# Carl Trueman weighs in on the definition of "REFORMED"



## rbcbob

Truman discusses the current meaning(s) of Reformed here:

What's in a name? - Reformation21 Blog

We recently discussed it on PB here:

http://www.puritanboard.com/f18/whos-reformed-73914/


----------



## Jack K

Regarding the way "Reformed" has come to often mean "broadly Calvinistic in soteriology," Trueman says: "I cannot summon any emotional energy to combat it: it seems to me that as long as one knows the term is being used somewhat equivocally, no real harm is done."

I agree and would take it even further: It's nearly impossible to successfully combat it even if you wanted to. Word usage changes over time, often quickly, and society seldom lets a handful of language purists stand in the way. Labels get applied in new ways. It gets irksome when they're labels you've once owned proudly, but to insist on fighting it usually just makes you sound ornery or, worse, be misunderstood. It's usually best to just accept the change in usage and adapt your own writing/speech to clarify when necessary or to use new, clearer labels.

So these days, when I tell my Baptist friends that my upbringing and theological convictions are Reformed, I have to add more explanation than maybe I used to. That's okay. I don't get mad that some of them use the term differently than I tend to think of it. I just explain. Clarity must come first.


----------



## rbcbob

There is sense in what Jack says. I dialog with a variety of Christians who use the adjective "Reformed" in a number of ways. It would be tiresome to take each one to task over their connotation of the word. If I understand what they mean by it and see no reason to make an issue of it (at least on that occasion) then I am pleased to let it pass.


----------



## R. Scott Clark

I understanding why he says what he does but I disagree with Carl for a few reasons.

1) Words mean things. There is a connection between signs and the things they signify and that relationship cannot be endlessly plastic or else we have chaos and nihilism. 

2) When the meaning of a word has been established for hundreds of years in multiple languages there are good reasons to hang on to that signification. As Hodge argued in the 19th century, we know what the adjective Reformed means. We could agree to change the signification but I've yet to see a good reason to do it. 

3) We could agree if it filled a needed use but it doesn't here. Baptists who identify with aspects of the Reformed Reformation have a historic designation, "Particular Baptists." 

4) We might revise the definition if it clarified and didn't produce confusion but but that doesn't seem to be true. How can those who affirm hermeneutic A, view of redemptive history A, and view of baptism A carry the same adjective as those who affirm hermeneutic B, view of redemptive history B, and view of baptism B? How does this aid clarity of expression and thought?

5) Then there is a the matter of intra-evangelical politics. The reality is that the NAPARC world is less than 1% (.00833333) of the American evangelical population. As such a decided minority, don't we deserve our own identity? Why should we permit a wing of the evangelical majority more or less hijack the historic designation of the Reformed churches, their theology, piety, and practice? If the re-definition of "Reformed" stands then what shall we call ourselves who dissent from that wing of the evangelical population that identifies with aspects of our theology, piety, and practice but that rejects substantial portions of the same?

6) Finally, the adjective "Reformed" designates some things that are essential to being Reformed (our way of reading scripture and our covenant theology and our view of church and sacraments). Doesn't the equivocation over the word "Reformed" suggest that these issues aren't that important? I have a hard time accepting that.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Scott,

First of all, it's nice to have you participating on the board again.

I understand what you're saying but I would say that the term has already become elastic. I don't think Carl Truemann would argue with the fact that the term meant something historically but I think he makes a good point when he says that we should pay attention to the fact that the term is often used in an equivocal fashion.

For instance, even before the term started to be more broadly applied, it was pretty common practice for Lutherans to refer to anything that isn't Lutheran and Protestant as "Reformed". Lutherans in the midwest will often just loosely apply that term even if it's someone like Joel Osteen. If we understand they mean "not Lutheran" then it helps us to realize the place they're coming from.


----------



## Andrew P.C.

The unfortunate aspect of our culture is that words mean nothing. I strongly agree with Dr. Clark. It's not the definition of the word that changes but the people. The people change so they change the definition of the word. In and of themselves, words don't change. I think the saying "sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me" is true for our culture: it's because words mean nothing to them in the first place. So, for now on, should I start calling the Frisian people Dutch?


----------



## rbcbob

Andrew P.C. said:


> It's not the definition of the word that changes but the people



This is simply not the case. I posted the following in the earlier thread on this:



> 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.


----------



## R. Scott Clark

Semper Fidelis said:


> Scott,
> 
> First of all, it's nice to have you participating on the board again.
> 
> I understand what you're saying but I would say that the term has already become elastic. I don't think Carl Truemann would argue with the fact that the term meant something historically but I think he makes a good point when he says that we should pay attention to the fact that the term is often used in an equivocal fashion.
> 
> For instance, even before the term started to be more broadly applied, it was pretty common practice for Lutherans to refer to anything that isn't Lutheran and Protestant as "Reformed". Lutherans in the midwest will often just loosely apply that term even if it's someone like Joel Osteen. If we understand they mean "not Lutheran" then it helps us to realize the place they're coming from.



Thanks!

Well, the term has only become "elastic" in the last 50 years or so. Sometime in the 50s Reformed folk, in an attempt to increase market share, among evangelicals (as Reformed confessionalists were being edged out of evangelical leadership with the rise of the neo-evangelical post-old Westminster movement). At the same time Baptists began to take hold of the adjective in order to gain rhetorical credibility. It happened in a time when many Reformed folk were willing to go along with the redefinition because they were no longer invested in historic covenant theology, Reformed hermeneutics, or even the Reformed doctrine of the church. As I noted in _Recovering the Reformed Confession_, this minimalist approach to being Reformed lasted well into the 1980s. 

Now, however, we can see that was a mistake. I hope we're not saying that because a word, which has ecclesiastical, confessional sanction has been more or less appropriated by a large number of people who don't actually believe what the word properly denotes, that we must acquiesce to the redefinition. 

This approach to words and signs makes no sense to me. 

I understand that the meaning of words changes. I'm writing on this topic right now. The usage of the word "nice" has changed remarkably. Indeed, it's bewildering how it has changed over centuries but we have a lot more at stake in "Reformed" than we do in "nice." 

I'm well aware of the Lutheran abuse of the adjective Reformed. I did an essay on that a couple of years ago for Brill and I show how ridiculous it is. They were being intentionally abusive and political--The LCMS had to carve out rhetorical distance between their doctrine of predestination and Calvin's and that of the Reformed, so they abused the adjective. That doesn't make it proper and it doesn't mean that we should accept it.

In the same way I don't think we should sit still and let the YRR folk redefine our hermeneutic, our covenant theology, and our doctrines of church and sacrament out of Reformed or else we'll need a new adjective altogether and then it's an endless regression. Where does it stop? I understand that if a Roman soldier demands your cloak... but why are ostensible brothers treating us thus?


----------



## R. Scott Clark

Bob,

May I call myself a Baptist, even though I baptize infants? 

Don't we agree that a million Frenchmen can be wrong? 

What do you think those of us who still believe the Reformed confessions and what to confess and practice the faith that the Reformed churches confessed in the 16th, 17th, 18th, 19th, and 1st half of the 20th century confessed and practiced, should call ourselves? 

How do we have A and not A calling themselves the same thing?


----------



## R. Scott Clark

Would that Carl was right, that we all know that we're using the word equivocally but my experience says otherwise. That's why people are so put off when I object. They think that they ARE Reformed. The problem with equivocating (and that's just the right term) is that eventually people begin believing the equivocation. Then where are we?


----------



## lynnie

I just ask people who their favorite theologians/authors/preachers are, or their theological mentors. Piper-Grudem means something different than Calvin or Warfield as an answer. If they say a few young modern guys in the Gospel Coalition who blog, and they mostly just read online, that's yet another type. Certain young ones will say Keller instantly. Piper seems to be the most popular name in my PCA and Calvinist Baptist experience, followed maybe by Spurgeon. I've met a couple people besides me who consider Iain Murray their favorite author and we all like history and bios. Years ago Horton was very popular but I don't hear his name much anymore, same with Sproul. 

Its a nice casual way to get a conversation going and get a feel for where somebody is at theologically. Or just ask what they are reading right now and go from there. I told a few people I am reading Bavinck now and it puts some of them straight to sleep, ha. I know some folks for whom the main association of feeling Reformed is with CCEF and biblical counseling instead of modern psychology; that type is very much a people person.

Yeah, I'd have to say the word means almost nothing anymore, and certainly not confessional. It does not even mean TULIP. I knew folks years ago who were "essentially Reformed" as 3.5 ers. 

Hey, as hubby says, we have to define our words these days. We know people for whom "pray" involves no direct talking to God at all. You talk in tongues for a while, do a lot of binding and loosing, and than start speaking things into being. No thanksgiving, no petition, no need for God to even be there. Prayer is an technique that you do. (and this was in a poorly taught allegedly Calvinist church).


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

There are many that claim to be Reformed that aren't. That is, as far as I can understand it when it comes to historical confessionalism. It is nice to be identified as something and belong to something historical. That is why so many who aren't Reformed claim to be Reformed. The truth is that there have been shifts in theology that have taken many away from understanding and holding to the historical understanding of what it means to be Reformed. As a Baptist when I first started contributing to the Puritanboard I found out I had a lot to learn. I even quit calling myself a Reformed Baptist for the most part and started calling myself a Particular Baptist. I even blogged on this issue as it related to a blog that Dr. Clark wrote. 

Irony, You ought to see Reformed Baptists get up in arms when a New Covenant Theologian claims to be a Reformed Baptist.


http://www.puritanboard.com/blogs/p...storical-understanding-reformed-theology-316/


----------



## newcreature

It seems to me that words change with the fluency of society's use of them. Words are changed, added, and removed from dictionaries based on popular and common culture. If the world thinks Reformed means one thing, then we will forever have to explain our use of the word, even though it was the original use. However undesirable, I am not so sure that we can stop the common public from changing the use of the word Reformed, any more than we can change the use of any other word in the dictionary.


----------



## VictorBravo

R. Scott Clark said:


> I understand that the meaning of words changes. I'm writing on this topic right now. The usage of the word "nice" has changed remarkably. Indeed, it's bewildering how it has changed over centuries but we have a lot more at stake in "Reformed" than we do in "nice."



I like that observation. I had an uncle once tell me not to call him "nice." He said it was an insult (his eyes were twinkling when he said it). Then he directed me to the giant 1928 Websters on the book stand and told me to look up its etymology and its first definition. I still have that dictionary. Below are the two first entries, and the very last entry:

1. Foolish; silly; stupid; simple; ignorant.
2. Lewd; lascivious; wanton

...

11. Pleasing; agreeable....

See how much things changed in 30 years. Those were the definitions in 1928. By the time I was born in 1958 the last definition was the most prevalent. I always wondered if network radio and television had something to do with it.


----------



## rbcbob

R. Scott Clark said:


> May I call myself a Baptist, even though I baptize infants?



Of course you can! And if your usage catches on resulting in millions of persons using it just that way then the rest of us will have to adjust accordingly. What does a scholar mean when using the word HUMANIST? Is he referencing a classical scholar? Renaissance man? Anti-christian modern man? The word has undergone considerable development.



R. Scott Clark said:


> What do you think those of us who still believe the Reformed confessions and what to confess and practice the faith that the Reformed churches confessed in the 16th, 17th, 18th, 19th, and 1st half of the 20th century confessed and practiced, should call ourselves?



The same as before among colleagues; with more painstaking effort among outsiders.



R. Scott Clark said:


> How do we have A and not A calling themselves the same thing?



They have different definitions of A and speak with integrity in their claims.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

VictorBravo said:


> See how much things changed in 30 years. Those were the definitions in 1928. By the time I was born in 1958 the last definition was the most prevalent. I always wondered if network radio and television had something to do with it.



I just found this link from the University of Chicago.... It has the 1913 and 1828 paralleled. Very cool. The meaning changed from 1828 to 1913 also. At least it seems to have gone one way to another. Very interesting. The first link below is the word nice in both the dictionaries. The second is the main page to look up words

Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1913) - The ARTFL Project

Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1913) - The ARTFL Project


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

rbcbob said:


> R. Scott Clark said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bob,
> 
> May I call myself a Baptist, even though I baptize infants?
> 
> 
> 
> Of course you can! And if your usage catches on resulting in millions of persons using it just that way then the rest of us will have to adjust accordingly. What does a scholar mean when using the word HUMANIST? Is he referencing a classical scholar? Renaissance man? Anti-christian modern man? The word has undergone considerable development.
Click to expand...


I find this very problematic and I posted how the CREC and Federal Visionist seem to do this. It is called obfuscation. And it is deceptive. Dr. Clark, I would find it offensive and disingenuous if you called yourself a Baptist. To me this is what my Baptist Pastor called the Prostitution of the English language. We are selling the truth for a good feeling. It is sad. It is like when we call good bad and bad good.


----------



## Christusregnat

This reminds me of words in a theological context, as discussed Anthony Burgess:



> The rule is _Qui fingit nova verba, nova gignit dogmata_. And it was Melancthon's wish, that men did not only teach the same thing, but _in iisdem verbis, in iisdem syllabis_, in the same very words, and syllables.


 Vindiciae Legis

The quotation by Dr. Philip Melanchthon reads:



> But I reckon this to be more proper: and I could wish it best for us that we might hear our very own words and even the very same syllables in the Church.


 Letter 5590, “To Lybio Buchholtz,” in Epistolarum Lib. XII. 1554 A.D. [CR, 8:272]


----------



## Andrew P.C.

rbcbob said:


> R. Scott Clark said:
> 
> 
> 
> May I call myself a Baptist, even though I baptize infants?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course you can! And if your usage catches on resulting in millions of persons using it just that way then the rest of us will have to adjust accordingly. What does a scholar mean when using the word HUMANIST? Is he referencing a classical scholar? Renaissance man? Anti-christian modern man? The word has undergone considerable development.
> 
> 
> 
> R. Scott Clark said:
> 
> 
> 
> What do you think those of us who still believe the Reformed confessions and what to confess and practice the faith that the Reformed churches confessed in the 16th, 17th, 18th, 19th, and 1st half of the 20th century confessed and practiced, should call ourselves?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The same as before among colleagues; with more painstaking effort among outsiders.
> 
> 
> 
> R. Scott Clark said:
> 
> 
> 
> How do we have A and not A calling themselves the same thing?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They have different definitions of A and speak with integrity in their claims.
Click to expand...


Just to get a perspective how this is totally wrong, think of a formal debate. Whenever people are debating over an issue, one must define their terms. For example, T.D. Jakes calls himself a Christian. However, we know he is a false teacher and heretical. Yet, him, and others like him call themselves Christian. Mormons call themselves Christian. Words have a meaning. Do T.D. Jakes and Mormons have anything in common(other then they're false?), since I call myself a Christian, do I have anything in common with Mormons or T.D. Jakes? No way(we are speaking theologically). What is a Christian? A follower of Christ. Are Mormons followers of Christ? I think you know where I'm going with this.

The claim that Dr. Clark can call himself a baptist, and it would be ok, is so absurd, it upsets me. First, baptists have a distinct history that I have no part in, and as a baptist you should be proud of(even though I disagree). Second, A and not A can't be the same thing, it goes against the law of non-contradiction.


----------



## Goodcheer68

rbcbob said:


> Quote Originally Posted by R. Scott Clark View Post
> May I call myself a Baptist, even though I baptize infants?
> Of course you can! And if your usage catches on resulting in millions of persons using it just that way then the rest of us will have to adjust accordingly.



By that token Mormons should be allowed to call themselves Christians.


----------



## rbcbob

Andrew P.C. said:


> Just to get a perspective how this is totally wrong, think of a formal debate.





Andrew P.C. said:


> The claim that Dr. Clark can call himself a baptist, and it would be ok, is so absurd, it upsets me. First, baptists have a distinct history that I have no part in, and as a baptist you should be proud of(even though I disagree). Second, A and not A can't be the same thing, it goes against the law of non-contradiction.







PuritanCovenanter said:


> I find this very problematic and I posted how the CREC and Federal Visionist seem to do this. It is called obfuscation. And it is deceptive. Dr. Clark, I would find it offensive and disingenuous if you called yourself a Baptist. To me this is what my Baptist Pastor called the Prostitution of the English language. We are selling the truth for a good feeling. It is sad. It is like when we call good bad and bad good.



Gentlemen, I fear that some here are confounding the disciplines of Logic and Etymology.

When Dr. Clark asks if he may call himself a Baptist (for the sake of argument we must assume) and further when I tell him that he can, I am not saying that he would be using the term as presently and properly understood. I am merely stating the obvious fact that he is able to use the term for himself if he chooses to do so. Certainly I cannot restrain him. The exaggerated outworking of his use (the contagion wherein millions take up the new use) is to show the expanded etymology of the term in future when all will have to deal with the increased diversity of what meaning any number of folk who use the term intend by it. This is the long established history of words and their meanings. That it frustrates us purists is an unavoidable reality.

Aristotelian forms of argument are not in view in this grappling over the current meaning(s) of the word Reformed. Its current breadth of connotation is, what it is. We must deal with it.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

rbcbob said:


> Aristotelian forms of argument are not in view in this grappling over the current meaning(s) of the word Reformed. Its current breadth of connotation is, what it is. We must deal with it.



Better yet, we must educate so that the terms are used correctly. And we must expect those we teach to understand. One reason Public Education is so poor now days is that we allow others to be misinformed and use terminology incorrectly. It is like Grammar. There are rules. When the teachers give up teaching the rules we end up with phraseology like "MY BAD" or "WORD UP." To and Too are words that mean something and are to be used in their correct context as are can and may. We shouldn't allow the uneducated to define things. When we do we are allowing the prisoners to rule the prison, so to speak.


----------



## SolaGratia

There is another aspect of Reformed understanding of the confessions and the Scriptures that I think Carl Trueman is following, coming from men like John Owen. 


Please, see this:


Barker Productions - Online Catalog


Rich, I had the same question you asked in my mind. 


And maybe later this:


http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1433521903/ref=oh_details_o00_s00_i00


Blessings!


----------



## Craig.Scott

R. Scott Clark said:


> I understanding why he says what he does but I disagree with Carl for a few reasons.
> 
> 1) Words mean things. There is a connection between signs and the things they signify and that relationship cannot be endlessly plastic or else we have chaos and nihilism.
> 
> 2) When the meaning of a word has been established for hundreds of years in multiple languages there are good reasons to hang on to that signification. As Hodge argued in the 19th century, we know what the adjective Reformed means. We could agree to change the signification but I've yet to see a good reason to do it.
> 
> 3) We could agree if it filled a needed use but it doesn't here. Baptists who identify with aspects of the Reformed Reformation have a historic designation, "Particular Baptists."
> 
> 4) We might revise the definition if it clarified and didn't produce confusion but but that doesn't seem to be true. How can those who affirm hermeneutic A, view of redemptive history A, and view of baptism A carry the same adjective as those who affirm hermeneutic B, view of redemptive history B, and view of baptism B? How does this aid clarity of expression and thought?
> 
> 5) Then there is a the matter of intra-evangelical politics. The reality is that the NAPARC world is less than 1% (.00833333) of the American evangelical population. As such a decided minority, don't we deserve our own identity? Why should we permit a wing of the evangelical majority more or less hijack the historic designation of the Reformed churches, their theology, piety, and practice? If the re-definition of "Reformed" stands then what shall we call ourselves who dissent from that wing of the evangelical population that identifies with aspects of our theology, piety, and practice but that rejects substantial portions of the same?
> 
> 6) Finally, the adjective "Reformed" designates some things that are essential to being Reformed (our way of reading scripture and our covenant theology and our view of church and sacraments). Doesn't the equivocation over the word "Reformed" suggest that these issues aren't that important? I have a hard time accepting that.




I agree,

Reformed is not a word that has been lost, but simply being misused. Words are important, our definitions are important. With the rise of New Calvinism the woe word Reformed is being diluted to mean simply the 5 Points. But even then some 'Reformed' like Mark Driscoll are not even 5 Pointers.

It is fantastic to see such a growth in the Doctrines of Grace, but that is not enough to be called Reformed. It is typical of the Church to water down in the 21st century. I am a Reformed Christian because i agree and confess Reformed theology. This is not based upon 5 Points but the whole council of God as set down i the Westminster Standards, that is Reformed in doctrine, practice and worship. 

What we have to do is contend what Reformed is, but at the same time try to do this in love and not in an elitist manner. A difficult one i know.





In Christ


----------



## Semper Fidelis

For the record, I am not arguing that we just give up on the term. I think it needs to mean something. Nevertheless, given its widespread abuse, I can no longer just say I'm Reformed to some people and assume they understand it if they think Mark Driscoll is Reformed. I think the PB does a pretty good job of trying to maintain that historical distinctive. 

I think one of the biggest problems facing the Church today is reader response or other kinds of postmodern thinking. We begin with the assumption that we have a right to our beliefs just as they are and then use words and texts as if they are are own to modify in order to support what we want them to say in support of the beliefs we desire to support. Now, we're not as abusive of texts as a militant feminist who re-writes Scripture to make its chief message the liberation of the black, latino, middle-aged, lesbian female but we're all guilty of a similar idolatry. We "conservatives" decry the way in which our U.S. Constitution becomes a "living document" and the 14th Amendment becomes a hammer by which eventually all objective propositions in every other amendment can be subsumed.

Yet, we who claim to love Scripture and are Confessional treat our Scriptures, our Confessions, and our history as a potluck where we get to pick and choose a little Augustine, a dash of Calvin, a pinch of mystic, and a garnish of charismatic. We pimp our Confessional ride and then we stand up on the floor of Presbyteries as paedocommunionists and say that we can read the Westminster Standards in such a way that only one exception to the entire standards is required.

I guess what I'm saying is that I agree that Reformed has meaning but so do so many other things that are being negotiated that, even when a brother says he fully subscribes to the WCF, it's pretty hard to figure out at times that he's reformed because he's subscribing in a way where words and real history are negotiable and fluid.


----------



## Christlicher Soldat

I tend to favor the use of a little-_r_ "reformed," because I think it's important to emphasize that the essence of Reformed theology is not a fixed set of doctrines, but personal and ecclesiastical sanctification. We are _reformata, semper reformanda_--we have confessions that represent fixed sets, but we acknowledge that if these are wrong they will need reforming.

Nevertheless, insofar as capital-_R_ "Reformed" theology represents a fixed set, it does generate confusion to call oneself a "Reformed" Baptist. I think this can work both ways, though. In some cases, such as in the mob rule of Google searches, the false label can direct people away from the content of the historic meaning and toward the new meaning. In my own case, coming from a Holiness Wesleyan background, my interest in Reformed Baptist preaching took me to an interest in Presbyterian preaching--although, granted, this only came about through eschatological studies.

Another example: "Reformed Presbyterian." Historically, to be RP meant that you dissented from the mainline Presbyterian Church of Scotland on the grounds that its Erastian establishment was a slap to the face of social covenanting. Yet today, we have two-kingdoms folks and Kuyperians referring to themselves as "Reformed Presbyterians," presumably to represent to others the solidarity that conservative Reformed and Presbyterians have now in the context of apostatizing "Reformed" and "Presbyterian" mainline churches--a context where the conservatives are stretched so thin that some Reformed people are having to attend OPC churches and some Presbyterian guys are having to attend URC churches; a context in which it's adaptive to blur the Puritan/Covenanter tradition and the Continental tradition into one identity. In my own experience, I have found this confusing, because whenever I heard mention of the RPCNA, I just assumed they were another breed of "Reformed Presbyterians" who just happened to be exclusive psalmists. In that case, poor word use kept me from exploring a theological tradition that bears noticeable differences compared to the OPC. I really only discovered what the RPCNA was really about, again, through eschatology. Consequently, if I want to emphasize my agreement with the RPCNA's general theological trajectory, I have to refer to myself as a "Covenanter" in OPC circles.

But all that said, language is particularly resilient to top-down change. You're not going to engineer its "correct" usage by whining about the problems created by its evolution. For one, it just makes your own tradition seem petty and legalistic, squabbling over words instead of important things like ideas. For another, it's a waste of time for a minority to do it, especially in a Google world. The tyranny of the majority is ultimately going to define the word for everybody else, and the best thing we can do is change with it. So maybe it makes sense for PCA and OPC folk to call themselves "Reformed Presbyterian" in response to the modernist perversion of the word _Presbyterian_. And maybe it makes sense for the real Reformed Presbyterians to fall back on a word that more closely represents what historically defined them: _Covenanter_.


----------



## au5t1n

When these discussions come up, I try to imagine how Lutherans would feel if everybody that believes in justification by faith alone started calling themselves Lutheran. You'd have low-church, no-sacraments, Charismatic Arminian Baptists introducing themselves as "Lutheran." Would anyone blame the real Lutherans for being frustrated that their identity as a distinct confessional theology is being eroded? And what would they call themselves?


----------



## Unoriginalname

Christlicher Soldat said:


> Another example: "Reformed Presbyterian." Historically, to be RP meant that you dissented from the mainline Presbyterian Church of Scotland on the grounds that its Erastian establishment was a slap to the face of social covenanting. Yet today, we have two-kingdoms folks and Kuyperians referring to themselves as "Reformed Presbyterians," presumably to represent to others the solidarity that conservative Reformed and Presbyterians have now in the context of apostatizing "Reformed" and "Presbyterian" mainline churches--a context where the conservatives are stretched so thin that some Reformed people are having to attend OPC churches and some Presbyterian guys are having to attend URC churches; a context in which it's adaptive to blur the Puritan/Covenanter tradition and the Continental tradition into one identity. In my own experience, I have found this confusing, because whenever I heard mention of the RPCNA, I just assumed they were another breed of "Reformed Presbyterians" who just happened to be exclusive psalmists. In that case, poor word use kept me from exploring a theological tradition that bears noticeable differences compared to the OPC. I really only discovered what the RPCNA was really about, again, through eschatology. Consequently, if I want to emphasize my agreement with the RPCNA's general theological trajectory, I have to refer to myself as a "Covenanter" in OPC circles.


That's quite interesting. As much as many of us want to take up arms against evangelicals for watering down our word, we definitely have done the same.


----------



## jwright82

R. Scott Clark said:


> I understanding why he says what he does but I disagree with Carl for a few reasons.
> 
> 1) Words mean things. There is a connection between signs and the things they signify and that relationship cannot be endlessly plastic or else we have chaos and nihilism.
> 
> 2) When the meaning of a word has been established for hundreds of years in multiple languages there are good reasons to hang on to that signification. As Hodge argued in the 19th century, we know what the adjective Reformed means. We could agree to change the signification but I've yet to see a good reason to do it.
> 
> 3) We could agree if it filled a needed use but it doesn't here. Baptists who identify with aspects of the Reformed Reformation have a historic designation, "Particular Baptists."
> 
> 4) We might revise the definition if it clarified and didn't produce confusion but but that doesn't seem to be true. How can those who affirm hermeneutic A, view of redemptive history A, and view of baptism A carry the same adjective as those who affirm hermeneutic B, view of redemptive history B, and view of baptism B? How does this aid clarity of expression and thought?
> 
> 5) Then there is a the matter of intra-evangelical politics. The reality is that the NAPARC world is less than 1% (.00833333) of the American evangelical population. As such a decided minority, don't we deserve our own identity? Why should we permit a wing of the evangelical majority more or less hijack the historic designation of the Reformed churches, their theology, piety, and practice? If the re-definition of "Reformed" stands then what shall we call ourselves who dissent from that wing of the evangelical population that identifies with aspects of our theology, piety, and practice but that rejects substantial portions of the same?
> 
> 6) Finally, the adjective "Reformed" designates some things that are essential to being Reformed (our way of reading scripture and our covenant theology and our view of church and sacraments). Doesn't the equivocation over the word "Reformed" suggest that these issues aren't that important? I have a hard time accepting that.



Not that it means much but I absolutely agree with you Dr. Clark. Being Reformed means more than the 5 points, I know that no one here is saying that either. But we should fight for our identity that is historical. I never find it hard to correct people about what being Reformed really means. No emotion is spent in it. I simply correct them, gently, or I let them go off thinking whatever they want. 

I mean if someone says to me “oh your reformed, so you start with predestination and work out everything from there” I say that they are wrong and that covenant theology better explains our position. We lose the fight when we refuse to fight. I will give up “evangelical” all day long but I will not give up Reformed.


----------



## jwright82

Semper Fidelis said:


> Scott,
> 
> First of all, it's nice to have you participating on the board again.



So am I.


----------



## au5t1n

It would be a useful exercise to consider why the old Reformed divines called "Catholics" Romanists or Papists rather than Catholics or even Roman Catholics. Was it just to be mean? Probably sometimes. But it also represents a refusal to concede the ground of who truly represents the historic catholic faith. Protestants are the "Catholic Church (Continuing)" to borrow a Free Church term. There is a reason our confessions call the whole professing church catholic and refer to Romanists and Papists as...Romanists and Papists. Words are important.


----------



## jwright82

austinww said:


> It would be a useful exercise for folks to consider why the old Reformed divines called "Catholics" Romanists or Papists rather than Catholics or even Roman Catholics. Was it just to be mean? Probably sometimes. But it also represents a refusal to concede the ground of who truly represents the historic catholic faith. Protestants are the "Catholic Church (Continuing)" to borrow a Free Church term. There is a reason our confessions call the whole professing church catholic and refer to Romanists and Papists as...Romanists and Papists. Words are important.


----------



## Christlicher Soldat

austinww said:


> It would be a useful exercise to consider why the old Reformed divines called "Catholics" Romanists or Papists rather than Catholics or even Roman Catholics. Was it just to be mean? Probably sometimes. But it also represents a refusal to concede the ground of who truly represents the historic catholic faith. Protestants are the "Catholic Church (Continuing)" to borrow a Free Church term. There is a reason our confessions call the whole professing church catholic and refer to Romanists and Papists as...Romanists and Papists. Words are important.


No doubt. But sometimes I wonder whether a winning strategy might be to just slap a new name on the old beliefs. It sure seems to be working for "Reformed" Baptists.


----------



## Andrew P.C.

Christlicher Soldat said:


> austinww said:
> 
> 
> 
> It would be a useful exercise to consider why the old Reformed divines called "Catholics" Romanists or Papists rather than Catholics or even Roman Catholics. Was it just to be mean? Probably sometimes. But it also represents a refusal to concede the ground of who truly represents the historic catholic faith. Protestants are the "Catholic Church (Continuing)" to borrow a Free Church term. There is a reason our confessions call the whole professing church catholic and refer to Romanists and Papists as...Romanists and Papists. Words are important.
> 
> 
> 
> No doubt. But sometimes I wonder whether a winning strategy might be to just slap a new name on the old beliefs. It sure seems to be working for "Reformed" Baptists.
Click to expand...


The question then becomes: What did the baptists reform from?


----------



## au5t1n

Christlicher Soldat said:


> austinww said:
> 
> 
> 
> It would be a useful exercise to consider why the old Reformed divines called "Catholics" Romanists or Papists rather than Catholics or even Roman Catholics. Was it just to be mean? Probably sometimes. But it also represents a refusal to concede the ground of who truly represents the historic catholic faith. Protestants are the "Catholic Church (Continuing)" to borrow a Free Church term. There is a reason our confessions call the whole professing church catholic and refer to Romanists and Papists as...Romanists and Papists. Words are important.
> 
> 
> 
> No doubt. But sometimes I wonder whether a winning strategy might be to just slap a new name on the old beliefs. It sure seems to be working for "Reformed" Baptists.
Click to expand...


But why should the burden be on the group that maintains its historic beliefs to change its name every decade or so while shape-shifters co-opt historic names? What should Lutherans call themselves if everybody who believes in Sola Fide starts identifying as Lutheran? If they have continued to confess the Book of Concord for hundreds of years, shouldn't they keep their name while the shape-shifters bear the burden to coin new terms?

I agree that this has the potenial to become "striving about words to no profit," but it doesn't have to be. I like James' approach: Gently correct someone on the proper use of the term and then leave them to their thoughts. English teachers do this all the time.


----------



## Andrew P.C.

By the way, I thought this article proves a point. It was an interesting read.

Christianity: Did the Tent Just Get Bigger?

Understanding word usage and definitions is important. Words have meaning... historical meaning. In essence, language matters.


----------



## a mere housewife

Surely Dr. Trueman's point is that in actual usage, in the context of 'Reformed Baptist', the 'Reformed' does mean something (as here on this board). It means at least that we have very precious and likeminded fellowship with those who subscribe to a confession in agreement with our own in many key points, on major Reformed doctrines. But like the list of meanings Vic gave above for 'nice', most words in our language do have several, if not quite a number, of usages (I love those listings in the OED that go on and on), some of them broader than others, and context determines which is being employed. The main thing then is to be clear on which usage we are dealing with (at least that is Dr. Trueman's point, as I understand it). 

If I wish to speak more exactly about a specific tradition it is easy enough to speak of the 'historic reformed' position or distinguish which specific reformed tradition we are speaking of.


----------



## Keith Mathison

I have to side with Dr. Clark here. I've yet to hear anyone call themselves a "Lutheran Baptist" simply because they are a Baptist who believes in justification by faith alone. The Lutheran confessions define the meaning of "Lutheran" just as the Reformed confessions define the meaning of "Reformed."


----------



## R. Scott Clark

Part of my disagreement with Carl and others on this point is that I see the points of discontinuity between the Reformed and the Baptists as being greater than some do. 

1) Hermeneutics. Even my RB friends ultimately have a hermeneutic that differs from the Reformed significantly on the nature of the covenant of grace, on the role of Abraham in the new covenant, in the way the NT reads the OT.

2) Closely related to this is covenant theology. Does God still say, "I will be a God to you and to your children"? We give quite different answers to this question.

3) The fact that PBs cannot recognize my baptism means that, to them, ecclesiastically considered (insofar as ordinarily, Christians are baptized people), I am not a Christian. This is huge! Where, historically, have the Reformed churches reckoned PB congregations as churches? This gets to Belgic Confession art 29. Is the PB view consistent with BC 29? Which PBs were seated at Westminster?

4) It is significant to me that, when the Particular Baptist movement developed, the Reformed churches did not embrace them. What has substantially changed since then? How exactly have the PBs become Reformed? Or have we simply moved the goal post?

5) PBs and the Reformed agree in the way that Lutherans and the Reformed agree but that doesn't make them Reformed or me a Lutheran, does it?

6) the PB argument really seems to be: there's more of us than there are of you. We say we're Reformed and there's nothing you can do about so just accept it. That's not logic, that's force.


----------



## au5t1n

Keith Mathison said:


> I have to side with Dr. Clark here. I've yet to hear anyone call themselves a "Lutheran Baptist" simply because they are a Baptist who believes in justification by faith alone. The Lutheran confessions define the meaning of "Lutheran" just as the Reformed confessions define the meaning of "Reformed."



As a small caveat to my earlier posts, one difference is that there isn't a Baptist confession that bears many areas of agreement with Lutheran confessions. For this reason, I wouldn't make a huge fuss over the term "Reformed Baptist" in the context of true confessional London Baptists. Perhaps calling them "Reformed, full stop" might not be appropriate, but "Reformed Baptists" identifies the commonalities while letting the "Baptist" part highlight the differences. Even so, maybe the whole question could be avoided if we popularized the term "London Baptist."


----------



## Keith Mathison

Hi Austin,

I like the idea of referring to "Reformed Baptists" as "London Baptists." Good idea!

There's probably more overlap with the content of Lutheran Confessions that you might imagine. John Calvin himself was able to sign the 1540 revised version of the Augsburg Confession - the Variata (Bruce Gordon, Calvin. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2009, p. 99). The main areas where Baptist confessions would diverge with the Lutheran confessions would be on the sacraments and ecclesiology - the same places where they diverge from the Reformed confessions.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian

Amen Dr. Clark


----------



## rbcbob

R. Scott Clark said:


> 3) We could agree if it filled a needed use but it doesn't here. Baptists who identify with aspects of the Reformed Reformation have a historic designation, "Particular Baptists."



Scott, there have been several assertions made in which you demonstrate an inaccurate understanding of Reformed Baptists. There are reasons why the historic term "Particular Baptist" is not suitable as a descriptive handle for Reformed Baptists. This in itself would be of no consequence but for the fact that various issues of ignorance and prejudice you seem to think we embrace. I wish to assure you that this Reformed Baptist, at least, has a high regard and affectionate esteem for my Paedobaptist brethren. If you are interested in learning, from our viewpoint, how Reformed Baptists emerged I offer the following for your consideration:

The Matrix of Reformed Baptists Part 1 - SermonAudio.com
Matrix of Reformed Baptist 2 - SermonAudio.com
The Matrix of Reformed Baptist Pt 3 - SermonAudio.com


----------



## Supersillymanable

This may be a little simplistic, but would simply referring to yourself as Historically Reformed be the best answer? It puts forward that the use of the word Reformed has been changed (or misused, whatever we'd like to call it), and that we are using the word reformed in the "correct" or historical sense. This would help differentiate from those who use reformed in the sense of 5 point Calvinism etc?


----------



## SRoper

austinww said:


> Keith Mathison said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have to side with Dr. Clark here. I've yet to hear anyone call themselves a "Lutheran Baptist" simply because they are a Baptist who believes in justification by faith alone. The Lutheran confessions define the meaning of "Lutheran" just as the Reformed confessions define the meaning of "Reformed."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As a small caveat to my earlier posts, one difference is that there isn't a Baptist confession that bears many areas of agreement with Lutheran confessions. For this reason, I wouldn't make a huge fuss over the term "Reformed Baptist" in the context of true confessional London Baptists. Perhaps calling them "Reformed, full stop" might not be appropriate, but "Reformed Baptists" identifies the commonalities while letting the "Baptist" part highlight the differences. Even so, maybe the whole question could be avoided if we popularized the term "London Baptist."
Click to expand...


Calvin subscribed to a modified Augsburg Confession that is about as similar to the original Lutheran version as the London Baptist Confession is to the Westminster.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

rbcbob said:


> Scott, there have been several assertions made in which you demonstrate an inaccurate understanding of Reformed Baptists. There are reasons why the historic term "Particular Baptist" is not suitable as a descriptive handle for Reformed Baptists. This in itself would be of no consequence but for the fact that various issues of ignorance and prejudice you seem to think we embrace.



Where has Dr. Clark exhibited an inaccurate understanding of Reformed Baptists? He and I have gone around and around on these issues for years. I think I have a pretty good knowledge of where they come from and what their doctrine is. He seems to exhibit an understanding of it as well. Why isn't Particular Baptist a suitable name? I understand why Reformed Baptist is better today since we now have New Covenant Theology. 

I actually do find that Dr. Clark's view of the Mosaic Covenant resembles more of a Reformed Baptist view than a Reformed view but that is my estimation and understanding.


----------



## a mere housewife

Nicely done!


----------



## jwright82

That is the oddest and possibly most funny blog I have seen. Where does it come from?


----------



## jwright82

My first guess was that it came from a hilarious land flowing with milk and honey. My previous attempts to locate this mysterious yet ridiculous land have alas proven failures, this "promise land" evades my every attmpt. It is comforting to know that someone has found it with all its bounty of laughs and very funny and very dry humor.


----------



## jwright82

I’ll have to ask them where they got that dog from. The only thing my dog does is sleep and run around like an idiot, oh yeah she can fetch too. I feel like I got ripped off.


----------



## Christlicher Soldat

austinww said:


> But why should the burden be on the group that maintains its historic beliefs to change its name every decade or so while shape-shifters co-opt historic names?


Why should I have to waste my lungs giving these guys an earful about how they can't just start using our word? It's not going to change anything. They're not going to say, "You know somethin', he's got a point! We should all spend money out of our deacon's funds fixing all our church signs so that they read _particular baptist_!" If we were fighting over the word _Christian_, then that would make sense, because that word is biblically mandated. If we were fighting over the word _Calvinist_, then that would make sense, because that word has reference to the beliefs of a particular man. But a generic word like _Reformed_? I say, either dump it or start calling our Reformed and Presbyterian churches _Baptist Reformed_ and _Baptist Presbyterian_, and see how they like it.


----------



## a mere housewife

I'm afraid our former dog is a pest; and he does materialise at the most inconvenient moments.  Happily his days of doggy blogging are over. (He really didn't have much of a sense of humor.)



Supersillymanable said:


> This may be a little simplistic, but would simply referring to yourself as Historically Reformed be the best answer? It puts forward that the use of the word Reformed has been changed (or misused, whatever we'd like to call it), and that we are using the word reformed in the "correct" or historical sense. This would help differentiate from those who use reformed in the sense of 5 point Calvinism etc?



I think when the term 'historic' or some other distinction is employed in a discussion, it can make people feel more curious about the tradition itself, rather than simply feeling that there is no mutual appreciation of common grounds of fellowship, and defensive. It can open doors for further discussion, rather than making what one thought were open doors of communion feel a bit slammed in one's face? It's worked that way in my own experience, at least. I'm sure not everyone is like me, though.


----------



## J. Dean

The question then, gentlemen (and ladies) is this: when we use a given word, do we take the time to explain what is meant by that word? 

We use the word "Reformed," and to the extent that the audience we address understands what is meant, we rightly use it as such. But (to give an example here) try using the word "Reformed" to a Jew, who equates the word with "theologically liberal." He will understand the word in a different way than we do, will see it differently than we do, and will quite possibly make presumptions and assumptions that will be different from ours.

If a word becomes elastic, that word in essence either needs to be defined authoritatively, with clear delineation between what does and does not constitute acceptance within that definition, or that word must be given up as a lost cause.

We've seen this with "Christian," we've seen this with the word "evangelical," and now we're seeing this with the word "Reformed." I've noted that a great many in the Reformed and Lutheran camps are now using the word "confessional." That's great, but are we from these two groups who occupy this camp defining the word meticulously and with jealousy? Because if not, the word "confessional" will eventually go the way of the other words in our theological lexicon and come to mean something "elastic" and therefore useless.

When one sets up defining theological terms, one must be careful to regularly revisit the meanings of those terms and be clear as to the acceptable and unacceptable premises that relate to those terms. In our "big tent" culture, it is far too easy to slip on what constitutes the meaning of those words and therefore give them a precarious elasticity, thus undermining the entire reason for such words which are set up as fences to keep out unacceptable ideas and doctrines.

So use terms like Reformed, confessional, etc., but beware the failure to explain those terms regularly and with vigor.


----------



## au5t1n

Keith Mathison said:


> Hi Austin,
> 
> I like the idea of referring to "Reformed Baptists" as "London Baptists." Good idea!
> 
> There's probably more overlap with the content of Lutheran Confessions that you might imagine. John Calvin himself was able to sign the 1540 revised version of the Augsburg Confession - the Variata (Bruce Gordon, Calvin. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2009, p. 99). The main areas where Baptist confessions would diverge with the Lutheran confessions would be on the sacraments and ecclesiology - the same places where they diverge from the Reformed confessions.



Hi Dr. Mathison,

I see your point. I guess I had in mind the fact that the LBC shares our views of worship, soteriology (mostly), and aspects of covenant theology. Speaking of Lutherans, I had a Lutheran roommate a few years ago who read your book on postmillennialism and enjoyed it. I don't know whether the Lutheran system has room for postmillennial eschatology or not.


----------



## au5t1n

Christlicher Soldat said:


> austinww said:
> 
> 
> 
> But why should the burden be on the group that maintains its historic beliefs to change its name every decade or so while shape-shifters co-opt historic names?
> 
> 
> 
> Why should I have to waste my lungs giving these guys an earful about how they can't just start using our word? It's not going to change anything. They're not going to say, "You know somethin', he's got a point! We should all spend money out of our deacon's funds fixing all our church signs so that they read _particular baptist_!" If we were fighting over the word _Christian_, then that would make sense, because that word is biblically mandated. If we were fighting over the word _Calvinist_, then that would make sense, because that word has reference to the beliefs of a particular man. But a generic word like _Reformed_? I say, either dump it or start calling our Reformed and Presbyterian churches _Baptist Reformed_ and _Baptist Presbyterian_, and see how they like it.
Click to expand...


My reference to "shape-shifters" had New Calvinists in view rather than LBC1689ers. As noted before, I wouldn't spend much effort arguing over "Reformed Baptist" for an LBC1689er. Maybe a little effort, but not much effort.


----------



## VictorBravo

Josh, it looks like *nobody* knows what London means:

Etymology of London - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## rbcbob

PuritanCovenanter said:


> Why isn't Particular Baptist a suitable name?



Randy, among other problems the Particular Baptists essentially abandoned the 1689 Confession within fifty years after it was embraced. There were occasional recoveries (e.g. Spurgeon) but these were few and far between.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

rbcbob said:


> PuritanCovenanter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why isn't Particular Baptist a suitable name?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Randy, among other problems the Particular Baptists essentially abandoned the 1689 Confession within fifty years after it was embraced. There were occasional recoveries (e.g. Spurgeon) but these were few and far between.
Click to expand...


Isn't this becoming true since the name Reformed Baptist has come into play? Look at the New Covenant Theologians who claim to be Reformed Baptists. They have moved away from the 1689 also. That doesn't mean that the historical name isn't suitable. The same thing has happened with Westminster Confessional Churches. There have been great exodus' from their heritage even though they claim to adhere to it.


----------



## ThyWord IsTruth

I have to say that this seems silly to me. I would much rather use a word that identifies my beliefs such as "Reformed" to preface "Baptist" than to let it stand alone and be associated with the likes of the mainstream "Arminian" minded "Baptist". They say that there is a "Baptist" church on every corner in the south and one in between every church on every corner. 
People don't use the old terms of "AnaBaptist", "General Baptist", "Separate Baptist", "Landmarkism" etc.... Yes we can use "Strict and/or Particular Baptist" as a moniker to shed light on what we believe but we don't. We use the term "Reformed Baptist" because we are very much "Reformed" in our views as our confession is almost identical to the Westminster Confession of Faith". And we are very much "Baptist" as we believe in a believers baptism and not infant baptism. I would say that Baptists have reformed there view on baptism as Presbyterian's and other sprinklers have not. And btw not all Baptists believe that we are a direct line from John the Baptist. All true believers are part of the Catholic Church and have in some way, form or fashion protested the heresy of the roman church and it's papacy. Also most of our forefathers whether Baptist, Presbyterian or Congregationalist were "non-conformist" against the "Act of Uniformity" being imposed by the Monarchs and the Anglican Church. The denominations have gone through so many generations and changes along the way, but the word "Reformed" has withstood the test of time.


----------



## Marrow Man

I saw this article this morning (linked on the Aquila Report). I'll let some of the Baptist brothers respond, but if the author is correct (and I think he basically is), the differences are perhaps much deeper than we sometimes admit.

The Christian Curmudgeon: Can Baptists Be Reformed?


----------



## au5t1n

Marrow Man said:


> I saw this article this morning (linked on the Aquila Report). I'll let some of the Baptist brothers respond, but if the author is correct (and I think he basically is), the differences are perhaps much deeper than we sometimes admit.
> 
> The Christian Curmudgeon: Can Baptists Be Reformed?



The article does an excellent job of pointing out the soteriological implications of antipaedobaptism, and how they have infected the thinking of many Presbyterians. I have cringed in the past at hearing Presbyterians describe how they led their child, who already professed faith in the Christian faith he had long been taught, through a "conversion experience." To be fair, I do not think holding to the LBC necessitates viewing conversion this way, and I hope it is not the common attitude of confessional Baptists past and present. However, there is something about antipaedobaptism that creates this kind of thinking, and when Baptists become Presbyterian, it can be difficult to escape the mindset.


----------



## rbcbob

Marrow Man said:


> I saw this article this morning (linked on the Aquila Report). I'll let some of the Baptist brothers respond, but if the author is correct (and I think he basically is), the differences are perhaps much deeper than we sometimes admit.
> 
> The Christian Curmudgeon: Can Baptists Be Reformed?



There is much to appreciate in the article while differing on a few of the assumptions and interpretations of its author.

Regarding the means of grace relative to Baptism and the Lord's Supper Reformed Baptist do indeed believe them both to be genuine means of grace imparted to* the believer*.
Perhaps it would help to note that Reformed Baptists take the word "Reformed" in their name to (1) call attention to the fact that the recovery in the 16th century of the pure gospel, and (2) highlight our desire that we be reformed in our hearts, our homes, and our church.

It still needs to be remembered the vast amount of agreement between Presbyterians and Reformed Baptists confessionally.

The Second London Baptist Confession of Faith, or as it is often referred to as the 1689 LBC was actually written in 1677 but was not signed and published until 1689.
In 1677 when this confession was written the Baptists, Presbyterians, and Independents were all on the outside looking in both ecclesiastically and politically.
There was considerable sympathy and comradeship among these groups. The Presbyterians had their WCF (1643), and the Independents, such as John Owen, had the Savoy Declaration (1658), and the Baptists wanted to express their unity with these two bodies in an updated and more thorough confession than either the 1644 or 1646 Baptist confessions presented.
The Savoy was itself a modification of the Westminster, changing those portions pertaining to the church in particular where Independence of congregations was believed to be more Scriptural than the Presbyterian system.

The Second London Baptist Confession 1677/1689 was rather a modification of the Savoy than of the WCF. In it were stressed those Baptist distinctive which we hold to today. The reason for its being signed and published in 1689 was because that was the year that Parliament issued the Act of Toleration.
Hanserd Knollys, William Kiffin, and Benjamin Keach represent the long and laborious struggle of Baptists in 17th century England during which a thoroughly biblical ecclesiology was hammered out.

Whereas the thrust of the First London Baptist Confession of Faith (1644) was to declare that ‘we are not *Anabaptists*’ the thrust of the Second London Baptist Confession of Faith (1689) was to declare that ‘we are neither *Paedobaptists* nor *Constantinians*’.

Dennis Bustin says that Knollys “arrived at his ecclesiology or doctrine of the church as a lifelong journey” and believed that “the Particular Baptists came closest to the Truth revealed in the Scriptures”.

Austin Walker says that “Keach and his fellow Particular Baptists saw themselves as a third wave following on from the Reformers and earlier Puritans … persuaded that they had moved beyond them in their understanding of the nature of the church of Jesus Christ, by the rejection of infant baptism and all that it implied.”

Please note and remember that this conviction regarding a furthering of the work of reformation by 17th century Baptists DOES IN NO WAY HINDER OUR LOVE AND DEEP APPRECIATION FOR OUR PAEDOBAPTIST BROTHERS past or present.

We understand how our paedobaptist brethren must necessarily, on their principles, see us as "off on a thing or two" and that is to be expected. I have found that by many of you we are loved and kindly looked upon.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian

to Austin and Tim

I really hope some more study is done on this by folks smarter than I, but I have recently been in conversation with folks about how _Baptistic_ the Presbyterian Church has become over the last 100 years not only in the way most folks in the pew see Baptism, but also in the way they look at Church Government and the whole Covenantal Structure of the Bible and the Christian Life.


----------



## rbcbob

Backwoods Presbyterian said:


> to Austin and Tim
> 
> I really hope some more study is done on this by folks smarter than I, but I have recently been in conversation with folks about how _Baptistic_ the Presbyterian Church has become over the last 100 years not only in the way most folks in the pew see Baptism, but also in the way they look at Church Government and the whole Covenantal Structure of the Bible and the Christian Life.



It appears that Benjamin and I were posting at virtually the same time. I trust that he was affirming the post prior to mine.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian

rbcbob said:


> Backwoods Presbyterian said:
> 
> 
> 
> to Austin and Tim
> 
> I really hope some more study is done on this by folks smarter than I, but I have recently been in conversation with folks about how _Baptistic_ the Presbyterian Church has become over the last 100 years not only in the way most folks in the pew see Baptism, but also in the way they look at Church Government and the whole Covenantal Structure of the Bible and the Christian Life.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It appears that Benjamin and I were posting at virtually the same time. I trust that he was affirming the post prior to mine.
Click to expand...


 Yes I went back and added who I was dittoing.


----------



## au5t1n

Backwoods Presbyterian said:


> to Austin and Tim
> 
> I really hope some more study is done on this by folks smarter than I, but I have recently been in conversation with folks about how _Baptistic_ the Presbyterian Church has become over the last 100 years not only in the way most folks in the pew see Baptism, but also in the way they look at Church Government and the whole Covenantal Structure of the Bible and the Christian Life.



I strongly agree. This will be difficult to solve because we want to be charitable with our LBC brethren as they are to us, and we'd like to manifest our unity to the greatest degree possible. At the same time, important aspects of our theological heritage have been obscured among our own churchmen by the heavy Baptist influence of the past couple centuries. I think that may be part of the reason we have an interest in maintaining the integrity of the word "Reformed."


----------



## Marrow Man

Bob is right to point out there is far more agreement than disagreement. And it is very helpful to point out the historical circumstances behind the LBC1689. But the differences we have are more than issues of baptism and church gov't. Those are there, obviously, but they grow out of the real difference -- ecclesiology. Our views on ecclesiology are different, and that is what drives the debate (in my opinion).


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian

I still want to say there is a such a fundamental difference in the way we view the Covenant (which for Presbyterians means a heck of a lot more than just Baptism and Soteriology) that the differences are unbridgeable.


----------



## Unoriginalname

I feel that the argument that points out that there is a lot of similarity between conservative baptists and conservative presbyterians is misguided because there should be a lot of similarity between Christians in general. I am concerned for groups that are not similar to baptists and presbyterians in faith and practice. That said that does not mean we need to apply a term that describes our distinctions and history to one of the most similar groups who have a different history and different distinctions.


----------



## GulfCoast Presbyterian

Baptists can be reformed. Look at me. I was once a baptist, now I'm not. I've reformed. Praise the Lord! [/QUOTE]

Me too!


----------



## Marrow Man

Backwoods Presbyterian said:


> I still want to say there is a such a fundamental difference in the way we view the Covenant



Good point. Perhaps it would be better to see that the difference in view with regard to the covenant is what drives the differences in ecclesiology?


----------



## VictorBravo

Marrow Man said:


> Backwoods Presbyterian said:
> 
> 
> 
> I still want to say there is a such a fundamental difference in the way we view the Covenant
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Good point. Perhaps it would be better to see that the difference in view with regard to the covenant is what drives the differences in ecclesiology?
Click to expand...


Fair points, but that seems to ignore some mighty figures of the late-Reformation era. I'm thinking of John Owen as one example. His view of the covenant kept him being a paedobaptist, and yet his ecclesiology was not Presbyterian. 

I suppose one could chalk it up to politics of the era, but I do think that is fairly dismissive.


----------



## jwright82

> They say that there is a "Baptist" church on every corner in the south and one in between every church on every corner.



I see that you are from CA. Drive up through backwoods Georgia you know past all the small towns and that is pretty much true.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Keith Mathison said:


> I like the idea of referring to "Reformed Baptists" as "London Baptists." Good idea!



Dr. Mathison, When I was a Particular Baptist I wanted to be known as a Confessional Baptist. So I vote that they be called "Confessional Baptists."


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

VictorBravo said:


> I'm thinking of John Owen as one example. His view of the covenant kept him being a paedobaptist, and yet his ecclesiology was not Presbyterian.



John Owen was a mixed bag. Logically I think he should have been a Particular Baptist. His view of the Mosaic Covenant is where a lot of Confessional Baptists get their hermeneutic for their understanding of abrogation and their dichotomous view of law and gospel. His Hebrews 8 commentary is a mainstay for the Confessional Baptist understanding. Had he spent time listening to John Tombe he would have been confronted with where his views were leading to. That is my understanding of the situation.


----------



## Herald

I'm weighing in on this late. The horse is out of the barn on this issue. I can appreciate how my historically Reformed brethren may feel about their label being "diluted." There are more than a few threads in the PB archives about whether Reformed Baptists can call themselves Reformed. I like what Bob said in regards to R. Scott Clark calling himself a Baptist. No one can stop him if he chooses to do so. Where that argument breaks down is that the etymology of the word "Baptist" hasn't displayed any gravitas towards the theological distinctives that R. Scott Clark holds to. Within a narrow band of Baptist churches such gravitas exists. It's not a reaction against historically Reformed denominations; rather it's a differentiator from semi-Pelagian Baptists and Calvinistic Baptists without a covenantal approach to scripture. The term works well for our minority among Baptist churches. I don't see where it detracts from historically Reformed denominations.


----------



## VictorBravo

PuritanCovenanter said:


> VictorBravo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm thinking of John Owen as one example. His view of the covenant kept him being a paedobaptist, and yet his ecclesiology was not Presbyterian.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> John Owen was a mixed bag. Logically I think he should have been a Particular Baptist. His view of the Mosaic Covenant is where a lot of Confessional Baptists get their hermeneutic for their understanding of abrogation and their dichotomous view of law and gospel. His Hebrews 8 commentary is a mainstay for the Confessional Baptist understanding. Had he spent time listening to John Tombe he would have been confronted with where his views were leading to. That is my understanding of the situation.
Click to expand...


Sure, Randy, it is fair to criticize Owen and where he was heading. But that means you are applying the definition of what is "Reformed" by looking at later developments. The Presbyterian understanding of Covenant Theology was still being developed in Owen's time. 

So, if the assertion is that you can only be reformed if you are Presbyterian, and therefore you put Owen out of that classification, you are applying the term in an _ex post facto_ manner (in other words, redefining what "Reformed" means) which is exactly what the current complaint is all about.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Vic, I think I understand your charge. Maybe I don't. But see if this answers you. 

It seems the Westminster Assembly understood Covenant Theology really well. I don't know how it developed much more past the time of the Assembly. Their understanding was good enough to reject certain ideas presented to the Commissioners and Assembly at Westminster. John Owen did maintain a Covenant Family heritage unlike the Particular Baptists. John Owen wasn't at the Assembly but later was involved with the Savoy Declaration as you know. It isn't that I think that Presbyterians are the only ones Reformed. The Dutch Tradition is very good also. When I look at Bavinck I just thank God for his insight. There are some old time Anglicans who still hold to the Covenant of Grace as understood by the Reformed Church. So it isn't just a Presbyterian thing. Dr. Clark's 6 points define the differences of why the Baptist hermeneutic is not Reformed. His Church comes from the Dutch tradition. As you know their doctrine is summarized in the Three Forms of Unity. I am not putting Owen out of the Reformed Camp but he sure was close to the edge in my estimation. 



5-Point Baptist said:


> People don't use the old terms of "AnaBaptist", "General Baptist", "Separate Baptist", "Landmarkism" etc....



They do around here.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Just a side note here. I am not mad that anyone desires to be called Reformed. I do not get upset about it and I understand why Reformed Baptists desire the name that most likely Ernest Reisinger coined. I just have an opinion about the situation and I think I have been consistent in my opinion and actions for the past years. More of them were spent as a Confessional Baptist as most of you know. 

I am not opposed to calling someone a Reformed Baptist. Rev. Winzer made one of the best comments on this subject I believe. Rev. Winzer said, "I think the last time this was discussed the consensus was that "reformed" before "baptist" is one thing, and "reformed" on its own is another. Reformed Baptists are just that -- Baptists who have become reformed. But they are still distinct from reformed churches."http://www.puritanboard.com/f121/wh...ng-reformed-being-calvinist-34219/#post423378


I posted that in my blog when I discussed this and said I agreed with him. I just believe that we need to educate people better so that learning is actually happening and so that people can understand categories and theologies better. http://www.puritanboard.com/blogs/p...storical-understanding-reformed-theology-316/


----------



## Keith Mathison

*Particular Confessional London Baptists*



PuritanCovenanter said:


> Keith Mathison said:
> 
> 
> 
> I like the idea of referring to "Reformed Baptists" as "London Baptists." Good idea!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr. Mathison, When I was a Particular Baptist I wanted to be known as a Confessional Baptist. So I vote that they be called "Confessional Baptists."
Click to expand...


Okay, we have several Baptist votes for "Reformed" Baptist, two votes for "London Baptists" and one vote for "Confessional Baptists." We need an official poll. 

BTW, given how long certain Baptists have been using the label "Reformed Baptist," my guess is that all of this is a somewhat moot point and the actual usage of the term has usurped its historical definition. I do agree with Dr. Clark's argument in principle, however. If we are going to label ourselves, it's better to find a term that focuses on those issues that distinguish us, not on the issues we have in common. That, I think leads to terminological ambiguity and confusion. It's like what happened to the term "evangelical" which is essentially useless now.

That was my point about the term "Lutheran Baptist." We don't find Baptists calling themselves Lutheran Baptists simply because they agree with Lutherans on justification by faith alone, so why do we have Baptists calling themselves "Reformed Baptists" simply because they agree with the Reformed on the five points? 

Two cents worth.


----------



## Alan D. Strange

I'm not sure Anthony Bradley's question that kicked this off was all that clear or accurate. It is the case that Boice, Sproul, Ferguson and others were always involved not only with Presbyterians (or even continental Reformed) but also with those who were not fully covenantal but soteriologically Calvinistic (five-pointers). I lived (in Seminary, back in the 80s) with Ferguson for two years and regularly fielded phone calls for speaking engagements not only from Boice and Sproul but from Packer, Al Martin, Iain Murray, and others who were not Presbyterians.

Thus I think that Trueman's rather laconic response is perfectly appropriate. 

Think about it: this is something to rejoice over, not lament--more people understand and confess, to evoke Packer's marvelous introductory essay to Owen's _Death of Death_, that "God saves sinners." Stop and go read Packer on that.

What the movement means is that more people are getting serious about theology, because when people do that, they move in a Reformed direction (though it might take some time to arrive there). Beginning in the mid-70s, SBC conservatives started strategizing, leading to the election in 1979 of Adrian Rogers. Though he, Paige Patterson and others were not Calvinists, they laid the groundwork for Calvinists, like Al Mohler, to come to prominence. Similarly, Reformed teaching going out at PCRT helped shape others, who were baptistic and so forth, in becoming, Calvinistic. Yes, battles over Calvinism in the SBC are now on. But I rejoice that the old Spurgeon heritage among the Baptists is being trumpeted again and that men like Piper, Carson and others are promoting a Calvinistic soteriology. 

Here's my point: that more people want to call themselves Reformed, even if they are deficient in that, is not something lamentable but means that at least some of what men like Sproul and others have been trumpeting has been understood. I want to challenge my baptistic brethren, indeed, to think through the real implications of the covenant. At the same time, I want to fellowship and rejoice together with those who understand that God is sovereign, that fallen man is totally depraved (especially that he is afflicted with total inability), that Christ alone saves, from first to last, that the Spirit's work in the elect is irresistible and that we will be kept until that perfect day.

I understand the dispute over proper nomenclature, but we need to make sure that such does not reflect a failure to rejoice and fellowship with brethren with whom we have much in common. I am at Princeton researching and writing for a few weeks. Would that I had fellowship with these here as we once would have. And would that we had the catholic spirit of Old Princeton that maintained orthodoxy while enjoying breadth of fellowship. Andy Hoffecker's recent work on Hodge does a good job of showing that kind of spirit, the catholic orthodoxy that characterized Hodge. That is what I am for. Let us contend with all our might for the truth but not be contentious or overly-narrow in the way that we deal with each other.

Peace,
Alan


----------



## rbcbob

Alan I want to thank you for such a spirit of fellowship and for the wisdom with which you have spoken. May the Lord grant such keen insight and foresight to many. As I alluded in one of my posts above it is inherently necessary that the paedobaptist understanding of the Covenants see the baptist view of the Covenants as somewhat lacking. That this is so in no way discourages me or lessens my high regard for the much beloved paedobaptists on this board. When they speak so patiently and kindly to me I recognize that they are not allowing my system of understanding God's Covenant, and therefore His Church, to hinder our fellowship which is precious.

In the common bonds of our Redeemer,


Bob


----------



## Herald

Alan, well said. 

Sent from my Galaxy S3


----------



## jwright82

Alan D. Strange said:


> I'm not sure Anthony Bradley's question that kicked this off was all that clear or accurate. It is the case that Boice, Sproul, Ferguson and others were always involved not only with Presbyterians (or even continental Reformed) but also with those who were not fully covenantal but soteriologically Calvinistic (five-pointers). I lived (in Seminary, back in the 80s) with Ferguson for two years and regularly fielded phone calls for speaking engagements not only from Boice and Sproul but from Packer, Al Martin, Iain Murray, and others who were not Presbyterians.
> 
> Thus I think that Trueman's rather laconic response is perfectly appropriate.
> 
> Think about it: this is something to rejoice over, not lament--more people understand and confess, to evoke Packer's marvelous introductory essay to Owen's _Death of Death_, that "God saves sinners." Stop and go read Packer on that.
> 
> What the movement means is that more people are getting serious about theology, because when people do that, they move in a Reformed direction (though it might take some time to arrive there). Beginning in the mid-70s, SBC conservatives started strategizing, leading to the election in 1979 of Adrian Rogers. Though he, Paige Patterson and others were not Calvinists, they laid the groundwork for Calvinists, like Al Mohler, to come to prominence. Similarly, Reformed teaching going out at PCRT helped shape others, who were baptistic and so forth, in becoming, Calvinistic. Yes, battles over Calvinism in the SBC are now on. But I rejoice that the old Spurgeon heritage among the Baptists is being trumpeted again and that men like Piper, Carson and others are promoting a Calvinistic soteriology.
> 
> Here's my point: that more people want to call themselves Reformed, even if they are deficient in that, is not something lamentable but means that at least some of what men like Sproul and others have been trumpeting has been understood. I want to challenge my baptistic brethren, indeed, to think through the real implications of the covenant. At the same time, I want to fellowship and rejoice together with those who understand that God is sovereign, that fallen man is totally depraved (especially that he is afflicted with total inability), that Christ alone saves, from first to last, that the Spirit's work in the elect is irresistible and that we will be kept until that perfect day.
> 
> I understand the dispute over proper nomenclature, but we need to make sure that such does not reflect a failure to rejoice and fellowship with brethren with whom we have much in common. I am at Princeton researching and writing for a few weeks. Would that I had fellowship with these here as we once would have. And would that we had the catholic spirit of Old Princeton that maintained orthodoxy while enjoying breadth of fellowship. Andy Hoffecker's recent work on Hodge does a good job of showing that kind of spirit, the catholic orthodoxy that characterized Hodge. That is what I am for. Let us contend with all our might for the truth but not be contentious or overly-narrow in the way that we deal with each other.
> 
> Peace,
> Alan



Very well put Dr. Strange. Your wisdom is very on spot. I do have to say that I disagree with Dr. Trueman in principle. I too rejoice in more and more people becoming “Reformed” in this broad sense. But where do we draw the line? If we don’t have a central confession or confessions that regulate the definition of “Reformed” than like Evangelicalism it will come to mean so many things that it simply requires us to develop a confession to solve this problem. 

I have no problem with the phrase “Reformed Baptist” because it is a distinction, which is an honest one. RBers are honestly saying that we disagree with Dutch Reformed and Scotch Presbyterian Reformed on some fundamental issues to deserve a different title. But I do think they deserve to call themselves “Reformed”. I have always been edified by RB brothers and sisters on this website and elsewhere. I would throw up the Puritan Board as the ideal model for a big tent view of “Reformed” that allows room for honest disagreement but confessional unity. 

And obviously you can be a RB and still be on here. I admire the Alliance of Confessing Evangelicalism for what they are doing along with the Gospel Coalition but I think that without a central confession or confessions to regulate what it means to be a “Confessing Evangelical” than it may come to mean anything. I agree with Dr. Clark that we need to have a discussion on just what it means to be “Reformed”. But I also agree with you and Dr. Trueman that we should rejoice that people are getting more “Reformed”.


----------

