"Reformed" Baptists Follow Trends, Not Truth: Evaluating Reformed VS Baptist Theology comments

By comments I mean, I am using Reddit forums and responses to Reddit questions as a source of criticism, and will explicitly state when I use Quora sources if I do.
The reason I chose Reddit and online threads, as sources of criticism, is due to the more honest, and less commercial treatment of theological/historical topics. By 'honest and less commercial' my implication is that popular authors, publishers and forums (Ligonier, Grace2You, for example), tend to attempt to unify Reformed thought for the sake of "Christian-pietistic" unity, instead of thoroughly trying to systematize Protestant History. 
With Reddit and online forums like Puritan Board being a great source due to their contributors being very well read in primary sources and are more likely to be honest, and sometimes really harsh. I've just had more luck dealing with these people (instead of actual university graduates), because they have the time and ambition to interact with the primary sources in their original languages.  Also, this is going to be more casual and less methodologically structured, but still should be fun nonetheless. (This also isn't ethical in motivation, of course we will deal with ethical implications of Protestant thought, but by no means do I care to proselytise anyone. But its still an important ethical discussion, because I do believe that the muddying of the waters and watering down of Reformed theology from Baptist does ultimately lead to the complete degradation of Protestant thought, due to their lack of educational structures and intellectual honesty.)

"The words Reformed and Baptist mean something and they are and always have been mutually exclusive."

With M.Snoeberger citing Clark's article, he also brings up Clark's "provocative description of Reformed Baptists as 'squatters in the Reformed house". Rightly so, Snoeberger points out that Clark is not "discouraging" the uprise of aspects of Reformed thought like a predestinarian theology, doctrine of grace, etc, within Baptist circles, but criticises the labelling of merely adopting a few theological loci as 'being Reformed'. 

I think Clark makes a valid point when bringing up how the Reformed rejected the Anabaptist sect for their views. And immediately, Particular Baptists always wail and shout on this point saying, "But we're not Anabaptist! We're Particular Baptist". And its this type of dishonesty that gives Presbyterians headaches. The Reformed rejected the Anabaptists system because of the different "reading of redemptive history... their soteriology, their view of the church and sacraments, and their views of the Christian's place in society". Particular Baptists quite literally take the views of the Anabaptists (with some nuance on the Lords Supper, MAYBE!). Any presentation of a Particular baptistic system to a Magisterial or scholastic Reformer should provoke them to rip their shirts and bang the gavel.

It shouldn't be surprising that the Reformed rejected them based mainly on ecclesial differences...because as Baptist just don't seem to understand, the discussion is ecclesial in nature. Its the same reason Reformed and Lutherans do not fellowship together and will find it hard to have ethical unity considering their ECCLESIAL understandings are different. Hence the ECCLESIAL distinction between 'Lutheran' and 'Reformed'. And its also interesting how we do not see Lutherans who espouse a similar system call themselves like "Reformed Lutherans". It seems to be a Baptist obsession, which I have no doubt is more of a modern fad that makes Baptist kids seem trendy to categorise their communities as Reformed. As to why that's appealing...I have no clue. 

Historically, the labelling of "Reformed Baptist" or an attempt to unify the two camps does not appear. Because there already is an identity for the Reformed, as set out by Turretin and van Mastricht for example. With Petrus handling the Anabaptists under the title "The distribution of false religions" and calling the sect a false theology that is "opposed to the Christian theology", by saying "The former is professed by unbelievers, such as...the second place belongs to the Anabaptist... who likewise deny baptism to infants and sometimes repeat it for adults. Now this article is not a debate on the particular loci, but rather a showcase for the obvious distinction between the two ecclesial groups. 

I'll just insert Clarks quote and work from there:

"No one called the Particular Baptists “Calvinists” either. Neither should we. The expression “Calvinistic Baptist” implies that Calvin’s and Calvinistic theology can be reduced to some aspects of the doctrine of salvation. That would be a shock to Calvin, who confessed a great deal more than the “doctrines of grace.”

I think what would help more than merely doing a side by side comparison of theological loci, would be to view the reduction of Reformed thought and the system of Baptist thought from the eyes of the Reformers. I just can;t imagine an Institutio where all of Calvin's loci aren't holding hands with one another. There's just such a "Presbyterian flow" to the Institutes that creates this unbreakable unity, especially amongst the loci of the Covenants, their continuity, the sacraments, and political theology. To reject Calvin's or Turretin's understanding of these loci just means you reject so much of systematized Reformed theology. And would just be absurd to assume the Reformed divines wouldn't have a problem with that, considering Turretin seemed pretty angry when he heard about supralapsarians; which is already such a nuanced discussion. I can't see it as reasonable to assume you could present him with major ethical-ecclesial differences (Baptism, church structure, Lord's Supper) and expect him to view Particular Baptists as an extension of the Reformed camp. 

Now considering my statements on the issue being ecclesial. I'd like to discuss two comments given by the same Puritan Board user, Christusregnat.

"I don't think the Reformed Baptist divide is only a matter of ecclesiology and sacraments, but affects understanding of politics, ethics, and many other areas. I think that the ecclesiological aspects are more an "effect" rather than a "cause."" 

 

"Reformed Baptists, if consistent with their "Reformed" side, are not good baptists. If they are Reformed Baptists, then they are not good reformed."

I won't get to much into trying to analyse the specific statement regarding the 'effect and cause' part of the comment. But I do think its important to highlight how other people realize that having a DIFFERENT hermeneutical system, leads to other major implications/conclusions. Any adherence to the 'separation of church and state' model, I think, completely erodes any trace of nationalism in one's thought. I can't see a reasonable way to harmonize secular society with the church, if every aspect of civil thought (political, economic, legal, religious, etc) is not governed by Christian law. What I mean is that I reject the ("theonomic") idea of there co-existing a Christian "nation", within a secular society. This could only work if the secular society is ruled by Christian law, hence, making the secular society, Christianized.
I'll keep going back to Calvin on this point, because I think his portrayal of  Reformed Political theology is a great standard. Magistrates must regulate their community in a Christian way for the benefit of the church. So, in Calvin's mind, the magistrates are quite hands on. In contrast to a more 'separation of church-state' view, that may state that the extent of power of Civil Magistrates over the church is limited. While this isn't the place for a full discussion on the topic of Christian Nationalism, I will state that I don't see the plausibility in a "theonomic" view, where the secular aspects of society aren't dominant over the church (in which those aspects are heavily Christianised). Church is just one aspect of the economy, and we cannot let the church govern over the political, economic or legal branches of a nation (for obvious reasons). What I don't mean either is that heads of other variables of the economy (like the President or non-church ombuds) have immediate control over Church variables. But that non-church branches may pass legislation or enforce law to the benefit (or otherwise) of the church in a direct manner. 

I thought the comment on particular Baptists either being good Reformed or Baptist, was funny, but should be considered. A consistently Reformed system, will inevitably lead to ethical conclusions that are of primary violation to the Particular Baptist system. This reminds me of a quote I read from a major Baptist figure (I can't remember the name or quote exactly but will paraphrase), where he stated that 'Infant baptism is a violation of the regulative principle of worship'. Any serious Presbyterian/Reformed, should not view this in the same light that differences in lapsarianism is viewed in. This is a serious part of the Reformed church that has, ethical and political implications. This is why Zwingli was stunned to hear with Anabaptist counterpart rejects Infant Baptism, because does that now exclude a child from political/national inclusion? Particular Baptists reject too many essential doctrines, to be considered people that the Reformed have ecclesial cooperation with. I think this because what constitutes the church is very simple: Read book, pray, sing songs, adhere to Presbyterian Church structure, Lord's Supper and Baptism. That's basically the normative/essential church practices. I'm leaving out exercising discipline and charity from this list because they're more non-immediate practices of the congregation. Particular Baptist reject 3 of the 6 (and possibly 4 of the 6, if you consider exclusive psalmody part of Reformed theology) tenets of the Reformed Church. But today, the group most cooperating with Reformed, ARE THE BAPTISTS. It's genuinely absurd to me how being considered heretics (the Baptists) in the eyes of the historical Reformers, somehow equates to church-cooperation in the modern day. While the rejection of our doctrine of the Sacraments is obvious and well known (and focused on), a rejection of the Church structure is also mind blowing to me. To put it bluntly, Baptist structure is...silly. There is no economic model that functions successfully with that model. And I have no doubt, congregationalism has lead to the mass arrogance and (wrong) doctrinal diversity amongst the masses. 

Our Baptist friends are entitled to think what they will but they are not entitled to fundamentally re-define the adjective “Reformed.” Implied in the attempt by some Baptists to re-define “Reformed” so that it no longer entails a doctrine of church and sacraments is a minimalist definition of “Reformed” so that it only refers to the so-called “doctrines of grace.” -Clark

Now usually when I bring up this discussion people just assume I hate Baptists. And that's not true. I have a great deal of adoration for historical figures like Gill (as I've previously stated), and even think the LBC is a great learning guide and source of theology. What I do hate, is the blurring of the lines done by Baptists to attempt to blur the lines between Reformed an Baptists. 
As an aspiring scholar I despise it, because its just dishonest and wrong. Then personally I hold that this blurring leads to the degradation of Protestant thought and Presbyterian theology, which I think (evidently) leads to a low quality Church. 
Clark then goes on to (maybe somewhat exaggerate) flesh out the blurring of distinction:

" 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?"

Clark then goes on to demonstrate how unreasonable it would be to label thinkers like Aquinas, Bradwardine, Gregory of Rimini and Godescalc of Orbais Reformed, merely due to their holding of the doctrines of grace.

Clark goes on to address an objection brought up by a user named "Daniel" from the Puritan Board. Daniel suggest that adhering to Reformed confessions (particularly the WCF) leads to Exclusive Psalmody, Explicit Christian Civil Government and so on. Clark 'qualifies' himself by stating; "the Reformed confessions as received by the Churches". I wont focus on Clark's qualification, but would defend against Daniel from my own perspective. 
It should be no surprise that even the Reformers in the sixteenth/seventeenth century had disagreements (some major some minor). However the structure of Reformed theology and of the WCF can still be adhered to even if you disagree that the Pope is the Antichrist for example. The political, economical, philosophical and theological structures of Reformed thought remain (for the most part) consistent in our major codifiers, even if they disagreed on particular deductions. Yes, there may be discontinuity between the Magisterial's and Scholastics, but there is also an immense amount of continuity, in the same way there is between the Patriarchs and the Medieval's. In actuality, the adoption of medieval and patriarchal values lead the Reformers to see themselves as being part of the whole catholic system. However, even thinkers like Turretin hesitates to put the Baptist into this system due to their rejection of Infant Baptism:

"Augustine, often, where he relates that the Pelagians had not dared to deny the baptism of infants because they saw too clearly that this would place them in opposition to the whole church" (Institutio, vol.3, 19.20.7)

I really do hate to fill this with quotes, but I think Clark's comment here highlights the implausibility of ecclesial cooperation between the two camps:

"We know that both traditions realize that the words Baptist and Reformed are distinct when a Baptist minister seeks admission to the ministry of a P&R church without changing his views on the history of redemption (e.g., he still denies one covenant of grace, multiple administrations), church, and sacraments). He cannot be admitted and the same would be true of the P&R minister who, because he baptizes hitherto unbaptized converts, wants to call himself a Baptist. The Baptists rightly protest: “But there’s much more to being Baptist.”"

The focus on hermeneutical differences is important. Warfield considered Covenant Theology as "architectonic", which notes the essential nature of Covenant Theology in constructing the piety, practise and overall theology of the Reformed. There is so much more to discuss on the topic, so I'd like to consider this article part 1, to hopefully a string of article to follow. I'll conclude by citing some words from a Particular Baptist (Jared Smith), who rejects the title, Reformed Baptist:

 "Why do the Reformed Baptists make so much of this term? They seem to be always talking about the Reformed faith, the Reformed literature, the Reformed churches, the Reformed conferences, the Reformed fraternals, the Reformed podcasts, etc. They frequently encourage each other to not only be Reformed, but to be always reforming. This language is not common among the Baptists until the mid-20th century onwards."

Like I said, the labelling "Reformed" Baptist seems to be a fad, in which these Particular Baptist fail to fully flesh out consistently, the body of Reformed Divinity. I'd like to further discuss the particulars of the topics, from 'Sacramentology', general ecclesiology and covenant theology without the backdrop of internet comments. But as for now it was nice to see the push back from Presbyterians on those who attempt to diminish the religion of the sixteenth Century.