Recovering the Reformed Confession: A Conversation with Dr. R. Scott Clark

I owe a great deal to R. Scott Clark, founder of the Heidelblog and the Heidelcast. When I first encountered him on social media, I was essentially an evangelical who held to the five points of Calvinism and was attending a Baptist church. I wasn’t a Westminster student. I was someone with questions, and here was a respected seminary professor willing to take the time to answer them.

He answered my emails and direct messages without condescension. He was firm in his Reformed convictions, and he took my questions seriously. I respected him for both. His willingness to spend time helping someone outside his classroom has stayed with me.

I became a regular reader of the Heidelblog and listened to the Heidelcast as often as I could. I learned a tremendous amount from both.

As I read his work, including Recovering the Reformed Confession, and the books he recommended, I gradually became convinced of the Reformed covenantal case for infant baptism. That had been my remaining obstacle to embracing the Reformed confession. I began attending a Presbyterian church, due in large part to his influence.

I’m grateful for what he taught me and for the way he treated me. It was an honor to interview him in 2025 about Recovering the Reformed Confession and the questions his book had raised.

The Meaning of Reformed

Anthony: What did “Reformed” mean in the years following the Reformation? Has that meaning changed?

Dr. Clark: In the early decades of the Reformation the nomenclature of the Protestants was muddy. The Lutherans were evangelical and Lutheran but as I noted in a 2018 essay, the preface to the 1580 Solid Declaration referred to the Lutheran churches as "reformed."¹ The Reformed regularly referred to themselves as teaching "evangelical" theology, by which they classed themselves with the Lutherans. By the late 1550s and through the 60s we see the Reformed increasingly referring to themselves as Reformed, which stood as shorthand for "Reformed according to the Word of God."²

The substance of what the Reformed churches were confessing and what her pastors and theologians were teaching was identifiably distinct from the Lutherans in some important ways, e.g., on the principle of worship, Christology, and the nature of Christ's presence in the Supper.

I'm not sure that understanding has evolved in the confessional Reformed churches. We still believe what we confessed in the Belgic Confession (1561), the Heidelberg Catechism (1563), the Canons of Dort (1619), and the Westminster Standards (1640s).

Since World War II, however, and especially since c. 2000, coinciding with the rise of the so-called Young, Restless, and Reformed movement, there has been a move by Baptists to re-define the adjective Reformed to amputate from the definition of the adjective Reformed the confession of the Reformed churches of the continuity of the covenant of grace, as we say in Westminster Confession of Faith 7.6, "There are not therefore two covenants of grace, differing in substance, but one and the same, under various dispensations" and our doctrine of the church and sacraments but I do not concede that this amputation as legitimate.

Confessions and the Reformed Tradition

Anthony: Where should we look for a reliable definition of Reformed identity? How do the confessions relate to the wider Reformed tradition?

Dr. Clark: Yes! Counting noses is a terrible way to determine what is true. The most reliable way to define the adjective Reformed is the way the Reformed churches have defined it since the 1520s: the confession of God's Word by the Reformed churches. Our theology, i.e., our doctrine, piety, i.e., how we relate to God and how we understand him to relate to us, and our practice, i.e., how we live out our faith. The faithful, confessional Reformed churches still subscribe, affirm, teach, and seek to practice what we confess in our ecclesiastical documents.

Postmoderns suspect that every truth claim is nothing but a construct and an attempt to exercise power but we should reject that sort of radical nominalism. The adjective Reformed has signified the same theology, piety, and practice since the early sixteenth century (and much of the Great Christian Tradition for centuries before the Reformation since the early post-Apostolic Fathers).

There is, however, more to consider. The Reformed confessions themselves were originally formed, interpreted, and applied in a broader context. The first and second generation Reformers, e.g., Martin Luther (1483–1546), Philipp Melanchthon (1497–1560), Martin Bucer (1491–1551), Huldrych Zwingli (1484–1531), Heinrich Bullinger (1504–1575), Peter Martyr Vermigli (1499–1562), and John Calvin (1509–1564) were succeeded by generations of orthodox Reformed pastors and theologians through the rest of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. They worked out the implications of the early Reformed theology and adapted and applied it to the issues, in church, society, and the academy, that arose in the post-Reformation period. So there is the narrow sense of confession, i.e., the documents themselves and a broader sense of the Reformed tradition, including the life of the Reformed churches, within which those documents were understood and applied.

The Appeal of the Reformed Name

Anthony: Why do people want the Reformed label when their theology differs from the confessional Reformed tradition?

Dr. Clark: The answer to this question is complex. As far back as the second half of the nineteenth century we see Charles Hodge, in one instance anyway, defining Reformed solely with regard to the Five Points of the Synod of Dort.³ In the post-World War II era, there was a conscious decision by some Reformed Christians to enter into an alliance of sorts with the Particular Baptist movement. As part of this alliance people on both sides of the baptismal font began to speak of Reformed Baptists.

It is important to understand the context of this move. In the post-War period the confessional Presbyterian and Reformed churches were not flourishing. Old Princeton had given way to Modernism and the Moderates in the mainline. Old Westminster Seminary was a tiny school. J. Gresham Machen was dead and there was no central figure to replace him. So, this alliance must have seemed almost a natural agreement among friends who seemed to have so much in common. They could not have foreseen the developments in the early 2000s.

I think people desire this label because it has a history. It gives them an identity. This is especially true for those in the Particular Baptist tradition, who feel alienated from the broader Baptist movements and denominations, where they do not fit or feel entirely welcome. The post-War alliance opened the door and they have decided to inhabit the house and appropriate the Reformed identity for themselves.

Further, since the 1644 London Confession, Baptists have disavowed the label first given them by the Reformed in the seventeenth century: Anabaptists and in order to cement that position in the market, as it were, they appropriate the Reformed identity despite the significant difference between the two traditions.

Finally, in my experience, few Baptists have investigated the Reformed tradition on its own terms. They tend to assume more continuity than actually exists.

The Baptist Question

Anthony: Why has the question of whether Particular Baptists should be called “Reformed Baptists” become so contentious?

Dr. Clark: It can be contentious on social media but historians, until quite recently, distinguished between the Baptist traditions (e.g., General and Particular) and the Reformed. This is because history of the question is fairly clear. It is demonstrably the case that the initial reaction by the Reformed to the emerging Baptist movement in the 1640s was to label them Anabaptists. This is why the London Confession of 1644 was at pains to disavow the identity with the Anabaptists. The subtitle to the Confession should be sufficient evidence to settle the question: "Of those CHURCHES which are commonly (though falsly) called ANABAPTISTS."

It was not the Baptists who were calling themselves Anabaptists. The Reformed were calling them Anabaptists. Thus, the Westminster Assembly assigned Daniel Featley, whom they had jailed for attempting to correspond with the King, to write a response to the emerging Particular Baptist movement and he repeatedly denounced them as Anabaptists.⁴ He did this because the Particular Baptists substantially agreed with the Anabaptists in their denial of infant baptism to the children of believers, effectively de-baptizing the entire church since at least AD 206, when both Tertullian and Origen recognized infant baptism as the established practice of the ancient church.

For the Reformed, being un-baptized, as it were was a significant matter. After all, our churches agree with Cyprian that "outside the church there is no salvation." To be unbaptized is to be outside the church and thus to be liable to eternal judgment.⁵

Moreover, the Reformed saw in the both the Anabaptist and Baptist movements, despite their substantial differences on a number of important issues (e.g., Christology, and soteriology), they share essentially the same reading of redemptive history. Both of them reject the proposition, confessed by all the Reformed churches, that there is but one covenant of grace, variously administered, that the covenant of grace was substantially present under the types and shadows, that Christians are Abraham's children and just as God promised to be God to believers and to their children and therefore admitted them to the typological church by circumcision, so too in the New Covenant, the same covenant, the same promises, and the same pattern continues; the bloody sign of circumcision being replaced by baptism.

The distinction between Reformed and Baptist is contentious because, as explained above, the Particular Baptists are more numerous than the confessional Reformed and, after recently appropriating the Reformed identity for themselves, they resent it when they are told that they are not Reformed. In a sense, we are playing out the postmodern debate about whether words have a real relation to the things they signify or whether they mean whatever one says they mean.

Seventeen Years After Publication

Anthony: Recovering the Reformed Confession appeared in 2008. Looking back after seventeen years, what has surprised you about its reception?

Dr. Clark: Well, I know that some people are reading it because I get small residuals from the publisher from time to time. As to what effect it has had, I am not sure I am the one to say. The 2018 volume, On Being Reformed co-authored by Matt Bingham, Chris Caughey, Crawford Gribben, D. G. Hart, and me was essentially a discussion of the main thesis of the book. Judging by the fact that 60% of the contributors to On Being Reformed reject that thesis one might say that I am losing the argument.

I am always surprised when people write to say that they have read or are reading the book and that it helped them understand or even to embrace the Reformed confession. That is happy but the most unexpected consequence of the book was that it more or less plunged me, as it were, into a years-long discussion with my Baptist friends. I wrote the book principally to help the Presbyterian and Reformed churches recover their confession (semper reformanda). Collin Hansen's Young, Restless, and Reformed (Wheaton: Crossway, 2008) came out just very late in the process so I added a small postscript but, to be honest, the Baptists were an afterthought. I expected to get into a lot more trouble with my own people than I did with the Baptists. I was wrong.

Social Media and the Confessions

Anthony: How has social media changed the discussion of Reformed identity? Has it helped people find their way to confessional theology?

Dr. Clark: Under the new social media regime the pace of discussion has intensified. It has become more egalitarian, i.e., open to a broader range of readers. Who knows what the actual outcome of social media is but I do think it has helped to expose Reformed theology, piety, and practice to readers and listeners who might never have encountered it. Despite Mr Musk's effort to turn X into everyone's blog, my hope is that social media readers will follow the bread crumbs to more substantive discussions on the Heidelblog, to this space, and from those kinds of sources to the confessions themselves.

Projects in 2025

Anthony: What books and projects are you working on in 2025?

Dr. Clark: Thank you for asking. This summer, the Heidelberg Reformation Association hopes to publish Discovering the Reformed Confession and then, in November, Lord willing, Lexham Press will publish, The Heidelberg Catechism: A Historical, Theological, and Pastoral Commentary. I have several books in draft form that I hope to publish in the coming years. My next big project is to translate Olevianus' De substantia foederis inter deum et electos (Geneva, 1585). Over the next few years I hope to investigate the history of Islam more fully.

My thanks to Dr. Clark for taking the time to answer these questions.

Footnotes