Thread: Who Defines "Reformed"?

Scott,

Thanks for your clear and useful post. As a baptist (albeit an increasingly conflicted one), it seems to me that your points are sound and fair. While firm, they are not unfriendly, merely discriminating.

A couple of observations . . .

First, when people speak of being "Reformed Baptists," they are using the adjective in much the same way as those who call themselves "Calvinistic Baptists." They may be muddying the waters of defintion, but they are not necessarily trying to steal your franchise on the adjective.

As you clearly note, being "Reformed" entails much more than a shared commitment to the five points. Issues of infant baptism, the meaning of the terms Old Covenant and New Covenant, and matters of polity come into play.

While it may not be the most precise and univocal way of framing it, claiming to be a "Reformed Baptist" seems fair to me, but suggesting that one is truly Reformed as a baptist would not be.

The compound term "Reformed Baptist" has a unique meaning and an historical signification just as Reformed Judaism does. One cannot simply divide the terms and protest the use of the adjective. However, as you rightly note, Reformed implies so much more than TULIP, that people like Piper should (IMO) probably call themselves Calvinistic. One reason for the failure to do so is that some prefer to differentiate the specific kind of baptist they are rather than to appear to be following a man, even a great man like Calvin.

Second, don't you at least find it somewhat ironic, that even granting the differences you identify in your blog, many Calvinistic baptists (especially those holding to the 1689 LBCF) agree with you on more issues than some of those ministering in "Reformed" denominations? Given a choice, I would think that you would prefer some of the baptists on the PB to some of the members of liberal "Reformed" denominations in the US and Europe.

In any case, I remain grateful that my paedo brethren allow me a place on the PB. The fellowship of the Truly Reformed and those of us who are merely Calvinistic is a rich one indeed.

I will say, as I have said in the past, it should be no insult to Baptists to not call themselves Reformed, and instead call themselves the same as the historical Baptists did: Particular Baptists. I honestly don't see why so many Baptists find it insulting that they don't get to share (in in an unqualified sense) the moniker Reformed. If I were a 100% convinced Baptist, I'd be much more energetic in calling myself Particular than Reformed.

How about another provocative question: Is the Klinean casting of the Covenants Reformed?

Since you would like to open I thought I'd open up that can.

Originally Posted by joshua

I will say, as I have said in the past, it should be no insult to Baptists to not call themselves Reformed, and instead call themselves the same as the historical Baptists did: Particular Baptists. I honestly don't see why so many Baptists find it insulting that they don't get to share (in in an unqualified sense) the moniker Reformed. If I were a 100% convinced Baptist, I'd be much more energetic in calling myself Particular than Reformed.

Frankly, judging the words in terms of their "branding" potential, "particular" has always sounded old fashioned, fussy, and too much like a crankly old bachelor in his fastidious apartment. "Reformed" is a much better term for conveying what Calvinistic baptists want to say about themselves. Still, your suggestion has great merit, Josh. I'm not offended or insulted to be merely a Calvinistic baptist.

I would ask you TRs to remember, however, that when the presbys abandoned Calvinism in the 18th century (opting for Socinianism and unitarianism), the baptists kept TULIP alive. Most early baptists were "particular" not "general." Our early confessions were all abridgements of, or strongly influenced by, the WCF. And, when the "Reformed" brethren deserted Dortian Calvinism, we kept it alive.

The last point was merely my way of saying that the current policy of inviting both Reformed and Calvinistic Baptists to be part of PB is a good (and admittedly generous) one.

I don't mean to seem contrary but it seems that the issue bothers non-Baptists more than it bothers Baptists. Why would a non-Baptist even care if a Baptist church or individual calls themselves Reformed?

I agree with Josh. When I was a baptistic I didn't like the term Reformed Baptist either because I knew what Reformed meant, that it meant more than just the doctrines of grace. Although I suspect Dr. Clark won't like it, I'm leaning toward the term Calvinistic Baptist as perhaps being better than a Baptist calling himself a Calvinist, which I see as essentially being a synonym for Reformed. As someone said here a while back, when he was a child in a Baptist church, he asked his pastor if they were Calvinists. The pastor replied "We are Calvinistic, but we are not Calvinists." I assume the pastor meant that we believe the doctrines of grace but that we obviously don't accept the whole package.

I don't suppose we're going to be rid of the term Reformed Baptist any time soon since it's been in use for 30-40 years. It generally means (but not always) that someone is a 1689er. (As we have seen, many who call themselves Reformed Baptists don't seem to have read the 1689 just as many who fancy themselves Reformed Presbyterians haven't read the Westminster Standards.) But Dr. Clark is absolutely correct that the term Reformed has been defined down so far that for most it only means someone who holds to the 5 points. Hence the recent book "Young, Restless and Reformed" which seems to focus on Baptists and judging from the related article in CT doesn't seem to focus on confessionalism at all. There are people who are calling themselves "Reformed" today who are not only not paedobaptists but who are charismatic, who hold to the normative principle of worship, who are antisabbatarian, who are all for supposed "pictures of Christ," etc. But there are many in NAPARC churches who would view a call for Sabbath observance and a prohibition of pictures of Christ as legalistic since these truths often are not emphasized there either. And I'll also concede that on some of these issues, especially pertaining to worship, some "Reformed Baptists" may be more Reformed than some Presbyterians.

Some time back Dr. Clark cured me of calling myself "reformed" or "Calvinisitic". I understand and accept his explanation. I don't care for the tag of "particular" either. It holds no meaning today. I understand its historical underpinnings and, of course, agree with them, but it is not a label I care to carry these days.

"Evangelical" doesn't mean much these days. "Baptist" conjures many negative images. Even the name "Christian" poses its problems. Of course, I accept the names "Baptist" and "Christian". However, what about this?...an apprentice of the LORD Jesus Christ.

That I am.

Originally Posted by Semper Fidelis

How about another provocative question: Is the Klinean casting of the Covenants Reformed?

Since you would like to open I thought I'd open up that can.

If you get a bite on that one I have some questions up my sleeve as well.

Originally Posted by DMcFadden

Originally Posted by joshua

I will say, as I have said in the past, it should be no insult to Baptists to not call themselves Reformed, and instead call themselves the same as the historical Baptists did: Particular Baptists. I honestly don't see why so many Baptists find it insulting that they don't get to share (in in an unqualified sense) the moniker Reformed. If I were a 100% convinced Baptist, I'd be much more energetic in calling myself Particular than Reformed.

Frankly, judging the words in terms of their "branding" potential, "particular" has always sounded old fashioned, fussy, and too much like a crankly old bachelor in his fastidious apartment. "Reformed" is a much better term for conveying what Calvinistic baptists want to say about themselves. Still, your suggestion has great merit, Josh. I'm not offended or insulted to be merely a Calvinistic baptist.

I would ask you TRs to remember, however, that when the presbys abandoned Calvinism in the 18th century (opting for Socinianism and unitarianism), the baptists kept TULIP alive. Most early baptists were "particular" not "general." Our early confessions were all abridgements of, or strongly influenced by, the WCF. And, when the "Reformed" brethren deserted Dortian Calvinism, we kept it alive.

This is what happened in England and in parts of Europe as well as New England but not so much elsewhere. (I will note that in many cases these were Congregationalists, not Presbyterians, and the Presbys in England erred in merging with the Congregationalists, as did the New School Presbyterians in the USA). Unfortunately many of the Baptists there went over into hyper-Calvinism although some like Spurgeon, Carey, Fuller etc. bucked the trend.

Chris,

I don't really have much to argue with you about on this one. I agree with you and Dr. Clark on Reformed and Calvinist, but probably not on "Calvinistic" for the very reason you cited. When Harvard hired a Unitarian to teach theology in 1805 that pretty well said it all for "Calvinism" at Harvard. Baptists in America and England carried a lot of water for the cause when others were apostasizing.

And, as the example of John Frame has proven, there is no unanimity in the conservative branch of the Reformed community even on the meaning and application of the RPW. Second, look at the crazies in the PCUSA or CRC. They were my profs in seminary and taught me that the WCF was misguided, that the Princetonians were flat out wrong about the "novelty" of inerrancy, and that ordaining gays is OK. Frankly, I'd take a Dever's or Piper's Calvinistic theology over that stuff anyday!

So, no whining here. I'm baptist not Reformed. But, there is more in common between PB baptists and PB Reformed folks than either of us and the majority of the "Reformed" in America and Europe today.

Originally Posted by North Jersey Baptist

I don't mean to seem contrary but it seems that the issue bothers non-Baptists more than it bothers Baptists. Why would a non-Baptist even care if a Baptist church or individual calls themselves Reformed?

Wait until McLaren call himself "Reformed Baptist" and you will be bothered O, maybe he is already doing that!

Wait a minute. I thought McLaren was TR?

Don't stick him with the baptists.

Oh man my head is going to explode.

Can I just be called a Christian?

Originally Posted by DMcFadden

Chris,

I don't really have much to argue with you about on this one. I agree with you and Dr. Clark on Reformed and Calvinist, but probably not on "Calvinistic" for the very reason you cited. When Harvard hired a Unitarian to teach theology in 1805 that pretty well said it all for "Calvinism" at Harvard. Baptists in America and England carried a lot of water for the cause when others were apostasizing.

I had Harvard in mind when I noted New England. The situation wasn't the same in the rest of the USA and certainly isn't applicable to the Old School Presbyterians in either the North or the South, whatever their other failings were. Harvard was founded by Puritans, but they weren't Presbyterians, they were Congregationalists. I find that people often conflate the two and have the idea that the Pilgrims were Presbyterians.

Some of the Southern Baptist Founders like James P. Boyce and Basil Manly studied under Charles Hodge at Princeton Seminary.

Originally Posted by DMcFadden

And, as the example of John Frame has proven, there is no unanimity in the conservative branch of the Reformed community even on the meaning and application of the RPW. Second, look at the crazies in the PCUSA or CRC. They were my profs in seminary and taught me that the WCF was misguided, that the Princetonians were flat out wrong about the "novelty" of inerrancy, and that ordaining gays is OK. Frankly, I'd take a Dever's or Piper's Calvinistic theology over that stuff anyday!

You'll find no agreement with John Frame here among any who hold to the RPW whether they are EP or not. It seems to me that Prof. Frame says that so he can justify his allowance for drama, dance, etc. He says there is no agreement and then he redefines it in a way that is unrecognizable.

Originally Posted by DMcFadden

So, no whining here. I'm baptist not Reformed. But, there is more in common between PB baptists and PB Reformed folks than either of us and the majority of the "Reformed" in America and Europe today.

Agreed.

Originally Posted by Pilgrim

Some of the Southern Baptist Founders like James P. Boyce and Basil Manly studied under Charles Hodge at Princeton Seminary.

Indeed! To their and our (SBC) benefit!!

I'm with Josh. We should use the term "Particular" or "Confessional".

Question for brother Clark. Who defines what the RPW is? Since a lot of the EP brethren would say that those who sing anything other than Psalms and who use mechanical music might take issue. I'm studying this issue now and would appreciate your comments or anyone else for that matter.

"one must hold to every point of doctrine in the Reformed confessions in order to be Reformed."

Hmm...let's see where this logic is leading us...

The Westminster Confession teaches:

1) Exclusive Psalmody

2) Explicitly Christian Civil Government

3) The Establishment Principle

4) Scottish Sabbatarianism

5) Papal Antichrist

6) Six Day Creation

So I guess that means that if someone does not subscribe to every one of the above points then they are "not Reformed"? That means a substantial number of members of this board are "not Reformed". Moreover, it means that most people who claim to be Reformed are "not Reformed"...maybe I am not Reformed then (as I don't hold point 5 at present), but I am not sure that I care, as I am a Christian, one who is in Union with the Risen Christ. That means a lot more to me than the label "Reformed" does.

To be perfectly truthful, I do not think posts like this help the cause of Christ in the world; does nit-picking and arguing over labels really bring any glory to God?

1. The test I'm proposing doesn't only apply to Baptists. There are a nominally Reformed folk who also fail the test.

2. As to the RPW, this is an area in which the Reformed Churches need massive Reformation. In my forthcoming book (Nov, '08, Dv) I argue for a "canonical principle." Anything which the church sings ought to be canonical. I would be perfectly happy to sing only psalms but I don't think the RPW requires it but I don't see how any session/consistory has a right to ask God's people to sing or say anything in the service of God that is extra-canonical. We are only authorized to repeat God's own Word to him. In worship God speaks to us and we, his people, reply with his own Word. It really isn't very complicated.

I agree with the historic understanding regarding instruments. We should be rid of all the Mosaic and Romish remnants that we have re-introduced into Reformed worship in the modern period.

As to Daniel's objections, I should (and will) add the qualification "the Reformed confessions as received by the churches." The American churches have rightly modified the WCF and BC to remove objectionable theocratic elements.

I don't know what he means by "Scottish Sabbatarianism" since the WCF was hardly a purely "Scottish" document! The WCF reflects the mainstream of Reformed theology, piety, and practice including the Sabbath. I write about this at length in Recovering.

I don't see why the office of Pope is not Antichrist. He condemns the gospel and offers himself as the vicar of Christ. If you're looking for an antichrist what else do you want?

As to creation the Three Forms don't require 6/24 creation and the American Presbyterians have not received the WCF to require 6/24 creation so that's not really an issue.

Cheers,

rsc

Originally Posted by R. Scott Clark

1. The test I'm proposing doesn't only apply to Baptists. There are a nominally Reformed folk who also fail the test.

2. As to the RPW, this is an area in which the Reformed Churches need massive Reformation. In my forthcoming book (Nov, '08, Dv) I argue for a "canonical principle." Anything which the church sings ought to be canonical. I would be perfectly happy to sing only psalms but I don't think the RPW requires it but I don't see how any session/consistory has a right to ask God's people to sing or say anything in the service of God that is extra-canonical. We are only authorized to repeat God's own Word to him. In worship God speaks to us and we, his people, reply with his own Word. It really isn't very complicated.

I agree with the historic understanding regarding instruments. We should be rid of all the Mosaic and Romish remnants that we have re-introduced into Reformed worship in the modern period.

Cheers,

rsc

Thanks for mentioning musical instruments, I forgot all about them.

I love Presbyterians.

Originally Posted by R. Scott Clark

As to Daniel's objections, I should (and will) add the qualification "the Reformed confessions as received by the churches." The American churches have rightly modified the WCF and BC to remove objectionable theocratic elements.
Cheers,

rsc

The American churches have rightly modified the WCF and BC to remove objectionable theocratic elements.

What if the reverse is countered. The American churches have wrongly modified the WCF and BC to remove objectionable theocratic elements that shouldn't be objectionable...You would then appeal to the gathered chuch body that did it. I would appeal to the church body that put together the original and say that the American church was wrong. It is still an appeal to authority at that point and not to scripture.


If your definition would stand the test of time then it should have been applicable to the churches that received the confessions at the time the American church wanted to make revisions. Let's say that your great-great-great (not sure how many to add in order to make you not take offense! ) grand-dad was arguing back in the day for the definition of reformed that you are arguing for, then the revisers would be not considered reformed for wanting to tinker. But then the younger you, you-now would say that the confession was wrong at that point and needed revising. But doesn't that cut both ways and open up the argument that modern day p&r's are wanting to do? I'm all for adhering to the confession...but I think it doth pander to our own whims when we get to then dictate it is the revised, gutted American version rather than the full octane one that was handed down from Mt. Westminster. But then again, I like the theocratic language as did the reformers, puritans, early American puritans, Dutch, etc...You know...all of the reformed people.

One last point...If we want to call it the American re-Reformed vs. Historically Reformed, I guess I wouldn't complain of those labels as they would be accurate.

Originally Posted by crhoades

Originally Posted by R. Scott Clark

As to Daniel's objections, I should (and will) add the qualification "the Reformed confessions as received by the churches." The American churches have rightly modified the WCF and BC to remove objectionable theocratic elements.
Cheers,

rsc

If your definition would stand the test of time then it should have been applicable to the churches that received the confessions at the time the American church wanted to make revisions. Let's say that your great-great-great (not sure how many to add in order to make you not take offense! ) grand-dad was arguing back in the day for the definition of reformed that you are arguing for, then the revisers would be not considered reformed for wanting to tinker. But then the younger you, you-now would say that the confession was wrong at that point and needed revising. But doesn't that cut both ways and open up the argument that modern day p&r's are wanting to do? I'm all for adhering to the confession...but I think it doth pander to our own whims when we get to then dictate it is the revised, gutted American version rather than the full octane one that was handed down from Mt. Westminster. But then again, I like the theocratic language as did the reformers, puritans, early American puritans, Dutch, etc...You know...all of the reformed people.

Even us puritanical baptists?

Originally Posted by Blueridge Baptist

Originally Posted by crhoades

Originally Posted by R. Scott Clark

As to Daniel's objections, I should (and will) add the qualification "the Reformed confessions as received by the churches." The American churches have rightly modified the WCF and BC to remove objectionable theocratic elements.
Cheers,

rsc

If your definition would stand the test of time then it should have been applicable to the churches that received the confessions at the time the American church wanted to make revisions. Let's say that your great-great-great (not sure how many to add in order to make you not take offense! ) grand-dad was arguing back in the day for the definition of reformed that you are arguing for, then the revisers would be not considered reformed for wanting to tinker. But then the younger you, you-now would say that the confession was wrong at that point and needed revising. But doesn't that cut both ways and open up the argument that modern day p&r's are wanting to do? I'm all for adhering to the confession...but I think it doth pander to our own whims when we get to then dictate it is the revised, gutted American version rather than the full octane one that was handed down from Mt. Westminster. But then again, I like the theocratic language as did the reformers, puritans, early American puritans, Dutch, etc...You know...all of the reformed people.

Even us puritanical baptists?

Now, now...let's not get carried away! j/k. Hmmm...thinking of a new label...what about Baptocrat?

Also should add - not trying to divert this along the political lines but still sticking with the confessional understanding of reformed and who gets to call it.

Originally Posted by Semper Fidelis

How about another provocative question: Is the Klinean casting of the Covenants Reformed?

Since you would like to open I thought I'd open up that can.

Waiting for an answer, not really expecting one....

Originally Posted by R. Scott Clark

As to Daniel's objections, I should (and will) add the qualification "the Reformed confessions as received by the churches." The American churches have rightly modified the WCF and BC to remove objectionable theocratic elements.

I don't know what he means by "Scottish Sabbatarianism" since the WCF was hardly a purely "Scottish" document! The WCF reflects the mainstream of Reformed theology, piety, and practice including the Sabbath. I write about this at length in Recovering.

I don't see why the office of Pope is not Antichrist. He condemns the gospel and offers himself as the vicar of Christ. If you're looking for an antichrist what else do you want?

As to creation the Three Forms don't require 6/24 creation and the American Presbyterians have not received the WCF to require 6/24 creation so that's not really an issue.

Cheers,

rsc

Dr Clark

Thanks for your reply.

The American churches by removing the Theocratic elements of the Confessions have accepted the idea of a pluralist state. This is not Calvinistic politics, as it denies the sovereignty of God in the civil realm, and is a concession to humanism. However, according to the logic of the statement that one must hold to all the points of the Reformed Confessions to be Reformed, then the American "Reformed" Churches must not be Reformed.

Scottish Sabbatarianism is basically the Puritan/Scottish view of the Sabbath, in distinction from the looser view of the Sabbath held by most American Presbyterians.

I agree that the Pope is an antichrist, but I believe the man of sin in 2 Thess. 2 was the Emperor Nero - who claimed to be the incarnate deity (as does the totalitarian state today). And most American Presbyterians would agree with me that the papacy is not the anti-christ.

American Presbyterians may not have received the WCF to require 6/24, but that is the original intent of the WCF, so to depart from it - if the logic of your position that any departure from the Reformed standards renders one "not Reformed" is to be accepted - renders American Presbyterians "not Reformed".

I am not saying this to be annoying, but if we are going to say that Reformed Baptists are not Reformed, then we had better make sure that we have no beams in our own eyes.

Originally Posted by Daniel Ritchie

To be perfectly truthful, I do not think posts like this help the cause of Christ in the world; does nit-picking and arguing over labels really bring any glory to God?

Daniel,

I appreciate your concern about nit-picking. My response to Dr. Clark's OP was not intended to argue with the TR brethren or to claim baptists are Reformed. I accept as valid Scott's essential point that the Reformed ought to have the right to define themselves as they wish. That such definition does not include me does not offend me in the least. I am a baptist who believes in the doctrines of grace, not a Reformed/Presbyterian. Actually, Daniel, my original response to Clark was intended to say that I agree with his article and wanted to raise a couple of related issues, not to nit pick the man.

I am a 5-pointer who would rather exalt in the majestic sovereignty of God in all his creation than the dignity of a partially fallen creature (to paraphrase Nettles). From a strictly linguistic and historical consideration, I think that gives me a right to claim to be Calvinistic, as in a Calvinistic Baptist as opposed to an Arminian Baptist, even though it is not theologically or historically permitted to describe this as Reformed.

You do raise some interesting points which Scott addressed in part. The "Reformed" people who taught me in seminary were published authors, noted scholars (one eventually to become the moderator of the 213th General Assembly of the largest Presbyterian denomination in America) and all around muck-e-mucks of Reformed thought. I simply find it ironic that my TR brethren on PB should find more in common with my theology (inerrancy, confessional 1689 baptist, creationist, complementarian, no gay marriage/ordination, etc.) than with a majority of pastors and lay people (by head count) in the officially Reformed or Presbyterian denominations.

Again, no whining here. I'm a baptist not a presbyterian, so I can't be Reformed. But I'll take baptist John Piper over presbyterian Jack Rogers any day. And, even among Refomed people, give me R.C. Sproul in a heart beat over the typical current graduates (or professors) at Princeton, Pittsburgh (except our dear PB bro), or McCormick.

Baptists are saddled with Arminians (now the majority). You presbyterians are stuck with a majority that I do not believe accepts what most of you Reformed guys on PB believe.

Originally Posted by DMcFadden

Originally Posted by Daniel Ritchie

To be perfectly truthful, I do not think posts like this help the cause of Christ in the world; does nit-picking and arguing over labels really bring any glory to God?

Daniel,

I appreciate your concern about nit-picking. My response to Dr. Clark's OP was not intended to argue with the TR brethren or to claim baptists are Reformed. I accept as valid Scott's essential point that the Reformed ought to have the right to define themselves as they wish. That such definition does not include me does not offend me in the least. I am a baptist who believes in the doctrines of grace, not a Reformed/Presbyterian. Actually, Daniel, my original response to Clark was intended to say that I agree with his article and wanted to raise a couple of related issues, not to nit pick the man.

I am a 5-pointer who would rather exalt in the majestic sovereignty of God in all his creation than the dignity of a partially fallen creature (to paraphrase Nettles). From a strictly linguistic and historical consideration, I think that gives me a right to claim to be Calvinistic, as in a Calvinistic Baptist as opposed to an Arminian Baptist, even though it is not theologically or historically permitted to describe this as Reformed.

You do raise some interesting points which Scott addressed in part. The "Reformed" people who taught me in seminary were published authors, noted scholars (one eventually to become the moderator of the 213th General Assembly of the largest Presbyterian denomination in America) and all around muck-e-mucks of Reformed thought. I simply find it ironic that my TR brethren should find more in common with my theology (inerrancy, confessional 1689 baptist, creationist, complementarian, no gay marriage/ordination, etc.) than with a majority of pastors and lay people (by head count) in the officially Reformed or Presbyterian denominations.

Again, no whining here. I'm a baptist not a presbyterian, so I can't be Reformed. But I'll take baptist John Piper over presbyterian Jack Rogers any day. And, even among Refomed people, give me R.C. Sproul any day over the typical current graduates (or professors) at Princeton, Pittsburgh (except our dear PB bro), or McCormick.

Sorry Dennis I was not addressing any of your replies in my comments. To be truthful I would prefer it if we limited our definition of Reformed to a more general adherance to Calvinistic doctrine, RPW, and covenant theology - if we go much further than that, we could end up in endless wars over what it is to be Reformed, with everyone accusing everyone else of not being Reformed. IMHO, the 1689 is a Reformed Confession.

Originally Posted by DMcFadden

You do raise some interesting points which Scott addressed in part. The "Reformed" people who taught me in seminary were published authors, noted scholars (one eventually to become the moderator of the 213th General Assembly of the largest Presbyterian denomination in America) and all around muck-e-mucks of Reformed thought. I simply find it ironic that my TR brethren on PB should find more in common with my theology (inerrancy, confessional 1689 baptist, creationist, complementarian, no gay marriage/ordination, etc.) than with a majority of pastors and lay people (by head count) in the officially Reformed or Presbyterian denominations.

Again, no whining here. I'm a baptist not a presbyterian, so I can't be Reformed. But I'll take baptist John Piper over presbyterian Jack Rogers any day. And, even among Refomed people, give me R.C. Sproul in a heart beat over the typical current graduates (or professors) at Princeton, Pittsburgh (except our dear PB bro), or McCormick.

You have introduced another facet into the conversation - that of confessional subscription - yet another . Just because a denomination holds to one of the reformed confessions, a member or elder that is a part of it, does not a reformed one make. I need to reread Dr. Clark's original blog and all of the other entries to see if this has been addressed but it is indeed a part of it all.

I have not read through this thread but left this comment on his blog....

…
I truly wish that they would embrace Abraham as their father in the faith and embrace their children as covenant children and the promises as belonging to their children and that they would thus embrace the Reformed faith as confessed by the Reformed Churches.

Thanks Dr. Clark for your article. I agree that Reformed Baptists are not Reformed in the Presbyterian way ecclesiologically nor concerning who the Children of the Covenant are. We are more in line with John Owen concerning the Covenant of Grace and Ecclesiology. But we do consider Abraham as our Father in the Faith. I bet you are overstating your point for emphasis. We just believe as the text says that those children are children of faith. In other words we are children of Abraham if we have like faith in Christ as he did. A faith that is caused by regeneration and God’s monergistic conversion.

(Gal 3:5) Does he who supplies the Spirit to you and works miracles among you do so by works of the law, or by hearing with faith–

(Gal 3:6) just as Abraham “believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness”?

(Gal 3:7) Know then that it is those of faith who are the sons of Abraham.

(Gal 3: 8) And the Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel beforehand to Abraham, saying, “In you shall all the nations be blessed.”

(Gal 3:9) So then, those who are of faith are blessed along with Abraham, the man of faith.

We believe that in both the Old Covenant and the New that those who are faith are only partakers in the Covenant of Grace.

I do believe the following…..

WCF 7.6
….There are not therefore two covenants of grace, differing in substance, but one and the same, under various dispensations

Anyone can read my comments on the PB concerning Genesis 17, Romans 4 and passages in Galations concerning this.

Just do a search under PuritanCovenanter and the passages.

I agree with Dr. Clark that we are not Reformed in the same context.

I agree that anyone who is not Covenantal nor Confessional in thinking is not Reformed.

As you know, historically we Reformed Baptists are known as Particular Baptists. Reformed Baptist is a rather new term. It is also an evolving term which seems to include just 5 pointers who are credo, whether or not they are Covenantal or confessional. I prefer the term Sovereign Grace Baptist for those guys who are not Covenantal as in believing in the CofW, or the CofG. Which is what a Particular Baptist historically held to according to the 1689 LBCF.

I like Pastor David Charles understanding of what a Reformed Baptist is.

The five points of Reformed Baptist Churches « Reformed Baptist Fellowship

Thanks Dr. Clark
I have learned a lot from you.

Question about "Canonical Singing" Dr. Clark. Do you mean by this that we should sing the Magnificant, the Psalms, Revelation's hymns, etc...alone?

Can you elaborate for me please? Thanks!!!

Originally Posted by joshua

I will say, as I have said in the past, it should be no insult to Baptists to not call themselves Reformed, and instead call themselves the same as the historical Baptists did: Particular Baptists. I honestly don't see why so many Baptists find it insulting that they don't get to share (in in an unqualified sense) the moniker Reformed. If I were a 100% convinced Baptist, I'd be much more energetic in calling myself Particular than Reformed.

Part of the problem you are not acknowledging here Josh is that the lineage of inheretance on the Particular Baptist side is from the Reformers and not from the the Anabaptists. I think some of the Reformed Baptist just want to emphasize that their heritage is Reformational and having their roots in the Reformation and its Reformers instead of in the Radical Reformation of the Anabaptists which is much more various and out of bounds theologically. It truly is one of identity.

Particular only indicates that they held to a view of Particular Redemption. Everyone Calvinistic in soteriology holds to that. Even NCT guys do but they are not Covenantal nor are they confessional. So a distinction should be made above Particular in my estimation.

Originally Posted by PuritanCovenanter

Originally Posted by joshua

I will say, as I have said in the past, it should be no insult to Baptists to not call themselves Reformed, and instead call themselves the same as the historical Baptists did: Particular Baptists. I honestly don't see why so many Baptists find it insulting that they don't get to share (in in an unqualified sense) the moniker Reformed. If I were a 100% convinced Baptist, I'd be much more energetic in calling myself Particular than Reformed.

Part of the problem you are not acknowledging here Josh is that the lineage of inheretance on the Particular Baptist side is from the Reformers and not from the the Anabaptists. I think some of the Reformed Baptist just want to emphasize that their heritage is Reformational and having their roots in the Reformation and its Reformers instead of in the Radical Reformation of the Anabaptists which is much more various and out of bounds theologically. It truly is one of identity.

You see this is precisely why I have no problem with the term "Reformed Baptist", as they are not Anabaptists, but a branch of the Reformed tradition who have modified the Confession of the Reformed Church (i.e. the WCF) to bring it into line with what they believe to be Scriptural (as American Presbyterians and others have done).

Originally Posted by Blueridge Baptist

I'm with Josh. We should use the term "Particular" or "Confessional".

Blueridge brilliance again! Trash the "particular." I don't want to sound like a fussy old woman with blue hair living in a musty old house and chasing the neighborhood kids off the sidewalk out front of my house.

But . . . TA DA . . . CONFESSIONAL!!! I like that. In fact, I'm gonna quit using the other terms entirely. Confessional not only describes quite accurately what differentiates us from our Arminian brethren, it also conveys associations with a belief system that has some meat on its bones.

Thanks!

Originally Posted by fredtgreco

Originally Posted by Semper Fidelis

How about another provocative question: Is the Klinean casting of the Covenants Reformed?

Since you would like to open I thought I'd open up that can.

Waiting for an answer, not really expecting one....

It is interesting to observe that some "Klineans" of note are now drawing attention to the similarities of their system to Amyrauldianism and John Cameron.

Originally Posted by DMcFadden

Originally Posted by Daniel Ritchie

To be perfectly truthful, I do not think posts like this help the cause of Christ in the world; does nit-picking and arguing over labels really bring any glory to God?

Daniel,

I appreciate your concern about nit-picking. My response to Dr. Clark's OP was not intended to argue with the TR brethren or to claim baptists are Reformed. I accept as valid Scott's essential point that the Reformed ought to have the right to define themselves as they wish. That such definition does not include me does not offend me in the least. I am a baptist who believes in the doctrines of grace, not a Reformed/Presbyterian. Actually, Daniel, my original response to Clark was intended to say that I agree with his article and wanted to raise a couple of related issues, not to nit pick the man.

I am a 5-pointer who would rather exalt in the majestic sovereignty of God in all his creation than the dignity of a partially fallen creature (to paraphrase Nettles). From a strictly linguistic and historical consideration, I think that gives me a right to claim to be Calvinistic, as in a Calvinistic Baptist as opposed to an Arminian Baptist, even though it is not theologically or historically permitted to describe this as Reformed.

You do raise some interesting points which Scott addressed in part. The "Reformed" people who taught me in seminary were published authors, noted scholars (one eventually to become the moderator of the 213th General Assembly of the largest Presbyterian denomination in America) and all around muck-e-mucks of Reformed thought. I simply find it ironic that my TR brethren on PB should find more in common with my theology (inerrancy, confessional 1689 baptist, creationist, complementarian, no gay marriage/ordination, etc.) than with a majority of pastors and lay people (by head count) in the officially Reformed or Presbyterian denominations.

Again, no whining here. I'm a baptist not a presbyterian, so I can't be Reformed. But I'll take baptist John Piper over presbyterian Jack Rogers any day. And, even among Refomed people, give me R.C. Sproul in a heart beat over the typical current graduates (or professors) at Princeton, Pittsburgh (except our dear PB bro), or McCormick.

Baptists are saddled with Arminians (now the majority). You presbyterians are stuck with a majority that I do not believe accepts what most of you Reformed guys on PB believe.

Dennis,

I think we're talking past each other to a certain extent. The PCUSA has not held to the WCF in any meaningful sense in decades, and not formally since at least 1967. They are not included in Dr. Clark's definition of Reformed. Identifying them as Reformed in anything but a historical sense makes about as much sense as saying Robert Schuller is an example of a Reformed minister (he was and perhaps still is RCA.) Lumping in all Presbyterians together may make sense to someone in the mainline (which would include the SBC although it is generally far better in upholding the authority of the Bible than the PCUSA or RCA) or someone in the world, but it isn't applicable to anyone who is in a separatist denomination like the PCA, OPC or the URCNA, as well as the Calvinistic Baptist groups like ARBCA, FIRE, etc. I am certain you realize this but I just wanted to make it clear for any who may be lurking.

We have more in common with each other than you do with Campolo and we do with Rogers because we share a common commitment to the authority of the Bible as well as to our respective confessions. This phenomenon can be traced back to at least the Fundamentalist/Modernist controversy that started over 100 years ago, where a Baptist and a Presbyterian who were faithful to the scriptures had more in common than a Baptist modernist and one who upheld the authority of the Bible. One reason why the term Reformed has been defined down is because even conservatives of that day tended to deemphasize the Confessions and their denominational distinctives and emphasized things like the five fundamentals.

Another factor is that Dr. Martyn Lloyd-Jones and the Banner of Truth were instrumental in the revival of the Doctrines of Grace over the past 50 years. For that we are very thankful. However, they tended to deemphasize ecclesiology and other divisive issues if not ignore them altogether, so the result is people now thinking that someone is Reformed if they simply agree with the Five Points.