# Reformed? Whats the difference?



## Zork (Jan 14, 2015)

Ive noticed that some reformed people believe a little different from others. 
Some are Baptist, Presbyterian etc.

Can someone please explain to me what the difference is? We are all brothers and sisters in Christ.
Don't want to start a debate just want to know what the difference is in beliefs.


----------



## Gforce9 (Jan 14, 2015)

Ronny,
You ask a difficult question that has been known to cause a border skirmish or two . Here are my thoughts:
I think there are three basic categories that some may broadly term "Reformed":
1- Presbyterian, Dutch Reformed,...
2- Confessional Baptists (like those here on PB)
3- Calvinistically leaning Baptists(Al Moeller, John Piper,...)

Category 3 folks can't properly be called "Reformed" because they are anti-covenantal and anti-confessional. I think most on the PB would agree on that point. 
The difference between category 1 and 2 folks is more complicated. As our own Rev. Buchanan has stated so well (paraphrasing) "We have a different set of presuppositions and a different hermeneutic that guide our understanding". We see the administration(s) of the Covenant of Grace from Genesis 3 to present differently. Category 1 folk see, primarily, a continuity, Category 2 folk see a discontinuity. Questions like "who is a member of the New Covenant administration", "who is a disciple" and, therefore, "who should be baptized" are front and center. We are friends and we are brothers, but there are significant differences in how we understand Scripture. Interestingly enough, Cat 1 and Cat 2 folks seem to have more in common than do Cat 2 and Cat 3 folks.
In addition to this, there is the historical usage of the term "Reformed". In that context, Baptists are not "Reformed"; for they are not Presbyterian, Dutch Reformed,.... Even on this there is disagreement.
This subject has far more depth and nuance than can be typed out and discussed. There have been some good discussion on this in the past on PB. Maybe someone can link some older posts that talk more in-depth on this topic.....


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Jan 14, 2015)

Anglicanism is not Reformed. Presbyterians and puritans being generous might grant half-reformed though I suspect that was not a grant but a complaint.


----------



## GulfCoast Presbyterian (Jan 14, 2015)

I would suggest working your way through Dr. McMahon's workbook: "The Reformed Apprentice." It will give you a deeper appreciation of the way "Category 1" folks define what is "Reformed." It will also help you refine your own views if you happen to be of the "Category II" persuasion. The Reformed Apprentice: A Workbook on Reformed Theology


----------



## Gforce9 (Jan 14, 2015)

NaphtaliPress said:


> Anglicanism is not Reformed. Presbyterians and puritans being generous might grant half-reformed though I suspect that was not a grant but a complaint.



Chris,
I thought about this as I wrote and probably should have left out the crazy Anglicans. Noted and corrected.


----------



## Peairtach (Jan 14, 2015)

Knox called the Church of England's reformation a "mingle-mangle".

Sent from my HTC Wildfire using Tapatalk 2


----------



## arapahoepark (Jan 14, 2015)

NaphtaliPress said:


> Anglicanism is not Reformed. Presbyterians and puritans being generous might grant half-reformed though I suspect that was not a grant but a complaint.



Without trying to start some debate may I ask why Anglicans (what of Reformed Anglicans, not church as a whole so much) are not? Is that due to church polity? Why are not the 39 Articles sufficient as I have seen said around here before? Just curious.


----------



## Jeri Tanner (Jan 14, 2015)

"Category 2 folk see a discontinuity." I would be interested in understanding more about this. I consider myself to be a confessional, reformed Baptist, but also to see continuity in the covenant of grace from Genesis 3 to presently, as do other confessional Baptists I know. The only difference I knowingly hold is a lack of continuity between circumcision and baptism; is that the discontinuity meant? Maybe this should be a separate thread, though the answer could be instructive to the op. Thanks for any help.


----------



## reaganmarsh (Jan 14, 2015)

If memory serves, the basic criterion (mostly!) agreed upon here at the PB for using the label "Reformed" is: 

affirming the doctrines of grace, 
adhering to covenant theology, and 
subscribing to one of the Reformational Confessions of faith.


----------



## Jeri Tanner (Jan 14, 2015)

Sorry, I didn't see the last four posts before I posted. I'll try to get "The Reformed Apprentice" but would still appreciate any brief answers or pointing to other resources.


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Jan 14, 2015)

Because the Reformation was halted by Elizabeth so that church as the Puritans complained was but half reformed, lacking a biblical polity and worship. 


arap said:


> NaphtaliPress said:
> 
> 
> > Anglicanism is not Reformed. Presbyterians and puritans being generous might grant half-reformed though I suspect that was not a grant but a complaint.
> ...


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Jan 14, 2015)

"I am first a Christian, next a catholic, then a Calvinist, fourth a paedobaptist, and fifth a Presbyterian. I cannot reverse this order."

- John Duncan


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion (Jan 14, 2015)

To be reformed means:

1) To confess with the orthodox churches the consensus of the first five centuries of Christianity, including:
• Classic theism: One omnipotent, benevolent God, distinct from creation.
• Nicene and Chalcedonian Trinitarianism: one God in three eternally existent persons, equal in power and glory.
• Christ, the God-Man, the one mediator between God & the human race, incarnate, crucified, resurrected, ascended, & coming again.
• Humanity created in the image of God, yet tragically fallen & profoundly in need of restoration to God through Christ.
• The Visible Church: the community of the redeemed, indwelt by the Holy Spirit; the mystical body of Christ on earth. The one, holy, catholic, and apostolic church.
• The Sacraments: visible signs and seals of the grace of God, ministering Christ's love to us in our deep need.
• The Christian life: characterized by the prime theological virtues of faith, hope, and love.

2) To confess with the Reformation churches the four great "Solas:"
• the source of authority: Sola Scriptura.
• the basis of salvation: Sola Gratia.
• the means of salvation: Sola Fide
• the merit of salvation: Solus Christus

3) To confess with the Reformed churches the distinctives of the Reformed faith:
• In salvation: monergism not synergism. God alone saves. Such monergism implies T.U.L.I.P., the Five Points of Calvinism from the Synod of Dordt:
T = Total Depravity
U = Unconditional Election
L = Limited Atonement, or, better, Particular Redemption
I = Irresistible Grace
P = Perseverance and Preservation of the Saints
• In worship: the Regulative Principle of Worship "Whatever is not commanded in public worship is forbidden." God alone directs how he is to be worshiped in the assembly of the visible church.
• In the Visible Church: Covenant Theology & Covenant Community. The Church is the New Israel, incorporating believers among Jews and Gentiles alike. Infant Baptism ordinarily follows from this understanding. Sacraments are not merely human observances, but acts of Jesus Christ, marking out the visible church.
• In life: Life is religion: there is no sacred/secular distinction. As such Christians have neither jobs nor careers; they have vocations (callings). Every calling is "full time Christian service," because every Christian is a full-time Christian.

4) Finally, in everything, as Christians everywhere joyfully affirm: Soli Deo Gloria. 'To God alone be the glory.'

*SRC:* Byron G. Curtis, Assistant Prof/Biblical Studies, Geneva College


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Jan 14, 2015)

Why did professor Curtis leave off church polity in his lengthy definition? Retaining many of the extra biblical offices of the RCC and hierarchical structure surely was not considered Reformed?


Ask Mr. Religion said:


> To be reformed means:
> 
> 1) To confess with the orthodox churches the consensus of the first five centuries of Christianity, including:
> • Classic theism: One omnipotent, benevolent God, distinct from creation.
> ...


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion (Jan 14, 2015)

Chris,

I do not know why church polity was not treated by Prof. Curtis.


----------



## Andrew P.C. (Jan 14, 2015)

Jeri Tanner said:


> "Category 2 folk see a discontinuity." I would be interested in understanding more about this. I consider myself to be a confessional, reformed Baptist, but also to see continuity in the covenant of grace from Genesis 3 to presently, as do other confessional Baptists I know. The only difference I knowingly hold is a lack of continuity between circumcision and baptism; is that the discontinuity meant? Maybe this should be a separate thread, though the answer could be instructive to the op. Thanks for any help.



You'd have to read Earl Blackburn then compare it with O. Palmer Robertson. You will see the difference.


----------



## Zork (Jan 14, 2015)

GulfCoast Presbyterian said:


> I would suggest working your way through Dr. McMahon's workbook: "The Reformed Apprentice." It will give you a deeper appreciation of the way "Category 1" folks define what is "Reformed." It will also help you refine your own views if you happen to be of the "Category II" persuasion. The Reformed Apprentice: A Workbook on Reformed Theology



Thanks Great site. Thanks for all the replies. Very insightful.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Jan 18, 2015)

With respect to the question of Anglicanism being Reformed: is it not better to say that the Puritans were anti-Prelatic as opposed to anti-Anglican, as they were all sons of the Church of England?


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Jan 18, 2015)

Reformed Covenanter said:


> With respect to the question of Anglicanism being Reformed: is it not better to say that the Puritans were anti-Prelatic as opposed to anti-Anglican, as they were all sons of the Church of England?



Probably but one could say they were anti-"what Anglicanism became..." There was certainly a time when they had hopes that were later dashed.


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Jan 18, 2015)

Actually they had an uphill fight from the time Elizabeth first took over who really (very seriously) wanted to simply go back to the church her father had (papist at heart) but settled for the church, sort of , that her brother had and drew a uniformity line and said "no further". The Puritans felt even that was only half reformed. The Puritans did view themselves as part of the English church. While you certainly had your separatists, even the Presbyterians were not that, though' severely hounded and supposedly wiped out by Bancroft by 1592 (however rather than that the old view that he killed the movement see Polly Ha's book arguing it simply went underground and that English Presbyterianism was not simply revived by the Scots in the 1640s). I have always been a Scots Presbyterian man in my interests, but found the study of the period fascinating which I had to look at for my work on Nicholas Bownd's _True Doctrine of the Sabbath,_ hopefully going to press next month; in last proof read, I hope. One of those 20 year projects I have to kick out of the nest.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Jan 18, 2015)

Looking forward to it Chris.


----------



## MichaelNZ (Jan 18, 2015)

Based on the considerations mentioned on this thread, would you consider the Reformed Episcopal Church to be Reformed? They seem to be one organisation of Reformed Anglicans that I've come across. Based on the pictures on their website they also seem to have quite a 'high' style of worship - which appeals to me. Too bad I'm not in the US.


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Jan 18, 2015)

No; Rome friendly.
http://www.puritanboard.com/f47/reformed-episcopal-seminary-33730/#post417217



MichaelNZ said:


> Based on the considerations mentioned on this thread, would you consider the Reformed Episcopal Church to be Reformed? They seem to be one organisation of Reformed Anglicans that I've come across. Based on the pictures on their website they also seem to have quite a 'high' style of worship - which appeals to me. Too bad I'm not in the US.


----------



## Philip (Jan 18, 2015)

MichaelNZ said:


> They seem to be one organisation of Reformed Anglicans that I've come across.



Historically, that's accurate. They were low-church ecumenists who left the Protestant Episcopal Church over whether Presbyterian ordination was valid (more or less). Their seminary also played a small but significant role in the formation of Westminster Seminary, letting Machen and the departing Princeton faculty share their campus while Machen looked for a home for the fledgling institution.

More recently, the REC has become more high church but they are still very clearly a voice of classical Protestant thought within the Anglican Church in North America. I have a couple of friends who have gone to Reformed Episcopal Seminary as more or less Anglo-Catholic, and have come out as Reformed-leaning high-church evangelicals.


----------



## Conner (Jan 19, 2015)

The early particular baptists in the 17th century didn't seem to consider themselves reformed in light of a comparison of 1689 lbc and WCF 26:3. Thus paedobaptism is a requirement for one being labeled reformed. The Church of England also fails in meeting the distinctives of reformed theology in light of their denial of the regulative principle and Presbyterian or Congregational church government. All of these are soteriologically reformed, but that does not constitute reformed theology. It would be like referring to a monergistic Lutheran as reformed even though they advocate the normative principle and consubstantiation.


----------



## Nomad (Jan 19, 2015)

Conner said:


> The early particular baptists in the 17th century didn't seem to consider themselves reformed in light of a comparison of 1689 lbc and WCF 26:3. Thus paedobaptism is a requirement for one being labeled reformed.



1. Where exactly did you get such a narrow definition of "reformed?" 

2. Seventeenth century Particular Baptists certainly did consider themselves to be within the pale of reformed orthodoxy. The 1689 LBC is almost identical to the WCF and the Savoy Declaration. The early subscribers refer to this fact in the appendix.

_Whosoever reads, and impartially considers what we have in our forgoing confession declared, may readily perceive, That we do not only concenter with all other true Christians on the Word of God (revealed in the Scriptures of truth) as the foundation and rule of our faith and worship. But that we have also industriously endeavoured to manifest, That in the fundamental Articles of Christianity we mind the same things, and have therefore expressed our belief in the same words, that have on the like occasion been spoken by other societies of Christians before us._ - *1689 LBC, An Appendix* https://www.ccel.org/creeds/bcf/bcf.htm


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Jan 19, 2015)

Nomad said:


> Conner said:
> 
> 
> > The early particular baptists in the 17th century didn't seem to consider themselves reformed in light of a comparison of 1689 lbc and WCF 26:3. Thus paedobaptism is a requirement for one being labeled reformed.
> ...



So, a question...
Are the Baptists also "Lutherans" by similar criteria?

Those you referred to are English, so they self-consciously imitate the most recent English language Confession. If they were German (e.g. Dunkers, Old German Baptist Brethren - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia), then perhaps they might have borrowed from the Augsburg Confession. However, that borrowing wouldn't make them Lutherans.

The adjective "Reformed" wasn't formally attached to the noun "Baptist" until the mid 20th century. A self-consciously "Reformed" church was one _defined by_ the faith codified in the Three Forms of Unity. There is not a hair's breadth of difference in confessed truth between the Presbyterians and the Reformed, even in secondary matters, which fact lends itself to a shortened "Reformed faith" from "Reformed-and-Presbyterian faith." The same cannot be said for Baptist distinctives.

On the other hand, as the adjective "Reformed" has come to be *truncated*--sometimes into nothing more than the "TULIP"--this reductionist definition of "Merely Reformed" (from "Mere Christianity," another reductionist idea) has frequently taken over the vocabulary.

It is good to recognize that the English Baptists are somewhat strongly tied to the English, Protestant, Genevan-infuenced reformation. They are moreso in that direction, than to the other influences from the Anabaptist strain. But, at some point it is worth considering just why "Ecclesiology" no longer matters in fixing the meaning of an historic term (ecclesiology--the doctrine of the church--includes the right use of the sacraments). For the record, I'm glad for such allies, and am glad together we post on the PuritanBoard.

If one belongs to an historic, Reformed church (or its symbiotic twin, the Presbyterian), I believe one could be excused for 1) maintaining strongly that "Reformed" includes all that Ecclesiological matter his church has confessed for 500yrs, even if it is not within the "bullseye" but only the tight shot group; and 2) that it's verging into vandalism to abuse the name, in order to latch onto its cachet.

Prior to the mid-20th century, only the Lutherans used the adjective "reformed" as a general epithet to coarsely label all church-expression to their left, as a way of insulting their actual cousins in the Reformed Church (hence, making the Methodists and Pentecostals and every Anabaptist strain imaginable "Reformed" too).

For my part, I've surrendered the adjective, allowing that it now has multiple meanings, though also risking its continued watering-down. But then, I'm Presbyterian and have slightly less investment in the full and historic meaning. When I use the term, however, unless I qualify it with the "Baptist" addition, I mean what the 3FU and Westminster Stds mean--including the Ecclesiology.


----------



## Nomad (Jan 19, 2015)

Contra_Mundum said:


> Nomad said:
> 
> 
> > Conner said:
> ...



I find it extremely difficult to take this as a serious inquiry. Do you really mean to argue that 17th century English Particular Baptists adopted the language of the WCF and the Savoy Declaration as a result of geography and nationality rather than conviction? Unbelievable. Once again:

_But that we have also industriously endeavoured to manifest, That in the fundamental Articles of Christianity we mind the same things, and have therefore expressed our belief in the same words_[...]


----------



## arapahoepark (Jan 19, 2015)

Nomad said:


> Contra_Mundum said:
> 
> 
> > Nomad said:
> ...


I think you are misunderstanding Rev. Buchanan.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Jan 20, 2015)

James,
It was a rhetorical question, not one that I insisted on getting an answer for. But I asked it because You seemed nonplussed by the whole notion that the descriptive adjective "Reformed" might actually have a _definition_ associated with a particular Confession; and not that it properly functions as a kind of generic catch-all adjective labeling whatever content amounts to the "least-common-denominator" of pooled Confessions (or even absent much Confessional identity altogether, ala the so-called YRR crowd).

You use the term "reformed orthodoxy." It seems clear that by it, you mean something less than what defined orthodox Reformed doctrine in the 16th century, that what is "orthodox" is to be limited (perhaps) only to those doctrinal elements that some 17th century dissenters agreed to in common with those whom they thought were incorrect in other significant ways.

I have the recent set of Reformed Confessions, 1523-1693, Reformed Confessions of the 16th and 17th Centuries in English Translation: Volume 4, 1600-1693 . Right up until the very end, marked by the generous inclusion of both LBCs (1644 & 1689) and the Baptist Catechism, any confession that included ecclesiology in the Reformed-style confessions and catechisms from across Europe for 150yrs confessed a doctrine of the Church which included the children of professing believers (candidates for infant baptism).

That's 150yrs of defining "reformed orthodoxy;" as in: RO amounts to the majority Confession, in my view; and where the minority differs, it is by definition "not Reformed" at that point. It seems "narrow" to me, to insist that we marginalize ecclesiology, in the presumed interest of "restricting" what should count as definitional for being thoroughly Reformed. It truncates the content of what we agree upon, in order to include as many persons in the Big Tent, which we then label "Reformed."

I don't know why You find it incredible that the later Confession of the English Baptists adheres to the language of the Westminster in no small part because of historical relation, as much as due to specific theological affinities. In fact, that's what the quotation proves. How familiar are you with the 1644 LBC, the First of its ilk? That First is a thoroughly independent statement, and does not reflect nearly as much covenant-theology influence, which is embedded in the WCF.

Surely it is not, then, a mistake to recognize that a different set of historical circumstances would likely have produced a document that announced it's affinities with historic Christianity--while marking its profound differences--in just the alternate terms of (for instance) the Lutheran Confession. It would be a mistake to reason that such a (hypothetical) Confession made the confessors "Lutherans" thereby, just because they were "Lutheran" in soteriological (and other) matters, while differentiating themselves in matters sacramental!

It is a mistake to equate "the Reformed Faith" with "the fundamental Articles of Christianity," when the former becomes an equivocal term. "Reformed" describes a particular sort of Christianity, marked by a particular history, a particular (and full) set of doctrines, and a particular hermeneutical method.

Am I prepared to acknowledge that Confessional English Baptists have deep and real connections to my Confession, both historically and theologically? Most definitely. I am very thankful to God for those connections. But in their not-insignificant deviations from historic Reformed hermeneutics and ecclesiology, they are not "Reformed" if that term has an historic, majority-determined (by churches) fixed meaning.

I'm content to speak of my brethren by their chosen designation, if that happens to be "Reformed Baptists." It might even be helpful shorthand, given the wide variety of Baptists today. But I have a defensible opinion historically, as to why I think "Reformed" should be a majoritarian and confessional adjective.

I hope this clarifies.


----------



## Elizabeth (Jan 20, 2015)

Contra_Mundum said:


> the Lutherans used the adjective "reformed" as a general epithet to coarsely label all church-expression to their left, as a way of insulting their actual cousins in the Reformed Church (hence, making the Methodists and Pentecostals and every Anabaptist strain imaginable "Reformed" too).



When I first heard the Lutherans call everything ( save themselves, EO and Roman Catholics) 'reformed', I'd argue the point. Now I just roll my eyes and stay silent. There's a strain of Germanic stubbornness deep in the Lutherans you just can't get 'round, no matter the facts. Joel Osteen, Todd Bently, Rick Warren, Joyce Myer: ALL reformed.


----------



## Nomad (Jan 20, 2015)

Contra_Mundum said:


> James,
> It was a rhetorical question, not one that I insisted on getting an answer for. But I asked it because You seemed nonplussed by the whole notion that the descriptive adjective "Reformed" might actually have a _definition_ associated with a particular Confession...



The WCF, Savoy Declaration, and 1689 LBC are so similar, almost identical with few exceptions, that if one is considered "reformed" then they are all "reformed." Your desired definition of the term is overly narrow and indefensible from a confessional standpoint. Many may insist on such a narrow definition, but it amounts to little more than picking at threads in a perfectly whole garment. 



Contra_Mundum said:


> ...and not that it properly functions as a kind of generic catch-all adjective labeling whatever content amounts to the "least-common-denominator" of pooled Confessions...



Least-common-denominator? That's a bit uncharitable in light of the fact that our confessions are so similar. 



Contra_Mundum said:


> I don't know why You find it incredible that the later Confession of the English Baptists adheres to the language of the Westminster in no small part because of historical relation[...]



That's a misrepresentation of my objection. I did not object to a historical relation anywhere in this thread. I objected to the notion that 17th century Particular Baptist agreement with the WCF & SD had something to do with nationality or geography rather than thoughtful conviction. Your "rhetorical" question did not mention any such historical relationship. You said:



> Those you referred to are English, so they self-consciously imitate the most recent English language Confession. If they were German (e.g. Dunkers, Old German Baptist Brethren - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia), then perhaps they might have borrowed from the Augsburg Confession. However, that borrowing wouldn't make them Lutherans.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Jan 20, 2015)

Nomad said:


> Contra_Mundum said:
> 
> 
> > James,
> ...


OK James,

You make a sweeping claim about the similarity of these three documents. I'm fully prepared to acknowledge that 80-90% of these documents are theologically consistent with one another. But your claim is much stronger, and lacks any defense besides "similarity."

I just offered you 100+ actual _Confessions and Catechisms_ from the age of the Reformation in defense of the notion that there is a *Reformed* ecclesiology. You don't have to agree with me, or with the overwhelming majority of the first 150yrs of Reformed Theology. Baptist (and Independent) dissent appear far late in time (after 100yrs), and amount to 2% of the collection.

My "desired" definition is for the 98% agreement to stand for the definition of "Reformed." And for those holding alternate views from the 98% to recognize that where they _differ,_ they are pleased to be NOT-REFORMED at that point. Is that really so controversial? Is mine an idiosyncratic definition? By what rule?

Perhaps there are elements of the WCF that do not comport with the majoritarian commitment found in the history of our tradition. I haven't discovered them, but where they may exist _the WCF would be NON-REFORMED at that point._ Feel free to enlighten me.





Nomad said:


> Contra_Mundum said:
> 
> 
> > ...and not that it properly functions as a kind of generic catch-all adjective labeling whatever content amounts to the "least-common-denominator" of pooled Confessions...
> ...


It isn't uncharitable. It is accurate.

It is the difference between putting the Confessions all together, and determining where the *greatest* agreement exists, and fixing the definition thereby; versus putting them all together, and eliminating all contentious doctrines, and calling that residual common body of divinity "the Reformed Faith." The first is inclusive, the latter reductionist. The Remonstrance is also included in the collection I referenced; if we followed the latter method of determining what is Reformed then Arminians should be Reformed, because those controverted doctrines ought to be excluded. Nobody likes to be left out.

As I read it, your first comment expressed dismay that infant-baptism could be considered an ordinary component of "Reformed orthodoxy." Who would have ever claimed otherwise prior to 1644? Perhaps even long afterward? Can you document such a description from the formative era? I'm also not taking up for Conner's whole expression, to which you responded initially; but only to your response which I contend (with some historic justification provided) presumes the proper _removal_ of an article of Reformed orthodoxy, namely its doctrine of the church.

I have said now several times, I'm not desirous to take away the adopted adjective "Reformed" from today's Baptists who now use it, both to describe difference (from other Baptists) as well as affinity with the Reformed mainstream. Whatever confusions be admitted, they are outweighed (in my opinion) by the right of people to identify themselves. I say this as an "Orthodox" Presbyterian. Still to this day, that adjective confuses many who associate it with a very different sort of Christianity.





Nomad said:


> Contra_Mundum said:
> 
> 
> > I don't know why You find it incredible that the later Confession of the English Baptists adheres to the language of the Westminster in no small part because of historical relation[...]
> ...


Because of the nature of this internet medium, I don't presume to insist on anyone's response to my questions. You put a question in #1 of your post. You followed it with a substantive statement in #2. So it would be fair, I think, to see the first as a kind of rhetorical set up for the statement of your conviction.

It wasn't the accidental connection with the English confession that bore the weight in my comment. The LBC1689 authors identify "fundamental Articles of Christianity" as found in the expressions of the recent WCF, and to which they assent and self-consciously tie their own affirmations. The conditionals (if/then) of my comment were to show that under different accidental conditions, other Baptists could have confessed in terms of another set of confessional expressions. The weight falls here: in that such affirmations in cardinal articles do not thereby make the confessors explicit coreligionists with those of whom they borrowed, even heavily, where their deviations demonstrate Major divergences--the reasons (born of thoughtful conviction) why they would not own more of the faith expressed by others.

Again, the three--WCF, SD, and LBC--each confess some percentage of "the Reformed Faith." I'm not going to use any one of them to "define" Reformed, but take my cue from the total weight of the tradition. That majoritarian conclusion, as confessed by the churches, sums up the Reformed Faith. If that puts the WCF in the top 1-percentile, I'm pleased, obviously. But neither the SD nor the LBC are going to score that high. Each one differentiates itself from the mainstream of the Reformed tradition in key particulars. Each finds something significantly "wrong" with the Reformed Confession (the summary) that came before.


----------

