Wouldn't Presby christians be Only true calvinists?

[DaChaser1]

Not baptists, as they hold to all of calvinism theology, including the Infant baptism of the reformer as under Covennant theology?

 

[Martin Marprelate]

'Calvinism' has become a sort of short-hand for belief in the Doctrines of Grace. The earliest 'calvinistic' Baptists were called Particular Baptists because they believed in Particular Redemption, and that might be a better name. I disagree with Calvin on a pile of stuff, but I would still be classed as a calvinist.

I might add that the early Particular Baptists also believed in covenant theology. There is nothing in C.T. that makes it particularly a Presbyterian doctrine.

steve

 

[DaChaser1]

'Calvinism' has become a sort of short-hand for belief in the Doctrines of Grace. The earliest 'calvinistic' Baptists were called Particular Baptists because they believed in Particular Redemption, and that might be a better name. I disagree with Calvin on a pile of stuff, but I would still be classed as a calvinist.I might add that the early Particular Baptists also believed in covenant theology. There is nothing in C.T. that makes it particularly a Presbyterian doctrine.

steve

mainly Infant baptism and church type of governing?

just curious as to what would be the primary differences between presby and baptist reformed based upon their theologies?

 

[Ruiz]

I see where you are heading with this post and you make a good point. The issue in the reformed circles has not been whether we are Calvinists, but whether we are truly Reformed. Most people concede we are Calvinistic because we hold to the major elements but the major reformed theologians were not Baptistic, even though they may have tolerated Baptistic ideas. Thus, they would say Calvin was tolerant of some forms of Baptistic beliefs but we were not reformers.

I have continually said that being reformed is much more than TULIP, and most theologians agree. Baptists, though, fit into both categories. Reformed theologians have come to accept Baptists as Reformed by the mid 1600's and there does not seem to be a debate until recent years as to whether we are reformed or not. Thus, I think we have historically been accepted as reformed, specifically Calvinistic reformed.

 

[thomas15]

Not baptists, as they hold to all of calvinism theology, including the Infant baptism of the reformer as under Covennant theology?

You ask a good quesion, one that I have pondered also. The thing about being Baptist is by it's very definition allows for divergent views and practices. We have everything from fundamentalist to uber liberal.

Still, I don't understand why reformed Baptist wouldn't be happier in the long run if they were Presbyterian.

 

[Jerome]

Presbyterians have everything from fundamentalist to uber liberal, too.

 

[matt wade]

Still, I don't understand why reformed Baptist wouldn't be happier in the long run if they were Presbyterian.

We Baptists would be happier as well! :tongue3:

 

[Jerome]

A biography of Ernest Reisinger quotes from his introductory letter to UK Banner of Truth editor Iain Murray, in which he candidly describes his fledgling Grace Baptist Church of Carlisle Pa. (now a flagship ARBCA church):

We all seem to lean to the Presbyterian idea of elders and deacons

We are a congregation of Baptists that is almost Presbyterian

 

[Jerome]

Check out this chart where Greg Nichols of Grand Rapids Reformed Baptist Church admits adherence to 'Presbyterial' governance of the local church. He dismisses Baptist congregationalism as an 'error'.

 

[Jerome]

The founder of the 'Puritan Board' was once a Baptist. He was ordained by a New Meadows Reformed Baptist Church, Topsfield, Mass. [now defunct, Mark Dever pastored there], but departed for some Presbyterian microdenomination.

 

[Luke2427]

We Baptists would be happier as well! :tongue3:

Except it is hard to conceive how you would even exist in any notable numbers had it not been for the Baptist banner carrying that Regular Baptists did in this nation for quite some time.

General Baptists (those who believed in a general atonement) shriveled into a miniscule movement in this land at one point while Particular (Regular) Baptists boomed and were the dominant representatives of Baptists and kept Baptistic principles alive here for quite some time.
That's why Reformed Baptists in this land came to be known as REGULAR. There was a time when reformed baptists were so dominant in this land that they were thought of as the regular baptists and those who were not reformed were a minor exception.

OH FOR THOSE DAYS AGAIN!

The General Baptists that did not go Quaker or Free Will Baptist tended to go into the Unitarianism heresy during those days.

The chances of you even BEING a baptist today are pretty slim if it were not for the role in history that Reformed Baptists in this land played.

The fact of the matter is that Baptist survival is unique among the movements of Protestantism in that the banner of baptistic principles swapped hands back and forth between Calvinist and Arminian theologies a few times.

Arminians and Calvinists both may be thanked by the other for the survival of baptistic principles because there were times when one was strong enough to maintain them while the other was certainly not and vica versa.

 

[Luke2427]

A biography of Ernest Reisinger quotes from his introductory letter to UK Banner of Truth editor Iain Murray, in which he candidly describes his fledgling Grace Baptist Church of Carlisle Pa. (now a flagship ARBCA church):

I agree with those quotes.

 

[thomas15]

The founder of the 'Puritan Board' was once a Baptist. He was ordained by a New Meadows Reformed Baptist Church, Topsfield, Mass..... , but departed for some Presbyterian microdenomination.

Yes, he's the guy you see walking down the street wound tighter than a drum, protecting the learned from the unlearned. But I digress.

Anyway, another good question, a companion to the OP in this thread is why do the conservative Presbyterian relate to the puritan banner when in historical context, the puritans were mainly a reform movement within the COE. True, some within that movement sought COE reform in the direction of the Presbyterian model but still to make the modern day connection is somewhat of a head scratcher.

 

[Jerome]

A biography of Ernest Reisinger quotes from his introductory letter to UK Banner of Truth editor Iain Murray, in which he candidly describes his fledgling Grace Baptist Church of Carlisle Pa. (now a flagship ARBCA church):

We all seem to lean to the Presbyterian idea of elders and deacons

We are a congregation of Baptists that is almost Presbyterian

I agree with those quotes.

Luke, are you referring to your knowledge of that specific church in Penn.?

 

[Martin Marprelate]

We all seem to lean to the Presbyterian idea of elders and deacons

Why is that a Presbyterian 'idea'? 'To all the saints in Christ Jesus who are in Philippi with the Bishops (ie. overseers) and deacons' (Phil 1:1).

Steve

 

[DaChaser1]

I see where you are heading with this post and you make a good point. The issue in the reformed circles has not been whether we are Calvinists, but whether we are truly Reformed. Most people concede we are Calvinistic because we hold to the major elements but the major reformed theologians were not Baptistic, even though they may have tolerated Baptistic ideas. Thus, they would say Calvin was tolerant of some forms of Baptistic beliefs but we were not reformers.

I have continually said that being reformed is much more than TULIP, and most theologians agree. Baptists, though, fit into both categories. Reformed theologians have come to accept Baptists as Reformed by the mid 1600's and there does not seem to be a debate until recent years as to whether we are reformed or not. Thus, I think we have historically been accepted as reformed, specifically Calvinistic reformed.

You have hit the nail on the head!

is it even possible that one holds to a baptist view of Church govt/baptism to actually be called a reformed Christian?

calvinist yes, but can they be classifed as being among the reformed bethren?

 

[Jerome]

But say a Baptist has become a member of a Presbyterian or Independent Reformed church, that would make him Reformed, wouldn't it?

 

[Martin Marprelate]

You have hit the nail on the head!

is it even possible that one holds to a baptist view of Church govt/baptism to actually be called a reformed Christian?

Calvinist yes, but can they be classifed as being among the reformed bethren?

I am a Reformed Baptist. If anybody doesn't like that (and Matthew MacMahon doesn't!), then tough bananas.
The Particular Baptists are the true Reformed people. They are the ones who have completed the Reformation by doing away with the last bastion of Romanism, infant 'baptism.' :thumbs:

Steve

 

[Ruiz]

But say a Baptist has become a member of a Presbyterian or Independent Reformed church, that would make him Reformed, wouldn't it?

There were Baptists in Geneva studying under Calvin for an extended time period. Thus, their argument understands this fact but those who make the point that we were not reformed are making a bigger point.

While I think Baptists are reformed, I understand the point they are making. To me, it is a moot point and one that I think does not advance any debate. However, to answert he question, I think we are Calvinists and Reformed even though some (and I would add, a minority) in the Reformed camp will question whether Baptists are truly reformed.

 

[DaChaser1]

I am a Reformed Baptist. If anybody doesn't like that (and Matthew MacMahon doesn't!), then tough bananas.
The Particular Baptists are the true Reformed people. They are the ones who have completed the Reformation by doing away with the last bastion of Romanism, infant 'baptism.' :thumbs:

Steve

Fine that you are a reformed baptist!

Aren't ALL baptists in a sense reformed, in that we deny the Gospel as the RCC has it?