# Who's Reformed??



## thbslawson

This may seem like a dumb question, but what exactly does the term "reformed" mean? It seems the exact use of and application of the word in regards to an individual, church or denomination has become rather subjective and gets thrown around a lot. For instance, I hear it said from time to time "Piper isn't really reformed" or "MacArthur isn't reformed", which really means that they don't fit a particular theological mold. But is this fair to say? Wouldn't it be more historically accurate to say that "reformed" means being a product of the Reformation and adhering to the foundational principles, namely the _Five Solas_? How about instead of throwing around the term "reformed" or "non-reformed" about other orthodox brethren we more accurately state what we mean. For example, "MacArthur is not Westminsterian" or "Piper is not fully confessional". It's takes a little more time to type, but is much clearer, accurate and, I believe, much more gracious.


----------



## Jack K

Let's see. What are our options?

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

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

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

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


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

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

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


----------



## GulfCoast Presbyterian

Many Baptists around here absolutely bristle if you refer to them as protestant.


----------



## Poimen

One can think of it as 'narrow minded' or uncharitable to say that someone is not Reformed because they do not adhere to a particular set of doctrines and, indeed, one may be saying those things out of pride or in an unloving way. 

Having said that, there is a historical and confessional definition of being Reformed to which, if it applies to Piper, MacArthur et. al. would render our confessions and history meaningless. For example in the conclusion of the Canons of Dordrecht it is noted that "​[t]his doctrine the synod judges to be drawn from the Word of God, and to be agreeable to the confessions of the Reformed churches." This can mean nothing else than those churches who adhere to the Heidelberg Catechism and Belgic Confession. Similarly in the URCNA oaths for officebearers (Form of Subscription) they pledge to uphold the system of doctrine of the Reformed churches. 

The danger too is that our doctrine becomes watered down. We may strive to meet or hit the 'lowest common denominator' of doctrine and thus eventually sound unintelligible and confess less than what the scripture requires. And then one must ask: what next is up for grabs? What more is sacrificed in order to broaden the Reformed name and meaning? Rather our confessions speak for us so that we are united in what we say without denying that Christ is found in other bodies of the Christian faith.


----------



## NB3K

Poimen said:


> The danger too is that our doctrine becomes watered down. We may strive to meet or hit the 'lowest common denominator' of doctrine and thus eventually unintelligible and less than what scripture requires. And then one must ask: what next is up for grabs? What more is sacrificed in order to broaden the Reformed name and meaning? Rather our confessions speak for us so that we are united in what we say without denying that Christ is found in other bodies of the Christian faith.



Amen Brother!


----------



## thbslawson

Poimen said:


> The danger too is that our doctrine becomes watered down. We may strive to meet or hit the 'lowest common denominator' of doctrine and thus eventually unintelligible and less than what scripture requires. And then one must ask: what next is up for grabs? What more is sacrificed in order to broaden the Reformed name and meaning? Rather our confessions speak for us so that we are united in what we say without denying that Christ is found in other bodies of the Christian faith.



I don't disagree with you on this, but I'm not talking about "watering down" doctrine, rather how we use labels. My argument is that since the meaning of "reformed" is debatable and has broad usage, that it might be better to be more specific in our language. For instance, take the "Christian Reformed Church" under which Robert Schuller operates, we're not comfortable calling him "reformed" are we? 

And also as Jack K pointed out above that there is no consensus as to the exact meaning of the word, even among "reformed" brethren. For this reason care needs to be taken before labeling someone "reformed" or "not reformed" as it may lead to misunderstanding. For example, for the group that would equate "reformed" with those who hold to the five points of Calvinism and the five solas, to say that Piper is "not Reformed" might lead one to think he's not a Calvinist. I actually know a guy personally who won't read Piper because someone told him he's "not reformed" and therefore he thinks Piper is not a Calvinist, which is incorrect of course. Therefore the application of this label has led to a misconception about our brother. 

So my question and my argument are not about changing standards, but rightly examining the labels we use.


----------



## Scott1

"Reformed" means, at minimum:

Doctrines of grace + Covenant theology + Confession

(Many of us would like to also include a high view of the church, and of the sacraments)

Contrast this with holding only the 5 points of Calvinism, but indifferent covenant or dispensational framework, and no binding accountable confession of doctrine. (A minimalist "statement of faith" is not a Confession).

So we have many communions that are "Calvinist," heading toward reformed, but, charitably,
not there yet. (And remember, Mr. Calvin had a confession, was covenantal, but those who call themselves that often do not know or understand the implications of that yet).


----------



## JOwen

Take the word in its parts; "Re"-"formed". Or, "formed again" according to Scripture. Naturally this is best displayed in the 3FU and the WCF.


----------



## jogri17

Poimen said:


> One can think of it as 'narrow minded' or uncharitable to say that someone is not Reformed because they do not adhere to a particular set of doctrines and, indeed, one may be saying those things out of pride or in an unloving way.


 Somebody has read RRC


----------



## JM

I'm a Baptist, not Reformed...confessional, sure.


----------



## J. Dean

Right. One can be Calvinist but not Reformed. John MacArthur and Wayne Grudem are examples of this.

However, one _cannot_ be Reformed (by evangelical understanding) without being Calvinist.


----------



## JM

I would say Reformed = Doctrines of grace + Infant Baptist Covenant theology + Confession

As a Baptist I hold to covenant theology, just a different kind of covenant theology.


----------



## Marrow Man

Jack K said:


> Let's see. What are our options?
> 
> 1. Holding to the principles of the Reformation, like the five solas—meaning protestant.
> 
> 2. Particular protestants stemming from the Swiss Reformation or the Scottish one—meaning anyone in the Presbyterian, English Reformed Baptist or continental Reformed Church tradition holding broadly to that system of doctrine.
> 
> 3. Particular Presbyterians or Reformed Church people who adhere firmly to every point (or very nearly every point) of the Reformed confessions... also popularly called TR (Thoroughly Reformed) these days—meaning only the "faithful" Presbyterians, etc.
> 
> 4. Any protestant who holds to the part of the Reformed system of doctrine having to do with soteriology—meaning any Calvinist as opposed to an Arminian.
> 
> 
> Definition #4 is widely used today. It's how guys like MacArthur and Piper get called "Reformed."
> 
> I tend to use #2. Many others on this board seem to think in terms of #3. There are probably some #1's here, too.
> 
> Word usage is not always a simple matter. I agree that this is one of those words where, if the context doesn't make your meaning clear or you aren't sure how your audience will take it, more precise wording is often called for. Simply yelling until you're blue in the face, telling everyone else that they ought to use the word the right way—the way _you_ use it—may make a guy feel better but is seldom actually helpful.



The Covenanter Presbyterian tradition is also referred to as "Reformed," as in Reformed Presbyterians (e.g., the RPCNA).


----------



## Edward

thbslawson said:


> For instance, take the "Christian Reformed Church" under which Robert Schuller operates,



Schuller is RCA, not CRC.


----------



## thbslawson

Sorry, my mistake. Thanks for the correction.

---------- Post added at 11:14 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:05 PM ----------

I think my point is actually being made by the responses here. While there are indeed a number of major points that everyone agrees constitutes "reformed" there is clearly not a consensus on exactly what this label means. I'll use the example of C.H. Spurgeon. Based upon what people have posted here's where we are:

Me - Spurgeon IS Reformed
Jack K - Spurgeon IS Reformed
Scott1 - Spurgeon MIGHT BE Reformed (Depends on if "covenantal" must mean "infant baptism")
JOwen - Spurgeon is NOT Reformed
JM - Spurgeon is NOT Reformed


----------



## Bill The Baptist

GulfCoast Presbyterian said:


> Many Baptists around here absolutely bristle if you refer to them as protestant.



That's because some Baptists, along with Catholics and Orthodox, believe that there is an unbroken chain between the apostles and themselves. None of these claims holds up particularily well in light of historical evidence.


----------



## Steve Curtis

thbslawson said:


> I'll use the example of C.H. Spurgeon. Based upon what people have posted here's where we are:
> 
> Me - Spurgeon IS Reformed
> Jack K - Spurgeon IS Reformed
> Scott1 - Spurgeon MIGHT BE Reformed (Depends on if "covenantal" must mean "infant baptism")
> JOwen - Spurgeon is NOT Reformed
> JM - Spurgeon is NOT Reformed


Whatever Spurgeon was when he was late upon this earth, he IS Reformed now!


----------



## Poimen

thbslawson said:


> Poimen said:
> 
> 
> 
> The danger too is that our doctrine becomes watered down. We may strive to meet or hit the 'lowest common denominator' of doctrine and thus eventually unintelligible and less than what scripture requires. And then one must ask: what next is up for grabs? What more is sacrificed in order to broaden the Reformed name and meaning? Rather our confessions speak for us so that we are united in what we say without denying that Christ is found in other bodies of the Christian faith.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't disagree with you on this, but I'm not talking about "watering down" doctrine, rather how we use labels. My argument is that since the meaning of "reformed" is debatable and has broad usage, that it might be better to be more specific in our language. For instance, take the "Christian Reformed Church" under which Robert Schuller operates, we're not comfortable calling him "reformed" are we?
> 
> And also as Jack K pointed out above that there is no consensus as to the exact meaning of the word, even among "reformed" brethren. For this reason care needs to be taken before labeling someone "reformed" or "not reformed" as it may lead to misunderstanding. For example, for the group that would equate "reformed" with those who hold to the five points of Calvinism and the five solas, to say that Piper is "not Reformed" might lead one to think he's not a Calvinist. I actually know a guy personally who won't read Piper because someone told him he's "not reformed" and therefore he thinks Piper is not a Calvinist, which is incorrect of course. Therefore the application of this label has led to a misconception about our brother.
> 
> So my question and my argument are not about changing standards, but rightly examining the labels we use.
Click to expand...


I agree that labels we use should be examined but my point is that labels have standard meanings. Just because not everyone on this page agrees on the word or term Reformed does not mean that it doesn't have one particular meaning as determined by history, usage and confessional identification. That would be like saying that we have to accept the meaning of Christian including the mass, a denial of the virgin birth and all manner of misery and heresy because some professing Christian somewhere at some time used the term to refer to themselves and thus involve the rest of us with their nonsense. 

Even the men whom you refer to, namely MacArthur & Piper (and possibly even Spurgeon) do not, to the best of my knowledge use the term Reformed to refer to themselves because they know better and don't want to be associated with the practice of infant baptism. They are Baptists or particular Baptists if you prefer but Baptists nonetheless. Otherwise one has made complete nonsense of the confessions and systems in place to uphold the confessions as I noted in my original post. And if someone doesn't want to read Piper because of a label that someone else has refused to give him, then the responsibility lies with the one who misapplied said label and not with Piper or the one who heard it in the first place. 

And yes you are, even unintentionally, watering things down by making the term Reformed broader than it should be particularly by including contradictory doctrines in its definition (i.e. paedobaptist vs. credobaptist). Let's acknowledge the distinctions that are in place so that we are clear about what we are saying and whom we are saying it about.

---------- Post added at 05:13 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:12 PM ----------




jogri17 said:


> Poimen said:
> 
> 
> 
> One can think of it as 'narrow minded' or uncharitable to say that someone is not Reformed because they do not adhere to a particular set of doctrines and, indeed, one may be saying those things out of pride or in an unloving way.
> 
> 
> 
> Somebody has read RRC
Click to expand...


I don't know if you meant to be facetious but, just to be clear, if you are referring to "Recovering the Reformed Confession" by R. Scott Clark I have not read it.


----------



## Jack K

Poimen said:


> I agree that labels we use should be examined but my point is that labels have standard meanings. Just because not everyone on this page agrees on the word or term Reformed does not mean that it doesn't have one particular meaning as determined by history, usage and confessional identification. That would be like saying that we have to accept the meaning of Christian including the mass, a denial of the virgin birth and all manner of misery and heresy because some professing Christian somewhere at some time used the term to refer to themselves and thus involve the rest of us with their nonsense.



I would never say you have to _accept_ any meaning of the word. But I would say it's wise to be _aware_ of the different ways many people use the word so that you can adjust to your audience and communicate clearly. I would further suggest that standing up for a particular usage of a word when that usage is becoming arcane is typically an exercise that bears little fruit. I don't think that's happening quite yet with the word "Reformed," but it might, given the range of possible meanings already in popular use today.


----------



## Poimen

Jack K said:


> Poimen said:
> 
> 
> 
> I agree that labels we use should be examined but my point is that labels have standard meanings. Just because not everyone on this page agrees on the word or term Reformed does not mean that it doesn't have one particular meaning as determined by history, usage and confessional identification. That would be like saying that we have to accept the meaning of Christian including the mass, a denial of the virgin birth and all manner of misery and heresy because some professing Christian somewhere at some time used the term to refer to themselves and thus involve the rest of us with their nonsense.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would never say you have to _accept_ any meaning of the word. But I would say it's wise to be _aware_ of the different ways many people use the word so that you can adjust to your audience and communicate clearly. I would further suggest that standing up for a particular usage of a word when that usage is becoming arcane is typically an exercise that bears little fruit. I don't think that's happening quite yet with the word "Reformed," but it might, given the range of possible meanings already in popular use today.
Click to expand...


I agree with you in the main that is insofar as one must be pastorally sensitive to the needs and/or ignorance of their hearers and that qualification may need to be made in order to reach a proper understanding. Having said, there is no necessity to change the meaning of the word when it is, as I have stated twice now, established in a binding, contractual agreement in the form of historical confessions. Otherwise the confessions including the name of our churches would have to be changed to who knows what: rather we know what we are saying, will define what we say and state that clearly to the world. If people want to use that term in their personal way to suit their own understanding of it that is their choice but it doesn't change the fact that Reformed churches used this term for centuries and that only now, when we live in a time of doctrinal declension, is it being demanded by various parties that it be used in an ambiguous way. 

Indeed there are many other terms, such as justification and sanctification that are being redefined by N.T. Wright and others but I hear not word one from any party that because of his confusion of those terms that we should abandon them. They are as arcane as the first century but we don't need Mr. Wright or his friends to help us redefine the terms that are clearly understood and presented by our confessions.


----------



## thbslawson

Poimen said:


> Jack K said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Poimen said:
> 
> 
> 
> I agree that labels we use should be examined but my point is that labels have standard meanings. Just because not everyone on this page agrees on the word or term Reformed does not mean that it doesn't have one particular meaning as determined by history, usage and confessional identification. That would be like saying that we have to accept the meaning of Christian including the mass, a denial of the virgin birth and all manner of misery and heresy because some professing Christian somewhere at some time used the term to refer to themselves and thus involve the rest of us with their nonsense.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would never say you have to _accept_ any meaning of the word. But I would say it's wise to be _aware_ of the different ways many people use the word so that you can adjust to your audience and communicate clearly. I would further suggest that standing up for a particular usage of a word when that usage is becoming arcane is typically an exercise that bears little fruit. I don't think that's happening quite yet with the word "Reformed," but it might, given the range of possible meanings already in popular use today.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I agree with you in the main that is insofar as one must be pastorally sensitive to the needs and/or ignorance of their hearers and that qualification may need to be made in order to reach a proper understanding. Having said, there is no necessity to change the meaning of the word when it is, as I have stated twice now, established in a binding, contractual agreement in the form of historical confessions. Otherwise the confessions including the name of our churches would have to be changed to who knows what: rather we know what we are saying, will define what we say and state that clearly to the world. If people want to use that term in their personal way to suit their own understanding of it that is their choice but it doesn't change the fact that Reformed churches used this term for centuries and that only now, when we live in a time of doctrinal declension, is it being demanded by various parties that it be used in an ambiguous way.
> 
> Indeed there are many other terms, such as justification and sanctification that are being redefined by N.T. Wright and others but I hear not word one from any party that because of his confusion of those terms that we should abandon them. They are as arcane as the first century but we don't need Mr. Wright or his friends to help us redefine the terms that are clearly understood and presented by our confessions.
Click to expand...


Daniel, I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you also, but is there actually an historical consensus? (I'm asking because I honestly am not clear on this). According to some, the term "Reformed Baptist" is an oxymoron, yet they exists and some paedobaptists welcome them as "Reformed" while others do not. There's historical arguments for both sides in how the term is used. 

Certainly there are common points of doctrine that clearly fall under the heading of "Reformed", and I would agree that Covenant theology is under that heading, but there are even Reformed Baptist that call themselves covenantal. Where they differ in their argument is that they say the recipients of the covenant sign have been changed based on the prophetic words of Jeremiah 31. But they would claim to be "Covenantal" in their view of scripture. Are they "reformed" or not?


----------



## Poimen

Thomas: 

I am not certain I can be anymore clear than I have up to this point but I will repeat: the confessions say what is Reformed and in fact they actually use that term in a particularly defined way. Those who want to use the term more broadly and openly may do so but it doesn't change the fact what Reformed churches say. So even if there are only a few of us who use this term in a limited way, this is what it means, historically and confessionally which also means _we may not use it any other way or say that it means something it doesn't. It means that people died for this confession and we aren't going to change because some people are offended. We think it is better that some are offended than denying the public oath we took to uphold these standards. We love the Lord. _

Plainly speaking, no Baptists who are Calvinistic or otherwise sympathetic to the Reformation are not Reformed. They are right on many things but are not Reformed.


----------



## Jack K

I certianly don't advocate we abandon the word "Reformed." But we may have little choice but to adapt to the fact that, although we don't like it, we share the word with some who are not "Reformed" in the same sense we are. This makes more work for us. We may need to add more adjectives at times or use other explanations in order to be properly understood.

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


----------



## Kevin

I tend to us the standard of the Canadian Press Style Book, refer to people or groups of people, according to the names and terms that they use to describe themselves, unless they are obviously misleading, deceptive or contrary to the generally accepted English usage of the terms used.

So I use the term "reformed" to refer to people and groups that I do not consider to be properly reformed, but that is the compromise we must make to be understood, and to understand each other in the "common tongue".


----------



## VictorBravo

GulfCoast Presbyterian said:


> Many Baptists around here absolutely bristle if you refer to them as protestant.



Not here. If you demanded to put a dog tag around my neck, it would say "Protestant" with a capital P.


----------



## Herald

VictorBravo said:


> GulfCoast Presbyterian said:
> 
> 
> 
> Many Baptists around here absolutely bristle if you refer to them as protestant.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not here. If you demanded to put a dog tag around my neck, it would say "Protestant" with a capital P.
Click to expand...


Amen, brother Vic! As a former RC I'd be wearing the same dog tag.


----------



## Herald

I used to get hung up about the Reformed tag. It doesn't bother me anymore. I desire to live godly in Christ Jesus. You can smack any tag on me you like. I consider myself to be traveling on the path of the Reformed tradition. Whether that makes me a big R, small R, italic R is of little concern to me. I am challenged by Reformed scholarship, both from the paedo and credo camps. The writings of these men, along with the dynamic discussion on the Puritan Board, have helped me determine my beliefs within the Reformed genre.


----------



## Marrow Man

I understand the distinctions about Reformed Baptists not being "Reformed." For example, there are probably those who come from Reformed traditions (i.e., Dutch Reformed or Covenanter) who would object to the comparisons, and I am sympathetic to that. Carl Trueman quipped during his breakout session lecture at T4G that he tells his students that Calvin would have had Baptists thrown into prison in Geneva, but it would have been because he loved them. Distinctions are important.

However, having worshiped with Reformed Baptists, I can safely say that we have a group that 1) takes the Regulative Principle of Worship very seriously and 2) takes the Lord's Day very seriously. I would have some quibbles with the former (sometimes the worship can be too bare bones), but if that is an error then it is on the side of caution and better than the alternative. If we can't get a large percentage of the Presbyterian world to be confessional on the RPW or the Lord's Day, then let's please not throw our Baptist brothers under the bus.


----------



## C. M. Sheffield

GulfCoast Presbyterian said:


> Many Baptists around here absolutely bristle if you refer to them as protestant.



Not this one!

---------- Post added at 11:08 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:05 AM ----------




Marrow Man said:


> I understand the distinctions about Reformed Baptists not being "Reformed." For example, there are probably those who come from Reformed traditions (i.e., Dutch Reformed or Covenanter) who would object to the comparisons, and I am sympathetic to that. Carl Trueman quipped during his breakout session lecture at T4G that he tells his students that Calvin would have had Baptists thrown into prison in Geneva, but it would have been because he loved them. Distinctions are important.
> 
> However, having worshiped with Reformed Baptists, I can safely say that we have a group that 1) takes the Regulative Principle of Worship very seriously and 2) takes the Lord's Day very seriously. I would have some quibbles with the former (sometimes the worship can be too bare bones), but if that is an error then it is on the side of caution and better than the alternative. If we can't get a large percentage of the Presbyterian world to be confessional on the RPW or the Lord's Day, then let's please not throw our Baptist brothers under the bus.



Tim, 

I really appreciate what you've said here.

---------- Post added at 11:32 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:08 AM ----------

This is how I define "Reformed:"


Affirm the Five Points of Calvinism (Denying Arminianism)
Affirm the Five Solas of the Reformation
Affirm Covenant Theology (Denying Dispensationalism) 
Affirm the Regulative Principle of Worship (& not Frame's version of it!)
Affirm Confessionalism as the guardian of these aforementioned things:

Three Forms of Unity 
Westminster Standards 
Savoy Declaration of Faith & Order
Baptist Confession of Faith (1689)

And yes, this does exclude guys like MacArthur and Piper. But it also excludes men like Luther. I love and appreciate all three of these men! But I don't see them as confessionally Reformed.

Now of course some will deny that Reformed Baptists share a part in the Reformed camp. However, in England, the Presbyterians, Congregationalists, and Baptists were known as "The Three Old Denominations" flowing from the Puritan/Separatist movement.


----------



## Marrow Man

C. M. Sheffield said:


> This is how I define "Reformed:"
> 
> Affirm the Five Points of Calvinism (Denying Arminianism)
> Affirm the Five Solas of the Reformation
> Affirm Covenant Theology (Denying Dispensationalism)
> Affirm the Regulative Principle of Worship (& not Frame's version of it!)
> Affirm Confessionalism as the guardian of these aforementioned things:
> 
> Three Forms of Unity
> Westminster Standards
> Savoy Declaration of Faith & Order
> Baptist Confession of Faith (1689)
> 
> 
> And yes, this does exclude guys like MacArthur and Piper. But it also excludes men like Luther. I love and appreciate all three of these men! But I don't see them as confessionally Reformed.
> 
> Now of course some will deny that Reformed Baptists share a part in the Reformed camp. However, in England, the Presbyterians, Congregationalists, and Baptists were known as "The Three Old Denominations" flowing from the Puritan/Separatist movement.



I am inclined to agree. Ecclesiology is the great seperater, but confessionalism should be what unites.

I told a Reformed Baptist brother recently that when the government outlaws Christianity and we are driven underground, I would leave the keys to the compound under the front mat for him.


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion

It gets asked often and my answer remains the same:

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



AMR


----------



## Apologist4Him

Jack K said:


> Let's see. What are our options?
> 
> 1. Holding to the principles of the Reformation, like the five solas—meaning protestant.
> 
> 2. Particular protestants stemming from the Swiss Reformation or the Scottish one—meaning anyone in the Presbyterian, English Reformed Baptist or continental Reformed Church tradition holding broadly to that system of doctrine.
> 
> 3. Particular Presbyterians or Reformed Church people who adhere firmly to every point (or very nearly every point) of the Reformed confessions... also popularly called TR (Thoroughly Reformed) these days—meaning only the "faithful" Presbyterians, etc.
> 
> 4. Any protestant who holds to the part of the Reformed system of doctrine having to do with soteriology—meaning any Calvinist as opposed to an Arminian.
> 
> 
> Definition #4 is widely used today. It's how guys like MacArthur and Piper get called "Reformed."
> 
> I tend to use #2. Many others on this board seem to think in terms of #3. There are probably some #1's here, too.
> 
> Word usage is not always a simple matter. I agree that this is one of those words where, if the context doesn't make your meaning clear or you aren't sure how your audience will take it, more precise wording is often called for. Simply yelling until you're blue in the face, telling everyone else that they ought to use the word the right way—the way _you_ use it—may make a guy feel better but is seldom actually helpful.



Great response Jack! I tend to go with a combination of 1 and 4, but technically should probably include Covenant Theology (2).


----------



## C. M. Sheffield

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> It gets asked often and my answer remains the same:
> 
> What he said:
> A Puritan's Mind » What Does it Mean to be Reformed – Really? – by Dr. C. Matthew McMahon



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


----------



## JP Wallace

C. M. Sheffield said:


> And yet, Baxter almost always gets a pass!



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

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

All we ask is fairness and consistency.


----------



## Marrow Man

C. M. Sheffield said:


> And yet, Baxter almost always gets a pass!



Baxter's neo-nomianism is also a major problem.


----------



## J. Dean

That would explain a great many things about John Wesley's admiration for Baxter.


----------



## Poimen

Jack K said:


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



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

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


----------



## C. M. Sheffield

Poimen said:


> Some want both camps to be Reformed together and yet, my Christian baptism is invalid and the church of Christ is halved by those who consider it their duty to invalidate our Christian profession.



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

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

No, fortunately this is a two sided issue where brethren genuinely disagree for biblical reasons and not because they enjoy division or because they see it as "their duty to invalidate your Christian profession." Your comments here betray a lack of charity for your Baptist brethren in assigning motives to their views that are not there.


----------



## JP Wallace

Poimen said:


> But that, in fact, is where the divide begins and ends: yes, as others note here, there are other issues such as psalmody and instrumental usage in worship that are part of the discussion but since they are not 'codified' in the Three Forms of Unity we do not hold these issues over each other's heads.



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

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

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

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

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

If so how can this be given the departures that have taken place? How is still giving them this name not giving a) a great degree of laxity in connection with the historic practice and positions of their forefathers not afforded to Reformed Baptists b) a heavier weight to the practice of infant baptism than perhaps should be in light of these other departures?


----------



## BobVigneault

Great discussion. I've nothing really to offer. By the way, I am of Apollos.


----------



## Gesetveemet

thbslawson said:


> Wouldn't it be more historically accurate to say that "reformed" means being a product of the Reformation and adhering to the foundational principles, namely the Five Solas?



Hope this helps. 



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



from Herman Hanko "We and our Children"
Reformed Free Publishing Association - Upholding the truth of Sovereign, Particular Grace


----------



## JP Wallace

Gesetveemet said:


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



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


----------



## rbcbob

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


----------



## thbslawson

rbcbob said:


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



Well stated my Reformed Baptist...ahem...I mean _non-Reformed_ Baptist brother.


----------



## JM

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

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


----------



## Gesetveemet

JP Wallace said:


> Gesetveemet said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am not interested in arguing about words' for words sake, but the term Reformed has historically referred to that branch of continental theology which holds to a organic, or federal, view of the covenant, and which, therefore, holds to infant baptism. Historically, Reformed has meant more than Calvinistic.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> With respect it doesn't help at all because a) it's already been said on this thread and b) no one commenting on this thread disagrees with the last phrase -we all agree that Reformed whatever else it means, means more than Calvinistic soteriology.
Click to expand...


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

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




rbcbob said:


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



This is the Church history forum.

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




JM said:


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



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


----------



## JM

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



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

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


----------



## GulfCoast Presbyterian

Just because a word has been "misappropriated" by the larger public, it seems, to me at least, there is no reason not to continue to use it in its historically correct sense.


----------



## Gesetveemet

Ah perhaps I have stupified the thread. Would any moderators consider deleting from #41 down, sorry. 
Did Gill ever write anything about the raising/training of children in his countless writings? There must be many.


----------



## JM

Gesetveemet said:


> Ah perhaps I have stupified the thread. Would any moderators consider deleting from #41 down, sorry.
> Did Gill ever write anything about the raising/training of children in his countless writings? There must be many.



To start. Gill on Family Worship as Evidence of Christian Fortitude « Feileadh Mor

I'll pm you the rest as I find it.


----------



## Unoriginalname

Could some of the confusion over the term reformed come from the connotation of reformed? For example I am generally one of those people who argue that baptists cannot be reformed by definition, because reformed when I use it refers to the branch of the church which holds to covenant theology with paedobaptism among other things. Baptists simply come from a different tradition even though there is some overlap with the reformed branch of the church. Yet could making reformed a value judgment instead of a historical distinction cause more people to claim the term reformed. If being reformed is good, then more individuals will want to claim the title. Am I making sense?


----------



## rbcbob

Unoriginalname said:


> Could some of the confusion over the term reformed come from the connotation of reformed? For example I am generally one of those people who argue that baptists cannot be reformed by definition, because reformed when I use it refers to the branch of the church which holds to covenant theology with paedobaptism among other things. Baptists simply come from a different tradition even though there is some overlap with the reformed branch of the church. Yet could making reformed a value judgment instead of a historical distinction cause more people to claim the term reformed. If being reformed is good, then more individuals will want to claim the title. Am I making sense?



Reformed Baptists arose out of the 17th century matrix of Presbyterian, Anglican and Independants. Hanserd Knollys and others were "Reformed" before becoming convinced of believer-only baptism. Actually Reformed Baptists argue that they continued the Reformation by reforming ecclesiology.


----------



## Unoriginalname

rbcbob said:


> Reformed Baptists arose out of the 17th century matrix of Presbyterian, Anglican and Independants. Hanserd Knollys and others were "Reformed" before becoming convinced of believer-only baptism. Actually Reformed Baptists argue that they continued the Reformation by reforming ecclesiology.


I was unaware of that, thanks for informing me. So did the other baptist groups arise separately or did they devolve (if you will pardon my wording) from this original?


----------



## reaganmarsh

I'm a little late to the discussion, but I'll add my "Amen" to these two! No bristling here. 


Herald said:


> VictorBravo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GulfCoast Presbyterian said:
> 
> 
> 
> Many Baptists around here absolutely bristle if you refer to them as protestant.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not here. If you demanded to put a dog tag around my neck, it would say "Protestant" with a capital P.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Amen, brother Vic! As a former RC I'd be wearing the same dog tag.
Click to expand...


----------



## rbcbob

Unoriginalname said:


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


The first Baptist church in England was formed in the 1630's and was Arminian. The first Particular Baptist Church was formed in the early 1640's and was Calvinistic. Hanserd Knollys had been a university trained Anglican clergyman, embraced believer's only baptism, became a Particular Baptist pastor, and was instrumental in the production of the 1646 & 1689 London Baptist Confessions.


----------



## MississippiBaptist

I'm going to read this, thanks. I am monergistic, hold to the 5 Solas, and I am not dispensational. Am I Reformed? I'm not sure because I am not peadobaptist. I AM SAVED BY GRACE! :-0




Ask Mr. Religion said:


> It gets asked often and my answer remains the same:
> 
> What he said:
> A Puritan's Mind » What Does it Mean to be Reformed – Really? – by Dr. C. Matthew McMahon
> 
> 
> 
> AMR


----------



## thbslawson

So could we refer to our other Calvinist brethren perhaps as "Reforming"?


----------



## JM

Should I go with the flow and just use the tag _Reformed_ all the time?


----------



## C. M. Sheffield

JM said:


> Should I go with the flow and just use the tag Reformed all the time?



Well, it may prove less cumbersome than 'Strict and Particular.'


----------



## JM

C. M. Sheffield said:


> JM said:
> 
> 
> 
> Should I go with the flow and just use the tag Reformed all the time?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, it may prove less cumbersome than 'Strict and Particular.'
Click to expand...


Agreed. But is it accurate and truthful?


----------



## C. M. Sheffield

JM said:


> Agreed. But is it accurate and truthful?



I have always said that calling ones self 'Reformed _Baptist_' is not calling oneself 'Reformed.' In the term 'Reformed Baptist,' 'Reformed' is modifying the word Baptist. So in that sense, yes! It is absolutely accurate and truthful. Among all the different kinds of Baptists out there (Independent, Free Will, Seventh Day, Southern, etc.) we are the Baptists that adhere most closely to the cornerstone doctrines of the Reformation.


----------



## Poimen

C. M. Sheffield said:


> Poimen said:
> 
> 
> 
> Some want both camps to be Reformed together and yet, my Christian baptism is invalid and the church of Christ is halved by those who consider it their duty to invalidate our Christian profession.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yep. In fact, I was thinking just this morning:
> 
> Bible reading... check.
> Breakfast... check.
> Kiss the wife and kids good buy... check.
> Invalidated some paedobaptists Christian profession... check!
> 
> No, fortunately this is a two sided issue where brethren genuinely disagree for biblical reasons and not because they enjoy division or because they see it as "their duty to invalidate your Christian profession." Your comments here betray a lack of charity for your Baptist brethren in assigning motives to their views that are not there.
Click to expand...


As I said I respect the fact that Baptists have a conviction but I don't respect the conviction particularly because of what it does to the body of Christ. And yes if my baptism is not accepted because it was administered to me as an infant by sprinkling this is excommunication (1 Corinthians 12:13) regardless of the motive or reason why (neither of which I was addressing in my post). 

On the other side of the issue I have heard a well-known Reformed Baptist say that infant baptism is "the golden calf of the Reformation." Perhaps you do not hold to that strong of a conviction regarding infant baptism but I know many that do. I could say that this person meant to find my motivations for holding to paedo-baptism but I think he was just stating what he believes.


----------



## JP Wallace

Posted this a few days ago - still no answers,

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

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

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

If so how can this be given the departures that have taken place? How is still giving them this name not giving a) a great degree of laxity in connection with the historic practice and positions of their forefathers not afforded to Reformed Baptists b) a heavier weight to the practice of infant baptism than perhaps should be in light of these other departures?


----------



## rbcbob

Let's give this a brief rest folks.


----------



## rbcbob

I am trusting that we can resume this dialog over our understanding of "Reformed" while endeavoring to be charitable to all parties.


----------



## Iconoclast

C. M. Sheffield said:


> JM said:
> 
> 
> 
> Agreed. But is it accurate and truthful?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have always said that calling ones self 'Reformed _Baptist_' is not calling oneself 'Reformed.' In the term 'Reformed Baptist,' 'Reformed' is modifying the word Baptist. So in that sense, yes! It is absolutely accurate and truthful. Among all the different kinds of Baptists out there (Independent, Free Will, Seventh Day, Southern, etc.) we are the Baptists that adhere most closely to the cornerstone doctrines of the Reformation.
Click to expand...


QUOTE=C. M. Sheffield;944455]


JM said:


> Agreed. But is it accurate and truthful?



I have always said that calling ones self 'Reformed _Baptist_' is not calling oneself 'Reformed.' In the term 'Reformed Baptist,' 'Reformed' is modifying the word Baptist. So in that sense, yes! It is absolutely accurate and truthful. Among all the different kinds of Baptists out there (Independent, Free Will, Seventh Day, Southern, etc.) we are the Baptists that adhere most closely to the cornerstone doctrines of the Reformation.[/QUOTE]

This gets at the issue and clarifies it in a helpful way. Many baptists object to being called protestant because they see it as baptists were not reforming from rome...they were always seperate from them. Some of those baptistic groups were not as solid biblically as we would like to see them be...and then we have the anabaptists.
So....we are greatful to God for the reformers and the reformation.Yet we see believers baptism as biblical.Those who want to maintain strict historical boundries are not wrong,and yet those who identify with the particular baptists and the reformers also are a distinct group in our day.
Biblical Presbyterians are defending their historic roots.Reformed Baptists ,other than looking to and claiming the Apostles as examples....have a more nuanced and contrversial historical trail to maneuver through. While we defend believers baptism historically, we can read John Knox against anabaptists and agree with most of what he wrote.
Among baptists today as Pastor Sheffield points out here...there are marked differences. The term Reformed Baptist says alot very quickly and has a distinct identity. No one is trying to steal the label from the Christian Reformed churches or the Presbyterians.
It is an accurate term for us.


----------



## JM

Could one be a _Presbyterian_ Baptist? (kidding)


----------



## JP Wallace

JM said:


> Could one be a Presbyterian Baptist? (kidding)



Well that, like 'Reformed', depends on how one is using the word doesn't it? If Presbyterian is used in a limited and specialised (and arguably proper sense) as a description of church government where elders rule - then why not? Even if it is used where there are ascending/descending courts of authority in which local churches are represented, again, why not? In this sense Presbyterian is in contrast to congregationalism, erastianism etc.

However, it has another well-defined use as well for through-going confessionalism of the Scottish type, which must include covenant baptism etc. 

Ultimately I'm not convinced church government 'model' is so closely connected to baptism mode as it often supposed.


----------



## Beau Michel

Originally the term had nothing to do with predestination,covenant theology,etc.It had to do with the Zwinglian(Reformed) view of the presence of Christ in communion.Those who denied the real physical presence were called Reformed in contradistinction to Lutherans(Evangelicals)who held to the real physical presence.


----------

