# Who or which traditions qualify as 'Reformed'?



## Ben Zartman

In several threads with which I've interacted recently, it has been the position of some that "Reformed" has a narrower definition than the one I ascribe to it, which is: "Anyone subscribing to one the historic reformed confessions." So WCF; LBCF 1 and/or 2; 3FU. I don't know enough about Augsburg, 39 articles, or Savoy to pigeonhole them anywhere.
Since (like "Covenant of Grace") the term "Reformed" is not found in Scripture, its meaning perhaps changes with the user. And of course, if it can be shown that I cannot lay claim to the title myself, I will gladly give it over and call myself a Confessional Baptist. Although no doubt some one would helpfully chime in to prove I'm not that either.
So what does the PB think?
Does "Reformed" mean only continental reformed (3FU)?
Does it mean only confessional paedobaptists?
Does it mean only your particular denomination?
Does it mean only EPs?
Does it mean only those who agree with everything one reformed theologian said, be it Calvin, Luther, Owen, Ames, Ussher, or ---------------?
How big in YOUR opinion is the umbrella of "Reformed" to go?


----------



## Scott Bushey

In my opinion, it is more than just holding to TULIP or the Solas. It is a term directly related to the historic definition, i.e. Presbyterian polity, paedobaptism, ordination, etc.

For the sake of clarity, when I was a credo, I considered myself, 'particular', not technically 'Reformed'. The term has morphed in our age. It seems to have taken on the notion that those that hold to TULIP or the solas are 'Reformed'. At best, it could be seen as '(r)eforming, but not (R)eformed.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## VictorBravo

Ben, I hazard to speak for others that most here would think that we Reformed Baptists misappropriated the term "reformed." But they tolerate that, for the most part, because we are fundamentally aligned in soteriology and approach to worship.

And, in recent history, Reformed Baptists were influential in republishing Puritans and kindling confessional thinking.

But, to be sure, my former pastor in Tacoma once addressed a reformed conference and asked people what "reformed" meant to them. Most of them responded that it meant sovereignty of God, presbyterian government, and paedobaptism.

Historically, I concede they might be right. Baptists were lumped in with the anabaptists and often were anathematized. The introduction to the 1689 confession has that "would you at least let us in the back door" tone to it. Be that as it may, we did come into the reformation, but it was more through a side door, seeking alignment, rather than barging in uninvited.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Jake

See here for a thread and specifically my response to a similar question in the past: https://www.puritanboard.com/threads/calvinism-v-reformed.92949/#post-1133484


----------



## Jack K

I include Reformed Baptists, but I'm not very particular about how others use terms.

The use of the word "Reformed" is all over the map. Many, many people today use it to mean a soteriology that acknowledges the doctrines of grace, the Five Points. I prefer to use the word "Calvinist" for that, and to use "Reformed" more narrowly. But some on this board have insisted that's also the wrong way to use "Calvinist," and it too must be applied more narrowly.

Insisting others use your preferred terminology, or insisting definitions that applied hundreds of years ago must be maintained today and forever, or insisting your clan alone has legitimate rights to a certain term... these things seldom help with clear and cordial communication. Rather, use the writer's context to understand what they mean to say, ask a question to clarify if necessary, and don't get too hung up over terms. They are always changing. That's life.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Tom Hart

A Calvinist friend didn't take it well when I said that, historically, Reformed meant confessional. He likes to call himself Reformed, but I'd call him soft Calvinist. (I recognize that term also has different definitions. For now I'm satisfied using it to refer mainly to a soteriological system.)

But "Reformed" did always, until recently, mean more than "soteriologically monergistic". The confusion of the terms seems to have happened around the time of the rise of a kind of popular "Calvinism" in the US in the 1990s/2000s or thereabouts. Mislabelled YRR (young, restless and reformed) it gave the impression that to hold to TULIP was to be Reformed. John Piper et al. could hardly be called Reformed according to the historic definition. In that movement (if it can be called that) there are even charismatics who claim to lie within the Reformed fold.

Anyone's free to call himself whatever he pleases, but he should be aware that the meanings of words have changed. For clarity, I prefer to use "Reformed" to mean confessional, presbyterian in polity, paedobaptistic, etc. I won't start an argument with a Baptist over the matter. But I do think it's confusing and unhelpful when the term is used so broadly.

I will add that my introduction to the Reformed confessions came through that popular Calvinism. As has been said, it's not Reformed, but it's sort of reforming. (So Piper et al. are not all bad.)


----------



## hammondjones

Hi, I'm Reformed, but I only baptize on profession of faith.
Hi, I'm Reformed, and I'm a Presbyterian.
Hi, I'm a Reformed Presbyterian.
Hi, I'm Presbyterian Reformed.
Hi, I'm Contintental Reformed, but not technically Presbyterian.
Hi, I'm TULIP-only Reformed.
Confusing?


Personally, I'd like to try to have words mean certain things (though probably not realistic in the long run), and I'd be most happy with consistent 3FU + WCF definition of "Reformed."

For broadness, sometimes people use the term "Reformational"; see especially the White Horse Inn, where it fits the focus for that show.

I also like the term "confessional" as especially as distinct from "evangelical" (these days), although the Anabaptists also had a confession.



Jack K said:


> I include Reformed Baptists, but I'm not very particular about how others use terms.



Good one!


----------



## Dachaser

Ben Zartman said:


> In several threads with which I've interacted recently, it has been the position of some that "Reformed" has a narrower definition than the one I ascribe to it, which is: "Anyone subscribing to one the historic reformed confessions." So WCF; LBCF 1 and/or 2; 3FU. I don't know enough about Augsburg, 39 articles, or Savoy to pigeonhole them anywhere.
> Since (like "Covenant of Grace") the term "Reformed" is not found in Scripture, its meaning perhaps changes with the user. And of course, if it can be shown that I cannot lay claim to the title myself, I will gladly give it over and call myself a Confessional Baptist. Although no doubt some one would helpfully chime in to prove I'm not that either.
> So what does the PB think?
> Does "Reformed" mean only continental reformed (3FU)?
> Does it mean only confessional paedobaptists?
> Does it mean only your particular denomination?
> Does it mean only EPs?
> Does it mean only those who agree with everything one reformed theologian said, be it Calvin, Luther, Owen, Ames, Ussher, or ---------------?
> How big in YOUR opinion is the umbrella of "Reformed" to go?


My understanding would be that classic Reformed would be those who accept a recognized Confession, hold with entire Covenant Theology, including water Baptism for Infants.
So that would be reformed, while reformed would be seen as those who have strayed away from Infant Baptism and other issues within Covenant theology, such as reformed baptists.
Then we have Calvinists, who may not be either Reformed/reformed, as normally not ascribing to any Confession, but scripture alone, but do uphold TULIP.


----------



## SeanPatrickCornell

What a coincidence! I did some field testing with my Reform-O-Meter last week, and here were my results:

(All results based on a 7.22 x 10^18 person sample size per population group, averaged, with a +/- 2.8% margin of error)

Reformed Baptists are 102.7% Reformed.
Congregationalists are 93.2% Reformed.
Presbyterians are 89.4% Reformed.
REC/39 Articles Anglicans are 72.4% Reformed.
AALC Lutherans are 41.7% Reformed.
Methodists are -1.22% Reformed.
Eastern Orthodox are -52.8% Reformed.
Roman Catholics are -107.9% Reformed.

Since I used calibrated scientific instruments, and I assure you, I am well trained in their use, my data is above reproach.

Reactions: Like 1 | Funny 1


----------



## Scott Bushey

I know people mock the idea of being accurate, but given that we are detail oriented persons, especially when it comes to biblical and historic data, one might think we call a thing what it is.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion

Ben Zartman said:


> In several threads with which I've interacted recently, it has been the position of some that "Reformed" has a narrower definition than the one I ascribe to it,



You may find this item worth a read:
http://kimriddlebarger.squarespace.com/how-many-points/

And this:
https://www.puritanboard.com/threads/are-reformed-baptists-dispensational.92917/#post-1133275

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Braden

Whilst I believe it more important to be true to Scripture than to seek after labels, I'd like to point out that the common definition of what reformed theology is can infact include Reformed Baptists.
We're confessional, yo.

Sent from my Nexus 5X using Tapatalk


----------



## Scott Bushey

http://www.semperreformanda.com/pre...be-reformed-is-this-a-contradiction-in-terms/


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion

Braden said:


> Whilst I believe it more important to be true to Scripture than to seek after labels, I'd like to point out that the common definition of what reformed theology is can infact include Reformed Baptists.
> We're confessional, yo.


Yo?

What exactly is the common definition that you have in mind?


----------



## Braden

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> Yo?
> 
> What exactly is the common definition that you have in mind?


Calvinistic, 5 Solae, Confessional, Covenant theology. Personally, I don't care if I'm recognised as reformed or not. I did, but when I found myself affirming paedobaptism against my convictions because I wanted the label, I was convicted of my idolatry and repented. I'm 1689 federalist.

Sent from my Nexus 5X using Tapatalk


----------



## Scott Bushey

Braden said:


> I'm 1689 federalist.



Be proud of your 'particularization', yo.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion

Braden said:


> Calvinistic, 5 Solae, Confessional, Covenant theology. Personally, I don't care if I'm recognised as reformed or not. I did, but when I found myself affirming paedobaptism against my convictions because I wanted the label, I was convicted of my idolatry and repented. I'm 1689 federalist.


What _idolatry _are you speaking about in the above?


----------



## Braden

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> What _idolatry _are you speaking about in the above?


I wanted the label "reformed" more than I wanted to please God.

Sent from my Nexus 5X using Tapatalk


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion

Braden said:


> I wanted the label "reformed" more than I wanted to please God.


So you are no longer _wrestling with paedobaptism_?


----------



## Braden

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> So you are no longer _wrestling with paedobaptism_?


I am still open to it. There are some questions I have regarding my federalism that I have unanswered. But we're I forced to choose, right now, I am a reformed Baptist.

Sent from my Nexus 5X using Tapatalk


----------



## NaphtaliPress

Scott Bushey said:


> http://www.semperreformanda.com/pre...be-reformed-is-this-a-contradiction-in-terms/


The post is undated, but the author has been Episcopalian some years now.


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion

Braden said:


> I am still open to it. There are some questions I have regarding my federalism that I have unanswered. But we're I forced to choose, right now, I am a reformed Baptist.


By the way, welcome aboard, Braden. We are looking forward to many fruitful discussions with you in the future.

Our site contains a wealth of edifying and informative content. For starters, I recommend you start at the following link to get a sense of the basic ground rules:
https://www.puritanboard.com/help/terms

Then review this:
https://www.puritanboard.com/help/9th-commandment/

Lastly, if you are so inclined, after you have made 25 posts, you can post something about yourself in the following Members Only thread that may be of interest to others. It is a running commentary on the interests and goings on of our members that is not viewable by non-members, nor searchable by internet search bots:

https://www.puritanboard.com/threads/who-are-you-guys-tell-us-a-little-about-yourself.91462/

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon

*On a side note*....words _mean _something. (This is not Captain Obvious talking)._ True words_ are based on God's divine truth, his immutability, and the divine revelation he has imparted to his church. Truth is _absolute_. Generally, when we say words _mean something_, that "something" is based on the birth of the word and its historical use and meaning drawn ultimately from some biblical position. (I am speaking in a religious context here). To deny that is to deny _everything_. It is to become a skeptic and solopsist.

For example, I believe the word grace...for today...means "not grace". I can believe anything I want can't I? I can sling theological words around in any way I please. So, today, I'm going to define grace as _not grace_, and I can be equally right in my assessment of it as anyone else, since truth, _for me_, is likened to Mr. Byends and his comfortable slippers. I wear whatever suits the day. But can I really do this? You see the absurdity of it on a point of great importance (...grace!). Can I do it with Math? Algebra? Historical facts on WWII? 

I'm not allowed to change the meaning of a word from one thing to another because I want to, unless I can prove, without a shadow of a doubt, that _grace means not grace_. I'm at least bound to understand all the various meanings of the word, and then find out who's camp I fall into, or if some of those words have faulty meaning. Because we all know, or should know, no one can reinvent the theological wheel today. There is no new truth. You can't run to a sanctuary city with the meaning of a new word because your feelings are getting hurt that you might not be in the camp that word exists in. It is far more sanctifying to be honest about were you land on words and meaning based on biblical and historical facts.

To deny the historicity of the meaning of the word, is to fall into the age-old trap of denying knowledge about historical theology. (That is why there should be far fewer keyboard theologians.)

We tend to have an aversion to historical theology because its hard, and it deal with words that we might not agree with or even like. (i.e. we have to study it to know it and that's hard). Or, it may be that we are pressed out of an area we hope to be in. (Everyone wants Calvin on their side; but this is an impossibility - even some Arminians try to pull in Calvin and Jonathan Edwards into "their camp").

Once we come around to thinking that words _really do have meaning_, and they are not simply what _we _mean, or what we _want _them to mean, we move from being an island to ourselves (theologically speaking) and become part of the community of the saints, who have had the truth delivered to them...wait for it...._once_. (Jude 1:3ff) - i.e. the _regula fide_. The RULE.

A _rule _is called a _rule _because its a standard. Do people change the meaning of the word "Christian?" Yes, all the time. You'll agree with me on that. The word "Christian" is being hammered today. Why? People change its meaning because they want to for whatever reason. Americans are Christians right? That's what _they _say! But...wait for it....that _doesn't make them right in changing it. _Otherwise, if we are OK being ignorant of the use of theological words, and their intended meaning, we are part of the contemporary problem.

Yet, in all actuality, we are in the camp of Pontius Pilate and we fall in with him and his avid skepticism, "Pilate saith unto him, _What is truth_?" (John 18:38). As indeed Richard Sibbes' said, "profane spirits cannot hear savoury words, but they turn them off with scorn." The Complete Works of Richard Sibbes Volume 2, 181. Rather, everything should always tend towards “the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ,” (2 Corinthians 4:6).

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Doulos McKenzie

Calvinistic, Covenantal, and Confessional. I would include Presbyterians, Continental Reformed, Particular Baptists, Confessional Congregationalism, Anglicans, and those weird non-affiliated congregations that hold to a confession.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Scott Bushey

NaphtaliPress said:


> The post is undated, but the author has been Episcopalian some years now.



I wasn't aware of that. Weird. His point is valid, however. I guess he was never truly reformed


----------



## Ben Zartman

Thanks all for the replies and links. If, for the sake of clarity, it is easier to refer to Baptists as non-reformed, I'm fine with that. I think RBs probably took that word to distinguish them from the vast cloud of groups calling themselves baptist simply because they practice credobaptism, regardless of whether they're arminian or dispensational or fundamentalist or what-have-you.
However, I believe "Confessional Baptist" is an adequate description, and if paedobaptism is to be considered a _sine qua non _of Reformed divinity, I will gladly shed the word.
Now to figure out how to change my signature...

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## NaphtaliPress

Yes; pretty strong rejecting Presbyterian worship; haven't read him on polity. The Anglican church was considered by Presbyterians to be half-reformed (ie not there; I don't think they were talking about percentages). Presbyterians generally don't think or know that now because there seems to be little difference when you look at the worship of many Presbyterians. So to a large degree RBs hold more true to many doctrines of the WCF than do some if not many Presbyterians. I'm just not seeing the urgency of defending the term reformed from RB use, particularly if it is granted the Episcopal church is within the pale and huge sectors of Presbyterians are closer to Episcoplians. In fact, is the PCA really a reformed or presbyterian church if it is in practice anti RPW and anti Sabbatarian? So, why not say confessional baptists or confessional presbyterian? Regardless, I think Presbyterians of the past would just be shaking their heads in bewilderment and sadness to see the shape of things today.


Scott Bushey said:


> I wasn't aware of that. Weird. His point is valid, however. I guess he was never truly reformed

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon

NaphtaliPress said:


> is the PCA _*really *_a reformed or presbyterian church if it is in practice anti RPW and anti Sabbatarian?


This is exactly the point, generally speaking.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## NaphtaliPress

C. Matthew McMahon said:


> This is exactly the point, generally speaking.


I suspect one will have more success with RBs giving up the term Reformed as some here are just as fine doing, than the PCA would a true claim to Presbyterian.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon

NaphtaliPress said:


> I suspect one will have more success with RBs giving up the term Reformed as some here are just as fine doing, than the PCA would a true claim to Presbyterian.



Assuredly. That, then, goes to the point. _How far_ can one go to remain Reformed? Can you have an altar call and be Reformed? Can you have interpretive dance in worship and be Reformed? Can you _massage _the RPW and be Reformed? Or, do you have to delete the RPW to not be Reformed? Etc. (It all goes back to biblical and historical theology to answer those questions.)

And I think this is a very helpful exercise personally speaking, in terms of sanctification. When I was a Pentecostal, then later a Baptist, I had to come to grips with certain ideas and terms in historical theology that I hoped I believed, but really didn't. That in turn caused me to be more honest with myself about where I actually landed theologically on key biblical issues. _That _in turn got me to think further, and have to restudy myriads of various idea again, and in my experience, I did that more carefully; especially studying the art of studying rightly. And well, you know the end of the story on all that...

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## SeanPatrickCornell

Ben Zartman said:


> ... I think RBs probably took that word ...



I'd like to point out that when the modern incarnation of the Reformed Baptist movement surged in the 1950's and 1960's, there was really no one name that Confessional Calvinistic Baptists went under as a group.

It was actually Presbyterians at Westminster Seminary that began to refer to all the Calvinistic Baptists that were showing up there for education as "Reformed Baptists".

I find it ironic that the same (general) group of people that says "Baptists can't be Reformed" in the 20xx's come from the same (general) group of people that named us "Reformed Baptists" in the 19xx's.

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion

NaphtaliPress said:


> I suspect one will have more success with RBs giving up the term Reformed as some here are just as fine doing, than the PCA would a true claim to Presbyterian.


I have long since resigned myself to be _Reformed in heart_ given the PCA's drifts, while continuing to pray they stop the syncretism. Sigh.

Reactions: Like 1 | Sad 1


----------



## Dachaser

SeanPatrickCornell said:


> I'd like to point out that when the modern incarnation of the Reformed Baptist movement surged in the 1950's and 1960's, there was really no one name that Confessional Calvinistic Baptists went under as a group.
> 
> It was actually Presbyterians at Westminster Seminary that began to refer to all the Calvinistic Baptists that were showing up there for education as "Reformed Baptists".
> 
> I find it ironic that the same (general) group of people that says "Baptists can't be Reformed" in the 20xx's come from the same (general) group of people that named us "Reformed Baptists" in the 19xx's.


My Presbyterian brethren and I as a baptist do disagree on certain doctrines, but still believe that we agree in far more than disagree in, and feel much closer to all of you here than I do with those, who while still my Brothers and Sisters in the Lord, follow Charismatic, Arminian, Dispensational, and all other kinds of theology within the Body of Christ!

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Dachaser

Ben Zartman said:


> Thanks all for the replies and links. If, for the sake of clarity, it is easier to refer to Baptists as non-reformed, I'm fine with that. I think RBs probably took that word to distinguish them from the vast cloud of groups calling themselves baptist simply because they practice credobaptism, regardless of whether they're arminian or dispensational or fundamentalist or what-have-you.
> However, I believe "Confessional Baptist" is an adequate description, and if paedobaptism is to be considered a _sine qua non _of Reformed divinity, I will gladly shed the word.
> Now to figure out how to change my signature...


Maybe Calvinistic Baptists fits us best, as we would be holding with a Confession and the TULIP, but certain areas still not fully in line with as Reformed traditional has been defined?


----------



## Scott Bushey

NaphtaliPress said:


> In fact, is the PCA really a reformed or presbyterian church if it is in practice anti RPW and anti Sabbatarian?



Good point.


----------



## Ray

SeanPatrickCornell said:


> What a coincidence! I did some field testing with my Reform-O-Meter last week, and here were my results:
> 
> (All results based on a 7.22 x 10^18 person sample size per population group, averaged, with a +/- 2.8% margin of error)
> 
> Reformed Baptists are 102.7% Reformed.
> Congregationalists are 93.2% Reformed.
> Presbyterians are 89.4% Reformed.
> REC/39 Articles Anglicans are 72.4% Reformed.
> AALC Lutherans are 41.7% Reformed.
> Methodists are -1.22% Reformed.
> Eastern Orthodox are -52.8% Reformed.
> Roman Catholics are -107.9% Reformed.
> 
> Since I used calibrated scientific instruments, and I assure you, I am well trained in their use, my data is above reproach.



Confessionally Reformed 
Continental Reformed 100%
Reformed Presbyterian 100%
2nd Helvétic Usually Hungarian Reformed 95%
Calvinist Methodist from Welsh 100%
Savoy Congregationalist 90%
Reformed Episcopalian 70-80% 
Lutherans 60%

Now I’m guesstimating


----------



## Ray

Baptist are “Not” Reformed according to this Predestination Baptist.

http://www.victorybaptist.us/show.wc?msgreformed


----------



## Ben Zartman

Dachaser said:


> Maybe Calvinistic Baptists fits us best, as we would be holding with a Confession and the TULIP, but certain areas still not fully in line with as Reformed traditional has been defined?


But there are plenty of Calvinistic Baptists who are anti-Sabbatarian, anti-RPW, and the closest they get to a confession is their own church's "statement of faith." LBCF Baptists have a long confessional history--we're not making this up as we go along, _a la _John McArthur.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Ben Zartman

Ray said:


> Baptist are “Not” Reformed according to this Predestination Baptist.
> 
> http://www.victorybaptist.us/show.wc?msgreformed


But this guy clearly doesn't adhere to the LBCF, even though he mentions it in passing. He sounds like a dispensationalist in his argument that the NT church is a separate entity than the OT saints. That directly contradicts the confession. But again, there's 'baptists' of every stripe, and we need a way to distinguish among them.


----------



## Ray

Ben Zartman said:


> But this guy clearly doesn't adhere to the LBCF, even though he mentions it in passing. He sounds like a dispensationalist in his argument that the NT church is a separate entity than the OT saints. That directly contradicts the confession. But again, there's 'baptists' of every stripe, and we need a way to distinguish among them.


What about his point according to the Webster dictionary?
WEBSTER'S NEW COLLEGIATE DICTIONARY defines *Reformed *as "pertaining to or designating the body of Protestant churches originating in the Reformation." The RANDOM HOUSE DICTIONARY OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE defines the *Reformation *as "the religious movement in the sixteenth century which had for its object the reform of the Roman Catholic Church and which led to the establishment of the Protestant churches."


----------



## SeanPatrickCornell

^^^ By that definition then only Lutheran and Continental / Dutch Reformed Churches are "Reformed".

Presbyterians, Congregationalists, and Reformed Baptists would be "something else", since they were out to reform (or separate from) the Church of England and not the Roman Catholic Church.


----------



## Ray

SeanPatrickCornell said:


> ^^^ By that definition then only Lutheran and Continental / Dutch Reformed Churches are "Reformed".
> 
> Presbyterians, Congregationalists, and Reformed Baptists would be "something else", since they were out to reform (or separate from) the Church of England and not the Roman Catholic Church.


Not the 1st definition. Just the 2nd.


----------



## py3ak

This whole kind of discussion often seems to function more as a way of marking territory than as an exercise of linguistic common sense.

_Reformed Baptist_ is a compound term, where each unit influences the other. The _Reformed Baptist_ is not claiming to be _Reformed_ in terms of the Three Forms of Unity (at least, not if he's informed). He is claiming to be a Baptist; but he is claiming to be a particular kind of Baptist, one who has a great deal in common with Presbyterians (WCF) and Congregationalists (Savoy Declaration), not least in the fact of having an extensive confession, and one that reflects many of the same ideas.

And the connotation of _Reformed_ itself depends on opposition. In opposition to Presbyterianism, it is the Continental who are _Reformed_. But both together are _Reformed_ in opposition to Roman Catholicism, or Anabaptism, or even Reformed Baptists. Subscribers to the 1689 are _Reformed_ in opposition to undefined vaguely evangelical Baptists, and it's not a bad term inasmuch as they are strongly in line with many of the emphases of the _Reformed_ _simpliciter_.

We understand that the word _realist_ can mean different things depending on whether you're talking about a viewpoint on life in general, the question of universals, or the nature of Christ's presence in the Lord's Supper. Language is flexible to address different situations.

Reactions: Like 5 | Informative 1


----------



## Ray

py3ak said:


> This whole kind of discussion often seems to function more as a way of marking territory than as an exercise of linguistic common sense.
> 
> _Reformed Baptist_ is a compound term, where each unit influences the other. The _Reformed Baptist_ is not claiming to be _Reformed_ in terms of the Three Forms of Unity (at least, not if he's informed). He is claiming to be a Baptist; but he is claiming to be a particular kind of Baptist, one who has a great deal in common with Presbyterians (WCF) and Congregationalists (Savoy Declaration), not least in the fact of having an extensive confession, and one that reflects many of the same ideas.
> 
> And the connotation of _Reformed_ itself depends on opposition. In opposition to Presbyterianism, it is the Continental who are _Reformed_. But both together are _Reformed_ in opposition to Roman Catholicism, or Anabaptism, or even Reformed Baptists. Subscribers to the 1689 are _Reformed_ in opposition to undefined vaguely evangelical Baptists, and it's not a bad term inasmuch as they are strongly in line with many of the emphases of the _Reformed_ _simpliciter_.
> 
> We understand that the word _realist_ can mean different things depending on whether you're talking about a viewpoint on life in general, the question of universals, or the nature of Christ's presence in the Lord's Supper. Language is flexible to address different situations.


Did the Framers Of The London Baptist Confession ever address themselves as being Reformed? I can’t seem to find anything on this.


----------



## Ben Zartman

Ray said:


> What about his point according to the Webster dictionary?
> WEBSTER'S NEW COLLEGIATE DICTIONARY defines *Reformed *as "pertaining to or designating the body of Protestant churches originating in the Reformation." The RANDOM HOUSE DICTIONARY OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE defines the *Reformation *as "the religious movement in the sixteenth century which had for its object the reform of the Roman Catholic Church and which led to the establishment of the Protestant churches."


I would say that, contrary to the Primitive Baptists, who purposely distance themselves from the Protestant Reformation, Reformed Baptists do indeed trace most of their theology to the Reformation. We just have areas of difference with some reformers, just as they had among themselves.


----------



## Dachaser

Ben Zartman said:


> But there are plenty of Calvinistic Baptists who are anti-Sabbatarian, anti-RPW, and the closest they get to a confession is their own church's "statement of faith." LBCF Baptists have a long confessional history--we're not making this up as we go along, _a la _John McArthur.


_ understand that, as the term once used was Particular Baptists, so maybe Confessing Baptists would be best? 
And still think that we should somehow have a way to show that while both Presbyterians and Baptist who hold to Covenant Theology/Confessions are Reformed, should also be seen as 2 separate groups?_


----------



## py3ak

Ray said:


> Did the Framers Of The London Baptist Confession ever address themselves as being Reformed? I can’t seem to find anything on this.



I don't know. In one sense, it doesn't matter very much because they were trying to explain and locate themselves in a somewhat different ecclesiastical landscape.


----------



## NaphtaliPress

One of the times we've discussed this subject someone noted the history of the 1677/1689 2nd LBCF and that the context in which it was drafted was to show other nonconformists how conformed they were to them. ie it was an effort to claim identity with other persecuted nonconformist groups; reformed groups; not the Quakers etc. My mind is rusty but there is likely significance on the two dates.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Dachaser

Ben Zartman said:


> But this guy clearly doesn't adhere to the LBCF, even though he mentions it in passing. He sounds like a dispensationalist in his argument that the NT church is a separate entity than the OT saints. That directly contradicts the confession. But again, there's 'baptists' of every stripe, and we need a way to distinguish among them.


Seems that this would be a challenge, to first separate out all of the various baptists groups and then to separate between the various groups/views within the reformed also.


----------



## Dachaser

SeanPatrickCornell said:


> ^^^ By that definition then only Lutheran and Continental / Dutch Reformed Churches are "Reformed".
> 
> Presbyterians, Congregationalists, and Reformed Baptists would be "something else", since they were out to reform (or separate from) the Church of England and not the Roman Catholic Church.


The title/label of being something else would seem to fit really well for reformed Baptists.


----------



## NaphtaliPress

The something else term for all those groups w.r.t. the CoE was nonconformist. That suffers from the same boundaries problem though; more since it is seen as including sects like the Quakers.


----------



## Dachaser

py3ak said:


> I don't know. In one sense, it doesn't matter very much because they were trying to explain and locate themselves in a somewhat different ecclesiastical landscape.


The original Reformers were trying to reform the Church of Rome, and the Baptists seemed to be trying to show that while part of the reformed tradition, were to be seen as being in a sense different from those holding to things such as Infant Baptism, and different type of church government set up.


----------



## SeanPatrickCornell

Ray said:


> Did the Framers Of The London Baptist Confession ever address themselves as being Reformed? I can’t seem to find anything on this.



They did not explicitly use the term "Reformed" much, or at all.

Nevetheless the preface to the 1677 / 1689 London Baptist Confession of Faith makes it very clear that the Baptists who created that Confession considered themselves to be of substantially the same Religion and Tradition as the Congregationalists and Presbyterians. The 1677 / 1689 LBCF was directly modeled on (and sometimes echoed word-for-word) the Westminster Confession and the Savoy Confessions precisely BECAUSE those two groups had gotten so much right.

It pays to keep in mind these very important things: These Baptists strove with the 1689 Confession not to show how DIFFERENT they were from the Presbyterians and Congregationalists, but how SIMILAR. This important historical fact cannot be lost, or else you come to all kinds of false conclusions.

Remember, that the Paedobaptistic Reformed tended to lump all non-Infant Baptizers in with the Anabaptists, regardless of what else these Baptists might actually believe about all other points pertaining to the Christian religion.

See the preface to the 2nd LBCF here:

http://confessingbaptist.com/preface-to-the-second-london-baptist-confession-of-faith-16771689/


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion

This item and the included email exchange is informative as relates to what may be the origin of the phrase "Reformed Baptist":
https://www.puritanboard.com/threads/reformed-baptist-as-a-title.24689/#post-303344

I have yet to locate a scholarly reference to the first historical use of the phrase. If someone runs across one, please let me know.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## beloved7

I've always understood it to mean confessional. Just my opinion. Ultimatly, it's subjective. Like it or not, language is fluid, and the definition of certain terms in the English language change over time.


----------



## Dachaser

SeanPatrickCornell said:


> They did not explicitly use the term "Reformed" much, or at all.
> 
> Nevetheless the preface to the 1677 / 1689 London Baptist Confession of Faith makes it very clear that the Baptists who created that Confession considered themselves to be of substantially the same Religion and Tradition as the Congregationalists and Presbyterians. The 1677 / 1689 LBCF was directly modeled on (and sometimes echoed word-for-word) the Westminster Confession and the Savoy Confessions precisely BECAUSE those two groups had gotten so much right.
> 
> It pays to keep in mind these very important things: These Baptists strove with the 1689 Confession not to show how DIFFERENT they were from the Presbyterians and Congregationalists, but how SIMILAR. This important historical fact cannot be lost, or else you come to all kinds of false conclusions.
> 
> Remember, that the Paedobaptistic Reformed tended to lump all non-Infant Baptizers in with the Anabaptists, regardless of what else these Baptists might actually believe about all other points pertaining to the Christian religion.
> 
> See the preface to the 2nd LBCF here:
> 
> http://confessingbaptist.com/preface-to-the-second-london-baptist-confession-of-faith-16771689/


They appeared to have rewritten the former Confession to accommodate their own Baptist distinctives.


----------



## TheInquirer

Just a little side note on definitions:

https://www.merriam-webster.com/help/faq-words-into-dictionary



> *How does a word get into a Merriam-Webster dictionary?*
> This is one of the questions Merriam-Webster editors are most often asked.
> 
> The answer is simple: usage.
> 
> *Tracking Word Usage*
> To decide which words to include in the dictionary and to determine what they mean, Merriam-Webster editors study the language as it's used. They carefully monitor which words people use most often and how they use them.



I know that sounds highly subjective, but that's how language works.

In the case of Scripture, of course we care most importantly about what our Divine author meant when he inspired the words but we still determine that intent by looking at how those words are used in context.

It is interesting to see how the discussion has gone back and forth trying to understand who is Reformed or not but don't we need a working definition first in order to establish that? If so, whose definition shall we use?


----------



## Dachaser

Dachaser said:


> Maybe Calvinistic Baptists fits us best, as we would be holding with a Confession and the TULIP, but certain areas still not fully in line with as Reformed traditional has been defined?


I think that many, especially we Baptists, would fit into that very category.


----------



## posttenebraslux83

I recently recorded an episode of our church's podcast with Dr. R Scott Clark to discuss this matter at length. Here's the link if anyone wants to give it a listen: tinysa.com/sermon/4131714582910






Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk


----------



## Ray

posttenebraslux83 said:


> I recently recorded an episode of our church's podcast with Dr. R Scott Clark to discuss this matter at length. Here's the link if anyone wants to give it a listen: tinysa.com/sermon/4131714582910
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk


Can't take click on the link repost it please.


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion

Ray said:


> Can't take click on the link repost it please.


This?

https://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?m=t&s=4131714582910

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## posttenebraslux83

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> This?
> 
> https://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?m=t&s=4131714582910


That's the correct link. Thanks! 

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk


----------



## Ray

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> This?
> 
> https://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?m=t&s=4131714582910


Gracias Carnales’

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Ray

posttenebraslux83 said:


> That's the correct link. Thanks!
> 
> Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk


Great Podcast. Listened to it earlier. I’m Glad he made it clear that being Reformed is Holding To 3FU And WCF. I’m pretty sure he would consider 2nd Helvétic Reformed too even though he didn’t mention it. It was just a overview but it was good.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Herald

VictorBravo said:


> Ben, I hazard to speak for others that most here would think that we Reformed Baptists misappropriated the term "reformed." But they tolerate that, for the most part, because we are fundamentally aligned in soteriology and approach to worship.
> 
> And, in recent history, Reformed Baptists were influential in republishing Puritans and kindling confessional thinking.
> 
> But, to be sure, my former pastor in Tacoma once addressed a reformed conference and asked people what "reformed" meant to them. Most of them responded that it meant sovereignty of God, presbyterian government, and paedobaptism.
> 
> Historically, I concede they might be right. Baptists were lumped in with the anabaptists and often were anathematized. The introduction to the 1689 confession has that "would you at least let us in the back door" tone to it. Be that as it may, we did come into the reformation, but it was more through a side door, seeking alignment, rather than barging in uninvited.



Vic, I am late to the party here, but since when has that stopped me from offering my opinion? 

When I was new to the PB I took umbrage with the esteemed Matthew Winzer over his not accepting my self-identification as Reformed. It took me a few years to come to a better understanding of what being Reformed means; both in the historical and modern sense. Historically, Baptists are not Reformed. I can say that now without feeling as though I am missing out by not being part of "the club". I am not a paedobaptist and I am not Presbyterian, ergo I am not Reformed in the historical sense.

What about the modern sense? As others have pointed out, the term has morphed given the re-emergence of Calvinism, neo-Calvinism, and the Reformed Baptist movement. I can understand why this may cause some angst among my Presbyterian brethren. Words mean things and it can be frustrating to watch words be redefined. As you stated, Reformed Baptists have been instrumental in promoting Reformed soteriology, confessionalism, and an RPW approach to worship. Reformed Baptists certainly are Reformed _friendly_. Sadly, some of my Presbyterian friends have lamented that the confessionalism, approach to the RPW and the Sabbatarian position of many Reformed Baptists is more Reformed than the truly Reformed. I suppose that is an expected result of taking something for granted for such a long period of time. Perhaps some of what is happening in Reformed Baptist circles can rekindle what is missing in some Presbyterian churches and denominations?

Reactions: Like 2 | Edifying 1


----------



## Dachaser

Herald said:


> Vic, I am late to the party here, but since when has that stopped me from offering my opinion?
> 
> When I was new to the PB I took umbrage with the esteemed Matthew Winzer over his not accepting my self-identification as Reformed. It took me a few years to come to a better understanding of what being Reformed means; both in the historical and modern sense. Historically, Baptists are not Reformed. I can say that now without feeling as though I am missing out by not being part of "the club". I am not a paedobaptist and I am not Presbyterian, ergo I am not Reformed in the historical sense.
> 
> What about the modern sense? As others have pointed out, the term has morphed given the re-emergence of Calvinism, neo-Calvinism, and the Reformed Baptist movement. I can understand why this may cause some angst among my Presbyterian brethren. Words mean things and it can be frustrating to watch words be redefined. As you stated, Reformed Baptists have been instrumental in promoting Reformed soteriology, confessionalism, and an RPW approach to worship. Reformed Baptists certainly are Reformed _friendly_. Sadly, some of my Presbyterian friends have lamented that the confessionalism, approach to the RPW and the Sabbatarian position of many Reformed Baptists is more Reformed than the truly Reformed. I suppose that is an expected result of taking something for granted for such a long period of time. Perhaps some of what is happening in Reformed Baptist circles can rekindle what is missing in some Presbyterian churches and denominations?


This might be simplistic, but My experience has been that its
Christian -Presbyterian-Reformed
Christian-Baptist-Reformed
The Baptists tend to maintain their distinctiveness even in how we view Covenant theology.


----------

