The only ones that think that are the Bible cults, such as Sda/Mormons/Jw and Church of rome!
-
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!
What does Reformed really mean?
- Thread starter Brooksntea
- Start date
- Status
I went to Valparaiso University and met a number of Lutherans. I'm not an expert but when I was there, there were a number who discussed what the Catholic Church needed to do so that the Lutherans could rejoin the Catholic faith. I think some of them truly consider themselves to be "Protesting" and not irrevecably separated from the Catholic Church.
Marty
Brooksntea
New Member
I’m still looking into Covenant Theology. I’m a bit skeptical about some of it as it seems (if you go far enough) to lead to infant baptism, which I don’t subscribe to. I don’t see a warrant for it. I’ve heard one reason for it but I don’t think it holds up. More study needed!
I have the Banner of Truth book that came out a bit ago, the Westminster Coffesions (Standards?). Lots of it is really good.
Brooksntea
New Member
How can this be even anything logical? The reformers (Calvin, Luther and all of them) did what they could to come against the RC church! Read anything by any Puritan and you can read their hate of the RC church as it’s totally against scripture. How could any current Bible-based Reformed denomination or understanding link itself to the RC church saying it’s them “cleaned up”?
I am not sure who you are responding to, but I agree that the Reformers had no desire to "reform" Rome. True. Luther started out by criticizing the abuses of the papacy, hoping that it would repent and change, but the Reformation went well beyond what even Luther envisioned. By the time John Calvin came on the scene the Reformation's break with Rome was irreconcilable. When the Westminster Confession of Faith was drafted in 1646 it stated in Chapter 25.6, "Nor can the Pope of Rome, in any sense, be head thereof; but is that Antichrist, that man of sin, and son of perdition, that exalts himself, in the Church, against Christ and all that is called God." Historians put the end of the Reformation period at 1648 which was the conclusion of the Thirty Years War, so the Westminster Confession of Faith was written just before the end of that period. 41 years later the 1689 Second London Baptist Confession of Faith would echo the WCF's condemnation of the papacy.
1689Dave
Well-Known Member
The claim to be the Reformed version of the Catholic church.
Mikey
Active Member
Not exactly. in the early days Luther didn't think about breaking away but wanted to write against some elements of the RCC practices - indulgences etc - within the 95 theses. However soon after he became more and more anti RCC, that it was an abomination. Calvin, Zwingli and others never saw themselves as cleaning up the RCC, but establishing a true biblical church.
1689Dave
Well-Known Member
The Reformed say the true church recognizes and administers the sacraments. Baptists do not do this having believers baptism.
"Another way to speak of the true church, a way that is more traditional in the Reformed community, is to speak of the marks of the church. Generally, Reformed theology emphasizes the three marks the Reformers emphasized: the preaching of the word, the right administration of the sacraments, and proper church discipline. Really, though, we also accept the four marks of the church listed in the Nicene Creed; the church is also one, holy, catholic and apostolic."
Which is the True Church?
Mikey
Active Member
I’m still looking into Covenant Theology. I’m a bit skeptical about some of it as it seems (if you go far enough) to lead to infant baptism, which I don’t subscribe to. I don’t see a warrant for it. I’ve heard one reason for it but I don’t think it holds up. More study needed!
I have the Banner of Truth book that came out a bit ago, the Westminster Coffesions (Standards?). Lots of it is really good.
Depends on which covenant theology. there's a Baptist covenant theology sometimes referred to as 1689 Federalism which certainly won't lead you to Infant baptism.
1689Dave
Well-Known Member
Even so, each claimed to be THE Church. And killed any who disagreed.
Mikey
Active Member
Certainly in Calvin's Geneva you had to follow their form of worship and church governance ie infant baptism. but Anabaptist ( as an example) were not killed but were forcibly removed from Geneva if they refused. it was the Anabaptist ministers that were imprisoned or killed for 're-baptising'
but yes religious freedom was not practiced and National religions were established.
1689Dave
Well-Known Member
I believe the Reformed and Lutherans killed thousands of Anabaptists.
The wbsite is 1689 Federalism I strongly recommend a visit. It explains the differences between New Covenant Theology, Paedobaptist Covenant Theology and Baptist Covenant Theology very well and simply.
'The past is a foreign country; they do things differently there.'
It is hard for us to imagine what a radical idea religious liberty was in the 15th-17th Centuries. It is still radical today. In India and Myanma, the majority and government view is that to be Indian or Burmese is to be Hindu or Buddhist respectively. The idea of the Magisterial Reformers was that each territory or state should have its own brand of Christianity; to allow full religious liberty was felt likely to bring about civil war. James 1 of England declared, "No bishop, no King!" He felt that his own security depended on his keeping religion under control. This is why the Reformers were all keen on infant baptism; one was born into the national or state church.
So when the Anabaptists arrived, wanting a gathered church separate from the state, they were persecuted by Roman catholic and Protestant alike. Anabaptist theology was very variable and often very bad. Some of them were Unitarian and others denied Christ's human nature. But they deserve our praise for being the first to propose a gathered church and the separation of Church and State.
The Particular Baptists are the ones who completed the Reformation. They took on the best of Reformed theology, threw out the last vestige of Romanism-- infant baptism-- and upheld the gathered church. Reformed Baptist have never persecuted anyone SFAIK.
1689Dave
Well-Known Member
I believe if not for the USA, the State churches would not have changed. The Reformed re-constructionists, theonomy, Dominion theology all seek violent take over as they did back in the day.'The past is a foreign country; they do things differently there.'
It is hard for us to imagine what a radical idea religious liberty was in the 15th-17th Centuries. It is still radical today. In India and Myanma, the majority and government view is that to be Indian or Burmese is to be Hindu or Buddhist respectively. The idea of the Magisterial Reformers was that each territory or state should have its own brand of Christianity; to allow full religious liberty was felt likely to bring about civil war. James 1 of England declared, "No bishop, no King!" He felt that his own security depended on his keeping religion under control. This is why the Reformers were all keen on infant baptism; one was born into the national or state church.
So when the Anabaptists arrived, wanting a gathered church separate from the state, they were persecuted by Roman catholic and Protestant alike. Anabaptist theology was very variable and often very bad. Some of them were Unitarian and others denied Christ's human nature. But they deserve our praise for being the first to propose a gathered church and the separation of Church and State.
The Particular Baptists are the ones who completed the Reformation. They took on the best of Reformed theology, threw out the last vestige of Romanism-- infant baptism-- and upheld the gathered church. Reformed Baptist have never persecuted anyone SFAIK.
Mikey
Active Member
Indeed thousands of Anabaptists were killed, sadly by Catholics and Protestants alike. Certainly Zwingli is well known for his persecution of the Anabaptists.
A lot of the persecution (from what I remember) came after the Munster rebellion who were indeed a cult but were not representative of the majority of the Anabaptist movement.
The 'Glorious Revolution' of 1688, along with the 'Bill of Rights' and the 'Toleration Act' the following year, brought an end to absolute monarchy in Britain and brought into being a measure of religious tolerance that steadily increased over the years. I don't believe it owes anything to the USA.
I would suggest get a copy of the 1689 Baptist Confession, as the views expressed there are more to your liking!I’m still looking into Covenant Theology. I’m a bit skeptical about some of it as it seems (if you go far enough) to lead to infant baptism, which I don’t subscribe to. I don’t see a warrant for it. I’ve heard one reason for it but I don’t think it holds up. More study needed!
I have the Banner of Truth book that came out a bit ago, the Westminster Coffesions (Standards?). Lots of it is really good.
Some would see that neithjer luther or calvin broke away enough, as they still kept some of the view somewhat like catholic church in regards to sacraments...
None of them claimed to be the only true church, an they were not intol killing people!
- Status