,
26 tweets,
5 min read
Read on Twitter
As to who is Reformed, @affectedbytruth gets it. This THE historical designation. It’s not that difficult. “Reformed Baptist” is oxymoronic. Learn Baptist history. Learn Reformed history. Which Reformed Church in the 16/17th cent called PBs “Reformed”? Hint: None. 
Do you know what the Reformed Churches called the Baptists (all of them)? Anabaptists. Now, I don’t entirely agree with this assessment but it’s not *entirely* wrong. There are obvious points of agreement and connection.
Still, as I’ve been saying at heidelblog.net, here, and in print, there are significant areas of disagreement between the Anabaptists & the PBs. It’s not a binary question (yes OR no). It’s Yes AND no.
As to the repeated claim that the differences between the Reformed and Particular Baptists are inconsequential, that’s manifestly false. Even those who say such things don’t believe them. Most Baptists (rightly from their POV) don’t accept my baptism.
They clearly think baptism is consequential. So, ask yourself, how did the PBs (and other Baptists) come to their convictions about baptism? It’s the result of a way of reading Scripture (hermeneutics). It’s the result of a (no pun intended) particular covenant theology.
To say “you believe in covenant theology and so do we” betrays a serious misunderstanding of both the PB and Reformed traditions. It’s like saying that Volkswagens have engines and BMWs have engines so VWs are BMWs. You can pick who is the VW and who is the Beemer in this analogy
Obviously, a Beemer & a VW have some things in common but they have a lot of differences. (I’m thinking of a Beetle).
Take the PB view that the covenant of grace did not exist until the New Covenant. There is not a single confessional Reformed Church in the history of Reformed Churches who would ordain a ministerial candidate who held such a view.
Any presbytery who did would/should be subject to discipline. It is a contradiction of a *fundamental* Reformed conviction that the covenant of grace unifies all of redemptive history and has been in effect and in history, in, with, and under the types & shadows since Gen 3:15.
Any Baptists who thinks that’s inconsequential simply does not understand even the most rudimentary aspects of Reformed theology. Given such confusion why should we let YOU define what counts as Reformed? That makes no sense.
This is not some idiosyncratic notion. Heinrich Bullinger argued this very case against the Anabaptists c. 1534. BTW, note that we’re still having the SAME arguments with PBSs that we had with Anabaptists in the 1520s & 30s (Zwingli made these arguments too).
Given that, why is it so odd that we have ALWAYS seen a theological connection between the ABs & the PBs? Is there a historical connection? I think so but we’ll set that aside for the moment.
Why do people who don’t seem to understand basic, essential elements of Reformed theology, who don’t know the history of Reformed theology, who haven’t spent 10 minutes in an actual Reformed church feel entitled to tell us what we should value?
I’ll tell you why: We live in an evangelical culture (60 million in N. America) that is essentially Baptist and they run everything. Thus they assume that they determine what must or must not be important to Reformed theology. It’s sheer presumption.
See “A House of Cards? A Response to Bingham, Cribben, and Caughey,” in Matthew Bingham, Chris Caughey, R. Scott Clark, Crawford Gribben, and D. G. Hart, On Being Reformed: Debates Over a Theological Identity (London: Palgrave-Pivot, 2018), 69–89.
If you’re not interested in reading what Reformed people say about their own theology, ok, I understand. Your mind is made up and you’re not interested in re-thinking things. Fine but be quiet about what constitutes Reformed theology or what should matter to Reformed people.
I keep saying, you won’t let me call myself Baptist nor should you. Why not? After all Reformed folk baptize hitherto unbaptized adult converts. If believing in predestination is all that it takes to be Reformed, then why isn’t baptizing adult converts enough to be Baptist?
Of course any self-respecting Baptist would say “There’s much more to being Baptist than baptizing adult converts!” And there we have it. YOUR fundamental convictions are inviolable but Reformed convictions should be negotiable.
It’s never really been about theology or even history bec those things are quite clear. It’s about politics, or power, or control. It’s about “playing ball,” getting along. Reformed folk are supposed to go along or be considered bad guys.
Well, I suppose it’s a kind of turn about. Under the state churches in the 16th & 17th cent. ABs, GBs (General Baptists), & PBs didn’t always fare well. Now that evangelicaldom is a de facto Baptist establishment and we’re the minority, we get it in the neck.
But let’s be clear about what this is: it’s just the exercise of power (whether institutional or the influence of sheer numbers) but it has nothing to do with what’s true, what happened (history), or what either tradition actually confesses.
Once more, here are some resources to get you started (if you’re interested in what the Reformed actually say about themselves).
heidelblog.net/a-curriculum-f…
heidelblog.net/a-curriculum-f…
Why should you read Reformed people rather than Baptists writing about the Reformed? Well, I can say that I’m often disappointed in Baptist accounts of what the Reformed say.
