Thread: Are Covenantal Baptists Reformed in the Historical Understanding of Reformed Theology

Are Covenantal Baptists Reformed in the Historical Understanding of Reformed Theology - The PuritanBoard

Okay,

I have been sitting on this for a few days and have finally found the time to want to respond to the many dismays and frustrations that have arisen to Dr. Clark's comments. So here it is.

Are Covenantal Baptists Reformed in the Historical Understanding of Reformed Theology

Here is a link to Matthew MacMahon’s article What Does It Mean To Be Reformed.
http://apuritansmind.com/Baptism/McM...BeReformed.htm

This is response to all of those who are at conflict over Dr. R. Scott Clark’s comments here. A Gentle Rebuke to Brother John (Updated) Heidelblog

Dr. Clark said, "Calling a Baptist “Reformed” is like calling Presbyterians “Baptist” because they believe in believer’s baptism. The Reformed churches do practice the baptism of unbaptized believers but they also baptize the infants of believers. No self-respecting, confessional Baptist should accept me as “Baptist” and Reformed folk should resist labeling anyone who rejects most of Reformed theology as “Reformed.”


This comment got a lot of attention on his blog. Especially since he has a readership that includes many Reformed Baptists. I am one of them.

I would agree with this comment by Rev. Matthew Winzer on the Puritanboard.com,
"I think the last time this was discussed the consensus was that "reformed" before "baptist" is one thing, and "reformed" on its own is another. Reformed Baptists are just that -- Baptists who have become reformed. But they are still distinct from reformed churches."

Just to clarify some things here, I believe everyone is getting up in arms over terms they have endeared themselves to. Let me give you all an example. A Pastor friend of mine wrote a blog defining what a Reformed Baptist was. 5 Points of RBC Providence Reformed Baptist Church of Toledo, Oh This of course made some Baptists upset because they wanted to be included as Reformed Baptists but they were dispensational (denying Covenant Theology) or had problems with one of the other points that Pastor David Charles included in his definition of what a Reformed Baptist is. These guys generally are New Covenant Theologians or Calvinistic Dispensationalists as John MacArthur. Just as some of the Calvinistic Baptists were offended by Pastor Charles, many Credo Baptists are finding themselves offended at Dr. Clark's insinuation that Baptists are not Reformed Theologians.

The term Reformed Baptist is a rather new one in church history. It was developed around the time that Ernest Reisinger was starting to work with Banner of Truth Trust by bringing good Puritan and Reformed writings back to the American Churches. He was the first ordained Preaching Layman in a Presbyterian Church. He was undecided about his position concerning baptism when he was ordained to preach. But he became a Credo Covenantal Baptist as time went on. It has been thought by some that Ernie's close association with Banner of Truth Trust (A Reformed Publishing Company) and his adherence to the Credo-Baptist position that somehow made the two terms come together.

Historic Baptist theology was being rediscovered during this time. Dispensationalism had taken over much of the church in the mid 1900's. And it is not the Historic Theology of the Reformers. It denies Covenant Theology and formed a new basis of hermeneutics and how others looked at portions of scripture. This dispensational hermeneutic interpreted the Bible in portions claiming that some sections were only meant for the Jews and certain periods of time and other sections were for everyone and others just for the gentiles. Example…Matthew chapter 5 is just for the Jews in the Millennium. This was foreign to Covenant Theology and very unbiblical. Ernie helped in a major way to get the Church back on track by being a representative for Banner of Truth Trust and promoting Covenantal thinking back into the American Church. To the dismay of some, even some Presby's took up with dispensational teaching.

Historically the Puritan Credo Pastors in the 1600's were not known Reformed but as Particular Baptists. They did hold to a Covenant Theology much like the Reformers but more closely to a Covenant Theology that was taught by John Owen and Samuel Petto. The New is not the Old renewed. It is New. They held to a unity of the Covenant of Grace through out the scriptures but more discontinuity between the particular covenants that God had instituted through Abraham, Moses, etc. These Baptists also adhered to the same soteriology of the Reformers. But they held to a different understanding of who was a Covenant Member in the Covenant of Grace. They believed that only the Elect were Covenant Members in the Covenant of Grace. The Confessional Reformers held that the Abrahamic and Mosaic Covenants were administrations of the Covenant of Grace and that it included both the elect and non-elect per their physical covenantal lineage.

There are Baptists today who call themselves Reformed Baptists because they hold to the 5 points of Calvinism but they are not Covenant Theologians. Some have developed a new theology called New Covenant Theology. It denies the Covenant of Works and may tend to be antinomian in some ways.

The term Reformed (as it has been used in Church history) has been prostituted from the Confessional understanding of what it meant to be Reformed. It has lost some of its defined power because of those who wish to be called reformed when in fact they are not according to Confessional Christians. I am a Reformed Baptist as it is known in Pastor David Charles blog. But more accurately I am a Particular Baptist that holds to the 1689 LBCF.

When Matthew McMahan challenged me on what Reformed meant when I joined the Puritanboard.com, I was slightly offended because he said I wasn't reformed. I just said he wasn't reformed enough. I was ignorant about what he meant in its historical theological understanding. I was thinking of Luther, Zwingli, Bullinger, Bucer, Calvin, Bunyan, Owen, and all those during the time of the reformation and thinking that I was following their teachings. But some would say that Luther and Melancthon are not Reformed. I guess it depends on what you are referring to when you say Reformed. I think when a person is defining what Reformed is it matters what a person is referring to in relation to the time period or a system of doctrinal understanding. According to the Presbyterian's and Reformed Confessional Churches those who are reformed are those who are confessional paedo's and have an ecclesiology that lines up with their understanding of how a church organism should be and work. Ok, I can live with that. Especially since it is based upon a historical and theological understanding. But boy, if you are a Baptistic New Covenant or Dispensational Theologian and you want to be called a Reformed Baptist, you are going to far. We all have our pet names and we want to protect them.

Be Encouraged,
R. Martin Snyder

I am happy to accept as 'Reformed' anyone who (a) holds to the Doctrines of Grace; (b) is Covenantal; and (c) subscribes to one of the confessions belonging to the historic Reformed family of confessions (which, I would say, includes the 1689 LBCF, the Savoy Declaration, and the 39 Articles).

I am thus fairly 'ecumenical' in my judgment -- Reformed brethren in my book include Presbyterians, (Particular) Baptists, Congregationalists, (Evangelical) Anglicans, the Dutch, etc. -- but I do believe that confessionalism and Covenant theology are vital components of the Reformed identity (the non-confessional and/or Dispensational Baptist or Congregationalist, even if he holds to the Doctrines of Grace tighter than any Reformed believer, is not properly called 'Reformed' -- a better title would be 'Calvinistic' or 'Particular', or, if one insists on the word Calvinist, a 'five-point Calvinist').

I would, however, happily fellowship with anyone who holds to the Doctrines of Grace, be they Dispensationalist or not. The reason is that they, by virtue of recognizing the truth of Reformed soteriology, possess the Gospel, and thus are my brothers in Christ. (A Semi-Pelagian or synergistic gospel is not the Gospel.)

Randy, good post. I have to admit that I got my hackles up when some of my Presbyterian brethren challenged whether or not I was Reformed. As time has gone by I've come to the conclusion that it really doesn't matter what category Reformed Baptists fit into within the genre of Reformed theology. Are we to define our beliefs and practices based on what Presbyterians think about us (no offense to my Presbyterian brethren)?

Reformed Baptists would do well to contend for covenantalism within their churches. You want to know what a Baptist church believes? Wet your finger and stick it in the wind and your guess is as good as mine. Covenantalism is fighting theological "fickleness" and providing consistency of doctrine and practice to many Reformed and Particular Baptist churches. Our identity is defined by what we believe, not on what others say about us.

Originally Posted by PuritanCovenanter

Are Covenantal Baptists Reformed in the Historical Understanding of Reformed Theology

I don't see how that is possible since the historical understanding of reformed theology, and especially of its federal teaching, regards infant inclusion and salvation as a moral, substantial and unchangeable principle.

Originally Posted by armourbearer

Originally Posted by PuritanCovenanter

Are Covenantal Baptists Reformed in the Historical Understanding of Reformed Theology

I don't see how that is possible since the historical understanding of reformed theology, and especially of its federal teaching, regards infant inclusion and salvation as a moral, substantial and unchangeable principle.

It will be interesting to see some more in the Presbyterian camp answer this post.

Originally Posted by Grillsy

Originally Posted by armourbearer

Originally Posted by PuritanCovenanter

Are Covenantal Baptists Reformed in the Historical Understanding of Reformed Theology

I don't see how that is possible since the historical understanding of reformed theology, and especially of its federal teaching, regards infant inclusion and salvation as a moral, substantial and unchangeable principle.

It will be interesting to see some more in the Presbyterian camp answer this post.

The question is, "Does it matter?" This is not a ding against Presbyterians. No one controls Reformed theology. There is not a clearing house that one needs to gain permission from in order to claim the title of "Reformed." I'm not trying to pick a fight; I'm merely trying to make the case that Reformed Baptists should learn to be comfortable in their own theological skin.

Originally Posted by Herald

Originally Posted by Grillsy

Originally Posted by armourbearer

I don't see how that is possible since the historical understanding of reformed theology, and especially of its federal teaching, regards infant inclusion and salvation as a moral, substantial and unchangeable principle.

It will be interesting to see some more in the Presbyterian camp answer this post.

The question is, "Does it matter?" This is not a ding against Presbyterians. No one controls Reformed theology. There is not a clearing house that one needs to gain permission from in order to claim the title of "Reformed." I'm not trying to pick a fight; I'm merely trying to make the case that Reformed Baptists should learn to be comfortable in their own theological skin.

I know what you mean. I was just interested in the different perspectives that is all.

Not sure how to answer this.

I often view Calvinistic Baptist theology [as expressed in, say, the 1689 LBCF], as an unstable mixture of covenant theology and dispensationalism. Hence, I have no problems calling their view "covenantal." However, I don't think it is a consistent form of covenant theology, given the views of the land promises and physical perogeny [sp?].

God Bless,
Adam

Originally Posted by Herald

No one controls Reformed theology.

History is the controlling factor. It is what it is because of what it came to be identified with historically. One is free to evaluate reformed theology, but he is not at liberty to change its historical character.

Originally Posted by Hebrew Student

Not sure how to answer this.

I often view Calvinistic Baptist theology [as expressed in, say, the 1689 LBCF], as an unstable mixture of covenant theology and dispensationalism. Hence, I have no problems calling their view "covenantal." However, I don't think it is a consistent form of covenant theology, given the views of the land promises and physical perogeny [sp?].

God Bless,
Adam

The 1689 LBC is dispensational? How so?

Herald,

The 1689 LBC is dispensational? How so?

Actually, I do believe I goofed. I was originally going to describe people [those who hold to the LBCF], and I edited it without thinking to "as expressed in the LBCF." You are correct that a person may hold that the land promises were not given simply on the basis of being physical perogeny of Abraham, and yet still be in accord with the LBCF.

Now, as for those who defend that view [such as Walter Chantry, Paul Jewett, etc.], first of all, I never said it was entirely dispensational, I said it was an unstable mixture of the two. For example, the idea of circumcision being given on the basis of land promises so that unregenerate infants have land promises simply by virtue of the fact that they are physical perogeny of Abraham is highly dispensational, because it suggests that, there is a special place for the literal physical seed of Abraham. Also, because of the internal/external dual nature of the Old Covenant in Calvinistic Baptist theology, one then divides the people of God into one people [in the Old Covenant] that could have either the external aspect alone, or both the internal and the external aspect, and another people of God [in the new covenant] that only have the internal aspect. Hence, you have a special place for the literal physcial seed of Abraham in terms of land promises, and second, you have a division in the people of God, with a dual nature in the old covenant, and the purely internal nature of the new. However, Calvinistic Baptists do reject many of the aspects common to dispensationalism, such as a future for Israel, a total distinction between Israel and the church within the people of God, etc.

Anyway, yes, you are correct that a person could reject these points, and still remain consistent with the LBCF.

God Bless,
Adam

Originally Posted by armourbearer

Originally Posted by PuritanCovenanter

Are Covenantal Baptists Reformed in the Historical Understanding of Reformed Theology

I don't see how that is possible since the historical understanding of reformed theology, and especially of its federal teaching, regards infant inclusion and salvation as a moral, substantial and unchangeable principle.

I am not going to disagree with your assement that Reformed Baptists should not be considered Reformed in the historical theological understanding of Reformed theology Reverend Winzer. In fact I have no problem with Dr. Clarks conclusion that the Baptists are not a true Church based upon the definition of what Reformed Theology is, even though I disagree with him. At least he still acknowledges that John Piper is his brother and I would think that he would consider me his brother in Christ also. We just believe the other is incorrect concerning Covenant inclusion and membership.

My reason for posting this is in hope that maturity in the Baptist tradition will say it is okay that we are not Reformed in the historical theological tradition. There is no need to prostitute words and language to make them fit our desires based upon how we feel attached to something. I do believe the Particular Baptists hold a place in the Reformed tradition as descendants to their predecessors the Reformers. But our theologies are different and we shouldn't be wrong headed in not acknowledging that.

I do believe the Particular Baptists hold a place in the Reformed tradition as descendants to their predecessors the Reformers.

That's the point I was driving at. I have no problem not fitting into the Presbyterian definition of what it means to be Reformed. In fact, I don't want to. I am quite pleased with covenantal Baptists being Reformed according to their own history. Randy, thanks for that clarification.

Originally Posted by Hebrew Student

Herald,

The 1689 LBC is dispensational? How so?

Actually, I do believe I goofed. I was originally going to describe people [those who hold to the LBCF], and I edited it without thinking to "as expressed in the LBCF." You are correct that a person may hold that the land promises were not given simply on the basis of being physical perogeny of Abraham, and yet still be in accord with the LBCF.

Now, as for those who defend that view [such as Walter Chantry, Paul Jewett, etc.], first of all, I never said it was entirely dispensational, I said it was an unstable mixture of the two. For example, the idea of circumcision being given on the basis of land promises so that unregenerate infants have land promises simply by virtue of the fact that they are physical perogeny of Abraham is highly dispensational, because it suggests that, there is a special place for the literal physical seed of Abraham. Also, because of the internal/external dual nature of the Old Covenant in Calvinistic Baptist theology, one then divides the people of God into one people [in the Old Covenant] that could have either the external aspect alone, or both the internal and the external aspect, and another people of God [in the new covenant] that only have the internal aspect. Hence, you have a special place for the literal physcial seed of Abraham in terms of land promises, and second, you have a division in the people of God, with a dual nature in the old covenant, and the purely internal nature of the new. However, Calvinistic Baptists do reject many of the aspects common to dispensationalism, such as a future for Israel, a total distinction between Israel and the church within the people of God, etc.

Anyway, yes, you are correct that a person could reject these points, and still remain consistent with the LBCF.

God Bless,
Adam

When accusations of dispensationalism are thrown around it automatically brings up the hermeneutical approach of Scoffield, Darby, or the Progressives as of late. Even in the Westminster the term dispensational is used in relating the administration of the Covenant of Grace through various Covenants.

I don't want this thread to become a debate between the Credo and Paedo postions. Please just keep it on topic.

Originally Posted by PuritanCovenanter

I do believe the Particular Baptists hold a place in the Reformed tradition as descendants to their predecessors the Reformers.

They hold a place outside the reformed tradition as is evident from the fact that they set up independent churches and excommunicated most of the members of the reformed churches. If the question remains an historical one I don't think there is any difficulty in answering it -- our Anabaptist brethren who have become convinced of the doctrines of grace are Reformed Anabaptists, but they are not Reformed; nevertheless I give thanks to our gracious God for the agreement we have on the doctrines of grace so far as they concern people who can make personal profession of faith.

Because there are many different stripes among baptists themselves, the term Reformed Baptist gives a helpful distinction just among baptist churches themself. The 5 pointers who hold to so called new covenant theology clearly understand this distinction, differing on the law.
Arminian baptists know and are taught to avoid us because of the doctrines of grace and no free will.
The term RB is understood to be seperate from padeo belief on the covenant of grace, and ecclesiology. But if every other area draws from the same views of scripture no one should lose sleep over it.
Matthew Mcmahan in one of his lectures says that if you have a chess board and remove one or two pieces you cannot be said to be playing chess. Fair enough explanation of his point of view.If they are correct in their view, we would be defective in these areas.
If the RB 's are correct in their view of the covenants then it is the padeo's who are missing a couple of pieces from the chess set. It would be the padeo's who did not - reform enough from the error's of the roman church, even though they deny that their theology is in part a reaction to those errors.
On the last day I want to hear well done thou good and faithful servant, more than well done RB, or well done opc member, or upc,etc.

Originally Posted by Iconoclast

If the RB 's are correct in their view of the covenants then it is the padeo's who are missing a couple of pieces from the chess set. It would be the padeo's who did not - reform enough from the error's of the roman church, even though they deny that their theology is in part a reaction to those errors.

Brother, actually, if Reformed Baptists are correct, paedobaptists are missing more than just a couple of pieces from the chess set. If Baptist theology is Biblical, then a large number of paedobaptists in Reformed churches are not truly baptized (including adults baptized by pouring or sprinkling). We are sinning for not believing that immersion is essential to baptism. We are therefore not properly administering one of the sacraments of Christ's church. That is, we are missing on one of the marks of a true church.

I do not think Baptists such as my self started to call ourselves reformed until the 1960s in response to dispensationalism. In fact what we are in a historic sense particular baptists that started to call ourselves reformed because of a misunderstanding on particular redemption or limited atonement. We are historically confessional ( Second London Baptist Confession of Faith -1689) like our other reformed brothers and sisters and hold to the same five points of Calvinism historically. This is something that John Piper is not (confessional I mean), which is one of the reasons why I would not call him a reformed theologian. Even though my reasons of course differs with Scott Clark. And I must say that his issue with Baptist being labeled or classified as reformed was actually a distraction to the rest of his piece concerning Piper’s connection to FV and Wright. If he wants to write a piece on why Baptists are not reformed then he should stick to that topic at hand. Personally I think it is a good label, for it connects ourselves to a past particular Baptist tradition; which is not the current mainstream, but is the more historical position. We look at our Baptist fathers of the faith as being reformers as well, and to the present age as we Baptist would like to see our own Baptist brothers and sisters embrace the reformed tradition. I personally see no reason for us to call ourselves this as a category. If it is that big of an issue then the big names on both sides are classified as reformed need to speak. Besides a small number of individuals like Scott Clark, I do not see the overall reformed community having a problem with a Baptist being called reformed, but that may be my imagined on my part.

Albert, thank you for your response. Sometimes I wonder that if all bible truth is revealed truth Jn 3:27 1Cor 2 :9-15,, and more than likely each of us come short in many areas of understanding truth! While I am sure that sin hinders our understanding of truth, I hesitate to say who is in sin or not in sin of our understanding.
Apollos in Acts 18 was zealous but needed more instruction. What about pastors who hold all manner of views of endtimes? Is it sin? or lack of Light?
I love Spurgeon, but there are times when I wonder why he said certain things. Then I realize that he was also just flesh. With any of our favorite
trusted guides after awhile we do notice that sometimes they seem to have missed the mark.
Albert, how do you understand this difference? Does it seem to you that perhaps God has allowed this by design?

19For there must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you

If not why would we not just have one confession/ this is what the Roman Church has always claimed! That is why there was a reformation in the first place. Some of us while mostly in agreement, see some things in a different way.

Man oh my, someone teach me that secret reformed handshake so I can get into your exclusive club. I'm tired of drinking out of the separate drinking fountains and being told to sit at the back of the bus.

I heard Scott Clark on Christ The Center, and he made a point there.

Paraphrasing:

If you would ask the Delegates to the Synod of Dort or the Divines at Westminster Assembly if they would consider Reformed a Church that doesn’t baptize the children of Believers and which affirms these children are not in the Covenant, we would all know their answer.

Reformed Forum R. Scott Clark

In a historical perspective I think this is quite an argument.

Yet, from a contemporary perspective, I think we must accept and understand that Reformed Baptists approach the Bible in a very similar Covenantal Hermeneutics from the rest of the Reformed Churches.

IMHO not including the children of believers in the New Covenant, and not baptizing them, till they made a profession of faith, is a major difference of Reformed Baptists yes, but not one that excludes them from being truly Reformed.

Originally Posted by discipulo

I heard Scott Clark on Christ The Center, and he made a point there.

Paraphrasing:

If you would ask the Delegates to the Synod of Dort or the Divines at Westminster Assembly if they would consider Reformed a Church that doesn’t baptize the children of Believers and which affirms these children are not in the Covenant, we would all know their answer.

Reformed Forum R. Scott Clark

In a historical perspective I think this is quite an argument.

Yet, from a contemporary perspective, I think we must accept and understand that Reformed Baptists approach the Bible in a very similar Covenantal Hermeneutics from the rest of the Reformed Churches.

IMHO not including the children of believers in the New Covenant, and not baptizing them, till they made a profession of faith, is a major difference of Reformed Baptists yes, but not one that excludes them from being truly Reformed.

But does history not guide our understanding of certain terminology? Should not the historical understanding of Reformed determine what means Reformed? Or in this day and age is the word Reformed, sadly, only being used as another word for Calvinism?

Willie, I don't want to speak for Randy, but I think what true covenantal Baptists are trying to argue for is not that they are Reformed in the paedobaptist/WCF model, but Reformed after their own history. Both camps can trace their lineage back to the events during and following the Reformation. There are shared beliefs on quite a few doctrinal areas. Baptists of the time did not consider themselves Reformed. That argument is a rather modern idea as has been stated prior. The question is whether that is acceptable to covenantal Baptists. It's an irrelevant question for Presbyterians.

Covenantal Baptists trace their beliefs back to the period of Reformation. The break with the papacy is undeniable. The division with our paedo brethren is likewise. Covenantal Baptists called themselves Reformed for a few reasons. Our shared beliefs with our early covenantal Baptist brethren is one reason. Another is to define our identity has separate from Calvinistic/dispensational churches.

I think Baptists need to rethink their desire to be accepted as part of the larger Reformed coummunity, as though we are poor beggar children crying for attention. Not only is it degrading, but it does a disservice to our theological distinctives that deserve to stand on their own merits.

Forgive any typos in my previous post. I am on my iPhone during a lunch break.

Originally Posted by Pergamum

Man oh my, someone teach me that secret reformed handshake so I can get into your exclusive club. I'm tired of drinking out of the separate drinking fountains and being told to sit at the back of the bus.

I think it was you guys that said that our bus wasn't roadworthy enough, and decided to build your own busses.

Nice try though.

Originally Posted by Christusregnat

Originally Posted by Pergamum

Man oh my, someone teach me that secret reformed handshake so I can get into your exclusive club. I'm tired of drinking out of the separate drinking fountains and being told to sit at the back of the bus.

I think it was you guys that said that our bus wasn't roadworthy enough, and decided to build your own busses.

Nice try though.

But we will at least let you sit up front with us and drink from our fountain. LOL

Originally Posted by PuritanCovenanter

Originally Posted by Christusregnat

Originally Posted by Pergamum

Man oh my, someone teach me that secret reformed handshake so I can get into your exclusive club. I'm tired of drinking out of the separate drinking fountains and being told to sit at the back of the bus.

I think it was you guys that said that our bus wasn't roadworthy enough, and decided to build your own busses.

Nice try though.

But we will at least let you sit up front with us and drink from our fountain. LOL

Hahhahahahah Actually, we have the fountains; you guys have drinking holes...

Originally Posted by Herald

I think Baptists need to rethink their desire to be accepted as part of the larger Reformed coummunity, as though we are poor beggar children crying for attention. Not only is it degrading, but it does a disservice to our theological distinctives that deserve to stand on their own merits.

Here! Here!

I think Clark's point is valid, especially since I've heard over and over again from postmodern evangelicals, that "Reformed" can mean many different things. No it doesn't. "Reformed" is defined by the "Reformed" Confessions. There is a theology, a practice, and a piety that is distinctly "Reformed" and defined by the "Reformed" Confessions. This is all that Clark is trying to say. I think Baptists of all stripes should appreciate this. Dr. Clark is not defining "Reformed" on his terms; he is defining it according to the Reformed Confessions. He is also not trying to be degrading to Baptists. I'm sure he would agree with those who say that baptist theology, piety, and practice stand on their own.

The major concern here is that many evangelicals are appropriating the name Reformed, but are picking and choosing which parts of Reformed theology and practice they like best and discarding the rest. Dr. Clark is saying that this is not a legitimate usage of the term "Reformed." If "Reformed" is synonymous with biblical, then we need to take all of it, not only the parts we like.

Brian Schwertley would accuse most Presbyterians and Reformed as NOT being Reformed since they do NOT hold to several points in their confessions. He would say that you are only a historic Lutheran lest you worship as the historic Reformed do, Rev. Winzer and other A EP on this board are the only Reformed according to Brian, I can see where he is coming from. So take heart all you Baptists, the majority of "Confessional" Presbyterian churches are not Reformed either!!!

Originally Posted by Herald

Forgive any typos in my previous post. I am on my iPhone during a lunch break.

OT: Bill, kudos to you. That is one of the longest and best posts I've ever seen come from an iPhone!

Originally Posted by charliejunfan

Brian Schwertley would accuse most Presbyterians and Reformed as NOT being Reformed since they do NOT hold to several points in their confessions. He would say that you are only a historic Lutheran lest you worship as the historic Reformed do, Rev. Winzer and other A EP on this board are the only Reformed according to Brian, I can see where he is coming from. So take heart all you Baptists, the majority of "Confessional" Presbyterian churches are not Reformed either!!!

Brian Schwertley calling Presbyterians "not Reformed" is not the same as Dr. Clark calling Baptists "not Reformed." Schwertley is a crank, whereas Dr. Clark is actually making a valid point. If there is a definition of Reformed, what is it? Dr. Clark has made the case that the Reformed Confessions define historically define "Reformed." Those who are unhappy with his definition have yet to prove why he is wrong. Those who want to be called "Reformed" but only on their own terms have yet to prove why their definition is better than how Dr. Clark defines it.

Originally Posted by LawrenceU

Originally Posted by Herald

Forgive any typos in my previous post. I am on my iPhone during a lunch break.

OT: Bill, kudos to you. That is one of the longest and best posts I've ever seen come from an iPhone!

At least I'm good at something!

Sven, so from a Baptist perspective the Second London Baptist confession is not a reformed confession? And holding to the canons of Dort do not qualify us Baptists as well? And if we want to take a look at modern reformed baptists wouldnt you think that holding to the Regulatory principle of worship better satisfies our claimes as being reformed more then say some PCA and other Presbyterian churches, let alnoe some RCA or other quote reformed churches? Just want to see what people think.

Originally Posted by charliejunfan

Brian Schwertley would accuse most Presbyterians and Reformed as NOT being Reformed since they do NOT hold to several points in their confessions. He would say that you are only a historic Lutheran lest you worship as the historic Reformed do, Rev. Winzer and other A EP on this board are the only Reformed according to Brian, I can see where he is coming from. So take heart all you Baptists, the majority of "Confessional" Presbyterian churches are not Reformed either!!!

It should be noted that in all my discussions of EP I consciously endeavour to point out that I am only applying the regulative principle of worship to a specific act of corporate worship. The limiting principle of scripture alone prescribing what is offered to God in corporate worship is the point of reformed orthodoxy. Hence I do not consider those who maintain the regulative principle but differ with me on this point as being unreformed, but merely as maintaining a practice which I do not consider a consistent application of the regulative principle of worship. It is not a practice which touches on the essential marks of the church as it is not sacramental.

Originally Posted by Grimmson

Sven, so from a Baptist perspective the Second London Baptist confession is not a reformed confession? And holding to the canons of Dort do not qualify us Baptists as well? And if we want to take a look at modern reformed baptists wouldnt you think that holding to the Regulatory principle of worship better satisfies our claimes as being reformed more then say some PCA and other Presbyterian churches, let alnoe some RCA or other quote reformed churches? Just want to see what people think.

Grimmson, first of all, have you read Dr. Clark's book Recovering the Reformed Confession? The reason I ask this is because he deals with these questions in a much better way than I can, and this whole thread is really about Dr. Clark's assertions as to what Reformed means. The PCA, CRC, RCA and all these other Reformed Churches do not define what Reformed means. It is the Reformed Confessions that define what it means to be Reformed. Many of the Reformed Churches are losing their identity as Reformed. That is why Dr. Clark titled his book Recovering the Reformed Confession. If Churches like the RCA and CRC and even the PCA want to recover their identity as Reformed Churches they need to return to the theology, practice, and piety of the Reformed Confessions. It is important to note that Dr. Clark is not singling out Baptists in his book he's actually targeting Reformed Churches.

Concerning the LBCF, it Contains many aspects of Reformed insofar as it is in agreement with the WCF. However, the LBCF deviates from standard Reformed theology in its section on baptism and in the section on the covenant; furthermore, it was not agreed upon by a Reformed body, but a Baptist body.

BTW--I doubt there would be any upheaval by either Reformed or Baptist if someone wrote a book called Recovering the Baptist Confession.