The PuritanBoard - View Single Post

**DMcFadden** · #6 (**permalink**) 04-24-2008, 11:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by joshua

I will say, as I have said in the past, it should be no insult to Baptists to not call themselves Reformed, and instead call themselves the same as the historical Baptists did: Particular Baptists. I honestly don't see why so many Baptists find it insulting that they don't get to share (in in an unqualified sense) the moniker Reformed. If I were a 100% convinced Baptist, I'd be much more energetic in calling myself Particular than Reformed.

Frankly, judging the words in terms of their "branding" potential, "particular" has always sounded old fashioned, fussy, and too much like a crankly old bachelor in his fastidious apartment. "Reformed" is a much better term for conveying what Calvinistic baptists want to say about themselves. Still, your suggestion has great merit, Josh. I'm not offended or insulted to be merely a Calvinistic baptist.

I would ask you TRs to remember, however, that when the presbys abandoned Calvinism in the 18th century (opting for Socinianism and unitarianism), the baptists kept TULIP alive. Most early baptists were "particular" not "general." Our early confessions were all abridgements of, or strongly influenced by, the WCF. And, when the "Reformed" brethren deserted Dortian Calvinism, we kept it alive.

The last point was merely my way of saying that the current policy of inviting both Reformed and Calvinistic Baptists to be part of PB is a good (and admittedly generous) one.