tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8934298301663499561.post3520226657046951525..comments2023-05-07T09:56:23.909-04:00Comments on The Christian Curmudgeon: Can Baptists Be Reformed?Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07146011447109951026noreply@blogger.comBlogger14125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8934298301663499561.post-26382107342167356372012-07-01T21:06:13.062-04:002012-07-01T21:06:13.062-04:00Farewell William. You are arguing with someone, o...Farewell William. You are arguing with someone, only not with me, so I shall leave you to continue the argument. I'm sure you will win, since he has not posted here.Tom Chantryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02485908616177111150noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8934298301663499561.post-66389922064246329142012-07-01T21:04:56.717-04:002012-07-01T21:04:56.717-04:00On none of the points does Baptist doctrine and pr...On none of the points does Baptist doctrine and practice cohere with Reformed doctrine and practice as expressed Calvin or the Reformed Confessions. Of course, you are welcome to continue to assert otherwise. Perhaps what you want to say is that the historically Reformed have no right to say that Baptists who hold the five points are not Reformed because they do not hold the Reformed system. And, I do not say that Baptist who hold the Five Points are modern evangelicals who hold to the Five Points. I simply say they are Baptist who hold the Five Points but are not Reformed. But, surely you have the right to call yourself what you will as I have the right to object to its historical, doctrinal, or practical accuracy.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07146011447109951026noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8934298301663499561.post-89745887998484050172012-07-01T20:46:09.838-04:002012-07-01T20:46:09.838-04:00William,
I'm sorry, but I am not.
You cited ...William,<br /><br />I'm sorry, but I am not.<br /><br />You cited three particulars in which the Baptist confession does not uphold Reformed doctrine, but your facts are wrong. In one of those particulars - church membership - Baptists differ, and if you wish to make that the fault line between Reformed and non-Reformed, that does not bother me.<br /><br />But you simply did not read our confession closely at all if you truly hold to the other two points. The Baptist confession of 1689 repeats the precise language of Westminster regarding the sacraments as means of grace - the doctrine is identical. That confession also espouses a position on the necessity of church in language which is far closer to Presbyterianism than it is to modern evangelicalism. Further, the whole of the confession asserts such widespread agreement with the "Reformed" on so many topics that to assert that we only agree on the Five Points is absurd - <i>if you have actually read our confession</i>. <br /><br />But then I said all that, interacting with you point by point, and you repeated your earlier assertion without interacting with anything I said (or with anything my friend Richard said in his linked response.) I don't think you care to discuss these particulars, nor do I think you are reading our points.<br /><br />We are baptists, and if you wish to say that paedobaptism is of the <i>esse</i> rather than the <i>bene esse</i> of "Reformed," that is fine; we really don't mind. But to be told that we are only modern evangelicals who happen to hold the Five Points is either ignorant or dishonest, as we have shown. To suggest that we do not hold the Westminster doctrine of the means of grace when our own confession asserts the same doctrine in the same words is - well - offensive.Tom Chantryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02485908616177111150noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8934298301663499561.post-59532762074258031612012-07-01T20:16:45.825-04:002012-07-01T20:16:45.825-04:00Tom, I assume you are speaking tongue in cheek.Tom, I assume you are speaking tongue in cheek.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07146011447109951026noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8934298301663499561.post-68779163380946547372012-07-01T19:55:15.495-04:002012-07-01T19:55:15.495-04:00Well, sir, since you evidently passed judgment on ...Well, sir, since you evidently passed judgment on our confession without reading it, I am unsurprised that you passed judgment on our comments without reading them, either.<br /><br />I don't care where you choose to apply the label "Reformed." I would like not to be misrepresented as you do so.Tom Chantryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02485908616177111150noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8934298301663499561.post-40852098794794362642012-07-01T13:29:06.818-04:002012-07-01T13:29:06.818-04:00Perhaps I am missing something, but it appears to...Perhaps I am missing something, but it appears to me that the comments of my Baptist brethren serve to confirm rather than to contradict my point. Baptists may hold to to the Five Points, but they do not hold to the Reformed faith which is a coherent system of doctrine and practice.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07146011447109951026noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8934298301663499561.post-55169508081184366612012-06-30T13:55:29.675-04:002012-06-30T13:55:29.675-04:00Greetings. I responded to your piece at the Reform...Greetings. I responded to your piece at the Reformed Baptist Fellowship blog. http://reformedbaptistfellowship.org/2012/06/29/can-baptists-be-reformed-is-this-a-contradiction-in-terms-a-baptists-response/Rich Barcelloshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02737056106185097562noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8934298301663499561.post-5085060792682230582012-06-30T12:26:30.607-04:002012-06-30T12:26:30.607-04:00John,
This is a thoroughly unsatisfactory summary...John,<br /><br />This is a thoroughly unsatisfactory summary of the issues between Reformed Baptists and their Reformed brethren. <br /><br />You begin by asserting that Reformed Baptists agree with Presbyterians on the Doctrines of Grace, suggesting that you see this as the extent of our agreement. You then identify three distinctions in our Confession of Faith, - two of which you get wrong and all three of which are found between chapters 26 and 29. On this basis you conclude that “there is much more to Calvinism (and to being Reformed) than the five points of Calvinism.” <br /><br />Think about this for a moment. You have find three points of departure from Presbyterianism at the end of our confession, and, ignoring our substantial agreement with Presbyterianism in the vast majority of particulars (chapters 1 through 25 of our confession!), you imply that we are only really Baptists who happen to hold the Five Points. When some Presbyterians assert this, we wish they knew about our confession. When you misuse that confession to do the same, you open yourself to the accusation of dishonesty.<br /><br />As to your three points: <br /><br />(1) To teach that children of members should not be church members without professing faith is, as you know, at the very heart of the Baptist view of baptism. This is not an additional difference between us, but rather an obvious implication of our doctrine of baptism.<br /><br />(2) You lament the fact that the 1689 lacks particular language regarding the place of the church in salvation. This implies that Reformed Baptists are no different than the many evangelicals who view the church as optional. Perhaps you missed Chapter 26; Paragraph 5, which reads in part, “Those thus called, he commandeth to walk together in particular societies, or churches, for their mutual edification, and the due performance of that public worship, which he requireth of them in the world.” No, that is not the language of the Westminster or Belgic confessions, but it is on point. Church membership is not optional, but commanded by Christ. Reformed Baptists teach that unchurched Christians are no Christians at all, having refused to obey the commands of Christ. This may not be the Westminster approach, but neither is it the modern evangelical approach.<br /><br />(3) Finally, you insist that there is no mention of the ordinances as means of grace. The first place at which the Westminster Confession asserts that the sacraments are means of grace is not in chapter 27, but in chapter 14, “Of Saving Faith.” Paragraph 1 states, “The grace of faith, whereby the elect are enabled to believe to the saving of their souls, is the work of the Spirit of Christ in their hearts, and is ordinarily wrought by the ministry of the Word: by which also, and by the administration of the sacraments, and prayer, it is increased and strengthened.” This statement is largely unchanged in the 1689 confession: “The grace of faith, whereby the elect are enabled to believe to the saving of their souls, is the work of the Spirit of Christ in their hearts, and is ordinarily wrought by the ministry of the Word; by which also, and by the administration of baptism and the Lord's supper, prayer, and other means appointed of God, it is increased and strengthened.” In other words, baptism and the Lord’s supper are explicitly stated to be means of grace in precisely the same manner that Westminster identifies them as such - they are, along with preaching and prayer, means appointed by God for the increase and strengthening of faith.<br /><br />You and your readers ought to recognize that there is more to the Baptist confession than merely a few articles on the Five Points and a restatement of ecclesiology. Our confession is in fact a very careful statement of solidarity with the Reformed view on the substance of the Christian faith, including many points in which we are substantially unlike the evangelicals - even those who now view “Calvinism” as a useful fad. <br /><br />Tom Chantry<br />Christ Reformed Baptist Church<br />Milwaukee, WITom Chantryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02485908616177111150noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8934298301663499561.post-64161085548876643432012-06-28T17:55:28.492-04:002012-06-28T17:55:28.492-04:00John, I am not accepting Iain Murray's distinc...John, I am not accepting Iain Murray's distinction between revivals and revivalism which seems to be the basis for the assertion that the 5 Points Baptists are not revivalists. I describe in the blog which I mean when I describe 5 Points Baptists and New Side Presbyterians as being revivalists. To put a couple of historical names to it - they are followers of Edward and Whitfield. Yes, some of the Baptists have had a confession - but I show in the blog why, on the basis of those confessions they are not Reformed. Moreover, there a few Baptists today who hold the London Confession. Recently for instance Al Mohler said the confessional basis by which he and other SBC members are united is The Baptist Faith and Message. Any way you slice it, when you look at those who call themselves "Reformed Baptists" they are not Reformed. If they were Reformed they would hold a Reformed view of the visible church, of the nature of the sacraments, and of the practice of baptism - to name three particulars.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07146011447109951026noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8934298301663499561.post-15089881762302686272012-06-28T13:01:52.869-04:002012-06-28T13:01:52.869-04:00This is silly. You don't seem to have any ide...This is silly. You don't seem to have any idea what a Reformed Baptist is. You indicate that Reformed Baptists are "revivalists." There is no group of people who are LESS revivalistic than Reformed Baptists. Moreover, you equivocate over what actually constitutes a Reformed Baptist. At one point, you indicate that Baptists who merely affirm the 'five points' are Reformed Baptists, while at other times, you realize that Reformed Baptists have a confessional basis in the 1689 LBCF. Of course Baptists can be Reformed.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04295957484621360370noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8934298301663499561.post-36614195401662327132012-06-26T22:48:02.806-04:002012-06-26T22:48:02.806-04:00Bingo. But I've concluded there are Baptist fr...Bingo. But I've concluded there are Baptist friendly P&R (leery of Lutherans) and Lutheran friendly P&R (leery of Baptists). I wonder if the former know that the Reformed have historically considered Lutherans their closest theological relatives?Stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11873871045094838036noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8934298301663499561.post-43251164308674427862012-06-26T16:15:59.169-04:002012-06-26T16:15:59.169-04:00Ha! The last line is priceless. Troublemaker.Ha! The last line is priceless. Troublemaker.mozarthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12379441959997940489noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8934298301663499561.post-16030582139275319092012-06-26T14:30:39.123-04:002012-06-26T14:30:39.123-04:00I am a "Reformed Baptist" (excuse the te...I am a "Reformed Baptist" (excuse the term, please). I believe that the Supper and Baptism are means of grace. I believe God saves sinners and grows saints by the ordinary means of preaching and administering of the sacraments.TheBeastManhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05303492074583364900noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8934298301663499561.post-56247219501286510862012-06-26T13:56:39.521-04:002012-06-26T13:56:39.521-04:00As usual, you have examined the issue well and ask...As usual, you have examined the issue well and asked all the important questions. Having been reared in the Baptist tradition, but not saved - that came while attending a PCUS church with the lady who would be my wife - I struggled at RTS as to whether I would be a Calvinistic Baptist or a Presbyterian. (The Wife said I could be what ever I wanted, but SHE was a Presbyterian and didn't need to study to know it!) I spent most of my final quarter studying the bible to see which I would be. Once I had a better understanding of Covenant theology, there was only ONE choice for me - Reformed and Presbyterian. (Palmer Robertson's notes were invaluable in that regard.) From that time on I always referred to my Baptist friends who agreed with the "Five Points" as Calvinistic Baptists, because I did not think one could be Baptist AND Reformed, since I equate Reformed and Covenental. For example, I always use the term Covenenatal versus "infant" regarding the baptism of a child or an adult believer. <br /><br />Your blog makes me question whether I can even say Calvinistic Baptist now.<br /><br />At my age I don't look for a "theological battle" with my Baptist friends, but we do need the clarity your blog seeks.OpaRonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15632215027985917101noreply@blogger.com