Update on Indices

All, I have updated the index to the Federal Vision. I have on there now all the answers to Jeff Meyers’s Thirty Reasons document, as well as all of the posts critiqueing the Joint Federal Vision document. I will continue to update the index when I finish RINE, as well as when I finish the critique of Peter Leithart’s article.

About these ads

38 Comments

  1. Robert K. said,

    August 21, 2007 at 6:26 am

    On the general subject of Federal Vision James Jordan has written a letter Doug Wilson posted on his blog (as I’m sure is common knowledge). I find it rather funny. The entire thing demonstrates the FV distinctive of disingenuous bewilderment. He runs down all the ecclessial bodies that have not embraced FV doctrine, and his general response to each is: “They don’t like us because they wear Adidas and we wear Nike. Right? Can it be anything else? Somebody? Help me out here.”

    I was also bowled over to see this sentence:

    “I am constrained to say, as someone who is about as “FV” as you can be, that Mr. Beach has not taken the time to understand what anyone is saying.”

    Apparently he is saying a critic doesn’t understand what FVists are saying. This was a new realization for me. I had no idea that FVists thought their critics didn’t understand them.

    I also learned, from the letter, that Knox Theological Seminary is defined by its Clarkianism solely. And that there are no actual Calvinists at that seminary.

    Jordan did, though, reiterate that FVists want the Westminster Standards and the Three Forms of Unity solely in their possession – still. My take was that the FVists were starting to abandon that part of their campaign and were retreating to a differnt line where they were merely going to claim the first and second generation of Reformed theologians. I was kind of hoping they would even continue their retreat from there and adopt a pre-Reformation line of demarcation and really find a true home for themselves…

  2. Robert K. said,

    August 21, 2007 at 6:58 am

    I’ll just throw this in here. Has anybody looked into Calvin’s statements on baptism in his Sermons on Ephesian (Banner of Truth, starting at pg. 578 and going on for several pages. This is not the Calvin the FVists are always trying to present on baptism and sacrament issues. Calvin even echoes some of Zwingli’s famous language (early Zwingli), and these sermons were given just a few years before Calvin’s death.

  3. August 21, 2007 at 7:05 am

    Jordon omitted mentioning Westminster West and the sinister Scott Clark, as well as the evil Guy Waters. Cal Beisner is the infamous Clarkian at Knox, but my former associate and fellow student at WTS in Phila., Fowler White is a real VanTillian ( there are alot of bogus VanTillians running around claiming to be his disciples, but he would not recogize them as such much in the same way he did when he was alive and kicking and disavowed any association with the theonomic crowd.)

  4. Mark T. said,

    August 21, 2007 at 11:11 am

    James Jordan writes,

    “What he criticizes is not anything that anyone has been saying. He attacks a straw man.”

    And then he proceeded to construct one straw man after another to dismiss each body that has repudiated FV. Methinks I heard the Scarecrow from the Wizard of Oz singing “If I Only Had a Brain” in the background.

  5. tim prussic said,

    August 21, 2007 at 4:00 pm

    I thought Pastor Jordan’s article was interesting, if simplistic and not particularly charitable to most American Reformed communions. His reasons that Clarkians, Klineans and Southern Presbyterians wouldn’t like the FV covenantalism seem fair and reasonable. What’s not is applying it to everyone at Knox and in the OPC and PCA. In other words, I think he painting with too broad a brush to do his own cause much good. To label his tactic with the “straw man” as above, however, is only partially true, for Pastor Jordan’s accusations are at least partially true.
    ISTM, he’s swimming upstream trying to convince folks that we have a REALLY hard time seeing out of the walls of our own modern American context. In fact, it seems like pulling teeth sometimes to get people to admit that it’s POSSIBLE that our vision of historic Reformed theology is possibly impaired by our own historic context. That kind of talk is derisively dismissed with vigerous hand waving by too many opponents of the FV. As if granting even the possibility that our vision’s skewed leads to all the heretical terrors of the FV. Fooey! Without basic intellectual honesty, we’ll just spin our wheels and make enemies.
    In the vein, comments like Mr. K.’s are ironically interesting: “Jordan did, though, reiterate that FVists want the Westminster Standards and the Three Forms of Unity solely in their possession – still.” Of course he reiterated no such thing. He stated that FV folks “have repeatedly bent over backward to acknowledge the importance and value of decretal theology, and have paid respect to the scholastic traditions while seeking to refine them.” Now, Mr. K. et al may want to challange that, but to distort it as “the Standards are our alone” is a blatant misrepresentation. The ironic part is that many FV opponents (Mr. K. included) do exactly what he accuses Pastor Jordan of doing.

  6. Chris Hutchinson said,

    August 21, 2007 at 5:01 pm

    Jordan’s massive generalizations discredit his observations. And I say this as one of the supposed Knox Seminary Clarkians. I am no Clarkian and have never even engaged in the debate.

    I began to oppose the FV because in our conversations at Knox I began to detect an undermining of justification itself, which bore itself out in later FV writings.

    All Jordan does is dismiss *all* of his critics by assigning prejudice to all of them. And since he is getting fire from all sides, he needs to assign a different prejudice to each quarter. Does it ever occur to him, that if so many different schools, with so many different viewpoints are saying that you are wrong, that you just might be wrong?

  7. Chris Hutchinson said,

    August 21, 2007 at 5:04 pm

    I agree with Jordan that the FV is not driven by paedo-com. In my opinion, it is driven by their theonomic view of Christendom.

    But Jordan’s massive generalizations discredit his observations. And I say this as one of the supposed Knox Seminary Clarkians. I am no Clarkian and have never even engaged in the debate.

    I began to oppose the FV because in our conversations at Knox I began to detect an undermining of justification itself, which bore itself out in later FV writings.

    All Jordan does is dismiss *all* of his critics by assigning prejudice to all of them. And since he is getting fire from all sides, he needs to assign a different prejudice to each quarter. Does it ever occur to him, that if so many different schools, with so many different viewpoints are saying that you are wrong, that you just might be wrong?

  8. tim prussic said,

    August 21, 2007 at 5:12 pm

    ECHO!

    Chris, you said, “I began to oppose the FV because in our conversations at Knox I began to detect an undermining of justification itself, which bore itself out in later FV writings.”

    Would you direct me to these writings? See my last post over at Wilson’s site on this issue. In some ways, I agree with the FV (covenant, sacraments [I think]), but I’ve always opposed some of the FV men messin’ with the COW and with the doctrine of justification. I haven’t seen much of the latter (most Ralph Smith), but if there’s more of it, I’d like to be aware of it.

  9. Lee said,

    August 21, 2007 at 6:49 pm

    Jordan not only generalizes he is simply wrong. He calls the RCUS the heirs of Kohlbrugge, but there is not one RCUS pastor today who follows the Kohlbrugge view on sanctification. In fact, it is usually specifically asked in the licensure exams to make sure we have purged all that from our churches.

    Of course if Dr. Jordan had taken the time to ask an RCUS minister about Kohlbrugge, he would not so misunderstand us. But I guess what is good for the goose is not always good for the gander.

  10. Daniel Kok said,

    August 21, 2007 at 8:18 pm

    I continue to wonder (aloud) if it is best to ignore these types of outlandish statements (made by Jordan and other FV types) or reply. I guess I don’t have the stomach for it anymore…

  11. james raisch said,

    August 21, 2007 at 8:26 pm

    Federal Visionists should be evicted from all P&R denominations and left to babble and jabber amongst themselves, sharing gibberish

  12. james raisch said,

    August 21, 2007 at 8:30 pm

    Federal Visionists should be evicted from all P&R denominations and left to babble and jabber amongst themselves, sharing gibberish with one another in the CREC.

  13. tim prussic said,

    August 21, 2007 at 8:35 pm

    should all the babble and jabbers among the anti FV be sentenced, say, to the RPCUS? Oh, wait! It’s only the FVers who’ve written/said outlandish things. My bad.

    I think there is an echo in here…

  14. james raisch said,

    August 21, 2007 at 9:04 pm

    Lane, you are a good (but not perfectly good) man doing a good work (a work that will NOT earn you Justification before God) by deconstructing the system of illogic that is federal visionism. Federal Visionism=Judaizing heresy

  15. tim prussic said,

    August 22, 2007 at 12:53 am

    that’s a spot on! Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ… well, there are some additional caveats: be ye circumcised and become as a Jew, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house. That sounds FVish, no?

    Why do Pastor Jordan’s comments get attacked as outlandish, but Mr. Raisch’s comments stand unmolested by all but little ol’ me? Could there be… dare I say it? (Dare! Dare!) …a double standard? If foolishness, ad homs, or other tomfooleries come from FV lips – BE THEY DAMNED! If, however, from anti-FV lips… well, he maybe a little over zealous, but he means well.

  16. Mark T. said,

    August 22, 2007 at 6:24 am

    Tim,

    I cannot speak for James, however, to answer your question, it appears that you have neglected to factor in three critical points in this equation that create aggravating circumstances.

    First, the FVists use doublespeak, coded words, bait and switches, and plain-old misrepresentation to communicate their positions, which severely undermines their credibility by raising serious Ninth Commandment issues. James R called their parlance “babble . . . jabber . . . jibberish.” Whatever you call it, they force you to trust them at your own risk.

    Second, they have asserted a series of doctrinal propositions that, in the end, gut the very doctrine of justification by faith alone (though they refuse to admit it). In other words, this is not a question about words or names; rather, they have chosen to tamper with the root of the gospel and they have done so using the above-mentioned method of communication, which has posed no small impediment to Church leaders seeking to get a better handle on FV.

    Third, to advance their novel doctrine, the FVers have adopted an aggressive policy of disturbing the peace and purity of the Church, which requires them to harass, belittle, and abuse the brethren who oppose the false teaching, most likely because the FVers endeavor to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. Moreover, it also requires them to create confusion, undermine authority, and disrupt order, as James Jordan’s letter illustrates. For example, do you really believe the following statement by Jordan?

    But understand, none of this started out as some kind of movement. “Federal Vision theology” is a creation of the minds of FV critics, and that is why it is so hard to say what it is. It varies from critic to critic. Only now, after 5 years, have some of us decided to try and heal this silly war by stating what we think FV might be.

    Of course, this is ridiculous; the FVers have published multiple books on the subject in the last five years, in addition to propagating it on countless blogs. As I have said before, they appear to live in Wilson’s alternative universe of make believe where they can make these kinds of outrageous assertions with impunity. Nevertheless, you can witness FV’s fruit by counting the number of church splits that have occurred in the last five years because of this divisive doctrine and its equally divisive progenitors.

    These facts, and they are facts, compel honest men to get frustrated, if not angry, which probably accounts for James R’s comments. And I’ll take it a step further. It is clear to me that the FVers intend to subvert churches in the land by continuing to ignore plain statements of the Church, such as the PCA’s overwhelming repudiation of FV. These men are hell bent on imposing their views on the Reformed church and they will not let anyone deter them. To ignore them is good, but to mark them and quarantine them is even better. Force them to move to the leper colony Moscow where they can smoke cigars, swill stout, and ridicule Christianity. If you can’t stop them, you can certainly isolate them.

  17. Robert K. said,

    August 22, 2007 at 7:56 am

    Mark T.’s comment outlines it all and impressively. I notice, re the remark about ignoring the FVists, that R. Scott Clark has announced something like that. Or at least he finds the whole thing too tedious to bother with any further.

  18. stewart said,

    August 22, 2007 at 8:03 am

    Robert, I think that’s exactly what you should do, ignore the FV. I think everyone would be better off if you did.

  19. greenbaggins said,

    August 22, 2007 at 8:08 am

    Robert, I think that Clark only meant that he was not going to deal with the Joint FV statement any further. He is, after all, still going through the URC declarations.

  20. Robert K. said,

    August 22, 2007 at 8:57 am

    >Robert, I think that Clark only meant that he was not going to deal with the Joint FV statement any further. He is, after all, still going through the URC declarations.

    I had that thought as I was writing that because part of Dr. Clark’s job is to confront such things, so he can never say never. But let’s state the fact that the more attention these FVists get the more it fuels them. I suspect the arc of the whole thing hasn’t just yet come to an end, but it’s probably getting close…

  21. tim prussic said,

    August 22, 2007 at 12:08 pm

    Mr. T.,
    As to your points in post 16.
    1) I’m opposed to bait & switch, etc. tactics in debate. I favor honest clear exchange of ideas. Where the FV proponents have fallen short of that, I join you in opposing it. I also oppose any tactics of the opposition side (that’s part of my point in post 15), and there’s plenty of it going on.
    2) Regarding justification denial, I simply disagree. I’ve heard affirmations of sola-fide justification from many main players on the FV side. I personally think that folks like you misrepresent the FV in this, rally the troops with cries about justification denial, and build opposition based upon misrepresentation. I know men like John Robbins have done that specifically. So, I simply disagree. That said, Mark, I have heard one FV guy out and out deny the classic doctrine of justification. I oppose that with my whole heart. I just don’t see it in the other FV guys I’ve read/heard.
    3) You accuse the FVers of adopting an “aggressive policy of disturbing the peace and purity of the Church.” They’ve carried that out, you assert, by attacking those who oppose their doctrines. This may be true. I have not personally seen it, but I’ve read some testimonies of folks driven from churches, and I deplore such tactics, as I value the unity of the church. But, once again, the anti-FV folk have done it, too. In fact, they did it first and with far more vitriol. Where’s your condemnation of them?
    Once again, I see anti-FV double standards this way, that, and t’other.

  22. james raisch said,

    August 22, 2007 at 12:40 pm

    If the federal vision system of illogic were a person, her name would be Judith Grayvale. In my imitation of the federal visionists and federal visionist sympathizers and tolerators (who claim one thing and then say another), when I claim the name would be Judith Grayvale (federal visionists claiming they believe in Justification by Faith Alone) what I really mean (federal visionists showing, when opening their mouths, they deny Justification by Faith Alone) is the name would be Jewdeath Gravehell. Federal Visionism contradicts the truth of Justification by Faith Alone and is nothing more than Judaizing heresy.

  23. Mark T. said,

    August 22, 2007 at 1:06 pm

    Tim,

    Point for point:

    1. Re your comment #15, not only were James Raisch’s comments utterly benign, they were right on target, and a number of high-profile Church leaders have expressed similar sentiments. The FVers should admit the obvious and move on, or in the words of CREC Archbishop Randy Booth, “Shoe, fly, shoe.”

    2. You are free to disagree. If the vast amount of literature on the subject has not convinced you, I will not waste the bandwidth. But I am certain you are wrong on this count, and I strongly encourage you to read it all, including in between the lines, because if not for the bait and switch, the Christian Church would have shut down the FVers five years ago. Don’t believe their reinterpretation of their words; believe their words at face value. Period.

    3. We can sit here all day saying that the other side is worse than ours, and we shall make no progress. You take offense at James Raisch’s comments; I think they are harmless. Maybe these things are subjective. So rather than arguing which side is worse, let me put it to you in question form. Since the Reformed Church has repudiated FV in no uncertain terms, why do the FVers insist that everyone else is wrong, and, even worse, why do they continually impose their repudiated doctrines upon the Reformed Church? Why can’t they say, “Okay, the Church has spoken and since we believe that we are without error and that our Mother is mistaken, we would rather leave quietly than disturb her any more. The CREC embraces our heterodoxy, so we shall find safe harbor with them where we can fellowship with likeminded people”?

    Thanks!

  24. stewart said,

    August 22, 2007 at 1:27 pm

    Mark, when you say “Reformed Church” you mean a few denominations in north America?

  25. tim prussic said,

    August 22, 2007 at 2:13 pm

    Mr. T.,
    Thanks for the kindly interactions – I value them.
    1) My purpose in post 15 is to demonstrate the double standard, which clearly exists, as the FV is a pretty convenient whippin’ boy. Mr. Raisch’s comments are fairly benign, true enough. But they’re also absolutely black and white and clearly one-sided. Back to the double standard thing.
    2) I understand the desire not to clog up bandwidth with useless reiteration, but I sure would like you to direct me to all the justification denying. That was the cover story RIGHT from the beginning, and it was (in my view) quite dishonest.
    3) How does the church speak, Mr. T.? When charges in ecclesiastical court begin to stick against FV men for particular teachings, I will start to feel the weight of your comment. I’ve picked through the OPC work and I need to look at it more closely. The PCA committee, frankly, is not convincing to me. In any event, study committees does not equal the church speaking. I’ll grant that the work (and official reception) of such committees is valuable. It is not, however, the church speaking.
    Another factor in this is simple politics. I don’t know that I have answers to the questions generated by the mingling ofpolitics with church discipline. I’m not making any accusations here, but it is an issues and it probably has SOME application in this situation.

    -Mr. P

  26. Mark T. said,

    August 22, 2007 at 3:38 pm

    Stewart,

    By “Reformed Church” I mean the two principal denominations (OPC and PCA) from which came the many mini- and micro-denominations and seminaries that have investigated FV and found it wanting. When you say “few denominations,” are you hoping to minimize the voice of this overwhelming majority of Reformed brethren that has consistently grown in the last 5 years?

    Mr. P.,

    1. Please correct me if I’m wrong, but I believe you have confused the categories “black and white” and “clearly one-sided” with the categories “prejudicial” and “unfair,” as though it is better to leave some things in a gray area of acceptability. There is nothing wrong with matters that are clearly one-sided and black and white. But everything is wrong with men who say a matter is white when in fact it is black.

    2. To my knowledge, no FVer has ever said, “I deny sola fide in favor of a works-based system.” However, most of them have taken away with the right hand what they previously offered with their left; the old bait and switch. For example, Steve Wilkins’ notorious quote:

    The elect are those who are faithful in Christ Jesus. If they later reject the Savior, they are no longer elect — they are cut off from the Elect One and thus lose their elect standing. But their falling away doesn’t negate the reality of their standing prior to their apostasy. They were really and truly the elect of God because of their relationship with Christ.

    This is conditional election predicated on faith-based works. It is Arminianism pure and simple, which is probably why Wilson jumped in to tell us that Steve Wilkins didn’t mean what Steve Wilkins said. Stop and think about that one. Who appointed Wilson as Wilkins’ spokesman?

    Nevertheless, check out Systematic Theology by Miley (1897), the Wesleyan champion, on election. Whereas the terminology between him and Wilkins is almost identical, the system is an exact match. And the moment you remove “faith alone” from the equation, you’re stuck with works. In other words, it’s black or white and clearly one-sided.

    “How does the Church speak?” — Tall order, which I will shrink. As you say, the Church speaks when charges in ecclesiastical courts stick. But you cannot look past the court of General Assembly, whether it’s the PCA, OPC, RPCGA, etc., because these august bodies gather annually to consider the matters before them, such as the Federal Vision. And when the SJC dispatches an ad hoc study committee to investigate the FV, and the PCA GA adopts the committee’s conclusions by a landslide, an honest FVer should show a little bit of humility, saying, “A committee sanctioned by the Supreme Court of my church has repudiated my doctrine, and my fathers and brothers in the faith have affirmed its finding by an overwhelming majority.” Then he should amend his doctrine to submit to his brethren or he should resign from office rather than disturb the peace of the Church any more. He certainly should not act like the scoundrel Doug Wilson, who immediately charged the committee (and the SJC by default) with corruption, unless of course disturbing the peace and purity of the Church is his primary objective.

    I will not address the issue of politics because you would be surprised to see my opinion here.

    Affectionately yours,

    Mr. T!

  27. greenbaggins said,

    August 22, 2007 at 3:42 pm

    Mark, allow me to correct a slight problem with your post (the majority of which is good). The SJC did not appoint the study committee, the GA did. The SJC is a commission appointed by the GA to deal with judicial matters. It is not a big deal, and does not affect the main substance of your point.

  28. Robert K. said,

    August 22, 2007 at 3:56 pm

    >”Mark, when you say “Reformed Church” you mean a few denominations in north America?”

    If it’s numbers you want, join the Roman Catholic Church. If it’s truth you’re interested in God’s remnant isn’t always big in numbers, but it is big in truth.

    One could even say the Reformed (Calvinist) churches exist to keep the flame of apostolic biblical doctrine alive in a world awash with false teaching. And because God’s truth acts as leaven (just as false doctrine does) numbers aren’t a significant factor in it being kept pure and spreading.

  29. tim prussic said,

    August 22, 2007 at 4:13 pm

    Mr. T,

    1) You may be right; maybe I’ve confused those things. Seeing things in black and white is not problem of itself. Only finding/identifying problems ONLY on the FV side betrays an altered eye.

    2) You’re also right that heretics (heretix?!) don’t ever stand up and say, “Look at me, I’m denying cardinal doctrines! Road to Rome! Road to Rome!…” However, take note, I said that I’ve heard *affirmations* of the doctrine they’re accused of undermining, indeed, robust affirmations. Now, it’s possible that a man may believe X and unwittingly (or with knowledge) logically undermine X by holding Y. However, I don’t think this is the case with the FV that I’ve read.
    Touching Pastor Wilkins: that quote is unhappy in that it’s potentially misleading and (I suppose) intended to be a shocker. The only a REAL problem, I think, is if “really and truly elect” means decretally elect – in which case it’s REALLY heterodox. But see, I am pretty sure I know what Wilkins is after there. If I’m right about what he’s after, there’s no way that statement can be used to show that he’s undermining sola fide or Dort. I would caution him to use less bombastic/confusing language, sure. But that’s quite different from supposed Armianism.

    Pastor Lane, how were the men on the SJC chosen? Is it a different process from the study group? That’s a serious question, too.

    -Mr. P

  30. greenbaggins said,

    August 22, 2007 at 4:37 pm

    The men of the SJC are nominated by the administrative committee, I believe. However, nominations are also open on the floor of GA. There are always at least two nominees. These are voted on by the entire GA. Furthermore, these men have terms that expire. So, there is ample opportunity to change the makeup of this vital commission. There are 24 members of the SJC, I believe, 12 TE’s and 12 RE’s. No two members can come from the same presbytery.

  31. tim prussic said,

    August 22, 2007 at 4:48 pm

    danke.

  32. Mark T. said,

    August 22, 2007 at 5:45 pm

    Lane,

    Thanks for the correction. Accordingly, Douglas Wilson charged the entire GA of the PCA with corruption when asserted that they stacked the ad hoc committee. He’s a very brave man to make such sweeping assertions on his blog, especially since his hand-made confederation, which is overseen by defrockees, excommunicants, church-splitters, and other rejects, insulates him from accountability.

    But I wonder why Wilson’s ungodly behavior doesn’t make Stewart’s fur stand up? I wonder why he doesn’t demand “the judgment of charity” after Wilson slurs the PCA’s GA?

  33. james raisch said,

    August 22, 2007 at 5:56 pm

    Mark T., the fvers, as latter day judaizers, are waiting for the umim and thummim to reveal to them how to respond to the charges made by true tradition P&R folks against one of their own.

  34. tim prussic said,

    August 22, 2007 at 6:20 pm

    Mr. T.,
    You’ve offered us all an excellent example what what I’ve been laboring on this thread – the anti-FV double standard. Pastor Wilson charges the PCA with corruption and that, Mr. T. says, is “ungodly behavior.” Then he turns around and says that the CREC “is overseen by defrockees, excommunicants, church-splitters, and other rejects, insulates him from accountability.”
    What gives, Mr. T.? Is it ungodly behavior for Pastor Wilson but not for you?

  35. Grover Gunn said,

    August 22, 2007 at 6:35 pm

    Each presbytery has a right to nominate two elders as nominees to the General Assembly Standing Judicial Commission each year. These nominations all go to the GA nominating committee. Each presbytery can elect an elder to serve on the GA nominating committee for a three year term. The GA nominating committee chooses which of those nominations to the GA SJC submitted by the presbyteries to nominate for vacancies on the GA SJC, including the new class elected each year. The GA nominating committee presents their nominations to the General Assembly. At General Assembly, commissioners can make nominations from the floor. The General Assembly thus elects the members of the GA SJC.

  36. Mark T. said,

    August 22, 2007 at 7:32 pm

    Tim,

    Fair question; please consider my answer.

    On the one hand, Wilson charged the PCA with stacking their committee, and he did this free of evidence and free from accountability. Even worse, he didn’t so much as charge the PCA as he asserted it outright as though it was a historical fact, clearly documented, recognized by all, and he encouraged all of his toadies to cast insults at the PCA, most likely because he seeks to advance the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.

    On the other hand, I have chosen my words carefully to make sure that I did not overstate my position and to make sure that I could support each statement with hard evidence. In fact, the CREC is “overseen by defrockees, excommunicants, church-splitters, and other rejects,” and I would be happy to give you each of their names as well as the substantiating evidence. However, I do not think that Green Baggins is the appropriate forum to air the CREC’s dirty laundry, one piece of stinky underwear at a time; so feel free to contact me if you’re interested.

    Tim, everything is connected in this controversy, including the scandals that surround the men who protect Wilson. Don’t kid yourself otherwise. For the most part, the CREC is a gathering of ministerial outcasts and burnt-out theonomists who look more like the Oakland Raiders than a body of divines, which explains their reprehensible behavior. Many of the CREC’s leading names were put out by their churches or denominations for failing to keep their ordination vows, which is ironic now that they tout “covenant keeping” et al. These men have an obvious agenda and they have no shame when it comes to advancing it. Splitting a church means nothing to them, just ask Andrew Sandlin.

    This controversy is not an accident or a freak of providence. It is a well-planned attack on the peace and purity of the Reformed church by one denomination. Count the number of CREC names on the “Joint Statement” and tell me if I’m wrong. Then identify in your mind the one man who keeps tarnishing the landscape with his deceitful, poisonous rhetoric and ask yourself, “If he wasn’t around to frame the debate, spin the answer, or tell us what someone really meant, how long would his sycophants last?”

    They would give up and disappear in the blink of an eye, just as this controversy would.

  37. james raisch said,

    August 22, 2007 at 8:22 pm

    Mark T., now that you have mentioned dirty underwear in post #36, here is a little somethin’, somethin’.
    The shamelessness of federal visionists and federal visionist sympathizers and tolerators in their defense of the system of illogic that is federal visionism reminds me of a skit done on the television show, saturday night live, of a British House of Commons session. One of the male House of Commons members gets up to speak and out come the words ‘I like to wear womens underwear’. Of course, it was spoken with all due seriousness and all the other members in the House of Commons never cracked a smile, much less laughed. For the logically challenged (fvers) the man who confessed he like to wear womens underwear is the fver and the rest of the house of commons who reacted as if the man was engaging in an appropriate discussion in the Commons represents the fv sympathizers and tolerators.

  38. tim prussic said,

    August 23, 2007 at 12:20 am

    So… best I can tell, Mr. T., your answer (#36) is naked self justification. I find it interesting that you can’t even mention Pastor Wilson without slandering him. It’s all quite disappointing. I think I have better things to do tonight.


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 327 other followers

%d bloggers like this: