It would be a useful exercise to consider why the old Reformed divines called "Catholics" Romanists or Papists rather than Catholics or even Roman Catholics. Was it just to be mean? Probably sometimes. But it also represents a refusal to concede the ground of who truly represents the historic catholic faith. Protestants are the "Catholic Church (Continuing)" to borrow a Free Church term. There is a reason our confessions call the whole professing church catholic and refer to Romanists and Papists as...Romanists and Papists. Words are important.
Carl Trueman weighs in on the definition of "REFORMED"
- Thread starter rbcbob
- Start date
- Status
jwright82
Puritan Board Post-Graduate
Christlicher Soldat
Puritan Board Freshman
No doubt. But sometimes I wonder whether a winning strategy might be to just slap a new name on the old beliefs. It sure seems to be working for "Reformed" Baptists.
Andrew P.C.
Puritan Board Junior
No doubt. But sometimes I wonder whether a winning strategy might be to just slap a new name on the old beliefs. It sure seems to be working for "Reformed" Baptists.
The question then becomes: What did the baptists reform from?
No doubt. But sometimes I wonder whether a winning strategy might be to just slap a new name on the old beliefs. It sure seems to be working for "Reformed" Baptists.
But why should the burden be on the group that maintains its historic beliefs to change its name every decade or so while shape-shifters co-opt historic names? What should Lutherans call themselves if everybody who believes in Sola Fide starts identifying as Lutheran? If they have continued to confess the Book of Concord for hundreds of years, shouldn't they keep their name while the shape-shifters bear the burden to coin new terms?
I agree that this has the potenial to become "striving about words to no profit," but it doesn't have to be. I like James' approach: Gently correct someone on the proper use of the term and then leave them to their thoughts. English teachers do this all the time.
Andrew P.C.
Puritan Board Junior
By the way, I thought this article proves a point. It was an interesting read.
Christianity: Did the Tent Just Get Bigger?
Understanding word usage and definitions is important. Words have meaning... historical meaning. In essence, language matters.
Christianity: Did the Tent Just Get Bigger?
Understanding word usage and definitions is important. Words have meaning... historical meaning. In essence, language matters.
a mere housewife
Not your cup of tea
Surely Dr. Trueman's point is that in actual usage, in the context of 'Reformed Baptist', the 'Reformed' does mean something (as here on this board). It means at least that we have very precious and likeminded fellowship with those who subscribe to a confession in agreement with our own in many key points, on major Reformed doctrines. But like the list of meanings Vic gave above for 'nice', most words in our language do have several, if not quite a number, of usages (I love those listings in the OED that go on and on), some of them broader than others, and context determines which is being employed. The main thing then is to be clear on which usage we are dealing with (at least that is Dr. Trueman's point, as I understand it).
If I wish to speak more exactly about a specific tradition it is easy enough to speak of the 'historic reformed' position or distinguish which specific reformed tradition we are speaking of.
If I wish to speak more exactly about a specific tradition it is easy enough to speak of the 'historic reformed' position or distinguish which specific reformed tradition we are speaking of.
Keith Mathison
Puritan Board Freshman
I have to side with Dr. Clark here. I've yet to hear anyone call themselves a "Lutheran Baptist" simply because they are a Baptist who believes in justification by faith alone. The Lutheran confessions define the meaning of "Lutheran" just as the Reformed confessions define the meaning of "Reformed."
R. Scott Clark
Puritan Board Senior
Part of my disagreement with Carl and others on this point is that I see the points of discontinuity between the Reformed and the Baptists as being greater than some do.
1) Hermeneutics. Even my RB friends ultimately have a hermeneutic that differs from the Reformed significantly on the nature of the covenant of grace, on the role of Abraham in the new covenant, in the way the NT reads the OT.
2) Closely related to this is covenant theology. Does God still say, "I will be a God to you and to your children"? We give quite different answers to this question.
3) The fact that PBs cannot recognize my baptism means that, to them, ecclesiastically considered (insofar as ordinarily, Christians are baptized people), I am not a Christian. This is huge! Where, historically, have the Reformed churches reckoned PB congregations as churches? This gets to Belgic Confession art 29. Is the PB view consistent with BC 29? Which PBs were seated at Westminster?
4) It is significant to me that, when the Particular Baptist movement developed, the Reformed churches did not embrace them. What has substantially changed since then? How exactly have the PBs become Reformed? Or have we simply moved the goal post?
5) PBs and the Reformed agree in the way that Lutherans and the Reformed agree but that doesn't make them Reformed or me a Lutheran, does it?
6) the PB argument really seems to be: there's more of us than there are of you. We say we're Reformed and there's nothing you can do about so just accept it. That's not logic, that's force.
1) Hermeneutics. Even my RB friends ultimately have a hermeneutic that differs from the Reformed significantly on the nature of the covenant of grace, on the role of Abraham in the new covenant, in the way the NT reads the OT.
2) Closely related to this is covenant theology. Does God still say, "I will be a God to you and to your children"? We give quite different answers to this question.
3) The fact that PBs cannot recognize my baptism means that, to them, ecclesiastically considered (insofar as ordinarily, Christians are baptized people), I am not a Christian. This is huge! Where, historically, have the Reformed churches reckoned PB congregations as churches? This gets to Belgic Confession art 29. Is the PB view consistent with BC 29? Which PBs were seated at Westminster?
4) It is significant to me that, when the Particular Baptist movement developed, the Reformed churches did not embrace them. What has substantially changed since then? How exactly have the PBs become Reformed? Or have we simply moved the goal post?
5) PBs and the Reformed agree in the way that Lutherans and the Reformed agree but that doesn't make them Reformed or me a Lutheran, does it?
6) the PB argument really seems to be: there's more of us than there are of you. We say we're Reformed and there's nothing you can do about so just accept it. That's not logic, that's force.
As a small caveat to my earlier posts, one difference is that there isn't a Baptist confession that bears many areas of agreement with Lutheran confessions. For this reason, I wouldn't make a huge fuss over the term "Reformed Baptist" in the context of true confessional London Baptists. Perhaps calling them "Reformed, full stop" might not be appropriate, but "Reformed Baptists" identifies the commonalities while letting the "Baptist" part highlight the differences. Even so, maybe the whole question could be avoided if we popularized the term "London Baptist."
Keith Mathison
Puritan Board Freshman
Hi Austin,
I like the idea of referring to "Reformed Baptists" as "London Baptists." Good idea!
There's probably more overlap with the content of Lutheran Confessions that you might imagine. John Calvin himself was able to sign the 1540 revised version of the Augsburg Confession - the Variata (Bruce Gordon, Calvin. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2009, p. 99). The main areas where Baptist confessions would diverge with the Lutheran confessions would be on the sacraments and ecclesiology - the same places where they diverge from the Reformed confessions.
I like the idea of referring to "Reformed Baptists" as "London Baptists." Good idea!
There's probably more overlap with the content of Lutheran Confessions that you might imagine. John Calvin himself was able to sign the 1540 revised version of the Augsburg Confession - the Variata (Bruce Gordon, Calvin. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2009, p. 99). The main areas where Baptist confessions would diverge with the Lutheran confessions would be on the sacraments and ecclesiology - the same places where they diverge from the Reformed confessions.
Backwoods Presbyterian
Puritanboard Amanuensis
Amen Dr. Clark
rbcbob
Puritan Board Graduate
Scott, there have been several assertions made in which you demonstrate an inaccurate understanding of Reformed Baptists. There are reasons why the historic term "Particular Baptist" is not suitable as a descriptive handle for Reformed Baptists. This in itself would be of no consequence but for the fact that various issues of ignorance and prejudice you seem to think we embrace. I wish to assure you that this Reformed Baptist, at least, has a high regard and affectionate esteem for my Paedobaptist brethren. If you are interested in learning, from our viewpoint, how Reformed Baptists emerged I offer the following for your consideration:
The Matrix of Reformed Baptists Part 1 - SermonAudio.com
Matrix of Reformed Baptist 2 - SermonAudio.com
The Matrix of Reformed Baptist Pt 3 - SermonAudio.com
Supersillymanable
Puritan Board Freshman
This may be a little simplistic, but would simply referring to yourself as Historically Reformed be the best answer? It puts forward that the use of the word Reformed has been changed (or misused, whatever we'd like to call it), and that we are using the word reformed in the "correct" or historical sense. This would help differentiate from those who use reformed in the sense of 5 point Calvinism etc?
SRoper
Puritan Board Graduate
Calvin subscribed to a modified Augsburg Confession that is about as similar to the original Lutheran version as the London Baptist Confession is to the Westminster.
Where has Dr. Clark exhibited an inaccurate understanding of Reformed Baptists? He and I have gone around and around on these issues for years. I think I have a pretty good knowledge of where they come from and what their doctrine is. He seems to exhibit an understanding of it as well. Why isn't Particular Baptist a suitable name? I understand why Reformed Baptist is better today since we now have New Covenant Theology.
I actually do find that Dr. Clark's view of the Mosaic Covenant resembles more of a Reformed Baptist view than a Reformed view but that is my estimation and understanding.
a mere housewife
Not your cup of tea
Nicely done!
jwright82
Puritan Board Post-Graduate
My first guess was that it came from a hilarious land flowing with milk and honey. My previous attempts to locate this mysterious yet ridiculous land have alas proven failures, this "promise land" evades my every attmpt. It is comforting to know that someone has found it with all its bounty of laughs and very funny and very dry humor.
Christlicher Soldat
Puritan Board Freshman
Why should I have to waste my lungs giving these guys an earful about how they can't just start using our word? It's not going to change anything. They're not going to say, "You know somethin', he's got a point! We should all spend money out of our deacon's funds fixing all our church signs so that they read particular baptist!" If we were fighting over the word Christian, then that would make sense, because that word is biblically mandated. If we were fighting over the word Calvinist, then that would make sense, because that word has reference to the beliefs of a particular man. But a generic word like Reformed? I say, either dump it or start calling our Reformed and Presbyterian churches Baptist Reformed and Baptist Presbyterian, and see how they like it.
a mere housewife
Not your cup of tea
I'm afraid our former dog is a pest; and he does materialise at the most inconvenient moments. 
Happily his days of doggy blogging are over. (He really didn't have much of a sense of humor.)
I think when the term 'historic' or some other distinction is employed in a discussion, it can make people feel more curious about the tradition itself, rather than simply feeling that there is no mutual appreciation of common grounds of fellowship, and defensive. It can open doors for further discussion, rather than making what one thought were open doors of communion feel a bit slammed in one's face? It's worked that way in my own experience, at least. I'm sure not everyone is like me, though.
Happily his days of doggy blogging are over. (He really didn't have much of a sense of humor.)I think when the term 'historic' or some other distinction is employed in a discussion, it can make people feel more curious about the tradition itself, rather than simply feeling that there is no mutual appreciation of common grounds of fellowship, and defensive. It can open doors for further discussion, rather than making what one thought were open doors of communion feel a bit slammed in one's face? It's worked that way in my own experience, at least. I'm sure not everyone is like me, though.
J. Dean
Puritan Board Junior
The question then, gentlemen (and ladies) is this: when we use a given word, do we take the time to explain what is meant by that word?
We use the word "Reformed," and to the extent that the audience we address understands what is meant, we rightly use it as such. But (to give an example here) try using the word "Reformed" to a Jew, who equates the word with "theologically liberal." He will understand the word in a different way than we do, will see it differently than we do, and will quite possibly make presumptions and assumptions that will be different from ours.
If a word becomes elastic, that word in essence either needs to be defined authoritatively, with clear delineation between what does and does not constitute acceptance within that definition, or that word must be given up as a lost cause.
We've seen this with "Christian," we've seen this with the word "evangelical," and now we're seeing this with the word "Reformed." I've noted that a great many in the Reformed and Lutheran camps are now using the word "confessional." That's great, but are we from these two groups who occupy this camp defining the word meticulously and with jealousy? Because if not, the word "confessional" will eventually go the way of the other words in our theological lexicon and come to mean something "elastic" and therefore useless.
When one sets up defining theological terms, one must be careful to regularly revisit the meanings of those terms and be clear as to the acceptable and unacceptable premises that relate to those terms. In our "big tent" culture, it is far too easy to slip on what constitutes the meaning of those words and therefore give them a precarious elasticity, thus undermining the entire reason for such words which are set up as fences to keep out unacceptable ideas and doctrines.
So use terms like Reformed, confessional, etc., but beware the failure to explain those terms regularly and with vigor.
We use the word "Reformed," and to the extent that the audience we address understands what is meant, we rightly use it as such. But (to give an example here) try using the word "Reformed" to a Jew, who equates the word with "theologically liberal." He will understand the word in a different way than we do, will see it differently than we do, and will quite possibly make presumptions and assumptions that will be different from ours.
If a word becomes elastic, that word in essence either needs to be defined authoritatively, with clear delineation between what does and does not constitute acceptance within that definition, or that word must be given up as a lost cause.
We've seen this with "Christian," we've seen this with the word "evangelical," and now we're seeing this with the word "Reformed." I've noted that a great many in the Reformed and Lutheran camps are now using the word "confessional." That's great, but are we from these two groups who occupy this camp defining the word meticulously and with jealousy? Because if not, the word "confessional" will eventually go the way of the other words in our theological lexicon and come to mean something "elastic" and therefore useless.
When one sets up defining theological terms, one must be careful to regularly revisit the meanings of those terms and be clear as to the acceptable and unacceptable premises that relate to those terms. In our "big tent" culture, it is far too easy to slip on what constitutes the meaning of those words and therefore give them a precarious elasticity, thus undermining the entire reason for such words which are set up as fences to keep out unacceptable ideas and doctrines.
So use terms like Reformed, confessional, etc., but beware the failure to explain those terms regularly and with vigor.
Hi Dr. Mathison,
I see your point. I guess I had in mind the fact that the LBC shares our views of worship, soteriology (mostly), and aspects of covenant theology. Speaking of Lutherans, I had a Lutheran roommate a few years ago who read your book on postmillennialism and enjoyed it. I don't know whether the Lutheran system has room for postmillennial eschatology or not.
My reference to "shape-shifters" had New Calvinists in view rather than LBC1689ers. As noted before, I wouldn't spend much effort arguing over "Reformed Baptist" for an LBC1689er. Maybe a little effort, but not much effort.
Josh, it looks like nobody knows what London means:
Etymology of London - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Etymology of London - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
rbcbob
Puritan Board Graduate
Randy, among other problems the Particular Baptists essentially abandoned the 1689 Confession within fifty years after it was embraced. There were occasional recoveries (e.g. Spurgeon) but these were few and far between.
Isn't this becoming true since the name Reformed Baptist has come into play? Look at the New Covenant Theologians who claim to be Reformed Baptists. They have moved away from the 1689 also. That doesn't mean that the historical name isn't suitable. The same thing has happened with Westminster Confessional Churches. There have been great exodus' from their heritage even though they claim to adhere to it.
ThyWord IsTruth
Puritan Board Freshman
I have to say that this seems silly to me. I would much rather use a word that identifies my beliefs such as "Reformed" to preface "Baptist" than to let it stand alone and be associated with the likes of the mainstream "Arminian" minded "Baptist". They say that there is a "Baptist" church on every corner in the south and one in between every church on every corner.
People don't use the old terms of "AnaBaptist", "General Baptist", "Separate Baptist", "Landmarkism" etc.... Yes we can use "Strict and/or Particular Baptist" as a moniker to shed light on what we believe but we don't. We use the term "Reformed Baptist" because we are very much "Reformed" in our views as our confession is almost identical to the Westminster Confession of Faith". And we are very much "Baptist" as we believe in a believers baptism and not infant baptism. I would say that Baptists have reformed there view on baptism as Presbyterian's and other sprinklers have not. And btw not all Baptists believe that we are a direct line from John the Baptist. All true believers are part of the Catholic Church and have in some way, form or fashion protested the heresy of the roman church and it's papacy. Also most of our forefathers whether Baptist, Presbyterian or Congregationalist were "non-conformist" against the "Act of Uniformity" being imposed by the Monarchs and the Anglican Church. The denominations have gone through so many generations and changes along the way, but the word "Reformed" has withstood the test of time.
People don't use the old terms of "AnaBaptist", "General Baptist", "Separate Baptist", "Landmarkism" etc.... Yes we can use "Strict and/or Particular Baptist" as a moniker to shed light on what we believe but we don't. We use the term "Reformed Baptist" because we are very much "Reformed" in our views as our confession is almost identical to the Westminster Confession of Faith". And we are very much "Baptist" as we believe in a believers baptism and not infant baptism. I would say that Baptists have reformed there view on baptism as Presbyterian's and other sprinklers have not. And btw not all Baptists believe that we are a direct line from John the Baptist. All true believers are part of the Catholic Church and have in some way, form or fashion protested the heresy of the roman church and it's papacy. Also most of our forefathers whether Baptist, Presbyterian or Congregationalist were "non-conformist" against the "Act of Uniformity" being imposed by the Monarchs and the Anglican Church. The denominations have gone through so many generations and changes along the way, but the word "Reformed" has withstood the test of time.
Last edited:
Marrow Man
Drunk with Powder
I saw this article this morning (linked on the Aquila Report). I'll let some of the Baptist brothers respond, but if the author is correct (and I think he basically is), the differences are perhaps much deeper than we sometimes admit.
The Christian Curmudgeon: Can Baptists Be Reformed?
The Christian Curmudgeon: Can Baptists Be Reformed?
- Status