Who's Reformed??

Status
Not open for further replies.
Let's see. What are our options?

1. Holding to the principles of the Reformation, like the five solas—meaning protestant.

2. Particular protestants stemming from the Swiss Reformation or the Scottish one—meaning anyone in the Presbyterian, English Reformed Baptist or continental Reformed Church tradition holding broadly to that system of doctrine.

3. Particular Presbyterians or Reformed Church people who adhere firmly to every point (or very nearly every point) of the Reformed confessions... also popularly called TR (Thoroughly Reformed) these days—meaning only the "faithful" Presbyterians, etc.

4. Any protestant who holds to the part of the Reformed system of doctrine having to do with soteriology—meaning any Calvinist as opposed to an Arminian.


Definition #4 is widely used today. It's how guys like MacArthur and Piper get called "Reformed."

I tend to use #2. Many others on this board seem to think in terms of #3. There are probably some #1's here, too.

Word usage is not always a simple matter. I agree that this is one of those words where, if the context doesn't make your meaning clear or you aren't sure how your audience will take it, more precise wording is often called for. Simply yelling until you're blue in the face, telling everyone else that they ought to use the word the right way—the way you use it—may make a guy feel better but is seldom actually helpful.

Great response Jack! I tend to go with a combination of 1 and 4, but technically should probably include Covenant Theology (2).
 
It gets asked often and my answer remains the same:

What he said:
A Puritan's Mind » What Does it Mean to be Reformed – Really? – by Dr. C. Matthew McMahon

I appreciate Dr. McMahon very much but oddly enough his definition of "Reformed" excludes Richard Baxter who he quotes in this article presumably as a "Reformed" worthy. Baxter flatly denied limited atonement (among other 'oddities'). I see this as a much more serious departure from reformed orthodoxy than the issue of infant baptism. And yet, Baxter almost always gets a pass!
 
And yet, Baxter almost always gets a pass!

Exactly. Everyone is entitled to take a position. Indeed there is a great deal I'm forced to agree with in this document. However on the basis of what is written the only people who have a right to be termed Reformed excludes almost everyone apart from the Reformed Presbyterians i.e those who have no instruments and sing only psalms. In the articles he quotes from "The Necessity of Reforming the Church' in which Calvin clearly says the innovations of men in relation to worship are to excluded? And we know his practice was acapella psalmody thus, and there are no commandments nor positive warrants for instruments or hymns in Scipture - thus if historic practice and belief is the gauge then almost no one (numerically) passes the test. Ditto for The Westminister Standards in relations to original intent, interpretation and practice.

I may not be Reformed in the full historical sense but, if we entered into a process of counting up how many doctrines and practices I agree with the historic practices of the Reformed church I'd say I score significantly higher than many churches in for instance the PCA. Now of course if paedobaptism is the sine qua none of covenant theology and the definition of what Reformed means then I fail. But is it?

All we ask is fairness and consistency.
 
We'll surely be tempted to whine about this and to contend that our usage of the word came first, is the proper one, and should be sufficient in itself. That's true enough. But such arguments seldom change popular usage. They're not likely to help us win the day, just make us look like whiners—and misunderstood ones, at that.

We certainly don't need to whine but we do need to uphold our confessional oath which is obviously an application of the third commandment (so non-negotiable). And we don't expect to win an argument, any more than we expect the vast majority of evangelicals to be enamoured by TULIP, expository preaching or any other truth or practice we hold dear. However surely someone, somewhere will respect that we hold to our confessional truths in a day and age of declension, even as we respect Reformed Baptists for their tenacious hold to credo-baptism.

But that, in fact, is where the divide begins and ends: yes, as others note here, there are other issues such as psalmody and instrumental usage in worship that are part of the discussion but since they are not 'codified' in the Three Forms of Unity we do not hold these issues over each other's heads. But the fact that a great many Baptists (sympathizers to the Reformation or not) excommunicate me, my family and most of the members of my congregation is a source of contention and woe in what is supposed to be an ecumenical endeavour. Some want both camps to be Reformed together and yet, my Christian baptism is invalid and the church of Christ is halved by those who consider it their duty to invalidate our Christian profession.
 
Some want both camps to be Reformed together and yet, my Christian baptism is invalid and the church of Christ is halved by those who consider it their duty to invalidate our Christian profession.

Yep. In fact, I was thinking just this morning:

Bible reading... check.
Breakfast... check.
Kiss the wife and kids good buy... check.
Invalidated some paedobaptists Christian profession... check!

No, fortunately this is a two sided issue where brethren genuinely disagree for biblical reasons and not because they enjoy division or because they see it as "their duty to invalidate your Christian profession." Your comments here betray a lack of charity for your Baptist brethren in assigning motives to their views that are not there.
 
But that, in fact, is where the divide begins and ends: yes, as others note here, there are other issues such as psalmody and instrumental usage in worship that are part of the discussion but since they are not 'codified' in the Three Forms of Unity we do not hold these issues over each other's heads.

They are codified in the Westminister Standards so while you may not be bound to give thought to these matters in relation to the definition of Reformed, an awful lot of other people should be!

21:V. The reading of the Scriptures with godly fear,[17] the sound preaching[18] and conscionable hearing of the Word, in obedience unto God, with understanding, faith and reverence,[19] singing of psalms with grace in the heart;[20] as also, the due administration and worthy receiving of the sacraments instituted by Christ, are all parts of the ordinary religious worship of God:[21] beside religious oaths,[22] vows,[23] solemn fastings,[24] and thanksgivings upon special occasions,[25] which are, in their several times and seasons, to be used in an holy and religious manner..

My intent is not to create division among Presbyterians and/or Continental Reformed folks but to show that there is a fair bit of flexibility given in relation to many practices and the doctrines and interpretations that lie behind such, to fellow Presbyterians that is apparently not extended to Covenantal Baptists.

It must be said, that for many Reformed and Presbyterians (many, not all) the notation 'Reformed' is attached quite comfortably to sister congregations and denominations BECAUSE they baptise infants, (and because on paper they still adhere to a confessional standard while practically repudiating it) irrespective of various, many and wide other departures from the historic and confessional requirements of the name i.e the very issue which Mr. McMahon says means RB's are not R at all!

For instance the question may be asked is the PCUSA Reformed? Are PCA churches with bands, choirs, special music, etc. etc. Reformed or not. Is the RCA (Kevin DeYoung) really reformed though it's position on homosexuality is to say the least up for grabs going by Kevin's not to distant past articles?

If so how can this be given the departures that have taken place? How is still giving them this name not giving a) a great degree of laxity in connection with the historic practice and positions of their forefathers not afforded to Reformed Baptists b) a heavier weight to the practice of infant baptism than perhaps should be in light of these other departures?
 
Wouldn't it be more historically accurate to say that "reformed" means being a product of the Reformation and adhering to the foundational principles, namely the Five Solas?

Hope this helps. :2cents:

I am not interested in arguing about words' for words sake, but the term Reformed has historically referred to that branch of continental theology which holds to a organic, or federal, view of the covenant, and which, therefore, holds to infant baptism. Historically, Reformed has meant more than Calvinistic.

from Herman Hanko "We and our Children"
Reformed Free Publishing Association - Upholding the truth of Sovereign, Particular Grace
 
I am not interested in arguing about words' for words sake, but the term Reformed has historically referred to that branch of continental theology which holds to a organic, or federal, view of the covenant, and which, therefore, holds to infant baptism. Historically, Reformed has meant more than Calvinistic.

With respect it doesn't help at all because a) it's already been said on this thread and b) no one commenting on this thread disagrees with the last phrase -we all agree that Reformed whatever else it means, means more than Calvinistic soteriology.
 
It will not do to merely say what the word Reformed "meant" in the 16th century. The question is what does the word Reformed mean today. Any perusal of the Oxford English Dictionary will reveal the state of flux in which definitions live. Forty years ago the word Evangelical carried a narrower definition than it does today. If we intend to use the word Reformed today we must acknowledge the 21st century connotation that it carries the the modern ear. This may not please us but such is the reality of all living languages.
 
It will not do to merely say what the word Reformed "meant" in the 16th century. The question is what does the word Reformed mean today. Any perusal of the Oxford English Dictionary will reveal the state of flux in which definitions live. Forty years ago the word Evangelical carried a narrower definition than it does today. If we intend to use the word Reformed today we must acknowledge the 21st century connotation that it carries the the modern ear. This may not please us but such is the reality of all living languages.

Well stated my Reformed Baptist...ahem...I mean non-Reformed Baptist brother. :p
 
What Elder Bob wrote is true. I've been engaged in convo's and people have no idea what a "Strict & Particular" Baptist is...but when I say (without wanting to hijack the name) Reformed Baptist most folks say, "why didn't you just say so." Even on my fb account I use "Reformed" Baptist because I kept getting asked "what is it you believe again?"

It is a name I can live with but I know I'm not "Reformed."
 
I am not interested in arguing about words' for words sake, but the term Reformed has historically referred to that branch of continental theology which holds to a organic, or federal, view of the covenant, and which, therefore, holds to infant baptism. Historically, Reformed has meant more than Calvinistic.

With respect it doesn't help at all because a) it's already been said on this thread and b) no one commenting on this thread disagrees with the last phrase -we all agree that Reformed whatever else it means, means more than Calvinistic soteriology.

Granted my post is a day late and a dollar short. However you have made the quote appear that I had written it.
Again it was a small portion from a book by from Herman Hanko "We and our Children"

---------- Post added at 05:15 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:13 PM ----------

It will not do to merely say what the word Reformed "meant" in the 16th century. The question is what does the word Reformed mean today. Any perusal of the Oxford English Dictionary will reveal the state of flux in which definitions live. Forty years ago the word Evangelical carried a narrower definition than it does today. If we intend to use the word Reformed today we must acknowledge the 21st century connotation that it carries the the modern ear. This may not please us but such is the reality of all living languages.

This is the Church history forum.

---------- Post added at 05:18 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:15 PM ----------

What Elder Bob wrote is true. I've been engaged in convo's and people have no idea what a "Strict & Particular" Baptist is...but when I say (without wanting to hijack the name) Reformed Baptist most folks say, "why didn't you just say so." Even on my fb account I use "Reformed" Baptist because I kept getting asked "what is it you believe again?"

It is a name I can live with but I know I'm not "Reformed."

I don't think Gill considered himself reformed "historically speaking".
 
I don't think Gill considered himself reformed "historically speaking".

I agree and posted as much on the first page of this this thread. I, like Gill, do not consider myself Reformed...but others do.

For this reason: "It will not do to merely say what the word Reformed "meant" in the 16th century. The question is what does the word Reformed mean today. Any perusal of the Oxford English Dictionary will reveal the state of flux in which definitions live. Forty years ago the word Evangelical carried a narrower definition than it does today. If we intend to use the word Reformed today we must acknowledge the 21st century connotation that it carries the the modern ear. This may not please us but such is the reality of all living languages."
 
Just because a word has been "misappropriated" by the larger public, it seems, to me at least, there is no reason not to continue to use it in its historically correct sense.
 
Ah perhaps I have stupified the thread. Would any moderators consider deleting from #41 down, sorry.
Did Gill ever write anything about the raising/training of children in his countless writings? There must be many.
 
Could some of the confusion over the term reformed come from the connotation of reformed? For example I am generally one of those people who argue that baptists cannot be reformed by definition, because reformed when I use it refers to the branch of the church which holds to covenant theology with paedobaptism among other things. Baptists simply come from a different tradition even though there is some overlap with the reformed branch of the church. Yet could making reformed a value judgment instead of a historical distinction cause more people to claim the term reformed. If being reformed is good, then more individuals will want to claim the title. Am I making sense?
 
Could some of the confusion over the term reformed come from the connotation of reformed? For example I am generally one of those people who argue that baptists cannot be reformed by definition, because reformed when I use it refers to the branch of the church which holds to covenant theology with paedobaptism among other things. Baptists simply come from a different tradition even though there is some overlap with the reformed branch of the church. Yet could making reformed a value judgment instead of a historical distinction cause more people to claim the term reformed. If being reformed is good, then more individuals will want to claim the title. Am I making sense?

Reformed Baptists arose out of the 17th century matrix of Presbyterian, Anglican and Independants. Hanserd Knollys and others were "Reformed" before becoming convinced of believer-only baptism. Actually Reformed Baptists argue that they continued the Reformation by reforming ecclesiology.
 
Reformed Baptists arose out of the 17th century matrix of Presbyterian, Anglican and Independants. Hanserd Knollys and others were "Reformed" before becoming convinced of believer-only baptism. Actually Reformed Baptists argue that they continued the Reformation by reforming ecclesiology.
I was unaware of that, thanks for informing me. So did the other baptist groups arise separately or did they devolve (if you will pardon my wording) from this original?
 
Last edited:
Reformed Baptists arose out of the 17th century matrix of Presbyterian, Anglican and Independants. Hanserd Knollys and others were "Reformed" before becoming convinced of believer-only baptism. Actually Reformed Baptists argue that they continued the Reformation by reforming ecclesiology.
I was unaware of that, thanks for informing me. So did the other baptist groups arise separately or did they devolve (if you will pardon my wording) from this original?

The first Baptist church in England was formed in the 1630's and was Arminian. The first Particular Baptist Church was formed in the early 1640's and was Calvinistic. Hanserd Knollys had been a university trained Anglican clergyman, embraced believer's only baptism, became a Particular Baptist pastor, and was instrumental in the production of the 1646 & 1689 London Baptist Confessions.
 
Should I go with the flow and just use the tag Reformed all the time?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top