Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Where this can and has gotten interesting is that we as baptists run into we see each individual as able to understand the scriptures by themselves as what they really mean, as we hold that the Holy Spirit leads and guides us into all truth, but we also do all have some form/statement of beliefs that we agree must be upheld at same time!No doubt. Confessionalism vs anti- confessionalism is a serious divide. One says we agree with our brothers of ages past and stand together with them inside the safe guardrails of a stated, orthodox confession, the other travels down the salad bar of theology and takes what he likes and passes over what he doesn't..... but it is he, himself that decides (he is the final arbiter of truth). Michael Horton has commented that evangelical Protestants rail against the papacy (and rightfully so), but fail to recognize the fact that each person acts as his own pope, determining the meaning of Scripture and practice entirely divorced from the accepted testimony of the church universal.... This doesn't even address covenantal matters....at least not directly....
Where this can and has gotten interesting is that we as baptists run into we see each individual as able to understand the scriptures by themselves as what they really mean, as we hold that the Holy Spirit leads and guides us into all truth, but we also do all have some form/statement of beliefs that we agree must be upheld at same time!
The 1689 Confession is covenantal. Read ch 7 carefully. Thus I do not hesitate to call myself covenantal and Reformed.
That would seem to be the insurgence currently been happening among the SBC at this present time, as many Baptists in that group are now embracing reformed salvation regarding the 5 points of Grace, but not becoming reformed in sense of holding to Covenant theology and Confessions...The 1689 Confession is covenantal. Read ch 7 carefully. Thus I do not hesitate to call myself covenantal and Reformed. That said, there are many confessing Baptists who are Calvinistic but reject the covenant theology of the 1689 confession.
Some of the Baptists who are now acknowledging reformed salvation, while not affirming the Confessions such as 1689, are rewriting and reaffirming their statement of beliefs, that serve a similiar purpose among Baptists...There is a significant difference between being a confessionally Reformed baptist and a soteriologically-Calvinistic baptist. The confessional man is answerable to Scripture alone, but he does not interpret it alone; while the non-confessional man is left to cobble together his theology as best he is able.
That being said, a non-confessional but Calvinistic man who is committed to the sole authority of Scripture is a far different fellow from the typical evangelical; and he is one who, in due time, might well be persuaded to embrace the benefits of robust, historic Reformed confessionalism.
...we see each individual as able to understand the scriptures by themselves as what they really mean, as we hold that the Holy Spirit leads and guides us into all truth...
Has not Dispensationalism proven by this point to be an aberration as well? Do any Baptists still use the Scofield Bible?
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Many Baptists were particular ones to start out here in the USA, and right after the Civil War, there were bg inroads made to switch to unlimited atonement free will model of salvation. Right now the SBC going through a time when calvinistixc Baptists are trying to get them to move back unto limited atonement, Tulip salvation model, but in fighting going on in the ranks. Dr Moehler is leading that chatge at His Seminary for that...Before 1900 or so, wouldn't many Baptists have affirmed a Biblical soteriology? And what was the precursor to modern dispensationalism? I'm not that familiar with the progression of Baptist thought, but do know 20th Century fundamentalism was an aberration.
We tend to have layers of truth among us, as in there are essentials that we must all agree with, such as trinity, Jesus being Messiah, Hos atoning death, resurrection, second coming...David,
I hear what you're saying, but I fear that such mode of representation poses a problem, namely, that if the Holy Spirit leads one person into this understanding and another in a different understanding, we make the Spirit the author of confusion. This can lead to (and I've seen it first-hand) a rejection of the confessions of others because the "Spirit's message" differed. Since the Spirit is not the author of confusion, as it was argued, the others with a different view could not have the Spirit.
How do you interact with this problem, or have I misunderstood your point?
Thanks!
The specific promise was to them true, but we also have the "annoiting" as John calls it from the Holy Spirit, as one of His tasks is to illuminate the truths of the bible to us also...In regard to the Holy Spirit "leading and guiding us into all truth..."- it helped greatly when I realized that this promise in John 16:13 was for the apostles, and pertained to their ministry after Christ's ascension and to the completion of the Scriptures. The promise validates the apostles' teaching as being Christ's teaching; it doesn't apply in the individualistic way that it's now commonly understood. Realizing this was very encouraging, and it paved the way for further reformation in my understanding.
There are lots of SBC folk (pastors and laity alike) who are hardcore Scofield dispensationalists...and there's the new Dispensational Publishing company.
Before 1900 or so, wouldn't many Baptists have affirmed a Biblical soteriology? And what was the precursor to modern dispensationalism? I'm not that familiar with the progression of Baptist thought, but do know 20th Century fundamentalism was an aberration.
You might want to look at Jeremiah 31:33-34 to compare with 1 John 2:26,27. If you use the 1John text in the same way you used the John 16:13 text, you'd have to say that John in his epistle was doing away with the office of teaching in the church ("ye need not that any man teach you")! Your opening post was about the difference between soteriological-only Calvinism and confessional Reformed Calvinism, and your use of those two Scripture texts highlights the difference pretty well (at least many times).The specific promise was to them true, but we also have the "annoiting" as John calls it from the Holy Spirit, as one of His tasks is to illuminate the truths of the bible to us also...
Maybe this is a regional thing. Most people in these parts who carry a Scofield are independent fundamentalists or members of independent Bible churches. Maybe you see it more in country SBC churches with older people.
Good point, as it does seem that Predbyterians and Dispensational are in a sense strange bedfellows!Dispensationalism did not come out of Baptist circles. In its developed form, it originated in England with the Darby (Plymouth) Brethren who were former Anglicans. It was imported into the USA via Presbyterian churches (particularly the ministry of James H. Brookes in St. Louis, Scofield's mentor) and spread by things like the Niagara Bible conferences that were a precursor to fundamentalism. Many of the early faculty at Dallas Seminary were from a Presbyterian background. This went up into what might be termed the second generation and included Walvoord and Pentecost who were Presbyterians at least originally. They certainly were not confessional Presbyterians, but there were a whole lot more broadly evangelical fundamentalist Presbyterians in those days.
There is indeed that major difference, as we who are Baptists would tend to see that the primary theology to be held to would be that in the scripture themselves, and do think that in some regards those who are reformed baptists have the best of both theological worlds...You might want to look at Jeremiah 31:33-34 to compare with 1 John 2:26,27. If you use the 1John text in the same way you used the John 16:13 text, you'd have to say that John in his epistle was doing away with the office of teaching in the church ("ye need not that any man teach you")! Your opening post was about the difference between soteriological-only Calvinism and confessional Reformed Calvinism, and your use of those two Scripture texts highlights the difference pretty well (at least many times).
You mean rather Scripture itself with no confession added, I assume.There is indeed that major difference, as we who are Baptists would tend to see that the primary theology to be held to would be that in the scripture themselves, and do think that in some regards those who are reformed baptists have the best of both theological worlds...
Yes, but even that is really not the whole story, as most Baptists would also tend to agree with their statement of beliefs!You mean rather Scripture itself with no confession added, I assume.
It may well be a regional or rural matter; but those two categories account for the vast majority of SBC churches.