Reformed Baptists

[Hammster]

The error of Calvinism in our Baptist churches goes back to the 1630’s when some of our Baptist churches became contaminated. The error of Calvinism in our other churches goes back to the 1530’s.

There is no error of Calvinism.

 

[JM]

Hammster is correct. The use of pouring by the early English Anabaptists, who latter identified with the name "Baptist," was an error. It was corrected by the Particular Baptists. But lets not be too anachronistic with the name "Baptist." If the early English Anabaptists held to the teaching of a general atonement for all of humanity it wasn't until the second generation, when the Particular Baptist corrected the error, that the name "Baptist" was actually used. Smyth was Anglican trained, Helwys was a layman, both believed in a popular form of Anglicanism of the time that denied the forensic justification of sinners held by the Reformers.

The Baptist Name Many people assume that Baptists got their name from John the Baptist. This is not the case. Like most religious groups, Baptists were named by their opponents. The name comes from the Baptist practice of immersion.


The first known reference to these believers in England as "Baptists" was in 1644. They did not like the name and did not use it of themselves until years later. The early Baptists preferred to be called "Brethren" or "Brethren of the Baptized Way." Sometimes they called themselves the "Baptized Churches." Early opponents of the Baptists often called them Anabaptists or other less complimentary names.


Baptists rejected the name Anabaptist, not wishing to be confused with or identified with the people who bore that name. (In fact, the true Anabaptists were not fond of that name either, because it had unfavorable overtones from early church history.) Even as late as the eighteenth century, many Baptists referred to themselves as "the Christians commonly (tho’ falsely) called Anabaptists."


Perhaps the most startling practice of early English Baptists was their total immersion for baptism after 1640. Crowds would often gather to witness a Baptist immersion service. Some ridiculed, as did Daniel Featley, describing the Baptists as people who "plung’d over head and eares." The nickname "Baptist" was given to describe the people who practiced this strange form of baptism.
​

Yours in the Lord,

 

[PrincetonGuy]

The use of pouring by the early English Anabaptists, who latter identified with the name "Baptist," was an error. It was corrected by the Particular Baptists. But lets not be too anachronistic with the name "Baptist." If the early English Anabaptists held to the teaching of a general atonement for all of humanity it wasn't until the second generation, when the Particular Baptist corrected the error, that the name "Baptist" was actually used. Smyth was Anglican trained, Helwys was a layman, both believed in a popular form of Anglicanism of the time that denied the forensic justification of sinners held by the Reformers.

The Baptist Name Many people assume that Baptists got their name from John the Baptist. This is not the case. Like most religious groups, Baptists were named by their opponents. The name comes from the Baptist practice of immersion.


The first known reference to these believers in England as "Baptists" was in 1644. They did not like the name and did not use it of themselves until years later. The early Baptists preferred to be called "Brethren" or "Brethren of the Baptized Way." Sometimes they called themselves the "Baptized Churches." Early opponents of the Baptists often called them Anabaptists or other less complimentary names.


Baptists rejected the name Anabaptist, not wishing to be confused with or identified with the people who bore that name. (In fact, the true Anabaptists were not fond of that name either, because it had unfavorable overtones from early church history.) Even as late as the eighteenth century, many Baptists referred to themselves as "the Christians commonly (tho’ falsely) called Anabaptists."


Perhaps the most startling practice of early English Baptists was their total immersion for baptism after 1640. Crowds would often gather to witness a Baptist immersion service. Some ridiculed, as did Daniel Featley, describing the Baptists as people who "plung’d over head and eares." The nickname "Baptist" was given to describe the people who practiced this strange form of baptism.
​

Yours in the Lord,

Helwys and Smyth were not Anabaptists; they were Baptists. The denial of this fact by some Calvinistic Baptists who like to believe that they are the original and true Baptists does not change reality. Arminian Christians are not Arminian Christians because they are called Arminian Christians (indeed, most of them are not called Arminian Christians); they are Arminian Christians because of their Arminian beliefs. Helwys and Smyth were not called Baptists in their lifetime because that appellation was not yet is use. Calvinistic Baptists should face and accept the fact that the earliest Baptists were Arminian in their beliefs, but that some of our Baptist churches have been contaminated with a system of theology first conceived in the early part of the 16th century.

 

[DeaconDean]

Helwys and Smyth were not Anabaptists; they were Baptists. The denial of this fact by some Calvinistic Baptists who like to believe that they are the original and true Baptists does not change reality. Arminian Christians are not Arminian Christians because they are called Arminian Christians (indeed, most of them are not called Arminian Christians); they are Arminian Christians because of their Arminian beliefs. Helwys and Smyth were not called Baptists in their lifetime because that appellation was not yet is use. Calvinistic Baptists should face and accept the fact that the earliest Baptists were Arminian in their beliefs, but that some of our Baptist churches have been contaminated with a system of theology first conceived in the early part of the 16th century.

You know, the use of you saying:

contaminated

Is rather anoying. In fact, its almost a slap in the face.

I could say the same thing about the "contamination" of the "I" theology of Arminian Baptists.

I for one, would apprecaite it if you would cease saying that.

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[faroukfarouk]

Before ppl start saying that some Gospel-preaching baptists are contaminated by other Gospel-preaching baptists, I think it's wise to look at one's own heart.

If I joined the perfect church, I would spoil it.

 

[JM]

"The first known reference to these believers in England as "Baptists" was in 1644."

 

[faroukfarouk]

"The first known reference to these believers in England as "Baptists" was in 1644."

Under a different name, there were so called Brownists, similar to baptists, in the 16th century.

 

[PrincetonGuy]

Before ppl start saying that some Gospel-preaching baptists are contaminated by other Gospel-preaching baptists, I think it's wise to look at one's own heart.

If I joined the perfect church, I would spoil it.

No one in this thread is saying that some Baptists are contaminated, but only that the theology of some Baptist churches has become contaminated by Calvinism.

 

[faroukfarouk]

No one in this thread is saying that some Baptists are contaminated, but only that the theology of some Baptist churches has become contaminated by Calvinism.

Which is to say: I despise Calvinsits; who do you despise?

 

[PrincetonGuy]

You know, the use of you saying:



Is rather anoying. In fact, its almost a slap in the face.

I could say the same thing about the "contamination" of the "I" theology of Arminian Baptists.

I for one, would apprecaite it if you would cease saying that.

God Bless

Till all are one.

DeaconDean,

I am sorry that my choice of words offended you. I could have used the word ‘corrupted’ which, when speaking of theology, would be linguistically more accurate, but it expresses a more severe condition than ‘contaminated.’ What word would you suggest I use?

 

[faroukfarouk]

The fact is, we can be so convinced that we are right that we can easily say things about other Christians who, in fact, try to base their thinking on Scripture. We all have different interpretations of various things, of course.

 

[PrincetonGuy]

Which is to say: I despise Calvinsits; who do you despise?

?????

I do NOT despise or even dislike Calvinists. In my experience as a Christian, I have known fewer than ten men whom I believe were Christians in the fullest sense of the word—and one of those men was a staunch five point Calvinist and one of the very finest men that I have ever known! By the way, I am NOT included in the fewer than ten men—not even close!

 

[JLR1300]

"I am sorry that my choice of words offended you. I could have used the word ‘corrupted’ which, when speaking of theology, would be linguistically more accurate, but it expresses a more severe condition than ‘contaminated.’ What word would you suggest I use?"

I would suggest "improved."

 

[DeaconDean]

To the best of my knowledge, there has only been a period of three years in which we had "pure" theology.

Even as early as AD 50, there was division.

In 1 Cor. 3:4-6 we read:

"4 For while one saith, I am of Paul; and another, I am of Apollos; are ye not carnal?
5 Who then is Paul, and who is Apollos, but ministers by whom ye believed, even as the Lord gave to every man?
6 I have planted, Apollos watered; but God gave the increase."

Even in the second century it can be argued that:

So far as we can tell, all of these groups appealed to written authorities for their views, texts that were allegedly penned by apostles.

Some groups subscribed to Gospel accounts written in the names of Thomas or Philip or Peter, or attributed to Matthew or John or
Mark. We know of Christians in the TransJordan who adopted a Hebrew Gospel similar to our own Gospel according to Matthew,
of Christians in Egypt who used the Gospel of the Egyptians, of others there who accepted the Gospel of the Hebrews, of yet others
who subscribed to the Gospel according to Thomas; there were Christians in Rhossus who revered the Gospel of Peter, Christians
in Rome who read a synopsis of Matthew, Mark, and Luke, Christians in Syria who read an expanded version of this that included John,​

Christians in Alexandria who read only John, and Christians in Asia Minor who read only Luke, and that in a somewhat truncated form.

​

​

​

​

Studies in the Textual Criticism of the New Testament, Bart Erhman and James Grey, Edited by: Bruce Metzger, Brill, Linden, Boston, Copyright 2006, Chapter II, The Text of the Gospels at the end of the Second Century, Introduction, Diversity in Second-Century Christianity, p. 72

So technically, from about AD 33 until now, there has been no "pure" theology. There has always been some influence. Whether it was early in that some Christians claim to follow only the teachings of one Apostle or another, or one theolgian or another.

So each and every age technically, has been "contaminated" or "corrupted" in one form or another.

Some say Calvinism "contaminated" or "corrupted" Christians, personally, I believe Arminianism did the same.

God Bless

Till all are one.
​

 

[now faith]

I whole heartedly agree with you Deacon,I suppose it's man's nature to have a false sense of pride.
Ecclesiastes: 1. 8. All things are full of labour; man cannot utter it: the eye is not satisfied with seeing, nor the ear filled with hearing. 9. The thing that hath been, it is that which shall be; and that which is done is that which shall be done: and there is no new thing under the sun. 10. Is there any thing whereof it may be said, See, this is new? it hath been already of old time, which was before us. - Bible Offline

 

[FredVB]

This is true that there is division and divisiveness in Christian history even from so early on. Yet in a Christian community it does not really have to be with it that way. We who are together as believers are told to be of one mind to each other, as said in Romans 12 verse 16. This was said because it is made possible for us, and there is this modeled for us, with the church coming to this as described in Acts 2 verse 46 and Acts 4 verses 24 and 32.

There are easily different beliefs that are derived even from believing the Bible as Yahweh's word. Yet the Bible is very thorough. With checking all of it for what is dealt with of any topic to which the Bible says anything, the position on it is indeed determined. We will then need to accept all that the scriptures say on a topic to find the determined scriptural position on it. But for much of what others find a different conclusion, we should not divide any fellowship in Christ over such, if there is agreement on the essentials in faith to be in Christ.

Yahweh our God is love, and without violation of God's certain justice God makes provision, not wanting any to perish, but for all to come to repentance for redemption through Christ, though the way is narrow and not all will. Positions that align with all of Yahweh's word will need to take such verses speaking of these things into account.

 

[JM]

https://feileadhmor.wordpress.com/tag/is-calvinism-biblical/

 

[FredVB]

Both Arminianism and Calvinism are extremes. Either position can be taken using certain scripture passages. Salvation is all the work of Yahweh God. One cannot stop being saved just as one cannot save one's self. No person is absolved of responsibility though. Yahweh is not willing that any should perish and all should come to repentance for redemption through Christ. So grace, that Yahweh is then providing, for all to have opportunity, from Yahweh's work with what is done through Christ, is not irresistible. Those who come to Yahweh being in Christ through faith are then sealed with the Spirit of God, so they show spiritual growth, even with any slipping from it that may happen, and endure to the end.

 

[JM]

The Sacred Name movement is extreme and myopic.

To claim the two major positions of soteriology in the Baptist camp are extreme pretends to a perfection of ones own positions which is neither stated or defended.

...and you can proof tex the "sacred name" to boot!

 

[FredVB]

Who of us is bringing up anything about a Sacred Name movement? It is not brought up from anything I have been saying. Or is this just a knee jerk reaction to seeing the name of God in use?

There is no pretence to perfection which there is this accusation about. My positions that I state are generally very orthodox, yet with scripture I can show at any time things said that are neglected from Arminianism, or from Calvinism, if those things are not reinterpreted in a way apart from orthodox understanding.