• Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

What are the distinctives of "Reformed Baptist"?

Martin Marprelate

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
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.
I think you should give us all your view on how Mormon theology might be Reformed according to Scripture
That is exactly what hapoened during the Reformation.
No it isn't, and you have not given us so much as a hint as to how it might have been.
It isputting lipstick on a pig rather than abandoning the pig all together.
No it isn't, and you personally have not abandoned the pig, but persist in citing Roman Catholic authors to deny Reformed doctrine.
 

JonC

Moderator
Moderator
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.
I think you should give us all your view on how Mormon theology might be Reformed according to Scripture

No it isn't, and you have not given us so much as a hint as to how it might have been.

No it isn't, and you personally have not abandoned the pig, but persist in citing Roman Catholic authors to deny Reformed doctrine.
Mormon theology could be reformed exactly as the Reformers reformed Roman Catholic theology.

You would end up with a false understanding of Atonement, a lot of human philosophy, but you would have bits of biblical doctrine in there as well. Some versions could even contain the actual gospel.

In the end who knows? We do not have re-formed Morminism. We have re-formed Roman Catholicism.


Think about just how much Roman Catholic doctrine the Reformers kept (the nature of the church, the structure, even Communion to a great extent, Aquinas' theories of the Cross, Augustine's theory of inherited sin, the mide of baptism....the list goes on).

If you took your faith and separated what was actually in God's Word from what you believe is somehow taught by God's Word (when "properly understood" as given by the demi-gods...or Re-formers of RCC theology) you have mostly re-formed RCC theology and very little of God's Word.


But every man has to make a choice who to follow. I choose God. I do not count it against you that you prefer men and re-formed RCC doctrine. Men have every right to worship whomever they choose (true faith is not compelled belief).

Re-formed Catholicism, just like Catholicism contains too much myth, too much philosophy, too much theory, and too much error for me. But both also contains the gospel and men can be saved despite their errors.
 

Martin Marprelate

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
But every man has to make a choice who to follow. I choose God.
You do nothing of the kind, and never have whilst I have been on this forum. You follow your own mind, which has shown itself time and time again to be insufficient for the job. You cannot bring a single piece of Scripture to bear to prove your silly and offensive allegations.
 

JonC

Moderator
Moderator
Exactly how did the Reformers reform RCC theology?
Their attempts failed. Luther was excommunicated!

We who?
Some took the RCC atonement theory with them (Lutherans) but others reformed that view to create something different (Calvinism). All, to my knowledge, maintained RCC theory developed from Augustine's theory in regard to the Fall. All maintained believers baptism to be heresy. All maintained the RCC view of the Church in relation to civil government. All adopted the spiritualization of Genesis 3 (something unheard of prior to Catholicism). All utalize covenants as an authority to express their faith.

I could go on.

We as in Christianity. We have various theologies, including re-formed RCC theology (Reformed theology).
 

Wesley Briggman

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
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.
"...Roman Church refused to accept that they were/are in error...". Therefore, Luther failed.
"...if they "failed" then I guess you should become Roman Catholic." Why would you guess I should become RC? Nuts!
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.
Salvation is a result of God's choice. Being born-again.
(Eph 2:8 KJV) For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: [it is] the gift of God:

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.
"Luther didn't author that in order to "give cover to Hitler."" The fact is it did.


Quotes From "Of Jews and Their Lies" by Martin Luther
First, that their synagogues be burned down, and that all who are able toss in sulphur and pitch; it would be good if someone could also throw in some hellfire. That would demonstrate to God our serious resolve and be evidence to all the world that it was in ignorance that we tolerated such houses, in which the Jews have reviled God, our dear Creator and Father, and his Son most shamefully up till now, but that we have now given them their due reward.

Second, that all their books their prayer books, their Talmudic writings, also the entire Bible, be taken from them, not leaving them one leaf, and that these be preserved for those who may be converted. For they use all of these books to blaspheme the Son of God, that is, God the Father himself, Creator of heaven and earth, as was said above; and they will never use them differently.

Third, that they be forbidden on pain of death to praise God, to give thanks, to pray, and to teach publicly among us and in our country. They may do this in their own country or wherever they can without our being obliged to hear it or know it. The reason for this prohibition is that their praise, thanks, prayer, and doctrine are sheer blasphemy, cursing, and idolatry, because their heart and mouth call God the Father *Hebel Vorik* as they call his Son, our Lord Jesus, this. For as they name and honor the Son, thus they also name and honor the Father. It does not help them to use many fine words and to make much ado about the name of God. For we read, "You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain" [Exod. 20:7]. Just as little did it avail their ancestors at the time of the kings of Israel that they bore God's name, yet called him Baal.

Fourth, that they be forbidden to utter the name of God within our hearing. For we cannot with a good conscience listen to this or tolerate it, because their blasphemous and accursed mouth and heart call God's Son *Hebel Vorik,* and thus also call his Father that. He cannot and will not interpret this otherwise, just as we Christians too cannot interpret it otherwise, we who believe that however the Son is named and honored thus also the Father is named and honored. Therefore we must not consider the mouth of the Jews as worthy of uttering the name of God within our hearing. He who hears this name-from a Jew must inform the authorities, or else throw sow dung at him when he sees him and chase him away. And may no one be merciful and kind in this regard, for God's honor and the salvation of us all, including that of the Jews, are at stake!

Luther's arrogance is revealed by his rejection of select books of the Bible he didn't like. I find this despicable.

Why Did Martin Luther Remove Inspired Books From the Bible?
Why Did Martin Luther Remove Inspired Books From the Bible?

There numerous resources available to validate my position.



Martin Luther
"The image of Martin Luther on this postcard signifies an exploitation of his name and legacy. The Nazi’s often used Luther to justify their anti-Semitism and nationalism. Throughout other forms of Nazi propaganda, he has been referred to as a “fighter against the Jewish spirit in the Christian Church” as well as “Dr. Luther is one of the greatest anti-Semites in German history.” Martin Luther did, in fact, have a number of anti-Semitic writings. He believed Jews should be converted to Christianity and he gradually lost patience when they did not begin to embrace the religion. It’s been stressed that he was not a Nazi anti-Semite, but a religious anti-Semite; he was opposed to Jews not as an ethnic group but because they refused to convert"

1759960796518.png
 

5 point Gillinist

Active Member
"...Roman Church refused to accept that they were/are in error...". Therefore, Luther failed.
"...if they "failed" then I guess you should become Roman Catholic." Why would you guess I should become RC? Nuts!
Rome's failure to accept what scripture teaches wasn't Luther's failure, it was theirs.
If you preach the gospel to someone, and they refuse to accept it, is that your failure?
Salvation is a result of God's choice. Being born-again.
(Eph 2:8 KJV) For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: [it is] the gift of God:
Not sure what your point is with this. You said that there was no documentation that Luther was saved; as the verse you quoted states one is saved by grace, thru faith, from God - thus Luther was saved because he held to those.
"Luther didn't author that in order to "give cover to Hitler."" The fact is it did.
I don't think Luther (who lived in the 1500s) wrote those sinful things for Hitler ( who didn't come to power until the 1930s) to use for cover. Luther was obviously not a perfect man - but it is by grace that we are saved thru faith - unless of course you don't actually believe that and think that men are ultimately justified by their works.
Luther's arrogance is revealed by his rejection of select books of the Bible he didn't like. I find this despicable.
Luther actually repented of his derisive statement about the book of James.

I'm convinced that you just hate Luther. You proclaim to believe in the gospel of grace, yet condemn Luther to hell because he doesn't meet your requirements.
 

JonC

Moderator
Moderator
I'm fairly certain Lutherans hold to vicarious atonement - Catholics do not.
Yes, but Luther (and traditionally Lutherans) hold to a satisfactory Atonement (Calvinists do not).

Luther himself did not develop a different theory of Atonement but applied it differently (technically Catholics historically viewed Christ's Atonement as applying only to "original sin", and that doctrine based on Augustine use of a Latin mistranslation).

Reformed theology is more biblical than RCC in ways, but in other ways it is less biblical or equally unbiblical.

@Martin Marprelate hit the nail on the head when he pointed out that Reformed theology was an attempt to "re-form" their doctrine using the Word of God.

We never end up with the truth when we start with a theory or theology and try to re-form it. Here the "radical reformers" were right. Reformed theology stopped short and ended uo just as bad as Catholicism, if not worse.

That said, reform os by degrees. The Reformers should not be condemned for taking those very important first steps towards God and His Word. Reformed theology should be condemned for abandoning that work.

In the end Reformed Theology is nothing but the ultimate form of "easy believism" , which perhaps why men of that tradition cling so tightly to those "first steps".
 

JonC

Moderator
Moderator
You do nothing of the kind, and never have whilst I have been on this forum. You follow your own mind, which has shown itself time and time again to be insufficient for the job. You cannot bring a single piece of Scripture to bear to prove your silly and offensive allegations.
Now you are being silly. The doctrine that I hold as essential is not only a historical position but more importantly it is in God's Word. Yours is not actually in God's Word (it is what you and a relatively small sect believe is taught by Scripture).

Do you not understand the difference? When you condemn my faith you are literally condemning God's Word ("what is written") and have never once addressed my understanding of His Word. All I have rejected of your tradition is what is NOT in the Bible anywhere (what your heros tell you the Bible means) When I say your tradition is an erroneous theology I am saying I disagree with those men who tried to re-form Roman Catholic theology.

We stand where we stand. Either I am correct and we are both Christians who disagree or you are correct and you are a Christian while I am not, or we are both incorrect.

My position is, as I have stated, that the Reformers did a good work but their re-forming should have continued. Catholicism and Reformed theology are not without the gospel they misunderstand so there can be Christians found holding those errors. There are many who have been carried away by the philosophies, and will hear "I never knew you".

The strength of my faith is that it is found in the actual words of God. I have no interest in expounding on what God has given us in His Word. So I may misinterpret a passage, but I have not added to Scripture what I believe the Bible "teaches" (I believe the Bible teaches "what is written").

You, on the other hand, can only point to men who tell you what the Bible "really teaches when properly understood". No different from trusting a Pope to tell you what the Bible "really" means.

So I am comfortable in my syand - even with misinterpretation- because it is standing on the actual Word of God.
 
Last edited:

Wesley Briggman

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
I'm convinced that you just hate Luther. You proclaim to believe in the gospel of grace, yet condemn Luther to hell because he doesn't meet your requirements.
Nonsense.

I have no reason to believe that Luther was born-again. If he was not, then his eternal existence will be in hell.

(Gen 12:1 KJV) Now the LORD had said unto Abram, Get thee out of thy country, and from thy kindred, and from thy father's house, unto a land that I will shew thee:
(Gen 12:2 KJV) And I will make of thee a great nation, and I will bless thee, and make thy name great; and thou shalt be a blessing:
(Gen 12:3 KJV) And I will bless them that bless thee, and curse him that curseth thee: and in thee shall all families of the earth be blessed.


Study Guide for Genesis 12 by David Guzik
e. I will bless those who bless you, and I will curse him who curses you: God also promised He would bless those who bless you and to curse him who curses you. This promise — inherited by the covenant descendants of Abram, the Jewish people — remains true today and is a root reason for the decline and death of many empires.

I believe the hatred expressed by Luther toward the Jews placed the curse of God upon him. Additionally, Luther added to scripture. Additionally, as stated previously, he disagreed with several books in the Bible and wanted to move them to an amendment.

Luther actually repented of his derisive statement about the book of James.
That is news to me. Please provide supportive documentation.

I don't intend to review all of your posts, but to my recleation, you have not provided any documentation to support your positions.
 

5 point Gillinist

Active Member
Nonsense.

I have no reason to believe that Luther was born-again. If he was not, then his eternal existence will be in hell.
Ah. I guess being saved by grace thru faith in Christ isn't enough then.
I believe the hatred expressed by Luther toward the Jews placed the curse of God upon him.
This IS adding to God's word. One can't believe the Bible, or Christ's words, that all sins will be forgiven (except for blasphemy of the Holy Spirit) if you hold that Luther's derision towards the Jews at the end of his life kept him out of the kingdom. That is also idolatry to put the Jews on such a pedestal - and I say that as a dispensationalist.
Additionally, Luther added to scripture. Additionally, as stated previously, he disagreed with several books in the Bible and wanted to move them to an amendment.
You are adding to scripture, and taking away from it with your views on salvation or refusal of God to give it based on Luther's racism.
I don't intend to review all of your posts
So then why are you on an internet forum?

Also, you don't want to quote Guzik, he is a Calvinist, and also does speak favorably of Luther.
 
Top