May Baptist Churches Use the Adjective “Reformed”? The Ongoing Debate
Posted by deangonzales on November 28, 2009
Many Reformed Christians who believe in the validity of infant baptism find it odd that certain Baptist congregations would employ the nomenclature “Reformed Baptist.” Indeed, some Reformed ministers and theologians today are accusing Reformed Baptists of something like “identity theft.” R. Scott Clark, for example, argues in his recently published book Recovering the Reformed Confession that a infant baptism is an essential element of covenant theology, that one cannot have one without the other. So despite the fact that most who call themselves “Reformed Baptist” today affirm a Confession of Faith whose language and theology was drawn largely from the Westminster Confession, we are, in the mind of Clark and others, unwarranted in our employment of the adjective “Reformed.” That ecclesiastical parameters of that adjective were set in ecclesiastical stone by the synods and councils of the 16th and 17th centuries.
Of course, we who call ourselves “Reformed Baptists” might point out the language changes over time–even ecclesiastical language. “Lutheran” was initially used more broadly to refer to all sorts of anti-Romanists. Later, it was narrowed to refer to those who affirm The Augsburg Confession and/or The Formula of Concord. Conversely, it might be argued that the term “Reformed” has changed over time. Just as synods and councils met in the 16th and 17th century, so met an assembly of messengers from various congregations at the end of the 20th century:
The ASSOCIATION OF REFORMED BAPTIST CHURCHES OF AMERICA was founded on March 11, 1997. On that day the first General Assembly met to establish a charter membership of 24 churches from 14 states.
And on that day they ratified an ecclesiastical constitution that identifies their doctrinal standard, which would define them theologically and ecclesiastically:
While we hold tenaciously to the inerrant, infallible and sufficient Word of God as found in the sixty-six books of the Bible (this being our final source of faith and practice), we embrace and adopt the London Baptist Confession of Faith of 1689 as a faithful expression of the doctrine taught in the Scriptures.
So these churches used the 1689 as a means to define themselves as an association of “Reformed Baptist” churches just as Dr. Clark alleges the delegates at Dordtrecht and Westminster Abby did previously.
One of Clark’s responses to this kind of reasoning is to accuse us of what he calls “Reformed Narcissism,” which he illustrates with the following syllogism:
1. I am Reformed
2. I think x
3. Therefore x is Reformed.
“To state the syllogism,” says Clark, “is to expose the silliness of it.”1 Perhaps stating the syllogism in such an oversimplified way does give it a ring of “silliness.” But if one reflects carefully on Clark’s own reasoning, it doesn’t appear too far removed from the contours of this syllogism:
Dr. Clark’s argument
1. The 16th and 17th century PB Reformers and Puritans said in essence, “We are Reformed.”
2. They said, “We think x [i.e., The Three Forms of Unity/The Westminster Standards]
3. Therefore, x is “Reformed”
If Dr. Clark and company are entitled to that kind of procedure, why not Reformed Baptists?
A Reformed Baptist argument
1. The 20th century Credo-Baptist adherents of the 1689 Confession (granddaughter to the WCF and daughter to the Savoy Declaration) said in essence, “We are not simply Reformed; we are Reformed Baptist.”
2. They said, “We think x [i.e., The Second London Baptist Confession]
3. Therefore, x is “Reformed Baptist.”
Formally, what we did is precisely the same procedure that forms the basis of Clark’s claim to property rights on the singular adjective “Reformed.” We neither claimed “We are reformed” (major premise) nor “Therefore, x is Reformed” (minor premise). Instead, we carefully qualified our language. We are not simply “Reformed,” we are “Reformed Baptist.” In doing so, we made the point that “Reformed” is not enough. “Reformed” by itself may find support in the 3FU or the WS, but it is, in our estimation, sub-biblical. Hence, we chose to identify ourselves (without Dr. Clark’s permission) as something other than simply “Reformed”–we are “Reformed Baptist.”
Does Dr. Clark or his denomination have ecclesiastical authority to overturn what the ARBCA churches have done? Can he take them to court for stealing the adjective “Reformed”? Didn’t the PCUSA force Machen’s group to change it’s name? Why doesn’t Clark do the same if he feels like there’s been a copyright infringement?
Truth of the matter is, Dr. Clark doesn’t believe that the Baptist congregations that formed ARBCA are “true churches.” He expresses his perspective as follows:
We would discipline someone if they left OURC [Oceanside United Reformed Church] and began attending a baptistic congregation or a sect…. I don’t think that any congregation that denies the administration of baptism to covenant children can be a true church. I don’t see how any baptistic congregation is practicing the “pure administration” of the sacraments.2
So not only does he insist we not call ourselves “Reformed,” he insists that we stop identifying ourselves as true visible churches of Christ. That leaves us in a very precarious state since, according to one of the Confessions to which Clark subscribes, there is “no ordinary possibility of salvation” outside the visible church (WCF 25.1).3
So what do you think? May Baptists use the adjective “Reformed”? Does it really matter? And what do you think about Dr. Clark “de-churching” Baptist congregations? Before answering those questions, you may want to see how these questions are being discussed and debated on the various blog sites below:
R. Scott Clark and “Reformed” by Dr. James White of Alpha and Omega Ministries Apologetics Blog
Follow up on R. Scott Clark and “Reformed” by Dr. James White of Alpha and Omega Ministries Apologetics Blog
Post-Thanksgiving Cartoons: Reply to James White by Dr. R. Scott Clark of The Heidelblog (be sure to read through the comments)
The esse of Reformed: A Current Question by Dr. Michael Haykin of The Andrew Fuller Center of Baptist Studies
Why I Call Myself a Reformed Baptist by Pastor Keith Throop of The Reformed Baptist Blog
James White Blog Concerning Statements of R. Scott Clark on the Puritan Board
Baptist Churches Not True Churches on the Puritan Board
What Does It Mean to Be Reformed on the Puritan Board
Bob Gonzales, Dean
Reformed Baptist Seminary
- The reader can find Dr. Clark’s syllogism at the end of his article here or his his book Recovering the Reformed Confession, 17-18. [↩]
- The reader can find the source of Clark’s comments here. [↩]
- I have tried to demonstrate to Dr. Clark that his attempt to, on the one hand, treat Baptists as brothers in Christ and cast no shadow on the genuineness of their Christianity and, on the other hand, to refuse to consider their congregations as part of the visible church of Christ is inconsistent. If you’re interested in wading through the discussion, click here. [↩]
21 Responses to “May Baptist Churches Use the Adjective “Reformed”? The Ongoing Debate”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
November 28th, 2009 at 2:57 pm
I posted on this issue on the Puritan Board.
See:
What is it to be reformed.
http://www.puritanboard.com/f47/what-reformed-55953/
November 28th, 2009 at 3:05 pm
Thanks, Bob. I added your link to the list of links above.
November 28th, 2009 at 3:32 pm
Thank you Bob for defending our cause in this case. While RSC is clearly out to lunch on this particular issue, your readers should also know that his book “Recovering the Reformed Confession” is helpful for all Reformed Baptists who love our own confession. While we have to “baptize” the book to get maximum benefit (like we have to do with most of the Reformed books we read) it should be noted that in that particular book he does not even mention RB or even Baptist churches at all.
November 28th, 2009 at 3:55 pm
David,
Thanks for the remarks. The fact that Dr. Clark doesn’t even mention Reformed Baptists or Baptists in RRC makes the point. He doesn’t see us on his “Reformed” radar screen. So the task of “recovering the Reformed confession” has nothing to do with Baptists, in R. Scott Clark’s mind.
Nevertheless, I do agree with you that the book provides a lot of interesting historical information, as well as a good case for a doctrinally robust Christianity and the validity of the use of confessions (though I think Clark’s version of confessionalism is a bit over the top). I assign the book as required reading for our Symbolics course.
Your servant,
Bob Gonzales
November 28th, 2009 at 5:01 pm
As a Southern Baptist who is confessionally Reformed, I think it’s fascinating how some non-Calvinists in my own denomination have found common polemical ground with men like Clark and Muller. Both groups are convinced that a “Reformed Baptist” is an oxymoron. The Reformed pedobaptists believe that the “Baptist” part makes one sub-Reformed. The non-Calvinists I’m thinking of, which include some dispensationalists, revivalists, and/or neo-Anabaptists, believe that the “Reformed” part makes one sub-Baptist.
I’m not hung up on nomenclature, but it seems to me that a Baptist who holds to covenant theology and embraces the Second London Confession (or a similar confession) has a legitimate claim to being a “Reformed Baptist.” The name alone indicates both “we are Reformed, but not identical to our Reformed pedobaptist brothers” and “we are Baptist, but not identical to non-Calvinist and/or non-covenantal Baptist brothers.”
My two cents, for what it’s worth.
NAF
November 28th, 2009 at 7:11 pm
Bob you make a good point (about Clark not mentioning Baptists in his book). Beyond this, there must be some sympathy on your part for his position. What I mean is that as Reformed Baptists, it seems to me that our identity is now being threatened by many who are also identified by this same nomenclature. And this mostly by those that have little or no regard (and at times outright antipathy) for many of our core convictions and traditions.
That Clark refuses to see my church as a true church does not cause me as much agitation as those that if allowed, would strip being Reformed Baptist down to just 4 points and a weak version of believer’s baptism.
At any rate, thanks for giving RSC a good run for his money!
November 28th, 2009 at 7:26 pm
@Nathan: brother, thanks for your comments. I agree with your perspective.
@David: brother, I understand your concerns and those of Clark. But I really wonder whether all those concerns can be addressed with simply one adjective. I mean, R. Scott Clark, wants the simple term “Reformed” to mean all that he as a traditional Paedo-Baptist believes minus a few things like 6-day creation, a sacral view of the relation between church and state, that Paul wrote Hebrews (which are part of the Reformed symbols he confesses but takes exceptions to). Things have become more complicated as time goes on because there’s no longer one Reformed denomination–even among Paedo-Baptists. So the solution, in my mind, is to use more modifiers and qualifiers when necessary. When I call myself “Reformed Baptist,” I’m not deceiving folks into thinking that I’m in Clark’s denomination.
What about other evangelical folk out there that use the term “Reformed” but have less of a historical basis than 1689ers? It seems to me that few of them actually call their churches or denominations by that name though perhaps some do. Usually, they’ll make appropriate qualifications like, “I’m Reformed in my soteriology but dispensational in my view of prophecy” (i.e., MacArthur) or “I believe God’s sovereignty in salvation, but I’m a four-pointer” (I think Bruce Ware’s position) or “I’m a Reformed charismatic” (i.e., C. J. Mahaney). Once again, not even sure if these men use the term all that much. They certainly like a lot of Reformed theology, just not all of it. I’m not offended if they want to use the term in a qualified sense.
Perhaps we can be more specific: Reformed-Covenantal-Confessional-Particular Baptists. Kinda long though
BG
November 29th, 2009 at 8:19 am
Quite frankly, I am not at all interested in whether RSC likes our use of “Reformed Baptist”. Anyone on a quest to exclude fellow believers from the visible church is little more than a Reformed Randy Weaver, hiding out on his mountaintop of traditional purity with his small band of followers. The Reformed camp is far better represented by the newer generation of men who seek God’s will in the Scriptures than by those for whom the confessions determine who is “reformed”. Hyperconfessionalism is not reformed.
November 30th, 2009 at 2:09 am
I think the biggest thing for me is Dr. Clark’s beef of Reformed Baptist engaging in “squatting” and “identity theft” is a bit over the top for me. It seems that assuming his own criteria he’s not even Reformed either.
November 30th, 2009 at 4:03 pm
I’ve asked this question a few times over the past week but haven’t received an adequate answer. Why are we chasing after Reformed Presbyterians for their approval over the term “Reformed”? I have a great deal of respect for R. Scott Clark, as I do for Ligon Duncan, R.C. Sproul, and Bryan Chapell, but I am not seeking to join their “club.” That is not a pejorative comment directed at these fine men; it’s just that I don’t need the blessing of a Reformed Presbyterian do follow in the footsteps of the Reformation. To be honest, those three men have no problem with Reformed Baptists. It seems to be a distinct minority within the Reformed camp who are bothered by it. Why is that?
December 1st, 2009 at 2:25 am
Dr. Gonzales,
I was following your posts at the Heidelblog. I checked into ARBCA [that you mentioned there]and was looking for churches in my area. I am currently member of a Bible Church, because most of the Baptist Churches are of the SBC variety here. I found one church in the church directory near me, only to find that church claimed to be both Reformed Baptist and Southern Baptist???
Looks like ARBCA needs to have stricter guidelines for membership. Maybe 50 or 60 years ago that line could have burred over. Today, SBC is mostly either arminian or teaching the Social Gospel via teachings & methods of Warren & Hybel. Sure you have Mark Dever and his IX Marks ministry/movement within the SBC, unfortunately Mark is in vast minority there.
So, maybe Dr. Clark has a point when Reformed Baptist can’t even clearly define themselves.
God Bless
Joe
December 1st, 2009 at 10:54 am
Dear Joe,
ARBCA’s guidelines are pretty strict. A church has to subscribe fully to the 1689 Confession. However, some of these churches believe they can do that and still remain part of the SBC because the SBC allows that latitude. In fact, there is a movement within the SBC trying to promote a return to the SBC’s Calvinistic and “Reformed Baptist” roots. See The Founders Ministries. For another directory of Reformed Baptist Churches, click here.
I do agree that not everyone who may identify themselves as “Reformed Baptist” holds to the 1689 or another historical symbol that has strong ties with classic Reformed theology. In some cases, folks call themselves “Reformed” simply because they affirm the five solas of the Reformation. Personally, I don’t think they’re guilty of miscommunication so long as they clearly explain how they’re using the term “Reformed,” that is, whether in a more or less comprehensive sense.
Your servant,
Bob Gonzales
December 1st, 2009 at 2:54 pm
Dr. Gonzales,
I’m quite aware of The Founders Movement in SBC, I’ve followed it for several years. I also find that Founders folks are too inclusive or that some of their associations are odd and questionable at best. For Example: Their willingness to promote the SouthEastern folks agenda on shoving Mark Driscoll and Emerging Church into SBC was/is very troubling.
Thank you for your reply.
God Bless
Joe
December 1st, 2009 at 10:15 pm
Don’t lose sight of the fact that Baptist churches are independent. ARBCA and the SBC-Founders Movement may provide opportunity for cooperation, but in the end each local church answers to Christ. Presbyterian polity doesn’t eliminate schisms and irregular church practice. Just look at how the New Perspective and the Federal Vision has caused havoc in Presbyterian ranks. Both forms of church governance have inherent problems.
December 1st, 2009 at 11:32 pm
Mr Brown Wrote-
I’ve asked this question a few times over the past week but haven’t received an adequate answer. Why are we chasing after Reformed Presbyterians for their approval over the term “Reformed”?
Great question. I think a lot of people reading the last week’s exchanges between R. Scott Clark and *insert any name of the several RBs who has debated with RSC in the last week here* would wonder why Reformed Baptists care what one professor down as Westminster West thinks about their name. Also, debate for the sake of debate is pointless. So why should we care?
I can’t speak for any one else, but here is why this matters to me:
1. Dr. Clark’s influence extends beyond his immediate circles. His book Recovering the Reformed Confession is being widely read and discussed. While there are many excellent points about being confessional in RRC, I feel that Clark overshoots the mark significantly at key areas. When I reviewed RRC for RBS, I called these problems the Quest for Illegitimate Religious Traditionalism (this is a play off something he does in the book). So this debate matters to me, because I think it displays the unfortunate fruit of the QIRT. We see that Clark’s QIRT drives him to refuse not only the label “Reformed” to Baptists, but also to believe Baptist churches are not in fact “true churches.” This is what happens with the QIRT. So I hope that anyone following this debate and reading these posts will be convinced that the QIRT, as prescribed by RRC, is a dubious endeavor.
2. Dr. Clark’s views about RB churches matter because they undermine fellowship and hurt the Reformed cause. Confessional Reformed Christianity is small enough already. We don’t need to try and make the club more exclusive. I have close friends who Pastor Confessional Reformed Paedo Baptist churches. While I disagree with them on baptism/polity I think they are great men and I love their churches. I want their churches to thrive. I want people to go there and hear the gospel preached. Yes, I would be even more happy if people became RB, but I am thrilled to hear that these men’s churches are healthy. I know that anyone who goes there will hear Biblical, gospel centered preaching and avoid many pitfalls of modern Evangelicalism. So when Dr. Clark advances a view that cuts all RB churches from the Reformed camp, I’m concerned that the whole camp suffers. I would be just as concerned if a prominent RB was saying this stuff about the other side.
So on the one hand, of course we don’t need R. Scott Clark’s permission to use the title Reformed Baptist. And (no offense to him) we’re going to keep using it no matter how he feels about it. Even so, I think this does matter, for the reasons listed above.
December 2nd, 2009 at 11:10 am
David,
I just wanted to weigh in on your comment:
“What I mean is that as Reformed Baptists, it seems to me that our identity is now being threatened by many who are also identified by this same nomenclature. And this mostly by those that have little or no regard (and at times outright antipathy) for many of our core convictions and traditions.”
I am not sure if I would be one of the guys you have in mind, but I would like to speak as one who has sometimes been characterized as falling short of the real essence of what a Reformed Baptist is.
On the issue of others threatening “our identity” by using the term “Reformed Baptist” to describe themselves, may I assume the collective identity you have in mind is that of ARBCA? If so, then I would just point out that ARBCA is a relatively recent group, whose beginnings as an association date back only to March 11, 1997.
The difficulty here is that there were guys like me that had already been identifying themselves as Reformed Baptists for at least several years before that time and without any awareness that there were any self-identified Reformed Baptist churches around. My own meaning when using the term can be found in the above linked article entitled “Why I Call myself a Reformed Baptist.” (Thanks for noticing, Bob!)
In my own case, I have helped lead a church to become a self-identified Reformed Baptist church, and we hold to an amended version of the Baptist Confession of 1689. We are also very clear about it, including keeping a copy of the Confession on our website that clearly shows all the changes we have made. I assume, then, given his comments above, that Bob wouldn’t have a problem with our using the term since we carefully state what we mean in this way.
But here is an issue I have faced. I have come across some ARBCA folks who seem to resent my use of the term and who have even indicated that I should not use it. However, I have been using it as a self-identification of my position since before ARBCA was even around, so what should I do? Am I “threatening your identity,” or are you threatening mine? Frankly, I don’t think either of us are threatening the identity of the other. I think we should allow for such room in usage of the term, especially since its usage appears to have developed rather spontaneously in many different places.
I actually conducted a poll about the meaning of this term on my blog back in 2007-2008. Here were some of my conclusions:
“The two most common responses ran roughly neck and neck over the six months of the poll. The predominant response was that a Reformed Baptist is one who holds to the 1689 Confession (38%), with a pretty close second being that a Reformed Baptist must at least hold to Calvinism and Covenant Theology (34%). Together these constitute a significant majority of those who responded (72%).
“This result really doesn’t surprise me given my own experience in Reformed Baptist circles. I am not surprised that most thought that a Covenantal perspective was necessary, thus ruling out those Calvinist Baptists who are Dispensational. Nor am I surprised that, among those who would define the term Reformed Baptist more narrowly, there was a pretty even split among those who did not see a close adherence to the Baptist Confession of 1689 as necessary. This of course reflects the historical fact that not all of those who have called themselves Reformed over the centuries would necessarily adhere to the English confessions written in the 17th century. For example, there are many Reformed of a Presbyterian stripe that would not adhere to the Westminster Confession of Faith (the many Dutch Reformed and those springing more directly from this background come to mind). So it should not be surprising that many Reformed Baptists should similarly regard the 1689 Confession, which so closely reflects the Westminster standard, as being too narrow a definition of the term Reformed as applied to them.
“In other words, the poll results for the most part are well within the limits of what one should expect, at least if one has a fair knowledge of Reformed history as well as the modern development of what has become the Reformed Baptist movement. The former indicates more flexibility in the use of the term Reformed than with reference strictly to the Westminster tradition, and the latter indicates more flexibility in the use of the term Reformed Baptist than with reference strictly to the 1689 Confession.
“As I see it, there has been a movement under way for some time among many Baptists to get back to their Biblical – i.e. Calvinistic – roots. This seems to have been going on for about thirty years at least. During this time, there have obviously been many for whom the term Reformed Baptist quite naturally suggested itself as a good description of their views. For example, I have a recollection of the way I and a few of my friends at Columbia Bible College began to call ourselves Reformed Baptists about eighteen or twenty years ago, and we actually thought we were coining the term. I have since discovered that there were others using the term even before that time.
“The term thus arose with varied connotations among a variety of people and churches, who until recently were relatively unaware of each other’s existence. But, especially since the advent of the internet and its increasingly common usage, these men and groups have begun to find one another and to discover both what they share in common and where they differ. As the smoke clears, however, there seems to be a pretty strong majority who would think that a Reformed Baptist must at a minimum hold to a Calvinistic and Covenantal perspective. At least this is what both my experience and the poll results would seem to indicate.”
If you want to read the rest of the article, you can do so here: http://reformedbaptist.blogspot.com/2008/02/what-is-reformed-baptist-poll-results.html
I just want to say that I really am not looking to be difficult or cause division or “threaten” anyone’s “identity.” I really hope that we can accept one another’s usage of the term, especially since I am confident that neither of us have any intention of surrendering it as a way of identifying himself.
I would also just point out that, when I first came to Immanuel Baptist Church back in 1993, I identified myself to the congregation as a Reformed Baptist and explained what I meant by that term, including my substantial agreement with the Baptist Confession of 1689. I am glad that they called me as a pastor anyway and that — after 12 years or so of sometimes very difficult and heartbreaking ministry — the church has also become a self-identified Reformed Baptist church. I include this information just to make you aware of how tied I am to this label, one that not only accurately says who I am (at least in my opinion), but also communicates a Biblical vision for the church and for ministry for which I have suffered dearly at times.
So what would you have me do? If I am not the kind of guy who will give up such a heartfelt identity and vision even if it means years of anguish over the loss of friends and intense spiritual battles, then I cannot do so just because I wouldn’t fit into ARBCA.
I guess I feel as though I have paid my dues as much as anyone, and I am saddened when it is implied, or when it is sometimes stated outright, that I have no right to identify myself with a term that in some ways has cost me so much. Not that the term itself is what matters most to me, but that it communicates so well what does matter most to me, the Biblical vision I have referred to.
Anyway, I just thought I would add a perspective that I think many others would share.
December 2nd, 2009 at 11:32 am
P.S. to David: I think I found you on the web here: http://www.prbctoledo.org/our-pastors/
It looks like you may not be a part of ARBCA? If this is the case, then I think my points will still work, but I am sorry for mistaking your affiliation.
December 2nd, 2009 at 12:12 pm
Keith,
Thanks for the helpful input. You can rest assured that I have no beef with your use of the appellative “Reformed Baptist.” I think you have demonstrated sufficient continuity with Reformed doctrine to employ that name, especially since you openly explain and qualify what you and your church mean by that nomenclature.
Interestingly, one of the brothers at Heidelblog suggested that our attempt to justify our use of “Reformed” along with Baptist is analogous to “arguing that the whims of the surrounding culture (in this case, linguistic whims) have higher authority over ecclesiastical decisions.” Here is the response I offered this brother:
So just as the churches that formed ARBCA carefully reflected on their theological identity and concluded that the combined terms “Reformed Baptist” best described them and distinguished them both from simply “Reformed” churches, on the one hand, and also simply “Baptist” churches, on the other, you and your church have carefully reflected on your theological identity and reached the same conclusion.
Blessings!
Bob Gonzales
December 2nd, 2009 at 1:08 pm
Thanks for the kind words, Bob.
I have enjoyed your interactions with Clark’s blog, although I hadn’t seen the most recent round in reaction to the Nov. 27 article you have linked.
In fact, I think I will add a quick post to my own blog today letting the readers know about it. It may be of help to them in thinking things through for themselves.
By the way, I don’t know if you noticed, but I started a series on suggested changes the the 1689 confession and then got sidetracked. I hope to get back to it soon.
December 18th, 2009 at 12:10 am
[...] also: May Baptist Churches Use the Adjective “Reformed”? Can Baptists use the adjective “Reformed” Pastor Jeremy Lee Twining Baptist Church [1] [...]
August 10th, 2010 at 11:19 am
With all due respect to Dr. Clark, we must keep in mind that R. Scott Clark also accuses Paedocommunists of being Baptists. Yikes! Figure that one out! (he says its because both paedocommunionists and credobaptists keep the sacraments together, but still, while I understand that point, it doesn’t justify ignoring the obvious fact that if one is in the covenant of grace the Lord’s supper should be served to them). In my limited exposure to his blog and what not, I’m gathering that he’s not exactly the most nuanced rhetorician.
As a Reformed baptist I can see inconsistency in R. Scott Clark’s position. I think he has to deal with the inconsistency of what he is saying. He’s complaining that we are not treating our children like Christians (in view of baptism), ergo we are not reformed. And then when the paedocommunionists are complaining that he is not treating his children like Christians (in view of the Lord’s supper)–he’s complaining that they are not reformed.
There’s a whole lot of complaining about people not being reformed, but at the end of the day R. Scott Clark’s approach is not very winsome. I think he’s good at preaching to the choir, and on this particular matter, we Reformed Baptists are not in his choir, so therefore we are irrelevant.
I would suggest that one can be a credobaptist, paedobaptist-credocommunionist, or paedobaptist-paedocommunionist and still be “Reformed” to some degree. It doesn’t mean they are equally valid or equally consistent, just that they are all within what we would broadly term “reformed” provided they are covenantal, etc..
As Reformed Baptist, I reject both paedobaptism and paedocommunion, while still extending the right hand of fellowship to my paedo-ish brothers. And I will generally not be disposed to get into large disputes with them, but if they accuse me of not treating my kids as not Christian enough and then use the same argument in reverse to accuse others of treating their kids too Christianly, I’m going to go on the record as “saying HEY!”