Question about "Reformed Baptists"

Depends whether you're a Particular or General Baptist, old boy....

Yours in Christ

Matt

 

What is a reformed Baptist Church?

Try this:

http://www.prbc.org/ReformedBaptist.htm

 

Rich - The General Baptists are believed to have begun in London with the congregation of Thomas Helwys. He had been a somewhat calvinistic congregational minister and had worked with John Smyth. They came to a belief in believer's baptism and adopted more of an Arminian stance. Within a few decades there were lots of General Baptist congregations, and as far as I know, we cannot be totally sure that they all emerged out of Helwys' church, especially since there had been lots of Dutch anabaptists in England, and many of the practices of the early General Baptists seem to reflect Dutch influence rather than congregational influence.

Anyway, the Particular Baptists began as an offshoot of a Calvinistic congregational church. Though they believed in the five points, on many other issues they were different from Calvinism. Their descendents today are more the Strict and Particular Baptists like the Gospel Standards, rather than Reformed Baptists. For example they rejected the Reformed idea that believers are under the moral law as a rule of life; they rejected seminary education, and the rejected the legal preaching of the puritans as a way for awakening sinners.

After the Act of Uniformity many Independent churches of a Reformed type were started, and many Particular Baptist churches became more Reformed, reflecting the new members beliefs.

The present Metropolitan Tabernacle was bought as a disused building by Master's people. There is no continuity with Spurgeon's congregation, and even the building only has the same front facade as Spurgeon's. As with many Victorian era Baptists, there was more of a Particular influence on Spurgeon. For example he taught that man is spirit, soul, and body, and not just soul and body as the Reformed teach.

So as far as we can tell, both types of Baptists came out of the Reformation - the Particulars via English Congregationalism, and the Generals via Congregationalism and Anabaptism. But the Anabaptists themselves rose largely out of the Zwinglian Reformation in Zurich.

Dean

 

perhaps you need to re-read what Calvin said
real calvinists are baby sprinklers

 

The writer of this post needs a WHOLE LOT of prayer!

 

If one believes Calvinism is not quite correct and Arminianism is not quite correct either, does that mean one may be reformed?

Or, does it mean one is "simply" Baptist?

 

AMEN BRO!!!

Actually, I prefer to use the term "sovereign grace" rather than "calvinist". First, because I disagree with MANY elements of Calvin's theology (by the way, most "Reformed" people, including Presbyterians, do not follow his teachings...Calvin and Calvinists don't necessarly say the same thing). Second,because I am sure that Calvin would have hated to see people taking his name. And, third, because our views on salvation are not calvinist, they're just biblical.

Thomas

 

Rich, There was a view that said that the anabaptists are descended from the Waldenses or the Bohemian Brethren, and it looks like pockets of these groups merged in with the Anabaptists, but most books trace the anabaptists to the group which began in Zurich with Conrad Grebel, Felix Manz, and George Blaurock, and these had previously been involved with the Zwinglian Reformation, and broke away completely by 1525. There were Dutch anabaptists in England, and perhaps even Lollards who held to believers baptism, as late as the reign of Henry VIII, and I am sure these had an influence on the rise of the English General Baptists. Generally speaking, the General Baptists are regarded as coming from Helwys' congregation, but I have doubts about that myself.

The Particular Baptists originated from a congregational church formed in 1616 under Henry Jacob (1563-1624) in Southwark, London. This has become known as the "Jacob-Lathrop-Jessey Church," after the succession of ministers there. In 1633 a new church was formed from this congregation at Wapping, under John Spilsbury. This church rejected infant baptism, and was the first particular baptist church. Some years later it is possible that a number from the new church visited the Netherlands to receive baptism from the Mennonites (the Blount Mission), believing that they did not have the authority to baptise themselves, since that would mean an unbaptised person would have to initiate. This upset the pastor and some others! By 1644, when the first Baptist Confession was written, there were seven particular baptist congregations in London.

In America, most Baptist churches came out of the Particular Baptists, and we know for certainty that they sprang from a congregational church in the 1630s. In England, as you know, there are alot of General Baptist type churches. I was a member of one in Luton, Beds.

[ August 17, 2004, 01:01 PM: Message edited by: dean198 ]

 

Reformed Baptist are more then just Calvinistic, we also hold to Covenant theolgoy but differ on a few areas from the Presbyterians and Dutch Reformed. Those areas have a direct relation on why we do not Baptize babies. For a good resource on these differences from a Reformed Baptist perspective see Jewett's book Infant Baptism And The Covenant of Grace

As a reformed Baptist myself I readily admit that the more I grow in my own faith the more I find in common with Presbyterians, and less with some Baptists I see and read.

It should be also noted that as the link to the article on here said Refromed Baptists may not be directly linked to the Reformation but follows in the tradition of the teachings of it and the people who followed after it. Although I don't agree with everything Calvin, the Puritians even Warfield said I agree with a great deal of it. To see the relationship between Reformed Baptists and those who followed in the Presbyterian tradition simply compare the Westminster Standards with the LBC1689.

Bryan
SDG

 

The closest you can come to being a Reformed Baptist and not follow a form of Covenant Theology (Not Presbyterian, Baptist covenant Theology, there are differences or else the LBC1689 and Westminster would be the same) would be John MacArthur. I love what MacArthur teaches (He proclaims the doctrines of Grace as well but that doesn't make him a Refromed Baptist!), he's right in so many areas but he looses it, IMHO, on Covenant Theology where he falls into the dispensational teaching, leaky Dispy at that, but still not Covenant Theology.

I'm not here to debate what is more biblical as to Covenant or Dispensational, those arguments I see re-hashed on here again and again without much edification comming from it, but it is impossible not to follow a form of Covenant Theology when holding to the LBC1689.

Chapter 7 point 2 and 3 demands that you accept an overriding covenant of grace inwhich the other covenants function. It also demands a belief in a Covenant of Redemption. It doesn't specifcily mention that Adam was under a Covenant of works, only briefly and vaugly mentioning that Covenant in chapter 19, so there is a bit of leeway given there...But I just cannot see any dispensationalist being able to accept the confession yet hold to their dispensational beliefs without severly modifiying them unless I don't understand Covenant Theology.

Bryan
SDG

 

Bugman,

This is PRECISELY, why,as a Sovereign Grace Baptist,I do NOT hold to the 1689 confession of faith (unless it is modified, of course): because I see Covenant Theology as wrong and misguided.
If we want to hold to an ORIGINAL expression of Sovereign Grace Baptist Faith, why do not we go back to the First London Confession of Faith (1644-1646)?

 

I have only skimmed through the 1644 Confession. As I understand it there is nothing in that confession that would contridict the 1689 one, as there were some churches that signed both in their time, but that the 1689 one does go further then the first one did.

I don't go back to it becasue the 1689 one is a good expression, for the most part, of what I believe. I can understand why those who disagree with Covenant Theology would go back to the first one however.

Bryan
SDG

 

I see the two covenants, law and grace, in the Bible, period!

Dispensationalism is theological nonsense!

 

Dr Bob,

I would agree with you on that. I can find covenants in the Bible,but I guess both you and I would refuse to consider them as mere "different adminsitrations of the Covenant of Grace". This being said, I've been interested to find out in our forums that you and others are Calvinists AND commited to a dispensational hermeneutic...That was refreshing

Bugman
Concerning the two London Confessions of Faith, they have major differences. Whether modern Reformed Baptists like it or not, the 1644-1646 version reflects the original Particular Baptist theology (especially in its views on the covenants and the Law)whereas the 1689 is a Baptist version of the Westminster Confession, adopted largely for political reasons.
Don't believe I bash the Second LBC: we've made references to both versions in the preamble of our church confession of faith. It's just that I am 100% sovereign grace (supralapsarian "high calvinist" if you care)but with fundamental problems with covenant theology as it is traditionaly expressed.

Maybe you guys would enjoy a pretty interesting article

www.dtl.org/calvinism/article/wright/historical-1.htm