The esse of Reformed: a current question
I was just made aware of a recent exchange between Drs Scott Clark and James White vis-à-vis the esse of being Reformed. I have only read Dr. Clark’s response to Dr. White, in which Dr. Clark emphasizes that being Reformed cannot be limited to the five points of Calvinism. I would wholeheartedly affirm this. He then goes on to state that:
“…there wasn’t a single Baptist at the Synod of Dort. Why not? Because no Baptist was eligible to join a Reformed church. Why not? Because the denial of infant baptism wasn’t tolerated in the Reformed churches. …Once more, to state the obvious: there wasn’t a single Baptist involved in the Westminster Assembly. The Baptists had promulgated their own confession in 1644. There were heated pamphlet wars between theBaptists and the Reformed in that period. Baptists were not recognized as Reformed. Why not? Because paedobaptism was regarded as essential to the Reformed faith.” (“Post-Thanksgiving Cartoons: Reply to James White”; http://heidelblog.wordpress.com/2009/11/27/post-thanksgiving-cartoons-reply-to-james-white/#more-6079).
It needs noting that Baptists who embraced Calvinistic soteriology did not exist at the time of the Synod of Dort, hence they could not have been there. But the rest of Dr. Clark’s remarks are, of course, all true. There were two Baptists, namely William Kiffin and Samuel Richardson, at the doors of the Jerusalem Chamber in 1646 handing out copies of the The First London Confession (1644; 2nd ed., 1646) to delegates as they went in. But they were not inside and thus not involved in the Westminster Assembly. And there were indeed “heated pamphlet wars” between Baptists and Paedobaptists during the 1640s and 1650s. But these were all seen by the Baptists as battles within a shared faith, as will become clear in what follows.
And Dr, Clark also points out, à la an article that appeared in Modern Reformation that “the earliest Baptists did not think it necessary to call themselves “Reformed.” They called themselves “General” or “Particular” Baptists”.” This is also true. Particular Baptist or Calvinistic Baptist was the terminology used during the seventeenth and the eighteenth centuries. “Reformed Baptist” is late twentieth-century nomenclature.
But, this is not the whole story as far as those seventeenth-century Baptists were concerned. After the Restoration of Charles II in 1660, they were a community under the cross, and for twenty-eight years they suffered grievous persecution, with a number of their pastors and elders dying in prisons, like the blessed Abraham Cheare. Of course, the Particular Baptists were not the only ones to suffer during this time of great persecution. All who dissented from the distinguishing rites and practices of the state church of Anglicanism suffered to one degree or another.
This furnace of common affliction only served to reinforce in the minds of many Particular Baptists just how much they shared with fellow Calvinists who were either Presbyterians or Congregationalists, the latter being then known as Independents. Moreover, there was at hand a document that could concretely demonstrate the essential doctrinal unity between these three groups, namely, The Westminster Confession of Faith. This Confession, the authoritative statement of faith of both the Presbyterian Church of Scotland and their English brethren, had been completed by the Westminster Assembly in November, 1646. The Independents had subsequently used it as the basis of their statement of faith, known as The Savoy Declaration, which was drawn up in 1658 by, among others, John Owen (1616-1683) and Thomas Goodwin (1600-1680). The desire to present a united Calvinist front in the face of persecution consequently led the Particular Baptists to employ the Westminster Confession, as modified by the Savoy Declaration, as the basis of a new confession, The Second London Confession of Faith (1677/1689). In the words of the preface to the Second London Confession:
“One thing that greatly prevailed with us to undertake this work, was (not only to give a full account of our selves to those Christians that differ from us about the subject of Baptism, but also) the profit that might from thence arise unto those that have any account of our labors, in their instruction, and establishment in the great truths of the Gospel; in the clear understanding and steady belief of which, our comfortable walking with God, and fruitfulness before him, in all our ways is most neerly concerned; and therefore we did conclude it necessary to express our selves the more fully, and distinctly, and also to fix on such a method as might be most comprehensive of those things which we designed to explain our sense, and belief of; and finding no defect, in this regard, in that fixed on by the assembly, and after them by those of the Congregational way, we did readily conclude it best to retain the same order in our present confession: and also when we observed that those last mentioned did, in their confession (for reasons which seemed of weight both to themselves and others), choose not only to express their mind in words concurrent with the former in sense, concerning all those articles wherein they were agreed, but also for the most part without any variation of the terms we did in like manner conclude it best to follow their example, in making use of the very same words with them both, in these articles (which are very many) wherein our faith and doctrine is the same with theirs, and this we did, the more abundantly, to manifest our consent with both, in all the fundamental articles of the Christian Religion; as also with many others whose orthodox confessions have been published to the world; on the behalf of the Protestants in diverse Nations and Cities: and also to convince all that we have no itch to clogge Religion with new words, but do readily acquiesce in that form of sound words which hath been, in consent with the holy Scriptures, used by others before us; hereby declaring before God, Angels, & Men, our hearty agreement with them, in that wholesome Protestant Doctrine, which, with so clear evidence of Scriptures they have asserted.”[1]
When I read this statement, I hear my forebears, those worthies of the seventeenth century, saying that they shared a common faith with their Presbyterian and Congregationalist brethren. Dr. White is by no means the first to have thought this.
[1] “To the Judicious and Impartial Reader” [A Confession of Faith…1677 (Auburn, Massachusetts: B & R Press, 2000); William L. Lumpkin, Baptist Confessions of Faith (Rev. ed., Valley Forge: Judson Press, 1969), 244-245].
This entry was posted on Friday, November 27th, 2009 at 7:20 pm and is filed under Uncategorized. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.
November 27th, 2009 at 10:47 pm
John Tombes was an antipaedobaptist who was certainly “reformed”. I believe he even wrote a paper for the Westminster Assembly men on the subject of baptism.
November 28th, 2009 at 9:22 am
Dr. Haykin,
Thanks for the gracious and balanced response.
Your servant,
Bob Gonzales
November 28th, 2009 at 11:24 am
Dr. Muller believes paedobaptism, covenant theology, sacramentalism, and amillennialism along with Calvinist soteriology qualify you as Reformed.
http://kimriddlebarger.squarespace.com/how-many-points/
November 28th, 2009 at 12:39 pm
Dr. Haykin, thanks for this insightful article. History can be very interesting indeed.
November 28th, 2009 at 2:25 pm
Thank you for this exposition Michael. I think your emphasis is perfect focusing on what united the dissenting groups, not what divided them. Are Baptists Reformed? I would argue yes based on exactly what you have noted.
November 29th, 2009 at 7:36 am
The Reformation changed many things, but baptism was not one of them so the word “Reformed” can never be taken captive by either party.
Both credo and paedobaptists existed before and after the Refomation.
Calvin’s theological defense for it may have differed from Rome’s and been completely new to Christianity (and therefore suspect in the normal course of debate), but he still baptized infants as he had done as a Roman priest. Some Presbyterians even recognize Roman baptism as an agent of salvation today because of the continuity of this system from Rome to the paedobaptistic Reformed churches.
November 29th, 2009 at 5:40 pm
Dr. Haykin,
thank you for speaking up. I had recently heard this interview conducted at the Reformed Forum about <a href=”http://reformedforum.org/ctc96/”Credo-Baptism During the Reformation and the guest was James Dolezal who is a Reformed baptist and a PhD candidate at Westminister in Philadelphia. He gave quite a good summary of how the then known Particular Baptists were formulated. It is a long interview but quite worth the time to listen. I’m curious if you think he’s spot on, on the history of the reformed/particular baptists.
I must say that the paedo-baptists conducting and questioning James were quite gracious and was much encouraged by the tone of which they discuss this often heated topic. I was particularly intrigue by James’ response when asked why he’s a baptist and he responded with, “I’m a baptist because I’m reformed (covenantal)”. It certainly puts a damper on what Dr. Clark defines what it means to be reformed.
November 29th, 2009 at 5:42 pm
Opps …. I didn’t correctly edit that link of that interview quite well. So here again is that link on the Reformed Forum on Credo-Baptism During the Reformation.
December 1st, 2009 at 8:00 am
I think it’s important to understand that Dr. Clark comes at this issue, at least historically, as a non-Presbyterian. He’s a member of a United Reformed Church. Before this he was a minister in a congregation of the Reformed Churches in the United states. These groups are related to church bodies that existed in the Netherlands and Germany, respectively. Unlike its Presbyterian counterpart the Gereformeerde Kerk did not have any continuted contact with Baptists, no matter how “General” or “Primative” they may have been.
December 1st, 2009 at 2:07 pm
Thank you for your gracious addition to the discussion. If I’m understanding the positions correctly, we could state it like this:
For Reformed paedobaptists, paedobaptism (among other things) is required to wear the label “Reformed.” This would be reflected in their covenant theology is essential and the close relationship between circumcision and baptism.
For Reformed credobaptists, paedobaptism is NOT required to wear the label “Reformed” because covenant theology is not essential and there is no close relationship between circumcision and baptism.
December 1st, 2009 at 3:11 pm
In having such a debate as this one, I find it very hard to escape the strength of the Presbyterian argument. Apart from a reductionist definition of Reformed doctrine, there is an extremely one-sided understanding of what being Reformed actually is on the Baptist side of the argument. The Baptists seem to be treating being Reformed as if it were primarily a matter of holding a particular ‘ism’ (which, as Muller and Clark have argued, is a deeply limited understanding of a fuller tradition), when Reformed identity involves having a particular historical (and not just ideological) pedigree, and is also wrapped up with a set of practices which provide the context within which the beliefs are understood and applied. The Reformed faith isn’t an ‘ism’, but more like a family of related theologies within a particular ecclesiastical and theological tradition. The definition of the Reformed faith as if it were an ‘ism’ probably owes much to a more baptistic understanding of the identity of ecclesiastical traditions.
There were Reformed churches before there ever were the Canons of Dordt, or the Westminster Confession. Confessions and writings of systematic theology are not the only way or even, perhaps, the primary way in which a group forms a distinct theological identity. Reformed identity arises from a number of different sources; a theological system pared down to its supposed essence is only one (suspect) source. The identity of the movement is also defined by its historical pedigree, by a certain set of practices (among which the practice of paedobaptism must be included), by its relationship to other movements (anti-antipaedobaptism is clearly present from the earliest stage of the Reformed tradition), and by a certain set of symbols (and Baptists, no matter how close they might try to come, do not and could not hold to the confessional symbols of the Reformed churches without ceasing to be Baptists). If is only by reinventing the Reformed faith as an ‘ism’ that Baptists can define themselves as Reformed. In fact, it takes a little gall for a movement that generally will not even acknowledge that most of us have been baptized to claim that they are truly Reformed and to go around telling us that we aren’t Reformed enough.
Would it be possible for an antipaedobaptist Reformed Christian to exist? In principle, I don’t see why not. Traditions can change and develop over time and I see no reason why the Reformed Christian could not develop to tolerate antipaedobaptism within it. However, such a development must take place from within the tradition and not be forced upon it by definition from without.
I am very happy to acknowledge that Reformed Baptists hold many of the central truths of the Reformed faith in common with those within the tradition. It is encouraging to see appreciation of the Reformed tradition on the part of Reformed Baptists. It is great to see cooperation and fellowship in the gospel between Reformed Baptists and their Reformed brothers. We may not share a common ecclesiastical heritage, but we definitely have a kindred theological spirit in many respects. I believe that we have much to give each another and to learn from each other. However, mutual respect and appreciation must involve recognition that a relationship involves two parties and that a Baptist understanding of the relationship may not be the Reformed understanding of the relationship. I am reminded of the kid in the playground who defines himself as your best friend and complains when he finds that you do not view your relationship in quite the same manner. Having your identity defined from without for someone else’s purposes is never pleasant. You are effectively effaced and silenced by the imposition of the other.
December 2nd, 2009 at 3:50 pm
I know of presbyterian and episcopal churches that have added the “Reformed” appellative to their church names in order to identify themselves with the proper reformed soteriology and this make me think that use of their denominational name was not enough to identify themselves with the Doctrines of Grace.
They added that name not because they thought it was not clear what a presbyterian or episcopalian believes about church government or baptism, but because they needed to show the adherence to the reformed soteriology. I think we Reformed Baptists did the same.
December 2nd, 2009 at 9:35 pm
Clark says: “Baptists were not recognized as Reformed. Why not? Because paedobaptism was regarded as essential to the Reformed faith.”
Okay. And why should I care if this notion of “REFORMED” faith is something I fit into as Clark says I should? Brothers, let Clark have his playpen-understanding of “REFORMED”. Let him kick and scream that we are “have-not’s”. Let him have his corner. Let him make more of “REFORMED” than the essence of Christianity…Christ crucified, our only boast.
Of course we are thankful for the Gospel-awakening that took place during Reformational times. We’d be arrogant if we didn’t appreciate and learn from the unveiling of the Gospel in those days. However, shame on us (!) if we fail to keep our focus upon Christ alone, boasting about Him!
Let’s bear with our brother, Clark, who sees us as misfits, stepchildren, stillborns. He will bear (even so now) the consequence of clinging more tightly to a debatable doctrine, than he does us in Christ.
Let’s bear our brother up in prayer before the Father of all believers.
(((PS…Clark’ demeanor reminds me of my own when I’m peeved at those I once stood with, whom I once thought well of, but afterward see them as betraying me in this way or that.)))
December 3rd, 2009 at 6:34 pm
Perhaps someone can help me understand (and I am being sincere) why the label “reformed” is important? I am a member of a church that would call itself “reformed” if pressed, but it is Calvinist / Charismatic / covenantal / credobaptist. Presbyterians refuse to call Reformed Baptists “reformed” and Reformed Baptists refuse to call our church “reformed”. But why should I care? Again, tone is hard to discern in the written word. I am being sincere, not argumentative. Anyone want to help me on this?
December 5th, 2009 at 8:11 pm
I don’t prefer the term “reformed,” because I don’t want to bother explaining that I am not Jewish Reformed, and that I don’t trace my spiritual heritage back to Moses Mendelsohn in Enlightenment Germany.
Here’s a thought, why don’t we all start calling ourselves “Augustinian,” and see what the Roman Catholics say!
December 6th, 2009 at 8:31 pm
Colin:
No problem with using Augustinian (though there are certain areas where I would dissent from him)–but calling myself Reformed has never raised confusion with Reformed Judaism.
Vinnie:
For me, Calvinistic generally equals reformed.
December 24th, 2009 at 12:04 pm
Has anyone read Verduin’s “Reformers and their Stepchildren”? Both the terms Calvinistic and Reformed carry alot of baggage for the vast majority of Baptists both historically and doctrinally!, though correct and admired in several areas, namely soteriology! I guess for some who hold to every tenet of Covenant Theology except for pedo-baptism could be called “deep-water” Presbys or 90% Reformed/Calvinistic! But as brillantly, as Dr. Steve Wellum of SBTS in “Believer Baptism”, points out; Baptists both particular and general hold to a different Covenantal framework! The New Covenant primacy carries out many ramifications as believers in Zurich, London, etc discerned. The better term would be “Sovereign Grace” Baptists holding to A: The 5 Solas, B: The Doctrines of Grace outlined at Dordt C: The Primacy and implications of the New Covenant recovered since Zurich; Zwingli and the City Elders notwithstanding! Or the older term: “Particular” Baptists? Jeopardy question: who is the only American with the “Reformers” chiseled in stone in Switzerland?
December 24th, 2009 at 12:21 pm
As for the above question. Dr Haydin, Dr Nettles, or Jeff Mayfield are disallowed to answer unless it goes unanswered more than 30 days!
December 24th, 2009 at 2:41 pm
Thanks David. Your question will remain unanswered par moi until the set time elapses. Remind me though!
January 1st, 2010 at 1:06 am
Roger Williams.