In response to the post on Bob Godfrey’s Unexpected Journey, Arthur writes to ask, “So does someone who does not hold to every point of doctrine in the Reformed confessions be considered “Reformed”. More to the point, can a credobaptist not be truly Reformed?”
The answer to that question depends upon the answer one gives to another question: Who or what defines “Reformed”?
Consider bread, not the colloquial, metaphortical bread one spends at the store, but the literal stuff one eats. When the lady at the counter asks, “white or wheat?” we have a common reference point. We are both discussing the same thing. Indeed, the metaphorical bread, as in “give us our daily bread” (i.e. sustenance that may include but is not limited to literal bread) is premised on an agreement as to what bread is. If I ask for bread and the nice lady hands me a stone it is a sign that something is amiss. We haven’t understood each other. We are using the same sign (”bread”) but the res significata (the thing signified) is different. Human communication is predicated upon a common understanding of signs and things signified.
In this case the sign is the adjective “Reformed.” Is there a fixed referent to that adjective or are there as many definitions of that adjective as there are definers? Should we settle for a minimal definition of that adjective or only for a maximal definition?
Well, what did the word “Reformed” signify when it was first used? It signified a theology, piety, and practice. We confessed certain doctrines in every locus (topic) of theology from the stuff one says before one gets to the doctrine of God (i.e. prolegomena), to the doctrines of God, Man, Christ, Salvation, Church, Sacraments, Last Things, and Ethics.
What do the Reformed Churches confess regarding baptism? We confess that God has one covenant of grace, one church, throughout the history of redemption. We confess that there is fundamentally one pattern in the administration of that kingdom/church. We have always had essentially two sacraments: one for admission and one for renewal. Before Christ that church/kingdom was administered with bloody types. With the advent of God the Son incarnate, those types were fulfilled but the pattern of signs of initiation and renewal continue. In other words, we understand that we are in the same church as Abraham. We understand that the Mosaic church/kingdom introduced a temporary, parenthetical, cultic and theocratic administration that ended with the advent of Christ.
Our Baptist friends reject that reading of redemptive history. They insist that the adjective “old covenant” refers to everything that occurred before the incarnation (despite Paul’s definition of “old covenant” in 2 Cor 3 and despite the way it is used in Hebrews) and therefore the new covenant is so utterly different from Abraham that, despite God’s command to initiate covenant children into the visible church/kingdom, we can no longer initiate covenant children thus.
Our Baptist friends are entitled to think what they will but they are not entitled to fundamentally re-define the adjective “Reformed.” Implied in the attempt by some Baptists to re-define “Reformed” so that it no longer entails a doctrine of church and sacraments is a minimalist definition of “Reformed” so that it only refers to the so-called “doctrines of grace.”
Who licensed anyone to re-define the adjective Reformed? Why should Reformed folk accept such a re-definition? If the Baptists, who reject our view of the covenants, who reject our view of our children as heirs of the covenant of grace and its promises, who reject our understanding of redemptive history (no small thing), who reject our ecclesiology, can deny a good bit of what it means to be Reformed and yet call themselves “Reformed” why can’t others play the same game? Why can’t the Open-Theists call themselves “Reformed?” Why can’t Arminians call themselves Reformed? After all, the Remonstrants were members of the Reformed Churches and they accepted a fair bit of our theology. Where do we stop? If the doctrine of the church and sacraments are negotiable why aren’t the doctrines of God, Christ, and salvation also negotiable?
Put another way, why can’t we call Thomas Aquinas, Thomas Bradwardine, and Gregory of Rimini (anachronistically) “Reformed”? They held to “the doctrines of grace.” There were five pointers long before the Synod of Dort. If holding to TULIP makes one Reformed then Godescalc (Gottschalk) of Orbais was Reformed.
Of course there is much more to being Reformed than holding to the five points. The Reformed faith is a contiguous, organic whole. It is a coherent thing. Our theology, piety, and practice are inter-related. We approach God (piety) as we do, by the due use of the ordinary means, because of our theology. We practice the faith by observing the regulative principle of worship and by observing the Christian Sabbath as we do because of our theology and piety.
Thus, the short answer to Arthur’s question is that yes, one must hold to every point of doctrine in the Reformed confessions in order to be Reformed. One might have Reformed sympathies or predestinarian sympathies or covenantal sympathies and the like and not be Reformed. I don’t know what Baptists who sympathize with us on certain points should call themselves. I wouldn’t presume to tell them. I truly wish that they would embrace Abraham as their father in the faith and embrace their children as covenant children and the promises as belonging to their children and that they would thus embrace the Reformed faith as confessed by the Reformed Churches.
UPDATE: Over at the PB, Daniel objects to this post saying:
Hmm…let’s see where this logic is leading us…
The Westminster Confession teaches:
1) Exclusive Psalmody
2) Explicitly Christian Civil Government
3) The Establishment Principle
4) Scottish Sabbatarianism
5) Papal Antichrist
6) Six Day Creation….
To which I reply:
…I should (and will) add the qualification “the Reformed confessions as received by the churches.” The American churches have rightly modified the WCF and BC to remove objectionable theocratic elements. As I’ve written many times in this space, the confessions are the way that the Reformed Churches confess their faith. They are not immutable. Though it is true that we must conform to our confessions, there is a reciprocity. We must always be conforming the confession to Scripture. There are two great areas in which we have made doctrinal progress since the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries: science and politics. Fortunately our churches have been wise enough not to confess a view of science. We were not as wise regarding politics and I’m glad that the American Presbyterians revised the WCF and that the Dutch churches revised the Belgic regarding politics.
I don’t know what exactly what he means by “Scottish Sabbatarianism” since the WCF was hardly a purely “Scottish” document. The WCF reflects the mainstream of Reformed theology, piety, and practice including the Sabbath. It is more explicit about the Sabbath than the Three Forms of Unity but the views reflected in the Westminster Standards were bog standard across the Reformed world.
I don’t see why the office of Pope is not Antichrist. He condemns the gospel still and offers himself as the universal vicar of Christ. If you’re looking for an antichrist what else do you want?
As to creation the Three Forms don’t require 6/24 creation and the American Presbyterians have not received the WCF to require 6/24 creation so this objection is a non-starter.
110 comments
Comments feed for this article
April 24, 2008 at 6:47 pm
Who Defines "Reformed"? - The PuritanBoard
[...] Defines "Reformed"? On the HB __________________ R. Scott Clark, D.Phil Associate Professor of Historical and Systematic [...]
April 24, 2008 at 7:27 pm
Marty Foord
Dear Dr Clark,
On your above definition then I suppose John Owen could not be classed as “Reformed” because of his congregational polity?
God bless,
Marty.
April 24, 2008 at 7:33 pm
R. Scott Clark
Hi Marty,
It’s a good question. No, I don’t think this follows. His ecclesiology was defective, as was Edwards’ (for most of his ministry) and even Ames, but I don’t know that this necessarily makes them non-Reformed.
The URCNA statement on the principles of Reformed polity says that connectionalism is not of the essence of the church but the bene esse. I agree with that.
When I criticize the Baptist view of the church I don’t have connectionalism in mind. They reduce the church only to professors of faith. They don’t include covenant children in the visible, external administration of the covenant of grace. That’s what I meant.
April 24, 2008 at 10:30 pm
dvopilgrim
Here’s part of my answer to a comment regarding my post in http://www.twoagespilgrims.com/doctrine/?p=216 :
[Evangelicals] are clueless as to the doctrine, worship and practice of the historic church. And if their doctrine, worship and practice do not follow the early church and the Protestant Reformers, then they are neither historic nor Reformed.
And if one believes in TULIP, that doesn’t make him Reformed either, because the Reformers taught many other things in addition. As an example, some Baptists who believe in TULIP call themselves “Reformed” or Calvinists, but they’re not, because Calvin and the Reformers taught infant baptism, Presbyterianism, worship, etc., which they don’t adhere to. “Reformed” Baptists are not heirs of the Reformers, but of Donatists and Anabaptists.
Finally, today’s evangelicals are NOT Protestants. Why do I say this? Because they do not have an inkling as to what the Protestant Reformers taught! - neither TULIP, Presbyterianism, covenantalism, the means of grace in preaching and the sacraments, worship liturgy, etc. For example, most evangelicals believe that man’s own free will enables them to have faith in Christ, which results in regeneration, i.e., faith precedes regeneration. This is exactly what Canon IV of Trent says. Since this is so, evangelicals are in reality Romanists, not Protestants, when it comes to the very basic doctrine of justification by faith alone.
April 24, 2008 at 11:38 pm
Marty Foord
Ok that makes sense. So I guess the conclusion is: Owen et al are Reformed with a slight deficiency. Perhaps “Reformed with acne”?
BTW I caught up with Rowland Ward 2 days ago (he is supervising my dissertation). Rowland recommended to me your paper in Strimple’s festschrift–which I’d completely missed in my bibliography!!
God bless.
April 24, 2008 at 11:46 pm
Marty Foord
Ok that sounds cool. Hence, Owen et al are Reformed with a blemish–perhaps “Reformed with acne”?
Blessings.
April 25, 2008 at 4:36 am
Bill Hornbeck
As a “layman” with a great deal of experience in attending various denominational and non-denominational churches, I think that we need to promote Reformed doctrine in a series of steps. First, we need to emphasize the importance of doctrine generally. Second, we need to emphasize the importance of Reformed doctrine as it is summarized in TULIP or the doctrines of grace and contrast it with Arminian doctrine. Third, we need to emphasize the importance of Reformed confessions such as Three Forms of Unity (Belgic Confession, Heidelberg Catechism, and Canons of Dort) and/or Westminister Confession of Faith. Fourth, we need to emphasize the importance of baptism of infants which emphasizes both the continuity of the covenant and God’s election and faithfulness to the children of believers, although not every child is elect, as opposed to the baptism of only adults which emphasizes man’s free will and which renounces or minimizes God’s promises to children of believers. And, so on.
The problem that I see of some Reformed clergy, and particularly Reformed seminary students, is sometimes they are so puffed up in their overall knowledge that they throw a wet blanket over the excitement of “new Reformed converts” who are excited about TULIP, and they seem eager to minimize the importance of TULIP and show off their over-all knowledge of what it means to be “Reformed” until the “new Reformed convert” walks away discouraged that he does not know anything.
Maybe, it is a milk vesus meat analysis. I think there is a place for people like me who offer milk to the “new Reformed converts” and who try to get these new converts excited about TULIP a/k/a doctrines of grace.
At my web site, http://www.reformeddoctrine.org , I try to lead the reader through at least these first few steps. But, I also offer links to http://www.monergism.com and the doctrinal standards and articles of the Protestant Reformed Churches as well as two of the most widely known Reformed Confessional Questions and Answers. I also present this meat as they want to progress.
In conclusion, although there certainly are a number of essential elements to what is truly “Reformed”, let us remember that the kingdom of God belongs to such as these “Reformed children”. Let us first serve them milk. Let us delight in each step that they take. Let us also remember that we who think we know so much, really only know a small fraction of what we should know. Thank you.
Yours truly,
Bill Hornbeck
April 25, 2008 at 5:25 am
Zrim
Great stuff, Scott.
It is interesting. For so many Evangelicals the entry point seems to be soteriology. I think this accounts for so much of the sort of question Aurthur asks (implies, whatever). It is quite understandable, if equally misguided. But my own entry point was actually the doctrine of the two kingdoms, and the rest–including a robust wrestling and finally friendly landing in Reformed soteriology–all followed quite naturally.
I might add for our friend Aurthur that much of the resistance to paedo-baptism seems also to be a function of what some have called “QIRC,” where something yet bothers but one is not able to grow into that which he may not readily understand and that intellectual bother keeps him from a more full-orbed piety. It was something of a jagged little pill for this former Evangelical to swallow, but it sure seemed clear to me that if it was Reformed I wanted to be considered I had to grow into that which was not easy to apprehend quite yet. Is that not the nature of the Gospel itself? That understanding did come in time.
When credo-baptists “want in,” it always strikes me similar to a Republican wanting bigger government and more taxes, a Roman Cathiolic who wants to default on papal authority, or, ahem, a Baptist who wants his child baptized. In all such cases, you simply can’t do that and retain the name. Or take that thing called a “Calminian,” one who thinks he can find a third, middle way between the Calvinists and Arminians. If such a person understood the very basics of the discussion he’d understand that neither a good Arminian nor a good Calvinist would want anything to do with him. (Unless, of course, he is destined for some prize money for finding a whole number between four and five!)
April 25, 2008 at 5:52 am
Wer bestimmt, wer oder was “reformiert” ist? bei LebensQuellen.
[...] R. Scott Clark nicht, aber er hat ein paar sehr gute Gedanken dazu hier. [...]
April 25, 2008 at 7:02 am
Tim
Thanks for this encouraging post. It is interesting to see how the doctrines of grace are within the theological context of the Heidelberg Catechism and the Belgic Confession and do not make sense without them.
This topic has been an issue of tension in such settings like the Together for the Gospel Conference where some espouse to be ‘Reformed Charismatics’ simply because they hold to the doctrines of grace.
Thanks for taking the time to answer this important question.
April 25, 2008 at 7:53 am
Ed Eubanks
I agree with Zrim– the confusion of the entry-point of soteriology (for many) with broad embrace of Reformed theology is common, and hasty.
TULIP is so helpful; naturally it is a proper outflow of Reformed teaching. But one can accept TULIP without– as you point out, Dr. Clark– accepting, say, a covenantal perspective on baptism. Many people claim to be “4-point Calvinists” or (my favorite) “3½-point Calvinists,” as if that’s close enough; yet Reformed thinkers recognize that this is being inconsistent, because the five points are interrelated, just as TULIP is interrelated with the rest of Reformed theology.
In a recent Sunday School class (for new/prospective members), I suggested that what defines “Reformed” theology is the fundamental thrust of the Reformation, namely the Solas and the renewed focus on Covenantal theology. I mentioned aspects, such as TULIP, predestination/election, and infant baptism– but as I said then, these strike me as material issues, not formal ones. Is that a fair analysis, in your view?
April 25, 2008 at 9:05 am
Randy Snyder
Quote…
I truly wish that they would embrace Abraham as their father in the faith and embrace their children as covenant children and the promises as belonging to their children and that they would thus embrace the Reformed faith as confessed by the Reformed Churches.
Thanks Dr. Clark for your article. I agree that Reformed Baptists are not Reformed in the Presbyterian way ecclesiologically nor concerning who the Children of the Covenant are. We are more in line with John Owen concerning the Covenant of Grace and Ecclesiology. But we do consider Abraham as our Father in the Faith. I bet you are overstating your point for emphasis. We just believe as the text says that those children are children
(Gal 3:5) Does he who supplies the Spirit to you and works miracles among you do so by works of the law, or by hearing with faith–
(Gal 3:6) just as Abraham “believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness”?
(Gal 3:7) Know then that it is those of faith who are the sons of Abraham.
(Gal 3:
And the Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel beforehand to Abraham, saying, “In you shall all the nations be blessed.”
(Gal 3:9) So then, those who are of faith are blessed along with Abraham, the man of faith.
We believe that in both the Old Covenant and the New that those who are faith are only partakers in the Covenant of Grace.
I do believe the following…..
WCF 7.6
….There are not therefore two covenants of grace, differing in substance, but one and the same, under various dispensations
Anyone can read my comments on the PB concerning Genesis 17, Romans 4 and passages in Galations concerning this.
Just do a search under PuritanCovenanter and the passages.
I agree with Dr. Clark that we are not Reformed in the same context.
I agree that anyone who is not Covenantal nor Confessional in thinking is not Reformed.
As you know, historically we Reformed Baptists are known as Particular Baptists. Reformed Baptist is a rather new term. It is also an evolving term which seems to include just 5 pointers who are credo, whether or not they are Covenantal or confessional. I prefer the term Sovereign Grace Baptist for those guys who are not Covenantal as in believing in the CofW, or the CofG. Which is what a Particular Baptist historically held to according to the 1689 LBCF.
I like Pastor David Charles understanding of what a Reformed Baptist is.
http://reformedbaptistfellowship.wordpress.com/2007/05/30/the-five-points-of-reformed-baptist-churches/
Thanks Dr. Clark
I have learned a lot from you.
April 25, 2008 at 9:08 am
Randy Snyder
forgot to finish a sentence above…. Whoops.
We just believe as the text says that those children are children of faith. In other words we are children of Abraham if we have like faith in Christ as he did. A faith that is caused by regeneration and God’s monergistic conversion.
Sorry for not completing my thought.
April 25, 2008 at 9:10 am
frozen choson
I’ve always thought of our baptist brothers as more “Calvinistic” or “Confessional” Baptists, rather than “Reformed” Baptists. It’s not a sleight or anything. I don’t know why some take it that way as if it’s bad to call them anything other than “Reformed”. It’s just a more specific title.
Scott, would you include the London Baptist Confessions as a “Reformed” confession? James
April 25, 2008 at 9:25 am
Jordan
I think his post confirms the fact that any confessional standard which differs from the Reformed confessions on such fundamental issues such as baptism, sacraments, the unity of the covenant of grace, etc. cannot be labeled Reformed. This would include the London Baptist Confession. I would even go a step further in arguing against the use of the word “Calvinistic” to describe Baptist’s who embrace the majority of the Canons of Dordt, and then proceed to disregard their confessional and historical context: Belgic and Heidelburg. Why apply a theological label like “Calvinist” to those who probably would have been tossed out of Calvin’s Geneva in a heartbeat for their aberrant views on ecclesiology? I think we all know how Calvin viewed credobaptism. Anyway, I think Baptist’s with Calvinistic sympathies fall into the tradition of the particular baptists. Maybe this would be a better label?
April 25, 2008 at 9:37 am
More From The Heidelblog… « Sacramental Piety
[...] Sacraments Dr. Clark has written more about the nature of Reformed theology and practice here. I highly recommend reading his thoughts! [...]
April 25, 2008 at 10:00 am
Bill Hornbeck
In follow-up to my prior comment and a sense from the chain of these comments that I may be considered “Reformed-lite” if “Reformed” at all, by reason of my emphasis of TULIP, we need to be careful that we do not define “Reformed” just as to what we may believe and practice.
We may think that we are fully “Reformed”, whereas others may think that we are deficient in some of our beliefs. Specifically, my denomination by heritage, the Christian Reformed Churches, may think that they are fully “Reformed”. The Protestant Reformed Churches denomination may think otherwise by the failure of the CRC to deny common grace, the well meant offer, and the unconditional covenant.
Although it goes against my CRC denomination by heritage and the teachings of my great-grandfather, Calvin Theological School Professor William Heyns, I think the Protestant Reformed Churches are right in their position on these issues and that these are very important issues. At my web site, under Excellent Doctrinal Standards, I provide a link to Protestant Reformed Churches literature and articles that explain these issues and their importance.
But, as much as I agree with the Protestant Reformed Churches on these issues and their importance, I do not think it is accurate or helpful to reserve the title “Reformed” to just the Protestant Reformed Churches. Likewise, I think that the PCA and others need to exercise careful restraint in concluding that others are not “Reformed”, because they may not hold to all the points of belief and practice that they do. Thank you.
Yours truly,
Bill Hornbeck
April 25, 2008 at 11:43 am
Randy Snyder
Jordan,
Calvin is not necessarily the end all of Reformed Theology. Covenant Theology is not addressed as succinctly in Calvin as it is the Reformers after him. I have also read quotes concerning his views of the sacraments that would seemingly put him outside of the WCF. FV guys seem to like to pull some of this stuff up.
It would be eye opening for you to follow this thread on the PB.
http://www.puritanboard.com/f15/who-defines-reformed-32093/
It won’t necessarily change your mind but you will probably learn a few things.
April 25, 2008 at 12:22 pm
Jordan Huff
Wonderful post, Dr. Clark. To celebrate the Institutes, the 3 Forms, and the WSF in every area except for sacramental piety, as do many “reformed baptists,” is a blatant disregard for the covenantal structure and epochs that flow throughout these documents and, for many, a contradiction of their own covenantalism. What do you suppose is to be our attitude in response to those who claim reformed theology, even catechize their children in covenantal thinking and holy living, yet deny these foundations to our most holy faith once for all delivered to the saints?….people in my own circles?
By the way, your writings and the writings of your fellow WSC colleagues make my desire to attend your seminary all the more full. I pray to get down there in a year.
April 25, 2008 at 2:00 pm
Jordan
Randy,
The FV guys are classic examples of bad Calvin scholarship. Calvin and the WCF are not at odds with respect to either baptism or the Lord’s Supper. My point in using Calvin as an example was to show how ridiculous it is to use the word “Calvinist” to describe an anti-Calvinistic system of doctrine (i.e.- credobaptism, memorialism, exclusion of infants from the covenant, anti-synodical church gov. etc. etc.) While Calvin certainly isn’t the exclusive “end all” of Reformed theology, lets not underestimate his importance. Also, to argue that Calvin’s covenantal theology differs significantly from later confessional expressions on the issue is to fall into the trap that many FV advocates have set in an attempt to pit Calvin against the Puritans. I’d recommend Peter Lillback’s treatment on the subject in his book. It’s my opinion, and the opinion of many Calvin scholars, that continental Calvinism and English Puritanism (i.e. WCF) are theologically harmonious and differ on minor points.
April 25, 2008 at 2:08 pm
Jordan
Also, if you want to read a wonderful article which deals with the very same issues brought up in Dr. Clark’s post, I’d highly recommend you read this article by Richard Muller entitled “How Many Points.” Here’s the link..
http://kimriddlebarger.squarespace.com/how-many-points/
April 25, 2008 at 2:15 pm
Randy Snyder
Thanks Jordan. I appreciate it.
April 25, 2008 at 2:24 pm
Jordan
Thank you sir.
April 25, 2008 at 4:27 pm
Arthur Sido
So I guess we are not as Together for the Gospel as one might assume. My apologies for throwing a question out and then disappearing, we are in the process of relocating our family and I just got internet access again.
ZRIM,
“I might add for our friend Aurthur that much of the resistance to paedo-baptism seems also to be a function of what some have called “QIRC,” where something yet bothers but one is not able to grow into that which he may not readily understand and that intellectual bother keeps him from a more full-orbed piety. It was something of a jagged little pill for this former Evangelical to swallow, but it sure seemed clear to me that if it was Reformed I wanted to be considered I had to grow into that which was not easy to apprehend quite yet. ”
Our rejection of infant baptism has nothing to do with a lack of a “more full-orbed piety”, whatever that is and has everything to do with the lack of Biblical evidence either explicitly commanding the baptism of infants (in contrast with the clear commandment to make disciples and then baptize them) or the sign of any evidence in the Bible of infants being baptized (again in contrast to a multitude of examples of believers being baptized). I guess I find it more important, and dare I say more Reformed, to seek my answers in the Word of God over the confessions of men. Confessions are wonderful tools and guides, but it can be easy to become a servant of the confession instead of being served by it.
Dvopilgrim,
““Reformed” Baptists are not heirs of the Reformers, but of Donatists and Anabaptists.”
Are you serious? Do you even know what Donatism is and taught? Comments like those are so loaded as to preclude even basic civil interaction between brothers in Christ. Donatism is heresy. Are you saying that Reformed Baptist, or Baptists of any stripe, are heretics? Spurgeon? Bunyan? Albert Mohler? Heretics? I disagree vociferously with infant baptism but I would never presume to label my brothers in Christ as heretics because of a disagreement of this nature. Reformed Baptist have about as much in common with Donatist who rebaptized people as Reformed padeobaptists have with the PC-USA. Dvopilgrim continued…
“Since this is so, evangelicals are in reality Romanists, not Protestants, when it comes to the very basic doctrine of justification by faith alone.”
So says the man who holds to a doctrine that is a holdover from Roman Catholicism. See, those sorts of baseless charges cut both ways.
April 25, 2008 at 5:17 pm
R. Scott Clark
Hi Arthur,
Well, I’m sure I agree with Mark Dever (who is a friend and an excellent scholar) on the gospel. I do think that sacraments and ecclesiology are more important than they often seem in broader evangelicalism. I sometimes wonder whether TG4 and Ref21 are efforts to preserve the old predestinarian-evangelical coalition that once dominated evangelicalism. I’ve written about that more than a few times on the HB.
Three ways…
Bog Standard 1
Bog Standard 2
I agree that Baptists are not heretics. I wouldn’t use that adjective but I think that denying that the administration of the covenant promise to covenant children is a serious problem and even a sin. It’s serious enough that, in my view, I don’t see how Baptist congregations have all the marks of a pure church (BC 29). One of those marks is the “pure administration” of the sacraments. Denial of infant baptism is not a pure administration of the sacraments.
Of course they don’t (or shouldn’t) regard me as baptized, so I accept turn about as fair play. I don’t take it personally. I have the highest regard for Ken Jones and Mark Dever and Jim Renihan. These are great men but I regard them as seriously confused on the sacraments and they probably think of me the same way (if they think of me!).
As to Bible v Confessions, well, that’s not a very Baptist answer! Historically Baptists have been as confessional as the Reformed. The “just the Bible Ma’am” approach of biblicism is not a very healthy way to relate to Scripture has no roots in Sola scriptura. As Mike Horton has noted, the “bible only” approach is scriptura solo not Sola scriptura. I hope you’ll keep thinking about this issue.
April 25, 2008 at 7:07 pm
mburke
Simply astounding… to so openly expose your ignorance of what Reformed Baptists to believe. I guess, if you keep parsing “Reformed” down to just you. How long till “Reformed” requires a specifically Dutch view of government, or church polity? Did “semper reformanda” stop with the introduction of the Three Forms of Unity?
April 25, 2008 at 7:20 pm
Randy Snyder
Finally someone who has the right attitude and is honest. Thank you Dr. R. Scott Clark. We can view each other as in sin because of our view of the ordinances and still get along. That to me is a big thing.
I commend your honesty and love. Those two things don’t usually go together.
Randy
April 25, 2008 at 7:23 pm
Arthur Sido
I think we would all agree, Reformed Baptist as well as Presbyterian, on the importance of confessions. I carry a copy of the 1689 in my laptop case at all times. I am also certain that we would (or should) agree that the confessions stand under the authority of Scripture.
I would of course disagree with your definition of the purity of the sacraments when applied to infants who are baptized for no reason other than parentage. Certainly there are plenty of Christians without Christian parents (myhself for example) and just as certainly there are plenty of children of Christian parenst who grow up and are revealed to not be Christians. Furthermore I would say that the paedobaptist, born and raised, is in sin by defying the Biblical command and model to be baptized after repentence, instead relying on a ceremony performed as an infant. But we can disagree on these issues without being divided and certainly without being divisive.
April 25, 2008 at 7:24 pm
Randy Snyder
BTW, Wasn’t the main thrust of the Donatists to emphasize a regenerate clergy and to exclude those who had denounced Christ at one time? Didn’t they also have some weird views concerning the deity of Christ and his humanity?
April 25, 2008 at 7:31 pm
Arthur Sido
Randy you are quite right, from Theopedia re: donatism: “Donatism was an early heresy. Named for its leader, the theologian Donatus the Great (d. 355), Donatism included a group of extremist sects, mostly in North Africa, that emphasized Asceticism. They valued martyrdom and found lapses of faith (even under torture or threat of death) inexcusable. The heresy involved their contention that the sacraments required a priest of pure moral character to be effective and only the pure (who had not lapsed under persecution) should be allowed in the church. They were opposed by Augustine of Hippo.”
The statement that people like James White, Al Mohler and Mark Dever are spiritual descendents of Donatus exhibits a lack of understanding of the issue at hand and is a sign of intellectual immaturity.
April 25, 2008 at 9:45 pm
R. Scott Clark
Arthur,
We don’t baptize covenant infants because of parentage, we baptize them because of the divine command and promise! The question is whether the command has been given, in the covenant of grace, to administer to covenant infants the sign and seal of the promise. Of course we say that the command and promise given to Abraham in Gen 17 still applies, that the typologies have been fulfilled but that the structure of “to you and to your children” is still in force. The promise, “I will be a God to you and to your children” still applies. This is why Abraham is called the father of all who believe and why Peter said, “The promise is to you and to your children…”
April 25, 2008 at 9:49 pm
R. Scott Clark
Hi M,
If you read the replies I gave on the PB, to which I provided a link, you’ll see that I answered the question of polity there. No, I haven’t defined “Reformed” as “Dutch Reformed.” In fact our (the URCNA) statement of principles of church government says that connectionalism is of the well being not the essence of the church. To be sure episcopacy is not desirable but the Synod of Dort seated delegates from the Church of England. William Ames and John Owen espouses congregationalism but no one doubts their Reformed convictions.
As to criticisms of the confessional Baptists, I do spend a fair bit of time among them. How have I misrepresented them? I’ve had a few private posts from CB’s thanking me for this post. They don’t think that I’ve misrepresented them.
There are universals that unite most all Baptists: That (Abraham, Moses etc) was then, this (the New Covenant) is now. All Baptists deny the continuing validity of God’s command to initiate covenant infants into the visible covenant community.
As to semper Reformanda, I’ve made it clear here and elsewhere (e.g. in the PB thread) that I do believe that there has been doctrinal progress since the Reformation. I can list several areas:
1) Covenant theology. The 16th-century Reformed had mainly a seminal covenant theology that needed elaboration and that has been done intermittently since.
2) Science. Most of the 16th- and 17th-century Reformed were wrong about the relation between natural science and Scripture. Fortunately we didn’t confess anything about science in great detail. Many of them thought that they could work out a natural science from Scripture. By the 17th-century we began to learn that isn’t possible because it isn’t intended.
3) Politics. Many Reformed in the same period were theocrats and held to the civil enforcement of the first table of the decalogue. By the 18th century we learned better.
These revisions of the classical Reformed theology have been for the good of the Reformed churches and are an expression of sola Scriptura and semper reformanda. I can’t see how denying a fundamental article of the faith, however, constitutes Reformation.
April 25, 2008 at 10:39 pm
Who Defines "Reformed"? - Page 3 - The PuritanBoard
[...] Posted by R. Scott Clark On the HB Historically, there were two group of Reformers: the Magisterial Reformers and the Radical [...]
April 26, 2008 at 12:19 pm
Daniel Ritchie
Thanks for quoting me Dr. Clark; I did not realize I was so important.
April 26, 2008 at 1:22 pm
Zrim
Aurthur,
My point about paedo-baptism was that, in my experience, most credo-baptists and those even loosley associated tend to make more solo scriptura appeals than sola scriptura ones for why they withold baptism from covenant children. The former is the system natural to Biblicism, the latter to Confessionalism.
Those with more Biblicist devotions say things like, “I guess I find it more important, and dare I say more Reformed, to seek my answers in the Word of God over the confessions of men. Confessions are wonderful tools and guides, but it can be easy to become a servant of the confession instead of being served by it.” That is a high opinion of the forms, not a high view. Though opinions run the gamut from low (Finney’s “paper popes”
to high, it is not Reformed at all to simply hold a high opinion. The Reformed have high opinions and views of the forms and reserve infallible views for Scripture, despite the charges that we hold infallible ones of the forms. Don’t mistake high views to be infallible ones.
April 26, 2008 at 1:23 pm
Zrim
…why do the closed parentheses do that? I’m not a smiley-face guy, “I don’t wanna live like this!”
April 27, 2008 at 10:47 am
JG
R. Scott Clark,
Excellent article, and I have enjoyed reading you additional comments as well. Thanks for this post. The tone of the some comments by others perhaps could be marked by a more irenic attitude. It would be good to see their Reformed worldview applied to their demeanor. But, many have worked through the negative tones, for which I am grateful.
Perhaps this is throwing fuel on the fire (certainly not my desire, though the flame of the Gospel heats as well as illuminates) but I think this entire discussion is wrongheaded. The issue isn’t whether or not Baptists can legitimately be called Reformed. The real issue is whether or not non-Baptists can legitimately be called so. The Reformation was not an event, rather it was a process set in motion. The logical conclusion of the Reformation (at least as it applies to the sacraments) leads one, in my opinion, to the Baptist view. I am the first to disagree with the typical Baptist insistence on extreme local church autonomy, but it does seem to me that a truly Reformational understanding of Scripture will eventually lead one toward a believers baptism position. One can already see the movement from Luther’s position to that of Calvin. I simply argue that if we let the trajectory run its course, we arrive at the Baptist understanding.
Now, lest my “less than Reformational” Reformed friends take offense, let me declare my great love and respect for the Reformed denominations. This discussion is one amongst brothers, all of whom will one day be humbled before the throne of grace. One that day, I for one do not wish to face the charge of having demeaned Christ’s bride. He seems to be a protective husband, and I sense one who does not take lightly those who berate and belittle his dear wife. Thus, while I call my non-Baptist friends to a fully reformed view of the sacraments, I hope I do so humbly.
April 27, 2008 at 12:41 pm
R. Scott Clark
JG,
Thanks.
This was, of course, the Anabaptist response to the Reformation. “You haven’t gone far enough” they said. They had, from our pov, an “over-realized eschatology.”
Luther called this eschatology “a theology of glory.” They also manifested the two main lines of the TG: moralism and rationalism. To be sure not all of them were rationalists, at least not explicitly) some were mystics but they were all moralists. Because of their moralism and (implicit) rationalism they rejected the Protestant doctrine of justification (sola gratia et sola fide. They rejected it on the same basis as the Roman communion rejected it: it wouldn’t produce the desired sanctity.
This is a debate about what the Reformed churches will be or become. We will be Reformed as defined by our confessions or will be be or become something else?
April 28, 2008 at 10:20 am
JG
Understood. But not all Baptist groups trace their theological/ideological heritage to the Anabaptist movement, as I assume you are aware. Most certainly the reformed Baptists do not. As to the issue of the sacrament of baptism, the Baptists of course feel that the doctrine of sola fide will inevitably lead to Baptist conclusion on the matter. We argue that the greater reformational community has hit the “pause” button on the implications of sola fide.
To all my ‘paused-Reformational’ brethren, keep in mind that one of the greatest Reformed documents (the Westminster standards) were produced in the same decade as the Baptist and Congregationalist reformed confessions
1644 - Second London Baptist Confession (ratified 1689)
1646 - Westminster Confession
1658 - Savoy Declaration
Considering these documents were produced almost exactly at the same time, with intentional Reformed thinking undergirding each document, Baptist find it odd when the “Reformed” groups try to dismiss the 2nd London Confession as a document that is not truly Reformed.
So, Baptists are reformed according to our documents, and according to at least some of the great reformed documents of the period. Whether our Reformed or Presbyterian brethren wish to acknowledge it or not, we’ve been with you from at least the 17th century forward—and we are here to stay. Certainly the Reformed camp is a tent large enough to incorporate the subtle differences between the memorialist & calvinistic views on the Supper or the view of children’s precise relationship to the covenant community.
Blessings.
April 28, 2008 at 10:23 am
JG
Correction:
I wrote: “…the Baptists of course feel that the doctrine of sola fide will inevitably lead to Baptist conclusion on the matter.”
I, of course, meant to say “sola scriptura”.
- Josh
April 28, 2008 at 12:03 pm
sacramentalpiety
Subtle differences? Herein lies the problem. I for one think that banning covenant children from their rightful place within God’s covenant of grace is much more than a mere theological subtlety. The same goes for a memorialistic view of the Supper. If history tells us anything, I think we can conclude that these are huge issues with profound implications.
April 28, 2008 at 1:52 pm
JG
Certainly no Reformed person confuses infant baptism with salvation. No gospel-centered Presbyterian would ever claim that the sacrament is a sign of redemption. Thus, whatever advantage baptism offers, we all agree that it is not salvific.
Also, no (reformed, baptist or otherwise) person denies that God shows special grace to children of covenant parents. Is not being raised in the home of a believer, sitting under the word, and hearing the faith of one’s parents and grandparents (Lord willing), such as was the case with Timothy, in and of itself a wonderful, God-given grace?
Thus, no baptist has ever denied a child of covenant parents their “rightful” place. We understand what they are: unredeemed children who need to make Christ the Lord of their life (as all Reformed would agree). We raise them in the fear and knowledge of God (as would all Reformed persons). We understand that God has showered them with a special, wonderful grace (as do all Reformed persons).
Certainly the groups more aligned with Calvin on this issue see a beautiful mystery, which is almost unexplainable, in the practice of Baptism. They see it as the bestowal of a grace which Baptists believe is already present without the sacrament.
Thus, no Baptist denies children of the covenant their rightful place. We believe they already have it apart from Baptism.
So, yes. We are dealing with subtle difference.
April 28, 2008 at 3:48 pm
sacramentalpiety
Sorry..I should have been a bit more articulate. Covenant children are covenant children regardless of whether the sign is applied or not. I stand by what I said earlier: A refusal to apply the sign and seal of salvation to covenant children is much more than a theological subtlety.
While most Reformed folk do not regard baptism as a means of regeneration, it nevertheless remains true that baptism is the means of initiation into the visible church, and thus is a very very important rite. I don’t know if we all would agree that baptism “is not salvific.” Calvin and some of the other continental Reformers certainly didn’t use this kind of language, nor did many of the Puritans and other Westminster Divines. At issue here is not whether baptism magically brings regeneration, but whether baptism has anything at all to do with the salvation of a covenant child. If baptism is a seal of the covenant, as well as as the means of initiation into the visible church, then baptism is certianly salvific in a very qualified sense, and therefore very important in the sight of God. The same goes for memorialism. Is the Lord’s Supper something that God does for me in the person of Christ, or is it a bare symbol devoid of any supernatural efficacy? These are important questions which shape our understanding of the church and the covenant. Again- refusing the sign to covenant children is not a matter of secondary importance. According to Reformed orthodoxy (take it or leave it) its a entirely different kind of covenantal theology with different pre-suppositions, a different theological method, and radically different conclusions.
April 28, 2008 at 10:09 pm
Matthew
While Luther and Calvin differed on whether Baptism was a strict means of regeneration (that is, Luther felt it always regenerated the one baptised, and was, at bare minimum, ordinarily necessary for salvation unless in extreme circumstances), Calvin did view the sacrament as the ordinary means by which the elect were given the new birth:
“What can anyone infer from this but just that the ordinary method in which God accomplishes our salvation is by beginning it in baptism and carrying it gradually forward during the whole course of life” (Second Answer to Westphal).
“Again, he asks, if the sacraments are instruments by which God acts efficaciously, and testifies and seals his grace to us, why do we deny, that by the washing of baptism men are born again? As if our alleged denial were not a fiction of his own. Having distinctly asserted, that men are regenerated by baptism, just as they are by the word, I early obviated the impudence of the man, and left nothing for his invective to strike at but his own shadow” (Second Answer to Westphal).
From these and other statements, it is clear that he did view it as the sacramental means of new birth. It wasn’t a magical rite wherein God was force to grant His Spirit to the baptized (for the non-elect), nor strictly necessary for salvation. It’s importance, however, is much understated in much of the modern Reformed community.
April 28, 2008 at 10:18 pm
R. Scott Clark
Hi Matthew,
I’m less confident than you are that Luther taught Baptismal “regeneration” in the way that the Book of Concord (1580) did. In his Large and Small Catechisms just when it seems that Luther might be on the verge of teaching the sort of baptismal regeneration that is often attributed to him he qualifies himself.
Second, it’s important to note how the word “regeneration” was often used in the 16th century, to mean “sanctification” rather than “to awaken from death to life.”
For Luther, the Gospel awakens us (by the power of the Spirit). I think there are real differences between Luther and Calvin but there are real connections.
When Calvin says “salvation” he doesn’t mean “moment of awakening from death to life” but “the process of deliverance from sin.” Baptism is a means of grace. It is a sign and seal of justification and one of the ways through which the Spirit operates but I don’t find Calvin teaching baptismal regeneration (not that you’re saying this) and certainly not baptismal union with Christ as the FV says.
April 28, 2008 at 10:22 pm
R. Scott Clark
JG et al,
Would that all or even most Baptists agreed with you but I do not find this to be the case. I do know of some Baptists who speak of their children as covenant children and I thank God for this blessed inconsistency, but I don’t see how one can regard children as members of the covenant of grace and yet refuse them sign of initiation any more than Abraham would understand someone wishing to unite with the Abrahamic congregation and yet refuse to present his children for circumcision. It’s non-starter. In that case neither the good intentions of the parent nor the blessed inconsistency of language would help. Abraham would remind the seeker that Yahweh said, “This IS my covenant in your flesh.” The initiation of converts and covenant children is not optional. It is commanded. We are Abraham’s children and members of his congregation, as it were. There is no “new” congregation or covenant relative to Abraham, but only relative to Moses.
April 29, 2008 at 6:59 am
Matthew
Hi there Dr. Clark,
You said, “I’m less confident than you are that Luther taught Baptismal “regeneration” in the way that the Book of Concord (1580) did. In his Large and Small Catechisms just when it seems that Luther might be on the verge of teaching the sort of baptismal regeneration that is often attributed to him he qualifies himself.”
I agree with you that what Calvin and Luther taught about Baptism was not significantly different. In fact, in Calvin’s letter to Westphal he mentions the areas in which they differ, which I pointed out in my post. Namely, that Luther made Baptism much more necessary for salvation than Calvin did (especially in the Large Catechism), and that it affected everyone equally, whereas Calvin limited it to the elect (as far as the inner workings, of course the reprobate were still part of the New Covenant community externally by Baptism). Otherwise there was no major disagreement. I think it is true of the early reformers besides Calvin as well. That there never was a significant difference over the issue of Baptism, as there was over the Supper, is a testament to that. The later Lutherans and the Lutheran churches of today largely misread Luther into a Roman Catholic copy on the issue of Baptism.
Yes, the Federal Vision heretics are BIG on making Calvin’s language support their view of Baptism. My main concern is in the other direction. That for all intents and purposes many Reformed churches (and whole denominations for that matter) make the opposite error. That of minimizing the sacraments to the point of slipping into the same mistake as the Baptists. This seems to be done with both the Supper and Baptism. While on the one hand the heresy of the FV propogates itself, the heresy of the sacraments as merely empty symbols is much more prevalent.
It is very pleasing to see Calvinists among the United Reformed Church (Mike Horton, Kim Riddlebarger, et al) pointing out this fact and going to pains to give the sacraments their primary and biblical place within church worship, along with the preaching of the Word.
April 29, 2008 at 8:52 am
Josh Gelatt
R Scott Clark,
Of course, if you would follow the biblical command of circumcision as the sign of initiation you would have a point. But since the Apostle Paul will not allow us that option, we can only assume two things:
1. There is no longer a sign of initiation. Or,
2. The sign of initiation has been changed.
This is the dividing line. Baptists argue there is no scripture warrant for assuming the sign of initiation has been continued in a modified form. The Reformed groups assume it MUST be continued, and then apply reason to determine what that symbol might be. Considering their starting assumptions, baptism makes a logical choice.
========
I do appreciate the discussion, and will read further comments from my “paused-Reformational” brethren, but will be unable to reply. I’m in over my head with several projects. Blessings to all, and thanks for the edifying conversation.
April 29, 2008 at 10:05 am
R. Scott Clark
Josh,
No sign of initiation now for anyone?
This strikes me as the typical and, if I may say, desperate, Baptist evasion of Abraham’s fatherhood and the covenant of grace. This is just more of, “that was then, this is now.”
You’ve circumcised (cut off) Abraham when God hasn’t!
April 29, 2008 at 11:31 am
Matthew
Josh,
I would ask, in Matthew 28 when Christ gives the command to baptize all the nations and teach them the commands of the New Covenant, what this could be other than initiatory language? Is there any normative example in Scripture where someone is brought into the covenant community without baptism? Granted, they may be regenerate of the Spirit and justified before God prior to baptism, but they would not have been considered part of the community of faith until they are publically baptized.
While they does not touch infant baptism per se, it logically follows and flows from the New Covenant seal being a continuation of the Old Covenant seal.
God bless
April 30, 2008 at 6:37 pm
Arthur Sido
R. Scott Clark,
“This strikes me as the typical and, if I may say, desperate, Baptist evasion of Abraham’s fatherhood and the covenant of grace. This is just more of, “that was then, this is now.” ”
You mean like: “Behold, the days are coming, declares the LORD, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah, not like the covenant that I made with their fathers on the day when I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, my covenant that they broke, though I was their husband, declares the LORD. But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, declares the LORD: I will put my law within them, and I will write it on their hearts. And I will be their God, and they shall be my people. And no longer shall each one teach his neighbor and each his brother, saying, ‘Know the LORD,’ for they shall all know me, from the least of them to the greatest, declares the LORD. For I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.” (Jer 31: 31-34 ESV)
There has been more dancing around the text on this thread than on Dancing with the Stars. Comments like ZRIMs “The former is the system natural to Biblicism, the latter to Confessionalism.” smack of someone who ignores the text in favor of the confessions despite vehement objections to the contrary. You could throw away every copy of the Westminster confession tomorrow and the Word of God would be just fine.
The elephant in the padeobaptist room is that there is no textual defense or command to baptize infants. Period. Any honest padeobaptist recognizes that, and typically turns to a argument based on the covenants to defend their church traditions. The great error of all of the covenantal arguments regarding infant baptism is that you overemphasize the sameness of the covenants, which goes above and beyond the continuity. Things have changed, which is why we aren’t slaughtering animals at our church services this Sunday. The new covenant is NOT like the Old, in terms of Mediator and membership. But no one wants to deal with that, instead we throw around academic terminology to avoid the topic at hand. That is the real desperation.
This whole conversation is an unfortunate example of “Reformed legalism”, continually narrowing down the definition of Reformed. Fortunately most of the proponents of Reformed theology recognize that what unites us is the Gospel, not infant baptism. Come out of the Reformed ghetto every once in a while, and you might be surprised that people who don’t baptize infants can still hold to Reformed theology.
April 30, 2008 at 6:58 pm
R. Scott Clark
I’m sorry that you’re disappointed Arthur, but I trust that no one is taking you by the ear and forcing you to read the HB.
You say that it’s about legalism and I say it’s about identity, boundaries, and the future of the Reformed churches.
You continue to assume that everything that happened before Christ belongs to the “old covenant.” This isn’t what Paul says in 2 Cor 3 or what Heb 7-10 says. They teach that the old covenant refers to the Mosaic epoch (c. 1500 BC) until the death of Christ.
When the prophets spoke of the new covenant, they were not overturning the Abrahamic covenant. They were announcing the coming end of the temporary Mosaic covenant.
If that’s so, we’re still in the Abrahamic covenant and we don’t need a new institution of infant initiation. We only need a non-typological sign and seal.
See Gal 3 on this.
Peace.
April 30, 2008 at 7:50 pm
Matthew
Arthur,
You wrote, “The elephant in the padeobaptist room is that there is no textual defense or command to baptize infants. Period.”
The elephant, however, in the credobaptist room is that the command is never given with an age qualification attached to it. Nor is the command ever given a belief qualification. That is, it is never stated to only baptize believing adults. The only qualification that is ever given to baptism is by Jesus in the Great Commission, where he states to baptize “All nations.” The last time I checked “All nations” includes children.
Generally, credobaptists will resort to example. The only example in Scripture that is ever given to baptism is adults. However, we do not base our biblical dictates upon example, but upon command from God.
April 30, 2008 at 11:51 pm
rjs1
Arthur,
I am glad you quoted Jeremiah 31 but carry on reading past verse 34 and on into the next chapter!
Jeremiah 32:37-40 “Behold, I will gather them out of all countries, whither I have driven them in mine anger, and in my fury, and in great wrath; and I will bring them again unto this place, and I will cause them to dwell safely: And they shall be my people, and I will be their God: And I will give them one heart, and one way, that they may fear me for ever, for the good of them, and of their children after them: And I will make an everlasting covenant with them, that I will not turn away from them, to do them good; but I will put my fear in their hearts, that they shall not depart from me.”
Then turn back to Isaiah 59:20, 21:
” And the Redeemer shall come to Zion, and unto them that turn from transgression in Jacob, saith the LORD. As for me, this is my covenant with them, saith the LORD; My spirit that is upon thee, and my words which I have put in thy mouth, shall not depart out of thy mouth, nor out of the mouth of thy seed, nor out of the mouth of thy seed’s seed, saith the LORD, from henceforth and for ever.”
Then turn all the way back to Deuteronomy 30:6:
“And the LORD thy God will circumcise thine heart, and the heart of thy seed, to love the LORD thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, that thou mayest live.”
All of these verses are speaking of the NT age.
May 1, 2008 at 4:55 am
Josh Gelatt
Matthew,
Double check your reference in Matthew 28. We are to “make disciples of all nations”, then we are to baptize them. While I agree that scripture does not provide an age qualification regarding who can be baptized, it certainly provides a faith qualification. We can argue about whether or not an 8 year old or a 12 year old is capable of making a faith commitment to Christ…but it seems clear a 6 month ago cannot make such a commitment.
Also, to R. Scott Clark,
You said, “This strikes me as the typical and, if I may say, desperate, Baptist evasion”. I hope this is not evidence of the degeneration of the conversation. But if so, your comment strikes me as evidence that the one who is desperate is the one who resorts to adjectival insults. Let’s both stick to scripture.
To rjs1
But the problem is that even you do not take those verses at face value, though you seem to think you are. Did God really “circumcise the heart” of the seed (i.e. child) when it was still a seed ? The circumcision of the heart in the New Testament is clearly identified as a decision to submit to the Lordship of Christ. Thus, on your interpretation of Deuteronomy, you have to be declaring that an infant is saved. If makes more sense to see this as saying that the salvation of the elect seed is guaranteed. Furthermore, the aspect of “child” is not in view here. Rather, it is the aspect of posterity. And, what is perhaps most damaging to your argument, is that these verses clearly talk about the actual “salvation” of the seed. It says, “my would will not depart out of their mouths”. But, I’ve never met a Reformed person who declares that all babies who have been baptized in Reformed churches are saved and will spend eternity in heaven. It is a fact that many who have been so baptized are not Christian. Rank heretics and apostates have been baptized in reformed churches. Therefore, whatever your passages refer to, they most certainly do not refer to infant baptism–but rather to the salvation of the generalized Christian posterity.
May 1, 2008 at 6:12 am
R. Scott Clark
Josh,
1. You’re still assuming that the “New Covenant” refers to Abraham. This is a HUGE assumption.
2. This post was never meant to be degenerate into an argument between baptists and paedobaptists. That could go on forever and we’re repeating ourselves. As I said before, the main lines of this argument were sketched out in the 1520s between the Reformed and the Anabaptists. The latter says, “that was then, this is now” and the Reformed say, “We’re in the Abrahamic covenant.”
As long as the Baptists don’t accept our claim that we’re in the Abrahamic covenant, they’ll never accept the Abrahamic pattern of initiating children.
Let’s call a halt to the baptism argument.
Finally, it seems to me that this discussion confirms my basic claim, i.e. that there are fundamental differences between the Baptists and the Reformed. There is a significantly different hermeneutic at work. There is a different ecclesiology. There are two very different views of the sacraments. One sees the sacrament of baptism as a divine promise to be administers to believers and to their children and the other sees it as a human declaration of what has happened or our word to God.
These differences are sufficient to warrant reserving the name Reformed to those actually believe what the Reformed believed and confessed as churches.
May 1, 2008 at 7:11 am
Matthew
One final quick response.
Josh, you wrote
“Double check your reference in Matthew 28. We are to “make disciples of all nations”, then we are to baptize them. While I agree that scripture does not provide an age qualification regarding who can be baptized, it certainly provides a faith qualification. We can argue about whether or not an 8 year old or a 12 year old is capable of making a faith commitment to Christ…but it seems clear a 6 month ago cannot make such a commitment.”
The qualification in that passage for baptism is still “all nations” as far as a people group, Josh. As far as discipleship, that is not given any qualification either. That is also modified by “all nations” which would include children as well. Especially important when the biblical concept of a covenant family is taken into account.
Again, Baptists rely on a biblical example of adults being baptized in order to make the assumption that the example is the command. The only direct command in Scripture is not given an age or faith qualification.
May 1, 2008 at 8:24 am
Zrim
Re Scott’s last comment, exactly. This really isn’t a discussion specifically on baptism so much as one generally on systems, thus the term “Reformed.”
I was just having this dicussion last night with a Revivalist family member, trying to make clear that we are simply in two different traditions and that is why we speak differently, etc. I’d be happy to concede that Broad-Evangelical-Revivalist-Baptists are “Reformed” if by that they mean they stand in the tradition of the Radical Reformation instead of the Reformation-proper. But usually they seem to think they stand with the latter tradition. These discussions go so much easier with Amish or Mennonite folk, who seem to grasp tradition so much better, or good Roman Catholics. Modernity really did a number on some.
May 1, 2008 at 9:16 am
Zrim
…you know, an irony in all this seems to be how we Reformed could easily be comported under a term like “Baptist,” since we are baptizers (infant and adult alike). But despite how easy that might be, you don’t hear many Reformed banging on the Baptist door. The banging seems to come from those for whom it is so difficult to get in.
…now I have Paul McCartney and Wings in my head.
May 1, 2008 at 12:27 pm
Jeff Smith
Dear R. Scott Clark,
As a Reformed Baptist one of the things that grieves us at times are false statements about what we believe. I’m sure you’ve experiences the same thing. I want to help the discussion by pointing out one in your article. You say:
“Our Baptist friends reject that reading of redemptive history. They insist that the adjective “old covenant” refers to everything that occurred before the incarnation (despite Paul’s definition of “old covenant” in 2 Cor 3 and despite the way it is used in Hebrews) and therefore the new covenant is so utterly different from Abraham that, despite God’s command to initiate covenant children into the visible church/kingdom, we can no longer initiate covenant children thus.”
This is false. Confessonal RB’s(1689 London Baptist Confession) do not insist that the adjective “old covenant” refers to everything that occurred before the incarnation. My experience has been that normally the term Old Covenant is understood as referring to the Mosaic Covenant. We do believe that membership in the covenant community under the New Covenant is not a matter of physical birth and descent as under Moses, but is now a matter of spiritual birth. The New Covenant is built “on better promises”. We believe that all God’s historical redemptive covenants are organically and thematically connected and are not separate entirely distinct enactments of God(in other words we are not dispensationalists, nor do we hold to what is called New Covenant Theology) However we believe that the ultimate fulfillment of God’s promise to Abraham did not terminate merely on a physical seed in an physical land but in Christ and those joined to Him by faith who would eventually inherit the whole earth. Galatians 3:26, “For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus”; Gal. 3:29, “And if you are Christ’s then you are Abraham’s seed and heirs according to the promise”. Our difference with you is largely over what is new in the new covenant. I think we agree that neither the moral law or the gospel are new. I also think we agree that there is a New Univerality in the New Covenant(the incorporation of the Gentiles). We RB’s also believe in a New and Better Covenant Community under the New Covenant. This is connected to a greater spirituality of the covenant community, since all it’s legitimate members know the Lord, have their sins forgiven, and are given a new heart. The Old Covenant required repentance and faith but did not promise to give them. The New Covenant promises to give to all those who in God’s eternal purpose are included in it, the required response. Their sins and iniquities he remembers no more, he writes his law on their hearts, he puts his fear within them so that they do not depart from Him.
Concernkng the regulative principle… it is our commitment to that princple that provides another reason we do not baptize infants. We do not find one command anywhere in the N.T. or in scripture anywhere to do so. Thus we consider ourselves to be more true to the regulative principle than our paedobaptist brothers.
However we will still let you refer to yourselves as Reformed
Just kidding brother 
Together with You in Christ,
Jeff Smith, Pastor
Covenant Reformed Baptist Church
Easley, SC
May 1, 2008 at 4:07 pm
R. Scott Clark
Hi Jeff,
Thanks for your post. I do see that the IRBS folk (I don’t know if you are one) do speak as we do re Moses. I was referring to more typical discussions with predestinarian Baptists who have simply appended predestination to their existing theology and reading of redemptive history.
Aren’t you still doing “that was then…this is now”? with Abraham? I agree that there is a difference of degree, but does that difference of degree between promise and fulfillment warrant abandoning the positive command (which is a biblical command!) to initiate infants? Why? How?
Of course, on your argument, as you know, females could not come to the table, could they?
We understand the “better” aspect of the New Covenant relative to Moses. You seem to be wanting to have it both ways; OC = Moses but NC is “better” relative to Abraham. The “better” aspect is relative to Moses in the context in which it occurs.
The difference between Abraham and us is the difference between typology and fulfillment and not between Old and New.
As to the RPW, we do a number of things based on the general equity of the typological revelation as we have precious little data as to NT worship. I’m a very firm adherent to the RPW but I don’t t think that dog will hunt.
May 2, 2008 at 6:34 am
Mason
“You continue to assume that everything that happened before Christ belongs to the “old covenant.” This isn’t what Paul says in 2 Cor 3 or what Heb 7-10 says.”
Dr Clark,
Would you mind expounding on this, or pointing me to an article which defends your assertion (specifically the 2 Cor 3 instance)? Thank you for your time.
Mason
May 2, 2008 at 7:01 am
R. Scott Clark
Mason,
See this paper on baptism.
The point is that, in 2 Cor 3:15, Paul contrasts the New Covenant with the “Old Covenant” (v.14) he identifies the Old Covenant with Moses. He does not contrast the New Covenant with with Abraham. He doesn’t identify the Old Covenant with Abraham. Too many (most) Baptists simply assume that everything that happened before the incarnation may be assigned to the Old Covenant. This is a false assumption and it is a bedrock assumption of the Baptist view that “that was then, this is now.” That might be true of Moses and the Old Covenant, in certain respects, and true relative to types and their fulfillment, but it’s not true that the pattern established in Gen 17 can be dismissed as irrelevant to New Covenant practice.
This is why paedobaptists insist that the promise is still “I will be a God to you AND to your children.” Nothing about the incarnation changes that promise. Baptists must make it go away by associating it with the Old Covenant.
This is similar to the move made by antinomians when they wholly identify the decalogue with Moses and ignore its creational roots. If they can succeed in identifying the decalogue with Moses and, if Moses has been utterly fulfilled, then they can do away with the decalogue. If, however, the decalogue is rooted in creation and only the typological elements are fulfilled (e.g. the land promise) then the substance of the decalogue, because it is moral and creational, persists into the New Covenant.
See also how the writer to the Hebrews contrasts the new and better covenant with Moses in Heb 7-10. In 7:19 “the law made nothing perfect.” It’s even clearer in 8:6ff that the contrast is between Moses the New Covenant. So too in 9:4 and in the subsequent uses.
The NT interpretation of the phrase “Old Covenant” refers it to Moses. This is how the NT interprets the promise of the New Covenant in Jeremiah.
The Baptist attempt to make the New Covenant so utterly spiritual and eschatological as to do away with the Abrahamic promise, “I will be a God to you and to your children” fails at a basic level.
The continuity of substance and even with the pattern of initiating believers and their children into the visible covenant of grace (the visible church) explains why Peter says in Acts 2:39, “for the promise is to you (believers) and to your children….” This is a re-instatement of the Abrahamic promise.
For paedobaptists the only way to read this language is as re-statement of the promise and the command to initiate children into the covenant community. With this language there is no need of an explicit command, “Baptize children.” This is it.
We are Abraham’s children and it won’t do to try to dirty up Abraham by associating him with Moses and the Old Covenant and it’s fulfillment and abolition by Christ.
May 2, 2008 at 7:18 am
sacramentalpiety
Amen!
May 2, 2008 at 7:23 am
gunny93
After more than 60 comments I’m sure I have little to add, but as a Reformed Baptist I can’t help but find this amusing on some level.
Of course, even Reformed Baptists debate within themselves which are “truly” Reformed Baptists (e.g., Sabbath issues).
As I read through the original post and even the update, I found myself thinking that with so many caveats the definition really loses its significance.
To say one must agree with the creeds and then say well, you can change the creeds as long as you don’t change what we who change them consider the essence, then you’re okay … well, it just becomes a shell game, doesn’t it?
Wouldn’t Reformed Baptists say they’ve modified the creeds, but not in such a way as to change the essence of being Reformed?
I remember the first conversation I had with a guy insisting on strict adherence to the WCF in its fullness. I was like, “Well, I don’t think the Pope is THE anti-Christ.” And he was like, “Oh, yeah, nobody does. That part’s not important.’
I disagree that the definition doesn̵