Reformed Baptists

[bfdd6988]

I'm curious if the Baptists who post in this forum are majority 5-point Calvinist or a mixture of Calvinist and Arminian (ex. 3-pt Calvinist,2-pt Arminian).

 

[mikedsjr]

I used to be 5 pt, but now I'm somewhere between Calvinism and Lutheran.

 

[JLR1300]

I'm a type of 5 point that nowadays isn't really considered a true 5 point by modern Calvinists. First, I hold to the more traditional view of Limited atonement that teaches the efficient, sufficient view. It is that Christ died for the elect and His blood is efficient for them but it is also sufficient for everyone. In other words His blood is sufficient for everyone if they will believe in Him but it's just that they don't want to... and since God only gives faith to the elect the blood ends up being really only efficient for them. Also I believe that God has a certain desire for everyone to be saved but He allows them to refuse to believe. However, in the case of the elect His desire for their salvation is stronger... He will not take no for an answer, but will open their minds to the truth and by doing that irresistibly draw them to believe in Christ.

Again I have come to think recently that regeneration follows faith. I believe that God unconditionally elects some to salvation in eternity...... and then in time He sovereignly gives them faith by a supernatural work of the Holy Spirit wherein He reveals the truth to their spirits ...which causes them to believe... and then they are justified. Only then are they regenerated and indwelt by the Holy Spirit.

My reason for believing this is that ....

A. John 1: 12 says that ... to those that received Him to them He gave the authority to become the children of God." That plainly teaches that we must believe before we have the authority to be born into His family as His child.

B. The verses that say that the new birth is not by the will of man, but that the Spirit gives it to whomever He wills, are true. However, the reason regeneration is not by the will of man is because the Spirit implants faith in whoever He wills and that immediately causes justification and then the new birth.

C. If God regenerates us first before He gives us faith and justification then for a split second, so to speak, God has a Child who is legally under the sentence of eternal death.

D. Romans 4:5 says "to the one who does not work but believes on Him who justified THE UNGODLY, his faith is accounted as righteousness" God does not justify those who have become good through regeneration. He justifies the ungodly (the unregenerate). The regenerate are not thought of as "the ungodly" in scripture. So as unregenerate ungodly people we are sovereignly given faith and justified... then we are regenerated and indwelt by the Spirit. The only other conclusion is that only those who have become good can be justified. If regeneration precedes faith then we are forced to conclude that God justifies the godly.

E. In Romans 7 Paul says that when He thought He was keeping the Law He considered himself legally alive. But when He realized that he had coveted He died. That means that he realized that he was legally dead ... (under the sentence of death by the Law) So in Ephesians 2 when we read that we were dead in trespasses and sins it means that we were legally dead (under the sentence of death) because of our trespasses and sins. It also does mean that we are unwilling to follow God. It does not mean, however, that our spirits are actually dead. We are not literally a physical body walking around with a dead spirit inside it. We are legally dead but then Christ makes us legally alive by grace by giving us faith and justifying us and regenerating us.

So as the type of Calvinist I am (which would be considered a moderate Calvinist by some) I don't have any problem preaching to the lost and telling them that "Christ died for our sins".... because His blood is there for everyone.

 

[JM]

I'm a "Reformed" Baptist and becoming more and more Reformed everyday.

Many of us refer to the 1689 Baptist Confession as a standard and the standard rejects 4 pointerism.

jm

 

[angelwind]

I am just now finding the reformed Baptists.....I go to a local Baptist church...must say being a "Calvinist"....is very lonely....most folks are not interested in doctrine or theology.
But I believe the scriptures uphold the 5 solas...makes me feel just wonderful to know God is sovereign over "everything"...even my growing pains.

 

[JLR1300]

"Many of us refer to the 1689 Baptist Confession as a standard and the standard rejects 4 pointerism.".

Many of us refer to the Bible as the standard. : ) Have a nice day.

 

[Vigilant]

I'm curious if the Baptists who post in this forum are majority 5-point Calvinist or a mixture of Calvinist and Arminian (ex. 3-pt Calvinist,2-pt Arminian).

Neither. I'm a Christian.

 

[JM]

"Many of us refer to the 1689 Baptist Confession as a standard and the standard rejects 4 pointerism.".

Many of us refer to the Bible as the standard. : ) Have a nice day.

Lol I stand corrected. I should clarify what I meant. Reformed Baptists define what we believe with scripture alone, but make use of our historic confessions as a means to activity seek unity among our Elders and congregations. The Bible is our standard and all confessions and creeds are subornate to the word of God.

Next time I'll spend a few seconds longer thinking about it before I answer.



Have a good evening.

j to the m

 

[twin1954]

I am a full 5 point ultra-high Calvinist but I am not Reformed. I am a historical Baptist and hold to the Baptist distinctives strongly. I subscribe to no confession for I find that I can only agree with one, John Gill's Goatyard Confession. I reject that we are under the law in any sense and progressive sanctification. I hold to eternal justification and I reject duty faith and the so-called free offer.

Still I have no problem calling on all to believe the Gospel. I seek to preach Christ and Him crucified.

 

[twin1954]

I'm curious if the Baptists who post in this forum are majority 5-point Calvinist or a mixture of Calvinist and Arminian (ex. 3-pt Calvinist,2-pt Arminian).

I think you will find a mix. That is why the debates get so heated at times.

 

[Hammster]

I'm a "Reformed" Baptist and becoming more and more Reformed everyday.

Many of us refer to the 1689 Baptist Confession as a standard and the standard rejects 4 pointerism.

jm

^^^This.

 

[DeaconDean]

"Reformed Baptists"? Hum...

That is a tricky situation.

Was I educated in "reformed theology"?

Yes.

Would I call myself "Reformed"?

Not necessarily.

History has shown that over 400 years, Baptists have favored "Calvinism".

The 2nd London Baptist Confession, and the Philadelphia Baptist Association Confession of Faith of 1742 were Calvinistic by nature.

Am I a 5 pointer?

Yes, not because Calvinism dictates so, but because I am convinced scriptures teach it.

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[JM]

Modern Baptists, Calvinist or otherwise, seem to dislike creeds and confessions but this wasn’t the case historically. There was a backlash against “dead credalism” that some Baptists took to the extreme and reject all forms of credalism. Dr. Ascol mentions the history in his portion of the video linked below. Baptists did not reject creeds and confessions, only the way the Presbyterians and Congregationalists used them, but I believe this was more of an issue of assuming your children where in the covenant rather than the use of creeds and confessions.

Yours in the Lord,

jm

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5SyzCxuU3UQ

 

[DeaconDean]

15 years ago, when the BF&M of 2000 was issued, there boiled over again the issue of creeds and confessions.

Here is part of an article from "The Baptist Standard":

"Let us not be deluded into thinking that the Southern Baptist Convention can integrate Southern Baptist thought by fiat of creedal declarations. Is it a response to the Southern Baptist Convention's more narrowly defined version of the Baptist Faith & Message recently adopted in Orlando, Fla.? No, actually it's a statement published in the Baptist Standard April 30, 1925, when the SBC stood on the brink of adopting the first Baptist Faith & Message document in Memphis, Tenn. The warning was penned by John Ellington White, at the time pastor of First Baptist Church of Anderson, S.C., and president of Anderson College...On one hand, "No creed but the Bible" has been Baptists' mantra from their emergence as a distinctly identifiable group. Yet on the other hand, Baptists from the beginning often have written statements of faith to let others know what they believe...Baptists had been persecuted for not adhering to the authority of the state church and for insisting that every believer should have direct access to God without coercion from church leaders and without being required to work through a human intermediary or subscribe to a human-written creed.
___Historically, Baptists have shunned creeds," Alan Lefever said. In England, early Baptists "refused to adopt a confession. They said we need no confession but the Bible...And when the SBC was formed in 1845, no confession of faith or creed was adopted. W.B. Johnson, first president of the SBC, explained: "We have constructed for our basis no new creed, acting in this manner upon a Baptist aversion for all creeds but the Bible."
___Prior to this time, numerous confessions of faith had been written by individual Baptists, local churches and associations. In fact, in the early days, Baptist churches and pastors would exchange statements of faith as part of the process of calling new pastors, McBeth said.
___The tension over confessions of faith also surfaced in early America as the so-called Regular Baptists and Separate Baptists eventually came together, McBeth said. "The Separates insisted that there be no confession, but the Regulars had a confession."
___To resolve the difference, both groups agreed the confession of faith would be "advisory only" and that no one would be required to subscribe to every point, McBeth said.
___The SBC existed for 80 years--more than half its current life--without adopting any confession of faith. If you read the preamble to the (1925) Baptist Faith & Message, it basically says you can disagree with all this and it is OK. The preamble is the safety valve for Southern Baptists."

"Baptists have debated creeds & confessions for centuries", By: Mark Wingfield, Managing Editor, The Baptist Standard

http://www.baptiststandard.com/2000/...es/creeds.html

There are and have been, some churches which required a person to stand up and recite one of the historic creeds.

And there are some churches which require you adhere to a certain Confession, such as The Westminster Confession, or the Nicene Creed.

I have been a Baptist since 1974, and neither one were required of me to recite or adhere to, to be part of the Baptist church.

And when it does, I shall withdraw from the "Baptist" faith and become an "Independent Baptist".

Here again, I draw attention to an article written a few years back by: Lawrence A. Justice; "Are Baptists Reformed?"

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[JM]

If Dean wrote was true...why did the SBC and SBTS only allow those who signed their confession join SBC and teach at SBTS?

Please, watch Dr. Ascol's presentation.

Yours in the Lord,

jm

 

[JM]

Benajah Harvey Carroll:

“The modern cry: ‘Less creed and more liberty,’ is a degeneration from the vertebrate to the jellyfish, and means less unity and less morality, and it means more heresy. Definitive truth does not create heresy it only exposes and corrects. Shut off the creed and the Christian world would fill up with heresy unsuspected and uncorrected, but none the less deadly.”

An Interpretation of the English Bible, Ephesians 4.

A two part sermon on Creeds and Confessions can be read online here.

 

[DeaconDean]

If Dean wrote was true...why did the SBC and SBTS only allow those who signed their confession join SBC and teach at SBTS?

Please, watch Dr. Ascol's presentation.

Yours in the Lord,

jm

I cannot speak for the actions of James P. Boyce, founder of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary.

I do know that to insure the teachers taught according to Boyce's beliefs.

It is also wrong to hold every Baptist seminary to the same standard as SBTS. I know SEBTS does the same, well...used to.

In fact, the 1858 Abstract of Principles is the same one used until 1925 for Southern Baptists.

It was a safeguard against "modernist" teachings also.

Please the history of Crawford H. Toy for example.

And again, please read the preamble for the 1925 BF&M. It basically sats, you can disagree with what is presented and that is okay.

So again, once I am made to adhere, sign, or recite any creed or confession, I'll withdraw from the SBC.

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[JM]

Dean, I like how you wrote that it was a "safeguard." Confessions and creeds are still used that way today.

Peace,

jm

 

[charles at doctrineprimer]

Neither. I'm a Christian.

It is great that your Christian, but how did you become one? Knowing how a man comes to God and understands how he is saved by Him is important. Being a baby Christian is okay for baby Christians, but it is time to grow up and understand how the world of salvation works. To learn how and why God saves a man is part of the growth of a Christian.

 

[PrincetonGuy]

I'm curious if the Baptists who post in this forum are majority 5-point Calvinist or a mixture of Calvinist and Arminian (ex. 3-pt Calvinist,2-pt Arminian).

I am an historical Baptist (before Calvinism was brought into our Baptist churches), which means that I reject all five points of Calvinism as new and novel doctrines, doctrines that were concocted by men rather than learned from the Bible.