-
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!
Do we have any Reformed Baptists on our site now then?
- Thread starter JesusFan
- Start date
Yep!
DaveXR650
Well-Known Member
I don't post much anymore but yes. I consider myself "Calvinistic" and most Baptists I know do as well. Most Baptists like Spurgeon and Bunyan and consider Bunyan's Pilgrim's Progress as near to being inspired as non scripture can be. The recent wrangling over the more difficult metaphysical points of soteriology is unfortunate in my opinion and it just confuses people and creates animosity where there really is no need.
Tea
New Member
Greetings brother @JesusFan. Thank you for your question and it is an interesting topic.
I have often heard it asserted by our Presbyterian brothers and sisters that a Baptist can't technically be called "reformed" because of the issue of baptizing infants into the new covenant. However one lands on that side of the debate, I've never called myself "reformed" or "calvinist" or anything other than just a Christian. However, I have read the 1689 London Baptist Confession of faith and I do not see anything in that document that I would disagree with.
I have often heard it asserted by our Presbyterian brothers and sisters that a Baptist can't technically be called "reformed" because of the issue of baptizing infants into the new covenant. However one lands on that side of the debate, I've never called myself "reformed" or "calvinist" or anything other than just a Christian. However, I have read the 1689 London Baptist Confession of faith and I do not see anything in that document that I would disagree with.
Yes, and twice on Sunday.
atpollard
Well-Known Member
The Baptist term is “Particular Baptist” … and I am one of ‘em.
“Now, you are aware that there are different theories of Redemption. All Christians hold that Christ died to redeem, but all Christians do not teach the same redemption. We differ as to the nature of atonement, and as to the design of redemption. For instance, the Arminian holds that Christ, when He died, did not die with an intent to save any particular person; and they teach that Christ's death does not in itself secure, beyond doubt, the salvation of any one man living. They believe that Christ died to make the salvation of all men possible, or that by the doing of something else, any man who pleases may attain unto eternal life; consequently, they are obliged to hold that if man's will would not give way and voluntarily surrender to grace, then Christ's atonement would be unavailing. They hold that there was no particularity and speciality in the death of Christ. Christ died, according to them, as much for Judas in Hell as for Peter who mounted to Heaven. They believe that for those who are consigned to eternal fire, there was a true and real a redemption made as for those who now stand before the throne of the Most High. Now, we believe no such thing. We hold that Christ, when He died, had an object in view, and that object will most assuredly, and beyond a doubt, be accomplished. We measure the design of Christ's death by the effect of it. If any one asks us, "What did Christ design to do by His death?" we answer that question by asking him another—"What has Christ done, or what will Christ do by His death?" For we declare that the measure of the effect of Christ's love, is the measure of the design of it. We cannot so belie our reason as to think that the intention of Almighty God could be frustrated, or that the design of so great a thing as the atonement, can by any way whatever, be missed of. We hold—we are not afraid to say that we believe—that Christ came into this world with the intention of saving "a multitude which no man can number;" and we believe that as the result of this, every person for whom He died must, beyond the shadow of a doubt, be cleansed from sin, and stand, washed in blood, before the Father's throne. We do not believe that Christ made any effectual atonement for those who are for ever damned; we dare not think that the blood of Christ was ever shed with the intention of saving those whom God foreknew never could be saved, and some of whom were even in Hell when Christ, according to some men's account, died to save them.”
- Charles Spurgeon [link to source]
“Now, you are aware that there are different theories of Redemption. All Christians hold that Christ died to redeem, but all Christians do not teach the same redemption. We differ as to the nature of atonement, and as to the design of redemption. For instance, the Arminian holds that Christ, when He died, did not die with an intent to save any particular person; and they teach that Christ's death does not in itself secure, beyond doubt, the salvation of any one man living. They believe that Christ died to make the salvation of all men possible, or that by the doing of something else, any man who pleases may attain unto eternal life; consequently, they are obliged to hold that if man's will would not give way and voluntarily surrender to grace, then Christ's atonement would be unavailing. They hold that there was no particularity and speciality in the death of Christ. Christ died, according to them, as much for Judas in Hell as for Peter who mounted to Heaven. They believe that for those who are consigned to eternal fire, there was a true and real a redemption made as for those who now stand before the throne of the Most High. Now, we believe no such thing. We hold that Christ, when He died, had an object in view, and that object will most assuredly, and beyond a doubt, be accomplished. We measure the design of Christ's death by the effect of it. If any one asks us, "What did Christ design to do by His death?" we answer that question by asking him another—"What has Christ done, or what will Christ do by His death?" For we declare that the measure of the effect of Christ's love, is the measure of the design of it. We cannot so belie our reason as to think that the intention of Almighty God could be frustrated, or that the design of so great a thing as the atonement, can by any way whatever, be missed of. We hold—we are not afraid to say that we believe—that Christ came into this world with the intention of saving "a multitude which no man can number;" and we believe that as the result of this, every person for whom He died must, beyond the shadow of a doubt, be cleansed from sin, and stand, washed in blood, before the Father's throne. We do not believe that Christ made any effectual atonement for those who are for ever damned; we dare not think that the blood of Christ was ever shed with the intention of saving those whom God foreknew never could be saved, and some of whom were even in Hell when Christ, according to some men's account, died to save them.”
- Charles Spurgeon [link to source]
Last edited:
Here is a question that I expect no "Reformed Baptist" will answer:
What are the distinctives that differ between a "Reformed" believer and a "Reformed Baptist" believer?
Bottom line, Reformed Baptists are really just a subset of Reformed churches. Like Reformed, they deny the lost have the liberty to believe, being unable due to Total Spiritual Inability. However, Soul Liberty is a distinctive of Baptists. Baptists believe the lost have the actual opportunity to obtain salvation by grace through faith, whereas the Reformed believe the lost were saved or damned from before time began.
What are the distinctives that differ between a "Reformed" believer and a "Reformed Baptist" believer?
1) Not all Reformed Churches adhere to infant baptism, some to only believer's baptism. For example, John MacArthur, John Piper and others.
2) Not all Reformed Churches adhere to "Amillennialism," some hold to Premillennialism.
3) Not all Reformed Churches adhere to the "Regulative Principle of Worship," some hold to the Normative Principle of worship.
4) Not all Reformed Churches adhere to the membership of the children of members, or allow these children to participate in Communion.
Bottom line, Reformed Baptists are really just a subset of Reformed churches. Like Reformed, they deny the lost have the liberty to believe, being unable due to Total Spiritual Inability. However, Soul Liberty is a distinctive of Baptists. Baptists believe the lost have the actual opportunity to obtain salvation by grace through faith, whereas the Reformed believe the lost were saved or damned from before time began.
DaveXR650
Well-Known Member
If it is a distinctive of Baptists then it would seem that the same liberty would apply to a church that wanted to adhere to the London Baptist Confession of Faith or wanted to agree with Charles Spurgeon. Those both have credentials equaling a Baptist group which has come up with a list of distinctives along with a set definition of each of them, and sanctions against any who might disagree, or so I would think.
Thanks for posting this on topic viewpoint!
Another Baptist distinctive is that each local assemble of believers have the liberty, ability, to decide for themselves based on scripture, what they believe. At the other end of the spectrum are those that believe that the traditional beliefs determined in posterity dictate what we must believe, such as the London Baptist Confession of Faith. All those that adhere to the TULIP seem unwilling to accept any scripture that precludes its doctrines. They read into scripture "no one ever seeks after God" and refuse to consider it might mean no one always seeks after God, because we all sin.
I could go on and on, but you get the idea, Reformed believe the differing views, held by Baptists, are heresies.
Some Baptists believe a saved person might be able to lose their salvation. And yes, I believe that is a heresy. I would not join a church that required me to accept "loss of salvation" doctrine. And I do not think any Reformed Baptist would join any church that required them to accept that the TUL and I of the TULIP are false doctrines.
Or how about "the natural person cannot understand all the things of the Spirit of God, rather than "the natural person cannot understand the "spiritual meat" things of the Spirit of God. The second view is taught by 1 Corinthians 3:1-3.
Reformed seem unwilling to work together in study and come to a consensus view of just what scripture teaches which may differ from the TULIP.
atpollard
Well-Known Member
And a subset of Baptist Churches. Personally, I think that Credo-baptism vs Paedo-baptism (God covenanting with saved individuals vs entire households) is more fundamental than debates over Atonement.
Correct.
Yes, but “soul Liberty” is not a “total inability” issue, but a focus on men answering directly to God rather than any “creed” or Church Hierarchy.
"Soul liberty," or individual soul liberty, is the principle that each person has the freedom and personal responsibility to decide their own religious beliefs and actions, free from coercion or interference from any human authority, including government, church, or other individuals. This means individuals are directly accountable to God for their faith and cannot be forced to believe or practice a religion against their will. It is a core tenet in certain Christian denominations, particularly Baptists.
General Baptists believe in a General Atonement and an Armininian free will for men to choose. Particular Baptists believe in a Particular Atonement and a TULIP sovereignty that saves people.
Thus Particular Baptists will agree with the Reformed on Atonement (and disagree on other parts of soteriology) and General Baptists will agree with Arminians on Atonement (and disagree on other parts of soteriology).
Thanks for your on topic and accurate post.
1) Your citation differs from other statements of Soul Liberty, as yours is consistent with Calvinism and the alternate is not. If the lost suffer from "Total Spiritual Inability" they lack the freedom to trust fully in Christ and lack the personal responsibility for not fully trusting in Christ.
2) Baptists, other than reformed, AKA Particular, who both reject the "L" of the TULIP, Limited Atonement, Christ died only for those chosen before creation, but traditional Baptists embrace Christ died as a ransom for all, 1 Timothy 2:6.
3) Particular Baptists affirm all 5 points of the TULIP, Calvinist Soteriology.
Bottom line, Reformed Baptists are a subset of Reformed Churches, not a subset of Baptist churches holding traditional Baptist distinctives.
Reformed or Particular Baptists seem unwilling to work together in study and come to a consensus view of just what scripture teaches which may differ from the TULIP.
What do we have here, a deep, well studied, thoughtful commentary on the thread topic, or a mindless, "taint so" post, devoid of any merit? That is a difficult dilemma.
Bottom line, Reformed Baptists are a subset of Reformed Churches, not a subset of Baptist churches holding traditional Baptist distinctives. Reformed or Particular Baptists seem unwilling to work together in study and come to a consensus view of just what scripture teaches which may differ from the TULIP.
DaveXR650
Well-Known Member
It's been awhile since I studied this but it is my belief that both groups of Baptists came out of the Reformation and from the very beginning of them having a self identity were Arminian or Calvinistic. I'm going back to Smyth and Helwys and Grantham. I understand, and I was taught, that we Baptists were always there and in full operation from the time of the earliest church fathers but I just don't see any evidence we can really trace our origins directly back that far. In addition to that, claims of a link to pre Reformation Anabaptists, or Anabaptists identity at least as early as the earliest reformers - while there are links, there are serious doctrinal problems which make you wonder why you would claim such a link. The Anabaptists had some differences and would not as far as I can tell agree with any of our modern concepts of "once saved always saved" or eternal security of the believer.
I think that because we are similar, and so close, it will look like one group came from another if a church changes over time, but no, Reformed did not come from "traditional" Baptist churches as if the traditional Baptist was the original - even though it make look like that one way or the other in a given instance at a specific location.
David Lamb
Well-Known Member
Yes I see myself as Reformed Baptist.