Michael Horton has written again in response to the Piper / Warren controversy this time reflecting on what it means to be “Reformed” and the state of the “Young, Restless and Reformed” movement.
I rather like his suggested label for the YRR movment, “Evangelical Calvinism”. What are you thoughts?
Be sure to read the whole thing, but here is an excerpt:
“Reformed” has a specific meaning. It’s not defined by movements, parachurch ministries, or powerful leaders, but by a confession that is lived out in concrete contexts across a variety of times and places. The Westminster Standards and the Three Forms of Unity (Belgic Confession, Heidelberg Catechism, and Canons of Dort) define what it means to be Reformed. Like Orthodoxy, Roman Catholicism, Lutheranism, and Anabaptism, Reformed Christianity is a particular tradition. It’s not defined by a few fundamentals, but by a whole system of faith and practice. If being Reformed can be reduced to believing in the sovereignty of God and election, then Thomas Aquinas is as Reformed as R. C. Sproul. However, the Reformed confession is a lot more than that. Even the way it talks about these doctrines is framed within a wider context of covenant theology.
Continue reading The Hallway and the Rooms.
A very thought provoking article, but I do not accept the Presbyterian view that Baptist cannot be reformed. I do not think anyone can rightly draw the line on defining Reformed theology by statements such as “The Westminster Standards and the Three Forms of Unity (Belgic Confession, Heidelberg Catechism, and Canons of Dort) define what it means to be Reformed.”
A Baptist church that holds to the London Baptist Confession of 1689 can rightly call itself reformed, even if we do not baptize infants and differ on the family covenant. Those elements are Presbyterian (held by other, less savory folks, as well), not Reformed.
Manfred: You state that “A Baptist church that holds to the London Baptist Confession of 1689 can rightly call itself reformed” but you don’t defend that position. Nor do you explain why you reject such statements as “The Westminster Standards and the Three Forms of Unity (Belgic Confession, Heidelberg Catechism, and Canons of Dort) define what it means to be Reformed.” Historically speaking that last statement is correct, so the question really is whether a person accepts the term historically or whether a person can make it mean whatever he wants.
Do you believe a LBC type Baptist and / or the YRR movement would have been recognised as part of the Reformed church when the aforementioned documents were written?
I just don’t see the need to be so keen on being aligned with a type of traditionalistic structure…
What I mean by that is it seems that many who are what I would call “ultra-reformed” [yes, I see that as a future,commonly used theological term
] are really focussed on being a more sentimentalist/traditionalist Church /or Christian.
Unless one fully adheres to a set of beliefs systems – a reformational worship and more seemingly a covental view then they are deemed just that little bit inferior.
I can shoot holes in the YRR / funky Calnvinsm movement as well as the “ultra-reformed movement, as both are out of balance.
Matthew: Again, I find the argumentation flawed. And I find it strange that people want to call themselves “Reformed” when they don’t hold to what the “Reformed Confessions” state.
I don’t mind if you don’t believe what the Reformed confessions state, but just don’t call yourself Reformed. And worse still, don’t then go slinging insults to those who are Reformed by calling them “ultra-reformed”. Further, no one says you or others are “a little bit inferior”, we’re just saying you’re not historically Reformed. That shouldn’t be an insult, it is just historic fact.
I’m not sure if you actually read the piece by Horton, but he addresses the strange phenomenon you’re apart of:
Maybe you could adopt Horton’s suggested label “Evangelical Calvinist”. You’d be more accurate historically, you’d end the discussion, and there would be no use for your label “ultra-reformed” as they’d just be known then as “Reformed”.
No argumentation here – just a differning view point. ‘Thanks for being so gracious’…..
I see it as an issue of balance – where the advocates of both [funky 'Calvininism' & a more 'ultra-reformed' satnce] are often “fast moving” reactionary types in theological stances and in worship structures and practices……..
I dont consider my self reformed anymore – I have not for a little while now, yet I am intrigued by sentimentalist/traditionalist types thus why I prefer a more visionary stance.
A “strange phenomenon” it may be.
Labels, labels, labels! Pigeon holes, pigeon holes, pigeon holes!
O how we love to attached labels to belief systems. I would call myself a baptist of the Calvinist persuasion. (I actually don’t like the term Calvinist as it sound so much like the division Paul speaks of in 1 Corinthians 3:4.
Reformed evangelical might work – it depends on the take-up and then how this term will be defined. Of recent years, I’ve grown to believe that the term “evangelical” comes with too much unnecessary baggage to the point that it has lost its originally widely accepted definition.
Matthew: You said “No argumentation here”. That was my point. You stated a position but didn’t defend it.
I’m not sure why you refer to the opposite of Reformed as “funky Calvinism” as one can be Reformed (holding to the historic confessions) and be “funky” or dress/look etc. however they want to (without sinning). The difference between YRR and those who are Confessionally Reformed is one of theology not appearance. That also precludes your suggestion of “balance” as an option.
Lastly, there is nothing reactionary about Confessional Reformed theology today – it was penned long before modern church issues. You could say it was reactionary against the errors of Rome, but it wasn’t sourced in reaction alone, it was a reaction against error with Scriptural truth. What could be considered reactionary today is those who are inventing their own systems in reaction to the pre-exisiting systems of theology.
The reason any of my theological convictions have changed throughout my Christian walk has never been (and should never be for anyone) as mere ‘reaction’ but simply as I have been convinced of the truthfulness (or error for that matter) of a particular belief.
I trust you’d say the same about your beliefs now too, I just pray that you have given diligent study to the areas of theology you’ve alluded to that you reject.
Don: “a baptist of the Calvinist persuasion”. Great label and I think it would suit you just fine.
I’m a Christian. That’s the biblical term used of believers in Christ. Adding to that word things like “Reformed”, “Baptist”, implies some over emphasis on a human tradition. even to say “I’m a Biblical Christian” is redundant. Of course Christians are biblical, if they are not biblical at all they’re not Christians.
Evangelical Calvinist? Of course Christians are evangelical, it’s implied in being a follower of Christ.
So, I’m a Christian. Acts 11.26 , 26.26, 1 Peter 4.16.
If I truly am Evangelical, then I’m a Calvinist. At very least in the sense that the true heart of Calvinism is the sovereignty and glory of God in everything, and the doctrines of grace which do give God all the glory in salvation.
The single Covenant of Grace is not the sine qua non of the Reformation. The sole infallible rule of the Scriptures as our final arbiter of truth was formally at the heart of the Reformation movement. Justification by faith alone in Christ alone too is at the heart of the Gospel and the Reformed movement.
What this sounds like, Horton and others, is that if I don’t adhere to Presbyterian standards, I’m not really “Reformed”. If I don’t bow to Amillenialism, Covenant theology, baby baptism, sacramants etc, them I’m not Reformed.
But Reformed is bigger than those things.
I submit that I am Reformed in the truest sense of the Word. I may not adhere to the Covenant theology that came later, but if it is a return to the Biblical truth, as opposed to man-centered infallible authority, and if it means praching the truth of justification once for all on the basis of the shed blood of Christ, then I am Reformed. You must be Evangelical before you can be Reformed, and as the heart of Evangleicalism is the true Gospel centered in the final authority of Scripture, I submit I can call myself reformed and evanglical, but not Presbyterian.
The best term to describe a Baptist like me is Evanglical. Sure- Evangelical Calvinist. But even the word Calvinist gives some Calvinists too much starch in their shirts, so let’s say I’m an Evanglical Baptist or Biblical Evagelical.
Hey…it’s better than Dan Philips’ “CalviDispiBaptiGelical” moniker.
Zaph
Nathan – I am still not getting notified of responses to pages on your site that I make posts to; very weird.
Regarding the 1689 Confession – I think anyone who reads it will rightly conclude that it describes Reformed theology. I think the cited documents do as well, just not exclusively. You don’t cite the historical evidence for that, though you posit it as fact.
I don’t know enough about the YRR to comment on them. As a member of a 1689 LBC SBC church, I – and we – consider ourselves “reformed and reforming” and look upon reformed Presbyterians as brethren with a few differences.
Nathan, I like the label “Evangelical Calvinism” for YRR as well. I think that it offers a clear yet fair distinction.
Horton has again written an extremely insightful and thought-provoking article.
His heart for Christ’s Church is readily apparent through the whole thing. He wants people in the YRR movement, a part of which I consider myself, to be firmly rooted in church life. Too many of us are definitely not.
He also clearly wants those of us who are Baptists to wrestle with Covenant Theology and Paedobaptism. That’s laudable. He believes those things are very important and not to be swept under the rug.
However, he fails to see that language changes over time; word meanings do not remain constant. Consider the terms ‘Christian,’ ‘Fundamentalist,’ or consider Carson’s writing on the meaning of the word ‘Evangelical’ in “The Gagging of God.”
Those words, in our culture, have multiple understood meanings. Language is not math, nor is it logic. And in the same manner as the aforementioned words, ‘Reformed’ has taken on, perhaps more meanings than my Reformed Paedo friends would like.
The right thing to do in such a circumstance isn’t to wrangle about what ‘Reformed’ truly means. Such wrangling would probably even eject many ordained PCA ministers from the ‘Reformed’ camp according to some people. The right thing to do is to seriously engage on the topics about which we disagree, over Scripture and Scripture alone – keeping our primary doctrines and goals in their proper positions.
As a sidenote, as a Reformed Baptist, holding to the LBC, I think it’s a tad odd to cast us so often in a ‘non-covenantal’ light. True – there are many ‘Calvinistic’ dispensationalists out there; but the issue between Reformed Baptists and Reformed Paedobaptists is much more nuanced than a belief or disbelief in covenant theology. We both adhere to that system. We apply the system as a hermeneutic almost exactly the same way, except when it comes to the degree of fulfillment of the New Covenant. That’s not insignificant – but, to throw us under the boss so to speak as not holding to covenant theology is not to engage on the real exegetical questions.
Thanks for that Derek!
I’ve had a good conversation with Dr. R. Scott Clark on this topic (http://reformedandreforming.org/2010/04/23/what-does-it-mean-to-be-reformed/)
In one of my responses to Dr. Clark, I said:
Yes, there is an objective thing called reality and there is an objective meaning of Reformed. In regards to linguistics I don’t see that it is as simple as your example.
Consider the following about language:
• The meaning of words may change over time, and
• The meaning of words can differ between cultures and sub-cultures.
Is there an objective meaning to Reformed? Yes. Has this meaning been the same throughout history? No. Is Reformed understood the same way between cultures and sub-cultures? No.
I don’t disagree with you in the historical meaning of Reformed. Like I said earlier, the meaning of Reformed – and any other word for that matter – may change over time and be understood differently by different people. That’s why I consider this issue, well, a misnomer.
I would also add that words are understood differently amongst sub-cultures. This is why it’s important for us to define terms.
The same could be said for speaking with non-Christians. For instance, once favorable terms – Christian and Evangelical – are not favorably embraced by non-Christians. In the U.S. many would use the latter to identify Conservative Politics.
Just some thoughts. Cheers, Jesse