Carl Trueman weighs in on the definition of "REFORMED"

[rbcbob]

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

What's in a name? - Reformation21 Blog

We recently discussed it on PB here:

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

 

[Jack K]

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

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

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

 

[rbcbob]

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

 

[R. Scott Clark]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Scott,

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

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

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

 

[Andrew P.C.]

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

 

[rbcbob]

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

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

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

 

[R. Scott Clark]

Scott,

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

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

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

Thanks!

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[R. Scott Clark]

Bob,

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

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

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

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

 

[R. Scott Clark]

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

 

[lynnie]

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

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

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

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

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

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

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


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

 

[newcreature]

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

 

[VictorBravo]

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

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

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

...

11. Pleasing; agreeable....

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

 

[rbcbob]

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

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

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

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

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

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

Bob,

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

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

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

 

[Christusregnat]

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

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

Vindiciae Legis

The quotation by Dr. Philip Melanchthon reads:

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

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

 

[Andrew P.C.]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Goodcheer68]

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

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

 

[rbcbob]

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

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

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

 

[SolaGratia]

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


Please, see this:


Barker Productions - Online Catalog


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


And maybe later this:


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


Blessings!

 

[Craig.Scott]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I agree,

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

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

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





In Christ

 

[Semper Fidelis]

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

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

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

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

 

[Christlicher Soldat]

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

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

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

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

 

[au5t1n]

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

 

[Unoriginalname]

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

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

 

[jwright82]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[jwright82]

Scott,

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

So am I.