Are Reformed Baptists really Baptists

[Ruiz]

Dr. Bob,

I am mostly LBC 1689. I do not quite fit in with the Founders nor with Dever. While I agree with Dever on the 9 Marks, I also have some disagreements with him on several issues and never would be comfortable in their circles.

Personally, I am a little weary of most of the associations, not just in reformed settings but also in non-reformed. We try find individual churches where we can unite. So, I have good friends in ARBCA, FIRE, SBC, and others. Yet, I do not think I could ever be convinced to join any of these groups.

I guess, I am sorta like Spurgeon was after the Downgrade. I kinda see these as having some good but potentially a lot of bad.

Dr. Bob, it is good to make your acquaintance. Keep preaching faithfully the Word of God.

 

[Dr. Bob]

Looking forward to the morning - worship with God's people, singing the old hymns of grace, praying and celebrating the Lord's Supper, and proper exposition of the Word (Mt 7:6 - swine and dogs, message #43 in Matthew)

Discernment (not hypocritical judging) based on doctrine (not whim) is so needed today.

Where are you at? WV? Preached in Beckly and in Charleston. I wander around the world and would love to detour and visit some day. We are blessed to have good independent reformed Baptist churches in Powell (by Yellowstone), Laramie and here in Casper, plus Rapid City and Longmont, Colorado nearby. This gives a core of good churches to support missionaries and encourage one another in the faith.

 

[Ruiz]

We are in Huntington, not far from Charleston. Which church did you preach at in Charleston? Randolf Street in Charleston is a good church and has done well. The Pastor, Jason, has done a good job in preaching and teaching.

If you are in the area, let me know. I would love to meet you. May God bless your preaching in the morning.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

So I guess what you guys are saying is that the people I was dealing with were not perhaps the best representatives of the RBC. That makes sense & I appreciate the reality check. I will stick with my corner neighborhood local Regular Independent Baptist Church where the Bible is taught.:jesus:

 

[Rippon]

Yes, the Bible is the best creed ever written.

It's not a creed.

Others are merely rehash and opinions.

It depends on the particular creed or confessional of faith. But the 1689 is a rather faithful summary of major Bible doctrines. It is not merely a matter of being a rehash or opinion.

I cannot answer why a given church would place such emphasis on reformed theology.

And the answer is: Because Reformed theology is biblical.

It certainly does not permeate all Baptist churches like conservative Presbyterian churches.

Well that's a given. Most Baptist Churches are not Reformed in their soteriology.

 

[Rippon]

I will stick with my corner neighborhood local Regular Independent Baptist Church where the Bible is taught.:jesus:

Hopefully you are not implying that the Reformed-minded Baptists do not teach the Bible.

Are you still of the mindset that Reformeed Baptists do not have the Holy Spirit? Or have you recanted?:laugh:

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Hopefully you are not implying that the Reformed-minded Baptists do not teach the Bible.

Are you still of the mindset that Reformeed Baptists do not have the Holy Spirit? Or have you recanted?:laugh:

Again Rippon, I never said that.... where did you draw that conclusion or are you looking for a fight? But I will disagree with you on saying the whole of 1689 is biblical.

 

[jcjordan]

I have discovered in Reformed Theology a kind of pattern to reading scripture that leads to conclusions drawn that may or may not be biblical. For example last week this one Church in particular began a campaign to follow all the ordinences in the 1689 London Confessions regarding Sabbath. When I asked questions about Christs teachings on Sabbath I was refferenced back to the 1689 Confessions & told to study them.

When I questioned the 5 point TULIP, in particular Limited Atonement, I am again referenced back to 1689. I counter that with scripture & the scripture passages I suggest are either ignored or I'm told I am not reading it properly.

When I suggest that I am not interested in their dogmatic concepts, that I want inerrant truth taught in the bible....well I get shunned & called an apostate.

Now I come from people who have been open air preachers & teachers & ministers of Christ's gospel, given up all to follow Christ, people not content to just have orthodoxy & doctrine but to feel Christ & The Holy Spirit so I am not surprised that the Reformed would take the position with me that they do. I must seem a nut to their way of processing God... LOL.

To them I say, so long & I will pray for your eventually obtaining the Holy Spirit & find myself singing "Guide me, O Thou Great Jehovah"

If you had such issues with this church, why did you want to attend it anyway?

 

[ReformedBaptist]

So I guess what you guys are saying is that the people I was dealing with were not perhaps the best representatives of the RBC. That makes sense & I appreciate the reality check. I will stick with my corner neighborhood local Regular Independent Baptist Church where the Bible is taught.:jesus:

Your experience with that church seems odd to me. It sounds to me like a mix of something that was new to you, so you misunderstood some things, and perhaps some overzealous baptists.

When we make a judgment about some persons, we need to also keep in check our biases. I was a member of a RB church a number of years. I didn't agree with everything in the confession, and still don't, but would still use it as representative of what I believe. And they didn't have a problem with my disagreement.

Would this church refer me to their confession? Of course. Why not? Well, they shoudl refer you to the Bible you say. This reasoning is ignorant of what a confession is. Whether I adopt one already written, or write my own, or leave mine un-written, everyone has a creed.

Once you say "I believe..." whatever follows is your creed. Even if you say, "No creed but the Bible!" then that is your creed, that you ahve no creed.

So a church that adopts the Westminster, or LBCF, or any statement of their faith, when asked about what they believe and why, should point you to their creed. Makes perfect sense.

But in no sense would a RB church place their creed as equal or over the Scriptures. And certain the doctrines of grace, called Calvinism, and a Covenant understanding of the Scriptures, do not invalidate someone as a "baptist"

We are Christians first and foremost. Using the label Baptist helps convey, generally, things I hold concerning baptism and church government.

 

[ReformedBaptist]

Well if they're baptists then why do they concentrate on Reformed Theology so much? One would think that you were dealing with Orthodox Presbyterians the way they continue to quote their Confessions ....?!? In fact they preferred the Westminster Confessions to 1689 Baptist one & did not like when I indicated I would be going to a Regular Baptist Church.

When I would quote Baptists instead of Reformed Theologians, they would get mad at me & really were aghast when I sighted inconsistencies in Covenant theology that I disagreed with.

In addition to my previous reply, I want to reply to this.

It sounds like you were there and that all you did was challenge them, disagree with them, and dispute with them. Was that really the case?

 

[ReformedBaptist]

I have discovered in Reformed Theology a kind of pattern to reading scripture that leads to conclusions drawn that may or may not be biblical.

Am I the only one that chuckled at this? haha... Maybe it would have been better to say brother, that you discovered pattern that when someone reads the Bible that it can lead to conclusions that may or may not be biblical.

hahaha

For example last week this one Church in particular began a campaign to follow all the ordinences in the 1689 London Confessions regarding Sabbath. When I asked questions about Christs teachings on Sabbath I was refferenced back to the 1689 Confessions & told to study them.

There is nothing wrong with that admonition. Remember, you entered their assembly, and it seems from your posts you showed very little respect for it. There is nothing wrong with disagreement. But if a local group of believers found that the 1689 Confession states plainly what it is they beleive the Scriptures teach concerning the Sabbath, then it is quite reasonable that if you had a question about it for them to refer you to it for your education.

When I questioned the 5 point TULIP, in particular Limited Atonement, I am again referenced back to 1689. I counter that with scripture & the scripture passages I suggest are either ignored or I'm told I am not reading it properly.

Or, they just don't want to debate you on the matter. Going to a local congregation, that you know is Calvinist in their theology, then challenging that doctrine, is...nearly wicked. Are you trying to sow division among them? Were these challenges you were having with the pastor(s) in private, or were you challenging their doctrine publically?

When I suggest that I am not interested in their dogmatic concepts, that I want inerrant truth taught in the bible....well I get shunned & called an apostate.

While it is possible that you may have bumped into some hyper-calvinists, most would respond to your statement with something like..well, what you are opposing and calling a "dogmatic concept" is what we beleive the inerrant truth as taught in the bible...teaches. :wavey: I can't say whether or not you were shunned or called an apostate. Maybe you were. But things are just not adding up here...

Now I come from people who have been open air preachers & teachers & ministers of Christ's gospel, given up all to follow Christ, people not content to just have orthodoxy & doctrine but to feel Christ & The Holy Spirit so I am not surprised that the Reformed would take the position with me that they do. I must seem a nut to their way of processing God... LOL.

It is true that that which is associate with "reformed" is often more intellectual. Yet, anyone who has actually read a "reformer" would clearly see the spiritual vitality and spiritual "consolations" as they called it, were a very real and vital part of the walk with Christ.

Of course, there is a danger with any Christian in his or her pursuit of knowledge to have a "dead orthodoxy" But there is also a danger that in the pursuit of "feeling" Christ and the Holy Spirit that one may wander from the truth of Scripture, and be "drunk" with his own interpretations and arrogance.

I should know...been there, done that.

To them I say, so long & I will pray for your eventually obtaining the Holy Spirit & find myself singing "Guide me, O Thou Great Jehovah"

And I can't imagine how they wouldn't be glad to be rid of you. I myself have been obnoxious to churches before being blinded by my own pride and zeal. And their wish for you would be, "yes, PLEASE O Thou Great Jehovah, guide him!" HAHAHA.

You may see it one day brother, or not. It appears obvious to me, but I can only read your words on a forum. But I bet I am not far off the mark...

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Well anyway brother I am out of there & very happy where I am now. Thankfully there are Baptists who agree with my observations, though you might not wish to see that either.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

If you had such issues with this church, why did you want to attend it anyway?

I didnt have issues, at least not at first. My interest was to go to what I thought was a biblical. They had just placed a new minister & he gives great sermons. The problem happened when the minister became evasive when I was asking him questions. He answered them very wishy washy without really referencing their 1689 Confessions. So I read them & came up with still more questions followed by still more evasive answers. At that point I started to press real hard for definitives & did finally get them, some I didnt agree with (Note here I studied scripture both from the Reformed viewpoint & also from a Baptistic standpoint (my brother helped me here as he is an ordained Baptist Minister). Then when I finally questioned the Reformed Minister & a few other people, basically teaching elders & Ministers about the state of where my infant son was because he died in infancy, I was told everything from "Your child is in hell," to the softer "Well we really dont know" See they justified my childs being in hell because my wife & I were not in there covenant at the time of the child's death. So hanging over our heads was the conviction from the Reformers that we put our trust in that our child in hell & we put him there. Note that my brother, the Baptist minister did not share that viewpoint nor has any Baptist Ive ever discussed this with. I didnt know this at the time but Spurgeon wrote about this & called anyone coming up with that conclusion a miscreant.

Because of that damning interpretation of scripture by these Reformed know it alls, my wife went into a deep depression followed by alcoholism & years of therapy etc etc. Now here is a loving woman who listened to here Reformed Pastors who damned her & her deceased newborn. I dont consider what they did as funny.

 

[Iconoclast]

I didnt have issues, at least not at first. My interest was to go to what I thought was a biblical. They had just placed a new minister & he gives great sermons. The problem happened when the minister became evasive when I was asking him questions. He answered them very wishy washy without really referencing their 1689 Confessions. So I read them & came up with still more questions followed by still more evasive answers. At that point I started to press real hard for definitives & did finally get them, some I didnt agree with (Note here I studied scripture both from the Reformed viewpoint & also from a Baptistic standpoint (my brother helped me here as he is an ordained Baptist Minister). Then when I finally questioned the Reformed Minister & a few other people, basically teaching elders & Ministers about the state of where my infant son was because he died in infancy, I was told everything from "Your child is in hell," to the softer "Well we really dont know" See they justified my childs being in hell because my wife & I were not in there covenant at the time of the child's death. So hanging over our heads was the conviction from the Reformers that we put our trust in that our child in hell & we put him there. Note that my brother, the Baptist minister did not share that viewpoint nor has any Baptist Ive ever discussed this with. I didnt know this at the time but Spurgeon wrote about this & called anyone coming up with that conclusion a miscreant.

Because of that damning interpretation of scripture by these Reformed know it alls, my wife went into a deep depression followed by alcoholism & years of therapy etc etc. Now here is a loving woman who listened to here Reformed Pastors who damned her & her deceased newborn. I dont consider what they did as funny.

I doubt what you have posted all throughout this thread. The answers you say they gave you do not square with the confession of faith;

3. Elect Infants dying in infancy, are (k) regenerated and saved by Christ through the Spirit; who worketh when, and where, and (l) how he pleaseth: so also are all other elect persons, who are uncapable of being outwardly called by the Ministry of the Word.

k Joh. 3.3 5,6.

l Joh. 3.8.

This is the biblical teaching on this issue.
You did not believe in the teaching when you went into the church,and you do not believe it yet. That is the truth of it. You did not get the answers you wanted to get,on this topic, the atonement, the sabbath. so now you speak evil of the brethren.
Be honest with it and admit you do not now or have never believed these truths. You did not go to learn,but to resist.
What you say were "evasive" answers were probably not answers you wanted to get, so you make as if the "reformed know it alls" as you put it caused all manner of evil in your home. They are not here to answer your charges,and perhaps if we could have been a fly on the wall to hear these discussions we would have a different understanding then what you have offered.
Post your positions here,and I am sure the RB that are here can answer your posts,without being evasive. as a matter of fact, many have already started to suggest the same thing in the previous posts

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Icon.....Im not going to rehash what Ive already told you. If you dont believe it than thats ok with me....Ive moved on. Now if you dont believe this stuff happened perhaps you should open your eyes.

 

[saturneptune]

It's not a creed.

No kidding. It is the Inspired, inerrent Word of God. I thought you knew that. However, that would have required a sentence of more than four words.

It depends on the particular creed or confessional of faith. But the 1689 is a rather faithful summary of major Bible doctrines. It is not merely a matter of being a rehash or opinion.

This creed, as with any other creed, is a collection of beliefs a group of people agree with about Scripture. The Holy Spirit was not there illuminating them as they wrote the document.

And the answer is: Because Reformed theology is biblical.

Great, you got one out of four right.

Well that's a given. Most Baptist Churches are not Reformed in their soteriology.

OK, my error, two out of four.

 

[saturneptune]

Well anyway brother I am out of there & very happy where I am now. Thankfully there are Baptists who agree with my observations, though you might not wish to see that either.

It is good that you found a church where you can worship the Lord, and not constantly be irritated or worried about theological doctrine. That is one of the reasons I am glad to be a Baptist. Each church is autonomous, and sets their policies. You do not have to worry about a hierarchy handing down proclomations for all churches. What I do not understand, is with the freedom we have, why would you waste time worrying about a church that does not see things like you do? It is kind of like the verse in the Bible telling you to dust off your shoes and move on.

You seem to be hung up on the doctrines of sovereignty and grace. There are churches that emphasize both sides. I serve in a church that is about half and half. We have a great fellowship, and there are no bad feelings about the issue. Personally, I am on the reformed side, but would not serve in a church that insisted on that belief or any other belief, other than Jesus Christ is Lord, God, Savior, and King, that the Bible is the Inspired Word of God, that our main reason to be here is to tell others about the Gospel, and Biblical baptism. I may have left out some, but you get that idea.

I stay away from local churches that major in Bible versions, only certain types of end time theology, etc. May the Lord bless you in your new found ministry.

 

[Rippon]

No kidding. It is the Inspired, inerrent (sic)Word of God. I thought you knew that.

Back to your former ways I see.

Why did you say the Bible is a creed earlier? It either is
a creed, or it's not.

This creed, as with any other creed, is a collection of beliefs a group of people agree with about Scripture.

Have you read the London Confession in its entirety?

The Holy Spirit was not there illuminating them as they wrote the document.

Who has said or even implied such?

Okay, we get the fact that you don't like written creeds.

 

[saturneptune]

You are exactly correct. My former and present ways have flaws, and one of my flaws is letting smart alec remarks not pass. If I am talking to someone about a subject that has nothing to do with you, nor is either party addressing you, and you choose to interject yourself in a sarcastic manner, then you are going to get it right back. As long as you have malingered on this board, I would have thought you would have learned that.

My ways on my worst day are better than your best. Maybe you should consider REFORMING your thinking.

 

[RAdam]

"No creed but the bible" was a standard cry of the Campbellites. Sounds good, right. After all, it is exalting God's word over man's.

Now, here's the problem with that view. If someone asks what you believe and you say you believe what the bible teaches, that person will likely say they do too. However, if the conversation continues, you might find that you believe in particular redemption and he doesn't, that you believe God regenerates His children through direct operation of the Holy Ghost and he believes in gospel regeneration, etc. Both of you would say you believe the bible, but it is obvious that you don't agree in your beliefs. This is the essential shortcoming of "no creed but the bible."

What is the purpose of a creed, confession, or articles of faith? Well, it should not be to set aside scripture. Anything that is dishonoring to scripture should be scrapped immediately. The purpose of a man written document outlining beliefs should be purely for the concise explanation of this group's view of what the bible teaches. The first item should be a belief in God, followed closely by a statement of belief in the scriptures, followed by a statement of what this group's understanding of what the bible teaches, and all articles should be backed up with scripture.

If you walked into a church where I preached and asked what we believed, I should be able to point you to a creed, confession, or articles of faith explaining our beliefs.