Are Baptists who hold to TULIP also Reformed?

[AndOne]

I pulled the following off of James White's blog. Considering some of the discussions we've had here on this subject I thought some would be interested in reading it. This is a good response to those who don't think Baptists who hold to Calvinism are also Reformed:


"the subjects and mode of baptism does not define what it means to be Reformed. If Dr. Clark wishes to so severely reduce that term so as to limit the number of the Reformed to a tiny few, that is his right. If he wishes to reduce my own faith in the same way to "particular Baptist," I can't stop him, but, I won't be joining him in his minimalism. Years ago I gave a seminar on why "Five points are not enough." Dr. Clark keeps saying being Reformed is more than the five points. Of course it is. It involves one's view of God, a view that sees Him as Holy and just and sovereign, and man as His creature. It stands apart from man's religions, and the vast majority of "Christendom," in acknowledging God's absolute right to do with His creation as He sees fit. It is absolutely theocentric, purposefully and willfully rejecting the impulse to focus upon man, instead acknowledging that the glory of God's grace is worthy to be praised for all eternity. To be Reformed means you believe in a Savior worthy of worship, One who actually saves, not one who just does His best. You believe the Gospel is Trinitarian, holy, lofty, awe-inspiring and worthy of the entirety of your life and being. You not only accept the five points, you accept the consistent exegesis and hermeneutics, let alone the view of an inspired, authoritative, consistent, sufficient Word from God, that leads to those five points. And as a result, your view of God, yourself, church, worship, and the world, is inalterably changed. To be Reformed is to worship God in a way the world just doesn't get, and which evangelicalism as a whole doesn't get, either. You long for the Word, you long to hear His truth proclaimed and honored, and you find anything that detracts from the glory of His truth reprehensible. You see God's grand decree in His Triune self-glorification from creation to consummation and your heart is drawn out in worship and adoration and awe as a result. That is what it means to be Reformed.

Now evidently you can believe all of that, but, if you don't think Calvin's unique means of connecting circumcision to baptism is compelling in light of a tremendous amount of counter argumentation, well, you just aren't Reformed. I leave it to my kind readers to decide if "Reformed" should be thusly restricted."

 

[Hammster]

I suppose if I am not regarded as reformed because I believe in credobaptism, I can live with that. What other think of me, or may label me, is inconsequential to my faith.

 

[the particular baptist]

Im with the beloved Spurgeon;

(From The New Park Street Pulpit, Vol.VII, Page 225).

"We believe that the Baptists are the original Christians. We did not commence our existence at the reformation, we were reformers before Luther or Calvin were born; we never came from the Church of Rome, for we were never in it, but we have an unbroken line up to the apostles themselves.


We have always existed from the very days of Christ, and our principles, sometimes veiled and forgotten, like a river which may travel underground for a little season, have always had honest and holy adherents.


Persecuted alike by Romanists and Protestants of almost every sect, yet there has never existed a Government holding Baptist principles which persecuted others; nor I believe any body of Baptists ever held it to be right to put the consciences of others under the control of man.

We have ever been ready to suffer, as our martyrologies will prove, but we are not ready to accept any help from the State, to prostitute the purity of the Bride of Christ to any alliance with the government, and we will never make the Church, although the Queen, the despot over the consciences of men".

 

[Cajun Huguenot]

I have VERY high regard for Spurgeon on many levels, but I think his understanding of Church history left much to be desired, as Carroll's.

Coram Deo,
Kenith

 

[LiturgyInDMinor]

I question completely

that the Baptists are the original Christians

 

[LiturgyInDMinor]

I question 100% that....

that the Baptists are the original Christians

IN regards to the OP:

I used to be hung up on this subject, refusing to see Baptists are Reformed in actuality.
Honestly, now I don't care...if a Baptist considers himself Reformed, then so be it. Whatever floats yer boat I say.

 

[the particular baptist]

You can question all you want, the fact of the matter is protestantism is just 500 years old, apostolic christianity is 2000 years old.

 

[mlqurgw]

I am a Baptist who holds to all those things White points out but I am not Reformed. To be Reformed, either as a Baptist or not, is to hold to a system of doctrine as taught in the confessions. Reformed doctrine is in error on some very important issues: The Law, progressive sanctification, necessary consequence, assurance based on works. I am still working on an article concerning the Law and the confessions. Hope to post it soon.

 

[Hammster]

All of us "reformed" baptists should pitch a fit and get our own forum.

 

[LiturgyInDMinor]

You can question all you want, the fact of the matter is protestantism is just 500 years old, apostolic christianity is 2000 years old.

Yeppers, and the Baptist faith is NOT apostolic christianity in the least. It's laughable that some modern day Baptists hold to this fallicy. Don't you know that Presbyterianism is the true Apostolic Christianity!?!?!?!?

Back to the OP:

Baptists who hold to TULIP are Calvinists, not necessarily Reformed.



thanks for listening.

 

[the particular baptist]

Baptists who hold to TULIP are Calvinists, not necessarily Reformed.

Exactly right bro, a person has to adhere to more than TULIP to be considered reformed by historically reformed people, and thats okay. I dont get bent out of shape about it, and i wish bro White would have left it alone. There has always been distinctions between baptists and protestants, and thats okay too.

The doctrines of grace however are taught in entirety of scripture, so calvinism as we call it today has been around since Genesis 3:15 and is claimed by anyone who believes the Bible.

 

[kenrapoza]

I pulled the following off of James White's blog. Considering some of the discussions we've had here on this subject I thought some would be interested in reading it. This is a good response to those who don't think Baptists who hold to Calvinism are also Reformed:


"the subjects and mode of baptism does not define what it means to be Reformed. If Dr. Clark wishes to so severely reduce that term so as to limit the number of the Reformed to a tiny few, that is his right. If he wishes to reduce my own faith in the same way to "particular Baptist," I can't stop him, but, I won't be joining him in his minimalism. Years ago I gave a seminar on why "Five points are not enough." Dr. Clark keeps saying being Reformed is more than the five points. Of course it is. It involves one's view of God, a view that sees Him as Holy and just and sovereign, and man as His creature. It stands apart from man's religions, and the vast majority of "Christendom," in acknowledging God's absolute right to do with His creation as He sees fit. It is absolutely theocentric, purposefully and willfully rejecting the impulse to focus upon man, instead acknowledging that the glory of God's grace is worthy to be praised for all eternity. To be Reformed means you believe in a Savior worthy of worship, One who actually saves, not one who just does His best. You believe the Gospel is Trinitarian, holy, lofty, awe-inspiring and worthy of the entirety of your life and being. You not only accept the five points, you accept the consistent exegesis and hermeneutics, let alone the view of an inspired, authoritative, consistent, sufficient Word from God, that leads to those five points. And as a result, your view of God, yourself, church, worship, and the world, is inalterably changed. To be Reformed is to worship God in a way the world just doesn't get, and which evangelicalism as a whole doesn't get, either. You long for the Word, you long to hear His truth proclaimed and honored, and you find anything that detracts from the glory of His truth reprehensible. You see God's grand decree in His Triune self-glorification from creation to consummation and your heart is drawn out in worship and adoration and awe as a result. That is what it means to be Reformed.

Now evidently you can believe all of that, but, if you don't think Calvin's unique means of connecting circumcision to baptism is compelling in light of a tremendous amount of counter argumentation, well, you just aren't Reformed. I leave it to my kind readers to decide if "Reformed" should be thusly restricted."

I've read James White's interesting post on his blog, and for the most part I love the guy. But if we're going to be honest, then we also need to reference Clark's response to White's assertions about him.

Post-Thanksgiving Cartoons: Reply to James White « Heidelblog

 

[JM]

Why do Baptists who believe in covenant theology and hold to the doctrines of grace need to call themselves Reformed? What happened to Strict and Particular?

 

[Cajun Huguenot]

You can question all you want, the fact of the matter is protestantism is just 500 years old, apostolic christianity is 2000 years old.

Can't argue with that point, but equating Apostolic Christianity with Baptist teaching is a VERY debatable subject. I was raised Catholic and then Baptist, my dad and mom are devout Baptists and has been an active deacon since I was a teenager.

I love my Baptist brethren, but I do believe the claim that "Baptist = Apostolic Christianity" is (IMMHO) a tremendous stretch. I disagree with the Baptist on biblical grounds and would argue that they are wrong on certain points of doctrine (as Baptist must argue that we Presbyterians are wrong on certain points of doctrine). So there is plenty to debate there.

When it comes to history, I've been reading the Early Church Fathers and they were not Baptists. One could argue Tertullian comes close, because he does argue against infant baptism (circa. 200 AD) but he makes the argument because he holds to a form of baptismal regeneration and he is far from modern Baptist arguments.

I would argue that Baptist are kind of synthesis of teachings from the Protestant Reformers and the Radical Reformers (i.e. the Anabaptist).

Just my 2 cents.

Coram Deo,
Kenith

 

[the particular baptist]

Thanks for your thoughts Kenith. I read the early church fathers some (I own this set) but dont look to them to interpret scriptures for me i look to the Holy Spirit, and as such believe that historic baptists come closest to the apostolic christians. Regarding baptism I have yet to read an explicit/descriptive, or implicit text in the New Testament, that either John's baptism or the new covenant baptism was by flicking water on an infants face. In every instance bapto/immerse was administered after conversion.

 

[JM]

An excellent study was done by two brothers who believe in infant baptism and published in a work titled, "Baptism in the Early Church." Stander and Louw came to the conclusion that infant baptism developed over time and that believers baptism was the common mode for the early church.

They continue to baptims babies on the authority of the church and Reformed covenant theology.

 

[the particular baptist]

Thanks for the heads up on the book brother im going to purchase it.

 

[student ad x]

I would argue that Baptist are kind of synthesis of teachings from the Protestant Reformers and the Radical Reformers (i.e. the Anabaptist).
Just my 2 cents.

Coram Deo,
Kenith

Hey Kenith how are ya?

I know this may be a bit of a long audio, but it addresses the distinction of how 'covenantal' or 'particular' Baptists were born from the Reformation; and more specifically the reforming influence within the Anglican church. Reformed Forum » Credo-Baptism During the Reformation


____________________


To the OP question: Are Baptists who hold to TULIP also Reformed?
The quick answer is NO, not from the historical definition within the Reformed Churches. Soteriology alone does not reformed theology make.

Y'all won't find me arguing for the 'reformed' label needing to be attached to the 'covenental' or 'particular' Baptists. (21st century application of the term 'reformed' or no ) I've no need and IMMHO...... nor would a congregation need the hassle of arguing with our Paedo brothers on this issue. Credo-baptism and Covenantal Baptist theology stands on it's own Scripturally.

I'm a Particular Baptist, so while my theology is distinctly "reformationalistic" (if that's a word ) there's no way for me to be Reformed and Baptist.....

your most humble brother,
Cam

.........post tenebras lux

 

[JM]

This is another area of interest for some folks, Reformed Reader Forum.

 

[the particular baptist]

I'm a Particular Baptist, so while my theology is distinctly "reformationalistic" (if that's a word ) there's no way for me to be Reformed and Baptist.....

hear hear