__________________
R. Scott Clark, D.Phil
Associate Professor of Historical and Systematic Theology

"For Christ, His Gospel, and His Church"
Associate Pastor
Oceanside URC
The Heidelblog

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.

__________________
Dennis E. McFadden, Ex Mainline Baptist (in Remission)
Atherton Baptist Homes, CEO
First Baptist Church of Alhambra, Member, Transformation Ministries (CA)

Click to get: Board Rules -- Signature Requirements -- Suggestions?

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.

__________________
Josh Hicks, Chloë's Daddy
Member of TRBC. My Blog
The Puritan Pub (Team Blog)
Board Rules -- Signature Requirements -- Suggestions?

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.

__________________
Rich
Okinawa, Japan

WebsiteMaven - Web Hosting Reviews, Guides, and Advice to build and promote your web site.
SoliDeoGloria.com - A Community for Reformed Thought and Discussion

Click to get: Board Rules -- Signature Requirements -- Suggestions?

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?

__________________
Bill Brown
Elder
Grace Baptist Church
Anne Arundel County, Maryland

Click to get: Board Rules -- Signature Requirements -- Suggestions?

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.

__________________
Chris Poe--Attending Grace Community Baptist Church, Mandeville, LA

"There never was a man in the world without a creed. What is a creed? A creed is what you believe. What is a confession? It is a declaration of what you believe. That declaration may be oral or it may be committed to writing, but the creed is there either expressed or implied."—B.H. Carroll

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.

__________________
Ivan Schoen, Pastor
Maranatha Baptist Church
Poplar Grove, Illinois USA
http://maranatha-sbc.org/
"When a denomination begins to consider doctrine divisive, theology troublesome, and convictions inconvenient, consider that denomination on its way to a well-deserved death." Dr. Albert Mohler, President of The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary

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

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.

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

__________________
Polo
Layman, Chinese Evangelical Church/Independent
San Diego

For from him and through him and to him are all things. To him be glory forever. (Romans 11:36)

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?

__________________
Nathan Olaf Brandal
First Baptist Church of Kirkland

"Man is nothing: he hath a free will to go to hell, but none to go to heaven, till God worketh in him to will and to do his good pleasure"
GEORGE WHITEFIELD TO JOHN WESLEY

My Blog

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.

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.


Agreed.

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

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

__________________
1689 Baptist Confession

Psa 55:16 As for me, I will call upon God; and the LORD shall save me.
Psa 55:17 Evening, and morning, and at noon, will I pray, and cry aloud: and he shall hear my voice.
James Farley, Wilderness Road Baptist Assembly.
Husband of Melissa and father of Ann.
www.wildernessroadbaptist.org

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.

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?

__________________
Daniel Ritchie
Saintfield, Northern Ireland - Queen's University, Belfast:History/Politics
Member of Dromara Reformed Presbyterian Church of Ireland (Covenanter)