What are the distinctives of "Reformed Baptist"?

[Silverhair]

I don't know anyone who is reformed who would hold to tradition over proper interpretation. I think we simply desire to have convincing scriptural exegesis in order to change our view (as anyone should). I would say that your statement comes from a worldview that believes yours is the proper interpretation. Could you be wrong? If not, then your own traditions are being held superior to scripture. As such, I don't think anyone on this thread has seen any scriptural evidence given to change one's view from either side, say what you want, but I'd be careful about lobbing the accusation against others of holding their views to be superior to God's word should it be you that is in fact guilty of it.

I always stand to be corrected by clear biblical exegesis but I do not consider that to be the case for many on the calvinist side of the divide. The evidence is clear that the foundation of calvinism came from augustine in the 4th century when he brought pagan philosophy into the church and calvin and later calvinists just carried it forward.

I do notice that you call my view a "world view" does that mean that you think I am not saved?

You questioned whether anyone on this board seem to hold their views as superior to scripture.
Have you read any of BF's comments.
to quote him "Calvinism TULIP is the Gospel, no way around it" Total depravity or total inability?

TULIP/DoG is based on a man-made system that does not reflect the biblical truth of salvation.

 

[JesusFan]

So your complaint is that while I believe God's Word I reject Calvinism (or at least the Calvinistic idea of the Atonement). I am good with that.

I believe that "Pauline Justification" is the actual words written in Paul's epistles.

Not my complaint, its that the PST is just as valid as your valid, and in many biblical reasons superior to it, better in regards to Pauline Justification

 

[5 point Gillinist]

I do notice that you call my view a "world view" does that mean that you think I am not saved?

Worldview def - A worldview is an all-encompassing framework of fundamental beliefs and assumptions that shape how a person or group understands reality, answers life's "big questions," and interprets their experiences. It's like a lens through which one perceives the world, influencing perceptions of truth, the meaning of life, the existence of God, and what it means to live ethically. Worldviews are often rooted in culture, faith, philosophy, and personal experiences

Outlook if you prefer

 

[5 point Gillinist]

??

No. I have already said that I was no less a Christian when I believed as @Martin Marprelate does.

I do not know whether @Martin Marprelate is a Christian. It probably depends a lot on how he holds his understanding (has he been "carried away" by the philosophy, is he "leaning" on his understanding or "on every word that comes from God"? I have no idea.

I am saying that those of us who are Chriatians are those who "lean not on [our] understanding but on every word that comes from God", those of us who are not "carried away" by philosophy.

As such we (who are Christians) "sharpen" one another by pointing out where each of us stray from God's Word.

This does not mean that we, who ate Christians, have no disagreements. BUT it means that our disagreements are based on interpretation and application of "what is written".


I pointed out where @Martin Marprelate strayed from God's Word (points where his faith was based on human philosophy, speculation about what the Bible could teach beyond what "is written".

@Martin Marprelate indicated that my position (and "traditional Christianity") is in fact a heresy. I am not denying that it could be, as we are imperfect in this life, but simply asking him to provide where my belief (it is stated in this thread) departs from God's Word.

If @Martin Marprelate believes that my belief is in fact a heresy, but cannot provide any place where it departs from Scripture, then yes...I would have to wonder if he is legitimately a Christian or if he has been "carried away" from the faith.

BUT no, I am assuming @Martin Marprelate has in mind passages that I reject or places where my belief is an addition to God's Word (an idea about what the Bible "teaches" but is actually absent from Scripture).

So I am awaiting his response so that I can correct any error that I may hold. I realized different interpretations exist, but I certainly do not want to hold a belief that I cannot test against "what is written", and I do not want my beluef to contradict any of God's words.

Ok. The way you worded that section came across as if you don't embrace reformed folks as Christians. Just wanted clarification.

 

[JonC]

And I have asked you which of my posts you are thinking of. Let me have the post number and I will answer you.

That is the same as saying that I am a closet Roman Catholic.

Firstly, I have NOT called your belief a heresy. It may be because I'm a Brit, but I associate that word with the burning of Lollards and Reformers, and I don't use it. What I have done is to say, correctly, that just about every heretic that ever was has declared that he "just holds to Scripture." I have NOT called you a heretic. Give me the post number that you object to, and I will answer you.

Will do, when you provide the post number.

You have, of course, done nothing of the kind. My faith is is line with the 1689 Confession1:1 which states, "The Holy Scripture is the only sufficient, certain and infallible rule of all saving knowledge, faith and obedience" (2 Tim. 3:15-17; Isaiah 8:20; Luke 16:29-31; Eph. 2:20). If you have a problem with this, tell me what it is and we can discuss it.

I have been teling you for 20 years and it does not seem to have done much good.

Again, tell me which post of mine you are speaking of, and I will reply as soon as I can. However, I have continuing duties at my church and elsewhere, so my reply may not be immediate.

If, then, you are saying that my faith is according to Scripture - I do not miss any of God's Wird and I do not hold any impirtant belief that is not in God's Word - then why call it a heresy?


I have pointed out many things in your belief that is not in the Bible. Your position was that it is what you think the Bibke "teaches".

These are all of those requests I made of you to provide a passage stating what you believe, and you being unable to do so.

For example, you have never been able to find a passage stating Jesus experienced God's wrath for our sins laid on Him. You cannot find a passage stating that one can die spiritually. You cannot find a passage stating that God cannot forgive sins based on a new heart, turning to God. You cannot find a passage stating that God punished Jesus (or our sins laid on Him) instead of us. You cannot find a verse stating that divine justice is identical to tge 16th century judicial philosophy that Calvin held (that justice demands crimes be punished).

Now, there are places where we could disagree on interpretation and that is fair. But you hold many foundational beliefs that are nothing but human philosophy.

Ok. The way you worded that section came across as if you don't embrace reformed folks as Christians. Just wanted clarification.

Ahhhh. Yes, maybe poor wording.

I do believe a person can be a Calvinist and a Christian. One can also just be a Calvinist.

Not my complaint, its that the PST is just as valid as your valid, and in many biblical reasons superior to it, better in regards to Pauline Justification

These are not the same. You acceot my view because it is actually in the Bible. But, as you have demonstrated, your view is just what some men believe is "taught" by the Bibke.

Until you can find your beluef in God's Word (not just what you understand is being "taught") I see absolutely no reason to consider it valid.

We are commanded not to lean on our own understanding but on every word that comes from God. Why on earth would I lean on somebody else's understanding?

 

[Martin Marprelate]

If, then, you are saying that my faith is according to Scripture - I do not miss any of God's Wird and I do not hold any impirtant belief that is not in God's Word - then why call it a heresy?

For the fourth or fifth time, I have NOT called your beliefs a heresy

I have pointed out many things in your belief that is not in the Bible. Your position was that it is what you think the Bibke "teaches".

OK. What are these things? Let's have a debate about them.

These are all of those requests I made of you to provide a passage stating what you believe, and you being unable to do so.
For example, you have never been able to find a passage stating Jesus experienced God's wrath for our sins laid on Him. You cannot find a passage stating that one can die spiritually. You cannot find a passage stating that God cannot forgive sins based on a new heart, turning to God. You cannot find a passage stating that God punished Jesus (or our sins laid on Him) instead of us. You cannot find a verse stating that divine justice is identical to tge 16th century judicial philosophy that Calvin held (that justice demands crimes be punished).

AT LAST! Something concrete! Praise the Lord.
I will come back to you on these, one at a time, shortly.

Now, there are places where we could disagree on interpretation and that is fair. But you hold many foundational beliefs that are nothing but human philosophy.

I think you will find that it's you who do that.

 

[JesusFan]

These are not the same. You acceot my view because it is actually in the Bible. But, as you have demonstrated, your view is just what some men believe is "taught" by the Bibke.

Until you can find your beluef in God's Word (not just what you understand is being "taught") I see absolutely no reason to consider it valid.

We are commanded not to lean on our own understanding but on every word that comes from God. Why on earth would I lean on somebody else's understanding?

My Pst viewpoint has thr support of reformed Calvinist and many Non Cal Baptists, and more importantly, explains best Pauline Justification of the Bible

For the fourth or fifth time, I have NOT called your beliefs a heresy

OK. What are these things? Let's have a debate about them.

AT LAST! Something concrete! Praise the Lord.
I will come back to you on these, one at a time, shortly.

I think you will find that it's you who do that.

We have provided to JonC many scriptures regrading what he has asked for to support our viewpoints, but he just addessing them all as not "what the bible teaches:, and us leaning upon human authors and human philosophy

At the same time as he attempts to disparage Martin, he himself offers us his speculation and his own understanding that he accuses Calvinists of??? so ironic!

Would say that one can say Pst would not be their view of the Atonement, but cannot say that is not Valid, not from Scripture at all, bust from man made theology and philosophy

 

[JesusFan]

If, then, you are saying that my faith is according to Scripture - I do not miss any of God's Wird and I do not hold any impirtant belief that is not in God's Word - then why call it a heresy?


I have pointed out many things in your belief that is not in the Bible. Your position was that it is what you think the Bibke "teaches".

These are all of those requests I made of you to provide a passage stating what you believe, and you being unable to do so.

For example, you have never been able to find a passage stating Jesus experienced God's wrath for our sins laid on Him. You cannot find a passage stating that one can die spiritually. You cannot find a passage stating that God cannot forgive sins based on a new heart, turning to God. You cannot find a passage stating that God punished Jesus (or our sins laid on Him) instead of us. You cannot find a verse stating that divine justice is identical to tge 16th century judicial philosophy that Calvin held (that justice demands crimes be punished).

Now, there are places where we could disagree on interpretation and that is fair. But you hold many foundational beliefs that are nothing but human philosophy.

We have repeatenly given to you scriptures that address all of your requests here, but you just keep on saying we hold to man made theology and using human authors and not the scriptures

 

[Zaatar71]

We have provided to JonC many scriptures regrading what he has asked for to support our viewpoints, but he just addessing them all as not "what the bible teaches:, and us leaning upon human authors and human philosophy

At the same time as he attempts to disparage Martin, he himself offers us his speculation and his own understanding that he accuses Calvinists of??? so ironic!

 

[JonC]

For the fourth or fifth time, I have NOT called your beliefs a heresy

OK. What are these things? Let's have a debate about them.

AT LAST! Something concrete! Praise the Lord.
I will come back to you on these, one at a time, shortly.

I think you will find that it's you who do that.

To help, I (anybody) can open up messages to the entire membership here.

But you miss my point. I do not care what you call my belief, especially since you cannot find fault with any of it.

We all have understandings and philosophical positions that shap our understanding. But all you know of what I believe is Scripture itself (I have not presented my opinions as my belief).


Good.... let's start with a passages that state what Jesus experienced was God's wrath. That is one, which if not in the text of Scripture, would negate your entire theory.

 

[JonC]

We have provided to JonC many scriptures regrading what he has asked for to support our viewpoints, but he just addessing them all as not "what the bible teaches:, and us leaning upon human authors and human philosophy

You have made claims.

What verse states Jesus experienced God's wrath?
What verse states that it is possible for anybody to die spiritually?

You have never provided a passage stating those things and you know it. You pipe in only to state unsubstantiated opinions hoping somebody else provided passages stating your theory.

I hate to break it to you, but nobody has. They will provide a verse and say "what that really means is...." as if God were an illiterate fool who could not deliver His Word as what the Bible teaches.

 

[Mikey]

Reformed posted on another thread: "I'm careful about championing Christian celebrity preachers. However, Voddie Baucham was the real deal. He truly was a giant (figuratively and literally) in Reformed Baptist circles. He leaves behind a faithful legacy and a godly example. He is missed."

What are the distinctives of "Reformed Baptist"?



The distinctives are the same with all 5 pt. Calvinists.

TULIP and Covenant Theology.



The Reformers didn't agree among themselves. But they all did agree they had to get out of the RCC.

If they didn't get anything else right, thank God they did point us back to salvation by Grace and not works.

I have been a member of numerous Baptist Churches over the past sixty years. I never heard the term "reformed" mentioned in any of them. Yet, they all where in compliance with Biblical (Reformed?) doctrine.

If you consider how "Reformed Theology/Doctrine" has been applied across the so-called Christian spectrum, it is a bucket of worms! What do "reformed" denominations have in common? Very little - at most. Just about anything is OK under the blanket of "Reformed Theology" - from infant baptism to speaking in tongues.

R. C. Sproul stated: "Reformed Theology is nothing but Biblical Theology". According to his statement, the reformers placed them selves above the Holy Spirit's revelation!

I ask my rhetorical question: What did the reformers reform that needed reforming?


The Reformers failed in their efforts to correct errors of the RCC.

Again: I ask my rhetorical question: What did the reformers reform that needed reforming?

PS: In my opinion Martin Luther was a despicable example of a Christian. Is there any documentation that he was born-again? He was sprinkled the day after he was born. Catholics consider that to impart grace for rebirth. Also, he authored "Of Jews and Their Lies", giving Hitler cover for persecuting Jews!

How is the statement "Reformed Theology is nothing but Biblical Theology" means that the Reformers placed themselves above Scripture?

If you want a genuine thoughtful cretic of Martin Luther and not just strawman, i recommend the lecture series by Carl Trueman

 

[Silverhair]

Worldview def - A worldview is an all-encompassing framework of fundamental beliefs and assumptions that shape how a person or group understands reality, answers life's "big questions," and interprets their experiences. It's like a lens through which one perceives the world, influencing perceptions of truth, the meaning of life, the existence of God, and what it means to live ethically. Worldviews are often rooted in culture, faith, philosophy, and personal experiences

Outlook if you prefer

Biblical would have been a better term.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

But all you know of what I believe is Scripture itself

We know perhaps that what you believe is what you believe is Scripture itself.
But in fact, almost ten years ago I posted on this forum a detailed description of the evidence for Penal Substitution. I think I posted it three times and you never made the slightest effort to interact with it in any way whatsoever. So I wrote it on my blog, and here it is again fo everyone to read:

The Theological and Biblical Basis of Penal Substitution

Isaiah 53:6. ‘We all like sheep have gone astray; we have turned, every one, into his own way; and the LORD has laid on Him the iniquity of us all.’ Galatians 3:13. ‘Christ has re…

marprelate.wordpress.com

I will, over the next few days, try to condense it down somewhat, but not everything in the Bible can be reduced to a single verse.
While I do that, perhaps you would like to present a verse that denies that the Lord Jesus experienced God's wrath?

 

[Silverhair]

View attachment 12941

Ya that's me closing the door on your faulty view of scripture.

 

[JonC]

We know perhaps that what you believe is what you believe is Scripture itself.
But in fact, almost ten years ago I posted on this forum a detailed description of the evidence for Penal Substitution. I think I posted it three times and you never made the slightest effort to interact with it in any way whatsoever. So I wrote it on my blog, and here it is again fo everyone to read:

The Theological and Biblical Basis of Penal Substitution

Isaiah 53:6. ‘We all like sheep have gone astray; we have turned, every one, into his own way; and the LORD has laid on Him the iniquity of us all.’ Galatians 3:13. ‘Christ has re…

marprelate.wordpress.com

I will, over the next few days, try to condense it down somewhat, but not everything in the Bible can be reduced to a single verse.
While I do that, perhaps you would like to present a verse that denies that the Lord Jesus experienced God's wrath?

You and a former member criticized my belief when I posted it ten years ago.

Do you remember why?

The two of you said it was just Scrioture without expounding on tge passages.

Do you remember what I said?

I said that those passages did not need expounding, that they made sence without adding to thrm, and that I cannot put it better or explain it more than God has.

Then you guys asked a bunch of questions that were not answered in Scripture.

Remember what I said?

I said I may have some opinions but they were not enough to form a belief, certainly not enough to share or teach. Basically, what I believe is that we should lean on God's Word and not our understanding.


So, to correct your mistake here, you NEVER posted any passage that stated Jesus experienced God's wrath, or that God punished our sins on Jesus instead of us, or that God has to punish sins in order to "forgive" the sinner.

Now, you DID post verses that DID NOT state those things abd you proceeded to tell us that your theory is what those verses "really" teach. But why cares? Jehovah Witnesses do exactly the same.

 

[Zaatar71]

We know perhaps that what you believe is what you believe is Scripture itself.
But in fact, almost ten years ago I posted on this forum a detailed description of the evidence for Penal Substitution. I think I posted it three times and you never made the slightest effort to interact with it in any way whatsoever. So I wrote it on my blog, and here it is again fo everyone to read:

The Theological and Biblical Basis of Penal Substitution

Isaiah 53:6. ‘We all like sheep have gone astray; we have turned, every one, into his own way; and the LORD has laid on Him the iniquity of us all.’ Galatians 3:13. ‘Christ has re…

marprelate.wordpress.com

I will, over the next few days, try to condense it down somewhat, but not everything in the Bible can be reduced to a single verse.
While I do that, perhaps you would like to present a verse that denies that the Lord Jesus experienced God's wrath?

Thanks for sharing this wonderful, well written article and bible study, You not only quote the verses , but you actually understand what they mean in a biblically solid way. There are some who post random verses and say, look at me..I believe the bible, I believe what is "written". When asked about the verses they show they do not understand it at all. When a person cannot interact with the verses in a meaningful way, it is because they cannot. There is no need to shorten this at all. This is what Christians believe.

 

[Wesley Briggman]

How is the statement "Reformed Theology is nothing but Biblical Theology" means that the Reformers placed themselves above Scripture?

As shared in a previous post, Sproul stated that Reformed Theology was nothing but Biblical Theology.

The purpose of reforming, according to the (1)definition below, is for the purpose of making improvements.

My conclusion is that reformers undertook to improve Biblical Theology. Martin Luther undertook this task when he added "alone" and said a number of books should not be in the bible. Therefore, all reformers giving tacit approval to Martin Luther's changes, they placed themselves above Scripture as originally revealed.

The Reformed Churches Confess Luther's Translation Of Romans 3:28: Allein - The Heidelblog

In his 1521 translation of the Greek New Testament into German, the so-called September Testament, which he completed in about 11 weeks (seminary students take note, that is two weeks shy of one semester) Luther's most controversial decision may have been to use the word allein (alone) in his...

heidelblog.net

Luther’s most controversial decision may have been to use the word allein (alone) in his translation of Romans 3:28, which says, “For we reckon that a man is justified through faith apart from the works of the law” (λογιζόμεθα ⸁γὰρ δικαιοῦσθαι ⸂πίστει ἄνθρωπον⸃ χωρὶς ἔργων νόμου).1 In his translation, however, Luther added the word allein (alone), “a man is justified through faith alone, apart from the works of the law.”

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/reformreform​

(1)​

a : to put or change into an improved form or condition
b : to amend or improve by change of form or removal of faults or abuses

 

[JonC]

@Martin Marprelate

Since you believe my position is biblical, that it is in "what is written" in God's Word, why should I even consider returning to your position when it is foreign to the text of Scripture?

What makes what you think the Bible "really" teaches anything different from what various heretical movements thought the Bible "really" teaches when none of you can find your beliefs in "what is written"?

Why should I abandon "what is written" in God's Words for your understanding of what the Bible "really" teaches?

OR

Why should I add to my belief in God's Word what you understand the Bible to "really" teach?


From what I see, many men follow other men who tell them what is "really" true. Many followed Jim Jones to Guyana. Many followed Elken White. Many followed Charles Russell.

I do not understand why so many view God as incompetent, unable to express Himself adequately in His Word.

I believe that "what is written" in God's Word IS what the Bible teaches. Christians may disagree on interpretation and application, but this disagreement should be interpretation of God's actual words - NOT what whomever men decide to follow think is "really" taught by the Bible.

This is where you are lacking. You insist on too much of of your ideas about what the Bible might teach rather than "what is written" in Scripture. In fact, I cannot think (off hand) of many passages you actually accept without qualifying it as meaning something other than the words written.

 

[JonC]

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.

I agree except I would include the "P" because it that does not simply mean the eternal security of the believer.

Perseverance of the Saints depends on the "TULI" being correct as it applies only to those chosen to salvation (this is the 5th head of the "Doctrines of Grace"). It is "[c]oncerning this preservation of those chosen to salvation".