The PuritanBoard - View Single Post

**PuritanCovenanter** · #53 (**permalink**) 04-25-2008, 03:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by joshua

Quote:

Originally Posted by PuritanCovenanter

One more thing... I am not so sure the Particular Baptists wouldn't consider themsleves to be Reformed. The distinction of Particular was meant mainly to emphasis that they as Baptist held to reformational soteriology as opposed to the anabaptist. That was the struggle. They were accused of being anabaptists of the radical reformation. The anabaptists were considered radical reformers. So reformed was not the problem here when they made distinctive terms to define themselves by.

Regardless of your lack of surety, the early Baptists didn't call themselves Reformed, even though they could have. Apparently they didn't do so because, although they shared soteriology and many other doctrines with their padeobaptist Brethren, they didn't share their view of the Church, Sacraments, and Baptism. So, to distinguish themselves from such, they didn't call themselves Reformed. It does not follow that they were enemies just because they didn't have the same name.

Quote:

Originally Posted by joshua

Quote:

Originally Posted by PuritanCovenanter

I would like to see some references to what you are saying about the Baptists not wanting to be known as reformed.

I'm not saying that they actively avoided the moniker. However, they certainly didn't seek it.

So, for clarification, are you saying you aren't sure? I am pretty sure that the term reformed wasn't as much of an issue in terms because it was used in relation to the Radical Reformation and that the Credo's didn't want to be aligned with it. Particular wasn't used in reference to the Reformers but was in reference to oppose to the Radical Reformation and its arminianism. Just like the original 1644 and 46 Baptist Confessions were written. They were products in reference to oppose the radical reformation. I do know this for a surety.

Radical Reformation