Are Baptists who hold to TULIP also Reformed?

[cygnusx1]

I have this one.

i bought that about a year ago , excellent !

am i Reformed ? well soteriologically obviously , and i do believe in Covenant ; families are important to the Lord , then there is also the Protestant issue , are Baptists not protestant believing salvation is by grace through faith in direct opposition to Rome and works , then there is eschatology and Amillenialism .....yes i think many Baptists can be called Reformed in the general sense because there are many similarities , I seldom even think about what we differ over when reading a Calvinist book .........

 

[Epiphoskei]

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

I've been thinking about arguments like this for a while, and it seems to me, this line of thinking boils down to a return to Roman ecclesology.

Historically, Rome was deformed, so there was this Reformation, which left a bunch of churches (partially) Reformed. But said churches did not believe in the infallability of earthly churches, either Reformed or Roman, and instead lived by the principle of Semper Reformanda, "be always reforming."

Now for any group of churches to assemble and say "Stop the reforming! Everything's perfect!" and start claiming that any dissent from historical reformed confessions in any regard means you're not Reformed anymore is to adopt Rome's position on changes in doctrine, "there can't be any, we're perfect," and Rome's position on the Bible and confessions, "never let a little thing like scripture get in the way of a good dogma."

 

[ReformedChapin]

I've been thinking about arguments like this for a while, and it seems to me, this line of thinking boils down to a return to Roman ecclesology.

Historically, Rome was deformed, so there was this Reformation, which left a bunch of churches (partially) Reformed. But said churches did not believe in the infallability of earthly churches, either Reformed or Roman, and instead lived by the principle of Semper Reformanda, "be always reforming."

Now for any group of churches to assemble and say "Stop the reforming! Everything's perfect!" and start claiming that any dissent from historical reformed confessions in any regard means you're not Reformed anymore is to adopt Rome's position on changes in doctrine, "there can't be any, we're perfect," and Rome's position on the Bible and confessions, "never let a little thing like scripture get in the way of a good dogma."

I don't see that as Clarks view at all. His position is very clear, paedo is essential to being REFORMED. Becauase baptist disagree doesn't mean that the historic definition of reformed should be changed. We don't need need to reform baptism, none of the reformers thought so.

 

[Epiphoskei]

Which is a Roman view of doctrine. A belief need not be reformed if it has a tradition of acceptance behind it. This rejects both Sola Scriptura and Semper Reformanda.

 

[DD2008]

I think if Baptists hold to the London Confession of Faith then they can be called Reformed. If not, then they are not confessional and thus not Reformed.

The Baptist Confession of Faith (1689)

I believe confessionalism is necessary to be "reformed".

 

[kenrapoza]

Which is a Roman view of doctrine. A belief need not be reformed if it has a tradition of acceptance behind it. This rejects both Sola Scriptura and Semper Reformanda.

It's not that a belief need not be reformed if it's in accord with tradition; it's that a belief need not be changed if it is Biblical. The reformers were not out to overthrow the church but reform it. As such there are many doctrines that they didn't need to attack, such as the Trinity. We still hold those in common with the Roman church.

 

[Epiphoskei]

And the Belief that all Reformed doctrine is already Biblical and could never need reexamination is a Roman view of doctrine.

 

[the particular baptist]

It's not that a belief need not be reformed if it's in accord with tradition; it's that a belief need not be changed if it is Biblical.

Im still looking for the verse in the New Testament that the New Covenant sign and seal is sprinkling water on an infants face and calling it baptism. That friend, is church tradition, not biblical.

 

[LiturgyInDMinor]

And the Belief that all Reformed doctrine is already Biblical and could never need reexamination is a Roman view of doctrine.

Reformed doctrine is biblical Truth...what do you propose to reexamine?

 

[Epiphoskei]

Well, I believe the historical baptist/presby disgreement has been whether the New Covenant includes nonbelievers (i.e., infants) who should still be given the sign of the covenant.

Not that I mean to say that Reformed Theology should be be changed from paedobaptism to credobaptism, but rather, that all churches that are spiritual sucessors to the Reformation should be considered Reformed, regardless of distinctions in doctrines which were not profoundly central to the point of the Reformation, so long as these doctrines are handled with respect for the Scriptures as the final authority and argued exegetically.

Does it make any sense to say that churches which have been reformed by the Reformation are not Reformed? Does the capital R mean so much? I suppose we could be called "reformed Baptists," but the spelling and punctuation fanatics will point out that as a proper noun the capital R has to come back anyway.

 

[LiturgyInDMinor]

Well, I believe the historical baptist/presby disgreement has been whether the New Covenant includes nonbelievers (i.e., infants) who should still be given the sign of the covenant.

Not that I mean to say that Reformed Theology should be be changed from paedobaptism to credobaptism, but rather, that all churches that are spiritual sucessors to the Reformation should be considered Reformed, regardless of distinctions in doctrines which were not profoundly central to the point of the Reformation, so long as these doctrines are handled with respect for the Scriptures as the final authority and argued exegetically.

Does it make any sense to say that churches which have been reformed by the Reformation are not Reformed? Does the capital R mean so much? I suppose we could be called "reformed Baptists," but the spelling and punctuation fanatics will point out that as a proper noun the capital R has to come back anyway.

I hear ya....thanks for expanding on your previous thoughts.

 

[kenrapoza]

And the Belief that all Reformed doctrine is already Biblical and could never need reexamination is a Roman view of doctrine.

I agree. All doctrine should be under continual examination and in discussion for every generation of the church. When we come to the conviction that a doctrine is unbiblical, then it needs to be reformed again. But we must take great care when doing this and not throw out the wisom of those who have gone before us. Tradition cannot legitimately bind the consciences of men, nor should it be a source of doctrine, but it is helpful to understand how the previous saints have understood the Bible.

 

[kenrapoza]

Im still looking for the verse in the New Testament that the New Covenant sign and seal is sprinkling water on an infants face and calling it baptism. That friend, is church tradition, not biblical.

It's right before the verse that says God is one is essence but three in person.

I'm not trying to say that in a smart-alecky way, but you get my point. Covenant baptism, like the Trinity, is based on deductions and inferences from Scripture. Now I understand that a Baptist and a Presbyterian come to different conclusions about this doctrine and that both claim Scriptural support. IMHO, if we are to be fair then we should acknowledge that each side can make a reasonable case based upon Scripture without defaulting to tradition.

 

[the particular baptist]

It's right before the verse that says God is one is essence but three in person.

I'm not trying to say that in a smart-alecky way, but you get my point. Covenant baptism, like the Trinity, is based on deductions and inferences from Scripture. Now I understand that a Baptist and a Presbyterian come to different conclusions about this doctrine and that both claim Scriptural support. IMHO, if we are to be fair then we should acknowledge that each side can make a reasonable case based upon Scripture without defaulting to tradition.

I agree both sides argue from the scriptures.

 

[Epiphoskei]

I agree. All doctrine should be under continual examination and in discussion for every generation of the church. When we come to the conviction that a doctrine is unbiblical, then it needs to be reformed again. But we must take great care when doing this and not throw out the wisom of those who have gone before us. Tradition cannot legitimately bind the consciences of men, nor should it be a source of doctrine, but it is helpful to understand how the previous saints have understood the Bible.

Certainly, but when you make a certain doctrine a sine qua non of a certain church's doctrine, that church becomes locked into that doctrine permanently, which places the scripture below Church tradition.

 

[LiturgyInDMinor]

I agree. All doctrine should be under continual examination and in discussion for every generation of the church. When we come to the conviction that a doctrine is unbiblical, then it needs to be reformed again. But we must take great care when doing this and not throw out the wisom of those who have gone before us. Tradition cannot legitimately bind the consciences of men, nor should it be a source of doctrine, but it is helpful to understand how the previous saints have understood the Bible.

Example(s)?

Just curious of some possibilities.

 

[LiturgyInDMinor]

Certainly, but when you make a certain doctrine a sine qua non of a certain church's doctrine, that church becomes locked into that doctrine permanently, which places the scripture below Church tradition.

If churches weren't "locked" into a doctrine then that would make for chaos which is a proven fact in the world of non-denom churches today.
Sorry, doctrines are revealed by the Holy Spirit, ORTHODOX doctrines that is...and then the lock get's put on.
So I'm confused as to what essentials of the faith maybe "unlocked" today.

 

[Epiphoskei]

If churches weren't "locked" into a doctrine then that would make for chaos which is a proven fact in the world of non-denom churches today.
Sorry, doctrines are revealed by the Holy Spirit, ORTHODOX doctrines that is...and then the lock get's put on.
So I'm confused as to what essentials of the faith maybe "unlocked" today.

This is a foundationally Roman way of adressing doctrine, incompatable with the position that the church ought to be always reforming to stamp out the errors which inevitably creep into every church.

The moment that one becomes certain of a doctrine to the point that one no longer is willing to examine it against scripture is the moment one elevates official dogma over the scripture. And if we do believe that the scripture teaches a certain doctrine, it is inconsistant with our faith for us to declare that doctrine to be the Biblical doctrine such that all debate is settled and we no longer regularly examine the scripture to see if we are right. If we believe the doctrine is Biblical, we must believe that such open and honest examination of the scripture can only strengthen the defense of that doctrine, inasmuch as such would be an open and honest examination of that which we believe to contain the doctrine to begin with.

But when a list of teachings is drawn up which is settled such that they are not open to review within Reformed churches, it means that those who wish to reform the church must get out of the Reformed church, as Reformed dogmas are infallable. I'm sure you see the irony.

 

[LiturgyInDMinor]

This is a foundationally Roman way of adressing doctrine, incompatable with the position that the church ought to be always reforming to stamp out the errors which inevitably creep into every church.

The moment that one becomes certain of a doctrine to the point that one no longer is willing to examine it against scripture is the moment one elevates official dogma over the scripture. And if we do believe that the scripture teaches a certain doctrine, it is inconsistant with our faith for us to declare that doctrine to be the Biblical doctrine such that all debate is settled and we no longer regularly examine the scripture to see if we are right. If we believe the doctrine is Biblical, we must believe that such open and honest examination of the scripture can only strengthen the defense of that doctrine, inasmuch as such would be an open and honest examination of that which we believe to contain the doctrine to begin with.

But when a list of teachings is drawn up which is settled such that they are not open to review within Reformed churches, it means that those who wish to reform the church must get out of the Reformed church, as Reformed dogmas are infallable. I'm sure you see the irony.

So what you are saying is that Scripture can always be reinterpreted into doctrine ad infintum?
Sorry but the Presbyterian church (which is the only church that I can speak of) believes and adheres to the Westminster Confession of Faith. A good example here actually...so are you stating that the WCF can be reformed more? I say nope.
Honestly I don't buy it...the entire arguement that God's Truth has multiple layers that are hidden until we discover them...that is a paradox, unless I am TOTALLY misunderstanding you. I don't take God's Word as scientists take the concept of the origin of the universe. We KNOW God's Truth by now as compared to how scientists "know" how the universe was created.(just a simple example here.)

You mentioned "open and honest debate". I ask about what? If a brother or sister want's to open and honestly debate me say for example dispensationalism as a whole, I'll say they are wrong and it's not biblical.
So I don't get this "open and honest debate" concept as being reformational to the Church in the context of what we already know as firm and concrete doctrine from GOD.


Sorry if I'm off topic guys.

 

[LiturgyInDMinor]

I agree. All doctrine should be under continual examination and in discussion for every generation of the church.

Sorry brother, as a fellow Presbyterian, I just don't get this statement.
Can this not lead to a continual loop of discontinuity in our Faith?
Discussion is good, but I believe God revealed to us, the Church, what he meant concerning our doctrine.
This sounds like we are always under a constant drain of milk, and have never quite tasted the meat of Scripture.
I need concrete examples to even play into this concept ken.