What are the distinctives of "Reformed Baptist"?

[JonC]

No. It means that people claim to be followers of Christ. JWs and Mormons claim to be Christians. The Reformed confessions, especially the 1689, SHOW that people are followers of Christ.

No. That was what Luther attempted to do, and ended up with a partial reformation. The Reformed confessions ripped up Roman Catholicism and went back to the Bible.

No. Reformed means 'Formed again.' It is fair to criticize the XXXIX Articles of the Church of England for retaining certain Romanist doctrines, and the Heidelberg Catechism and the WCF, although they did a good job, left infant 'baptism' and the idea of a 'state church' untouched, but the 1689 Confession completed the Reformation, and if you want to criticize it, which is fair enough, you need to be specific, which you never are.

No. What is lipstick on a pig is someone who is constantly bigging-up pre-reformation teachings, pretending to be Biblical.


If 'traditional baptist distinctives' are not in the Bible, then they should be discarded. Or do you disagree?
You need to find out what "soul liberty" means because it doesn't mean what you thimk it does, and no, Reformed Baptists do not reject it. But if you disagree with what Reformed Baptists believe, you may well be a Baptist, but you are not a Reformed Baptist. QED, I should have thought.


If 'traditional baptist distinctives' are not in the Bible, then they should be discarded. Or do you disagree?
You need to find out what "soul liberty" means because it doesn't mean what you thimk it does, and no, Reformed Baptists do not reject it. But if you disagree with what Reformed Baptists believe, you may well be a Baptist, but you are not a Reformed Baptist. QED, I should have thought.

1. You should call yourself a 1689er rather than a Christian, then.

Calvinists claim to be Christians as well. The difference is that some are.

The Reformers viewed themselves as correcting what they saw as errors in the Roman Catholic Church. Luther famously tried to do this through the RCC itself. They re-formed RCC doctrine, carrying a lot of it with them. We easily see this in their rejection of believers baptism.

2. I never claimed that teachings had to be pre-refornation in order to be correct. There were plenty of heresies before the Reforners came along.

I am saying that we need to stick with God's Word and not our understanding, not what men think the Bible teaches.

3. It depends on the distinctive. We all have ideas that are not in the Bible. What I am saying is that any doctrine that we insist on as truth does need to be in the Bible (without exception). We would still have differences among Christians in interpretation and application.

For example, one can look in "what is written" and find believers baptism and soul liberty. One can find congregationalusm and baotism by immersion. But we can also find church councils (like the one that met in Jerusallem to discuss Gentile churches and what woukd be required).

"Soul liberty" is a term that originated with Roger Williams to refer to the freedom of men to live abd believe in accordance with their conscious unrestricted by government insofar as it did not constitute civil violations.

Soul Competency is a bit different. This concludes men can read God's Word themselves and follow their convictions without coercion. If found unbiblical these men may be excluded from the congregation but not coerced into a belief.

Soul freedom is Soul Competency extended to other faiths.


You already said that my beluef is biblical (or that you are unable to find where it is not biblical. Your complaint is that I reject philosophical ideas about what the Bible "teaches" and instead insist on every word that comes forth from God.


You said that you would provide passages stating Jesus suffered God's wrath, actually passages (not what a small sect thinks the Bible "teaches"). I am still waiting.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

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.

Thank you for your kind words. You are quite correct; there should be no need to shorten the article, but it is a sad fact that too few people on this board take the trouble to read anything longer than a couple of paragraphs. Perhaps their attention spans are too short.
So I will attempt to produce something shorter for @JonC's benefit, but it may take a few days. I have two sermons and a Bible study to prepare as well as some grandson-sitting to do.

 

[JonC]

Thank you for your kind words. You are quite correct; there should be no need to shorten the article, but it is a sad fact that too few people on this board take the trouble to read anything longer than a couple of paragraphs. Perhaps their attention spans are too short.
So I will attempt to produce something shorter for @JonC's benefit, but it may take a few days. I have two sermons and a Bible study to prepare as well as some grandson-sitting to do.

Just the passages. It should be very simple.

You say that those points that your faith hinges on are stated in the text of Scripture (not what you think the Bible "teaches"). Just provide thr verses.

We have had this discussion before. You have been promising to provide the biblical text stating that Jesus suffered God's wrath, God cannot forgive sins except those sins be punished, etc. for over a decade.

Here is how it goes:

What you always end up doing is providing verses and then telling us what you think those verses "teach".

You believe that the Bible "teaches" what the men who agree with you say it teaches.
I believe the Bible teaches "what is written" in the text of Scripture.

You end up repeating fallacies ("that is the obvious meaning", "that is the normal reading", "the Bible, when properly understood").

I point out that throughout history that is not what most Christians thought those passages taught.
I point out that if the Bible teaches "what is written" then your theory is wrong
I point out that to many Christians the Bible makes sence as written.
I point out that if the Bible makes sence as written there is no need to add a different meaning.

You bring in differences in interpretation.

I point out that there will be differences in interpretation BUT these will be differences in interpreting the words written in Scripture and your theory is not an interpretation but an exposition .

You say the words "Trinity" is not in the Bible.

I point out that the "Trinity" is the title of a concept, that that conceot is in the text of Scripture.
I point out that I am not looking for titles, but the actual doctrine in the text.

You say the doctrine of the Trinity is not found in just one place in the Bible.

I point out that I am not asking for just one verse tgat states your entire theory. You can provide several passages.

You get mad and say you ate leaving this board.

You come back and claim that you provided passages stating, in the text, your theory.

And it all starts over again.

The hard truth

You have been unable to provide passages stating your faith for almost 15 years. God's Word has not changed. You still will not be able to find your faith in "what is written".

You will - ike Arminians, Jehovah Witnesses, SDA, Catholics, etc.- and up providing passages snd then telling us what those passages "really" teach.

Nobody who believes God's Word ("what is written") and believes God's Word makes sence as written will believe your theories are anything but a departure from Scripture.

Why? Because your theory fails when compared to the text of Scripture. It is just one of many theories men think is taught by the Bible but is in fact foreign to the Bibkicsl text.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

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.

Just to be clear here, I never posted any passage that you were prepared to admit stated that the Lord Jesus experienced God's wrath.
There is a difference.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Just the passages. It should be very simple.

No doubt it should be simple, but it won't be, because you won't accept it. That does not mean it's wrong; it just means that you don't understand it, or are so invested in your erroneous views that you cannot bring yourself to accept it..
But here we go then, for all the good it will do: [Fanfare] Romans 3:25-26.

 

[JonC]

Just to be clear here, I never posted any passage that you were prepared to admit stated that the Lord Jesus experienced God's wrath.
There is a difference.

This is a bit silly.

If you provide a passage that states Jesus "suffered God's wrath" then thst is undeniable.

For example, if you rejected my belief that He gave his life as a ransom for many and I provided a verse that stated "gave his life as a ransom for many" then you coukd not reject that as "what is written".

What you have done in the past is provide passages snd then say that "teaches" Jesus experienced God's wrath.

You have NEVER provided a verse stating Jesus experienced God's wrath.

I do not care about the theories of men, about what men think the Bible "teaches".

THAT IS THE DIFFERENCE.

I believe the Bible teaches "what is written". You believe the Bible teaches the theories men who agree with you believe is taught by the Bible.

Provide the verse and highlight the words that are interoreted as Jesus experiencing God's wrath.

You can't because they do not exist. You expound on the text. That is NOT interpretation.

 

[JonC]

No doubt it should be simple, but it won't be, because you won't accept it. That does not mean it's wrong; it just means that you don't understand it, or are so invested in your erroneous views that you cannot bring yourself to accept it..
But here we go then, for all the good it will do: [Fanfare] Romans 3:25-26.

Now you are lying (a sin, according to "what is written").

"whom God displayed publicly as a propitiation in His blood through faith. This was to demonstrate His righteousness, because in God’s merciful restraint He let the sins previously committed go unpunished; 26 for the demonstration, that is, of His righteousness at the present time, so that He would be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus."

This is what I mean.

NOTHING in the text states or even implies that Jesus experienced God's wrath.

Now...you can interpret the passage to mean that it is through Christ we escaoe the wrath to come. But "propitiation" does not mean experiencing wrath (it is an appeasement).

That is just what you believe is taught because the men you worship theorize that Jesus experienced God's wrath.

What the verse means is that we have been justified as a gift by God's grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus. God displayed Him publicly as a propitiation in His blood through faith. The reason was to demonstrate His righteousness, because in God’s restraint He let the sins previously committed go unpunished; for the demonstration of His righteousness at that present time, so that He would be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.


There is a reason you cannot understand "what is written", that you have to add to God's Word, that you have to lean on your own understanding.

 

[JonC]

Members -

This is what I mean by deciding to lean on the words that come from God vs our own understanding.

@Martin Marprelate provided a passage that he says states Jesus experienced God's wrath.
He then declares that if anybody disagrees they do not understand Scripture.

BUT the passage does not state that Jesus experienced God's wrath. That is nowhere in the passage.

The only part of the passage that even deals with wrath is the word "propitiation" (which could also be translated "expiation"...or carrying away our sins).

Even using the word "propitiation" (which I think is fine), the word does mot mean that the Propitiation Himself experiences the wrath instead of the ones for whom wrath is propiated. It means that Chist is the One in Whom we avoid wrath.

So in the end of the day @Martin Marprelate has chosen to follow men who "tickle his ears", has been carried away from God's Word by philosophy, and has chosen to lean on his own understanding rather than every word that comes forth from God.


We all have the same choice. We have God's Word. We have man's philosophy. We can abide by "what is written" in God's Word (God's own words) and insist that this is what the Bible teaches.

OR we can follow @Martin Marprelate and choose to follow what men tell us the Bible "really" teaches, whether Calvinism, Arminianism, SDA, etc. We can, as Martin does, choose to lean on our own understanding, choose philosophy over God's Word in hope that we are not drawn in to the extent we are carried away from the faith.

Each of is has to make up our own mind on who to follow.

 

[Zaatar71]

Members -

This is what I mean by deciding to lean on the words that come from God vs our own understanding.

That is exactly what you are doing.Your own understanding

@Martin Marprelate provided a passage that he says states Jesus experienced God's wrath.
He then declares that if anybody disagrees they do not understand Scripture.

He is correct. he offered the mainstream view.

BUT the passage does not state that Jesus experienced God's wrath. That is nowhere in the passage.

Those who have eyes to see, find it in the verses he offered.

The only part of the passage that even deals with wrath is the word "propitiation" (which could also be translated "expiation"...or carrying away our sins).

You do not seem to grasp that word in it's fullness

Even using the word "propitiation" (which I think is fine), the word does mot mean that the Propitiation Himself experiences the wrath instead of the ones for whom wrath is propiated. It means that Chist is the One in Whom we avoid wrath.

he did not say otherwise.

So in the end of the day @Martin Marprelate has chosen to follow men who "tickle his ears", has been carried away from God's Word by philosophy, and has chosen to lean on his own understanding rather than every word that comes forth from God.

You attempting to insult Martin fails , because we can see what you are attempting to do, when in fact it is you who put yourself outside the mainstream because you have a defective view or creation and the fall.

We all have the same choice. We have God's Word.

martin has provided more verses than you have

We have man's philosophy.

that is what you offer, your own philosophy

We can abide by "what is written" in God's Word (God's own words) and insist that this is what the Bible teaches.

Your idea fails in that several words , are not written...trinity, bible, rapture

OR we can follow @Martin Marprelate and choose to follow what men tell us the Bible "really" teaches, whether Calvinism,

We can follow trusted guides and confessions of faith that protect us from false ideas that you offer.

Arminianism, SDA, etc.

another attempted, but failed insult.

We can, as Martin does, choose to lean on our own understanding,

No Martin has offered what he believes based on scripture, godly confessions of faith loaded with scripture, and the writings of qualified men who you cannot hold a candle to.

choose philosophy over God's Word in hope that we are not drawn in to the extent we are carried away from the faith.

You have departed from mainstream thought, and teaching offered by trusted guides, who know what scripture declares.

Each of is has to make up our own mind on who to follow.

Have you ever noticed that most times, you do a thread on what you believe, no one seems to follow? keep studying.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Now you are lying (a sin, according to "what is written").

"whom God displayed publicly as a propitiation in His blood through faith. This was to demonstrate His righteousness, because in God’s merciful restraint He let the sins previously committed go unpunished; 26 for the demonstration, that is, of His righteousness at the present time, so that He would be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus."

This is what I mean.

NOTHING in the text states or even implies that Jesus experienced God's wrath.

Now...you can interpret the passage to mean that it is through Christ we escaoe the wrath to come. But "propitiation" does not mean experiencing wrath (it is an appeasement).

That is just what you believe is taught because the men you worship theorize that Jesus experienced God's wrath.

What the verse means is that we have been justified as a gift by God's grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus. God displayed Him publicly as a propitiation in His blood through faith. The reason was to demonstrate His righteousness, because in God’s restraint He let the sins previously committed go unpunished; for the demonstration of His righteousness at that present time, so that He would be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.


There is a reason you cannot understand "what is written", that you have to add to God's Word, that you have to lean on your own understanding.

I could have written all that (apart from the bit where you threw your toys out of the pram and accused me of lying) because I knew you were going to say it. But you have had to "expound the text" (or what passes for exposition in your case) because otherwise we can never resolve our differences.
Now you will do very well to heed the wise words of the 1689 Confession. "All things in Scripture are not alike plain in themselves [2 Peter 3:16] nor alike clear unto all; yet thsoe things which are necessary to be known, believed and observed for salvation, are so clearly propounded and opened in some place of Scripture or other [Psalm 19:7; 19:130] that not only the learned, but the unlearned, in a due use of ordinary means, may attain to a sufficient understanding of them. .......The infallible rule of Scripture is the Scripture itself [2 Peter 1:20-21; Acts 15:15-16]: and therefore when there is a question about the true and full sense of any Scripture (which is not manifold, but one) it must be searched by other places that speak of it. [1:7, 9]
Perhaps @JonC would like to prove the doctrine of the Trinity with just one or two verses without any explanation. And oh yes, 'propitiation' (Gk. hilasmos or hilasterion) does not mean 'appeasement.' It refers to the "mercy seat" in the Holiest Place in the tabernacle. Hebrews 9 helps to explain it.

 

[JonC]

I could have written all that (apart from the bit where you threw your toys out of the pram and accused me of lying) because I knew you were going to say it. But you have had to "expound the text" (or what passes for exposition in your case) because otherwise we can never resolve our differences.
Now you will do very well to heed the wise words of the 1689 Confession. "All things in Scripture are not alike plain in themselves [2 Peter 3:16] nor alike clear unto all; yet thsoe things which are necessary to be known, believed and observed for salvation, are so clearly propounded and opened in some place of Scripture or other [Psalm 19:7; 19:130] that not only the learned, but the unlearned, in a due use of ordinary means, may attain to a sufficient understanding of them. .......The infallible rule of Scripture is the Scripture itself [2 Peter 1:20-21; Acts 15:15-16]: and therefore when there is a question about the true and full sense of any Scripture (which is not manifold, but one) it must be searched by other places that speak of it. [1:7, 9]
Perhaps @JonC would like to prove the doctrine of the Trinity with just one or two verses without any explanation. And oh yes, 'propitiation' (Gk. hilasmos or hilasterion) does not mean 'appeasement.' It refers to the "mercy seat" in the Holiest Place in the tabernacle. Hebrews 9 helps to explain it.

Well.....you were lying when you said that I wpuld not accept it (you providing Scripture that states Jesus suffered God's wrath) because if presented with any passage that disagrees with my beluef I would change my beluef. Unlike you, I do not lean on my understanding snd will quickly submit to every word that comes forth from God.

You actually stated our difference. There is no need to expound on "what is written" in God's word to discuss our differences.

Where you trust in a the explanation (expounding on God's Word) of one sect of men (that you choose, as you could have chosen other men's explanation) I do not believe that the text requires expiunding upon at all.

Here you are still introducing theory and philosophy.

"Propitiation" is an English word. It is an appeasement whereby one (a person, or God) is appeased.

The Greek word can mean "propitiation", which in Scripture would have God in focus (in the context of the passage God presented Jesus as a propitiation (with God in focus) by faith, and this to demonstrate His righteousness because He had passed over the sins of those who had lived before. This was for a demonstration of His righteousness at that present time, so that He would be just and the justifier of sinners.

The Greek word can also mean "expiation", which here woukd have man's sins in focus. God presented Jesus as "the Lamb who takes away the sins of the world".

The Greek word can also mean "atoning sacrifice" and have both propitiation and expiation in mind.


What you ate doing is called "double speak". You are using real words but giving them meanings based on your theory. And you are thumbing through the Bible to extract verses that you can use to "support" your tradition.


Scripture IS used to interoret Scripture. BUT nowhere in the Bible is Jesus (or in the OT, the Righteous One, God's Elect) said to have experienced God's wrath.


It appears that you have been carried away from the faith by your philosophy and now have a hardened heart, fated to hear "I never knew you" - NOT be ause of your understanding but because how you hold your understanding. But I hope, and assume on this forum, that this is only due to appearances based on the dialogue being on a discussion forum. Often discussions in online forums fail to capture the totality of one's positiin.

 

[Silverhair]

That is exactly what you are doing.Your own understanding

He is correct. he offered the mainstream view.

Those who have eyes to see, find it in the verses he offered.

You do not seem to grasp that word in it's fullness

he did not say otherwise.

You attempting to insult Martin fails , because we can see what you are attempting to do, when in fact it is you who put yourself outside the mainstream because you have a defective view or creation and the fall.

martin has provided more verses than you have

that is what you offer, your own philosophy

Your idea fails in that several words , are not written...trinity, bible, rapture

We can follow trusted guides and confessions of faith that protect us from false ideas that you offer.

another attempted, but failed insult.

No Martin has offered what he believes based on scripture, godly confessions of faith loaded with scripture, and the writings of qualified men who you cannot hold a candle to.

You have departed from mainstream thought, and teaching offered by trusted guides, who know what scripture declares.

Have you ever noticed that most times, you do a thread on what you believe, no one seems to follow? keep studying.

Do you notice that you have rejected what the bible says for what you want it to say.

Keep studying Z.

 

[Zaatar71]

Do you notice that you have rejected what the bible says for what you want it to say.

Keep studying Z.

You have lost credibility you posts lack substance

 

[JonC]

I think it is fair to say we are working off of two very different standards here.

We can simply believe that God's Word is accurate and complete, that "what is written" (the bibl8cal text, the actual words coming from God) IS what the Bible teaches.

OR we can choose men to follow, pick which theories from these men we like, and choose to believe that those theories are what the Bible "teaches".

Now, the first (which I choose) is easily verified because it is God's Word (one can highlight the actual words). We can use other passages to help with interpretation. Yes, we may disagree on interoretation, BUT it will all be in God's Word.

The second can only be verified by consulting men who share that theory. It cannot be verified by God's Word because it is not actually in the text of Scripture. It is one, of many, understandings about what the Bible teaches.

So we can lean on every word that comes from God or we can kean on our own understanding.


The danger of the latter is Scripture tells us that it is possible to be carried away by philosophies.

Ultimately each of us have to decide who we will follow.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Ultimately each of us have to decide who we will follow.

This is correct. It's the only bit that is though.

 

[JonC]

This is correct. It's the only bit that is though.

No. You proved that you have chosen to follow what you believe is taught by the Bible.

How is this different from "leaning on your own understanding"?

I have chosen to believe that the Bible teaches "what is written" in Scripture.


You cannot provide a passage stating what you believe, but I can.

Now, I do "see as through a glass, dimly" in this life. But I know this. I am aways open to correction, but only by God's Word (not by what any various sects tells me the Bible teaches).


You miss out on so much of Scripture trying to follow an "easy-believism" theory.

The sad part is you still have not provided any passage stating what you believe. You always have to redefine words and add an explanation not in Scripture itself.

But yes, we will both make our choices.

I think it is fair to say that we are set where we are. Which ever of us are following "vain philosophy" (one of us has to be) has been carried away already.

If Scripture (what is written) is correct then Jesus will make me stand despite my imperfections.
If the sect that tells you what the Bible "really" teaches is correct then you stand despite your imperfections.

In fear and trembling we each work out our own salvation. We have made our choices.

 

[Marooncat79]

https://www.simpsonpublishing.com/WIARBC.pdf

 

[JonC]

https://www.simpsonpublishing.com/WIARBC.pdf

Good summary. The article highlights what may be the key to where Reformed theology departed from the Christian faith - it views the New Covenant as the righteous of God manifested through the Law and the moral aspects of the Law as the normative standard for their sect.

Christianity, however, holds the New Covenant as the righteousness of God manifested apart from the Law abd the normative Standard as Christ Himself (the law of Christ). This is nonsense in Regirmed theology as they tend to view fulfilled as nullified and cannot but view redemption exceot through the lens of 16th century judicial philosophy.

But good article. It gives people a choice - God's Word or the beliefs the article claims to be what the Bible "really" teaches.

 

[Zaatar71]

This is correct. It's the only bit that is though.

Your posts are helpful and solid. You have the wisdom and maturity to study, and compare what you have learned with gifted teachers who were before us! You are not afraid to examine what you believe both by scripture and the teaching of other gifted men who also study the scriptures. Church history is full of men who think they have found the secret, the key that no one else has seen. When people claim they know more then all the reformers, puritans, and modern Professors, that is a major red flag. Such persons are usually self deluded and should be avoided.
Reformed Baptists and other Confessional Christians make use of solid Confessions, commentaries, and study books to protect against such rogue persons.

 

[Silverhair]

Church history is full of men who think they have found the secret, the key that no one else has seen.

You mean like Augustine and Calvin and many of those of the calvinist mind set.