In the 1800s there were movements which aimed at recovering the Unity of the Body of Christ, which movements separated from denominational allegiances to found something better : >Several movements originated around 1830, seeking spiritual renewal and purer fellowship. The Strict Baptists took shape as a distinct body; those associated with Edward Irving formed churches governed by apostles and claiming a restoration of the spiritual gifts and ministries mentioned in the New Testament (they were later known as the Catholic Apostolic Church); what became known as Anglo-Catholicism took shape in the Church of England; and the Brethren came into existence. > >Their earliest meetings were in Ireland (Dublin especially) and Plymouth (giving rise to the designation ‘Plymouth Brethren’). Their aim was to provide a fellowship in which all true believers could worship together, gathered round the Lord’s Table, and study the Scriptures without being divided by differing denominational allegiances. Brethren History.org None of these movements seems to have achieved their objective, the Brethren having formed several 'exclusive' groups and a loosely affiliated 'open' following which does not have the coherence that the original Plymouth movement sought. My question is whether the Reformed tradition feels that they have achieved what Brethrenism sought in the 1800s. Setting aside the clear distinction between Reformed Presbyterianism (which holds to infant baptism) and Reformed Baptists (who hold to adult baptism) is the Reformed movement as a whole, in the opinion of its Leaders, a suitable expression of the Unity of the Body of Christ ? I am not asking for opinions of individuals, I am strictly seeking what the *Leaders of the Reformed movement* express in regard to their own quest for the Unity of the Holy Spirit and for the Unity of the Body of Christ.

Jesus said 'the words that I speak unto you - they are spirit and they are life'. Paul also made it clear that if one receives the exact word of the true gospel (rather than, for example, the legal admixture which he opposed in Galatia) then Christ, himself, will be 'formed within'. >My little children, of whom I travail in birth again until Christ be formed in you, [Galatians 4:19 KJV]. This being 'formed within' is the real presence of Christ himself, in Spirit, consequent upon real repentance and a saving faith. The Strict and Particular Baptist movement of the early and middle 1800s, led first by William Huntington and then by William Gadsby, John Warburton and J.C.Philpot, stood strongly for real experience of conviction of sin, repentance of an evangelical kind (not mere legal remorse) and a real closing with Christ himself in felt union. Thereafter came a weakened expectation and a reliance on a 'decision' which fell short of real regeneration. The general term 'easy believism' has been, loosely, used to describe this. I am looking for any gatherings (or even a whole denomination, if there be such) which follow in the footsteps of the Strict and Particular Baptists in this regard, both in doctrine and in practice and in fellowship. My own experience, in the south west of England, is that the denomination called 'Gospel Standard Strict Baptist' is far from its origins in the previous two centuries, though they do, in word, adhere to certain doctrine and practice that is reminiscent of their beginnings. My question is addressed to Reformed and Trinitarian, Baptist Protestantism. But I would not discount Presbyterianism. What is easy believism ?

John Stott argued against the eternal punishment of unbelievers whereas J I Packer argued for the view that Jesus Christ warned of the eternal punishment of those who reject himself and his gospel. What is the current view of Reformed Baptist Protestantism on this matter ?

In chapter 26 paragraph 4 of the 1689 LBC , the authors called the pope the antichrist: >neither can the Pope of Rome in any sense be head thereof, but is that antichrist, that man of sin, and son of perdition, that exalteth himself in the church against Christ, and all that is called God; whom the Lord shall destroy with the brightness of his coming What was the reasoning behind labeling a single man/office as **The** antichrist, when scripture itself does no such thing (and indeed says there will be more than one {1 John 2:18 })?

>But avoid foolish questions, and genealogies, and contentions, and strivings about the law; for they are unprofitable and vain. **A man that is an heretick after the first and second admonition reject**; Knowing that he that is such is subverted, and sinneth, being condemned of himself. [Titus 3:10 KJV] This is a question for Trinitarian, Protestant, Reformed Baptists. What has been regarded by the Reformers and by subsequent generations of Protestant Trinitarians as the heresies which would warrant the rejection of the heretic after suitably admonishing such a person on two occasions ? After discovering a heresy, one should clearly admonish the person and attempt to instruct them accordingly. However, if they withstand such assistance and repeat their heresy then a second attempt must be made to further face them with the seriousness of their words and the depth of their contradiction to truth. But, thereafter, the apostle requires us to reject such a person as they have been undermined to such an extent that their words are sin and their own conscience is condemning themselves even as they speak. What heresies have, in the past and present, provoked such a response - publicly - by the Reformers and by subsequent generations of Reformed, Protestant, Trinitarian Baptists ?

I would like to hear what the doctrinal position of Reformed Baptist churches is regarding a Christian who rejects or refuses baptism? While Grace alone and Faith alone are the undisputed source of salvation, what does someone refusing baptism reveal? Is it considered a salvation issue, in regards to it showing bad fruit? If there is disagreement amongst Reformed Baptists, an overview of the major Reformed Baptist churches and denominations' position on this question would be ideal.

I have never thought of myself as being overtly religious ever in my life (in high school). I have never gone to church, but what I am now realizing is that I have been raised (more or less) as a Presbyterian. I come from a long line of Scottish heritage. All of my family has been religious and my great grandfather was a Pastor. Would it be stupid to say that I am a Presbyterian who has been raised away from the larger bodies of organized religion since Presbyterianism is mainly an organizational doctrine? I have recently met some (I believe) Reformed Baptists that call themselves Reformed Charismatic. They are very entranced with John Piper, who I have read is not reformed, so how does that work? I really want to use this as an opportunity to actually embrace religion. My understanding of Christianity is very barebones but I know more than the average person in our hyper-secular world today. What I need is a longer explanation so if you know anything that would help, please link it, but a reader's digest version is greatly appreciated. The main things I think I need to know are (1) what are the main beliefs of Presbyterianism, and what do I need to know to pass myself as one until I get further into it, (2) what is a good way to comprehend Biblical fundamentalism from a Presbyterian view, (3) what is the difference between other forms of Protestantism and Calvinism (especially the Reformed Charismatic denomination)?

A few years ago, I was given a booklet called 'Affirmation 2010' in which several signatories, standing as 'Reformed', added their names to a list of doctrinal elements which sought to 're-affirm' certain stances of doctrine. The website for [Affirmation 2010 can be read here](https://affirmation2010.wordpress.com/affirmation-2010/) . I wondered if the document was generally accepted, or not, amongst those to whom it was, generally, addressed.

I am aware that [William Carey](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Carey_(missionary)) 's efforts to form a missions society and travel overseas as a missionary were opposed by some of his Calvinist (or hyper-Calvinist) Baptist peers. I'm vaguely aware of their arguments, such as "the Great Commission only applied to the apostles," but I'm looking for a better understanding of **a)** their arguments and **b)** the biblical basis for those arguments. An ideal answer would quote, summarize, and reference the writings of Carey's opponents, and not merely rely on the writings of Carey and his friends. In summary: What arguments did William Carey's opponents make against his overseas missions efforts, and on what biblical basis did they make them?

According to Reformed Baptist theology, when did the Church begin? In the Old Testament or in the New Testament?

I have recently met people who are Reformed Baptist. However, I'm having a hard time understanding what their major beliefs are, especially in comparison to other Baptists. The Wikipedia article gives a good overview of the history of the group, but doesn't summarize the major theological beliefs. Do they still hold to the defining Baptist tenet that only adult baptism is valid? Are there other major differences between them?

What is the "official" stances of Reformed Baptists on Dispensationalism? What biblical base do they claim for such views? If, as a group, they would generally not teach Dispensationalism, are there aspects of it viewed as biblical?