Are Baptist Reformed...Or Liberals?

 The assertion that Particular Baptist are close to the Reformed camp is absurd; Considering the assertion is made to create bridges between the Presbyterian and Baptist camps.
It is like saying Zwinglians are close to the Lutherans because they came out the protestant reformation. This type of assertion only stands when there are two variables compared; but with respect to the broader protestant movement, we see how distant Baptist are from the rest of the more conservative protestants (Lutherans, Presbyterians and Anglicans).

Turretins proceeding statement stands as a significant commentary on Infant Baptism but also the current situation; "Augustine, often, where he relates that the Pelagians had not dared to deny the baptism of infants because they saw too clearly that this would place them in opposition to the whole church" Institutio.3.12.7.
The quote demonstrates the axiomatic status of infant baptism in the Christian Church's mind, amongst Augustines contemporaries...But also reflects Turretins interpretation of Augustine; that those who reject the doctrine are opposed to the church.
Baptist, fit this category in the mind of Turretin. 

Alongside infant Baptism, Baptist do not hold to the federalism of the Reformed, they do not hold (by consequence) to the trinitarianism of the Reformed, they do not hold to the polity of the Reformed, they do not hold to the Sacramentology and Worship of the Reformed, nor broader Ecclesiology. I have no doubt that these differences have not merely enough grounds to exclude Baptist from the Protestant tradition, but from the church as a whole (in the eyes of the Reformed, Lutheran and other conservative groups).
A basic look at the historical tensions between Calvinistic and Lutheran groups show how intolerable even honourable Reformers like Olevianus was in the eyes of Lutheran authorities. REFORMED folk were persecuted on the grounds of Melanchthon's Invariata. Luther seemed diametrically opposed to the Zwinglians because of the Sacramanetology, and the later Lutheran scholastic use of the Hypostatic Union in federalism violently divided Lutherans and Presbyterians.
The historical truth is, The Reformed were even violent to one another; like Cocceian Theology and its issues with Turretins or Witsius'. 

The reason I brought up Turretin as a reference point earlier, is to set the grounds of MY assertion; That Baptist are NOT Presbyterians. Reformed, is synonymous with Presbyterian, and the Reformed would not stand for the systematic tradition of the Baptist camps. The significant Reformed codifiers, like Turretin, Voetius and Witsius, would have and did see Baptist theology as opposed to theirs. If the modern Baptist position is that they are 'Reformed', then my aim is to remind them that those who called themselves Reformed (particularly the 16th-17th codifiers), would not tolerate Baptist/Particular Baptist theology.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Ecclesial Group VS Denomination VS Christian Types?

In contemporary thought, the use of the word's "Denomination" and "Type of Christian" can be used and often conflated. Unfortunately the word 'denomination' is equivocated to carry some sense of spiritual persuasion in a believer, when actually, it relates to a political-theological persuasion (that's not to say there isn't any ethical categorisation such as the adherences to the Real Presence, Infant Baptism, etc..).  The phrase "type of Christian" also causes linguistical chaos, and could lead others (especially non-Christians and laity) to think of Christendom as a segregated religion. When in reality the categorisation of what people mean by "type of Christian" (Baptist, Presbyterian, etc..) refers to their Ecclesiology, NOT denominational adherence.  What are the proper terms and definitions then? Ecclesiology, refers to the body of Ecclesial doctrines someone believes. These are notions related to their "Doctrine of...
Read more

"Reformed" Baptists Follow Trends, Not Truth: Evaluating Reformed VS Baptist Theology comments

By comments I mean, I am using Reddit forums and responses to Reddit questions as a source of criticism, and will explicitly state when I use Quora sources if I do. The reason I chose Reddit and online threads, as sources of criticism, is due to the more honest, and less commercial treatment of theological/historical topics. By 'honest and less commercial' my implication is that popular authors, publishers and forums (Ligonier, Grace2You, for example), tend to attempt to unify Reformed thought for the sake of "Christian-pietistic" unity, instead of thoroughly trying to systematize Protestant History.  With Reddit and online forums like Puritan Board being a great source due to their contributors being very well read in primary sources and are more likely to be honest, and sometimes really harsh. I've just had more luck dealing with these people (instead of actual university graduates), because they have the time and ambition to interact with the primary sources in...
Read more

Francis Turretin - Notes on His Doctrine of Justification

  Turretin On Justification "Does faith justify us properly and by itself or only relatively and instrumentally? The former we deny; the latter we affirm against the Socinians, Remonstrants and Romanists" Turretin states the two fold nature of Justification, that it can be on the part of God ("actively") or on the part of man ("passively").  I assume Turretins following discourse has an emphasis on the passive; considering his follow critique on the Socinians, Romanist and Orthodox mainly focuses on the instrumental (and organic/improper) cause of Justification.  -Turretin see's Faith as a work. It has to be a work for the Socinian and Romish theories to be false.  On the Socinians its brief, as their theory is essentially making Faith the formal, and instrumental cause. Or as Turretin expresses it "properly and by itself and so is our very righteousness" Swiftly moving onto Romanist. It seems that they hold to the idea that Faith "begin...
Read more