Dump Reformed, adopt Historic or Founders

[OldRegular]

There is a very welcome movement within the Southern Baptist Churches to return to the historic doctrines of the Church, particularly in regard to the Doctrines of Grace. The term, Reformed, is frequently applied to this movement and the associated Churches.

I frankly think that use of this term is both incorrect and counterproductive.

First: Baptist Churches did not come from the Reformation movement. Most, if not all, Churches that came out of the Reformation still retain some of the errors of Roman Catholicism, for example: infant Baptism and, among some groups, Baptismal Regeneration.

Second: There is a definite repugnance among Baptists to the name Reformed. They associate it with some of the errors of the Reformation Churches and therefore reject the notion of Reformed Baptists without knowing what these Baptists believe.

In my opinion Baptists would be much better served if they talked about returning to the Historic Baptist Faith. Perhaps those who are associated with the Founders movement have recognized this though I believe, but am not certain, that they use the term, Reformed, on occasion.

The Historic Baptist Faith is perhaps best represented by the 1689 Baptist Confession [Second London Confession] or the Philadelphia Confession, the American version. This Historic Baptist Faith is summarized by the Abstract of Principles of the first Southern Baptist Seminary and is still in effect at Southern Seminary.

 

[Mark Osgatharp]

Originally posted by OldRegular:
The Historic Baptist Faith is perhaps best represented by the 1689 Baptist Confession [Second London Confession] or the Philadelphia Confession, the American version.

The 1689 confession is nothing but the Westminster Confession with a Baptist flair. What you call "Historic Baptist" is Reformed, no matter what you call it.

Mark Osgatharp

 

[mioque]

"First: Baptist Churches did not come from the Reformation movement."
"
Except that they did.

 

[Bartimaeus]

The Baptists of Wales pre-dates any organized assembly of the roman church. (Historical Fact, very easy to verify) They did not come out of the deformation and the truth of the 1689 statement is that less than half of the English churches at the time embraced it.
Thanks -----Bart
.......pray hard, and squeeze the trigger gently.

 

[rbell]

I'm going to regret this, but here goes...

Just because something is "historic," does that make it the correct path to follow? I'm not talking about the historicity of scripture, but rather the idea that I must be loyal to the genesis idea of the movement.

I'm Southern Baptist. But I don't at all agree with one of the causes of the SBC's founding--their lack of opposition to slavery. That position is "historic," but it's not my position.

(carefully picks hat up out of ring)

 

[Bartimaeus]

rbell,
You have a very good point. I agree. Many friends of mine have fallen into the 5 point trap because of history. The point of history that they have studied and followed lead them to Augustine and they embraced the doctrine. (civil war history for some) History will mislead you. They are defining their scriptural views via history. OTOH History can be a great helper. I am thankful for the clear and present historical line of churches in Wales. It is a great tool with the water-dogs/watchtowerslaves/deformationchurches/mormons and others who want to mimic historic Christianity.
Thanks ----Bart
......pray hard, and squeeze the trigger gently.

 

[bjonson]

Originally posted by Mark Osgatharp:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by OldRegular:
The Historic Baptist Faith is perhaps best represented by the 1689 Baptist Confession [Second London Confession] or the Philadelphia Confession, the American version.

The 1689 confession is nothing but the Westminster Confession with a Baptist flair. What you call "Historic Baptist" is Reformed, no matter what you call it.

Mark Osgatharp </font>[/QUOTE]Sure, but the issue of water baptism is different, that is the point of the opening post!

 

[Dr. Bob]

Rewriting history doesn't change facts. English Baptists come from strongly reformed doctrinal stock.

The first London Confession was so good that it was "borrowed" for the Westminister Confession - which was rewritten in much loftier language. Then "borrowed" back for the second Confession.

But apart from some changes in church polity, baptism, the historic Baptist doctrinal position is closely akin to the historic Reformation doctrinal position.

 

[Bartimaeus]

Dr. Bob,
You may be right and I guess I am a little slow on the draw here.....Maybe ENGLISH baptists did come from the reformers (the problem is they carried the rags of Augustine with them), but the Welsh Baptists predate any reformers and/or romanism. Thank the Lord.
Thanks ----Bart
......pray hard, and then squeeze the trigger gently.

 

[Ron Arndt]

Dr Bob is correct in his post. The historic Baptists, especially of the English era were reformed and Calvinistic in their doctrines. Just refer to the English Baptist John Gill's commentary for proof of this. The main difference of the English Baptist and Geneva reformers was the mode of baptism and believer's baptism. This was the dividing issue.

 

[Bartimaeus]

Going to John Gill for evidence is like asking the fox in the henhouse.

Thanks -----Bart
....pray hard, and then squeeze the trigger gently.

 

[DeadMan]

Originally posted by mioque:
"First: Baptist Churches did not come from the Reformation movement."
"
Except that they did.

WOW, this was my very first thought when I read the OP!

Although the stigma of the title "reformed" can be hard to overcome at times, I doubt we'll ever be able to escape it. All we can do with any legitimacy is preach our biblical docrines and let the Scriptures stand on their own.

 

[mioque]

If memory serves the notion that there is this ancient Welsh baptist tradition was made up by one J. Davis in a book he got published in 1835.

 

[Ron Arndt]

The first authentic Baptist church started in 16 hundred something in England. There were no Baptist churches as we know Baptist churches today before Martin Luther and the reformation.

 

[gb93433]

The first Baptist churches practiced infant baptism for a short while.

 

[gb93433]

Someone may well talk about going back in time. You cannot turn back time and live life as if it were then. God's work is done now not in the past. The Holy Spirit works now, not in the past.

 

[Bartimaeus]

Mioque,
Hardly a notion and if it's tradition it is well documented (drawn directly from historical Welsh writings, some I believe to be older than the deformation). You use the words, "made up" please advise us...do you mean put together or do you mean fabricated? I must say that J. Davis wrote his work on the historical Welsh Baptists and they stand as a fact until of course you can provide documentation to refute them. I am .....earnestly waiting for your answer.
Thanks -----Bart
.....a free people cannot remain free and be enslaved in sin. God save the USA

 

[mioque]

Fabricated.
Davis 'massaged' his ancient Welsh sources in the same way Riplinger and Hislop did for their books.

 

[mioque]

Maybe that's a bit unfair after all Davis never saw much Welsh documentation himself.
He claims that his work is essentially a translation of the work of one Joshua Thomas an 18th century Welsh minister.

 

[Brother James]

Originally posted by mioque:
Fabricated.
Davis 'massaged' his ancient Welsh sources in the same way Riplinger and Hislop did for their books.

I thought the Baptist church started with John the Baptist when he by inspiration penned the King James Bible.