Hugely Important Federal Vision Document

Most of the big names in the FV have put their name to this document. It is a series of affirmations and denials. Despite their claims, however, they have not succeeded in formulating their view in such a way as to demonstrate continuity with the Reformed Confessions. I will demonstrate this in future posts.

About these ads

66 Comments

  1. Anne Ivy said,

    July 30, 2007 at 3:00 pm

    Lane, is there a date for that? I couldn’t find one on it.

    Thanks ever so!

  2. July 30, 2007 at 3:20 pm

    Note the absence of Steve Schlissel’s signature.

  3. tim prussic said,

    July 30, 2007 at 5:28 pm

    Any substantive critiques of this document? I

    ‘m honestly still confused about the insistence against merit. For example, in the section, “The Covenant of Live,” the denial section strikes me as odd and overstated. Can we not say IN SOME WAY that glorification for Adam would’ve been payment for work rendered? Can we not say that, covenantally, God’s bound himself to Adam and the if Adam kept the covenant that he would have merited the blessing of the covenant? Adam would have been function by God’s grace and power, and his obedience would have been in faith – believing God’s word. Am I off on that one?

    The denial section of “Union with Christ and Imputation” was also strange. The requirement for a postive formulation of IAOX is one thing and the denial of it another. Of course the requirement of a positive formlation to be faithful to the gospel is out of place. However, the denial of the same is more serious.

    The “Apostasy” section was too short and a bit unclear at the end of the affirmation section. I don’t like the terminology that “the connection that an apostate has to Christ is not MERELY external.” That is, I don’t like it without some more careful qualifications. I often juxtapose internal to external, especially with regard to covenant membership and the gaining of the blessings of the covenant. A NECM can be in the covenant in history, but he does not draw the salvific benefits any more than externally and superifcially. Grace has not penetrated his heart to turn him from darkness to light and so on.

    Finally, the last section seemed to muddy the waters a good bit. I understand the purpose of it, but I think it may have been better to leave out the specifics of the points of intramural disagreement and just noted that some exist.

    Overall, I think the piece is helpful and clear.

  4. July 30, 2007 at 5:50 pm

    Date is first thing you see: July, 2007

  5. anneivy said,

    July 30, 2007 at 5:57 pm

    [wryly] Well, it may have been the first thing you saw, but I sure didn’t see it, and I looked for it.

    Given my propensity for missing the obvious, though, I’m not exactly killed with astonishment that I managed to skim it up and down three times yet not see it.

    Thanks ever so! ;^)

  6. July 30, 2007 at 8:59 pm

    I don’t see a date either… :)

  7. anneivy said,

    July 30, 2007 at 9:19 pm

    How weird. It’s there now, right under the title, but I’d stake my affy-davy it wasn’t there earlier. I mean, I looked for it. I searched for it.

    I don’t recall the title having two lines like it does now, i.e. name and date.

    Hark! Is that the men in white coats pulling up to the curb? =8^o

    They’re coming to take me away, ha ha….they’re coming to take me away, ho ho….

  8. July 30, 2007 at 9:56 pm

    I see now that the .pdf file I saved to my computer does not have a date while the file I open up in the link above does. Not sure why! Anyways, look forward to discussion on this important document! :)

    Your not losing your mind Ann. ;)

  9. July 30, 2007 at 10:10 pm

    [...] “New” Federal Vision Statement Hat tip to Green Baggins, who posted a link to a July 2007 statement by mostly CREC folks plus the usual four most-vocal PCA [...]

  10. Chris Hutchinson said,

    July 30, 2007 at 10:55 pm

    My favorite part:

    “We further affirm that those who are first coming to faith in Christ frequently experience the law as an adversary and the gospel as deliverance from that adversary, meaning that traditional evangelistic applications of law and gospel are certainly scriptural and appropriate.”

    Meaning, “We who are now mature in Christ never experience God’s laws or demands as adversarial or condemning, because we follow them so well.”

    They seem not to grasp the reality of a law-gospel distinction throughout the Christian life nor the humility that such an understanding brings.

  11. Chris Hutchinson said,

    July 30, 2007 at 11:01 pm

    Oh, and putting postmillenialism as the second article right after the Trinity. Classic.

  12. Fred Greco said,

    July 31, 2007 at 12:05 am

    And don’t forget that the political statement of “Christendom” comes before the Bible, preaching and the Church.

  13. tim prussic said,

    July 31, 2007 at 12:35 am

    Hmm… was hoping for some more serious analysis.

  14. Robert K. said,

    July 31, 2007 at 1:45 am

    Tim, you’re hoping for capitulation to the Romanist program of the FVists which is nothing more than the age old demands of proud unregenerate man.

  15. Robert K. said,

    July 31, 2007 at 1:55 am

    Our Triune God
    We affirm that the triune God is the archetype of all covenantal relations. All faithful theology and life is conducted in union with and imitation of the way God eternally is, and so we seek to understand all that the Bible teaches—on
    covenant, on law, on gospel, on predestination, on sacraments, on the Church—in the light of an explicit Trinitarian understanding. We deny that a mere formal adherence to the doctrine of the Trinity is sufficient to keep the very common polytheistic and unitarian temptations of unbelieving thought at bay.

    This is like saying ‘we affirm that our novel anchoring of our novel doctrines in Ralph Smith’s ideas of the Trinity vis-a-vis covenant is exactly what we believe. And furthermore we accuse all of you who merely believe in the Trinity of really being polytheists if you don’t capitulate to Ralph Smith’s views.’

  16. July 31, 2007 at 7:06 am

    that is serious

  17. Mark T. said,

    July 31, 2007 at 8:00 am

    . . . but we do want to be teachable, willing to stand corrected, or to refine our formulations as critics point out ambiguties [sic]. . .

    I’m going to go out on a limb and ask if anyone has seen any of these men demonstrate any of these characteristics since this controversy started?

    Thank you.

  18. Jon Peters said,

    July 31, 2007 at 8:03 am

    Where does the section on assurance actually address assurance? It says we look to Christ, but can we actually have that “infallible assurance of faith founded upon the divine truth of the promises of salvation?” It has been my impression that the FV “conversation” was motivated at least in part by the morbid introspection that is supposed to be rampant in Reformed churches. I thought the FV offered a more sure, objective assurance. However, I am left wondering what assurance the FV offer. After all, aren’t all baptized members united to Christ? Cannot they also look to their union with Him for assurance?

  19. July 31, 2007 at 8:17 am

    Mark T.
    It has been my experience ,and I think Lane can second this, that to date I have not seen a single leading representative of the FV, especially the ones who put their names on this document, acknowledge in the slightest that ANY of the vast army of FV critics has ever offered up a criticism with any merit. Instead all we ever hear it that the critics of the noble FV misunderstand, distort, smear, and slander the FV and it doesn’t stop there-we all are flaming liars,agents os Satan, a pen of swine, hateful, white washed walls, and modern day Alexander the coppersmith.

  20. Tim Wilder said,

    July 31, 2007 at 8:47 am

    Their first affirmation has to do with the “triune God”. But they do not define what Trinity they believe in. Is it the metaphysical Trinity of the ecumenical confessions, defined using that metaphysics that Leithart thinks is outmoded? Is it Ralph Smith’s “family relationship” Trinity, for which the unity is a covenant, and thus rather like three gods who got married? It is Meyers ritual Trinity, consisting of three beings engaged in eternal mutual sacrifice?

    This first doctrinal point is typical of the imprecision of the document as a whole.

    What they do say is that they are against clarity:

    “we believe that the employment of such hyper-specialized terminology in the regular teaching and preaching of the Church has the unfortunate effect of confusing the saints and of estranging them from contact with the biblical use of the same language”.

    The FV, then, holds that clarity in doctrine is confusing.

    I think that the FV pursues confusion as a matter of policy, because clarity would bring out the inherent contradictions between the FV and the confessions, and also would bring out the internal contradictions, such as the two conflicting stands on assurance noted in the posts before this one.

  21. tim prussic said,

    July 31, 2007 at 9:56 am

    I think there are a number of unfair comments here, especially the last two. I’ve seen Wilson (in particular), Mr. Johnson, be very willing to engage, to give some ground, and to discuss openly. I don’t think he’s given much ground, but what TR has? On the opposition’s side, I’ve seen a GREAT deal of misrepresentation and mere condemnation of the FV along with good critical work. There’s enough guilt to go around, that’s for sure. There’re logs in TR eyes, too, let’s not forget.

    Mr. Wilder, highly technical theology is not only confusing, but absolutely inaccessible to that vast majority of Christians. There are times when it’s quite useful and there are times when it don’t do a lick of good. For you to pretend otherwise is evidence of detachment from the reality of working with normal folks. Sure, your big, bright seminary student can read SOME of Aquinas with benefit, but the ordinary guy in the pew would use the Summa as a door stop. There’s very little less edifying that the preaching of highly technical theology from the pulpit to a bunch of mechanics and office workers who just don’t have the background to field it.
    On the other hand, technical questions must be asked and answered. Scholarship must be done. All this is quite good in its correct place. Confusion is not good whether it’s confusion due to a lack of precision or due to over precision.
    This is simply an asinine induction: “The FV, then, holds that clarity in doctrine is confusing.” It’s not a good way to move a discussion forward.

  22. jared said,

    July 31, 2007 at 10:04 am

    tim prussic,

    Lane has said he will be interacting with this doccument in future posts, probably best to wait for those posts for serious discussion than to look for it in these comments.

  23. tim prussic said,

    July 31, 2007 at 11:48 am

    You’re probably correct, Jared. Pastor Lane is pretty even handed and I sure appreciate that. I suppose I just am upset by the chest-thumping menatlity that blogs too often fall into.

  24. Jon Peters said,

    July 31, 2007 at 12:02 pm

    Tim Prussic,

    To which highly technical and confusing language do you refer? Election? Justification? Is the Shorter Catechism included as being highly technical and confusing? Is this really a problem in Reformed chruches? If so, could you cite a specific example?

  25. Patrick Poole said,

    July 31, 2007 at 12:07 pm

    So, Tim, would you also consider the “highly technical theology” of the ecumenical councils on the Trinity also “confusing” and “absolutely inaccessible to that vast majority of Christians”? Are we merely confusing the flock by insisting on the “highly technical theology” distinguishing homoousios and homoiousios, and affirming three hypostases in one ousia? Or do these definitions really matter, as Tim Wilder has noted?

  26. Daniel Kok said,

    July 31, 2007 at 12:16 pm

    I find it interesting that Jim Jordan signed his name to the document. Over at the Heidelblog, Scott asks:

    “James Jordan has also signed it but he doesn’t list his ecclesiastical affiliation. What is it?”

    Is he under the authority of a consistory is or is he on his own? Because if it is the latter it certainly doesn’t fit very well with FV’s emphasis on ecclesiology.

  27. tim prussic said,

    July 31, 2007 at 12:30 pm

    Jon, it don’t tkae much reading of theology to run into technical stuff. You’re either ignorant of the vast volumes of Reformed technical theology, or you’re just acting like it. Simple statments of faith (like the confession) tend NOT to be technical by nature, although I think that Westminster’s work is slightly more technical than other confessions.

    Patrick, Trinitarian and christological theology is SUPER technical. I think that that vast majority of Christians, even in Reformed churches, could not give a sound intellectual defense of those doctrines. That doesn’t mean they don’t believe the doctrines. There’s a great difference between the necessary understanding of a thing and a labored and technical understanding of it. I think that EVERY doctrine can be developed to a high intellectual and technical level that is mostly out of the reach of all but specialists. There is a whole range of comprehensiblity in between base clarity and technical inaccessibility. This isn’t a dichotomy, but a spectrum.
    Is this somehow news? Am I off base?

  28. Jon Peters said,

    July 31, 2007 at 12:56 pm

    Tim,

    Wow, I’m ignorant for asking a question? Oh wait, I’m either ignorant or lying. Nice Tim. Great witness. I don’t think my question was out of line. But, all in all, quite typical of you FV types. No doubt you’ll complain later today about how the FV have been unfairly maligned.

    The context was the layperson. What layperson is being forced to or is required to pick up the technical theological literature of which you speak? Or are you just fiegning ignorance Tim?

  29. tim prussic said,

    July 31, 2007 at 1:38 pm

    Mr. Peters, as I said, it takes just a bit of reading theology before it gets technical and less accessible. That is OBVIOUS. If you don’t know THAT you must either be ignorant or just having a good time on a blog.

    I’m not trying to be a jerk or anything (though sometimes I achieve such status without trying). It just seems a bit mind blowing that anyone familiar with Reformed theology and practice could act as if we DON’T err on the side of technical precision. Further, both your post (#24 & 25) took my simple and clear idea and tried to push it into a false dichotomy, at least that’s how I see it. So, I sincerely apologize if I offended or made ya mad. I’m not trying to anger the brethren.

    Having grown up in the Dutch Reformed tradition (CRC), then been transplanted to the Southern Presbyterian one (PCA), then back to the Dutch one (OCRC) in college, and now in an American Fundamentalists variety of it (BPC), I have a good deal of experience in Reformed circles. A goodly portion of the preaching I’ve heard in these divers Reformed circles has tended toward academic dryness. I really do think that’s a problem for us and that we should deal with it honestly.

    On the flip side, we should be encouraging the regular church-goer to work deeper and deeper into more technical theology. It’s good for those ready for it – I personally often find it more devotional than, well, devotional work. However, the scholastic/technical type of theological articulation preached doesn’t tend to feed the sheep. It is important that the pastor have a firm grasp on in, to have it be in the background of their researching labors, but to come across sparingly in the sermons.

    I really don’t think this is controversial stuff. Maybe it’s because it’s perceived as “FV” that it is so.

  30. Jon Peters said,

    July 31, 2007 at 2:22 pm

    Tim,

    Now I’m playing on a blog because I ask questions? I never implied that theology was not technical. Your suggestion otherwise is a silly rhetorical ploy. You got me. However, you did not offend me or make me mad; I am not so thin skinned and frankly such behavior is to be expected from many FV types.

    To care how someone like you treats me implies that it is important what you think. Your behavior suggests that your opinion of me is not important.

    I will leave you to your suppositions.

  31. Daniel Kok said,

    July 31, 2007 at 3:11 pm

    Tim:

    In regards to post #21 where you wrote:

    “This is simply an asinine induction: ‘The FV, then, holds that clarity in doctrine is confusing.’ It’s not a good way to move a discussion forward.”

    This is simply unfair. Many of us who have dealt with FV in our denominations or elsewhere have come to this conclusion after extensive dealings with these men. Tim’s statement, imo, is very accurate.

  32. Daniel Kok said,

    July 31, 2007 at 3:13 pm

    I have been informed that Mr. Jordan is part of a federation:

    http://www.providencepresbytery.org/

    Mea culpa.

  33. NHarper said,

    July 31, 2007 at 3:32 pm

    How many Federal Vision teachers have followed through on the recommendation to make these errors known to their presbytery? 0
    How many Federal Vision teachers have had charges filed against them by their presbyteries since the report was approved by the GA? 0

    So, to this date, the GA report is a toothless lion. That means that the PCA is an apostate denomination. For, the report says that these false teachers are considered brothers in the PCA. I guess those who speak the truth have to go outside the PCA camp where Christ is.

    Here’s the latest FV trick: Several presbyteries are now putting together overtures in favor of the GA report – overtures that require signatures. So the FV folks in order to hide their true identity are signing on to these overtures. That way if you ask them if they are a Federal Visionist, their reply is no longer “I am in conformity with the WS” but rather – “I signed the overture.”

    Forget the “teachableness” of the FV and get ready for more deception and slippery snakes – the latest being this “clear as mud” statement.

  34. tim prussic said,

    July 31, 2007 at 3:48 pm

    Let’s gauge for a moment, Mr. Kok, the “unfairness” of the statement:

    “The FV, then, holds that clarity in doctrine is confusing.”
    I call that statment an asinine induction.
    Somehow, I’m being unfair! It’s difficult to know how to repond to this kind of thing.

    Maybe a more positive statement will help: “hyper-specialized” terminiology is always confusing to the non-specialists. That notion is not confusing at all. To the specialists (or even the more educated in a particular area) specialized language can cut away the confusion. Thus, I’ll restate myself from #21: “Confusion is not good whether it’s confusion due to a lack of precision or due to over precision.”

  35. tim prussic said,

    July 31, 2007 at 4:06 pm

    Jon, I’ll take post #30 as an admission of defeat, as you can’t seem to engage in discussion.

    I’m addressing a REAL problem that I’ve seen both in the pulpit and in the seminary. I think the FV guys in this little paper are doing the same thing. Anti-FV drum thumpers, who can’t allow any FV man a kernel of truth in their criticisms of ecclesisticus receptus. Then they’ll turn around and accuse the FV guys of not being open to criticism! (See post #17 above.)

    I guess I just get burned by fault-finding type readings of other Christians. That’s exactly how I read your post (24) but especially post 25 above. The same types of comments can be found a good number of posts above – not constructive and thoughtful, but fault-finding and nit-picking.

  36. kjsulli said,

    July 31, 2007 at 4:20 pm

    Re: 19

    I have not seen a single leading representative of the FV, especially the ones who put their names on this document, acknowledge in the slightest that ANY of the vast army of FV critics has ever offered up a criticism with any merit.

    But that would require them to admit that “merit” is a valid category! ;)

  37. Jon Peters said,

    July 31, 2007 at 4:24 pm

    Re: 35

    Take it however you wish. You’re not worth engaging.

  38. tim prussic said,

    July 31, 2007 at 5:00 pm

    kjsulli, funny!
    Jon, bad form.

  39. Jon Peters said,

    July 31, 2007 at 5:14 pm

    Tim,

    Bad form for not engaging someone who answers a question with acusations of lying and/or ignorance. Really? Huh. Maybe I am ignorant. Go figure.

    Hey, wait, I’m engaging! Bad form.

  40. tim prussic said,

    July 31, 2007 at 5:18 pm

    Jon, would you forgive me for the implication of your dishonesty?
    I took you for another one willing to posit an alternate reality in order to shame anything related to what’s perceived as “FV.” I was obviously incorrect and I sincerely beg your forgiveness.

  41. tim prussic said,

    July 31, 2007 at 5:43 pm

    As to asnwering your question, Jon, here it is, again:

    “To which highly technical and confusing language do you refer? Election? Justification? Is the Shorter Catechism included as being highly technical and confusing? Is this really a problem in Reformed chruches? If so, could you cite a specific example?”

    Terms like “election,” “justification,” et al are not on the surface highly technical. They are jargonic, which is impossible to avoid. Any jargon disrupts ease of entrance to the newby. They have to learn the vocabulary/jargon just get a foot in the door. Even different communities use the same terms differently, and thus cause a bit more confusion. This is as it always is and really cannot be helped.

    When theology gets real technical and specialized it necessarily cuts off a great majority of Christian folks. The professional theologians can swing it, but he laity cannot. That’s why we’ve all profited from R.C. Sproul’s ministry so much. He does a great job of simplifiying for easier consumption. He might well be able to, but doesn’t write like a 17th-Century Reformed Scholastic, because few can read it with profit.

    No lay person’s forced to read highly academic or specialized theological books, to be sure. However, Seminary students read them, are impressed by them, and tend to incorporate them into their ministry. Pastors can tend (especially in Reformed circles, since we place such a high premium on academics) to think more in academic categories then in biblical or pastoral ones. Again, this is not a dichotomy. All these points of view have value and have their own place. All should be utilized in their place.

  42. Robert K. said,

    July 31, 2007 at 8:12 pm

    This is Protestantism, Tim. In Protestantism you actually have to read the Bible and learn sound doctrine. In Romanism you don’t. Not only your ‘concerns’ but your attitude towards the ‘lay person’ is Romanist to the core. Which is where FV resides.

  43. Jon Peters said,

    July 31, 2007 at 8:24 pm

    Tim,

    Everyone has a hair trigger. This debate has brought forth lots of negative things. No doubt you and I may differ as to what those are, but my questions, while not neutral, were not meant to attack.

    You need not beg, you have my forgiveness.

    I do share some of your concerns about young pastors fresh out of seminary. My family and I spent several years under the preaching of a Kline devotee. I found his sermons, at times, ponderous and impenetrable. I could go on and on about that experience. However, I do not take the FV criticism to be referring to experiences like mine. They appear to painting with a much bigger brush.

  44. Robert K. said,

    July 31, 2007 at 8:41 pm

    Let’s also keep in mind FVism is a movement that demands God’s plan conform to man’s demands. Paint-by-numbers regeneration. Clerics in control. The Word and the Spirit cast to the outer ‘darkness’ Romanist style.

    And, let’s also not forget: they are only able to yank Reformed chains like this because of Reformed Theology’s reluctance to cut the apron string totally from the Roman Catholic domain. Lane in his recent back and forths with FVist heretic Wilson has been appealing to WCF 28.5. That is what Zwinglians like myself do when debating people in Reformed Theology who inconsistantly hold to notions of ritual water baptism that default to baptismal regeneration or default to nothing. But this is what heresy and Romanism does. It forces you to actually see what apostolic biblical doctrine consists of, and it’s not ritualism and clericalism and moralism. Calvin reads the exact same way when directly confronted by one of the devils of his day, Sadoleto. Suddenly Calvin is saying the church is the invisible Church of which Christ is King (and similar things the tone of which, or even the substance, you don’t find in his more ivory tower writings). Get confronted by one of these devils and you’ll see quickly what real apostolic biblical doctrine is, because it’s your only defense against the devil.

  45. tim prussic said,

    July 31, 2007 at 8:49 pm

    bobby k, your insight is penetrating as usual. You wouldn’t know Protestantism if it quacked at your mother.

    Jon, thank you. I think some of the FV criticism has exactly to do with experiences like your. I know that I’ve heard good criticisms of seminary education along these lines. They might, however, have other things in mind, too, and thus be wielding a broader brush.

  46. Robert K. said,

    July 31, 2007 at 9:00 pm

    But you would, Tim, right? It’s the people your spiritual forebears burned at the stake. And you know what, Tim? Like my spiritual forebears forgave you, I forgive you too. That’s what Christians do. Because we know we have debts that only God can forgive. And we accumulate those debts daily…

  47. tim prussic said,

    July 31, 2007 at 9:13 pm

    hehe… come on, Bobby, fish on Fridays ain’t so bad. Come on over…

  48. Robert K. said,

    July 31, 2007 at 9:15 pm

    Fish stinks when it’s rotten, Tim…

  49. NHarper said,

    July 31, 2007 at 9:24 pm

    Isn’t it interesting that this latest report only contains two references to Scripture – one reference is not even quoted and the last reference is the usual appeal to “unity” without the truth.

    Tim,
    Are you a Federal Visionist?

  50. tim prussic said,

    July 31, 2007 at 9:48 pm

    Ben Harper, I’m sure I’ve discussed this before and basically been called a liar straight out, but I’ll give ‘er another shot. Tim, a Federal Visionist? Sic et non. On some issues I find I’ve learned a good deal from some of the FV guys and am in agreement with some of them (mostly Pastors Wilson and Leithart) on most issues related to covenant. I’ve heard some FV guys on the doctrine of justification with which I’ve disagreed quite strongly.

    It’s real easy to draw a line and speak of one side and the other, but in reality, I find that both sides of this are a mixed bag. And, anyway, there are more than two sides to the FV controversy.

    bobby, come on home to Rome… Il Papa beckons thee… come….

  51. anneivy said,

    July 31, 2007 at 9:49 pm

    To be fair – and mercy knows I’m no FV’er – but wasn’t one of the primary criticisms of the PCA’s report on the FV/NPP for last month’s GA that its Scriptural citations were thin on the ground?

    Admittedly there’s a bit of a difference since it referenced the WCF, which in turn references Scripture, but still….if copious quantities of Scripture are obligatory, then this should be an obligation to which all reports, etc. are held.

    Personally, I’m resolutely in favor of Scripture citations to support one’s positions and arguments, and would have preferred to have seen them provided both in the PCA’s report and the HIFVD.

  52. tim prussic said,

    July 31, 2007 at 9:58 pm

    Who’s mercy?

  53. Robert K. said,

    July 31, 2007 at 10:06 pm

    Tim, the thing about false doctrine is it is usually only a “little leaven.” Now, the FVists come in with dumptrucks of leaven, but it only takes a little leaven to poison biblical doctrine. If you see the FVist side and the side represented by the confessions as being equally on-the-mark/off-the-mark you don’t yet have a sound discernment for false doctrine and how it operates and how false teachers operate.

  54. tim prussic said,

    July 31, 2007 at 10:13 pm

    ROMA! ROMA! ROMA! ROMA!
    bobby, you know you just want to come home!

  55. Robert K. said,

    July 31, 2007 at 10:22 pm

    I don’t mind your reactions, Tim. People react differently to instruction. People have to salve their vanity, but if the message gets through while that’s happening so be it. Just don’t play with fire.

  56. tim prussic said,

    July 31, 2007 at 10:30 pm

    bobbles, you’re taking yourself FAR too seriously. I’m done taunting… for now.

  57. Robert K. said,

    July 31, 2007 at 10:46 pm

    Go back to FV circles for awhile and talk about how stupid we all are. You need to recover. Maybe read a Wilson post. Here, I’ll write one for you:

    “Given it’s usually only a matter of time before some fine exegete gets his truffles all in a rumple about ‘Jesus done did that dying up thar on ye ol’ cross thar, harummph’ I have to act fast and get something in here before the tar hits the feathers: I hold to the inclusion of the four Gospels in the the New Testament. This is not a statement that need be stated with caveat, either, caveat though I will add: granted their inclusion it follows – upon equally validatious biblical warrant – that they need not be believed IN A CONTEXT BEARING ON THEIR INCLUSION SOLELY. There, have I said it loudly and clearly enough to stave off the rakes and shovel handles and the midnight bonfires?”

  58. tim prussic said,

    August 1, 2007 at 11:09 am

    bobber,

    This made me laugh out loud: ‘Jesus done did that dying up thar on ye ol’ cross thar, harummph’ – it was good ‘n funny.
    Well done!

  59. abundanceofgrace said,

    August 1, 2007 at 12:21 pm

    For comment #2:

    Perhaps Steve Schlissel is one of those who “cannot sign this statement because of one or two issues.” I know he is not a paedocommunist.

  60. pduggan said,

    August 1, 2007 at 4:10 pm

    20:

    “Is it Ralph Smith’s “family relationship” Trinity, for which the unity is like a covenant, and thus rather like a father who begat a son eternally It is Meyers ritual Trinity, consisting of three beings engaged in eternal mutual humility and love?”

    (fixed it for ya)

  61. NHarper said,

    August 1, 2007 at 9:05 pm

    Tim,
    My name is Neil – not Ben.
    What did you have for supper last night?

    Thanks for your confusing answer – now you know why we have left the PCA. I realize that you are not PCA but your answer reflects the growing problem of confusion in the PCA leadership. Many of them have become what the Bible calls “blind guides.”

    We are now at peace and are out of the muck and mire of the PCA. We are now outside observers, even though our hearts are heavy for our brothers and sisters – especially the youth – who are caught in all of this confusion.

    One person we met in a restaurant told us he once visited an FV PCA church. He described it as a cult led by a bunch of weirdos. Another woman left the FV-PCA and is now a Baptist. She is praying for her parents to get out of the PCA in Louisiana which is heavy FV.

  62. pduggie said,

    August 1, 2007 at 9:23 pm

    “One person we met in a restaurant told us he once visited an FV PCA church. He described it as a cult led by a bunch of weirdos.”

    Wow. Is that supposed to be a useful data point? Some guy you met in a restaurant?

  63. pduggie said,

    August 1, 2007 at 9:26 pm

    “To be fair – and mercy knows I’m no FV’er – but wasn’t one of the primary criticisms of the PCA’s report on the FV/NPP for last month’s GA that its Scriptural citations were thin on the ground?”

    Isn’t one of the complaints about the FV that they never put anything down in a easily digestible form about their beliefs, and that they just want to focus on texts instead of formulating specific doctrine?

  64. tim prussic said,

    August 2, 2007 at 12:29 am

    Neil (not Ben), I fear that I don’t have the ability to answer any question to your overly-stern, fault-finding, super-negative mind. That must be Reformed, right?

    Is that clear enough? …. probably not.

  65. tim prussic said,

    August 2, 2007 at 4:04 pm

    Anyway, Ben Harper was a joke… heh, heh…
    Nope? No, nothin’ goin’.

  66. NHarper said,

    August 2, 2007 at 7:13 pm

    Tim.
    Maybe you call it Reformed – I call it the truth.
    I guess the truth would come across to you as overly stern, fault-finding, and super-negative. I believe it came across that way to the Pharisees.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 302 other followers

%d bloggers like this: