NOT saying that the Confessions are bad or wrong to use, just think that we can and should learn from the Bible only for doctrines and practices!
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Do reformed baptists see themeselves as being Primarily Baptist or Reformed?
- Thread starter Yeshua1
- Start date
NOT saying that the Confessions are bad or wrong to use, just think that we can and should learn from the Bible only for doctrines and practices!
here is exactly why I say you would benefit from such;
1689-Confession;
The first words of it-
Chapter 1: Of the Holy Scriptures
1._____ The Holy Scripture is the only sufficient, certain, and infallible rule of all saving knowledge, faith, and obedience,
Do not listen to imbeciles who say....I just use...THE BIBLE ONLY.....as if the godly men who wrote this documents did not believe that.
A confessional person 9 times out of ten are going to know their bible exceedingly more than non confessional people. They are immersed in the bible all the time......do you think they just pull these teachings out of their butt?
The reasons the confessions or solid biblical catechisms have stood the test of time is that none of the gainsayers can dispute much of what is in there because of the extensive bible study that went into writing them.
From A Baptist Catechism with Commentary...
We hold to reformed doctrine of grace NOT to all the covenantal theology of many "reformed".
We hold to Baptist distinctives and polity of church function and proudly Baptist, not Presbyterian wannabes.
But doctrine of grace will ALWAYS trump polity/distinctives of how we do "church".
Sadly, "reformed" today for many is to embrace all of reformed theology, a hodgepodge of good/bad/ugly. I reject that out of hand.
Historically, we are call PARTICULAR BAPTISTS, the oldest, basic English Baptists. 1644 London Baptist Confession was formed by these first English Baptist churches and pastors.
We hold to Baptist distinctives and polity of church function and proudly Baptist, not Presbyterian wannabes.
But doctrine of grace will ALWAYS trump polity/distinctives of how we do "church".
Sadly, "reformed" today for many is to embrace all of reformed theology, a hodgepodge of good/bad/ugly. I reject that out of hand.
Historically, we are call PARTICULAR BAPTISTS, the oldest, basic English Baptists. 1644 London Baptist Confession was formed by these first English Baptist churches and pastors.
Bob,
I am sure you will agree that Baptists are not a monolithic bunch. Reformed Baptists are no different.
The church I minister in is Reformed, Confessional, and Covenantal. We are not Presbyterian wannabees, although we have much in common with our Reformed Presbyterian brethren. We hold to the doctrines of grace, see the 1689 Second London Baptist Confession of Faith as a faithful exposition of biblical doctrine, and view the Bible as expressed in a series of covenants (from the Covenant of Works to the Covenant of Redemption or Grace). Of course we disagree with our Presbyterian brethren in that we believe in the discontinuity of the Abrahamic Covenant.
I understand there are Reformed Baptist Churches that believe the term "Reformed" describes their stance on the doctrines of grace. I think that is a generous use of the term. The old English "Particular Baptist" may be a more accurate moniker.
I fellowship with ARBCA and cannot join because I will not embrace full Covenant Theology (I find it truly in error; another thread). But over all, these are my sort of people.
I speak annually at the Midlands Sovereign Grace Conference because we are more dispensational (or like me, progressive) and still reformed in the doctrines of grace.
Baptists even within an association or convention or group are not monolithic. Man, I don't even agree with my wife all the time. :saint:
There are other areas of "reformed" theology with which I fully disagree, but you won't fine a stronger defender of God's sovereignty than me, as would, I assume, every type of "reformed" believer.
I speak annually at the Midlands Sovereign Grace Conference because we are more dispensational (or like me, progressive) and still reformed in the doctrines of grace.
Baptists even within an association or convention or group are not monolithic. Man, I don't even agree with my wife all the time. :saint:
There are other areas of "reformed" theology with which I fully disagree, but you won't fine a stronger defender of God's sovereignty than me, as would, I assume, every type of "reformed" believer.
preacher4truth
Active Member
Keep that up and you'll become a Deformed Baptist.
I understand the rational in not walking lockstep with ARBCA on covenant theology though I am not convinced Dispensational Theology is correct either so Ive been reading about other theologies that are far more comprehensive.....however nobodies completely rolled them out yet. Until then, I will remain noncommittal.
Regarding Doctrines of Grace, Im right there because I see it justified in scripture. But thats me, thats how I roll.
So what are these "far more comprehensive" theologies? By that,you may mean doctrinal planks.
I said they havent been released to the public, so I wont discuss in detail. Sufficient to say, Im not on board with either of the present ones out there.
yes, that is why I see myself as a Christian, who is a Baptist, who accepts reformed doctines of grace, but also holds to Dispy views, so reject Covenant theology and necessity of the Confessions!
maybe means among we baptists there would be reformed and calvinist Baptists then?
Guess I am a Dr McArthur lite!
Last edited by a moderator:
Remember, whatever the amalgam is :Nothing is new under the sun.
Know that there is supossed to be coming some time int he future a theological text that regards Election of/by God as the Central theme of the Bible, would that be like what you are talking about?
And Rippon is right, nothing new under the Sun, and NO system of theology inspired!
Not unless you belong to groups such as RCC/JW/SDA/Mormones/Oneness etc that can claim additional revelations coming from God!
preacher4truth
Active Member
I'd be seriously concerned for myself and for others to believe and be hoodwinked that they (or myself) would be privy to some 'new truth/deeper truth' out there coming down the pike.
Some elite group that is privy to this, revealed to a 'select few'?
Oh boy... :type: :wavey:
that is what happens when one does not hold to a completed and final canon of the Bible, as there has been NO forthcoming revelations from God since John died!
preacher4truth
Active Member
Such an move does not only come from those in the position you describe. Some simply repudiate so many theologies and positions that they will be looking for other winds of doctrine and may be tossed about by them -- Eph. 4:14.
One isn't saved within orthodox camps due to a precise razor sharp theological position, nor does having a sold theological base prove salvation. It all goes back to the 5 Solas, and they all point to the fact it is only through Christ -- Acts 15:11.
Yea so what
saturneptune
New Member
Yes, the message of Ecclesiastes. Because there is nothing new under the sun however, does not mean someone understands everything there is under the sun. Some people on this board have learned nothing of spiritual substance. Of course, no connection is meant towards you.
I hope you are right.
No God forbid!