R. Scott Clark, an ordained minister in the denomination of the church my wife and I currently attend, stated a while back that basically, only paedobaptists are "Reformed". In doing this of course he claims that credo-baptists (those who baptize only those who profess faith) are thereby not Reformed. I realized, re-reading the conversation there, that Clark essentially makes the same mistake that Ergun Caner made a few years back when he stated (paraphrasing): "I'm not a Calvinist or an Arminian, I'm a baptist."
Both Clark and Caner make a category error. The term "Baptist" defines one's view on baptism, not on soteriology. Likewise "Reformed" defines, not one's view on baptism, but one's understanding of the the five solas, and a covenantal understanding of soteriology. Now, Clark might argue that a "covenantal understanding of soteriology" requires a paedobaptistic viewpoint, but the formers of the 1689 London Baptist Confession would surely disagree. Also, consider that Rome had a paedobaptism, and it is Rome from which the Reformers ~reformed~ the church.
Are not both Caner and Clark educated enough to know a fallacy when they state one?