starting to understand.....

[Imblessed]

I think I'm starting to understand how people can consider 'reformed' and 'calvinist' to be two different things.

I remember ages ago we had a discussion on that and some spoke how they felt that to be 'reformed' was basically an adherance to the 5 solas and TULIP and not much else, but to be 'calvinist' was to have those beliefs plus the others--covenantal theology and such.

I actually felt it was the opposite------until recently, that is.

Right now, I'm taking a Reformed Theology class at my church. It's 3 months long, once a week and covers Sprouls "Grace Unknown" and Boice's "Doctrines of Grace" and "The Gospel of Grace".

It's a great class, and I'm really enjoying the books by Boice, but I'm quickly seeing how people 'see' reformed and calvinism differently.

We are also doing a study on 1Thess. right now--8 weeks in and we are just finishing chapter one this weekend!---and our pastor is discussing the last verse of chapter 1. Our church puts out what they call a 'pulpit study guide' that not only overviews what Pastor Tim is speaking on, but also give some more in-depth study on certain aspects-articles written by others, etc. etc. We get the pulpit study guide early so that those of us who lead small groups can prepare for discussion in case the group meets on the weekend, or early in the week. Anywhoo, I noticed that in the guide, Pastor Tim is affirming the dispensationalist view of the end times. I must admit, I am a bit disappointed, but I'm not freaking out over it or anything.

The reason I even mention it, is that I now see that you can be 'reformed' and yet still hold to a dispensational view. Maybe it's a baptist thing!! I'm hoping I don't hear the ultra-dispensational junk though---in my own opinion there are some reasonable dispensationalists and there are some 'wayyyy out there' who obsess on the condition of Israel and latch on to every 'date' set. I don't think that Tim is like that, he seems very reasonable in every OTHER way!

I would like to add that I've pretty much abandoned my 'dispensationalist upbringing' (as weak as it was) so I'm not sure how much I'm going to enjoy this weekend's service, although I don't think the focus on the sermon is going to be 'the rapture' as much as how we should be anticipating Christ's return as iminent, and what that really means. I guess it goes to show that you can have disagreements on some parts of theology with your church and still love 'em dearly!

 

[cygnusx1]

Hi Imblessed , good to see you.

I am aware that some have a negative attitude towards the rapture , and to my understanding I cannot imagine why ? fear of flying ?

Also , while setting dates is a mugs game , the future hope of Israel is recognized by a large segment of the Church , almost all the Puritans , as well as Spurgeon accepted a bright future for Israel (the Jews) , so I don't really see a problem with being Calvinist and accepting this understanding of Romans 11.

I have never been convinced of a literal millennium , or a rebuilding of the temple in Jerusalem , I guess I am part literalist (dispe) but mostly A-Millennial.

Great to see you and don't worry if you don't agree with all Tim says , I am sure he values your fellowship and prayers.

God Bless Sister

</IMG></IMG>

 

[heymikey80]

I think the terminology's only recently emerged this way, and I think it's backward versus actual history. Calvin was not completely clear either way, and dispensationals and covenantals have different points of contact with him. Reformed thought has been dominated by covenantal thinking -- although there are "reactionary extremes" in covenantalism that are disconcerting -- just less vocal than hyperdispensationalism.

Covenant concepts are more often more accurate, granted. But they can't be swallowed uncritically, either. In Christ we trust: all others need watching.

 

[Imblessed]

Had to laugh at your last statement: In Christ we trust: all others need watching.........brilliant!

 

[Imblessed]

I ended up making a trip up to Chicago this weekend to spend time with my sister---she's having some difficulties at work and was pretty down in the dumps. It was great seeing her and being able to actually spend time with her without any kids around. Her children are at our parents' house and I left mine with my husband. We actually had the chance to go shopping, eat out, see a movie, and talk for hours without anyone else around: a first for us!

But, it means I missed the service this weekend. I'll have to check it out online when it come available this week---then I'll be able to let you all know what he talked about, if it's of interest....

 

[Iosias]

I remember ages ago we had a discussion on that and some spoke how they felt that to be 'reformed' was basically an adherance to the 5 solas and TULIP and not much else, but to be 'calvinist' was to have those beliefs plus the others--covenantal theology and such.

I would argue that to be Reformed one must accept the Reformed Creeds and Confessions i.e. the Three Forms of Unity or the Westminster Standards. Baptists who agree with TULIP are Calvinistic not Reformed IMO.

 

[Iosias]

I am aware that some have a negative attitude towards the rapture , and to my understanding I cannot imagine why ? fear of flying ?

Because it is complete rubbish and wholly unsupported from Scripture and invented in the 1800s.

Also , while setting dates is a mugs game , the future hope of Israel is recognized by a large segment of the Church , almost all the Puritans , as well as Spurgeon accepted a bright future for Israel (the Jews) , so I don't really see a problem with being Calvinist and accepting this understanding of Romans 11.

Spurgeon was a Premillennialist and so took his optimism from that erronious eschatology. A number of Puritans were postmillennialists or optimistic amillennialists both of which are wrong. A few were premill and so in the same category as Spurgeon.

The view of Scripture:
The world will get progressively worse and then Christ will come. Christ will save his elect during this time but there will be no major conversion periods. God will save both Jew and Gentile until all Israel (the Church) is saved.

 

[cygnusx1]

Because it is complete rubbish and wholly unsupported from Scripture and invented in the 1800s.

that is your view , here's mine ;



[SIZE=+0]1 Thessalonians 4:15 For this we say unto you by the word of the Lord, that we which are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord shall not prevent them which are asleep.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=+0]1 Thess 4:16 For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first:[/SIZE]
[SIZE=+0]1 Thess 4:17 Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air[/SIZE]: and so shall we ever be with the Lord.
1 [SIZE=+0]Thess[/SIZE] 4:18 Therefore comfort one another with these words. [SIZE=+0][caught up=HARPAZO=Rapture][/SIZE]

Spurgeon was a Premillennialist and so took his optimism from that erronious eschatology. A number of Puritans were postmillennialists or optimistic amillennialists both of which are wrong. A few were premill and so in the same category as Spurgeon.

irrelevant ! Why ?

because 'Millenium' is mentioned how many times and where in scripture , is it once , in Rev ........ a book full of visions and imagery , unlike any other NT book.

The view of Scripture:
The world will get progressively worse and then Christ will come. Christ will save his elect during this time but there will be no major conversion periods. God will save both Jew and Gentile until all Israel (the Church) is saved.

sure there will be a big apostacy , yet scripture also says a great fullness ; BB WARFIELD was optimistic . As for the Jews , the hardening of a nation was only tempory , their future is very bright !



God hath not cast away his people which he foreknew. Romans 11:2

The context is clearly national Israel .God casting away the elect within Israel is not up for consideration in the entire chapter.

A review of the flow of Paul's arguement . Paul in Romans chapter nine is dealing with individual Election as an explanation for God's consistancy over keeping true to His promises , ie, it is not as though the word of God has failed , for God elects individuals , such as Jacob , these are chosen unconditionally thus securing God's promises to Abraham and David inspite of Israel's fall.

From the subject of individual election Paul moves next , in Chapter ten , onto the wider question of the place of National Israel , in the flesh , also known as "Jacob".

Romans 10​

1Brethren, my heart's desire and prayer to God for Israel is, that they might be saved. ​

2For I bear them record that they have a zeal of God, but not according to knowledge. ​

3For they being ignorant of God's righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God. ​

This is obviously not talking about Spiritual Israel , it is speaking of physical Israel.


onwards through Romans chapter ten Paul is still speaking of physical Israel ...

19But I say, Did not Israel know? First Moses saith, I will provoke you to jealousy by them that are no people, and by a foolish nation I will anger you. ​

20But Esaias is very bold, and saith, I was found of them that sought me not; I was made manifest unto them that asked not after me. 21But to Israel he saith, All day long I have stretched forth my hands unto a disobedient and gainsaying people.​

Clearly these scriptures are dealing with a national , not an individual problem.

Then Paul continues in Romans chapter eleven just as he has been , writing about the serious perplexing problem of physical Israel ....

Romans 11​

1I say then, Hath God cast away his people? God forbid. For I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin. ​

2God hath not cast away his people which he foreknew. Wot ye not what the scripture saith of Elias? how he maketh intercession to God against Israel saying,


Clearly Paul feels equipped to strongly deny any notion that God's relationship with national Israel is finished , he demonstrates the error of supposing God has closed the door on the Jews because of their rejection of the Messiah by using his own conversion as proof positive that God has not forsaken the Jews .

1I say then, Hath God cast away his people? God forbid. For I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin.

It is not a question of God simply saving the elect within Israel , God elects Gentiles as well , but that is not Paul's reason for talking about his conversion , clearly Paul is using his own conversion to underline his arguement that God has not changed his mind about the Jews , God remains faithful to Israel even though some Jews are hardened and lost.


Remember this ....

Romans 3


1 What advantage then hath the Jew? or what is the profit of circumcision?
2 Much every way: first of all, that they were intrusted with the oracles of God.
3 For what if some were without faith? shall their want of faith make of none effect the faithfulness of God? 4 God forbid: yea, let God be found true, but every man a liar; as it is written, That thou mightest be justified in thy words, And mightest prevail when thou comest into judgment.

The whole arguement is over God's faithfulness in a relationship built on promises , has God rejected not the elect Church (both Jews and Gentiles) , but has God rejected the nation of Israel in the flesh , that is the question Paul is dealing with.
And the answer is , NO!

Romans 11​

2God hath not cast away his people which he foreknew. Wot ye not what the scripture saith of Elias? how he maketh intercession to God against Israel saying,


see the accompanying arguement , straight after "God hath not cast away his people which he foreknew."
Paul continues straight away to talk about Israel in the flesh

2b.Wot ye not what the scripture saith of Elias? how he maketh intercession to God against Israel saying,


and so the rest of the chapter proceeds , and the Israel God has loved throughout the Old Testament , always did consist of a mixed bunch of elect and none -elect . These are described as "his people which he foreknew."


Finally , it is not just Spiritual Israel that are beloved , it is national Israel ..

28As concerning the gospel, they are enemies for your sakes: but as touching the election, they are beloved for the father's sakes.


Clearly Spiritual Israel are not enemies of the Gospel , and the stumble of the Jews is not speaking about elect Jews , God has never given up on His people , the thought is God hardened them for a salvivic reason which included their future restoration , back into the vine .


A true sign according to God's word of God's love for some one is that they are chastised ... who but a blind man could read the Old Testament and declare God didn't really love Israel ............... just the remnant ! ​

 

[Iosias]

caught up=HARPAZO=Rapture

What I am refering to is the premillennial dispensational rapture of the church before the seven year tribulation

Have you read Princeton and the Millennium: A Study of American Postmillennialism by Kim Riddlebarger?

 

[GrinningDwarf]

I would argue that to be Reformed one must accept the Reformed Creeds and Confessions i.e. the Three Forms of Unity or the Westminster Standards. Baptists who agree with TULIP are Calvinistic not Reformed IMO.

I would tend to agree with this...to an extent. For instance, John MacArthur is definitely a Calvinist in his soteriology, but I don't think anybody would consider him to be Reformed. He definitely does not agree with the Reformers in eschatology or ecclesiology.

However, what about those Baptists holding to the London Confession of the Baptist Faith? This is very similar to the Westminster Confession.

In my studies over the last few years, it seems to me that to be 'Reformed', in addition to the 'Five Points of Calvinism' and the 'Five Solas', one also needs to hold to a view of Covenant Theology. At least, that's what the Reformers taught. And this would tend to disqualify at least most of those who are dispensational. I've been told that some people hold to covenant theology and a dispensational worldview. I suppose I'll take them at their word....but I havn't figured out yet how that could be.

 

[Iosias]

However, what about those Baptists holding to the London Confession of the Baptist Faith? This is very similar to the Westminster Confession.

Similar but with key differences see here. "Reformed" Baptists are not IMO Reformed because they do not hold to covenant theology which by necessity demands paedobaptism. There are also differences in their view of the New Covenant and the Church.

 

[Imblessed]

Similar but with key differences see here. "Reformed" Baptists are not IMO Reformed because they do not hold to covenant theology which by necessity demands paedobaptism. There are also differences in their view of the New Covenant and the Church.

I would tend to disagree that in order to hold to a covenantal theology one MUST be paedobaptist. I think you can be credo, and still agree with covenantal theology. Although, it's not as easy! ~

 

[edie19]

I would tend to disagree that in order to hold to a covenantal theology one MUST be paedobaptist. I think you can be credo, and still agree with covenantal theology. Although, it's not as easy! ~

I agree since my pastors are covenantal and credo-baptists.

edie

 

[mlqurgw]

I would tend to agree with this...to an extent. For instance, John MacArthur is definitely a Calvinist in his soteriology, but I don't think anybody would consider him to be Reformed. He definitely does not agree with the Reformers in eschatology or ecclesiology.

However, what about those Baptists holding to the London Confession of the Baptist Faith? This is very similar to the Westminster Confession.

In my studies over the last few years, it seems to me that to be 'Reformed', in addition to the 'Five Points of Calvinism' and the 'Five Solas', one also needs to hold to a view of Covenant Theology. At least, that's what the Reformers taught. And this would tend to disqualify at least most of those who are dispensational. I've been told that some people hold to covenant theology and a dispensational worldview. I suppose I'll take them at their word....but I havn't figured out yet how that could be.

Though I believe strongly that God is a covenant God and deals with men according to His covenants I am not Reformed and definitely not Dispensational. Nor do I hold to Covenant theology. There are some major differences in thinking not only concerning baptism. The true meaning of the terms Calvinist and Reformed have been lost to a great extent by a broader use of the terms. I may call myself a Calvinist to those who don't really know the differences but those who do have no trouble seeing I am not. Like Spurgeon, I use the term for brevity in the sense of the 5 points.

 

[strengthinweakness]

I am a member of a Reformed Baptist church, and everyone in the church with whom I have discussed the topic of Covenant Theology either holds to it, finds it at least Biblically reasonable, or pleads ignorance. The church small group Bible study that I attend is taught with a distinct "Covenant Theology" flavor. I have little problem with this fact, as at least at this point, Covenant Theology seems Biblical to me. I just don't understand why paedobaptists do not believe that credobaptists can consistently hold to covenantal theology. Infant baptism is not a "make-or-break" issue here. One belongs to the covenantal family of God by virtue of having been chosen by Him, not by virtue of having been born with Christian parents (see Romans 9:6-16, which speaks to this issue of "salvation by lineage") and having been baptized as an infant. Even the most dedicated paedobaptist would have to admit that the facts of one being born into a Christian family and being baptized as an infant do not guarantee that one will become a Christian. At that point, then, the question becomes, "How does one actually belong to God's covenant family?"-- a question on which paedobaptists and credobaptists obviously disagree. However, this disagreement does not mean that credobaptists cannot consistently hold to Covenant Theology.

 

[edie19]

Similar but with key differences see here. "Reformed" Baptists are not IMO Reformed because they do not hold to covenant theology which by necessity demands paedobaptism. There are also differences in their view of the New Covenant and the Church.

from my pastor

The short and honest answer is that Reformed Baptist theology is covenant theology in its most mature expression. Baptists have always taken the Reformed goal seriously, that is, to be thoroughly Biblical in all our understanding of God and His world.

When the glorious doctrine of the covenant is study *in the Bible* without the baggage of tradition, it is clear that it will result in a church made of believers only.

When the Old covenant looked to the New covenant that was made by Our Lord, it saw a covenant that was greater. Why was it (the New) greater? Well, one of the most profound realities of the covenant instituted by Christ's death was that in it:

"They will not teach again, each man his neighbor and each man his brother, saying, 'Know the LORD,' for they will all know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them," declares the LORD," for I will forgive their iniquity, and their sin I will remember no more."

Unlike the Old, which *did* include unbelieving people (think of Saul vs. David) the New is populated by those who need no teacher to instruct in the knowledge of the God and His salvation. An honest reading the New Testament will bear out that the church was made up of believers (and at times liars) only.

This is the short and direct answer. Reformed Baptist theology alone takes seriously the *Biblical* teaching of the Covenant of grace.

 

[Iosias]

I would tend to disagree that in order to hold to a covenantal theology one MUST be paedobaptist. I think you can be credo, and still agree with covenantal theology. Although, it's not as easy! ~

I was expecting a response along these lines however I would point out that there is a difference between Covenant Theology and the covenantal theology of Calvinistic baptists.

 

[Iosias]

The short and honest answer is that Reformed Baptist theology is covenant theology in its most mature expression.

Sorry I couldn't resist.

Try to get a copy of this. Prof Hanko interacts with Reformed Baptists such as David Kingdon.

Here are some interesting articles:

This
The Reformed Baptist View of Baptism and the Covenant (1)
A Reformed Response to the Reformed Baptist View of Baptism and the Covenant (2)
A Reformed Response to the Reformed Baptist View of Baptism and the Covenant (3)

 

[Iosias]

I just don't understand why paedobaptists do not believe that credobaptists can consistently hold to covenantal theology.

Because the Reformed view is that the covenant includes the infants of believers which is denied by Baptists hence they are not Reformed.

 

[strengthinweakness]

I was expecting a response along these lines however I would point out that there is a difference between Covenant Theology and the covenantal theology of Calvinistic baptists.

AV1611, did you read what edb19's pastor wrote on this subject in the above post? He acknowledged that there is a difference between the Reformed paedobaptistic view of Covenant Theology and the Reformed credobaptistic view of it. We believe that our view is more reflective of the actual teaching of the Bible, on the nature of the Covenant and how one actually belongs to it. The motto of the Reformers was "Reformed and always reforming, according to the Word of God." Calvin and others in the Protestant Reformation were theologically right on so many things-- most things, actually--, but we Baptists sincerely think that they were Biblically wrong on the issues of paedobaptism and how one truly belongs to the Covenant (which, Biblically speaking, is not by virtue of having been born into a Christian family and having been baptized as an infant, but by virtue of having been chosen by God for salvation, as is explained in Romans 9, verses 6-16). I know that this irks many Reformed Christians, and it leads them to say that Reformed Baptists are "not Reformed," but in order to be true to the actual, stated spirit of the original Reformers ("Reformed and always reforming, according to the Word of God"), we Reformed Baptists have had to reject their (mis)understandings of, respectively, paedobaptistm, and how one belongs to the Covenant family of God.