A Little More on Defining "Reformed"

In response to the “Who or What Gets to Define ‘Reformed’?” post and others like it, some have argued that if the definition of Reformed includes a certain (paedobaptist) view of Baptism then it should also include a certain polity. Some have argued that I should have to say that John Owen is not Reformed because he was not presbyterial in polity.

I reply by noting that the Heidelberg Catechism, the Belgic Confession, and the Westminster Standards, say relatively little about church polity. The Belgic Confession (Articles 31 and following) mentions the three offices of minister, elder, and deacon. The Westminster Standards mention no offices nor do they mention a polity. The Canons, of course, do not mention polity. The absence of polity (beyond the mention of the offices in the Belgic which doesn’t necessarily commit one to a presbyterial polity) in the Reformed confessions is fatal to the argument that polity and sacraments are equally important in the Reformed Confessions. Thus it is not the case that if the adjective “Reformed” is defined in a way that necessarily excludes Baptists that therefore it must also exclude this or that polity. Clearly polity does not play the same role in the Reformed confessions as the sacraments do.

So, is John Owen Reformed? Of course he is. There were episcopalians and presbyterians at Dort. There were presbyterians, congregationalists, and episcopalians at Westminster. Savoy was congregationalist. The mainstream of Reformed polity is presbyterial (note the lower case) but that’s never been of the essence esse of being Reformed. It is of the “well being” (bene esse) of being Reformed. Even today, if you look at the United Reformed Churches in North America (my federation) documents, you’ll see that we do not describe presbyterial polity as being of the essence of the church. Many of our congregations were effective congregational prior to becoming part of the federation. As far as I know, the Dutch Reformed tradition has tended to speak of “the churches” rather than “the church” (which is perhaps a more Presbyterian way of speaking; note the upper case).

The Baptist argument is that they are the logical fruition of the Reformation but the plain fact is that the Reformed Churches have never accepted that argument. One of the reasons that the Reformed Churches have never accepted the Baptist view (and one important reason why we should reject the attempt to re-define “Reformed” to be latitudinarian about the sacraments is because the Baptist view of the sacraments presupposes a quite different hermeneutic than the Reformed.

The truth is that, on Baptism, all Baptists are Anabaptists and all the Reformed rejected that view and the hermeneutic and view of redemptive history latent or explicit in it. The Reformed began defending the unity of the covenant of grace from the earliest days of the Reformation. Heinrich Bullinger wrote a treatise defending the unity of the covenant of grace against the Anabaptists in 1534! In that treatise he spoke for all the Reformed theologians and churches. We all see a fundamental unity of the covenant of grace from Adam to Abraham to the New Covenant. We understand, in contrast to the Baptists, the New Covenant is new only relative to Moses (Jer 31; 2 Cor 3; Heb 7-10). In Reformed theology, piety, and practice (the Reformed confession), the Abrahamic covenant was given under the period of types and shadows and all those types and shadows are fulfilled, but the substance of Abraham’s faith was, so to speak, Christian (Gal 3). Therefore, according to the Reformed Churches the promises that God made to Abraham are still in effect: “I will be a God to you and to your children.” We see this re-affirmed in Acts 2:39.

Those are facts that cannot be overcome. Thus the Baptist who identifies with aspects of the Reformed confession is left to argue a theological case that the Baptist view is the most consistent Protestant view etc. Now we’re not doing history but theology. We’re not talking intent but openly talking about re-defining a term with a fixed historical, theological, and ecclesiastical usage.

Resources

Heidelberg Reformation Association
1637 E. Valley Parkway #391
Escondido CA 92027
USA
The HRA is a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization

Subscribe to the Heidelblog today!


96 comments

  1. Would you call Richard Baxter Reformed in light of his views on the doctrine of Justification? After all he did write The Reformed Pastor and he was a paedobaptist. Or should someone change the title of his book because of his controversial views on Justification? No one seemed to have complained then (which was then at the height of the Reformation) about how Baxter was using the word “Reformed”, so why should someone complain now? I’d have to honestly say that Reformed Baptist today and even those then (Keach, Coxe, etc), at least had something as crucial as Justification inline with Scriptures. The way I see it, is that the Reformed credo-baptist has reformed further than their fellow paedo-baptists, by ridding themselves of the last vestige of Roman Catholicism, namely infant baptism.

  2. Hi Jade,

    Actually people did complain about Baxter! John Owen wrote an entire and brilliant volume on justification against Baxter.

    No, Baxter was not “Reformed.” When he spoke of the “Reformed” Pastor he was not using the word the way the Reformed Churches have. I wish that the Banner would re-title the book, frankly. It’s very confusing. I know that a lot of folk consider Baxter “Reformed,” but nothing is more essential to the Reformed faith than the doctrine of justification and when it came to justification, Baxter was a moralist. See the opening chapter of Covenant, Justification, and Pastoral Ministry and several other places within the book for an account of Baxter on this. See also Carl Trueman’s excellent work on Baxter.

  3. Hi,
    I’ve followed this discussion a bit and had a few queries in my mind. If you can shed any light on them that would be grand. There are three.

    1. “On the basis of such texts (Rom 6.1-5) we an conclude that the fundamental fact portrayed in baptism is the saving union of believers with Christ in the Covenant of Grace.” David McKay – The Bond of Love
    This is a book heartily endorsed by ‘Reformed’ men, and I think I would agree with McKay. I just find it hard to see it portraying a ‘fact’ that in many cases (in loads of cases here in Scotland) simply is not true.

    2. On a different slant, seeing the change in meaning with words such as Evangelical, Methodist, Fundamentalist, etc., could it be that the term is nuanced over time? I guess I’m curious if you think the word could ever change meaning, or at least emphasis.

    3. And, lastly, are any of the Baptist Confessions considered as being ‘received’ by the churches?

    Many thanks.
    Michael

  4. You mentioned the Congregationalists previously; one of the saddest things I know of a Congregational church is that the church where Toplady used to pastor is now a hotbed of British-Israelism. It remains a member of Evangelical Federation of Congregational Churches. The EFCC also swapped Savoy for a more minimal statement of faith, so whether it is the congregational polity or the minimalist confessionalism which allows Orange Street to sully their books, I do not know.

  5. Dr. Clark,
    Yes, I’m quite aware of Owen’s response to Baxter. Baxter was clearly wrong. So is it also the case that you do not view the 1689 LBCF as a reformed confession?

    Good point Martin … on pointing out a synonym for the word “Reformed”. Again, I think the historical word “Reformed” should be associated with the actions of those who broke away from the RCC, to reform closer to Scriptures. The Reformed (creado-)Baptists just went a bit further toward aligning with Scriptures than our paedo-baptist brethren. This is why we don’t just call ourselves “Reformed”, but “Reformed Baptist”.

    I’m not really sure what you hope to gain from this Dr. Clark because I hate to break it to you, but the word “Reformed Baptist” is here to stay. You certainly have the right to protest it, but it’s not going to change what our convictions are concerning the Scriptures. I’m not so much concerned to what is considered historical but rather to what is inline with Scriptures. As Christians, we should always be reforming to the truth. This should be the concern, not fighting over copyrights to a term.

  6. Jade,

    If “Reformed” – “biblical” then there are as many definitions of “Reformed” as there are definers.

    Is this acceptable?

    May I call myself a Baptist? Why not? See the “Young, Restless, and Arbitrary” post.

    The Anabaptists and the early Socinians also said “hey, we’re just following the Bible.” Does that make them “Reformed”? Why not?

    As I keep saying, I can’t help what Baptists call themselves. I can complain about theological vandalism, however and I can exhort Reformed people to be careful how they use the word.

  7. Michael,

    I think I’ve answered your question is this group of posts either in the post or in the comments.

    “The churches” would refer to “the Reformed Churches.”

  8. I think the historical word “Reformed” should be associated with the actions of those who broke away from the RCC, to reform closer to Scriptures.

    While it is quite ubiquitous, this just seems like D-grade church history. By and large, the Reformation was a battle on two fronts, Rome and the Anabaptists. Granted, the former captured most of the headlines. But it seems to me that much of the flack these posts are getting owes at least in part to this notion that the Reformation was a thing which yielded Roman Catholicism and everybody else. Better Anabaptists know not to claim the term “Reformed” because they know their history.

    But, soteriologically, just like both Gomarus and Arminius would have no clue what to do with that curious modern creature who deems himself a “Calminian,” sacramentally, better Anabaptists and Reformed are stumped by the “Reformed Baptist.” It seems modernity is helping Rome’s warning that Protestantism will only yield as many definitions as there are definers.

  9. “The Westminster Standards mention no offices nor do they mention a polity.”

    A point of clarification if not correction, Scott. The set of documents making up the work produced by the Assembly includes the form of presbyterial church government. The subject of Church polity caused most of the debate and controversy at the Westminster Assembly. Now, if you simply mean Westminster Confession and Catechisms, fine. But some of the historical mistakes that are made about original intent come from an unhappy atomization in looking at the Assembly’s work. My two cents worth, or maybe one cent in this economy.

  10. Dear Brother RSC,

    You write, “all Baptists are Anabaptists”. Now, I’m no baptist, but that is not going to wash when talking to particular baptists. Many of my particular baptist friends can’t stand the Anabaptist movement theologically and in praxis. You’re an historian who is attempting to give an historic definition of “reformed”, you should also attempt to be more historical in your definition of “baptist”, not to mention your usage of word “evangelical” (most people in the USA who call themselves “evangelical” are not historically evangelical) and “latitudinarian”.

    Again, I don’t know why you’re on this rampage to dismiss our particular baptist brethren. You’ve left so many questions unanswered. I have immense respect for Piper, Dever, Haykin, and especially Carson. Why you don’t want to include the 1644 and 1689 in the reformed tradition is a mystery to me. They saw themselves as “reformed”, even if the paedo’s didn’t. If we’re just going to go by the usage of the word “reformed” in the 17th century why dismiss the particular baptist usage? One of the weaknesses of the 17th century reformed tradition is it’s continual infighting.

    Wishing you every blessing,

    Marty.

  11. Marty,

    You’re misrepresenting my argument. What I wrote was: “The truth is that, on Baptism, all Baptists are Anabaptists and all the Reformed rejected that view….”

    To omit the qualifier, which I emphasized with italics, creates false impression.

    Of course, as I’ve acknowledged here and elsewhere, as you know, I understand that modern Baptists are not Anabaptists in many important respects, but ON THE MATTER RE-BAPTISM OR DENIAL OF PAEDOBAPTISM all Baptists are still Anabaptists.

    That’s very important qualification.

  12. To our Reformed Baptist brethren:

    There are two incongruities in your position that I find somewhat funny.

    1. The claim that the RB’s are the most reformed of the Reformed. I’m glad you’ve reformed from your ana-baptistic tradition but holding onto the final vestige of that tradition would hardly make you the most reformed of the Reformed.

    2. Your complaint that the REFORMED baptize the non-elect. Of course there is no assurance that baptizing only adults means that only the elect are being baptized. Your insistence on protecting the sacrament for believers only has the same problem you claim for the REFORMED. There is no assurance that the baptized are members of the elect. Wouldn’t it be better to trust God’s promise to Abraham instead of trying to play God and determine the elect?

  13. >Again, I don’t know why you’re on this rampage to dismiss our particular baptist brethren. You’ve left so many questions unanswered.

    Marty,

    I am moved by your interest in defending 2LCFers, like myself– especially since you say you are not one! But I don’t know what you are trying to protect us from. Dr. Clark is not saying that we aren’t Christians. He isn’t saying that we can’t/don’t make helpful contributions to the church of Christ, or that there isn’t substantial common ground between our theologies. He isn’t telling us to stop reading Calvin, Boston, Owen, etc. If anything he wants us to read more of them! He is simply arguing that, after all these things are accounted for, Baptists are still Baptists and Reformed are still Reformed. Why is that such a difficult point to accept?

    >I have immense respect for Piper, Dever, Haykin, and especially Carson. Why you don’t want to include the 1644 and 1689 in the reformed tradition is a mystery to me.

    I actually have problems with this logic. As I have watched these posts/comments over the past few days, this seems to be a recurring issue. It seems as though many are using the term “Reformed” as though it is *necessarily* identical to the terms “orthodoxy and godliness.” So, by denying us the right to be called “Reformed,” one is essentially saying that we aren’t Christians, or as you (unintentionally) imply, that we aren’t respectable. But I think this is wrong-headed. Dr. Clark’s argument, which I think is quite compelling, is that “Reformed” is a theological description. By saying that we Baptists aren’t Reformed, one is making a statement similar to saying “Baptists aren’t Lutheran” or “Baptists aren’t Methodist.” Why this should be so controversial is not clear to me. Can I humbly suggest (we must all search our own hearts) that there *might* be some 1st commandment issues here?

    For my own part, I am disturbed by how “Reformed Baptist” has taken such deep influence among Baptists. It is entirely extraneous to our own tradition and identity. It was invented by one man de novo in the 1960s, and in less than 50 years it has become this big of an issue for some… There has to be a lesson about church history in this somewhere.

    Whether we are called Reformed or not, 1&2LCF, the Baptist Catechism, and the Orthodox Catechism still teach the same things. So why should I care that I can’t call myself Reformed?

    A Confessional Baptist

  14. Many Baptists in the 17thC clearly saw themselves as part of the larger Reformed movement. The term “Reformed *Baptist*” explains on what major point they diverge.

    The forward to the first edition of the Second London Baptist Confession published in 1677 (not 1689) proves this!

    Now, I’m not really interested in debating whether Baptists are Reformed or not. All I’m suggesting is that many 17thC Baptists would have assumed they were!

    Remember, Nehemiah Coxe, a Baptist, argued *covenantally* for his position; he even agreed with John Owen’s exposition of the New Covenant. And for that reason, some Baptists have used Owen as an ally, which I think is crazy.

    Mark Jones

  15. >1. The claim that the RB’s are the most reformed of the Reformed. I’m glad you’ve reformed from your ana-baptistic tradition but holding onto the final vestige of that tradition would hardly make you the most reformed of the Reformed.

    Paedo-baptism is *not* a Reformed distinctive. Justification by faith alone is, infant baptism is not. Calvin’s mariology is not a Reformed distinctive either.

    Attempting to back engineer paedo-baptism into a context of covenant theology (as paedo-baptists have recently fallen back on having to do) and thus declaring it a Reformed distinctive doesn’t wash. Regeneration by the Word and the Spirit fits rather elegantly into the simple plan of redemption that is classical Covenant – Federal – Theology.

  16. Marty,

    In light of Confessional Baptist’s refershing words I am wondering about another of your consistent complaints: the incessant in-fighting on the part of some. On the one hand, I think I get you; often I can’t help but wonder if Sean Lucas’s diagnosis of “Fundamentalists learning to be Presbyterian” was on to more than even he thought. On the other, the mystery, as CB calls it, of some not even grasping the obvious distinctives between traditions seems to demand some piping up. I also can’t help but wonder if some of this owes to the tyranny of tolerance.

  17. Dear RSC,

    Many apologies for misquoting you. I misread you (the italics muddled me). However, I still take issue with your point that on the topic of baptism, particular baptists are not the same as Anabaptists. I have both Anabaptist and particular baptist friends who would both be horrified with your statement–especially the Anabaptists. The former see baptism as *fundamentally* as a covenant communally–primarily a horizontal act; the Anabaptist ecclesiology differs radically at this point.

    Dear Confessional Baptist,

    I take RSC and his book as saying that his narrow defintion of “reformed” to be a superior form of Christianity and that’s why he’s written the book and wants people to join him. Hence, the issue of godliness certainly comes into it–how can it not? If all particular baptists overnight became NAPARC would there be a discernible difference? I doubt it. There would be a discernible difference if they all converted to Anabaptism or semi-pelagianism.

    Dear Zrim,

    No I don’t think it has anything to do with the “tyranny of tolerance”. I can’t stand the modern redefinition of tolerance that we’re not allowed to disagree (which technically can’t be tolerance). However, the reformed tradition has a terrible track record of splintering and infighting very much before the new tolerance arose. What disturbs me is how little it worries many who call themselves “reformed”. I’m certainly NOT for some lowest common denominator Christianity. Nor am I for the direction of the CRC in North America. But, it’d be great if we could actually stop arguing about who is truly reformed and recognize how much we have in common, and then harness the infighting energy to a more godly purpose. We need a robust theology of doctrinal hierarchy to work out how important certain issues are, and what’s worth fighting about.

    I GREATLY value my particular baptist brethren, and want to work with them–they’ve been a wonderful blessing to me. Many of them put me to shame.

    Every blessing in Christ,

    Marty.

  18. Marty,

    (The tyranny of tolerance was more speculation; even so, I wasn’t suggesting all the flack owes to that, but simply that it is hard to conceive that it isn’t in there somewhere for post-moderns like us.)

    You say that you do not find the direction of the CRCNA favorable. But then reiterate your plea to “stop arguing about who is truly reformed and recognize how much we have in common, and then harness the infighting energy to a more godly purpose.” Unless I am missing something when I read revisionist proposals in CRC Council meetings, that is precisely the spirit of the direction of the CRCNA: a trajectory toward a broad evangelicalism that would like to finally put an end to churchly formulations which are seen to only serve fracture instead of nurture fraternity.

    So, to your mind, what exactly is unfavorable about either LCD Christianity or the CRCNA? I am very curious to know how one can answer this question and not also be guilty of the combativeness you find so repugnant.

    And for what it may be worth, my CRC brethren, like your particular baptist to you, have likewise been “a wonderful blessing to me and put me to shame.” But that is quite beside the point.

  19. Marty,

    Sorry, I also found this curious:

    I take RSC and his book as saying that his narrow defintion of “reformed” to be a superior form of Christianity…the issue of godliness certainly comes into it–how can it not

    Since when did it become so offensive to deem the Reformed tradition the superior expression on all the earth? Methinks this becomes offensive when it is confused with a comment on inward things (i.e. visible with invisible). Is there a superior theology and piety? Yes. I would expect those outside the Reformed tradition to say the same thing, but that may require a lessening of confusion with in/visible things, in which case they might be more Reformed than anybody thinks.

  20. Hey c.t. (Jackson)

    You keep asserting baptism is peripheral to Reformed theology but you never cite any evidence.

    Perhaps you could provide a mini dissertation on your blog showing how the Magisterial Reformer dismissed baptism as a peripheral issue.

  21. Dear Brother Zrim,

    Thanks for your response but I’m not sure that you’re actually reading what I’ve been saying. You say:

    Unless I am missing something when I read revisionist proposals in CRC Council meetings, that is precisely the spirit of the direction of the CRCNA: a trajectory toward a broad evangelicalism that would like to finally put an end to churchly formulations which are seen to only serve fracture instead of nurture fraternity.

    When did I say that “church formulations” are out? It’s not an either-or (black and white) issue. We need confessions. My point, and I’m weary of saying it, is that we need a robust theology of how to discern what issues are central, what are not-so-central, and what are indifferent–a scale of importance. This is critical to godliness. When everything becomes a salvation issue we have left biblical Christianity. Paul allowed people to differ from him on food sacrificed to idols for the sake of their godliness (1 Cor. 8).

    When you say that the issue of friends who put you to shame “is beside the point”, this is where I get very anxious. Since when has godliness been “beside the point”? The issue is that if the CRC continue on their track it *will* affect the praxis and godliness of their members. That’s serious. Theology and piety cannot be separated and if we lose sight of it, we’re in deep trouble.

    God bless you dear friend.

  22. Marty,

    When did I say that “church formulations” are out?

    No where explicitly (see, I have been reading you). But the implication of what you are saying seems little different from those in my environs who suggest these are more trouble than they are worth. These voices also say “we need confessions.” However, what is meant is that they are needed for mere “guidance” instead of a way to demarcate orthodoxy from falsity. This is the language of those with high opinions but low views. The genius of this posture is that it politely shows the formulations the back door without seeming that way at all.

    My point, and I’m weary of saying it, is that we need a robust theology of how to discern what issues are central, what are not-so-central, and what are indifferent–a scale of importance. This is critical to godliness. When everything becomes a salvation issue we have left biblical Christianity.

    Isn’t that a large part of what churchly formulations in fact do? They are hardly exhaustive of every bit of nuanced theology known to man and seem, in their narrowness, to actually promote diversity on things indifferent (as well as letting different traditions be what they are). This seems like the heart of godliness. Speaking of which, I can’t help but wonder if you’re reading into the thrust of posts like these the very problem they seek to correct (speaking of being weary-worn): that salvation depends upon these things. No, the point is to define the true church, and only then to exhort true souls to adhere to her. That order is critical. If one doesn’t understand that order he tends to end up reading such projects as comments on personal godliness, etc. More to the point, those that claim the Reformed formulations find in those very formulations the three marks of the true church (BC 29, WCF 25.4), the second of which concerns baptism. I quite agree that theology and piety cannot be divorced since together they constitute godliness. But when you say “godliness” it seems more to do with personal characteristics you find agreeable. I really like wise, nice and winsome people, too. But if they don’t get revealed truth right then it isn’t clear to me why the Reformation was any big deal.

    And I still want to know just what is wrong with LCD Christianity (or why you would assess the CRC to be wayward). It seems to me that in order to utter the answer requires you to do just what the formulations seek to do.

  23. Marty,

    I am moved by your interest in defending 2LCFers, like myself– especially since you say you are not one! But I don’t know what you are trying to protect us from. Dr. Clark is not saying that we aren’t Christians. He isn’t saying that we can’t/don’t make helpful contributions to the church of Christ, or that there isn’t substantial common ground between our theologies. He isn’t telling us to stop reading Calvin, Boston, Owen, etc. If anything he wants us to read more of them! He is simply arguing that, after all these things are accounted for, Baptists are still Baptists and Reformed are still Reformed. Why is that such a difficult point to accept?

    I don’t know. People are here arguing with a professor of church history at a Reformed seminary about the definition of “Reformed.”

    If Baptists think they are right and the Reformed are wrong about baptism (and the Lord’s supper), why would they want to associate themselves with the Reformed? Why just not be Baptists?

    My hunch is that “Reformed” is used to imply “good scholarship” or to give credibility to a theological position whether or not it has anything to do with Reformed theology. It is also used to declare, “Hey, we’re actually reading our Bibles!” nowadays.

  24. Walt,

    My hunch is that “Reformed” is used to imply “good scholarship” or to give credibility to a theological position whether or not it has anything to do with Reformed theology.

    Maybe. But non-Reformed have good scholars, too.

    I can’t shake the sense that this might be something Reformed tell ourselves in order to mask the possibility that at least of this is our own doing, liberally lending out the adjective with no return dates and fees. Are Lutherans and Anglicans just better librarians to boot?

  25. I think Zrim makes a very important point here, that the confessional Reformed (in N. America) are have been so desperate to be accepted and to overcome their minority status that we’ve been, shall we say, indiscriminate with the way we’ve used the adjective. We’ve been guilty of accepting and using the minimalist definition. So, perhaps it’s no surprise that our predestinarian evangelical friends have picked up that usage.

  26. Dear Brother Zrim,

    We live, move, and have our being in different contexts. The environment in which you find yourself is very different to mine; your culture also has large differences to mine. If you can’t imagine how I can hold various issues together, please be quick to listen, slow to speak, and slow to assume.

    In my country the NAPARC equivalents are in a very different situation. We have many NAPARC denominations that have close to identical confessional beliefs but cannot work together. How deplorable! Moreover, we have many NAPARCish denominations that adhrere 100% to their confessions but are cold, dead, and ready to split at the drop of a hat. And they do it in the name of “confessionalism”.

    Don’t you have ,b>any concern for the framgentation of “reformed” Christianity? Our tradition is not perfect and has an embarrassing history of being fissiparous. The sooner we admit this the better, because it will bode for constructive thinking about our future. Moreover, humility is a wonderful work of God’s work in us. If only our tradition was known for that.

    You close by saying:

    And I still want to know just what is wrong with LCD Christianity (or why you would assess the CRC to be wayward). It seems to me that in order to utter the answer requires you to do just what the formulations seek to do.

    Well honestly, I’ve given my reasons and they haven’t been addressed ; my time is too precious to keep repeating myself. Being concerning about denominational splintering does not mean that one embraces LCD Christianity. It’s not an either / or situation. If you can’t see that, at least think about it for while.

    Part of the problem lies in the 16th and 17th confessions themselves. They are some of the greatest theological statements ever written, but there are plenty of issues they don’t address: women’s ministry, Charismatic issues, 20th century kingdom eschatology etc. etc. If we’re truly going to be confessional we need to rally together to think about how we can address these issues rather than fight about old chestnuts, that quite frankly won’t ever go away until the Lord returns, and don’t seem to make much difference to practical godliness.

    Feel free to keep commenting but I’m bowing out due to time constraints.

    God’s blessings upon you my dear brother.

  27. I think Zrim makes a very important point here, that the confessional Reformed (in N. America) are have been so desperate to be accepted and to overcome their minority status that we’ve been, shall we say, indiscriminate with the way we’ve used the adjective.

    Perhaps. I certainly haven’t noticed this in the OPC or URCNA. The biggest culprits are possibly the PCA, though I don’t know if it’s really their fault. Sproul (a PCA minister) made Reformed theology popular with clear writing at a time when everyone else was worried about the culture war and getting Republicans elected and appointed. I think a lot of people read his stuff in Evangelical land and decided that they were ‘reformed’ also without actually taking a church membership class at their local OPC, PCA, or URC congregation, interviewing with the elders, showing up for church, and all that other unpleasantness. RSC’s “evangelical nicodemites” series speaks to this. Horton seems to be picking up where Sproul left off. A lot of people read those books and then never connect the dots that they might actually want to find a local Reformed congregation or (gasp!) move if there isn’t one nearby.

  28. Walt,

    I’ve heard OPs, PCAs, URCs and other folks use the word “Reformed” the minimalist way for decades.

    In defense of Mike, the WHI did a show at the end of ’08 where they did exactly that: told people to find a church even if they have to move.

    In their position that’s a difficult thing to do because sometimes (too often) when people take that advice they don’t find a healthy confessional congregation (hence RRC). Then people come back to the WH folk and say, “Hey, we went to one of your churches and….” I’ve got those sorts of emails.

  29. All debating aside, I think the reality is that the word ‘reformed’ is no longer used as Dr Clark would desire. Perhaps something like ‘confessionally reformed’ would better communicate the the wider church what some would mean by ‘reformed.’

  30. >You keep asserting baptism is peripheral to Reformed theology but you never cite any evidence. Perhaps you could provide a mini dissertation on your blog showing how the Magisterial Reformer dismissed baptism as a peripheral issue.

    By stating the biblical truth that regeneration is effected, when it is, by the Word and the Spirit, and that baptismal regeneration is false doctrine, the reformers and Reformation doctrine made the case.

    And in fact, this is always the elephant in the room in baptism debates nobody wants to mention. Regeneration, the fact of it, the necessity of it, how it is effected, is the issue underlying this subject.

  31. A number of years ago Kenneth Good wrote a book about whether or not ‘Calvinistic’ Baptists ( like himself) were ‘Reformed’ -and he argued, much like Scott that Calvinistic Baptists cannot be ‘Reformed’. He futhermore pointed out that historically they did not call themselves ‘Reformed’ but chose to distinguish themslves from other Baptists by the term ‘Particular’. It should be noted that even the great Charles Haddon Spurgeon did not go around referring to himself as a ‘Reformed Baptist’-but chose instead to use the label ‘Calvinist’ as it defined the Five Points-which is exactly what Scott has done.

  32. The silly notion being put forth (permit me to be blunt) is that unless you accept infant baptism you can’t have classical Covenant – Federal – Theology. I.e. accept infant baptism or go back to your Arminian, dispensationalist Baptist-ism.

    I could counter (just as sillily), unless you Reformed Church Christians accept credo-baptism and congregationalism you really need to go back to Europe. This is America. You didn’t make the trip to the New World when it was dangerous.

  33. For the record this Christian was never Arminian/dispensationalist/paedo. I read the Bible first then was led by the Spirit to apostolic biblical doctrine.

  34. Actually, please don’t associate me with the name of a man. I havn’t yet wikipediaed or googled Mr. Alexander Cambell, so I don’t yet know what horrors you’re accusing me of, but allow me to say I never heard of the man.

    My books of doctrine are:

    Institutes of the Christian Religion – Calvin
    Manual of Christian Doctrine – Berkhof
    Human Nature in its Fourfold State – Boston
    Pilgrim’s Progress – Bunyan (yes, doctrine, visual doctrine)
    Sovereignty of God (and pretty much all of the Covenant theologian writings of Pink, i.e. not his dispensational writings which he grew out of)
    Spurgeon
    God, Heaven and Har Magedon – Kline

    To choose seven that I gravitate towards.

  35. Actually, it is ‘Campbell’ not ‘Cambell’ (my bad). Oh, before you decide to do that kind of research ,read Scott’s entry ‘All Hail the informational Triumvirate’ (Jan.23,2009).

  36. I did read that. I have some good hardbound dictionaries of theology too.

    Having written (as in mostly started) some wikipedia articles I can tell you their editorial oversight, and the input of readers in general, is more than might be expected in the service of general accuracy though. Hit and run vandalism – which is usually repaired quickly – aside.

  37. Now, GLW Johnson, I can see your Campbell reference was made in regards to this:

    “I read the Bible first then was led by the Spirit to apostolic biblical doctrine.”

    I always say I value Reformed theologians because they say what the Bible says. How could I know this if I didn’t read the Bible first? If this approach is controversial or mocked in some putative Reformed circles then the movement towards Rome is more real and farther along than even some of the more hardcore watchdogs have been saying.

  38. I’ve read the relevant posts on the subject in question he’s written here at his blog. He’s written many posts on this subject.

  39. One of the things you guys have been attempting is to separate Reformed Baptists from the historical Reformed confessions. No, sorry, we know the historic Reformed confessions. We know – get ready – five solas doctrine, doctrines of grace, and classical Covenant – Federal – Theology, and we defend that doctrine more robustly and enthusiastically than the paedo side. We know the Westminster Confession of Faith (and we like it, especially the wisdom of the Westminster divines in keeping baptismal regeneration out of that document (see chapter 10, and 28.5, unless they have been redacted like other parts).

  40. Barton Stone? That’s a new one. OK, I just Wikipediaed him. So I’m against the Trinity? You sound like a 16th century Jesuit smearing one of those evil Calvinists…

  41. Marty (I know you’re gone, I just like talking to myself sometimes),
    I appreciate your pointing out the reality of different contexts. I think that is important. At the same time, I am not convinced that it is the end of the explanation of things. If human beings are the same creatures as they were when sent packing east of Eden, that means that whatever time and place does to set us apart we are also brutally similar. And if that’s true then this discussion is not just idiosyncratic.

    Whatever else my abiding the CRC counts for I hope it bears at least some witness that I do in fact have “a concern for the fragmentation of Reformed Christianity,” despite your implications. I won’t rehearse assessments I get from those inside (“leaving is schismatic”) and out (“true piety would leave”) the CRC about my own abiding. But suffice it to say I think much of them turn on the conflation of “denomination” with “church,” where the former is just a way of doing the latter You’ll notice I haven’t made any sort of case for NAPARC; you seem to be pummeling against something I don’t intend to defend. Granted, true churches, insofar as they are defined by WCF/TFU, tend to be those within NAPARC. But NAPARC isn’t the measure, the churchly formulations are.

    Being concerning [sic] about denominational splintering does not mean that one embraces LCD Christianity.

    My apologies, I can see how a less than careful articulation could imply that. My point is not that the former implies the latter, because you are right, it doesn’t. Rather, it is not clear to me how one can criticize the larger point being made here while simultaneously being critical of LCD Christianity (or that something like the CRC is wayward) and not be guilty of the very same combativeness you find unseemly.

    Part of the problem lies in the 16th and 17th confessions themselves. They are some of the greatest theological statements ever written, but there are plenty of issues they don’t address: women’s ministry, Charismatic issues, 20th century kingdom eschatology etc. etc. If we’re truly going to be confessional we need to rally together to think about how we can address these issues rather than fight about old chestnuts, that quite frankly won’t ever go away until the Lord returns, and don’t seem to make much difference to practical godliness.

    Like I said, it seems to me that confessional formulations are deliberately non-exhaustive. But I think there is a case for drawing up new confessions for the reasons you cite (theonomy, in my mind, may have its own justification altogether!). But I don’t think that means the old ones are antiquated or of little use. Indeed, if they cause this much “fighting about old chestnuts,” which I take to mean something about baptism, then they help point up just how un-sacramental our age is. That’s a problem, Marty, to say the least. It seems to me that being Reformed the old-fashioned way has an eye toward both the past and the present.

  42. Marty, as I said before, it is kind of you to speak as graciously as you have in defence of the RB movement. And Mark, thanks for your thoughts too.

    Having read through 1&2LCF, BC, and OC several times (prefaces and appendices too), there must be something I’m missing. I don’t find the term “Reformed Baptist” there anywhere. It seems to me, as I read those Particular Baptist documents that they understood that– though there was much agreement between them– their stance on baptism was significant enough that it necessarily made them a different kind of animal than the confessional Reformed tradition. That is my point. It seems that this point is being lost by the present-day subscribers to these confessions and catechisms. That is all that my point is.

  43. Good grief, pronouns will be the end of me…

    “though there was much agreement between [the Reformed and Particular Baptists]– [the Particular Baptists’] stance…”

  44. It seems to me, as I read those Particular Baptist documents that they understood that– though there was much agreement between them– their stance on baptism was significant enough that it necessarily made them a different kind of animal than the confessional Reformed tradition.

    Indeed, it was significant enough to warrant a name, “Baptist.” One would think if anyone should contend for sacramental lines in the sand it should be Baptists. It is odd that this side of the table should be faulted for a reductionism when there is a whole group that seems to do this—that is, if names are any indication.

    To the extent (credo) Baptists come out of the broader Reformed tradition, is it not conceivable that (paedo) Communionists will be the next sub-set in Protestantism who also want to be “Reformed”? If the in/visible conflation is a common denominator I can think of one current and fashionable controversy that might yield such a thing.

  45. >Having read through 1&2LCF, BC, and OC several times (prefaces and appendices too), there must be something I’m missing. I don’t find the term “Reformed Baptist” there anywhere.

    Interestingly the Westminster Confession of Faith uses the word ‘reformed’ (small ‘r’) merely once:

    3. It is lawful for all sorts of people to marry, who are able with judgment to give their consent. Yet it is the duty of Christians to marry only in the Lord. And therefore such as profess the true ***reformed*** religion should not marry with infidels, papists, or other idolaters: neither should such as are godly be unequally yoked, by marrying with such as are notoriously wicked in their life, or maintain damnable heresies.

    Pretty universal reference, and notice in the list of people one shouldn’t marry it doesn’t include Baptists.

  46. This is a pretty telling phrase in WCF 24.3:

    ‘And therefore such as profess the true reformed religion’

    The term ‘reformed’ is not being used exclusively for narrow doctrinal purposes of definition.

    In that same section it defines the use of the term negatively by identifying ‘infidels’, ‘papists’, ‘idolaters’, and the ‘notoriously wicked’ and ‘damnable here[tics]’.

    John Owen is safe for his praise of John Bunyan.

  47. John Owen is safe for his praise of John Bunyan.

    Yeah, but praise is different from nuptials. Sorry, Owen and Bunyan probably ought to reconsider getting married, and not just for the more obvious reason.

  48. Jackson,

    It doesn’t mention “Brownists” or “Anabaptists” or “Lutherans” or any number of groups scorned by the Reformed. This is a characteristic not exhaustive list. Once again your post demonstrates the fundamental inability of the Baptist hermeneutic and argument from silence. It proves too much!

  49. Having said that I hope you’re not equating Reformed Baptists with Brownists, Anabaptists and Lutherans?

    On another note: do you consider Norman Shepherd to be Reformed?

  50. Note: I’m not familiar with Robert Browne’s theology. If you scorn him merely for being congregationalist then we’re back to the John Owen is not Reformed problem. But I’m sure Mr. Browne believed in something or other off the ranch regarding the Five Solas that I’m not aware of. Otherwise his name would be get used as a bad name.

  51. Then people come back to the WH folk and say, “Hey, we went to one of your churches and….” I’ve got those sorts of emails.

    Yeah. Been there. My wife and I pass about 3 or 4 Reformed churches on the way to ours.

  52. >I was of course taking off on a comment above me.

    Jackson,

    So was I. Mark brought up the issue of the preface to 2LCF, I was simply trying to interact with his comment about it.

  53. I think if you talk to Reformed Baptist scholars such as Michael Haykin and Mike Renihan, who did his PhD at Oxford on John Tombes’ baptism debates in the 1thC, they will candidly acknowledge that Baptists saw themselves as Reformed. In fact, Haykin told me with his own mouth a few weeks ago as we discussed a book project relating to these issues.

    I recognize that not all Baptists will agree. But, as I have made clear, I am only explaining what many Baptists thought about themselves (and still do) in the 17thC.

  54. thomasgoodwin,

    I get what you are saying. But isn’t this part of the point, that it isn’t what an individual understands about himself but what the larger tradition says of him? There are lots of things I’d like to believe I am, but, well, you know. My grandfather was pretty good at pulling my loose teeth out as a kid, but that doesn’t mean he was a dentist.

  55. Mark,

    Fair enough. I am by no means qualified to question Haykin’s or Renihan’s take on this, as they know far more than I. I’ll have to do more thinking on it. For my own part, I think that the term “reformed” has become a diversion to the RB movement in some significant ways. But that is a different issue all together.

  56. I suppose they might say (though, I can’t be sure):

    “We are not going around saying ‘We’re ‘Reformed’. We are saying we are ‘Reformed Baptists’, which qualifies where we differ from you.”

    In fact, they may even admit the word “Reformed” on its own is synonymous with a view of the covenant that includes infants post-resurrection. That is why they add “Baptist” to “Reformed”.

    That may not satisfy you, but doesn’t WSCal have a center for “Reformed Baptist Studies”? Why ever did they allow such a name to be affiliated with the Seminary? 😉

    Personally, I think Reformed necessitates paedobaptism. But, I’m also fine with the term “Reformed Baptist” because I immediately understand their basic theological approach.

  57. Mark,

    Once more, WSC provides space to the IRBS. They have the same relation to us as other schools. We accept their credits, they accept ours. Because of their proximity and affinity for most of what we teach we have a good, close working relationship but IRBS is not part of WSC per se. Jim Renihan is a friend (and I met Mike in the UK and am familiar with his work) and a neighbor (he lives just a few hundred feet from me). We value our friendship with the IRBS and ARBCA and they with us and, to be sure, not everyone on the faculty would put things the way I do. Bob Godfrey gave a paper last year arguing that RB congregations are “true churches.” So there’s a diversity of views on the faculty on this subject.

  58. Scott,

    I know; I was just trying a little humor, hence the “wink”. Jim and I are working on a project together, so I know about the relationship of the IRBS to WSCal.

    “So there’s a diversity of views on the faculty on this subject” – sort of like the significance of union with Christ in Calvin’s theology? 😉 You’ll have to ask Mike Horton about where I got that!

  59. “Bob Godfrey gave a paper last year arguing that RB congregations are ‘true churches.'”

    How can I get my hands on this?

  60. Assuming that Baptist cannot be called Reformed, is it still OK to call someone who is a Baptist a Reformational Christian? How about the term “Augustinian”? I am unsure about what makes someone Augustinian.

  61. Hi Alberto,

    Predestinarian/5-Point Baptists used to be “Particular” Baptists. Augustinian is a little vague since Augustine wrote a lot of stuff over a long time. Further there are significant ways in which RBs are not “Augustinian.” They deny infused grace and they deny paedobaptism, both of which Augustine taught. I suppose “Reformational” works but usually when people say “Reformational” it’s assumed that one has either “Reformed” or Lutherans in view. It’s a difficulty. The Lutherans, for their part, sometimes chafe at being lumped with “Reformed” folks and so they sometimes resent being called “Reformational” (which can denote Kuyperians) and/or Protestant. I guess I’ll leave it to the Baptists to figure out what to call themselves.

  62. Hold on. No one group owns the Reformation. Waldensians were both paedo and credo, and no one suffered for the faith once delivered more than them. And Baptists such as Bunyan and Gill were covenant theologians, not just predestinarian and 5-point.

  63. Dr Clark wrote:-
    I guess I’ll leave it to the Baptists to figure out what to call themselves.

    Well done, Dr Clark! These are the first wise words you’ve written on this subject. As Jade says, the term ‘Reformed Baptist’ is here to stay and it is accurate because the early Particular Baptists took the Reformation forward by getting rid of the last element of Popery.

    The Reformed churches were never meant to be preserved in aspic. ‘Ecclesia Reformata Semper Reformanda.’ We are constantly to be looking to reform our churches to bring them ever closer to the word of God. That is what Spilsbury, Kiffin, Keach and others did. They were true reformers.

  64. Martin,

    You always know how to make a guy feel good about himself.

    One cannot change a fundamental article of the Reformed faith and call oneself Reformed.

    Semper Reformanda does not mean, “Figuring out that the Baptists are right.” It means and was intended to mean, “Recovering the Reformed confession.”

  65. The modern meaning of Ecclesia Reformata Semper Reformanda puts the accent on the latter part of the phrase, which is to suggest an eye toward what is presumed to exist “out ahead” where all truth exists. This is why it usually gets chopped down to simply Semper Reformanda since this interpretation renders the former part rather meaningless.

    The Protestant meaning puts its accent on the former part of the phrase, which is to suggest an eye backward to what is presumed to be recovered biblical truths. In the light of how the former part is understood, the latter part is then interpreted to mean that we should measure things by how “Reformed” they are or are not; and if they’re not they need to be pulled back to it.

  66. To the idea that to be truly Reformed is to also be Baptist:

    No. To be truly Reformed assumes that one first be catholic, because the Reformed tradition is a Reformed *catholic* faith. To unbaptize the entire catholic Church outside of one’s own communion, to insist that those baptized in infancy really have no part in the Church, to insist also that such baptized Christians be rebaptized in order to be a part of the truly baptized Church, is emphatically uncatholic, and therefore of necessity also emphatically unReformed.

    Sorry. This is how the Reformers saw the matter, and to claim to stand in their tradition while unbaptizing both them *as well as* the churches they reformed is either dishonest or just silly.

  67. You gentlemen are arguing tradition, the very thing the Church of Rome did at the Reformation, and still does. ‘To the word and to the testimony!’ Reformation is reforming according to the word of God wherever it may lead us. It led many of the Reformers to the stake, and the original Martin Marprelate to the gallows. A little compromise, a little backing off concerning contentious issues would have saved them. Should we therefore retreat from where the Scripture leads us in order to fit in with established man-made man-made prejudices? God forbid!

    You ask, who or what defines ‘Reformed’? The word of God ultimately defines ‘Reformed;’ not the Presbyterians, and certainly not this blog!

    Dr Clark wrote:-

    ‘One cannot change a fundamental article of the Reformed faith and call oneself Reformed.’

    We can; if we are right, then we should; we do, and, with the greatest respect, you can’t stop us. The cat is already out of the Reformed bag, and it isn’t going back in.

    Martin

  68. Martin,

    That’s because we’re not Anabaptists. See RRC on the role of tradition in Reformed theology. There’s a non-Roman function for tradition in historic, confessional Reformed theology.

    Further, your argument “we can if we’re right” is exactly the sort of Reformed narcissism that is afflicting the Reformed churches. There’s Martin’s definition of Reformed and Joe’s definition and a million others. The result: there’s no definition. Yikes!

  69. Dr. Clark wrote:
    One cannot change a fundamental article of the Reformed faith and call oneself Reformed.

    The concern here should be what is fundamental to the Bible. Confessions are NOT the word of God, nor should it ever replace it. We don’t reform to confessions, we reform to the Word of God. What should be fundamental in a Biblical confession is sola scriptura. I do not see that the Word of God commands nor justifies infant baptism. Every confession that does not align with this One source of truth, the Bible, should be rejected.

    John Quincy Adams (not our 6th president but was named after) rightfully named his book, when he titled it Baptists, Thorough Reformers.

  70. C’mon Dr. Clark, would you call Benajmin Keach an Anabaptist and not Reformed?! Would you consider the 1689 LBCF an Anabaptist confession and NOT reformed?

    I”m curious … there’s that 500 Calvin conference coming up in Europe this year. I notice you’re listed among the speakers. Would you consider this a Reformed conference? If so, then why do I see a on that list of speakers folks who consider themselves Reformed Baptists (e.g. Dr. Haykin)? Or is this not a Reformed conference?

  71. Jade,

    The Reformed Churches in the 16th and 17th centuries confessed infant baptism because (quia) they believed it to be biblical. So we have competing definitions of what it is to be Reformed because we have competing theologies.

    Why isn’t the modern Baptist attempt to expropriate the adjective “Reformed” a kind of theft?

  72. Jade,

    No, Keach is not Reformed. He may have agreed with the Reformed on some important and necessary doctrines but he also denied an equally necessary and essential Reformed doctrines. On Baptism, anyone or any document or any assembly that denies the Reformed doctrine of baptism is not Reformed.

    I participate in all sorts of academic conferences. The religious views of professional colleagues is a matter of academic indifference. Personally I want everyone to be Reformed but when I attend AAR or the Sixteenth Century Studies Conference or the Calvin Studies Conference or the Renaissance Society I can hardly expect everyone there to agree with me any more than I can expect my grocer to agree with me before selling milk to me.

  73. Dr. Clark just because the pedo-baptist reformed churches of the 16th & 17th centuries believed that infant baptist is biblical does NOT make it truth. Sure they had some of the doctrines correct, but from examination of the Word of God, I beg to differ on their conclusions on baptism, as many other good Christians do. I don’t view the 16th & 17th pedo-baptists as the final authority on truth. The Word of God does that. Again the motivation for the word “Reformed” should be “Reforming to the truth“, and was the same motivation for many of the puritans. Unfortunately not all of them came to fully reforming.

    “Academic indifference”?! I hardly think Dr. Haykin thinks of his beliefs as merely “academic”, as such other godly men. It runs far deeper for him than merely “academic”; it’s a transformation of the heart, mind and soul!

  74. >You gentlemen are arguing tradition, the very thing the Church of Rome did at the Reformation, and still does. ‘To the word and to the testimony!’

    Martin,

    That is because the question, “Who gets to define the word ‘Reformed?'” is a question about the boundaries of a theological tradition. There is nothing inherently unbiblical about that at all. Our duty as image-bearers is to think and speak clearly God’s truth back to him. This requires us to use words that have specific and well-defined meanings. There is nothing even remotely popish about Dr. Clark wrestling with this kind of question. Certainly, this is not the only question that we need to concern ourselves with in theology (as Dr. Clark would, I’m sure, agree), but it is a valid and important question to ask nonetheless.

    In a different context, the question is the Reformed tradition *biblical* could also be asked. If it not biblical, at what points is it not? It is certainly appropriate, yea crucial, to wrestle with this, but it is a different question altogether.

    It concerns me when I see fellow credo-baptists eager to let one tradition of theology, in this case Reformed, replace words like biblical, orthodox, or Christian. This has been done before in church history… It concerns me when I see fellows Baptists introducing this mentality into our ranks.

    Maybe its because we aren’t distinguishing between the words “reformer” (as Luther, Calvin, etc.), “reforming” (what all our traditions our trying to do in faith and practice), and being “Reformed” (a specific tradition of theology).

    I wonder if this is where our wires are getting crossed? I hope so…

  75. Jade,

    If “Reformed” = “whatever Scripture teaches” and if you (opposed to the Reformed Churches) are the arbiter of what Scripture teaches, then you are the arbiter of the adjective “Reformed”!

    What happens if Jade decides that Jesus has only one nature? Would that become the “Reformed” view? That’s exactly what the Socinians said: “We’re just following the Bible.”

  76. I agree with you Confessional Baptist, but I would also say that Dr. Clark also promotes that the word “Reformed” according to his definition, equates with words like Biblical, orthodox, etc… Am I wrong with this assumption Dr. Clark? Forgive me if I am wrong with this …

    I think we should look upon the 16th &17th century revivalists as folks who desired to reformed to the truth and it is that very characterization that is remember about them in history, which led them to separate themselves from the RCC. And it wasn’t only the pedobaptists that suffered persecution for their conviction to reform closer to the truth, but baptists as well. Further I think it’s unfair to brand every baptists as an anabaptist. Keach certainly was not considered an anabaptists even among pedobaptists of that time.

    But I agree with you … what is really important is the evaluation of truth. But every time we question our pedo-baptist brethren the truth about baptism, they bring in the 16th & 17th century reformed pedo-baptists as their final authority rather than the Word of God. That’s not a defense. Though these 16th & 17th century pedo-baptists have done much contributions to summarizing some of the sound doctrines, they did NOT get everything right. My concern here, is that we seem to give these Reformed forefathers too much credence than we should. If some of these theologians were alive today and seen how some of the current Reformed confessors have idolized them, they would be horrified. Their life’s work was not to lift themselves up as final authority to the truth, but the Word of God alone … wrong as they might have been on the conclusions of baptism.

    FYI, Richard Baxter also thought himself among the ranks of Reformed divines in the 17th century, as implied in some of his letters. Kind of makes you wonder on who is the authority on what is “Reformed”. Honestly, no one is. Again, I think we should look at the spirit of what marked that historical revival rather than look upon specific doctrines….

  77. Jade,

    Thank you for your thoughts and reflections on this. I think we are on the same page. Certainly, any discussion of the biblical doctrine of baptism that never moves further than what 16-17th century theologians taught is a problem. It should not be tolerated among Christians that believe that “in all controversies of religion, the church is finally to make appeal unto [the Scriptures].”

    At the same time, if the discussion is restricted to what is the Reformed doctrine of baptism, I wouldn’t be particularly troubled by that. I would simply disagree with those theologians and the Reformed doctrine. Naturally, as Baptists we do not think that the Reformed tradition is right about every doctrine.

    Just to be clear though, I don’t necessarily see a problem with someone believing that what their confession of faith says “is” (even “is equated with”) biblical and orthodox (though not inspired!). If they didn’t think that, why would they subscribe that confession of faith? My concern is that those of us who have openly disagreed with received Reformed teaching (baptism and ecclesiology) are still utilizing that word “Reformed” as if *for us* it is still the same thing as “orthodox.” That we have disagreed with the Reformed on baptism proves that we don’t think it is. Really, if “Reformed” necessarily has that kind of clout in our own hearts and minds still, then we should consider moving the rest of the way into that tradition (fonts and all) where that kind of conviction is more justifiable.

  78. Jade,

    I think we should look upon the 16th &17th century revivalists as folks who desired to [be?] reformed to the truth…

    I am always curious about the line of argumentation by credo-baptists that Reformed paedobaptists are guilty of a traditionalism when credo’s themselves point back to things like the revivalism of centuries ago. Granted, credo-baptism is a relative novelty in church history and, as such, seems to have the onus of proof on it in a way paedobaptism doesn’t. Even so, wouldn’t being innocent of big, bad traditionalism mean that you can’t point back to anything before, say, 1900 like we do?

    Also, you seem to be starting with the idea that credo-baprtism is right and paedobaptism is wrong yet blame us for the doing the same vice versa. It seems pretty obvious that you want to reserve the right to write rules and presuppositions, keep us from doing so and then cry foul when we do.

    I watched Braveheart last night. You’d make a good Longshanks, offering peace after you’ve previously dispatched hostile forces.

  79. Dr Clark wrote:-
    “I participate in all sorts of academic conferences. The religious views of professional colleagues is a matter of academic indifference.”

    Shame on you, Dr Clark! From your ivory tower at Westminster you fulminate against us poor Baptists and want us expelled from the Reformed Club, but when it comes to a nice all-expenses-paid jolly around Europe your principles are suddenly abandoned and you will happily hob-nob wit Baptist riff-raff like Michael Haykin and Geoff Thomas.

    If you are serious about what you write, you should should stand by your guns and refuse to go on an event where the participants fail to conform to your Reformed shibboleth. On the other hand, the money is nice, isn’t it and it will be a lovely trip, won’t it?

    When the trip gets to Zurich, don’t forget to point out the exact spot where your reformers drowned Felix Manz in 1527.

  80. The Scriptures make a separation between purely secular matters (eg. 1Cor 5:9-10; 10:25) and separation from ‘disorderly’ brethren (eg. 2Thes 3:6).

    However, I move on.

    You challenged Jade as to whether she thought your ‘Defense of Paedobaptism’ was mere traditionalism.

    Well, it’s not Biblical. You quote a number of Bible verses, but almost none of them directly address the subject of baptism and those that do, deal with the unproveable matter of ‘oikos’ baptisms. Some of them seem to be disingenuous. For example:-

    ‘The proper question therefore, is not where does Scripture explicitly teach infant baptism, but rather where does it reverse God’s command to Abraham to administer the covenant sign and seal to children of believing parents.’

    There are three rather glaring errors here. God did not command Abraham to ‘administer the covenant sign and seal’ to to the children of believing parents.

    First, the Bible teaches that circumcision was the seal of the faith of Abraham which he had before he was circumcisedRom 4:11). Itis never described as a seal to anyone else. Nor is baptism ever described as a ‘seal.’ The Holy Spirit is our seal (Eph 1:13 etc).

    Secondly, Abraham was commanded to circumcise male children only. Males did not receive a ‘covenat sign’ at that time.

    Thirdly, nowhere is there an instruction to Abraham, Moses or anyone else to limit circumcision to the sons of ‘believing parents.’ This is pure invention on your part. Circumcision of oneself and ones males was absolutely compulsory if anyone wanted to work for Mr Abraham (Gen 17:10-14). I challenge you to find one text where circumcision is tied to anyone’s faith but Abraham’s. If a stranger wanted to keep the Passover, he had to be circumcised along with his male household (Exod 12:43ff) but there is no mention of faith in Jehovah. One guy who did show saving faith (Naaman 2Kings 5) was not circumcised. Hmmm.

    In the New Testament things are a lot simpler. ‘But when they believed Philip as he preached the things oncerning the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, both men and women were baptized’ (Acts 8:12).

    Baptism was given to both men and women when they believed. How simple! How satisfying! If an error was made (v13) then when it as discovered, the offending party was excluded from the church (v21). There is no mention of infants anywhere and it is not for us to write it in.

    Baptism is therefore a very differen thing to circumcision and great problems arise when we confuse them.

    Tese things are so simple and straightforward that I feel I’m insulting you intelligence in bringing them forward. Why then do you not address them in your article? Perhaps because you are determined to keep to your traditions despite the clear testimony of the Scripture.

    Martin

  81. Martin,

    The charge was that paedobaptists are such primarily because they are traditionalists. So, I offer an example of argument from Scripture as evidence that the paedobaptist case is not purely or even primarily derived from tradition.

    I don’t expect anyone who still has a Baptist hermeneutic to agree with me but that’s beside the point! The point is that this how REFORMED people read Scripture. You Baptists keep complaining about the very REFORMED hermeneutic that produces infant baptism but you want to call yourselves “Reformed.” This is not only a form a theft and coveting but it’s analogous to saying, “I love your house but it’s all wrong, it needs to be torn down and re-built, from scratch, from the ground up and then insisting that it’s “still the same house.” No it isn’t. The Reformed house is built on certain foundations, which the Baptists don’t accept. The truth is we don’t have much in common except, in some cases, a shared doctrine of predestination—which Reformed folk share with a number of medieval and patristic theologians whom we would not commune if they came to the table and whom we would not admit to membership or our ministry. Why? Because they aren’t REFORMED!

    Thank you for demonstrating my case.

    With this I’m closing the comments.

Comments are closed.