Reformed
Baptists
Reformed
Baptist (n.) - an all-wet Presbyterian with a copier, a bottle of white-out, a
pen, and no recollection of Reformation atrocities.
----------
Danny
Some
time ago, I was asked what I thought about “Reformed Baptists” and provided
this admittedly provocative definition in response. As a result, I was accused
of careless rhetoric and making “blanket statements” regarding other
Christians. I would not disagree that this is a “blanket statement” in that it
broadly applies to those who refer to themselves as “Reformed Baptists.” I
would suggest that folks who bluster at this definition train their attention
instead upon a more important question - Is this true? Consider the following:
All-wet
Presbyterian with a copier - this comes from the indisputable fact that large
portions of the Second London Confession (1689) affirmed by the Reformed
Baptists are directly copied from the Presbyterian Westminster Confession of
Faith, and among the most prevalent edits they made to the document were to
state that baptism is by immersion.
A
bottle of white-out - per the items they removed from the WCF.
A
pen - per the edits and additions they made to the WCF.
And
no recollection of Reformation atrocities - in that they proudly bear the
“Reformed” moniker when the testimony of history is that the “Reformers”
slaughtered and tortured untold numbers of their Baptist forefathers in the
same way that the Roman Catholic Church treated the Reformers - a fact
conspicuously absent from Foxes Book of Martyrs.
While
I am thankful that the Reformed Baptists embrace a great deal more truth than
the Arminian Baptists who seem to dominate the Baptist landscape, I
nevertheless completely stand by the definition I provided. Rather than find
offence in it, I would ask that it be given due consideration in light of the
four-point clarification above. If these things are true, “Am I therefore
become your enemy, because I tell you the truth?” (Galatians 4:16)
“Come and see.” (John 1:46)
Reggy
Yeah...
reformed Baptists actually means, I don't know my history.
Tyler
Not
to mention "Reformed Baptists" as they exist today originated in the
1960s under the Banner of Truth trust.
Jack
A
Reformed Baptist is an oxymoron. The Baptist church was never historically
a part of Rome and therefore never had to be reformed. Reformers also are baby
sprinklers so even in simplest terms, they aren’t Baptists.
Sing
I suggest that the Reformed Baptists came about in the 1960's and drank deeply from the Presby's fountains.
The RBs have twisted and perverted the old-school theology summarized in the 1689 CoF.
I
thought the older Primitive Baptists adopted the 1689 CoF at Fulton in 1900.
Older and younger Primitive Baptists are now divided, which is unsurprising.
The Framers of the 1689 CoF were far wiser than some folks are willing to acknowledge.
Danny
Sing:
May I suggest that the Reformed Baptist breed came about in the 1960s and drank
deeply from the Presby's fountains?
Danny:
There is a lot of truth in that.
S:
They have twisted and perverted the old-school theology summarized in the 1689
CoF.
D:
There's a lot to unpack here. Rather than go there, I'll just say there are
issues with the WCF, issues with the 1689, and issues with the RBs.
S:
I thought the older Primitive Baptists adopted the 1689 CoF at Fulton in 1900.
D:
This is only true if by "adopted" you mean "revised with
annotations in order to achieve approval from a group of turn of the century
Old Baptists." That loose definition of "adoption" would prevent
me from using the term to describe what happened in Fulton, KY. Whether
intentional or not, I believe that terminology is apt to lead people to a
distorted view of history.
S:
Older and younger Primitive Baptists are now divided, which is unsurprising.
D:
PBs are not devoid of family controversy.
S:
The Framers of the 1689 CoF were far wiser than folk are willing to
acknowledge.
D:
I don't doubt there were wise, brilliant, and godly men involved in the 1689
and the WCF from which it was copied. That said, I believe there are doctrinal
errors codified in both of these confessions. Whether that is wisdom or folly
on my part, let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind. I can only say
that I would not sign-off on either of them. What's more, I believe that those
well-intentioned men who endorsed the 1689 (even my Old Baptists forefathers)
made a tactical error in judgment. This is a moderately controversial take on
my part. The mere suggestion of breaking with some aspect of "baptist
history" by stating there is error in the 1689 is nigh on heresy for some.
Without belaboring the point, it requires little more than the recognition that
PB heritage and biblical orthodoxy are not the same thing. PBs can be wrong.
The bible tells me so (Galatians 1).
Johnny
I
agree with this assessment. I have said for a while the modern reformed Baptist movement is nothing more than credo Presbyterianism. They hold the same
doctrine soteriologically, christilogically, and ecclesiologically. They do
this while rejecting many of the main tenets that historic baptist who penned
the 89 rejoiced in.
It is interesting, the choice to copy the Westminster was stimulated by a desire to avoid persecution. What is more interesting to me though is that the ministers of the Westminster assembly copied parts of the 44. So baptist weren’t the only ones who with a copy machine 😉
Jack
Johnny,
that’s exactly what RB is. On the plus side, I’ve found that some of their
people have come to PB after realizing the extent of their beliefs in election,
predestination and the like lead to the Primitive position but on the negative side
most of their followers are ruthless towards PBs dismissing us as a
Hyper-Calvinistic cult for even suggesting that there are non-evangelized
elect.
Johnny
Jack,
the only RB people that I have found to be hostile towards PB’s has only been
on the internet. Every RB member or elder that I have ever talk with has been
highly inquisitive. Most want to have extended meetings with me to discuss
historical aspects of our faith. The key I have found is be careful to not use
language that is confusing to their understanding of theology nor use language
that overly exclusive.
Jack
Johnny, there’s a lot of truth in what you’re saying. The internet can be a ruthless
tool where everyone calls everyone a heretic. It’s almost the theological “yo
mamma” in some of these circles. But no I agree, I’ve seen many docile,
approachable Reformed Baptists. And even some Southern Baptists disenchanted
with the mega church seeker friendly environments.
Danny
Johnny
- History proves that Baptists and Presbyterians be recycling.
