Featured Baptists are not Reformed

They were Welsh also & brought the fairy back with them....good lads!:smilewinkgrin:

 

That is correct. Because we as Baptists have no carryover does not mean every doctrine in our local churches today is on target. The key word is local. It also does not mean the four main Protestant churches founded by great men of faith, Lutheran by Luther, Methodist by Wesley, Presbyterian by Knox, and Episcopalian by Allen, do not have correct doctrine within them. Each has a blend of reformation and holdovers from the RCC. IMO, the Presbyterians, especially conservative like the PCA, are the most distinct from the RCC, but still do not match the Baptists. The Reformation was a positive thing for Christianity.

One must look at the totality of the situation. Anything that took away from the RCC is a good development. Of course, there are denominations today no one can take seriously aside from the RCC today, like the Church of Christ, the SDAs, Pentecostal, Holiness, Charismatic (and their endless subgroups). Then there are the cults of Mormon and JWs that have arisen. I have never known where to place the Quakers, Puritans, and groups like the Amish. They are more of a life style to me.

I am still awaiting an answer to my question from other posters, if you do not believe Baptists or churches of like faith and order existed before the Reformation, what preserved the NT local church from 500-1500 AD?

 

Yet Welsh methodism allowed both...and that's where he came from. I have relatives that were Baptists and Calvinistic Methodists (who are BTW extinct today).

 

It is true baptists did not come out of the roman church so to speak,and yet I believe a case can be made for the term reformed baptists as a distinct and biblical Identity that can be viewed as the Apostolic Church as baptistic and reformed from the ot assembly or church,,,, then later on.... reformed from Anabaptist error.

 

I've had only one pastor who said he was "reformed", whatever that is. He had no Bible college education and was self-taught as far as his Bible knowledge was concerned. His preaching and teaching was what I would call only the "milk" of the word and not the "meat" of the word. As someone who has been saved for 50 years, 7 months, 2 weeks, and 6 days, having read the entire Bible through many times and studied a lot of it, I found my understanding of the word as being beyond what he was teaching and preaching, If that sounds boastful, I apologize; it was not meant to be--just simply a statement of fact.

 

Ok,you've been saved for 50 plus years. But at the time when you had the pastor you referenced you must have been in the faith a relatively short time. If he was actually Reformed in the Calvinistic sense he certainly was an exception to the rule.

 

That was within the last year. I went there for a few months before he told me he was "reformed". That wasn't the reason I left there; it was the lack of spiritual depthness in his teaching and preaching. As I stated, he only preached what I've heard called "the milk of the word" I got spoiled on a pastor I had for 20 years in Michigan who was very educated and knowledgeable in the scriptures, and now I tend to compare other pastors to him who, unfortunately, fall way short.

 

Would say there are indeed reformed baptists, as in those holding to reformed theology, save for infant baptism....

Would say that Baptists are reformed in sense of against RCC theology, and arguing for saved by grace alone, thru faith alone, and in the bible ALONE as our authority for doctrines/practicies

And would also say that baptists as a name was centuries later after Apsotolic church , but thatwhat we hold to would have been pretty much the theology of the Apsotles themselves, just were chrsitians, not called baptists until much later!

 

No,they are within Protestantism.

Because it's a promise of God.

There is no proof for your claim.

Yes. All congregations where not centrally directed. Prominent names from Church History such as Bradwardine,Wycliffe and Huss were within the RCC fold but obviously regenerate Christians --AND obviously not Baptistic either.

 

Pest...Rippon is a Yankee. :laugh:

 

Psst...Rippon is a Yankee. :laugh:

 

A Reminder

Don't forget history.

 

Aside from not understanding the gap between early Baptists and Protestants, the quote you use has nothing to do with linking modern Baptists to being reformed. In fact, they are two separate questions. You have already been proven wrong on the question of Baptists being Protestant.

Particular Baptists can trace their origins back to 1630. The Baptist Confession of Faith of 1689 is written along reformed theology.

From the Theopedia, this is a summary of reformed Baptist beliefs today, which do not exactly parallel Presbyterianism.

•
The centrality of the Word of God: the church takes no part in human schemes for church growth, nor searches for popularity, but sows the Word and trusts God will make it multiply.

•
Creedalism: historic creeds of the faith are considered useful, but not necessarily authoritative.

•
The Regulative Principle of Worship: the belief that "the acceptable way of Worshipping the true God, is instituted by himself; and so limited by his own revealed will, that he may not be Worshipped according to the imaginations, and devices of Men, or the suggestions of Satan, under any visible representations, or any other way, not prescribed in the Holy Scriptures," (from chapter 22, paragraph 1 of the London Baptist Confession of 1689). This is usually manifested in a relatively simple liturgy.

•
Covenant Theology: most hold to the classic Reformed contrast between the Covenant of Works in Adam and the Covenant of Grace in Christ (the last Adam) - and the Elect in Him as His seed. This eternal Covenant of Grace is progressively revealed through the historic Biblical covenants.

•
Local autonomy: each congregation is a fully independent church, which considers itself accountable directly to Jesus Christ rather than intermediately through an earthly organization such as a Convention, Synod or Presbytery.

•
Plurality in Leadership: each local church has multiple Elders as well as one or more Pastors (also known as plurality of elders); often the terms are interchangeable or denote only a difference in full or partial-time dedication to the ministry. Often all leaders are called elders, with the pastor being considered only a primus inter pares.

•
The reservation of the Elder role for men, and usually also that of Deacon.

•
Moderate Cessationism: the supernatural Gifts of the Holy Ghost in general, and Revivals specifically, are considered exceptional measures sovereignly bestowed by God, not to be searched as a common policy. Thus a rejection of man-generated Revivalism in general and Pentecostalism specifically.

•
The idea of the Sunday as the Christian Sabbath (except for New Covenant Theologians).

Despite your contention, free will or Arminianism has never been a Baptist belief from its origins. This is a relatively new phenomena, say a few hundred years. Its most extreme view is in the free will Baptist churches. It is only moderate in the SBC.

All of this gives further evidence against your other false premise that Baptists are Protestant. Baptists have no hierarchy. They are autonomous local churches. There is no uniformity of an up and down line of authority. All other Protestant denominations have a hierarchy. For example, there is no debate within Presbyterian circles about sovereignty, nor is there any debate in Methodist circles about free will. The very nature of the Baptist structure invites debate.

That is why this forum is here. Believe it or not, people can express differences of opinion without being arrogant, mean and self-centered.