Particular, That Is Reformed Baptists

[Rob_BW]

So is it really just a question of Reformed by descent (from the Reformers) or adoption (of Reformed theology)?

 

[Iconoclast]

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!

Hello Reformed...it was Walter Chantry in Carlisle...Tom's dad...also Albert Martin in Trinity baptist that were teaming up with Geoff Thomas,and others at family conferences that became a unit for several years of growth

I am okay with any of the labels...Reformed Baptist as a label helps to identify those who actually believe the ten commandments are also not optional.
Some like TC avoid the labels as much as possible because you have to spend half the day fighting off the attacks on Calvin,and the Reformers. I understand that.
When that happens you face the charge that you are avoiding the labels so those who do not grasp the teaching yet, are set to attack no matter what.

 

[Iconoclast]

So is it really just a question of Reformed by descent (from the Reformers) or adoption (of Reformed theology)?

The "truly reformed" will explain it like this...think of the game of chess and the pieces involved in the chess game, King, Queen, two bishops, two knights ,two rooks, 8 pawns.....
if you remove the bishops or queen you are no longer really playing chess[not speaking of the endgame, but the start of the match]
So to them infant baptism , and their view of covenant children are essential to the theological game

Everyone understands or should see the differences because of this...RB believe that the reformers did much that was helpful, but missed believers baptism, and a right view of the covenants.....as far as writings...they came first with their 1644 Cof.

 

[Felipe Rios]

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.

True. But that doesn't mean Jesus is a Calvinist!

 

[Mr. Davis]

True. But that doesn't mean Jesus is a Calvinist!

Jesus was the first Calvinist. Check out what He says in John! (If you need some Scriptures, let me know).

 

[utilyan]

Jesus was the first Calvinist. Check out what He says in John! (If you need some Scriptures, let me know).

First Calvinist? Cause Satan first teaches once saved always saved, in genesis saying "you surely will not die".

And Adam blames God for the woman he gave him.

 

[Mr. Davis]

my reply to utilyan's post above:

Before time began, God in His infinite Wisdom and Omniscience, provided for Adam's lost race.
According to His Foreknowledge, he Predestined His elect to eternal glory. Christ's Atonement is sufficient for all but efficacious only for some (the elect). Try reading Ephesians 1 and 2 and Romans 8.

 

[TCassidy]

Cause Satan first teaches once saved always saved, in genesis saying "you surely will not die".

So you think Adam was "saved" rather than "innocent?" Where did you get that strange idea?

 

[Felipe Rios]

Jesus was the first Calvinist. Check out what He says in John! (If you need some Scriptures, let me know).

LOL I can use those same verses to show you that he was not a Calvinist.

 

[Felipe Rios]

First Calvinist? Cause Satan first teaches once saved always saved, in genesis saying "you surely will not die".

And Adam blames God for the woman he gave him.

Well the bible does teach on the security of the believer

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Well the bible does teach on the security of the believer

Tell that to the Catholic

 

[Covenanter]

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.

One of my sons met his wife at Aberystwyth University.

 

[FriendofSpurgeon]

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.

Agreed. In the same boat myself.

 

[Mr. Davis]

LOL I can use those same verses to show you that he was not a Calvinist.

Show me your scriptures, then I'll show you mine!!

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Hello Reformed...it was Walter Chantry in Carlisle...Tom's dad...also Albert Martin in Trinity baptist that were teaming up with Geoff Thomas,and others at family conferences that became a unit for several years of growth

I am okay with any of the labels...Reformed Baptist as a label helps to identify those who actually believe the ten commandments are also not optional.
Some like TC avoid the labels as much as possible because you have to spend half the day fighting off the attacks on Calvin,and the Reformers. I understand that.
When that happens you face the charge that you are avoiding the labels so those who do not grasp the teaching yet, are set to attack no matter what.

Tony, just as an FYI, Albert Martin disliked the term, ‘Reformed Baptist.’

 

[Martin Marprelate]

The "truly reformed" will explain it like this...think of the game of chess and the pieces involved in the chess game, King, Queen, two bishops, two knights ,two rooks, 8 pawns.....
if you remove the bishops or queen you are no longer really playing chess[not speaking of the endgame, but the start of the match]
So to them infant baptism , and their view of covenant children are essential to the theological game

Everyone understands or should see the differences because of this...RB believe that the reformers did much that was helpful, but missed believers baptism, and a right view of the covenants.....as far as writings...they came first with their 1644 Cof.

The Baptists completed the Reformation by disposing of the last remnant of Romanism-- infant 'baptism.'
Not too far from where I live there is a Calvinistic Baptist Church, the origins of which date back to 1652.
Newhouse Baptist Church – Newhouse Independent Baptist Church, Smeatharpe, Devon – Evangelical …
It would originally have called itself 'Strict and Particular,' but the minister, John Woollam would certainly call himself a Reformed Baptist.

 

[Rippon]

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.

You are a member of a PCA church however....

Wouldn't you consider the PCA Reformed?

I could understand if you had said :"I am a member of a PCA church and I have more in common with Reformed and Calvinistic brothers and sisters..."

Just wondering why you made the seeming contrast.

 

[Jerome]

Not too far from where I live there is a Calvinistic Baptist Church, the origins of which date back to 1652.
Newhouse Baptist Church – Newhouse Independent Baptist Church, Smeatharpe, Devon – Evangelical …
It would originally have called itself 'Strict and Particular,' but the minister, John Woollam would certainly call himself a Reformed Baptist.

The term "Strict and Particular" would not have been used in the 1600s.


History of the congregation from the Baptist Quarterly and Ivimey's History of the English Baptists:

UPOTTERY had a tangled and adventurous early history. It may date from 1652, when Luppit was the chief place of meeting, and Thomas Collier was the evangelist to whom it is due. But in the times of persecution they met by stealth in woods and farms, and only in 1695 did they build the New House

Upottery, still known by the name of the New House....The first pastor we have any account of was Mr. Thomas Collier....a minister of considerable eminence among the Baptists....He appears to have been much employed in itinerating throughout Hampthire, and a great part of the West of England. In a letter sent to Edwards by a minister in the West, he is charged with being "the first who sowed the seeds of Anabaptism; AntiSabbatarianism; and some Arminianism in these parts."

 

[Yeshua1]

my reply to utilyan's post above:

Before time began, God in His infinite Wisdom and Omniscience, provided for Adam's lost race.
According to His Foreknowledge, he Predestined His elect to eternal glory. Christ's Atonement is sufficient for all but efficacious only for some (the elect). Try reading Ephesians 1 and 2 and Romans 8.

Would just add that His foreknowledge is based upon Him causing/determining to bring the elect to salvation, and not due to Him seeing us accepting first!

 

[Rhetorician]

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.

Forgive me, but doesn't Particular have to do with the view of the Atonement and for whom Christ died? Where Reformed has to do more or less with doctrines of the Church, Church-State relations, sacraments vs ordinances, Majesterial Reformation, etc, et al. Of course there is much more to this than just this one main issue?

I have not read the entire thread so forgive if I have been redundant.

rd