# Who Defines "Reformed"?



## R. Scott Clark

On the HB


----------



## DMcFadden

Scott,

Thanks for your clear and useful post. As a baptist (albeit an increasingly conflicted one), it seems to me that your points are sound and fair. While firm, they are not unfriendly, merely discriminating.

A couple of observations . . .

First, when people speak of being "Reformed Baptists," they are using the adjective in much the same way as those who call themselves "Calvinistic Baptists." They may be muddying the waters of defintion, but they are not necessarily trying to steal your franchise on the adjective.

As you clearly note, being "Reformed" entails much more than a shared commitment to the five points. Issues of infant baptism, the meaning of the terms Old Covenant and New Covenant, and matters of polity come into play.

While it may not be the most precise and univocal way of framing it, claiming to be a "Reformed Baptist" seems fair to me, but suggesting that one is truly Reformed as a baptist would not be. 

The compound term "Reformed Baptist" has a unique meaning and an historical signification just as Reformed Judaism does. One cannot simply divide the terms and protest the use of the adjective. However, as you rightly note, Reformed implies so much more than TULIP, that people like Piper should (in my opinion) probably call themselves Calvinistic. One reason for the failure to do so is that some prefer to differentiate the specific kind of baptist they are rather than to appear to be following a man, even a great man like Calvin.

Second, don't you at least find it somewhat ironic, that even granting the differences you identify in your blog, many Calvinistic baptists (especially those holding to the 1689 LBCF) agree with you on more issues than some of those ministering in "Reformed" denominations? Given a choice, I would think that you would prefer some of the baptists on the PB to some of the members of liberal "Reformed" denominations in the US and Europe. 

In any case, I remain grateful that my paedo brethren allow me a place on the PB. The fellowship of the Truly Reformed and those of us who are merely Calvinistic is a rich one indeed.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

How about another provocative question: Is the Klinean casting of the Covenants Reformed?

Since you would like to open  I thought I'd open up that can.


----------



## DMcFadden

joshua said:


> I will say, as I have said in the past, it should be no insult to Baptists to _not_ call themselves _Reformed_, and instead call themselves the same as the historical Baptists did: _Particular Baptists_. I honestly don't see why so many Baptists find it insulting that they don't get to share (in in an unqualified sense) the moniker _Reformed_. If I were a 100% convinced Baptist, I'd be much more energetic in calling myself _Particular_ than _Reformed_.



Frankly, judging the words in terms of their "branding" potential, "particular" has always sounded old fashioned, fussy, and too much like a crankly old bachelor in his fastidious apartment. "Reformed" is a much better term for conveying what Calvinistic baptists want to say about themselves. Still, your suggestion has great merit, Josh. I'm not offended or insulted to be merely a Calvinistic baptist. 

I would ask you TRs to remember, however, that when the Presbyterians abandoned Calvinism in the 18th century (opting for Socinianism and unitarianism), the baptists kept TULIP alive. Most early baptists were "particular" not "general." Our early confessions were *all* abridgements of, or strongly influenced by, the WCF. And, when the "Reformed" brethren deserted Dortian Calvinism, we kept it alive. 

The last point was merely my way of saying that the current policy of inviting both Reformed and Calvinistic Baptists to be part of PB is a good (and admittedly generous) one.


----------



## Herald

I don't mean to seem contrary but it seems that the issue bothers non-Baptists more than it bothers Baptists. Why would a non-Baptist even care if a Baptist church or individual calls themselves Reformed?


----------



## Pilgrim

I agree with Josh. When I was a baptistic I didn't like the term Reformed Baptist either because I knew what Reformed meant, that it meant more than just the doctrines of grace. Although I suspect Dr. Clark won't like it, I'm leaning toward the term Calvinistic Baptist as perhaps being better than a Baptist calling himself a Calvinist, which I see as essentially being a synonym for Reformed. As someone said here a while back, when he was a child in a Baptist church, he asked his pastor if they were Calvinists. The pastor replied "We are Calvinistic, but we are not Calvinists." I assume the pastor meant that we believe the doctrines of grace but that we obviously don't accept the whole package. 

I don't suppose we're going to be rid of the term Reformed Baptist any time soon since it's been in use for 30-40 years. It generally means (but not always) that someone is a 1689er. (As we have seen, many who call themselves Reformed Baptists don't seem to have read the 1689 just as many who fancy themselves Reformed Presbyterians haven't read the Westminster Standards.) But Dr. Clark is absolutely correct that the term Reformed has been defined down so far that for most it only means someone who holds to the 5 points. Hence the recent book "Young, Restless and Reformed" which seems to focus on Baptists and judging from the related article in CT doesn't seem to focus on confessionalism at all. There are people who are calling themselves "Reformed" today who are not only not paedobaptists but who are charismatic, who hold to the normative principle of worship, who are antisabbatarian, who are all for supposed "pictures of Christ," etc. But there are many in NAPARC churches who would view a call for Sabbath observance and a prohibition of pictures of Christ as legalistic since these truths often are not emphasized there either. And I'll also concede that on some of these issues, especially pertaining to worship, some "Reformed Baptists" may be more Reformed than some Presbyterians.


----------



## Ivan

Some time back Dr. Clark cured me of calling myself "reformed" or "Calvinisitic". I understand and accept his explanation. I don't care for the tag of "particular" either. It holds no meaning today. I understand its historical underpinnings and, of course, agree with them, but it is not a label I care to carry these days. 

"Evangelical" doesn't mean much these days. "Baptist" conjures many negative images. Even the name "Christian" poses its problems. Of course, I accept the names "Baptist" and "Christian". However, what about this?...*an apprentice of the LORD Jesus Christ*. 

That I am.


----------



## Pilgrim

Semper Fidelis said:


> How about another provocative question: Is the Klinean casting of the Covenants Reformed?
> 
> Since you would like to open  I thought I'd open up that can.



If you get a bite on that one I have some questions up my sleeve as well.


----------



## Pilgrim

DMcFadden said:


> joshua said:
> 
> 
> 
> I will say, as I have said in the past, it should be no insult to Baptists to _not_ call themselves _Reformed_, and instead call themselves the same as the historical Baptists did: _Particular Baptists_. I honestly don't see why so many Baptists find it insulting that they don't get to share (in in an unqualified sense) the moniker _Reformed_. If I were a 100% convinced Baptist, I'd be much more energetic in calling myself _Particular_ than _Reformed_.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frankly, judging the words in terms of their "branding" potential, "particular" has always sounded old fashioned, fussy, and too much like a crankly old bachelor in his fastidious apartment. "Reformed" is a much better term for conveying what Calvinistic baptists want to say about themselves. Still, your suggestion has great merit, Josh. I'm not offended or insulted to be merely a Calvinistic baptist.
> 
> I would ask you TRs to remember, however, that when the Presbyterians abandoned Calvinism in the 18th century (opting for Socinianism and unitarianism), the baptists kept TULIP alive. Most early baptists were "particular" not "general." Our early confessions were *all* abridgements of, or strongly influenced by, the WCF. And, when the "Reformed" brethren deserted Dortian Calvinism, we kept it alive.
Click to expand...


This is what happened in England and in parts of Europe as well as New England but not so much elsewhere. (I will note that in many cases these were Congregationalists, not Presbyterians, and the Presbyterians in England erred in merging with the Congregationalists, as did the New School Presbyterians in the USA). Unfortunately many of the Baptists there went over into hyper-Calvinism although some like Spurgeon, Carey, Fuller etc. bucked the trend.


----------



## DMcFadden

Chris,

I don't really have much to argue with you about on this one. I agree with you and Dr. Clark on Reformed and Calvinist, but probably not on "Calvinistic" for the very reason you cited. When Harvard hired a Unitarian to teach theology in 1805 that pretty well said it all for "Calvinism" at Harvard. Baptists in America and England carried a lot of water for the cause when others were apostasizing. 

And, as the example of John Frame has proven, there is no unanimity in the conservative branch of the Reformed community even on the meaning and application of the RPW. Second, look at the crazies in the PCUSA or CRC. They were my profs in seminary and taught me that the WCF was misguided, that the Princetonians were flat out wrong about the "novelty" of inerrancy, and that ordaining gays is OK. Frankly, I'd take a Dever's or Piper's Calvinis*tic* theology over that stuff anyday!

So, no whining here. I'm baptist not Reformed. But, there is more in common between PB baptists and PB Reformed folks than either of us and the majority of the "Reformed" in America and Europe today.


----------



## aleksanderpolo

North Jersey Baptist said:


> I don't mean to seem contrary but it seems that the issue bothers non-Baptists more than it bothers Baptists. Why would a non-Baptist even care if a Baptist church or individual calls themselves Reformed?



Wait until McLaren call himself "Reformed Baptist" and you will be bothered  O, maybe he is already doing that!


----------



## DMcFadden

Wait a minute. I thought McLaren was TR? 

Don't stick him with the baptists.


----------



## Bladestunner316

Oh man my head is going to explode.

Can I just be called a Christian?


----------



## Pilgrim

DMcFadden said:


> Chris,
> 
> I don't really have much to argue with you about on this one. I agree with you and Dr. Clark on Reformed and Calvinist, but probably not on "Calvinistic" for the very reason you cited. When Harvard hired a Unitarian to teach theology in 1805 that pretty well said it all for "Calvinism" at Harvard. Baptists in America and England carried a lot of water for the cause when others were apostasizing.



I had Harvard in mind when I noted New England. The situation wasn't the same in the rest of the USA and certainly isn't applicable to the Old School Presbyterians in either the North or the South, whatever their other failings were. Harvard was founded by Puritans, but they weren't Presbyterians, they were Congregationalists. I find that people often conflate the two and have the idea that the Pilgrims were Presbyterians. 

Some of the Southern Baptist Founders like James P. Boyce and Basil Manly studied under Charles Hodge at Princeton Seminary. 



DMcFadden said:


> And, as the example of John Frame has proven, there is no unanimity in the conservative branch of the Reformed community even on the meaning and application of the RPW. Second, look at the crazies in the PCUSA or CRC. They were my profs in seminary and taught me that the WCF was misguided, that the Princetonians were flat out wrong about the "novelty" of inerrancy, and that ordaining gays is OK. Frankly, I'd take a Dever's or Piper's Calvinis*tic* theology over that stuff anyday!



You'll find no agreement with John Frame here among any who hold to the RPW whether they are EP or not. It seems to me that Prof. Frame says that so he can justify his allowance for drama, dance, etc. He says there is no agreement and then he redefines it in a way that is unrecognizable. 




DMcFadden said:


> So, no whining here. I'm baptist not Reformed. But, there is more in common between PB baptists and PB Reformed folks than either of us and the majority of the "Reformed" in America and Europe today.



Agreed.


----------



## Ivan

Pilgrim said:


> Some of the Southern Baptist Founders like James P. Boyce and Basil Manly studied under Charles Hodge at Princeton Seminary.



Indeed! To their and our (SBC) benefit!!


----------



## Blueridge Believer

I'm with Josh. We should use the term "Particular" or "Confessional".


----------



## Blueridge Believer

Question for brother Clark. Who defines what the RPW is? Since a lot of the EP brethren would say that those who sing anything other than Psalms and who use mechanical music might take issue. I'm studying this issue now and would appreciate your comments or anyone else for that matter.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

> "one must hold to every point of doctrine in the Reformed confessions in order to be Reformed."



Hmm...let's see where this logic is leading us...

The Westminster Confession teaches:

1) Exclusive Psalmody

2) Explicitly Christian Civil Government

3) The Establishment Principle

4) Scottish Sabbatarianism

5) Papal Antichrist

6) Six Day Creation

So I guess that means that if someone does not subscribe to every one of the above points then they are "not Reformed"? That means a substantial number of members of this board are "not Reformed". Moreover, it means that most people who claim to be Reformed are "not Reformed"...maybe I am not Reformed then (as I don't hold point 5 at present), but I am not sure that I care, as I am a Christian, one who is in Union with the Risen Christ. That means a lot more to me than the label "Reformed" does.

To be perfectly truthful, I do not think posts like this help the cause of Christ in the world; does nit-picking and arguing over labels really bring any glory to God?


----------



## R. Scott Clark

1. The test I'm proposing doesn't only apply to Baptists. There are a nominally Reformed folk who also fail the test. 

2. As to the RPW, this is an area in which the Reformed Churches need massive Reformation. In my forthcoming book (Nov, '08, Dv) I argue for a "canonical principle." Anything which the church sings ought to be canonical. I would be perfectly happy to sing only psalms but I don't think the RPW requires it but I don't see how any session/consistory has a right to ask God's people to sing or say anything in the service of God that is extra-canonical. We are only authorized to repeat God's own Word to him. In worship God speaks to us and we, his people, reply with his own Word. It really isn't very complicated.

I agree with the historic understanding regarding instruments. We should be rid of all the Mosaic and Romish remnants that we have re-introduced into Reformed worship in the modern period.

As to Daniel's objections, I should (and will) add the qualification "the Reformed confessions _as received by the churches_." The American churches have rightly modified the WCF and BC to remove objectionable theocratic elements.

I don't know what he means by "Scottish Sabbatarianism" since the WCF was hardly a purely "Scottish" document! The WCF reflects the mainstream of Reformed theology, piety, and practice including the Sabbath. I write about this at length in _Recovering_. 

I don't see why the office of Pope is not Antichrist. He condemns the gospel and offers himself as the vicar of Christ. If you're looking for an antichrist what else do you want?

As to creation the Three Forms don't require 6/24 creation and the American Presbyterians have not received the WCF to require 6/24 creation so that's not really an issue. 

Cheers,

rsc


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

R. Scott Clark said:


> 1. The test I'm proposing doesn't only apply to Baptists. There are a nominally Reformed folk who also fail the test.
> 
> 2. As to the RPW, this is an area in which the Reformed Churches need massive Reformation. In my forthcoming book (Nov, '08, Dv) I argue for a "canonical principle." Anything which the church sings ought to be canonical. I would be perfectly happy to sing only psalms but I don't think the RPW requires it but I don't see how any session/consistory has a right to ask God's people to sing or say anything in the service of God that is extra-canonical. We are only authorized to repeat God's own Word to him. In worship God speaks to us and we, his people, reply with his own Word. It really isn't very complicated.
> 
> I agree with the historic understanding regarding instruments. We should be rid of all the Mosaic and Romish remnants that we have re-introduced into Reformed worship in the modern period.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> rsc



Thanks for mentioning musical instruments, I forgot all about them.


----------



## Blueridge Believer

I love Presbyterians.


----------



## crhoades

R. Scott Clark said:


> As to Daniel's objections, I should (and will) add the qualification "the Reformed confessions _as received by the churches_." The American churches have rightly modified the WCF and BC to remove objectionable theocratic elements.
> Cheers,
> 
> rsc


 
The American churches have rightly modified the WCF and BC to remove objectionable theocratic elements.

What if the reverse is countered. The American churches have wrongly modified the WCF and BC to remove objectionable theocratic elements that shouldn't be objectionable...You would then appeal to the gathered chuch body that did it. I would appeal to the church body that put together the original and say that the American church was wrong. It is still an appeal to authority at that point and not to scripture.


If your definition would stand the test of time then it should have been applicable to the churches that received the confessions at the time the American church wanted to make revisions. Let's say that your great-great-great (not sure how many to add in order to make you not take offense!  ) grand-dad was arguing back in the day for the definition of reformed that you are arguing for, then the revisers would be not considered reformed for wanting to tinker. But then the younger you, you-now would say that the confession was wrong at that point and needed revising. But doesn't that cut both ways and open up the argument that modern day p&r's are wanting to do? I'm all for adhering to the confession...but I think it doth pander to our own whims when we get to then dictate it is the _revised, gutted_ American version rather than the full octane one that was handed down from Mt. Westminster. But then again, I like the theocratic language as did the reformers, puritans, early American puritans, Dutch, etc...You know...all of the _reformed_ people. 

One last point...If we want to call it the American re-Reformed vs. Historically Reformed, I guess I wouldn't complain of those labels as they would be accurate.


----------



## Blueridge Believer

crhoades said:


> R. Scott Clark said:
> 
> 
> 
> As to Daniel's objections, I should (and will) add the qualification "the Reformed confessions _as received by the churches_." The American churches have rightly modified the WCF and BC to remove objectionable theocratic elements.
> Cheers,
> 
> rsc
> 
> 
> 
> If your definition would stand the test of time then it should have been applicable to the churches that received the confessions at the time the American church wanted to make revisions. Let's say that your great-great-great (not sure how many to add in order to make you not take offense!  ) grand-dad was arguing back in the day for the definition of reformed that you are arguing for, then the revisers would be not considered reformed for wanting to tinker. But then the younger you, you-now would say that the confession was wrong at that point and needed revising. But doesn't that cut both ways and open up the argument that modern day p&r's are wanting to do? I'm all for adhering to the confession...but I think it doth pander to our own whims when we get to then dictate it is the _revised, gutted_ American version rather than the full octane one that was handed down from Mt. Westminster. But then again, I like the theocratic language as did the reformers, puritans, early American puritans, Dutch, etc...You know...all of the _reformed_ people.
Click to expand...


Even us puritanical baptists?


----------



## crhoades

Blueridge Baptist said:


> crhoades said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> R. Scott Clark said:
> 
> 
> 
> As to Daniel's objections, I should (and will) add the qualification "the Reformed confessions _as received by the churches_." The American churches have rightly modified the WCF and BC to remove objectionable theocratic elements.
> Cheers,
> 
> rsc
> 
> 
> 
> If your definition would stand the test of time then it should have been applicable to the churches that received the confessions at the time the American church wanted to make revisions. Let's say that your great-great-great (not sure how many to add in order to make you not take offense!  ) grand-dad was arguing back in the day for the definition of reformed that you are arguing for, then the revisers would be not considered reformed for wanting to tinker. But then the younger you, you-now would say that the confession was wrong at that point and needed revising. But doesn't that cut both ways and open up the argument that modern day p&r's are wanting to do? I'm all for adhering to the confession...but I think it doth pander to our own whims when we get to then dictate it is the _revised, gutted_ American version rather than the full octane one that was handed down from Mt. Westminster. But then again, I like the theocratic language as did the reformers, puritans, early American puritans, Dutch, etc...You know...all of the _reformed_ people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Even us puritanical baptists?
Click to expand...

 
Now, now...let's not get carried away! j/k. Hmmm...thinking of a new label...what about Baptocrat?

Also should add - not trying to divert this along the political lines but still sticking with the confessional understanding of reformed and who gets to call it.


----------



## fredtgreco

Semper Fidelis said:


> How about another provocative question: Is the Klinean casting of the Covenants Reformed?
> 
> Since you would like to open  I thought I'd open up that can.



Waiting for an answer, not really expecting one....


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

R. Scott Clark said:


> As to Daniel's objections, I should (and will) add the qualification "the Reformed confessions _as received by the churches_." The American churches have rightly modified the WCF and BC to remove objectionable theocratic elements.
> 
> I don't know what he means by "Scottish Sabbatarianism" since the WCF was hardly a purely "Scottish" document! The WCF reflects the mainstream of Reformed theology, piety, and practice including the Sabbath. I write about this at length in _Recovering_.
> 
> I don't see why the office of Pope is not Antichrist. He condemns the gospel and offers himself as the vicar of Christ. If you're looking for an antichrist what else do you want?
> 
> As to creation the Three Forms don't require 6/24 creation and the American Presbyterians have not received the WCF to require 6/24 creation so that's not really an issue.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> rsc



Dr Clark

Thanks for your reply.

The American churches by removing the Theocratic elements of the Confessions have accepted the idea of a pluralist state. This is not Calvinistic politics, as it denies the sovereignty of God in the civil realm, and is a concession to humanism. However, according to the logic of the statement that one must hold to all the points of the Reformed Confessions to be Reformed, then the American "Reformed" Churches must not be Reformed.

Scottish Sabbatarianism is basically the Puritan/Scottish view of the Sabbath, in distinction from the looser view of the Sabbath held by most American Presbyterians.

I agree that the Pope is an antichrist, but I believe the man of sin in 2 Thess. 2 was the Emperor Nero - who claimed to be the incarnate deity (as does the totalitarian state today). And most American Presbyterians would agree with me that the papacy is not the anti-Christ. 

American Presbyterians may not have received the WCF to require 6/24, but that is the original intent of the WCF, so to depart from it - if the logic of your position that any departure from the Reformed standards renders one "not Reformed" is to be accepted - renders American Presbyterians "not Reformed".

I am not saying this to be annoying, but if we are going to say that Reformed Baptists are not Reformed, then we had better make sure that we have no beams in our own eyes.


----------



## DMcFadden

Daniel Ritchie said:


> To be perfectly truthful, I do not think posts like this help the cause of Christ in the world; does nit-picking and arguing over labels really bring any glory to God?



Daniel,

I appreciate your concern about nit-picking. My response to Dr. Clark's OP was not intended to argue with the TR brethren or to claim baptists are Reformed. I accept as valid Scott's essential point that the Reformed ought to have the right to define themselves as they wish. That such definition does not include me does not offend me in the least. I am a baptist who believes in the doctrines of grace, not a Reformed/Presbyterian. Actually, Daniel, my original response to Clark was intended to say that I agree with his article and wanted to raise a couple of related issues, not to nit pick the man.

I am a 5-pointer who would rather exalt in the majestic sovereignty of God in all his creation than the dignity of a partially fallen creature (to paraphrase Nettles). From a strictly linguistic and historical consideration, I think that gives me a right to claim to be Calvinis*tic*, as in a Calvinis*tic* Baptist as opposed to an Arminian Baptist, even though it is not theologically or historically permitted to describe this as Reformed.

You do raise some interesting points which Scott addressed in part. The "Reformed" people who taught me in seminary were published authors, noted scholars (one eventually to become the moderator of the 213th General Assembly of the largest Presbyterian denomination in America) and all around muck-e-mucks of Reformed thought. I simply find it ironic that my TR brethren on PB _should_ find more in common with my theology (inerrancy, confessional 1689 baptist, creationist, complementarian, no gay marriage/ordination, etc.) than with a majority of pastors and lay people (by head count) in the officially Reformed or Presbyterian denominations.

Again, no whining here. I'm a baptist not a presbyterian, so I can't be Reformed. But I'll take baptist John Piper over presbyterian Jack Rogers any day. And, even among Refomed people, give me R.C. Sproul in a heart beat over the typical current graduates (or professors) at Princeton, Pittsburgh (except our dear PB brother), or McCormick.

Baptists are saddled with Arminians (now the majority). You presbyterians are stuck with a majority that I do not believe accepts what most of you Reformed guys on PB believe.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

DMcFadden said:


> Daniel Ritchie said:
> 
> 
> 
> To be perfectly truthful, I do not think posts like this help the cause of Christ in the world; does nit-picking and arguing over labels really bring any glory to God?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daniel,
> 
> I appreciate your concern about nit-picking. My response to Dr. Clark's OP was not intended to argue with the TR brethren or to claim baptists are Reformed. I accept as valid Scott's essential point that the Reformed ought to have the right to define themselves as they wish. That such definition does not include me does not offend me in the least. I am a baptist who believes in the doctrines of grace, not a Reformed/Presbyterian. Actually, Daniel, my original response to Clark was intended to say that I agree with his article and wanted to raise a couple of related issues, not to nit pick the man.
> 
> I am a 5-pointer who would rather exalt in the majestic sovereignty of God in all his creation than the dignity of a partially fallen creature (to paraphrase Nettles). From a strictly linguistic and historical consideration, I think that gives me a right to claim to be Calvinis*tic*, as in a Calvinis*tic* Baptist as opposed to an Arminian Baptist, even though it is not theologically or historically permitted to describe this as Reformed.
> 
> You do raise some interesting points which Scott addressed in part. The "Reformed" people who taught me in seminary were published authors, noted scholars (one eventually to become the moderator of the 213th General Assembly of the largest Presbyterian denomination in America) and all around muck-e-mucks of Reformed thought. I simply find it ironic that my TR brethren _should_ find more in common with my theology (inerrancy, confessional 1689 baptist, creationist, complementarian, no gay marriage/ordination, etc.) than with a majority of pastors and lay people (by head count) in the officially Reformed or Presbyterian denominations.
> 
> Again, no whining here. I'm a baptist not a presbyterian, so I can't be Reformed. But I'll take baptist John Piper over presbyterian Jack Rogers any day. And, even among Refomed people, give me R.C. Sproul any day over the typical current graduates (or professors) at Princeton, Pittsburgh (except our dear PB brother), or McCormick.
Click to expand...


Sorry Dennis I was not addressing any of your replies in my comments. To be truthful I would prefer it if we limited our definition of Reformed to a more general adherance to Calvinistic doctrine, RPW, and covenant theology - if we go much further than that, we could end up in endless wars over what it is to be Reformed, with everyone accusing everyone else of not being Reformed. In my humble opinion, the 1689 is a Reformed Confession.


----------



## crhoades

DMcFadden said:


> You do raise some interesting points which Scott addressed in part. The "Reformed" people who taught me in seminary were published authors, noted scholars (one eventually to become the moderator of the 213th General Assembly of the largest Presbyterian denomination in America) and all around muck-e-mucks of Reformed thought. I simply find it ironic that my TR brethren on PB _should_ find more in common with my theology (inerrancy, confessional 1689 baptist, creationist, complementarian, no gay marriage/ordination, etc.) than with a majority of pastors and lay people (by head count) in the officially Reformed or Presbyterian denominations.
> 
> Again, no whining here. I'm a baptist not a presbyterian, so I can't be Reformed. But I'll take baptist John Piper over presbyterian Jack Rogers any day. And, even among Refomed people, give me R.C. Sproul in a heart beat over the typical current graduates (or professors) at Princeton, Pittsburgh (except our dear PB brother), or McCormick.


 
You have introduced another facet into the conversation - that of confessional subscription - yet another . Just because a denomination holds to one of the reformed confessions, a member or elder that is a part of it, does not a reformed one make. I need to reread Dr. Clark's original blog and all of the other entries to see if this has been addressed but it is indeed a part of it all.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

I have not read through this thread but left this comment on his blog....



> …
> I truly wish that they would embrace Abraham as their father in the faith and embrace their children as covenant children and the promises as belonging to their children and that they would thus embrace the Reformed faith as confessed by the Reformed Churches.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks Dr. Clark for your article. I agree that Reformed Baptists are not Reformed in the Presbyterian way ecclesiologically nor concerning who the Children of the Covenant are. We are more in line with John Owen concerning the Covenant of Grace and Ecclesiology. But we do consider Abraham as our Father in the Faith. I bet you are overstating your point for emphasis. We just believe as the text says that those children are children of faith. In other words we are children of Abraham if we have like faith in Christ as he did. A faith that is caused by regeneration and God’s monergistic conversion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (Gal 3:5) Does he who supplies the Spirit to you and works miracles among you do so by works of the law, or by hearing with faith–
> 
> (Gal 3:6) just as Abraham “believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness”?
> 
> (Gal 3:7) Know then that it is those of faith who are the sons of Abraham.
> 
> (Gal 3: 8) And the Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel beforehand to Abraham, saying, “In you shall all the nations be blessed.”
> 
> (Gal 3:9) So then, those who are of faith are blessed along with Abraham, the man of faith.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We believe that in both the Old Covenant and the New that those who are faith are only partakers in the Covenant of Grace.
> 
> I do believe the following…..
> 
> 
> 
> WCF 7.6
> ….There are not therefore two covenants of grace, differing in substance, but one and the same, under various dispensations
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Anyone can read my comments on the PB concerning Genesis 17, Romans 4 and passages in Galations concerning this.
> 
> Just do a search under PuritanCovenanter and the passages.
> 
> I agree with Dr. Clark that we are not Reformed in the same context.
> 
> I agree that anyone who is not Covenantal nor Confessional in thinking is not Reformed.
> 
> As you know, historically we Reformed Baptists are known as Particular Baptists. Reformed Baptist is a rather new term. It is also an evolving term which seems to include just 5 pointers who are credo, whether or not they are Covenantal or confessional. I prefer the term Sovereign Grace Baptist for those guys who are not Covenantal as in believing in the CofW, or the CofG. Which is what a Particular Baptist historically held to according to the 1689 LBCF.
> 
> I like Pastor David Charles understanding of what a Reformed Baptist is.
> 
> The five points of Reformed Baptist Churches « Reformed Baptist Fellowship
> 
> Thanks Dr. Clark
> I have learned a lot from you.
Click to expand...


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian

Question about "Canonical Singing" Dr. Clark. Do you mean by this that we should sing the Magnificant, the Psalms, Revelation's hymns, etc...alone?

Can you elaborate for me please? Thanks!!!


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

joshua said:


> I will say, as I have said in the past, it should be no insult to Baptists to _not_ call themselves _Reformed_, and instead call themselves the same as the historical Baptists did: _Particular Baptists_. I honestly don't see why so many Baptists find it insulting that they don't get to share (in in an unqualified sense) the moniker _Reformed_. If I were a 100% convinced Baptist, I'd be much more energetic in calling myself _Particular_ than _Reformed_.



Part of the problem you are not acknowledging here Josh is that the lineage of inheretance on the Particular Baptist side is from the Reformers and not from the the Anabaptists. I think some of the Reformed Baptist just want to emphasize that their heritage is Reformational and having their roots in the Reformation and its Reformers instead of in the Radical Reformation of the Anabaptists which is much more various and out of bounds theologically. It truly is one of identity.

Particular only indicates that they held to a view of Particular Redemption. Everyone Calvinistic in soteriology holds to that. Even NCT guys do but they are not Covenantal nor are they confessional. So a distinction should be made above Particular in my estimation.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

PuritanCovenanter said:


> joshua said:
> 
> 
> 
> I will say, as I have said in the past, it should be no insult to Baptists to _not_ call themselves _Reformed_, and instead call themselves the same as the historical Baptists did: _Particular Baptists_. I honestly don't see why so many Baptists find it insulting that they don't get to share (in in an unqualified sense) the moniker _Reformed_. If I were a 100% convinced Baptist, I'd be much more energetic in calling myself _Particular_ than _Reformed_.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Part of the problem you are not acknowledging here Josh is that the lineage of inheretance on the Particular Baptist side is from the Reformers and not from the the Anabaptists. I think some of the Reformed Baptist just want to emphasize that their heritage is Reformational and having their roots in the Reformation and its Reformers instead of in the Radical Reformation of the Anabaptists which is much more various and out of bounds theologically. It truly is one of identity.
Click to expand...


You see this is precisely why I have no problem with the term "Reformed Baptist", as they are not Anabaptists, but a branch of the Reformed tradition who have modified the Confession of the Reformed Church (i.e. the WCF) to bring it into line with what they believe to be Scriptural (as American Presbyterians and others have done).


----------



## DMcFadden

Blueridge Baptist said:


> I'm with Josh. We should use the term "Particular" or "Confessional".



Blueridge brilliance again! Trash the "particular." I don't want to sound like a fussy old woman with blue hair living in a musty old house and chasing the neighborhood kids off the sidewalk out front of my house.

But . . . TA DA . . . CONFESSIONAL!!! I like that. In fact, I'm gonna quit using the other terms entirely. Confessional not only describes quite accurately what differentiates us from our Arminian brethren, it also conveys associations with a belief system that has some meat on its bones. 

Thanks!


----------



## ADKing

fredtgreco said:


> Semper Fidelis said:
> 
> 
> 
> How about another provocative question: Is the Klinean casting of the Covenants Reformed?
> 
> Since you would like to open  I thought I'd open up that can.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Waiting for an answer, not really expecting one....
Click to expand...


It is interesting to observe that some "Klineans" of note are now drawing attention to the similarities of their system to Amyrauldianism and John Cameron.


----------



## Pilgrim

DMcFadden said:


> Daniel Ritchie said:
> 
> 
> 
> To be perfectly truthful, I do not think posts like this help the cause of Christ in the world; does nit-picking and arguing over labels really bring any glory to God?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daniel,
> 
> I appreciate your concern about nit-picking. My response to Dr. Clark's OP was not intended to argue with the TR brethren or to claim baptists are Reformed. I accept as valid Scott's essential point that the Reformed ought to have the right to define themselves as they wish. That such definition does not include me does not offend me in the least. I am a baptist who believes in the doctrines of grace, not a Reformed/Presbyterian. Actually, Daniel, my original response to Clark was intended to say that I agree with his article and wanted to raise a couple of related issues, not to nit pick the man.
> 
> I am a 5-pointer who would rather exalt in the majestic sovereignty of God in all his creation than the dignity of a partially fallen creature (to paraphrase Nettles). From a strictly linguistic and historical consideration, I think that gives me a right to claim to be Calvinis*tic*, as in a Calvinis*tic* Baptist as opposed to an Arminian Baptist, even though it is not theologically or historically permitted to describe this as Reformed.
> 
> You do raise some interesting points which Scott addressed in part. The "Reformed" people who taught me in seminary were published authors, noted scholars (one eventually to become the moderator of the 213th General Assembly of the largest Presbyterian denomination in America) and all around muck-e-mucks of Reformed thought. I simply find it ironic that my TR brethren on PB _should_ find more in common with my theology (inerrancy, confessional 1689 baptist, creationist, complementarian, no gay marriage/ordination, etc.) than with a majority of pastors and lay people (by head count) in the officially Reformed or Presbyterian denominations.
> 
> Again, no whining here. I'm a baptist not a presbyterian, so I can't be Reformed. But I'll take baptist John Piper over presbyterian Jack Rogers any day. And, even among Refomed people, give me R.C. Sproul in a heart beat over the typical current graduates (or professors) at Princeton, Pittsburgh (except our dear PB brother), or McCormick.
> 
> Baptists are saddled with Arminians (now the majority). You presbyterians are stuck with a majority that I do not believe accepts what most of you Reformed guys on PB believe.
Click to expand...


Dennis,

I think we're talking past each other to a certain extent. The PCUSA has not held to the WCF in any meaningful sense in decades, and not formally since at least 1967. They are not included in Dr. Clark's definition of Reformed. Identifying them as Reformed in anything but a historical sense makes about as much sense as saying Robert Schuller is an example of a Reformed minister (he was and perhaps still is RCA.) Lumping in all Presbyterians together may make sense to someone in the mainline (which would include the SBC although it is generally far better in upholding the authority of the Bible than the PCUSA or RCA) or someone in the world, but it isn't applicable to anyone who is in a separatist denomination like the PCA, OPC or the URCNA, as well as the Calvinistic Baptist groups like ARBCA, FIRE, etc. I am certain you realize this but I just wanted to make it clear for any who may be lurking. 

We have more in common with each other than you do with Campolo and we do with Rogers because we share a common commitment to the authority of the Bible as well as to our respective confessions. This phenomenon can be traced back to at least the Fundamentalist/Modernist controversy that started over 100 years ago, where a Baptist and a Presbyterian who were faithful to the scriptures had more in common than a Baptist modernist and one who upheld the authority of the Bible. One reason why the term Reformed has been defined down is because even conservatives of that day tended to deemphasize the Confessions and their denominational distinctives and emphasized things like the five fundamentals. 

Another factor is that Dr. Martyn Lloyd-Jones and the Banner of Truth were instrumental in the revival of the Doctrines of Grace over the past 50 years. For that we are very thankful. However, they tended to deemphasize ecclesiology and other divisive issues if not ignore them altogether, so the result is people now thinking that someone is Reformed if they simply agree with the Five Points.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian

Pilgrim said:


> DMcFadden said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daniel Ritchie said:
> 
> 
> 
> To be perfectly truthful, I do not think posts like this help the cause of Christ in the world; does nit-picking and arguing over labels really bring any glory to God?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daniel,
> 
> I appreciate your concern about nit-picking. My response to Dr. Clark's OP was not intended to argue with the TR brethren or to claim baptists are Reformed. I accept as valid Scott's essential point that the Reformed ought to have the right to define themselves as they wish. That such definition does not include me does not offend me in the least. I am a baptist who believes in the doctrines of grace, not a Reformed/Presbyterian. Actually, Daniel, my original response to Clark was intended to say that I agree with his article and wanted to raise a couple of related issues, not to nit pick the man.
> 
> I am a 5-pointer who would rather exalt in the majestic sovereignty of God in all his creation than the dignity of a partially fallen creature (to paraphrase Nettles). From a strictly linguistic and historical consideration, I think that gives me a right to claim to be Calvinis*tic*, as in a Calvinis*tic* Baptist as opposed to an Arminian Baptist, even though it is not theologically or historically permitted to describe this as Reformed.
> 
> You do raise some interesting points which Scott addressed in part. The "Reformed" people who taught me in seminary were published authors, noted scholars (one eventually to become the moderator of the 213th General Assembly of the largest Presbyterian denomination in America) and all around muck-e-mucks of Reformed thought. I simply find it ironic that my TR brethren on PB _should_ find more in common with my theology (inerrancy, confessional 1689 baptist, creationist, complementarian, no gay marriage/ordination, etc.) than with a majority of pastors and lay people (by head count) in the officially Reformed or Presbyterian denominations.
> 
> Again, no whining here. I'm a baptist not a presbyterian, so I can't be Reformed. But I'll take baptist John Piper over presbyterian Jack Rogers any day. And, even among Refomed people, give me R.C. Sproul in a heart beat over the typical current graduates (or professors) at Princeton, Pittsburgh (except our dear PB brother), or McCormick.
> 
> Baptists are saddled with Arminians (now the majority). You presbyterians are stuck with a majority that I do not believe accepts what most of you Reformed guys on PB believe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dennis,
> 
> I think we're talking past each other to a certain extent. The PCUSA has not held to the WCF in any meaningful sense in decades, and not formally since at least 1967. They are not included in Dr. Clark's definition of Reformed. Identifying them as Reformed in anything but a historical sense makes about as much sense as saying Robert Schuller is an example of a Reformed minister (he was and perhaps still is RCA.) Lumping in all Presbyterians together may make sense to someone in the mainline (which would include the SBC although it is generally far better in upholding the authority of the Bible than the PCUSA or RCA) or someone in the world, but it isn't applicable to anyone who is in a separatist denomination like the PCA, OPC or the URCNA, as well as the Calvinistic Baptist groups like ARBCA, FIRE, etc. I am certain you realize this but I just wanted to make it clear for any who may be lurking.
> 
> We have more in common with each other than you do with Campolo and we do with Rogers because we share a common commitment to the authority of the Bible as well as to our respective confessions. This phenomenon can be traced back to at least the Fundamentalist/Modernist controversy that started over 100 years ago, where a Baptist and a Presbyterian who were faithful to the scriptures had more in common than a Baptist modernist and one who upheld the authority of the Bible. One reason why the term Reformed has been defined down is because even conservatives of that day tended to deemphasize the Confessions and their denominational distinctives.
> 
> Another factor is that Dr. Martyn Lloyd-Jones and the Banner of Truth were instrumental in the revival of the Doctrines of Grace over the past 50 years. They tended to deemphasize ecclesiology if not ignore it altogether, so the result is people now thinking that someone is Reformed if they agree with the Five Points. I'm not knocking their work, and I have been blessed by it as have many.
Click to expand...


We also must remember that just because one holds to Innerency does not automatically mean one holds to Orthodoxy.


----------



## Pilgrim

Backwoods Presbyterian said:


> Pilgrim said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DMcFadden said:
> 
> 
> 
> Daniel,
> 
> I appreciate your concern about nit-picking. My response to Dr. Clark's OP was not intended to argue with the TR brethren or to claim baptists are Reformed. I accept as valid Scott's essential point that the Reformed ought to have the right to define themselves as they wish. That such definition does not include me does not offend me in the least. I am a baptist who believes in the doctrines of grace, not a Reformed/Presbyterian. Actually, Daniel, my original response to Clark was intended to say that I agree with his article and wanted to raise a couple of related issues, not to nit pick the man.
> 
> I am a 5-pointer who would rather exalt in the majestic sovereignty of God in all his creation than the dignity of a partially fallen creature (to paraphrase Nettles). From a strictly linguistic and historical consideration, I think that gives me a right to claim to be Calvinis*tic*, as in a Calvinis*tic* Baptist as opposed to an Arminian Baptist, even though it is not theologically or historically permitted to describe this as Reformed.
> 
> You do raise some interesting points which Scott addressed in part. The "Reformed" people who taught me in seminary were published authors, noted scholars (one eventually to become the moderator of the 213th General Assembly of the largest Presbyterian denomination in America) and all around muck-e-mucks of Reformed thought. I simply find it ironic that my TR brethren on PB _should_ find more in common with my theology (inerrancy, confessional 1689 baptist, creationist, complementarian, no gay marriage/ordination, etc.) than with a majority of pastors and lay people (by head count) in the officially Reformed or Presbyterian denominations.
> 
> Again, no whining here. I'm a baptist not a presbyterian, so I can't be Reformed. But I'll take baptist John Piper over presbyterian Jack Rogers any day. And, even among Refomed people, give me R.C. Sproul in a heart beat over the typical current graduates (or professors) at Princeton, Pittsburgh (except our dear PB brother), or McCormick.
> 
> Baptists are saddled with Arminians (now the majority). You presbyterians are stuck with a majority that I do not believe accepts what most of you Reformed guys on PB believe.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dennis,
> 
> I think we're talking past each other to a certain extent. The PCUSA has not held to the WCF in any meaningful sense in decades, and not formally since at least 1967. They are not included in Dr. Clark's definition of Reformed. Identifying them as Reformed in anything but a historical sense makes about as much sense as saying Robert Schuller is an example of a Reformed minister (he was and perhaps still is RCA.) Lumping in all Presbyterians together may make sense to someone in the mainline (which would include the SBC although it is generally far better in upholding the authority of the Bible than the PCUSA or RCA) or someone in the world, but it isn't applicable to anyone who is in a separatist denomination like the PCA, OPC or the URCNA, as well as the Calvinistic Baptist groups like ARBCA, FIRE, etc. I am certain you realize this but I just wanted to make it clear for any who may be lurking.
> 
> We have more in common with each other than you do with Campolo and we do with Rogers because we share a common commitment to the authority of the Bible as well as to our respective confessions. This phenomenon can be traced back to at least the Fundamentalist/Modernist controversy that started over 100 years ago, where a Baptist and a Presbyterian who were faithful to the scriptures had more in common than a Baptist modernist and one who upheld the authority of the Bible. One reason why the term Reformed has been defined down is because even conservatives of that day tended to deemphasize the Confessions and their denominational distinctives.
> 
> Another factor is that Dr. Martyn Lloyd-Jones and the Banner of Truth were instrumental in the revival of the Doctrines of Grace over the past 50 years. They tended to deemphasize ecclesiology if not ignore it altogether, so the result is people now thinking that someone is Reformed if they agree with the Five Points. I'm not knocking their work, and I have been blessed by it as have many.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We also must remember that just because one holds to Innerency does not automatically mean one holds to Orthodoxy.
Click to expand...


Agreed. But, in keeping with the spirit of the original post, who or what defines Orthodoxy?


----------



## aleksanderpolo

Daniel Ritchie said:


> Sorry Dennis I was not addressing any of your replies in my comments. To be truthful I would prefer it if we limited our definition of Reformed to a more general adherance to Calvinistic doctrine, RPW, and covenant theology - if we go much further than that, we could end up in endless wars over what it is to be Reformed, with everyone accusing everyone else of not being Reformed. In my humble opinion, the 1689 is a Reformed Confession.



But Daniel, in order to call Confessional Baptist "Reformed" under your criteria, you will have to redefine "Calvinistic" as merely 5 point (excluding Calvin's view of the sacrament, for example). And redefine Covenant theology to include views that see Abrahamic and Mosaic covenant as having different substances than the New Covenant. But that's the point of the post: Who gets to re-define "Reformed", "Calvinistic", "Covenant theology"? Those who are historically associated with the label? Or those who are historically outside the definition of the label?

Ya, I agree that "labeling" itself is not glorifying God. But what are the alternatives? The label "Evangelical" or "Christian" has already lost its meaning in our day because of endless relabeling. I certainly don't want to see someone call themselves "Calvinistic Open-theist".


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

joshua said:


> PuritanCovenanter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> joshua said:
> 
> 
> 
> I will say, as I have said in the past, it should be no insult to Baptists to _not_ call themselves _Reformed_, and instead call themselves the same as the historical Baptists did: _Particular Baptists_. I honestly don't see why so many Baptists find it insulting that they don't get to share (in in an unqualified sense) the moniker _Reformed_. If I were a 100% convinced Baptist, I'd be much more energetic in calling myself _Particular_ than _Reformed_.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Part of the problem you are not acknowledging here Josh is that the lineage of inheretance on the Particular Baptist side is from the Reformers and not from the the Anabaptists. I think some of the Reformed Baptist just want to emphasize that their heritage is Reformational and having their roots in the Reformation and its Reformers instead of in the Radical Reformation of the Anabaptists which is much more various and out of bounds theologically. It truly is one of identity.
> 
> Particular only indicates that they held to a view of Particular Redemption. Everyone Calvinistic in soteriology holds to that. Even NCT guys do but they are not Covenantal nor are they confessional. So a distinction should be made above Particular in my estimation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't have to _acknowledge _Baptists as _Reformed_, because they didn't even call themselves Reformed.
> 
> The point that I'm making is that I don't understand why a Baptist should _want_ to call themselves _Reformed_, if that's not what they wanted back in the day. _Confessional_ ought to suffice, and ought to be a source of pride (not sinful) for the Baptist who remains true to his historic roots.
Click to expand...


No one is saying you have to acknowledge anything Josh. Why are you so adamant about this? One more thing... I am not so sure the Particular Baptists wouldn't consider themsleves to be Reformed. The distinction of Particular was meant mainly to emphasis that they as Baptist held to reformational soteriology as opposed to the anabaptist. That was the struggle. They were accused of being anabaptists of the *radical reformation*. The anabaptists were considered *radical reformers*. *So reformed was not the problem here when they made distinctive terms to define themselves by*. 

As I noted before the terms people are adhering to are to line themselves with their roots as opposed antithetically to something else. I don't why you are having problems with this Josh. I guess I am proud that my heritage is from the reformation instead of the radical reformation. 

I guess I am a Reformed Baptist by today's standards.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

aleksanderpolo said:


> Daniel Ritchie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry Dennis I was not addressing any of your replies in my comments. To be truthful I would prefer it if we limited our definition of Reformed to a more general adherance to Calvinistic doctrine, RPW, and covenant theology - if we go much further than that, we could end up in endless wars over what it is to be Reformed, with everyone accusing everyone else of not being Reformed. In my humble opinion, the 1689 is a Reformed Confession.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But Daniel, in order to call Confessional Baptist "Reformed" under your criteria, you will have to redefine "Calvinistic" as merely 5 point (excluding Calvin's view of the sacrament, for example). And redefine Covenant theology to include views that see Abrahamic and Mosaic covenant as having different substances than the New Covenant. But that's the point of the post: Who gets to re-define "Reformed", "Calvinistic", "Covenant theology"? Those who are historically associated with the label? Or those who are historically outside the definition of the label?
> 
> Ya, I agree that "labeling" itself is not glorifying God. But what are the alternatives? The label "Evangelical" or "Christian" has already lost its meaning in our day because of endless relabeling. I certainly don't want to see someone call themselves "Calvinistic Open-theist".
Click to expand...


Polo,
Are all Covenants the same? Are covenants purely that of grace or works? Are some Covenants mixed with Law and Gospel? Are all covenants either conditional or unconditional? Are the Abrahamic, Mosaic, Noahic, Davidic, and New Covenants either law or gospel, conditional or unconditional? Which is which?


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Sorry Josh,
You sounded incredulous just because someone might want you to call themselves Reformed Baptists. 



> I don't have to acknowledge Baptists as Reformed, because they didn't even call themselves Reformed.



I understand your historical context but in history now some are calling themselves this. 


I would like to see some references to what you are saying about the Baptists not wanting to be known as reformed. It would help me out. I do know about the anabaptist being called radical reformers and the Particular Baptists not wanting to be identified with that.


----------



## DMcFadden

> I think we're talking past each other to a certain extent. The PCUSA has not held to the WCF in any meaningful sense in decades, and not formally since at least 1967. They are not included in Dr. Clark's definition of Reformed. Identifying them as Reformed in anything but a historical sense makes about as much sense as saying Robert Schuller is an example of a Reformed minister (he was and perhaps still is RCA.)



Chris, thanks for you reply. I ALWAYS enjoy interacting with you. What you see as talking past each other, I label the limitations of this format. No one has time to clarify what they or the other person means. We tend to run on without interacting.

Yes, I know that PCUSA is no longer Reformed in the sense that you and Dr. Clark are using it. Man, they aren't even Calvinistic as I use it!!! However, they would probably still think that they are and that you all are just a foolish hangover from the past, some folks stuck on the errors of modernity with a brittle hermeneutic. If they were drawing the circle, the Reformed Community would probably include ALL of the presbyterian polity denominations from left to right. Like you, they would not consider baptists Reformed which is OK by me, I don't consider most of them confessional either.



> Lumping in all Presbyterians together may make sense to someone in the mainline (which would include the SBC although it is generally far better in upholding the authority of the Bible than the PCUSA or RCA) or someone in the world, but it isn't applicable to anyone who is in a separatist denomination like the PCA, OPC or the URCNA, as well as the Calvinistic Baptist groups like ARBCA, FIRE, etc.



Actually mainline includes, by general but not unanimous usage, the seven "sisters" of the mainline: ABCUSA, Disciples, ECUSA, ELCA, UMC, PCUSA, and UCC. SBC has always been quite sectarian and considered themselves neither mainline nor evangelical but Babptist (spelling intended).



> We have more in common with each other than you do with Campolo and we do with Rogers because we share a common commitment to the authority of the Bible as well as to our respective confessions.




Agreed! Campolo is off the reservation among the conservative ABCers, but the hierarchy just loves him. When I had Rogers in seminary, he was so busy running away from confessional presbyterianism, that I learned very little about what you all believe. For Rogers, Francis Schaeffer (considerably more popular back in the 70s than now) was a cuss word (he even had a case study in his classes to trash the guy) as were any people who held to the inerrancy of the Bible. One of my other "Reformed"-and-proud-of-it profs, took great delight in proving that the Bible was full of errors.



> One reason why the term Reformed has been defined down is because even conservatives of that day tended to deemphasize the Confessions and their denominational distinctives and emphasized things like the five fundamentals.



Agreed again. It had a salutary effect in that it made common cause among evangelicals against modernist liberalism in the seminaries, pulpits, and denominational headquarters. But, as you indicate, it opened the door for an incredible dumbing down of the faith, the triumph of latitudinarian evangelicalism (cf. Osteen), and the rise of charismatic de-emphasis upon doctrine (cf. the "doctrine divides, experience unites" mantra in the 70s).



> Another factor is that Dr. Martyn Lloyd-Jones and the Banner of Truth were instrumental in the revival of the Doctrines of Grace over the past 50 years. For that we are very thankful. However, they tended to deemphasize ecclesiology and other divisive issues if not ignore them altogether, so the result is people now thinking that someone is Reformed if they simply agree with the Five Points.



I do not dispute your perspective but would broaden it a bit to include the work of Packer, Piper, and Sproul. The generic popularity of these three men near the end of the century had far more effect (in my opinion) in the U.S. than even Lloyd-Jones. And, maybe because Packer is Anglican, he doesn't discuss ecclesiology much; Piper has always been a baptist and his books have been amazingly popular in jump-starting a reinvestigation of Calvinism among young evangelicals; and while Sproul makes no bones about his paedo-baptist convictions, his listening/reading audience consists of an awful lot of mainstream evangelicals from free church backgrounds.

If I have learned anything in my more than three decades of ministry, it is to conclude that the doctrine of inerrancy is not sufficient. Without adding to it the sturdy structure of a comprehensive theological framing and the insulation and walls of confessional orthodoxy maintained strictly, we will (both the Reformed and the broadly evangelical) inevitably drift into error, then heresy. The path of the majority of presbyterians and now (increasingly) of the broad evangelicals has disturbed, disgusted, and depressed me.

I have already given up on my former mainline denomination. My efforts now are directed toward promoting confessionalism with integrity among baptists in my circles of influence.


----------



## aleksanderpolo

PuritanCovenanter said:


> Polo,
> Are all Covenants the same? Are covenants purely that of grace or works? Are some Covenants mixed with Law and Gospel? Are all covenants either conditional or unconditional? Are the Abrahamic, Mosaic, Noahic, Davidic, and New Covenants either law or gospel, conditional or unconditional? Which is which?



Randy, not to get into argument about covenant theology, who is right, etc. But can you say that your view of the covenant is in line with the historical casting of covenant theology? See, you are not only redefining "Reformed", you are redefining "Covenant theology". And again that's the point of the post: who gets to redefine what?

Blessings,


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

joshua said:


> PuritanCovenanter said:
> 
> 
> 
> One more thing... I am not so sure the Particular Baptists wouldn't consider themsleves to be Reformed. The distinction of Particular was meant mainly to emphasis that they as Baptist held to reformational soteriology as opposed to the anabaptist. That was the struggle. They were accused of being anabaptists of the *radical reformation*. The anabaptists were considered *radical reformers*. *So reformed was not the problem here when they made distinctive terms to define themselves by*.
> 
> 
> 
> Regardless of your lack of surety, the early Baptists _didn't_ call themselves _Reformed_, even though they _could have_. Apparently they didn't do so because, although they shared soteriology and many other doctrines with their padeobaptist Brethren, they didn't share their view of the Church, Sacraments, and Baptism. So, to distinguish themselves from such, they didn't call themselves _Reformed_. It does not follow that they were enemies just because they didn't have the same name.
Click to expand...








joshua said:


> PuritanCovenanter said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would like to see some references to what you are saying about the Baptists not wanting to be known as reformed.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not saying that they _actively_ avoided the moniker. However, they certainly didn't seek it.
Click to expand...



So, for clarification, are you saying you aren't sure? I am pretty sure that the term reformed wasn't as much of an issue in terms because it was used in relation to the Radical Reformation and that the Credo's didn't want to be aligned with it. Particular wasn't used in reference to the Reformers but was in reference to oppose to the Radical Reformation and its arminianism. Just like the original 1644 and 46 Baptist Confessions were written. They were products in reference to oppose the radical reformation. I do know this for a surety.

Radical Reformation


----------



## Casey

Semper Fidelis said:


> How about another provocative question: Is the Klinean casting of the Covenants Reformed?
> 
> Since you would like to open  I thought I'd open up that can.


----------



## R. Scott Clark

Yes, we should be able sing God's Word in response to God's Word. 

I think you want "magnificat" (magnifies).

Yes, I'm arguing that non-canonical songs should not be used in stated services.

rsc



Backwoods Presbyterian said:


> Question about "Canonical Singing" Dr. Clark. Do you mean by this that we should sing the Magnificant, the Psalms, Revelation's hymns, etc...alone?
> 
> Can you elaborate for me please? Thanks!!!


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

aleksanderpolo said:


> PuritanCovenanter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Polo,
> Are all Covenants the same? Are covenants purely that of grace or works? Are some Covenants mixed with Law and Gospel? Are all covenants either conditional or unconditional? Are the Abrahamic, Mosaic, Noahic, Davidic, and New Covenants either law or gospel, conditional or unconditional? Which is which?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Randy, not to get into argument about covenant theology, who is right, etc. But can you say that your view of the covenant is in line with the historical casting of covenant theology? See, you are not only redefining "Reformed", you are redefining "Covenant theology". And again that's the point of the post: who gets to redefine what?
> 
> Blessings,
Click to expand...


Answer my questions Polo. I am not redefining Reformed. I acknowledge most of what Dr. Clark has acknowledged. There is a difference between Reformed Theology and Credo Covenant Theology. But did you notice that I do believe in one overarching Covenant of Grace in both the Old and New Covenants. Not all Presbyterians agree on the Covenants and who are actual members in the Covenant of Grace. Some Presbyterian's do believe that the Covenant of Grace is only made up of those who are the elect. 

You need to answer my questions. You are the one claiming a major unity that I am not so sure every Reformer or Presbyterian would acknowledge.


----------



## R. Scott Clark

Well, we've been round this pole a few dozen times. Kline held to the pactum salutis, the covenant of works as distinct from the covenant of grace in a time when precious few, including some regarded as stalwarts of orthodoxy, were holding to the historic, biblical distinction between grace and works as expressed in covenant theology. 

He also held that the covenant of works was republished under Moses. 

This too is an historic position (if contested by many). 

In his later years he began to associate the decalogue more or less exclusively with Moses which led, in my view, some unhappy consequences which, despite my affection for MGK, I haven't hesitated to criticize. 

His later view of the Sabbath and the other such questions is not inherent to the historic Reformed covenant theology. The mainlines of his covenant theology were quite confessional. 

rsc



CaseyBessette said:


> Semper Fidelis said:
> 
> 
> 
> How about another provocative question: Is the Klinean casting of the Covenants Reformed?
> 
> Since you would like to open  I thought I'd open up that can.
Click to expand...


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

aleksanderpolo said:


> Daniel Ritchie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry Dennis I was not addressing any of your replies in my comments. To be truthful I would prefer it if we limited our definition of Reformed to a more general adherance to Calvinistic doctrine, RPW, and covenant theology - if we go much further than that, we could end up in endless wars over what it is to be Reformed, with everyone accusing everyone else of not being Reformed. In my humble opinion, the 1689 is a Reformed Confession.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But Daniel, in order to call Confessional Baptist "Reformed" under your criteria, you will have to redefine "Calvinistic" as merely 5 point (excluding Calvin's view of the sacrament, for example). And redefine Covenant theology to include views that see Abrahamic and Mosaic covenant as having different substances than the New Covenant. But that's the point of the post: Who gets to re-define "Reformed", "Calvinistic", "Covenant theology"? Those who are historically associated with the label? Or those who are historically outside the definition of the label?
> 
> Ya, I agree that "labeling" itself is not glorifying God. But what are the alternatives? The label "Evangelical" or "Christian" has already lost its meaning in our day because of endless relabeling. I certainly don't want to see someone call themselves "Calvinistic Open-theist".
Click to expand...



The term Calvinist - as it is used today - refers to someone who holds to the five points, hence, there are numerous books called the five points of Calvinism.

I admit that there has to be some definition of what it is to be Reformed, what I do not like is the "I am more Reformed than you" approach.


----------



## Casey

Daniel Ritchie said:


> The term Calvinist - as it is used today - refers to someone who holds to the five points, hence, there are numerous books called the five points of Calvinism.


Calvin wrote in the _Institutes_ about a lot more than just soteriology (the "five points") -- I wonder if he'd appreciate his name being limited to represent only that.


----------



## Craig

I always associate "Reformed" with those*purifying* distinctives from Roman Catholocism.

If I saw credo-baptists as anabaptists, I would distinguish between "Reformed" and "Baptist"...As is, I see Reformed as a larger banner encompassing things like soteriology, the five solas, and TULIP...beneath that banner you have the particularizing distinctions: Presbyterian, Baptist, etc. Historically, I'm not completely right...but what's the point in confusing anybody further when the whole idea of a sovereign God is so foreign to evangelicalism (another word you'd be hard-pressed to define  )


----------



## aleksanderpolo

PuritanCovenanter said:


> Answer my questions Polo. ... But did you notice that I do believe in one overarching Covenant of Grace in both the Old and New Covenants.



Let's get this into a different thread and not to go . But basically, if I am not mistaking your view (please correct me if I am), you believe that the covenant of grace is made with elect only. Therefore you believe that Ishmael or Esau were not in the covenant of grace in any way. And the circumcision they received signify something other than the covenant of grace. This view is already different from the historical casting of the covenant theology. Not to mention that covenant theology inevitably leads to paedobaptism, which you reject. So, whether you view is right or not, you are already redefining what "covenant theology" means.



> Not all Presbyterians agree on the Covenants and who are actual members in the Covenant of Grace. Some Presbyterian's do believe that the Covenant of Grace is only made up of those who are the elect.



Not all Presbyterians are "Reformed", that's the implication of Dr. Clark's post, if they do not adhere to the historical Reformed confessions or covenant theology. Just because someone sprinkle their infant doesn't make them "Reformed".


----------



## aleksanderpolo

Daniel Ritchie said:


> I admit that there has to be some definition of what it is to be Reformed, what I do not like is the "I am more Reformed than you" approach.



I agree with what you are saying, but this view can also lead to "I am better than those 'I am more Reformed than you' people", can't it?  I guess the only way to prevent this is to see "Reformed" as just what it is: a label, not someone who is superior to others (but of course we all believe that we are more biblical than others ). I don't have problem with "Confessional Baptist", and I don't see this label inferior to "Reformed Baptist".


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

aleksanderpolo said:


> PuritanCovenanter said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, whether you view is right or not, you are already redefining what "covenant theology" means.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No I am not redefining what CT means. I hold to the Covenant of Redemption, covenant of Works, and Covenant of Grace. I just don't hold to Paedo CT. Credo CT has been around since the Confessions. Read Nehemiah Coxe.
> 
> CT doesn't necessarily lead to paedoism as you suggest or I would hold to it. And yes this is off topic. So if you want just go look where we discuss this.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (Gen 17:18) And Abraham said unto God, O that Ishmael might live before thee!
> 
> (Gen 17:19) And God said, Sarah thy wife shall bear thee a son indeed; and thou shalt call his name Isaac: and I will establish my covenant with him for an everlasting covenant, and with his seed after him.
> 
> (Gen 17:20) And as for Ishmael, I have heard thee: Behold, I have blessed him, and will make him fruitful, and will multiply him exceedingly; twelve princes shall he beget, and I will make him a great nation.
> 
> (Gen 17:21) But my covenant will I establish with Isaac, which Sarah shall bear unto thee at this set time in the next year.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## ADKing

R. Scott Clark said:


> Well, we've been round this pole a few dozen times. Kline held to the pactum salutis, the covenant of works as distinct from the covenant of grace in a time when precious few, including some regarded as stalwarts of orthodoxy, were holding to the historic, biblical distinction between grace and works as expressed in covenant theology.
> 
> He also held that the covenant of works was republished under Moses.
> 
> This too is an historic position (if contested by many).
> 
> In his later years he began to associate the decalogue more or less exclusively with Moses which led, in my view, some unhappy consequences which, despite my affection for MGK, I haven't hesitated to criticize.
> 
> His later view of the Sabbath and the other such questions is not inherent to the historic Reformed covenant theology. The mainlines of his covenant theology were quite confessional.
> 
> rsc
> 
> 
> 
> CaseyBessette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Semper Fidelis said:
> 
> 
> 
> How about another provocative question: Is the Klinean casting of the Covenants Reformed?
> 
> Since you would like to open  I thought I'd open up that can.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


In his last book God, Heaven and Har Maggedon Kline advocates the principle of _merit_ in the Mosaic covenant (although attempting to mitigate the force of this word by attempting to describe this works covenant as typological, it is still implicit that the merit aspect is not typological it is merit under a typological system) and furthermore ascribing merit to Abraham in the Abrahamic covenant! This is certainly beyond the accepted reformed definitions across the board of the concept of merit as well as the Abrahamic covenant irrespective of one's view of the Mosaic covenant. 

Furthermore in the same book, Kline criticizes the Nicene creed and desires to reformulate it in such a way that the Holy Spirit is the second person of the Trinity and the Son the third. He teaches that the Holy Spirit became eternally embodied in a created entity (calling this endoxination) in a way analogous to the incarnation of the Son! 

Whatever one may say of Dr. Kline's earlier writings, towards the end of his life he became seriously heterodox, challenging not only standard reformed teachings but also catholic ones as well.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

CaseyBessette said:


> Daniel Ritchie said:
> 
> 
> 
> The term Calvinist - as it is used today - refers to someone who holds to the five points, hence, there are numerous books called the five points of Calvinism.
> 
> 
> 
> Calvin wrote in the _Institutes_ about a lot more than just soteriology (the "five points") -- I wonder if he'd appreciate his name being limited to represent only that.
Click to expand...


Since the five points came to prominence after his death I guess we will never know.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

joshua said:


> PuritanCovenanter said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, for clarification, are you saying you aren't sure?
> 
> 
> 
> No, I'm not saying that. I'm _certain_ that they didn't call themselves _Reformed_. But as aforementioned, it's not on top of my priority list to make a stink about it.
Click to expand...


Then I would appreciate your help in showing me your findings.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

joshua said:


> PuritanCovenanter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> joshua said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, I'm not saying that. I'm _certain_ that they didn't call themselves _Reformed_. But as aforementioned, it's not on top of my priority list to make a stink about it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then I would appreciate your help in showing me your findings.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Is the burden of proof on me to pull all the historical documents to show that they _did not_ call themselves _Reformed_?
Click to expand...


I am just asking for help. BTW it would be proof to what you are saying though. I only know what I have read concerning the Radical Reformation and the Particulars. I had never heard that the Particulars didn't think they were not reformed. I am just asking so that I might be clear. That is why I want the references you are leaning upon. You seem to know more about it than I do. I am asking for my benefit.


----------



## aleksanderpolo

Randy, it will be great if you can move this discussion about Abrahamic covenant into another thread, but since you quote Genesis 17, it will be beneficial to look at Genesis 17:7.

Genesis 17:7 And I will establish my covenant between me and you and your offspring after you throughout their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be God to you and to your offspring after you.

1. The Covenant God established with Abraham in Genesis 17 was an everlasting one, not a temporary land/offspring covenant that expired. There was no mention of a separated, land/offspring covenant established anywhere in the text. God's promise of land and offspring was shadow and benefits of the covenant of grace, not the substance of a different covenant. From the text, God established a covenant with Abraham, not two covenants with Abraham.
2. Ishmael received the covenant sign.
3. Therefore Ishmael was in this everlasting covenant.

Combine with Genesis 17:21, then we know Ishmael was in the covenant of grace, but not of the covenant of grace. Your insistence that there are two covenants established with Abraham is because of your baptistic presupposition that conflate the sign and things signified. 

I know you like to quote Coxe, care to show me your finding that his "covenant theology" is the historical covenant theology held by most covenant theologian in church history?


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

As I said Polo.... Go back and do a search for our past discussions. Look for Mike Renihan's (John Tombes) posts also on Genesis 17.


----------



## aleksanderpolo

Randy, I read the past discussion. You just stated that you "believed Abrahamic covenant is ..." without really arguing for your position. You just keep asking people to go back and read Coxe or past discussion as if the conclusion is reached, but it's not. Go back to the past discussion, like this one: http://www.puritanboard.com/f31/esau-covenant-30290/ and argue exegetically, from the text, not just *state* you belief, that God established two covenants with Abraham, and that Coxe's view of covenant is the historical definition of covenant theology, please?

But again this is , sorry Dr. Clark.


----------



## MW

R. Scott Clark said:


> As to Daniel's objections, I should (and will) add the qualification "the Reformed confessions _as received by the churches_." The American churches have rightly modified the WCF and BC to remove objectionable theocratic elements.



To echo the sentiments of your fine post linked in the OP -- the American churches do not get to define whether theocratic elements are objectionable or not. The establishment principle is reformed. Those who reject it are not.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

armourbearer said:


> R. Scott Clark said:
> 
> 
> 
> As to Daniel's objections, I should (and will) add the qualification "the Reformed confessions _as received by the churches_." The American churches have rightly modified the WCF and BC to remove objectionable theocratic elements.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To echo the sentiments of your fine post linked in the OP -- the American churches do not get to define whether theocratic elements are objectionable or not. The establishment principle is reformed. Those who reject it are not.
Click to expand...


So the (conservative) American Presbyterian churches are not Reformed?


----------



## MW

Daniel Ritchie said:


> So the (conservative) American Presbyterian churches are not Reformed?



Not on the Church/State issue.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

armourbearer said:


> Daniel Ritchie said:
> 
> 
> 
> So the (conservative) American Presbyterian churches are not Reformed?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not on the Church/State issue.
Click to expand...


So are they not Reformed, or not Reformed on the church/state issue?


----------



## MW

Daniel Ritchie said:


> So are they not Reformed, or not Reformed on the church/state issue?



The issue is one of historical identification. The question is, Who decides what is reformed? My answer is, Not those who reject the establishment principle. Those who reject the establishment principle seek to redefine reformed faith and life, and thereby place themselves outside the reformed tradition. Should clarification be asked, as you have done, I qualify that it is specifically on the issue of Church and State. But whether a man hits his golf ball out of bounds by an inch or a hundred feet makes no alteration to the fact that his ball is out of bounds and he has no right to redefine the golf course in order to call his ball in play.


----------



## py3ak

It still is not altogether clear to me how Dr. Clark's use of the Confessions _as received by the churches_ really definitively sets out what it means to be Reformed. I understand that the _animus imponentis_ can clarify how a particular clause or chapter is to be understood, but I had thought that this was on points where there was ambiguity. If the American Presbyterians reject the Establishment principle or say that denial of creation in the space of six days is all right, why do they get to use the term "Reformed" of themselves? It seems like it comes down to a circular argument in that the Reformed Confessions define what it means to be Reformed; but those confessions are to be taken as _received by_ the Reformed Churches; and if those churches _receive_ them in a contradictory manner? How does this not come down to, "If a church says it is Reformed and receives a Reformed confession then the changes it makes to the Confession are OK and it is still Reformed." Help me out: what am I missing here?


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot

armourbearer said:


> Daniel Ritchie said:
> 
> 
> 
> So the (conservative) American Presbyterian churches are not Reformed?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not on the Church/State issue.
Click to expand...


My American denomination adheres to the Establishment Principle.


----------



## Southern Presbyterian

VirginiaHuguenot said:


> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daniel Ritchie said:
> 
> 
> 
> So the (conservative) American Presbyterian churches are not Reformed?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not on the Church/State issue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My American denomination adheres to the Establishment Principle.
Click to expand...


Mine too.


----------



## Casey

VirginiaHuguenot said:


> My American denomination adheres to the Establishment Principle.


I don't mean any disrespect when I ask this: But what does it matter if hold such a view when your denomination isn't the established church?


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot

CaseyBessette said:


> VirginiaHuguenot said:
> 
> 
> 
> My American denomination adheres to the Establishment Principle.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't mean any disrespect when I ask this: But what does it matter if hold such a view when your denomination isn't the established church?
Click to expand...


A witness to the truth, grounded upon God's Word, always matters.

The same question could be directed to any witness to any particular subject where God's Word testifies to the duties of ecclesiastical or civil authority which are, in reality, lacking or deficient. If God requires it, it is better to testify to that truth, according to our place and station, then leave this doctrine, which is part of the whole counsel of God, left unsaid or actively opposed. 

Thou hast put all things in subjection under his feet. For in that he put all in subjection under him, he left nothing that is not put under him. But now we see not yet all things put under him. (Heb. 2.8)


----------



## Casey

Amen, brother. I entirely agree with your response. Probably I didn't form my question properly. Anyway, I don't want to hijack the thread.


----------



## DMcFadden

joshua said:


> Is the burden of proof on me to pull all the historical documents to show that they _did not_ call themselves _Reformed_?



I have already indicated that I'm fine with the term "confessional" baptist and that I agree with Scott's differentiation. However, it is not difficult to see where the confusion comes from as the following quotes come from the *Encyclopedia of the Reformed Faith*.

By the way, does John Gerstner count as a Truly Reformed guy? This was his take on baptist theologian, Strong . . . 



> A Baptist leader, Strong was also that tradition’s most celebrated American theologian . . . Strong wrote what may be the *most erudite Reformed Systematic theology ever written *enriched greatly by his love for, acquaintance with, and participation in contemporary poetry, The Great Poets and Their Theology (1897). His deep influence on *Carl Henry, one of the leading Baptist advocates of the Reformed faith today*, is quite evident. JOHN H. GERSTNER
> 
> McKim, D. K., & Wright, D. F. (1992). Encyclopedia of the Reformed faith (1st ed.) (359). Louisville, Ky.; Edinburgh: Westminster/John Knox Press; Saint Andrew Press.



And, in a discussion of revivalism . . .



> At the same time, emphases on providence and predestination have led many Reformed leaders to resist revivalism. *As a result of Reformed ambiguity, many Baptists actually moved out of Reformed theology*. Communions other than those of the Reformed family have supported revivalism most fervently.
> 
> McKim, D. K., & Wright, D. F. (1992). Encyclopedia of the Reformed faith (1st ed.) (325). Louisville, Ky.; Edinburgh: Westminster/John Knox Press; Saint Andrew Press.



And, when discussing "Calvinism in America" . . .



> *The Puritan and Scotch–Irish forms of Calvinism were organized into Congregational, Presbyterian, and Baptist churches*. The Dutch Reformed, German Reformed, and other immigrant groups also established American churches during the eighteenth century.
> 
> McKim, D. K., & Wright, D. F. (1992). Encyclopedia of the Reformed faith (1st ed.) (50). Louisville, Ky.; Edinburgh: Westminster/John Knox Press; Saint Andrew Press.



These were all different articles by different scholars, all of them Reformed, writing in the _Encyclopedia of *Reformed *Theology_. Hey, guys. Don't beat up us baptists too badly when your own reference books make the same "mistakes."


----------



## Pergamum

A few questions and comments:

Is John Owen reformed? Wasn't we a congregationalist?

Who has the right to give us a sliding scale of who is more reformed than others?

Isn't it a prerogative of every group to define themselves as they wish. Presbyterians may sniffle and moan but if baptists want the category "reformed" in front of their names to identify themselves with the 1689 confession, then the reformed cannot stop them and should stop their whining.

Last time I checked there was no little copyright symbol above the name reformed.

Finally, given the company of those that call themselves "reformed" to include many groups that are grossly deviant in doctrine (whole groups falling away into apostasy), being a baptist who calls himself reformed or calvinisitic puts me in a lot better company.


P.S. Particular Baptist is a brand that is currently being used by many who trace their lineage from the anabaptist tradition. Therefore, this label, too, does not fit, for those that desire a modified WCF and are happy with the 1689. The term Sovereign grace baptist also is sometimes associated with more of a Fundyist and anti-confessional stance and so is not an adequate label. I prefer to simply call myself calvinistic and baptistic.


----------



## DMcFadden

Earlier in this thread, I suggested Calvinis*tic* Baptist as an appropriate title, even though Reformed is not. Later on, I found Blueridge Baptist's idea to be the best: "confessional baptist."

Interestingly though, Spurgeon (a baptist) had no problem with all of these terms.



> Nay, *we that are called reformed*, are not one whit behind them in all manner of wickedness.


One of his greatest pieces was "A Defense of Calvinism," certainly thinking he was speaking ab out his own view.



> “Salvation is of the Lord.” That is just an epitome of Calvinism; it is the sum and substance of it. *If anyone should ask me what I mean by a Calvinist, I should reply, “He is one who says, Salvation is of the Lord.” *I cannot find in Scripture any other doctrine than this. It is the essence of the Bible. “He only is my rock and my salvation” . . . What is the heresy of Rome, but the addition of something to the perfect merits of Jesus Christ—the bringing in of the works of the flesh, to assist in our justification? And what is the heresy of Arminianism but the addition of something to the work of the Redeemer? Every heresy, if brought to the touchstone, will discover itself here . . . I have my own private opinion that *there is no such thing as preaching Christ and Him crucified, unless we preach what nowadays is called Calvinism. It is a nickname to call it Calvinism; Calvinism is the gospel, and nothing else. *Heritage of great evangelical teaching : Featuring the best of Martin Luther, John Wesley, Dwight L. Moody, C.H. Spurgeon and others. 1997, c1996. Nashville: Thomas Nelson.


----------



## DMcFadden

Pergamum said:


> P.S. Particular Baptist is a brand that is currently being used by many who trace their lineage from the anabaptist tradition.



Pergy,

Really? I have never heard the term used other than to describe Reformational baptists (you know the ones tracing to Luther, Calvin, and Zwingli) AGAINST the anabaptists. In church history it was used to differentiate the Calvinistic baptists who believed in a "particular redemption" (the larger group) from the Arminian ones (the smaller group).


----------



## Pilgrim

Pergamum said:


> A few questions and comments:
> 
> Is John Owen reformed? Wasn't we a congregationalist?
> 
> Who has the right to give us a sliding scale of who is more reformed than others?
> 
> Isn't it a prerogative of every group to define themselves as they wish. Presbyterians may sniffle and moan but if baptists want the category "reformed" in front of their names to identify themselves with the 1689 confession, then the reformed cannot stop them and should stop their whining.
> 
> Last time I checked there was no little copyright symbol above the name reformed.
> 
> Finally, given the company of those that call themselves "reformed" to include many groups that are grossly deviant in doctrine (whole groups falling away into apostasy), being a baptist who calls himself reformed or calvinisitic puts me in a lot better company.
> 
> 
> P.S. Particular Baptist is a brand that is currently being used by many who trace their lineage from the anabaptist tradition. Therefore, this label, too, does not fit, for those that desire a modified WCF and are happy with the 1689. The term Sovereign grace baptist also is sometimes associated with more of a Fundyist and anti-confessional stance and so is not an adequate label. I prefer to simply call myself calvinistic and baptistic.



I have heard others use the term "Historic Baptist" but that can be problematic as well because some will associate it with Landmarkism.


----------



## Iconoclast

*"reformed"*

I enjoy using the term Reformed Baptist in conversation with people who ask what I believe. Everyone has heard of Baptist churches. When I say "reformed" They almost always respond with- What do you mean reformed baptist? This tells me that unlike most of the brethren in here ,the person who inquires about the adjective reformed , does not know the difference between , a Baptist, Presbyterian,Christian Reformed ,etc.
So I use it as an opportunity to explain that in general that believer's in these churches are generally more earnest in their desire to search out the truth of scripture.
I then in some way speak to the doctrines of grace. I try to make a simple yet clear explanation of the saving work of Christ.
I point out that I can fellowship with any believer who is saved by the blood of Christ, that we are brother's, even if we might differ on some of what we understand from scripture.
In linking to the term "reformed" I have always tried to lengthen the cord,and strengthen the stakes. What I mean by that is, I like some of what Luther wrote, but I am not Lutheran . Why are we not all Lutherans?
I like what I have read about some of the Scottish Covenanter's in the book Fair Sunshine, Why are we not all Scottish Covenanter's?
Many of my books are written By Presbyterian's. Indeed I am eternally grateful to God that he has used many different living stones, with different levels of maturity to help me learn more about the word of our God.
So in general ,in public, I am not meeting that many persons who make as fine a distinction as some of you brother's are want to do.
If I can plant a seed in someone's mind that God will allow to grow I will rejoice with the angels for that person if and when God gives new life to them. 
I would not have a problem with linking a new convert with most of the men in here, because I know that you are in the word,and serious about the command to make disciples. If you are teaching something that needs correction, I am confident that the Spirit of God is able to correct and guide His Sheep, despite some of our failings as we have this treasure in earthen vessels.


----------



## Ivan

CaseyBessette said:


> Daniel Ritchie said:
> 
> 
> 
> The term Calvinist - as it is used today - refers to someone who holds to the five points, hence, there are numerous books called the five points of Calvinism.
> 
> 
> 
> Calvin wrote in the _Institutes_ about a lot more than just soteriology (the "five points") -- I wonder if he'd appreciate his name being limited to represent only that.
Click to expand...


I'm not sure he would appreciate his name being used at all for "labels", but point well taken.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Ivan said:


> CaseyBessette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daniel Ritchie said:
> 
> 
> 
> The term Calvinist - as it is used today - refers to someone who holds to the five points, hence, there are numerous books called the five points of Calvinism.
> 
> 
> 
> Calvin wrote in the _Institutes_ about a lot more than just soteriology (the "five points") -- I wonder if he'd appreciate his name being limited to represent only that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not sure he would appreciate his name being used at all for "labels", but point well taken.
Click to expand...


Luther also was amazed that anyone would attach his name to the Church, referring to himself as a Pig if I remember correctly.


----------



## MW

Iconoclast said:


> Why are we not all Scottish Covenanter's?



That would be because we're not Scottish. And yet there is no reason why we should not all wholeheartedly embrace the principles taught in the covenants seeing as they are the very principles taught by the Bible.


----------



## Ivan

joshua said:


> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Iconoclast said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why are we not all Scottish Covenanter's?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That would be because we're not Scottish.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


I haven't figured out the Keeling side of my family tree, whether they are Irish or English, but I don't think they came from Scotland.


----------



## servantofmosthigh

R. Scott Clark said:


> On the HB



Historically, there were two group of Reformers: the Magisterial Reformers and the Radical Reformers. The Magisterial Reformers comprised of the Lutherans, Presbyterians, Calvinists and Baptists. The Radical Reformers comprised of the Anabaptists and the Moravian Brethren.

R. Scott, why do you feel only the Presbyterians should have a stake on the term, "Reformed," when historically, Presbyterians were just one of many?


----------



## Pergamum

DMcFadden said:


> Pergamum said:
> 
> 
> 
> P.S. Particular Baptist is a brand that is currently being used by many who trace their lineage from the anabaptist tradition.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pergy,
> 
> Really? I have never heard the term used other than to describe Reformational baptists (you know the ones tracing to Luther, Calvin, and Zwingli) AGAINST the anabaptists. In church history it was used to differentiate the Calvinistic baptists who believed in a "particular redemption" (the larger group) from the Arminian ones (the smaller group).
Click to expand...



In Spurgeon's Day I remember one reference Spurgeon used to identify calvinistic baptists as "Particular" and of course, William Carey's society was the "Particular Baptist Missionary society for the Propagation of the Gospel among the Heathen". So, you are quite right as to the historica use of the term "Particular" baptist.

In our day I usually hear "Particular Baptist" used differently. There is a Particular Baptist Press that is run by a dear brother Gary Long in Springfield, Missouri who strongly seems anabaptist and attempts to trace baptist heritage through the anabaptists rather than the English Baptists it seems. I have talked to others as well who refer to themselves as "Particular" and who prefer to think of their tradition as coming out of continental anabaptism rather than English congregational history.


----------



## AV1611

Daniel Ritchie said:


> does nit-picking and arguing over labels really bring any glory to God?



Bear in mind that the FV call themselves Reformed


----------



## lwadkins

Dr. Clark's OP was directed to the question of who gets to define "reformed." Well, the definition of "reformed" has long been established. Current understandings of the word "reformed" are not definitions, but redefinitions. Many today like to use the word to established their orthodox bona fide's, however if you use the term "reformed" in a manner other that its long established meaning, then you are misusing it, no matter your doctrinal stance. Words are coined to foster communication between people, when you pour your own meaning into words it fosters miscommunication. Thus to call yourself "Reformed Baptist" lays the groundwork for all manner of misunderstanding.


----------



## Pergamum

In one sense "reformed" would mean that one's tradition draws from the Reformation, whether that branch is magesterial or radical.

Perhaps a better terminology would be "Reformational Baptist" or "Reforming"...



P.S. What would we call John Owen if we deny that he is Reformed?


----------



## hollandmin

DMcFadden said:


> Daniel Ritchie said:
> 
> 
> 
> To be perfectly truthful, I do not think posts like this help the cause of Christ in the world; does nit-picking and arguing over labels really bring any glory to God?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daniel,
> 
> I appreciate your concern about nit-picking. My response to Dr. Clark's OP was not intended to argue with the TR brethren or to claim baptists are Reformed. I accept as valid Scott's essential point that the Reformed ought to have the right to define themselves as they wish. That such definition does not include me does not offend me in the least. I am a baptist who believes in the doctrines of grace, not a Reformed/Presbyterian. Actually, Daniel, my original response to Clark was intended to say that I agree with his article and wanted to raise a couple of related issues, not to nit pick the man.
> 
> I am a 5-pointer who would rather exalt in the majestic sovereignty of God in all his creation than the dignity of a partially fallen creature (to paraphrase Nettles). From a strictly linguistic and historical consideration, I think that gives me a right to claim to be Calvinis*tic*, as in a Calvinis*tic* Baptist as opposed to an Arminian Baptist, even though it is not theologically or historically permitted to describe this as Reformed.
> 
> You do raise some interesting points which Scott addressed in part. The "Reformed" people who taught me in seminary were published authors, noted scholars (one eventually to become the moderator of the 213th General Assembly of the largest Presbyterian denomination in America) and all around muck-e-mucks of Reformed thought. I simply find it ironic that my TR brethren on PB _should_ find more in common with my theology (inerrancy, confessional 1689 baptist, creationist, complementarian, no gay marriage/ordination, etc.) than with a majority of pastors and lay people (by head count) in the officially Reformed or Presbyterian denominations.
> 
> Again, no whining here. I'm a baptist not a presbyterian, so I can't be Reformed. But I'll take baptist John Piper over presbyterian Jack Rogers any day. And, even among Refomed people, give me R.C. Sproul in a heart beat over the typical current graduates (or professors) at Princeton, Pittsburgh (except our dear PB brother), or McCormick.
> 
> Baptists are saddled with Arminians (now the majority). You presbyterians are stuck with a majority that I do not believe accepts what most of you Reformed guys on PB believe.
Click to expand...



Amen! 

From a Refor.....er.......calvinis.. . . ..er..... particula.......er...... oh just a Baptist who holds to the doctrines of grace.

Granted I think there is only one way to spit a hair 

Blessings,


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

AV1611 said:


> Daniel Ritchie said:
> 
> 
> 
> does nit-picking and arguing over labels really bring any glory to God?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bear in mind that the FV call themselves Reformed
Click to expand...


Yes, but they are heretics who deny the doctrines of grace.


----------



## AV1611

Daniel Ritchie said:


> Yes, but they are heretics who deny the doctrines of grace.



You are saying that you can be Reformed and disagree with the Reformed Standards. 

The FV say that they agree with the Reformed Standards insofar as they are biblical but disagree with them where they go against Scripture. They say that the Reformed Standards disagree with Scripture on x, y and z. 

You say, the FV are heretics because they disagree with the Reformed Standards on x, y and z. 

To which the FV cry, but our presbyteries have changed the Standards on x, y and z. 

To which you reply....

The problem is that there needs to be a creed that is a standard, a canon of belief or doctrine. In Reformed circles these are the Westminster Standards and Three Forms of Unity (I would also add the Savoy declaration). Disagree with them and you are not Reformed.


----------



## servantofmosthigh

_"Our Baptist friends are entitled to think what they will but they are not entitled to fundamentally re-define the adjective “'Reformed.'”_

R. Scott's presupposition is evident in this statement: that Baptists may have not been part of the original Reformers, that Baptists never started off liking the term "Reformed" and should not want to today, and that Baptists are now "redefining" it.

Baptists never have and are not now making any attempts to redefine "Reformed." Rather, Baptists believe that the Presbyterians did not "Reform" from the Catholic Church back to the Gospel "far enough," especially on the issue of Baptism.

Remember that the various Reformers all took varying degrees on "how far" to Reform the churches' doctrines and practices from the Catholics. For the Church of England, whether they should be considered as part of the Reformation Protest is debated, their Reformation was just a slight variation from the Roman Catholics. For the Lutherans, they took the issue a bit further. For the Presbyterians, they took it even further. For the Baptists, they took it even further still. For the Anabaptists, they took it too far.

R. Scott's premise seems to be on the belief that only the Presbyterians have a stake on the term "Reformed," when in fact, they are just a little bit more Reformed than the Lutherans, but not enough for the Baptists. Much like the Postmodern who thinks that the earth no longer revolves around the sun, but that the world revolves around the individual, it seems our Presbyterian brothers believe that the term "Reformed" doesn't revolve around all who reformed from the Roman Catholics, but revolves around Presbyterianism.


----------



## JohnOwen007

AV1611 said:


> The problem is that there needs to be a creed that is a standard, a canon of belief or doctrine. In Reformed circles these are the Westminster Standards and Three Forms of Unity (I would also add the Savoy declaration). Disagree with them and you are not Reformed.



Dear AV,

You say, "In Reformed circles", which begs the question which "circles" are you talking about?

I agree with Richard Muller who argues that the "reformed" tradition is made up of those church organizations which adhere to the _historic reformed confessions_. These are more than simply the WCF and 3FU. They include the Gallic, Scots, 3FU, 39 Articles, and 2nd Helvetic. This is the _historic_ definition of the reformed tradition and it encompasses a degree of latitude, but clearly discounts Arminianism and the like.

See Muller's paper here.

Cheers.

ps: AV, I'll be in Cambridge for the last 6 months of this year, we should catch up some time whilst I'm over.


----------



## AV1611

JohnOwen007 said:


> I agree with Richard Muller who argues that the "reformed" tradition is made up of those church organizations which adhere to the _historic reformed confessions_. These are more than simply the WCF and 3FU. They include the Gallic, Scots, 3FU, 39 Articles, and 2nd Helvetic. This is the _historic_ definition of the reformed tradition and it encompasses a degree of latitude, but clearly discounts Arminianism and the like.



That is really all I meant albeit stated far better.



JohnOwen007 said:


> ps: AV, I'll be in Cambridge for the last 6 months of this year, we should catch up some time whilst I'm over.



Would be good.


----------



## R. Scott Clark

There's no reason for denying that Owen was Reformed!

There's also no reason to include the Anabaptists as "Reformed" since they rejected virtually everything that the Reformed held. The ABs were mystical moralizers. They were social radicals (e.g. communalism, denial of participation in civil society, and even radical revolution). 

rsc



Pergamum said:


> In one sense "reformed" would mean that one's tradition draws from the Reformation, whether that branch is magesterial or radical.
> 
> Perhaps a better terminology would be "Reformational Baptist" or "Reforming"...
> 
> 
> 
> P.S. What would we call John Owen if we deny that he is Reformed?


----------



## KMK

Bob Self of ARBCA tells people he is a Baptist who believes in a really BIG God.


----------



## R. Scott Clark

Three things re established churches and the definition of Reformed.

1. It seems bizarre to me to hold that it is _essential_ to being Reformed to hold to an established church. 

2. The I don't know of any ecclesiastical body that has held that a doctrine of establishment is _essential_ to the Reformed faith. The American covenanters have close ecumenical relations with denominations that deny establishment. If establishment is essential to the Reformed faith I doubt they would have entered into close fraternal relations with groups that deny it.

3. Neither the continental Reformed in Europe and America nor the American Presbyterians have said that, otoh, that holding to establishment disqualifies a denom/fed as Reformed.

Isn't this an area where we can agree to disagree?

rsc



Southern Presbyterian said:


> VirginiaHuguenot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not on the Church/State issue.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My American denomination adheres to the Establishment Principle.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Mine too.
Click to expand...


----------



## R. Scott Clark

Adam,

Are you certain that you're giving MGK/the book the most charitable interpretation?

I've only read sections. Frankly I find it very difficult to read. The books that Meredith did without an editor are full of Kline-speak and I haven't spent the time to figure out what he's doing.

I do know, however, that Meredith was quite committed to Van Til's theology and that includes the Creator/creature distinction.

With the language re the HS could it be that he's elaborating on Vos' theory in Bib Theol that the eschaton is a "realm of the HS"? 

Republication was widely taught in the 17th century (and implicitly before) among orthodox Reformed divines. The adjective typological is not mere "mitigation"! This is essential to his understanding of the role of the Mosaic covenant. Remember, this is the guy who opposed Norm Shepherd for 30+ years. He didn't cash in justification _sola gratia et fide_ at the end of his life. That's not plausible. The merit he has in mind there is the same sort of thing he said in Kingdom Prologue and elsewhere. It is merit _ex pacto_, i.e. relative to the typological national, temporary, covenant of works relative to their national status. 

if you're going to hit MGK for teaching that then you can go after me too because I've been saying virtually the same thing for years. 





ADKing said:


> R. Scott Clark said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, we've been round this pole a few dozen times. Kline held to the pactum salutis, the covenant of works as distinct from the covenant of grace in a time when precious few, including some regarded as stalwarts of orthodoxy, were holding to the historic, biblical distinction between grace and works as expressed in covenant theology.
> 
> He also held that the covenant of works was republished under Moses.
> 
> This too is an historic position (if contested by many).
> 
> In his later years he began to associate the decalogue more or less exclusively with Moses which led, in my view, some unhappy consequences which, despite my affection for MGK, I haven't hesitated to criticize.
> 
> His later view of the Sabbath and the other such questions is not inherent to the historic Reformed covenant theology. The mainlines of his covenant theology were quite confessional.
> 
> "Seriously heterodox" is over the top. Meredith deserves better treatment whatever disagreements you might have with him.
> 
> rsc
> 
> 
> 
> CaseyBessette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In his last book God, Heaven and Har Maggedon Kline advocates the principle of _merit_ in the Mosaic covenant (although attempting to mitigate the force of this word by attempting to describe this works covenant as typological, it is still implicit that the merit aspect is not typological it is merit under a typological system) and furthermore ascribing merit to Abraham in the Abrahamic covenant! This is certainly beyond the accepted reformed definitions across the board of the concept of merit as well as the Abrahamic covenant irrespective of one's view of the Mosaic covenant.
> 
> Furthermore in the same book, Kline criticizes the Nicene creed and desires to reformulate it in such a way that the Holy Spirit is the second person of the Trinity and the Son the third. He teaches that the Holy Spirit became eternally embodied in a created entity (calling this endoxination) in a way analogous to the incarnation of the Son!
> 
> Whatever one may say of Dr. Kline's earlier writings, towards the end of his life he became seriously heterodox, challenging not only standard reformed teachings but also catholic ones as well.
Click to expand...


----------



## ADKing

R. Scott Clark said:


> Adam,
> 
> Are you certain that you're giving MGK/the book the most charitable interpretation?
> 
> I've only read sections. Frankly I find it very difficult to read. The books that Meredith did without an editor are full of Kline-speak and I haven't spent the time to figure out what he's doing.
> 
> I do know, however, that Meredith was quite committed to Van Til's theology and that includes the Creator/creature distinction.
> 
> With the language re the HS could it be that he's elaborating on Vos' theory in Bib Theol that the eschaton is a "realm of the HS"?
> 
> Republication was widely taught in the 17th century (and implicitly before) among orthodox Reformed divines. The adjective typological is not mere "mitigation"! This is essential to his understanding of the role of the Mosaic covenant. Remember, this is the guy who opposed Norm Shepherd for 30+ years. He didn't cash in justification _sola gratia et fide_ at the end of his life. That's not plausible. The merit he has in mind there is the same sort of thing he said in Kingdom Prologue and elsewhere. It is merit _ex pacto_, i.e. relative to the typological national, temporary, covenant of works relative to their national status.
> 
> if you're going to hit MGK for teaching that then you can go after me too because I've been saying virtually the same thing for years.



With all due respect Dr. Clark, there is nothing unclear or uncertain as to what Dr. Kline is saying with respect to the Trinity. I regret that I do not have the book handy or I would quote it here. (Does anyone on the board have this book handy that could quote the relavent section?) I highly suggest taking a look at that section in his book where he deals with "endoxation". Making the claim that the Holy Spirit has embodied himself in created reality in a way analagous to the incarnation is not reformed or Nicene (to refrain from using much stronger language!). There is nothing similar in the writings of Vos

With regard to the Mosaic covenant, I will not speak at length. Suffice it to say I find it dubious that the historical evidence that the language of republication by some 16th and 17th century divines represents "proto-Klineanism" per the work of men like Karlberg. Even individuals like Lee Irons are now looking to John Cameron et.al. for a more plausible source. Witness the fact the even these divines who are appealed to end up with a much more puritan system than Dr. Kline himself. 

What troubles me much more than the whole "republication" issue, is the question of merit. *No* reformed theologian, of whom I am aware, speaks of post-fall merit in the sense of Dr. Kline (other than in the case of our Lord). As sinners, it is impossible for us to do anything meritorious in God's sight. In a strict sense, I think Kline and his followers understand this and that is why they have had recourse to this concpet of merit which is determined "ex pacto" as you put it. That is to suggest, under this typological system, God can accept obedience (mingled with sin as it is in fallen men) as meritorious--not because it is perfect, but because it satisfies his less than perfect standard under a typological system. I am not accusing Dr. Kline of abandoning sola gratia or falling into Sheperdism. But I think his _*redefinition*_ of merit suggests (however uninetentionally it may or may not be) that God can accept less than perfect obedience as meritorious albeit in a typological system. This I find highly dangerous.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

AV1611 said:


> Daniel Ritchie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, but they are heretics who deny the doctrines of grace.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are saying that you can be Reformed and disagree with the Reformed Standards.
> 
> The FV say that they agree with the Reformed Standards insofar as they are biblical but disagree with them where they go against Scripture. They say that the Reformed Standards disagree with Scripture on x, y and z.
> 
> You say, the FV are heretics because they disagree with the Reformed Standards on x, y and z.
> 
> To which the FV cry, but our presbyteries have changed the Standards on x, y and z.
> 
> To which you reply....
> 
> The problem is that there needs to be a creed that is a standard, a canon of belief or doctrine. In Reformed circles these are the Westminster Standards and Three Forms of Unity (I would also add the Savoy declaration). Disagree with them and you are not Reformed.
Click to expand...


FVers have denied the central soteriological doctrines of the Confession. This is not in the same league as exclusive psalmody or the establishment principle.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

armourbearer said:


> Daniel Ritchie said:
> 
> 
> 
> So are they not Reformed, or not Reformed on the church/state issue?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The issue is one of historical identification. The question is, Who decides what is reformed? My answer is, Not those who reject the establishment principle. Those who reject the establishment principle seek to redefine reformed faith and life, and thereby place themselves outside the reformed tradition. Should clarification be asked, as you have done, I qualify that it is specifically on the issue of Church and State. But whether a man hits his golf ball out of bounds by an inch or a hundred feet makes no alteration to the fact that his ball is out of bounds and he has no right to redefine the golf course in order to call his ball in play.
Click to expand...


The problem with this analogy is that the managers of the golf course (i.e. the church courts) have redefined the boundaries of the golf course (i.e. the WCF/BC) so that their views are no longer out of bounds.


----------



## ADKing

Not having God, Heaven and Har Maggedon handy, here is a quote from D. Kline in one of his articles on Zechariah's night visions. 

_There is then an eternally continuing Glory-embodiment of God's Spirit-Presence in creation, shaping creation and constituting it a temple. The primal creation event that brought this Glory-Spirit epiphany into existence (Gen. 1:1) may be called the endoxation of the Spirit. It is comparable to the incarnation of the Son. Incarnate Son and endoxate Spirit are both living embodiments of the God of Glory.
_
He is only more explicit in the aforementioned book. Here is the source Kerux...The Online Journal of Biblical Theology


----------



## R. Scott Clark

Adam,

I think you are quite wrong here. There is nothing heretical in what MGK is saying here about the role of the Spirit. Please re-read Vos' _Pauline Eschatology_. That is all Meredith is saying here. This is the same sort of language he uses about the Glory-Spirit in creation, the covenant of works, the theophanic manifestations etc. He's describing Zechariah's visions. 

He's not saying that the Spirit, in this vision, is conceived as incarnate.

Second, though I don't think it's pedagogically helpful to speak of Israel meriting tenure in the land, as long as we know what he means by it, that it is ONLY relative to the will of God as expressed in the typological, national-status land covenant, then it isn't nearly as problematic as you make it.

For what it's worth, I think you're over-reacting. You may not like the doctrine of republication but it has a pretty serious pedigree. The Reformed (e.g. Owen, Boston) _routinely_ appealed to the idea of republication to explain the covenant of works. The WCF ch 19 does it! 

rsc



ADKing said:


> Not having God, Heaven and Har Maggedon handy, here is a quote from D. Kline in one of his articles on Zechariah's night visions.
> 
> _There is then an eternally continuing Glory-embodiment of God's Spirit-Presence in creation, shaping creation and constituting it a temple. The primal creation event that brought this Glory-Spirit epiphany into existence (Gen. 1:1) may be called the endoxation of the Spirit. It is comparable to the incarnation of the Son. Incarnate Son and endoxate Spirit are both living embodiments of the God of Glory.
> _
> He is only more explicit in the aforementioned book. Here is the source Kerux...The Online Journal of Biblical Theology


----------



## AV1611

R. Scott Clark said:


> For what it's worth, I think you're over-reacting. You may not like the doctrine of republication but it has a pretty serious pedigree. The Reformed (e.g. Owen, Boston) _routinely_ appealed to the idea of republication to explain the covenant of works. The WCF ch 19 does it!



Maybe it depends on what people think it means by republication, i.e. the reason why it was republished.

John Gill is helpful in my opinion:

The author and giver of this law; God was the author and maker of it; Moses the giver and minister of it from God; it was God that first spoke the ten words, or commands, to the children of Israel; and it was he that wrote and engraved them on tables of stone; the writing was the writing of God, and the engraving was by the finger of God; it was from his right hand this fiery law went: the ministry of angels was made use of in it; it is called, the word spoken by angels; it was given by the disposition of them; it was ordained by them in the hands of a mediator, who was Moses, who stood between God and the people, received the lively oracles from him, and delivered them to them. There was a law in being before the times of Moses; or otherwise there would have been no transgression, no imputation of sin, no charge of guilt, nor any punishment inflicted; whereas death, the just demerit of sin, reigned from Adam to Moses; and besides the positive law, which forbid the eating of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil; and was given as a trial of man’s obedience to the whole moral law, and in the form of a covenant, in which Adam stood as a federal head, to all his posterity; and which covenant he broke, and involved himself and his in misery and ruin. Besides this, there was the law of nature, inscribed on his heart by his Maker, as the rule of his obedience to him; and by which he knew much of God, and of the nature of moral good and evil; and which; though much obliterated by the fall, some remains of it are to be discerned in Adam’s posterity; and even in the Gentiles (Rom. 1:19,20; 2:14,15), and which is reinscribed in the hearts of God’s people in regeneration, according to the tenor of the covenant of grace (Jer. 31:33). Now the law of Moses, for matter and substance, is the same with the law of nature, though differing in the form of administration; and this was renewed in the times of Moses, that it might be confirmed, and that it might not be forgotten, and be wholly lost out of the minds of men; of which there was great danger, through the great prevalence of corruption in the world: and it was written, that it might remain, "litera scripta manet;" and it was written on tables of stone, that it might be the more durable; the apostle says, "it was added because of transgressions," to forbid them, restrain them, and punish for them; and it "entered that the offence might abound," the sin of Adam; that the heinousness of it might appear, and the justness of its imputation to all his posterity might be manifest; as well as all other offences might be seen by it to be exceeding sinful, and righteously punishable: (see Gal. 3:19; Rom. 5:20; Rom. 7:13). It was not delivered as a pure covenant of works, though the self-righteous Jews turned it into one, and sought for life and righteousness by it: and so it engendered to bondage, and became a killing letter; nor a pure covenant of grace, though it was given as a distinguishing favour to the people of Israel (Deut. 4:6,8; Ps. 147:19,20; Rom. 9:4) and much mercy and kindness are expressed in it; and it is prefaced with a declaration of the Lord being the God of Israel, who had, of his great goodness, brought them out of the land of Egypt (Ex 20:2,6,12). But it was a part and branch of the typical covenant, under which the covenant of grace was administered under the former dispensation; and of what it was typical, has been observed before; and a principal end of its being renewed was, that Christ, who was to come of the Jews, might appear to be made under the law, as the surety of his people, the righteousness of which he was to fulfil, and, indeed, all righteousness; being the end of the law, the scope at which it aimed, as well as the fulfiller of it....It [the law] does not continue as a covenant of works; and, indeed, it was not delivered to the children of Israel as such strictly and properly speaking, only in a typical sense; though the Jews turned it to such a purpose, and sought righteousness and life by it: but God never made a covenant of works with men since the fall, in order to their obtaining life and salvation by it; for it never was in the power of man since to perform the conditions of such a covenant; however, it is certain, believers are not under the law as a covenant of works; but under grace as a covenant of grace.​


----------



## ADKing

R. Scott Clark said:


> Adam,
> 
> I think you are quite wrong here. There is nothing heretical in what MGK is saying here about the role of the Spirit. Please re-read Vos' _Pauline Eschatology_. That is all Meredith is saying here. This is the same sort of language he uses about the Glory-Spirit in creation, the covenant of works, the theophanic manifestations etc. He's describing Zechariah's visions.
> 
> He's not saying that the Spirit, in this vision, is conceived as incarnate.
> 
> Second, though I don't think it's pedagogically helpful to speak of Israel meriting tenure in the land, as long as we know what he means by it, that it is ONLY relative to the will of God as expressed in the typological, national-status land covenant, then it isn't nearly as problematic as you make it.
> 
> For what it's worth, I think you're over-reacting. You may not like the doctrine of republication but it has a pretty serious pedigree. The Reformed (e.g. Owen, Boston) _routinely_ appealed to the idea of republication to explain the covenant of works. The WCF ch 19 does it!
> 
> rsc
> 
> 
> 
> ADKing said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not having God, Heaven and Har Maggedon handy, here is a quote from D. Kline in one of his articles on Zechariah's night visions.
> 
> _There is then an eternally continuing Glory-embodiment of God's Spirit-Presence in creation, shaping creation and constituting it a temple. The primal creation event that brought this Glory-Spirit epiphany into existence (Gen. 1:1) may be called the endoxation of the Spirit. It is comparable to the incarnation of the Son. Incarnate Son and endoxate Spirit are both living embodiments of the God of Glory.
> _
> He is only more explicit in the aforementioned book. Here is the source Kerux...The Online Journal of Biblical Theology
Click to expand...



Thank you for your interaction Dr. Clark. I will let the topic drop and we will have to agree to disagree. I never used the term "heretical" on purpose. Nevertheless, I do think, if you have not read Dr. Kline's book, you ought to take a look at it before you defend what he is saying. Kline himself makes the analogy to the incarnation. He _is_ in fact teaching that the Spirit is eternally, inseparably "embodied" for lack of the precise term, in a created entity. This is _not_ what Vos was saying. However, if you disagree with this, I suppose we would have to fall back on the exact quotes which I do not have at this time. 

I continue to have very strong concern on the issue of merit and believe that when Owen etc. are appealed to with respect to the issue of the republication of the covenant of works it is a matter of formal similarity rather than something the same in substance. 

Isn't it interesting that a thread on what and who is genuinely reformed has taken so many different angles?


----------



## toddpedlar

Daniel Ritchie said:


> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daniel Ritchie said:
> 
> 
> 
> So are they not Reformed, or not Reformed on the church/state issue?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The issue is one of historical identification. The question is, Who decides what is reformed? My answer is, Not those who reject the establishment principle. Those who reject the establishment principle seek to redefine reformed faith and life, and thereby place themselves outside the reformed tradition. Should clarification be asked, as you have done, I qualify that it is specifically on the issue of Church and State. But whether a man hits his golf ball out of bounds by an inch or a hundred feet makes no alteration to the fact that his ball is out of bounds and he has no right to redefine the golf course in order to call his ball in play.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The problem with this analogy is that the managers of the golf course (i.e. the church courts) have redefined the boundaries of the golf course (i.e. the WCF/BC) so that their views are no longer out of bounds.
Click to expand...


yes, and what's worse, no golf club manager has the right to redefine the laws of the game - that goes to the Royal and Ancient alone... yet the modern golf course managers are constantly rewriting not only the boundaries of the course (which is IN their purview) but the rules of the game (which is not)!


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

toddpedlar said:


> Daniel Ritchie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> 
> The issue is one of historical identification. The question is, Who decides what is reformed? My answer is, Not those who reject the establishment principle. Those who reject the establishment principle seek to redefine reformed faith and life, and thereby place themselves outside the reformed tradition. Should clarification be asked, as you have done, I qualify that it is specifically on the issue of Church and State. But whether a man hits his golf ball out of bounds by an inch or a hundred feet makes no alteration to the fact that his ball is out of bounds and he has no right to redefine the golf course in order to call his ball in play.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The problem with this analogy is that the managers of the golf course (i.e. the church courts) have redefined the boundaries of the golf course (i.e. the WCF/BC) so that their views are no longer out of bounds.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> yes, and what's worse, no golf club manager has the right to redefine the laws of the game - that goes to the Royal and Ancient alone... yet the modern golf course managers are constantly rewriting not only the boundaries of the course (which is IN their purview) but the rules of the game (which is not)!
Click to expand...


Since John Knox was a keen golfer, does one have to like golf in order to be Reformed, or is that irrelevant as golf is not in the WCF?


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian

Yes absolutely Daniel. Golf=Reformed
(At least I think so...)


----------



## KMK

From the OP:



> Thus, the short answer to Arthur’s question is that yes, one must hold to every point of doctrine in the Reformed confessions in order to be Reformed.



This means that only those who hold to the TR are truly Reformed because the WCF says:



> The authority of the holy Scripture, for which it ought to be believed and obeyed, dependeth not upon the testimony of any man or Church, but wholly upon God (who is truth itself), the Author thereof; and therefore it is to be received, because it is the Word of God.



And, of course, the holy Scripture/Word of God they were referring to was the TR.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian

How can you say definitively that the Westminster Divines were referring in chapter I to the TR?


----------



## JohnOwen007

KMK said:


> This means that only those who hold to the TR are truly Reformed because the WCF says:



Why do all threads lead to either TR or EP debates? Can't we be free to disagree on these and still be reformed? Yes because the WCF is only _one _confession amongst other confessions that make up the historic reformed tradition. This means there is a degree of latitude on certain theological issues, the TR being one of them (and EP being another).

I guess the great question is whether we include the 1689 and Savoy confessions in the pool of historic reformed confessions. Certainly John Owen (who was behind the Savoy) called himself "reformed" and saw the congregationalists as "reformed". Jeremiah Burroughs (in _Irenicum_) believed that the disagreement over church polity wasn't fundamental to being reformed.

Personally I would _want _to include the 1689 and Savoy confessions because I don't think the issues of (1) church polity, and (2) subjects and mode of baptism, are issues big enough to make one not reformed. On these debates there are well-meaning Christians on either side, who believe they are reading Scripture faithfully. All the sides have so much in common.


----------



## AV1611

JohnOwen007 said:


> (and EP being another).



On this I think that to hold to the RPW is Reformed but there are differences within the Reformed community about how it is applied. I am reminded of Cranmers letters to the Continental Reformers asking their opinions about vestments etc.

Whilst there is this 'lattitude' this doesn't excuse the argument "How dare you say I am wrong to do x, Cranmer did x!" (Not that you are arguing that).


----------



## hollandmin

I think whether one likes it or not, the label "Reformed" *IS* used in a general way to define the five points alone and those who adhere to them. We can argue this point until our Lord comes but it will not change the hearts, minds and church names of millions who call themselves reformed. Perhaps the term has gone the way of "evangelical" or "fundamental." I don't think there is any way that it can be reversed, regardless who writes an article about it. I suppose you can always come up with another label. . . . . 

Blessings,


----------



## py3ak

JohnOwen007 said:


> KMK said:
> 
> 
> 
> This means that only those who hold to the TR are truly Reformed because the WCF says:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why do all threads lead to either TR or EP debates? Can't we be free to disagree on these and still be reformed? Yes because the WCF is only _one _confession amongst other confessions that make up the historic reformed tradition. This means there is a degree of latitude on certain theological issues, the TR being one of them (and EP being another).
> 
> I guess the great question is whether we include the 1689 and Savoy confessions in the pool of historic reformed confessions. Certainly John Owen (who was behind the Savoy) called himself "reformed" and saw the congregationalists as "reformed". Jeremiah Burroughs (in _Irenicum_) believed that the disagreement over church polity wasn't fundamental to being reformed.
> 
> Personally I would _want _to include the 1689 and Savoy confessions because I don't think the issues of (1) church polity, and (2) subjects and mode of baptism, are issues big enough to make one not reformed. On these debates there are well-meaning Christians on either side, who believe they are reading Scripture faithfully. All the sides have so much in common.
Click to expand...


It used to be that everything led to a baptism debate; for a while it seemed like everything turned into a rehash of Clark vs. Van Til. Perhaps the days will come when everything turns into a necessitarian vs. voluntarist or nominalist vs. realist debate.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

KMK said:


> From the OP:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thus, the short answer to Arthur’s question is that yes, one must hold to every point of doctrine in the Reformed confessions in order to be Reformed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This means that only those who hold to the TR are truly Reformed because the WCF says:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The authority of the holy Scripture, for which it ought to be believed and obeyed, dependeth not upon the testimony of any man or Church, but wholly upon God (who is truth itself), the Author thereof; and therefore it is to be received, because it is the Word of God.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And, of course, the holy Scripture/Word of God they were referring to was the TR.
Click to expand...


Holy Scripture is to be received because it is the word of God, but this does not mean that the word of God = the so-called Received Text (the term Received Text was an advertising blurb when it was originally employed).

However, perhaps that is


----------



## Pilgrim

DMcFadden said:


> Actually mainline includes, by general but not unanimous usage, the seven "sisters" of the mainline: ABCUSA, Disciples, ECUSA, ELCA, UMC, PCUSA, and UCC. SBC has always been quite sectarian and considered themselves neither mainline nor evangelical but Babptist (spelling intended).



I agree that the SBC is not generally considered mainline today. However, leaving aside for the moment the issue of whether babdists are inherently sectarian, I don't think the Southern Baptist Convention was really any more sectarian or separatist in origin than was the old Southern Presbyterian Church (PCCSA, renamed PCUS after the war) which seceded in 1861 after the Gardiner Spring resolution that mandated allegiance to the Union. (The issue in the formation of the SBC 1845 was whether a slave holder could be a missionary as well as growing controversy over slavery in general). The PCUS finally reunited with the Northern Presbyterian Church (although by that time both churches had congregations on the other side of the Mason-Dixon) in 1983 to form what we now know as the PCUSA after more conservative churches had left the PCUS beginning in 1973 to form what became the PCA. Until the "Conservative Resurgence" that began to take hold in the SBC starting in 1979, overall the denomination, and especially the agency heads and seminary and college faculty were probably no more conservative than what you would have found in the PCUS at that time. 

I agree with the SBC not being evangelical, especially if you are referring to the post war watered down version (i.e. "New Evangelicals" or neoevangelicals) that has as much of a tendency to wreak havoc with Baptist distinctives as it does with Presbyterian ones, even though the SBC conservatives leaned heavily on evangelical scholarship during the controversy with the "moderates". I recently listened to some excellent Russell Moore messages on the relationship of the SBC and evangelicalism.


----------



## HaigLaw

DMcFadden said:


> These were all different articles by different scholars, all of them Reformed, writing in the _Encyclopedia of *Reformed *Theology_. Hey, guys. Don't beat up us baptists too badly when your own reference books make the same "mistakes."



I'm sorry, but I got different shades of meaning or nuances; was that what you meant by "mistakes?"


----------



## HaigLaw

Although this thread was not showing up in the box of top threads, I did a search on "define Reformed" and found 1440 hits on PB.


----------



## DMcFadden

HaigLaw said:


> DMcFadden said:
> 
> 
> 
> These were all different articles by different scholars, all of them Reformed, writing in the _Encyclopedia of *Reformed *Theology_. Hey, guys. Don't beat up us baptists too badly when your own reference books make the same "mistakes."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sorry, but I got different shades of meaning or nuances; was that what you meant by "mistakes?"
Click to expand...


My point was that if the TR all agree that Baptists don't "deserve" (either historically or theologically) to be called Reformed, it is sure funny to see so many TR scholars include them within the ambit of the definition. I was sarcastically saying that it is too bad that people like Gerstner made an error in his attribution of Reformed status to the Baptist Strong, etc.

Realize, that I'm happy with the title "confessional baptist." But, insofar as John Owen was congregational, not presbyterian, the polity must not be the impediment. That leaves baptism. And, Gerstner called the credo baptist Strong the most "erudite writer of a Reformed Systematic Theology."

Just palying with the terms. Nothing too serious here.


----------



## HaigLaw

DMcFadden said:


> I would ask you TRs to remember, however, that when the Presbyterians abandoned Calvinism in the 18th century (opting for Socinianism and unitarianism), the baptists kept TULIP alive. Most early baptists were "particular" not "general." Our early confessions were *all* abridgements of, or strongly influenced by, the WCF. And, when the "Reformed" brethren deserted Dortian Calvinism, we kept it alive.
> 
> The last point was merely my way of saying that the current policy of inviting both Reformed and Calvinistic Baptists to be part of PB is a good (and admittedly generous) one.



It seems you use "TR" here to mean "truly reformed," whereas in other places on this thread it means "textus receptus," right?

I confess, some of these acronyms are driving me crazy, and it's not a very long drive.


----------



## DMcFadden

In the arcane lingo of the PB . . . 
TR means EITHER "truly reformed" OR "textus receptus."
CT = either "Covenant Theology" or "Critical Text."
CVT = Cornelius Van Til
GC = Gordon Clark

The following are merely my *guesses* based on the way some of the PB members use the terms in context . . .
EP = Exclusive psalmody or "extra persnickety"
RPW = "regulative principle of worship" or "real pinhead worrier"
PCA = Presbyterian Church of America or "Porsche Club of America"
CRC = Christian Reformed Church or "Cretins Ruining Christianity"
FRCNA = Free Reformed Churches of North America or "Fractious Reformed Churcheds Needing Aid"
CPC = Cumberland Presbyterian Church or "Calvinless Poser Church"
Reformed Baptist = Reformed Baptist or "Ridiculous Baptist" (pretending to be Reformed)
LBCF = London Baptist Confession of Faith or "Lazy Baptists Craving Fellowship" (with TR brethren)

We all live in a world of acronyms, just different ones. Mine are IL, AL, SNF, RCFE, RARC, H&S, QA, DSS (or CDSS), and DHS. Now if I could just figure out what Anne means by AAMOF.


----------



## KMK

JohnOwen007 said:


> KMK said:
> 
> 
> 
> This means that only those who hold to the TR are truly Reformed because the WCF says:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why do all threads lead to either TR or EP debates? Can't we be free to disagree on these and still be reformed? Yes because the WCF is only _one _confession amongst other confessions that make up the historic reformed tradition. This means there is a degree of latitude on certain theological issues, the TR being one of them (and EP being another).
> 
> I guess the great question is whether we include the 1689 and Savoy confessions in the pool of historic reformed confessions. Certainly John Owen (who was behind the Savoy) called himself "reformed" and saw the congregationalists as "reformed". Jeremiah Burroughs (in _Irenicum_) believed that the disagreement over church polity wasn't fundamental to being reformed.
> 
> Personally I would _want _to include the 1689 and Savoy confessions because I don't think the issues of (1) church polity, and (2) subjects and mode of baptism, are issues big enough to make one not reformed. *On these debates there are well-meaning Christians on either side, who believe they are reading Scripture faithfully. All the sides have so much in common.*
Click to expand...


Such was my point. When does this discussion become, "Only those that believe 300 angels can fit on the head of pin are Reformed."

I am a Reformed Baptist BTW.


----------



## py3ak

Ken, I hate to do this to you, but it's actually 301.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Does anyone see the irony in this thread?

1. R. Scott argues that, in his view, Reformed ought to be defined historically. The definition of the past ought to be normative.

2. Some have gotten bent out of shape because they want to use their definition. They are angry that somebody else has another definition.

3. Thus, some are angry with Scott because they have decided that, in fact, they are the "Who" that gets to define "Reformed".

I'm somewhat ambivalent about who gets to use it as long as we know what we're talking about. One could argue that Reformed Baptist is an oxymoron. As has been noted, however, before you start breaking out the "Who owns Reformed" you better make sure you're not living in a glass house.


----------



## py3ak

But there is another irony (thanks for suggesting a clearer format in which to lay it out, by the way).

1. Dr. Clark has argued that the term "Reformed" ought to be defined historically.

2. Some have pointed out that Dr. Clark's definition of "Reformed" has history against it at some points.

3. Dr. Clark says that it seems to him absurd to say that his definition of "Reformed" is inadequate.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

py3ak said:


> But there is another irony (thanks for suggesting a clearer format in which to lay it out, by the way).
> 
> 1. Dr. Clark has argued that the term "Reformed" ought to be defined historically.
> 
> 2. Some have pointed out that Dr. Clark's definition of "Reformed" has history against it at some points.
> 
> 3. Dr. Clark says that it seems to him absurd to say that his definition of "Reformed" is inadequate.



That's certainly one of the debates ongoing.


----------



## bookslover

R. Scott Clark said:


> I agree with the historic understanding regarding instruments. We should be rid of all the Mosaic and Romish remnants that we have re-introduced into Reformed worship in the modern period.



I don't think a case can be made _from Scripture_ against the use of musical instruments in worship. But, we've been round and round on that subject here on the PB...


----------



## DMcFadden

Semper Fidelis said:


> Does anyone see the irony in this thread?
> 
> 1. R. Scott argues that, in his view, Reformed ought to be defined historically. The definition of the past ought to be normative.



Rich, I've already conceded my preference for "confessional baptist" as the most helpful way of delineating those of us who adhere to the 1689. For a variety of reasons, TODAY "Reformed" should imply more than a belief in the 5 pts.

However, I'm still waiting for someone to deal with the _historical_ data that interprets the evidence differently from Dr. Clark. In an earlier post, I showed three quotes from the *Encyclopedia of the Reformed Faith*, where TR authors (e.g., Gerstner) called baptist Augustus Strong the writer of the "most erudite *Reformed* Systematic Theology;" indicated that during the revivalist period many formerly Reformed Baptists "actually moved out of *Reformed* theology;" and that "The Puritan and Scotch–Irish forms of *Calvinism* were organized into Congregational, Presbyterian, and *Baptist* churches."

In the first instance, an indisputably Reformed author called a baptist a leading Reformed theologian. In the second, another Reformed author spoke of Arminian baptists leaving Reformed baptist theology. In the last case, a third author referenced Puritan and Scotch-Irish Reformed theology expressing itself in "Congregational, Presbyterian, and Baptist churches." 

If history was the ONLY issue, wouldn't the baptists have some reasonable claim to a right to share the term?

Again, just call be a "confessional baptist." But, I will not fuss too much at brethren who claim an historical connection to a Reformational movement including both Swiss and English Calvinism later expressing itself in presbyterian, congregational, and baptist churches.


----------



## Pilgrim

DMcFadden said:


> Semper Fidelis said:
> 
> 
> 
> Does anyone see the irony in this thread?
> 
> 1. R. Scott argues that, in his view, Reformed ought to be defined historically. The definition of the past ought to be normative.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rich, I've already conceded my preference for "confessional baptist" as the most helpful way of delineating those of us who adhere to the 1689. For a variety of reasons, TODAY "Reformed" should imply more than a belief in the 5 pts.
> 
> However, I'm still waiting for someone to deal with the _historical_ data that interprets the evidence differently from Dr. Clark. In an earlier post, I showed three quotes from the *Encyclopedia of the Reformed Faith*, where TR authors (e.g., Gerstner) called baptist Augustus Strong the writer of the "most erudite *Reformed* Systematic Theology;" indicated that during the revivalist period many formerly Reformed Baptists "actually moved out of *Reformed* theology;" and that "The Puritan and Scotch–Irish forms of *Calvinism* were organized into Congregational, Presbyterian, and *Baptist* churches."
> 
> In the first instance, an indisputably Reformed author called a baptist a leading Reformed theologian. In the second, another Reformed author spoke of Arminian baptists leaving Reformed baptist theology. In the third case, a third author referenced Puritan and Scotch-Irish Reformed theology expressing itself in "Congregational, Presbyterian, and Baptist churches."
> 
> If history was the ONLY issue, wouldn't the baptists have some reasonable claim to a right to share the term?
> 
> Again, just call be a "confessional baptist." But, I will not fuss too much at brethren who claim an historical connection to a Reformational movement including both Swiss and English Calvinism later expressing itself in presbyterian, congregational, and baptist churches.
Click to expand...


in my opinion the term Reformed Baptist isn't a big deal. (Has anyone yet noted in this thread that the Institute for Reformed Baptist Studies is based at WSCAL?) The confusion comes in when someone who believes the 5 points calls himself "Reformed" or even a "Calvinist" regardless of whatever else he may believe or practice.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

DMcFadden said:


> Semper Fidelis said:
> 
> 
> 
> Does anyone see the irony in this thread?
> 
> 1. R. Scott argues that, in his view, Reformed ought to be defined historically. The definition of the past ought to be normative.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rich, I've already conceded my preference for "confessional baptist" as the most helpful way of delineating those of us who adhere to the 1689. For a variety of reasons, TODAY "Reformed" should imply more than a belief in the 5 pts.
> 
> However, I'm still waiting for someone to deal with the _historical_ data that interprets the evidence differently from Dr. Clark. In an earlier post, I showed three quotes from the *Encyclopedia of the Reformed Faith*, where TR authors (e.g., Gerstner) called baptist Augustus Strong the writer of the "most erudite *Reformed* Systematic Theology;" indicated that during the revivalist period many formerly Reformed Baptists "actually moved out of *Reformed* theology;" and that "The Puritan and Scotch–Irish forms of *Calvinism* were organized into Congregational, Presbyterian, and *Baptist* churches."
> 
> In the first instance, an indisputably Reformed author called a baptist a leading Reformed theologian. In the second, another Reformed author spoke of Arminian baptists leaving Reformed baptist theology. In the third case, a third author referenced Puritan and Scotch-Irish Reformed theology expressing itself in "Congregational, Presbyterian, and Baptist churches."
> 
> If history was the ONLY issue, wouldn't the baptists have some reasonable claim to a right to share the term?
> 
> Again, just call be a "confessional baptist." But, I will not fuss too much at brethren who claim an historical connection to a Reformational movement including both Swiss and English Calvinism later expressing itself in presbyterian, congregational, and baptist churches.
Click to expand...


Regarding Gerstner, it's entirely possible that he was equivocating on the term. I've been around Ligonier's materials for long enough to say, without being pejorative, that they were never known for promoting the Confessions as much as they were for promoting predestination(ism). I've benefitted from them, for sure, but I also consider them weak in some areas of Reformed piety and practice.

I think it's at least sometimes helpful to note what people at the time of the Reformation thought Reformed meant.

Ironically, today, if you ask a Lutheran in the Midwest what "Reformed" is they'll label practically anything that isn't Lutheran as being Reformed. I had a friend that lived in Detroit who attended a Lutheran Church and they thought Charismatics and Pentecostals were Reformed.

I'm obviously not in favor of removing all distinctions but, at least for me, I find a good shorthand today to be "Confessional" if I'm going to agree a man is Reformed. At least here where we have to form a fraternity of somewhat common Confession, it's the best guide. I think we all recognize that the difference on Covenant is pretty substantial even though the LBCF and WCF are virtually identical elsewhere. It is, at least, important to note that there is a distnction and a difference but we also have the qualifier "Baptist" to note that differentiation so that's good enough for me at least.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Pilgrim said:


> DMcFadden said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Semper Fidelis said:
> 
> 
> 
> Does anyone see the irony in this thread?
> 
> 1. R. Scott argues that, in his view, Reformed ought to be defined historically. The definition of the past ought to be normative.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rich, I've already conceded my preference for "confessional baptist" as the most helpful way of delineating those of us who adhere to the 1689. For a variety of reasons, TODAY "Reformed" should imply more than a belief in the 5 pts.
> 
> However, I'm still waiting for someone to deal with the _historical_ data that interprets the evidence differently from Dr. Clark. In an earlier post, I showed three quotes from the *Encyclopedia of the Reformed Faith*, where TR authors (e.g., Gerstner) called baptist Augustus Strong the writer of the "most erudite *Reformed* Systematic Theology;" indicated that during the revivalist period many formerly Reformed Baptists "actually moved out of *Reformed* theology;" and that "The Puritan and Scotch–Irish forms of *Calvinism* were organized into Congregational, Presbyterian, and *Baptist* churches."
> 
> In the first instance, an indisputably Reformed author called a baptist a leading Reformed theologian. In the second, another Reformed author spoke of Arminian baptists leaving Reformed baptist theology. In the third case, a third author referenced Puritan and Scotch-Irish Reformed theology expressing itself in "Congregational, Presbyterian, and Baptist churches."
> 
> If history was the ONLY issue, wouldn't the baptists have some reasonable claim to a right to share the term?
> 
> Again, just call be a "confessional baptist." But, I will not fuss too much at brethren who claim an historical connection to a Reformational movement including both Swiss and English Calvinism later expressing itself in presbyterian, congregational, and baptist churches.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> in my opinion the term Reformed Baptist isn't a big deal. (Has anyone yet noted in this thread that the Institute for Reformed Baptist Studies is based at WSCAL?) The confusion comes in when someone who believes the 5 points calls himself "Reformed" or even a "Calvinist" regardless of whatever else he may believe or practice.
Click to expand...


Scott's neighbor is Dr. Renihan, BTW, and Scott holds him in high regard.


----------



## DMcFadden

Semper Fidelis said:


> Scott's neighbor is Dr. Renihan, BTW, and Scott holds him in high regard.



Rich, I hold Scott in high regard too. I'm not fussing with him out of contentiousness, merely asking if anyone here has an explanation of the fact that indisputably Reformed people have referenced (in standard authoritative texts) baptists as "Reformed." For me, it is more of an historical issue, not a personal one. 

Given the tendency for every Tom, Dick, and Calvin to read John Piper or listen to Renewing Your Mind and call themselves "Reformed," there are probably good reasons to try to forge a more restrictive definition. But, that is a pragmatic argument. I just want to hear an historical one.


----------



## Philip A

DMcFadden said:


> I'm not fussing with him out of contentiousness, merely asking if anyone here has an explanation of the fact that indisputably Reformed people have referenced (in standard authoritative texts) baptists as "Reformed."



Nobody has an explanation because the reference you quote is nothing close to a standard authoritative text! It's edited by a PCUSA minister and made by the publishing arm of the same.


----------



## DMcFadden

Philip A said:


> DMcFadden said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not fussing with him out of contentiousness, merely asking if anyone here has an explanation of the fact that indisputably Reformed people have referenced (in standard authoritative texts) baptists as "Reformed."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody has an explanation because the reference you quote is nothing close to a standard authoritative text! It's edited by a PCUSA minister and made by the publishing arm of the same.
Click to expand...


Fair enough, Philip. How about Dr. Gerstner? Is he authoritative to speak on issues of church history? In 1990 he became a member of the PCA. R.C. Sproul, his former student, cites him frequently as an authoritative expert on church history and presbyterianism. The reference to Strong was from him.

And, just because a mainline publisher put out the book does not necessarily mean that it is historically inaccurate. As a matter of fact, I can't stand McKim's theology. But, he didn't write the articles I cited.


----------



## DMcFadden

Semper Fidelis said:


> Regarding Gerstner, it's entirely possible that he was equivocating on the term. I've been around Ligonier's materials for long enough to say, without being pejorative, that they were never known for promoting the Confessions as much as they were for promoting predestination(ism). I've benefitted from them, for sure, but I also consider them weak in some areas of Reformed piety and practice.



Rich, I missed your post when I wrote mine. Sorry. I agree with you that Ligonier is somewhat lax on confessionalism at times. For that matter, what's with Sproul being unaffiliated? How can you be an independent presbyterian anyway? However, Gerstner is not identical to Sproul and even Sproul wrote his own commentary on the confession. 

Speaking of Sproul, here is how he describes Reformed: "The theology is 'reformed' in that, in addition to catholic and evangelical doctrine, the distinctive doctrines of the magisterial Reformers such as Luther, Calvin and Knox are also embraced in a way that distinguishes the Reformed tradition from other Protestant bodies." If you include Luther, wouldn't that be "Reformational," not "Reformed"? 

Gerstner may indeed be equivocating on the term. Frankly, that is the point. Whether we are talking about the so-called "Reformed Baptists" (self-called), or presbyterian writers in a "Reformed" encyclopedia, you can find plenty of folks on both sides of the aisle failing to differentiate between the terms. As Chris observed, even WSCAL has the Institute for Reformed Baptist Studies! And, that is why I like "confessional baptist," leaving Reformed for those with presbyterian polity who practice infant baptism. 

I'm still reeling from the idea of charismatics claiming to be "Reformed." 

And, exploiting a phrase made controversial (for other reasons): Reformed is not enough. Reformed = presbyterian is anchronistic. How many presbyterians are Reformed today? If 5 pts are not enough to make one Reformed, neither are infant baptism and presbyterian polity. Plenty of presbyterians have infant baptism and presbyterian polity without holding firmly to the 5 pts. As you suggested, Reformed, rightly considered should include all of the above + confessionalism.

In order not to offend my truly Reformed brethren, I am NOT Reformed, but a confessional baptist. And, in a world of latitudinarian evangelicalism and mainline apostasy, confessional baptists and confessionally Reformed presbyterians have a LOT in common. And, that is something to celebrate.


----------



## Philip A

DMcFadden said:


> And, just because a mainline publisher put out the book does not necessarily mean that it is historical inaccurate. As a matter of fact, I can't stand McKim's theology. But, he didn't write the articles I cited.



I'm sorry I didn't clarify myself; WJK indeed puts out a lot of very good volumes (as evidenced by their share of my personal library!) I mentioned the publisher to emphasize that they are the ones producing the work. The Confessions are the standard authoritative texts, because they are the documents the historical Reformed churches adopted to define themselves. At the end of the day, not even Calvin speaks for the Reformed churches; his are secondary works that help us to understand the terminology and context of the Confessions.


----------



## DMcFadden

Philip A said:


> I'm sorry I didn't clarify myself; WJK indeed puts out a lot of very good volumes (as evidenced by their share of my personal library!) I mentioned the publisher to emphasize that they are the ones producing the work. The Confessions are the standard authoritative texts, because they are the documents the historical Reformed churches adopted to define themselves. At the end of the day, not even Calvin speaks for the Reformed churches; his are secondary works that help us to understand the terminology and context of the Confessions.



 Agreed. And, as the PURITAN BOARD, we are made up of those (like the original Puritans) who are presbyterian, congregational, and baptist. Our primary confession is the WCF. Those of us confessional baptists hold to the 1689 which is overwhelmingly word-for-word the WCF with some baptist changes. So whether only the Presbyterians are Reformed or not, we all rally around the confessions and our shared fondness for the Puritans who practiced experimental Calvinism.


----------



## BradyC

R. Scott Clark said:


> On the HB



I recently enjoyed this short essay by Richard Muller off of Kim Riddlebarger's blog:

I once met a minister who introduced himself to me as a "five-point Calvinist." I later learned that, in addition to being a self-confessed five-point Calvinist, he was also an anti-paedobaptist who assumed that the church was a voluntary association of adult believers, that the sacraments were not means of grace but were merely "ordinances" of the church, that there was more than one covenant offering salvation in the time between the Fall and the eschaton, and that the church could expect a thousand-year reign on earth after Christ's Second Coming but before the ultimate end of the world. He recognized no creeds or confessions of the church as binding in any way. I also found out that he regularly preached the "five points" in such a way as to indicate the difficulty of finding assurance of salvation: He often taught his congregation that they had to examine their repentance continually in order to determine whether they had exerted themselves enough in renouncing the world and in "accepting" Christ. This view of Christian life was totally in accord with his conception of the church as a visible, voluntary association of "born again" adults who had "a personal relationship with Jesus."

In retrospect, I recognize that I should not have been terribly surprised at the doctrinal context or at the practical application of the famous five points by this minister — although at the time I was astonished. After all, here was a person, proud to be a five-point Calvinist, whose doctrines would have been repudiated by Calvin. In fact, his doctrines would have gotten him tossed out of Geneva had he arrived there with his brand of "Calvinism" at any time during the late sixteenth or the seventeenth century. Perhaps more to the point, his beliefs stood outside of the theological limits presented by the great confessions of the Reformed churches—whether the Second Helvetic Confession of the Swiss Reformed church or the Belgic Confession and Heidelberg Catechism of the Dutch Reformed churches or the Westminster standards of the Presbyterian churches. He was, in short, an American evangelical.​
In Christ,
Brady


----------



## pilgrim3970

Ivan said:


> "Evangelical" doesn't mean much these days. "Baptist" conjures many negative images. Even the name "Christian" poses its problems.



Try having "Episcopal" in your name...


----------

