Reformed Baptist = Oxymoron?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Javilo

Puritan Board Freshman
It seems to me that Reformed Baptist is an oxymoron because doesn't reformed
mean that one accepts infant baptism? So what would a person who accepts the
five points of Calvinism - TULIP and the five solas of the reformation be called, if
they bellieve these things but adhere to only adult baptism by immersion?
Maybe simply a Calvinistic Baptist? I've also heard of Particular Baptists but that is only
one of the five points. It would be good to know how to label such a person without
incorrectly using the term "Reformed". I think that John Macarthur almost falls into
this category except for his dispensationalism. Never heard him put any kind of
denominational label on himself except for IFCA which isn't really a denomination.
 
I can just picture every Baptist on the board rolling their eyes when they see the title of this thread. :lol:

Now to answer your question, if a Baptist or Baptist church believes in the RPW, covenant theology, etc. - key distinctives of the Reformed theological tradition - then the title must be accurate at least to a degree.
 
It seems to me that Reformed Baptist is an oxymoron because doesn't reformed
mean that one accepts infant baptism? So what would a person who accepts the
five points of Calvinism - TULIP and the five solas of the reformation be called, if
they bellieve these things but adhere to only adult baptism by immersion?

{eye roll} Does it really matter what this person (group) is referred to as? The topic has been covered here a number of times. Here is a short statement of faith from a church that I was formerly a member of:

Our doctrinal statement, the Second London Baptist Confession of Faith of 1689, can be summarized in five points. We call them “The Five Points of Reformed Baptists.” These points are: Reformed, Calvinistic, Covenantal, Baptist, and Puritan.

*We adhere tenaciously to the five, Latin solas of the Protestant Reformation: sola Scriptura (Scripture alone is our rule for faith and practice); sola fide (justification is through faith alone); sola gratia (salvation is by grace alone); solus Christus (salvation is by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone); and soli Deo gloria (to God alone be glory).
*We are Calvinistic in that we uphold the Five Points of Calvinism: total depravity; unconditional election; limited atonement; irresistible grace; and the perseverance of the saints.
*We are Covenantal as opposed to Dispensational.
*We are Baptist in that we believe that baptism is reserved for professed disciples of Christ alone.
*We are Puritan in that we delight in holding the Regulative Principle of Worship and the sanctity of the Lord’s Day as the Christian Sabbath.
 
Plus, I would be a little weirded out if someone introduced himself to me as an "Otherwise Reformed Baptist." :D
 
John,

Personally, you can call RB's whatever you want. It makes little to no difference to most RB's. We don't seek approval to sit at the Reformed table. A few months ago there was a heated PB thread that centered on some comments by R. Scott Clark, professor at Westminster Seminary, CA. The thread accomplished little more than to warrant a study on global warming because of all the hot air it generated.

RB's are covenantal in addition to Calvinistic. John MacArthur is a Calvinist, but he is not covenantal. Many paedos on this board consider RB's part of the Reformed family, some do not. But since RB's aren't asking permission from paedos, the subject is moot.
 
Last edited:
I can just picture every Baptist on the board rolling their eyes when they see the title of this thread. :lol:

Now to answer your question, if a Baptist or Baptist church believes in the RPW, covenant theology, etc. - key distinctives of the Reformed theological tradition - then the title must be accurate at least to a degree.

I agree with my PB brother Austin. I am a Presbyterian but also subscribe to the LBC. I was Baptised as a Baptist.
 
John,

Personally, you can call RB's whatever you want. It makes little to no difference to most RB's. We don't seek approval to sit at the Reformed table. A few months ago there was a heated PB thread that centered on some comments by R. Scott Clark, professor at Westminster Seminary, CA. The thread accomplished little more than to warrant a study on global warming because of all the hot air it generated.

RB's are covenantal in addition to Calvinistic. John MacArthur is a Calvinist, but he is not covenantal. Many paedos on this board consider RB's part of the Reformed family, some do not. But since RB's aren't asking permission from paedos, the subject is moot.

Oh, and I was guilty for much of that hot air. This time I won't be.
 
Sometimes we speak of grace. Sometimes we speak of saving grace, common grace,irresistible grace,electing grace, sovereign grace, each with a slightly different twist. Ideally "grace" should cover it, but we make distinctions.
Reformed in part means setting things right. Historically it has a meaning in reference to the church yes.

In terms of baptists, there are Reformed Baptists,Particular baptists,Calvinistic baptists General baptists,primitive baptists, free will baptists, conservative baptists,southern baptists,new covenant baptists,etc,etc. The terms help clarify things among the baptists themselves as well as other believers,in the same way a confession of faith does.
Padeos seem to have many labels also. opc, arp, pca,etc. We all have our reasons .
Many Reformed Baptists feel closer to faithful padeo-brethren, than to many of these other "baptists".
If I had to relocate suddenly, and visit local baptist churches who had clowns, and puppets, and altar calls....I would have no trouble fellowshipping with the padeo's, understanding they were using the 1644 confession, before I would defile myself in a place that would not regard the word of God as it is in truth.
 
Probably. Doesn't bother me if people don't consider Baptists truly reformed. It's just a term.
 
Moot, indeed.

Ivan, and if moot doesn't work, maybe an alligator filled moat will. :)

Well, we have a waterfall. :)

After you've been here (Puritan Board) and have heard the same discussions over and over again, it became truly burdensome.

I've read some of the old discussions and think I know what you mean. But this was meant to be a rather poor mode-of-baptism joke. Get it? The Baptists have a moat and the Presbyterians have a waterfall? Okay, it's not that funny, I know.
 
Besides, there is the delightful double entendre. In my case, I started out a Baptist, but then I reformed. It's a great conversation starter. . . . ;)
 
Besides, there is the delightful double entendre. In my case, I started out a Baptist, but then I reformed. It's a great conversation starter. . . . ;)

Indeed. The Presbyterians think they're tough on Baptists? They ain't go nuttin on mainstream Baptists towards RB's.
 
Moot, indeed.

Ivan, and if moot doesn't work, maybe an alligator filled moat will. :)



Well, we have a waterfall. :)

After you've been here (Puritan Board) and have heard the same discussions over and over again, it became truly burdensome.

I've read some of the old discussions and think I know what you mean. But this was meant to be a rather poor mode-of-baptism joke. Get it? The Baptists have a moat and the Presbyterians have a waterfall? Okay, it's not that funny, I know.


I got it. It was a little funny;)
 
Just to stir the pot...

I wish there was a credobaptist (strictly) Presbyterian group. I see a lot of strength in Presbyterian polity.
 
I agree with you Ej. But just so you all know I did blog on the issue and I agreed with Dr. R. Scott Clark. But really. Come one. This is a lame duck issue. I know Reformed Baptists who are much more Reformed than most Presbyterians and Paedo Baptists. Let's just look at the largest Paedo Presbyterian denomination, the PCUSA.

First off we Reformed Baptists are not Morons. LOL

I know some pretty significantly smart men of God who are Reformed Baptist or Particular Baptist. I don't care what you want to call us.

http://www.puritanboard.com/blogs/puritancovenanter/covenantal-baptists-reformed-historical-understanding-reformed-theology-316/
 
Yeah, you're right. It's such a shame that the name "Christian" doesn't often reflect what Scripture meant.
 
For what it is worth, "Particular Baptist" does not mean simply that the Baptist in question holds to one of the five points. It's an older term that was applied to Baptists who held the doctrines of grace in contrast to Baptists who were "General Baptists" of an Arminian, Remonstrant, Semi-Pelagian, or sadly even Pelagian flavor. So, if your conscience would be offended by calling them "Reformed," "Particular Baptists" is a suitable alternative.
 
I agree with you Ej. But just so you all know I did blog on the issue and I agreed with Dr. R. Scott Clark. But really. Come one. This is a lame duck issue. I know Reformed Baptists who are much more Reformed than most Presbyterians and Paedo Baptists. Let's just look at the largest Paedo Presbyterian denomination, the PCUSA.

Randy, believe it or not, the ARP had a memorial come up in one of its presbyteries a few years ago to take the name "Presbyterian" out of the ARP name, returning it to its original (1782) name, the "Associate Reformed Church" (despite its Scottish/Presbyterian roots). It failed miserably, of course, but the reasoning was because the name "Presbyterian" has become so tainted by the mainline denomination in our day.

BTW, I think Scott Clark is perfectly fine with Reformed Baptists using the historical name, Particular Baptists. Of course, that has odd connotations in our current day (sort of like the change in the meanings of words like "awful" and "condescend") -- it makes it sound like someone is just a fussy or picky Baptist. :lol:
 
Just to stir the pot a bit: 'reformed' is certainly a historical term (which seems to derive from the 5 solas and the confessions that come out of the time of the reformation), but can't it refer to actual 'reformation' too? That is, the reformers were reforming the church. So if paedobaptism is a left-over Roman Catholic practice that was overlooked by the Reformers, then it would make Reformed Baptist the truly 'reformed'. :)

But I agree with others on this board, it the term paedobaptism is synonymous with 'reformed', 'baptist' is just fine with me.
 
Just to stir the pot a bit: 'reformed' is certainly a historical term (which seems to derive from the 5 solas and the confessions that come out of the time of the reformation), but can't it refer to actual 'reformation' too? That is, the reformers were reforming the church. So if paedobaptism is a left-over Roman Catholic practice that was overlooked by the Reformers, then it would make Reformed Baptist the truly 'reformed'. :)

But I agree with others on this board, it the term paedobaptism is synonymous with 'reformed', 'baptist' is just fine with me.

A couple of problems with this: 1) Paedo-baptism is not a "left-over Roman Catholic practice", and anyone who has studied the difference between the Roman Catholic practice and the Reformed practice would see a vast difference, aside from the subjects; likewise, it would be silly for me, for instance, to compare Mormon baptist and Baptist baptisms simply because the subjects are the same. 2) There are more differences than simply paedo-baptism, as this essay from Richard Muller suggests:

I once met a minister who introduced himself to me as a “five-point Calvinist.” I later learned that, in addition to being a self-confessed five-point Calvinist, he was also an anti-paedobaptist who assumed that the church was a voluntary association of adult believers, that the sacraments were not means of grace but were merely “ordinances” of the church, that there was more than one covenant offering salvation in the time between the Fall and the eschaton, and that the church could expect a thousand-year reign on earth after Christ’s Second Coming but before the ultimate end of the world. He recognized no creeds or confessions of the church as binding in any way. I also found out that he regularly preached the “five points” in such a way as to indicate the difficulty of finding assurance of salvation: He often taught his congregation that they had to examine their repentance continually in order to determine whether they had exerted themselves enough in renouncing the world and in “accepting” Christ. This view of Christian life was totally in accord with his conception of the church as a visible, voluntary association of “born again” adults who had “a personal relationship with Jesus.” In retrospect, I recognize that I should not have been terribly surprised at the doctrinal context or at the practical application of the famous five points by this minister — although at the time I was astonished. After all, here was a person, proud to be a five-point Calvinist, whose doctrines would have been repudiated by Calvin. In fact, his doctrines would have gotten him tossed out of Geneva had he arrived there with his brand of “Calvinism” at any time during the late sixteenth or the seventeenth century. Perhaps more to the point, his beliefs stood outside of the theological limits presented by the great confessions of the Reformed churches—whether the Second Helvetic Confession of the Swiss Reformed church or the Belgic Confession and Heidelberg Catechism of the Dutch Reformed churches or the Westminster standards of the Presbyterian churches. He was, in short, an American evangelical.

Whether you accept Mueller's assessment or not, his point is that being "Reformed" means more than simply holding to the "Five Points" of Calvinism (since Calvinism has more than five points!).
 
2) There are more differences than simply paedo-baptism, as this essay from Richard Muller suggests:

I once met a minister who introduced himself to me as a “five-point Calvinist.” I later learned that, in addition to being a self-confessed five-point Calvinist, he was also an anti-paedobaptist who assumed that the church was a voluntary association of adult believers, that the sacraments were not means of grace but were merely “ordinances” of the church, that there was more than one covenant offering salvation in the time between the Fall and the eschaton, and that the church could expect a thousand-year reign on earth after Christ’s Second Coming but before the ultimate end of the world. He recognized no creeds or confessions of the church as binding in any way. I also found out that he regularly preached the “five points” in such a way as to indicate the difficulty of finding assurance of salvation: He often taught his congregation that they had to examine their repentance continually in order to determine whether they had exerted themselves enough in renouncing the world and in “accepting” Christ. This view of Christian life was totally in accord with his conception of the church as a visible, voluntary association of “born again” adults who had “a personal relationship with Jesus.” In retrospect, I recognize that I should not have been terribly surprised at the doctrinal context or at the practical application of the famous five points by this minister — although at the time I was astonished. After all, here was a person, proud to be a five-point Calvinist, whose doctrines would have been repudiated by Calvin. In fact, his doctrines would have gotten him tossed out of Geneva had he arrived there with his brand of “Calvinism” at any time during the late sixteenth or the seventeenth century. Perhaps more to the point, his beliefs stood outside of the theological limits presented by the great confessions of the Reformed churches—whether the Second Helvetic Confession of the Swiss Reformed church or the Belgic Confession and Heidelberg Catechism of the Dutch Reformed churches or the Westminster standards of the Presbyterian churches. He was, in short, an American evangelical.

Whether you accept Mueller's assessment or not, his point is that being "Reformed" means more than simply holding to the "Five Points" of Calvinism (since Calvinism has more than five points!).

Well, the church that Mueller is responding to is:

1) Dispensational
2) premillennial
3) Hyper-Lordship
4) Anti-confessional

Umm...I'm sure a lot of us "Reformed credos" on the PB are NOT what has been described above. Actually, we try to distance ourselves from them. We, Reformed baptists, are stuck in reformation purgatory. For the most part, the only thing that we have in common with our "other" baptist brethren, is baptism. On the otherhand, we find a lot in common with our Presbyterian brothers, but disagree on baptism.

Nobody likes us! :p
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top