- RSS FeedSubscribe
- « Previous PostA La Carte (11/30)
- Next Post »Great is Artemis of the Ephesians!
The Reformed [Baptist] Renewal
- 11/30/07
- 34
Over at “Cowboyology,” Clint Humphreys has posted an interesting take on the Baptist wing of the Reformed Renewal we’re experiencing today. A former Professor of New Testament at Toronto Baptist Seminary, Clint now pastors Calvary Grace Church in Calgary, Alberta. Looking at the landscape of Reformed Baptists, he identifies five streams and suggests that most contemporary Reformed Baptists will fit into one of them. They are:
The Neo-Evangelical Stream.
Leading Example: John Piper
Characteristics: Calvinistic convictions arrived at from within the broad mainstream Neo-evangelical ethos.The Dispensational Stream.
Leading Example: John Macarthur
Characteristics: Calvinistic conclusions arrived at out of the generally ‘3-4 point Calvinist’ circles of ‘Dallas’ dispensationalism.The Fundamentalist Stream.
Leading Example: Spiritual heirs of TT Shields
Characteristics: Distinguished from other Fundamentalists by Calvinism and at times non-Premillenial eschatology. Yet still Fundamental in ethos and association (cf. Paisley in N. Ireland, Bob Jones University, etc.)The Reformed Baptist Stream.
Leading Example: Al Martin, Tom Ascol
Characteristics: Often connected with Presbyterians, possessing the same view of the Law’s implication for Christian living, particularly in the form of Sabbatarianism, and 10 commandments as normative for Christians.The New Covenant Reformed Baptist Stream.
Leading Example: John Reisinger
Characteristics: Derived from the Reformed Baptist stream, but broke away from those circles over disagreement about Sabbatarianism and the relation of the Law to theChristian. Tended to emphasize a more Christocentric view of the Law (i.e. Law is fulfilled in Christ entirely, therefore the idea of Sunday as equivalent to a Jewish Sabbath is incorrect). Can draw from Progressive Dispensational circles as well as other eschatological perspectives.
To this list I would add one more:
The Actually Presbyterian Stream. These are people who are Presbyterian by conviction but who have not been able to find a God-honoring Presbyterian church in which to plant themselves. Instead, they joyfully attend Reformed Baptist churches, even while harboring hopes of someday being able to get their children baptized “properly.” John Piper’s church saw some much-publicized controversy about this group of people and many Reformed Baptist churches have plenty of closet Presbyterians attending (even if not as members). I’ll grant that this stream does not represent Reformed Baptist convictions, but it does represent a significant number of Christians within these churches.
Clint admits “There is often overlap between these different streams, and many Calvinistic Baptists would not be associated with any of them in a formal way. However the influence of the various teachers in these streams has had a significant impact within the broader Reformed Renewal of the 20th and early 21st century.”
I’d be interested in your feedback on these. Do you feel these are legitimate categories? Are there any missing? Which do you feel apply to you (if you are Reformed and Baptist)?
The comments section at Clint’s site is well worth perusing as there is some interesting discussion to be found there.
I am a follower of Jesus Christ, a husband to Aileen and a father to three young children. I worship and serve as a pastor at 
Releasing on April 1, The Next
Published in 2008, this book
This is a guide that calls men,
This review of the bestselling
New to the site? You can get
This is a guide written
Comments (34)
I’d fall into the Reformed Baptist camp. I initially became interested in Calvinism from the writings of John Piper leading me to read Jonathan Edwards, the Puritans and so and so on as most of you went down similar paths.
This somewhat “neo-evangelical” path went down a different path as I began to seriously study Baptist history and particularly the Particular Baptists of England and the foundations of the Southern Baptist Convention as rather strictly Reformed (well, at least in the Baptist sense). This of course led me to the wonderful works of Fred Malone and Tom Ascol. It also developed a great appreciation for Founders Ministries and their efforts to re-enlighten the Southern Baptist Convention to it’s overwhelmingly Calvinistic origins.
Sounds pretty good to me and I’ve been a Baptist a long time.
closet Presbyterians
No kidding? Must be pretty rough right now in the Presbyterian church.
A very interesting approach and one I’d started to consider myself, but in the more mainstream world of the Reformed faith (after seeing the excellent level of co-operation among Reformed brethren of different persuasions via T4G). I wonder if a further category could be added - The Charismatic Stream? SGM are clearly a growing family of churches and would practise believers’ baptism - shouldn’t CJ et al be added?!? Also where would you put the likes of Mark Dever (who doesn’t share Piper’s view on membership), Wayne Grudem (mrore Dallas than Neo? And more Charismatic than Dallas?) and Al Mohler (and the other Reformed Southern Baptists!)? It’s fascinating to see such a breadth of Reformed Baptist churches in the US - the variety in the UK is far narrower, as most Reformed people would be presbyterian (certainly here in Scotland!). However, I would say that we too have a Reformed Baptist Stream too, predominantly Welsh and heavily influenced by ML-J and AW Pink. We also have what I would call the FIEC Stream - the Fellowship of Independent Evangelical Churches was set up in 1922 and, while not prescriptive on credobaptism, is generally made up of Reformed Baptist churches of various persuasions, although most of them would be pretty much where John Piper is now, although some of them would be cessationist and would be keener on either MacArthur or Al Martin. We also have Terry Virgo’s New Frontiers (very similar to SGM) and it’s interesting to see that many of the evangelical church’s favourite hymns today were written by one of their number - Stuart Townend (In Christ Alone, How Deep the Father’s Love, The Power of the Cross, Resurrection Hymn (See What A Morning)) - expect to see New Frontiers folk in large numbers at New Word Alive in Pwllheli, North Wales next April, where Piper, Carson and Virgo are all speaking! It would be great if Piper’s influence could be felt more here in the UK, perhaps outwith the FIEC and more in the Baptist Union churches, which are drifting further and further away from their biblical roots, sadly - many people have still to find out who Piper is! Willow Creek, Rick Warren and even the Emerging Church are what influence most of them, sadly……..
I think the categories work, though I think the lines are turning to mush more every year. I’ll leave off on whether this is good or bad. There will always be those who equate Christianity with baptist history, rather than coming to their conclusions exegetically. Similarly, there are those who equate Christianity with their confessions rather than arriving at their conclusions exegetically. Personally, I respect Piper’s and Reisinger’s attempts to bring their policies in line with what they think the text is saying, rather than what is “Baptist.” I resonate with both these men. I also appreciate Ascol’s stand for Baptist Calvinism in the SBC of which I’m a part.
Based on this article, I’m looking for a good definition of the term: Neo-Evangelical. I tended to think of this in terms of someone who with good conscious could sign a document like “Evangelicals and Catholics Together.” Neo-Evangelical being someone not holding so dogmatically to reformed doctrine that there would be any offense in ECT and would prefer ecumenical social work to faithfully and rigorously holding to doctrines that divide. Though a neo-evangelical himself proclaims somewhat faithfully the gospel signing ECT does not violate his conscious.
Based on this description I wouldn’t have put John Piper in the category of neo-evangelical.
I found this defintion on the net:”Neo-Evangelical
The neo-Evangelical like the charismatic represents the soft option within the evangelical tradition. The neo-Evangelical tends to hold their evangelicalism lightly in reaction to the perceived extremes of fundamentalism. The neo-Evangelical does not wish to alienate people from Christianity by dogmatism. The neo-Evangelical is concerned about relevance and tends to be convinced by historical and literary arguments about the Bible and Christian history. Fundamentalists and evangelicals would label this perspective as wishy-washy.”
So if anyone can help or direct me to a url that further explains the term Neo-Evangelical it would be greatly appreciated. I have read D.M. Lloyd-Jones, “What is an Evangelical?”, and thought it was quite profitable.
As a graduate of Bob Jones, I would have to say the University would not consider itself “reformed”. The administration and faculty are decidedly against “calvinism”.
I would be wary of putting Ian Paisley’s church in with any other stream. This is because of its ethnic nature (Ulster Scots) and political stance (Die hard Unionist) which are in practice inseperable from its other beliefs.
From a UK perspective - John Piper’s contention that Justification must be seen to include the imputation of Christ’s Active Obedience as seen in his most recent book The Future of Justification puts him along way into the backwoods of ‘Old Evangelicalism’ beyond any of the conservative Reformed groupings in the UK, and beyond key figures such as the late Martin-Lloyd Jones. No way could his convictions be classed as ‘Neo Evangelical’.
The Dispensational Stream.Leading Example: John MacarthurCalvinistic conclusions arrived at out of the generally ‘3-4 point Calvinist’ circles of ‘Dallas’ dispensationalism.
As a former longtime member of MacArthur’s church and one who continues to follow his ministry, I’m not so sure this is wholly accurate. That’s the difficulty of attempting to use brief generalizations such as this.
For those interested in being more specific, I’d recommend listening to John’s teaching series The Doctrines of Grace.
I find your use of the word “sabbatarianism” interesting, and I’m very glad you expounded on what was meant. I think of a sabbatarian as one who observes Saturday as the sabbath. They’re small in number, but they can be very vocal. They also put out a lot of literature. Ask me how I know.
As for myself, the Dispensational Stream would best apply to me.
I’ve been thinking about that a lot this week. I come from an Evangelical Free background, but to clear that up for people I sometimes explain that I am pretty much a Reformed Baptist. According to the explanation above, I would fall into the first category. Very interesting…
I belong in the Reformed Baptist camp, near as I can tell (Like Anna, I also came out of an E-Free background).
Regarding the emphasis on the Sabbath rest, the church I go to now does not emphasize this nearly as much as two other RB churches I’ve attended. It’s made me curious as to what the practical outworking of sabbatarianism is in Reformed Baptist churches.
Helpful discussion. I like how the categories line up even if all the specifics/parties within them don’t precisely cohere.
I wonder though about the broad use of the terms ‘Reformed’ and ‘Calvinism’. Should we use them so broadly? Most Presbyterians and some Reformed Baptists refer to a whole system of theology when mentioning ‘Reformed’ or ‘Calvinism’. From a historical theological perspective, would one not say that ‘Calvinism’ or ‘Reformed’ refers more closely to the spiritual heirs of the Three Forms coming out of Europe or the Confessions of Westminster/London/Philadelphia?
I’m sure this has been mentioned here before or elsewhere on the web, but the contemporary use of the term Reformed seems to refer primarily to the doctrine of salvation. Some further distinctions could perhaps be more helpful for the discussion. For example, referring to someone as Augustinian/Monergistic with respect to their view of soteriology rather than Calvinist/Reformed. More could be said, but I’ll leave it there…
I should like to ask how and whether it is profitable to create or identify these categories of “Reform Baptists”.
I’m a Together for The Gospel statement of faith subscriber and I have learned much (much!) from the ministry of Piper, Mahaney, Mohler, Duncan, Sproul, MacArthur, et al and I am perfectly content to rest under that umbrella.
So I’m curious as to whether it’s profitable to further subdivide among the various strands/brands of Reform Baptists.
Interesting discussion but I’m kinda with Truth Unites. I graduated BJU, graduated TMS, listen to Piper and MacArthur on my Ipod (along with chapel messages from Southern and Southeastern), preach the doctrines of grace, am a credobaptist (Second London Confession), anticipate the rapture of the church any day, believe Israel will be restored, teach believer’s baptism, read Mohler, Dever, Mahaney, Jim Berg, Dick Mayhue, James White and Tom Ascol. So what stream am I in or is there a lake where these streams come together?
As an Irish Baptist I’m amazed to see Paisley included in the list. Although son of a Baptist minister he is head of the Free Presbyterian church here. He completely distances himself from the Irish Baptist Association which he regards as tainted. Solidly evangelical the Association it has a fair percentage of Reformed Baptists of the Al Mohler variety and a few more akin to Macarthur and some of the Piper variety.I hope the American categories are better defined! It reminds me on a book on Baptist history I once read which saw all the good nonconformists of all varieties as Baptists- they just hadn’t realised it yet.
I disagree at how Piper is categorized as being neo-evangelical. How is he neo-evangelical at all? Under this catergory, where would Paul washer come under?
And MacArthur is certainly not a 3 or 4 pointer - at least not for the last decade.
By The Way,
HAPPY BIRTHDAY TIM!
Joel Tay
There was a number of discussions concerning the validity of identifying “piper” or “macarthur” as neo-evangelical or dallas. Further we see the discussion of what stream we ought ot identify with, or whether there is a lake these flow to.
As I understand Clint’s original post. He is speaking of the flows of the many streams which come into the greater stream of “reformed baptist”. When he speaks of piper as being from the neo-evangelical stream, he speaks of the past. Piper graduated from fuller and praises dan fuller as one of the great influences in his life and development. piper is however not a neo-evangelical now, but rather a reformed baptist.
Macarthur graduated from talbot in the days of charles feinberg and bob thomas who were dallas aligned dispensationalists. while classifying himself as a “leaky dispensationalist” (see gospel according to the apostles appendix) macarthur has come into conflict with Ryrie and other dallas theologians in soteriology.
The intention I believe that Clint had on cowboyology was to draw attention to the depth and diversity of where the reformed baptist movement has come from and is coming. The challenge was to think about where we have been and note where we are going. We ought ask ourselves where our traditions affect us, and then look to scripture to test them.
As for myself. I moved every 3-4 years of my life attending the most evangelical church available ranging from AOG, APOC, Penticostal, Alliance, Fellowship Baptist, BGC, SBC and Evangelical Free. I attended North American Baptist College, Master’s Seminary, Briercrest and Liberty University. Is there a stream for mongrels? Am I of the baptacostal missionary free reformed alliance stream?
I’ve always thought there was a distinction between being Calvinistic and being Reformed. I think streams 1,2 & 3 are Calvinistic in their Soteriology but not necessarily Reformed.
I’ve always understood the term “Reformed” to be more in line with streams 4 & 5.
Tim,From some perspectives you may be correct in what you are seeing in those distinctions. But of course one has to ask what the terms “calvinistic” and “reformed” mean.
Was luther reformed? He was the first of the magisterial reformers in the 16th century.
Was calvin reformed? he never used that term of himself (to my knowledge).
Were the drafters of the 1644 or 1689 LBCs reformed?
Can a credobaptist be reformed?
Is ‘reformed’ a denominational title that no one else is entitled to on pain of ambiguity?
Are the reformed only those who sign the westminster standards?
Or is “reformed” the general title for those holding the principle that the true church is that which is: ecclesia reformata, semper reformanda secundum verbum Dei?If one is conscious of always reforming to the Scripture, in the heritage and tradition of calvin, the westminster divines, et all, is it not perfectly legitimate to be classified as reformed?
These terms seem to me to be in need of further definition. R.C. Sproul holds that reformed is nicknamed covenant theology and if you are not a covenant theologian you are not reformed. In that case we must eliminate Calvin and anyone else born before that system of theology was formalized, or at least cut out the parts that don’t match.
Can new covenant theology fit in?
For my own part I am convinced that to be “reformed” means to hold to the spiritual heritage and principles that drove the 16th century reformers and the subsequent generations of puritans and clarifiers to uphold the authority of Scrpiture (the formal issue of the reformation) and the doctrines of grace (the material issue). I would hold that the LBC framers living in the generation that followed calvin, as part of the English puritan movement counts.
What of later years? Can dispensationalists (most of whom started as Presbyterians such as schofield) and who believed they were continuing to reform doctrine count? perhaps they went too far and needed to be called back to the core… but does that exclude them. Of course of speak of the macarthur style dispensationalist who still want to be thought of as somewhat reformed and hold to the great formal and informal distinctives of the reformation.
These are the questions I have always wanted asked.
Chad,
Thanks for your comment. That makes good sense and clarifies something for me.
“As I understand Clint’s original post. He is speaking of the flows of the many streams which come into the greater stream of “reformed baptist”. When he speaks of piper as being from the neo-evangelical stream, he speaks of the past. Piper graduated from fuller and praises dan fuller as one of the great influences in his life and development. piper is however not a neo-evangelical now, but rather a reformed baptist.”
scott
I only realized very recently that there is such a thing as the New Covenant reformed Baptist stream. I still don’t know fully all that view represents, except so far I think it represents what I understand the Bible to say about the Sabbath. I think there are a lot of people like me who find themselves identifying doctrinally with many different reformed streams.
But as some have said, let all those streams run into a great river that glorifies God with one voice!
As a BJU grad I would have to agree with Nathan above. While many BJU graduates like myself have become solidly reformed, the university itself and the churches who pay its bills could not by any means be largely categorized as either calvinistic or reformed. However, if Chad’s assessment is correct, then the BJU grads who are now reformed/calvinistic would be the ones referenced in the “Fundamentalist Stream” even if they have now found themselves outside the fundamentalist movement.
I fit into your added category as an actual Presbyterian unable to find a biblical Presbyterian church to join. However, I can’t even find a reformed Baptist church so I’m kinda stuck with a dispy one for now. Yikes!
SDG
My wife would probably best fit in the “Actually Presbyterian” strain, though I reckon I’d probably be somewhere in between #4 and #5.
Interesting stuff.
Please don’t lump the OPC (Orthodox Presbyterian Church) in with the other Presbyterian Churches. There is a by far, big difference. For those seeking an “Actually Prebysterian” church, I would recommend an OPC church, strong in the Westminster Standards, strongly holding to the ideals Machen fought for. http://www.opc.org/ Look thru this site for a church near you or a plant trying to get started.
I find your definitions profitable. As to John MacArthur and Dallas dispensationalism and Dallas Circles—-maybe “Old Dallas…”
I know he is very Calvinistic, some would say 5 point rather than 3 or 4 points. I believe the point system is a little too simplistic as are terms like dispensational. I heard him describe himself as a leaky dispensationalist once.
Nevertheless, your grid is very helpful. Thank you for your thoughtful discussion.
Few preachers can yell for an entire sermon like Ian Paisley does, and still keep it moving and convicting…I’d like to think that’s the way men like George Whitefield sounded like back in the day… (of course with a different accent). Paisley’s sermon Fundamentalism vs. Apostatsy is quite a message…
Tim, fantastic, helpful information about the Baptists now re-embracing the Doctrines of Grace. Thanks so much.
The disparity between Calvinistic, Baptist, and Reformed ideologies would seem to defy a combination of any sort. Especially since many baptist beliefs directly contradict reformed teachings, especially in the realm of salvation and the method there of.The devout Calvinist would doubtfully recognise Reformed teachings, since they seem to be so fluid and changeable based upon, supposed ‘new’ discoveries and revelations of scripture. Although how scripture ‘suddenly’ revealed a newness…it is hard to fathom? Since Calvinism is, at best, hard to equate, much less, support via scripture without a liberal interpretation of it, and leaving out many basic elements I am not sure a combination would fix much, so much as muddy the waters even more. That is not to say that there are not truths to be found in most religions. It is just that trying to combine such conflicting ideologies cannot be for the good or improvement of either.
First of all, thanks to Tim for sharing my thoughts with a wider spectrum of readers.
Second, I would like to offer a few general explanations for those who have commented [If you would like further details you can check out my follow-up post at http://cowboyology.blogspot.com/
A. Why the ‘streams’?
The streams are those movements or groups that have experienced a ‘renewal’ so that numbers of people from those streams have entered the broader ‘river’ of the pan-Reformed movement.
For example, it is obvious that John Macarthur is not a 3-4 point Calvinist, otherwise he wouldn’t be in a survey of Calvinistic Baptists! However, Macarthur represents the broad Dispensational stream. And yes, Macarthur is a Progressive Dispensationalist, but he is nonetheless coming from the broader Dispensational stream. Macarthur and others like him show evidence of the Reformed Renewal in a relatively non-Calvinistic stream.
B. What is Neo-Evangelicalism?
The way I use the term ‘Neo-Evangelicalism’ is in an historical sense. The term was the self-designation for a movement after WW II that sought to retain the theology of Fundamentalism, while re-engaging the academy, politics, and society at large. Neo-Evangelicalism emphasized unity across denominational boundaries, and even among those in liberal mainline churches.
The movement grew from being marginal to becoming the new ‘establishment’ in North American Protestantism. Today the movement has become so broad as to lack definition.
C. Why is John Piper a representative of the Neo-Evangelical stream?
Piper was educated at key Neo-Evangelical schools like Wheaton and Fuller Seminary. His mentor, Dan Fuller, was at the center of the so-called ‘Battle for the Bible’. Fuller was charged with not supporting inerrancy. Piper continues to serve in a Neo-Evangelical denomination, the Baptist General Conference. As such, I think it is appropriate to see Piper as leading the Reformed Renewal out of the Neo-Evangelical stream.
D. What does Ian Paisley have to do with anything?
Well, not much. I mentioned Paisley’s name, simply because he has closely identified himself with American Fundamentalism. The connection with TT Shields, the ‘Battling Baptist’ is not spurious however. A number of Shields’ followers at Jarvis Street Baptist Church in Toronto had close ties with Ian Paisley and his Free Presbyterian denomination.
E. If there is a lot of overlap between the streams, why bother with them at all?
The simple fact is that we need to start somewhere. Ultimately, as one commenter noted, all that matters is what the Scriptures teach, and our faithfulness to it. However, we are also to be concerned with our practice in carrying out biblical teaching.
We must guard against the “I am of Paul/Apollos/ Cephas” trap that looks to heroes for our personal identity over against someone else’s hero. But we must also be aware that godly people will have different approaches to carrying out the mission of the gospel. Even Paul and Barnabas had a division over ’ a judgment call’—— whether John Mark was fit to join them on a missionary journey.
F. Concluding Remarks
I hope that these categorizations are helpful for people in thinking about their own backgrounds and even presuppositions as they encounter the depth and breadth of Reformed Orthodoxy.
May such reflection help us to walk in a wise manner, worthy of our glorious Savior, Jesus Christ.
I like the insight on “closet Presbytarians.” I’ve attended Southern Baptist churches my whole life & was baptized in one when I made a profession of faith at age eleven. About seven years ago I became influenced by a reformed brother who introduced me to the writings of R.C. Sproul which in turn introduced me to many other Reformed & Presbyterian writers & ideas. Everything I was learning made so much sense & filled in holes that reviously I assumed one must accept as a part of faith. Over that time I’ve found that much presbyterian thought makes great sense in light of reformed & covenantal teaching. For example, I surprise myself when I admit even as a lifelong baptist, the idea of paedo-baptism makes a lot of sense when one looks at things in the light of reformed & convenental theology. At at the same time, due to my Baptist roots I still see the point of credo-baptism as well. Right now I;m firmly in the camp that one can be a sincere believer and ascribe to either. As a result I’m not interested on debating this particular subject online. Therefore, I will ignore all challenges to do so. I’ve got more important things to devote my energies to. Despite the above I’ve remained “baptist” for basically two reasons. First, I still attend the actual physical church congregation of my youth and it is where my extended family still attends. That is of great value. Second, until now there have been no real reformed or presbyterian alternatives in my locale. Yes, there are some churches that carry the “Presbyterian” name, but all the ones I have personally experienced I would debate whether actually even should still be called “churches.” When an orthodox “Presbyterian” church arrives in my locale I will consider that move though.
With respect I think many people are missing the point of Clint’s post, as he explains in a follow-up posts, these are not necessarily 5 different streams OF Reformed Baptists, but different streams flowing FROM Calvinistic Baptists. This is obviously important since one of the streams he notates as “Reformed Baptist”….the majority of those listed would not call themselves Reformed Baptist, and I don’t think Clint is suggesting they do or even should…but they have this is common that they are Baptistic and Calvinistic…therefore in one way or another they either flow from the Baptist “mainstream” having been influenced by Calvinism, or indeed from the Reformed “mainstrean” and having become Baptistic.
I don’t believe Clint is attempting to define what an Reformed Baptist is, if you want that go here, which to my mind is the only coherent, historically supportable definition of someone who is both Reformed and Baptist. Being Reformed is much more that believing the 5 points of Calvinism.
JP
Whoops! Forgot the link…go here
http://reformedbaptistfellowship.wordpress.com/2007/05/30/the-five-points-of-reformed-baptist-churches/
JP