What Is A Reformed Baptist?
David Charles has produced the Five Points Of Reformed Baptist Churches on his blog. According to Charles, the five points are...
1. Reformational
2. Calvinistic
3. Puritan
4. Coventanal
5. Baptist
I agree with a majority of what this Christian brother says in his post. However, I find some points of disagreement. I guess that makes me a an Almost-Reformed Baptist.
10 comments:
Interesting. I don't call myself a Reformed Baptist, yet most of the people I agree with are Reformed Baptists. Part of my problem is with the phrase itself--anyone who studies Baptist history will know that Baptists didn't sprout out of the Reformation like all the other denominations. They existed before the Reformation (under various names, including Anabaptist) and were persecuted by the Reformers as much as by the Catholic Church. I know that's not what the phrase means, but that's what it sounds like: "Reformation Baptists."
My other problem with going 100% "Reformed Baptist" is that I only agree with about 3.5 of the 5 points of Calvinism. I guess I'd be booted out of the club because I believe the offer of salvation is open to each and every person on earth--and that the individual has to actively "believe" or "accept" the gift in order for the transaction to have any meaning.
For what it is worth, I am a five point Calvinst and I also believe that the gospel is to be offered to all people without distinction. I simply believe that those who respond to the gospel are those who have been chosen by the Father for the Son as a gift (John 6:37). So if the free of the gospel is keeping you out of any "Calvinist Club", you can join mine instead.
Also, I would like to know what of the points you disagree with and why. Thanks for your thoughts.
Well, maybe I'm just misunderstanding the semantics. My two points of disagreement with Calvinists are 1) limited atonement. This is the point I was talking about above. It suggests that Christ's sacrifice is available to some but not all. Of course not everyone in the world will be saved, so in that sense--retrospectively--it is limited. But its reach and power is not limited and is open to all. Calling it limited atonement seems to serve no practical purpose other than to include oneself as one of the elite, and seems to suggest that there was only so much blood spilled at Calvary, but not quite enough to pay off all debts.
And 2) Unconditional election (I partly believe this). But I believe there has to be some acceptance of the gift on the part of the believer. This is not a "work" but a "belief." The Calvinists would say that removes God's complete sovereignty and puts part of salvation in the hands of man. But "whosoever believeth" means something. A baby can't believe; it has to first understand. If someone offers me a gift for Christmas, my accepting the gift doesn't mean I somehow created the gift. The giver is still sovereign; and the gift is even more meaningful than if it were forced on a mindless automaton.
That's why I say I'm a 3.5 point Calvinist :)
Steve
Thanks for taking the time to explain your views.
I cannot speak for all Calvinists but on the nature of the atonement, I believe the Bible teaches that Christ's death was intended to save his people (Matthew 1:21). He states that he dies specificly for his sheep (John 10:14, 15). His mission was to save his people and he accomplished that mission as he says in John 19:30. His work was offered up for those who are being set apart (Heb. 10:14).
There are many Calvinists who believe that although Christ's death was sufficient to save all people, it was specifcily efficent for the elect. Andrew Fuller, a postmill Baptist by the way, expounded this the clearest in his writings.
On election and faith, the Bible teaches that all who truly repent of their sins and believe in the gospel will be saved from the wrath of God. Yet, I also believe the Bible teaches that repentence and faith are both gifts from God, given to some... the elect. In the words of Luke, those who were appointed to eternal life believed (Acts 10:48). According to the same author, God gives repentence as a gift, which in turn leads to life (Acts 11:18). These are gifts given to some, not all.
These gifts are necessary because all people, including the elect, are dead in their sins (Eph. 2:1-3). All people, according to Paul, do not seek God on their own (Romans 3:11). The natural man loves his sin more than Jesus, thus, he will not come to the Light apart the work of God (John 3:19, 20).
I hope this helps and I would like to say that I am grateful we can speak with each other about this subject in a spirit of charity.
[tried posting this before but it got lost]
With Calvinism a lot of it seems to just be a matter of perspective and semantics. If “limited atonement” means “not every soul will be saved,” then I agree. That’s kind of a “duh” self-evident historical fact. But the unfortunate phrase itself suggests that Christ’s hands are partially tied, or that some people could never be saved even if they wanted to. While Christ did die for the saved (another self-evident fact), he also died for the whole world. “For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved” (John 3: 17). And “he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world” (I John 2: 2).
It would be interesting to square limited atonement with the postmil belief in the majority of mankind coming to salvation as the kingdom spreads. Does limited atonement expand with time? Just thinking out loud.
I’m still sorting through all this and appreciate your thoughts and comments. Currently I am neither an Arminian or a Calivinist—if you can believe that someone can be neither.
I believe a sovereign God offered one way of redemption for mankind, and that individuals can’t choose whether or not God calls them. But they can choose whether or not to heed that call (e.g. Acts 26:28, 29, or John 1: 12). That doesn’t make the individual in any way sovereign; it makes him either arrogant and rebellious or humble and grateful. Embracing a life preserver does not mean you saved yourself from drowning; the one who offered it and pulled you in saved you.
On the other hand, if there is absolutely no individual choice in the matter, then why aren’t dogs elect? Sounds like a silly question, but it actually pertains.
Sorry to be long winded. Maybe there’s a future post for my blog in here somewhere :)
BTW, why do you say you’re an almost-Reformed Baptist?
You are right in that Limited Atonement is not the best choice of words. Many Calvinists refer to it as Definite Atonement or Definite Redemption.
Next, with respect to the word world, John uses it in a variety of ways. For example,"Love not the world" (I John 2:15). With respect to the John's use of world in I John 2:2, and John 3:16 for that matter, I believe that he means "all men without distinction", that is Gentiles and Jews, not "all men without exception", that is every single person. I have a number of other reasons for belief in Definite/Limited Atonement but I will save them for another time.
Next, with respect to "choosing", I believe people freely make choices. Every person who rejects the gospel, truly chooses to do so. This is why they will be judged by the Lord Jesus on the Last Day (2 Thess. 1:5-9). However, my belief, based on the Scriptures, is that man's will is so corrupted that, left to himself, he chooses sin over the gospel (John 3:19).
This might help: the will of the lost is like water running down a mountain. The water freely travels down the mountain, yet, gravity is pulling it downward. The water cannot choose to go up, it can and does go down.
The natural man is similiar to this. He does not choose God, because he cannot and will not do so (John 3:19f; Romans 3:11; 8:7, 8). He freely chooses to sin, in many different ways. The natural man may even choose to perform civil acts in his life, yet he will do them for sinful reason, like to establish his own righteousness apart from Christ (Romans 9:30-33).
The problem with the fallen man is not that he is drowning but that he is dead in the water or as Paul states, "dead in trespasses and sins" (Eph. 2:1-3). It is not until the Spirit makes a dead person alive, will that person choose Christ (Eph. 2:4-7).
You mentioned John 1:12 as evident of people choosing to believe the gospel. I would ask you to read the next verse which states that a person becomes a child of God, not by the will of man, but by the will of God (John 1:13).
Also, I called myself an "almost Reformed Baptist" because the post that I link defined a Reformed Baptist in a way that I mostly agreed with. I agree with the Regulative Principle of worship but I would define it differently than the author of the post I linked.
Thanks for your patience with my long response.
Well, I will certainly weigh those points. Unlike some people, this has never been a "get red in the face about it" issue for me. Even if 5-point Calvinism is correct, there is no practical application (unless you apply it negatively and find it pointless to witness to anyone). Either way, our duty is the same. "Go ye into all the world and preach the gospel..." So I'm happy with Calvinists and I'm happy with non-Calvinists, so long as "works" are excluded (e.g., praying the rosary, etc.)
A more pressing concern for me, as you may have gathered from some of my posts, is the inherent danger of dispensational theology and the hopelessness and pessism it spreads throughout churches. (And try being a non-dispensational Baptist in the South--it's an uphill fight). But that's another topic. So suffice it say I'm thankful to have met yet another postmil Baptist.
Our duty to spread the gospel remains, regardless. I would disagree that there are no practical applications to these doctrines. These doctrines produce humility, confidence in evangelism because the elect will respond, etc. However, that is a topic for another day.
With respect to the crippling affects of dispen theology, I agree with you. The postmill vision inspires mission and reform. If you haven't read it, I would recommend Iain Murray's book, "A Puritan Hope." It is a historical book that shows the effects that the postmill view had on many of the great missionaries and ministers of the past. I particularly enjoyed the chapter on the Baptists who were affected by the view, William Carey and Andrew Fuller.
Well go to this site (http://ziza.cc/front.asp). I was asked to recommended a book and you'll see the one I picked on the right hand side of the page.
Another good postmil book is "The Messiah's Second Advent" written about 1900 by Calvin Goodspeed, who was a friend of B. H. Carroll I believe. An old postmil Baptist pastor at my former church reprinted it. There's a link to it on my post called "Postmillennial Vision."
Also, I ordered Mathison's "Postmil: Eschatology of Hope" which should arrive in the mail tomorrow.
I truly think revival is not even possible with a dispensational mindset. And what is the millennium but one great worldwide revival? That's why God will necessarily remove the veil of dispensationalism from churches when He sees fit. But it seems He is already doing it....at least compared to 25 years ago.
Steve
Thanks for the info on the books. By the way, the Mathison book is a good one, I have read most it.
Post a Comment