Can Baptists Be Reformed? Part 3
This post concludes a three part series discussing the question “Can Baptists be Reformed?” The first post noted that many Calvinistic Baptists are comfortable with the Reformed label, while the second post mentioned other Calvinistic Baptists who are less sanguine about the word Reformed. In this final post, I offer my own thoughts on this question. There are several matters to consider.
First, no matter how we answer the question it is a fact that hundreds of Baptist churches claim to be Reformed. So at the level of self-identification at least, there absolutely are Reformed Baptists—indeed, entire associations and networks of them. This has been the case since at least the 1960s. Furthermore, many self-designated Reformed Baptists (like those in ARBCA) would argue that one must affirm some central doctrines in order to properly be called a Reformed Baptist. These include a Calvinistic view of salvation, a combination of baptistic ecclesiology coupled with covenant theology, the regulative principle of worship, and in most cases a Puritan view of the Lord’s Day. This would of course indicate they believe you can be a Calvinistic Baptist and not be Reformed, which is a different question than whether a Calvinistic Baptist can be Reformed.
Second, it is important to understand that most Calvinistic Baptists who use the Reformed label probably mean something less than self-designated, “capital-R” Reformed Baptists. Most of the Baptists I know who call themselves Reformed simply mean that they hold to the “five points.” In other words, they are speaking exclusively of a Reformed soteriology (view of salvation) and not other historically Reformed doctrines and emphases. So if one narrows the definition of Reformed to the “five points,” then not only can Baptists be Reformed, but there are lots of them that are and their numbers are clearly growing, including in the Southern Baptist Convention.
For what it’s worth, I personally think the above approach encompasses too broad a definition of Reformed, though I understand why others disagree. Nevertheless, for historical reasons, I think the term Reformed includes more than approbation of the “five points,” so I agree with both self-designated Reformed Baptists and Reformed pedobaptists that agreeing with Dort is not enough. Many (probably most) Calvinistic Baptists are not Reformed, no matter what terminology they use. But this still leaves us with our original question: Can Baptists be Reformed? I think the answer is both yes and no, depending upon what you mean by Reformed. (How’s that for equivocation?)
Yes, a Baptist church can be Reformed. As stated above, there have been self-designated Reformed Baptists for at least fifty years. They have official associations and networks and host periodic meetings and conferences. They embrace specific distinctives and practices that are articulated in a particular document, the Second London Confession. Furthermore, there are lots of other churches that do not affiliate with the Reformed Baptists in the formal sense, but who hold to the same distinctives and enjoy fraternal relations with Reformed Baptists. Many of the latter are Southern Baptist churches, though there are also SBC churches (and individuals) that more formally cooperate with Reformed Baptists.
Furthermore, there are also Baptist churches that do not self-designate themselves as Reformed Baptists, but they hold to the same faith and practice as those churches that do identify themselves as Reformed. We might call these churches (and individuals) “informal” Reformed Baptists, to distinguish them from self-designated Reformed Baptists. There are many Southern Baptists that would be in this camp. In fact, I would be comfortable calling myself an informal Reformed Baptist because I am in substantial theological agreement with “capital-R” Reformed Baptists. (The sole exception is that I reject the Puritan view of the Lord’s Day, a position that differs from the Second London Confession and thus differs from most self-confessed Reformed Baptists.)
No, a Baptist church cannot be Reformed. What I mean is that a Baptist church cannot be Reformed in exactly the same way that a Presbyterian or Dutch Reformed church can be Reformed. Reformed Baptists admittedly do not hold to the same ecclesiological convictions as the mainstream Reformed tradition, as has been ably argued by Reformed pedobaptist scholars. It is fair to say, from a historical standpoint, that Reformed Baptists are not Reformed in the fully historic sense of the term because they embrace a Free Church ecclesiology and credobaptism. If there were to be a contest to demonstrate which side can “out-Reform” the other (in terms of embracing historic Reformed distinctives), and if history were the judge, the pedobaptists would win, no question.
But I think Reformed Baptists recognize the above tension. Reformed Baptists agree that each word of their name qualifies the other. They are Baptist, but not like many other Baptists. They are Reformed, but not in exactly the same ways as other Reformed Christians. We might think of it this way: Reformed Baptists are Reformed, but with a Baptist twist. And every Reformed Baptist (and Reformed credobaptist!) knows that the twist is what makes this whole discussion so interesting.
Many Reformed pedobaptists may have qualms with the idea of a Reformed Baptist. And many Baptists who in principle reject certain Reformed distinctives may ditto those qualms (including many Calvinistic Baptists). But neither of these positions changes the fact that, if defined theologically, there are many Baptists who embrace Reformed distinctives less pedobaptism and a hierarchical or connectional ecclesiology. They have an established confessional tradition and a history that dates to three centuries before the name Reformed Baptist came into vogue a couple of generations ago. They launched the modern mission movement in the English-speaking world and established themselves as the dominant Baptist movement in North America. They influenced the confessional tradition among virtually all non-Arminian Baptists and advocated theological education for those who were shut out from the system by tradition or opportunity. And after a few generations in the wilderness, they are experiencing a comeback, both in their formal and informal manifestations–which, by the way, is why this discussion keeps coming up!
11 Responses to “Can Baptists Be Reformed? Part 3”
Leave a Reply
Nathan A. Finn serves as Associate Professor of Historical Theology and Baptist Studies at Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary in Wake Forest, North Carolina. He's a husband, father, elder, baseball enthusiast, and Broadway musical fan. He's still trying to figure out why we drive on parkways and park on driveways.
Probably a good way to put it would be to say that ‘Reformed Baptist’ is not a contradiction of terms, but a qualification of terms, a subjecting of the traditionally Reformed version of covenant theology to a more careful biblical scrutiny.
There’s a difference between rejecting the baptismal inferences which Reformed paedobaptists make from their characteristic premises, and rejecting those premises themselves. Because RBs don’t do the latter, they’re usually happy to be classed in the Reformed camp. They don’t want to throw the baby out with the bathwater, though they don’t want to dunk the baby either
Indeed, we can have no dunking of babies in the bathwater. Though our Greek Orthodox friends do it . . .
This discussion is in some ways important and in other ways unimportant. Important, because one needs to be aware of the implications of the term “Reformed”, but somewhat unimportant if one tries to “fight” over what is in the end just a descriptive term to help us understand how each group uses the “term”.
One thing that has interested me for years is the history of “Reformed Baptist” among the different Baptist groups that Nathan has highlighted. There is no real history of these developments.
I have a copy of a magazine from Autumn of 1970, Reformation Today, which is edited by Errol Hulse and mentions others like Wayne Mack, Arnold Dallimore, Albert Martin, David Kingdon, and others now well known , but obscure then. One article, “A Credal Church”, lays out the argument for just that. A history of the movement would be quite enlightening. Al Martin, for one, was best friends with John Murray, heavily influenced by Ernie Reisinger, was offered the position of pastor to replace Donald Barnhouse ( ultimately filled by James Boice), and had an obscure difference with Walter Chantry ( a Baptist, now associated with The Banner Of Truth). I hope that someone does a history of this movement in the near future.
David,
I agree about it being both an important and umimportant debate at the same time. I think that’s true of many such debates among different types of believers.
A history of Reformed Baptists and/or Calvinistic Baptists would be difficult. Sources are spread thin and sometimes non-existent. Some of the groups have split, morphed, evolved, etc. Some don’t play nicely with each other. There are anecdotes galore and, in a couple of cases, unflattering stories that are trying to get buried.
But there have been some worthwhile initial attempts at a history. My friend David Scott wrote a short historical article for the now-defunct Baptist Reformation Review back in 1974. Mark McCulley’s Studies in History and Ethics (1983) includes some relevant chapters. Leon McBeth included several pages of information in his The Baptist Heritage (1987), and Tom Nettles includes some helpful material in the updated version of By His Grace and For His Glory (2006). Other articles are spread around in periodicals like Reformation Today and Banner of Truth. There is also an article on “The Reformed Baptists” available online through the Bob Jones University library.
As a member of a Southern Baptist church that also holds to the Second London Confession, I have greatly appreciated these articles and the clarity they bring.
Thanks, Andrew.
Nathan:
Thanks for this series of articles. It is refreshing to read a careful, studied viewpoint on this issue. Historically the case is undeniable. Respected luminaries as divergent as the staunch Southern Baptist, James P Boyce, who called the Westminster Confession “our confession,” and the convinced paedopbaptist, BB Warfield, whose brief essay on the essence of the reformed faith is excellent, would agree with your assessment.
Thanks, Tom. I think there are many Reformed pedobaptists today who would agree that Baptists can be Reformed–just not as much as they wish we were!
Nathan, great post.
One of the arguments that Horton, et al, make is that the system as a whole hangs together, including pedobaptism. Obviously, we disagree with that view; however, I’d be curious to hear your thoughts on that in more detail (I think Greg’s comment about inferences is definitely along the lines of my own thoughts).
Historically, how many Baptists have fit in a covenant scheme rather than another view? Obviously the first few centuries would have seen more of that, following the Confessions and prior to the advent of the dispensational outlook, but I’m not very familiar with the development and interaction of the Anabaptist and confessional Baptist movements over the following centuries…
Chris,
I agree with Greg’s assessment. I understand what Horton is arguing, and if I were in his shoes, I’d argue similarly. He clearly has history on his side, especially from the 1530s to the 1630s. But I would argue that Reformed Baptists see themselves as improving upon the system by eliminating an inconsistency.
It’s hard to answer the question of how many Baptists considered themselves covenantal. There are obviously some confessions and theological writings, but it is difficult to discern what the average Calvinistic Baptist felt about these matters, especially in the generation after those that drafted or owned a covenantally inclined confession. Some Baptists also held to nascent versions of both dispensationalism and New Covenant Theology, and just as with pedobaptists, some held to covenant theology but tweaked it here and there.
James Renihan at the Institute of Reformed Baptist Studies at Westminster California may be the best person to ask this question. Michael Haykin at Southern is another good resource. While I am very interested in English Baptists and covenant theology among Baptists, my greater interest is in recent Baptist history in North America.
As much as I love the writngs of Puritans, Presbyterians, and Reformed scholars and ministers on the subject of the doctrines of grace, I find it hard to forget how those folks used their power when they were in control of governments in the various nations where they wer dominant. The Baptists often paid a price, being whipped in Massachusetts and having some urinate in their faces in Virginia. Not exactly an encuragement to want all of the Reformed views. Also, a local church is really a family of believers, and in families the parents are the leaders but they are training the children to accept responsibility and serve accordingly to advance the cause of Christ. The children are equals, and the pastors/elders/parents in the family of God are to lead by example and not as Lords over the Lord’s heritage, something I have seen in some of the Sovereign Grace and Reformed churches. Our ecclesiology of congregationalism is not too well loved among some Reformed. Mainly, I think, due to the difficulty of securing unity. Unity imposed is more easily accomplished, and some preachers have problems with those who want to think for themselves. Having studied Inquisition History rather closely, I prefer to err on the side of freedom in this case.