Jim Handyside's 2010 US Itinerary
March 3-11 Williston, FL 352-528-2216
March 10 Jacksonville, FL 904-272-6483
March 11-19 Sebring, FL 863-385-3787
March 19-24 Sanford, FL 386-492-2218
March 24-27 St. Mary, GA 912-882-5704
Mar 27-Apr3 Macon, GA 770-631-3660
April 3-6 Atlanta, GA 404-484-7690
April 6-13 Woodstock, GA 678-880-1123

Just a few more thoughts on yesterday's post on what it means to be "Reformed."

Dr. Clark has responded, and by doing so, confirmed that the comments I posted were, in fact, his. You can read his comments and how I have so "badly" misunderstood both he and the Reformed faith here.

You can also find a comment he made that is in some ways even more troubling relating to his false accusation that Baptists say he is not a Christian here. Evidently, being baptized makes you a Christian---shades of my debate with Doug Wilson in 2004. (Summary of my position in that debate: without the gospel, you don't have Christianity. Period).

Michael Haykin sent it over the fence here. Much appreciated.

Here's my final thought: the subjects and mode of baptism does not define what it means to be Reformed. If Dr. Clark wishes to so severely reduce that term so as to limit the number of the Reformed to a tiny few, that is his right. If he wishes to reduce my own faith in the same way to "particular Baptist," I can't stop him, but, I won't be joining him in his minimalism. Years ago I gave a seminar on why "Five points are not enough." Dr. Clark keeps saying being Reformed is more than the five points. Of course it is. It involves one's view of God, a view that sees Him as Holy and just and sovereign, and man as His creature. It stands apart from man's religions, and the vast majority of "Christendom," in acknowledging God's absolute right to do with His creation as He sees fit. It is absolutely theocentric, purposefully and willfully rejecting the impulse to focus upon man, instead acknowledging that the glory of God's grace is worthy to be praised for all eternity. To be Reformed means you believe in a Savior worthy of worship, One who actually saves, not one who just does His best. You believe the Gospel is Trinitarian, holy, lofty, awe-inspiring and worthy of the entirety of your life and being. You not only accept the five points, you accept the consistent exegesis and hermeneutics, let alone the view of an inspired, authoritative, consistent, sufficient Word from God, that leads to those five points. And as a result, your view of God, yourself, church, worship, and the world, is inalterably changed. To be Reformed is to worship God in a way the world just doesn't get, and which evangelicalism as a whole doesn't get, either. You long for the Word, you long to hear His truth proclaimed and honored, and you find anything that detracts from the glory of His truth reprehensible. You see God's grand decree in His Triune self-glorification from creation to consummation and your heart is drawn out in worship and adoration and awe as a result. That is what it means to be Reformed.

Now evidently you can believe all of that, but, if you don't think Calvin's unique means of connecting circumcision to baptism is compelling in light of a tremendous amount of counter argumentation, well, you just aren't Reformed. I leave it to my kind readers to decide if "Reformed" should be thusly restricted.

Well, at least Black Friday isn't completely boring for all of you who, like me, loathe being on the streets and highways today (I basically hide in the house, ride on the canals, do anything but be out in public). My response to R. Scott Clark's comments has certainly gotten everyone's holiday season off to a rousing start! Glad to be of service.

Seriously, I thought I had linked to Micah Burke's blog, but I'll be honest: I am using Ecto to blog in Mac, and...this program is definitely sub-par for a Mac platform. There are times it simply will not cooperate, and one of its quirks is sometimes it refuses to insert URL links. That is not nearly as annoying as the "edit this long, long post and I'll delete 80% of it and give you no way of recovering what you spent the past 90 minutes writing" bug. Anyway, here is the blog entry and comments:

http://radongas.blogspot.com/2009/11/thought-on-r-scott-clarks-definiton-of.html

Hey, it worked that time (though, I note, all formatting commands are now off line---weird).

Just a few thoughts in response to all the buzz out there.

1) Please read my words with the emphasis I placed in the article, not yours. I did not compare my Presbyterian brothers to cultists: I said a defective reading of a text is an indication of tradition trumping exegesis. Try reading my words with half the fairness I try to show toward others and all will be well.

2) This debate cannot simply go away. Our confessions force it upon us, our love for the gospel brings us into close proximity, and our common commitment to sola scriptura drives us to live consistently in light thereof. And I say both sides get to speak clearly and fully. There is a lot written out there that, if I were looking for a reason to be offended, would offend me as a Reformed Baptist. I do not go through life looking for reasons to be offended by brethren. I simply ask the same in return.

With that, I return you to your regularly scheduled programming.

I speak often on this blog of the need to be accurate in one's representation of others. As a sinner living in a fallen world, I fail my own standards, though not on purpose, to be sure. I seek to honor Christ by accurately representing those I oppose in debate, whether I consider the "other side" to be my fellow believers, or to be lost, even enemies of God's truth.

It strikes me that especially when we are discussing theological differences between believers, accuracy is important. How many times have I documented the most ridiculous misrepresentations of the Reformed position by famous Arminians? The number of straw-man arguments I have documented on the part of Norman Geisler, Ergun Caner, Dave Hunt, etc., is legion.

One of the oddest areas of constant straw-man argumentation that is very troubling to me, and very surprising as well, arises when I engage my dear Presbyterian brothers in the inevitable discussion of baptism. I have debated the subject a number of times, though, always at the invitation of others, never at my own instigation. When I have prepared for these debates (in particular, those of the most recent past, with Pastor Bill Shishko in New York, and with Gregg Strawbridge shortly thereafter on The Dividing Line) I have taken the time to listen carefully to the other side, and seek, as best I can, to accurately represent it. I listened to over 20 hours of Pastor Shishko's lectures on baptism. I have obtained the primary works on baptism published by the great Presbyterian scholars of the past, and of today, including that edited by Gregg Strawbridge. As with all of my debates, but even more so here since I am dealing with fellow believers, brothers in Christ, I seek to enter into their own understanding of the subject as accurately as possible.

But it is just here that I have seen---over and over again---an odd, but not unusual, phenomenon. My dear brothers will stand with me in defending the great doctrines of the faith, and we will stand arm in arm in using sound principles of exegesis and argumentation. But when it comes to this one, single topic---the baptism of their infants---all of a sudden the hermeneutic changes, and arguments are used that would never, ever be used in any other context. And, most troubling, in the vast majority of instances, my Presbyterian brethren refuse to hear the specifically covenantal argumentation I, as a Reformed Baptist, present. It is almost as if it is impossible for them to believe that someone who sees and accepts God's covenantal actions over time could possibly reject the conclusions they have reached since the days of Calvin. Sadly, as a result, many of these men choose to ignore the distinctions that clearly exist amongst Baptists on this topic, sometimes, to their shame, I believe, broad-brushing us all with the "Anabaptist" brush, hoping to impugn us with the specter of Munster! Such an action is reprehensible at its best, but sadly, I have experienced it numerous times.