Are All Calvinists Reformed?

I was asked, by a friend, this question, "Are all Calvinists Reformed?" Now this is a good friend, in spite of the fact that he says wee when he means small, says aye when he means yes, and drops the 'c' sound from schedule so it becomes "shedzule", but inexplicably keeps the 'c' sound in school.

This is a very difficult question. Because there are many who say they are Calvinistic and also Reformed, while others have set themselves up as judges as to whether others are entitled to the honorific Reformed. Indeed, you can find all the uses of the word wielded as a blunt instrument insult that you come to expect of, say, political party labels. Some who come up short are "Reformed in Name Only", some just get the scare quotes: Oh yeah sure, he's "reformed." Some are dismissed, condescendingly, with "TULIP does not mean reformed!" Some true twitter geniuses are even thoughtful enough to label those who don't measure up with the #reformeddowngrade hashtag.

So I will answer with an approximation: Since there is perhaps only one universal agreement, that John Calvin was reformed, to first order I treat "Calvinist" and "Reformed" as synonymous. Now I know that will cause the unmentionable garments of some to bunch up, and I know that not all animals are horses, but that's the way it is. My friend's question, to be meaningful to me, becomes: "who rightly claims the title?"

Again, that is a tough question. I am going to provide a picture of the general groups that would call themselves reformed:

The conservative Presbyterians affirm the Westminster Confession of Faith, covenant theology, and infant baptism. The latter because, while God forgot to make it clear in scripture that infants should be baptized, they figured it out for us.

The Baptists who conveniently call themselves reformed baptists, follow the 2nd London Baptist Confession, covenant theology, and believer's (believers'?) baptism. The latter because, while God forgot to make it clear in scripture that infants should not be baptized, they figured it out for us.

Now don't be fooled: the covenant theology of the first group is not the same as the second. For example, in the Presbyterian group, children of believers, regardless of whether they are in the elect, are card carrying members of the covenant. For the reformed baptists, only the elect are in the covenant. At most one of these groups can be correct.

The third group (smaller than the first two) are the relatively new, "New Covenant Theology" adherents. This group simplifies the covenant theology of the reformed baptists, and has a very different view of the law than the two groups above. They may loosely follow the London Baptist Confession (1st or 2nd), but unlike either of the two groups above, when they say their confession is not on par with scripture, they actually mean it!

The last group are those who are more or less TULIP only. They affirm predestination as zealously, if not more so, than the groups above, but they are not at all into covenant theology beyond acknowledging that there are, indeed, covenants. You will even find some dispensationalists here.

Now, finally to answer the question: It depends who you ask. To a first approximation, look at my picture and remember this simple rule:

No group really thinks than anyone below them in this picture is Truly Reformed.

I have my own definition. To be Truly Reformed you have to write a book with some (but not much) variation on the title: Recovering the Reformation! or Recovering Classic Theology! For some reason the Truly Reformed think that much has been lost, and they are just the ones to rediscover it.