Are Baptists who hold to TULIP also Reformed?

[LiturgyInDMinor]

But a redwood seed doesn't make good siding.

But when it's big you can carve a house into it's trunk.

Saw one seriously at our county fair this year. Amazing!

 

[Hammster]

But when it's big you can carve a house into it's trunk.

Saw one seriously at our county fair this year. Amazing!

True, dat. I grew up in California, so I have seen the giant redwoods. And they are giant.

 

[Atlantians]

My problem with R.S. Clark and this whole issue of "Reforme Baptist is an oxymoron" business he is promoting is that he also has said that Baptists can't call themselves "Calvinists" EITHER! Why? Same reason: 'Calvin taught paedobaptism'.

What R.S. Clark's entire set of arguments boils down to is the cartoon-like:
"ALL YOUR PHRAZE ARE BELONG TO US!"

 

[Cajun Huguenot]

My problem with R.S. Clark and this whole issue of "Reforme Baptist is an oxymoron" business he is promoting is that he also has said that Baptists can't call themselves "Calvinists" EITHER! Why? Same reason: 'Calvin taught paedobaptism'.

What R.S. Clark's entire set of arguments boils down to is the cartoon-like:
"ALL YOUR PHRAZE ARE BELONG TO US!"

Calvinism has LONG been synonymous the predestination. That is what people think when they hear the word. Reformed has, until recently, always had broader meaning, a meaning that includes Covenant theology, which incorporates paedo-baptism within it.

If a Calvinistic Baptist brother wants to be called Reformed Baptist, I will oblige, even though I do believe it is an oxymoronic term.

Coram Deo,
Kenith

 

[HiredGoon]

My problem with R.S. Clark and this whole issue of "Reforme Baptist is an oxymoron" business he is promoting is that he also has said that Baptists can't call themselves "Calvinists" EITHER! Why? Same reason: 'Calvin taught paedobaptism'.

What R.S. Clark's entire set of arguments boils down to is the cartoon-like:
"ALL YOUR PHRAZE ARE BELONG TO US!"

No, you are reducing Dr. Clark's argument to an absurd cartoon. This is what he actually argues:

White’s critique assumes the very question that is in debate, i.e. whether Reformed theology is reducible to the five heads of doctrine of the Synod of Dort (1619). Confessional Reformed folk, who actually know the history and theology of the Reformed churches, understand, as Richard Muller (among others) has pointed out, that Reformed theology is not reducible to the five heads of doctrine promulgated by the Synod of Dort. Making this case was a major burden of the book Recovering the Reformed Confession.

In a sense, I don’t blame White for thinking that Reformed theology can be so reduced since Reformed folk, who should know better, have too often given the impression that the only thing that makes us Reformed is the so called “Five Points.” This tendency in our own circles is in large part to our inordinate desire to be accepted by others beyond our circles. There are 60 million “evangelicals” (whatever that means) in N. America. There are about 500,000 confessional Reformed folk in N. America. This disparity between those numbers creates a great temptation to minimize the differences between the broader evangelical world and the Reformed confessional theology, piety, and practice.

Nevertheless, even a cursory reading of the Belgic Confession, the Heidelberg Catechism, the Canons of Dort, and the Westminster Standards (all of which I like to call “the six-forms of unity”) will not permit such a reductionist definition of the Reformed theology, piety, and practice.

The genuine catholicity of Reformed theology should not be minimized. We have always confessed the “holy catholic church” and the catholic creeds (the Nicene Creed, the Definition of Chalcedon, the Apostles’ Creed, and the Athanasian Creed). Much of what Reformed theology has done is to re-arrange our inheritance from the patristic and medieval eras. Still there are Reformed formulations of the doctrines of Scripture, God, man, Christ, church, and sacraments which one must affirm to be Reformed. Soteriology is an essential part of that package, if you will, but only one part. Affirming the Reformed soteriology is a necessary condition of being Reformed but it is not the sole or sufficient condition.

The same is true of our Christology. If, e.g. one affirms the ubiquity of Christ’s humanity one may be a Protestant (e.g. a confessional Lutheran) but one is not Reformed. The same is true of paedobaptism. One must affirm paedobaptism to be Reformed but that affirmation alone is insufficient for being Reformed since many traditions, which are not Reformed, have affirmed paedobaptism. Again, there is a difference between a necessary and a sufficient condition.

Though it is not possible to reduce the Reformed faith to its view of baptism it is not possible to eliminate the Reformed view of baptism from our faith and remain Reformed. If we ask the question, “Did the original Reformed churches accept as Reformed, in their day, those who denied infant baptism?” the answer is clear and unequivocal

 

[Cajun Huguenot]

Thanks HiredGoon,

That is a very good quote. Dr.Clark's statement is right on target.

Kenith

 

[the particular baptist]

If we ask the question, “Did the original Reformed churches accept as Reformed, in their day, those who denied infant baptism?” the answer is clear and unequivocal

There is no denying that, and therein is the beef if you will. Its not so much what Reformed churches accepted as baptism in the 1600s, its what does the bible say baptism is, what it means, and who it was administered to in the apostolic church. The apostolic church defines what baptism is, what it means, and who it was administered to, not the papists, and if i may be so bold, their reformers. Again, i dont have a beef with R.S. Clark desirous to keep the reformed label to paedo's, thats perfectly reasonable. But covenant theology as historic baptists define it and TULIP belong to the Lord, planned out in eternity past, and embraced by every born again believer and is taught to them by God (John 6). Labels to the wind.

 

[ReformedChapin]

There is no denying that, and therein is the beef if you will. Its not so much what Reformed churches accepted as baptism in the 1600s, its what does the bible say baptism is, what it means, and who it was administered to in the apostolic church. The apostolic church defines what baptism is, what it means, and who it was administered to, not the papists, and if i may be so bold, their reformers. Again, i dont have a beef with R.S. Clark desirous to keep the reformed label to paedo's, thats perfectly reasonable. But covenant theology as historic baptists define it and TULIP belong to the Lord, planned out in eternity past, and embraced by every born again believer and is taught to them by God (John 6). Labels to the wind.

If scriptural clearly thought it I can assure the reformers would have jumped shipped as well as myself. I am still convinced that this issue isn't clear by scripture alone therefore tradition must kick in.

 

[the particular baptist]

If scriptural clearly thought it I can assure the reformers would have jumped shipped as well as myself. I am still convinced that this issue isn't clear by scripture alone therefore tradition must kick in.

Let me think on this tonight bro and ill see if tomorrow i can articulate my thoughts on this a little better.

 

[AndOne]

Here is a good place in the WCF to start:

Chapter XXVIII

Of Baptism

I. Baptism is a sacrament of the New Testament, ordained by Jesus Christ,[1] not only for the solemn admission of the party baptized into the visible Church;[2] but also to be unto him a sign and seal of the covenant of grace,[3] of his ingrafting into Christ,[4] of regeneration,[5] of remission of sins,[6] and of his giving up unto God, through Jesus Christ, to walk in the newness of life.[7] Which sacrament is, by Christ's own appointment, to be continued in His Church until the end of the world.[8]
II. The outward element to be used in this sacrament is water, wherewith the party is to be baptized, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, by a minister of the Gospel, lawfully called thereunto.[9]
III. Dipping of the person into the water is not necessary; but Baptism is rightly administered by pouring, or sprinkling water upon the person.[10]
IV. Not only those that do actually profess faith in and obedience unto Christ,[11] but also the infants of one, or both, believing parents, are to be baptized.[12]
V. Although it is a great sin to contemn or neglect this ordinance,[13] yet grace and salvation are not so inseparably annexed unto it, as that no person can be regenerated, or saved, without it:[14] or, that all that are baptized are undoubtedly regenerated.[15]
VI. The efficacy of Baptism is not tied to that moment of time wherein it is administered;[16] yet, notwithstanding, by the right use of this ordinance, the grace promised is not only offered, but really exhibited, and conferred, by the Holy Ghost, to such (whether of age or infants) as that grace belongs unto, according to the counsel of God's own will, in His appointed time.[17]
VII. The sacrament of Baptism is but once to be administered unto any person.[18]

Each numerical link is a scriptural proof.

Here is the link: Westminster Confession of Faith

Here is a great article on the subject as well:

My Retraction: A 15 year Reformed Baptist turns Paedo-Baptist

As I've already pointed out - I disagree with paragraph VI. None of the scripture proofs support infant baptism - baptism yes - but not infant baptism. This is the only part of the WCF that I take issue with...

 

[the particular baptist]

If scriptural clearly thought it I can assure the reformers would have jumped shipped as well as myself. I am still convinced that this issue isn't clear by scripture alone therefore tradition must kick in.

Just one example, most of the reformers, including Calvin, taught the perpetual virginity of Mary. They were wrong. They all carried papist baggage. Who can really fault them though. Despite their baggage God raised them up and used them for His purposes.

That said, we should make every effort to be consistent with Sola Scripture.

What does Scripture say about baptism (immersion)? Its described intentionally with the word the Spirit chose to use, bapto, which means immerse. Read the new testament and every time the word comes up think, immerse, immersed, or immersion. After a few readings it would be a real chore to think baby sprinkling.

What does the scripture say about who it was administered to ? I'll approach one passage in Acts with my commentary and show what the Apostolic church said was baptism and who it was to be administered to.



Acts of the Apostles 10:36-48 As for the word that he sent to Israel, preaching good news of peace through Jesus Christ (he is Lord of all), you yourselves know what happened throughout all Judea, beginning from Galilee after the baptism that John proclaimed: how God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Spirit and with power. He went about doing good and healing all who were oppressed by the devil, for God was with him. And we are witnesses of all that he did both in the country of the Jews and in Jerusalem. They put him to death by hanging him on a tree, but God raised him on the third day and made him to appear, not to all the people but to us who had been chosen by God as witnesses, who ate and drank with him after he rose from the dead. And he commanded us to preach to the people and to testify that he is the one appointed by God to be judge of the living and the dead. To him all the prophets bear witness that everyone who believes in him receives forgiveness of sins through his name."


*Peter is preaching the Gospel to people who can, humanly speaking, hear and listen to him.*


While Peter was still saying these things, the Holy Spirit fell on all who heard the word.


*Okay, the Holy Spirit just regenerated the people who's ears were opened to hear and now believe the Gospel. Notice, not all believed, only those that "heard the word".*


And the believers from among the circumcised who had come with Peter were amazed, because the gift of the Holy Spirit was poured out even on the Gentiles. For they were hearing them speaking in tongues and extolling God.


*The physical jews who were believers in Jesus were amazed that "non-circumcised" were being converted by the Holy Spirit. To prove it to the circumcised jewish believers, as Amos and Joel had prophesied, the new converts were speaking in other languages. There was no doubt, these were regenerated believers in Jesus.*


Then Peter declared, "Can anyone withhold water for baptizing these people, who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?"


The proper reading of this text as the Holy Spirit wrote it is as follows; Then Peter declared, "Can anyone withhold water for immersing these people, who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?"


And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. Then the asked him to remain for some days.


Again, the Holy Spirit wrote this text as follows; And he commanded them to be immersed in the name of Jesus Christ.



That the word bapto means immersed is indisputable. That in every new testament reference it was administered to new believers in Jesus after their conversion is indisputable.


If the reformers can be wrong about the perpetual virginity of Mary and a number of other things, they can be wrong about grandfathering in the papist tradition of sprinkling babies and calling that baptism when the new testament, the final revelation and interpreter of the old and all of Scripture, no where describes or prescribes baby sprinkling and calling that baptism.

 

[heymikey80]

The problem I see with the idea that this is papist baggage is fairly straightforward. The Reformers had the arguments placed before them explicitly. They rejected them. They're the identical arguments to those of today for credobaptism. And they responded to those arguments with cogent counters.

http://www.reformed.org/books/institutes/books/book4/bk4ch16.html

The idea that "baptism" meant immersion is not plausible. The Didache -- a first century book of church order -- pointed out that while larger amounts of water (indeed, fresh water) were preferred, one may be baptized by affusion. It'd require us to believe some departed Apostolic restriction while even some Apostles survived, without comment by the Apostles. The position of affusion appears to be a strong contender for acceptability in the term "baptize", as its root words simply mean "cover" or "douse", as where Nebuchadnezzar was "bapt-ed" with dew when he was roaming the lands.

The Marcan allusion to "baptizing" couches and tables in I believe Ch. 7 also has an early variant -- "sprinkled". So not all references to "baptism" unmistakably meant "immersed" to the people reading them, early on. They were varianted early into words that actually had no concept of immersion in them at all.

Also, let's not confuse immersion itself with credobaptism. Babies have been immersed in baptism since early times as well. And once again, the Reformers had a clear example which they argued against, among the Orthodox churches.

Baptism, by Francis Schaeffer

 

[JM]

"They boast highly of the Fathers; let them; we have one Father, which is in heaven who is above all fathers; their piece and patchwork is of no weight. They write under the inspiration of a corrupt and vicious heart, and we all know that their works are mere impudent lies." Luther

 

[ReformedChapin]

"They boast highly of the Fathers; let them; we have one Father, which is in heaven who is above all fathers; their piece and patchwork is of no weight. They write under the inspiration of a corrupt and vicious heart, and we all know that their works are mere impudent lies." Luther

hope you are taking that quote in context...thats besides the fact that Luther would agree with us in the baptism of infants.

 

[LiturgyInDMinor]

Ok, the perpetual virginity of Mary is hardly an issue of "papal baggage".

 

[ReformedChapin]

Ok, the perpetual virginity of Mary is hardly an issue of "papal baggage".

that's beside the fact that I said "reformers" not a reformer...the whole fallacy of attaching ones theological conviction to a particular group is and utter waste a time. I could easily accuse baptist of being accused of being anabaptists....I haven't because the issue is irrelevant.

 

[LiturgyInDMinor]

that's beside the fact that I said "reformers" not a reformer...the whole fallacy of attaching ones theological conviction to a particular group is and utter waste a time. I could easily accuse baptist of being accused of being anabaptists....I haven't because the issue is irrelevant.

Agreed.

 

[JM]

 

[desmalia]

that's beside the fact that I said "reformers" not a reformer...the whole fallacy of attaching ones theological conviction to a particular group is and utter waste a time. I could easily accuse baptist of being accused of being anabaptists....I haven't because the issue is irrelevant.

Baptist... Anabaptist... Ya, there's some of both 'a those in me... Accuse away! LOL! (I'm still a hard core 5 point Calvinist tho... haha)

 

[the particular baptist]

Ok, the perpetual virginity of Mary is hardly an issue of "papal baggage".

John, what is it an issue of, if not from the romanist papist tradition ?