Talk:Reformed Baptists

Definition

I feel the defintion of Reformed theology as "adhering to and showing respect for much of the theology defined by John Calvin" is too narrow. Reformed theology today not only has its roots in quite a few reformers but also in writers and teachers in ages since, particularily the puritans both in England and the US. I tried to make this statement more inclusive of their work but so far haven't come up with a precise way to say it.

Under common traits, number 7, I changed the word "frutify" to "multiply". I am not aware of such a word and could not find it in any dictionary I have, so I changed it to something I think fits the intent. - Rlvaughn 19:05, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

This article is very dishonest. If you look at http://www.newcovenanttheology.com and http://www.newcovenanttheology.com/doctrine.html you will see that the consistent teaching of the 1646 particular baptists is not covenant theology, but rather New Covenant Theology. The two primary doctrines that cause these folks to stand out from the 1689 baptists is the teaching that the law cannot cause conviction, that the terrors of the law are not necessary to prepare one to receive the gospel, and that the gospel alone convicts savingly. Even in most NCT circles, including the reference at this Wiki site, people still use the law unlawfully, seeking repentance in men for this or that sin, rather than the sin of unbelief through the power of the gospel alone, the ONLY sword of the spirit. Those 1646 folk also were correct in opposing the doctrine of eternal generation of the Son, realizing that has its fulfillment in , at the resurrection of the dead, which is the only true begatting of the Son! While many particular baptists adopted covenant theology, and took on the 1689 confession, as did many American baptists including the Southern Baptists, the 1646 people would have nothing of that teaching and called the papists and their Protestant children false teachers. A scholarly fellow needs to reflect that truth in this article. user:bgamall

___________________________

I think the current definition of Reformed Baptist is pretty problematic. The term itself is not without controversy with some claiming that Baptists cannot properly be reformed (see R.Scott. Clark). If there is *any* truth to Clark's comments, certainly they suggest that equating "Reformed Baptist" with a Baptist that merely accepts reformed soteriology flattens out the definition of Reformed quite badly. I would suggest there are at least two categories here:

Calvinistic Baptists

Calvinistic Baptists are those Baptists who accept Reformed Soteriology but do not necessarily see themselves as attached to other elements of the Reformed tradition. Specifically, Calvinistic Baptists accept some version of TULIP, and acronym sometimes used to summarize Reformed Soteriology. TULIP is usually expanded Total depravity, Unconditional Election, Limited atonement, Irresistible grace, and Perseverance of the saints. On issues like sacrementology, eschatology, and Church government, Calvinistic Baptists may draw on sources other than the Reformation to form their views.

Reformed Baptists

Reformed Baptists see themselves as attached to the tradition of the Reformation in ways beyond mere soteriology. Some have said a person is Reformed if his theology comports with the three C's, Calvinistic, Confessional, and Covenantal.

"Calvinistic" refers to Reformed Soteriology. This may be summarized by the acronym TULIP, though more properly it points back to the Canons of Dort from which TULIP was derived.

"Confessional" refers to the fact that the Reformed typically subscribe to a particular historical document as their doctrinal standard. These standards address a broad range of issues far beyond soteriology. For non-baptists these confessions might include the Westminister Confession of Faith or the Three Forms of Unity. Baptists might subscribe to the 1689 London Baptist Confession of Faith, The First London Baptist Confession, The New Hampshire Confession or similar documents.

"Covenantal" refers to belief in a form of Covenant Theology. Covenant Theology is a broad hermeneutical framework that impacts one's overall view of the scriptures. It stands in contrast to Dispensationalism which is a major alternate hermeneutical framework. Baptist covenant theology may take may forms including 1689 Federalism.

I think the above provides a much better definition of what it means to be a reformed baptist and provides nuance that is very valuable in understanding the current theological landscape. Calvinerd 05/24/2023

I agree we should include this definition here, while recognizing that it's not the only possible definition. We also need a reliable source - I think I remember Voddie Baucham going through these three things in one of his books - but also, if possible, a critique of the definition: e.g. "covenantal" means something quite different to a paedobaptist. StAnselm (talk) 16:27, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Definitely need a source. I was trying to remember where I had first seem these categories. R. Scott Clark might mention them in "Recovering the Reformed Confession" as well. Your point about controversy over "covenantal" is good as well. This is the particular point on which Clark rejects Baptist as being Reformed, specifically claiming that Baptist covenant theology is too distinct from the versions of the P&R world to be considered properly reformed. Clark's distinctions don't bother me too much, but the should be noted. The main point is to differentiate a Baptist who as embraced TULIP from a Baptists that intends to draw more broadly from the reformed tradition. Calvinerd (talk) 17:29, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

I checked Clark over the weekend, and I don't think he references the "3 C's". In searching online I did find a reference to Baucham in relation to them, so that might be our best bet for a citation. I don't own any of his books. Do you happen to have any available to check? Calvinerd (talk) 12:30, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Baucham specifically mentions this in the interview at the path below.

https://theaquilareport.com/voddie-bauchams-big-move-to-africa/ Calvinerd (talk) 12:35, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Do you think a web page is a sufficient citation? Calvinerd (talk) 12:36, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I think that would be sufficient to back up the idea that some people who identify as Reformed Baptists describe their beliefs in these terms. StAnselm (talk) 14:31, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Sweet! I'll work it into a rewrite here. Calvinerd (talk) 18:57, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

References

Famous Reformed Baptists

Although one cannot be precise as to a definition of being famous, it's probably sufficient to exclude names which would not be well known to most Reformed Baptists. That's why I removed the names associated with Exe Gia Publishing from this section, and instead (to be clear that this isn't vandalism), I added a link to the site in the external links section. DFH 20:16, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

The section heading has since been changed to Notable Reformed Baptists, more in keeping with Wikipedia criteria. DFH 17:03, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

John Piper

Someone added that to list John Piper under Famous Reformed Baptists is "disputed". As they gave no source which shows that this is disputed, I have tagged the entry with the {{fact}} template. Note that the point for consideration is not whether you dispute it, but whether there are citable sources to show that this is disputed, i.e. by sufficiently notable commentators. DFH 20:22, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I just ran across this. As far as the citable sources, it would seem better to cite a source that shows he is a Reformed Baptist rather than a source showing that he is not. Piper probably considers himself "Reformed", but his church is not affiliated with a group that is generally considered "Reformed". He is lead pastor of Bethlehem Baptist Church, which is a member of the Baptist General Conference. http://www.bbcmpls.org/ Perhaps his name should go over in that article rather than here. Just a thought.

Piper is already mentioned in the text of Baptist General Conference. Please register as a Wikipedia user and always login before you edit, and sign your edits to talk pages using four tilde. DFH 19:24, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Al Mohler is listed and he's SBC -- not the most Reformed body in the world, but there's still plenty of us Southern Baptists upholding the Doctrines of Grace. Piper would fit in the same way. (BTW, I'm going to take out the little note: if it's proper to include him, just include him.) A.J.A. 19:42, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

There are many who would argue for a distinction between Calvinistic Baptists and Reformed Baptists, myself being one. "Reformed" Baptists are confessional and hold to the 1689 London Baptist Confession. Jim Ellis 17:55, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Regardless of the usefulness of the distinction, what you added to the article probably violates WP:NOR and WP:NPOV. A.J.A. 21:47, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

What I added is not original research. I'll look for citations. And I don't see it as POV either. It is almost common knowledge with which Reformed, Reformed Baptists, and Calvinistic Baptists would likely agree. However, I'll make some slight changes to improve the NPOV. Jim Ellis 01:04, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I've heard that distinction made before, but with plural elders being the dividing line. So it may not be as well-defined in general usage as it is in your circles. A.J.A. 01:38, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate your comments. Yes, the "plurality of elders" has also been a dsitinction. And my comments may be somewhat parochial. :-) I have no problem if you would like to modify the entry or delete it entirely. Peace. Jim Ellis 11:06, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Covenant Theology and Sabbatarianism

I'm pretty sure that not all Reformed Baptists are Sabbatarians or hold to a Covenant Theology position. Most of the profs at my school who are Reformed Baptists are neither (including my Principal, Michael A. G. Haykin) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cloud Stryfe (talk • contribs) 18:35, 15 February 2007 (UTC).

Notable Reformed Baptists

The following modern Reformed Baptists don't yet have articles in WP:

• Michael A. G. Haykin – the Principal of Toronto Baptist Seminary
• Erroll Hulse – editor of Reformation Today magazine and "roving ambassador" for Reformed Baptists
• Albert N. Martin – Pastor of Trinity Baptist Church in Montville, New Jersey. One of the leaders of the Reformed Baptist re-surfacing in the mid to late 20th Century.

The following 17th century Baptist pastors had a significant influence on the development of Particular Baptist theology:

• Benjamin Keach
• Hansard Knollys
• William Kiffin

See: Kiffin, Knollys and Keach - Rediscovering our English Baptist Heritage, by Michael A. G. Haykin (1996) DFH 19:40, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

The three from the seventeenth century definitely need articles. A.J.A. 20:12, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps someone could import any that exist from the 1911 Britannica or the Schaff-Herzog. --Flex (talk|contribs) 20:27, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Started a stub on Keach.Brian0324 18:22, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Are Reformed Baptists Calvinists?

... and should they appear on Template:Calvinism? Please see the discussion at Template_talk:Calvinism#Barth_and_Reformed_Baptists. --Flex (talk|contribs) 13:00, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Apparently they are based on my reading of the Calvinism article. So, I have added Category Calvinism to this article. Countercheck (talk) 19:09, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for your efforts in improving the article. However, note that that category is old and has been moved to Category:Reformed Christianity (see heading at Category:Calvinism). This article already exists in a subcategory of that category, so we don't add the parent category (see WP:CATSPECIFIC). ButlerBlog (talk) 19:34, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Charles Spurgeon, evangelist

Wouldn't Preacher be more appropriate? StAnselm 03:55, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

• OK, changed it. StAnselm 09:04, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

driscoll and mohler not reformed baptists

mohler is a southern baptist and driscoll's church is non-denominational. though these men may have close ties with reformed baptist churches and reformed baptist pastors, they are not directly associated with the denomination. at least to my knowledge they are not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.175.123.154 (talk) 21:25, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

It should be pretty clear from the article that the "reformed Baptists" are not a sole denomination, but more of a theological movement within different Baptist circles. There certainly are some "reformed Baptist" denominations, but there are also reformed Baptists in the Southern Baptist Convention, the GARBC, and other Baptist gruops. Mohler certainly qualifies, and Driscoll does as well with a looser use of the term "baptist". raekwon (talk) 15:01, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Geographical Areas

I'm not very familiar with editing pages and so on. Could someone please change the box on the top right hand side of the page, which says "Geographical areas - United States & Canada" to something a bit more global? See the map provided in the middle of the page http://www.shalomrb.com It also seems strange that the article mentions several times that Reformed Baptists adhere to creeds that originated in London, whilst maintaining "Geographical areas - United States & Canada". Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamesrlforsyth (talk • contribs) 10:06, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

The earliest Baptist bodies were in England and the Netherlands-- but many (or all) of those bodies are no longer around.

Is there some other geographical area you know of with a notable number of Reformed Baptists? ^{şṗøʀĸşṗøʀĸ: τᴀʟĸ} 16:38, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Why has the whole page virtually disappeared?

Could whoever messed this up please return and fix it? This was a very comprehensive article which has been reduced to a paragraph.

A few "contributions" ago, if you look through the history, there has been an "uncontroversial" move, either from or to Reformed Baptist*s*, but at neither page is there anything like the article that used to exist. Fix please!!! I'm trying myself now.Jamesrlforsyth (talk) 05:20, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

The article was stubified because the prior text was unsourced, POV and had other problems as noted in the edit summaries. Please do not reinsert text without meeting WP:BURDEN. Novaseminary (talk) 14:53, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Novaseminary,

WP:BURDEN says, "Editors might object if you remove material without giving them time to provide references." You could have simply marked the items that needed citations such that references could be added. Now we have to dig through the old page before we can find references to it.

WP:BURDEN also says, "It has always been good practice to make reasonable efforts to find supporting sources yourself and cite them." There was a good bibliography in the original page that could have been used to affirm much or all of the prior text.

Elnwood (talk) 23:35, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

• Here is a link to the "old" version; it is still around, no need to dig through anything. And it was tagged, for more than three years as OR and since September for sources (which is related). It was almost entirely unsourced, and the one source there was failed WP:SYNTH. As for looking for sources, the sources there now (some added by me) are used properly and are RSs. But please do add more sources. Novaseminary (talk) 23:49, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Novaseminary, was it you who removed the article? How could you have regarded it as POV? ... maybe you prefer the kind of article which blatantly casts doubt on Christianity as a whole. The original article certainly didn't do that, which may have been the problem you had with it.Jamesrlforsyth (talk) 10:44, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, Novaseminary removed the article, without explaining what was meant by "POV." Some of that material should be reinstated, if it can be sourced. -- 202.124.75.47 (talk) 00:37, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Right, some of it can go back in if it can be sourced. Though some of it was POV (read WP:NPOV) (e.g., "important Biblical truths were recovered and reemphasized"), I noted in my edit summary here that I was removing long-tagged original research, or at least material that was unsourced. I didn't mention POV in my edit summary or in the talk posting immediately above Jamesrlforsyth's and your revelation about my edit. And then, I added a source (also as noted a few postings up). We could of course keep discussing and complaining about events of almost a year ago, or we could work to improve the article. Novaseminary (talk) 03:47, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Phrases like "important Biblical truths were recovered and reemphasized" are unfortunate, but can surely be handled by rewording rather than outright deletion? -- 202.124.73.56 (talk) 09:16, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't mean to imply that nothing related to this can ever go in the article. Unsourced, POV material does not belong. Sourced, NPOV material that is given due weight is fantastic. The fact that the long-removed unsourced text is so clearly POV makes me doubt the veracity of the facts themselves, POV aside. But please, add neutral sourced text. Please. Novaseminary (talk) 00:06, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Notable people

In an effort to head off the repeated insertion of non-notable or unsourced entries in the Notable Reformed Baptists section, I propose spinnjng it off into a stand-alone list. That might make it less attractive to link spammers, or at least keep it out of what should become a real article. Who knows, that might even help the substance of this article grow. Novaseminary (talk) 16:03, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Y Done - Created the spin-off SAL at List of Reformed Baptists. Novaseminary (talk) 01:05, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Sources and IP edits

With this edit, I again reverted an IP editor's insertion of non-RSs and OR. IP, please explain how the source is ok or the material not OR. Novaseminary (talk) 16:20, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Move Proposal

As the word "Reformed" is not proper to represent the entire range of groups presented in this article (as some other editor pointed out that "Reformed Baptist" would only mean those that are Calvinistic, Confessional and Covenantal) and it is also not an objective designation of the group it applies to (the Anti-abortion movements is not "Pro-life movement"), I propose that the page be moved to Calvinistic Baptists (the general term). I am not sure if Particular Baptists (the historic term) would be much better then "Reformed" because this term is also limited only to the same subgroup that adopted the name "Reformed" in the 20th century. However I would propose that the name "Reformed Baptists" be kept in the first paragraph (with some adjustments regarding the phrasing, explaining that the 3 terms are not quite synonymous) and I intend to make a special section "Name" in which to explain the entire controversy surrounding the terminology. What are your opinions? Barumbarumba (talk) 19:00, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

StAnselm, I have started a discution a week ago and nobody said anything. Barumbarumba (talk) 16:24, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

OK, I didn't see this at all - the reason is, new discussions are meant to go at the bottom of the talk page. Also, if you are proposing a new title for the page, it is best to use the WP:RM procedure. StAnselm (talk) 16:28, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, because I saw some edits from 2023 at the top of the page I though people stered new discussions on this page this way for some reason and wanted to do the same. I have now realized that they are comments to former old discussions. Barumbarumba (talk) 16:47, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

Ditto to what @StAnselm noted the WP:RM - when you do it as a requested move, more people will see it. This is a move that will likely need discussion based on significant discussion around "Calvinism" vs "Reformed" that took place here. You may or may not have been aware of that one, and even if you were, it may not have seemed related enough to consider this article a potentially controversial move. However, I think it does warrant discussion as a PCM. If you do open a formal RM, I would recommend that you ping/notify participants in the linked RM on Calvinism as appropriate notification. ButlerBlog (talk) 17:27, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

@Barumbarumba: you've still listed your request in the wrong place. Listing at "Requests to revert undiscussed moves" essentially requested a pagemover to undo StAnselm's revert of your undiscussed move. This needs to be discussed per what I noted above. (If I'm wrong on that and @StAnselm agrees with this as an undiscussed move, then fine. But my understanding is there is an objection here that needs to get consensus first.) Please read WP:RMCM to see how to open a move discussion. ButlerBlog (talk) 19:12, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

Correct, it does not belong there. Barumbarumba, you might want to consider expanding your request to present a convincing argument, per WP:RSPM. (But I note the Google N-Grams are against you - it's a very interesting graph, though!) StAnselm (talk) 19:23, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

My argument is not that it is a better term, but that the 2 are different terms and this page is not about the one in the title. If this page is about Reformed Baptists then Regular Baptists and Primitive Baptists should be removed from the body. But this would mean a complete restructuring of the page. Barumbarumba (talk) 09:44, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

You do not need to restate your argument here, it is already understood. The present objections are not your reasoning, but rather that you create a proper request (RM) for a potentially controversial move ("controversial" due to the fact that discussion is required). ButlerBlog (talk) 12:50, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

I see we were too late, though! User:DaniloDaysOfOurLives, it would have been better to check the page history and you would have seen it did not belong at WP:RM/TR. StAnselm (talk) 19:39, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

I apologise for the error. However, I did check the page history and I did not see a RM or any arguments about the name, and the previous page did not have any history, so I moved it as it had been requested there (I do not move all pages requested there if I think there is a possible disagreement or if it is controversial) – genuinely I believed I was creating stability as it had been placed in the revert section. I did miss out on this discussion though (for some reason it only showed me up to "Geographical Areas" bit), so that was an error on my part. I do agree with starting a RM, though. This seems like a complicated issue that would benefit from the opinions of people from the wider Wikiprojects and more people with even wider knowledge of the subject and naming conventions. DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 19:50, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

Requested move 10 September 2024

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved to the proposed title at this time, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 02:01, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

---

Reformed Baptists → Calvinistic Baptists – The term "Reformed Baptists" is a self designated name of the group better known as "Particular Baptists" as shown by the Google N-Grams. However the main problem is not that the name of the page is the lesser known name nor that the terminology is disputed by other Reformed traditions (symilar to how the self description of the Anti-abortion movement as "Pro-life" is disputed), but that this page is not about this particular calvinistic baptist group, but about calvinistic baptists in general. Scrict Baptists, Primitive Baptists and Regular Baptists are all "Calvinistic Baptists" but don't believe the same things, nor identefy as "Reformed Baptists" so the title of the article is misleading because it only refers to a particular group that is discussed in the article. Barumbarumba (talk) 19:26, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Pinging Dirkwillems, Ltwin, and Jfhutson as appropriate notification since they were involved in a related RM. ButlerBlog (talk) 21:32, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose. "Calvinistic Baptists" would by my own preference, but I am skeptical that this move makes sense in light of the recent move of Calvinism to Reformed Christianity. Srnec (talk) 01:37, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

  The proposed title is not “Calvinist Baptists” but “Calvinistic Baptists”. This implies they have some calvinist tendencies but not the full thing. 86.124.189.5 (talk) 09:52, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose - The issue is one of nomenclature and what the nominator has identified as confusion of terms. If using a formal logic genus/species chart, we are talking about the same terms being used when decreasing extension (or increasing intention). As noted in the nom, (the term "Reformed Baptists" is a self designated name of the group better known as "Particular Baptists"), thus creating the confusion where the same term is used for the genus and one of the species. If a subgroup is "self-designating" themselves as "Reformed", but the group is "better known as" Particular Baptists, then they should be referred to as "Particular Baptists" as one of the subgroups (species) of Reformed Baptists (genus) in the article. Since we go on what sources say, not what someone says about themselves, that alone indicates the nom should be opposed (per WP:TITLE: article titles are based on what the subject is called in reliable sources). The n-gram given in the nom, as well as the one given by @StAnselm in a previous discussion support opposing the move on that basis as well. There are some issues with the article as it has drifted, especially with some recent changes by the nominator, but those should be fixed to give clarity of nomenclature and the logical genus/species instead of retitling. That would solve the problem of precision. ButlerBlog (talk) 13:07, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

@Barumbarumba Oppose. I am not persuaded that these subgroups mentioned are not fairly categorized under the "reformed baptist" name, though the current article layout does not make this clear. I also find that "reformed" is preferable to "calvinistic" in this context. "Reformed" usually refers to a category or denomination and "calvinist" is used more precisely for theology, esp. soteriology, i.e.John Gill was a calvinist theologian and an early leader in the reformed baptist movement. Dirkwillems (talk) 18:43, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.