Rich Koster
Puritan Board Post-Graduate
Feel free to quote me on this:
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.
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 other hand, we find a lot in common with our Presbyterian brothers, but disagree on baptism.
Nobody likes us!
I'm a (PB) Baptist. Which, although it might not get me into Marrow Man's heaven ( ), Lane Keister says that if I ever change my baptism views, the PCA would take me.
* Tim, no offense intended. You are one of my absolute favs. Your integrity and scholarship impresses me, especially for an Eskine guy.
Tim,
Sorry for the typo (I do know how to spell it).
in my opinion, the energy of the Reformed respecting brand infringement would better be directed at the so-called "new Calvinists" than "Reformed Baptists." Talk about evangelifish! In many cases, you could give just about any braod evangelical a copy of R.C. Sproul or Piper and they would proclaim themselves "Reformed."
Probably. Doesn't bother me if people don't consider Baptists truly reformed. It's just a term.
I'm just a Baptist. I don't see a need to add "Reformed."
Totally agreeJust to stir the pot...
I wish there was a credobaptist (strictly) Presbyterian group. I see a lot of strength in Presbyterian polity.
I think Reformed Baptist should call themselves Particular Baptist because it connects us to the roots of our own past and gives I think a better description to what particular Baptists specifically believe.
David,
Most Reformed Baptist churches subscribe to the 1689 LBC. I believe the 1689 LBC to be a "concrete standard confession of faith." Is it perfect? No. It's a man made document, just like the WCF. However, I do believe it is the most faithful explanation of what RB's believe. As far as Particular Baptist vs. Reformed Baptist; I defer to the Reformed Baptist moniker. Particular Baptist seems to be a UK term. Reformed Baptist seems to be the American equivalent. I have no problem keeping it that way.
I think Reformed Baptist should call themselves Particular Baptist because it connects us to the roots of our own past and gives I think a better description to what particular Baptists specifically believe.
I wish it was as simple as that...but as you noted, terms can be loaded but some have lost there meaning. Placing "Particular" before Baptist does very little in the wide world of evangelical thought since the term "Particular" has lost its meaning.
Grimmson said:First of all, holding to the 1689 LBC has not official been established as a requirement for being classified as a Reformed Baptist. It is a general trend and a good trend. I subscribe to it myself. The problem is in relation to concrete terms. There is no uniformity established to this process of subscription. Also most of us hold to the RPW as well. However it has not been an established requirement for being called an Reformed Baptist as well. Personally I like to see the leaders carrying this title to get together and establish a required uniformity towards a confession of faith and views of worship for the sake of establishing a clear message of unity. Second of all, historically, particular Baptists was also a title applied here in the US. Reformed Baptist as a title didn't emerge until recent times, like mid to late 1960s. Therefore implying that Particular Baptist can be applied both here in the USA and in the UK, just as it was established prior to the falling out of this usage in the 19th century and eradicated by the 20th century here in the US.
How about "London Baptists"?
I think it has a ring...
How about "London Baptists"?
I think it has a ring...
I can dig it. lol
Can we get a list of these names so we can vote on'em?
Covenantal Baptist
Confessional Baptist
Particular Baptist
Strict & Particular Baptist
Confused Baptist
General Baptist
Regular Baptist
Grace Baptist
Old School Baptist
Primitive Baptist (I like it, it makes me think of Baptists who camp or spend time outdoors)
Calvinistic Baptist
Please add.
First of all, holding to the 1689 LBC has not official been established as a requirement for being classified as a Reformed Baptist. It is a general trend and a good trend. I subscribe to it myself. The problem is in relation to concrete terms. There is no uniformity established to this process of subscription. Also most of us hold to the RPW as well. However it has not been an established requirement for being called an Reformed Baptist as well.
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.
How about Strict and Particular Reformed Congregational Covenantal Calvinistic amillennial Baptists falsely called Anabaptists not to be confused with General Arminian Antinomian Dispensational Semi-Pentecostal Baptists?
Grimmson said:First of all, holding to the 1689 LBC has not official been established as a requirement for being classified as a Reformed Baptist. It is a general trend and a good trend. I subscribe to it myself. The problem is in relation to concrete terms. There is no uniformity established to this process of subscription. Also most of us hold to the RPW as well. However it has not been an established requirement for being called an Reformed Baptist as well. Personally I like to see the leaders carrying this title to get together and establish a required uniformity towards a confession of faith and views of worship for the sake of establishing a clear message of unity. Second of all, historically, particular Baptists was also a title applied here in the US. Reformed Baptist as a title didn't emerge until recent times, like mid to late 1960s. Therefore implying that Particular Baptist can be applied both here in the USA and in the UK, just as it was established prior to the falling out of this usage in the 19th century and eradicated by the 20th century here in the US.
David,
We're Baptists, not Presbyterians. There is no ecclesiastical authority, outside of the local church, that can determine what a church calls itself. Reformed Baptist has come to describe confessional subscription and a covenantal view of scripture. Reformed Baptist seems to have more gravitas than Particular Baptist in the United States. Organizations, such as ARBCA, are carrying the Reformed Baptist label internationally. It's not a matter of which Baptist label is better. The fact is that Reformed Baptist has come to describe the majority of confessional and covenantal Baptist congregations in the United States. There are plenty of Calvinistic Baptist churches that are neither confessional nor covenantal. The Founders Movement has plenty of these congregations, so does Sovereign Grace, Free Grace, and some Primitive Baptist churches. The reason Reformed Baptist appeals to me is that it emphasizes early confessional Baptist faith and practice, and highlights our place among other denominations within the Reformed community.
Grimmson said:First of all, holding to the 1689 LBC has not official been established as a requirement for being classified as a Reformed Baptist. It is a general trend and a good trend. I subscribe to it myself. The problem is in relation to concrete terms. There is no uniformity established to this process of subscription. Also most of us hold to the RPW as well. However it has not been an established requirement for being called an Reformed Baptist as well. Personally I like to see the leaders carrying this title to get together and establish a required uniformity towards a confession of faith and views of worship for the sake of establishing a clear message of unity. Second of all, historically, particular Baptists was also a title applied here in the US. Reformed Baptist as a title didn't emerge until recent times, like mid to late 1960s. Therefore implying that Particular Baptist can be applied both here in the USA and in the UK, just as it was established prior to the falling out of this usage in the 19th century and eradicated by the 20th century here in the US.
David,
We're Baptists, not Presbyterians. There is no ecclesiastical authority, outside of the local church, that can determine what a church calls itself. Reformed Baptist has come to describe confessional subscription and a covenantal view of scripture. Reformed Baptist seems to have more gravitas than Particular Baptist in the United States. Organizations, such as ARBCA, are carrying the Reformed Baptist label internationally. It's not a matter of which Baptist label is better. The fact is that Reformed Baptist has come to describe the majority of confessional and covenantal Baptist congregations in the United States. There are plenty of Calvinistic Baptist churches that are neither confessional nor covenantal. The Founders Movement has plenty of these congregations, so does Sovereign Grace, Free Grace, and some Primitive Baptist churches. The reason Reformed Baptist appeals to me is that it emphasizes early confessional Baptist faith and practice, and highlights our place among other denominations within the Reformed community.
I know we are not Presbyterians; however should this stop us from gathering together as an association of churches to establish categorically the meaning of terms of what makes someone a Reformed Baptist? Baptist theology does not prevent us from gathering together as a council to discuss such things within our associations. Words do in fact have meaning and we must apply the reality of such. Therefore applying the need for us to be able to apply a definitional defense for why we call ourselves what we call ourselves in relation to a objective, vs. subjective, view of history. One or two churches cannot apply such a defense, but needs to be done by such as the ARBCA, which I think they have been doing to a degree. I would be hesitate to call myself a Reformed Baptist because the early confessional Particular Baptists did not call themselves reformed purposely to my knowledge. There was a clear separation from the reformed tradition as a community. I think this reality should place into our minds the question of what the term reformed historically refers to and if the 17th century Baptists would associate themselves with us. My argument is, as hopefully I have made, one based on the meaning in history.
Associations like ARBCA developing such definitions are not giving them ecclesiastical authority concerning the practice of the local church. Churches, however, should not be seen standing alone locally and need to be connected to some body like an association. It also implies there needs to be established a sense of common definitions for the sake of communication, so that those outside and inside our traditions will not be confused over what is believed and practiced as the representative. Departure from what then is classified should result in removal from the association, which an association does of the right, for the sake of a defense of orthodox and plain communication. We may not like the idea of being removed from an association, but it should not be a local church alone that decides theologically what to call themselves in the scope of a broader theological context in relation to the teaching of scripture and doctrine in a systematic and historical fashion. There needs to be communicated in union the one faith that we all share and every church that has a similar title for themselves should want to join together for the sake of continuing the proclaimation of the gospel.
All of this is to say that the early Baptist churches in America needed each other! They needed each other in ways that Baptist churches today, with their access to information and education, can hardly imagine. Therefore, in its first half-century the Philadelphia Association addressed itself to the things that were "wanting" in the churches. What was "wanting" were answers to questions regarding baptism, ordination, church disputes, and theological issues. The association virtually served as a "Baptist Bishop," always functioning, however, in an advisory rather than judicial or legislative manner.
Confessionalism has helped me ground my belief system in something greater than my vacillating mind.