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.

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:

_______,

If you read all the comments I’ve posted here, you’ll see that I’ve done more than simply appeal to the brute fact of contemporary usage. There were many early “Lutherans” who didn’t have a refined “Lutheran” theology as would later be defined in that denomination’s symbols. In some ways they were Lutheran. In other ways they were not. Similarly, changes have taken place over time among the followers of the theology of John Calvin. Some took a great deal of Calvin’s insights but modified his views on polity and baptism. So the fact that they share 80% or more of theological commonality with Calvin and other Protestant Reformers prompted them to call themselves “Reformed Baptists.” They did not pick up a post-modern dictionary, find the term “Reformed,” and decide on a whim to assume the appellative. It’s not the whims of modern culture but careful reflection on the huge amount of theological continuity between our views and those of the Puritans and Reformers that has influenced many of us who assume the name “Reformed Baptist.” You alluded to “ecclesiastical decisions.” Was there a synod or council that copyrighted the name “Reformed” and anathematized all who dare to employ that term without permission?

_______, I realize that my arguments won’t persuade Dr. Clark and others. That’s okay. I’m really not hung up on the terminology as he seems to be. For what it’s worth, I respect Dr. Clark’s right to argue for a restricted use of the term Reformed. He hasn’t gained my conscience, but I don’t want to spend my whole life engaged in logomachy. Besides, I would never want my disagreements with Dr. Clark to be interpreted as representing a lack of love or respect for him. I consider him a brother in Christ and unquestionably an expert in the historical theology of the 16th and 17th centuries.

Gratefully yours,
Bob Gonzales

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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