Last week I linked to R. Scott Clark’s article A Gentle Rebuke to Brother John, in which he took John Piper to task for inviting Doug Wilson to speak at the upcoming Desiring God Conference this fall. But, although I agree with Scott in his confrontation of John on this point, I do not agree with everything he said in that post. I especially do not agree with his criticism of Reformed Baptists for their use of the term Reformed as a reference to themselves. Here are the specific comments with which I take exception:Calling a Baptist “Reformed” is like calling Presbyterians “Baptist” because they believe in believer’s baptism. The Reformed churches do practice the baptism of unbaptized believers but they also baptize the infants of believers. No self-respecting, confessional Baptist should accept me as “Baptist” and Reformed folk should resist labeling anyone who rejects most of Reformed theology as “Reformed.”
There are several points to be made in response to these comments, but before I list them I want to make something clear, namely that I do not pretend to speak for all who would call themselves Reformed Baptists. I have entitled this post, “Why I Call Myself a Reformed Baptist,” and I hope that I may give a good, brief accounting for this in this post. But it must be said that I do not see myself as a leader of the movement, let alone one of its primary spokesmen. In fact, the movement is diverse enough not to claim any one person as the most appropriate spokesman. For example, back in 2007-2008 I conducted a poll on this blog that revealed some significant diversity among those who would call themselves Reformed Baptists.
With these caveats in mind, I will now address the above comments made by Clark. First, I do not agree at all with his assertion that “calling a Baptist ‘Reformed’ is like calling Presbyterians ‘Baptist’ because they believe in believer’s baptism.” I am, frankly, surprised that Clark would make use of such an analogy when he must know that what makes the Baptist position distinctive is not that we advocate the baptism of believers (which we certainly do) but rather that we advocate the baptism of believers only. When a Presbyterian begins to assert that position, then I will accept his calling himself a “Presbyterian Baptist,” even if he doesn’t hold to other historically distinctive Baptist positions, such as our view of church government, which asserts the autonomy of the local church in matters of governance. But, then, the term Presbyterian so used would clearly indicate this difference, wouldn’t it? And this is really no different than the way the term Baptist qualifies my use of the term Reformed.
Second, Clark’s comments seem to assume the idea that there is a monolithic historical understanding of the meaning of the English word reformed. But this is simply not true. There are broader and more narrow senses in which the word may be used, and not all of these require the specific understanding to which he apparently wishes to restrict usage of the term. In addition, I see no reason why a modifier cannot be attached to the word that in effect alters and qualifies its meaning so as to rule out the kind of misunderstanding that Clark is apparently concerned about. One such modifier – as I have already noted – is the term baptist, which immediately communicates a distinctive use of the word reformed.
Perhaps it would be helpful to discuss at least three senses in which I believe the term reformed has been used, all of which have application to my own usage of the term when I call myself a Reformed Baptist. I will list three ways in which I believe I have seen the term used, beginning with the most broad sense and moving to the most narrow sense.
First, the term reformed can be used in a broad sense to describe that which is changed for the better, and in our discussion it refers to the changes that were made by Protestants in their efforts to reform the Roman Catholic Church in accordance with Scripture. In this sense it could refer to any person or group that seeks to be consistent in reforming the church in this way. I believe John Quincy Adams had in mind this usage of the term in his famous little book Baptists: The Only Thorough Religious Reformers, and this is one sense in which I intend the word to be taken when I describe myself as a Reformed Baptist. It communicates my commitment to the principle indicated by the slogan semper reformanda (“always reforming”), and it declares my conviction that it is the Particular Baptists who have been more faithful reformers than their Presbyterian brothers, especially with regard to the issues of church government and baptism, as indicated above. Indeed, in this sense I think we have more right to use the term than they do.
Second, the term reformed can refer to the broader Protestant tradition characterized by principles held by most of the early Reformers, and not just those in Geneva, for example. These principles may be summed up by the five Reformation precepts often referred to as “the solas.” These include the principle of sola scriptura (that Scripture alone is our ultimate authority), the principle of solus Christus (that we are saved by Christ alone), sola gratia (that we are saved by God’s grace alone), sola fide (that we are saved through faith alone), and soli Deo gloria (that all is to the glory of God alone). Thus when I call myself a Reformed Baptist I mean to indicate that I wholeheartedly embrace these distinctive principles of the Reformation.
Third, I agree that there is a more narrow use of the term as Clark affirms, namely to refer to those who follow the traditions that have come particularly from Calvin’s reforming work in Geneva. This would include not only the Swiss Reformed, but also the Scottish and Dutch Reformed and the numerous Presbyterian groups that have followed from each of these traditions. I also agree with Clark that we do not want to confuse Baptists with these Reformed groups. However, this is precisely why I call myself a Reformed Baptist. The term Baptist clearly qualifies my use of the term Reformed. And when I use the terms together this way, I do not think I am doing anything essentially different than did those English Baptists who based the Baptist Confession of 1689 largely upon the Westminster Confession of Faith. They clearly wanted to identify themselves as in the mainstream of the Reformed tradition in one sense (particularly with regard to Calvinist soteriology and Covenant Theology), while at the same time distinguishing themselves in ways that demonstrated how they had reformed more thoroughly than had their Presbyterian brethren. This – together with the reasons already listed – is precisely why I call myself a Reformed Baptist.
I hope this post has helped to briefly clarify and defend my usage of the appellation Reformed Baptist to describe myself, and, despite Clark’s objections, I believe I have every right to use this description.
Thank you for a very well written and thoughtful post. I too consider myself a Reformed Baptist, and largely for the very reasons you have mentioned.
Very well written with good points. Thanks for sharing your thoughts. I don't know how you feel about it, but I would like to see you get a broader audience.
I linked them with my added comments on my blog:
http://thesectarian.blogspot.com/2009/07/reformed-baptist.html
I should have used the “create a link” thing but I'm too dense.
Thanks for your encouragement guys! I am always pleased when God uses this blog to be of some benefit to the body of Christ.
Keith, excellent post. I agree with your balance and good sense. I'm concerned about the potential sectarian spirit Clark's restrictiveness may engender. Indeed, he goes too far when he asserts, “We would discipline someone if they left OURC and began attending a baptistic congregation or a sect…. I don’t think that any congregation that denies the administration of baptism to covenant children can be a true church. I don’t see how any baptistic congregation is practicing the “pure administration” of the sacraments.” So he not only excludes Baptists from the Reformed community, but he removes us from the visible universal church altogether.
Bob Gonzales
Thanks for the word of encouragement, Bob!
Thanks also for shedding further light on the problem with Clark. I was unaware of the extreme nature of his position, and I am glad you have let the readers of this blog know about it in your comment.
By the way, I think your blog is the bomb!
For those who have read these comments and want to check out Bob Gonzales' excellent blog, you can read it here:
http://blog.rbseminary.org/
I would definitely include Bob as one of the leaders of the Reformed Baptist movement. And he is certainly one of its best theologians and writers, as his blog demonstrates.
I'm grateful that you took time to answer, but I personally don't feel any need to answer Clark. He can say what he'd like, he isn't the owner of the term “Reformed” and only demonstrates a divisive spirit.
I am a Reformed Baptist because there is a the Particular Baptists were heirs to the Reformation. We were just more thorough than our Presbyterian brothers.
Hi Keith – As you may recall, I'm Reformed Baptist and read your post. Great work. I'm study the issue of paedobaptism v believer's baptism and am understanding more where these brothers are coming from. This “labeling” issue has been going on for some time. I think of John Quincy Adams “Baptists Only Thoroughly Reformed”. So in all fairness it's gone on from both sides. But your point is well made – it shouldn't go on at all. I think of Paul incredulously stating “Is Christ Divided?”
Scott
Thanks for your post, Keith.
I wonder if you could comment on the other 5 principles of the Reformation (TULIP) often called the 5 Canons of Dort)
By way of short explanation, I am in the continental reformed tradition, having emigrated from the Netherlands in 1980 to Canada. to rural New Brunswick. We were guest members of a small Baptist church for two years, then I moved to Ontario, and and am now a lay member of one of the Canadian Reformed Churches. My first introduction to the spectrum of Reformed Baptist thinking came from the late Dr. Bruce Stark. From him I understood that the notion of Reformed Baptist could include full agreement with the Canons of Dort. We really did have a tremendous amount of grace in common, and could rejoice in that since in practice the only difference between us was believer-only baptism. That experience has given me a great appreciation for both the Reformed Baptist people and their doctrines. I'd welcome your thoughts on this and the 5 Canons.
Personally I've remained convinced that God's covenant promises extend to believers and their children, and therefore hold on to infant baptism. I just don't like focussing exclusively on differences in personal dealings with folks. Hence I also long for the day when Christ gather all His to himself and we will all be 'one'.
Gerrit,
It has been my experience that most who call themselves Reformed Baptists would say that this requires belief in at least all five points of Calvinism as well as adherence to Covenant Theology. This is certainly my perspective.
I hope this clarification helps.
Keith
Thanks, Keith!
To all, I just updated the post to specify adherence to both Calvinist soteriology and Covenant Theology as intended in the use of the term Reformed Baptist. This was intended and thought to be implied in the third sense of the word reformed above, but this needed to be made more explicit.
Hey Keith.
Did you read my blog on the this subject?
I appreciate yours.
http://www.puritanboard.com/blogs/puritancovenanter/316-covenantal-baptists-reformed-historical-understanding-reformed-theology.html
I think there is less contention here in UK between Presbyterians and Baptists – we know we hold differing understandings about 'the covenant' and therefore who should be baptised, but I like your inference that, since the Reformation was ostensibly to bring the Church away from the corruption of Rome and back to Biblical principles and practices, paedobaptists cut their reformation short!
Excellent article.
I love when people clarify their positions and beliefs! Thanks for the article Keith!
Actually, every time I have tried to read the article recently, I get a message telling me that I don't have sufficient privileges.
Thanks for the encouraging feedback!
As a Calvinistic and Sovereign Grace Baptist, I served as pastor at Spurgeon Heritage Church in Holland, MI. When I moved there in 2000, the former pastor introduced me to a number of Reformed pastors and elders in the area. Suffice it to say that Holland and Grand Rapids literally, almost, have a Reformed church of some stripe on [nearly] every corner. We Baptists were considered a bit like plow boys that were uneducated and a bit dull. But we had fellowship together each week at Russ’ restaurant(s), properly owned and operated by a Reformed family, of course.
The first issue I had to face was the Reformed pastors’ use of the N-word, which was liberally used in our conversations, causing a confrontation between me and the Reformed pastors, who seemed one and all to accept the notion of the N-word and the inferiority of black people. After literally slapping loudly on the table, I asked, “Is the quite free use of the N-word for MY sake?” After some tense moments I left that “fellowship” meeting with the full persuasion that Reformed pastors were thoroughly racist. After 14 years there I still believe that to be the case. Many of those from the Dutch Reformed tradition continue to be racist even today.
That might have been tolerated, had there been some discussion of such things. But their strong and inflexible claim of covenant theology was the more divisive issue. The seemed oblivious to the fact that no “covenant of grace” is mentioned in the Bible, no “covenant of redemption” is mentioned in Holy Scripture. I objected that Reformed Covenant theology was a bane to the churches and change was needed.
At the time, I was moving over to New Covenant Theology, debating John Reisinger online on a site called “Sound of Grace.” I had not yet been “converted” to NCT, for I had been introduced to Reformed Covenant theology in seminary, where I was coming out of the uncomfortable Dispensational schema that I had been indoctrinated into at the time of my conversion [age 22]. At seminary, I came quickly to the realization that there was much more to the faith than the narrow JN Darby understanding of last things! So John Reisinger was working with [on?] me to reconsider my Reformed stance. Suffice it to say, I finally “came over” to New Covenant Theology. Dear brother John passed away some years ago and is rejocing around the throne of God with millions and billions of other recipients of God’s wonderful grace in the cross of Jesus Christ.
In summary, as a thoroughgoing Baptist, I will not associate with the term “Reformed,” for that brings with it the notion of Covenant theology. My own present church uses the term “Reformed” to mean essentially Calvinistic. But Reformed as a theology means much, much more than that! I have not even talked about the Reformed families I talked to while fishing near their summer homes on Lake Michigan. I learned from them that they wholeheartedly believed [contrary to their pastors’ and elders’ claim], that their children were predestined to believe in Christ exactly because they were the children of Reformed believers. That is why, they claimed, that they baptized their infant children. In a confused way, they somehow concluded that that the biblical “being born again” was somehow consistent with and involved with natural birth, seeing that the parents were both Reformed believers.
I personally do not believe that the pastors and elders believed such, and their Confessions do not proclaim such, but you can see how their teaching is taken at the family level. My heart sank.
I do not object to congregations calling themselves Reformed Baptists, but I think it risky to do so if that means the incorporation of the Covenant theology of the Reformers as expressed in their Confessions. Of particular problem is the belief set forth early in the Westminster Confession, about the Scriptures [WCF 1.6] which reads, “The whole cousel of God concerning all things necessary for His own glory, man’s salvation, faith and life is either expressly set forth in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture.”
As I used to complain, a goodly portion of the Reformed practice came under that latter phrase, “…by good an necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture.” Indeed, far too much of doctrine and practice seemed to come under that rubric, and less from that which is “expressly set forth in Scripture.” Of course the obvious application of that loose principle is the universal practice of baptizing their infants. But there are many more practices that come under that non-biblical [but logical] rubric. I would be far more persuaded if I saw the greater proportion of Reformed practice and doctrine, namely the covenants of Covenant Theology, as “expressly set forth in Scripture.”
I am not on any crusade to change anything along this line, as poor health [cardiac issues] took me out of active service as pastor, and I am now retired from full-time pastoring. I continue to teach, which I love to do until my Lord takes me home.
I just received a not from pastor Curt Daniel that you are suffering some quite serious health problems. Be sure that we here at Faith Bible Church will be praying for you. We send our greetings and our love in the Lord Jesus both to you and to your congregation. May God be pleased to bless you and deliver you from the worst of your disorders.
Thank you, brother. The prayers and encouragement are greatly appreciated.