Dump Reformed, adopt Historic or Founders

Please don't try to drag a red herring into this discussion. The historic Baptist Faith I am talking about had nothing to do with slavery. If you don't believe me read the Abstract of Principles of the Southern Seminary. They are short. If you are still not convinced read the Philadelphia Confession, the 1689 London Confession or the 1644 London Confession. In any event please be courteous enough not to try to divert thuis discussion.

 

I am not trying to rewrite history. There is nothing in Baptist polity and practice that are remnants of a Roman Cathilic heritage as there in the Reformation Churches.

There have always been churches that dissented from the Romonan or Eastern Orthodox communions. I would not argue as some do that these churches were Baptist. Furthermore, I would note that the doctrine of election and the Sovereign Grace of God in Salvation did not originate with the reformers but with the Bible!

The point I am trying to make in the OP is that the name Reformed carries a lot of baggage among those of the Baptist Faith. I simply believe that the Doctrines of Grace which were an essential aspect of the Historic Baptist [Particular] Faith and the Southern Baptist Faith as enumerated in the named confessions have a better chance of being accepted among Baptists if we avoid the term Reformed.

We can agree on this point, although I suspect that the Presbyterians would strongly disagree. They would say you are rewriting history.

I would not argue that the historic Baptist [Particular] position on election and Sovereign Grace are not closely akin to the position of the Reformers. I would simply note again that the doctrine of election and the Sovereign Grace of God in Salvation did not originate with the reformers but with the Bible! However, as I noted in the OP I see nothing in Baptist polity and practice that is derived from the Roman or Easter Orthodox Communions.

Most, if not all, of the Churches that came out of the reformation practice infant baptism or baptismal regeneration, have a clerical heirarchy, and take an unScriptural view of the Lord's Supper. Baptists do not.

 

You might consider the following Scripture before you get in over your head!

Malachi 3:6 For I am the LORD, I change not;

Jeremiah 6:16 Thus saith the LORD, Stand ye in the ways, and see, and ask for the old paths, where is the good way, and walk therein, and ye shall find rest for your souls. But they said, We will not walk therein.

Don't be like those who ignored the prophet Jeremiah who declared We will not walk therein.

 

I thought the Baptist church started with John the Baptist when he by inspiration penned the King James Bible. </font>[/QUOTE]No! It was started by Jesus Christ. It just got corrupted by the perversity of man with time.

 

Prove it!

 

You correctly state that the mode of baptism and believer's baptism was the [perhaps more correctly "a"] dividing issue. Horever, it cannot be too strongly stated that the true Church consists of believers only and a that a Biblical local church should consist of believers only who have received Scriptural Baptism.

 

Some on this thread have already argued that all history is biased so where is your proof?

 

I thought it worthwhile to repeat the OP for those who seem to have trouble understanding the purpose.

"There is a very welcome movement within the Southern Baptist Churches to return to the historic doctrines of the Church, particularly in regard to the Doctrines of Grace. The term, Reformed, is frequently applied to this movement and the associated Churches.

I frankly think that use of this term is both incorrect and counterproductive.

First: Baptist Churches did not come from the Reformation movement. Most, if not all, Churches that came out of the Reformation still retain some of the errors of Roman Catholicism, for example: infant Baptism and, among some groups, Baptismal Regeneration.

Second: There is a definite repugnance among Baptists to the name Reformed. They associate it with some of the errors of the Reformation Churches and therefore reject the notion of Reformed Baptists without knowing what these Baptists believe.

In my opinion Baptists would be much better served if they talked about returning to the Historic Baptist Faith. Perhaps those who are associated with the Founders movement have recognized this though I believe, but am not certain, that they use the term, Reformed, on occasion.

The Historic Baptist Faith is perhaps best represented by the 1689 Baptist Confession [Second London Confession] or the Philadelphia Confession, the American version. This Historic Baptist Faith is summarized by the Abstract of Principles of the first Southern Baptist Seminary and is still in effect at Southern Seminary."

Please note:
1. The OP notes that there is within the Southern Baptist Church a movement to return to the historic doctrines of the Church, particularly in regard to the Doctrines of Grace.
2. Churches involved in this movement frequently uses the term Reformed.
3. The point of the OP was that because of the bias against this name "Reformed" the use of a different term might be more preferable.

Please note further:

4. There is no effort to suggest that all Southern Baptists should return to the historic doctrines of Grace. Most Southern Baptist Churches are well entrenched in the slough of Arminianism and Dispensationalism and there is little hope of recovery.

Unfortunately, rather than discuss the point of the OP there have been remarks about:

1. Slavery.
2. The rewriting of history.
3. The validity/perversion of history.
4. The usefulness of history. [ I would point out here that the Scriptures themselves are a record of the history of the Faith.]

 

I repeat again. Church history shows that there have always been dissenters from the Roman and Orthodox communions!