But that, in fact, is where the divide begins and ends: yes, as others note here, there are other issues such as psalmody and instrumental usage in worship that are part of the discussion but since they are not 'codified' in the Three Forms of Unity we do not hold these issues over each other's heads.
They are codified in the Westminister Standards so while you may not be bound to give thought to these matters in relation to the definition of Reformed, an awful lot of other people should be!
21:V. The reading of the Scriptures with godly fear,[17] the sound preaching[18] and conscionable hearing of the Word, in obedience unto God, with understanding, faith and reverence,[19]
singing of psalms with grace in the heart;[20] as also, the due administration and worthy receiving of the sacraments instituted by Christ, are all parts of the ordinary religious worship of God:[21] beside religious oaths,[22] vows,[23] solemn fastings,[24] and thanksgivings upon special occasions,[25] which are, in their several times and seasons, to be used in an holy and religious manner..
My intent is not to create division among Presbyterians and/or Continental Reformed folks but to show that there is a fair bit of flexibility given in relation to many practices and the doctrines and interpretations that lie behind such, to fellow Presbyterians that is apparently not extended to Covenantal Baptists.
It must be said, that for many Reformed and Presbyterians (many, not all) the notation 'Reformed' is attached quite comfortably to sister congregations and denominations BECAUSE they baptise infants, (and because on paper they still adhere to a confessional standard while practically repudiating it) irrespective of various, many and wide other departures from the historic and confessional requirements of the name i.e the very issue which Mr. McMahon says means RB's are not R at all!
For instance the question may be asked is the PCUSA Reformed? Are PCA churches with bands, choirs, special music, etc. etc. Reformed or not. Is the RCA (Kevin DeYoung) really reformed though it's position on homosexuality is to say the least up for grabs going by Kevin's not to distant past articles?
If so how can this be given the departures that have taken place? How is still giving them this name not giving a) a great degree of laxity in connection with the historic practice and positions of their forefathers not afforded to Reformed Baptists b) a heavier weight to the practice of infant baptism than perhaps should be in light of these other departures?
