Are Baptists who hold to TULIP also Reformed?

[the particular baptist]

It's an overdone topic.

It is, im gonna try and get back to the OP.

 

[the particular baptist]

The traditional Baptism as practice by the Jews is interesting.

Interesting page. I'll read it more closely tonight.

 

[heymikey80]

Mike, the other passages shed the light necessary to conclude that only believers were immersed.

Well, not really. As the citation from Schaeffer pointed out.

It is plain as day for me. Whats not really plain is the good and necessary consequence by which infant sprinkling is called baptism. Again, not a single verse.

Well, there are good and necessary consequences of baptizing infants, right? You'd have children as members of Christ's Body, the church -- right? Does Scripture ever address children as if they're members of the church?

For the record, baptism can be performed by immersing infants. Check the citation above.

Not so Mike. Every New Testament passage plainly says believers were immersed.

Cite one plain statement that only confessing believers were baptized. Where's the exclusion of people with no confession of their belief, in any familial baptism? Where's it in any group baptism, where infants would not be handed to passersby?

The word means immersed when referring to the Ordinance and who it was administered to.

The historical evidence is fully contrary to this allegation.

I concede that when the word comes up not related to the Ordinance.

Why would there be a difference? And where is Scripture specifying that there's a difference?

This is the good and necessary consequence argument and i dont see it. I see believers baptized because in every instance its what the text says.

But that's really the problem: it's not said. It's not stated either way in Scripture. It's not stated explicitly in the case of family baptisms. And that makes the situation kind of odd for credobaptists, granted the large households of children and slaves and servants in ancient times (and by oikos, that's exactly what's meant by "household"). You could declare that something is implicitly happening with baptizing those households, where only carefully-examined believers are being baptized. But that'd be implicit. Plus, you'd be presuming a number of remarkably unhistorical expectations are occurring.

I appreciate your willingness to talk about this. And I've little problem with your wish to continue with your position. I do think there is one plausible alternative to infant baptism: unfortunately, it would properly be called, paedobaptism (as the word in Greek here is for toddlers). It's the baptism of children who are still very young, but who can communicate with someone. This is much more historically-based than credobaptism. It still defies a few historical facts; but much fewer than credobaptism.

 

[AndOne]

Just out of curiosity would the presbyterian church baptise a teenager or pre-teen simply because their parents are Christians?

 

[heymikey80]

Just out of curiosity would the presbyterian church baptise a teenager or pre-teen simply because their parents are Christians?

For a teen, the general perception is that they're mature enough to answer for themselves. For a pre-teen, yes, we'd baptize a household if the head of household requested it.

Keep in mind, that doesn't include individuals who openly reject faith in Christ, but it can include people who are not informed or who have not made a personal profession of faith. And on the flip side, with some qualifications we'll baptize minors in a household who profess faith, when their parents don't.

 

[heymikey80]

My general response to the OP: Reformed Baptists have a view of soteriology that qualifies as Reformed. Only a much smaller minority has a view of ecclesiology (the organization and role of the church) that could qualify as Reformed. Those who do have such a view would have a harder time dealing with baptism on Reformed terms, given that many of the Reformed arguments are ancient and readily available, but there are churches who do -- who think that the Biblical pattern of baptism is after profession.

Reformed Baptists they do exist. But they're not necessarily Reformed Baptists just because they hold to Reformed soteriology (ie, the Five Points). There's more to it.

 

[JM]

Just out of curiosity would the presbyterian church baptise a teenager or pre-teen simply because their parents are Christians?

If a couple come to Christ latter in life, lets say late 50's, should their children be baptized since they are now covenant children even if they are in their late 20's?

 

[DeaconDean]

Exerpts from:

"Are Baptists Reformed"

WEBSTER’S NEW COLLEGIATE DICTIONARY defines Reformed as "pertaining to or designating the body of Protestant churches originating in the Reformation." The RANDOM HOUSE DICTIONARY OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE defines the Reformation as "the religious movement in the sixteenth century which had for its object the reform of the Roman Catholic Church and which led to the establishment of the Protestant churches."


First, it is not proper to refer to Baptists as Reformed

BECAUSE OF WHAT BAPTISTS BELIEVE ABOUT GOD’S WORD.
​

The motto of the Protestant Reformation included the Latin words Sola Scriptura which mean the Scriptures only. In seeking to reform the Roman Catholic Church the Reformers at first insisted that the only authority for faith and practice was the Scriptures, but the Reformers never consistently followed this motto...The Reformers have kept many doctrines and practices from Catholicism such as infant baptism, baptismal regeneration, sprinkling for baptism, and sacraments. Baptists have sought to avoid such man-made traditions as these, and to follow instead the New Testament pattern. The Westminster Confession of Faith is the most prominent of the Reformed confessions. The London Confession of 1689 is one of the most prominent Baptist confessions. The glaring difference between the two is seen at the very beginning. The Baptist confession says, "The Holy Scriptures are the only sufficient, certain, and infallible rule of all saving knowledge, faith, and obedience." This sentence does not appear in the Reformed Westminster Confession.

Secondly. Baptists cannot properly be called Reformed

BECAUSE OF WHAT BAPTISTS BELIEVE ABOUT THE CHURCH.
​

Baptists have always held that there can be no proper standard for what constitutes the church, but the one set forth in the New Testament, and that the New Testament is not vague or indefinite concerning the church, either as to what it is or where it came from or how it is to be governed. Baptists agree with the New Testament that the church is a congregation of believers which has been called out of the world and assembles around Jesus Christ and His Word. For Baptists the church is a visible congregation of regenerated, baptized individuals. To the Reformers in the sixteenth century the Roman Catholic Church was still "the church," and it only needed reforming. They sought to reform a church which they, regarded as the true body of Christ. They assumed that both the baptism, and the ordination of the Roman Church were still valid. Neither John Calvin nor any other Reformers denounced their Catholic baptisms. The Reformers did not set out to restore the true church by copying the instructions revealed in Acts. Instead they worked to reform the "church" which already existed.

Thirdly, Baptists cannot properly be called Reformed

BECAUSE OF WHAT BAPTISTS BELIEVE ABOUT THE RELATIONSHIP
OF CHURCH AND STATE.
​

The Reformed Westminster Confession of Faith said in its article titled "The Civil Magistrate," "...he hath authority and it is his duty to take order, that unity and peace be preserved in the church, that the truth of God be kept pure and entire, that all blasphemies and heresies be suppressed, all corruptions and abuses in worship and discipline prevented or reformed, and all the ordinances of God duly settled, administered and observed for the better effecting whereof he hath power to call synods, to be present at them, and to provide that whatsoever transacted in them be according to the mind of God..." In the new American nation, in the late 1700’s, this Reformed concept of church and state, which was held by the Puritans, was emphatically rejected. The article in the Westminster Confession had to be revised for Americans after the nation established the first amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
The Donatists did not see the Constantinian arrangements as a victory for Christianity, but as a perversion of the Scripture’s teachings, and ultimately, as "the fall of the church." In the time of the Reformation 1,200 years later, the Anabaptists would have nothing to do with a state church. This was one of the main reasons for their separation from Calvin, Luther and the other Reformers. The Reformers often referred to the Anabaptists as Donatists or Neo-Donatists because the Donatists had opposed this marriage of church and state 1.200 years before the Reformation.
Baptists believe with the New Testament that the civil magistrate has no right to require a form of religion for us or to punish us for not following the religion he requires. Baptists believe that Jesus Christ is Lord of the church and Lord of the state, but that he does not rule the state through the church nor the church through the state. We believe that the state can never compel men to believe the truth. Only the Holy Spirit’s quickening work can compel men to do this. Baptists believe that Christians are citizens of two realms: an earthly realm which is ruled over by man, for both the saved and the unsaved, and a heavenly kingdom ruled by the Lord Jesus Christ, We base this partly on the words of our Lord in Matthew 22:17 and 21. For Baptists the church and the world are basically separate and antagonistic to each other. Baptists have no thought and no desire for uniting the two, and Baptists have never been the state religion anywhere. The attitude which a person has toward the Constantinian arrangements reveals whether he is Reformed or Baptist in what he believes about the church. Reformed people see the Constantinian change as a victory for Christianity. Baptists see it as the fall of the church. It is clear that the Reformers did not believe in their motto of Sola Scriptura when it came to renouncing the Constantinian arrangements at the time of the Reformation.

Fourthly, it is not proper to call Baptists Reformed

BECAUSE OF WHAT BAPTISTS BELIEVE ABOUT BAPTISM.
​

The Reformers sprinkle for baptism just like the Catholic Church does. They brought this unscriptural practice with them from Catholicism. At the time of the Reformation, and even today, the Reformers admitted that immersion was the practice of the churches in the New Testament, but they sprinkle for baptism anyway. Reformed people tell us that sprinkling is as good as dipping for baptism, but Baptists ask, "Will you please show us that in the Scriptures?" The Reformers practice infant baptism. They brought this with them from the Catholic Church. Reformed people say all Christian parents should have their babies sprinkled. Baptists ask, "Will you please show us that in the Scriptures?" There is not a trace of infant baptism to be found in the New Testament. Scriptural, New Testament baptism is adult baptism. Nothing more clearly departs from the New Testament model than infant baptism. Baptists rejected these errors, and insist on believers baptism and baptism by immersion only, and we will not accept sprinklings or baptisms of infants as scriptural baptisms. Baptists demand that those who come desiring to join us from Reformed denominations which practice these errors be rebaptized or scripturally baptized. This is where we got our name Anabaptists. It means rebaptizers. Later the name was shortened to just Baptists.

Finally, it is not proper to call Baptists Reformed

BECAUSE OF THE UNCHRISTIAN WAY THE REFORMED HAVE TREATED
BAPTISTS THROUGH THE CENTURIES.
​

The story of Baptists is a story written in blood. Not only did they suffer terribly under Roman Catholic tyranny before the Reformation, they were equally persecuted and slaughtered by the Protestant Reformers. The Reformers actually hated the Baptists because Baptists insisted that the only rule of faith and practice for the churches is God’s Word. The Reformers could not argue with this, and what they could not destroy with arguments they sought to destroy with force. The Reformers unleashed a bitter and bloody persecution of Baptists because of Baptists’ insistence on a consistent application of Sola Scriptura to the church and to baptism. History shows that the leading Reformers shed Baptist blood as freely as did the Roman Catholics, once they achieved the power to enforce their edicts. Calvin himself had many bitter things to say about the Anabaptists, calling them furious madmen, frenzied spirits, insane and barbarous men, idiots, and ignorant. He called their teachings delirious dreams, stupidity, mad bedlams and the vomit of a drunkard. In his work titled "Against The Anabaptists," Calvin said, "Last of all like as a drunkard after he hath well belched doth disgorge the vile broth which charged his stomach, even so these wicked men, after they have detracted this holy estate which the Lord hath so much honored, finally with full throat they do spew out exceeding deformed blasphemies." Thomas Armitage, the Baptist historian, refers to these statements by Calvin and other Reformers as "Anti-Baptist fits." Baptists were not part of the Reformation. They were victims of it. Baptists believe with the Scriptures that all persecution for the sake of religion is radically wrong, and it is a fact that Baptists have never persecuted others, but have always been persecuted themselves.
So then, are Baptists Reformed? The answer of both God’s Word and of history is, No, Baptists are not Reformed, and when a Baptist identifies himself as Reformed he is saying something he doesn’t really mean. The connotations of the term Reformed convey theological positions which are contrary to the Baptist position. Hopefully what most Baptists who call themselves Reformed mean is only that they have the same view of salvation as the Reformers. They believe in the doctrines of God’s Sovereign grace. Some modern-day Baptists have come to see the biblical doctrines of grace by reading the Reformers and Puritans. In doing so they have also swallowed the Reformed teachings concerning the church. Baptists should accept the doctrines of Gods grace, but at the same time reject Reformed teachings about the church which are not based in God’s Word. Think about it! Whenever a person calls himself Reformed he is actually recognizing a connection in the past with the Roman Catholic Church because the Reformers came out of that false church. Why should Baptists seek to identify with baby sprinklers, while teaching immersion themselves as the right way of baptism? It is hard to understand how Baptists who were hated and persecuted by Calvin. Luther and other Reformers could now want to be called Reformed themselves. Why should Baptists identify with the Reformers who along with the Catholics are responsible for the blood of thousands of Baptist martyrs? To call a Baptist church Reformed is confusion to those who know God’s Word and a little about history. The term "Reformed Baptist" is an oxymoron, a self contradictory term. One cannot be Reformed and Baptist at the same time as we have defined Reformed and Baptist beliefs in this message. In closing I want to say that the Scriptures nowhere call for a Reformation of the false church. Instead the Scripture says in Revelation 18:4, "Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues."

Lawrence Justice, Are Baptists Reformed?

Source

If not adhering to tenants of Presbyterianism disqualifies me to call myself "Refromed" or a "Calvinist", then so be it.

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[pilgrimsong]

I'm a member of a Baptist church but I am leaning more on the Reformed teachings. SOme of the members of our church think Calvinism is wrong. But I would like to echo Dr. R.C Sproul's very good commentary regarding Reformers/Calvinist.

“At the heart of the Reformed faith is the phrase Soli Deo Gloria to God alone goes the glory. And I know
Of no other system of thought that consistently honors God and will give us the all glory to God no glory to us than what we call Reformed theology or historic Calvinism. That to me is the one that is most consistent with the biblical approach to honouring God.” – R.C Sproul

 

[moonbeam]

Anyone ever think that the original intent of the word "immerse" was to become a part of the full faith?
Immersed in FAITH by Salvation, not water?

Just throwing it out there.

This page eight comment is spot on… I was regenerated and knew the LORD [that is to say correctly...being known of Him] many years before formal baptism by a Baptist fellowship in the ocean.

As a matter of fact…within a year of my conversion I baptised myself...(not knowing anyone with authority…but knowing the LORD and being known of Him…and that being all the authority I needed)…I was going down to the river with a group of friends for a swim and told them to wait on the bank and be my witnesses…then I waded out into waist deep water…raised my right hand and said publicly for all to hear…"I baptise myself in the name of my LORD and Saviour Jesus Christ"…and let myself fall backwards under the water…and that was that.

Where the scripture below reads "baptizing them in the name of"...the primary meaning and intent...is to "immerse them" [baptizing them]…"in the sphere of the influence of" [in the name of]…the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.

"Immersing them in the sphere of the influence of"…being applicable to each particular person of the Triune Godhead.


Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen…[Matthew 28:19-20]

.

 

[McWilliams]

It is great to be back and to recognize the names of some who are still here! I've been gone a while......
In answer to the OP I call myself 'reformed baptist' and believe in credo baptism. I also call myself Calvinist, Reformed, Baptist, Christian and cling to the doctrines of grace, the T U L I P and the five solas! Of course that is confusing but basically Jesus came to save sinners and that includes me! So glad to be back amongst you friends!

 

[GQ Chris]

Reformed Baptists are the Baptists that can drink.

 

[JM]

Reformed Baptists are the Baptists that can drink.

Very true. RB's enjoy all aspects of life...in moderation.