Carl Trueman weighs in on the definition of "REFORMED"

[au5t1n]

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

The Christian Curmudgeon: Can Baptists Be Reformed?

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

 

[rbcbob]

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

The Christian Curmudgeon: Can Baptists Be Reformed?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Backwoods Presbyterian]

to Austin and Tim

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

 

[rbcbob]

to Austin and Tim

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

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

 

[Backwoods Presbyterian]

to Austin and Tim

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

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

Yes I went back and added who I was dittoing.

 

[au5t1n]

to Austin and Tim

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

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

 

[Marrow Man]

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

 

[Backwoods Presbyterian]

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

 

[Unoriginalname]

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

 

[GulfCoast Presbyterian]

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

Me too!

 

[Marrow Man]

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

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

 

[VictorBravo]

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

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

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

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

 

[jwright82]

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

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

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

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

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

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

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

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

 

[Herald]

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

 

[VictorBravo]

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

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

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

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

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

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

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

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

They do around here.

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

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

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


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

 

[Keith Mathison]

Particular Confessional London Baptists

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

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

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

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

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

Two cents worth.

 

[Alan D. Strange]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Peace,
Alan

 

[rbcbob]

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

In the common bonds of our Redeemer,


Bob

 

[Herald]

Alan, well said.

Sent from my Galaxy S3

 

[jwright82]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Peace,
Alan

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

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

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