I do not like the term "Reformed Baptist," just as I do not like the term "Hardshell Baptist" and "Hyper Calvinist."
Baptists have not traditionally accepted or coveted this title. Though they are most content to simply be "Baptists," yet they have not disdained, historically, to be called "Regular," or "Old," or "Predestinarian" or "Particular," yet they seem not to be want to be called "Reformed."
In fact, it was, ironically, the followers of Walter Scott and Alexander Campbell that called themselves "Reformed Baptists"! The Baptists who fought Campbellism, rather than identifying with the title, actually repudiated it, at least how it was used by the Campbellites.
Today's "Reformed Baptists," men like James White, though not of the same kind of "Reformed Baptists" as was Scott and Campbell, yet they do, nonetheless, where the same title, a title I also do not covet.
1 comment:
I agree with that. To be truly reformed in their perspective is to embrace the tenet of infant baptist.
According to many so-called reformed calvinist/calvinistic theologians.
It's just presbyterianism from where I sit.
Thus White and other so-called reformed baptist can deny this, but most that are reformed will tell you that paedo-baptistism is a pillar of the theological paradigm.
Post a Comment