Is "Reformed Baptist" an Oxymoron? (part I) by Peter Lumpkins

The term “oxymoron” has its roots in classical Greek meaning “sharp dull.”  Even from the literal definition, one can easily see the implication: two words are joined together which normally do not belong together. So, for example, were one to speak of “sad joy,”  a “brand new used-car,” an “intelligent dunce,” or a “pessimistic optimist,” one would be employing the literary device known as oxymoron.

Oxymora are at times used in theological discussions. For example, in a Baptist ecclesial context, were one to speak of “baby baptism” one would be employing oxymoron. Or, in a salvific context, were one to speak of a “born-again unbeliever,” an “unrepentant faith,” an “unconverted belief,” or the "uninspired Word of God," one would be employing oxymoron.

At times oxymora are intentionally used to seriously communicate truth albeit in paradoxical terms.  At other times, oxymora are much more subtly employed, as in “almost perfect,” “almost totally,” and/or “incompletely annihilated.”  Most of us use oxymora frequently, or I should say, “scarcely frequently.”

In anticipation of my sequel, it is my contention the increasingly popular theological label “Reformed Baptist” qualifies nicely for what we normally dub oxymoron. Note: I am not suggesting that just because the label "Reformed Baptist" is an oxymoron, it  necessarily follows that  "Reformed Baptist" is theologically vacuous or even undesirable, anymore, for example, than employing “born-again unbeliever” is theologically vacuous and/or undesirable.  What I am suggesting is, like all oxymora, which oftentimes create more confusion than clarity, employing the term “Reformed Baptist”—especially if one affiliates with the Southern Baptist Convention—only muddies the water toward clear communication between fellow Southern Baptists. 

As we shall see, many disagree with this assertion and argue they see no contradiction between being “Reformed” and being “Baptist.”   Church historian, Nathan Finn, Assistant Professor of Church History at Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary, logged a three-part series of articles asking the question, “Can Baptists be Reformed?” Dr. Finn was responding to North Carolina pastor, Les Puryear, who recently wrote a piece raising the question, “Can One be “Reformed” and “Southern Baptist” at the Same Time?”, which, in turn, spawned an eight-part series as a follow-up (beginning here). 

Finn’s answer, in part, was to cite Founders Ministries concerning which Finn suspects many (though not all) who identify with Founders Ministries would be very comfortable calling themselves Reformed. Undoubtedly, Founders Ministries is the largest, most influential network of Calvinists within the Southern Baptist Convention.  

In part 2, Finn cites many Calvinist networks which are, on the one hand, unapologetically Calvinistic, while on the other hand, embrace the label “Reformed Baptist” as neither helpful nor accurate.  According to Dr. Finn, the Calvinist networks which eschew the label “Reformed Baptist” include “Sovereign Grace Baptists” (SGB, *not* affiliated with C. J. Mahaney), “New Covenant Theology [Baptists],” and “John MacArthur Baptists.”  While the SGB surely seems to have all the marks of a legitimate network and affiliation, the latter two appear to be forced and actually very awkward.

Given that, Finn gave us two significant Calvinist networks with pastors and/or churches formally affiliated with the SBC in some way:  Founders Ministries which presumably supports the “Reformed Baptist” designation and SGB which remains thoroughly Calvinistic but rejects the label “Reformed Baptists.” While there are other groups, these two seem to be the largest and most influential.

Dr. Finn’s final part describes his personal position.  First, it is a demonstrable fact that hundreds of Baptist churches claim to be Reformed. Hence, there absolutely *are* Reformed Baptists. Second, most who self-designate themselves as “Reformed Baptists” really *only mean* they hold to the traditional five points of Calvinism.

Unfortunately, this leaves Finn answering his own question in self-admitted ambiguity:  “Can Baptists be Reformed? I think the answer is both yes and no, depending upon what you mean by Reformed. (How’s that for equivocation?)” 

Finn’s solution is to posit, a) yes, Reformed Baptists exist.  In two varieties, in fact:  *formal* "Reformed Baptists” who hold to substantially more than the traditional five points of Calvinism and *informal* "Reformed Baptists” who hold basically the same view as *formal* "Reformed Baptists” but do not designate themselves as “Reformed Baptists.”  Finn writes:

“There are many Southern Baptists that would be in this camp. In fact, I would be comfortable calling myself an informal Reformed Baptist because I am in substantial theological agreement with “capital-R” Reformed Baptists.”

And, b) no, a Baptist church cannot be Reformed if by “Reformed Baptist,” one intends to imply a “Reformed Baptist” church is Reformed in exactly the same way a Presbyterian or Dutch Reformed church can be Reformed. In other words, a “Reformed Baptist” cannot be Reformed in the “fully historic sense of the term.”

In the next part, I’d like to make a few comments on Dr. Finn’s brief trilogy and offer an extended answer to my question, “Is “Reformed Baptist” an Oxymoron?”

With that, I am…

Peter

Comments

[Job]

How can Calvinists "take over" the convention that they founded? If Calvinists founded the SBC, then how can they be a threat to all the SBC has, is, and will be? Also, it is not the Calvinists that are trying to marginalize or push out the free will Baptists. Calvinist Baptists have coexisted within the same movements and denominations as free will Baptists since the Baptist movement started. It isn't the Calvinists who should leave, it is people with attitudes and behaviors like yours, raising demonstrably historically false nonsense like "they are desiring to be SBC" WHEN THEY HAVE ALWAYS BEEN SBC and lies like "they don't want to cooperate" WHEN THEY HAVE ALWAYS COOPERATED AND STILL ARE.

The Calvinism bashers are the ones causing the division, and need to either exit to one of the MANY free will Baptist denominations out there or start their own. Or advocate that the SBC change its name and admit that it is not the same as and has nothing to do with the original denomination. There is obviously some disconnect between what you wish that the SBC was, "has, is, and will be" and reality. The Calvinists aren't going anywhere. But if you and people like you are going to continue to believe and behave this way, you should. Seriously.

[Tim Rogers]

Job,

Are you seriously suggesting that Jerry Vines and others who hold to beliefs like Tim G. should leave the convention? Are you seriously espousing that FM is not trying to influence the convention to hold to FM thought?

Come on. Remember that it was Jerry Vines and people like him that brought this convention back from the brink of liberalism. Where was the FM then? They were leeching themselves onto a movement they could eventually take over. Guess what? It appears they have sucked all they could out of the CR movement, thus they are now leeched more intact to the GCR movement.

Blessings,
Tim

[peter lumpkins]

D.R.

I'll be glad to do more research if I do not understand what I'm talking about. But to the contrary, I do not think it is I who is avoiding any facts.

A) You write, “The fact that Founders requires a secondary Reformed Confession for being Founder's-Friendly has nothing to do with the point that Founders isn't orchestrating some takeover.”  How strange to mention this, D.R.  I did not connect the non-negotiable requirement Founders possesses with “some takeover.” Rather I addressed your assertion to Tim. You originally wrote,

"Hiring a non-Calvinist at a Reformed Confessional Church is like hiring a guy at an SBC church who doesn't affirm the BF&M. Founders isn't pushing this, the Churches it serves are." 

To now suggest Founders’ *non-negotiable requirement* for affiliated or "friendly" Pastors and churches to embrace a more Calvinistic confession than the BF&M has "nothing to do " with Founders "orchestrating some takeover", D.R. is quite confusing.  I said nothing about a "takeover" in this particular point because you said nothing about "some takeover" in this particular point. In fact, I don’t think I mentioned “takeover” in my comment at all. But since you bring it up as if I did, may I suggest, all one has to do is read the Founders’ vision statement, and read the “Founder” of Founders Ministries—E. Reisinger--to get the sense of what Founders’ purpose is all about.  And, I would be delighted give you all the quotes you desire, D.R., to substantiate “some takeover.”

B) Nor is your repeated assertion acceptable that  Founders’ *non-negotiable requirement* to embrace a more Calvinistic confession than the BF&M “simply serves the Churches that are Reformed…”  Please, D.R.  The churches *did not* and *do not* insist on Founders requirements for anything.  Founders is run by a BoD, not messengers from affiliates sent to it like the SBC. Hence, Founders sets the agenda and casts the vision, not the other way around.

C) “You see professors don't elect other profs - trustees do.”  Apparently I gave the impression I was unaware of the historic Trustee system in place for SBC entities. How stupid of me. Nor was I unaware of Nettles coming in 1997 as well as the rest of the “Reformed” faculty after Al Mohler cast his vision and brought the faculty on. And, unless Historical Theology has changed, I’d “do some research” were I you before dubbing Professor Nettles a mere “history prof” not a “theology prof.”

D) You sound as if you’re suggesting the BoT’s orchestrated the return to “Reformed” theology. You write, “The Trustees hoped to design the change around the very structure Boyce had chosen - his confession. All the above is historically verifiable - not mere speculation and opinion.” You seem to overlook an important factor, D.R.:  even if it *is* true the BoT designed the shift around the AP, it does not follow they were definitively intending to shift the seminary to a “return” to “Reformed” theology. 

Even so, I do not accept your assertion.  Not because I “choose” to believe otherwise or haven’t taken the time to understand as you seem to suggest.  Rather because the theory about the Calvinist shift is thoroughly vacuous, D.R.  The focus of the CR leaders was a return to Biblical fidelity, *not* a revival of historic Calvinism. Indeed some CR leaders have publicly addressed this.  Imagine A. Rogers, P. Patterson, and J.Vines concocting and encouraging your interpretation of the theological shift at SBTS. How patently absurd.

E) Well, I have asked Jerry Vines.  And, while I don’t want to ever put words in his mouth, I don’t think you would like the answer he would likely give.

With that, I am…

Peter

[peter lumpkins]

Job,

"How can Calvinists "take over" the convention that they founded?"

"If Calvinists founded the SBC, then how can they be a threat to all the SBC has, is, and will be?"

"Also, it is not the Calvinists that are trying to marginalize or push out the free will Baptists."

"Calvinist Baptists have coexisted within the same movements and denominations as free will Baptists since the Baptist movement started."

"It isn't the Calvinists who should leave, it is people with attitudes and behaviors like yours, raising demonstrably historically false nonsense..."

"The Calvinism bashers are the ones causing the division, and need to either exit to one of the MANY free will Baptist denominations out there or start their own."

"But if you and people like you are going to continue to believe and behave this way, you should. Seriously."

There is a common thread in each of your statements above--disconnect. Almost the entire comment you posted disconnects from historical reality, not to mention being entirely mistaken about those of us who take issue with Founders-type Calvinism today.

Brother, please refrain from commenting on a subject you have no business engaging.

With that, I am...
Peter

[Ron Hale]

D.R.
You articulated very well your reason "why" a SBC Church that has been turned toward Calvinism should no longer look to non-Calvinist SBC men as possible future pastors. You are saying that it would go againist their new confession or belief system.

Since the majority of SBC Churches have no corporate memory of reformed doctrine and few have any ancient Calvinistic confessions they once adhered to -- this gives groups like FM a big pond to fish in (SBC). Once certain fish [churches] are caught, they are placed in the FM friendly pond. Once in this pond, they are no longer to be tainted by the conservative SBC Brothers [non-Calvinists] who fought hard to save the SBC.

Remember the verse that says, "They went out from us, but they were not of us." It seems your belief and practise is ..."We shall stay inside you, but we are really not of you, so we can turn more of you."

This is unbelievable!

[D.R. Randle]

Tim, Job is right, Calvinism was dominant during the founding of the SBC. When the convention chose a Confession of Faith in 1925, they modeled it after a Reformed Confession of Faith and intentionally worded it to allow in non-Calvinists. Prior to that, almost all Confessions of Faith used by the Churches were Reformed in nature. Calvinism was absolutely necessary for Southern's transfromation and today almost all of our Seminiaries have Reformed professors teaching theology. Calvinism didn't leach, they coexisted for a common goal, just as the Free-Willers did in the 1850's, even while the convention was predominantly Calvinisitic. Now the tide has turned theologically again and non-Calvinism will once again be in the minority.

[D.R. Randle]

Peter,

1) In regards to my comment to you, if you look back you were responding to my response to Tim G. He mentioned the "take over" scenario and they you added "push this". It looked as though you were referring to what Tim G. was referring to in a tackover. That's how I responded.

But now you've added "non-negotiable" which I did not mention. Founders has a requirement of a Reformed Confession in order to be added to their "Churches" list, but not "Friends" list. The Churches list is practical so that someone looking for a Reformed Baptist Church will not be surprised if they go to a Church that isn't Reformed itself, but merely has a Reformed pastor. It is practical, not some sort of scandalous thing as you are making it out to be.

2) Glad you admitted you were wrong on how the professors were chosen at Southern and recognized that the Board of Trustees did indeed appoint the faculty, not Tom Nettles.

3) But it seems like you still want to argue that some outside force caused the faculty to be Reformed rather than the Confession they were required to sign. Until you can produce some proof for your theory of outside influence, like I did mine for Trustee influence regarding Osborne and Dockery's appointments, then it is actually your arguments that are vacuous, not mine.

4) As for Nettles, you are again wrong. While the Church History discipline is located under the School of Theology, Nettles does not teach theology classes at Southern. He teaches Church history classes. Again, show your proof of him teaching theology, rather than making accusations. Here's the Fall schedule - http://tiny.cc/mya2l - you will find no theology classes for Nettles.

5) Finally, if you have talked to Vines, then post his reply. He was the biggest supporter of Mohler. He might not like Calvinism, but he knew politically that based on the Abstract as the Confession of Faith, it was the way to go to redeem Southern from liberalism, which is exactly what took place.

[D.R. Randle]

Ron, I'm not into conspiracy theories. Your's is a bit more than I can handle, plus the ripping of Scripture out of context is too much for me. You can believe whatever you want, but as I said to Tim G. - remember that these are your brothers and sisters in Christ, not your enemies. Why not treat them that way and stop acting like Calvinists are here to destroy all you hold dear? Apparently the Convention survived and thrived while Calvinism was dominant in the 1800's and early 1900's. It will do so again soon.

[Tim G]

D. R.,
My issue is not with Calvinists! Never has been. It is with the Reformed movement that has nothing to do with the history of the SBC! Nothing at all!

I would though caution that many ultra Calvinists today are not at all like the Calvinists of old. When you get 10 Calvinists in a room, you get 10 differing understanding of today's Calvinism.

[Tim G]

Maybe I should have said 5 Calvinists in a room and 5 differing understandings :)!

[peter lumpkins]

D.R.

A) “It looked as though you were referring…”  Well I wasn’t. So, you response to my comment has no relevance. 

B) No, I most certainly did *not*add “non-negotiable” though admittedly my quotation marks may suggest I was quoting you.  I was not.  To the contrary, look again:  non-negotiable requirement is my term and what accurately describes FM’s terms for affiliation with them.

C) Nor did I so much as breathe a syllable that FM’s “non-negotiable requirement” is a “scandalous thing”, D.R.  Please be specific.  Where did I imply such?  What I not only implied but explicitly stated is that FM’s “non-negotiable requirement” is definitively more than “serving the churches” which affiliate with it.  How or why you construe this as “scandalous” is incredible.

D). Your distinction between Founders’ "Churches" list, but not "Friends" list is moot, D.R.  To be affiliated with FM, churches must adhere to a more Calvinistic confession—at least more Calvinistic in their eyes-- than the BF&M, the “non-negotiable requirement” I earlier stated.

E) No, I did not admit to anything.  I merely facetiously remarked how absurd to think I am unfamiliar with how professors are brought to seminaries, that’s all.

F)  Prove that an “outside force caused the faculty to be Reformed rather than the Confession they were required to sign”?  What the Sam Hill are you talking about?  An outside force “caused” the faculty to be Reformed?  So, in your view, the Abstract of Principles “caused” the faculty to be Reformed?  Until you can state clearly what you mean, D.R., I think I’ll retain my so-called “vacuous” theory, thank you very much.

G) D.R., what is in the water over at Athens?  Making accusations? Please take a deep breathe, brother.  Making accusations?  Even if I am dead-wrong about what Dr. Nettles teaches as Professor of Historical Theology, to suggest I am “making accusations” against him has got to be the most asinine conclusion one could make. I need a cup of coffee, man.

H) “Nettles does not teach theology classes at Southern. He teaches Church history classes…” Well, read exactly what I said again, D.R.. Quoting you, I wrote,

“And, unless Historical Theology has changed, I’d “do some research” were I you before dubbing Professor Nettles a mere “history prof” not a “theology prof.”

Dr. Nettles is Professor of Historical Theology.  Hence, he does not merely teach “church history.” In fact, the very pdf. you linked  has Nettles teaching a class on Boyce & Spurgeon.  I wonder if Professor Nettles will lecture on the theology of both men in their respective historical contexts, and discuss how their theologies have shaped contemporary Baptists.  I’d bet a week's worth of Starbucks he does and wish I could be there to benefit from it.!

Consequently, D.R., you simply are dead wrong about reducing an historical theologian to a mere church historian.  The two may have overlap but the disciplines have very distinct characteristics.  Even so, a church historian could teach theology and vice versa, depending on their qualifications.  The fundamental point is, Dr. Nettles stands tall as both a church historian *and* a theologian who specialize in historical theology. So, no, I am not “wrong again.”

I) No, I won’t post Jerry Vines’ “reply” for I have no permission to post anything Jerry Vines says.  Nor does my not doing so mean I neither have talked to him like I said or that his answer would be one that, after all, you would appreciate.  If you’d like to verify, I suggest you contact him yourself, D.R. 

J) To suggest  that returning SBTS to “Reformed” theology was “the way to go to redeem Southern from liberalism.” and suggest that Jerry Vines knew this and supported this is a lala land world of magical enchantment with unicorns, flying pigs, and talking flowers, D.R.  You haven’t one shred of evidence to substance this theory.  If so, I suggest you demonstrate it with some teeth.  If, you cannot, please do not bring this point back up again.  

With that, I am…

Peter

[peter lumpkins]

By the way, D.R.,

You chide Ron for "conspiracy theories." Nevertheless, I offered to give you abundant sources on both Founders' visionary purpose, including Reisinger's vision for Founders. Their purpose is very clear and very public--at least it was public up until the GCRspeak began to dominate.

In addition, you have the audacity to suggest there is no "takeover" but at the same time hail as an apparent accomplishment the "tide [that] has turned theologically again and non-Calvinism will once again be in the minority."

Finally, you write: "When the convention chose a Confession of Faith in 1925, they modeled it after a Reformed Confession of Faith and intentionally worded it to allow in non-Calvinists. (emphasis mine). D.R. I'm laughing out loud. How patently absurd can one be?!

The 1925 BF&M was written in such a way as to "allow in non-Calvinists." Sweet Georgia peaches! You, my good fellow, have made my afternoon. If saints in heaven can hear, E. Y. Mullins is getting a big belly roll about right now.

I do thank you, D.R. I now have some alternatives to think about on some up-coming posts.

With that, I am...
Peter

[Tim Rogers]

My Precious Brother Randle,

I am torn whether to concur with Brother Peter when he asks about the water you are drinking in Athens, or to agree with the sentiment, though wrong he was, a former King that told Paul "much learning hath made thee mad".

Tim, Job is right, Calvinism was dominant during the founding of the SBC. When the convention chose a Confession of Faith in 1925, they modeled it after a Reformed Confession of Faith and intentionally worded it to allow in non-Calvinists. Prior to that, almost all Confessions of Faith used by the Churches were Reformed in nature.

You seriously need to re-study our history as Southern Baptist. I quote to you from a little book I have on my shelf written by Dr. Timothy George.

In 1833, the Baptist Convention of New Hampshire published a "declaration of Faith" which was to have a far-reaching influence among Baptist in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries."

Dr. George then goes on to say

On issues of soteriology, the New Hampshire Confession follows the Reformed orientation (emphasis mine) of the Philadelphia Confession, but its treatment of the doctrines of grace is briefer, less specific, and more susceptible to theological ambiguity.

Dr. George places a great statement here that certainly explains significance about the BF&M being based on this confession and not the Philadelphia confession. Concerning the 1925 BF&M, Dr. George writes

Based on the New Hampshire Confession, this statement of faith became a rallying cry for conservative theology combined with missionary and evangelistic fervor....During the same era the Northern Baptists were fragmenting into several competing denominational bodies while the SBC remained united in its commitment to conservative evangelical theology and a streamlined program of denominational growth.

Isn't it amazing that a denomination that rallied around a confession that emphasized missionary and evangelistic fervor remained intact while denominations that employed strict guidelines concerning soteriological matters fragmented and competed with each other.

Blessings,
Tim

[D.R. Randle]

Peter,

I shouldn't be suprised at your reply. You really didn't say anything new, nor deal with my actually arguments, you just wanted to play semantics, which is what you always seem to do.

For instance, teaching historical theology is NOT teaching theology. Nettles is teaching what Boyce and Spurgeon believed about the Holy Spirit, not teaching the Doctrine of the Holy Spirit, etc. There is a HUGE difference. If you can't see that, then I can't help you. Perhaps if you took one of those type classes you might be better educated as to what is being taught.

As to your other rabbits, I will let you think what you want. I've learned once again that it's impossible to have a real discussion with you. Hopefully others will see through your reasoning.

[D.R. Randle]

Tim Rogers,

I appreciate the discussion we are having (other than the unnecessary insult). However, I think what you quoted from Timothy George doesn't specifically disagree with what I said. It seems we are talking past each other. My original statement was made in regard to how both Calvinist and non-Calvinists came together under a common confession. George doesn't dispute that Calvinism was dominant during the founding of the Convention or that the New Hampshire Confession was a generally Reformed Confession. Nor does he dispute that almost all Baptist Confessions used in the early SBC Churches were Reformed in nature.

So I am not sure what you are disagreeing with me about. As to the last statement George makes, I never asserted that the SBC didn't rally around evangelism and mission. I wholeheartedly agree. But that does not negate what I said about the 1925 BF&M intentionally softening a Reformed Confession in order to bridge the gap between Calvinists and non-Calvinists.

In the context of this entire discussion, my contention is that we ought to again work together under the banner of the BF&M 2000 and quit fighting one another. The history of the SBC shows diversity, but it did emerge from a predominate Reformed view, intentionally softened in order to cooperate for missions and evangelism.

I am just wondering why the non-Calvinist guys feel the need to crank up the rhetoric these days, when the early 20th century Baptists were trying to crank it down. They saw the need to come together under a common denominator banner of the BF&M, why can't we see that now? Why all the issues with Reformed Baptists? Shouldn't we be doing as the BF&M 1925 committee envisioned and come together for missions and evangelism instead of writing posts about "Reformed Baptists" being oxymoronic?

[volfan007]

DR,

I had Dr. Tom Nettles for Church History at Mid America Baptist Seminary back in the 80's. He most certainly did teach theology as he taught history. And, yes, he did teach what historical figures believed, but he threw in his beliefs every day. Most of the class was about how much of Calvinist was this one, or that one.

Also, he was very much a "recruiter" for the Founders movement, and the Founders very much are out to change the SBC one church at a time. And, from what I've seen in Founders type Calvinists, they would have a very hard time cooperating with anyone that was not at least a 5 pointer. To think differently is to have one's head buried in the ole sand.

David

[Tim Rogers]

D.R.,

You either say, Peter, I do not agree with you because, __________________. Or you say, Peter your reasoning does not add up because, ___________________________________.

But to say, "I've learned once again that it's impossible to have a real discussion with you." is absolutely moronic and calls for you to apologize to the host of this blog site. Your attitude is pathetic and you need to repent of your absolute outlandish understanding of discussion, if that is the way you discuss things with guests in your home. Peter has patiently presented to you his reasoning and you have arrogantly asserted that he does not have an education, in his house mind you. Let me remind you that he received his Masters from the very seminary that you are arguing with him over. If you pranced your hind parts in my house and asserted what you just wrote to Peter, you would be picking yourself up off of the front sidewalk. I would grab you by the back of your shirt collar and the back of your pants and throw yourself through the front door.

I am not the blog owner but you hind parts would be banned from my place with that attitude and garbage that you just presented. This is a discussion. Points have been made and you have become frustrated because you cannot "out point" Peter. Who is right and who is wrong? Peter believes he is right and you believe you are right. But to begin speaking down about his education, or your supposed thought that he has none, and then tell him that it is impossible to discuss things with him after he has engaged you in four discussion points, is not right. If he does not throw you out of here you can rest assured you were chosen by God to be on this discussion board.

Tim

[Tim Rogers]

D.R.

Are you telling me that John Newton Brown adhered to the tenets of Calvinism but authored a confession that was at best a moderate version of those tenets?

Tim

[peter lumpkins]

D.R.

A)That I really "didn't say anything new" is not surprising to me, either, D.R.  I have consistently maintained since 2006 the views I have concerning FM, its vision for the SBC, etc.

B) But, that I did not "deal" with your "actually [sic] arguments" *is* a surprise.  And, I am perfectly willing for you or others to demonstrate where I have avoided addressing any one specific, substantial point you've made, D.R.  So you or others have at it.

C) Moreover, while the reason you cite for my allegedly not dealing with your "actually [sic] arguments" is that I "just want to play semantics," such a cited reason hardly fits the comments I've posted thus far.  Nor am I aware such a game is the pattern I normally pursue which seems indicative of your secondary assertion, "which is what you always seem to do" (emphasis mine).

D) Your example is telling:  "For instance, teaching historical theology is NOT teaching theology."  Are you for real, or are you just kidding around, D.R.? I’m wondering.  Even so, of course it's teaching theology--albeit historical theology, but theology nonetheless.

Now if you choose not to make distinctions between biblical, systematic, and historical theology, but instead separate them completely, I give you my express permission to do so, D.R.  I think that’s great.  But please, for the sake of communication, do not accuse me of playing word games when I do attempt to make proper distinctions within a broad discipline like theology.

E) "As to your other rabbits..."  I'm afraid you'll need to define where I chased after footprints you were not making, D.R.

G) "I've learned once again that it's impossible to have a real discussion with you."   Why, D.R.?  Because I refuse to believe your theory about Mullins et al composing a confessional document which allowed non-Calvinists like himself to be a part of the SBC?  Or was it the horrible "accusations" I was making against Professor Nettles that he teaches historical theology, not mere church history?  Or, perhaps it was my non-acceptance of the hullabaloo that Jerry Vines not only knew about the definitive shift SBTS would make toward "Reformed" theology, but also believed the “Reformed” shift to be the way to save the seminary from Liberals? I give up.  I just don’t know.

Finally, here is what I continue to learn, D.R: Founders-type Calvinists herd together and do well in dialog amongst themselves. And, each gives the other 'free passes' to make historical incredulous assertions like, "they [E.Y. Mullins, et al] modeled it [the 1925 BF&M] after a Reformed Confession of Faith [a very diluted "Reformed" confession] and intentionally worded it to allow in non-Calvinists." No such 'free pass' for horribly deficient statements like this exists here, D.R. Sorry.

Once again, thank you though.  I appreciate the exchange whether or not you did. Non-Calvinists have little to fear in engaging SBC history. The record continues to substantiate their positions.

With that, I am...
Peter

[Ron Hale]

D.R. Randle,
There seems to be "theory" in your conspiracy! It seems like everything is working according to the plans of the "The Quiet Revolution" by Ernest C. Reisinger.

[Ron Hale]

D.R.
I meant to say, "There seems to be "no" theory in your conspiracy"

[Tim G]

I have finally figured this all out. The re-writing of history is being learned from the mess going on with the history and re-writing of such pertaining to America.

We do not need a Fundamental Transformation in the SBC or in the USA. The same tactics of progressives are being used by many reformed types relating to the SBC.

Just a thought boys!

P.S. I still am stumped when people tell me my 42 years as an SBC was something other than what I learned and lived in the SBC. Incredible how I lived something other than what I lived. :)

[Steve Allem]

After two exchanges with D.R. it is clear to me that D.R. just likes to bicker, even if the 'facts' he gives are incorrect or skewed. He's been indoctrinated and is set in his ways. I think he'd rather argue than discuss.

Thus I'll be leaving D.R. to his thinking. He's satisfied with it and as long as he is, then I'm content to leave him that way.

Good luck D.R. ... May the Lord bless you.

[aaron arledge]

This is personally insulting and I find it to be completely ignorant. Show me some facts to back up this statement.

[aaron arledge]

Above is in regards to comment 12.

[Don Johnson]

Les does not need to show some facts because what he stated was a personal feeling. Nor do you need to show some facts as to why you found it "personally insulting."

However, you stated that you "find" it to be completely ignorant. Based on your "find", you should share the facts of your "find."

[peter lumpkins]

Aaron,

I asked Les whether he'd done some research on this question or whether it was an observation he'd gleaned. He offered a candid, honest reply that his perception was anecdotal in nature.

And, while anecdotal evidence may not compel others, it many times is enough for us to draw personal observations which Les is free to embrace. Nor did I get the impression Les was attempting to compel others to embrace his observations.

With that, I am...
Peter

[peter lumpkins]

Don,

Thanks for the comment. I had to laugh out loud :^o

With that, I am...
Peter

[aaron arledge]

I just do not see where You guys are coming from when it comes to this theological division. I know so many pastors with very different theological perspectives and do not see people who are outside the bounds of the BF&M. I take offense to the statement made in comment 12 because it suggests that these guys are intentional being deceptive.

[Mary]

Aaron, the 'evidence' of Calvinist ministers being intentionally deceptive is to be found all over the old Founders blog. Many times in comment streams on that blog Calvinist admit that pastoral candidates shouldn't be completely up front about their doctrinal beliefs because basically search committees are so Biblically illiterate that you shouldn't confuse the poor dears. It's for our own good that they deceive intentionally. Many of us have stories of watching Calvinist intentionally mislead churches and you are right to say it is offensive.

[Ron Hale]

Mary,
You have done an excellent job in saying what I tried to say earlier to D.R. Good job!