The Highway Forums General Discussion Theology Discussion Forum Are you Reformed?

What makes a person truly reformed?,.. Does one have to subscribe to the Confessions, and Creeds or can one reject them and still claim to be reformed?

The answer is "Yes" and "No"!

"Reformed" is generally understood in its wider definition as being synonymous with "Calvinism"; the doctrines of sovereign grace, which is espoused in ALL the historic confessions of denominations/churches that came out of the Protestant Reformation. I'm sure you are familiar with at least most of them, correct?... 39 Articles, Belgic Confession, Westminster Confession, London Baptist Confession, Savoy Declaration, etc. In this sense, "Reformed" is defined by what those confessions teach. Thus, to be "Reformed" one usually adheres to one of those historic Confessions AND holds to how they are traditionally understood. Those holding to the damnable heresy of Federal Vision, for example, usually claim to hold to one of these confessions, but their doctrine is antithetical to what the confession(s) actually teach.

Okay, so with that said, most always, to be "Reformed" means one holds to one of these Reformed Confessions. However, one may not be familiar with any of these confessions yet doctrinally hold to what they teach. So, in that unusual situation, one could be considered "Reformed" but not confessional. In most cases, when that type of individual is taught of the great history of the Reformation and the confessional documents which resulted from it, they identify with one of them. When someone refuses to adopt one of the great Reformed Confessions, there is most always one of more doctrines which they believe that is antithetical to historic Reformed Theology.

IMO, simply giving assent to the "5 Points of Calvinism" does not make one "Reformed". In our day, the "New Calvinist Movement" claims to hold to the "5 Points" but they are not "Reformed" for myriad other doctrines and practices that they adhere to, e.g., the repudiation of the Regulative Principle of Worship, espousing antinomianism in its many forms, etc., etc., ad nauseam.

Thank you Pilgrim for taking the time to explain what is and what is not reformed,.. Yes, I am very familiar with the Confessions, and I personally subscribe to the Standards, .. My question stems from a conversation with someone who pretty much rejects the link and heritage brought to us by the Reformers, and with that reject its contents and yet claim to be reformed in their theology,..

As stated above, if one claims to be "Reformed" yet rejects the doctrines of Scripture which the Reformed Confessions consist of, then what makes the person Reformed?? Typically, such an individual has dreamed up his/her own personal definition of what it means to be Reformed. But in reality, the person is a "Rogue".

R(eformed)I(n)N(ame)O(only)

May I add to this discussion. Does one need to hold to Covenant Theology to be Reformed? Reformed Baptists have always confused me on this as they are for sure Calvinist in their soteriology, but they are credo, and in some cases dispensationalists. Can someone hold to credobaptism and still be a CT? I know some refers John MacArthur as a Reformed Baptist, but he is a dispensationalist. The Standards, except for the Baptist London Standard, teach paedo and CT, so I wonder how much of the standards does one really need to affirm in order to be Reformed - in the classical sense?

In the "classical" sense, the answer is "No". Baptists of any variety are not "Reformed". However, there is no foul in recognizing those Baptists who are Calvinistic in their soteriology. Some/many also hold to Amillennialism and some hold to Historic Premillennialism. My personal preference is to refer to such as Calvinistic Baptists which best describes their beliefs and I think accurately reflects the London Baptist Confession.

The reality of all this is that terms have been changed to accommodate various groups in order not to seem offensive to them, aka: Ecclesiastical Correctness. I would rather retain the original meaning of the term "Reformed" which would include paedobaptism and covenant theology, which have been woefully distorted, and be crystal clear that I fully recognize Calvinistic Baptists as dear brethren in the faith and express my profound indebtedness to many of them who have faithfully stood firm on the essentials of the faith when so many, regardless of denominational affiliation have departed from confessionalism and even orthodoxy.

Hi John, please forgive me if I am being dense, but I don't see the connection between mode of baptism, and covenant theology.

It isn't just "mode" but also "recipient" and "meaning" of baptism that is involved as well as much more, e.g., church polity, visible/invisible church, etc. To put it dangerously in generalized form, historic covenant theology holds to more continuity between the OT and NT. Calvinistic Baptists of recent vintage have developed their own particular covenant theology which sees less continutity between the OT and NT. But for some odd reason, I suspect you are aware of the differences, yes?

Thanks Pilgrim. I know that "Covenant Theology" has been used in different ways, which muddies the waters. I just don't see what it has to do with baptism. It would be more obvious to me were one talking about covenant theology versus dispensationalism. Perhaps I should have asked what was meant here by "covenant theology"?

Again, at the risk of being too brief/simplistic, in Covenant Theology, in the OT circumcision was the sign of the covenant [of grace] and in the NT baptism is the sign of the covenant [of grace]. This, for Baptists, is where the 'discontinuity' between the OT and NT comes in. Much has to do with one's interpretation of Jeremiah 31:31ff. Baptists believe that "new" means something different from the old covenant. Classic covenant theology says "new" means an expansion of the old covenant; a new universality and spirituality, but the essence of the old covenant remains the same.

If you haven't listened to the debate between Robert Strimple and Fred Malone on baptism, it might be of some help to you in understanding how baptism is directly affected by one's theology of the covenant. You can find those 3 sessions and even download all three to your own PC to listen to at your leisure by going to The Highway main page > Calvinism and the Reformed Faith > Ecclesiology > Sacraments: "Debate on ‘Infant Baptism’" - Dr. Robert B. Strimple vs. Dr. Fred Malone - WSC March 10, 1999.

Thanks Pilgrim. I have downloaded, and will try to find a couple of hours, to listen to the debate.

When you say:By 'old covenant', are you referring to the Sinai covenant, or to the covenant of grace?

There is only one "covenant of grace" which was administered in different ways which progressively revealed through types and shadows the person and work of the Messiah and the redemption He was going to secure. Covenant theology teaches that circumcision was the 'sign of the covenant [or grace]' in the OT and baptism replaced it as the sign of the covenant [of grace] in the NT. Sinai was part, one aspect of the covenant of grace, but it wasn't THE covenant of grace in and of itself.

The Baptist hermeneutic is a little different from the rest of the Reformed family.

The Westminster Confession describes the counsel of God as being "either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture (WCF 1.6)," emphasis mine.

The London Baptist Confession describes it as "either expressly set down or necessarily contained in Scripture." In short, Reformed Baptists don't "deduce."

Certainly there is continuity between the Testaments, as they are both about Christ. But the New applies in many more ways than just to one geopolitical nation or race. It applies to citizens of a different Kingdom, gathered from all earthly kingdoms. One is temporal type-and-shadow, the other eternal reality.

The writer of Hebrews quotes the Scripture in describing the New Covenant, "NOT like the covenant which I made with their fathers (Heb 8:9)," but one in which "all will know Me (verse 11)." It is "a better covenant" (Heb 7:22), not the same as the Old one.

As circumcision was applied to 8-day-old male citizens of ancient Israel, so baptism is applied to citizens of the the Church (without the distinctions of gender and race) in which "all will know Me," which is why Baptists only baptize believers who give evidence of citizenship in the eternal Kingdom.

Different views of the Covenants
Different Hermeneutics
Different applications of the Regulative Principle of Worship

But certainly Reformed and in keeping with the ancient Creeds and confessions.

-R

Methinks you are creating a false contrast. When I read those two sections of the two confessions I see them basically saying the same thing. Deduction is a most necessary part of understanding Scripture, "let us reason together". Do you think you can formulate the doctrine of the Trinity without deduction? There is no propositional statement for the Trinity that I have found.

I agree! The NEW is the continuation of the OLD and its fuller expression of it. The Old has 'types', the New has the "anti-type". That is the sense of the "NEW" vs. something radically different than what is in the "OLD". Augustine had it right, "The New is in the Old contained. The Old is in the New explained."