5258Re: [Covenanted Reformation] Re: What Think Ye
- Sep 2, 2002Anti baptism equals anti reformed? I would submit that it might be prudent
(at this time) to define "reformed." Those reformed Baptist churches that
subscribe to the 1689 confession would not accept that the "special gifts"
are extant today. See para 1 in the 1689 Confession or same in the WSC.
They are identical.
Not trying to be argumentative or hostile. It just seems that the
meaning poured into "reformed" keeps changing. So what is it to be
reformed?--5-points, 5-points + EP, 5-points + SLC, 5-points + KJV Only.
There's something wrong with the club when it is easier to get into Heaven
than it is to join up with the "so called" Reformed (or REFORMED).
I hesitate to post this as I am afraid it sounds angry. I am not: that is
just my writing style, and I am confused. And blind folk have a built-in
animosity for moving targets: targets at all for that matter.
Web site: www.4familyreformation.com
At 12:57 PM 9/2/02 +0100, you wrote:
>Being an ex-Baptist myself, I would hesitate to call "Reformed
>Baptists" either truly Reformed or truly Baptist. It's more
>cumbersome, but these days I either put their title in "speech
>marks" where I need to use it, or refer to them as "predestinarian
>sola-credo-immersionists", or else call them "antipaedobaptists" as
>John Calvin does in his Institutes. All the "Baptists" whom I've met
>and whose books I've read on this point of controversy are very
>much ANTI-paedobaptism. And hence, essentially anti-Reformed. I
>am viewed with much suspicion in all "Baptist" circles, and
>patronised as though I am somewhat weak in the head, or
>somewhat blinded by popery. Not that I ever was a papist.
>That said, the "Baptist" position usually denies Covenant Theology
>outright, and thus tends toward some form of dispensationalism.
>"Reformed Baptists" are less consistent in their thinking on these
>matters, so it seems to me, in that they embrace much of
>Covenant Theology, but turn round at the last moment and dis-
>include their own children from the visible church.
>Just how they fit together Charismaticism and the Reformed faith?
>As far as I can see from my own experience, and from the semi-
>Charismatic, semi-Reformed church that my wife and I attend (for
>want of something better in our neighbourhood), Charismaticism
>seeks to totally eradicate the Reformed faith.
>[I must add here that I am being increasingly convicted about
>attending such a church (though I am reluctant to end up "going
>nowhere"), since I keep coming back to the thought that to attend
>such a church as I do, is to become somewhat "confederate" with
>them, and an associate of their errors -- and the judgement that
>such errors and opposition to the true doctrine justly deserves.]
>Why believe in the "spiritual gifts" in our day?
>(Actually the controversy is not about spiritual gifts per se, but
>about the so-called "signs and wonders" healings and deliverences,
>the "prophetic utterences", the "tongues utterences", and the
>"inner guiding voices", "pictures", "dreams" or "impressions".)
>We can see that the New Testament "sign gifts" (the ones
>bracketed above) were:
>(1) signs of the Messiah himself;
>(2) signs authenticating the apostles as spokes-persons of God;
>(3) some were the means of imparting to the apostles their New
>Testament doctrine, which they wrote down in what we now call the
>New testament Scriptures,
>(4) interim ministries given to those on whom the apostles "laid
>hands" before the New Testament Scriptures were completed and
>the canon closed;
>(5) in the case of tongues, also a sign of judgement on the Jews
>who rejected their Messiah, that they were about to be cut out of
>the "olive tree" of the Covenant.
>Notice that none of these reasons apply today.
>And nor have these points warranted ANY alleged "signs and
>wonders" (of the type bracketed above) since the close of the Tew
>But the Anabaptists and their spiritual descendents, the
>Charismatics (it is not really surprising that most Charismatics are
>"Baptist", and that Charismaticized churches tend to become
>"Baptist"), claim three other reasons for their doctrine and practice
>of the "continuation of the sign-gifts":
>(6) These outward signs can help make hearts more receptive to
>(7) These signs are God's evidences of special favour on certain
>ministers, and their doctrines (the so-called "anointing");
>(8) These supernatural powers are part of the church's ongoing
>weaponry for use in spiritual warfare (the so-called "power
>You can see, I hope, that (6) is Arminian, and not an argument that
>a true Calvinist can accept.
>You can see also that (7) is abused by 'heresy-salesmen' and false
>prophets who are doing great damage in the churches, and bringing
>the name of Christ into very much disrepute throughout the whole
>You can see that (8) just doesn't work in our battle that is not
>against flesh and blood.
>All the pro-Charismatic, anti-Cessationist arguments utterly fail
>before the proper preaching of the true gospel, authentic
>Christianity, the Reformed faith.
>Charismaticism only gains a foothold, and only flourishes, where
>the powerful, distinctive doctrines of the Reformation (fully
>developed) are neglected and forgotten.
>One cannot be truly "essentially Reformed with a Charismatic
>dimention". Charismaticism is built on Arminianism, and where
>Charismaticism gains a foothold in "Reformed" churches, it is
>always because (I will be so bold as to say it), Arminian principles
>have already been accepted into the camp.
>Arminianism is the thin end of the Charismatic/Anabaptist wedge,
>and seeks to undo and destroy the Reformation.
>Sours sincerely, Simon Padbury.
>To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
>Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
- << Previous post in topic Next post in topic >>