Below are my continuing thoughts concerning the most recent exchanges about the oxymoron, “Reformed Baptist..” I intentionally limited my engagement to Dr. Nathan Finn’s thoughts primarily because, as a Baptist historian and seminary professor, his buck (i.e. position) most likely buys the most beans (i.e., influence). Hence, my Part I and Part II rehearsed Finn’s socio-historical framework, while the present Part III addresses his own convictions concerning the use of “Reformed Baptist.” Finally, Part IV* sums the matter up—at least for a while.
As I noted at the end of Part II, while Finn was very clear in his first two pieces, as he began to unveil his personal thoughts about the positive use of “Reformed Baptist”—surely the most significant part of his brief trilogy--his clarity dissipated.
Let me show you what I mean.
First, Finn’s positive assessment of “Reformed Baptist” hinges on the observation that since hundreds of Baptist churches claim to be Reformed, therefore “Reformed Baptists” exist. At the prima facie level, this hardly seems like a solid hinge upon which to hang one’s door, a door as heavy as “Reformed Baptist.” Suppose, for example, hundreds of Baptist churches claim to be Pentecostal, would it be proper to conclude “Pentecostal Baptists” exist? Or, perhaps suppose hundreds of Baptist churches claim to be “Presbyterian Baptists”? Would “Presbyterian Baptists” exist? I do not see why not, given Dr. Finn’s penchant for concluding, at least in this case, what is, is what ought to be.
More significantly, however, Finn goes on to say, most Calvinistic Baptists who use the “Reformed label” probably mean “something less than self-designated Reformed Baptists.” By this Finn means most Calvinists who self-designate themselves as “Reformed Baptists” mean something less than self-designated “Reformed Baptists”—at least the self-designated “capital-R Reformed Baptists.” Instead the non-“capital-R Reformed Baptists”—who nonetheless self-designate as “Reformed Baptist”--merely hold to the traditional five points of Calvinism ( I assure the reader, I am not trying to confuse matters but make out exactly what Dr. Finn means).
For my part, not only is Finn very confusing here, he abruptly introduces an entirely new category—“capital-R Reformed Baptists”—without adequate explanation. If those who use “Reformed Baptists” are divided into “capital-R Reformed Baptists” and presumably “little-r Reformed Baptists” or “non-capital-R Reformed Baptists” where does that leave Finn’s opening hinge of the “hundreds of Baptist churches who claim to be Reformed”? How could one divide these apart? Moreover, does there exist an animal known as a “Reformed Baptist” who self-designates himself or herself as a “non-capital-R Reformed Baptist”? Is there a network of these particular self-confessing “little-r Reformed Baptists”?
"Many (probably most) Calvinistic Baptists are not Reformed, no matter what terminology they use"
Yet, if that’s the case, then why insist hundreds of Baptist churches claim to be “Reformed”? Albeit their claim to be “Reformed,” wouldn’t only the minority of them actually be “Reformed Baptists”--or, in Finn’s categories, “capital-R Reformed Baptist”? If this is so, are not the hundreds of “Reformed Baptists” Finn cites significantly reduced? Not to mention the stripped screws of Dr. Finn’s opening hinge: since hundreds of Baptist churches claim to be Reformed, therefore “Reformed Baptists” exist.
From my perspective, one cannot have it both ways. One cannot persuasively argue for a substantial number (hundreds) of churches claiming to be “Reformed Baptists” but turn around and, in essence, imply only a minority of those churches are really “Reformed Baptists,” and do so no matter what they claim.
Not only did Dr. Finn abruptly introduce the “capital-R Reformed Baptist” we just discussed, he also employed another confusing category--‘“informal” Reformed Baptists.’ “Informal” Reformed Baptists are Baptists who do not self-designate themselves as “Reformed Baptists.” Finn cites this group, in his words, “to distinguish them from self-designated Reformed Baptists,” hardly a helpful distinction, however, for the simple reason that, as we saw above, the "hundreds of churches" which self-designate themselves as "Reformed Baptists" is a category hopelessly mixed with "capital-R Reformed Baptists" and, by implication, "little-r Reformed Baptists."
Even more, we now know to which of the various “Reformed Baptists” Dr. Finn adheres. He sums it up well:
“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” (emphasis mine; Dr. Finn’s caveat with “capital-R Reformed Baptists is his rejection of Puritanism concerning the Lord’s Day).
First, similar to Dr. Finn's "capital-R Reformed Baptist" implying a "little-r Reformed Baptist," the introduction of an “informal Reformed Baptist” category seems to necessarily imply there is such an animal as a “Formal Reformed Baptist” category. If I am correct, where is the “Formal Reformed Baptist” group? Is it the same category as the “capital-R Reformed Baptist” category? If so, it is not clear from Dr. Finn’s words. Even more problematic if the two are the same--that is, the "capital-R Reformed Baptists" and the implied "Formal Reformed Baptists"--is, as an "Informal Reformed Baptist," Dr. Finn actually self-identifies with the "Formal Reformed Baptists"!
If the “Formal Reformed Baptist” category is not the same as the “capital-R Reformed Baptist,” where may one find a description of the “Formal Reformed Baptist” category? Do Baptists exist who claim to be “Formal Reformed Baptists” in distinction to “Informal Reformed Baptists” like Dr. Finn? I do not know. One would hope Dr. Finn knows. Supposing further the two are not identical, what distinguishing marks set “Formal Reformed Baptist” apart from “capital-R Reformed Baptists”?
This is partially why I’m very confused in attempting to decipher Dr. Finn’s personal position on “Reformed Baptist.” Admittedly, others were apparently not as confused as I continue to be. For example, logged in the comment thread are testimonies to Finn’s clarity:
“As a member of a Southern Baptist church that also holds to the Second London Confession, I have greatly appreciated these articles and the clarity they bring” (Andrew Lindsay, July 14th, 2010 at 7:49 pm)
“It is refreshing to read a careful, studied viewpoint on this issue” (Tom Ascol, July 14th, 2010 at 9:47 pm)
Nor, secondly, did Dr. Finn apparently recognize the sheer irony in his self-professing designation as an “informal Reformed Baptist.” On one hand, an “informal Reformed Baptist” does not self-designate as a “Reformed Baptist.” Nonetheless, Finn remains comfortable calling himself “an informal Reformed Baptist.” But if what defines an “informal Reformed Baptist” is non-self-designation as “Reformed Baptist”—even if one is in substantial theological with “Reformed Baptists” (the capital-R category)—why would Dr. Finn self-designate himself as an “Informal Reformed Baptist”? By his own definition, “informal Reformed Baptists” do not designate themselves as “Reformed Baptists.”
Moreover, like Dr. Finn, are all non-self-designated “Reformed Baptists” comfortable designating themselves “Informal Reformed Baptists” because they are in substantial theological agreement with “capital-R Reformed Baptists”? Or, put another way, are there some “Informal Reformed Baptists” who, unlike Dr. Finn, embrace the doctrines of presumably “little-r Reformed Baptists”?
Finally, are any convictional Calvinists like Les Puryear, who does not self-designate as “Reformed Baptist” mingled hopelessly among Dr. Finn’s “Informal Reformed Baptists”—those who are in substantial theological agreement with “capital-R Reformed Baptists” but who nevertheless do not designate themselves as “Reformed Baptists? "Of course not!" may be the reply. But how would one know this if neither the “Informal Reformed Baptist” like Dr. Finn nor the convictional Calvinist like Les Puryear self-designated himself as “Reformed Baptist”? Where may one find an answer?
Are you confused yet?
Contrary to Lindsay and Ascol above, I remain very confused.
With that, I am…
Peter
*Well, once again, a change of plan; hence, I must break this off. I’ll make one more go at it in Part IV.
Love the pictures. They're cracking me up.
Posted by: Darby Livingston | 2010.07.29 at 02:30 PM
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
Posted by: Benji Ramsaur | 2010.07.29 at 02:39 PM
Also Peter, even Darby "disagrees" with Nathan, but I don't think he has expressed that he is "confused" over what Nathan means.
Posted by: Benji Ramsaur | 2010.07.29 at 02:51 PM
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'."
Posted by: Benji Ramsaur | 2010.07.29 at 03:15 PM
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!
Posted by: Ron Hale | 2010.07.29 at 04:01 PM
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
Posted by: peter lumpkins | 2010.07.29 at 04:45 PM
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. :)
Posted by: Darby Livingston | 2010.07.29 at 04:50 PM
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.
Posted by: Darby Livingston | 2010.07.29 at 04:52 PM
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"?
Posted by: Benji Ramsaur | 2010.07.29 at 05:02 PM
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... :)
Posted by: Mike Bergman | 2010.07.29 at 05:20 PM
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
Posted by: peter lumpkins | 2010.07.29 at 06:01 PM
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
Posted by: peter lumpkins | 2010.07.29 at 06:07 PM
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"?
Posted by: Benji Ramsaur | 2010.07.29 at 06:16 PM
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
Posted by: Tim Rogers | 2010.07.29 at 06:48 PM
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
Posted by: peter lumpkins | 2010.07.29 at 07:40 PM
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
Posted by: peter lumpkins | 2010.07.29 at 07:45 PM
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.
Posted by: Benji Ramsaur | 2010.07.29 at 09:02 PM
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:
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
Posted by: Tim Rogers | 2010.07.30 at 05:40 AM
Benji,
Not a problem, brother. Hope your day well.
With that, I am...
Peter
Posted by: peter lumpkins | 2010.07.30 at 05:56 AM
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:
I actually could go on with this…:^)
With that, I am…
Peter
Posted by: peter lumpkins | 2010.07.30 at 07:00 AM
thanks Peter.. loved the last bit more than the post...
Posted by: Steve | 2010.07.30 at 07:53 AM
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 :)
Posted by: volfan007 | 2010.07.30 at 07:57 AM
Now THAT little exchange was funny. I sorta wish you would have finished it to have included all the fallacies.
Posted by: Luke | 2010.07.30 at 08:04 AM
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/
Posted by: Bob L. Ross | 2010.07.30 at 11:32 AM
I've always thought of reformed to mean presbies who dunk.
Posted by: Mary | 2010.07.30 at 01:46 PM
or Baptists who drunk :)
Posted by: Steve | 2010.07.30 at 05:43 PM
Steve,
lol....boy, you and Mary struck my funny bone with these two comments.
Thank you.
David
Posted by: volfan007 | 2010.07.31 at 04:21 PM
It may not be to wise to have drunk before you have to dunk .
Posted by: Mary | 2010.08.01 at 02:11 PM
You mean you think that baptopressies might beome a drunken co-nut?
Posted by: Steve | 2010.08.03 at 04:32 AM