# Baptist more reformed than Reformed denominations?



## thistle93 (May 15, 2015)

One often hears from those in reformed denominations that baptist are not truly reformed. I know some of this is just in good fun though I think some who say this are serious. Now I know what people mean when I hear this but could there not be an argument made that baptist are actually more reformed than those denominations that continued to baptize infants? Now when one means "reformed" in these sense of those who are most in line with the overall teachings of the Reformers then no question that would not be the baptist, though those who are "particular" baptist have much in common, minus ecclesiology and sacraments. But if one means "reformed" in the sense of those who went farthest away from Roman Catholicism, then I think baptist would show more "reform" than some of the other reformed denominations. Now people can quibble all day that padobaptist did not go far enough or that baptist went too far. That is not my point. I am not trying to pick a theological fight on issue of baptism. I love my pado-baptist brothers and sister and I know that the reformed view of infant baptism is much different than Roman Catholic view of infant baptism. The issue is what does one mean when they say "reformed". Maybe there needs to be better clarification, so that at the end of the day the term "reformed" really depends on what ones means when they claim to be "reformed". I am sure I am in the minority here but thought it at least something to stimulate thoughts. Thoughts? 



For His Glory-
Matthew


----------



## Bill The Baptist (May 15, 2015)




----------



## JSauer (May 15, 2015)

So by your logic wouldn't Mormonism be even _more_ reformed because it is even further away from Roman Catholicism than Baptists?


----------



## Frosty (May 15, 2015)

The key is keeping the word in its historical context. In that context, the folks you are talking about are saying that _Reformed_ has a definite meaning, and that Baptists are outside of that historical definition.

Your definition of reformed seems to mean _furthest away from Catholicism_. Unfortunately that's not what that word, used in the context you're talking about, means. If it did then we could have a lot of fun debating which religions or strains of Christianity are in fact furthest from RCism and why! Then the weird guy down the straight who made up his own version of Christianity may be the most _reformed_ of all.

Words lose their meaning over time when divorced from their historical context.


----------



## Jack K (May 15, 2015)

Both the paedo-baptists and Baptists of the Puritan era considered every aspect of theology and church life so thoroughly that I doubt it's fair to suggest any of them didn't go far enough because they just settled for the status quo. If they kept a practice that had been part of the Catholic church, it wasn't due to lack of reforming zeal or the fact they stopped short in their reformation. It was because they considered it and came to conclusions based their understanding of Scripture. I might buy the idea that Luther or the conforming Anglicans never got around to reforming as thoroughly as they could, but this doesn't sound right for the Puritans.

As for the term "Reformed," one way to use it is to denote the views generally held by Calvin and Knox. If the term is used that way, Baptists are less "Reformed" than are, say, Presbyterians. But I really don't mind if you, as a Baptist, want to use the term. It has other meanings and connotations as well, and I'm not one to quibble over labels. In the minds of most, the term denotes precious things we all agree on.


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion (May 15, 2015)

Depends upon what one considers "Reformed" to mean. If it is merely the doctrines of grace, there are arguments that could be made. But when one includes church polity, views of the sacraments, societal interactions, and so on, I think the argument falls woefully short. For starters, see here.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (May 15, 2015)

I'd like to start, as I usually do in these kinds of discussions, by granting the appropriation of the adjective "reformed" by certain Baptists. With Jack, I'm content to allow people to call themselves what they will--and be named so by others (to their face)--as long as the whole history is admitted by all hands.



thistle93 said:


> if one means "reformed" in the sense of those who went farthest away from Roman Catholicism, then I think baptist would show more "reform" than some of the other reformed denominations



This certainly is the issue. Does "reformed" mean "moved away from Rome's error?" That seems to be a negative, rather than a positive use of the term. "The church _*reformed*_" was intended to mean: "brought back into conformity with the Word, with apostolicity (Apostle-approved practice)." Rome was not seen as the locus of contradiction away from which one pushed, in order to grope one's way back to safe ground. Nor was the Bible a kind of "terra incognita" that had to be explored de novo, having been abandoned for the last 1000yrs. (the Radical Reformation approach).

In addition, "Reformed" came to be used historically as an adjective that defined a specific set of churches. As RScottClark puts it: a confessionally defined Theology, Piety, and Practice.

Baptists who today espouse a theology near to that of the WCF (in the LBC1689) occupy significant overlapping ground with Reformed Theology--however, the hermeneutic is not the same, the route taken to the blessed common ground does not track the same. The route taken to arrive partly determines the stance taken within, and the route taken for departure; that is, the piety and the practice. It is for such reasons that Baptist piety and practice can look quite different (at least in certain observable ways) from a Reformed or Presbyterian's. We don't simply stand on the common ground and pitch our tents the same, or take off the same. How we came here matters.


----------



## TylerRay (May 15, 2015)

Historically, the word "Reformed," in the main stream, refers to those churches who hold to the reformed system of theology (identified in the Westminster Standards, TFU, Helvetic Confessions, etc.--the Baptist confessions are excluded because, as regards sacramentology, they do not hold to the same system of theology), Presbyterian church government, and regulated worship.

It does have to be admitted, though, that the word has been slippery. The Anglicans of the 17th century considered their church a Reformed one. The Continental Reformed folk often distinguish Reformed churches from Presbyterian churches. 

That being said, as has been noted above, Reformed does not mean far from Rome. It means close to the Scriptures.


----------



## Bill The Baptist (May 15, 2015)

I would agree that mere antithesis from Rome is not an adequate criteria for "reformedness." The Reformation constituted a movement away from tradition and the authority of man, towards the Scriptures and the authority of God. In this sense, it is indeed possible for a Baptist to be more reformed than a liberal Presbyterian, but this due to his practice of submitting his theology to the authority of Scripture and not merely due to his "baptistness."


----------



## NaphtaliPress (May 15, 2015)

Yet even in the early Puritanism of the 16th century the push back was that the English church was but "half reformed."


TylerRay said:


> The Anglicans of the 17th century considered their church a Reformed one. The Continental Reformed folk often distinguish Reformed churches from Presbyterian churches


----------



## SeanPatrickCornell (May 15, 2015)

If, and only if, one takes the stance that that scriptures positively teach a credo-baptism position and that scriptures positively teach that the local church is autonomous, then yes, it makes sense to argue that Reformed Baptists are "more reformed" than the Reformed Churches and Presbyterian churches.

Naturally, if you hold to paedo-baptism and a Presbyterian polity and judge these to be scriptural and in accord with apostolic practice, then you'll consider Baptists to be "sub-reformed" in that regard.

Obviously I don't mean the word "reformed" in the sense of "farther from Rome", but rather "closer to the apostles".


----------



## Nicholas Perella (May 15, 2015)

Contra_Mundum said:


> Baptists who today espouse a theology near to that of the WCF (in the LBC1689) occupy significant overlapping ground with Reformed Theology--however, the hermeneutic is not the same, the route taken to the blessed common ground does not track the same. The route taken to arrive partly determines the stance taken within, and the route taken for departure; that is, the piety and the practice. It is for such reasons that Baptist piety and practice can look quite different (at least in certain observable ways) from a Reformed or Presbyterian's. We don't simply stand on the common ground and pitch our tents the same, or take off the same. How we came here matters.



Do you have any suggestions in reading that delve further into this type of analysis? I have read some writings that mention what you say here, but only briefly mention while the main idea is of another subject. Anything more substantive, especially in regards to comparative hermeneutics would be a prize. Thanks.


----------



## R Harris (May 15, 2015)

J


TylerRay said:


> Historically, the word "Reformed," in the main stream, refers to those churches who hold to the reformed system of theology (identified in the Westminster Standards, TFU, Helvetic Confessions, etc.--the Baptist confessions are excluded because, as regards sacramentology, they do not hold to the same system of theology), Presbyterian church government, and regulated worship.
> 
> .



I think this sums it up pretty well, although the last piece - regulated worship - was far more important than people think for the reformers.

Worship was definitely a big deal - in Calvin's "The necessity for reforming the Church," he almost equated proper worship with salvation itself.
So when people think the elements of worship are no major matter, think again. The 16th and 17th century reformers thought them to be a big deal.


----------



## MW (May 15, 2015)

If we courteously grant "Baptists" the use of the word "Reformed," I expect they will courteously grant us the use of the term "Reformed Baptist" to refer to a Paedobaptist.

Historically, however, terms bear specific connotations. The Reformers never separated from the church but "reformed" it. The Anabaptists "separated" from it. Anyone who holds the anabaptist view of the invalidity of infant baptism must effectively "separate" from the church and start again. They cannot be "reformed" in the historical sense of the term.

It is not just a matter of good fun. There is a serious side to the use of names. Our divisions seriously impact the life of professing Christians. They are to be considered on the basis of fact and principle, not according to sentiment and expediency.


----------



## DMcFadden (May 15, 2015)

The OP operates with a somewhat tendentious use of the term "Reformed." Arguing that Baptists are more Reformed because they position themselves further from Rome is about as helpful as the Campbelites in the "Church of Christ" non denomination denomination arguing that they are the only Christians because they are the only ones in the "Church of Christ."

Can we all stipulate that "Reformed" has an historical meaning as a noun to refer to the group Scott Clark denominates as Reformed (i.e., a confessionally defined Theology, Piety, and Practice)? Can we also admit that this is the PRIMARY meaning of the word?

Can we allow that the term "Reformed" is used as a modifer to "Baptist" to describe a subset of Baptists who hold to soteriological Calvinism and a version of covenant theology?

Might we further acknowledge that there is a tendency today for some evangelicals to affect a liking for 5pt. Calvinian soteriology that they mix with their pre-existing theological orientations and commitments? The whole "young, restless, and reformed" fad often included charismatic baptistic non-denominationalists, Southern Baptists, etc. in addition to those in paedo-baptist communions. They may use the term "Reformed" to describe their theological position, although for them it means no more than TULIP soteriology. Studies show that up to 1/3 of the SBC grads from Southern hold to TULIP. I would be surprised if the full measure of that number also held to a confession such as the 1689. And, without a confessional commitment, this is little different from the affection for TULIP among any number of non-denominationalists.

While the Reformed do not "own" the word in the sense that it is illegitimate for others to use it, the appropriation of it by Baptists and others should be viewed in the sense that this is a secondary usage. Viewed historically, TULIP is not the full meaning of "Reformed."

It is disconcerting to have your historically accurate self-descriptor appropriated by groups that do not believe many of the things that you consider integral to your beliefs. On the other hand, for those who want to incorporate elements of 5 pt. soteriology into their own beliefs, it is annoying to have folks telling you that you have no right to the use of the term you prefer to use. I get that. But, getting your nose bent out of shape ain't gonna change it. The noun "Reformed" means something very specific. When it is used as a descriptor, it means something far more amorphous and unspecific. Typically, it only denotes an appreciation of TULIP.

BTW, I have been noodling a theory of late about the popularity of TULIP among young evangelicals. Broad evangelicalism is hopelessly reductionistic. Bebbington's quadrilateral of conversionism, crucicentrism, biblicism, and activism is a pretty thin gruel. It misses much of the richness and necessary meaning of the biblical view of the sacraments, the church, the keys, etc. And, when marinated in subjective pietism -- the omnipresent broth of broad evangelical practice, piety, and aspiration -- the movement leaves a very bad afertaste in the mouths of intelligent young evangelicals. After all, how many 40 day plans from Rick Warren can a thoughtful young person subject himself to without losing all self-respect? (his latest one is "imagination" using a thoroughly eisegetical approach). Instinctively, they reach out for something more, for a theory more adequate, more substantial, and more comprehensive. The options are pretty much limited to Rome, Wittenberg, Canterbury, Constantinople . . . or Geneva. Broad evangelicalism shares a common DNA with Calvinism. Even those groups which rebelled against Calvin on predestination (e.g., Arminianism, Methodism, Pentecostalism), were reacting to the one to whom they owed their origin. So, evangelicals who see themselves as most removed from the theology of Calvin will find the language of TULIP strangely familiar. If the choices are limited to the highly liturgical and culturally distant options of Romanist, Lutheran, Anglican, and EO traditions OR some form of Reformed theology, the Reformed will likely win out. Plus, Calvinism has always presented a highly integrated system that arouses admiration, even among those who disagree with it. My contention is that TULIP is about as elegant as a tightly reasoned mathematical proof, it offers an alternative to the "cotton candy" of broad evangelicalism, and it represents one of the (some will say THE) best version of the Christian faith ever articulated.


----------



## SolaScriptura (May 16, 2015)

Looking at it from another angle -

I think there are in fact a great number of Baptist churches that are closer to the spirit of the Reformed confessions than are many "Reformed" churches, and even some "Reformed" denominations.


----------



## Captain Picard (May 16, 2015)

DMcFadden said:


> The OP operates with a somewhat tendentious use of the term "Reformed." It is about as helpful as the Cambelites in the "Church of Christ" non denomination denomination who argue that they are the only Christians because they are the only ones in the "Church of Christ."
> 
> Can we all stipulate that "Reformed" has an historical meaning as a noun to refer to the group Scott Clark denominates as Reformed (i.e., a confessionally defined Theology, Piety, and Practice)? Can we also admit that this is the PRIMARY meaning of the word?
> 
> ...



This post is, as the kids say, "win". In my youth before wandering from the evangel, I began to hold a deep seated conviction that evangelicalism (what a useless term as it's used today) was fundamentally boring, shallow and anti-intellectual. Fertile soil for the historic faith of the Reformers.


----------



## Physeter (May 16, 2015)

Captain Picard said:


> This post is, as the kids say, "win". In my youth before wandering from the evangel, I began to hold a deep seated conviction that evangelicalism (what a useless term as it's used today) was fundamentally boring, shallow and anti-intellectual. Fertile soil for the historic faith of the Reformers.



I did a brief stint in the AOG, a purveyor of the sloppy soft Christianity known as Pentecostalism. It was all emotional hype without much substance. They would listen to every wind of doctrine. They did not have the reverence that was due God. Evangelicalism and its off shoots are inherently shallow and boring. I find myself going to sleep in their churches. I hate to admit it.


----------



## Edm (May 16, 2015)

My opinion has always been that they Tried to reform the church, as in get it back to where it started...not reform it into something it had never been. If I recall correctly, Luther tried to get the Catholic Church to change back. So to say that someone is more reformed because they are further from the RCC isn't accurate. More reformed because they have re-formed into what the early Christian Church did and knew to be true is a better definition in my opinion. I may be way off base...


----------



## Eoghan (May 17, 2015)

I would generally agree with the opening remarks but are we as Baptists as strict in out observance of the Sabbath? This is one of the ambiguities I struggle with. I vividly recall a brother slipping into our choir mid-service because he had been taking pert in a marathon run earlier that morning. I myself would love to have my kids run a table at a car boot sale but am struggling to find one which does not take place on a Sunday. Recently we were discussing LAN computer gaming in a local games shop and my sons eyes were lighting up but they were talking about organising it for a Sunday! It almost seems as though it is the Saturday that must be avoided at all costs!


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (May 17, 2015)

DMcFadden said:


> The OP operates with a somewhat tendentious use of the term "Reformed." Arguing that Baptists are more Reformed because they position themselves further from Rome is about as helpful as the Campbelites in the "Church of Christ" non denomination denomination arguing that they are the only Christians because they are the only ones in the "Church of Christ."





Yes, and the OP appears to work on the spurious supposition that the Reformers were not reformers of the church catholic, but separatist reactionaries from Rome. This assumption betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of the Reformation.

Sadly, this misunderstanding even prevails in non-Baptist circles. For example, I recall talking to a Presbyterian minister on one occasion about reading the Church Fathers. When I said that I wanted to acquire more of their writings, he replied, "Where are you going to go to get them? The Vatican Library!" Now, granted, the Patristics were not in total agreement with the Westminster divines, but such sectarianism is a far cry from the Reformed Catholicity of our forebears.


----------



## earl40 (May 17, 2015)

DMcFadden said:


> The OP operates with a somewhat tendentious use of the term "Reformed." Arguing that Baptists are more Reformed because they position themselves further from Rome is about as helpful as the Campbelites in the "Church of Christ" non denomination denomination arguing that they are the only Christians because they are the only ones in the "Church of Christ."



I am glad you used the word "somewhat tendentious" or else we would have to drop the use of word protestant as being a good word we all use at the PB. Of course we reformed protest against the baptist and vice versa.


----------



## DMcFadden (May 17, 2015)

The Reformational family is but a sliver of the Christian pie. We need to stick together against the synergism, out right Pelagianism, and therapeutic moralistic deism of much modern Christianity. So, whether you are fully Reformed, defectively Reformed, confessional Anglican or Lutheran, or a particular Baptist, you are "contra mundum."


----------



## earl40 (May 17, 2015)

DMcFadden said:


> The Reformational family is but a sliver of the Christian pie. We need to stick together against the synergism, out right Pelagianism, and therapeutic moralistic deism of much modern Christianity. So, whether you are fully Reformed, defectively Reformed, confessional Anglican or Lutheran, or a particular Baptist, you are "contra mundum."



I have a blood brother named Bruce also.


----------



## Physeter (May 17, 2015)

DMcFadden said:


> The Reformational family is but a sliver of the Christian pie. We need to stick together against the synergism, out right Pelagianism, and therapeutic moralistic deism of much modern Christianity. So, whether you are fully Reformed, defectively Reformed, confessional Anglican or Lutheran, or a particular Baptist, you are "contra mundum."



Absolutely. Much of 'Christianity is becoming infected with outright heresy. I came here from a site that promoted Docetism, Pelagianism and a brand of Deism called Openism.

I would consider myself a Particular Baptist.


----------



## Ryan J. Ross (May 17, 2015)

"Reformed" does not mean "Protestant" nor "anti-Catholic; it is first "according to Scripture" and second an "adherence to the doctrines and practices espoused by the Reformers." One can redefine any term, but to think credobaptism makes one more Reformed is ahistorical and terminologically inconsistent, unless you're saying in jest, as you suggested you've heard others do with reference to Baptist belief and practice.


----------

