Distinctives of a Reformed Baptist

Discussion in '2003 Archive' started by Scott Cline, Oct 19, 2003.

  1. Scott Cline

    Scott Cline
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2003
    Messages:
    25
    Likes Received:
    0
    In another forum there was some discussion concerning Reformed Baptists. Some of us, such as myself, claim to be Dispensational Reformed Baptist; however, the number of deffinitions for a RB are as many as the people you ask. For instance, many RBs would balk at me calling myself RB because of my Dispensationalism.
    So what do you all think? Do any of you Covanental RBs begrudge me using the title? And how many other Dispensational Sovereign Grace Baptists are there out there? And if we can't use that title, what do you suggest?
     
  2. pinoybaptist

    pinoybaptist
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2002
    Messages:
    8,123
    Likes Received:
    1
    How about MRB ? Modern Day Reformed Baptists ?
    No offense, man. [​IMG] :D
     
  3. Scott Cline

    Scott Cline
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2003
    Messages:
    25
    Likes Received:
    0
    None taken. But how about just DRB?? But MRB...I dunno, Covenant THeology is only 50 years older than Dispensationalism, so I dunno if you can justly call it much more "modern" than Covanentalism. But anyways, perhaps I should just stick to "Sovereign Grace Baptist" when it comes to labels, so there's no confusion concerning the peripheral issues.
     
  4. Gunther

    Gunther
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2003
    Messages:
    616
    Likes Received:
    0
    Don't forget that you have to define dispensationalism.

    Do you mean the Grace Theological Dispensationalism, Dallas Theological Dispensationalism, Chaferian/Scofieldian Dispensationalism, New Covenant (Revised) Dispensationalism, LaHaye/Moron/Idiot Dispensationalism, Progressive Dispensationalism, or perhaps one I left off?

    Then, does your reformation theology include double predestination or just predestination of believers?

    Finally, does your Baptist mean independant, Southern, missionary, primitive, liberal, charismatic (chaotic), etc?

    We need clarification.

    Btw, I am a dispensational, reformed Baptist.
     
  5. Scott Cline

    Scott Cline
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2003
    Messages:
    25
    Likes Received:
    0
    I really only wanted a generalized label. But, if you want to know where I stand more specifically:
    DISPENSATIONALISM- somewhere between Progressive and Classical Dallas, but I still need to iron out the details.
    REFORMED- double predestination.
    BAPTIST- independant fundamental.
     
  6. Jim1999

    Jim1999
    Expand Collapse
    <img src =/Jim1999.jpg>

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2002
    Messages:
    15,460
    Likes Received:
    0
    What on earth is double predestination? Yes, I have seen the term before, but it is ridiculous and makes no sense whatever.

    Cheers,

    Jim
     
  7. Dr. Bob

    Dr. Bob
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    29,402
    Likes Received:
    12
    Dealing with the "lapsis" or decrees of God concerning salvation.

    Double - God elects x&y to go to heaven and a&b to go to hell. End of discussion.

    99% of us (Reformed Baptists) would eschew that position and go with simple Election of x&y to heaven and let all others make their own choice based upon their own nature - so they cannot blame God.
     
  8. Jim1999

    Jim1999
    Expand Collapse
    <img src =/Jim1999.jpg>

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2002
    Messages:
    15,460
    Likes Received:
    0
    The point is, Reformed does not espouse this so-called double predestination. I quite agree that God predestines some, the elect, to eternal bliss whilst passing by the remainder to eternal damnation, which requires no action whatever.

    Cheers,

    Jim
     
  9. Scott Cline

    Scott Cline
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2003
    Messages:
    25
    Likes Received:
    0
    I realize that a rejection of double predestination is popular, I rejected it myself for awhile. However, my accepting it is due to my understanding of God's sovereignty. Basically, I now see history a divinely written script, written in eternity past (for lack of a better explanation); and reject any creaturely autonomy (free will) as it would undermine God's absolute "Working all things after the council of His will." Of course, I do not purport that God is the author of sin- only that He ordained it, then brought it about in some manner that leaves Him totally holy and blameless, while man is left responsible (I don't claim to understand how He does that). I see God's hand in bringing about sin (including the rejection of the gospel) as active, not simply passive, yet the agent is accountable- he really did make the decision, but God really did ordain that he would. Anyways, this is basically irrelevent to our discussion- just thought I'd briefly explain supralapsarianism.
     
  10. Gunther

    Gunther
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2003
    Messages:
    616
    Likes Received:
    0
    I don't think any Christian should have a problem with the double predestination. If God has the right to the first part, he can certainly do the second. I don't know where I stand for sure. Probably just the first.

    Jim, Beza (Calvin's disciple) believe in it.
     
  11. Scott Cline

    Scott Cline
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2003
    Messages:
    25
    Likes Received:
    0
    Thanx Gunther- it's all about the Potter's power to make vessels of both honor and dishonor.
     
  12. USN2Pulpit

    USN2Pulpit
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2003
    Messages:
    1,641
    Likes Received:
    0
    I'm having a little trouble with this theology. Actually, a great amount of trouble. Did you really mean to say that God ordained sin? If so, could you please explain what you mean by it. I'm trying to understand what you're trying to say.

    How could God bring about and ordain sin while remaining blameless?
     
  13. Matt Black

    Matt Black
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2003
    Messages:
    9,141
    Likes Received:
    0
    It seems logical to me that if one accepts predestination/ determinism, it must be a double predestination - it follows that if God predestines x% to heaven, then (100- x )% must be similarly predestined to hell.

    Now, some definitions please. I'm pretty sure I understand what 'Reformed' means: historically, this has meant some kind of Calvinism/predestinarianism/determinism, but what or who is a 'Covenant' Baptist?

    Yours in Christ (and ignorance)

    Matt
     
  14. 3John2

    3John2
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2003
    Messages:
    96
    Likes Received:
    0
    JUst curious but why the disparaging comments on LaHaye?
     
  15. Tim

    Tim
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2001
    Messages:
    967
    Likes Received:
    0
    I'm not a dispensationalist myself, but I can understand why many dispies distance themselves from LaHaye--he might more properly be called a DispSensationalist. As with others of his ilk (Jack Van Impe, etc.), he seems a little off and yet dogmatic about his theological eccentricities.

    Tim
     
  16. Scott Cline

    Scott Cline
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2003
    Messages:
    25
    Likes Received:
    0
    Firstly, yes, there is a Baptistic form of Covenant Theology. I believe it's basically similar to regular Cov.Theo., but rejects the extreme typology found in Presbyterianism- which leads to infant baptism, unsaved church membership, etc.
    Concerning God's Sovereignty in sin- it's hard to understand, but must be accepted. The premise is that God is behing the scenes, actively working out EVERYTHING as He sees fit for His purpose. You'll see me use this verse alot, but Eph.1:11 is pretty clear about that. However, He is impeccably holy, so though He is even in control of, and planned, sin- He remains blameless. Now, how does He do that? haha, no idea!! Now you will be quick to say that I've taken Eph.1:ll way too far, so let me give you a list of example verses that clearly show God bringing about sin, for the sake of His greater purpose: Is.10:1-6, Ps.105:25, Is.19:14, Judges 9:23, 1 Sam.16:14, Acts 4:27-28, Acts 2:22-23, Is.29:9-10, Ex.7:3-5, Is.44:18, Is.63:17, Josh 11:20, Deut.2:30, Jer.5:15, Prov.16:4 (in order to make wicked men, you have to make men wicked), Rom.9:18, Is.45:7, Lam.3:38, Job 2:10, Job 12:6-9, Ps.17:13-14, Prov.21:1 (is this limited to good kings making good decisions? or is it broader?), 2 Sam.16:10, 2 Chron.18:22, Ezra 14:9-10, 2 Thess.2:11-12, Rev.17:16-17, Ps.90:3, Matt.11:25, Deut.13:1-5, Joel 3:2, Rev.17:17, Deut.29:4, Ecc.7:14, etc.etc.
    I could go on, these are only some of the passages I have noticed so far in my Bible study. No doubt, you will be able to explain some of them away, and some will not be satisfactory to you- but I don't think you can argue against my position until you've reconciled in your mind each and every one of these verses. God bless your study!
     
  17. 3John2

    3John2
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2003
    Messages:
    96
    Likes Received:
    0
    I've never read any of LaHayes books or seen him preach but when you mentioned Van Impe you needn't say more.
     
  18. Tim

    Tim
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2001
    Messages:
    967
    Likes Received:
    0
    Scott,

    Having been pretty involved in a Reformed Baptist church for a while--I think your asessment that extreme typology leads to infant baptism might be a little off target.

    The key error of Covenant theology IMHO is that they tie the Old and New Covenants together--making them one covenant "in two administrations". Thus they miss the dramatic differences between the two:

    The Old Covenant was made with the physical nation of Israel--they entered it by physical birth. But the New Covenant is made with believers, regardless of their physical heritage. One can only enter into that covenant by spiritual birth. Hence the baptism of believers, rather than infants, is symbolic of that fundamental New Covenant change.

    The relationship to Mosaic Law vs. the Law of Christ is another fundamental issue that I believe many Covenant brothers misunderstand, again because they fail to distinguish clearly between the two Covenants.

    I think the typology of the Scriptures is very rich--to recognize that fact will not lead to bad theology--but bad theology makes a poor foundation for typology.

    In Christ,

    Tim
     
  19. Ray Berrian

    Ray Berrian
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2002
    Messages:
    5,178
    Likes Received:
    0
    Tim,

    You are correct when you said, 'The key error of Covenant theology IMHO is that they tie the Old and New Covenants together--making them one covenant "in two administrations". Thus they miss the dramatic differences between the two . . . '

    Since I cannot come into the Baptist Only, please, Email me at [email protected] if you are so moved.

    Hebrews chapter eight has not only the two but a third covenant. See if you can find it if you don't know about it already. Hebrews 8:6 speaks of a 'better covenant' and 'better promises,' so a two covenant scheme is viable and important in the Lord's dispensing of His truth.

    Ray Berrian, Th.D.
     
  20. Scott Cline

    Scott Cline
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2003
    Messages:
    25
    Likes Received:
    0
    Thanx for the correction. The reason I said what I did about the typology, is due to Presbyterian brethren taking one type (Israel/church), and using that as a basis for some strange views- such as carrying OT practices over to the church, applying Jewish conditional promises to the church, cutting "Israel" out of prophetic passages and pasting in "church", and reading the NT back into the OT in order to establish an OT "church", etc. But yes, this is really all based in not distinguishing God's "change of plans" between the two Covenants.
    I suppose the Covanentalists use of typology has make me wary of the whole thing, I only wish a Dispensationalist would write a book on the topic.
     

Share This Page

Loading...