REFORMED BUT NOT CALVINIST?

 

• REFORMED BUT NOT CALVINIST?

  
  

    Recently, I spoke with a minister from the Cumberland Presbyterian Church. (this is a denomination not a singular church). This denomination sprang from the Great Revival of 1800. It was originally a part of the mainline Presbyterian Church. In short, a certain faction within the Presbyterian Church embraced revivalism. As their numbers began to grow, they asked the hierarchy if they could have permission to ordain preachers without the usual steps of going through a formal 6 year seminary education, because they were founding churches faster than they could find preachers. Most of the ministers of the mainline church frowned on revivalism, as they didn't see it as necessary from their overly Calvinistic doctrinal standpoint, and they frowned on the "undignified" revival style worship. So the Cumberland Presbytery was dissolved by the mainline church for not bowing to their edicts.
  

    The Cumberland Presbytery reorganized, and founded the Cumberland Presbyterian Church denomination. As this new church sought a Confession of Faith, they originally sought to adopt the same confession as the church they had split from, but their "revival" spirit found some troubling issues with the Westminster Confession. They had seen how God moved and that when repentance was preached people were saved. They decided they would have to write a new confession. In it, TULIP fell completely apart. The only part they retained was the "P" perseverance of the saints (once saved always saved), and they even modified it to include "preservation."

     This proves my argument that Baptists who are Calvinistic cannot rightly be called "Reformed" unless they embrace a larger doctrinal system, which in so doing, eliminates them from the Baptist family.  First the Cumberland Presbyterians still consider themselves "Reformed", and theological descendants of Calvin and Knox. It is here that those who call themselves "Reformed Baptists" will need to sit down before they faint, as they cannot conceive of a "Reformed" church that doesn't also embrace Calvinism in full. They are "Reformed" because

  1.They still adhere to infant baptism as a New Covenant form of circumcision.
  

  2. They still adhere to a hierarchical  form of church govt.
  

  3. They still see Baptism and the Lord's supper as sacramental rather than ordinances.
  

  4. They still hold to Covenant theology, although in modified form. 

  5. They are a full member of the World Communion of Reformed Churches.
  

  This merely proves my point that just because someone embraces the Calvinistic view of predestination, does NOT mean that you are "reformed". You must embrace a larger system of theology to be so, and in so doing, you run against the Baptist forms. I think secretly, many of these "Reformed" Baptists know this, and that they have a higher agenda, as way too many of them embrace the "catholicity" of the church.
  

     Soteriologically, I am very close to agreement with these Cumberland brothers, however they are "reformed" and I am not. So now that I have shown there are Primitive Baptists who are neither Calvinist nor Arminian (see Stephen's article on the Eastern District PB's) and Presbyterians who are also by their own words, neither Calvinist nor Arminian, where are all those "reformed" folk that told me there was no such thing? Has this "uneducated" simpleton embarrassed them?

     Here are some facts for you to see for yourself. Here is a  link to a pic of the historical marker at the site of their first church, which briefly tells that they abandoned the Calvinistic view of predestination. See here Birthplace Shrine of the Cumberland Presbyterian Church

     Next let's see their early Confession of Faith, especially chapter III " The Decrees Of God".....where they state "We believe that both Calvinists and Arminians have egregiously erred on this point; the former by driving rational accountable man into the asylum of fate; the latter by putting too much stress on man's works; and "For God declares in his word that Christ died for the whole world -- that he offers pardon to all -- that the Spirit operates on all -- confirming by an oath that he has no pleasure in the death of sinners. Every invitation of the gospel either promises or implies aid by the Divine Spirit."
  

     Also see their 1984 Confession (same in essence but in modern language), especially section 3.09 which states "Jesus Christ willingly suffered sin and death for every person. On the third day after being crucified, Christ was raised from the dead, appeared to many disciples, afterward ascended to God, and makes intercession for all persons.37" and 4.04 which states "Persons may resist and reject this call of the Holy Spirit, but for all who respond with repentance and trustful acceptance of God's love in Christ, there is salvation and life."

    
    Now to be clear, the purpose of these articles is not to debate a certain soteriology. The purpose is to define and be clear about what being "Baptist" is or is not. If one comes to a conclusion that something is "true" then be bold enough to state it without confusion. Names are important. If the modern faction of predestinarian Primitive Baptists would be honest and state up front that they no longer believe what they once did, then fine. Just don't deceive others in trying to revise history, or say that any Baptist "used" to believe the heresies they now embrace. Take "Primitive", which means "first or original" out of your name, because NONE of the early Baptists, General or Particular, taught what you now teach. The same goes for "Reformed" Baptists. To read more about the errors of those who call themselves "Reformed Baptists", see my articles "BAPTISTS---REFORMED OR REFORMERS" parts 1 and 2. Ken Mann
  

  
  

---