I believe they discovered most all of the primary errors that the RC. Church for sure.
If you are suggesting all the RC. Churches would or should have converted to be Baptists, then no, that did not happen. Is that what you mean?
-
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"?
- Thread starter Wesley Briggman
- Start date
If you are suggesting all the RC. Churches would or should have converted to be Baptists, then no, that did not happen. Is that what you mean?
KenH
Well-Known Member
Sovereign Grace Baptists, such as myself, get lumped in with the general term, "Reformed Baptist". Here is an excerpt from the Wikipedia page on "Reformed Baptists".
"Sovereign Grace Baptists in the broadest sense are any "Calvinistic" Baptists that accept God's sovereign grace in salvation and predestination. In the narrower sense, certain churches and groups have preferred "Sovereign Grace" in their name, rather than using the terms "Calvinism", "Calvinist", or "Reformed Baptist".
...
All of these groups generally agree with the Five Points of Calvinism - Total Depravity, Unconditional Election, Limited Atonement, Irresistible Grace, and Perseverance of the Saints. Groups calling themselves "Sovereign Grace Baptists" have been particularly influenced by the writings of John Gill in the 18th century. Among American Baptists who have revived such Calvinist ideas were Rolfe P. Barnard and Henry T. Mahan, who organized the first Sovereign Grace Bible Conference in Ashland, Kentucky, in 1954, though groups designated as Sovereign Grace are not necessarily connected to them."
- source: Reformed Baptists - Wikipedia
The mention of Henry T. Mahan is particular important to me as the pastor of Grace Baptist Church of Ruston where I attend, Richard Warmack, first heard the gospel of the finished work of Christ from Henry Mahan, and then I heard it from Richard Warmack.
Sorry, but I do not have a personal knowledge base to get into all of the distinctive differences about such. I would be trying to discuss the subject from a standpoint of ignorance rather than a standpoint of knowledge.
For me, when I hear the term "Reformed", I tend to think of those who might be practicing pedo-baptism and/or using the "Moral Law" as a requirement to prove that one has been saved or using it a "rewards system" or using it much in the way that the Pharisees in Jesus' day did.
But that is just my personal perspective at this point.
I guess I like the way it is simplified in a saying attributed to John Bunyan:
"To run and work the law commands, but gives us neither feet nor hands. But better news the gospel brings, it bids us fly and gives us wings."
"Sovereign Grace Baptists in the broadest sense are any "Calvinistic" Baptists that accept God's sovereign grace in salvation and predestination. In the narrower sense, certain churches and groups have preferred "Sovereign Grace" in their name, rather than using the terms "Calvinism", "Calvinist", or "Reformed Baptist".
...
All of these groups generally agree with the Five Points of Calvinism - Total Depravity, Unconditional Election, Limited Atonement, Irresistible Grace, and Perseverance of the Saints. Groups calling themselves "Sovereign Grace Baptists" have been particularly influenced by the writings of John Gill in the 18th century. Among American Baptists who have revived such Calvinist ideas were Rolfe P. Barnard and Henry T. Mahan, who organized the first Sovereign Grace Bible Conference in Ashland, Kentucky, in 1954, though groups designated as Sovereign Grace are not necessarily connected to them."
- source: Reformed Baptists - Wikipedia
The mention of Henry T. Mahan is particular important to me as the pastor of Grace Baptist Church of Ruston where I attend, Richard Warmack, first heard the gospel of the finished work of Christ from Henry Mahan, and then I heard it from Richard Warmack.
Sorry, but I do not have a personal knowledge base to get into all of the distinctive differences about such. I would be trying to discuss the subject from a standpoint of ignorance rather than a standpoint of knowledge.
For me, when I hear the term "Reformed", I tend to think of those who might be practicing pedo-baptism and/or using the "Moral Law" as a requirement to prove that one has been saved or using it a "rewards system" or using it much in the way that the Pharisees in Jesus' day did.
But that is just my personal perspective at this point.
I guess I like the way it is simplified in a saying attributed to John Bunyan:
"To run and work the law commands, but gives us neither feet nor hands. But better news the gospel brings, it bids us fly and gives us wings."
Hello Ken H,
What do Reformed Baptists believe, that you or any other Sovereign Grace Baptists do not?
What is it in the 1689 that you look at it and say, no, I do not believe that!
Okay I understand what you are saying. I think that what is meant by the term Reformed Baptist, is not so much pedobaptism as it is the 5pts, and a right understanding of the law of God in the life of Christians.
Chapter 19. Of the Law of God
1. God gave to Adam a law of universal obedience written in his heart, and a particular precept of not eating the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil; 1 by which he bound him and all his posterity to personal, entire, exact, and perpetual obedience; 2 promised life upon the fulfilling, and threatened death upon the breach of it, and endued him with power and ability to keep it. 31. Genesis 1:27; Ecclesiastes 7:292. Romans 10:53. Galatians 3:10, 12
2. The same law that was first written in the heart of man continued to be a perfect rule of righteousness after the fall, 4 and was delivered by God upon Mount Sinai, in ten commandments, and written in two tables, the four first containing our duty towards God, and the other six, our duty to man. 5
4. Romans 2:14-155. Deuteronomy 10:4
3. Besides this law, commonly called moral, God was pleased to give to the people of Israel ceremonial laws, containing several typical ordinances, partly of worship, prefiguring Christ, his graces, actions, sufferings, and benefits; 6 and partly holding forth divers instructions of moral duties, 7 all which ceremonial laws being appointed only to the time of reformation, are, by Jesus Christ the true Messiah and only law-giver, who was furnished with power from the Father for that end abrogated and taken away. 8
6. Hebrews 10:1; Colossians 2:177. 1 Corinthians 5:78. Colossians 2:14,16-17; Ephesians 2:14,16
pt2.
4. To them also he gave sundry judicial laws, which expired together with the state of that people, not obliging any now by virtue of that institution; their general equity only being of moral use. 9
9. 1 Corinthians 9:8-10
5. The moral law does for ever bind all, as well justified persons as others, to the obedience thereof, 10 and that not only in regard of the matter contained in it, but also in respect of the authority of God the Creator, who gave it; 11 neither does Christ in the Gospel any way dissolve, but much strengthen this obligation. 12
10. Romans 13:8-10; James 2:8, 10-1211. James 2:10, 1112. Matthew 5:17-19; Romans 3:31
6. Although true believers are not under the law as a covenant of works, to be thereby justified or condemned, 13 yet it is of great use to them as well as to others, in that as a rule of life, informing them of the will of God and their duty, it directs and binds them to walk accordingly; discovering also the sinful pollutions of their natures, hearts, and lives, so as examining themselves thereby, they may come to further conviction of, humiliation for, and hatred against, sin; 14 together with a clearer sight of the need they have of Christ and the perfection of his obedience; it is likewise of use to the regenerate to restrain their corruptions, in that it forbids sin; and the threatenings of it serve to show what even their sins deserve, and what afflictions in this life they may expect for them, although freed from the curse and unallayed rigour thereof. The promises of it likewise show them God's approbation of obedience, and what blessings they may expect upon the performance thereof, though not as due to them by the law as a covenant of works; so as man's doing good and refraining from evil, because the law encourages to the one and deters from the other, is no evidence of his being under the law and not under grace. 15
13. Romans 6:14; Galatians 2:16; Romans 8:1, 10:414. Romans 3:20, 7:7, etc.15. Romans 6:12-14; 1 Peter 3:8-13
7. Neither are the aforementioned uses of the law contrary to the grace of the Gospel, but do sweetly comply with it, 16 the Spirit of Christ subduing and enabling the will of man to do that freely and cheerfully which the will of God, revealed in the law, requires to be done. 17
16. Galatians 3:2117. Ezekiel 36:27
4. To them also he gave sundry judicial laws, which expired together with the state of that people, not obliging any now by virtue of that institution; their general equity only being of moral use. 9
9. 1 Corinthians 9:8-10
5. The moral law does for ever bind all, as well justified persons as others, to the obedience thereof, 10 and that not only in regard of the matter contained in it, but also in respect of the authority of God the Creator, who gave it; 11 neither does Christ in the Gospel any way dissolve, but much strengthen this obligation. 12
10. Romans 13:8-10; James 2:8, 10-1211. James 2:10, 1112. Matthew 5:17-19; Romans 3:31
6. Although true believers are not under the law as a covenant of works, to be thereby justified or condemned, 13 yet it is of great use to them as well as to others, in that as a rule of life, informing them of the will of God and their duty, it directs and binds them to walk accordingly; discovering also the sinful pollutions of their natures, hearts, and lives, so as examining themselves thereby, they may come to further conviction of, humiliation for, and hatred against, sin; 14 together with a clearer sight of the need they have of Christ and the perfection of his obedience; it is likewise of use to the regenerate to restrain their corruptions, in that it forbids sin; and the threatenings of it serve to show what even their sins deserve, and what afflictions in this life they may expect for them, although freed from the curse and unallayed rigour thereof. The promises of it likewise show them God's approbation of obedience, and what blessings they may expect upon the performance thereof, though not as due to them by the law as a covenant of works; so as man's doing good and refraining from evil, because the law encourages to the one and deters from the other, is no evidence of his being under the law and not under grace. 15
13. Romans 6:14; Galatians 2:16; Romans 8:1, 10:414. Romans 3:20, 7:7, etc.15. Romans 6:12-14; 1 Peter 3:8-13
7. Neither are the aforementioned uses of the law contrary to the grace of the Gospel, but do sweetly comply with it, 16 the Spirit of Christ subduing and enabling the will of man to do that freely and cheerfully which the will of God, revealed in the law, requires to be done. 17
16. Galatians 3:2117. Ezekiel 36:27
The results of Luther's documented issues with the RCC resulted in no changes to the RCC's doctrine'. The RCC kicked Luther out of their church and continued with their erroneous ways.
"If you are suggesting all the RC. Churches would or should have converted to be Baptists, then no, that did not happen. Is that what you mean?"
No, that is not what I am suggesting or mean. I cannot conceive how that would/should or could happen.
Simply put, neither Luther nor any other ''reformer" had any influence on bringing about change to RCC doctrine.
"I believe they discovered most all of the primary errors that the RC." The RC did not buy it!
God gave Rome a final chance to reform, but at Council of Trent, officially went full blown Apostate
Are SG Baptists Non Covenant theology, no Confessions ascribe to?
KenH
Well-Known Member
At Grace Baptist Church of Ruston, Louisiana, there is a "Confession of Faith – A Declaration of Faith of Grace Baptist Church of Ruston" on the website:
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.
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.
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.
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".
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
Active Member
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.
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.
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.
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?
Last edited:
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Last edited:
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.
The Reformed Baptist distinctives of the TULI are not in the bible and should be thrown out of every baptist church in America.