***QUOTE***
No, it wasn't "aprioristic," it was heuristic. I'm not trying to (re)formulate a whole theology of sacraments from the ground up.
***END-QUOTE***
But at some point that’s what we need to do. At some point we need to bracket tradition and ask ourselves how we would read Scripture on this or that doctrine apart from the preconditioning of a particular theological tradition. That’s the point of the GHM. To get behind tradition. To wipe the slate clean and do it from scratch.
***QUOTE***
I'm trying to invoke historical precendent for understanding the role of materiality in the sacraments that involves God really doing something through them when they are rightly used and faithfully received.
***END-QUOTE***
The parallel with the Incarnation operates at too high a level of abstraction. It’s no substitute for detailed exegesis.
***QUOTE***
I subscribe to the WCF. That is where my theology of the sacraments is expressed.
***END-QUOTE***
My immediate interest is not to challenge the WCF. My concern is one of theological method. At this point I’m not taking issue with the results. My concern is with the methodology generating the results.
***QUOTE***
Better men than I handled the exegesis.
***END-QUOTE***
There are better men on both sides of the issue.
***QUOTE***
I'm still working through my understanding of them, especially the crux of their meaning, such as in "sacramental union."
***END-QUOTE***
Fine, we can’t do everything at once.
***QUOTE***
As for being aprioristic...um, commitment to a hermeneutical method such as GHM is inferred...from what?
***END-QUOTE***
The GHM is not prejudicial. It doesn’t distinguish one Evangelical tradition from another. It is something they share in common.
***QUOTE***
Steve, are you so bored with our investigations into the degree of distinction between the "traditional" Reformed and the RBs that you're going to shift to a philosophical discussion? Very well.
***END-QUOTE***
Because it’s ultimately irrelevant to where the truth lies. It’s good to become aware of our presuppositions by a comparison and contrast between one theological tradition and another. But that should be a ground-clearing exercise for doing exegesis.
***QUOTE***
But I am still interested in what you might think about the point I was trying to make in Jus's post about the difference being systematic and not inconsequential.
***END-QUOTE***
Your general point is valid. However, JD and I have already addressed the specifics of why infant baptism is not a Reformed distinctive, not only as a carryover from the Medieval church, but also because there is no consensus within Calvinism regarding the grounds for infant baptism.
We need to do our theology from the bottom up, not the top down. That's the way of verify (or falsify) a theological tradition, or elements thereof.
1.As I recall, the original question was not whether RBs regard their version of the Reformed faith as superior to Reformed paedobaptists, but whether Reformed paedobaptists regard Reformed theology as a legitimate expression of Calvinism.
ReplyDelete2.Since JD and I have contended that paedobaptism is not a Reformed distinctive, its presence or absence does not make one version of Reformed theology superior or inferior to another.
3.Life is short. The historiographic question is not a priority for me. I prefer to spend my time on normative questions.
4.You seem to be suggesting that Presbyterianism represents a force for cultural engagement, a la Kuyper, whereas the Baptist tradition represents a principle of cultural disengagement, a la James Jordan’s critique.
While that may be true historically, we see something of an about face in our own time and place: the OPC is culturally disengaged whereas the SBC is culturally engaged.
I’d add that Reformed Baptists are beginning to build parallel institutions. It’s just taken them longer to find their footing.
I think the phenomenon which cries out for a special explanation is not why Reformed Baptist bloggers are so aggressive about promoting the doctrines of grace, but why Presbyterians have maintained such a low profile.