What are the distinctives of "Reformed Baptist"?

[Martin Marprelate]

The term 'Reformed Baptist' is as recent as the 1960s. Before that, Baptists who held to the Doctrines of Grace and the 1689 Confession (like Keach, Gill or Spurgeon) would have called themselves 'Particular Baptists.' The term was coined by Walt Chantry and Welshman Geoff Thomas when they were studying at Westminster Theological Seminary and were being told by other students that they shouldn't be there because they were not 'Reformed.' "Yes we are Reformed," they replied, "We are Reformed Baptists."
Those who have compared the Westminster Confession of Faith and the Congregational Savoy Declaration with the 1689 Confession will know that there are huge areas of agreement between them, but on baptism and church polity, the Baptists ploughed their own furrow.

One other point: elders (Gk. 'presbuteroi') are biblical, and the word means the same as 'overseers' or 'bishops' (Gk. episkopoi'). This is easily proved. First of all, there was a plurality of 'episkopoi' in the church at Philippi (Phil. 1:1). Secondly, when Paul came to Miletus in Acts 20:17, he 'Sent to Ephesus and called for the elders of the church.' Then in verse 28, he tells them, "Therefore take heed to yourselves and the flock, among which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers ('episkopoi'), to shepherd (or 'pastor.' Gk. 'poimaino') the church of God which He purchased with His own blood."

So 'episkopos' and 'presbuteros' have the same meaning, and there were a plurality of them. Moreover, 'poimen,' meaning a shepherd or pastor also has the same meaning. Therefore the idea of a single monarchical pastor, supported only by deacons is not the Biblical model, though it may be unavoidable in very small churches.

 

[JonC]

The term 'Reformed Baptist' is as recent as the 1960s. Before that, Baptists who held to the Doctrines of Grace and the 1689 Confession (like Keach, Gill or Spurgeon) would have called themselves 'Particular Baptists.' The term was coined by Walt Chantry and Welshman Geoff Thomas when they were studying at Westminster Theological Seminary and were being told by other students that they shouldn't be there because they were not 'Reformed.' "Yes we are Reformed," they replied, "We are Reformed Baptists."
Those who have compared the Westminster Confession of Faith and the Congregational Savoy Declaration with the 1689 Confession will know that there are huge areas of agreement between them, but on baptism and church polity, the Baptists ploughed their own furrow.

One other point: elders (Gk. 'presbuteroi') are biblical, and the word means the same as 'overseers' or 'bishops' (Gk. episkopoi'). This is easily proved. First of all, there was a plurality of 'episkopoi' in the church at Philippi (Phil. 1:1). Secondly, when Paul came to Miletus in Acts 20:17, he 'Sent to Ephesus and called for the elders of the church.' Then in verse 28, he tells them, "Therefore take heed to yourselves and the flock, among which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers ('episkopoi'), to shepherd (or 'pastor.' Gk. 'poimaino') the church of God which He purchased with His own blood."

So 'episkopos' and 'presbuteros' have the same meaning, and there were a plurality of them. Moreover, 'poimen,' meaning a shepherd or pastor also has the same meaning. Therefore the idea of a single monarchical pastor, supported only by deacons is not the Biblical model, though it may be unavoidable in very small churches.

The issue (why I pointed out that Reformed Baptists today are really not traditional Baptists) is not the use if the word "elder" to mean "overseer" or "pastor" but how many use elders as members (plural) as leaders in the church ("elder leadership").

Reformed Baptists are "baptists" who hold a blend of Reformed doctrine and Baotist doctrine (not quite congregatiinalists, mot quite traditional Baptists, not quite Presbyterians). They typically look to Presbyterians for doctrine (older Presbytetian ministers).

They are badically Presbyterian lite (Presbyterians who hold to an independent church, believers baptism reject part of the Doctrines of Grace, but accept most of it).

They are "buffet Baptists" in that their doctrine is a mixture of teachings they like from various theologies.

 

[Jerome]

The term 'Reformed Baptist' is as recent as the 1960s....The term was coined by Walt Chantry and Welshman Geoff Thomas when they were studying at Westminster Theological Seminary

No, the term Reformed Baptist was used by both Campbellites and Hardshellers to describe themselves in the 1800s, before they settled on 'Churches of Christ' and 'Primitive Baptist', respectively. And for a time in the 1900s the term Reformed Baptist was used by an Arminian group that eventually merged into the Wesleyan Church.

 

[JonC]

No, the term Reformed Baptist was used by both Campbellites and Hardshellers to describe themselves in the 1800s, before they settled on 'Churches of Christ' and 'Primitive Baptist', respectively. And for a time in the 1900s the term Reformed Baptist was used by an Arminian group that eventually meged into the Wesleyan Church.

I think people forget Calvinism, Arminianism, and Methodist are all reformed churches (if any deserve the title it would maybe be the Lutherans....who are not considered "Reformed" as we use the word).

I hate the term. The first question that comes to mind is "reformed from what?", and the answer is Roman Catholicism (many of thr doctrines reformed should have been abandoned all together, and many simply carried over shoukd have been left behind).

So, "reformed" to a non-Catholic traditioned oriented guy is another way of saying "lipstick on a pig".

 

[Jerome]

Those who have compared the Westminster Confession of Faith and the Congregational Savoy Declaration with the 1689 Confession will know that there are huge areas of agreement between them, but on baptism and church polity, the Baptists ploughed their own furrow.

Reformed Baptists should know that the 1689 London Baptist Confession they claim to 'hold to' specifically rejected the descriptor 'Reformed' that Westminster and Savoy employed:

Tabular Comparison of 1646 Westminster Confession (Presbyterian), 1658 Savoy Declaration (Congregationalist), & 1689 London Confession (Baptist)

 

[5 point Gillinist]

The Reformers failed in their efforts to correct errors of the RCC.

The reformers didn't fail, the Roman Church refused to accept that they were/are in error - if they "failed" then I guess you should become Roman Catholic.

PS: In my opinion Martin Luther was a despicable example of a Christian. Is there any documentation that he was born-again? He was sprinkled the day after he was born. Catholics consider that to impart grace for rebirth. Also, he authored "Of Jews and Their Lies", giving Hitler cover for persecuting Jews!

How was Luther despicable? Yes, there is documentation, he was instrumental in making known widespread that salvation is by grace alone thru faith alone, and pointed men to Christ as their savior. I suppose there are those who dislike you as well, thank God people's opinions aren't what justifies, but instead it is faith in Christ.
Luther didn't author that in order to "give cover to Hitler." Hitler used many things for cover, and Hitler happily twisted whatever he wanted for his own benefit, sadly Luther's sinful writings about the Jews was used to justify a very evil act - I guess it just goes to show our sins aren't without consequences for others.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Reformed Baptists should know that the 1689 London Baptist Confession they claim to 'hold to' specifically rejected the descriptor 'Reformed' that Westminster and Savoy employed:

Tabular Comparison of 1646 Westminster Confession (Presbyterian), 1658 Savoy Declaration (Congregationalist), & 1689 London Confession (Baptist)

A quick check (I may have missed something) through your very helpful tabular comparison revealed to me only one place where the WCF used the word 'Reformed,' and you are right that the 1689 Confession did not follow it (cf. WCF XXIV:3; LBCF (1689) XXV:3). I am not sure what conclusions can be drawn from that. I pointed out in my earlier post that the churches and leaders that followed the 1689 Confession called themselves 'Particular Baptists,' not 'Reformed Baptists' until the 1960s. However, the word 'particular' has changed its meaning slightly over the years, and 'Reformed' works well for me, showing the large areas where we agree with our Presbyterian and Congregational brethren, as does 'Baptist' which shows the important areas where we disagree.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

I think people forget Calvinism, Arminianism, and Methodist are all reformed churches (if any deserve the title it would maybe be the Lutherans....who are not considered "Reformed" as we use the word).

I hate the term. The first question that comes to mind is "reformed from what?", and the answer is Roman Catholicism (many of thr doctrines reformed should have been abandoned all together, and many simply carried over shoukd have been left behind).

So, "reformed" to a non-Catholic traditioned oriented guy is another way of saying "lipstick on a pig".

I love the term!
To the Reformers, the term 'Reformed' means reformed according to the word of God. Hence the 1689 Confession begins with the words, "The Holy Scripture is the only sufficient, certain, and infallible (2 Tim. 3:15-17; Isaiah 8:20; Luke 16:29, 31) rule of all saving knowledge Faith and Obedience" (1:1). Negatively, it meant departing from the errors of Rome. All the Reformers were "Calvinists," even before Calvin. They regarded Arminianism as a departure from Reformed teaching, and would have regarded Methodism in the same way.
The glory of the Reformed Baptists is that they completed the Reformation, getting rid of the last vestiges of Roman Catholicism - infant 'baptism,' episcopalianism, persecution - while preserving what was true and Biblical of the Reformers' teaching.

 

[JonC]

I love the term!
To the Reformers, the term 'Reformed' means reformed according to the word of God. Hence the 1689 Confession begins with the words, "The Holy Scripture is the only sufficient, certain, and infallible (2 Tim. 3:15-17; Isaiah 8:20; Luke 16:29, 31) rule of all saving knowledge Faith and Obedience" (1:1). Negatively, it meant departing from the errors of Rome. All the Reformers were "Calvinists," even before Calvin. They regarded Arminianism as a departure from Reformed teaching, and would have regarded Methodism in the same way.
The glory of the Reformed Baptists is that they completed the Reformation, getting rid of the last vestiges of Roman Catholicism - infant 'baptism,' episcopalianism, persecution - while preserving what was true and Biblical of the Reformers' teaching.

I will always prefer "Christian". It means that we are followers of Christ.

But I agree with you on this:

"Reformed" DID mean "reformed according to the Word of God" to the Reformers (you are correct there). BUT what they were attempting to do was reformed Roman Catholic doctrine. That was their failure.

They would have done better to have derived their theology from Scripture instead of trying to reform Roman Catholic tradition.

Reformed theology IS reformed Roman Catholic theology. Those men tried to reformed Roman Catholic doctrine with Scripture as their guide. But they started with Roman Catholic doctrine rather than Scripture.

It is lipstick on a pig.

 

[JonC]

Ultimately we have a choice -

Follow God and His Word

Or

Follow, as @Martin Marprelate aptly points out, any of several theologies that were produced when men tried to revise Roman Catholicism using the Bible.

There are just too many Roman Catholic traditions, philosophies, and theories in the latter.

Why should we even consider theologies that cannot pass the test of Scripture but instead originate with Catholic philosophers and politicians when we have God's Word at our fingertips? Why reach for a Bible then turn back to tradition and theory?

 

[Van]

Not the topic of this thread, but an off-shoot, is the question, do"Reformed Baptists" reject a number of traditional baptist distinctives? And of course, the answer would be yes.

The "Reformed Baptists" are top down baptists, if you do not believe as we believe you are not one of us. And they reject "soul liberty" where a lost soul has the innate ability to accept or reject the gospel.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

I will always prefer "Christian". It means that we are followers of Christ.

No. It means that people claim to be followers of Christ. JWs and Mormons claim to be Christians. The Reformed confessions, especially the 1689, SHOW that people are followers of Christ.

But I agree with you on this:

"Reformed" DID mean "reformed according to the Word of God" to the Reformers (you are correct there). BUT what they were attempting to do was reformed Roman Catholic doctrine. That was their failure.

No. That was what Luther attempted to do, and ended up with a partial reformation. The Reformed confessions ripped up Roman Catholicism and went back to the Bible.

They would have done better to have derived their theology from Scripture instead of trying to reform Roman Catholic tradition.

Reformed theology IS reformed Roman Catholic theology. Those men tried to reformed Roman Catholic doctrine with Scripture as their guide. But they started with Roman Catholic doctrine rather than Scripture.

No. Reformed means 'Formed again.' It is fair to criticize the XXXIX Articles of the Church of England for retaining certain Romanist doctrines, and the Heidelberg Catechism and the WCF, although they did a good job, left infant 'baptism' and the idea of a 'state church' untouched, but the 1689 Confession completed the Reformation, and if you want to criticize it, which is fair enough, you need to be specific, which you never are.

It is lipstick on a pig.

No. What is lipstick on a pig is someone who is constantly bigging-up pre-reformation teachings, pretending to be Biblical.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Not the topic of this thread, but an off-shoot, is the question, do"Reformed Baptists" reject a number of traditional baptist distinctives? And of course, the answer would be yes.

The "Reformed Baptists" are top down baptists, if you do not believe as we believe you are not one of us. And they reject "soul liberty" where a lost soul has the innate ability to accept or reject the gospel.

If 'traditional baptist distinctives' are not in the Bible, then they should be discarded. Or do you disagree?
You need to find out what "soul liberty" means because it doesn't mean what you thimk it does, and no, Reformed Baptists do not reject it. But if you disagree with what Reformed Baptists believe, you may well be a Baptist, but you are not a Reformed Baptist. QED, I should have thought.

 

[Van]

If 'traditional baptist distinctives' are not in the Bible, then they should be discarded. Or do you disagree?
You need to find out what "soul liberty" means because it doesn't mean what you thimk it does, and no, Reformed Baptists do not reject it. But if you disagree with what Reformed Baptists believe, you may well be a Baptist, but you are not a Reformed Baptist. QED, I should have thought.

No, they use the same words, but redefine it so it is consistent with their false doctrines. Then, of course, they charge others with not understanding their rewritten definition as if it were valid.

The "Reformed Baptists" are top down baptists, if you do not believe as we believe you are not one of us. And they reject "soul liberty" where a lost soul has the innate ability to accept or reject the gospel.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

No, they use the same words, but redefine it so it is consistent with their false doctrines. Then, of course, they charge others with not understanding their rewritten definition as if it were valid.

The "Reformed Baptists" are top down baptists, if you do not believe as we believe you are not one of us. And they reject "soul liberty" where a lost soul has the innate ability to accept or reject the gospel.

If 'traditional baptist distinctives' are not in the Bible, then they should be discarded. Or do you disagree?
You need to find out what "soul liberty" means because it doesn't mean what you thimk it does, and no, Reformed Baptists do not reject it. But if you disagree with what Reformed Baptists believe, you may well be a Baptist, but you are not a Reformed Baptist. QED, I should have thought.

 

[Van]

The Reformed Baptist distinctives of the TULI are not in the bible and should be thrown out of every baptist church in America.

 

[JonC]

No. It means that people claim to be followers of Christ. JWs and Mormons claim to be Christians. The Reformed confessions, especially the 1689, SHOW that people are followers of Christ.

No. That was what Luther attempted to do, and ended up with a partial reformation. The Reformed confessions ripped up Roman Catholicism and went back to the Bible.

No. Reformed means 'Formed again.' It is fair to criticize the XXXIX Articles of the Church of England for retaining certain Romanist doctrines, and the Heidelberg Catechism and the WCF, although they did a good job, left infant 'baptism' and the idea of a 'state church' untouched, but the 1689 Confession completed the Reformation, and if you want to criticize it, which is fair enough, you need to be specific, which you never are.

No. What is lipstick on a pig is someone who is constantly bigging-up pre-reformation teachings, pretending to be Biblical.

JW's and Mormons did not exist during the Reformation.

Reformed means "reformed according to the word of God". The Reformers were trying to correct errors in Roman Catholic doctrine.

They were re-forming their tradition (Roman Catholic tradition) to align with Scripture as best they could.

It would have been better had they simply looked to follow God's Word and develop doctrine from Scripture rather than reforming their tradition. It would have been an impossible task for them, because they came from and understood Scripture (as do you) from a distinctively Roman Catholic tradition.

Reformed theology could have been a good start back to God's Word, but too many stopped at the Reformation. They view the Reformers almost as little popes.

There is a reason the Reformed look to confessions and the Reformers rather than God's Word.

 

[JonC]

Again, @Martin Marprelate gave us a good example.

If a mormon decided to re-form Mormon theology according to Scripture you would end up with Reformed Mormonism that contained a lot of error, Scripture interpreted through Mormon theology, and areas that were closer to the Bible than than Mormonism.

That is exactly what hapoened during the Reformation.

It isputting lipstick on a pig rather than abandoning the pig all together.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

The Reformed Baptist distinctives of the TULI are not in the bible and should be thrown out of every baptist church in America.

This is your definition of "soul liberty," is it?

 

[Wesley Briggman]

The reformers didn't fail, the Roman Church refused to accept that they were/are in error - if they "failed" then I guess you should become Roman Catholic.

How was Luther despicable? Yes, there is documentation, he was instrumental in making known widespread that salvation is by grace alone thru faith alone, and pointed men to Christ as their savior. I suppose there are those who dislike you as well, thank God people's opinions aren't what justifies, but instead it is faith in Christ.
Luther didn't author that in order to "give cover to Hitler." Hitler used many things for cover, and Hitler happily twisted whatever he wanted for his own benefit, sadly Luther's sinful writings about the Jews was used to justify a very evil act - I guess it just goes to show our sins aren't without consequences for others.

Nuts!