Northern Michigan Reformation Society: Reformed Baptists

Sunday, December 6, 2009

Can Baptists be Reformed?

I recently had a discussion on facebook with a friend about whether or not Baptists can rightly claim the adjective reformed. I am sharing our discussion here to get further insight [1]. I do not want a debate about the merits or demerits of reformed theology. Please, stick to the subject at hand in your comments. No off topic comments will be posted.

Seth Miller:I do not understand the phrase "Reformed Baptist". Aside from believing predestination in the Augustinian sense, what is so "Reformed" about you? Most, if not all, Reformers practiced paedobaptism and persecuted those who did not. Most, if not all, Reformers did not believe in religious liberty but rather ruled through synods and councils rejecting the idea of the autonomy of the local church.

Jeremy Lee: I've been thinking about this lately although from a different angle. Some Reformed people think it is inappropriate for Baptists to use the adjective reformed because they reject paedobaptism. My opinion on this is that Baptists who believe as you say in Augustinian predestination are accurately called Reformed. The reason for this is that while there are disagreements between the Reformed and Reformed Baptists, Reformed Baptists are within the Reformed tradition.

The question you are asking is not a new one and seemed to be the question that motivated Baptists in London to write the 1689 London Confession. The 2nd London is based on the Westminster Confession in order to show that these Baptist were not Anabaptists as they were accused of being. They wanted to demonstrate they were in agreement for the most part with Reformed theology. This history suggests that reformed is appropriate to use in reference to Baptists who believe in Augustinian predestination.

Seth Miller: It is interesting to see you appeal to the events surrounding the construction of the LCOF to defend the usage of the phrase "reformed." Seeing that none of the Baptist involved used it. They called themselves Calvinistic or Particular Baptist. It was actually the "Reformed" part THEY WERE trying to distant themselves from. Hence, the removal of paedobaptism and church censures when they referred to the Westminster Confession as basis for LCOF. Both of these doctrines are distinguishing marks of Classical Reformed Theology and very anti-Baptist. How can one claim the name "Reformed" and yet deny two major tenets of it?

Jeremy Lee: I still think the point of the LCOF was to demonstrate agreement more than distance themselves. Although, your point that they did not call themselves reformed is telling.

The question is what is the definition of reformed? Is it defined soteriologically or both soteriologically and ecclesiologically? Since I believe the most important aspect is the gospel, I would define it soteriologically and call myself reformed. I have a friend who suggested that Baptists are truly reformed because they alone took Sola Scriptura to its logical conclusion and rejected paedobaptism.

Seth Miller: I was actually thinking the same thing when I was writing: What is the definition of Reformed? I would say that both soteriology and ecclesiology are crucial to the definition since these were the major issues that the Reformers faced. They challenged the Roman Catholic view of salvation and how church is to be. I would agree to what your friend said in that sense: Baptists finished what the Reformers started.