

If one were to go back to historic Particular Baptists they were indeed Reformed, or Calvinistic Baptists. They would not have renounced those terms as applied to themselves.

Men such as Benjamin Keach ,William Kiffin, Nehemiah Coxe and Hercules Collins were all Reformed and weren't ashamed to avow it.

The 1644(46) and 1689 Confessions of Faith were all Calvinistic in nature. The London Confession (1689) was a modification of the Savoy Declaration of Faith (1658) which was itself a modification of the Westminster Confession of Faith. The latter two being most certainly Calvinistic i.e. Reformed.

True history should not be altered to suit the taste of moderns.

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.

 

[Rippon]

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, amillennial/post-millennial. . . .

Mainly it's the paedo-Baptist crowd that would deny that a Baptist could possibly be Reformed.

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 strictly describes one's view of the so-called "five points".

No, it's not just about soteriology. It's considerably broader than the so-called five points. That's why I brought up the Confessions of Faith that I mentioned as being Calvinist in nature.

Who would claim that the term Calvinist means that one takes on board everything that Calvin held to? Nobody.

Spurgeon highly respected John Calvin and gave him praise that exceeded anything a Presbyterian could muster. But he acknowledged that he held "in the main" what Calvin taught.

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 don't.

Listen, they are indeed interchangeable. Dr. Richard Mueller a recognized authority when it comes to Historical Theology says both terms refer to basically the same thing.

Both terms are shorthand for what a number of Reformers taught --Calvin being the most prominent --but not the only proponent of this particular theology.

 

[thatbrian]

Mainly it's the paedo-Baptist crowd that would deny that a Baptist could possibly be Reformed.

No, it's not just about soteriology. It's considerably broader than the so-called five points. That's why I brought up the Confessions of Faith that I mentioned as being Calvinist in nature.

Who would claim that the term Calvinist means that one takes on board everything that Calvin held to? Nobody.

Spurgeon highly respected John Calvin and gave him praise that exceeded anything a Presbyterian could muster. But he acknowledged that he held "in the main" what Calvin taught.



Listen, they are indeed interchangeable. Dr. Richard Mueller a recognized authority when it comes to Historical Theology says both terms refer to basically the same thing.

Both terms are shorthand for what a number of Reformers taught --Calvin being the most prominent --but not the only proponent of this particular theology.

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

 

[Jerome]

"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

 

[Reformed]

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

 

[TCassidy]

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.

I believe you may also be A-millennial, if I am not mistaken, which also tends to follow the "Reformed" self-description.

 

[Reformed]

I believe you may also be A-millennial, if I am not mistaken, which also tends to follow the "Reformed" self-description.

Guilty as charged, your honor.

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk

 

[Martin Marprelate]

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.

 

[Jerome]

I believe that the term 'Reformed Baptist' (meaning a Baptist in the Reformed tradition) goes back only to the mid 1960s

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

Defining our Name....a Reformed Baptist is a Christian who subscribes to the doctrines contained in the Second London (or 1689) Confession of Faith

 

[Reformed]

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.

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

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk

 

[Martin Marprelate]

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

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.

 

[thatbrian]

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

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.

 

[thatbrian]

because the older term 'Particular Baptist' tends to suggest a Baptist with fastidious table manners!

LOL!!!

 

[Reformed]

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.

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!

 

[Rippon]

All throughout my book The British Particular Baptists 1688-1910 it is common for various authors of the twelve chapters to refer to the Particular Baptists as Calvinistic Baptists or holding to Reformed theology.

The following are some examples.

In the chapter on Benjamin Francis (1734-1799) it says he drew up a circular letter "for the Western Association of Calvinistic Churches."

In the chapter on Abraham Booth (1734-1806) it says that in 1797 he established "The Baptist Itinerant Society" to send "such Calvinistic ministers of the Baptist persuasion..."

The author of that chapter, Robert W. Oliver, relates that Booth "stood firmly for the classical Calvinistic theology which the Particular Baptists had inherited from their Puritan forebears."

 

[thatbrian]

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.

 

[Rippon]

Citing again my book : The British Particular Baptists 1638-1910 I will mention two more items.

In the chapter regarding Andrew Fuller (1754-1815), the author, Tom Nettles quotes Fuller:
"I reckon strict Calvinism to be my own system. I never had any predilection for Arminianism...。“ (p.106)

And then Timothy George in his chapter on William Carey (1761-1834) says :

"Particular Baptists...affirmed strongly the orthodox Calvinist theology set forth in their First (1644) and Second London Confessions (1677,1689). Carey, Fuller, Ryland, Jr., John Sutcliff and Samuel Pearce all belonged to this tradition. They were happy to call themselves Calvinists." (pgs. 149,150).

Just how far is one willing to go to deny the obvious? Spurgeon, A.W. Pink, and MLJ were all Calvinists to the core.

 

[Rippon]

In the preface to the Second London Baptist Confession of Faith (1677) :

"And this we did, the more abundantly to manifest our consent with both, in all the fundamental articles of the Christian religion, as also 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, was so clear evidence of Scriptures they have asserted."

 

[Jerome]

In the preface to the Second London Baptist Confession of Faith (1677) :

"And this we did, the more abundantly to manifest our consent with both, in all the fundamental articles of the Christian religion, as also 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, was so clear evidence of Scriptures they have asserted."

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