• 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!

The term "Reformed"

Status
Not open for further replies.

Martin Marprelate

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
What an abominable lie! You have absolutely no evidence to prove that.
I think you'll find I do, and have produced some of it on this forum. :)
The 1640 Baptists themselves utterly repudiated that very thing. The Broadmead church records clearly distinguishes between these groups and utterly repudiates your accusations.
Are you able to point me to these records on line? Or maybe cut and paste them so we can all inspect them?
 

rsr

<b> 7,000 posts club</b>
Moderator
I just finished reading Dr. Featley and he was purposely trying to identify them with the more heretical continential Anabaptists and their extremes.

Well, yes, of course he was. But how much stock should we put in the ravings of a man who makes no distinction between Munster Anabaptists and their like and the men (including Kiffin) who signed the First London Confession? A man who would accuse Kiffin, et al., of plural marriage, public nakedness, advocating the killing of government officials, etc.?

Someone on this board has repeatedly chided others for using paedobaptist sources to buttress an opinion. Of course, this is different because it ...

However, Featley claimed to be eye witness to baptism by immersion "head over ears" "dipt" near his own home for "over twenty years" and none of the Baptists (who were still being called anabaptists" denied it.

I may be missing it, but my impression from the reading is that Featley had been acquainted with Anabaptists for 20 years but being dipt "head over ears" was something new. I would be grateful if you would provide the reference, because I may be wrong.

They only denied the intentional smear job that paedobaptists sympathizers are still using on this forum.

And Featley, of course, probably ranks first in creating an "intentional smear job."
 

Yeshua1

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Yes, I know. It was also the position of the early SBC leadership (I grew up and still attend a SBC affiliated church). It is also the position of Landmark Baptists, a variety of other Baptists, the Church of Christ, the Church of God, Iglesia Ni Cristo, the Seventh Day Adventists, the Oriental Orthodox Church, and the Catholic Church. Interestingly, they all believe they are the one true church started by Jesus for about the same reasons. And I believe that they all misunderstand the nature of the church in about the same way.
The early Church heldto Baptist doctrines/practices, but here were no historical Baptists until Middle Ages!

Our friend just wants to have Baptists linked to NT church, and undermine all others as being legit NT churches now...
 

Yeshua1

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
The only myth is historical knowledge. You are more than willing to believe the reports of the paedobaptists. Anyone who has done any serious study in the Anabaptist history knows there were many different groups who differed with each other in many different areas. Notice your own language "most."

For the most part you are the eager mouthpiece to spread the foul false accusations by their enemies.


.



What an abominable lie! You have absolutely no evidence to prove that. The 1640 Baptists themselves utterly repudiated that very thing. The Broadmead church records clearly distinguishes between these groups and utterly repudiates your accusations.


Were there PaedoBaptists then though? Just to clarify here, you are stating that the Baptists started in Acts, that there were no real NT churches under Reformation that held to infant baptism, and now only legit NT churches are certain Baptists, correct?
 

JonC

Moderator
Moderator
The early Church heldto Baptist doctrines/practices, but here were no historical Baptists until Middle Ages!

Our friend just wants to have Baptists linked to NT church, and undermine all others as being legit NT churches now...
I should note that people are different. I am a ninth generation American (my family came from Ireland). My family is very much involved in knowing our family lineage. I do not share that interest as I can't seem to understand how (other than as trivia) that bears upon who I am.

So I believe that churches should look not to a heritage of churches throughout time, but instead to Christ. For me, that is where our true heritage rests. If a Muslim converts because he stumbled on the gospel in a tract, and others are converted, and they soon assemble as a church....I do not think that they have less a heritage than does anyone else. It is a spiritual kinship, not a physical line of "true churches".
 

Yeshua1

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Typically, in dealing with history, when people say "these were", what is meant is per the historical account. That individual churches have claimed a physical lineage into antiquity is obvious, but the problem is that such claims are generally baseless as they have nothing but their own desire - perhaps a hold over ideology of apostolic succession - to hold such mythology.

Of your positions,you stated that MartinM’s conclusion was pure assumption when his conclusion was in fact a deduction from the historical account. If Anabaptists were present in England earlier, then they would have been subject to the same punishment as were the Lollards (for the same reasons). It is a legitimate conclusion. Your conclusion, however, that these groups existed earlier apart from any historical account or evidences (except a strong and natural desire for a physical heritage) is pure assumption.

The reason that I disagree so strongly with the assumption that there has always been a church like ours (Baptist like us) is that I see it as diminishing the church, and God's preservation of the church, throughout history to an assumption that for the most part of history the church was but a remnant - Hell had indeed prevailed against and stifled her - until the Reformation where the oppressors (the false church) liberated her through their own struggles.

But to each their own.
The LM Baptist view seem to me to be same reasons that SD/Rome/Mormons/JW etc all have used!
 

Yeshua1

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
You will not find such people. The 'Trail of Blood' is a myth. There were groups before the Reformation which practised Believers' Baptism but you would not want to be associated with the Paulicians or Albigensians, both of whom were utterly heretical. The Petrobusians and Waldensians were better, but not all Waldensians practised Believers' Baptism.

Although we respect and honour the Anabaptists for being the first to practise Independency and Separation of Church and State, the theology of almost all of them does not bear close inspection. Most of them were Pelagian or Semi-Pelagian; many (most?) of them denied that the Lord Jesus took flesh from His mother; many either denied the Trinity or were unsound about it. Others denied the Fall and/or salvation by faith Alone.

We are all 'unprofitable servants,' but the Particular Baptists came out of the Independent churches, and they took their doctrine of Independency, not from the Anabaptists, but from the Brownists.
The divding linehas to be how they see the Gospel itself, God nature, and salvation, not Modes of water Baptism!

I am a Baptist, but see Reformed my Brothers in Christ, and closer to them than freewill Baptists that dunk!
 

Yeshua1

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
When you get your,'Who am I?', question right, all of your,'What should I do?' questions tend to take care of themselves. That in itself will simply make you more usable for God.
Reminds me of read from Chuck Swindoll...
2 Christians met, on bridge, and one said I am a Christian, other agreed with him
I am a Baptsit, again other agreed
I holdt KJV only, other agreed
Pre Mil pre trib, other agreed
I hold to limited, other said unlimited atonemet
'You are a heretic" and threw him off the bridge!
 

Yeshua1

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
I should note that people are different. I am a ninth generation American (my family came from Ireland). My family is very much involved in knowing our family lineage. I do not share that interest as I can't seem to understand how (other than as trivia) that bears upon who I am.

So I believe that churches should look not to a heritage of churches throughout time, but instead to Christ. For me, that is where our true heritage rests. If a Muslim converts because he stumbled on the gospel in a tract, and others are converted, and they soon assemble as a church....I do not think that they have less a heritage than does anyone else. It is a spiritual kinship, not a physical line of "true churches".

What should define a real Church is iftey have the real Jesus, real Gospel, and Holy Spirit in their midst, that marks them as a community of God!
 

Earth Wind and Fire

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
What should define a real Church is iftey have the real Jesus, real Gospel, and Holy Spirit in their midst, that marks them as a community of God!

I know each of you guys are on to something....however we each need to quantify our assessments. Is it so important for us, who claim Christs Grace & forgiveness to review the past history & try to apply it to some degree to what each of us thinks is our own concept of the Baptist Church as it is today.

What is our end game gentlemen? Where are our minds when we discuss Baptist development in the 16 hundreds up until now? Ive stated this before & I will say it again, I cant make the events of the past, The Reformation etc disorientate me because if I do that, I cant focus on the goals God has put me to accomplish in this here and now. What I can do however is acknowledge God there with me as a part of my life....guiding me & challenging me to live a holy & joyful life. Look,I am slow, a most egregious sinner, but with His help I am learning. Thats good enough for me.
 

Martin Marprelate

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Martin Marprelate said:
We are all 'unprofitable servants,' but the Particular Baptists came out of the Independent churches, and they took their doctrine of Independency, not from the Anabaptists, but from the Brownists.
Biblicist said:
What an abominable lie! You have absolutely no evidence to prove that. The 1640 Baptists themselves utterly repudiated that very thing. The Broadmead church records clearly distinguishes between these groups and utterly repudiates your accusations.
I have now been able to find these Broadmead church records. You do realise that this church was in Bristol, not London, don't you? There are some 640 pages to trawl through, so I am by no means finished, but may I draw your attention to pages 79-80 where it very clearly states that John Spilsbury departed from the Southwark Independent Church of Henry Jacob in 1633. So Spilsbury was a former Independent paedobaptist, and he did live in London for an extended period. That is no criticism whatsoever of Spilsbury. He left when his understanding of what the Scriptures teach became clearer, just as Knollys and Kiffin would do after him.

Fore those who are interested, these records of the Broadmead church may be found here: https://archive.org/details/therecordsofachu00terruoft
 

Martin Marprelate

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
The divding linehas to be how they see the Gospel itself, God nature, and salvation, not Modes of water Baptism!

I am a Baptist, but see Reformed my Brothers in Christ, and closer to them than freewill Baptists that dunk!
Absolutely right!
The reason I have argued so strongly against Landmarkism is that it is exclusive to the point that it banishes anyone who cannot pronounce its shibboleths to the outer margins of heaven, whereas those initiated into the mysteries of LM have exclusive rights to the New Jerusalem. It divides Christian against Christian. I know what I believe to be true and am prepared to argue for it, but Dispensationalists, Arminians, Presbyterians, Episcopalians etc. are all my brothers in Christ so long as they hold to the Gospel and to the bodily return of Christ in glory.
 

Aaron

Member
Site Supporter
Define REFORMED for me would you...I mean your interpretation of the term as it is used in conjunction with Baptist

Example, "we are Baptists but the 'Reformed' type.":)

Like isn't the term best reserved for Protestants vs Baptists.
When used to describe a theology, denotation is out the window. If I say I am Reformed, I'm not saying I was thinking one way, then changed. I'm saying I believe in things like Sola Scriptura.

The Reformation was a move of God. Baptists need to get over themselves.
 

Jerome

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Even the 1689 London Baptist Confession, which mostly apes the previous Presbyterian (Westminster) and Independent (Savoy) language, deletes the term Reformed:


Independent (Presbyterian same):
9sc8w3.jpg

"such as profess the true Reformed religion, should not marry with Infidels, Papists, or other Idolaters"


Baptist:
fwm8tf.jpg

"such as profess the true Religion, should not marry with Infidels, or Idolaters"
 

Earth Wind and Fire

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Even the 1689 London Baptist Confession, which mostly apes the previous Presbyterian (Westminster) and Independent (Savoy) language, deletes the term Reformed:


Independent (Presbyterian same):
9sc8w3.jpg

"such as profess the true Reformed religion, should not marry with Infidels, Papists, or other Idolaters"


Baptist:
fwm8tf.jpg

"such as profess the true Religion, should not marry with Infidels, or Idolaters"

Also eliminated the pronouncement of not marrying Papists.:)


Funny, but when I was an RC, they would always claim themselves to be the one true religion. :)
 

Yeshua1

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Absolutely right!
The reason I have argued so strongly against Landmarkism is that it is exclusive to the point that it banishes anyone who cannot pronounce its shibboleths to the outer margins of heaven, whereas those initiated into the mysteries of LM have exclusive rights to the New Jerusalem. It divides Christian against Christian. I know what I believe to be true and am prepared to argue for it, but Dispensationalists, Arminians, Presbyterians, Episcopalians etc. are all my brothers in Christ so long as they hold to the Gospel and to the bodily return of Christ in glory.

In the New Jerusalem, there will be ONLY saved persons, ALL got there in same fashion, there will be no Baptist section, Reformed, Lutheryn, AOG etc!

When will we take to heart that Jesus really meant that His body should be one, just as He and Father are? We are free to disagree, but not free to make us Lord over/superior to others saved by God?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top