Christians In Society
August 2, 2007 at 10:29 am (Federal Vision)
The third paragraph of the FV statement deals with Christianity in culture. I am sympathetic to quite a bit of what they say here. Christians most definitely should engage the culture. We should be working to establish a global Christian church. And there is nothing that is neutral, really. Even those things that are not inherently good or bad (such as reading, biking, lemonade, etc.) are made good or bad by the one mixed up in it. However, I find the statement a bit imbalanced. They say that Christianity is a public faith. Yes, it is in many respects. But Christianity is also a private faith in many respects, as Stellman has pointed out. Private piety (praying in private, as Jesus commanded, giving alms privately as Jesus commanded, fasting in private as Jesus commanded) is essential to the Christian walk as well. Maybe the authors do not intend to exclude these private aspects of Christianity. Given the context of their postmillenialism, their thoughts would naturally gravitate towards the public aspects of the Christian faith. What is a bit disconcerting about this is that I haven’t exactly seen FV guys pushing for private piety in other contexts. It seems to me to be underplayed at best, ignored at worst. Maybe some FV authors will enlighten us as to the FV stance on private Christian piety (which is most certainly a Biblical category!).
One other aspect is a bit telling, I think. They call for us to disciple the nations, calling them to submit to Christ through baptism. Now, baptism is part of the Great Commission in Matthew 28, it cannot be denied. But why should baptism be the focus of obedience, rather than faith? To me, it seems that faith would have been a better choice of wording there. Given that the FV is accused by many of being sacramentalist, they could have distanced themselves a bit more from such an understanding by choosing the word “faith” rather than baptism. Of course, faith is not equal to obedience in one sense (the sense related to the law). However, the command for everyone everywhere is to repent (Acts 17). Obedience to that command means faith. And such obedience can only come with God’s prior working in the human soul.
Eric F. Langborgh said,
August 2, 2007 at 11:05 am
How about all three - repentance, faith, and baptism? (Acts 2:37-42)
pduggan said,
August 2, 2007 at 11:44 am
“I haven’t exactly seen FV guys pushing for private piety in other contextsI”
They’ve been doing it privately
NHarper said,
August 2, 2007 at 11:49 am
I fail to understand why you are continuing any dialogue with the leaders of the Federal Vision. Why do you continue to play into their hands with this last ditch effort on their part to regain some credibility? How many times do you have to rehash the same errors that have been clearly spelled out in numerous reports?
Meanwhile, while you give these guys all the time of day, your soldiers in the trenches (the so-called peons in the pews) are abandoning the PCA. For over five years, they have been the ones who have had to take the abuse, the harassment, the intimidation, the blackmail, the lies, the bribes, and the condemnation from their sessions and presbyteries.
They were the ones who had the courage to contend for the faith and speak the truth while their officers and generals coddled and consorted with the enemy – and are still doing so today. The peons in the pew are the real unsung heroes of this spiritual battle – not the writers of the measly weak-kneed study report.
Do you know the real cause for the Federal Vision gaining a foothold in the PCA? Confederate Southern Sympathizers. There are two headquarters for this neo-Confederate movement – one in Moscow, Idaho and the other in Monroe, Louisiana. This sick neo-confederacy has two generals – General Wilson and General Wilkins. Check out their writings and their associations. Now that Wilkins is being taken to court, these neo-confederates fear losing one of their main generals and main headquarters in the South. If Wilkins goes down, it could also be the demise of Wilson’s classical school movement – his propaganda brainwashing machine for young neo-confederates. Listen to and read the “Hate Lincoln” and “Slavery is Biblical” rhetoric that comes out of the mouths and pens of these classical school students – it’s no different from Hitler’s Nazi Germany.
And yet, we have a bunch of southern sympathizers in the PCA who may disagree with the Federal Vision, but have chosen this sick loyalty to a dead confederacy over loyalty to God and the Truth. PCA leaders, your unsung heroes are leaving the battlefield because you have abandoned them. They are leaving because they know their history – the Civil War ended in 1865, the Union won, and slavery was abolished because it was wrong. And, they are leaving the PCA because they love the Truth. You will be left with no one to blame but yourselves. Your show of charitableness toward those who are hurting and maligning the Gospel will also be the demise of the PCA. Wake Up!
greenbaggins said,
August 2, 2007 at 12:01 pm
Paul, that is hilarious. However, correct teaching also means teaching it in *public.*
Neil, I am no friend to the FV. You really should know that by now. I am not showing charitableness towards the distinctive FV teachings on matters that touch upon salvation directly. But postmil positions are acceptable in the PCA (I am most certainly not going to bring disciplinary action against my father!). You need to wait until I blog on the unacceptable positions that this document has. But should we not attempt to win over the FV guys with the sweet honey of truth, rather than the harsh vinegar of acidity? I see that as my goal. I have been stern with FV guys before. But nothing is gained by unnecessary antagonism. I agree wholeheartedly that the FV should be out of the PCA, and I think that the Wilkins case will be important in this regard, and that we should oppose the FV teaching. But should we not also love the souls of the FV enough to continually present the truth to them?
pduggan witness in brooklyn said,
August 2, 2007 at 12:07 pm
That must be why you let Wilder and Robert K post comments. It makes you look sweet in comparison
j/k
reformedmusings said,
August 2, 2007 at 12:43 pm
“They’ve been doing it privately”
pduggan - That’s a good one!
NHarper said,
August 2, 2007 at 1:12 pm
Lane,
Sometimes the truth has to hurt in order to heal.
Where is the same love for the sheep who have had to suffer under these false teachers? What you are asking us to do is to show sweet love for the wolves who are devouring them.
You are a father. If someone kidnaped your child, what would be your response? To show him sweet love - avoid the acidity - while he continues to abuse and beat your child? You would kill if you had to, to protect your child. You would be more than just “acidic”.
The FV folks have spiritually and mentally kidnapped whole congregations. They won’t even let their members transfer or leave without an ugly fight. Yet, we are supposed to sit back and engage in “sweet talk” with our kidnappers? And, call them our brothers? That’s not Christian love - that’s cowardice. And, you know I’m right.
Garrett said,
August 2, 2007 at 1:24 pm
NHarper wrote:
“The FV folks have spiritually and mentally kidnapped whole congregations. They won’t even let their members transfer or leave without an ugly fight. ”
Proof please. Which congregations in which denominations are not letting people transfer over FV (you tied whatever situations directly into the FV)? That is a serious charge and better be backed up with facts not insinuations.
pduggan witness in brooklyn said,
August 2, 2007 at 1:27 pm
We’re having a public discussion of FV theology, Nharper.
If we want to have a public discussion of bad ecclesiastical behavior, I think you’ll find that that absolutely is NOT limited to FVers only, and is a pheomenon all over the church.
If you want to have a public discussion of bad ecclesiastical behavior, you have to put up a bit more information than vague insinuations. Lane, do you think its helpful to have vague, unspecified, unnamed insinuations spread against the FV for alleged behavior?
greenbaggins said,
August 2, 2007 at 1:27 pm
Neil, you seem to be ignoring the many, many, many, many places where I have called a spade a spade. I have raised many tempers of the FV against me, and you know that as well as I do. I find it somewhat ironic to be called a coward by a critic of the FV, when the FV guys are calling me glory-seeking, idiotic, etc.
I’m not entirely sure where you could get the impression that I have not shown compassion for torn sheep in all of this. The sheep are what this is all about. I have not shied away from calling the FV heresy. I am trying to rescue the sheep from these influences. But is it impossible for wolves to become sheep if God is omnipotent? We have several testimonies on this very blog of people who were FV or Shepherdite becoming Reformed. If I am nothing *but* acid, then I have burned every last bridge for them to convert. I do not want to do that. I am perfectly willing to call heresy heresy, but then extend the offer of the Gospel in the most Christ-like way possible. You need to understand what I am doing in this light. If I were a coward, I would not be in a blogging debate with Wilson, and I would not have taken so much of my time in order to point out the errors of the FV. I love the fray. Bring it on. But don’t expect me to burn every last bridge that an FV’er could come across.
jared said,
August 2, 2007 at 2:22 pm
greenbaggins,
I’m not entirely sure why you’re even trying here, given NHarper’s pervious posts on earlier entries. But I wish to the best of luck nonetheless.
Eric F. Langborgh said,
August 2, 2007 at 2:27 pm
Oh, I don’t know. Triumphalistic sneering, unceasing ridicule, character assassination, and a stubborn insistence on calling even a diamond a spade are wonderfully loving and Christian ways to call supposedly wayward brothers in Christ to repentance and restoration.
Sarcasm aside, the fact that Rev. Keister has shown a willingness to actually engage and dialogue with those that some consider to be theological lepers is refreshing. The reverend is even willing to praise what he finds good and right in the teaching of FVers, at least that of Rev. Wilson, from time to time. I for one appreciate it. In fact, because he does this I find this to be the only site that spends lots of time in opposition to FV teachings of value. I don’t have the time or patience to deal with those who better approximate what I described in my first paragraph. And I suspect that there are a lot of other fence-sitters out there of similar disposition.
Anyway, Rev. Keister, your approach is refreshing. The fact that your approach is that way is itself a sad indictment on the current state of the church. As Calvinists, we believe in the total depravity of man. It’s too bad that we too often insist on proving the doctrine through our own willing examples. I thank you, Reverend, that you are attempting to also teach the New Creation though your example here.
Dave H said,
August 2, 2007 at 2:32 pm
All I can say to #3 to keep my sanity is “The Chicago Cubs are in first place!!!!!!!!!!”
Garrett said,
August 2, 2007 at 2:47 pm
NHarper, and the proof on the FV congregational consternation? Still waiting.
Neo-condeferacy? Huh? I’m a pastor in the CREC and I’m not even white, and I’m a Union sympathizer. Your assertions are way out in lah-lah land.
NHarper said,
August 2, 2007 at 2:53 pm
No response to the neo-confederate issue? Hmm… that speaks louder than words.
Proverbs 20:3
It is an honor for a man to keep aloof from strife,
but every fool will be quarreling.
With that warning, I bid thee adieu.
David Gadbois said,
August 2, 2007 at 2:53 pm
Lane, in Matthew 28, I think most commentators (although you’d know better than I) see baptism as a subclause of “making disciples”. Make disciples, [defined as, in part] baptizing them…[and defined as, in part] teaching them to obey…
Garrett said,
August 2, 2007 at 3:00 pm
NHarper wrote:
“With that warning, I bid thee adieu.”
Lane, seriously, you should ban people that make spurious accusations against nameless churches and ministers and use that to impugn the FV. Whatever you think of the FVers we are still ministers in good standing and your brothers in Christ. This kind of “hit, run and run away” does nothing but muddy the water.
Robert K. said,
August 2, 2007 at 3:18 pm
>”Whatever you think of the FVers we are still ministers in good standing and your brothers in Christ.”
Even if we think you’re wolves?
Jon Peters said,
August 2, 2007 at 3:27 pm
Garrett,
NHarper may actually be helping the FV in a sort of backdoor way. In any event, I certainly don’t think he’s giving any assistance to the critics of the FV with his silly claims.
Garrett said,
August 2, 2007 at 3:28 pm
Robert…lovely Christian attitude, even though you know absolutley nothing about my views. This is precisley the problem. FV is, after all, a covenient way to wrap a group of people with a bow. Pathetic.
Eric F. Langborgh said,
August 2, 2007 at 3:31 pm
Why is it, then, that those who say things like that in #18 and #7 are the ones who are salivating?
My question: Who has been excommunicated? The FVers *may* be disobedient brothers, they *may* be wayward brothers, they *may* be brothers who are in serious error, but they are brothers nonetheless. We are called to encourage, correct, rebuke, and even (corporately) discipline each other. But short of full excommunication, where is the warrant for peering into another professing Christian’s heart and pronouncing them “wolves?” Who does such arrogance commend the gospel?
Eric F. Langborgh said,
August 2, 2007 at 3:38 pm
Er, last should be “How does…”
David Gadbois said,
August 2, 2007 at 3:41 pm
Eric,
I am not in board with Neil here. I believe only 2 or 3 of those in the FV orbit have overturned the credibility of their professions of faith by their teachings. Nonetheless, I think there are circumstances where we should warn folks that their souls are in danger - even when they are not excommunicated. Their “churches” may very well fail to speak this truth into their lives, so others outside of their local churches have a duty of brotherly love to do so when those churches fail.
And, as we all know, the CREC has made it pretty clear that they will never, EVER, EVER excommunicate anyone no matter how crazy and heterodox they take their FV teachings. As a matter of fact, they haven’t even bothered to excommunicate those in their ranks who swam the Tiber.
Jenny F said,
August 2, 2007 at 3:42 pm
“NHarper wrote:
“The FV folks have spiritually and mentally kidnapped whole congregations. They won’t even let their members transfer or leave without an ugly fight. ”
Proof please. Which congregations in which denominations are not letting people transfer over FV (you tied whatever situations directly into the FV)? That is a serious charge and better be backed up with facts not insinuations.”
I have an example but I am unable to share. I am curious if it is the same example as NHarper.
Eric F. Langborgh said,
August 2, 2007 at 3:47 pm
So warn them, David. But that is a far cry from labelling them “wolves.”
And most/many of us don’t know that. Some of it is due to ignorance, I readily admit.
Eric F. Langborgh said,
August 2, 2007 at 3:57 pm
Incidentally, building on this theme of warning before excommunication, which is clearly good and right. Note the goal of excommunication is still positive: Restoration. “When you are assembled in the name of the Lord Jesus and my spirit is present, with the power of our Lord Jesus, 5you are to deliver this man to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, so that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord.” ~1 Cor.5:4-5
If anything we should be responding to our brothers falling away or even being excommunicated with tears. It should certainly not be met with the sneering and blood-lust that are all too common in this controversy.
Robert K. said,
August 2, 2007 at 4:14 pm
It’s common for critics of FVism to waver between seeing the FVists as being consciously mischievous on the one hand or just being currently unable to discern Reformed (apostolic biblical) doctrine and the power of Reformed doctrine on the other.
For the most part the leaders among the FVist movement seem to know enough to know better. They’ve certainly been disabused enough of their nonsense to have had a chance to know better.
That their doctrine is at base age-old Romanism, and that they like to self-identify as that (Reformed, Westminsterian, etc.) which they obviously are not (things that they mock even) puts them into the wolf in sheep’s clothing category. They have bad doctrine and bad motives. Any good shepherd would make them feel what it’s like to be target practice for a good sling and a sharp sword.
Eric F. Langborgh said,
August 2, 2007 at 4:34 pm
Thanks for proving my point that you are looking into others’ hearts, Robert K. (”They have bad motives). I have it on good Authority that you can’t do that.
For those that are reasonable, RK’s assertions notwithstanding, this is not “obvious.” Esp. considering some of us have become Reformed due to the good teachings of many of those now assocaiated with the FV. And you can ask any of my Roman Catholic friends, this Christian here is light years away from being a papist. I’m quite comfortable in my Calvinistic and Trinitarian skin, thank you, and I see nothing in those that influenced me to this position to suggest that they are uncomfortable in theirs. They *may* have confused issues, as charged, but to claim they are guilty of some form of Romanism seems quite ridiculous to me. Esp. not a one of them have, from what I can see, have repudiated their past (pre-FV), positions on TULIP of any of the solas.
Matt Beatty said,
August 2, 2007 at 4:36 pm
Robert K.,
Say one of your children falls into sin. Serious sin. Or maybe your wife. Hosea comes to mind. The Lord is patient with his sinning children… although we know his patience will not last forever. If God is merciful and patience with His sheep, shouldn’t you be? Not saying “action” can’t take place here, but there’s a BIG difference between a man who must tearfully sever a relationship (with son, wife, friend, whomever) all the time hoping and praying for restoration and the man who angrily throws his wife or son out of the home (perhaps even prematurely, due selfish anger - more upset about being wronged than God’s glory in dealing with sinners…), cursing the day they were born.
So how DO you go about reclaiming him, Robert K? I trust that with such formed views you must be an officer of the church, right? Has your approach borne lots of success? Lots of reclamations (e.g. 1 Cor. 5) or just a lot of excommunications? Is it just a “sling” and “sword?” Is there another way, perhaps?
By the way, Lane, your current attitude seems commendable. Thanks.
Lane, what are your thoughts on Robert K.’s pastoral theology? Any different from the recently-departed NHarper, which is to say, apparently sympathetic?
Garrett said,
August 2, 2007 at 4:43 pm
Jenny F,
Seriously, if you can’t “share” then its not worth a hill of beans and just pours needless gas on the fire. Saying so and so was kicked out of such and church isn’t even good enough. Presbytery records or public things is credible but I’ve been around long enough to know that nobody is ever disciplined for the reasons they give.
So, please do give some proof.
tim prussic said,
August 2, 2007 at 4:47 pm
It’s nice to see that Mr. Harper doesn’t just interact this way with just me. I think Ben Harper may have a more Christian attitude! …at least he steals kisses.
Re: #16 - David, I think you’re correct regarding the grammar of Mt. 28:19-20 - the imperative verb is “disciple,” the others are participles. I agree with Pastor Lane’s analysis of Pastor Wilson’s focus on baptism in this section. The church is to disciple the nations baptizing and teaching them.
greenbaggins said,
August 2, 2007 at 4:48 pm
I think two things on this. Firstly, the courts of the church need to speak on this. And by that I mean the SJC. Study committees are helpful, but they do not have the teeth that the SJC has. If the SJC ejects Wilkins, then it is a painful, though needful, separation. Divorce is never a happy affair.
I must add that, though I can give no details, I myself have been personally affected by the FV in a very negative way apart from the blog. I do have a great deal of sympathy for the sheep who have been hurt (I know of several cases). It is unfair of FV sympathizers to require of us critics the details of these cases to be made public, many of which cases are confidential and involve the character of many people. That kind of thing is for the church courts.
The second thing is that since the church courts are where this end up, cool heads should prevail there. It is just as unwise to discipline a church or a pastor in anger as it is to discipline a child out of anger. We must always discipline out of love.
NHarper has an admirable sense and desire to stand for the truth. I salute him for that. But that must always be coupled with an equally admirable sense and desire to stand for unity. After all, would we not agree with Roman Catholics on many things, such as the Trinity, the Incarnation of Christ, His sacrifical Atonement? That doesn’t mean we think they preach the Gospel. However, we lose nothing by affirming what is in common, all the while distancing ourselves from their false Gospel of works righteousness. I think we critics hold more in common with FV authors than we do with Roman Catholics. We lose nothing by acknowledging that fact. We have not compromised the Gospel, nor have we given anything away. And we are certainly not cowards. In the face of criticisms like NHarper’s, as a matter of fact, I would argue that it takes courage to admit where one agrees with the FV.
Robert K. said,
August 2, 2007 at 4:53 pm
There’s a difference between people who need help and people who respect nothing. Social workers deal with both kinds. The latter group are the criminals. The ones who see weakness in kindness and exploit it. The ones who only see ‘marks’. The ones who return evil for good.
FVists show no humility. They are all grins and mocking and the kind of blatant sophistry that says “I know I’m writing garbage, and I know you know I’m writing garbage, but I don’t care because I don’t respect you or what you hold so ‘dear’…”
FVists have the spirit of disobedience. They really don’t even care about fooling innocents. That is just a by-product of their activities. Their main motive is to defile the truth insidiously from within environments - schools, institutions, churches, denominations, etc. - that still hold to the truth, to any degree.
tim prussic said,
August 2, 2007 at 4:57 pm
I agree, Pastor Lane, with your last paragraph of #32. Honest analysis, scholarship and interaction are always more profitable than partisan drum beating. It take little (that is, no) courage to stand in the midst of folks who think exactly like oneself and throw stones at everyone else. It takes much more courage to leave the fold a little bit and engage in honest discourse. Vulnerablility requires courage.
Kudos to you, Pastor, for doing that.
Garrett said,
August 2, 2007 at 5:12 pm
Lane,
I just wish we could get past all the frankly meaningless ancedotals. I too have been hurt very deeply, personally, and financially by anti-FVers but I also think the real issues in those cases had nothing to do with the FV at the end of the day. If we stick to the issues more light can be shed. For example, I think there are many of us on our sideof the aisle who are really “FV” in the sense that we disagree respectfully with other more dark-brewed FVers.
pduggie said,
August 2, 2007 at 8:12 pm
“It is unfair of FV sympathizers to require of us critics the details of these cases to be made public, many of which cases are confidential and involve the character of many people.”
I think its equally unfair to use such cases for propaganda purposes when you can’t share details. if it can’t be resolved on a blog (like theology discussions can ?) then it should stay off a blog.
Joint Federal Vision Statement Analysis - Part 4 « Reformed Musings said,
August 2, 2007 at 9:18 pm
[...] Vision Statement Analysis - Part 4 Green Baggins has made some excellent comments in his Christians in Society post, and Jason Stellman’s The Federal Vision and Global Christianity is also good. Dr. R. [...]
Matt Beatty said,
August 3, 2007 at 6:53 am
Robert,
Sorry, I didn’t see much in the way of a SCRIPTURAL pastoral theology in your response (#33), but perhaps you weren’t responding to me.
The “social-worker/criminal” stuff is fine as long as we’re attempting to find non-scriptural analogues; I was wondering how you see the SCRIPTURES informing how people like Wilson should be handled.
Garrett’s point is an excellent one. When did this practice of “I know a person that… but I can’t say who, when, where, etc.” become tolerable? And, to his second point, many “pro-FV” or even those who aren’t officially FV but also aren’t willing to have the men drawn and quartered have had negative consequences AND CONTINUE TO HAVE THEM. So what? Garrett could, if asked, relate details (admittedly and important to note, they’re HIS take on the story…
of his own experiences with those who hate the FV guys, but really, what good would that do? Jenny and Lane’s voicing of “I know someone, who knows someone…” or even Lane’s “I’ve been personally affected… but can’t say by whom or where…” isn’t helpful in the slightest. Probably qualifies as gossip or idle speech. This is a PUBLIC forum (as PDuggie says a different way) if you can’t (or shouldn’t) say something in public, then don’t mention it here.
Still, I commend Lane’s general attitude again, even if I can’t understand the “kid gloves” approach to folks like “NHarper” whose “admirable sense and desire to stand for the truth” isn’t seen for what it is: the needless sowing of discord among the brethren.
Robert K. said,
August 3, 2007 at 7:28 am
This is all the disingenuous political talk of a person and group that has infiltrated a camp and pretends to respect its ways and laws and so on. Popular Front communist devils knew the U.S. constitution and and U.S. laws like the back of their hand, and they respect them as much as Stalin respected liberty and human life.
Stewart said,
August 3, 2007 at 7:42 am
“I think its equally unfair to use such cases for propaganda purposes when you can’t share details. if it can’t be resolved on a blog (like theology discussions can ?) then it should stay off a blog.”
Amen.
Tim Wilder said,
August 3, 2007 at 7:43 am
Re: 38
“When did this practice of “I know a person that… but I can’t say who, when, where, etc.” become tolerable?”
It became tolerable when the FV started to talk about the dangers of morbid introspectionism, and of how orthodoxy was robbing people of the assurance of salvation, so that faith in their baptism had to be brought in as a cure. The FV claimed to know a lot of relevant cases, but not name names.
Mark T. said,
August 3, 2007 at 9:25 am
Perhaps the strangest irony about FV is that the very men who advance a works-based system of assurance are the same men whose behavior is less than commendable, if not downright reprehensible.
pduggan said,
August 3, 2007 at 9:27 am
Robert K
Since you think I’m a wolf, please bring charges against me as a reprobate unbeliever.
I attend Tenth presbyterian church in Philadelphia. I teach sunday school as a layman.
Put up or shut up.
James Jordan said,
August 3, 2007 at 9:33 am
The fantasies continue. No FVer has ever said to trust in your baptism. We say trust in the God who chose you and baptized you. And yes, we tell people to look to Jesus and not to themselves for assurance of salvation! As Luther did. As Calvin did. As the Reformed faith has always done.
What weird people you have on this blog, Lane. The FV is actually a conspiracy of people wanting to restore the Confederacy? You have some people here who need psychiatric treatment. They are not living in the real world.
Robert K. said,
August 3, 2007 at 12:00 pm
>”Robert K, Since you think I’m a wolf, please bring charges against me as a reprobate unbeliever. I attend Tenth presbyterian church in Philadelphia. I teach sunday school as a layman. Put up or shut up.”
You convict yourself before God. And he comes down hard on false teachers.
FVism is: Sadoletos carrying Geneva Bibles.
Stewart said,
August 3, 2007 at 12:11 pm
This blog is sad.
Beth Ellen Nagle said,
August 3, 2007 at 12:17 pm
Mr. K…you need to start your own blog.
greenbaggins said,
August 3, 2007 at 12:26 pm
Stewart, this is one of the only places on the entire web where there is even a chance of direct interaction between the FV and its critics. If you think it is sad, then I counsel you not to read it anymore. Your arrogant, put-down manners, your utterly condescending remarks, etc. are not welcome here. If you want to debate actual issues, rather than spouting off about how low-down I am, and the rest of those here, then do it on your own blog. You have done it there for quite some time. I intend for this blog to be a discussion of issues, theological issues. This goes for both sides. Yes, there are wolves out there. But this blog is not an ecclesiastical court. I am becoming increasingly impatient at both sides where there is personal attack rather than theological discussion and debate. I am all for vigorous debate. I don’t mind it getting heated. But derailing the discussion to attack people (or the blog as a whole) is hardly helpful.
Robert K. said,
August 3, 2007 at 1:07 pm
I’m flattered. : )
tim prussic said,
August 3, 2007 at 3:51 pm
bobby k, re. #45: the crafty Cardinal couldn’t have toted a Geneva Bible around as he died 1547 and the NT Geneva translation wasn’t published until a decade later. Since the Swiss Reformation seems to revolve around Calvin’s tiny exchange with the urbane Sadoleto, I thought this small point might be of interest to you. (By the by, JS was quite a shoddy papist anyway. He was to Popish doctrine what Melanchthon was to Lutheran doctrine - a compromiser.)
pduggan: honestly, don’t let ol’ bobby get you flustered.
Stewart said,
August 3, 2007 at 3:56 pm
Lane, do you have any “counsel” for Robert K.?
kjsulli said,
August 3, 2007 at 4:28 pm
Stewart,
You could read 48 again:
“This goes for both sides. Yes, there are wolves out there. But this blog is not an ecclesiastical court.”
Stewart said,
August 3, 2007 at 4:55 pm
Yeah, he really let him have it.
greenbaggins said,
August 3, 2007 at 5:00 pm
Like you’d let the FV side have it, Stewart. Whatever.
Robert K. said,
August 3, 2007 at 7:09 pm
All the hurt feelings and poutiness on the FV side is heartbreaking and all that, but at some point recognize that when you disparage and run away from the Word and the Spirit you are running circles in the Kingdom of Satan. You want assurance? Engage the Word of God like it’s something of more worth than the latest Leithart release. The Word and the Spirit will either regenerate you or they will harden you. Either way you’ll have your assurance.
Carol said,
August 4, 2007 at 1:56 pm
I am a newcomer to blogging but have been reading your posts and comments on a regular basis. I am a church member who also had to leave a church over FV false teaching. Like many others, the process of leaving was not a pleasant experience but a rather heart wrenching one that left me with a lot of bitterness - not toward God - but toward all church leadership - towards the false teachers and those who failed to protect or support us.
And, to be honest, I was afraid of the FV elders - I lived in fear of them - for what they had done to me and to others. There were times when I thought I was going to have to call the police or seek a lawyer.
I have hesitated posting any comments or speaking out for two reasons. One, God has delivered me from both the fear and the root of bitterness. God’s perfect love cast out my fear. And, I have not wanted that bitterness to spring up again. For, as the Bible says, bitterness can defile many. And, I do not want to lose the peace and joy that God has so graciously given me.
Two, I do not want to fall into the trap of defending myself and making me the center of the universe. The Gospel is not about me - it’s about Jesus - the Author and Finisher of our faith. If we lift Him up - not ourselves - He will draw all men unto Himself.
Rather than naming names and places which would only stir up bitterness and hurt people, and rather than offering opinions of my own, I would like to just put forth some questions and get your thoughts.
What is a Pharisee? Is an FV teacher considered a Pharisee? Why or why not?
How did the Pharisees treat Jesus? How did Jesus respond to the Pharisees? How did He speak to them? Did He reach out to them to try to find some common ground in order to win them over to His side?
What is a false teacher? If a pastor or elder teaches the nine errors as specified in the study report, is he considered a false teacher? If he is, what should a member of his congregation do as an immediate response to this false teaching? Like a wife and her children who are being physically and/or emotionally abused by the husband, shouldn’t they first remove themselves to a “spiritually safer” place? Is an FV church a “spiritually safe” church to remain in for any length of time?
If the Roman Catholic church teaches another gospel, then aren’t they considered a church in darkness - no matter what other doctrine we have in common? If they are in darkness, then what fellowship does light have with darkness? What common ground is there between darkness and light? Is a church without the gospel considered a true church? What common ground can the true church have with a false church?
Jesus says that we can’t know a false prophet by their outward appearance because they are wolves dressed in sheep’s clothing. Instead, He says that we can know them by their fruit (Matthew 7). What kind of fruit have you seen coming out of the Federal Vision pastors and teachers? Can a pastor who holds to the nine errors of the report produce good fruit? Galatians 5 gives us a list of the bad fruit and the good fruit.
What is a brother? How does Jesus define a brother in the Bible? How does a teacher of the Federal Vision fit Jesus’ definition of a brother, if he holds to the nine errors specified in the report?
Thank you in advance for your thoughts.
Robert K. said,
August 4, 2007 at 4:22 pm
Carol, I hope your comment doesn’t get lost down here. I’ve eager to see some engagement of it.
reformedmusings said,
August 4, 2007 at 11:00 pm
“What is a false teacher? If a pastor or elder teaches the nine errors as specified in the study report, is he considered a false teacher? If he is, what should a member of his congregation do as an immediate response to this false teaching? Like a wife and her children who are being physically and/or emotionally abused by the husband, shouldn’t they first remove themselves to a “spiritually safer” place? Is an FV church a “spiritually safe” church to remain in for any length of time?”
Carol,
I’ll let the FV folks answer the rest of your questions, but I’ll address this one. If a teaching elder is not in accord with the Westminster Standards, this could certainly be demonstrated or evidenced by their not being in conformance with the nine declarations accepted by the 35th PCA General Assembly. In the PCA, formal charges should be filed against them at the Presbytery level according to the Book of Church Order (BCO) chapter 34. Any communing church member can do this. It would be best if the Session filed the charges, but anyone can do so. The BCO chapters 24-46 cover the entire disciplinary process, but not all chapters will apply in all circumstances. This may seem a daunting task, but communing church members use the process regularly. Chapters 31 and 32 provide a nice overview of the process. You can go to others for help.
If the Presbytery refuses to act or acts improperly, then you can file an appeal within 30 days to the Standing Judicial Commission at the General Assembly level. They have at least one such case before them now, though the details are different than you describe. So, don’t be intimidated or discouraged if the Presbytery does not perform their duties as they should. You still have rights and avenues as a communing member of the PCA.
Whether or not to leave is a personal decision. From a purely spiritual standpoint, I personally would never sit under the teaching of an FV proponent and be “taught” these errors week after week. I would not hesitate to leave for a season, or for as long as it took to resolve the situation. When I was attending a military chapel some years ago, our Reformed chaplain was transfered out in normal rotation, but that left only overt Arminians to preach. I left the chapel community and attended an RCUS church for about 18 months, and thoroughly enjoyed their teaching and fellowship. No one should have to sit and listen to error from the pulpit.
I’m sure that you know that you aren’t the only person or church to which this has happened. FV has caused division and strife in a number of congregations. I commend your prayerful approach and praise our Lord for restoring your peace and the joy of your salvation.
If you want to address this issue in more detail or want specific help, click on my name above, go to the About page of my blog, and leave a comment. Comments are moderated so you won’t see it appear, but I will get it and contact you if you leave your email address or other contact information. The comment will not be posted publicly to the blog. I travel a lot so you may have to be patient after leaving a note.
barlow said,
August 5, 2007 at 8:16 am
“Rather than naming names and places which would only stir up bitterness and hurt people, and rather than offering opinions of my own, I would like to just put forth some questions and get your thoughts.”
Naming names would at least allow someone to come along and give the other side of the story - a wronged church member that gives her case seems right until someone else comes along to contradict it. Maybe you’re a sociopath who was rightly pushed out of the church. If you were really free of bitterness perhaps you would have left out the autobiography and gone right to the substance of your comments. As it is, now, you’ve given someone an anecdote they can use to sully the FV men.
Carol said,
August 5, 2007 at 3:49 pm
In John 7: 18-20 Jesus asked the crowd why they were seeking to kill Him. The crowd responded in disbelief saying that Jesus had a demon. Do you think the crowd was right, Mr. Barlow? Do you think that Jesus’ wild accusation of them was that of a “sociopath” - one who needed “psychiatric treatment” such as the likes of Mr. Harper above?
Thank you, #58. for your thoughtful response. It has been over two years and I have gotten on with my life. Don’t you think there comes a time when a person has to wipe the proverbial dust from his sandals, and move on to another church that welcomes the gospel? If sessions and presbyteries refuse to take the recommendations of the report seriously, wouldn’t it be better for the communing member just to leave? It would seem to me that to try to press charges as a sole communing member would not only be daunting, but impossible if one does not have the support of some elders on the session or in the presbytery.
pduggie said,
August 5, 2007 at 8:37 pm
Carol,
If James Jordan, Peter Leithart, Garret Craw, Mark Horne, Steve Schlissel, Steve Wilkins, Jeff Meyers, or Doug Wilson are any of the people who mistreated you, I personally would want to know, because as far as I can tell none of these people are actually false teachers or have harmed anyone, or should give any honest person a reason to fear.
And if its someone else, I wouldn’t know what to tell you, since the guys I named above are about the only “FV” guys I am even aware of, much less care about defending.
Some slob who says he’s “FV” and abuses his wife or watches porn 24 hours a day or acts psychopathically probably exists, but I’ve never hear of him.
pduggie said,
August 5, 2007 at 8:40 pm
+ Rich Lusk. I almost forgot.
pduggie said,
August 5, 2007 at 8:44 pm
What is a Pharisee?
A group of jews who sought to be a vanguard of law-keepers to gain acceptance with God. Colloquially, a guy who is a self-righteous hypocrite
Is an FV teacher considered a Pharisee?
merely by being FV? No. But someone who agrees with FV could be, and could be a jerk too,
Why or why not?
The FV has nothing to do with being a hypocrite. the FV tells you to trust Jesus and obey him all the time.
How did the Pharisees treat Jesus?
They hated him and tried to trap him. Your point?
How did Jesus respond to the Pharisees?
Pointed disagreement and deflected traps
How did He speak to them?
Harshly.
Did He reach out to them to try to find some common ground in order to win them over to His side?
yes, early on. Nicodemus comes to mind. Your point?
pduggie quoting Carl Trueman to Carol said,
August 5, 2007 at 8:48 pm
Carol, you write in such a way that it is clear you view the FV as completely without value. But Carl Trueman, an FV opponent at Ref21, challenges such simplistic thinking. Even his associate Rick Phillips has occassionally called the FVs emphasis “helpful”.
Trueman writes: “An overwhelming emphasis on antithesis creates a situation where others are only ever critiqued, not learned from, while we remain blissfully above correction. That’s cultic and it’s Gnosticism, and the Reformed world currently contains a couple of scary examples of exactly this kind of thinking and church life. ”
“Charity of spirit (not compromise of doctrine) is a Christian virtue. This involves the ability to relate to those who are different, to treat with respect as made in the image of God those from whom we differ. An overwhelming emphasis on the intellectual/cultural antithesis does not, in my experience, foster the kind of appreciation for others, the self-deprecating humour, and the ability to see the absurdities of one’s own positions, which enable this.”
pduggie quotes Trueman said,
August 5, 2007 at 9:06 pm
Carol, Carl Trueman, no friend of FV, warns of the mindset that sees everything as antithesis all the time,
“An overwhelming emphasis on antithesis creates a situation where others are only ever critiqued, not learned from, while we remain blissfully above correction. That’s cultic and it’s Gnosticism, and the Reformed world currently contains a couple of scary examples of exactly this kind of thinking and church life. ”
Charity of spirit (not compromise of doctrine) is a Christian virtue. This involves the ability to relate to those who are different, to treat with respect as made in the image of God those from whom we differ. An overwhelming emphasis on the intellectual/cultural antithesis does not, in my experience, foster the kind of appreciation for others, the self-deprecating humour, and the ability to see the absurdities of one’s own positions, which enable this.”
pduggan said,
August 6, 2007 at 8:00 am
Lane, are you deleting posts?
barlow said,
August 6, 2007 at 8:43 am
Hi Carol - again, please just tell us which church mistreated you or else I will just assume that yours is one of the myriad stories that one hears from disgruntled ex-church members. I’m sure such people exist, feeling wronged by every PCA church in the official directory, all across the ideological spectrum.
Jenny F said,
August 6, 2007 at 10:52 am
Carol- if you are who I think you are PLEASE stop posting in reference to your “experience”. You have the potential to cause problems for people who are trying to stay out of the limelight with the FV drama. As for Barlow and pduggie, it is really none of their business who these people are unless it has been made public record which is has not.
If you are not who I think you are, I apologize.
greenbaggins said,
August 6, 2007 at 11:21 am
Paul, no. I am still trying to puzzle out why some posts get held in the moderator’s queue and others do not. Some get held even if their authors have previously approved comments and there are no links in the comments. I do not know why this is happening. However, please be patient with me. This problem is ever so much better to have than that spammer with the obscene comments.
Carol said,
August 6, 2007 at 12:01 pm
Did I point out the errors of the Federal Vision? I thought the study report pointed these errors out and they were approved as declarations by the entire Assembly. Shouldn’t your complaints and criticism be directed at them?
Are you not concerned for those who hold to these errors? Are you not also concerned for the truth of the gospel? Whose reputation are you protecting?
What difference does it make whether you believe me or not? Hasn’t the General Assembly made public the fact that there are those in the denomination who are teaching these errors? Isn’t that true?
The GA has called upon or made the recommendation that these men need to make these errors known to their sessions and presbyteries. Have they?
The GA also recommended that all elders condemn these errors and make this report known to their congregations. Have they?
If no elder makes their errors known, does that mean the study committee lied and put out a false report? That there is no Federal Vision that holds to these specified errors? That the whole General Assembly was duped? What does this say about the character of the leadership?
greenbaggins said,
August 6, 2007 at 12:02 pm
Carol, I agree with your general response regarding the FV. However, I do not allow anonymous comments on this blog. Please give us your last name.
pduggan said,
August 6, 2007 at 1:21 pm
The GA has called upon or made the recommendation that these men need to make these errors known to their sessions and presbyteries. Have they?
Peter Leithart did
http://www.leithart.com/archives/003074.php
Of course, if you read his response, you’ll note he doesn’t generally consider himself to be “hit” by much of the list of affirmations, since he either believes what the report affirms, or finds the report ambiguous.
pduggan said,
August 6, 2007 at 1:22 pm
Jenny: if it’s none of my business, then Carol shouldn’t have said “And, to be honest, I was afraid of the FV elders - I lived in fear of them - for what they had done to me and to others. There were times when I thought I was going to have to call the police or seek a lawyer.”
I’m glad you agree.
Andrew Duggan said,
August 6, 2007 at 1:26 pm
Paul,
There are some, Lane thinks the Gospel is at stake. Trueman also has a certain point, since I think there are questions that the F.V. raises where there is some deficiencies in the life of the church, it’s just that their solution, seem to through the baby out with the baptismal water.
Don’t you agree there was at least four times in history that there was a doctrine that should have been rejected out-of-hand? For example should not have Adam and Eve replied to the serpent as Christ did to Satan (Although the exact quotations from Deuteronomy would have been anachronistically impossible). Some things should be rejected immediately, and there is nothing to be learned from them. Things that either explicitly or implicitly start with “Yeah, hath God said…” should give one pause before he starts to learn from it. Adam failed in that regard, Christ didn’t.
Carl Trueman’s point of view does not disestablish the legitimacy of Carol’s.
Jon, Does suggesting that someone is a sociopath based on what you know of him/her from her postings here really demonstrate the Love of God in Christ? Do you think that Jude 9 has anything that might be helpful there?
Andrew Duggan said,
August 6, 2007 at 1:29 pm
That really should be
… seems to me, to throw the baby…
instead of
… seem to through the baby …
barlow said,
August 6, 2007 at 2:06 pm
Just to clarify, I wasn’t claiming that Carol is a sociopath, I was just suggesting that we have no idea who she is, and thus she could be a sociopath who was rightly forced out of a congregation; her story relies on facts not in evidence. I apologize if my sentence structure suggested that I was claiming she is a sociopath.
Andrew Duggan said,
August 6, 2007 at 2:23 pm
Jon,
FWIW, I know you were not claiming she was a sociopath, but
that someone could be a sociopath is really not any better, and in some ways is worse because of the insidious nature of innuendo. You can certainly question facts not in evidence but one does not need to go to the extremes of suggesting that the reason those facts are not in evidence is because your opponent is a sociopath.
I think you miss the point. Suggesting (by your use of “Maybe”
pduggan said,
August 6, 2007 at 2:31 pm
Sure, we should reject some things out of hand.
But carol has biased herself against me by jumping right in with personal unsubstantiated anecdotes, though.
You wrote “There are some, Lane thinks the Gospel is at stake.” but I don’t know exactly what that refers to.
Andrew Duggan said,
August 6, 2007 at 3:03 pm
“There are some [such as] Lane, that think the Gospel is at stake”, was meant to contrast with the Trueman’s point-of-view, not necessarily in kind, but certainly in degree, and to compare with Carol’s. If we were to plot Trueman, Lane and Carol in a three-dimensional space, I think on one axis-plane, you would find Trueman and Lane closer together, but on another you might find Lane and Carol pretty close.
I’ll agree that uncorroborated anecdotes of that nature can certainly put someone off.
barlow said,
August 6, 2007 at 6:23 pm
Andrew - are you and Paul related?
Andrew Duggan said,
August 6, 2007 at 7:06 pm
Jon, Yes. He is my cousin
Carol Kendran said,
August 6, 2007 at 7:20 pm
Sorry, Lane. I am still new to this blogging thing and did not know I had to give my last name.
I also want to apologize for sharing my personal story and diverting everyone from the questions that I have long been seeking honest answers to. It is true that if I have been delivered from bitterness, I should not have even mentioned any personal hurts. I should have kept quiet like so many others have done, for this whole controversy is not about my personal anecdotal experience but rather about my desire to grapple with the truth and restore the gospel once again in the PCA.
I appreciate the answers you have given me to some of my questions. I know I have thrown a lot of them out there. My basic question is this: Are the teachers of the Federal Vision in error and, if so, what is the PCA going to do about it? Are the leaders committed to taking action to rid the denomination of these errors or are they just going to let the report sit in the files and collect dust?
Vern Crisler said,
August 6, 2007 at 8:43 pm
I don’t know about Carol’s experience, but the source of all this FVism was the Tyler, Texas so-called church. It was pure authoritarianism in action, which is exactly where FVism leads. Greg Bahnsen was very distressed by the arrogant and arbitrary behavior of the leadership of this little sect. He even wrote a long critique of it. Several of those who were excommunicated by this quasi-cult were accepted into other legitimate churches–to the consternation of Jordan and the other bozos who mismanaged that so-called church (which later became an Anglican church). I was there. I saw much of it first hand. Talk about gestapo tactics. The presbytery (ARC) at least overturned the excommunications, but Jordan and Sutton ignored their own presbytery’s direction. For that, they have much to answer for. Hellfire perhaps. They’re all for church authority when things go their way, but otherwise not. Why else would they be ensconced in obscure 3-church denominations? If you want an arrogant clergy, and totalitarian ecclesiastical government, just keep going down the FV road.
Vern
James Jordan said,
August 7, 2007 at 12:15 am
RE. 83. I was asked to comment on this. Well, anyone can see the gall of hatred in the author’s remarks, and I’ve no interest in answering these lies. We did not answer them 20 years ago, and we won’t answer them now. Suffice it to say that Mr. Crisler, though he thought he was entitled to know the private matters concerning the disciplinary actions that we as elders were force to make, was not given satisfaction. He was told, as were others, that there is a “privacy of counselling” and that he would never be told the kinds of things he believed himself entitled to know, because the Holy Spirit had not made him a pastor in our church. Like several others with the same view, he responded with rage and hatred, which clearly still festers. So, no Vern. You weren’t elected an elder at WPC Tyler. You were not entitled to know private matters about people in the church. You still aren’t. And if you are still full of hate about it, that, I’m afraid, is your problem.
Anyone on this list who is a pastor and has been one for very long knows exactly what I’m talking about, and has had to deal with people who want to invade the lives of others by demanding private information from the Session. We had more than our share of such arrogant people in Tyler because, unfortunately, people were invited to move to Tyler and be part of the church — a bad idea — and we got a lot of problem people as a result.
Vern Crisler said,
August 7, 2007 at 2:52 am
Jordan, you tell so many lies, you would make Munchausen blush. What private information did I ever demand? You make things up out of thin air in a way that is breath-taking. If I were allowed, I’d call you a perambulating sack of pestilence, but I guess it’s not polite. The problem is that you and your cohorts are the ones who are arrogant, and you have never repented of your bullying. Chilton sounded a warning against you, but you still haven’t repented. Bahnsen criticized your authoritarianism but still no repentence. Of course, what can one expect from a congregation that jumped ship from the PCA when it was under disciplinary action? Or have you forgotten that? Or do you still lie and say you had no part in that? –Though you defended the actions of this putative church in my presence, and in the presence of others.
By their works you shall know them. FV is Jordanism, and all the FV proponents are just aping what he was teaching during the 80’s. This brood gives you a good idea of what will happen if Jordan’s influence extends to any more churches–arrogance, lies, and a totalitarian ecclesiology. Even if I’m not a strict subscriptionist, I commend the presbyterian denominations for rebuking this Jordan-inspired poison. Beware. You don’t want to go through what the members of the Tyler church went through. The fear. It was something even Chilton says gave him nightmares. Of course, if they tried their bullying on me at this point, they’d end up in the hospital. But younger people are too intimidated by these ecclesiastical goons, so they won’t stand up to them.
In any case, I don’t see any point in wasting my time responding to Jordan’s yip-yap. Personally, I wish I’d never met the man, and my going out to the Tyler “church” was probably the biggest mistake of my life. At this point, I’m working on the proto-Mesolithic and Neolithic periods, correlating them with Courville’s views, and that’s a better use of my time than responding to more lies from these Tyler snakes.
Vern
P.S. Not kidding this time.
reformedmusings said,
August 7, 2007 at 7:44 am
Carol,
RE #60:
Yes, there are times to move on. I am happy to hear that you have found peace in another church and that the Lord has healed you of your wounds.
Matt said,
August 7, 2007 at 9:16 am
Vern,
Maybe you should take your dirty laundry out back. No one cares about your public gossip and your “he said, she said- twenty years ago-lets sling mud on people and see if it sticks-argument.” If you started dealing with biblical arguments, at least something might apear to have substance.
pduggan said,
August 7, 2007 at 9:27 am
Lord, how often shall my brother offend and I forgive him? Seven times?
Robert K. said,
August 7, 2007 at 9:29 am
>”Vern . . . No one cares about your public gossip and your “he said, she said”
Really? I always find it interesting when history that some people want put into a memory hole is recited, especially by people with first-hand knowledge.
Matt said,
August 7, 2007 at 9:40 am
Really, Robert? Although its accuracy is questionable? Although its a public blog written about men in good standing? How is this helpful? I would recommend Vern take it off list and talk to Jordan and get the facts worked out before he decides to tickle your ears for your entertainment.
pduggan said,
August 7, 2007 at 10:00 am
A session would have first had knowledge, as well as those who were put under discipline. Everyone else has hearsay knowledge.
pduggan said,
August 7, 2007 at 10:01 am
“first hand” not “first had”
Beth Ellen Nagle said,
August 7, 2007 at 10:15 am
I have somehow forgotten what this thread was about.
pduggan said,
August 7, 2007 at 10:17 am
Vern, why do you trust Chilton’s testimony, when he’s such a big flake he believes preposterous things like the woman on seven hills is Jerusalem
tim prussic said,
August 7, 2007 at 10:17 am
They’ll know us by our love one for another. Warnings are one thing, but laundry and mud-slinging another.
Robert K. said,
August 7, 2007 at 10:38 am
The history of that church in Tyler is hardly reliant on the sole witness of one Vern Crisler. You FVists sound like Roman Catholics when somebody wants to bring up the unpleasant fact that your priesthood is involved, to a real degree, in institutional violation of innocence.
Matt said,
August 7, 2007 at 10:46 am
I not defending any party, Robert. I am just saying find another place to straighten out facts before posting bogus “he said, she said” stuff. Priesthood? Roman Catholics? What?
Weston said,
August 7, 2007 at 11:03 am
I’m in contact with almost all of the most committed “Jordanite” pastors and not a single one of them has a church situation anything like what Vern describes. By and large, they are the most wise and effective pastors I know of with close, mature churches.
James Jordan said,
August 7, 2007 at 11:09 am
Really, do I have to keep answering this? I guess so, at least a bit:
“The problem is that you and your cohorts are the ones who are arrogant, and you have never repented of your bullying.”
Chilton sounded a warning against you, but you still haven’t repented. Bahnsen criticized your authoritarianism but still no repentence. Of course, what can one expect from a congregation that jumped ship from the PCA when it was under disciplinary action? Or have you forgotten that? Or do you still lie and say you had no part in that? –Though you defended the actions of this putative church in my presence, and in the presence of others.
James Jordan said,
August 7, 2007 at 11:18 am
Well, #99 got posted by accident. Here’s what I say, and this is the end of it:
“The problem is that you and your cohorts are the ones who are arrogant, and you have never repented of your bullying.”
We never bullied anybody, and you have not one shred of evidence that we did. 90% of the church stayed with us when you and your handful of troublemakers left.
“Chilton sounded a warning against you, but you still haven’t repented.”
Chilton was just like you, taking up causes and believing troublemakers. No one ever showed anything but kindness to him and his family, and to you for that matter. You repaid it with hate. You still do. All you “have” is what other people griped to you about. And no, Vern, I’m not going to satisfy your demands to justify what we as elders were constrained to do, we who had information you don’t have and never will have.
“Bahnsen criticized your authoritarianism but still no repentence.”
Bahnsen criticizing anyone for authoritarianism is a joke!! But he criticized us for advocating smoking pot and doing cocaine and for showing X-rated movies in the church. It’s hard to respond to charges like that, and it’s hard to repent of things you’ve never done. We turned Bahnsen over to his presbytery and they dealt informally with him, and later quite formally with his behavior.
“Of course, what can one expect from a congregation that jumped ship from the PCA when it was under disciplinary action? Or have you forgotten that?”
Another falsehood, Vern. Neither the church nor the elders were under any kind of disciplinary action. The church left because the Texas Presbytery was not a good home for the elders wanted, primarily paedocommunion. The presbytery, in fact, sent a committee to try and woo the Tyler church back.
“Or do you still lie and say you had no part in that?”
I didn’t, Vern. It happened 6 months before I arrived. I was informed about it after it happened.
” –Though you defended the actions of this putative church in my presence, and in the presence of others.”
Why not? I think it was, all things considered, a good decision.
For the rest, Vern, I’m leaving it. If you’re working on Courville, that’s good. Take *Centuries of Darkness* into account.
greenbaggins said,
August 7, 2007 at 11:23 am
People, this is not the place to talk about these kinds of things. This thread will stay open only so long as no more posts will be written about this church issue.
Matt said,
August 7, 2007 at 11:35 am
Baggins,
Please remove these posts. They are not helpful to dialogue on FV issues are the Scriptures. Thank you.
greenbaggins said,
August 7, 2007 at 11:52 am
I am not going to remove the posts. Pronouncing a moratorium on the issue should be sufficient.
Vern Crisler said,
August 7, 2007 at 2:46 pm
Just to correct the record. The phrase Bahnsen used was something like, “jaded response to R-rated movies.”
Also, *Centuries of Darkness* (as helpful as it is) does not deal with anything prior to the Iron Age, so would not be of much help in the Mesolithic period.
Vern
tim prussic said,
August 7, 2007 at 3:16 pm
R-rated movies! No Christian would ever watch an R-rated movie!
pduggan said,
August 7, 2007 at 3:43 pm
103 not so
Chris Coldwell said,
August 7, 2007 at 6:37 pm
‘Nuf said.
http://www.fpcr.org/blue_banner_articles/tyler.htm
tim prussic said,
August 7, 2007 at 7:03 pm
Chris, what a way to throw out your credibility! I mean there’s a link to a book by John Robbins right on top of the article. That right there’s enough to put serious doubts in any reasonable person’s mind!
Chris Coldwell said,
August 7, 2007 at 7:16 pm
An what an ad hominem; the link notwithstanding, the piece stands by itself.
pduggie said,
August 7, 2007 at 7:44 pm
Chris Coldwell doesn’t respect the moratorium. Film at 11
Chris Coldwell said,
August 7, 2007 at 7:59 pm
Oops. Where’s the roll the eyes icon when I need one.
pduggie said,
August 7, 2007 at 8:01 pm
You don’t care about lane’s express wishes for a moratorium on the topic?
Chris Coldwell said,
August 7, 2007 at 8:07 pm
And what exactly did I say on the subject? I simply directed folks to a source for more information? If that violates Lane’s moratorium, then mea culpa.