« Is Reformed Baptist an Oxymoron? (part II) by Peter Lumpkins | Main | Doktor James White Apologetics: Connecting to the World with Love by Peter Lumpkins »

2010.07.29

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Darby Livingston

Love the pictures. They're cracking me up.

Benji Ramsaur

Yes Peter, I see that you are having your Fun with this. And in a way I guess I am having some measure of fun seeing you have Fun with this. You are having formal [capital] F Fun. I am having informal [lower case] f fun. So we are both having [Ff]un. And I think that is Fun. I mean Fun/fun.

Anyway, I don't think what Finn is saying is that complicated [yes, I am already hearing the roar from the crowd "You are just saying that because he is your friend!!!! Ahhhhhh!!!!!!"

In an "academic" setting, if you will, if the question is asked "Are you a R/reformed Baptist?", then the questioner might mean "Are you a 1689er?". And if someone does not believe everything in that confession, then someone might answer, saying "I am not a full-orbed [R]eformed Baptist".

However, if a guy on the street asks the same guy "Are you a R/reformed Bapist?", then the questioner might mean "Do you believe in the five points of Calvinism and immersion?". And if someone picks up that this is "all" that is meant by the question, then he might not go into an hour long discussion with the guy over the fineries of Reformed theology or Baptist ecclesiology, but simply answer "yes".

So yes, have some Fun with the bow tie guy or even my first name for that matter, but don't be confused. That's not F/fun and my desire for you is to have Formal capital F Fun.

Benji

* Looking out for the happiness of Peter Lumpkins

Benji Ramsaur

Also Peter, even Darby "disagrees" with Nathan, but I don't think he has expressed that he is "confused" over what Nathan means.

Benji Ramsaur

Peter,

Here is the "1828" Webster's Dictionary definition of equivocation:

EQUIVOCA'TION, n. Ambiguity of speech; the use of words or expressions that are susceptible of a double signification. Hypocrites are often guilty of equivocation, and by this means lose the confidence of their fellow men. Equivocation is incompatible with the christian character and profession.

You said in Part 1 this:

"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?)'”

Now Peter, you may disagree, but this is not a F/fun statement.

Nathan is simply saying that he thinks there is a "sense" in which Baptists can be Reformed and there is another "sense" in which he thinks they cannot be Reformed.

That's like someone saying this:

"Is there a sense in which Finn and Akin are brothers? I think the answer is both yes and no, depending upon what you mean by "brother". If you mean that they are brothers in the sense that they are brothers in Christ, then the answer would be 'yes'. If you mean that they are brother in the sense of being biological brothers, then the answer would be 'no'."

Ron Hale

Peter,
Thank you for these articles, I've enjoyed them and they have made me think.

Reformed is not a proper name for a Calvinistic Baptist Church. The Reformers sought to address and reform the Catholic church of Rome. Their battle cry was Sola Scriptura! However, the Reformers never lived up to this cry. Only the Baptists lived up to Sola Scriptura in belief and practice.

Early Baptists made no appeal to tradition or confessions. The Reformers stayed with the traditions of men and the practices of the Roman Catholic church; like: infant baptism, baptismal regeneration, sacraments, sprinkling, church government, etc. The Reformers could not say, "Thus saith the Lord!" They relied on their confessions and traditions and not Solo Scriptura.

Because of the lack of Solo Scriptura [Today] the many Reformed groups around the world are ordaining openly gay priests, bishops, etc. This is an offense to a Holy God!

Baptists are staying by the stuff -- the Word of God!

peter lumpkins

Benji,

Actually, this post was not meant to be a "fun" post albeit the pics may strike one as funny. Yet, I think the pics bare humor because they project what Dr. Finn was suggesting literally.

And, if you think Dr. Finn's view is clear, fine. I gave my extended reasons why I don't think he is clear. You need know, however, that simply dismissing the thrust of the concerns I raised, and substituting them with a mere "Dr. Finn was "simply saying" that in "one sense" Baptists can be Reformed and in "another sense" Baptists cannot be Reformed just won't it cut the mustard, Benji. Dr. Finn offered far too many categories, distinctions, and definitions to be dismissed with such a simplistic solution. Indeed I think doing so actually is an insult through the backdoor (unintended, of course).

with that, I am...
Peter

Darby Livingston

Peter is a clever writer and likes to stir it up. I suspect he would have made an excellent attorney. I think Finn's point is theological nuance. I'm not much of a fan of nuancing things to death. I'm just not as capable of making nuance look absurd as Peter. :)

Darby Livingston

I'm sorry the post isn't meant to be funny, but I'm once again cracking up at the pictures. And they are funny because of the context of the post.

Benji Ramsaur

Peter,

Let's go ahead and assume, for argument's sake, that what I said will not cut the mustard. Well, even in granting that, what is your basis for charging Finn of "equivocation"?

Mike Bergman

Their battle cry was Sola Scriptura! However, the Reformers never lived up to this cry. Only the Baptists lived up to Sola Scriptura in belief and practice.

I have a friend who says that b/c of this we baptists are really more reformed than those who "officially" take the label (at least through history...presbyterians).

To me that's what "reformed" is really about, at least what it should be: faith alone, grace alone, scripture alone, Christ alone, for the glory of God alone... and I think any Baptist (well, conservative baptist) can fit under that.

But given the historical connections to the word "reformed", I doubt many will take that as a reason as to why one can be baptist and reformed... :)

peter lumpkins

Darby,

Hey, brother, I think it's great you got a laugh out of the pics. It's not like I avoided the humorous. But seriously, the pics offer a very literal rendering of Dr. Finn's words...kinda like the old pics I used to see as a kid of the extremely literal pics of Revelation's monsters. :^)

I think where Benji was coming from was assuming I was kinda "spoofing" Dr. Finn. I most certainly am not. I gave serious thought to his position. So, while all spoofs may be funny, not all things which may be funny are spoofs.

With that, I am...
Peter

peter lumpkins

Ron,

You are welcome, brother. I'm glad the posts have been helpful. And, I think there is something to be said about those who are thoroughly "Reformed"; perhaps a general rule with limited exceptions: the more "Reformed" one becomes, the more credal one becomes.

With that, I am...
Peter

Benji Ramsaur

Peter,

You said "Dr. Finn offered far too many categories, distinctions, and definitions to be dismissed with such a simplistic solution."

Based on what you have said here, do you think it would be accurate to say that your criticism of Finn's writing is that you perceive that he has taken the word "Reformed" and commented on it in such a way that it has "died the death of a thousand qualifications"?

If so, then do you think it would be good to leave it at that instead of charging Finn with "equivocation"?

Tim Rogers

Brother Peter,

Why would you think that there needs to be such clarification of the position "Reformed"? This entire thing began when Brother Les questioned the validity of calling oneself a "Reformed Baptist". Thus, what is wrong with holding to the classical understanding of "reformed"?

Blessings,
Tim

peter lumpkins

Benji,

Wherever did you get the notion I charged Dr. Finn with "equivocation"? To my recall the only mention I logged of "equivocation" in either of three parts was Dr. Finn's self-description of "equivocation" in Part I. In other words, I was quoting him using "equivocation" not evaluating his trilogy as "equivocation."

With that, I am...
Peter

peter lumpkins

Tim,

Well, personally I'm not that interested in clarity for the position per se. What I am much more interested in is the vagary of those Baptists who insist on using an oxymoron when the oxymoron produces excessive and unnecessary fog.

With that, I am...
Peter

Benji Ramsaur

Peter [responding to comment #15],

You are exactly right. I thought that was your commentary, but it was not. I am sorry about that and I apologize.


Tim Rogers

Brother Benji,

You present a problem in your defining "equivocation" that I honestly do not understand. You present the 1828 definition for the word. Here is your problem. Brother Peter used the word in 2010 nearly 200 years after your definition you want to hold him to. The definition for "equivocation" today is:

1)the use of equivocal language especially with intent to deceive. 2) to avoid committing oneself to what one says.http://www.aolsvc.merriam-webster.aol.com/dictionary/equivocation
No one is charging Dr. Finn with being deceitful thus the first definition is completely out in the way Brother Peter has used it in this series. Would one read Dr. Finn's article and come away saying he is avoiding the commitment of himself to the classical understanding of "Reformed"? I believe that is exactly what Brother Peter's thesis is all about.

Thus, you need to stop cherry picking definitions and stick with the one for the language we are using today.

Blessings,
Tim

peter lumpkins

Benji,

Not a problem, brother. Hope your day well.

With that, I am...
Peter

peter lumpkins

By the way,

Speaking of "equivocation", one twitterer posted pertaining to the comment thread on part I, "There is equivocation with Anabaptists in the comments" (emphasis mine). I laughed out loud when I read the twit. Yes siree, our comment thread possesses "equivocation."  What in tarnation does that mean? One comment? All comments?  And Anabaptists?  I don't recall Anabaptists being particularly noteworthy in any of the comments on this series.  One must search to find as for buried treasure the devastating logical critique.  

I have to tell you, the swelling community of neo-Calvinists who "look smart" by citing logical fallacies, the definitions of which, they more than likely learned not from university logicians in basic philosophy classes.  Instead, they read the quicknotes from wikepedia and assume they can then bead the bullseye on every logical fallacy-formal or informal--that's ever been recorded:

Calvinist:  You “equivocated”!

Peter:  Uh?

Calvinist: You also have a “genetic fallacy”!

Peter:  Is this a disease? Is it serious?

Calvinist: Can’t you make a clear statement without committing a “Not a true Scotsman fallacy”?

Peter: I’m from West Georgia

Calvinist: “Red Herring”!

Peter:  I prefer catfish—fried…

Calvinist: Yeah, right.  “Weak analogy”!

Peter: But…

Calvinist: “Straw Man”!

Peter: I was just going to say,…

Calvinist:  “Subjectivist fallacy!” Scripture alone!

Peter: Don’t you think you’re going a little too far?

Calvinist: “Complex question”!

Peter: Now, hold on a minute, I’d like to…

Calvinist: “Ad Hominem.” Personal attack!

Peter: Perhaps others could assist us in coming to an agreement

Calvinist: “Bandwagon fallacy”!

Peter: But isn’t our getting along worth it?

Calvinist: Nope. “Gambler’s fallacy!”

Peter: Look. Other Calvinists are…

Calvinist: “Hasty Generalization!”

Peter: Generalization or not, I

Calvinist: “Begging the question!”

Peter: Maybe if we pray for…

Calvinist: “Appeal to authority”!


I actually could go on with this…:^)

With that, I am…

Peter

Steve

thanks Peter.. loved the last bit more than the post...

volfan007

Peter,

lol....man, your statement in comment #20 was not only spot on, but it was also hilarious...and all too true. I've been there and done that on a lot of things that you mentioned. lol.

David :)

Luke

Now THAT little exchange was funny. I sorta wish you would have finished it to have included all the fallacies.

Bob L. Ross

Dear Peter:

Good entertainment! Almost as good as Abbott & Costello's "Who's on first?"

Ernest Reisinger, founder of the Founders, once wrote to Iain Murray, "We are a congregation of Baptists that is almost Presbyterian" (Ernest Reisinger, A Biography by Geoffrey Thomas, Banner of Truth, 2002, page 105).

That comment by Reisinger might be a concise definition of most "Reformed Baptists."

Bob L. Ross
Reformed Flyswatter, http://reformedflyswatter.blogspot.com/

Mary

I've always thought of reformed to mean presbies who dunk.

Steve

or Baptists who drunk :)

volfan007

Steve,

lol....boy, you and Mary struck my funny bone with these two comments.

Thank you.

David

Mary

It may not be to wise to have drunk before you have to dunk .

Steve

You mean you think that baptopressies might beome a drunken co-nut?

The comments to this entry are closed.