Who Is Reformed?

WHO IS REFORMED?
Published on 12/18/2018

Reformed, or not Reformed, that is the question.
—William Shakespeare

It’s come around again. The infamous question that never completely goes away, despite being answered over and over again: “what does Reformed mean?”

Some of you may be thinking, “why should we care?” And some of the group are doing the non-conformist-teenager-thing, “I’m not into labels.”

Does it really matter what this term means? Does it really matter how we use it? Yes, it does matter.

A MATTER OF TRUTH

Fundamentally, it is a matter of truth.

We don’t want to bear false-witness, either about ourselves or other people. We are required by God to be accurate and honest in what we think and say. There’s a whole commandment for that. Truth is the issue. When someone claims to be “Reformed,” but is not, they are not telling the truth, and could even be engaging in willful deception.

Related to that, people will be affected by use of this term.

So many churches and seminaries promote themselves as “Reformed.” So when well-meaning people attend, they are told that they are being taught the Reformed faith. But are they? How will anyone know, unless we get the definition straight? When a church advertises itself as “Reformed,” people should be able to set expectations based on that. But instead, people have thought they are “Reformed” their entire lives, when they shouldn’t have! Disillusionment is in order.

Very practically, this term can be used so loosely that we hardly understand each other when it’s used. Conversation has become ambiguous. I’m surprised by how the term “Reformed” is used where I live, and what is being referred to. It’s vague at best, and inaccurate at worst.

In God’s universe, language carries truth; words mean something. We need to define our terms. We need to speak truthfully. It’s important to know what “Reformed” means, so we can speak truthfully about who is actually Reformed, and who is not.

WHAT DOES IT MEAN TO BE REFORMED?

This time around, the question was taken up in an excellent article in Tabletalk magazine: “What Does It Mean to Be Reformed?” [https://tabletalkmagazine.com/article/2018/11/what-does-it-mean-to-be-reformed/] In reality, this question is raised by our current historical situation. The word “Reformed” is being thrown around a lot, these days. And in seemingly conflicting ways. Not everybody agrees on its use.

"Those within traditionally Reformed denominations such as the Presbyterian Church in America, the Orthodox Presbyterian Church, and the United Reformed Churches in North America are sometimes left wondering how to respond to all of these developments. For many in these churches, to be Reformed is to subscribe to specific Reformed confessions of faith and to adhere to a certain kind of piety and worship. Some in these churches argue that the word Reformed loses all meaning if it is not identified with these Reformed confessions."
—Keith Mathison, “What Does It Mean to Be Reformed?”
Full disclosure: I’m one of those people.

The reason why I appreciated this article so much was that it recognizes a range of meaning. All words have a semantic range. A term like “Reformed” has an etymology (origin, history) like any other. For an historical example:

". . . the word Reformed was used in a narrower sense to refer to those Protestant churches that differed with the Lutheran churches, particularly over the doctrine and practice of the Lord’s Supper."

Being an ecclesial or religious word means it is tied that history. It has been used to refer to a particular church, a system of doctrine, a tradition, etc.

The result? Answering the question is not as simple as may seem. There are multiple senses or uses for the term “Reformed.” I love how Keith Mathison puts it:

"Given this history, what does it mean to be Reformed? I think a measure of charity and patience is required, because the question does not have a clear-cut answer. The word has a more inclusive definition as well as a less inclusive definition, and both definitions have a long history of use."

BROAD VS. NARROW

Mathison then explains what these two definitions are:

"When I speak of a more inclusive definition of the word Reformed, I mean a definition that includes a larger number of believers who profess to be Reformed—confessional Presbyterians as well as Reformed Baptists, for example. When I speak of a less inclusive definition of the word Reformed, I mean a definition that includes a smaller number of believers—those who understand the word Reformed to be restricted essentially to specific confessions of faith (the Three Forms of Unity or the Westminster Standards) and to specific forms of piety and worship."

When I use the word Reformed, I’m using it with the less inclusive definition. To be Reformed is to subscribe to a specific set of Reformed confessions and to practice a historic form of worship. Remove the confessions (or don’t follow them) and you are not Reformed. Don’t engage in historic Reformed worship? Then you are not Reformed, regardless of what confessions you may formally subscribe to. It’s a package deal. Take it or leave it.

I always take the narrower sense of the term “Reformed.” And I never include credobaptist independents in that definition. Simultaneously, I rejoice that so-called “reformed Baptists” have so much in common with us. More in common with us than we have with most professing Reformed and Presbyterians, I’m afraid. Perhaps that says more about the pretenders, than the Baptists.

CONSEQUENCES OF THE BROAD DEFINITION

Last time around, this question of “Reformed” was raised concerning a particular person: Is John Piper Really Reformed? [https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/kevin-deyoung/is-john-piper-really-reformed/] Kevin DeYoung (then in the RCA) wrote the article, and answered in the affirmative. It’s a good (or bad) example of the more inclusive definition of Reformed.

To which R. Scott Clark responded: “Is John Piper Reformed? Or, Holding the Coalition Together.” [https://heidelblog.net/2013/11/is-john-piper-reformed-or-holding-the-coalition-together/] He makes his points better than anyone, I think.

After that, there was a quick two-cents added that would probably make most of the young “Edwards-is-my-homeboy” crowd uncomfortable:

"I whole-heartedly agree with them [Richard Muller (How Many Points?), Darryl Hart (What Does “Reformed” Modify?), and Scott Clark (Is John Piper Reformed?)]. The Reformed confessions tell us what it means to be “Reformed” and if you do not (or cannot) sign one of them, you are not “Reformed.” Simple as that. That leaves out John Piper and John MacArthur."
—Kim Riddlebarger [http://kimriddlebarger.squarespace.com/the-latest-post/2013/11/7/who-is-reformed-n-t-wright-again-and-how-to-fix-your-church.html]

What? No John MacArthur???

Yes. Reformed has to mean something, and it’s a package deal. See, even by Mathison’s more inclusive definition, I think Piper and MacArthur are out. They don’t fit the historical broadening of the term to cover “Particular” Baptists (more on them later).

When it comes to these Calvinistic-smorgasbord types, you need to realize that the incoherence renders the label of “Reformed” questionable. MacArthur, for example, is a dispensationalist. That’s a completely different hermeneutic than the historic Reformed and Presbyterian tradition. Toss out the hermeneutic, and the rest should go with it. He’s thrown out the hermeneutic from which came those Reformed doctrines he loves so much. That’s like chopping down the apple tree and still expecting apples to grow.

Sure, there may be two definitions of “Reformed” throughout history, the broader and the narrower. But with the more inclusive definition, we need to ask where the line will eventually be drawn? If we allow the term “Reformed” to apply beyond the Reformed confessions, then where will it stop? Wouldn’t any line drawn be arbitrary? You could always ask, “Why stop there? Expand the definition a little more. Just a little more inclusive.” The think most would finally stop and draw the line at Reformed soteriology. But again, why stop there? And besides, predestinarian soteriology was not exclusive to Reformed theology.

The point is, we need to consider the consequences of the more inclusive definition of “Reformed.”

Is the “Reformed” umbrella so broad that it covers charismatics, pentecostals, and continuationists, revivalists, evangelicals, credobaptists, dispensationalists, anti-denominationalists, congregationalists, independents, Episcopalians, paedocommunionists, and Liberal Protestants? People within these broad categories have professed to be “Reformed.”

But let’s get down to particulars: is the “Reformed” umbrella broad enough to cover those churches that reject the Regulative Principle of Worship, adopt the contemporary form of worship, or use pictures of Jesus, that don’t consider the whole of the Christian Sabbath as set apart, observe ecclesiastical holidays, deny liberty of conscience, promote female pastors and elders, that don’t preach the pure Word of God, don’t practice church discipline, have ruling elders, don’t fence the Lord’s Table, don’t catechize, that reduce the pastoral office to that of a social worker . . . I could go on. These are real-life cases. They self-identify as “Reformed.”

It’s a slippery slope. That’s why I don’t embrace the more inclusive definition.

A CONFESSIONAL DEFINITION

Keith Mathison speaks accurately of the less inclusive definers of Reformed:

"The less inclusive definition of the word Reformed focuses on the whole range of doctrine and practice contained in the Three Forms of Unity or the Westminster Standards. Those who use the word in this sense understand the word Reformed to include far more than the doctrines considered under the heading of soteriology. It includes particular doctrines of the church and sacraments as well. It includes infant baptism, for example. Those who understand and use the word Reformed in this sense believe it makes as much sense to speak of a Reformed Baptist as it would to speak of a Lutheran Baptist."

In short: “Reformed” means confessionally Reformed. You are not Reformed if you don’t hold to Reformed confessions (the whole system of theology, ethics, and practice). It’s a complete system. You can’t pull out soteriology and pair that with foreign theological elements. It’s not going to work. Theology is interdependent. It’s not a cafeteria where you can pick and choose and make any combination.

"The point is that Reformed theology is a whole. It’s not a pizza that can be sold by the slice. It’s part of a package. The same is true of Baptist theology."
—R. Scott Clark, “Is John Piper Reformed? Or Holding The Coalition Together (Updated)“

This is why the less inclusive definition of “Reformed” is preferable. Consistency. The system of doctrine and practice in the 3 Forms of Unity or the Westminster Standards is a complete package, a coherent whole. Broaden the definition of “Reformed,” and you begin to lose coherence. You introduce anomalies into the system. Such as, only applying baptism to professing believers (and typically setting an arbitrary minimum age) and making one particular mode of baptism essential to the ordinance. This in turn has the ripple effect of altering the doctrine of the covenant, and the covenant people of God, the church.

See? Move that line, from less inclusive to more inclusive, and pretty soon it’s a different system of theology and practice altogether. Suddenly, “Reformed” doesn’t mean Reformed. Which is where we find ourselves, today. That’s why I strongly suggest we insist on “Reformed” carrying the less inclusive definition.

So, who is Reformed? Those who sincerely believe the Reformed confessions to be the system of doctrine in the Bible. I wrote sincerely, because there are some who have those confessions, but don’t believe, teach, or practice what’s contained in them.

And that goes for the denomination(s) that formally subscribes to the confessions, but doesn’t require candidates to even read them before they take ordination vows, including one to the effect of:

"Do you sincerely receive and adopt the Confession of Faith and the Catechisms of this Church, as containing the system of doctrine taught in the Holy Scriptures; and do you further promise that if at any time you find yourself out of accord with any of the fundamentals of this system of doctrine, you will on your own initiative, make known to your Presbytery the change which has taken place in your views since the assumption of this ordination vow?"
—Book of Church Order of the Presbyterian Church in America, 6th Edition (2018 Reprint)

I actually appreciate those Arminian, dispensationalist, anti-denomination type churches for their honesty and consistency in shunning the term “Reformed” and everything with it. They don’t pretend to be something they’re not. They don’t try to tell you what you want to hear. That’s better than those who claim to be “Reformed,” yet constantly violate their confessional standards with their teaching and practice. Just throw them away, or revise them into oblivion, if you don’t want to teach and practice them. It’s what the Liberal mainline denominations did.

I learned the hard way not to uncritically affirm any and all people who self-identify as “Reformed.”

The catch is, you can’t affirm or deny who is Reformed without an objective confessional standard to measure them by.

WHAT ABOUT “REFORMED” BAPTISTS?

Big “R,” little “r.” What begins with “R”?
—Dr. Seuss

We finally come to that squirrelly bunch that throws a wrench in the attempt to settle on who is Reformed. As Keith Mathison mentioned in his Tabletalk article:

"The meaning of the word Reformed has also been at the center of ongoing debates in the Southern Baptist Convention, America’s largest Protestant denomination. Many Southern Baptists reject Reformed theology, believing it to be inimical to evangelism and missions. Others now identify as Reformed Baptists. The growth of the Reformed Baptist movement has been incredible, and it has been fueled by pastors graduating from Southern Baptist seminaries and by the teaching of leaders within the convention."

“Reformed” Baptists? Wait a minute. Baptistic theology forms a whole. Reformed theology forms a whole. Just like Lutheran theology forms a whole. How can “Reformed Baptist” even be possible? That’s like saying “Reformed Lutheran” or “Lutheran Baptist.” It just doesn’t comport.

Still, many insist on self-identifying as Reformed. Though not all who do are embracing the same amount of Reformed theology and practice. There are different degrees. So even within this so-called “Reformed Baptist” movement, there’s variation. How typical. Isn’t that what this whole discussion is about?

Keith Mathison suggested:

". . . those who are Reformed Baptists could use the present debate as an opportunity to try to understand why those who define the word Reformed in terms of the Three Forms of Unity or the Westminster Standards do so. They could observe that these believers see an interconnectedness between and unity among all of these doctrines and practices that do not allow soteriology to be separated from the remaining doctrines without inevitable distortion."

And here is why I love [at the time of writing] Theocast: “the boys” are honest and self-aware. Watch the short clip: https://youtu.be/g30BijLcG0A

During this episode, they actually called up R. Scott Clark to ask him what “Reformed” means. Of course, Scott Clark limited the definition to those who subscribe to the Reformed and Presbyterian confessions, namely the 3 Forms of Unity and the Westminster Standards (less inclusive). That’s “the definition that was offered,” mentioned in the video above. Given that definition, there is inconsistency between being a credobaptist and the whole of confessional Reformed doctrine and practice. But you see, these guys own it, as they should. That’s why they call themselves “little ‘r’, reformed” Baptists. They look at that less inclusive definition of Reformed, and own their position relative to it. It’s nothing to be embarrassed about, if you believe your doctrine and practice is biblical.

That’s the problem with most professing (but inconsistent) “reformed” people, today. Instead of just owning their inconsistency, they want to stretch out the Reformed definition.

Now, who are these reformed Baptists? Again, plenty of Baptists self-identify as Reformed. But they are not all on the same level. The only ones I would grace with the little “r” (always with qualifiers) are those who subscribe to the 2nd London Baptist Confession of Faith of 1689 (abbreviated as LBC 1689, SLC, or simply the 1689). Individuals that I know of are Charles Spurgeon (who republished it), the Theocast guys, James R. White, Sam Waldron, Voddie Baucham, Jr; denominationally, there’s the Association of Reformed Baptist Churches of America (ARBCA).

Why would I call all 1689ers little “r” reformed Baptists? Well, the LBC 1689 is that confession of faith that all those memes are made about, like with one student copying the other’s paper. There’s a very good reason for that. The 2nd London is a modification of the Westminster Confession of Faith. Of course, the doctrine of the sacraments, especially baptism, has been altered, as well as the form of church government.

"Their choice to modify the already existing Westminster Confession rather than to create an entirely new confession indicates that they understood their doctrine to have more similarities to than differences from that of the English and Scottish Presbyterians."
—Keith Mathison, “What Does It Mean to Be Reformed?”

This means reformed Baptists, in theory, could affirm much of the Westminster Larger and Shorter Catechisms, and Three Forms of Unity; excepting the parts on baptism and church government. We can only suppose this agreement because the LBC 1689 is a reference point, but they would have to subscribe to additional standards (probably modifying another Reformed standard) for us to know for sure.

How encouraging! What allies we have! Reformed soteriology is in tact. The Regulative Principle of Worship is still there. The Sabbatarian view of the Lord’s Day is retained. The 1689 LBC even calls the Pope of Rome “that antichrist.” How old school. Think, Puritans who are credobaptist and want autonomous congregations with a plurality of elders, and you’ve nailed little “r” Baptists. There’s a lot of agreement with real, confessionally Reformed people. At least we know the points of agreement, since they actually subscribe to a confession of faith. Most professing “Reformed” people don’t do creeds, and the ones that do haven’t even read them.

Mathison wrote something that makes me grit my teeth:

". . . there doesn’t seem to be any compelling reason to insist that Reformed Baptists cease and desist in their use of the word since both narrower and broader definitions have existed for centuries."

I concede the point that both definitions have existed for a while. But which definition is more fitting? A use of the word that refers to the whole system of doctrine and practice? Or the use that refers to only a part of the Reformed system, separated from the rest? Again, remember the slippery slope: if the line is moved beyond the Reformed confessions, then where does it end? Remove that objective Reformed standard, and who’s to say who is in or out, anymore?

We also need to recognize that this argument cuts both ways.

". . . if Piper or several of the other YRR leaders had applied to be admitted to the Synod of Dort, the French Reformed Synods, or the Westminster Assembly they would have been refused categorically. Why? Because the Reformed are bigots? No, not at all. Are Baptists bigots refusing to allow us to call ourselves Baptists? After all, we believe in baptizing hitherto unbaptized adults who come to faith. “No!” they say, “there’s much more to being a Baptist than that!.” Amen. Bingo. Ding, ding, ding!"
—R. Scott Clark, “Is John Piper Reformed? Or Holding The Coalition Together (Updated)“

See? Consistency, consistency. It’s a package deal. So no, I never call any kind of Baptist “Reformed.” I may call them “little ‘r’ Baptists” out of niceness, but always with explanation (there’s Reformed, then there’s reformed Baptists). But only for those who confess the 2nd London Confession. Generally, I prefer to call 2nd London Baptist Confession people “Calvinistic Baptists.” I still use the historical label of Particular Baptists (the composers of the 1689 LBC), but only when I’m alone, because hardly anybody would get the reference.

"The connections between the Particular Baptists . . . however, and Reformed theology are cloudy at best but we know how members of the Westminster Assembly regarded them. They weren’t invited to Westminster and they weren’t recognized as folk who differed on “5%” of Reformed theology."
—R. Scott Clark, “Is John Piper Reformed? Or Holding The Coalition Together (Updated)“

Perhaps a more easily understood label would be “confessional Baptist,” since they subscribe to the historic Baptist confession of faith. I’m down with that. It sounds much more distinguished, in fact. Honestly, being a “Baptist” is a toss-up these days (like being “Reformed” or “Presbyterian”). It doesn’t really communicate much. But identifying as a confessional Baptist would immediately tie a person to the full depth and breadth of doctrine and practice in the 2nd London Baptist Confession.

Kind of like the less inclusive definition of “Reformed,” huh?

But in all sincerity, even though I cling to the less inclusive definition of the term Reformed, I gladly take little “r” 2nd London Confession Baptists over fake Presbyterians, any day. Seriously, if there was a solid “reformed” Baptist 1689-subscribing church where I lived, that’s where I would be.

THE END OF THE MATTER

So, finally, once again we ask the question: who is Reformed?

Answer: whoever sincerely believes the Reformed confessions to be the system of doctrine, practice, and ethics taught in the Bible.

To be specific: those who confess the 3 Forms of Unity or the Westminster Standards.

Bonus Reformed-points if you subscribe to all six of them. I’m half-kidding.

Consequently, who is not Reformed? Some of the most popular “Reformed” people!

John Piper, John MacArthur, Paul Washer, Matt Chandler, Albert Mohler, or perhaps the greatest of Calvinistic-cafeteria-style-theologians, Sam Storms; corporately, the Sovereign Grace church-chain, Living Word, etc. are not Reformed.

As much as it might pain us, because we love them so much, and get all sentimental, and have benefited so greatly from their work, it’s not about that. That’s missing the point. We need to use the term Reformed appropriately. There’s no such thing as an “honorary” Reformed person. It’s about the confessional definition.

On their side, they wouldn’t flip-flop when it comes to their Baptistic distinctives, trying to be inclusive towards us (or Anglicans, or Lutherans, for that matter). In fact, by making a single mode of baptism (immersion) essential to the ordinance, they effectively excommunicate all paedobaptists. How’s that for “inclusive”?

It’s not personal.

Nobody’s being a “hater,” so don’t even go there.

It’s simply a matter of definition.

FURTHER STUDY

Who would I be if I didn’t have a stack-worth of book suggestions? This can be a complicated subject that takes lots of study and reflection. Here’s where I suggest you start. First, get the Reformed confessions on your smartphone: Christian Creeds and Reformed Confessions. [http://www.pricejh.com/creedsandconfessions/]

Maybe you are confessionally Reformed, and want to learn more about how to deal with this issue. Perhaps you self-identify as Reformed, and are challenged by what has been written and want to learn more. Maybe you want to become the real thing, meaning confessionally Reformed. Maybe you think “Reformed” has a more inclusive definition, and want to dialogue further with the less inclusive definition.

Here’s where to begin:

Welcome to a Reformed Church by Daniel R. Hyde [https://www.amazon.com/Welcome-Reformed-Church-Daniel-Hyde-ebook/dp/B07B46CGK1/]

What Is Reformed Theology? by R.C. Sproul [https://www.amazon.com/What-Reformed-Theology-Understanding-Basics-ebook/dp/B007KOROM6/]

On Being Presbyterian: Our Beliefs, Practices, And Stories by Sean Michael Lucas [https://www.amazon.com/Being-Presbyterian-Beliefs-Practices-Stories-ebook/dp/B004K6MHLK/]

Recovering the Reformed Confession: Our Theology, Piety, and Practice by R. Scott Clark [https://www.amazon.com/Recovering-Reformed-Confession-Theology-Practice-ebook/dp/B00BPG5DAK/]

Reformed Worship: Worship that is According to Scripture (Revised and Expanded) by Terry L. Johnson [https://www.amazon.com/Reformed-Worship-Terry-L-Johnson/dp/1783970391]

Worshipping with Calvin: Recovering the Historic Ministry and Worship of Reformed Protestantism by Terry Johnson [https://www.amazon.com/Worshipping-Calvin-Recovering-historic-Protestantism-ebook/dp/B01LWNE52C/]

The Creedal Imperative by Carl R. Trueman [https://www.amazon.com/Creedal-Imperative-Carl-R-Trueman-ebook/dp/B008DXFQYG/]

The Presbyterian Standards: An Exposition of the Westminster Confession of Faith and Catechisms by Francis R. Beattie [https://www.monergism.com/reformed-faith-exposition-westminster-confession-faith-ebook]

How Jesus Runs the Church by Guy Prentiss Waters [http://www.amazon.com/Jesus-Runs-Church-Prentiss-Waters-ebook/dp/B007GDVEZO/]