Baptist Distinctives: Are Baptists Reformed, Catholic, and Orthodox? - Kiffin's Keep Ep. 60

[@chaseopsahl]

If I had a dollar for every time I heard someone say "Baptists can't be Reformed" my mortgage would be paid off. Great content as always, Jordan. The London Lyceum is starting to destroy my "Baptist shame" that I have subconsciously adopted due to Baptists usually being the butt of the joke in most reformed circles. Keep it up, brother.

[@thelondonlyceum]

What an incredibly kind comment to receive. Thank you so much, brother!! ~Jordan

[@Faithseekingcatholicity]

Oh, this is Gold! What a blessing! 1. When I was a Baptist, I would have defined the regulative principle as it is laid out in the 1689 LBC and as Fred Malone laid it out in his book “The Baptism of Disciples Alone.” However, one of the central tenets of Fred’s book is that the WCF does not apply the regulative principle properly. He says that “good and necessary consequence” reflects the “normative principle” and not the regulative. As I pointed out in the second half of Ch2, Paragraph 6 of the 2LBC, it reflects the same thought of “good and necessary consequence” just reworded. It is a copy and paste of “good and necessary consequences” and justifies the normative principle in certain situations where scripture is unclear. So, to say that I don’t understand the regulative principle is to say that Fred Malone does not either. 2. Secondly, thank you for proving my point about subjective interpretation; given your response, I would ask a couple of questions. - Is your interpretation of “one baptism for the remission of sins” the consensus of the Baptist faith? - Would your interpretation be accepted by the signers of the 1641 LBC or the 1689 LBC? - Could you present this to any communion in the Baptist faith and be considered orthodox within the framework of the Baptist faith? - If you stood on the pulpit of the SBC annual convention and announced your view to the whole convention, would you be allowed on a pulpit again in the SBC? - Is your interpretation of the Nicene creed in keeping with what the writers of the creed itself believed? If you accept infant baptism and count it as valid and would not re-baptize, then you, by default, deny “Believer baptism” as laid out in every major Baptist confession ever written. You are officially not a Baptist, doctrinally. I think I know the answer to all of these. John Bunyan tried your view once and was excommunicated from the fellowship of the signers of 1689. So good luck, friend. I will be praying for you, brother. Lord willing, He will open your eyes and call you back to the one true holy catholic and apostolic faith. May the Lord bless you. (edit: citation of 2LBC in 1st paragraph.) Cheers.

[@thelondonlyceum]

Fred Malone doesn't understand it. You are correct. To your second point, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes. To your last comment, I don't think you understand the credobaptist position nor do you understand Bunyan and the debate there. Just look at the appendix to the Second London Confession where they explicitely allow room for these views. Best wishes! ~ Jordan

[@wjcollier3]

Thanks for the Free Will Baptist shout out! I am proud to consider myself Reformed, Baptist, and Arminian. I have the privilege to be part of my local association's credentials committee / ordaining council. A stronger associationalism will make stronger, healthier churches. This was a good video -- very helpful.

[@thelondonlyceum]

Thanks for sharing, brother!! Love my free will baptist brothers and sisters. :) ~ Jordan

[@rlstamps]

Good video, Jordan. We use distinctives (plural) as a cocktail of views that taken together make someone Baptist (note the capital B; many baptistic non-denominational churches are presbyterian at the local, even if they don't have connectionalism; also Pentecostals affirm credobaptism and they seem to be a distinct theological system from the Baptists).

[@thelondonlyceum]

Ah! This is a good way to explain it and I don’t know why I’ve been so dense to not think of it that way. ~ Jordan

[@paulsmallwood1484]

Excellent!

[@thelondonlyceum]

Many thanks! ~ Jordan

[@theoremus]

I like Gavin Ortlund. He holds to the 1689 London Baptist Confession of Faith, which is mostly Westminster.

[@Faithseekingcatholicity]

Gavin does not hold to the 1689.

[@josiahroyer1062]

I think Clark's view actually entails a bit more than the idea that infant Baptism is required for one to be reformed. Clark seems to specifically say that Westminster (or three forms) Covenant Theology is essential to what it means to be reformed, and he would say that entails infant baptism. As I understand your view (I apologize, but I have not read your paper Reforming Cresibaptism) you would suggest that pedobaptism is not necessary to Reformed CT. I think that is the core of your disagreement with Clark.

[@thelondonlyceum]

Yes, agree. But I don't object to his understanding of covenant theology. ~ Jordan

[@DontYouWantToLiveForever]

Jesus doesn't baptize with water - He baptizes with fire and the Holy Spirit. Apostle Paul didn't do water baptisms either. The men in Acts below, who had partaken of John's water baptism, didn't receive the Holy Spirit, they hadn't even heard about such a thing. When told the meaning of water baptism, the Israelites were preparing to believe in the One coming who can take away sins, they wanted to be baptized in Him. After Paul placed his hands on them, they received the Holy Spirit (and eternal life), no water required. I also find it interesting that every recorded baptism in the New Testament, as this one, was in the name of the Lord Jesus only, not in a trinity of names. Acts 19:2-6 MEV and said to them, "Have you received the Holy Spirit since you believed?" They said to him, "No, we have not even heard that there is a Holy Spirit." [3] He said to them, "Into what then were you baptized?" They said, "Into John's baptism." [4] Paul said, "John indeed baptized with the baptism of repentance, telling the people that they should believe in the One coming after him, that is, in Christ Jesus." [5] When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. [6] When Paul had laid his hands on them, the Holy Spirit came on them, and they spoke in other tongues and prophesied.