"Reformed"? Penny For Your Thoughts

I appreciate the recent articles on "Reformed Baptists" and would like to give my "two cents" on the term "reformed" and what it may or may not signify or imply, especially for Baptists. If not my two cents, then how about a "penny" for my thoughts?

Brother Ken and I corresponded on his articles. I left a comment on his first posting, mentioning how the adjective "reformed" coupled with "Baptist" carried with it too much unneeded baggage. He proved that to be the case. Baptists who choose this descriptor have their reasons for it; Not all of them choose it for exactly the same reason(s). 

Many use it in the manner described by Ken, to show agreement with the "Reformers," such as Luther and Calvin, on several points of doctrine, some of which Baptists have historically denounced as not in agreement with the word of God. 

Reformed = Calvinist

I believe that some Baptists call themselves "Reformed" because they use it as a synonym for "Calvinist." So, if one believes in the "five points" he calls himself "reformed." This is surely the case with the well known book "The Reformed Doctrine Of Predestination" by Loraine Boettner (here). Notice these citations from that book that show this to be the case. Wrote Boettner (highlighting mine):

"The purpose of this book is not to set forth a new system of theological thought, but to give a re-statement to that great system which is known as the Reformed Faith or Calvinism, and to show that this is beyond all doubt the teaching of the Bible and of reason."

Notice how Boettner equates "the Reformed Faith" with "Calvinism." That proves my point. 

Boettner also wrote: 

"The doctrine of Predestination receives comparatively little attention in our day and it is very imperfectly understood even by those who are supposed to hold it most loyally. It is a doctrine, however, which is contained in the creeds of most evangelical churches and which has had a remarkable influence both in Church and State. The official standards of the various branches of the Presbyterian and Reformed Churches in Europe and America are thoroughly Calvinistic. The Baptist and Congregational Churches, although they have no formulated creeds, have in the main been Calvinistic if we may judge from the writings and teachings of their representative theologians. The great free church of Holland and almost all the churches of Scotland are Calvinistic. The Established Church of England and her daughter, the Episcopal Church of America, have a Calvinistic creed in the Thirty-nine Articles. The Whitefield Methodists in Wales to this day bear the name of "Calvinistic Methodists." (Chapter I Introduction) 

Again, this citation makes "reformed" to be synonymous with both "Calvinism" and with "the doctrine of Predestination." 

If people merely associated the term "Reformed" with "Calvinist" or "Predestinarian," then there would be little objection. However, as Ken has shown, there is too much baggage with the former term. 

Reformed Ordo Salutis

Many who call themselves "Reformed," whether Baptist, Presbyterian, or other, refer to what is called "the Reformed Ordo Salutis." The "ordo salutis" simply refers to "the order of salvation" and seeks to put the experiences and events connected with salvation into a scriptural or logical order. It is said that "the Reformed view" on this matter is to say that "regeneration (or rebirth) precedes faith (or conversion)." 

Over the years I have, along with other Baptists, such as Bob L. Ross of Pilgrim Publications, attacked this ordo salutis because it 1) denies that the word of God or gospel is a means in regeneration, and 2) denies that faith is a means, and because 3) it teaches that there are such characters as "regenerated unbelievers." 

I have not objected to people referring to the "born again before faith" as being a "Reformed" view, but I have vehemently objected to people saying that such a view is THE united belief of "Calvinists." I have shown that it is not the view of "Calvinists"! It may be the view of some Calvinists, like the Hardshells, but it is not the view of many Calvinists. John Calvin did not believe that the new birth preceded faith. Nor did Martin Luther. Abraham Booth and Charles Spurgeon did not believe it. Most of all, the bible does not teach it.

Hardshells Were Once Called Reformed

Primitive Baptists at first called themselves "Reformed Baptists." In a posting I wrote this:

"Remember also how the first Hardshells in North Carolina considered and adopted the name "Reformed Baptists" for awhile before they began using the terms "old school" and "primitive" as their distinctive modifiers. Why would they do this if they really thought that they were opposing what was totally new belief and practice among the Baptists? However, if they knew, as did Beebe, that the Baptists had a prior tradition of these things, then truly "reformed" would have been the proper adjective. It would have been an acknowledgement that what they were then advocating was not the general Baptist belief or practice of the time, though it had been sometime in the more distant past, but it needed to become once again Baptist belief." (See here)

I also wrote this in another post:

"It would have been better had the Hardshells not been deceived by Landmarker views, for then they could have simply affirmed, as did Alexander Campbell about the same time, that the church had apostatized and needed to be reformed and restored. This would have led them to simply say that they were finishing the Reformation begun earlier by men such as Luther and Calvin and the Baptists of 17th century England. In fact, one of the first names that the new Hardshell denomination called themselves, before finally settling on "Old School" or "Primitive" Baptist, was "Reformed" Baptists. If they had not held to Landmark views on "church succession" then they would not have had to try to claim succession through the London Confession and would not have had to try and distort it. They would also not be burdened with the impossible task of trying to find churches who believed their unique and aberrant views in previous centuries in a chain linked fashion." (See here)

Elder Sheets in his history and rebuttal against the Hardshells wrote the following:

It is said that Elder Mark Bennett went with them at the time of the split and remained several years; then his mind underwent a change, and he came back to his old love. In 1854 he published a "Review of the History of the Kehukee Association," in which he tells us about the name which they finally adopted. We quote from the Review, pp. 7 and 8:

"About that time (1826) two or three of her (Kehukee) preachers drafted some 'Resolutions,' in which was bespoken for their denomination the name of 'Reformed Baptists in North Carolina.' In the course of two years they became dissatisfied with this name and abandoned it. For some time they called themselves alternately, 'The Old Baptists,' 'The Old Sort of Baptists,' 'Baptists of the Old Stamp,' 'The Old Side Baptists,' etc. * * * If we recollect the time well, during the period of 1832 to 1835 a meeting of a few Antimission Baptists was held in Maryland, some distance from the city of Baltimore, at a place called Black Rock; at which meeting they resolved to be known among themselves by the name of 'Old School Baptists.' With this name the Kehukee people at first were not well satisfied. But contemporaneously, or nearly so, with the Black Rock movement, a monthly, with the caption of 'Signs of the Times' was issued from New Vernon, in New York, Orange County; which paper unceremoniously dubbed the Anti-mission Baptists with the name of 'Old School Baptists.'"

(See here)

Not only did the Hardshells at first call themselves "Reformed Baptists," but the Campbellites were call "Reformers" and "Restorationists," being part of what is called "the restoration movement." 

It is for these reasons (and some other more minor reasons too) that I do not like the term "Reformed Baptists" and I am glad to write this as an addition to what brother Ken has written. 

What think ye?