Who Defines "Reformed"?

[AV1611]

Yes, but they are heretics who deny the doctrines of grace.

You are saying that you can be Reformed and disagree with the Reformed Standards.

The FV say that they agree with the Reformed Standards insofar as they are biblical but disagree with them where they go against Scripture. They say that the Reformed Standards disagree with Scripture on x, y and z.

You say, the FV are heretics because they disagree with the Reformed Standards on x, y and z.

To which the FV cry, but our presbyteries have changed the Standards on x, y and z.

To which you reply....

The problem is that there needs to be a creed that is a standard, a canon of belief or doctrine. In Reformed circles these are the Westminster Standards and Three Forms of Unity (I would also add the Savoy declaration). Disagree with them and you are not Reformed.

 

[servantofmosthigh]

"Our Baptist friends are entitled to think what they will but they are not entitled to fundamentally re-define the adjective “'Reformed.'”

R. Scott's presupposition is evident in this statement: that Baptists may have not been part of the original Reformers, that Baptists never started off liking the term "Reformed" and should not want to today, and that Baptists are now "redefining" it.

Baptists never have and are not now making any attempts to redefine "Reformed." Rather, Baptists believe that the Presbyterians did not "Reform" from the Catholic Church back to the Gospel "far enough," especially on the issue of Baptism.

Remember that the various Reformers all took varying degrees on "how far" to Reform the churches' doctrines and practices from the Catholics. For the Church of England, whether they should be considered as part of the Reformation Protest is debated, their Reformation was just a slight variation from the Roman Catholics. For the Lutherans, they took the issue a bit further. For the Presbyterians, they took it even further. For the Baptists, they took it even further still. For the Anabaptists, they took it too far.

R. Scott's premise seems to be on the belief that only the Presbyterians have a stake on the term "Reformed," when in fact, they are just a little bit more Reformed than the Lutherans, but not enough for the Baptists. Much like the Postmodern who thinks that the earth no longer revolves around the sun, but that the world revolves around the individual, it seems our Presbyterian brothers believe that the term "Reformed" doesn't revolve around all who reformed from the Roman Catholics, but revolves around Presbyterianism.

 

[JohnOwen007]

The problem is that there needs to be a creed that is a standard, a canon of belief or doctrine. In Reformed circles these are the Westminster Standards and Three Forms of Unity (I would also add the Savoy declaration). Disagree with them and you are not Reformed.

Dear AV,

You say, "In Reformed circles", which begs the question which "circles" are you talking about?

I agree with Richard Muller who argues that the "reformed" tradition is made up of those church organizations which adhere to the historic reformed confessions. These are more than simply the WCF and 3FU. They include the Gallic, Scots, 3FU, 39 Articles, and 2nd Helvetic. This is the historic definition of the reformed tradition and it encompasses a degree of latitude, but clearly discounts Arminianism and the like.

See Muller's paper here.

Cheers.

ps: AV, I'll be in Cambridge for the last 6 months of this year, we should catch up some time whilst I'm over.

 

[AV1611]

I agree with Richard Muller who argues that the "reformed" tradition is made up of those church organizations which adhere to the historic reformed confessions. These are more than simply the WCF and 3FU. They include the Gallic, Scots, 3FU, 39 Articles, and 2nd Helvetic. This is the historic definition of the reformed tradition and it encompasses a degree of latitude, but clearly discounts Arminianism and the like.

That is really all I meant albeit stated far better.

ps: AV, I'll be in Cambridge for the last 6 months of this year, we should catch up some time whilst I'm over.

Would be good.

 

[R. Scott Clark]

There's no reason for denying that Owen was Reformed!

There's also no reason to include the Anabaptists as "Reformed" since they rejected virtually everything that the Reformed held. The ABs were mystical moralizers. They were social radicals (e.g. communalism, denial of participation in civil society, and even radical revolution).

rsc

In one sense "reformed" would mean that one's tradition draws from the Reformation, whether that branch is magesterial or radical.

Perhaps a better terminology would be "Reformational Baptist" or "Reforming"...



P.S. What would we call John Owen if we deny that he is Reformed?

 

[KMK]

Bob Self of ARBCA tells people he is a Baptist who believes in a really BIG God.

 

[R. Scott Clark]

Three things re established churches and the definition of Reformed.

1. It seems bizarre to me to hold that it is essential to being Reformed to hold to an established church.

2. The I don't know of any ecclesiastical body that has held that a doctrine of establishment is essential to the Reformed faith. The American covenanters have close ecumenical relations with denominations that deny establishment. If establishment is essential to the Reformed faith I doubt they would have entered into close fraternal relations with groups that deny it.

3. Neither the continental Reformed in Europe and America nor the American Presbyterians have said that, otoh, that holding to establishment disqualifies a denom/fed as Reformed.

Isn't this an area where we can agree to disagree?

rsc

Not on the Church/State issue.

My American denomination adheres to the Establishment Principle.

Mine too.

 

[R. Scott Clark]

Adam,

Are you certain that you're giving MGK/the book the most charitable interpretation?

I've only read sections. Frankly I find it very difficult to read. The books that Meredith did without an editor are full of Kline-speak and I haven't spent the time to figure out what he's doing.

I do know, however, that Meredith was quite committed to Van Til's theology and that includes the Creator/creature distinction.

With the language re the HS could it be that he's elaborating on Vos' theory in Bib Theol that the eschaton is a "realm of the HS"?

Republication was widely taught in the 17th century (and implicitly before) among orthodox Reformed divines. The adjective typological is not mere "mitigation"! This is essential to his understanding of the role of the Mosaic covenant. Remember, this is the guy who opposed Norm Shepherd for 30+ years. He didn't cash in justification sola gratia et fide at the end of his life. That's not plausible. The merit he has in mind there is the same sort of thing he said in Kingdom Prologue and elsewhere. It is merit ex pacto, i.e. relative to the typological national, temporary, covenant of works relative to their national status.

if you're going to hit MGK for teaching that then you can go after me too because I've been saying virtually the same thing for years.

Well, we've been round this pole a few dozen times. Kline held to the pactum salutis, the covenant of works as distinct from the covenant of grace in a time when precious few, including some regarded as stalwarts of orthodoxy, were holding to the historic, biblical distinction between grace and works as expressed in covenant theology.

He also held that the covenant of works was republished under Moses.

This too is an historic position (if contested by many).

In his later years he began to associate the decalogue more or less exclusively with Moses which led, in my view, some unhappy consequences which, despite my affection for MGK, I haven't hesitated to criticize.

His later view of the Sabbath and the other such questions is not inherent to the historic Reformed covenant theology. The mainlines of his covenant theology were quite confessional.

"Seriously heterodox" is over the top. Meredith deserves better treatment whatever disagreements you might have with him.

rsc

In his last book God, Heaven and Har Maggedon Kline advocates the principle of merit in the Mosaic covenant (although attempting to mitigate the force of this word by attempting to describe this works covenant as typological, it is still implicit that the merit aspect is not typological it is merit under a typological system) and furthermore ascribing merit to Abraham in the Abrahamic covenant! This is certainly beyond the accepted reformed definitions across the board of the concept of merit as well as the Abrahamic covenant irrespective of one's view of the Mosaic covenant.

Furthermore in the same book, Kline criticizes the Nicene creed and desires to reformulate it in such a way that the Holy Spirit is the second person of the Trinity and the Son the third. He teaches that the Holy Spirit became eternally embodied in a created entity (calling this endoxination) in a way analogous to the incarnation of the Son!

Whatever one may say of Dr. Kline's earlier writings, towards the end of his life he became seriously heterodox, challenging not only standard reformed teachings but also catholic ones as well.

 

[ADKing]

Adam,

Are you certain that you're giving MGK/the book the most charitable interpretation?

I've only read sections. Frankly I find it very difficult to read. The books that Meredith did without an editor are full of Kline-speak and I haven't spent the time to figure out what he's doing.

I do know, however, that Meredith was quite committed to Van Til's theology and that includes the Creator/creature distinction.

With the language re the HS could it be that he's elaborating on Vos' theory in Bib Theol that the eschaton is a "realm of the HS"?

Republication was widely taught in the 17th century (and implicitly before) among orthodox Reformed divines. The adjective typological is not mere "mitigation"! This is essential to his understanding of the role of the Mosaic covenant. Remember, this is the guy who opposed Norm Shepherd for 30+ years. He didn't cash in justification sola gratia et fide at the end of his life. That's not plausible. The merit he has in mind there is the same sort of thing he said in Kingdom Prologue and elsewhere. It is merit ex pacto, i.e. relative to the typological national, temporary, covenant of works relative to their national status.

if you're going to hit MGK for teaching that then you can go after me too because I've been saying virtually the same thing for years.

With all due respect Dr. Clark, there is nothing unclear or uncertain as to what Dr. Kline is saying with respect to the Trinity. I regret that I do not have the book handy or I would quote it here. (Does anyone on the board have this book handy that could quote the relavent section?) I highly suggest taking a look at that section in his book where he deals with "endoxation". Making the claim that the Holy Spirit has embodied himself in created reality in a way analagous to the incarnation is not reformed or Nicene (to refrain from using much stronger language!). There is nothing similar in the writings of Vos

With regard to the Mosaic covenant, I will not speak at length. Suffice it to say I find it dubious that the historical evidence that the language of republication by some 16th and 17th century divines represents "proto-Klineanism" per the work of men like Karlberg. Even individuals like Lee Irons are now looking to John Cameron et.al. for a more plausible source. Witness the fact the even these divines who are appealed to end up with a much more puritan system than Dr. Kline himself.

What troubles me much more than the whole "republication" issue, is the question of merit. No reformed theologian, of whom I am aware, speaks of post-fall merit in the sense of Dr. Kline (other than in the case of our Lord). As sinners, it is impossible for us to do anything meritorious in God's sight. In a strict sense, I think Kline and his followers understand this and that is why they have had recourse to this concpet of merit which is determined "ex pacto" as you put it. That is to suggest, under this typological system, God can accept obedience (mingled with sin as it is in fallen men) as meritorious--not because it is perfect, but because it satisfies his less than perfect standard under a typological system. I am not accusing Dr. Kline of abandoning sola gratia or falling into Sheperdism. But I think his redefinition of merit suggests (however uninetentionally it may or may not be) that God can accept less than perfect obedience as meritorious albeit in a typological system. This I find highly dangerous.

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

Yes, but they are heretics who deny the doctrines of grace.

You are saying that you can be Reformed and disagree with the Reformed Standards.

The FV say that they agree with the Reformed Standards insofar as they are biblical but disagree with them where they go against Scripture. They say that the Reformed Standards disagree with Scripture on x, y and z.

You say, the FV are heretics because they disagree with the Reformed Standards on x, y and z.

To which the FV cry, but our presbyteries have changed the Standards on x, y and z.

To which you reply....

The problem is that there needs to be a creed that is a standard, a canon of belief or doctrine. In Reformed circles these are the Westminster Standards and Three Forms of Unity (I would also add the Savoy declaration). Disagree with them and you are not Reformed.

FVers have denied the central soteriological doctrines of the Confession. This is not in the same league as exclusive psalmody or the establishment principle.

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

So are they not Reformed, or not Reformed on the church/state issue?

The issue is one of historical identification. The question is, Who decides what is reformed? My answer is, Not those who reject the establishment principle. Those who reject the establishment principle seek to redefine reformed faith and life, and thereby place themselves outside the reformed tradition. Should clarification be asked, as you have done, I qualify that it is specifically on the issue of Church and State. But whether a man hits his golf ball out of bounds by an inch or a hundred feet makes no alteration to the fact that his ball is out of bounds and he has no right to redefine the golf course in order to call his ball in play.

The problem with this analogy is that the managers of the golf course (i.e. the church courts) have redefined the boundaries of the golf course (i.e. the WCF/BC) so that their views are no longer out of bounds.

 

[ADKing]

Not having God, Heaven and Har Maggedon handy, here is a quote from D. Kline in one of his articles on Zechariah's night visions.

There is then an eternally continuing Glory-embodiment of God's Spirit-Presence in creation, shaping creation and constituting it a temple. The primal creation event that brought this Glory-Spirit epiphany into existence (Gen. 1:1) may be called the endoxation of the Spirit. It is comparable to the incarnation of the Son. Incarnate Son and endoxate Spirit are both living embodiments of the God of Glory.

He is only more explicit in the aforementioned book. Here is the source Kerux...The Online Journal of Biblical Theology

 

[R. Scott Clark]

Adam,

I think you are quite wrong here. There is nothing heretical in what MGK is saying here about the role of the Spirit. Please re-read Vos' Pauline Eschatology. That is all Meredith is saying here. This is the same sort of language he uses about the Glory-Spirit in creation, the covenant of works, the theophanic manifestations etc. He's describing Zechariah's visions.

He's not saying that the Spirit, in this vision, is conceived as incarnate.

Second, though I don't think it's pedagogically helpful to speak of Israel meriting tenure in the land, as long as we know what he means by it, that it is ONLY relative to the will of God as expressed in the typological, national-status land covenant, then it isn't nearly as problematic as you make it.

For what it's worth, I think you're over-reacting. You may not like the doctrine of republication but it has a pretty serious pedigree. The Reformed (e.g. Owen, Boston) routinely appealed to the idea of republication to explain the covenant of works. The WCF ch 19 does it!

rsc

Not having God, Heaven and Har Maggedon handy, here is a quote from D. Kline in one of his articles on Zechariah's night visions.

There is then an eternally continuing Glory-embodiment of God's Spirit-Presence in creation, shaping creation and constituting it a temple. The primal creation event that brought this Glory-Spirit epiphany into existence (Gen. 1:1) may be called the endoxation of the Spirit. It is comparable to the incarnation of the Son. Incarnate Son and endoxate Spirit are both living embodiments of the God of Glory.

He is only more explicit in the aforementioned book. Here is the source Kerux...The Online Journal of Biblical Theology

 

[AV1611]

For what it's worth, I think you're over-reacting. You may not like the doctrine of republication but it has a pretty serious pedigree. The Reformed (e.g. Owen, Boston) routinely appealed to the idea of republication to explain the covenant of works. The WCF ch 19 does it!

Maybe it depends on what people think it means by republication, i.e. the reason why it was republished.

John Gill is helpful in my opinion:

The author and giver of this law; God was the author and maker of it; Moses the giver and minister of it from God; it was God that first spoke the ten words, or commands, to the children of Israel; and it was he that wrote and engraved them on tables of stone; the writing was the writing of God, and the engraving was by the finger of God; it was from his right hand this fiery law went: the ministry of angels was made use of in it; it is called, the word spoken by angels; it was given by the disposition of them; it was ordained by them in the hands of a mediator, who was Moses, who stood between God and the people, received the lively oracles from him, and delivered them to them. There was a law in being before the times of Moses; or otherwise there would have been no transgression, no imputation of sin, no charge of guilt, nor any punishment inflicted; whereas death, the just demerit of sin, reigned from Adam to Moses; and besides the positive law, which forbid the eating of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil; and was given as a trial of man’s obedience to the whole moral law, and in the form of a covenant, in which Adam stood as a federal head, to all his posterity; and which covenant he broke, and involved himself and his in misery and ruin. Besides this, there was the law of nature, inscribed on his heart by his Maker, as the rule of his obedience to him; and by which he knew much of God, and of the nature of moral good and evil; and which; though much obliterated by the fall, some remains of it are to be discerned in Adam’s posterity; and even in the Gentiles (Rom. 1:19,20; 2:14,15), and which is reinscribed in the hearts of God’s people in regeneration, according to the tenor of the covenant of grace (Jer. 31:33). Now the law of Moses, for matter and substance, is the same with the law of nature, though differing in the form of administration; and this was renewed in the times of Moses, that it might be confirmed, and that it might not be forgotten, and be wholly lost out of the minds of men; of which there was great danger, through the great prevalence of corruption in the world: and it was written, that it might remain, "litera scripta manet;" and it was written on tables of stone, that it might be the more durable; the apostle says, "it was added because of transgressions," to forbid them, restrain them, and punish for them; and it "entered that the offence might abound," the sin of Adam; that the heinousness of it might appear, and the justness of its imputation to all his posterity might be manifest; as well as all other offences might be seen by it to be exceeding sinful, and righteously punishable: (see Gal. 3:19; Rom. 5:20; Rom. 7:13). It was not delivered as a pure covenant of works, though the self-righteous Jews turned it into one, and sought for life and righteousness by it: and so it engendered to bondage, and became a killing letter; nor a pure covenant of grace, though it was given as a distinguishing favour to the people of Israel (Deut. 4:6,8; Ps. 147:19,20; Rom. 9:4) and much mercy and kindness are expressed in it; and it is prefaced with a declaration of the Lord being the God of Israel, who had, of his great goodness, brought them out of the land of Egypt (Ex 20:2,6,12). But it was a part and branch of the typical covenant, under which the covenant of grace was administered under the former dispensation; and of what it was typical, has been observed before; and a principal end of its being renewed was, that Christ, who was to come of the Jews, might appear to be made under the law, as the surety of his people, the righteousness of which he was to fulfil, and, indeed, all righteousness; being the end of the law, the scope at which it aimed, as well as the fulfiller of it....It [the law] does not continue as a covenant of works; and, indeed, it was not delivered to the children of Israel as such strictly and properly speaking, only in a typical sense; though the Jews turned it to such a purpose, and sought righteousness and life by it: but God never made a covenant of works with men since the fall, in order to their obtaining life and salvation by it; for it never was in the power of man since to perform the conditions of such a covenant; however, it is certain, believers are not under the law as a covenant of works; but under grace as a covenant of grace.​

 

[ADKing]

Adam,

I think you are quite wrong here. There is nothing heretical in what MGK is saying here about the role of the Spirit. Please re-read Vos' Pauline Eschatology. That is all Meredith is saying here. This is the same sort of language he uses about the Glory-Spirit in creation, the covenant of works, the theophanic manifestations etc. He's describing Zechariah's visions.

He's not saying that the Spirit, in this vision, is conceived as incarnate.

Second, though I don't think it's pedagogically helpful to speak of Israel meriting tenure in the land, as long as we know what he means by it, that it is ONLY relative to the will of God as expressed in the typological, national-status land covenant, then it isn't nearly as problematic as you make it.

For what it's worth, I think you're over-reacting. You may not like the doctrine of republication but it has a pretty serious pedigree. The Reformed (e.g. Owen, Boston) routinely appealed to the idea of republication to explain the covenant of works. The WCF ch 19 does it!

rsc

Not having God, Heaven and Har Maggedon handy, here is a quote from D. Kline in one of his articles on Zechariah's night visions.

There is then an eternally continuing Glory-embodiment of God's Spirit-Presence in creation, shaping creation and constituting it a temple. The primal creation event that brought this Glory-Spirit epiphany into existence (Gen. 1:1) may be called the endoxation of the Spirit. It is comparable to the incarnation of the Son. Incarnate Son and endoxate Spirit are both living embodiments of the God of Glory.

He is only more explicit in the aforementioned book. Here is the source Kerux...The Online Journal of Biblical Theology

Thank you for your interaction Dr. Clark. I will let the topic drop and we will have to agree to disagree. I never used the term "heretical" on purpose. Nevertheless, I do think, if you have not read Dr. Kline's book, you ought to take a look at it before you defend what he is saying. Kline himself makes the analogy to the incarnation. He is in fact teaching that the Spirit is eternally, inseparably "embodied" for lack of the precise term, in a created entity. This is not what Vos was saying. However, if you disagree with this, I suppose we would have to fall back on the exact quotes which I do not have at this time.

I continue to have very strong concern on the issue of merit and believe that when Owen etc. are appealed to with respect to the issue of the republication of the covenant of works it is a matter of formal similarity rather than something the same in substance.

Isn't it interesting that a thread on what and who is genuinely reformed has taken so many different angles?

 

[toddpedlar]

So are they not Reformed, or not Reformed on the church/state issue?

The issue is one of historical identification. The question is, Who decides what is reformed? My answer is, Not those who reject the establishment principle. Those who reject the establishment principle seek to redefine reformed faith and life, and thereby place themselves outside the reformed tradition. Should clarification be asked, as you have done, I qualify that it is specifically on the issue of Church and State. But whether a man hits his golf ball out of bounds by an inch or a hundred feet makes no alteration to the fact that his ball is out of bounds and he has no right to redefine the golf course in order to call his ball in play.

The problem with this analogy is that the managers of the golf course (i.e. the church courts) have redefined the boundaries of the golf course (i.e. the WCF/BC) so that their views are no longer out of bounds.

yes, and what's worse, no golf club manager has the right to redefine the laws of the game - that goes to the Royal and Ancient alone... yet the modern golf course managers are constantly rewriting not only the boundaries of the course (which is IN their purview) but the rules of the game (which is not)!

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

The issue is one of historical identification. The question is, Who decides what is reformed? My answer is, Not those who reject the establishment principle. Those who reject the establishment principle seek to redefine reformed faith and life, and thereby place themselves outside the reformed tradition. Should clarification be asked, as you have done, I qualify that it is specifically on the issue of Church and State. But whether a man hits his golf ball out of bounds by an inch or a hundred feet makes no alteration to the fact that his ball is out of bounds and he has no right to redefine the golf course in order to call his ball in play.

The problem with this analogy is that the managers of the golf course (i.e. the church courts) have redefined the boundaries of the golf course (i.e. the WCF/BC) so that their views are no longer out of bounds.

yes, and what's worse, no golf club manager has the right to redefine the laws of the game - that goes to the Royal and Ancient alone... yet the modern golf course managers are constantly rewriting not only the boundaries of the course (which is IN their purview) but the rules of the game (which is not)!

Since John Knox was a keen golfer, does one have to like golf in order to be Reformed, or is that irrelevant as golf is not in the WCF?

 

[Backwoods Presbyterian]

Yes absolutely Daniel. Golf=Reformed
(At least I think so...)

 

[KMK]

From the OP:

Thus, the short answer to Arthur’s question is that yes, one must hold to every point of doctrine in the Reformed confessions in order to be Reformed.

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

The authority of the holy Scripture, for which it ought to be believed and obeyed, dependeth not upon the testimony of any man or Church, but wholly upon God (who is truth itself), the Author thereof; and therefore it is to be received, because it is the Word of God.

And, of course, the holy Scripture/Word of God they were referring to was the TR.

 

[Backwoods Presbyterian]

How can you say definitively that the Westminster Divines were referring in chapter I to the TR?

 

[JohnOwen007]

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.

 

[AV1611]

(and EP being another).

On this I think that to hold to the RPW is Reformed but there are differences within the Reformed community about how it is applied. I am reminded of Cranmers letters to the Continental Reformers asking their opinions about vestments etc.

Whilst there is this 'lattitude' this doesn't excuse the argument "How dare you say I am wrong to do x, Cranmer did x!" (Not that you are arguing that).

 

[hollandmin]

I think whether one likes it or not, the label "Reformed" IS used in a general way to define the five points alone and those who adhere to them. We can argue this point until our Lord comes but it will not change the hearts, minds and church names of millions who call themselves reformed. Perhaps the term has gone the way of "evangelical" or "fundamental." I don't think there is any way that it can be reversed, regardless who writes an article about it. I suppose you can always come up with another label. . . . .

Blessings,

 

[py3ak]

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.

It used to be that everything led to a baptism debate; for a while it seemed like everything turned into a rehash of Clark vs. Van Til. Perhaps the days will come when everything turns into a necessitarian vs. voluntarist or nominalist vs. realist debate.

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

From the OP:

Thus, the short answer to Arthur’s question is that yes, one must hold to every point of doctrine in the Reformed confessions in order to be Reformed.

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

The authority of the holy Scripture, for which it ought to be believed and obeyed, dependeth not upon the testimony of any man or Church, but wholly upon God (who is truth itself), the Author thereof; and therefore it is to be received, because it is the Word of God.

And, of course, the holy Scripture/Word of God they were referring to was the TR.

Holy Scripture is to be received because it is the word of God, but this does not mean that the word of God = the so-called Received Text (the term Received Text was an advertising blurb when it was originally employed).

However, perhaps that is

 

[Pilgrim]

Actually mainline includes, by general but not unanimous usage, the seven "sisters" of the mainline: ABCUSA, Disciples, ECUSA, ELCA, UMC, PCUSA, and UCC. SBC has always been quite sectarian and considered themselves neither mainline nor evangelical but Babptist (spelling intended).

I agree that the SBC is not generally considered mainline today. However, leaving aside for the moment the issue of whether babdists are inherently sectarian, I don't think the Southern Baptist Convention was really any more sectarian or separatist in origin than was the old Southern Presbyterian Church (PCCSA, renamed PCUS after the war) which seceded in 1861 after the Gardiner Spring resolution that mandated allegiance to the Union. (The issue in the formation of the SBC 1845 was whether a slave holder could be a missionary as well as growing controversy over slavery in general). The PCUS finally reunited with the Northern Presbyterian Church (although by that time both churches had congregations on the other side of the Mason-Dixon) in 1983 to form what we now know as the PCUSA after more conservative churches had left the PCUS beginning in 1973 to form what became the PCA. Until the "Conservative Resurgence" that began to take hold in the SBC starting in 1979, overall the denomination, and especially the agency heads and seminary and college faculty were probably no more conservative than what you would have found in the PCUS at that time.

I agree with the SBC not being evangelical, especially if you are referring to the post war watered down version (i.e. "New Evangelicals" or neoevangelicals) that has as much of a tendency to wreak havoc with Baptist distinctives as it does with Presbyterian ones, even though the SBC conservatives leaned heavily on evangelical scholarship during the controversy with the "moderates". I recently listened to some excellent Russell Moore messages on the relationship of the SBC and evangelicalism.

 

[HaigLaw]

These were all different articles by different scholars, all of them Reformed, writing in the Encyclopedia of Reformed Theology. Hey, guys. Don't beat up us baptists too badly when your own reference books make the same "mistakes."

I'm sorry, but I got different shades of meaning or nuances; was that what you meant by "mistakes?"

 

[HaigLaw]

Although this thread was not showing up in the box of top threads, I did a search on "define Reformed" and found 1440 hits on PB.

 

[DMcFadden]

These were all different articles by different scholars, all of them Reformed, writing in the Encyclopedia of Reformed Theology. Hey, guys. Don't beat up us baptists too badly when your own reference books make the same "mistakes."

I'm sorry, but I got different shades of meaning or nuances; was that what you meant by "mistakes?"

My point was that if the TR all agree that Baptists don't "deserve" (either historically or theologically) to be called Reformed, it is sure funny to see so many TR scholars include them within the ambit of the definition. I was sarcastically saying that it is too bad that people like Gerstner made an error in his attribution of Reformed status to the Baptist Strong, etc.

Realize, that I'm happy with the title "confessional baptist." But, insofar as John Owen was congregational, not presbyterian, the polity must not be the impediment. That leaves baptism. And, Gerstner called the credo baptist Strong the most "erudite writer of a Reformed Systematic Theology."

Just palying with the terms. Nothing too serious here.

 

[HaigLaw]

I would ask you TRs to remember, however, that when the Presbyterians 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.

It seems you use "TR" here to mean "truly reformed," whereas in other places on this thread it means "textus receptus," right?

I confess, some of these acronyms are driving me crazy, and it's not a very long drive.