Who licensed anyone to re-define the adjective Reformed? Why should Reformed folk accept such a re-definition? If the Baptists, who reject our view of the covenants, who reject our view of our children as heirs of the covenant of grace and its promises, who reject our understanding of redemptive history (no small thing), who reject our ecclesiology, can deny a good bit of what it means to be Reformed and yet call themselves “Reformed” why can’t others play the same game? Why can’t the Open-Theists call themselves “Reformed?” Why can’t Arminians call themselves Reformed? After all, the Remonstrants were members of the Reformed Churches and they accepted a fair bit of our theology. Where do we stop? If the doctrine of the church and sacraments are negotiable why aren’t the doctrines of God, Christ, and salvation also negotiable?
Put another way, why can’t we call Thomas Aquinas, Thomas Bradwardine, and Gregory of Rimini (anachronistically) “Reformed”? They held to “the doctrines of grace.” There were five pointers long before the Synod of Dort.
What do you think?
Sharon --
ReplyDeleteThis is really interesting to me, because, as a Reformed kind of girl, I was surprised by how many of my fellow Presbyterians were shocked when they heard we were living in Minneapolis and not attending John Piper's church. I love John Piper and believe that the things we disagree on are non-essentials of the faith, but his church is Baptist and we have a very different understanding of the sacraments. But, I think that many (even those in Reformed churches) see him as "close enough."
I'm sure glad my good reformed pastor thought Russell was "close enough" when I sought his approval during our "courtship." :-)
ReplyDeleteHere in Sacramento we have a lot of "baptists" who end up going to presbyterian churches b/c of a lack of baptist churches in the area.
Anyway...if they can't call themselves "reformed" what should Calvinistic Baptists call themselves?
Yeah, that Russell . . . I dunno . . . that guy seems pretty sketchy to me. ;)
ReplyDeleteObviously, in our case, we had already baptized two of our infants before we moved here and didn't think it would be a great idea to attend a church where those baptisms wouldn't be recognized. I'm not sure that I agree with the author that they can't call themselves Reformed. But it does seem like there's going to have to be some way to distinguish -- maybe Reformed and Confessional Reformed?
Interesting question, Sharon. I, for one, wouldn't call myself reformed. The word carries way too much baggage, not to mention faulty theology.
ReplyDelete