Who Defines "Reformed"?

[DMcFadden]

In the arcane lingo of the PB . . .
TR means EITHER "truly reformed" OR "textus receptus."
CT = either "Covenant Theology" or "Critical Text."
CVT = Cornelius Van Til
GC = Gordon Clark

The following are merely my guesses based on the way some of the PB members use the terms in context . . .
EP = Exclusive psalmody or "extra persnickety"
RPW = "regulative principle of worship" or "real pinhead worrier"
PCA = Presbyterian Church of America or "Porsche Club of America"
CRC = Christian Reformed Church or "Cretins Ruining Christianity"
FRCNA = Free Reformed Churches of North America or "Fractious Reformed Churcheds Needing Aid"
CPC = Cumberland Presbyterian Church or "Calvinless Poser Church"
Reformed Baptist = Reformed Baptist or "Ridiculous Baptist" (pretending to be Reformed)
LBCF = London Baptist Confession of Faith or "Lazy Baptists Craving Fellowship" (with TR brethren)

We all live in a world of acronyms, just different ones. Mine are IL, AL, SNF, RCFE, RARC, H&S, QA, DSS (or CDSS), and DHS. Now if I could just figure out what Anne means by AAMOF.

 

[KMK]

This means that only those who hold to the TR are truly Reformed because the WCF says:

Why do all threads lead to either TR or EP debates? Can't we be free to disagree on these and still be reformed? Yes because the WCF is only one confession amongst other confessions that make up the historic reformed tradition. This means there is a degree of latitude on certain theological issues, the TR being one of them (and EP being another).

I guess the great question is whether we include the 1689 and Savoy confessions in the pool of historic reformed confessions. Certainly John Owen (who was behind the Savoy) called himself "reformed" and saw the congregationalists as "reformed". Jeremiah Burroughs (in Irenicum) believed that the disagreement over church polity wasn't fundamental to being reformed.

Personally I would want to include the 1689 and Savoy confessions because I don't think the issues of (1) church polity, and (2) subjects and mode of baptism, are issues big enough to make one not reformed. On these debates there are well-meaning Christians on either side, who believe they are reading Scripture faithfully. All the sides have so much in common.

Such was my point. When does this discussion become, "Only those that believe 300 angels can fit on the head of pin are Reformed."

I am a Reformed Baptist BTW.

 

[py3ak]

Ken, I hate to do this to you, but it's actually 301.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Does anyone see the irony in this thread?

1. R. Scott argues that, in his view, Reformed ought to be defined historically. The definition of the past ought to be normative.

2. Some have gotten bent out of shape because they want to use their definition. They are angry that somebody else has another definition.

3. Thus, some are angry with Scott because they have decided that, in fact, they are the "Who" that gets to define "Reformed".

I'm somewhat ambivalent about who gets to use it as long as we know what we're talking about. One could argue that Reformed Baptist is an oxymoron. As has been noted, however, before you start breaking out the "Who owns Reformed" you better make sure you're not living in a glass house.

 

[py3ak]

But there is another irony (thanks for suggesting a clearer format in which to lay it out, by the way).

1. Dr. Clark has argued that the term "Reformed" ought to be defined historically.

2. Some have pointed out that Dr. Clark's definition of "Reformed" has history against it at some points.

3. Dr. Clark says that it seems to him absurd to say that his definition of "Reformed" is inadequate.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

But there is another irony (thanks for suggesting a clearer format in which to lay it out, by the way).

1. Dr. Clark has argued that the term "Reformed" ought to be defined historically.

2. Some have pointed out that Dr. Clark's definition of "Reformed" has history against it at some points.

3. Dr. Clark says that it seems to him absurd to say that his definition of "Reformed" is inadequate.

That's certainly one of the debates ongoing.

 

[bookslover]

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.

I don't think a case can be made from Scripture against the use of musical instruments in worship. But, we've been round and round on that subject here on the PB...

 

[DMcFadden]

Does anyone see the irony in this thread?

1. R. Scott argues that, in his view, Reformed ought to be defined historically. The definition of the past ought to be normative.

Rich, I've already conceded my preference for "confessional baptist" as the most helpful way of delineating those of us who adhere to the 1689. For a variety of reasons, TODAY "Reformed" should imply more than a belief in the 5 pts.

However, I'm still waiting for someone to deal with the historical data that interprets the evidence differently from Dr. Clark. In an earlier post, I showed three quotes from the Encyclopedia of the Reformed Faith, where TR authors (e.g., Gerstner) called baptist Augustus Strong the writer of the "most erudite Reformed Systematic Theology;" indicated that during the revivalist period many formerly Reformed Baptists "actually moved out of Reformed theology;" and that "The Puritan and Scotch–Irish forms of Calvinism were organized into Congregational, Presbyterian, and Baptist churches."

In the first instance, an indisputably Reformed author called a baptist a leading Reformed theologian. In the second, another Reformed author spoke of Arminian baptists leaving Reformed baptist theology. In the last case, a third author referenced Puritan and Scotch-Irish Reformed theology expressing itself in "Congregational, Presbyterian, and Baptist churches."

If history was the ONLY issue, wouldn't the baptists have some reasonable claim to a right to share the term?

Again, just call be a "confessional baptist." But, I will not fuss too much at brethren who claim an historical connection to a Reformational movement including both Swiss and English Calvinism later expressing itself in presbyterian, congregational, and baptist churches.

 

[Pilgrim]

Does anyone see the irony in this thread?

1. R. Scott argues that, in his view, Reformed ought to be defined historically. The definition of the past ought to be normative.

Rich, I've already conceded my preference for "confessional baptist" as the most helpful way of delineating those of us who adhere to the 1689. For a variety of reasons, TODAY "Reformed" should imply more than a belief in the 5 pts.

However, I'm still waiting for someone to deal with the historical data that interprets the evidence differently from Dr. Clark. In an earlier post, I showed three quotes from the Encyclopedia of the Reformed Faith, where TR authors (e.g., Gerstner) called baptist Augustus Strong the writer of the "most erudite Reformed Systematic Theology;" indicated that during the revivalist period many formerly Reformed Baptists "actually moved out of Reformed theology;" and that "The Puritan and Scotch–Irish forms of Calvinism were organized into Congregational, Presbyterian, and Baptist churches."

In the first instance, an indisputably Reformed author called a baptist a leading Reformed theologian. In the second, another Reformed author spoke of Arminian baptists leaving Reformed baptist theology. In the third case, a third author referenced Puritan and Scotch-Irish Reformed theology expressing itself in "Congregational, Presbyterian, and Baptist churches."

If history was the ONLY issue, wouldn't the baptists have some reasonable claim to a right to share the term?

Again, just call be a "confessional baptist." But, I will not fuss too much at brethren who claim an historical connection to a Reformational movement including both Swiss and English Calvinism later expressing itself in presbyterian, congregational, and baptist churches.

in my opinion the term Reformed Baptist isn't a big deal. (Has anyone yet noted in this thread that the Institute for Reformed Baptist Studies is based at WSCAL?) The confusion comes in when someone who believes the 5 points calls himself "Reformed" or even a "Calvinist" regardless of whatever else he may believe or practice.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Does anyone see the irony in this thread?

1. R. Scott argues that, in his view, Reformed ought to be defined historically. The definition of the past ought to be normative.

Rich, I've already conceded my preference for "confessional baptist" as the most helpful way of delineating those of us who adhere to the 1689. For a variety of reasons, TODAY "Reformed" should imply more than a belief in the 5 pts.

However, I'm still waiting for someone to deal with the historical data that interprets the evidence differently from Dr. Clark. In an earlier post, I showed three quotes from the Encyclopedia of the Reformed Faith, where TR authors (e.g., Gerstner) called baptist Augustus Strong the writer of the "most erudite Reformed Systematic Theology;" indicated that during the revivalist period many formerly Reformed Baptists "actually moved out of Reformed theology;" and that "The Puritan and Scotch–Irish forms of Calvinism were organized into Congregational, Presbyterian, and Baptist churches."

In the first instance, an indisputably Reformed author called a baptist a leading Reformed theologian. In the second, another Reformed author spoke of Arminian baptists leaving Reformed baptist theology. In the third case, a third author referenced Puritan and Scotch-Irish Reformed theology expressing itself in "Congregational, Presbyterian, and Baptist churches."

If history was the ONLY issue, wouldn't the baptists have some reasonable claim to a right to share the term?

Again, just call be a "confessional baptist." But, I will not fuss too much at brethren who claim an historical connection to a Reformational movement including both Swiss and English Calvinism later expressing itself in presbyterian, congregational, and baptist churches.

Regarding Gerstner, it's entirely possible that he was equivocating on the term. I've been around Ligonier's materials for long enough to say, without being pejorative, that they were never known for promoting the Confessions as much as they were for promoting predestination(ism). I've benefitted from them, for sure, but I also consider them weak in some areas of Reformed piety and practice.

I think it's at least sometimes helpful to note what people at the time of the Reformation thought Reformed meant.

Ironically, today, if you ask a Lutheran in the Midwest what "Reformed" is they'll label practically anything that isn't Lutheran as being Reformed. I had a friend that lived in Detroit who attended a Lutheran Church and they thought Charismatics and Pentecostals were Reformed.

I'm obviously not in favor of removing all distinctions but, at least for me, I find a good shorthand today to be "Confessional" if I'm going to agree a man is Reformed. At least here where we have to form a fraternity of somewhat common Confession, it's the best guide. I think we all recognize that the difference on Covenant is pretty substantial even though the LBCF and WCF are virtually identical elsewhere. It is, at least, important to note that there is a distnction and a difference but we also have the qualifier "Baptist" to note that differentiation so that's good enough for me at least.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Does anyone see the irony in this thread?

1. R. Scott argues that, in his view, Reformed ought to be defined historically. The definition of the past ought to be normative.

Rich, I've already conceded my preference for "confessional baptist" as the most helpful way of delineating those of us who adhere to the 1689. For a variety of reasons, TODAY "Reformed" should imply more than a belief in the 5 pts.

However, I'm still waiting for someone to deal with the historical data that interprets the evidence differently from Dr. Clark. In an earlier post, I showed three quotes from the Encyclopedia of the Reformed Faith, where TR authors (e.g., Gerstner) called baptist Augustus Strong the writer of the "most erudite Reformed Systematic Theology;" indicated that during the revivalist period many formerly Reformed Baptists "actually moved out of Reformed theology;" and that "The Puritan and Scotch–Irish forms of Calvinism were organized into Congregational, Presbyterian, and Baptist churches."

In the first instance, an indisputably Reformed author called a baptist a leading Reformed theologian. In the second, another Reformed author spoke of Arminian baptists leaving Reformed baptist theology. In the third case, a third author referenced Puritan and Scotch-Irish Reformed theology expressing itself in "Congregational, Presbyterian, and Baptist churches."

If history was the ONLY issue, wouldn't the baptists have some reasonable claim to a right to share the term?

Again, just call be a "confessional baptist." But, I will not fuss too much at brethren who claim an historical connection to a Reformational movement including both Swiss and English Calvinism later expressing itself in presbyterian, congregational, and baptist churches.

in my opinion the term Reformed Baptist isn't a big deal. (Has anyone yet noted in this thread that the Institute for Reformed Baptist Studies is based at WSCAL?) The confusion comes in when someone who believes the 5 points calls himself "Reformed" or even a "Calvinist" regardless of whatever else he may believe or practice.

Scott's neighbor is Dr. Renihan, BTW, and Scott holds him in high regard.

 

[DMcFadden]

Scott's neighbor is Dr. Renihan, BTW, and Scott holds him in high regard.

Rich, I hold Scott in high regard too. I'm not fussing with him out of contentiousness, merely asking if anyone here has an explanation of the fact that indisputably Reformed people have referenced (in standard authoritative texts) baptists as "Reformed." For me, it is more of an historical issue, not a personal one.

Given the tendency for every Tom, Dick, and Calvin to read John Piper or listen to Renewing Your Mind and call themselves "Reformed," there are probably good reasons to try to forge a more restrictive definition. But, that is a pragmatic argument. I just want to hear an historical one.

 

[Philip A]

I'm not fussing with him out of contentiousness, merely asking if anyone here has an explanation of the fact that indisputably Reformed people have referenced (in standard authoritative texts) baptists as "Reformed."

Nobody has an explanation because the reference you quote is nothing close to a standard authoritative text! It's edited by a PCUSA minister and made by the publishing arm of the same.

 

[DMcFadden]

I'm not fussing with him out of contentiousness, merely asking if anyone here has an explanation of the fact that indisputably Reformed people have referenced (in standard authoritative texts) baptists as "Reformed."

Nobody has an explanation because the reference you quote is nothing close to a standard authoritative text! It's edited by a PCUSA minister and made by the publishing arm of the same.

Fair enough, Philip. How about Dr. Gerstner? Is he authoritative to speak on issues of church history? In 1990 he became a member of the PCA. R.C. Sproul, his former student, cites him frequently as an authoritative expert on church history and presbyterianism. The reference to Strong was from him.

And, just because a mainline publisher put out the book does not necessarily mean that it is historically inaccurate. As a matter of fact, I can't stand McKim's theology. But, he didn't write the articles I cited.

 

[DMcFadden]

Regarding Gerstner, it's entirely possible that he was equivocating on the term. I've been around Ligonier's materials for long enough to say, without being pejorative, that they were never known for promoting the Confessions as much as they were for promoting predestination(ism). I've benefitted from them, for sure, but I also consider them weak in some areas of Reformed piety and practice.

Rich, I missed your post when I wrote mine. Sorry. I agree with you that Ligonier is somewhat lax on confessionalism at times. For that matter, what's with Sproul being unaffiliated? How can you be an independent presbyterian anyway? However, Gerstner is not identical to Sproul and even Sproul wrote his own commentary on the confession.

Speaking of Sproul, here is how he describes Reformed: "The theology is 'reformed' in that, in addition to catholic and evangelical doctrine, the distinctive doctrines of the magisterial Reformers such as Luther, Calvin and Knox are also embraced in a way that distinguishes the Reformed tradition from other Protestant bodies." If you include Luther, wouldn't that be "Reformational," not "Reformed"?

Gerstner may indeed be equivocating on the term. Frankly, that is the point. Whether we are talking about the so-called "Reformed Baptists" (self-called), or presbyterian writers in a "Reformed" encyclopedia, you can find plenty of folks on both sides of the aisle failing to differentiate between the terms. As Chris observed, even WSCAL has the Institute for Reformed Baptist Studies! And, that is why I like "confessional baptist," leaving Reformed for those with presbyterian polity who practice infant baptism.

I'm still reeling from the idea of charismatics claiming to be "Reformed."

And, exploiting a phrase made controversial (for other reasons): Reformed is not enough. Reformed = presbyterian is anchronistic. How many presbyterians are Reformed today? If 5 pts are not enough to make one Reformed, neither are infant baptism and presbyterian polity. Plenty of presbyterians have infant baptism and presbyterian polity without holding firmly to the 5 pts. As you suggested, Reformed, rightly considered should include all of the above + confessionalism.

In order not to offend my truly Reformed brethren, I am NOT Reformed, but a confessional baptist. And, in a world of latitudinarian evangelicalism and mainline apostasy, confessional baptists and confessionally Reformed presbyterians have a LOT in common. And, that is something to celebrate.

 

[Philip A]

And, just because a mainline publisher put out the book does not necessarily mean that it is historical inaccurate. As a matter of fact, I can't stand McKim's theology. But, he didn't write the articles I cited.

I'm sorry I didn't clarify myself; WJK indeed puts out a lot of very good volumes (as evidenced by their share of my personal library!) I mentioned the publisher to emphasize that they are the ones producing the work. The Confessions are the standard authoritative texts, because they are the documents the historical Reformed churches adopted to define themselves. At the end of the day, not even Calvin speaks for the Reformed churches; his are secondary works that help us to understand the terminology and context of the Confessions.

 

[DMcFadden]

I'm sorry I didn't clarify myself; WJK indeed puts out a lot of very good volumes (as evidenced by their share of my personal library!) I mentioned the publisher to emphasize that they are the ones producing the work. The Confessions are the standard authoritative texts, because they are the documents the historical Reformed churches adopted to define themselves. At the end of the day, not even Calvin speaks for the Reformed churches; his are secondary works that help us to understand the terminology and context of the Confessions.

Agreed. And, as the PURITAN BOARD, we are made up of those (like the original Puritans) who are presbyterian, congregational, and baptist. Our primary confession is the WCF. Those of us confessional baptists hold to the 1689 which is overwhelmingly word-for-word the WCF with some baptist changes. So whether only the Presbyterians are Reformed or not, we all rally around the confessions and our shared fondness for the Puritans who practiced experimental Calvinism.

 

[BradyC]

On the HB

I recently enjoyed this short essay by Richard Muller off of Kim Riddlebarger's blog:

I once met a minister who introduced himself to me as a "five-point Calvinist." I later learned that, in addition to being a self-confessed five-point Calvinist, he was also an anti-paedobaptist who assumed that the church was a voluntary association of adult believers, that the sacraments were not means of grace but were merely "ordinances" of the church, that there was more than one covenant offering salvation in the time between the Fall and the eschaton, and that the church could expect a thousand-year reign on earth after Christ's Second Coming but before the ultimate end of the world. He recognized no creeds or confessions of the church as binding in any way. I also found out that he regularly preached the "five points" in such a way as to indicate the difficulty of finding assurance of salvation: He often taught his congregation that they had to examine their repentance continually in order to determine whether they had exerted themselves enough in renouncing the world and in "accepting" Christ. This view of Christian life was totally in accord with his conception of the church as a visible, voluntary association of "born again" adults who had "a personal relationship with Jesus."

In retrospect, I recognize that I should not have been terribly surprised at the doctrinal context or at the practical application of the famous five points by this minister — although at the time I was astonished. After all, here was a person, proud to be a five-point Calvinist, whose doctrines would have been repudiated by Calvin. In fact, his doctrines would have gotten him tossed out of Geneva had he arrived there with his brand of "Calvinism" at any time during the late sixteenth or the seventeenth century. Perhaps more to the point, his beliefs stood outside of the theological limits presented by the great confessions of the Reformed churches—whether the Second Helvetic Confession of the Swiss Reformed church or the Belgic Confession and Heidelberg Catechism of the Dutch Reformed churches or the Westminster standards of the Presbyterian churches. He was, in short, an American evangelical.​

In Christ,
Brady

 

[pilgrim3970]

"Evangelical" doesn't mean much these days. "Baptist" conjures many negative images. Even the name "Christian" poses its problems.

Try having "Episcopal" in your name...