Monthly Archives: October 2023

What is a Reformed Baptist Church?

Posted on by

The following article is written by a pastor friend of mine, Travis Peterson. He is a remarkable man in that he serves his flock Providence Reformed Church in Las Vegas even as he is legally blind. He is a very gifted teacher of God’s word and this article is a helpful explanation regarding the question, ‘What is a Reformed Baptist Church?’

Pastor Travis writes:

No matter what kind of church one claims to belong to, that label will carry with it definitions and distinctions which make one church different from another. As taxonomic classifications identify organisms from kingdom down to species, certain distinctions help us to know what a church is when we see what they claim to be.

When one sees the word “reformed” in a church’s name or identity, a few possible meanings may be present. For example, a church may suggest that being reformed is particularly tied to a Presbyterian denomination or confession, denying that any can be reformed who are not part of that group. More loosely, another may use the word reformed simply to mean Calvinistic as concerns the church’s beliefs relating to salvation. Still others fall somewhere in the middle, believing that a reformed church is one which has some particular distinctives, but which is not necessarily Presbyterian—Reformed Baptists for example.

Because Reformed Baptist is the context of Providence Reformed Church where I serve, and because many wrestle with exactly how to explain what a Reformed Baptist is, I thought it might be useful to pull together a couple of threads of thought and share them here. This post will include a summary of several key ideas which would take you a while to explain to someone else. Next week, I hope to lay out some strategies for explaining Reformed Baptist to others in a short and simple way. I am not here claiming to be the authority over how the phrase is used, but am only hoping to help explain what we mean in our church when we say “Reformed Baptist.” 

Reformed Baptist churches are:1

  • Christian
  • Protestant
  • Reformed
  • Baptist

Christian – Christian churches embrace the true message of the Bible and the gospel of Jesus Christ. The basic beliefs of Christians are often summarized in classic creeds such as the Apostles’ Creed, the Nicene Creed, the Athanasian Creed, and the Chalcedonian Definition. These statements focus particularly on the identity of the one true God existing as trinity and the person of Jesus as truly God and truly man. This distinction separates Christianity from other world religions and cults which deny the trinity, the deity and humanity of Christ, or the basic gospel. 

Protestant – A Protestant church, unlike the Roman Catholic Church, embraces the five Solas of the Reformation. These churches believe that the Scripture alone is the final and highest authority for the church on earth. They teach that salvation is by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone, and to the glory of God alone. Protestants recovered these biblical doctrines during the era known as the Protestant Reformation.

Reformed – A subset of Protestant churches, Reformed churches embrace the beliefs of key doctrinal confessions such as the Belgic, Westminster, or Second London confessions. Much of what is recovered in these confessions beyond the basic faith of the classic creeds has to do with the authority of Scripture, the structure of the church, and the doctrine of salvation including election. Reformed churches are distinct from other Protestant churches which do not embrace these confessions and doctrines.

Baptist – A Baptist church is a Protestant church that expressly declares that only those who are saved by Jesus are part of the true church. Baptists believe that those who are saved obey Christ through the ordinance of believer’s baptism as a public declaration of their faith. Baptists value the autonomy of local congregations and the congregational voice in church government. These beliefs distinguish Baptist churches from our Presbyterian brothers.2

Other theological and practical particulars are often seen as identifying Reformed Baptists as different from non-Reformed Baptists. One author suggests the following five distinctives:3

  • The Regulative Principle of Worship
  • Covenant Theology
  • Calvinism
  • The Law of God
  • Confessional

The Regulative Principle of Worship – This teaching limits the acts of a church in worship to those which God commanded in Scripture. This distinguishes Reformed Baptist churches from others which practice the normative principle of worship, the belief that all things are permissible in worship so long as they are not forbidden in Scripture.

Covenant Theology – This doctrine accepts the covenant of redemption, covenant of works, and covenant of grace. The covenant of redemption is the plan among the persons of the trinity to rescue a people for the glory of God. The covenant of works is the covenant Adam failed to keep when he disobeyed God in the garden and brought condemnation on humanity resulting in the truth that no human being can now earn his or her way to God through good works. The covenant of Grace is the free gift of salvation by grace through faith in Christ who lived perfection and died as a sacrifice to pay for the sins of God’s people. Believers in covenant theology understand that Christ is the fulfillment of God’s promises from the Old Testament and that the Bible is a unified account of God’s accomplishment of his plan of salvation.  Covenant theologians, because of these beliefs, are distinct from dispensationalists. 

Calvinism – Calvinists believe in the sovereignty of God in the salvation of all who are saved. Calvinism embraces sovereign election and denies that people come to Christ without God first moving them to do so. 

The Law of God – A reformed understanding of God’s law includes the belief that the moral law of God is summarized in the Ten Commandments and that no one will fully understand the gospel apart from the law of God. Reformed Baptists will often see the law of God as useful to show a person their need for salvation, to help societies to restrain evil and destructive behavior, and to help the saved to understand the character of God and what pleases him. 

Confessional – Reformed Baptists often subscribe to the Second London Baptist Confession (written in 1677, published in 1689). This is not to say that there may not be small points that require further explanation or with which the church may quibble. Yet the Reformed Baptist Church will declare the confession to be a true summary of the church’s beliefs.

While different individuals or churches may disagree with one or more of the points above, they are a fair summary of what is broadly assumed to be a Reformed Baptist Church.

Next week, we will look at how to explain what a Reformed Baptist is in a short and simple way.

1 The 1st 3 items of this list are found in Daniel Hyde, Welcome to a Reformed Church (Sanford, FL: Ligonier Ministries, 2010), Introduction.

2 Baptist began to distinguish themselves during the period of the English Reformation along with Congregationalists. Such Baptists are not linked with the anabaptist movement.

3 This list comes from Tom Hicks, “What is a Reformed Baptist?” (Cape Coral, FL: Founders Ministries) [article on-line]; accessed 15 July 2023; available from  https://founders.org/articles/what-is-a-reformed-baptist/; Internet.

Could God Have Used Evolution?

Posted on by

Ken Ham in a facebook post October 27, 2023 writes:

Could God have used evolution? Well, first of all, it’s not a matter of what God could have done but what he said he did. Secondly, if a Christian truly understands evolution and its processes of death, disease, and violence over millions of years, and understands the attributes of a holy God, then, no—God couldn’t have used evolution to create life. To do so would be against his own character.

Many Christians today claim that millions of years of earth history fit with the Bible and that God could have used evolutionary processes to create. This idea is not a recent invention. For over 200 years, many theologians have attempted such harmonizations in response to the work of people like Charles Darwin and Scottish geologist Charles Lyell before him, who helped popularize the idea of millions of years of earth history and slow geological processes.

When we consider the possibility that God used evolutionary processes to create over millions of years, we are faced with serious consequences: the Word of God is no longer authoritative, and the character of our loving God is questioned.

Already in Darwin’s day, one of the leading evolutionists saw the compromise involved in claiming that God used evolution, and his insightful comments are worth reading again. Once you accept evolution and its implications about history, then man becomes free to pick and choose which parts of the Bible he wants to accept.

The leading humanist of Darwin’s day, Thomas Huxley (1825–1895), eloquently pointed out the inconsistencies of reinterpreting Scripture to fit with popular scientific thinking. Huxley, an ardent evolutionary humanist, was known as “Darwin’s bulldog,” as he did more to popularize Darwin’s ideas than Darwin himself. Huxley understood Christianity much more clearly than did compromising theologians who tried to add evolution and millions of years to the Bible. He used their compromise against them to help his cause in undermining Christianity.

In his essay “Lights of the Church and Science,” Huxley stated,

“I am fairly at a loss to comprehend how anyone, for a moment, can doubt that Christian theology must stand or fall with the historical trustworthiness of the Jewish Scriptures. The very conception of the Messiah, or Christ, is inextricably interwoven with Jewish history…what about the authority of the writers of the books of the New Testament, who, on this theory, have not merely accepted flimsy fictions for solid truths, but have built the very foundations of Christian dogma upon legendary quicksands?”

Huxley made the point that if we are to believe the New Testament doctrines, we must believe the historical account of Genesis as historical truth.

Huxley was definitely out to destroy the truth of the biblical record. When people rejected the Bible, he was happy. But when they tried to harmonize evolutionary ideas with the Bible and reinterpret it, he vigorously attacked this position. He stated:

“I confess I soon lose my way when I try to follow those who walk delicately among ‘types’ and allegories. A certain passion for clearness forces me to ask, bluntly, whether the writer means to say that Jesus did not believe the stories in question or that he did? When Jesus spoke, as a matter of fact, that ‘the Flood came and destroyed them all,’ did he believe that the Deluge really took place, or not? It seems to me that, as the narrative mentions Noah’s wife, and his sons’ wives, there is good scriptural warranty for the statement that the antediluvians married and were given in marriage: and I should have thought that their eating and drinking might be assumed by the firmest believer in the literal truth of the story. Moreover, I venture to ask what sort of value, as an illustration of God’s methods of dealing with sin, has an account of an event that never happened? If no Flood swept the careless people away, how is the warning of more worth than the cry of ‘Wolf’ when there is no wolf?“

Huxley also quoted 1 Corinthians 15:21–22: “For since by man came death, by Man also came the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ all shall be made alive.”

Huxley continued, “If Adam may be held to be no more real a personage than Prometheus, and if the story of the Fall is merely an instructive ‘type,’ comparable to the profound Promethean mythos, what value has Paul’s dialectic?

Thus, concerning those who accepted the New Testament doctrines that the Apostle Paul and Christ teach but rejected Genesis as literal history, Huxley claimed “the melancholy fact remains, that the position they have taken up is hopelessly untenable.”

He was adamant that science (by which he meant evolutionary, long-age ideas about the past) had proven that one cannot intelligently accept the Genesis account of creation and the flood as historical truth. He further pointed out that various doctrines in the New Testament are dependent on the truth of these events, such as Paul’s teaching on the doctrine of sin, Christ’s teaching on the doctrine of marriage, and the warning of future judgment. Huxley mocked those who try to harmonize evolution and millions of years with the Bible, because it requires them to give up a historical Genesis while still trying to hold to the doctrines of the New Testament.

The book of Genesis teaches that death is the result of Adam’s sin (Genesis 3:19; Romans 5:12, 8:18–22) and that all of God’s creation was “very good” upon its completion (Genesis 1:31). All animals and humans were originally vegetarian (Genesis 1:29–30). But if we compromise on the history of Genesis by adding millions of years, we must believe that death and disease were part of the world before Adam sinned. You see, the (alleged) millions of years of earth history in the fossil record shows evidence of animals eating each other, diseases like cancer in their bones, violence, plants with thorns, and so on. All of this supposedly took place before man appears on the scene, and thus before sin (and its curse of death, disease, thorns, carnivory, and so on) entered the world.

Christians who believe in an old earth (billions of years) need to come to grips with the real nature of the god of an old earth—it is not the loving God of the Bible. Even many conservative, evangelical Christian leaders accept and actively promote a belief in millions and billions of years for the age of rocks. How could a God of love allow such horrible processes as disease, suffering, and death for millions of years as part of his “very good” creation?

The god of an old earth cannot therefore be the God of the Bible who is able to save us from sin and death. Thus, when Christians compromise with the millions of years attributed by many scientists to the fossil record, they are, in that sense, seemingly worshipping a different god—the cruel god of an old earth.

People must remember that God created a perfect world; so when they look at this present world, they are not looking at the nature of God but at the results of our sin.

The God of the Bible, the God of mercy, grace, and love, sent his one and only Son to become a man (but God nonetheless), to become our sin bearer so that we could be saved from sin and eternal separation from God. As 2 Corinthians 5:21 says, “For He has made Him who knew no sin, to be sin for us, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.”

There’s no doubt—the god of an old earth destroys the gospel.

Now it is true that rejection of six literal days doesn’t ultimately affect one’s salvation, if one is truly born again. However, we need to stand back and look at the big picture.

In many nations, the Word of God was once widely respected and taken seriously. But once the door of compromise is unlocked, once Christian leaders concede that we shouldn’t interpret the Bible as written in Genesis, why should the world take heed of God’s Word in any area? Because the church has told the world that one can use man’s interpretation of the world, such as billions of years, to reinterpret the Bible, this Book is seen as an outdated, scientifically incorrect holy book not intended to be believed as written.

As each subsequent generation has pushed this door of compromise open farther and farther, they are increasingly not accepting the morality or salvation of the Bible either. After all, if the history in Genesis is not correct, how can one be sure the rest is correct? Jesus said, “If I have told you earthly things, and you do not believe, how will you believe if I tell you of heavenly things?” (John 3:12).

The battle is not one of young earth vs. old earth, or billions of years vs. six days, or creation vs. evolution—the real battle is the authority of the Word of God vs. man’s fallible opinions. Is God’s Word the authority, or is man’s word the authority?

So, couldn’t God have used evolution to create? The answer is no. A belief in millions of years of evolution not only contradicts the clear teaching of Genesis and the rest of Scripture but also impugns the character of God. He told us in the book of Genesis that he created the whole universe and everything in it in six days by his word: “Then God said . . .” His Word is the evidence of how and when God created, and his Word is incredibly clear.