WHO REMOVED THE CANDLESTICK? "REFORMED BAPTIST vs PRIMITIVE BAPTIST"

 In Revelation 2:5, Jesus gives gives us a warning we had better heed. He says, “Repent, and do the first works; or else I will come unto thee quickly, and will remove thy candlestick.”

  In my last few articles, I have concentrated on the errors I believe "Reformed Baptists" have embraced. I have also stated that I believe the errors of the hardshell faction of Primitive Baptists had their origins in Reformed theology. I realize those who call themselves "Reformed Baptists" will state that they are not in agreement with the hardshells, however, the hardshells themselves did not embrace what they now do in the beginning. Could it be that we are seeing circular reasoning before our eyes? Has a new "breed" come along that will one day espouse the very same views the hardshells now embrace? After all, before they adopted the name "Primitive Baptist" they styled themselves "Reformed Baptist". 

   These two groups have the same starting point theologically. They both claim the London Baptist Confession. They both claim to be the the continuing generation of past Particular Baptists, especially those from England. Is it possible that we can see into the future, and know what the "Reformed Baptists" will be 100 years from now?

   It is true that  "Reformed Baptists" have no squabble with music, Sunday Schools or missions (yet) etc as the Primitives do, but what about salvation? Did the hardshell Primitives merely take Reformed theology to its logical conclusion? This conclusion would lead them to abandon any evangelistic preaching, any call to repentance and any call to believe the Gospel. Neither group gives an invitation to come to Christ, or an "altar call". Both groups have those that embrace the belief that  the elect were "saved" before they were even born. Both groups cannot know with full assurance, if they are among the elect. The hardshell Primitives however believe "95%" of people are elect, although most don't know it, contrasted with "Reformed" Baptists who say only "5%" are. (my estimation to prove a point) The hardshells take pride in "knowing" the "secrets" of the Gospel, and the "Reformed" in having a gospel of "secrets", only revealed by their particular expression. Both groups have doubts that one must hear the Gospel and believe in order to be among the elect, the Primitive hardshells embracing that doubt and the "Reformed" debating it.

  In a blog by "the ears to hear" who is a hardshell PB apologist, he says this "...because the Second London Confession is in no small measure directly copied from the WCF (Westminster Confession of Faith) which preceded it, those who believe it represents an authoritative standard for Old Baptist orthodoxy are admitting, at least in part, that Old Baptist heritage is a product of the reformation, rather than a product of the Anabaptists who long preceded and were persecuted by the reformers". Could  he be on to something here? "The ears to hear" is a hardshell that embraces their heresies, and defends them,he is wrong on just about everything that has to do with salvation, yet there is a nibble of truth in what he says here. If the starting point of your theology is the Reformation, then don't be surprised  when the road you travel ends with the candlestick being removed from your churches, and soon after the people will be removed, and soon after that the churches will dwindle and close.

  In closing please know that I am not here to attack the Second London Confession, nor those that now embrace it. It is just one among many Baptist confessions, some of which I subscribe to and some of which I do not. That is my (and your) liberty as Baptists. However, some so called Baptists are not convinced that something is true unless it is found in their respective confessions. Maybe sometimes we need to go to the beginning and re-read them. All Baptist confessions that I know of have at least one complete sentence with which I definitely agree, and it's usually contained in the beginning. And so it is with the Second London Baptist Confession, the beginning line with which I will ALWAYS agree.
“The Holy Scripture is the ONLY sufficient, certain, and infallible rule of all SAVING KNOWLEDGE, faith, and obedience.” (Second London Confession of Faith, 1.1) A KNOWLEDGE THAT SAVES, must be a KNOWLEDGE THAT KNOWS.

                                                                SELAH, Ken Mann

 

QUESTIONS FOR "REFORMED THEOLOGY"

 In light of what I have learned about Reformed theology, there are some questions I wish they would (or could) answer. It is true that from the perspective of the natural mind, that there are a great many mysteries that we can not now understand, such as the trinity, or how could a being be self existent and uncreated as God is. Nevertheless, when we form theology based on a certain system or through a certain lens that we must look through, then it is possible that questions which can't be answered, may reveal flaws in that theological system. So let's ask.

1. If we assume that the Reformed position of  predestination is true, then why did the reformers require church attendance of the whole city or nation? Were they trying to "save" them? Didn't this mean that the vast majority of church members were unregenerated, or was every citizen of Geneva and Switzerland already among the elect? Forced church attendance makes sense if one is Roman Catholic, as no one has salvation yet, but merely trying to attain it through the "church. And of course since they "wanted" everyone to be saved, passing laws requiring infant baptism and church membership is the "compassionate" thing to do.

2. If the "church" has totally replaced Israel, and is now the "new covenant nation", which "church" is that new nation? Is the Roman Catholic Church the one founded by Christ and the apostles? And if it is, has God abandoned that church since the Reformed Churches are the "corrected" and "reformed" catholic church? Did the gates of hell prevail? Or will God at some point "restore" the Roman church which will then reunite with her daughter churches? 

3. Were the Reformers in error when they persecuted other believers just as their mother church did, or did they have the right to do so, since they were now "Israel" and just purging "error" from the land as King Saul did when he banished witches? And if they were right in doing so, how is it now that they will accept those who received baptism from other churches, without being rebaptised? Weren't the reformers in essence, setting themselves up as a type of pope which could not err in his authority? Explain from Scripture where we are told to forcefully impose "Christianity" on anyone.

4. Does God favor certain people groups over others? How is it, from the reformed position, that some nations have many Christians while others have none or very few? It seems there are only 2 possible answers. Either hearing the Gospel isn't necessary and there are many regenerated persons in places where Christianity is small or non existent who aren't aware of it, or for some reason God does favor certain nations or people groups.

5. Can someone please tell me, at what point someone is no longer considered "Reformed" when they abandon certain Reformed doctrines? Is it when they abandon calvinistic soteriology as the Cumberland Presbyterians did? Is it when they abandon infant baptism? Is it when they abandon a hierarchical church gov't?

In closing, let me quote from an old history book published by the Christian Reformed Church. Please also remember that I do not require belief in Landmarkism to establish a valid New Testament Church, as I've stated in my previous posts. I do think it's very interesting though, that this statement was made by the Reformed Church itself. In the "Generations" book, which was written to show the history of the "Christian Church" from Pentecost to the 1980's when the book was published, and clearly has a "catholicity" view of church history, it says something quite remarkable when it gets to the chapters on the Reformation when speaking of Baptists. It says "The Baptists have no one founder, as they came from many backgrounds, and it has been claimed that they have always existed in some form since the time of the apostles. Of all groups who claim antiquity, the Baptists have the most valid claim of any. Is it possible that some Christians never went along with the Roman Church's gradual departure from the truth, and remained separate from it? If so, the Baptists may have valid claims." 

May God lead us into all truth, humility when we find it, and boldness to proclaim it. Ken Mann

REFORMED THEOLOGY ON THOSE WHO DON'T HEAR THE GOSPEL

   It seems to me that the main thrust of this blog is the error of the hardshell faction of Primitive Baptists, specifically the belief that God regenerates BEFORE conversion, and that He regenerates without means, without hearing the Gospel. It is my theory, that they acquired this heresy from reformed theology, and took it even further. As I have shown in previous articles, Reformed theology teaches "means" on one hand, including unscriptural ones (sacraments, including baptism) and the Gospel (the only means in my view).

   However, many Reformed folk also teach that God has regenerated many who are never converted and who never hear the Gospel. Many more think it is possible but just aren't sure. I am well aware that "Reformed Baptists" definitely hold these teachers in high esteem, so I must assume that the same thoughts about regeneration occurring BEFORE conversion, and regeneration and WITHOUT conversion are part of their theological thoughts as well. To date, I have not been able to find any reformed pastors who totally rule out "regeneration without conversion", except for the non Calvinist type like the Cumberland Presbyterians.. Let's see what some famous Reformed teachers have to say.

RC Sproul: "God may grant his mercy unilaterally at some point..." Sproul has also adopted giving Communion to baptized infants. (from Ligonier.org)

Daniel Strange: "The possibility of salvation among the unevangelized is very real." (He wrote a book on such titled "The Possibility of Salvation Among the Unevangelized: An Analysis of Inclusivism")

Millard Erickson: "The basis of acceptance would be the work of Jesus Christ, even though the person involved is not conscious that this is how provision has been made for his salvation. . . ."(from thegospelcoalition.com) His saying that God has made "provision" seems odd since "Provisionalism" is the term used by non Calvinists.

 Clark Pinnock: “I agree that inclusivism is not a central topic of discussion in the Bible and the evidence for it is less than one would like. But the vision of God’s love there is so strong that the existing evidence seems sufficient to me.”

The Westminster Confession:  “Elect infants, dying in infancy, are regenerated, and saved by Christ, through the Spirit, who works when, and where, and how He pleases: so also are all other elect persons who are incapable of being outwardly called by the ministry of the Word.” (Notice it says "elect infants, not ALL infants. I reject this, as I believe ALL dying in infancy are among the elect, but more on this later. Also, to whom does "incapable" refer? Some would say those with mental disabilites, but again it says "elect" not "all". "Incapable" could also mean they simply have no way to hear the Gospel because no one has preached it to them.)

Reformed theologian Schleiermacher actually argued for universalism.

Second Halvetic Confession: "We recognize that God can illuminate whom and when he will, even without external ministry, for that is in his power." (Does "external ministry" include hearing the Gospel?)

Herman Bavinck Dutch Reformed theologian: "...the Reformed refused to establish the measure of grace needed for a human being still to be united with God, though subject to many errors and sins, or to determine the extent of the knowledge indispensably necessary to salvation.  Furthermore, they maintained that the means of grace are not absolutely necessary for salvation and that also apart from the Word and sacraments God can regenerate persons for eternal life."

Reformed theology gets stranger the further I dig into it. Why is it necessary to receive grace by "means", sacrament and Word for some,  but for others no means are necessary? On this I have to "defend" the hardshells, because if God does indeed regenerate persons without means, then He would do so far ALL. It seems to me that they define "unconditional" differently than those who are calvinistic but NOT reformed.

  Is it possible the hardshells gleaned their "new" Baptist doctrine from  the Reformed Presbyterians? I think it's very likely that they did along with "time" or "temporal" salvation, the main difference being that the Reformed position says even the non elect can have "temporal salvation" and can be "illuminated by the Spirit for a while, only to be finally lost and damned for the glory of God." I totally reject both of these premises. The former for teaching that the regenerated need not know the Truth in this life, the latter for claiming that God abandons any he has illuminated by His Spirit. This belief is like a piece of string. If put in a straight line with Reformed Calvinism on one end and Arminianism on the other, it appears that they are very far apart. But if you take the string and make a circle, the two opposite ends actually touch and become indistinguishable. In both camps one can "lose" his salvation. In both camps, you can never be sure if you are truly saved. Do you KNOW you have life? Jesus said you can! Ken Mann

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
  

  
  

---