|
Does anyone see the irony in this thread?
1. R. Scott argues that, in his view, Reformed ought to be defined historically. The definition of the past ought to be normative.
2. Some have gotten bent out of shape because they want to use their definition. They are angry that somebody else has another definition.
3. Thus, some are angry with Scott because they have decided that, in fact, they are the "Who" that gets to define "Reformed".
I'm somewhat ambivalent about who gets to use it as long as we know what we're talking about. One could argue that Reformed Baptist is an oxymoron. As has been noted, however, before you start breaking out the "Who owns Reformed" you better make sure you're not living in a glass house.
|