JOSH S SAID:
“Reformed Baptists are only half-Calvinists, so I don't much see their views of baptism as normative.”
I’m afraid the Fearsome Pirate has put his finger on a truly embarrassing problem for Reformedom. Like the Pon farr and Barry Manilow music, this is not something we discuss in polite company.
But it’s sadly true that we have far too many half-breed Calvinists crashing our formal soirees and lowering the tone of the proceedings—what with their lowbred accent and uncouth table manners.
For this reason, the T-bloggers have designed The Adoptomatic. After extensive, behind-the-scenes negotiations with some of the best families in Dordt, Perth, and Geneva, they have agreed to adopt a half-breed Calvinist for a suitable incorporation fee.
Adoptomatic machines will be installed in the narthex of every Southern Baptist church this side of the Mason-Dixon line. You insert a credit card, select which family tree you wish to be grafted on to, and the machine will issue you a certificate of pedigree which you can keep in you wallet just in case you ever wish to take communion at an OPC or URC church.
For those of you who can’t afford the incorporation fee, we will also be setting up the Adopt-A-Half-Breed-Calvinist Fund—which will issue Adoptomatic bonus cards to the deserving poor as long as they can recite the first 17 chapters of the Westminster Confession in one breath.
:::YAWN!!!:::
ReplyDelete
ReplyDelete“Reformed Baptists are only half-Calvinists, so I don't much see their views of baptism as normative.”
"Calvinist" and "Reformed" are not convertible terms.
Why is baptism a defining doctrine of "Calvinism?"
And notice that "Semper Reformanda" goes out the window here. "Always Reforming,"- except for when talking about sacraments.
Since Reformed Baptists view baptism as a means of grace, how is that not "Calvinist?" Is Josh's problem with believers baptism? I know I'm a bit rusty with my Presbyterian sacramentology, but as I recall, Presbyterians practice believer's baptism as well as Paedobaptism. At least that's what Charles Hodge wrote in his Systematic Theology text.
And if Paedobaptism is a "Reformed" or "Calvinist" distinctive, then Lutherans, the Catholics, Orthodox, and others are "Reformed" too.
I suppose this makes Josh one of the "truly, truly Reformed." Isn't this rather ironic when, as I recall, "TR" is a favorite perjorative term used by the folks @ the BHT, when referring to some Reformed Baptists?
Oh, and I do believe we've dealt with this same objection from him on this very blog.
As a presby, I must say that my baptist brothers, like Gene above, are fully reformed, or calvinistic.
ReplyDeleteSome paedos say that it's because they deny covenant theology.
But, in fact, they find discontinuity taught. That *is* CT. You assume binding, unless otherwise revoked or abrogated. So, a principle of CT, that you assume binding unless told otherwise, is followed by many RBs.
Perhaps it is meant that if they don't follow 100% of what Calvin believed, you're not a Calvinist (though I don't know how the baptism for professing believers alone gets you down to 50%!)? If so, are any of us "full bred" Calvinists? Is the "Dr." an "office in the church?" Be careful how you answer, muts.
Lastly, rather than dismissing RB scholarship by name calling, I'd suggest that my presby brothers hit the books and start studying the issue. The way the state of debate is right now, I think the RBs are winning in terms of scholarship, exegetical ability, argumentation, etc. Their material is better, and that's all there is to it.
If we don't engage this area of scholarhsip, in a few years we'll be the non-normative half-breeds! Perhaps we already are....
Although I've heard considerations to the contrary, I think the 5 solas's are the thing. (And probably the TULIP). I don't think the rest can be considered required believing...
ReplyDeleteI do not need to be called Reformed, nor a Calvinist, though I do hold to the TULIP, or rather the TULIP holds to me.
ReplyDeleteI was circumcised without hands. I was baptised without hands too.
Oddly enough padeos believe in credobaptism too, it is just that at times they place the creed upon the parents instead of the individual;
Was the promise given to Isaac before He was born, or after He was circumcised? So how is that my child will be cut off from election because of my sin? Or will I now lose my election and be cut of from grace?
I am sure John Gill could post a better reply.
Quick! Someone get one of these shirts and send it to Josh...
ReplyDelete;-)
"As a presby, I must say that my baptist brothers, like Gene above, are fully reformed, or calvinistic."
ReplyDeleteThere are those, like the RefCath crowd, who heartily disagree with you about RBs being fully reformed. They will admit that RBs are reformed with regard to our soteriology, but heterodox and schismatic with regard to our views of ecclesiology and sacramentology. I guess I'm a TULIP Calvinist then, but not a real Calvinist.
Ironically, some of these guys hold some novel views of such things as penal substitution. Doesn't sound like they see eye to eye with Calvin there, but hey, they're the "real" Calvinists after all.
"The way the state of debate is right now, I think the RBs are winning in terms of scholarship, exegetical ability, argumentation, etc. Their material is better, and that's all there is to it."
Thanks for noticing, and it's not too late for you to become a Reformed Baptist Paul!
HT,
ReplyDeleteI know they disagree. And... I don't care! :-) They, like hundreds of other fads, will fade away into obscurity.
"Thanks for noticing, and it's not too late for you to become a Reformed Baptist Paul!"
So I'm like Darth Vader? It's not too late for me?
Anyway, that they're presenting the stronger arguments currently doesn't mean that I'm sold on those arguments. It just means that if you, say, line "The Covenantal Case for Infant Baptism" (ed. G. Strawbridge) up with, say, "Believer's Baptism: The Sign of The New Covenant" (ed. Scheriner and Wright), the latter suprases the former in agumentative rigor, exegesis, and (for the most part) responding to contemporary paedobaptist arguments (vs. the former responding to credo arguments). However, having read the book (and a couple of its chapters many times over), that is not to say that I find the arguments compelling or persuasive. In fact, I found much of it either suportive of my view, or altogether failig to deal with it in its best form. But, much of that is because my side puts out poorly formed and stated arguments. So, no wonder why the RB side comes out looking as strong as it does.
Finally, I'd rather not spend that much time debating this issue. My interests lie more in apologetics and philosophy of religion and reformed soteriology. Nevertheless, I'll call a spade a spad and admit that the RBs are putting out the better stuff right now. Your case is much, much stronger than most paedos will admit.
"Finally, I'd rather not spend that much time debating this issue."
ReplyDeleteNo problem there brother, I've danced over the paedo/credo arguments too many times already.
That debate won't be resolved in this life anyway...
true dat
ReplyDelete