Thread: Are the Reformed Baptists Reformed?

HOLD ON MODS AND ADMINS! This is NOT to start some Presbyterian/ Baptist war, as most of you know I am a new Presbyterian (I came here Anglican). The reason I ask this question is simple I was looking at an old thread and I saw where a good and dear Baptist friend (Hi Ivan ) made an interesting remark, it was about some Reformed issue and my Babtist Friend put in his opinion, and then stated something to the nature of "for what it is worth, as a Baptist I am not fully Reformed." SO! As a former Anglican, I am curious, I had never really thought about it before. I always felt Piper was Reformed, but anyway, this is NOT to start a "war" thread I am REALLY curious and would like to hear from Baptist and Presbyterians on the issue and keep it in a tone of charity. So help me out. Is the Reformed Baptist..... Reformed?

Friendimus Maximus, this has been discussed ad nauseum here on the PB. Maybe our resident encyclopedia, Andrew Myers, can link to a few of the threads pertaining to this subject matter.

"Reformed Baptist" as a title
"Reformed" Baptist?
"Reformed" Baptist becomes Reformed
Can Baptists Be Reformed?
Is "Reformed Baptist" an oxymoron?
Baptists and Reformed

Originally Posted by joshua

Friendimus Maximus, this has been discussed ad nauseum here on the PB. Maybe our resident encyclopedia, Andrew Myers, can link to a few of the threads pertaining to this subject matter.

Sorry Josh, did not know that.

What David said.

Originally Posted by Davidius

"Reformed Baptist" as a title
"Reformed" Baptist?
"Reformed" Baptist becomes Reformed
Can Baptists Be Reformed?
Is "Reformed Baptist" an oxymoron?
Baptists and Reformed

That is ad nausium! lol My simple answer to this...read the 1689 London Baptist Confession of Faith and you judge how reformed we are. lol

Max,

I was raised nazarene, and then became a RB in 1994, until convinced otherwise in 2001. During that time I became "more and more baptist" being convinced more thoroughly of some of the basic points of baptist theology. I read Paul Jewett King, John Gill, and had a strong understanding of baptist history, baptist theology, and the two baptist confessions (1st and 2nd London).

So, when I say what I'm about to say, I've been there.

Reformed Baptists, if consistent with their "Reformed" side, are not good baptists. If they are Reformed Baptists, then they are not good reformed.

In other words, the two fundamental approaches to Scripture and theology are mutually exclusive, and the more one approaches one of the two approaches, the more he will drift from the other.

Here's a for-instance: RBs hold to sabbath observance on the ground that what is not abolished in the NT carries over from the OT. See the slippery slope this puts the RB on?

However, at the same time the RB wants to exlude children from the church, which can't be established as a NT abolishment, but as the conclusion of certain assumptions made. This assumption is that the OT is abolished unless established in the NT.

This engenders confusion. If an RB is seeking consistency, he will gravitate toward the more Reformed part, probably eventually leaving the RB thinking for something reformed, or he will gravitate toward something like "new covenant theology" or (as I would say) a more baptist way of thinking.

I say this with no malice, as I've been on both sides of the RB coin, and landed on the Reformed side, after making deep inroads in the Baptist side. In fact, the way I became reformed was to read a reformed book in order to REFUTE the heresy of infant baptism

Cheers,

Adam

Originally Posted by etexas

HOLD ON MODS AND ADMINS! This is NOT to start some Presbyterian/ Baptist war, as most of you know I am a new Presbyterian (I came here Anglican). The reason I ask this question is simple I was looking at an old thread and I saw where a good and dear Baptist friend (Hi Ivan ) made an interesting remark, it was about some Reformed issue and my Babtist Friend put in his opinion, and then stated something to the nature of "for what it is worth, as a Baptist I am not fully Reformed." SO! As a former Anglican, I am curious, I had never really thought about it before. I always felt Piper was Reformed, but anyway, this is NOT to start a "war" thread I am REALLY curious and would like to hear from Baptist and Presbyterians on the issue and keep it in a tone of charity. So help me out. Is the Reformed Baptist..... Reformed?

Originally Posted by etexas

Originally Posted by joshua

Friendimus Maximus, this has been discussed ad nauseum here on the PB. Maybe our resident encyclopedia, Andrew Myers, can link to a few of the threads pertaining to this subject matter.

Sorry Josh, did not know that.

No need for apologies, as my words weren't a rebuke. Just informing ya.

If, by Reformed Baptists, you mean Reformed paedobaptists who were formerly Baptists, then, yes, they are Reformed. Just like a reformed alcoholic is no longer an alcoholic, a Reformed Baptist (in the purest sense of the word) can no longer be a Baptist.

I think Adam is "on the Brink" of a valid differentiation, though some might disagree.

I keep coming back to a basic definition of Reformed, which = Calvinistic + Covenant Theology + Confessional.

Those who hold to the 1689LBCF would say this allows for "Reformed" baptists. Adam's point, as with other Presby types, is that they see an inconsistent understanding of Covenent Theology in Baptist ecclesiology and the sacraments. Thus their definition would include paedobaptism.

Originally Posted by etexas

HOLD ON MODS AND ADMINS! This is NOT to start some Presbyterian/ Baptist war, as most of you know I am a new Presbyterian (I came here Anglican).

That's a good idea not to start such a war. Besides, I think we all know who would win: __________ (fill in the blank )

Jim,

Thank you for clarifying a bit! Yes, I am called by some the "Man on the Edge"

I don't think the Reformed Baptist divide is only a matter of ecclesiology and sacraments, but affects understanding of politics, ethics, and many other areas. I think that the ecclesiological aspects are more an "effect" rather than a "cause."

Cheers,

Adam

Originally Posted by Gomarus

I think Adam is "on the Brink" of a valid differentiation, though some might disagree.

I keep coming back to a basic definition of Reformed, which = Calvinistic + Covenant Theology + Confessional.

Those who hold to the 1689LBCF would say this allows for "Reformed" baptists. Adam's point, as with other Presby types, is that they see an inconsistent understanding of Covenent Theology in Baptist ecclesiology and the sacraments. Thus their definition would include paedobaptism.

Originally Posted by blhowes

Originally Posted by etexas

HOLD ON MODS AND ADMINS! This is NOT to start some Presbyterian/ Baptist war, as most of you know I am a new Presbyterian (I came here Anglican).

That's a good idea not to start such a war. Besides, I think we all know who would win: __________ (fill in the blank )

And on that note, I'm going to sharpen my broadsword.

Originally Posted by Sonoftheday

And on that note, I'm going to sharpen my broadsword.

Originally Posted by etexas

So help me out. Is the Reformed Baptist..... Reformed?

Since its been decided that the topic has been debated ad nauseum here on the PB, and that the topic won't be debated again here in this thread, I feel pretty safe answering your question in the affirmative.

Expecting no debate/responses,

Bob

You can call me 'Reformed'...
You can call me 'Particular'...
You can call me 'Calvinistic'...

Just don't call me late for dinner!

Originally Posted by Christusregnat

Jim,

Thank you for clarifying a bit! Yes, I am called by some the "Man on the Edge"

I don't think the Reformed Baptist divide is only a matter of ecclesiology and sacraments, but affects understanding of politics, ethics, and many other areas. I think that the ecclesiological aspects are more an "effect" rather than a "cause."

If our Confessions inform our worldview, then I would ask where the 1689 LBCF undermines "politics, ethics, and many other areas" as opposed to the WCF.

Granted, most Baptists are not Reformed, but they don't claim to be.

Many reformed baptists are not that disparate from reformed paedobaptists fundamentally. Most paedobaptists seem to understand the Confession to teach that adults should be baptised on profession of faith and obedience, and that infants should be baptised upon profession of faith and obedience of a parent or parents. RB's simply don't see warrant for the baptism of infants in what is an obviously changed administration of the Covenant (everyone acknowledges changes in the administration of the NC because the sign is different, and women are now included). Many of us do see the infants as being in a special position ('holy' or 'sanctified') and we teach our children about God in the same way as paedos; but we don't necessarily believe the position means that the infant should be baptised. The basis of baptism --the profession of faith and belief-- is the same. This is not a fundamentally different view of the sacrament or of the visible church.

If one wants to argue that any adult should be baptised, regardless of profession and belief, then yes: that is a fundamentally different view of the sacraments.

Not going to argue this, just my two cents.

Originally Posted by joshua

If, by Reformed Baptists, you mean Reformed paedobaptists who were formerly Baptists, then, yes, they are Reformed. Just like a reformed alcoholic is no longer an alcoholic, a Reformed Baptist (in the purest sense of the word) can no longer be a Baptist.

I'm a Reformed Baptist and I agree with that!

No, wait. I'm just particular about what I believe!

Originally Posted by Gomarus

If our Confessions inform our worldview, then I would ask where the 1689 LBCF undermines "politics, ethics, and many other areas" as opposed to the WCF.

Granted, most Baptists are not Reformed, but they don't claim to be.

Gomarus,

If you compare the WCF's section on the Law, on the Magistrate, and on other related topics, you will find that the 1689 leaves out the abiding duty by the magistrates of all civil bodies politic to enforce the marrow of the judicial laws of Moses. This is critical in structuring a just society.

Also, you will find that the 1689 Confession makes no place for the magistrate to be the custodian of both tables of the law, and to support and maintain the true religion by an established religion, punishing heretics etc. WCF (in its original form) provides for all of this.

If the OT is taken for granted, unless specifically abrogated by later revelation (whether in the OT times or in the NT times), this created a totally different ethical system, and political philosophy. The difference between the 1689 and WCF bear this out, as does the shift in American culture from Puritanism to Baptist culture.

Cheers,

Adam

Originally Posted by Gomarus

I think Adam is "on the Brink" of a valid differentiation, though some might disagree.

I keep coming back to a basic definition of Reformed, which = Calvinistic + Covenant Theology + Confessional.

Those who hold to the 1689LBCF would say this allows for "Reformed" baptists. Adam's point, as with other Presby types, is that they see an inconsistent understanding of Covenent Theology in Baptist ecclesiology and the sacraments. Thus their definition would include paedobaptism.

I think this is the crux of what right now seems to me to be a trite and petty debate. i.e. Who is really reformed. It depends on who one defines the term reformed. Just like Gomarus is saying, if that is Reformed (Calvinist, CT, and Confessional) then yes, Reformed Baptists are reformed. But if its defined in others ways also, then I can see how some would say they are not reformed.

I am fine with whatever label I earn based on my confession, be it Calvinist, Reformed, or Particular.

Thanks Adam, I'll look closer at those differences. I was aware of the difference regarding magistrates (which suggests theonomy/theocracy), but an adverse effect on ethics, etc. did not seem to be there in my view.

Peace.

Gomarus,

No worries. The theonomic ethical system is not specifically related to the magistrate; this is just the point that most people take umbrage with.

An example of a shift in ethics would be divorce. From a theocratic perspective, there are lawful reasons for divorce (mainly, as outlined in Moses, and as re-confirmed, in this view, by Christ). From a New Covenant Theology, it is often asserted that Christ abolished divorce, or that the lawful reason for divorce is only adultery. This is an ethical decision which finds roots in a theocratic vs. NCT world-views. The article by John Piper on the right to self defense is another example of an ethical position based on NCT vs. theocratic ethics. If you read that post, you realized that the consistent theocrats could not agree with the consistent NCTers, or the radical NCTer, the anabaptist who started the post.

Cheers,

Adam

Originally Posted by Gomarus

Thanks Adam, I'll look closer at those differences. I was aware of the difference regarding magistrates (which suggests theonomy/theocracy), but an adverse effect on ethics, etc. did not seem to be there in my view.

Peace.

Originally Posted by Christusregnat

Max,

I was raised nazarene, and then became a RB in 1994, until convinced otherwise in 2001. During that time I became "more and more baptist" being convinced more thoroughly of some of the basic points of baptist theology. I read Paul Jewett King, John Gill, and had a strong understanding of baptist history, baptist theology, and the two baptist confessions (1st and 2nd London).

So, when I say what I'm about to say, I've been there.

Reformed Baptists, if consistent with their "Reformed" side, are not good baptists. If they are Reformed Baptists, then they are not good reformed.

In other words, the two fundamental approaches to Scripture and theology are mutually exclusive, and the more one approaches one of the two approaches, the more he will drift from the other.

Here's a for-instance: RBs hold to sabbath observance on the ground that what is not abolished in the NT carries over from the OT. See the slippery slope this puts the RB on?

However, at the same time the RB wants to exlude children from the church, which can't be established as a NT abolishment, but as the conclusion of certain assumptions made. This assumption is that the OT is abolished unless established in the NT.

This engenders confusion. If an RB is seeking consistency, he will gravitate toward the more Reformed part, probably eventually leaving the RB thinking for something reformed, or he will gravitate toward something like "new covenant theology" or (as I would say) a more baptist way of thinking.

I say this with no malice, as I've been on both sides of the RB coin, and landed on the Reformed side, after making deep inroads in the Baptist side. In fact, the way I became reformed was to read a reformed book in order to REFUTE the heresy of infant baptism

Cheers,

Adam

Originally Posted by etexas

HOLD ON MODS AND ADMINS! This is NOT to start some Presbyterian/ Baptist war, as most of you know I am a new Presbyterian (I came here Anglican). The reason I ask this question is simple I was looking at an old thread and I saw where a good and dear Baptist friend (Hi Ivan ) made an interesting remark, it was about some Reformed issue and my Babtist Friend put in his opinion, and then stated something to the nature of "for what it is worth, as a Baptist I am not fully Reformed." SO! As a former Anglican, I am curious, I had never really thought about it before. I always felt Piper was Reformed, but anyway, this is NOT to start a "war" thread I am REALLY curious and would like to hear from Baptist and Presbyterians on the issue and keep it in a tone of charity. So help me out. Is the Reformed Baptist..... Reformed?

What book may I ask?

I believe there are reformed baptists here in Aus but not many.
I was converted through a baptist church,but soon found myself questioning the validity of their theology.

It was too much a case of hearing constantly from the pulpit,just how much I should be pulling up my evangelical socks before God could use me.

I found reformed theology to be closer to the truth.

Originally Posted by Gomarus

I think Adam is "on the Brink" of a valid differentiation, though some might disagree.

I keep coming back to a basic definition of Reformed, which = Calvinistic + Covenant Theology + Confessional.

Those who hold to the 1689LBCF would say this allows for "Reformed" baptists. Adam's point, as with other Presby types, is that they see an inconsistent understanding of Covenent Theology in Baptist ecclesiology and the sacraments. Thus their definition would include paedobaptism.

One of the reasons I LOVE the PB is that there are so many really really smart people on it who make great points! Jim (Gomarus) always contributes super points (whether I agree or not).

If you think of "Reformed" in terms of the Reformation and those who side with Calvin (as opposed to either Luther or the radical reformers), then Reformed Baptists are "Reformed" because they hold to a Calvinistic soteriology (TULIP), hold to Covenant Theology, and the 1689 is quite close to the WCF.

However, as Jim observed, "Presby types" see the "most consistent" plying of the truths of Covenant Theology as leading inevitably to paedo-baptism, and some of the other implications they hail as hallmarks of their specific belief system.

I am wrestling with some of these issues now. Thanks to some recommendatons of our PB brethren, my library now has several of the best defenses of infant baptism (The Case for Covenantal Infant Baptism, edited by Gregg Strawbridge; The Biblical Doctrine of Infant Baptism by Marcel; and "My Retraction: A 15-year Baptist turns Paedobaptist and Becomes Reformed" by Matthew McMahon (from his Puritan's Mind website). On the other side I picked up The Baptism of Disciples Alone (Revised) by Malone in addition to the copies of Beasley-Murray and Jewett already in my library. Honestly, some of us Baptists did not usually read the work of the "other side" since we were told that it was without biblical warrant, crypto-Roman, and resulted in nominal Christianity and liberalism.

BTW, if you want to see how irenically one may see both sides of the argument, compare the convincing article on believer's baptism by my old prof, Geoffrey Bromiley, followed by the equally convincing piece on infant baptism by . . . Geoffrey Bromiley in the Baker's Dictonary of Theology (now re-released as the Wycliffe Dictionary of Theology).

Originally Posted by InevitablyReformed

What book may I ask?

It was "Standing on the Promises" by Doug Wilson. Sad how far he's fallen, but it's a great book.

Cheers,

Adam

I personally attend a Reformed church, and if you could actually get the kind of mentality that has prevailed among the Dutch Reformed, they would point out that only the Dutch are truly Reformed, and that the title "Reformed" does not quite suit a Presbyterian (according to my pastor) because they evolved separately from the mainland Reformed Churches in Europe and went significantly beyond Calvin in the area of Church government and worship.

Consequently, I do not have problem in calling certain Calvinistic Baptists "Reformed" such as John Bunyan, John Gill and C. H. Spurgeon seeing how every "truly Reformed Christian" really wants to appropriate for himself alone the title "Reformed" and not share it with others who are so close to his theological views. I would say that 5-point Calvinists who hold to NCT depart too significantly from Calvin to be called "Reformed", but that those who hold to the 1689 LBC or the Philadelphia CF, to Psalm-singing with conservative hymns, keep the Sabbath and are cessationist are indeed practically "truly Reformed."

Originally Posted by Neogillist

I personally attend a Reformed church, and if you could actually get the kind of mentality that has prevailed among the Dutch Reformed, they would point out that only the Dutch are truly Reformed, and that the title "Reformed" does not quite suit a Presbyterian (according to my pastor) because they evolved separately from the mainland Reformed Churches in Europe and went significantly beyond Calvin in the area of Church government and worship.

Consequently, I do not have problem in calling certain Calvinistic Baptists "Reformed" such as John Bunyan, John Gill and C. H. Spurgeon seeing how every "truly Reformed Christian" really wants to appropriate for himself alone the title "Reformed" and not share it with others who are so close to his theological views. I would say that 5-point Calvinists who hold to NCT depart too significantly from Calvin to be called "Reformed", but that those who hold to the 1689 LBC or the Philadelphia CF, to Psalm-singing with conservative hymns, keep the Sabbath and are cessationist are indeed practically "truly Reformed."

This is indeed a topic for another thread, but I am interested in reading up on the differences between the Dutch Reformed and the more orthodox Presbyterian churches.

Originally Posted by etexas

HOLD ON MODS AND ADMINS! This is NOT to start some Presbyterian/ Baptist war, as most of you know I am a new Presbyterian (I came here Anglican). The reason I ask this question is simple I was looking at an old thread and I saw where a good and dear Baptist friend (Hi Ivan ) made an interesting remark, it was about some Reformed issue and my Babtist Friend put in his opinion, and then stated something to the nature of "for what it is worth, as a Baptist I am not fully Reformed." SO! As a former Anglican, I am curious, I had never really thought about it before. I always felt Piper was Reformed, but anyway, this is NOT to start a "war" thread I am REALLY curious and would like to hear from Baptist and Presbyterians on the issue and keep it in a tone of charity. So help me out. Is the Reformed Baptist..... Reformed?

The RB has one foot in the Radical Reformation, which I am sorry to say. The anabaptists proudly claim that they are "radically reformed".

Most of us Calvinistic Baptists trace our tribe to English congregationalism, not to the Anabaptists. However, insofar as the notions of a regenerate membership are essential to all Baptists, it is not difficult to see how you could say that Reformed Baptists have "one foot in the Radical Reformation."

When the Anabaptists say that they are "radically reformed," however, that is more a rhetorical play on words than a family connection. They argued that the Reformers did not go far enough in their "reforms." In that sense, they consider themselves the ONLY truly "reformed" group. That should not be confused, however, with thinking that they are "Reformed" in the sense that it is being discussed here. Whether the definition is large enough to include Calvinistic CT Baptists or not, everyone (including the Anabaptists) understand that "Reformed" in the current usage NECESSARILY includes Calvinistic soteriology which they deny. It is more akin to a cessationist claiming that since he/she holds to a radically "biblical" view of the gifts in the NT, the cessationist is the only "truly charismatic" Christian. Such lines are used to score polemical and rhetorical points, not to identify historical lineage.

Originally Posted by DMcFadden

Most of us Calvinistic Baptists trace our tribe to English congregationalism, not to the Anabaptists. However, insofar as the notions of a regenerate membership are essential to all Baptists, it is not difficult to see how you could say that Reformed Baptists have "one foot in the Radical Reformation."

When the Anabaptists say that they are "radically reformed," however, that is more a rhetorical play on words than a family connection. They argued that the Reformers did not go far enough in their "reforms." In that sense, they consider themselves the ONLY truly "reformed" group. That should not be confused, however, with thinking that they are "Reformed" in the sense that it is being discussed here. Whether the definition is large enough to include Calvinistic CT Baptists or not, everyone (including the Anabaptists) understand that "Reformed" in the current usage NECESSARILY includes Calvinistic soteriology which they deny. It is more akin to a cessationist claiming that since he/she holds to a radically "biblical" view of the gifts in the NT, the cessationist is the only "truly charismatic" Christian. Such lines are used to score polemical and rhetorical points, not to identify historical lineage.

Perhaps we Baptists should start calling ourselves 'Consistantly Reformed'.

"London Baptist Confession of Faith
A.D. 1644
The
CONFESSION

OF FAITH,

Of those CHURCHES which are
commonly (though falsly)
called ANABAPTISTS;"

The reason for "falsly called" is that this group of confessors didn't hold that the first "baptism" was valid, and therefore, they didn't see it as "ana-baptism" but as real baptism.

That said, they identify themselves with the anabaptists which arose before 1644.

Cheers,

Adam

Originally Posted by DMcFadden

Most of us Calvinistic Baptists trace our tribe to English congregationalism, not to the Anabaptists. However, insofar as the notions of a regenerate membership are essential to all Baptists, it is not difficult to see how you could say that Reformed Baptists have "one foot in the Radical Reformation."

When the Anabaptists say that they are "radically reformed," however, that is more a rhetorical play on words than a family connection. They argued that the Reformers did not go far enough in their "reforms." In that sense, they consider themselves the ONLY truly "reformed" group. That should not be confused, however, with thinking that they are "Reformed" in the sense that it is being discussed here. Whether the definition is large enough to include Calvinistic CT Baptists or not, everyone (including the Anabaptists) understand that "Reformed" in the current usage NECESSARILY includes Calvinistic soteriology which they deny. It is more akin to a cessationist claiming that since he/she holds to a radically "biblical" view of the gifts in the NT, the cessationist is the only "truly charismatic" Christian. Such lines are used to score polemical and rhetorical points, not to identify historical lineage.

Originally Posted by DMcFadden

Originally Posted by Gomarus

I think Adam is "on the Brink" of a valid differentiation, though some might disagree.

I keep coming back to a basic definition of Reformed, which = Calvinistic + Covenant Theology + Confessional.

Those who hold to the 1689LBCF would say this allows for "Reformed" baptists. Adam's point, as with other Presby types, is that they see an inconsistent understanding of Covenent Theology in Baptist ecclesiology and the sacraments. Thus their definition would include paedobaptism.

One of the reasons I LOVE the PB is that there are so many really really smart people on it who make great points! Jim (Gomarus) always contributes super points (whether I agree or not).

If you think of "Reformed" in terms of the Reformation and those who side with Calvin (as opposed to either Luther or the radical reformers), then Reformed Baptists are "Reformed" because they hold to a Calvinistic soteriology (TULIP), hold to Covenant Theology, and the 1689 is quite close to the WCF.

However, as Jim observed, "Presby types" see the "most consistent" plying of the truths of Covenant Theology as leading inevitably to paedo-baptism, and some of the other implications they hail as hallmarks of their specific belief system.

I am wrestling with some of these issues now. Thanks to some recommendatons of our PB brethren, my library now has several of the best defenses of infant baptism (The Case for Covenantal Infant Baptism, edited by Gregg Strawbridge; The Biblical Doctrine of Infant Baptism by Marcel; and "My Retraction: A 15-year Baptist turns Paedobaptist and Becomes Reformed" by Matthew McMahon (from his Puritan's Mind website). On the other side I picked up The Baptism of Disciples Alone (Revised) by Malone in addition to the copies of Beasley-Murray and Jewett already in my library. Honestly, some of us Baptists did not usually read the work of the "other side" since we were told that it was without biblical warrant, crypto-Roman, and resulted in nominal Christianity and liberalism.

BTW, if you want to see how irenically one may see both sides of the argument, compare the convincing article on believer's baptism by my old prof, Geoffrey Bromiley, followed by the equally convincing piece on infant baptism by . . . Geoffrey Bromiley in the Baker's Dictonary of Theology (now re-released as the Wycliffe Dictionary of Theology).

Good post brother. I just received Fred Malone's book and will have an opportunity to hear him speak at Heritage Baptist Church in GA later this year. I am looking forward to that, and getting him to sign my book. hehe

I am also expecting acceptance to Reformed Theological Seminary soon, where Malone studied, so I expect to be throroughly schooled in the sacraments.

a mere housewife
Puritanboard Junior
RB's simply don't see warrant for the baptism of infants in what is an obviously changed administration of the Covenant (everyone acknowledges changes in the administration of the NC because the sign is different, and women are now included). Many of us do see the infants as being in a special position ('holy' or 'sanctified') and we teach our children about God in the same way as paedos; but we don't necessarily believe the position means that the infant should be baptised.

As stated above, this truly is one of the great things about Puritan Board- being able to learn about things like this.

Isn't baptism understood to be a replacement for circumsicion, that is, as infants were circumsized in the Old Testament as a sign of entry into the covenant, in like manner they are baptized in the new?

Doesn't baptism signify the promises made to the people of God and their children?

DMcFadden
McFadderator Minimizing

If you think of "Reformed" in terms of the Reformation and those who side with Calvin (as opposed to either Luther or the radical reformers), then Reformed Baptists are "Reformed" because they hold to a Calvinistic soteriology (TULIP), hold to Covenant Theology, and the 1689 is quite close to the WCF.

Historically, I have heard Mr Calvin described as bringing "thoroughgoing" reform, Mr Luther as bringing "moderate reform." Both of these magisterial reformers fully agreed on the doctrines of grace ("five points"), held a covenant approach to Scripture, and led toward Confessions. Is there another category (i.e. radical) and if so, what was it characterized by?

Originally Posted by The Noble Gentleman from Texarkana

this has been discussed ad nauseum here on the PB.

What hasn't been discussed to death on this board? Might as well give it another go around...

Originally Posted by etexas

Is the Reformed Baptist..... Reformed?

Yes. Reformed Baptists are reformed in that they hold to the doctrines of the reformation. Here is a very short statement of faith from a church I was formerly a member of:

Reformed Baptist Statement of Faith

Originally Posted by KMK

You can call me 'Reformed'...
You can call me 'Particular'...
You can call me 'Calvinistic'...

Just don't call me late for dinner!

From an old tv commercial.

"My name is Raymond Jay Johnson Jr. Now, you can call me Ray, or you can call me Jay, but ya dosen't haf ta call me Johnson and ya dosen't haf ta call me Jr....."

I'm a paedobaptist by conviction, but a couple of points:

[1] If we define "reformed" as anyone who subscribes to the reformed confessions of the 16th and 17th century, I do not see how we can exclude certain baptists from being "reformed". The 1644 and 1689 are magnificent documents, even if I don't agree with them on every point.

[2] I don't see any evidence that paedos are more empirically godly than credos. If credos were in gross error this would not be the case because gross error should lead to ungodliness in clear ways.

The existence of the 1644 and 1689 in the raft of reformed confessions show that the credo versus the paedo issue is a topic reformed believers are free to disagree on, and still be reformed.

The World Reformed Fellowship is currently working on a new confession (due in 2010) that will (as I understand it from chatting to its authors) allow for both paedos and credos; that is, it won't come done on one side or the other; there are more important issues that indicate the character of being reformed.

It seems to me it is unnecessarily fissiparous to claim that particular baptists aren't reformed.