FWIW I am more than happy to prove that paedobaptism is biblical but I know what your point was and I agree.

Well I think the thing we should most want to be is Biblical and Christian. If those things are different to Reformed then we must lose the label. I only want to be known as Reformed because the people who call themselves Reformed (from Baptists to exclusive-psalter-covenant-theology types) tend to be those seeking after those same aims.

I agree with you, it is crazy to simply follow blindly the Reformers. In the 1600s the Gospel had really only be known (give or take a few pre-Reformation Protestants) for a hundred years. Moreover, they had much fewer manuscripts to work with. So to expect infallibility from them is crazy. Although it is a phrase that has suffered more misuse than good use “keep on reforming” does seem to have been a well known phrase, and (if applied correctly) is a helpful one. No man is perfect. But rather than us building a new building from scratch let’s use the building already build and renovate it.

At Christian Forums (a place plentiful in non-Christians ironically) to be a member of the Reformed board you have to sign up to the Apostles’ Creed, Nicene Creed, Athanasian Creed and the Definition of Chalcedon and at least one of the following:

I. Articles of Religion (Anglican)
II. London Baptist Confession of 1646 or 1689 (Baptist)
III. Savoy Declaration (Congregational/Independent)
IV. Second Helvetic Confession (Reformed)
V. The Goat Yard Declaration of Faith (Baptist)
VI. The Gospel Standard Articles of Faith (Baptist)
VII. Three Forms of Unity (Reformed)
VIII. Westminster Standards (Presbyterian)

…which as you see is quite a wide set of qualifications. I like that.

I would define Reformed as basically a subscription to the 5 Solas and 5 Points and with at least an influence from other great Reformed minds, if not a total subscription. Kind of like Evangelical, I think it encompasses a broad amount of denominations. Certainly you can be more Reformed, just as you can be more Evangelical, but more Reformed doesn’t necessarily mean more right.

Some would say what I’ve defined is Calvinism not Reformed. Well… you may be right but I just prefer a name that doesn’t include the name of a person. I don’t just follow Calvin, but I’m influenced by many people.

(The reason Calvin rocked by the way is expressed really well in the first post of Jared Nelson’s series)

However, what really annoys me is when people say things like “You’re not reformed if you’re not a paedobaptist. All the reformed confessions subscribe to the baptism of infants”. I don’t really care if I’m reformed or not. Prove to me it’s scriptural and I’ll accept what you say.

So in short: I have a wide definition of Reformed, but if people deem I’m not reformed, I’m not fussed, as long as I’m certain I’m biblical. I’m still young, I still have a lot to learn (as you’ve no doubt noticed) so I’m not going to blindly throw my weight behind the Three Forms of Unity, or anything else. I’ll subscribe when I’m convinced their true.

What do you think?

P.S. Sorry for my lateness in entering into the fray!

“To what degree does one need to subscribe to the Reformed confessions in order to be Reformed? Is it “all or nothing”? Are there legitimate expressions of difference within the Reformed community? If so who decides what is legitimate or and what is not?

Who gets to define what being Reformed is? Are we to take a snapshot of the Reformed in the 17th century and say that these men are Reformed and unless you agree with them you are not Reformed? Or are we to allow for doctrinal developments within the Reformed community building upon what our forefathers said and taught? And if we are to allow for doctrinal developments within the Reformed community building upon what our forefathers said and taught what happens if we realise that they got some fundamental things wrong owing to the historical circumstances they lived in and the information they had available to them? Are we still remaining true to the Reformed faith if we rework what they said in the light of modern scholarship which changes beyond recognition what they said?

To say that the Spririt of God will lead the Church into all truth but stopped doing so from the 17th century seems to me to be a little, well…odd.”

Thanks for the link!

No worries it was a good post. I agree religion is worthless (if we define religion as trying to be justified by works [Col 2:23], the Bible does have some room for religion as sanctification [James 1:27]), whereas Christ is all. Many blessing for your blog and thanks for your link.

Tim

FYI: G. K. Beale delivers a craker of a lecture here summarising his book The Temple and the Church’s Mission: A Biblical Theology of the Dwelling Place of God.