Can a person be called both Baptist and Reformed? The answer may depend upon who is answering the question. Dr. R. Scott Clark says that the Arminian Remonstrants who reject a Calvinistic soteriology are more appropriately Reformed than a Baptist who denies granting the Sign of the Covenant to their children until they personally affirm faith in Christ. But if pædobaptism renders someone Reformed then are Methodists or liberal Presbyterians and Episcopalians or Roman Catholics--all of whom affirm pædobaptism but reject Reformed soteriology as well as Covenant theology--appropriately Reformed? God forbid! Affirming pædobaptism does not a Reformed believer make. Which means that pædobaptism--granting the infant(s) of believers the Sign of the New Covenant--is not a Reformed distinctive. What then? Who is properly called Reformed?
PROPER BAPTIST CONTEXT
Allow me to respond to the comment of Dr. R. Scott Clark, a man whom I respect and whose ministry has edified me greatly over the years, whose book The Heidelberg Catechism: A Historical, Theological, and Pastoral Commentary you should purchase today and begin reading immediately. Tom Hicks, from his book What is a Reformed Baptist? An Overview of Doctrinal Distinctives, helps us understand, through the work of Matthew C. Bingham, that the "first Reformed Baptists didn't see themselves as a certain kind of 'Baptist.' Rather, they viewed themselves as Congregationalists with baptistic convictions when it came to the subjects of baptism. Thus Matthew Bingham says that, within the stream of historic Christianity, they might be more accurately called 'baptistic Congregationalists' who have a Reformed and Puritan theology." In Bingham's book, Orthodox Radicals: Baptist Identity in the English Revolution, he correctly demonstrates that the General and Particular Baptists did not consider themselves
Hicks explains that he and his congregation are "not Reformed Baptists because of a desire to lay claim to a particular historical tradition [though we do], or because we have some blind devotion to an ancient confession of faith [though we have the 1689 Baptist Confession], or because we want to set ourselves up as theological elites who are superior to other Christians. Rather, we are Reformed Baptists because we believe it is the most biblical thing to be,"3 which is a very Reformed virtue. He states that those who "take the Bible seriously" do so "because they long to know God and the way of eternal life in Jesus Christ."4 That is precisely why I chose the name of this site, The Heart of Theology, because the heart of all biblical study is to know God better, clearer, for sanctification and for the joy of knowing Him and to know that we are known by Him (Gal. 4:9).
ARGUMENTS OVER THE PARTICULARS
One might argue that, given the reality of the Reformed faith being so very maligned by so many believers today and throughout history, anyone who longs to adopt the name Reformed for himself and for his theology and faith--given that his theology and faith are clearly within the historic and biblical Reformed tradition--might be warmly welcomed. But such is not the reality for many of us who call ourselves, or who long to call ourselves and possess an affinity in being, Reformed. From my own experience, I think those who are Reformed historically are granted the privilege to define the term. An Anglican, for instance, should not inform a Baptist as to what he must believe--that belongs to the Baptist to define his own theological identity. The Lutheran certainly would not allow the Roman Catholic to demand what tenets he should affirm and reject theologically. So let the Reformed speak! But who are the Reformed? Who designated them to be the only Reformed tradition deemed orthodox, biblical, confessional? What is the meaning of Reformed? Can Luther and Calvin and Zwingli--men who disagreed with each other on significant theological, ecclesiological,5 and sacramental issues--all be Reformed? Is Melanchthon, Luther's protégé, Reformed? Is Beza, Calvin's disciple, Reformed? Is Arminius, Beza's pupil, Reformed? Is Heinrich Bullinger, Zwingli's successor, Reformed? What tenets make a person Reformed?
EUCHARIST
Dr. R. Scott Clark asks and answers: "Well, what did the word 'Reformed' signify when it was first used? It signified a theology, piety, and practice.6 We confessed certain doctrines in every locus (topic) of theology from the stuff one says before one gets to the doctrine of God (i.e. prolegomena), to the doctrines of God, Man, Christ, Salvation, Church, Sacraments, Last Things, and Ethics." Let us agree that Luther, Calvin, and Zwingli (and even their immediate successors) generally agreed theologically on the doctrines of God, Man, Christ, Salvation and Ethics. (There remains an open question as to Eschatology negatively affecting Reformed theology.) They may even agree to a large degree, but not exactly and entirely, on the doctrine of the Church--all three Reformers may differ on church government. But what about the Sacraments? Luther and Calvin and Zwingli did not agree with each other at all on the doctrine of the Eucharist / Lord's Supper / Communion. Can they still be considered Reformed?
BAPTISM
I ask that specific question about the Sacrament of the Eucharist because of the Sacrament of Baptism he addresses next: What do the Reformed
BAPTISM AND REDEMPTIVE HISTORY
But Dr. Clark then states unequivocally: "Our Baptist friends reject that reading of redemptive history." I know many Calvinistic / Reformed Baptists who affirm that reading of redemptive history and even affirm Covenant Theology--unless by "Baptists" he means "Dispensationalists." The two are not synonymous. However, is he, perhaps, right to argue against those who radically hold that "the New Covenant is so utterly different from Abraham that, despite God's command to initiate covenant children into the visible Church / Kingdom, we can no longer initiate covenant children thus"? I argue against Baptists and Dispensationalists who view the Jewish people under the Old Covenant, looking forward to Messiah, and the Christians under the New Covenant as two distinct people groups. In Jesus there is One Body (Eph. 4:4, 5, 6), One People (Rom. 11:11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24; Gal. 3:28), made up of both Jews and Gentiles (Rom. 1:16, 17; Gal. 3:28; Eph. 2:12, 13). Yet, the Baptist may argue, did God not also say that the New Covenant that He will establish will not be like the Old (Jer. 31:31, 32)? We were to expect different stipulations.
Moreover, the way Dr. Clark has framed the command of Old Testament circumcision of male infants to infer New Testament baptism for all infants disallows God's statement that the New will differ from the Old. In what manner will the New differ from the Old? God informs Jeremiah: "In those days they shall no longer say: 'The fathers have eaten sour grapes and the children's teeth are set on edge.' But everyone shall die for his own iniquity. Each man who eats sour grapes, his teeth shall be set on edge" (Jer. 31:29-30). Here there is not corporate but personal responsibility. So the Baptist will argue that the infant should not be brought into a Covenant, a Corporate Community, by anyone other than himself--and that by grace through faith in Christ. I defend the validity of this argument and that this identifying marker is, in fact, in keeping with the New Covenant.
BAPTISM AS A NEW COVENANT SIGN
In the New Covenant, God will put His Law within the elect--those who by God's effectual grace trust in Jesus Christ--and write His Law upon their hearts; He then declares: "I will be their God and they shall be My people" (Jer. 31:33). That we Baptists reserve to apply the Sign of the New Covenant for those who first personally trust in Jesus Christ by the effectual grace of God, a New Testament pattern, does not mean that we "reject that reading of redemptive history." We understand that history. We also understand that God is "doing a new thing" (Jer. 31:31, 32, 33) and that new thing is different from the old thing: the Sign is different and the Recipient is different. The Sign of the New Covenant is granted to the elect--those who are truly in Covenant with God by His effectual grace through a gifted faith in Jesus. While Pædobaptists tend toward emphasizing Peter's words on the Day of Pentecost, to the effect of the Covenantal Promise being "and to your children," we Baptists who affirm Covenant Theology tend to emphasize Peter's words of the Covenantal Promise being to "as many as the Lord our God shall call to Himself" (Acts 2:39). These individuals are who should receive the Sign of the New Covenant--those whom God has called to Himself, those whom He has elected for Himself (Deut. 7:6, 7, 8; Eph. 1:5), those whom He has saved, justified, sanctified and glorified (Rom. 8:29) by grace through faith in Jesus Christ (Eph. 2:5, 8). This New Covenant is not like the Old Covenant (Jer. 31:32), in Sign and Recipient, but is a better Covenant enacted on better Promises (Heb. 8:6).
BAPTISM AND THE NEW COVENANT RECIPIENT
Furthermore, Baptists argue that the promise of the forgiveness of one's sins and the outpouring of the indwelling Holy Spirit is granted to the children of believers (Acts 2:39) is not an inferred command to baptize the infants or children of believers, since those who were baptized on the Day of Pentecost--those Jewish men who had received the Old Testament Sign of Circumcision--were those who first trusted in Jesus the Messiah and then received the Sign and the blessings of the New Covenant (Acts 2:38). Peter explicitly says that the promise is for the children of believers and to all who are far off but not the actual Sign of the New Covenant. Baptists infer that, in the New Covenant, those who are to receive the Sign of the New Covenant are those who are actually in the New Covenant by grace through faith in Jesus. When Pædobaptists infer infant baptism in household conversions (e.g. Acts 11:14; 16:15, 31, 33, 34; 18:8), or family members being sanctified by one or more believing persons within a household (1 Cor. 7:14), the blessings that overflow to those not yet regenerated and justified--those who are not yet part of the New Covenant Community / Church / the Kingdom of Christ--have nothing to do with the actual Sign of the New Covenant, which is Baptism. In other words, God blesses those who are not in Covenant with Him through the agency of the one who is in Covenant with Him, but not because of being baptized.
If Pædobaptists in the Reformed faith don't want Reformed / Calvinistic Baptists, many of us who also affirm Covenant Theology (by reframing the issue of Baptism), to be called Reformed Baptists then so be it. Don't call us Reformed and don't consider us Reformed. That's your conviction but it's not my / our conviction. I will still refer to myself thusly. We are still your brothers in Christ and should not be deemed as lesser than this grand name: Brothers. If the one and only reason why Reformed Baptists are not "truly Reformed" is because we don't baptize our infants then, at least in my mind, that is a petty reason for such a restriction and exclusion. Do Baptists consider their children as wicked Canaanites, as pastor Dan Borvan jokingly prods (another brother and theologian, incidentally, whom I respect, admire, and have greatly benefited from biblically and spiritually), and are considered as such until they personally trust in Christ? No. Baptists don't think God does, either, while He already knows full-well whether or not they will trust in Christ Jesus and whether or not they are truly His elect (for not all offspring of the elect are truly elect).
But neither should we regard wicked Canaanites as included in the New Covenant Church merely by means of Baptism--meaning, the infant is unregenerate, as is the wicked Canaanite and, so, if the only difference between two unregenerate persons is the spiritual status of their parents then one is no more fit to receive the Sign of the Covenant than the other. Reformed Baptists see so-perceived "innocent" children and the mentally-incapacitated, who may die in such a state, as being saved by the same undeserved grace of God (Matt. 18:1-6, 10; 19:13, 14, 15). Though they are born with the guilt of Adam (Rom. 5:12-19) they are saved by God's sovereign grace by the work of the Holy Spirit upon their passing away and atoned for by the blood of Jesus. If God sovereignly willed their death, at least in some respect, then He also foreordained their salvation by His grace in Christ's atoning blood. Fred Malone, presenting a Covenantal view for Credobaptism, rightly and undeniably argues:
THE NEW COVENANT COMMUNITY
But, generally, the infant of the believer is not de facto part of the New Covenant Community / the Church of Christ Jesus / the Kingdom of God within a Baptistic framework since such is granted solely to someone by God's effectual grace through the gift of faith in Jesus; and until he trusts in Jesus then the child is not regenerate, not justified, and not saved but actually, in reality, an enemy of God (Rom. 5:10) once the child understands right from wrong, good from bad, righteousness from wickedness and until he is saved. Certainly Pædobaptists can agree! Baptizing a child does not regenerate and does not save the child. Your child still needs the effectual grace of salvation. Your baptized child will still die and go to Hell if he grows up (even from, say, preteen to teen and thenafter) and rejects Jesus. What of the Baptism? What of the inclusion in the New Covenant, the Church, the Kingdom? To what end? The Sign granted to them effected nothing if they reject Christ. We Baptists need our Pædobaptist brothers to say more on this issue. We think John MacArthur was right to say that the first-century apostles would have been mortified to learn that non-believers (baptized infants) were being added to the Church because that was reserved for believers in and followers of Jesus (Acts 2:47).
DEFINING THE TERM: REFORMED
I am quite interested in the way in which those in the broadly Reformed community in the sixteenth century used the term Reformed. I say "broadly Reformed community" because of the theological distinctives, the varying ecclesiological and sacramental identities, that differed one from another among Luther, Calvin, Zwingli and their immediate successors. If all three men and their successors were Reformed proper then certain particular issues involving the sacraments, Baptism and the Eucharist, do not hinder one from being Reformed. But what was the central core of the Reformation by which one may be called Reformed? What needed reforming in the Medieval Church? Was there one central issue?
Ultimately the core ecclesiastical issue of the Reformation was the authority of Scripture over against that of the Pope and hence the Church. The theological issue of the Reformation was justification by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone to the glory of God alone as declared in Scripture alone. For Luther, "Scripture ought to be the final authority and the highest judge. Its character as the final authority, which is grounded in and bears witness to itself, precludes the possibility that the standard of its interpretation could somehow come from outside itself."9 We find echoes of this sentiment in the Anglican Reformation in England. William Tyndale famously insisted his intention to cause the plow-boy to know more of Scripture than the Pope! Because the Word of God is the effectual grace which "opens our hearts and gives us grace to believe and puts the Spirit of Christ within us,"10 Scripture alone is our highest authority. By "grace ... we are plucked out of Adam, the ground of all evil [Rom. 5:12, 13, 18, 19], and grafted into Christ, the Root of all goodness [righteousness; cf. Rom. 3:21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26]. In Christ God loved us, His elect and chosen, before the world began [Eph. 1:4, 5; Rev. 13:8; 17:8], and reserved us unto the knowledge of His Son [Eph. 4:13] and of His holy Gospel."11
For Luther, and for other Reformed believers like Tyndale, "self-interpretation of the Holy Scripture presupposes that the Scripture is clear in itself. The Roman [Catholic] assertion that the Scripture must be interpreted by the teaching office of the Church is based on the presupposition that the Scripture is an obscure book. Luther had to disagree with this."12 But of course many Priests and Bishops in the Medieval Church found Scripture to be obscure: that is how all the unregenerate view the Word of God. Paul quite clearly teaches that the unregenerate is not able to understand the things of the Spirit of God, such as is Scripture (2 Tim. 3:16 ESV), because they are spiritually discerned (1 Cor. 2:14). A regenerate plow-boy who can read can absorb all the gems of God's Word that the educated-yet-unregenerate Priest finds confusing, contradictory, folly and illogical.
Yes, Luther's initial motive for reform regarded indulgences in particular, and, according to Diarmaid MacCulloch, Luther "was not the first to express unease about what had happened to the original [so-called] worthy aims of the indulgence system." Dutch church leaders such as John of Wesel, Wessel Gansfort, and Thomas Wittenbach, mentor to Huldrych Zwingli at Basel, were all sounding the alarm of the dangers of the "emotional blackmail," spiritual manipulation, of the Indulgence Campaigns.13 Can man truly purchase his way into Heaven? As Luther is gaining an audience, in Heidelberg he is able to discuss more weighty theological issues, such as human depravity and the proactive grace of God.14 Martin E. Marty states emphatically that the "problem to which all of his ninety-five theses related had to do with this focal concept, an obsession of Luther: the biblical claim that one is 'made right with God' not through any human effort--the code word then and now was and is 'through good works'--but entirely by divine grace 'through faith' [Rom. 3:21-26 ESV; Eph. 2:5, 8, 9]."15 This is what it means to be Reformed! In a specific manner, this is what it means to be Protestant, to Protest the view of Rome that Heaven can be merited: one is justified by grace alone through faith alone.
REFORMED REDUCTIO AD ABSURDUM
But have I not just reduced being Reformed to affirming justification by faith? Is that all being Reformed signifies? I think we are right to insist that the core principles of the Reformation are sola gratia, sola fide, and sola scriptura--that one is saved by grace alone through faith alone as revealed in Scripture alone--and solus Christus (Christ alone) and soli deo gloria (to the glory of God alone) merely ground those principles and point to the ultimate Source of justification: that faith is in Christ alone and this gift of justification that comes by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone as revealed in Scripture alone all redounds to the glory of God alone. This is the Heartbeat of the Reformation. Gavin Ortlund rightly states: "These were not the only points the Reformers contended for but they were at the nerve center of what animated" the Protestant Reformation.16 But, if pressed, I suppose one could argue that a person or a church can be Protestant or Evangelical without truly being Reformed proper.
Jason K. Allen rightly notes that, among the Reformed (Luther, Calvin, and Zwingli), four Latin words caused schism: hoc est corpus meum--this is my body. "Disagreement over what Jesus meant [cf. Matt. 26:26; Mark 14:22; Luke 22:19] when He instituted the Lord's Supper sent Luther, Zwingli, Calvin and other Reformers in different directions."17 Are all three of these Reformers not truly Reformed? Who is Reformed? Some pastors and theologians give the impression that the only believers who are truly Reformed are Calvinistic Presbyterians who hold to the Three Forms of Unity. That is simply not fair or accurate. I cannot fathom excluding Luther himself from being considered Reformed. I understand the argument. The European Reformed Churches all held to the Three Forms of Unity and, so it is thought, if one wants to be considered Reformed then one will adhere to the same. If that is the case then Luther and Zwingli are not Reformed proper. The Giant Reformers of the Reformation, Martin Luther and Ulrich Zwingli, are not Reformed because their views on Communion differ from that of Calvin and the Presbyterians. Is that fair?
I can understand one not being deemed Presbyterian / Orthodox Presbyterian / Confessionally Presbyterian by failing to adhere to the Westminster Confession of Faith; but not being considered Reformed by rejecting pædobaptism seems unnecessarily and unjustly fanatical. If by Reformed we mean Presbyterian then the case is closed. Only Presbyterians are Reformed. Lutherans, Anglicans, and Baptists are excluded. In such a case, then, such groups could be labelled Reformational but not Reformed proper. I think this is unnecessary. By applying the adjective Reformed as a prefix, e.g., Reformed Baptist, Reformed Anglican, the context is clear: these groups are Reformed with distinctives (respectively, believer's baptism for the Reformed Baptist, and a Bishop-led church for the Reformed Anglican). Considered thusly, everyone understands that the Reformed moniker places them within a Reformed context, theologically, soteriologically and biblically, and the few distinctives do not negatively impact Reformed identity.
If people in a Presbyterian church wanted to only baptize professing believers then that would undermine the very core of Presbyterianism. If people in a Baptist church wanted to baptize infants then that would destroy the very foundation of what being Baptist is in reality. But when we say that someone is Reformed do we mean that they baptize infants? Is Pædobaptism the core tenet or the foundation of being Reformed? Of course not! Then why do we drive irreparable wedges between brothers in Christ who agree on so much (primary doctrinal issues) and disagree on so little (secondary and tertiary issues)? I view theologically-conservative followers of Luther (Lutherans) and Calvin / Knox (Presbyterians) and Spilsbury / Bunyan / Keach (Particular Baptists) and Wycliffe / Cranmer / Tyndale (Anglicans) as all being Reformed even if they disagree on minor issues because they hold to the core Augustinian theological / soteriological tenets of the Reformation and the Reformed Community in general.
Notice that I do not include Anabaptists (Grebel / Manz / Blaurock) and General Baptists (Smyth / Helwys / Murton) in this Reformed category for the same reason: they do not hold to the core Augustinian theological and soteriological tenets of the Reformation and the Reformed Community. This is exactly why Jacob Arminius and the Remonstrants (and Provisionists like Dr. Leighton Flowers) cannot be referred to as being Reformed: they not only reject but even redefine the core theological / soteriological tenets and nearly all of the solas of the Reformation and the Reformed; and, honestly, I doubt that they care. I certainly didn't care about not being called Reformed when I defended Classical Arminianism. For me, at that time (2007-2012), the label Reformed meant Calvinistic and I didn't want anyone to consider me part of that camp. Mind you, I still consider these individuals my Brothers and Sisters in Christ, and not one word here is intended to harm any one of them in any way whatsoever.
BAPTISM FOR THE REGENERATED
Robert Letham underscores the reality that, in God's Covenant of Grace, Baptism "exhibits our ingrafting into Christ, in regeneration, justification, and sanctification, which the Spirit confers in due time."18 We agree! Except that if Baptism puts on display our being engrafted into Christ in our regeneration, justification and sanctification of the Holy Spirit, then the Sacrament of Baptism ought to be granted to the one who actually is engrafted into Jesus and into God's Covenant of Grace by the effectual Grace of the Holy Spirit (Titus 3:5, 6) through a gifted Faith in the Lord Jesus Christ (Eph. 2:8, 9; Phil. 1:29; James 1:18; 2 Pet. 1:1) that resulted in our actual regeneration, justification, sanctification and glorification (Rom. 8:29, 30). Dr. Letham adds: "Salvation therefore consists in our being united with Christ. The Father unites us to the incarnate Son, who effects our salvation, by the Holy Spirit. This is one movement of God's grace for all three persons work in harmony and indivisible unity."19 Yes, and Amen! But are we "united with Christ" via Baptism or by grace through faith in Christ? We are united to Christ by grace through faith in Christ (Eph. 1:4, 5)? Even the language of being engrafted into Christ (Rom. 11:18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24) relates directly to faith in Christ and not to Baptism.
Christopher Chun quotes Patristic scholar Everett Ferguson of the following historical fact: "'There is general agreement that there is no firm evidence for infant baptism before the latter part of the second century.' ... The first explicit reference to infant baptism seems to have been made by Tertullian in AD 206 and is a sign of increasing acceptance of the concept of baptismal regeneration."20 Baptismal Regeneration should be rejected universally merely on observational grounds: millions of "baptized" infants have rejected Christ, lived godless lives, thus demonstrating that they were never regenerated. Tom Hicks grants the following insight into Believer's Baptism: The early Particular Baptists understood that,
BAPTISM FOR DISCIPLES ALONE
But, as Dr. and Pastor Emeritus Fred A. Malone rightly states, "We cannot allow the unified testimony of the greatest of pædobaptist divines," and here he is referring to Pierre Marcel, who laments, "O the inconsistency of Protestants who wish to found baptism upon tradition or upon 'the authority' of the Reformers," Malone continues, we cannot allow him "to overthrow our own consciences bound to Scripture alone, especially in regard to the sacraments supposedly instituted by Christ. Was this not the heart cry of the Reformation to begin with?"24 The appeal of the Reformed Baptist will be solidly founded upon Scripture, our final authority for all doctrine and practice, before we build doctrine upon appeals to any Church tradition. Malone argues that Tertullian is "often recognized as a staunch defender of apostolic traditions. But why did he not defend infant baptism if it was in fact an apostolic tradition?"25 Traditions aside, Malone rightly argues that "the Scriptures that describe, define and explain the New Covenant actually eliminate the automatic, organic inclusion of believers' children in the New Covenant as the basis for their infant baptism." What this means, then, is that, although "the Scriptures contain promises concerning the future salvation of New Covenant believers' children (Deuteronomy 30:6), that is not the same as including them in the New Covenant by [automatic] organic connection."26
Who, according to New Testament Scripture, is to be baptized then? Dr. Malone, himself a former Presbyterian minister, confesses: "I baptized two of my infants. I was sincere. It was meaningful. I believed that infant baptism ... was biblical. However, I was sincerely wrong. Now, I am convinced that the baptism authorized by the Bible is the baptism of disciples. In fact, I believe the Bible authorizes the baptism of disciples alone."27
From Scripture, he argues that
THE HEART OF THEOLOGY
What do we learn about God regarding this topic? For me, I am reminded of God's nature of grace and mercy toward us redeemed sinner-saints, as He works in and through His Church, that is, His People, People who wrestle with the same Scripture--the inerrant revelation of God in the Word of God--as we long to be faithful to His Word from a heart that has been renewed by His Grace through a gifted Faith in the Lord Jesus Christ; and that God is willing to work in and through us in spite of our differences, our varying convictions, and our flawed personalities. God works in and through weak vessels and sinfully redeemed people because of His lovingkindness, His longsuffering patience, and His ability to show Himself strong while we are inherently weak. This is how all glory will always go to our God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit, by the power of His holy Name.
__________
1 Tom Hicks, What is a Reformed Baptist? An Overview of Doctrinal Distinctives (Cape Coral, FL: Founders Press, 2024), 18.
2 Ibid., 14, 15.
3 Ibid., 1.
4 Ibid.
5 Hicks notes, "Reformed theology considers the Bible as a single, unified whole, sufficient for all matters of doctrine and godliness and it aims to be consistently God-centered," 15.
6 Though Luther differed from the Medieval approach to the Sacrament of the Eucharist being ex opere operato, lit. "by the work worked," meaning that "the sacraments confer grace when the sign is validly effected [by Christ]," which "made the sacrament effective in itself [to whoever partook], irrespective of faith." Luther understood the Sacrament to be opus operantis, the action of the one acting, for "it was not instituted for its own sake, that it might please God, but for our sake, that we might use it [rightly], exercise our faith by it, and through it become pleasing to God." Brian C. Brewer, Martin Luther and the Seven Sacraments: A Contemporary Protestant Reappraisal (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2017), 202.
Luther's consubstantial view of "the Sacrament of the Altar" is reformed from Rome's view and is "constructed exactly parallel in his Small Catechism to his explanation of baptism: the Sacrament of the Altar, it is thus defined, 'is the true body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ--under [or with or in] the bread and wine for us Christians, to eat and to drink, instituted by Christ Himself.'" Oswald Bayer, Martin Luther's Theology: A Contemporary Interpretation, trans. Thomas H. Trapp (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2008), 271.
Regarding the Sacrament of the true, the real, the genuine Body and Blood of Christ, which are both the Sign and the Thing signified, "The eating and drinking do not in themselves produce them [the effects--the cleansing and the forgiveness of sins], but the words 'for you' and 'for the forgiveness of sins.' These words, when accompanied by the bodily eating and drinking, are the chief thing in the sacrament, and he who believes these words has what they say and declare: the forgiveness of sins." This Luther can say because, for him, "the sacrament cannot be separated from the word; there can be no discussion of it in isolation, and for two reasons: the word, for its own part, is understood in terms of its sacramental power and cannot be reduced to knowledge or intellect. The word is sacramental and at the same time the sacrament is of the word." Hans-Martin Barth, The Theology of Martin Luther: A Critical Assessment (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2013), 226, 225.
7 Paul Althaus, The Theology of Martin Luther (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1966), 76.
8 Fred A. Malone, The Baptism of Disciples Alone: A Covenantal Argument for Credobaptism Versus Pædobaptism (Cape Coral: Founders Press, 2023), 91-92.
9 William Tyndale, "A Pathway into the Holy Scripture," in The Works of William Tyndale: Doctrinal Treatises and Introductions to Different Portions of the Holy Scriptures, ed. Rev. Henry Walter, B.D. F.R.S. (East Peoria: Versa Press, Inc., 2024), 1.15.
10 Ibid., 1.14.
11 Althaus, 77.
12 Diarmaid MacCulloch, The Reformation: A History (New York: Viking Penguin, 2004), 119.
13 Ibid., 121.
14 Martin E. Marty, October 31, 1517: Martin Luther and the Day that Changed the World (Brewster, Mass: Paraclete Press, 2016), 19.
15 Gavin Ortlund, What It Means To Be Protestant: The Case for an Always-Reforming Church (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Reflective, 2024), 11.
16 Jason K. Allen, "Introduction: Why the Reformation Solas?" in Sola: How the Five Solas are Still Reforming the Church (Chicago: Moody Publishers, 2019), 15.
17 Robert Letham, Systematic Theology (Wheaton: Crossway, 2019), 607.
18 Ibid., 608.
19 Christopher Chun, "Baptism," in A Handbook of Theology, eds. Daniel L. Akin, David S. Dockery, and Nathan A. Finn (Brentwood: B&H Academic, 2023), 449.
20 Hicks, 20.
21 Ibid.
22 Ibid.
23 Fred Malone, 171.
24 Ibid., 173.
25 Ibid., 77.
26 Ibid., xi.
27 Ibid., xxxi-xxxiii.
28 Ibid., 81.
PROPER BAPTIST CONTEXT
Allow me to respond to the comment of Dr. R. Scott Clark, a man whom I respect and whose ministry has edified me greatly over the years, whose book The Heidelberg Catechism: A Historical, Theological, and Pastoral Commentary you should purchase today and begin reading immediately. Tom Hicks, from his book What is a Reformed Baptist? An Overview of Doctrinal Distinctives, helps us understand, through the work of Matthew C. Bingham, that the "first Reformed Baptists didn't see themselves as a certain kind of 'Baptist.' Rather, they viewed themselves as Congregationalists with baptistic convictions when it came to the subjects of baptism. Thus Matthew Bingham says that, within the stream of historic Christianity, they might be more accurately called 'baptistic Congregationalists' who have a Reformed and Puritan theology." In Bingham's book, Orthodox Radicals: Baptist Identity in the English Revolution, he correctly demonstrates that the General and Particular Baptists did not consider themselves
two different kinds of Baptists. They would never have joined in formal association with one another and, in fact, the Particular Baptists regarded the General Baptists as dangerously heterodox. Bingham writes that an 'intransigent hostility to Arminianism was evident even among the more ecumenically minded baptistic ministers who were perfectly willing to commune with pædobaptistic Congregationalists.' Bingham notes that a letter from 1654 expresses gratitude to God who 'through grace hath kept us sound in the faith, not any of us tainted with that Arminian poison that hath so sadly infected other baptized churches.' ... Pædobaptism could be tolerated but the 'Arminian position' could not.1The perception of early "Baptists" as part of the Radical Reformation (à la Thomas Müntzer and Andreas Karlstadt) is unfortunate at best given that such radicalized men aligned with Anabaptists and other Iconoclasts (let us not forget early third-century Iconoclasts like Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria, Origen, and Lactantius, or even Reformers Zwingli and Calvin). From Oxford's publishing of Bingham we learn that
mid-seventeenth century Baptists did not, in fact, understand themselves to be a part of a larger, all-encompassing Baptist movement. Contrary to both the explicit statements of many historians and the tacit suggestion embedded in the very use of 'Baptist' as an overarching historical category, the early modern men and women who rejected infant baptism would not have initially understood that single theological stance as being in itself constitutive of a new collective identity [but were in the Reformed camp]. Rather, the rejection of infant baptism was but one of a number of doctrinal revisions then taking place among English puritans eager to further their on-going project of godly reformation.Particular Baptists maintained a theology, piety, and practice every bit as Reformed and Puritan as that of the pædobaptist--especially with regard to the sole authority of Scripture, as opposed to that of the papacy and Rome, and the Regulative Principle. Hicks writes: "But while Luther applied the doctrine of the sufficiency of Scripture to salvation, he did not consistently apply it to the church or its worship. As a result, Lutheran worship has more in common with the worship of the papacy than Reformed worship." He adds: Unlike Luther, Calvin went on to apply the sufficiency
of Scripture to the church's public worship. Calvin and the Reformed tradition held to the Regulative Principle of worship, which teaches that the New Covenant alone institutes elements of New Covenant worship, and that all other elements of public worship are forbidden [which Particular Baptists have held from their inception]. The Bible alone teaches us how to worship. [Lutheran and Anglican forms of worship are categorized as maintaining the Normative Principle, that] whatever the Bible does not expressly forbid is permissible in public worship.2Using Dr. Clark's hermeneutic, but redirecting our ecclesiological aim, one might suggest that Particular Baptists are more properly Reformed in this regard than are Lutherans and Anglicans who practice infant baptism. Presbyterians and Particular Baptists are far more alike than not.
Hicks explains that he and his congregation are "not Reformed Baptists because of a desire to lay claim to a particular historical tradition [though we do], or because we have some blind devotion to an ancient confession of faith [though we have the 1689 Baptist Confession], or because we want to set ourselves up as theological elites who are superior to other Christians. Rather, we are Reformed Baptists because we believe it is the most biblical thing to be,"3 which is a very Reformed virtue. He states that those who "take the Bible seriously" do so "because they long to know God and the way of eternal life in Jesus Christ."4 That is precisely why I chose the name of this site, The Heart of Theology, because the heart of all biblical study is to know God better, clearer, for sanctification and for the joy of knowing Him and to know that we are known by Him (Gal. 4:9).
ARGUMENTS OVER THE PARTICULARS
One might argue that, given the reality of the Reformed faith being so very maligned by so many believers today and throughout history, anyone who longs to adopt the name Reformed for himself and for his theology and faith--given that his theology and faith are clearly within the historic and biblical Reformed tradition--might be warmly welcomed. But such is not the reality for many of us who call ourselves, or who long to call ourselves and possess an affinity in being, Reformed. From my own experience, I think those who are Reformed historically are granted the privilege to define the term. An Anglican, for instance, should not inform a Baptist as to what he must believe--that belongs to the Baptist to define his own theological identity. The Lutheran certainly would not allow the Roman Catholic to demand what tenets he should affirm and reject theologically. So let the Reformed speak! But who are the Reformed? Who designated them to be the only Reformed tradition deemed orthodox, biblical, confessional? What is the meaning of Reformed? Can Luther and Calvin and Zwingli--men who disagreed with each other on significant theological, ecclesiological,5 and sacramental issues--all be Reformed? Is Melanchthon, Luther's protégé, Reformed? Is Beza, Calvin's disciple, Reformed? Is Arminius, Beza's pupil, Reformed? Is Heinrich Bullinger, Zwingli's successor, Reformed? What tenets make a person Reformed?
EUCHARIST
Dr. R. Scott Clark asks and answers: "Well, what did the word 'Reformed' signify when it was first used? It signified a theology, piety, and practice.6 We confessed certain doctrines in every locus (topic) of theology from the stuff one says before one gets to the doctrine of God (i.e. prolegomena), to the doctrines of God, Man, Christ, Salvation, Church, Sacraments, Last Things, and Ethics." Let us agree that Luther, Calvin, and Zwingli (and even their immediate successors) generally agreed theologically on the doctrines of God, Man, Christ, Salvation and Ethics. (There remains an open question as to Eschatology negatively affecting Reformed theology.) They may even agree to a large degree, but not exactly and entirely, on the doctrine of the Church--all three Reformers may differ on church government. But what about the Sacraments? Luther and Calvin and Zwingli did not agree with each other at all on the doctrine of the Eucharist / Lord's Supper / Communion. Can they still be considered Reformed?
BAPTISM
I ask that specific question about the Sacrament of the Eucharist because of the Sacrament of Baptism he addresses next: What do the Reformed
Churches confess regarding baptism? We confess that God has one Covenant of Grace, one Church, throughout the history of redemption. We confess that there is fundamentally one pattern in the administration of that Kingdom / Church. We have always had essentially two sacraments: one for admission and one for renewal. Before Christ that Church / Kingdom was administered with bloody types. With the advent of God the Son incarnate, those types were fulfilled but the pattern of signs of initiation and renewal continue. In other words, we understand that we are in the same Church as Abraham. We understand that the Mosaic Church / Kingdom introduced a temporary, parenthetical, cultic and theocratic administration that ended with the advent of Christ [several uppercase letters are added by me: e.g. Church / Kingdom].But the Baptist, even Zwingli himself, can agree with this statement. Yes, we all rightly understand that the pattern of signs of initiation (Baptism) and renewal (Communion) continue. Much as Luther can disagree with Calvin and Zwingli regarding the particulars of the Lord's Supper--the consubstantiation of the body and blood of Christ in / with / under the bread and wine for Luther7 vs. Calvin's spiritual presence of Christ motif vs. Zwingli's memorial view--so can there be disagreement regarding the particulars of Baptism--pædobaptism vs. credobaptism--and still all parties can be Reformed because the particulars of the doctrine of the Sacraments does not negatively impact Reformed identity and nomenclature.
BAPTISM AND REDEMPTIVE HISTORY
But Dr. Clark then states unequivocally: "Our Baptist friends reject that reading of redemptive history." I know many Calvinistic / Reformed Baptists who affirm that reading of redemptive history and even affirm Covenant Theology--unless by "Baptists" he means "Dispensationalists." The two are not synonymous. However, is he, perhaps, right to argue against those who radically hold that "the New Covenant is so utterly different from Abraham that, despite God's command to initiate covenant children into the visible Church / Kingdom, we can no longer initiate covenant children thus"? I argue against Baptists and Dispensationalists who view the Jewish people under the Old Covenant, looking forward to Messiah, and the Christians under the New Covenant as two distinct people groups. In Jesus there is One Body (Eph. 4:4, 5, 6), One People (Rom. 11:11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24; Gal. 3:28), made up of both Jews and Gentiles (Rom. 1:16, 17; Gal. 3:28; Eph. 2:12, 13). Yet, the Baptist may argue, did God not also say that the New Covenant that He will establish will not be like the Old (Jer. 31:31, 32)? We were to expect different stipulations.
Moreover, the way Dr. Clark has framed the command of Old Testament circumcision of male infants to infer New Testament baptism for all infants disallows God's statement that the New will differ from the Old. In what manner will the New differ from the Old? God informs Jeremiah: "In those days they shall no longer say: 'The fathers have eaten sour grapes and the children's teeth are set on edge.' But everyone shall die for his own iniquity. Each man who eats sour grapes, his teeth shall be set on edge" (Jer. 31:29-30). Here there is not corporate but personal responsibility. So the Baptist will argue that the infant should not be brought into a Covenant, a Corporate Community, by anyone other than himself--and that by grace through faith in Christ. I defend the validity of this argument and that this identifying marker is, in fact, in keeping with the New Covenant.
BAPTISM AS A NEW COVENANT SIGN
In the New Covenant, God will put His Law within the elect--those who by God's effectual grace trust in Jesus Christ--and write His Law upon their hearts; He then declares: "I will be their God and they shall be My people" (Jer. 31:33). That we Baptists reserve to apply the Sign of the New Covenant for those who first personally trust in Jesus Christ by the effectual grace of God, a New Testament pattern, does not mean that we "reject that reading of redemptive history." We understand that history. We also understand that God is "doing a new thing" (Jer. 31:31, 32, 33) and that new thing is different from the old thing: the Sign is different and the Recipient is different. The Sign of the New Covenant is granted to the elect--those who are truly in Covenant with God by His effectual grace through a gifted faith in Jesus. While Pædobaptists tend toward emphasizing Peter's words on the Day of Pentecost, to the effect of the Covenantal Promise being "and to your children," we Baptists who affirm Covenant Theology tend to emphasize Peter's words of the Covenantal Promise being to "as many as the Lord our God shall call to Himself" (Acts 2:39). These individuals are who should receive the Sign of the New Covenant--those whom God has called to Himself, those whom He has elected for Himself (Deut. 7:6, 7, 8; Eph. 1:5), those whom He has saved, justified, sanctified and glorified (Rom. 8:29) by grace through faith in Jesus Christ (Eph. 2:5, 8). This New Covenant is not like the Old Covenant (Jer. 31:32), in Sign and Recipient, but is a better Covenant enacted on better Promises (Heb. 8:6).
BAPTISM AND THE NEW COVENANT RECIPIENT
Furthermore, Baptists argue that the promise of the forgiveness of one's sins and the outpouring of the indwelling Holy Spirit is granted to the children of believers (Acts 2:39) is not an inferred command to baptize the infants or children of believers, since those who were baptized on the Day of Pentecost--those Jewish men who had received the Old Testament Sign of Circumcision--were those who first trusted in Jesus the Messiah and then received the Sign and the blessings of the New Covenant (Acts 2:38). Peter explicitly says that the promise is for the children of believers and to all who are far off but not the actual Sign of the New Covenant. Baptists infer that, in the New Covenant, those who are to receive the Sign of the New Covenant are those who are actually in the New Covenant by grace through faith in Jesus. When Pædobaptists infer infant baptism in household conversions (e.g. Acts 11:14; 16:15, 31, 33, 34; 18:8), or family members being sanctified by one or more believing persons within a household (1 Cor. 7:14), the blessings that overflow to those not yet regenerated and justified--those who are not yet part of the New Covenant Community / Church / the Kingdom of Christ--have nothing to do with the actual Sign of the New Covenant, which is Baptism. In other words, God blesses those who are not in Covenant with Him through the agency of the one who is in Covenant with Him, but not because of being baptized.
If Pædobaptists in the Reformed faith don't want Reformed / Calvinistic Baptists, many of us who also affirm Covenant Theology (by reframing the issue of Baptism), to be called Reformed Baptists then so be it. Don't call us Reformed and don't consider us Reformed. That's your conviction but it's not my / our conviction. I will still refer to myself thusly. We are still your brothers in Christ and should not be deemed as lesser than this grand name: Brothers. If the one and only reason why Reformed Baptists are not "truly Reformed" is because we don't baptize our infants then, at least in my mind, that is a petty reason for such a restriction and exclusion. Do Baptists consider their children as wicked Canaanites, as pastor Dan Borvan jokingly prods (another brother and theologian, incidentally, whom I respect, admire, and have greatly benefited from biblically and spiritually), and are considered as such until they personally trust in Christ? No. Baptists don't think God does, either, while He already knows full-well whether or not they will trust in Christ Jesus and whether or not they are truly His elect (for not all offspring of the elect are truly elect).
But neither should we regard wicked Canaanites as included in the New Covenant Church merely by means of Baptism--meaning, the infant is unregenerate, as is the wicked Canaanite and, so, if the only difference between two unregenerate persons is the spiritual status of their parents then one is no more fit to receive the Sign of the Covenant than the other. Reformed Baptists see so-perceived "innocent" children and the mentally-incapacitated, who may die in such a state, as being saved by the same undeserved grace of God (Matt. 18:1-6, 10; 19:13, 14, 15). Though they are born with the guilt of Adam (Rom. 5:12-19) they are saved by God's sovereign grace by the work of the Holy Spirit upon their passing away and atoned for by the blood of Jesus. If God sovereignly willed their death, at least in some respect, then He also foreordained their salvation by His grace in Christ's atoning blood. Fred Malone, presenting a Covenantal view for Credobaptism, rightly and undeniably argues:
If Christ's effectual sacrifice is offered up only for His people as the 'blood of the [New] Covenant' (Luke 22:20; Mark 14:24) then how can the unregenerate children of believers be said to be in the New Covenant without an effectual Mediator? They cannot. Neither can they be in the Covenant of Works [being unregenerate] and in the New Covenant [being baptized] at the same time: 'For sin shall not be master over you, for you are not under Law, but under grace' (Rom. 6:14). Everyone is either in the Covenant of Works or in the Covenant of Grace but never in both or neither. Nor can infants be removed from the Covenant of Works and engrafted into the New Covenant [by being baptized by a priest or pastor under the sponsorship of their parents] and then returned to the Covenant of Works later [when they reject Christ]: 'There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus' (Romans 8:1) [and Pædobaptists generally insist that the baptized infant is in the New Covenant and in Christ in some gracious sense when they receive the Sign of the Covenant of Grace]. Indeed, Hebrews 9:15 defines Jesus as an effectual Mediator of the New Covenant, to ensure that 'all those who have been called may [in actuality] receive the promise of the eternal inheritance.'8In effect, then, infant baptism undermines the biblical truth of particular redemption for only the redeemed are in the New Covenant. A person is either redeemed or not redeemed, saved or not saved, and there is no such state of gracious limbo for the infants of believers. Are you a regenerate professing believer in Jesus Christ? Then you are in Christ and are in the New Covenant. Only regenerate professing believers are in Christ and in the New Covenant. The only caveat that exists is that state of infants and the mentally-incapacitated whom God graciously saves upon their death: such are brought to Heaven by His grace and are then professing believers in Jesus Christ.
THE NEW COVENANT COMMUNITY
But, generally, the infant of the believer is not de facto part of the New Covenant Community / the Church of Christ Jesus / the Kingdom of God within a Baptistic framework since such is granted solely to someone by God's effectual grace through the gift of faith in Jesus; and until he trusts in Jesus then the child is not regenerate, not justified, and not saved but actually, in reality, an enemy of God (Rom. 5:10) once the child understands right from wrong, good from bad, righteousness from wickedness and until he is saved. Certainly Pædobaptists can agree! Baptizing a child does not regenerate and does not save the child. Your child still needs the effectual grace of salvation. Your baptized child will still die and go to Hell if he grows up (even from, say, preteen to teen and thenafter) and rejects Jesus. What of the Baptism? What of the inclusion in the New Covenant, the Church, the Kingdom? To what end? The Sign granted to them effected nothing if they reject Christ. We Baptists need our Pædobaptist brothers to say more on this issue. We think John MacArthur was right to say that the first-century apostles would have been mortified to learn that non-believers (baptized infants) were being added to the Church because that was reserved for believers in and followers of Jesus (Acts 2:47).
DEFINING THE TERM: REFORMED
I am quite interested in the way in which those in the broadly Reformed community in the sixteenth century used the term Reformed. I say "broadly Reformed community" because of the theological distinctives, the varying ecclesiological and sacramental identities, that differed one from another among Luther, Calvin, Zwingli and their immediate successors. If all three men and their successors were Reformed proper then certain particular issues involving the sacraments, Baptism and the Eucharist, do not hinder one from being Reformed. But what was the central core of the Reformation by which one may be called Reformed? What needed reforming in the Medieval Church? Was there one central issue?
Ultimately the core ecclesiastical issue of the Reformation was the authority of Scripture over against that of the Pope and hence the Church. The theological issue of the Reformation was justification by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone to the glory of God alone as declared in Scripture alone. For Luther, "Scripture ought to be the final authority and the highest judge. Its character as the final authority, which is grounded in and bears witness to itself, precludes the possibility that the standard of its interpretation could somehow come from outside itself."9 We find echoes of this sentiment in the Anglican Reformation in England. William Tyndale famously insisted his intention to cause the plow-boy to know more of Scripture than the Pope! Because the Word of God is the effectual grace which "opens our hearts and gives us grace to believe and puts the Spirit of Christ within us,"10 Scripture alone is our highest authority. By "grace ... we are plucked out of Adam, the ground of all evil [Rom. 5:12, 13, 18, 19], and grafted into Christ, the Root of all goodness [righteousness; cf. Rom. 3:21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26]. In Christ God loved us, His elect and chosen, before the world began [Eph. 1:4, 5; Rev. 13:8; 17:8], and reserved us unto the knowledge of His Son [Eph. 4:13] and of His holy Gospel."11
For Luther, and for other Reformed believers like Tyndale, "self-interpretation of the Holy Scripture presupposes that the Scripture is clear in itself. The Roman [Catholic] assertion that the Scripture must be interpreted by the teaching office of the Church is based on the presupposition that the Scripture is an obscure book. Luther had to disagree with this."12 But of course many Priests and Bishops in the Medieval Church found Scripture to be obscure: that is how all the unregenerate view the Word of God. Paul quite clearly teaches that the unregenerate is not able to understand the things of the Spirit of God, such as is Scripture (2 Tim. 3:16 ESV), because they are spiritually discerned (1 Cor. 2:14). A regenerate plow-boy who can read can absorb all the gems of God's Word that the educated-yet-unregenerate Priest finds confusing, contradictory, folly and illogical.
Yes, Luther's initial motive for reform regarded indulgences in particular, and, according to Diarmaid MacCulloch, Luther "was not the first to express unease about what had happened to the original [so-called] worthy aims of the indulgence system." Dutch church leaders such as John of Wesel, Wessel Gansfort, and Thomas Wittenbach, mentor to Huldrych Zwingli at Basel, were all sounding the alarm of the dangers of the "emotional blackmail," spiritual manipulation, of the Indulgence Campaigns.13 Can man truly purchase his way into Heaven? As Luther is gaining an audience, in Heidelberg he is able to discuss more weighty theological issues, such as human depravity and the proactive grace of God.14 Martin E. Marty states emphatically that the "problem to which all of his ninety-five theses related had to do with this focal concept, an obsession of Luther: the biblical claim that one is 'made right with God' not through any human effort--the code word then and now was and is 'through good works'--but entirely by divine grace 'through faith' [Rom. 3:21-26 ESV; Eph. 2:5, 8, 9]."15 This is what it means to be Reformed! In a specific manner, this is what it means to be Protestant, to Protest the view of Rome that Heaven can be merited: one is justified by grace alone through faith alone.
REFORMED REDUCTIO AD ABSURDUM
But have I not just reduced being Reformed to affirming justification by faith? Is that all being Reformed signifies? I think we are right to insist that the core principles of the Reformation are sola gratia, sola fide, and sola scriptura--that one is saved by grace alone through faith alone as revealed in Scripture alone--and solus Christus (Christ alone) and soli deo gloria (to the glory of God alone) merely ground those principles and point to the ultimate Source of justification: that faith is in Christ alone and this gift of justification that comes by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone as revealed in Scripture alone all redounds to the glory of God alone. This is the Heartbeat of the Reformation. Gavin Ortlund rightly states: "These were not the only points the Reformers contended for but they were at the nerve center of what animated" the Protestant Reformation.16 But, if pressed, I suppose one could argue that a person or a church can be Protestant or Evangelical without truly being Reformed proper.
Jason K. Allen rightly notes that, among the Reformed (Luther, Calvin, and Zwingli), four Latin words caused schism: hoc est corpus meum--this is my body. "Disagreement over what Jesus meant [cf. Matt. 26:26; Mark 14:22; Luke 22:19] when He instituted the Lord's Supper sent Luther, Zwingli, Calvin and other Reformers in different directions."17 Are all three of these Reformers not truly Reformed? Who is Reformed? Some pastors and theologians give the impression that the only believers who are truly Reformed are Calvinistic Presbyterians who hold to the Three Forms of Unity. That is simply not fair or accurate. I cannot fathom excluding Luther himself from being considered Reformed. I understand the argument. The European Reformed Churches all held to the Three Forms of Unity and, so it is thought, if one wants to be considered Reformed then one will adhere to the same. If that is the case then Luther and Zwingli are not Reformed proper. The Giant Reformers of the Reformation, Martin Luther and Ulrich Zwingli, are not Reformed because their views on Communion differ from that of Calvin and the Presbyterians. Is that fair?
I can understand one not being deemed Presbyterian / Orthodox Presbyterian / Confessionally Presbyterian by failing to adhere to the Westminster Confession of Faith; but not being considered Reformed by rejecting pædobaptism seems unnecessarily and unjustly fanatical. If by Reformed we mean Presbyterian then the case is closed. Only Presbyterians are Reformed. Lutherans, Anglicans, and Baptists are excluded. In such a case, then, such groups could be labelled Reformational but not Reformed proper. I think this is unnecessary. By applying the adjective Reformed as a prefix, e.g., Reformed Baptist, Reformed Anglican, the context is clear: these groups are Reformed with distinctives (respectively, believer's baptism for the Reformed Baptist, and a Bishop-led church for the Reformed Anglican). Considered thusly, everyone understands that the Reformed moniker places them within a Reformed context, theologically, soteriologically and biblically, and the few distinctives do not negatively impact Reformed identity.
If people in a Presbyterian church wanted to only baptize professing believers then that would undermine the very core of Presbyterianism. If people in a Baptist church wanted to baptize infants then that would destroy the very foundation of what being Baptist is in reality. But when we say that someone is Reformed do we mean that they baptize infants? Is Pædobaptism the core tenet or the foundation of being Reformed? Of course not! Then why do we drive irreparable wedges between brothers in Christ who agree on so much (primary doctrinal issues) and disagree on so little (secondary and tertiary issues)? I view theologically-conservative followers of Luther (Lutherans) and Calvin / Knox (Presbyterians) and Spilsbury / Bunyan / Keach (Particular Baptists) and Wycliffe / Cranmer / Tyndale (Anglicans) as all being Reformed even if they disagree on minor issues because they hold to the core Augustinian theological / soteriological tenets of the Reformation and the Reformed Community in general.
Notice that I do not include Anabaptists (Grebel / Manz / Blaurock) and General Baptists (Smyth / Helwys / Murton) in this Reformed category for the same reason: they do not hold to the core Augustinian theological and soteriological tenets of the Reformation and the Reformed Community. This is exactly why Jacob Arminius and the Remonstrants (and Provisionists like Dr. Leighton Flowers) cannot be referred to as being Reformed: they not only reject but even redefine the core theological / soteriological tenets and nearly all of the solas of the Reformation and the Reformed; and, honestly, I doubt that they care. I certainly didn't care about not being called Reformed when I defended Classical Arminianism. For me, at that time (2007-2012), the label Reformed meant Calvinistic and I didn't want anyone to consider me part of that camp. Mind you, I still consider these individuals my Brothers and Sisters in Christ, and not one word here is intended to harm any one of them in any way whatsoever.
BAPTISM FOR THE REGENERATED
Robert Letham underscores the reality that, in God's Covenant of Grace, Baptism "exhibits our ingrafting into Christ, in regeneration, justification, and sanctification, which the Spirit confers in due time."18 We agree! Except that if Baptism puts on display our being engrafted into Christ in our regeneration, justification and sanctification of the Holy Spirit, then the Sacrament of Baptism ought to be granted to the one who actually is engrafted into Jesus and into God's Covenant of Grace by the effectual Grace of the Holy Spirit (Titus 3:5, 6) through a gifted Faith in the Lord Jesus Christ (Eph. 2:8, 9; Phil. 1:29; James 1:18; 2 Pet. 1:1) that resulted in our actual regeneration, justification, sanctification and glorification (Rom. 8:29, 30). Dr. Letham adds: "Salvation therefore consists in our being united with Christ. The Father unites us to the incarnate Son, who effects our salvation, by the Holy Spirit. This is one movement of God's grace for all three persons work in harmony and indivisible unity."19 Yes, and Amen! But are we "united with Christ" via Baptism or by grace through faith in Christ? We are united to Christ by grace through faith in Christ (Eph. 1:4, 5)? Even the language of being engrafted into Christ (Rom. 11:18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24) relates directly to faith in Christ and not to Baptism.
Christopher Chun quotes Patristic scholar Everett Ferguson of the following historical fact: "'There is general agreement that there is no firm evidence for infant baptism before the latter part of the second century.' ... The first explicit reference to infant baptism seems to have been made by Tertullian in AD 206 and is a sign of increasing acceptance of the concept of baptismal regeneration."20 Baptismal Regeneration should be rejected universally merely on observational grounds: millions of "baptized" infants have rejected Christ, lived godless lives, thus demonstrating that they were never regenerated. Tom Hicks grants the following insight into Believer's Baptism: The early Particular Baptists understood that,
prior to Augustine [in the early fifth century], the baptism of believers alone was widespread. In the early Church, baptismal candidates were usually instructed for some time, and they only received baptism afterwards. The Didache (an ancient document composed in the first or second century), for example, clearly does not envision any kind of infant baptism, which proves that the practice of believers' baptism is very old. As further proof, consider that the tradition of the early Church was to delay baptism until immediately before death. Even though they were wrong to do so they did it to avoid the baptism of unbelievers and to avoid any possibility of apostasy after baptism. Clearly, the early Christians were very serious about baptizing believers only, as Everett Ferguson demonstrates in his volume on the history of baptism.21Pastor Tom Hicks is right to conclude: "Reformed Baptists, therefore, are not a species of the genus 'Baptist.' Rather, they," we, are "a species of the genus 'Reformed.' Reformed Baptists are not a branch of a Baptist tree; rather, they," we, are "a branch of the Reformed tree. This is evident in that Reformed Baptists have much in common with other confessional Reformed churches but they tend to have many substantial differences with other Baptists"22--other Baptists who would not self-identity as being Reformed nor be identified thusly by those within the broad Reformed Community. "Reformed Baptist identity as catholic first," meaning, belonging to the universal Church of Christ Jesus from its very inception and into subsequent centuries, "then confessionally Reformed, and finally Baptist."23 We are Particular Baptists and we are very much Reformed.
BAPTISM FOR DISCIPLES ALONE
But, as Dr. and Pastor Emeritus Fred A. Malone rightly states, "We cannot allow the unified testimony of the greatest of pædobaptist divines," and here he is referring to Pierre Marcel, who laments, "O the inconsistency of Protestants who wish to found baptism upon tradition or upon 'the authority' of the Reformers," Malone continues, we cannot allow him "to overthrow our own consciences bound to Scripture alone, especially in regard to the sacraments supposedly instituted by Christ. Was this not the heart cry of the Reformation to begin with?"24 The appeal of the Reformed Baptist will be solidly founded upon Scripture, our final authority for all doctrine and practice, before we build doctrine upon appeals to any Church tradition. Malone argues that Tertullian is "often recognized as a staunch defender of apostolic traditions. But why did he not defend infant baptism if it was in fact an apostolic tradition?"25 Traditions aside, Malone rightly argues that "the Scriptures that describe, define and explain the New Covenant actually eliminate the automatic, organic inclusion of believers' children in the New Covenant as the basis for their infant baptism." What this means, then, is that, although "the Scriptures contain promises concerning the future salvation of New Covenant believers' children (Deuteronomy 30:6), that is not the same as including them in the New Covenant by [automatic] organic connection."26
Who, according to New Testament Scripture, is to be baptized then? Dr. Malone, himself a former Presbyterian minister, confesses: "I baptized two of my infants. I was sincere. It was meaningful. I believed that infant baptism ... was biblical. However, I was sincerely wrong. Now, I am convinced that the baptism authorized by the Bible is the baptism of disciples. In fact, I believe the Bible authorizes the baptism of disciples alone."27
From Scripture, he argues that
- only those who repent of their sins and trust / believe / exercise faith in Jesus Christ and become disciples will be saved (Acts 2:38, 39, 40, 41);
- John the Baptizer only baptized disciples (Matt. 3:6; John 4:1);
- the Great Commission commands us to make disciples of all nations and to baptize them (Matt. 28:19, 20; cf. Luke 24:47);
- by way of proof, this is exactly what happened on the Day of Pentecost, saved disciples were baptized (Acts 2:41);
- the common designation of the visible Church is only baptized (and, hence, regenerated, justified, sanctified) disciples (Acts 1:15; 6:1; 9:19, 26, 28; 11:26, 29; 13:52; 14:20, 22, 28; 15:10; 18:23, 27; 19:9, 30; 20:1, 7, 30; 21:4, 16; and I added Rom. 8:29, 30; Titus 3:5);
- Baptism is the Sign of one having been cleansed of sin and one's union with Christ by faith (Rom. 6:4, 5; 1 Cor. 12:13; Eph. 4:4, 5, 6); and
- the only "form of baptism which fits the Regulative Principle is that which was 'instituted' and 'prescribed in the Holy Scripture,' that is, baptism of disciples alone, not of infants by additional and supposed good and necessary inference or consequence. Baptism is for disciples alone (John 4:1; Acts 2:38-41): solis discipulis."28
THE HEART OF THEOLOGY
What do we learn about God regarding this topic? For me, I am reminded of God's nature of grace and mercy toward us redeemed sinner-saints, as He works in and through His Church, that is, His People, People who wrestle with the same Scripture--the inerrant revelation of God in the Word of God--as we long to be faithful to His Word from a heart that has been renewed by His Grace through a gifted Faith in the Lord Jesus Christ; and that God is willing to work in and through us in spite of our differences, our varying convictions, and our flawed personalities. God works in and through weak vessels and sinfully redeemed people because of His lovingkindness, His longsuffering patience, and His ability to show Himself strong while we are inherently weak. This is how all glory will always go to our God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit, by the power of His holy Name.
__________
1 Tom Hicks, What is a Reformed Baptist? An Overview of Doctrinal Distinctives (Cape Coral, FL: Founders Press, 2024), 18.
2 Ibid., 14, 15.
3 Ibid., 1.
4 Ibid.
5 Hicks notes, "Reformed theology considers the Bible as a single, unified whole, sufficient for all matters of doctrine and godliness and it aims to be consistently God-centered," 15.
6 Though Luther differed from the Medieval approach to the Sacrament of the Eucharist being ex opere operato, lit. "by the work worked," meaning that "the sacraments confer grace when the sign is validly effected [by Christ]," which "made the sacrament effective in itself [to whoever partook], irrespective of faith." Luther understood the Sacrament to be opus operantis, the action of the one acting, for "it was not instituted for its own sake, that it might please God, but for our sake, that we might use it [rightly], exercise our faith by it, and through it become pleasing to God." Brian C. Brewer, Martin Luther and the Seven Sacraments: A Contemporary Protestant Reappraisal (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2017), 202.
Luther's consubstantial view of "the Sacrament of the Altar" is reformed from Rome's view and is "constructed exactly parallel in his Small Catechism to his explanation of baptism: the Sacrament of the Altar, it is thus defined, 'is the true body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ--under [or with or in] the bread and wine for us Christians, to eat and to drink, instituted by Christ Himself.'" Oswald Bayer, Martin Luther's Theology: A Contemporary Interpretation, trans. Thomas H. Trapp (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2008), 271.
Regarding the Sacrament of the true, the real, the genuine Body and Blood of Christ, which are both the Sign and the Thing signified, "The eating and drinking do not in themselves produce them [the effects--the cleansing and the forgiveness of sins], but the words 'for you' and 'for the forgiveness of sins.' These words, when accompanied by the bodily eating and drinking, are the chief thing in the sacrament, and he who believes these words has what they say and declare: the forgiveness of sins." This Luther can say because, for him, "the sacrament cannot be separated from the word; there can be no discussion of it in isolation, and for two reasons: the word, for its own part, is understood in terms of its sacramental power and cannot be reduced to knowledge or intellect. The word is sacramental and at the same time the sacrament is of the word." Hans-Martin Barth, The Theology of Martin Luther: A Critical Assessment (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2013), 226, 225.
7 Paul Althaus, The Theology of Martin Luther (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1966), 76.
8 Fred A. Malone, The Baptism of Disciples Alone: A Covenantal Argument for Credobaptism Versus Pædobaptism (Cape Coral: Founders Press, 2023), 91-92.
9 William Tyndale, "A Pathway into the Holy Scripture," in The Works of William Tyndale: Doctrinal Treatises and Introductions to Different Portions of the Holy Scriptures, ed. Rev. Henry Walter, B.D. F.R.S. (East Peoria: Versa Press, Inc., 2024), 1.15.
10 Ibid., 1.14.
11 Althaus, 77.
12 Diarmaid MacCulloch, The Reformation: A History (New York: Viking Penguin, 2004), 119.
13 Ibid., 121.
14 Martin E. Marty, October 31, 1517: Martin Luther and the Day that Changed the World (Brewster, Mass: Paraclete Press, 2016), 19.
15 Gavin Ortlund, What It Means To Be Protestant: The Case for an Always-Reforming Church (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Reflective, 2024), 11.
16 Jason K. Allen, "Introduction: Why the Reformation Solas?" in Sola: How the Five Solas are Still Reforming the Church (Chicago: Moody Publishers, 2019), 15.
17 Robert Letham, Systematic Theology (Wheaton: Crossway, 2019), 607.
18 Ibid., 608.
19 Christopher Chun, "Baptism," in A Handbook of Theology, eds. Daniel L. Akin, David S. Dockery, and Nathan A. Finn (Brentwood: B&H Academic, 2023), 449.
20 Hicks, 20.
21 Ibid.
22 Ibid.
23 Fred Malone, 171.
24 Ibid., 173.
25 Ibid., 77.
26 Ibid., xi.
27 Ibid., xxxi-xxxiii.
28 Ibid., 81.
0 Comments
Please be respectful to everyone.