What would be differences between Reformed and Calvinist Baptists?

[JesusFan]

Dave when I read your post it seem to contradict itself. You say everything is ordained but then say that spreading the gospel are truly voluntary, how does that work?

offer of the Gospelis legit made to all persons, and the elect shall be saved by that hearing it and receiving it with Joy, while remainder shall choose darkness andf to stay in their sins

 

[JesusFan]

There are differences between Reformed and Calvinistic Baptists.

The term "Reformed Baptists" is of very recent vintage. It seems only to date from the 1960s when Welshman Geoff Thomas and some American Baptists who were studying at the Westminster Seminary, were told by some fellow-students that they were not Reformed because they were not paedo-baptists. On the contrary, they replied, we are Reformed Baptists. We believe in all the Reformed doctrines, but we have completed the Reformation by ditching the last remnant of Romanism - paedo-baptism.
So Reformed Baptists, of whom I am one, follow the 1689 Confession which is very similar to the Westminster Confession, save for Presbyterianism and baptism. That includes Covenant Theology and the Regulative Principle of Worship. Someone like John MacArthur is a Calvinistic Baptist, but not Reformed because he is Dispensational.

Think many more would identify as being Calvinist, as theu would reject any need of Confessions and Creeds, and not adhere to Covenant Theology, as soteriology per Reformed, but Eschatology as per Dispy

 

[DaveXR650]

Think main difference I have found so far is that Calvinistic Baptist affirm 5 doctrines of Grace, while Reformed Baptists also affirm Confessions of faith and Covenant theology on the whole

A Calvinistic Baptist will at least not bristle at the 5 doctrines of grace. Many are defining limited atonement as God just having in his mind those who would believe when Christ died, and not that it was forever set because of the atonements limits that many are actually shut out. Now with a fundamental Baptist, if you mention the doctrines of grace you better duck to avoid a smack in the side of the head by a Scofield Reference Bible.

 

[JesusFan]

This is a statement on which we both agree free will actions of people are compatible with God working out his sovereign plan.

God from the beginning has planned that for people to be saved they must believe in Him. From what I have read in scripture I just do not see where He has pick out a select few and in so doing has condemned the rest.

The cross was necessary but man via his free will carried it out and all this happened as part of God's overall plan.

For me where calvinism falls down is when they require determinism/ordination and then cry fowl when you point out that view makes God responsible for the sin that He determined.

No Calvinist nor Reformed except perhaps Hyper ones would absolve lost sinners from being accountable and responsibility for rejecting Lord Jesus, and we are not into fatalism, as your God described on this posting would be Allah, not Yahweh

 

[JesusFan]

That as an explanation I agree with and I also think the same logic can occur even with something like the Fall of man, especially in light of the knowledge that God would have and viewing it as much as possible from his point of view.

I don't think Calvinism requires that God determine sin but I admit some Calvinists do take that position. But I go further than that. When a group of people together, hear the gospel, I do not think that it is correct to say that God sovereignly chooses to give sufficient grace to one person sitting there and then refuses to give sufficient grace to the person sitting next to them, thus making God the sole reason the second person doesn't get saved. Too many scriptures seem to indicate that the refusal of many to believe the gospel is a matter of their willful resistance to what they know they should do. So while I tend to think that the Holy Spirit was necessary or else neither person would be saved - yet, the obstinate refusal of the one will be the true and final reason that person is lost - not that God sovereignly rejected them.

All of us deserved hell and judgement, and God chose to intervene to save out among lost humanity His own faithful Remnant, see Israel in OT, and Sp[iritual Israel the Church under New Covenant

 

[JesusFan]

It seems the most vocal ones do hold to the determinism view. How they can deal with God being the author of sin I do not know but they have to if the insist on determinism.

Yes the Holy Spirit does convict people of their sin and need for a savior but then free will comes in as to whether one will trust or reject the message.

Spiritually dead in sins and sin nature have no real free will remaining though to do this by themselves

 

[DaveXR650]

offer of the Gospelis legit made to all persons, and the elect shall be saved by that hearing it and receiving it with Joy, while remainder shall choose darkness andf to stay in their sins

Yes. That's in the confessions, even Westminster. But I fully understand the difficulty people have with reconciling this with God not effectually calling everyone, if we demand at the same time that the effectual call is essential. You have to give grace to people who don't see that as being possible simultaneously. I accept that both concepts are taught and both are Biblical. But I admit I cannot reconcile them even in my own mind. In our modern method of thinking, it is quite common to reject two concepts like that as being contradictory.

 

[DaveXR650]

All of us deserved hell and judgement, and God chose to intervene to save out among lost humanity His own faithful Remnant, see Israel in OT, and Sp[iritual Israel the Church under New Covenant

True again. But you have to understand how someone who hates Calvinism is looking at this. They view it as if you observed 3 small children venturing out to play on ice on a pond. They were disobeying and it was moronic for them to be there. They break through and you save 2 and let the other one perish and your answer was that you told them clearly what could happen, and they were all guilty of disobeying so you had every right to save who you wanted and let justice play out on the other one.

Is that analogy full of holes? Sure, but that is still the impression you give when you state that God dispenses saving grace in the same way, right or wrong. The easy way out is to do what many do - make saving grace more general and allow the free will decision to be the deciding factor rather than put it all on God, right or wrong. This will not be resolved.

 

[JesusFan]

Yes. That's in the confessions, even Westminster. But I fully understand the difficulty people have with reconciling this with God not effectually calling everyone, if we demand at the same time that the effectual call is essential. You have to give grace to people who don't see that as being possible simultaneously. I accept that both concepts are taught and both are Biblical. But I admit I cannot reconcile them even in my own mind. In our modern method of thinking, it is quite common to reject two concepts like that as being contradictory.

Isaiah answers that for us, as Gods ways and though are far above and beyond us, and Moses also lets us the know that there are secret things hidden from us and known only to God

 

[JesusFan]

True again. But you have to understand how someone who hates Calvinism is looking at this. They view it as if you observed 3 small children venturing out to play on ice on a pond. They were disobeying and it was moronic for them to be there. They break through and you save 2 and let the other one perish and your answer was that you told them clearly what could happen, and they were all guilty of disobeying so you had every right to save who you wanted and let justice play out on the other one.

Is that analogy full of holes? Sure, but that is still the impression you give when you state that God dispenses saving grace in the same way, right or wrong. The easy way out is to do what many do - make saving grace more general and allow the free will decision to be the deciding factor rather than put it all on God, right or wrong. This will not be resolved.

True, but irony to me is that those who are against Calvinism are on the whole much more into being mean spirit in their remarks, as while we Calvinism will state they are wrong and have a deficit theology, or do not fully understand what Bible really teaches, they will many times call us following a false god, evil minded, having a fake gospel etc seeming to question even our salvation

 

[DaveXR650]

Isaiah answers that for us, as Gods ways and though are far above and beyond us, and Moses also lets us the know that there are secret things hidden from us and known only to God

Yes that is true and should always be front and center in our minds. But you have inadvertently uncovered a huge problem. You cannot use a verse like that as proof that the system you believe has all the right answers. God's ways are far and beyond the understanding of Calvinists too, and even though Calvinists should be applauded for acknowledging that - the fact is that it is also in effect for Calvinists too. We have no right to say therefore you have to believe our system.

 

[DaveXR650]

True, but irony to me is that those who are against Calvinism are on the whole much more into being mean spirit in their remarks, as while we Calvinism will state they are wrong and have a deficit theology, or do not fully understand what Bible really teaches, they will many times call us following a false god, evil minded, having a fake gospel etc seeming to question even our salvation

I question that. I find nothing more obnoxious than a cage stage Calvinist. Although I must admit, if you read Wesley's sermon no. 128 I think it is, he gets pretty brutal. It can be found on line. But we have Calvinists on here who say that something like "God is not willing that any should perish" is demonic. And non-Calvinists do question our salvation and then we say that if they think they choose to believe that belief then becomes a work and thus a false gospel. And then they say that if that is what they do they were predestined anyway so what's our problem and .............. so on.

 

[JesusFan]

Yes that is true and should always be front and center in our minds. But you have inadvertently uncovered a huge problem. You cannot use a verse like that as proof that the system you believe has all the right answers. God's ways are far and beyond the understanding of Calvinists too, and even though Calvinists should be applauded for acknowledging that - the fact is that it is also in effect for Calvinists too. We have no right to say therefore you have to believe our system.

True, but do thinks its the best way to understand and explain Biblical Soteriology

 

[JesusFan]

I question that. I find nothing more obnoxious than a cage stage Calvinist. Although I must admit, if you read Wesley's sermon no. 128 I think it is, he gets pretty brutal. It can be found on line. But we have Calvinists on here who say that something like "God is not willing that any should perish" is demonic. And non-Calvinists do question our salvation and then we say that if they think they choose to believe that belief then becomes a work and thus a false gospel. And then they say that if that is what they do they were predestined anyway so what's our problem and .............. so on.

I know that some of us come across as being smug and "know it all", but just seems that the really angry ant at times very vitriolic posts come from non cals

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Yes that is true and should always be front and center in our minds. But you have inadvertently uncovered a huge problem. You cannot use a verse like that as proof that the system you believe has all the right answers. God's ways are far and beyond the understanding of Calvinists too, and even though Calvinists should be applauded for acknowledging that - the fact is that it is also in effect for Calvinists too. We have no right to say therefore you have to believe our system.

Unless it is what the Bible teaches. I cannot conceive how God created the world in 6 days. Nor can I imagine how He will resurrect all the people who have ever lived, saved and unsaved, at the Last Day. But the Bible says it is so, and I therefore accept it. Things do not always work out well for people who say that things are impossible for God to do (2 Kings 7:2).
The Bible tells us that God cannot endure sin (Hab 1:13); yet it also tells us that God is sovereign over all things (Psalm 115:2), that He controls the lives of all people (Job 42:2; Psalm 137 passim) and works their free-will actions to achieve His own ends (Genesis 50:20; Acts 4:27-28). How does He do all that? I don't know. I just believe and accept it (Psalm 131).

 

[Hazelelponi]

There is no real difference. A lot of Calvinists do challenge whether a Baptist ca

There's a difference, I'm still figuring it out so I can't explain it yet. I'm Calvinistic but that's all I really know.

Reformed and Calvinistic see the administration of the Covenant differently, and it's due to seeing something about creation slightly differently which affects things within the Covenant.

I'm on a reformed and calvinistic board, but I'm new there so still learning. But there's real differences, they are just more complicated to understand.

My husband only taught me Calvinistic.

 

[Hazelelponi]

True again. But you have to understand how someone who hates Calvinism is looking at this. They view it as if you observed 3 small children venturing out to play on ice on a pond. They were disobeying and it was moronic for them to be there. They break through and you save 2 and let the other one perish and your answer was that you told them clearly what could happen, and they were all guilty of disobeying so you had every right to save who you wanted and let justice play out on the other one.

Is that analogy full of holes? Sure, but that is still the impression you give when you state that God dispenses saving grace in the same way, right or wrong. The easy way out is to do what many do - make saving grace more general and allow the free will decision to be the deciding factor rather than put it all on God, right or wrong. This will not be resolved.

Your taking a belief-set (predestination) and acting like it impacts how predestinarians share the Gospel with the lost, but it doesn't.

The predestinarian doesn't know who will or will not be saved therefore, they simply treat everyone as if they are potentially of the elect. (Just never know).

It's a more sovereign God but the invitation to the Gospel is exactly the same - believe and confess and you will be saved.

The predestinarian just believes God had something to do with it when the individual responds positively to the Gospel whereas the Arminian credits the man for "making the right decision".

God saved me. I'm sorry for people who think they are working towards their salvation.

 

[JesusFan]

Unless it is what the Bible teaches. I cannot conceive how God created the world in 6 days. Nor can I imagine how He will resurrect all the people who have ever lived, saved and unsaved, at the Last Day. But the Bible says it is so, and I therefore accept it. Things do not always work out well for people who say that things are impossible for God to do (2 Kings 7:2).
The Bible tells us that God cannot endure sin (Hab 1:13); yet it also tells us that God is sovereign over all things (Psalm 115:2), that He controls the lives of all people (Job 42:2; Psalm 137 passim) and works their free-will actions to achieve His own ends (Genesis 50:20; Acts 4:27-28). How does He do all that? I don't know. I just believe and accept it (Psalm 131).

Still seems that many who reject Calvinism regarding Soteriology base it un either God is not qualifed nor fair to actually run salvation program, as that violates our vaunted "free will"

 

[DaveXR650]

There's a difference, I'm still figuring it out so I can't explain it yet. I'm Calvinistic but that's all I really know.

Reformed and Calvinistic see the administration of the Covenant differently, and it's due to seeing something about creation slightly differently which affects things within the Covenant.

I'm on a reformed and calvinistic board, but I'm new there so still learning. But there's real differences, they are just more complicated to understand.

I'm not sure of the differences when you get to those fine points either. If you are new on here I would highly recommend you listen to @Martin Marprelate. If you come from a fundamental Baptist background like I do you are going to be weak on understanding covenant theology and you will always be pulled toward free will theology. We are human and affected by how we are brought up, good or bad.

 

[DaveXR650]

Your taking a belief-set (predestination) and acting like it impacts how predestinarians share the Gospel with the lost, but it doesn't.

Right. That's one thing I was pleasantly surprised about when I joined a Reformed Baptist church. There was no lessening of a desire to spread the gospel. I have found this to be the case always wherever a church still has "Baptist" in it's name no matter how reformed it is. Personally, I have to have a true and real offer of the gospel to anyone who hears it or I will reject their theology. If you have that, and also are a 5 point Calvinist I have no issue at all with you. In that post I was just explaining how people take it when you put all responsibility for someone's salvation on God alone.