I was given this analogy by someone who wishes to remain anonymous. He thought that since Wilson loves analogies, he might try this one on for size:
The Louisiana Presbytery’s exoneration of Steve Wilkins is like the Arizona Republican party exonerating John McCain.
It is to be expected that the Louisiana Presbytery will exonerate one of their own; the presbytery now has a majority of FV proponents to support their voting and Wilkins is the epicenter of that presbytery. And if LA presbytery protests that they are simply playing by the democratic rules, I remember what one person has said about the definition of a true democracy: it’s two wolves and a sheep deciding what’s for lunch.
David Gadbois
greenbaggins
paigebritton
Reed Here
reformedmusings
rfwhite
Ron Henzel
Green Baggins 
Stefan said,
August 24, 2007 at 2:46 pm
This seems a little harsh – shouldn’t we simply accept the decision of a presbytery?
greenbaggins said,
August 24, 2007 at 2:51 pm
Because the denomination has passed the report, the field looks different. Secondly, the presbytery is quite simply not the final court of appeal, the SJC is. This has needed to get to the SJC for ages now. Thirdly, about a third of the LP voted against the exoneration. Fourthly, other presbyteries have challenged the LP’s ruling. The only place this can be settled once and for all is the SJC.
tim prussic said,
August 24, 2007 at 3:24 pm
So, Pastor Lane, was the presbyterial work of the LP bad? If not, how is it that a higher court can reach down and make an issue of what was settled in a lower court? Or was an appeal made up to the GA (SJC)?
I don’t know much of what’s gone on in the PCS on this, but I’m interested in learning.
Thanks!
Matthew Paul Buccheri said,
August 24, 2007 at 3:52 pm
Lane,
There seem to be some smart cookies questioning your logic. Moreover, the analogy you speak of can aptly apply to the denomination as a whole. And some might say that the term “wolves” is an appropriate term for anti-FVers.
greenbaggins said,
August 24, 2007 at 5:23 pm
I count one, Matt. Where’s the plural cookies? Of course, you would have to include yourself in order for there to be plural. ;-) Stefan hardly gave any kind of substantive objection. What the analogy is saying is that the Presbytery is a sort of good old boys club. But heretics should not think that they can hide behind that. And I don’t think “wolves” is in any way, shape or form applicable to the anti-FV’ers.
Tim, the questions they gave Steve Wilkins certainly got his views out into the open. I am still amazed that they let him slide through. I can almost guarantee that he will not slide through the SJC.
Gene Franklin said,
August 24, 2007 at 5:40 pm
Lane, will something have to be done about all those miscreants that let Wilkins slide in the LP?
tim prussic said,
August 24, 2007 at 6:12 pm
Pastor, if you’d be so kind, would you answer the questions in post three? The reason I ask them is that I honestly don’t know. Being on the outside of the PCA, there’s a good deal I don’t know (nadere reformatie, included!).
Matt Beatty said,
August 24, 2007 at 6:15 pm
Lane,
Wilson’s point (on HIS blog) is an excellent one, I think. If the SJC allows Wilkins to “slide through,” are you willing to not merely abide the results, all the while fuming on and off your blog, but to cease and desist, extend the right hand of fellowship, and call Wilkins a brother, invite him to your pulpit (were he in the Dakotas…) and so on?
In calling the Louisiana presbytery an “old boys’ club,” do you really understand what you’re doing? Do you see just how perjorative that is? And what about the presbytery (forgive me – I do not know the name…) in St. Louis that admitted Rev. Horne and maintains Rev. Myers’ credentials. Are they, too, guilty of what you charge? Will charges against your “brothers” who don’t believe these men to be heretics, Arminians, future converts to Rome, etc. be forthcoming, or will your interest in such things evaporate once Wilkins is swinging from the noose?
Matt Beatty said,
August 24, 2007 at 6:22 pm
Oh, and you gotta love the “from someone who wishes to remain anonymous” business. Should a man who wishes to discuss his fellow brothers’ (elders, even) theology, life, practice, etc. from the comfortable shadows of anonymity be given the time of day? And what should we say to those who “not only do these things, but approve of them?”
Lane, thanks for making a quasi-reasonable attempt at “talking” with FV folks (Wilson, in particular). But as one who was and still is attempting to patiently sift through all of these things, your cheeky skepticism and assumption of wrong-doing on others’ part is, well, tiresome. Go back to caring for the sheep in your parishes. If they’re like most PCA sheep in my 10+ years in the PCA/OPC, they need far more than their shepherd is giving them.
james raisch said,
August 24, 2007 at 6:48 pm
Matt Beatty, if what the sheep in the PCA are getting in their local church is the system of illogic called federal visionism then they have been poisoned with doctrines of death. It is unacceptable to allow the abuse of the sheep at the hands of uncalled for ministers. Remove the poison, federal visionism, from the PCA.
james raisch said,
August 24, 2007 at 7:17 pm
Matt Beatty, I recommend daily intake of multivitamins for your tiresomeness. Go back to caring for yourself and I believe you will find a renewed interest in and untiring energy for all things true and good (whatever is of Jesus).
james raisch said,
August 24, 2007 at 7:22 pm
Matt Beatty, I hope you were not so tired from posting two simplistic posts that you simply collapsed once your task was completed. When you return to your senses, please enjoy my posts #10 and #11 as they will certainly perk you up even w/o multivitamins. Cheers, and once again, federal visionism is a system of illogic.
Robert K. said,
August 24, 2007 at 8:23 pm
Father in heaven, I ask you in the name of your Son, Jesus Christ, by the power of the Holy Spirit, to mark further – more and more – these current false teachers attempting to defile your truth as revealed in your revelation, the Word of God. Mark them, Father in heaven, tag them like you tagged the muslims with those moons on their flags and mosques because they worship a 7th century tribal false idol moon god. Mark this current crop of shameless and poisonous false teachers calling themselves Federal Vision and New Perspective on Paul and Auburn Avenue and Shepherdites. Force them to carry their mark on themselves as unknowingly as the heretic muslims carry their moon mark. You first had them mark themselves with their bragging of their drinking of alcohol, then with their calling of themselves ‘vision.’
Isaiah 28:7 But they also have erred through wine, and through strong drink are out of the way; the priest and the prophet have erred through strong drink, they are swallowed up of wine, they are out of the way through strong drink; they err in vision, they stumble in judgment.
Father in heaven I thank you that through the sacrifice of your Son and the giving of the Holy Spirit you have enabled me to see your truth in your Word and saved me from the bondage and darkness and death of those with the drunken ways and poisonous ‘visions’…amen.
Robert K. said,
August 24, 2007 at 8:34 pm
If you wonder at the motivation of false teachers with their lies and seeming willful joining of themselves to the devil here it is:
Isaiah 28:15 Because ye have said, We have made a covenant with death, and with hell are we at agreement; when the overflowing scourge shall pass through, it shall not come unto us: for we have made lies our refuge, and under falsehood have we hid ourselves:
They actually think their lies and falsehood will shelter and protect them from God’s vengeance. They think hell and the devil can actually protect them. Sin is irrational to the core. It is also really stupid.
Matt Beatty said,
August 24, 2007 at 8:42 pm
James,
First, did the notion that I was not yet committed to “federal visionism” make any impact on you at all? Let’s assume, for the sake of the argument, that I’m precisely the rube you believe that I am. I’m looking at the FV and thinking, “Maybe. Yeah, maybe.” Do you think that your insults drive me TOWARD or AWAY FROM the alleged heresy? Really. Or do you not really care about me and my eternal salvation, but merely desire to win the argument and win it now. Its not difficult to see why many find Reformed folk so impossible to like – they’re merely repaying the favor. Reformed folk don’t like non-Reformed.
Second, what wearies me are know-it-alls who, in spite of affirming total depravity with their lips, believe that they have long-ago outgrown such doctrines personally.
Third, experiences in three different PCA churches have left me thoroughly dissatisfied with what constitutes “pastoral care” in most churches where occupational credentials and cronyism seem to be more valued in elder selection than real shepherding skills or desires. Even if what you say about the FV could be proven true (and it can’t, in my opinion), I could reproduce example after example of men ruling and teaching in the PCA and OPC whose personal and professional lives are “tolerated” because no one has enough courage (or love) to humbly, gently, but firmly say, “You’re not called to this, brother.”
Finally, James, perhaps you’d care to actually interact with the points I make in my two “simplistic” posts? What are your thoughts about them?
Terry W. West said,
August 24, 2007 at 9:06 pm
Robert K,
1John 4:20-21, If anyone says, “I love God,” and hates his brother, he is a liar; for he who does not love his brother whom he has seen cannot love God whom he has not seen. And this commandment we have from him: whoever loves God must also love his brother.
Gene Franklin said,
August 24, 2007 at 9:08 pm
Whoa, dude.
Robert K. said,
August 24, 2007 at 9:40 pm
>”1John 4:20-21, If anyone says, “I love God,” and hates his brother, he is a liar; for he who does not love his brother whom he has seen cannot love God whom he has not seen. And this commandment we have from him: whoever loves God must also love his brother.”
Mat 12:48 …and who are my brethren?
Mat 12:49 And he stretched forth his hand toward his disciples, and said, Behold my mother and my brethren!
Mat 12:50 For whosoever shall do the will of my Father which is in heaven, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother.
Mat 7:15 Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.
David Gilleran said,
August 24, 2007 at 9:44 pm
Lane, with respect to your first point. A presbytery within the PCA is free to accept, reject or modify any Ad -Interim report in terms of her practice or examination of men for the ministry.. It should be given due weight and consideration but in the end it is has I often heard others in the PCA say, ” it is only pious advice or it is only the mind of this GA “. For example one PCA presbytery will only accept men within her bounds that are 24/6 creationists no matter what the Ad-Interim committee on Creation said and what GA approved.
reformedmusings said,
August 24, 2007 at 10:40 pm
Matt, RE: #8, etc.
So, you don’t like the analogy that Lane relayed but it’s quite acceptable for DW to extend his popeship beyond the CREC to cover the PCA and its judicial processes? FVers decry when folks characterize the CREC less then favorably, but trashing the PCA and OPC is just fine? It doesn’t really matter what DW says or thinks relative to the PCA since he’s not a member thereof. Those of us who ARE officers in the PCA or OPC and do have responsibility for the votes we cast and decisions we make in the courts therein really don’t need any outside help.
What I read in DW’s post is that the only authority he respects is his own. I also read in that post the same old FV Jeremiah complex where the poor persecuted FV folks are the lonely voices in the wilderness and the uniform ecclesiastical judgments of the top courts of seven major Reformed denominations declaring FV as error will become like chaff in the winds of eternity. Only the pope of the CREC will be left standing with his FV friends in the great theonomic empire. Remind me again who gets the glory?
Dave H said,
August 24, 2007 at 10:56 pm
#13
Not an accusation, but an observation perhaps worthy of consideration:
“And when you pray, you must not be like the hypocrites. For they love to stand and pray in the synagogues and at the street corners, that they may be seen by others. Truly, I say to you, they have received their reward.” Matt 6:5
Robert K. said,
August 24, 2007 at 11:22 pm
>>”#13 Not an accusation, but an observation perhaps worthy of consideration:
“And when you pray, you must not be like the hypocrites. For they love to stand and pray in the synagogues and at the street corners, that they may be seen by others. Truly, I say to you, they have received their reward.” Matt 6:5″
1Ti 2:8 I will therefore that men pray every where, lifting up holy hands, without wrath and doubting.
G.L.W.Johnson said,
August 25, 2007 at 6:36 am
Lane
You will remember that the FV folk were playing this same tune before the GA this year, in fact one of their number ( I don’t remember just who it was) posted a comment on this blog asking what are you going to do if the GA rejects the report? Will you crawl back under your rock and leave these FV brethren alone? And of course there were people running around saying that the polling data as seen over at the ‘Reformed News’ service showed conclusively that support for the Study Report was definitely lagging. Why, some brave soul proclaimed that there were as many as 85 PCA churches who were solidly pro FV ,with the not so subtle suggestion (threat?)that these churches would not sit pat if the report was adopt. With all this bluster and the wide spread circulation of public letters from ‘concerned’ PCA pastors about how unfairly stacked the committee was and how the report lacked exegetical substance and relied too much on the Westminster Standards, why surely this thing, this monstrosity deserves nothing but our contempt! The impression was that the Federal Vision PR machine appeared to have taken the field-until the vote that is. And what did the final tally show? That support for the FV in the denomination was barely a ripple on the radar. This most recent attempt by DW to impose his will on those outside his domain has all the ear marks of the previous spin efforts. So be of good cheer ,this too will end up like all the others.
Matt Beatty said,
August 25, 2007 at 7:39 am
RM (#19),
You’ll understand if I don’t accord the PCA/OPC the “voice of Christendom” status that some within them desire for themselves. One of my points which apparently hasn’t made any impact on anyone is that merely to ask questions of folks, as a late-comer to all of this, is to be “branded” a no-good sympathizer. Are you telling me that PCA/OPC folks don’t watch other denoms, speak about them when they make, what is in their judgment, a colossal mistake, and stand aghast when otherwise reasonable and good men don’t do what they should? Why should Doug be silent when many PCA/OPC folks have taken him to task publicly (without any attempt at private communication or a public debate with some accountability), implying that he and the Moscow gang are “whores?” Does this pass muster with you, RM? Apparently it does.
Yes, I find the “old boys club” language problematic WHOEVER uses it. Show me examples of Wilson doing it and I’ll condemn that, too. When a given church court refuse to discipline someone for something, why is it immediately assumed that it is an “old boys club?” Why can’t it just be that the Louisiana Presbytery (or St. Louis, or NW…) just doesn’t see the issue like you do? When Keller’s more progressive NY presbytery does things that the TR hawks find appalling, why can’t it just be that the see the issues/lines differently with no motive ascribed? Call foul if you need to, but don’t accuse me of duplicity.
Mark T. said,
August 25, 2007 at 8:52 am
Doug Wilson writes,
Well, the broader catholic Church has begun judging FV and the early returns say that they have found it wanting, except, of course, in the CREC. And if the last five years of church history are any measure, then FV is nearing the end of its 15 minutes. And regarding the throne of Christ at the Last Day, Scripture has foretold the end of false teachers (such as Wilson).
Wilson continues,
I have to admit that this one almost made me choke on my Cheerios. First, a man who regularly confuses his “confederation” with a “presbytery” is in no position to lecture anyone about “unpresbyterian entities.”
Second, Wilson has probably forgotten Patrick Poole’s interesting comment here, where he noted that according to the Christ Church (Moscow) minutes, Douglas Wilson and his fellow elders agreed to bring Burke Shade into the CREC, while he was on trial in the PCA’s Illiana Presbytery, before they reached their verdict. Illiana declared Shade guilty and defrocked him pursuant to “presbyterian polity,” which moved Wilson and his fellow misfits in that “unpresbyterian entity” the CREC to embrace him as one of their own, presumably because of their profound regard for “historic presbyterian polity.”
Given these facts, Wilson is the last man on earth who should lecture anyone about “presbyterian polity.” Indeed, if he wanted to be honest, he would rename his denomination the Confederation of Doug’s Good ol’ Boys (where “Reformed” is not enough).
Jon Swerens said,
August 25, 2007 at 8:57 am
In what way is Doug Wilson pope of the CREC? Can we call R.C. the pope of the PCA, or does that kind of charge only stick one direction?
What I don’t understand is why the PCA GA doesn’t bring up charges against the Miss. Pres. in open court. What’s with this SJC and, honestly, why biblical should I listen to it? When did they become the oligarchy of the PCA? Was I asleep when that happened?
Honest questions from an honest presbyterian.
greenbaggins said,
August 25, 2007 at 9:34 am
The SJC became the high court of the PCA when there were so many court cases coming before GA that it was swamping the schedule, and one week was not sufficient. Furthermore, there were several issues, such as precedent, and knowledge of judicial procedure that were unfamiliar to a great many delegates. Therefore, the GA itself voted to give judicial power to the SJC, which **is** subject to the review of GA, by the way. Furthermore, the membership of the SJC is subject to the vote of GA as well. There are plenty of checks and balances in place. The SJC cannot have on it any two members from one presbytery. Every member has to come from a different presbytery.
Secondly, the SJC does not legislate from the bench. Only the GA (and that is in turn checked by the Presbyteries, who also have to approve any rule changes to the BCO or WS) can legislate. So it is far from an oligarchy. It is a selection of men who are qualified to handle judicial matters. You should listen to them, because they are the ultimate example of the principle given to us in 1 Corinthians 6:1-11.
Jon, why would the PCA GA bring charges against the MVP? This is just bizarre. The study committee report vindicated the MVP report, and agrees with it in everything that’s important.
Douglas Wilson said,
August 25, 2007 at 9:48 am
RobertK and Mark T, please keep it up. The ease with which you over-egg your pudding, overstate your case, and overstay your welcome at the blog of a Christian gentlemen, is a real boon to the FV. You might want to ride the brake just a little, though, lest people start to suspect that I (whose hell-blackened soul knows no limit when it comes to perfidy) have hired you two Initials for Christ as some kind of false-flag operation. You know, to make all FV critics look like churls, which they are certainly not.
reformedmusings said,
August 25, 2007 at 9:57 am
RE #25
Mark,
Don’t forget R.C. Sproul, Jr,. who was defrocked by the RPCGA for cause and then accepted into the CREC without examination by his good friend DW’s influence (see here). The rest of R.C. Jrs. Session was also defrocked, but they had to be examined. Undermining the godly and orderly discipline of other denominations seems to be a hobby of the CREC.
Dave H said,
August 25, 2007 at 10:06 am
#22
“Even a fool who keeps silent is considered wise;
when he closes his lips, he is deemed intelligent.” Proverbs 17:28
II Caucasions 6:66
RobertK, thou shouldst consider giving it a rest.
Ken Christian said,
August 25, 2007 at 10:12 am
Every time I see “reformedmusings” post, I think to myself, “See, there is no way the PCA study committee was stacked against the FV from the get-go. Who would ever DREAM of such a thing?” Unbelievable.
reformedmusings said,
August 25, 2007 at 10:30 am
RE#24
Matt,
Are you telling me that PCA/OPC folks don’t watch other denoms, speak about them when they make, what is in their judgment, a colossal mistake, and stand aghast when otherwise reasonable and good men don’t do what they should?
No, what I’m saying is that when the PCA takes a stand contrary to another denomination, it does so with the voice of the GA through a formal process, not on Internet blogs. An example would be concurring with the rest of NAPARC to sever the EPC from that body when the EPC started ordaining women.
Why should Doug be silent when many PCA/OPC folks have taken him to task publicly (without any attempt at private communication or a public debate with some accountability),
Everyone is entitled to their opinion in our free country, but folks who lead charismatically and unaccountably have a special obligation and responsibility to be carefully measured in their discourse and pronouncements. That’s just a basic tenet of leadership. Spiritual leadership does not consist of throwing one’s influence around the blogosphere and through wholly-owned publishing houses. This point seems particularly lost on the leaders of FV. The freedom side of this is highly touted, but the responsibility side seems to have been missed almost entirely. There are orderly and formal ways to change or amend the Standards, but I haven’t seen a single FV church officer in the seven orthodox Reformed denominations who have condemned FV have the courage to take that route.
reformedmusings said,
August 25, 2007 at 10:40 am
RE #31
Ken,
You should do you homework. If you’d read my blog posts on this subject, you’d know that I came to these conclusions as a result of my studies over the last year or so. A quote from my blog:
READ THIS CAREFULLY: For the record, I was not well-read on Federal Vision before working on the committee. I had read only the Mississippi Valley report, about half of the Knox Colloquium compendium presenting both side of the debate, and the Auburn Avenue Session statements online at that time. That’s it, folks. Also for the record, I had heard Wilson speak in the past at a Ligonier conference and had found others of his writings helpful in other areas.
Others have also addressed this red herring on their blogs. Is it so hard for FVers to conceive that one could read and study FV and NOT come out agreeing with it, perhaps even being appalled by it? It isn’t rocket science. Apparently it is easier to write off the 95-98% vote of the PCA GA by repeating pointless and baseless mantras.
Mark T. said,
August 25, 2007 at 10:51 am
Reformed Musings,
Dennis Tuuri is another renegade welcomed into the CREC while his church accused him of “abusing the flock.” I’m sure they brought him in because of their deep regard for historic presbyterian polity and their love for God’s sheep.
Mark T. said,
August 25, 2007 at 10:52 am
Wilson,
Please reread this comment that you wrote while on one of your unity-of-the-Spirit mood swings and tell us why a Christian gentleman would suffer you to visit his blog.
Once again I encourage you to join the rest of us live in the real world, as opposed to that alternative universe called DUMB (Doug’s Universe of Make Believe), where eggs and pudding answer for your corrupt church government.
Thank you.
Ken Christian said,
August 25, 2007 at 11:02 am
Reformedmusings – Can you honestly say that you came to the committee with nothing but neutral feelings towards the FV and some semi-positive feelings towards Doug Wilson? I just don’t see how you could’ve so quickly gone from THAT state to where you are now. Perhaps you could shed some light on this transition for us.
james raisch said,
August 25, 2007 at 11:05 am
CREC (Confederation of Rotten Eggs & Ceorls).
Ken Christian said,
August 25, 2007 at 11:07 am
I’m personally a bit tired of this pointless mantra: “95-98% vote of the PCA GA.”
Majorities have erred in the past, let’s not forget that gentlemen. And let’s also not also forget that what was “condemned” by that Report was nothing that any TE/RE would in the PCA would own as something they actually believed.
Ken Christian said,
August 25, 2007 at 11:09 am
One more thing for Reformedmusings – How many PCA TE’s/RE’s named in the report were contacted in order to be certain that their views were being most accurately portreyed? And where was the explanation for the Wilson quote snafu that Lane promised us?
Ken Christian said,
August 25, 2007 at 11:11 am
Ref post 38: The first “would” in the last sentence of the second paragraph should not be there. My apologies for the typo. Although I’m sure it will happen again. :)
james raisch said,
August 25, 2007 at 11:12 am
All Reformed Musings needed was 1/1000th of a brain to come to the conclusion that federal visionism is a false system of theology. BTW, umim and thummim must have had a lot to say overnight as the mewling of the gnostic wizards of the emasculated bunch (federal visionists) is alot today.
Ken Christian said,
August 25, 2007 at 11:16 am
Raish, Are you saying that Reformed Musings only has 1/1000th of a brain? That seems a bit harsh.
Kidding of course, gentlemen. Just trying to light the mood a tad…for myself as well.
james raisch said,
August 25, 2007 at 11:38 am
Is this an analogy, the teaching of justification by faith alone equals the Cheesecake Factory and the teachings of federal visionisms equals victoria’s secret? I went to the mall earlier today and going in to my left was the chesecake factory, to my right was victoria’s secret and directly in front of me was the store The Limited. The Limited represents Limited Atonement. Even though federal visionisms is illogical and therefore false, the belief in it cannot affect the election/salvation of a person. Some seem to imagine that one can be elect and saved, then be exposed to and believe in federal visionisms, after which (becoming federal visionists) they lose? their salvation/election. It is not possible for one to lose their election/salvation, regardless of what they believe.
Robert K. said,
August 25, 2007 at 11:39 am
>>#22 “Even a fool who keeps silent is considered wise;
when he closes his lips, he is deemed intelligent.” Proverbs 17:28
II Caucasions 6:66
RobertK, thou shouldst consider giving it a rest.
You’re new at quoting Scripture in a self-serving manner I can see…
Robert K. said,
August 25, 2007 at 11:44 am
Tactically it’s more effective to do it when you’ve been lobbed one in your direction.
greenbaggins said,
August 25, 2007 at 11:51 am
Ken, it was explained on one of DW’s posts a while back. There I posted the explanation that was given to me. Rather than make you go and hunt for it there, though, I will post it again here.
The quotation was from a footnote that originally had been too large. The contributor was asked to shorten the footnote. Unfortunately, in doing so, he eliminated the context that was necessary for understanding the quotation. That was an honest error, therefore, that was not caught until Wilson pointed it out. Fortunately, the committee was able to correct the problem.
Mark T. said,
August 25, 2007 at 12:24 pm
Here’s an analogy for all future Federal Visionists to consider before they hitch their wagons to Doug Wilson’s rapidly falling star: The Louisiana Presbytery’s exoneration of Steve Wilkins is like the CREC sanctioning Doug Wilson’s sinful interference at Church of the King – Santa Cruz, which resulted in a church split because he had an ax to grind with Andrew Sandlin.
Okay, that’s a bad analogy so let’s try another one. The Louisiana Presbytery’s exoneration of Steve Wilkins is like the CREC’s doctrinal examination of Doug Wilson, with one exception: If the CREC had declared his doctrine false, they would have had no authority to discipline him because they are a confederation and not a presbytery.
Thank you.
Ken Christian said,
August 25, 2007 at 12:29 pm
Thanks, Lane (although I’m still not at all clear about what happened). I must have misunderstood you a few months ago. I thought you had said the committee itself was going to provide us all with an explanation at GA.
greenbaggins said,
August 25, 2007 at 12:42 pm
Well, Ken, I thought they were, too. But then they didn’t clarify it. They must have changed their minds. Nevertheless, 46 is what happened.
Mark T. said,
August 25, 2007 at 12:49 pm
Ken Christian asks,
Since you’re new to this thread I will repeat a point that Doug Wilson made for us here and here: Some of the Federal Visionists don’t believe (or understand) what they say and consequently they need Doug Wilson to interpret their words for us.
Thank you.
Douglas Wilson said,
August 25, 2007 at 1:15 pm
Mark T, I went back and read my earlier comment as you suggested. Here it is again, for easy reference:
“Should be easy then to shut me up, humiliate me, and send me packing. And all on video tape that Escondido has the right to distribute at will. Why won’t anybody do it? If FV is the threat you say, either they can’t do it, and are therefore not qualified to be shepherds, or they won’t do it, and they are cowards. Or it is not the threat you say, and the reasons for the controversy lie elsewhere.
Disapproving of wolves on shepherd listserves is not what the Bible requires in situations that you say this is. Is it?”
Hard hitting? Yes. Right in the solar plexus? Yep. Above the belt? That too. And may I point out that whenever I raise this point of my willingness to debate any approved representative of the FV critics, anywhere, and at any time, all we hear are the crickets chirruping?
greenbaggins said,
August 25, 2007 at 1:25 pm
DW, is what we’re doing debating? I hope it isn’t just shooting the breeze, because if it is, then I am spending way too much time on it. :-) Chirrup
Secondly, the proper way to deal with the FV is in the church courts. Wilkins has his day in court in October.
Thirdly, you are not under any jurisdiction except the CREC; either of WSC, any church in NAPARC, or anything else.
Fourthly, many do not consider you an out and out heretic (I am one of them). So no, the situation does not call for that. I also do not view you as spokesman for the FV. Your theology is very different from almost all the other FV advocates. For these good reasons, what you suggest has not happened. If someone else thinks differently, then they need to pursue the avenues open to them, which are few. What do you answer to numbers 29 and 34?
Dean said,
August 25, 2007 at 1:31 pm
Ken
Let me share my personal experience of the FV.
For about 3 years I heard about the FV. I knew something was happening but did not spend the time to study. About nine months ago I started reading the information for myself.
My first reaction was that the TR were getting all worked up about nothing. They created straw men and were clearly succeeding in destroying the straw men they created. However, the FV guys were saying that is great you guys can destroy straw men, but that is not what we said or meant.
For about six months I tended to think the FV was more or less one big misunderstanding.
In the last three months I stopped chasing rabbit trails and focused on the real issue. When all the smoke and mirrors disappear there is really one BIG unanswered question.
What is meant by covenantal justification? Justification is a forensic declaration of righteousness based on the forgiveness of sins and the imputation of the active and passive obedience of Jesus Christ.
Until they satisfactorily define in what sense every baptized members sins were forgiven, until they define in what sense every baptized members is imputed with the active and passive obedience of Jesus Christ, until they define in what sense a person on what basis a baptized member is forensically declared righteous they will continue to attract denominational condemnation.
It is sheer stupidity of trying to talk about covenantal justification for someone who was eternally destined for hell. On what basis can this justification be temporary? How or why did it start and how or why did it stop?
This covenantal justification invention is a complete mockery of the Reformed tradition. This invention does not merely address something the Confession do not address it contradicts the Confession and Scripture.
How FV arrive at this point is interesting and worthy of discussion. I disagree with some of it but can stomach quite a bit of what they say. At what exact point do they take a wrong turn I do not really know. I think it starts with a wrong view of the COW but I was taught the same position and I do not believe in a covenantal justification. They have a high view of baptism and they point out the WCF uses the word confer. In my opinion they go wrong when some believe confer is synonymous with imputation.
Does everyone in the FV believe that confer when it is used in the WCF is the same as imputation? Probably not. Do they all more or less agree with covenantal justification. Yes.
Until this contradiction, confusion, and stupidity is fixed on their part I will continue to believe it is contrary to the Confessions and Scripture and will appose it as such. I also believe when the fix covenantal justification they will also fix the second biggest problem which is covenantal election.
Dean
Ken Christian said,
August 25, 2007 at 1:43 pm
Dean,
Thanks for your honest interaction. I’m not actually THAT new to the board, I’ve just been silent for awhile.
I guess I’m simply not as troubled by this category that some FV teachers are calling “covenant justification”. From everything I’ve read from FV guys (which has been substantial), they go out of their way to say it’s NOT individual, decretal justificaton where one is counted as righteous fully and forever. They say clearly that kind of justification only belongs only to the decretally elect. The doctrine of the Reformation is still in tact and affirmed.
Admittedly, they seem to be more clear about what covenantal justification ISN’T than they are about what they think it IS. As far as I can tell, it’s a corporate category used to describe those who have been received, by baptism, into the visible church, the community of God’s righteous, forgiven people. Of course this all needs to be fleshed out and clarified way more than it has; but I am patient in waiting for them to do so. And I honestly think the rest of you should be too. Cheers.
james raisch said,
August 25, 2007 at 1:59 pm
Why would a gnostic wizard of the emasculated bunch (federal visionist) want to be in the PCA, OPC, BPC, EPC, URC, RPCNA, and the RCUS? A gnostic wizard of the emascualted bunch (federal visionist) being in these denominations is like a ringling bros. and Barnum and Bailey circus clown being employed by Wells Fargo or Chase Manhattan in an executive officer type position.
james raisch said,
August 25, 2007 at 2:06 pm
Referencing post #54
To patiently wait while hell’s breath (federal vision teachings) wafts over the parishioners as they sit in the pews of certain local congregations of the true tradition P&R denominations is a horrid idea. These gnostic wizards of the emasculated bunch (federal visionists) believe and speak nonsense (illogic).
David Gilleran said,
August 25, 2007 at 2:14 pm
Lane -LA Presbytery has its day in court in October not Steve Wilkins. The Central Carolina Memorial was to instruct LA Presbytery to examine TE Wilkins. They did and came to their decision. Now they must defend their decision before the SJC in October. The SJC can do several things. They can accept that fact LA Presbytery carried out the mandate of the Assembly. They can reject the findings of LA Presbytery and order another examination in light of the adoption of the Ad-Interim report. Because this was a memorial and not a trial, I am not sure how the right to appeal would play into it. Only those with a right to vote in the case have the right to appeal.
Mark T. said,
August 25, 2007 at 2:22 pm
Yes, Wilson, you have established that you are a very brave man. However, your Tarzan-like courage was not my point. My point was that, IMO, your “I’m king of the jungle and all of you are cowards” comment should have been enough for Lane to ban you from GB for life. And your most recent taunt underscores my point. He is indeed a Christian gentlemen.
Notwithstanding your bravery, let me remind you of two things. First, you closed this comment, which you wrote to tell us that Wilkins didn’t mean what he said, saying,
This leaves me with the distinct impression that Federal Vision is so incoherent and confusing that even you are not clear what the debate is over. At least that’s what you said. Maybe you didn’t mean it. Perhaps Steve Wilkins should pay us a visit to furnish an interpretation.
The second reminder I want to give you is my response to your very brave challenge, which by your account turned all men into chirruping crickets. I wrote:
Yes, you are a wolf and, no, this does not obligate anyone to debate you. They should “mark” you, which appears to be in process.
I agree with Robert that you act in a manner consistent with an ecclesiastical terrorist and I applaud everyone who ignores you because if anyone was foolish enough to debate this subject with you, they would merely encourage your sinful outbursts and lend credibility to you and your cause.
So, if it’s any consolation, keep telling yourself that you are a very brave man and that everyone who refuses to play your game is a coward. It adorns your doctrine quite well.
Thank you.
Ken Christian said,
August 25, 2007 at 2:30 pm
Lane, this board has become an occasion for many to stumble (that’s not your fault – but I do think it’s your responsibility to fix it). I think some comment restrictions of some kind are in order.
Ken Christian said,
August 25, 2007 at 2:33 pm
BTW – I am in no way exlcuding MYSELF from a need for such restrictions.
One suggestion: Allow comments to only address and critique arguements, not individuals.
greenbaggins said,
August 25, 2007 at 3:04 pm
Ken, I do police this blog by emailing people about certain issues. I prefer not to do that in public. I have made statements before about people sticking to the topic under consideration. Typically, I’ve found that FV advocates’ comments have almost nothing to do with the original post. I can’t even count the number of times I’ve pored over a post to make sure that it says what I want it to say, and then NO FV advocate addresses the substance of it. I guess they’re so used to reading the cracks of Scripture, that they cannot help doing so with what I write. It is always some peripheral issue that comes up. So, now that your assumption that I don’t police this blog is shown to be incorrect, how about your policing the FV statements on this blog to make sure that they deal with the substance of my post?
Ken Christian said,
August 25, 2007 at 3:32 pm
Lane, it’s YOUR blog. You police it yourself. If something is off topic, delete it. Can’t you set your blog so that you have to approve something before it even posts? This would slow things down, but it would do the trick of keeping posts about the topic at hand. And just maybe a person’s sinful remarks might be kept from seeing the light of day too. And just maybe that might cause some more of us to think before we type.
Robert K. said,
August 25, 2007 at 3:54 pm
>”Admittedly, they seem to be more clear about what covenantal justification ISN’T than they are about what they think it IS.”
It’s because they don’t want to say what it is. Because what it is is the ‘legal standing’ in the system of the Beast. The Beast’s system’s equivalent of the Pactum Salutis.
A Christian believer has legal status that stands on the Pactum Salutis (Covenant of Redemption). The Beast system and its ministers want you to have your legal standing rest on anything but the Pactum Salutis (which means they want your standing to rest on nothing). Because the devil has no power regarding the Pactum Salutis. If you find yourself held up in the devil’s country the devil can’t hold you. A higher law governs your legal status and what can and can’t be done with you.
Pactum Salutis = legal standing as a citizen of the Kingdom of God.
Covenantal Justification = nothing, and hence bondage to the Kingdom of Satan.
It’s Federal Vision’s ‘vision’ to erase decretal justification and hold everybody under their Satanic ‘covenantal justification’ which is what Rome has in its own way.
Practically speaking, as always, all this can be waved away by one’s hand as ‘too intellectual’ or ‘just words’ and so on, but when apostolic biblical doctrine is attacked like this by false teachers it is a battle being carried out in spiritual realms and on spiritual ground. It has tangible and practical manifestation in the lives of real people. They can’t ultimately keep a single one of God’s elect away from God’s truth and God Himself, but they can annoy God’s plan and stall for time and in the meantime create a lot of living hell for everybody. But even though the battle’s outcome is known that doesn’t take away our responsibility to defend the faith. Not just for us but for all those yet to come into the truth. Part of God’s plan is His elect defending the faith and exposing false teachings and false teachers.
Robert K. said,
August 25, 2007 at 3:58 pm
>”I guess they’re so used to reading the cracks of Scripture, that they cannot help doing so with what I write.”
Well put, and to them the “cracks” are “breaches” in a wall that when forced can be the entry to taking down the city.
But there are watchmen on those walls…
Dean said,
August 25, 2007 at 4:04 pm
TEST
Robert K. said,
August 25, 2007 at 4:13 pm
If you’re in a forest and you are confronted by some of Satan’s angels; you’ve got a sword (the Word of God), and you’ve got a shield (faith), in fact you’ve got the whole armour of God. But you’ve also got a King that rules and governs heaven and earth. And you’ve also got a legal standing in that King’s Kingdom; a wonderful thing called the Pactum Salutis. A covenant with eternal standing. Once the devil’s angels know you know this and claim it and stand on it they decide it is better not to confront you; but if they still do decide to confront you they’ll learn quckly that they can’t. Then, you look off into the distance and see a group of pilgrims who maybe don’t yet have the understanding of their standing with God that you have, and the devil’s angels are winging their way over to mess with them, so you go to their aid, because you can and you have a love for your fellow Christains as much as you love God…
greenbaggins said,
August 25, 2007 at 4:25 pm
Ken, I could set comments to do that, but I get well over 100 comments per day these days. I do not want to have to read all of them before they are approved. Instead, I email people.
Warning, though. If I took your advice and deleted all those FV comments which were off topic, there would be few FV comments left.
To all commenters, please post a valid email address with each and every comment.
Douglas Wilson said,
August 25, 2007 at 5:55 pm
Lane, thanks for the kind words about me not being a heretic. But I don’t think RobertK got the memo.
And as far as my leadership in the FV is concerned, the critics can’t have it both ways. Scott Clark thinks I am the spider in the middle of the web. The CREC is supposed to be the FV denomination, and so on. But if that is not the case, then what is with all the CREC-bashing, Wilson’s a pope, and so on? So which is it?
Robert K. said,
August 25, 2007 at 6:41 pm
“The ancient church father Irenaeus wrote in chapters three and four of the first and third books against Valentinus that the early Germans, who were Christians, plugged their ears whenever someone came along with a doctrine that was contrary to the Articles of Faith.” – Olevianus, A Firm Foundation
Mark T. said,
August 25, 2007 at 6:41 pm
I want to remind Wilson that the whole “Pope” thing began when Church of the King – Santa Cruz removed its membership from the CREC, after the CREC voted to sanction Wilson’s unconstitutional and unbiblical actions to the harm of Church of the King, who drafted an incredibly well-worded rebuke to its fellow confederates who, by their decision, chose subjection to a petty tyrant over constitutional rule.
So if Pope Doug doesn’t like being called “Pope,” then he shouldn’t let his denomination treat him like one. Until then, however, both the rebuke and the title fit — just like a miter.
Thank you.
Dean said,
August 25, 2007 at 6:45 pm
Ken
“From everything I’ve read from FV guys (which has been substantial), they go out of their way to say it’s NOT individual”
The question I have is how do I receive what I have corporately but do not have individually? Would would say that would be by faith and repentance. So the corporate faith I have is not saving faith.
My corporate saving faith that does not save me individually must not really be saving.
Temporally I was given saving faith that will work for my eternal damnation. WOW what a comforting thought. I have renewed trust (faith) in the Bible and the promises I find their. NOT!
This is not twenty questions where by logic we can determine what it is. If I am allowed to make up a new thing every time 20 questions would no longer be a game but a source of frustration.
Do you want to play? I am thinking of an android principle aficionado extrication human genome.
Even if gave you 1 million definitions of what it ISN”T you are not going to ever know what it IS. IT is completely made up.
What a great game if I get to think IT up. I can laugh and mock as you try to guess what IT is. Just for additional fun I will chance the rules and admit to a humiliating typo, and disown some of my 1 millions clues of what it ISN’T. That should keep the game going for another ? years.
Or denominations can declare after 20 questions you are making this stuff up. This is no longer by logic and this is not what the Bible or Confessions teach.
How much fun will this game for the inventor once everyone stops guessing and kicks them out of the house? Maybe they will create a new game for themselves to play. But this game is over for seven denominations and two seminaries.
Robert K. said,
August 25, 2007 at 6:56 pm
>>”This is not twenty questions where by logic we can determine what it is. If I am allowed to make up a new thing every time 20 questions would no longer be a game but a source of frustration.
Do you want to play? I am thinking of an android principle aficionado extrication human genome.
Even if gave you 1 million definitions of what it ISN”T you are not going to ever know what it IS. IT is completely made up.
What a great game if I get to think IT up. I can laugh and mock as you try to guess what IT is. Just for additional fun I will chance the rules and admit to a humiliating typo, and disown some of my 1 millions clues of what it ISN’T. That should keep the game going for another ? years. “<<
This is rather well, and uniquely, put, IMHO.
Robert K. said,
August 25, 2007 at 7:05 pm
[Adopting therapeutic counselor voice:] Doug? how do you feel about what Dean has said about you? Do you feel anger? because that’s OK. But maybe we can try to get beyond anger and really discuss this. Doug? [Doug is grinning again, not making eye contact, being aloof, bouncing the tennis ball they gave him.] OK, well Doug seems to not want to respond. “Oh, I’ll respond!” Yes, but now you are going to play off what I just said about you not wanting to respond and not respond directly to Dean and what he’s just said. This is your game you like to play, Doug, and we’re trying to get beyond it. What do you have to say to what Dean has just said? “Hey, I will debate anyone anytime! You said I don’t respond and here I am, responding. Debate? Anybody?” OK, Doug is not going to want to cooperate…
Keith Phillips said,
August 25, 2007 at 7:27 pm
This is my first time to comment here. I’m an ordinary layman in the PCA who has not yet placed a bet on any particular horse in the current race. However, I do have a few questions:
1) The original post said, “It is to be expected that the Louisiana Presbytery will exonerate one of their own.” So, my first question is — If such behavior really “is to be expected” of PCA presbyteries, why should I continue to believe that the presbyterian court system has any value?
2) The original post also said, “If LA presbytery protests that they are simply playing by the democratic rules, I remember what one person has said about the definition of a true democracy: it’s two wolves and a sheep deciding what’s for lunch.” So, my second question is — Is a PCA court the same thing as “true democracy,” and if it is (with the two wolves and all), is this presbyterian court system biblical?
3) In greenbaggins first comment/reply, he wrote, “About a third of the LP voted against the exoneration.” So, my third question is — When a corporate entity or a presbytery approves or dissapproves a motion, should the vote count/percentage really matter? The body has spoken according to the terms agreed upon prior to the proceedings. Is it not the responsibility of the “about a third” who “lost” to stand in unity with the two-thirds who “won”?
It seems to me that either (a) no one who was not a voting member of that court should know the ratio of the votes or (b) there should be a published “minority report” that spells out the minority’s views and indicates (i) how the minority will nevertheless stand with the majority or (ii) how the minority will appeal the matter to a higher court.
4) Reading through the comments here, I’ve been wondering — what’s the average age of the commentors?
Robert K. said,
August 25, 2007 at 7:35 pm
This is too serious, I’ll stop with the parodies and so forth.
I think an element in all this is a certain group of dilettante-ish theologians – going back to theonomy days – got off on the left foot thinking they knew more about Reformed Theology than the great tradition of Reformed theologians have given us collectively, and they never stopped that initial momentum and stepped off to the side to reassess.
Some will read the above paragraph and say “such an appeal to authority is sooo Roman Catholic, no?” No. Reformed Theology is based on the Word of God. That is good tradition. And the best authority for a Christian. The Word of God.
Another thing: these dilettante-ish theologians never knew that pretty much anything they could think up as a ‘problem’ with Reformed Theology either was not a problem or was worked through usually by the first or second generation of Calvinist/Reformed theologians. It’s not *just* that there’s nothing new under the sun, *or* that there is no new heresy, but Reformed Theology going back to the beginning impresses everyone who gets deeply into it with its self-critical culture and attitude and willingness to be corrected and to engage criticism and to debate and so on.
Look at the wonderful aspect of Reformed systematic theologies where they bring in every counter-argument or alternative view from every school or group that opposes them and make their case and basically say here is what we say, we hold that it is biblical, this is what they say, discern for yourself. No other school has such confidence as a matter of course.
Terry W. West said,
August 25, 2007 at 8:07 pm
Robert k,
We are thankful for your participation here on this blog, so that we may all get a view of someone who is such a fine example of our great Reformed Tradition. May we all seek to emulate you. I know that my list goes like this: the Apostle Paul, John Calvin, and then you, Robert K.
basking in the brilliance,
Terry W. West
Robert K. said,
August 25, 2007 at 8:12 pm
[Tears, as I sit in the Voetius Chair of the University of Utrecht] I thank you, kind sir. Are you one of the ones who call R. Scott Clark a serpent, though? because that would mitigate against the sincerity of your compliment seeing that I now sit among academic elite myself.
Douglas Wilson said,
August 25, 2007 at 11:31 pm
Dean, the corporate aspects of union with Christ are the objective aspects, shared by all who are baptized, faith or no faith. It is the process by which an individual is brought into the visible Church, which is salvation. The individual aspect of union with Christ is subjective, applied by the Holy Spirit to the elect individual by the objective means He has appointed, such as preaching of the Word, baptism, and so on, but ultimately by the instrument of sola fide. It is the process by which salvation is brought into the person, what we know as the effectual call. Answer your question?
Douglas Wilson said,
August 25, 2007 at 11:45 pm
And Lane, as a tactical matter, I really don’t mind that RobertK and MarkT are becoming leading spokesmen for the critics. Works well for us. But as one brother to another, even if you don’t require them to post their names when they launch personal attacks, it would be really wise if *you* knew who these gentlemen are. Some of the gunk is recycled and has a familiar smell — I think I know what sewage lagoon it is coming from. Over the last several years, a small cadre of smear trolls have done their work on RC. Sr., Jr., Doug Phillips, me, and assorted others. Anonymity is their necessary shield, slander their favorite weapon. Valiant for Truth they are not — more like ValT.
Robert K. said,
August 26, 2007 at 12:06 am
What is this? about the 78th pleading from the FVists to chill their critics? And what does Doug Wilson have in common with R. C. Sproul (not ‘Sr.’ just R. C. Sproul, the justly famous) or Doug Phillips who wrote one of the more well known articles exposing the false covenant teaching of the likes of Doug Wilson?
Yes, I know Doug wrote some things for a Sproul concern when he was still under the radar, but let’s recall the speech of R. C. at the latest gathering of Reformed Christians which wasn’t a collegial roast all in good fun…
Doug, by the way, why don’t you respond to Dean’s comment #71? It’s a rather on-the-mark description of you. Show some self-awareness, Doug, own up to it. Maybe to just a little eensy tiny degree?
Mark T. said,
August 26, 2007 at 12:09 am
Pope Doug laments the perceived use of anonymity, though he found stealth behavior very handy in the matter of the Church of the King – Santa Cruz, who wrote:
Yes, Wilson, you are a very brave man.
Dave H said,
August 26, 2007 at 12:15 am
Midnight here in the Midwest. Good night all. And RobertK, knowing your gift for harsh rhetoric perhaps borne of sleep depravity, please pursue a good restful night’s sleep, and a blessed (honest!) Lords Day worship service tomorrow. I noticed that last Sunday your posts continued (from Omaha Nebraska? Warsaw, Indiana? Who is Robert? Where is Robert?) at 12:15 am, 1:15 am, 1:37 am, 3:48 am, 8:46 am, 9:13 am, 9:23 am, 10:32 am. Impressive stamina. But please rest up tonight and don’t neglect Sabbath worship on account of the “wolves” on this site.
Good night.
Robert K. said,
August 26, 2007 at 12:18 am
Now that I’ve secured a professorial chair I’ll go into that sleepy “got it made” mode…
Dean said,
August 26, 2007 at 7:10 am
Pastor Wilson
“Dean, the corporate aspects of union with Christ are the objective aspects, shared by all who are baptized, faith or no faith. It is the process by which an individual is brought into the visible Church, which is salvation.”
When the LC defines the visible church it gives objective benefits, but ends with “testifying, that whosoever believes in him shall be saved, and excluding none that will come unto him.LC 63
What qualities of this “whosoever believes” type faith is different from the sola fide that ultimately brings individual salvation?
What qualities of this “unto him” type union with Christ is different with the union with Christ that comes through our effectual calling?
Or do you believe like I do that LC 63 does not talk about a whosoever believe that is different from sola fide? They have been called by the Word but this calling is separate from the effectual call that only only the elect in the WCF sense means. Since they have not been effectually called there is no union with Christ. They have NO SALVATION.
Pastorally what benefit objective benefit someone have from this salvation if it does not ultimately and eternally save?
Come unto me all you who labor and are heavy laden and I will give you a temporary rest for your soul so that you lulled into being satisfied in the temporal rest you objective possession but will only serve for eternal condemnation since your rest was not in me but in your objective state.
Do you understand why I still don’t understand?
I take this to mean that only through sola fide we have union with Christ which comes through our effectual call.
G.L.W.Johnson said,
August 26, 2007 at 7:48 am
DW, your repeated call for public debate is a sad example of your desperate need for attention and another opportunity for grandstanding. As I have stated more than once, here on Lane’s blog and elsewhere-you completely ignored me when I contacted you shortly after the Auburn Ave thing hit the fan.It wasn’t like I was some total stranger either. I had invited you to contribute to the book Fowler White and I edited,’Whatever Happened to the Reformation?’ Our Christian School was a charter member of the Assoc. of Classical Christian Schools that you helped to found. We had you and your wife Nancy down here to speak. And I wrote you as a friend. In fact you didn’t respond to my repeated attempts to get your attention until I informed your assistant,Mike Lawyer, that I was discontinuing my financial support for Credena/Agenda. You showed absolutely no interest in engaging my concerns about the FV, which is why, when you did publically challenge me to debate you I told you to go pound sand in a rabbit hole.
Dave H said,
August 26, 2007 at 9:07 am
Dear Pastor of Church of the Redeemer (GLWJ)
Blessed Lord’s Day! And thanks for preparing our hearts for worship this morning. Thanks for sharing your uplifting gift of encouragement, and may your flock be blessed, in spite of it on this Day. Perhaps you can postpone additional attacks (“go pound sand in a rabbit hole”?) until after you (and we) have communed in fellowship with the saints on this day we celebrate the risen Lord. After that… let’r rip, bro.
G.L.W.Johnson said,
August 26, 2007 at 9:26 am
Dave H
Why, thank you kind sir. Perhaps after your pilgrimage to the holy city of Moscow, ID to kiss the ring of your pope you would visit us here in Arizona ?
Mark T. said,
August 26, 2007 at 9:42 am
Dave H,
I appreciate this apparent attempt to take the high road, however, you seem oblivious to two points that I believe Gary assumed in his comment. First, the so-called minister whom Gary addressed in his greeting clearly longs for the limelight. How else can you explain his arrogant blusters to all the “cowards” who refuse to debate him? He wants glory, not truth. He wants to razzle and dazzle the masses with his rhetorical skills, to show the world his great debating techniques, but this has nothing to do with the truth. It has everything to do with Wilson. He loves to have the preeminence. So in a sense, Gary’s comment about Wilson reflects the mind of John, who wrote,
Second, and just like the apostle, Gary has called to Wilson’s mind his contemptible behavior:
Douglas Wilson is a disgrace; his conduct reprehensible. He is a schismatic, factious man who will stop at nothing to realize his personal glory. And if you don’t believe me, just ask another one of his former friends, Andrew Sandlin.
Dave H said,
August 26, 2007 at 9:49 am
Mark T and Pastor GLWJ
…and you, “kind sirs” apparently seem oblivious to my point as well:
HE IS RISEN. Blessed Lords Day to you both.
Pastor GLWJ, can I make my visit in January as I live in Chicago; and Arizona sounds real nice about that time of year.
G.L.W.Johnson said,
August 26, 2007 at 10:04 am
Dave H
Gee, I don’t know if it’s a good idea to make a pilgrimage from Chicago to Moscow, ID. at that time of the year (especially if you really want to show your ‘covenantal faithfulness ‘ and devotion to DW by going barefoot) and then to make your way down to Arizona-but if you do, I would suggest picking up a pair of shoes before you hit Arizona-lotta cholla, gotta watch out for cholla when you are in Arizona.
Robert K. said,
August 26, 2007 at 12:53 pm
chol·la (choi’ə) pronunciation
n.
Any of several spiny, shrubby, or treelike cacti of the genus Opuntia having cylindrical stem segments.
Robert K. said,
August 26, 2007 at 12:57 pm
In a comment above I mistook reading “Doug Phillips” for “Richard Phillips.” Couple of generic type names…
Terry W. West said,
August 26, 2007 at 1:08 pm
In all seriousness brothers. I love a good discussion and good, even heated debate. This blog I have for the most part enjoyed. But, it is getting real hard to remain a participant here. It’s getting to the point that I feel grieved and almost dirty after reading some the absolute garbage that is passed off as “defending the faith” here. I’m just a lowly little layman, and I’m sure my opinion doesn’t matter, but If some of you men actually think that what is going on here is not sin, then you certainly should not be leading anyone else. Lane, I can’t understand why you let this garbage go on here. I am going to remain a participant a little longer. just because I do enjoy the good and decent discussion and debate that takes place here, but the garbage is starting to get so bad that I’m getting tired of picking through all the bad to get to the good. May God forgive me for my sin and grant to me the grace to be humble.
Blessings in Christ,
Terry W. West
Robert K. said,
August 26, 2007 at 2:47 pm
I’ll moderate my approach to make Terry happy.
Question: would Thomas Boston agree with Federal Vision (and agree that they are in conformity to the Westminster Standards)?
No, he wouldn’t. So that means: Thomas Boston is not a Reformed theologian, according to the Federal Visionists. Weird, no?
Could any Federal Visionist write a treatise of the worth of Human Nature in its Fourfold State? No, nobody sees any FVists doing that. They havn’t, and mostly likely they never will. But yet they define Reformed Theology.
Shall we move on to other Reformed theologians?
Douglas Wilson said,
August 26, 2007 at 2:50 pm
Gary, just a couple important issues. I did respond to your initial letters, just not to your satisfaction. When it became apparent that you needed detailed interaction, I gave it to my assistant because that’s why I have one. But it has to be said that your letters were combative and adversarial from the beginning. The central point, however, is that this is neither here nor there.
Here is the issue. I am not asking FV critics to debate as a personal favor. And you are not personally hurting me by declining. I am asking for a debate because of what *you* all say the FV represents. If indeed it is an erosion of the gospel, it is your duty to protect the sheep. What would you make of a shepherd who declined to fight a wolf because that wolf had previously been an inadequate correspondent? What would you think of a shepherd who watched a wolf carry off a couple of lambs, and his response was to shrug and say, “He’s just trying to get some attention. He has a deep need for attention. Well, *I* am not going to give it to him.” To respond this way is to completely miss the point of what *you* say this debate is about.
If FV is a false gospel, but not a threat, then why all the books? Why the commotion? If FV is a false gospel, and a threat, and no national representative of the FV critics is willing to debate the issues on the record, then there are only two possible reasons for that — they cannot, and are not qualified shepherds, or they will not, and are cowards. And there is another option, which is that the controversy is not over the gospel, but is being conducted for other reasons, other motives. If there is any other explanation other than these, I am open to hear it.
So Gary, I am asking you (or another leader among the FV critics) to debate because I am calling your bluff. I am making it obvious that this controversy is not what you claim it to be. If it were, your behavior would be quite different.
Robert K. said,
August 26, 2007 at 2:53 pm
Question: if I make this little trilogy my source of biblical doctrine:
John Brown – Systematic Theology’
Thomas Boston – Human Nature in its Fourfold State
John Bunyan – Pilgrim’s Progress (visual doctrine)
forget the high-falutin’ John Owen or Witsius or in our own day Geerhardus Vos, if I just make the three more folk level influences my sources for biblical doctrine am I considered a Reformed, or Calvinist Christian by Federal Vision standards?
Answer: no.
Strange, is it not?
What’s happened? How can this be? There seems to be some invisible glass barrier between what was considered Reformed in the past and what it is considered to be today (according to the Federal Visionists).
greenbaggins said,
August 26, 2007 at 3:05 pm
DW, regarding 68, that’s probably one question where we as critics differ. I think you wind up speaking (or at least claiming to speak) for the FV. You are certainly the most vocal of the FV proponents. But I would not consider you the leader. If Clark does, then we would differ on that. But since your theology is different from the other FV proponents, I do not propose to treat you the same way (or critique you the same way) as I would, say, Wilkins.
Regarding Keith’s post 74, which was only just approved, since he is a first-time commenter (welcome to my blog, by the way), here are my answers:
Firstly, the expectation of which I spoke is not really an expectation of the form of government that the Presbyterian church has. Rather, it is a function of a certain “good old boys” club mentality that has infected that particular presbytery (with some notable exceptions). So, it is not the expectation that any presbytery would have exonerated him of which I speak (in fact, many if not most presbyteries would have expelled him).
Secondly, the comment on democracy has to do with the FV’s insistence that if a presbytery exonerated Wilkins, then that’s the end of the story. The democracy of which the metaphor spoke is the democracy of each presbytery, which is supposedly absolute in its own authority. And, of course, that is simply not the way things work in the Presbyterian form of government.
Thirdly, the significance of the third who did not vote to exonerate Wilkins is that it is a much higher percentage than his first “exoneration.” The significance of that fact is that more and more, people in that presbytery are starting to realize the problems in Wilkins’s theology. Any voting member of that presbytery can protest the exoneration to the SJC. That is built into the BCO. In other words, those who “lost” the vote are not required to sit down, do nothing, and simply acquiesce. There are steps that can be taken if someone disagrees with the vote. And that is *anyone* who is dissatisfied with the vote. As to the vote itself, the minutes of presbyteries are a matter of public record. The vote there is the same as it would be for a federal election in the US. We would know the outcome and the ratio. And, the minority has already appealed to the SJC. If the SJC reverses the presbytery’s decision, by the way, it will be on theological grounds, and it will be toast for Wilkins.
Robert K. said,
August 26, 2007 at 3:14 pm
Doug, here is the whacked part of your statement:
“If FV is a false gospel, but not a threat, then why all the books? Why the commotion? If FV is a false gospel, and a threat, and no national representative of the FV critics is willing to debate the issues on the record,”
Who said it’s not a threat? That’s why the books have been written. Any false gospel is a threat. There is a second level to the threat as well when you masquerade as Reformed, Westmisnterian pillars.
READ THIS NEXT PARAGRAPH:
Then of course you continue with your position that only standing next to you on a stage in a conference room of a Holiday Inn qualifies as a debate. Right, because that would be taken more seriously than the articles and books. Did Calvin debate Sadoleto? They merely exchanged public letters. Not even directly, in Sadoleto’s case. Yet it is considered one of the major defining debates in the history of the church. And very illuminating. In person Sadoleto probably would have gone all Eck on everybody (Calvin called Eck something like a delinquent sophist when he encountered him in person at some public colloquy).
Robert K. said,
August 26, 2007 at 3:55 pm
That would be the Regensburg Colloquy, and Calvin described the Roman Catholic Eck as an: “impudent babbler and vain sophist.” Eck I’m sure thought that he’d won any debates he’d had at that colloquy, as his fellow Roman Catholics did as well no doubt.
Calvin often wrote off critics as ‘too childish to deserve a response.’ This is how he’d respond to you Federal Visionists, Doug.
And Dean has nailed you in post #71 above.
Mark T. said,
August 26, 2007 at 4:22 pm
Wilson writes,
I have given two reasons why no one should debate Wilson, but I suppose he wasn’t open to hear it. So I’ll repeat one reason, adding a little detail to boot.
Scripture does not command shepherds to debate wolves, however much Wilson insists otherwise (which is one more example of his brazen dishonesty). In fact, Scripture never extends the “wolf” metaphor past a few major points: (1) Wolves will infiltrate the flock through deception: “They come unto you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.” (2) Wolves will savage sheep without mercy: “Savage wolves will come in among you and will not spare the flock.” (3) Christians should beware of this threat: “Beware of false prophets who come to you in sheep’s clothing.” (4) God has given us a litmus test to identify wolves: “You will know them by their fruits.” (5) Christians must act upon godly wisdom in the face of this threat: “Behold, I send you out as sheep in the midst of wolves. Therefore be wise as serpents and harmless as doves.”
Beyond this, Scripture does not furnish instruction to God’s children relative to lupine threats. But if I wanted to be as hermeneutically creative as Wilson, I could extend the metaphor to its logical conclusion. When a shepherd sees a wolf, he does not invite the predator to debate him; neither does he dialogue with the carnivore about the particular need to debate. Rather, he grabs his rifle and eliminates the threat with one shot to the chest, no questions asked, which would create Sixth Commandment issues.
Now, since we know they exist, what do we do with the problem of wolves? I believe that we must identify them, publicly mark them, and avoid them: “Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them.” (Rom. 16:17)
That said, these facts are true: Douglas Wilson and his disciples have caused divisions in almost every Reformed denomination in North America. Indeed, Wilson has even caused church splits in his own denomination. The man causes offences contrary to biblical doctrine (he even wrote a book to justify these offences), and he takes obvious delight in giving offence. His fruit speaks for itself. Or I should say it stinks for itself.
I believe that Scripture commands the Church to “mark” him, as with the mark of Cain, and then avoid him. But it does not by any stretch of the imagination command anyone to debate him, contrary to his false dilemma.
So there you have it, Wilson, another explanation for why no one should debate you.
Thank you.
Douglas Wilson said,
August 26, 2007 at 4:30 pm
RobertK, when you say “Calvin” are you referring to the contemporary reformed shibboleth, or the man who lived in Geneva? If the latter, then I think you have got things a little skewed. That Calvin *was* a Federal Vision guy. I can just imagine him trying to get his sacramentology past your typical Billy Sunday Presbytery. “Who’s *thet* papist, JimBob?” There are educated Federal Vision critics who acknowledge this about Calvin and the early Reformers, and then there are those, much like yourself, who have names, dates, and colloquies all memorized, but with no clear understanding of what anybody actually said or taught.
Douglas Wilson said,
August 26, 2007 at 4:46 pm
“He must hold firm to the trustworthy word as taught, so that he may be able to give instruction in sound doctrine and also to rebuke those who contradict it. For there are many who are insubordinate, empty talkers and deceivers, especially those of the circumcision party. They must be silenced, since they are upsetting whole families by teaching for shameful gain what they ought not to teach” (Titus 1:9-11) .
Mark T, does this apply to us or not? If not, then why all the sniping? Why the commotion? If so, then where are the qualified shepherds who will do what this passage requires? You do a fine job rebuking from a distance, from the safety of your mom’s basement it appears, but that is not what this passage calls for. If we are what you say, then this especially applies to us (“especially those of the circumcision party”). If we are not what you say (and are orthodox Reformed ministers and teachers), then someone needs to point you to the passages in the Bible that talk about railers.
reformedmusings said,
August 26, 2007 at 5:01 pm
RE #95
DW,
I am asking for a debate because of what *you* all say the FV represents. If indeed it is an erosion of the gospel, it is your duty to protect the sheep.
Seven denominations (so far) have already done exactly as you suggest in the above quote. The proper forum to resolve this issue is, and always has been, in the church courts through their ordered and accountable processes. The problem seems to be that you and others don’t like the fact that we have already done what you suggest that we do, i.e., deal seriously with the error. Seven denominations (so far) have dealt with the issues head on in accordance with their individual polity and found Federal Vision theology to contrary to the Westminster Standards and the Three Forms of Unity, and hence to the system of doctrine as taught in holy Scripture. That part of the process is over in those denominations. Personal debates are irrelevant distractions to the processes of the church courts.
Now that the highest courts/assemblies of seven denominations (so far) have made their overall determinations on Federal Vision, all that remains is to adjudicate individual cases for church officers who will not repent of these teachings or willingly leave their denomination. That will play out over the coming year or two. Again, personal debates would be irrelevant distractions from the ordered and accountable processes of each denomination as each case will be decided on its own merits.
Robert K. said,
August 26, 2007 at 5:14 pm
>>”RobertK, when you say “Calvin” are you referring to the contemporary reformed shibboleth, or the man who lived in Geneva? If the latter, then I think you have got things a little skewed. That Calvin *was* a Federal Vision guy.”
Game, set. match. “911? I don’t know if he’s dangerous, really, but there’s a guy walking around the neighborhood claiming he’s John Calvin. Is he minding his own business? Well, not really. He’s walking onto other people’s property and claiming he owns it and stuff. Well… He seems to want to debate everybody. Oh, here he comes. He’s looking in my window. “I am John Calvin!! You idiots don’t know who John Calvin is!!!” Can you hear that? Yeah, I think you’d better send somebody over…”
Robert K. said,
August 26, 2007 at 5:51 pm
>>”I can just imagine him [Calvin] trying to get his sacramentology past your typical Billy Sunday Presbytery. “Who’s *thet* papist, JimBob?” There are educated Federal Vision critics who acknowledge this about Calvin”
Read Calvin’s 40th sermon on Ephesians. He sounds like a Quaker.
Anyway, you keep saying “contempory reformed” people, and reference Billy Sunday and what not, but your problem is a little bigger than that. You have to not just knock down R. Scott Clark and Billy Sunday but you can’t cotton to calling anybody between the second generation Calvinists and the birth of R. Scott Clark Calvinists. The Dutch Second Reformation Calvinists weren’t Calvinists, according to you. 18th century Scottish Calvinists weren’t Calvinists according to Doug Wilson. Not just R. Scott Clark or Meredith Kline or Reformed Baptist X, but Wilhelmus a Brakel and Thomas Boston and John Owen and the Westminster Divines and Jonathan Edwards and John Bunyan and John Brown of Haddington, and Herman Witsius! All of them as well, according to Doug Wilson, were not Calvinists. Stop talking about modern day Reformed people when your definition of what is authentic Calvinism exterminates everybody in the 17th, 18th, and 19th centuries as well. (Have the police arrived yet…?)
Dean said,
August 26, 2007 at 6:50 pm
Pastor Wilson
Here is my summary of how would expect things to go if you and I debated.
I would begin by defining justification.
Justification = a declaration of righteousness based on the forgiveness of sins and the imputation of the active and passive obedience of Christ. This change in legal standing from under condemnation to not under condemnation begins the the effectual call. This justification MUST ONLY be individual.
As you define justification I would oppose any definition that does not begin with effectual call, doesn’t involve forgiveness of sins, doesn’t involve the imputation of the active and passive obedience of Christ, doesn’t view justification as forensic.
Once you begin to talk about a corporate declaration of righteousness without forgiveness of sins and the imputation of the active and passive obedience of Christ then the Reformed in fact open the door for the most elaborate practical joke in all history. God the Father would have convinced God the Son the only way to redeem the elect was by His humiliation in the incarnation and by His active and passive obedience only to find out later that God the Father had his fingers crossed.
I would not move outside this very tight circle. You would go here, quote that, and move over there. We would quickly move off the same page, and move to different chapters, and by the end we would not even be talking about the same book.
At the end the audience will say that was useless. At that point I would completely agree with the audience.
Debate involves an ability to define your terms and this most basic of requirements has not yet evolved.
Douglas Wilson said,
August 26, 2007 at 7:34 pm
“Again, personal debates would be irrelevant distractions from the ordered and accountable processes of each denomination as each case will be decided on its own merits.”
Right, because personal debates reveal what people actually believe, instead of what they have been accused of believing in closed-door sessions of stacked study committees. Sure it was stacked, but it was real orderly! If that’s what you think is presbyterianism, you can have it. But fortunately, it is not.
Douglas Wilson said,
August 26, 2007 at 7:40 pm
RobertK, they are all Calvinists. All of them. From the sounds of it, I would probably even say that you are a Calvinist too. You are certainly following a particular Calvinist tradition at any rate. You see, the difference here is that I can envision the Reformed faith as something like the Mississippi river, containing a lot of water. You see it as a narrow stream, one inch wide at the max. If someone is three feet away from you, you can’t account for it, except in dog whistle shrillness. I can be six feet away from somebody, or sixty, or six hundred and say, “Hey, brother.” Let me encourage you in that direction. You are having trouble getting the whole reformational Mississippi into your sectarian garden hose.
Douglas Wilson said,
August 26, 2007 at 7:50 pm
Dean, let me define justification for you. Justification is God’s declaration of righteousness based on the forgiveness of sins and the imputation of the active and passive obedience of Christ to the individual being justified. There is a resultant change in legal standing from “under condemnation” to “not under condemnation” which begins at the effectual call. This justification MUST ONLY be individual.
What does the audience do now? Will the audience think that it was useless for them to discover that you have been slandering people, saying that they don’t believe something that they do in fact believe? Might I persuade the audience that I *agree* with that definition of justification, which I in fact do?
You would then say, but what about corporate justification? And I would say that I have a quarter in my pocket, which does not mean that I am claiming to have one-fourth of a football game in there. The same word can be used for different purposes in different settings. If we were saying that corporate justification displaces individual and forensic justification, then you guys would have a point. But we aren’t and you don’t.
In a debate, this kind of thing would come out. And in public. Lots of people would see it. It would be kinda bad, especially for the skid greasers who are slathering on the grease so that all that all things might be done decently and behind closed doors.
Dean said,
August 26, 2007 at 8:03 pm
Pastor Wilson
“In a debate, this kind of thing would come out.”
Please let it come out here. This is public. I suspect lots of people will read what you write here.
If what comes out is good and provided Wilkins agrees with it I will personally help ensure the skid greasers on the PCA SJC see it before they meet behind closed doors.
Robert K. said,
August 26, 2007 at 8:09 pm
>>”RobertK, they are all Calvinists. All of them. From the sounds of it, I would probably even say that you are a Calvinist too. You are certainly following a particular Calvinist tradition at any rate. You see, the difference here is that I can envision the Reformed faith as something like the Mississippi river, containing a lot of water. You see it as a narrow stream, one inch wide at the max. If someone is three feet away from you, you can’t account for it, except in dog whistle shrillness. I can be six feet away from somebody, or sixty, or six hundred and say, “Hey, brother.” Let me encourage you in that direction. You are having trouble getting the whole reformational Mississippi into your sectarian garden hose.”
This is rot from beginning to end. We’re talking about apostolic biblical doctrine. The five solas. The doctrines of grace. The Covenant of Redemption as it plays out in time. There is no place for your Romanizing false doctrine. You’re not part of the river, to use your metaphor, you’re a still pool of poisonous water to the side of the river adminstered by one Satan who is raging at God’s river as it flows by with God’s own in the flow of that river. You’re saying: “Come out of there. Join us in this still pool of fetid water. We are, anyway, all one body of water, are we not? Brothers in good standing?”
Mark T. said,
August 26, 2007 at 8:23 pm
Wilson,
Well, there’s no doubt that you are an insubordinate, empty talker and deceiver, and that you party with the cicumcisors. There’s also no doubt that you have upset whole families by teaching for shameful gain what you ought not teach. And I concede that your mouth must be stopped. However, you and I differ on the means of stopping your mouth.
If we run with your wooden interpretation of this text, it does not require bishops to debate you, it requires them to physically shut your mouth by force. But then your interpretation militates against verse 7, “not violent,” which might rub your nature the wrong way, however, most Christians understand the meaning of the words “unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace” and can find a happy resolution.
So you may twist the Scripture to your heart’s desire, but it will never require anyone to debate you. It simply obligates them to MARK you as a WOLF and leave you alone: “Let them alone. They are blind leaders of the blind.” (Matt. 15:14) I realize that this remedy keeps you out of the spotlight where you long to bask in the rich glory that you deserve, but it is the biblical solution.
Now, regarding those vexing texts about railers, I encourage you to stop railing against the ministers of the seven Reformed denominations that have declared your doctrine false, because according to 1 Corinthians 6:10, “revilers” will not inherit the kingdom. Furthermore, you should bear in mind that with these communions you’re not dealing with a bunch of defrockees, as with your confederation. For the most part, they are honorable men of God.
Finally, if it’s any consolation to your poor dejected soul, please rest assured that all of Christendom believes you are a very brave man and we quake every time we think of you.
Thank you.
Douglas Wilson said,
August 26, 2007 at 8:58 pm
Dean, I said it here. So did it come out?
Dean said,
August 26, 2007 at 9:02 pm
Pastor Wilson
For the record I have never denied any FV deny what you would call individual justification.
My only point is the word justification can not be used in a corporate sense. It is only possible to use the term corporate justification when that justification no longer resembles classic justification.
“The same word can be used for different purposes in different settings.”
Would you approve if I referring to myself as humanly infinite, humanly invisible, humanly immutable, humanly eternal, humanly incomprehensible, humanly almighty, humanly most holy, humanly most absolute? Would it be any consolation to you if I assure you I still believe in WCF 2.1?
Robert K. said,
August 26, 2007 at 9:16 pm
Doug Wilson, I want to say I’m not inclined to worry about hurting your feelings simply because I don’t want myself or anyone else to be sitting in hell with you because I worried about hurting your feelings. There comes a point where you stand with what is sound doctrine or you don’t. The reasons for not doing it can be myriad. I know though that this harshness towards you effects your admirers who consider you to be just an innocent good ol’ boy more than it effects you. If you are effected at all it would show in you ceasing to play games with language in the minimum. To be even just in the vicinity of biblical doctrine and to use language in such a mocking, delinquent way as you use it is inexcusable and is shameful (and strange on top of that).
READ THIS PART:
Calvin was sending ministers out of Geneva who were being put to the flames. He wasn’t doing this in the name of ‘Federal Vision’ doctrine. Awhile back we heard from John MacArthur that you aren’t a Calvinist unless you are a dispensationalist. It seems perhaps he would be your best debate opponent at this point. Who’s delusion is more believable.
reformedmusings said,
August 26, 2007 at 9:55 pm
RE #107
Right, because personal debates reveal what people actually believe, instead of what they have been accused of believing in closed-door sessions of stacked study committees. Sure it was stacked, but it was real orderly! If that’s what you think is presbyterianism, you can have it. But fortunately, it is not.
DW,
Of course, the implication of what you said above is that we cannot accept the FVist’s writings as accurately stating or representing their beliefs. As one commissioner at the GA noted during the debate, he has a tall stack of FV books, blog posts, etc., in which they told him what they believed, and that he didn’t need more study on it.
Doug, if all those writings don’t mean anything, then why go to the effort? Surely Canon Press cannot be that profitable. Why write endlessly on the blogs if no one can adequately understand Federal Vision without a personal, face-to-face tutorial? Does this also apply to Polycarp, Augustine, Calvin, the Divines, Hodge, Shaw, John Brown of Haddington, etc., etc.? How about Joseph Smith, Russell, or Mary Baker Eddy? Do we have to “channel” them to adequately understand their writings? If you think that sounds absurd, and I hope that you do, then think about what you just posted.
I have written about this several times and even posted a detailed chronology based on the video recording here. The floor was open for debate at the 35th PCA GA for any and all Federal Visionists to come forward and present their case on whatever their little hearts believed during just over an hour of actual debate. There were 12 microphones equally available to all commissioners. NO FV LEADER DID SO. Dead silence from them, though I know for a fact that at least several were in attendance. The one or two FV sympathizers who did rise did not make a single theological argument. I personally had an entire backpack of reference material ready to respond to theological challenges. The Federal Visionists had an equal opportunity to present any relevant argument their hearts desired, but none apparently desired to do so. Don’t act like they didn’t have a chance to present what they believed-they had every chance. That room was packed to the gills waiting for the big debate that never happened. I was there, you were not. Don’t hide behind empty red herrings to cover Federal Vision’s utter failure to even try to make a case for their theology at a fair, open, and accountable debate on the record before 1300+ of their fellow PCA officers plus families and observers. That dog won’t hunt.
Lastly, I suppose that you can write and self-publish a book on who can call themselves presbyterian if you so desire. I’m not sure what the point would be other than to make you somehow feel better. We in the PCA have the Scriptures, a Book of Church Order, and the Westminster Standards that serve us quite well.
Keith Phillips said,
August 26, 2007 at 10:24 pm
Mr. Baggins,
Thank you for responding to my questions. Your responses raise some follow up questions/comments:
1) You expect the LP to misbehave as “a function of a certain ‘good old boys’ club mentality that has infected that particular presbytery (with some notable exceptions).” On the other side of the courtroom are folks who suspect and allege that the PCA’s FV study committee (if not the entire PCA leadership) was/is something like a “good old boys’ club.” What are those of us who do not personally know a single soul in either group to make of all this? There seems to be too much “am not . . . you are” arguing. I’m sure presbyterian polity is not supposed to produce such behavior — until recently, I thought that the presbyterian structure was the one best designed to prevent it. Lately, I’m starting to wonder.
2. Thanks for explaining a bit of the BCO’s protest/appeal provisions. I’m glad to know that those who question the decision have followed proper procedure to protest. I don’t think I understand the following though: “If the SJC reverses the presbytery’s decision, by the way, it will be on theological grounds, and it will be toast for Wilkins.” What does, “It will be toast” mean? And, if it means what I suspect — that Wilkins will be convicted — how can you know that without hearing the case?
3. You didn’t hazard an answer as to the age of those commenting here. That’s fine, you had no obligation to answer any of my questions. The reason I asked though is that so much of what is being written has seemed juvenile. Now, I’m not opposed to heated, manly, or even irreverant debate (somewhere, I have a copy of a woodcut from one of Luther’s books which depits two men with their pants down “breaking wind” toward the pope). However, I can’t understand the personal nature of the attacks I’ve been reading here. Wilson is not a part of the PCA and apparently is not any personal threat to the angriest posters. I think the pope was trying to kill Luther. So, what gives here? I think I agree with Terry W. West’s post 93.
Gene Franklin said,
August 26, 2007 at 10:34 pm
I’m sorry, I have to ask. Have you guys ever read Jude?
Robert K. said,
August 26, 2007 at 10:55 pm
>>”Wilson is not a part of the PCA and apparently is not any personal threat to the angriest posters. I think the pope was trying to kill Luther. So, what gives here?”
Wilson and Federal Vision are part of an long ongoing campaign to infiltrate Reformed Theology itself (not just particular churches or denominations, but wherever Reformed Theology still stands and is held basically to be apostolic biblical doctrine) and to debase the language that communicates Reformed Theology (again sound biblical doctrine) and replace sound biblical doctrine – at critical points such as justification by faith alone – with any of a motley choice of bad doctrine heretics have used since the beginning of God’s revelation of truth. Wilson and Federal Vision are not merely going after the PCA, as you imply, but after such things as the historic Reformation confessions and after magisterial theologians like John Calvin himself by appropriating them using their garbage sophistic language. Yes, they can’t dupe myself or R. C. Sproul or Green Baggins or the others here, but they can dupe innocents and give every fool with an inclination to attack what is true a platform to do it. But even more seriously when language is debased it has real effect, and Doug Wilson and his Federal Vision are very big and industrious and Captain Ahab-ish in their desire and design to debase the language of Reformed Theology and make of it basically nothing so that the devil can hold sway like he does over the Roman communion. If these guys didn’t have a bit of a larger than usual dose of the spirit of disobedience in them (the spirit of the devil) they wouldn’t be able to pull this kind of reaction, so because they are currently a moderate-sized – or influential – force for the devil we who are able to KNOW THE TRUTH must confront them and expose them and let them know God’s own exist to defend what is God’s. We may be a small remnant at times, but we exist, and we will stand our ground to defend what God has revealed and what braver human beings than all of us sacrificed to bring into the light.
Robert K. said,
August 26, 2007 at 11:13 pm
>>”I’m sorry, I have to ask. Have you guys ever read Jude?”
Yes. Jude is not a good supporting document for the Federal Visionists if that is what you are implying.
Gene Franklin said,
August 26, 2007 at 11:28 pm
So, if the Archangel Michael would not bring a reviling charge against Satan, who the heck are you to bring a particularly reviling charge against “Wilson”?
You fellas have to be pretty dang sure of yourselves to take actions that the ARCHANGEL MICHAEL would not take against SATAN HIMSELF. What’s up with that?
God Bless,
reformedmusings said,
August 26, 2007 at 11:45 pm
RE #121
Gene,
First, welcome to the board.
Second and independent of any other comments here, may I assume that your statement applies to those who make baseless charges against committees and denominations with whom they disagree?
Terry W. West said,
August 26, 2007 at 11:54 pm
Gene,
It is standard cult mentality. Some people have bought into a certain ideal. They have come to believe that the reformed tradition is a monolithic ideal with no real variance in thought. They have built their whole existence around this fantasy and when they begin to see their world view coming apart at the seams they lash out in anger and attack what they see as responsible. I am very familiar with this kind of thinking, I myself come from a cultist type background. I see the same kind of reaction in some of my family members when I try to provide them with information that challenges what they hold as “the truth”. There cannot be any reasonable discussion usually because I now represent to them everything they have believed to be a lie all their lives. If I am right, even a little, then their whole world view has been a lie.
It is a staggering thing to contemplate, and most will not. They will just seek to shutup the “voice” they see as attacking their way of thinking. And they do so from the belief that they are God’s “man” defending God’s truth against the enemy. So what ever, in their minds, will accomplish this end is justified and therefore righteous in their eyes.
Blessings in Christ,
Terry W. West
Terry W. West said,
August 27, 2007 at 12:00 am
For those interested. I was raised in a oneness pentecostal environment. I was taught that true Christian doctrine had been lost for almost 1700 or 1800 years. That all had been corrupted at Nicea in 325 AD, etc.
God has indeed been gracious to me and my wife and children.
Blessings in Christ,
Terry W. West
Robert K. said,
August 27, 2007 at 12:01 am
To sum up Terry W. West’s comment: “What is truth?”
Gene Franklin said,
August 27, 2007 at 12:04 am
Reformedmusings, thanks for the welcome but this is not the first time I have visited. I have not seen any baseless charges coming against denominations or committees (other than the CREC, but I guess that doesn’t count) on this particular blog, and there are so many “variables” in that type of thing that I might miss them when others, more astute than I, would know instantly that something was amiss. I had noticed a couple of fellas that seemed supremely confident in the condemnations they heaped on “Wilson” and the CREC. Perhaps they hold the covenantal position to do so. Or perhaps not. Given the reticence of the Archangel Michael to revile Satan, I was curious as to how they felt justified in reviling “lesser luminaries.”
God Bless,
Gene
Robert K. said,
August 27, 2007 at 12:29 am
>>”So, if the Archangel Michael would not bring a reviling charge against Satan, who the heck are you to bring a particularly reviling charge against “Wilson”? You fellas have to be pretty dang sure of yourselves to take actions that the ARCHANGEL MICHAEL would not take against SATAN HIMSELF. What’s up with that?”
Gene, that passage is not saying what you seem to think it is saying. Just find a good commentary on that passage. Wilson is not Satan (speaking in the conext of that passage) any more than Diatrephes was King Saul. Just as the archangel Michael had respect for the God-given former dignity of Satan, David had the same respect when he refused to kill Saul, a man annointed King of Israel by God.
God didn’t give Wilson any high standing (or brains, I have to add, after seeing a video of Steve Wilkens interviewing him; that was like Spong Inverviews Rowan Williams).
Wilson is a common false teacher with a bit of a higher profile due to his affecting to represent (and appropriating to himself) authentic Reformed Theology.
Robert K. said,
August 27, 2007 at 2:23 am
After watching a few of the interviews of Wilson/Jordan/Leithart Steve Wilkins conducted it’s obvious these guys are just common liberals. They’re not regenerate Christians. That’s is not like saying they are reprobates, they are just currently unregenerate liberals. They think and talk about the Bible like they could be talking about evolution theories or Hegel or whatever. It’s all been said before, but I’ll repeat myself here: these are the same academic liberals that use to spend all their time deconstructing Shakespeare and the rest of the western literary canon; now bored with that they’ve decided to turn their attention to biblical doctrine. Jordan comes across as a bit more trailer compound crank, but Leithart’s just a shallow liberal who stumbled onto the knowledge that seminary libraries exist. Wilson’s a bit of a rube who gets wide-eyed when he hears a liberal like Leithart speak. Wilkins comes across as a non-entity. But they’re theological liberals. Liberals give themselves away with their language. Everything’s “I, I, I…” and biblical doctrine is something they want it to be ‘their turn’ to construct and create and so on like musicians who get tired of folk or rock so they start to add a little African and South American into the mix, and maybe some Islam here and Finnish there, and hey, this is what it’s all about, what are people getting so upset about? Common liberals, common liberal theologies.
Robert K. said,
August 27, 2007 at 2:48 am
I know there’s also a bit of a more sinister aspect about these people. The Christian Reconstruction/Theonomy theme runs through all the interviews. That old movement that existed solely to defile the name John Calvin because Calvinism/Reformed Theology was on the rise. Theonomy existed to defile Calvinism by merely associating the name and doctrine with Theonomy. Federal Vision is the attempt to defile Calvinist doctrine itself by appropriating it, redefining it, debasing the language of it. What Satanic emptiness. Grinning clowns working for the devil. There’s the intelligent liberals for you…
Sean Mahaffey said,
August 27, 2007 at 6:16 am
Dean,
Relating to post 114
What about James 2:21-25? Does the word justified mean the same thing there that it means in Gal. 2:16 and Rom. 3:28? I thought that most anti-FVers believed that the word justified means something very different in those two passages. Lane certainly does.
If justification can mean “evidenced to be righteous” or “vindicated as righteous” then this is something that the people of God can possess corporately, while at the same time not every member of the people of God possesses (justification) imputation individually. Israel was vindicated, delivered, redeemed, baptized, judged, (justified in this sense) in the cloud and in the sea, but with many of them God was not well pleased and their bodies were scattered in the wilderness.
Sean Mahaffey said,
August 27, 2007 at 6:40 am
In Luke 7:29 justified means “correctly praised as righteous”.
In Acts 13:38-39 and Rom. 5:9 justified means “cleansed/forgiven”.
In I. Cor. 4:1-5 justified means “judged according to faithful obedience/works” (in terms of being a faithful steward/worker not in terms of salvation).
In Luke 7:35 I don’t know what justified means but it certainly doesn’t mean “declared righteous on the basis of Christ’s imputed righteousness received by faith alone through grace alone”.
In I Tim. 3:16 it says Jesus was justified in the Spirit. The Bible obviously means something different here than when it speaks of sinners being justified.
In Luke 10:29 and 16:15 justify means to “falsely aquit”.
And this is only cursory and only New Testament references. The word group is rich and varied.
Blessings,
Mahaffey
Mark T. said,
August 27, 2007 at 6:45 am
Gene,
Please identify the so-called “reviling charge against Wilson”; then, if you would be so kind, please explain to us why you don’t take equal offense when Wilson reviles the courts of the seven Reformed denominations that have declared Federal Vision sub- or non-confessional.
I suspect that it’s because loyalty to Wilson is the primary litmus test for orthodoxy in the CREC.
Thank you.
Tim Wilder said,
August 27, 2007 at 7:39 am
Re: 96
“Question: if I make this little trilogy my source of biblical doctrine:”
“John Brown – Systematic Theology’”
…..
“What’s happened? How can this be? There seems to be some invisible glass barrier between what was considered Reformed in the past and what it is considered to be today (according to the Federal Visionists).”
Well, read John Brown’s section on Law. Do you agree with that? Do you think that R.S. Clark or the Southern pietists would allow that to be taught in their churches?
When and how things changed is not so simple.
G.L.W.Johnson said,
August 27, 2007 at 8:38 am
Doug
How shall I word this? You obviously have a very selective memory. You DID NOT respond to my initial letters, your asst. did, and you only wrote after I informed you that I was discontinuing support for C/A. And I did not start out combative with you.Here are the exact words I closed my opening letter to you: “I Find myself in a very awkward situation. I am editing the sequel to ‘Whatever Happened to the Reformation?’ and I am forced now to critique a position identified with the Federal Vision, who has in its ranks one of the contributors to the first volume (you)! Not only that, but our book will critique John Armstrong, the editor of ‘The Coming Evangelical Crisis’ that I contributed a chapter to and now he is part of the crisis! Needless to say Doug, I would rather not do this. I certainly do not see you drifting in the same direction as John Armstrong ( Andrew Sandlin is on John’s board of directors and therefore it did not come as a surprise to me to read about his position on post modernism), but I do hope my appeals to you are not interpreted as having hostile intent and that you would at least consider whether or not your present association with the likes of Rich Lusk is something you wish to maintain. Lusk’s theological ramblings ought to be a standing embarrassment to you. I first read Lusk in the pages of ‘Reformation and Revival Journal’ long before I knew he would be associated with you in the Federal Vision (something that still baffles me to no end)- I understood him fully then and I most certainly understand what he is advocating now. Have I in any way misrepresented Lusk’s position? Since you wrote a book on logic you should be aware that your reasoning along these lines “since people misrepresent my position, their criticism of Lusk are equally invalid”- is a ‘non sequitur’ if I ever saw one. To make a similar point of emphasis that you made, you have more in common with me than you do with Lusk. Be that as it may, you have chosen to maintain this alliance with Lusk and as such our critique of the Federal Vision will cast a long shadow over you as well. I will keep the lines of communication open.” You DID NOT respond, as I stated, your asst, did. And you have my permission to post any of my letters to you.
Keith Phillips said,
August 27, 2007 at 9:06 am
Robert K.
Thanks for the answer.
You wrote: “Wilson and Federal Vision are not merely going after the PCA, as you imply, but after such things as the historic Reformation confessions and after magisterial theologians like John Calvin himself by appropriating them using their garbage sophistic language.”
I understand that is your conclusion on the matter at hand. Nevertheless, “Wilson and Federal Vision” are not going after you personally. They are not trying to harm you or take something that is yours — at least I have not seen anything like that described. So, I still can’t understand all the personal attacks of Wilson, Leithart, Wilkin, etc. If you are right about their position, why not just refute the position or “mark” it? Why not just call the position heresy and then go on about your business?
You wrote: “They can’t dupe myself or R. C. Sproul or Green Baggins or the others here, but they can dupe innocents and give every fool with an inclination to attack what is true a platform to do it.”
To me this sounds like you think that, without the gifts that you and few others bring to the table, the entire Christian community will be led astray, convert to “Federal Vision”, and move to Moscow or Auburn Avenue. I just don’t see it happening. If the “Federal Vision” is wrong, refute its teaching, warn those in your care about that teaching, and move on. Most of us laypeople in the “reformed denominations” aren’t the poor inocents or fools you take us to be.
You wrote: “But even more seriously when language is debased it has real effect.”
I agree with you. However, one of the questions on the table at present is the question of how the biblical and confessional language can and should be used. In what I have read, Wilson is clear that he agrees with the confessional use of certain terms. It is true, that he thinks he ought to also have the freedom to use those terms in other ways, especially if Scripture does. Therefore, it seems appropriate to debate whether or not he truly does or should have such freedom. But your reply here just begs the question.
You wrote: “Doug Wilson and his Federal Vision are very big and industrious and Captain Ahab-ish in their desire and design to debase the language of Reformed Theology and make of it basically nothing so that the devil can hold sway like he does over the Roman communion.”
How can you know their “desire and design” is to debase and make nothing the language of Reformed Theology so the devil can hold sway? Even if they are wrong, there seem to be options, other than evil motives and devil worship, available — insanity, ignorance, honest error.
You wrote: “If these guys didn’t have a bit of a larger than usual dose of the spirit of disobedience in them (the spirit of the devil) they wouldn’t be able to pull this kind of reaction.”
Again, how can you know that they have a “spirit of disobedience,” the “spirit of the devil”? This is just the kind of ad hominem that I am talking about. What does this do to help resolve this “FV” debate and division? What does this do to convince people that they should reject “FV” teachings?
You wrote: “We who are able to KNOW THE TRUTH must confront them and expose them and let them know God’s own exist to defend what is God’s.”
So, far you are just asking me to believe that you know the truth because you disagree with a representative of the devil. The only problem is you have not yet proven that Wilson and the “FV” represent the devil.
You wrote: “We may be a small remnant at times, but we exist, and we will stand our ground to defend what God has revealed.”
The problem with this statement (other than once again seeming to imply that you think you and a few others are the last hope for the Christian community) is that, from what I’ve read here and elsewhere, at least seven reformed denominations have formally opposed the “FV”. Further, the largest of the evangelical reformed denominations just recently voted, by overwhelming majority, to take a stand against the “FV” and various other initials. That being the case, how is the “remnant” talk apropos? It would seem to me that if anyone was going to pull the remnant card it would be the “FV” guys.
Gene Franklin said,
August 27, 2007 at 10:45 am
Mark T.:
Perhaps I misunderstood statements like this:
You’re not part of the river, to use your metaphor, you’re a still pool of poisonous water to the side of the river adminstered by one Satan who is raging at God’s river as it flows by with God’s own in the flow of that river.
And this:
I suspect that it’s because loyalty to Wilson is the primary litmus test for orthodoxy in the CREC.
But then, my experiences are most likely different than yours and with more experience I’ll come to know the real thing when I see it.
God Bless,
Gene
Mark T. said,
August 27, 2007 at 11:12 am
Gene,
Thank you for answering part of the first half of my question. However, I noticed that you ignored my second question.
Did you do this at your Pope’s orders or was it a learned habit?
Dean said,
August 27, 2007 at 11:19 am
Sean
I do in fact have more sympathy for James to be talking about justify as a declaration of righteousness only after some highly qualified statements. This position however does not allow for any corporate justification nor do any of the passages you quoted.
I would be more than willing to discuss this issue with you via private e-mail: dbekkering at yahoo dot com.
I am not trying to hide my views from public but I have been having a difficult time posting long posts on this blog and long posts are necessary to qualify what I am and am not saying.
Gene Franklin said,
August 27, 2007 at 11:37 am
Mark:
Forgive my incomplete reply. The Central Office was having an emergency staff meeting, and I dared not respond without getting further orders.
That was a joke.
Perhaps you are in possession of information I lack, but I am unaware of any judicial proceedings against a so-called FV guy that resulted in anything other than an affirmation of orthodoxy. There have been a number of statements made by various presbyteries, seminaries and assemblies that contained some pretty stiff condemnations. Unfortunately I could never tell who was supposed to be the target as the charges did not reflect the teachings of anyone with whom I am familiar. Perhaps you could give me an example of a judicial proceeding, where evidence is presented and witnesses are cross-examined, that resulted in a conviction of unorthodox teaching.
As far as Pastor Wilson’s responses to the various position papers, I would be hesitant to offer a criticism of the man responding to what seem to be fairly egregious misquotations and misrepresentations. If Lane is correct that Pastor Wilson is orthodox, one wonders why these other bodies did not feel it necessary to confirm that Pastor Wilson actually held the positions they have condemned. If you take a swing at a man, it shouldn’t be surprising to have him defend himself. Just a thought.
God Bless,
Gene
Mark T. said,
August 27, 2007 at 11:53 am
Gene,
While I wait for an answer to my second question, I want to add a third: please show us where any court has committed “fairly egregious misquotations and misrepresentations” (plural) of your Pope and why those “fairly egregious misquotations and misrepresentations” required a reviling response from him to those courts.
Thank you.
Mark T. said,
August 27, 2007 at 11:55 am
All,
Gary Johnson’s latest post reveals the remarkable phenomenon that takes place whenever DUMB (Doug’s Universe of Make Believe) intersects with the universe known as REALITY, which took place yesterday when Douglas Wilson wrote this comment.
In Wilson’s mind, he believed that his response had effectively answered Gary’s comment here. However, the King of DUMB seldom accounts for REALITY whenever he postulates his fabrications, which usually results in a collision with the hard facts of life that the King of DUMB never explains. It just hangs there like an inexplicable mystery of the universe.
But there’s another remarkable phenomenon that takes place when DUMB collides with REALITY, because Douglas Wilson is not the only soul who lives in DUMB. Of a truth he has succeeded in populating DUMB with thousands of like-minded souls who live on every word that proceeds from the mouth of Doug, and when these poor lost souls read a post such as Gary Johnson’s, all circuits in DUMB go on overload until they realize that this collision only affects the laws of reason and not the laws of the universe. In other words, as long as they turn off their brains, nothing will change their mundane lives if they consent to Wilson’s deception. At that point the inhabitants of DUMB resume their daily existences until the next time REALITY blows their circuits and they must once again throw the off switch in their rapidly dimming minds.
But wouldn’t it be nice if just once when DUMB collides with REALITY, one of DUMB’s dignitaries, such as Archbishop Booth, would step forward and actually hold Wilson accountable for his habitual misrepresentations rather than allow him to point to those empty holes in space and say, “My presbytery holds me accountable.”
Thank you.
Sean Mahaffey said,
August 27, 2007 at 12:05 pm
Dean,
I would really like to talk further about this also.
mahaffeysean@hotmail.com
Blessings,
Mahaffey
Gene Franklin said,
August 27, 2007 at 12:06 pm
Mark:
No courts have issued any misquotation or misrepresentation (singular) because no court has tried him. He has been tried inabsentia and anonymously by several groups. Is that what you’re referring to?
God Bless,
Gene
Mark T. said,
August 27, 2007 at 12:18 pm
Gene,
I assume that you pastor St. David’s, if so, your answer demonstrates the theological caliber of minds that your Pope has chosen to surround himself with.
No more exchanges are needed; may God richly bless you.
Thank you very much.
Gene Franklin said,
August 27, 2007 at 12:20 pm
Mark:
Am I through? May I go now?
God Bless,
Gene
Mark T. said,
August 27, 2007 at 12:29 pm
Yes, please be gone, for you are a very loyal subject of the land of DUMB (Doug’s Universe of Make Believe).
Thank you.
Gene Franklin said,
August 27, 2007 at 12:33 pm
Mark:
I don’t know if want to go. It has been many years since I was insulted so vigorously. Perhaps I could make a theological statement you could take exception to and we could keep going…
God Bless,
Gene
Mark T. said,
August 27, 2007 at 12:43 pm
Gene,
If you want to enjoy being insulted, I suggest you join a Reformed denomination that has repudiated FV. Then you can sit back and relish the reviling that comes forth from your Pope like frogs from the Beast. Until then, however, you can keep telling yourself that all these other denominations are persecuting the poor CREC and its beloved Pope.
Thank you.
Gene Franklin said,
August 27, 2007 at 12:47 pm
Mark:
Thanks for the advice. I would give it a try, but since I am paedocommunionist, the odds of success are pretty low. If you ever get to Houston, drop in for worship. You would be most welcome!
God Bless,
Gene
Garrett said,
August 27, 2007 at 12:56 pm
Most Right Reverend Franklin,
I’m sorry to interrupt your truly delightful and stimulating conversation with the wonderful members of Single Reformed Guys Living in their Mom’s Basements (SRGLMB), but the Great Patriarch, the Munificent Father, His Eminence, Bishop Wilson has just called the planning meeting to order and we need you here. It appears our plan to infiltrate the PCA and OPC are going perfectly according plan. Apparently, 216 churches in those denominations are now willing to kiss His Eminence’s ring and enter the CREC. Oh, and please don’t forget to bring the pocket icons and the portable censors you ordered so these Presbyterian ministers can engage in private sacerdotal practices without the knowledge of their sessions.
See you there.
With Great Affection,
Garrett Craw
Vicar of Southern North Western Eastern Los Angeles
Gene Franklin said,
August 27, 2007 at 1:02 pm
Vicar Craw:
Thanks so much. I must convince that Mark’s evaluation of my intelligence was not far wrong, and I have confused the orders on the icons and censors. My session is now in posession of those items and I fear I will have a hard time retrieving them. Any suggestions?
Gene Franklin said,
August 27, 2007 at 1:04 pm
confess not convince
More evidence!
Garrett said,
August 27, 2007 at 1:12 pm
Hmm, this is not good. I suggest you call headquarters in Rome, uh, I mean, Moscow, Idaho for further instructions.
On second thought, just tell your session you ordered these items for the congregation to burn as effigies on Reformation Day.
Oh, and please do drink a little holy water for your stomach.
Garrett Craw
Vicar of Southern North Western Eastern Los Angeles
Gene Franklin said,
August 27, 2007 at 1:17 pm
Again, thank you for your helpful guidance, my Vicar!
Well, perhaps I will take Mark’s advice and head for the hills. I can hear the swelling strains of that old Cat Stevens song, I’m Being Followed By A Blog Squatter and I don’t want to wear out my welcome.
God Bless,
Gene
Mark T. said,
August 27, 2007 at 1:17 pm
Now that Pope Doug has sent forth his minions to create chaos like flying monkeys in The Wizard of Oz, I invite any of them to offer an intelligent response to post #141.
If not, please continue flapping and screeching, it adorns your doctrine quite well.
Gene Franklin said,
August 27, 2007 at 1:21 pm
Mark, I’m not a pro like you, but I’m going to give it a try:
I know you are, but what am I?
How did I do?
tim prussic said,
August 27, 2007 at 1:25 pm
Mr. T., we’d prefer it if you’d refer to him as *reverent pause* The Dark Lord Wilson.
greenbaggins said,
August 27, 2007 at 1:56 pm
Keith, thanks for the reply.
Regarding point 1, I am not sure what to say, honestly, except to get to know those who are on the study committee. Reformedmusings (Bob Mattes) is one, Grover Gunn is another, Sean Lucas, Lig Duncan, Paul Fowler, and John White were the committee members. Of those, the first two have been rather regular commenters on this blog of late. Sean has a blog on which you could comment.
Regarding 2, if you look closely at my statement, you will realize that the entirety of it is stated in the hypothetical, “If this happens, then…” I am not presuming to state the outcome as to *whether* Wilkins will lose. I only stated what the consequences of his losing would be.
Regarding 3, I have no idea what the age of the commenters are, so I would not be willing to venture a guess. I am about ready to venture a post on Robert K, demonstrating how the FV proponents have misunderstood his intentions quite drastically. Robert K has a rather sharp keyboard, it is true, but a lot of comments of his are meant to be funny, and are being taken with a wooden literalistic seriousness. His rhetorical skills are fully equal to Wilson’s.
Eric F. Langborgh said,
August 27, 2007 at 2:06 pm
Dear Rev. Keister,
Re: your third paragraph in #158 – you have got to be kidding me. If the most rational, even-handed, and unpolemical of the anti-FVers – you – can stoop to associate yourself in this way with Robert K, then I am convinced: this whole thing is a sham and a witch hunt and I have lost the last place where I might get some trustworthy and edifying discussion re: the FV controvery. I would hope you would disassociate yourself from his vitirolic judgmentalism of other’s hearts in the same way you hope Doug Wilson would diassociate himself from the theology of Wilkins and Lusk.
greenbaggins said,
August 27, 2007 at 2:10 pm
I will do the one when Wilson does the other. I am not saying that I agree with everything Robert writes. I never said or implied that. I am merely saying that the FV proponents on this blog have misunderstood many of Robert’s comments.
Eric F. Langborgh said,
August 27, 2007 at 2:10 pm
Incidentally, I am at a complete loss why my earlier post on this thread has yet to show, and my post on the Coral Ridge thread has yet to show, but my last one here has?
Anyway, here is what I tried to post here earlier – I hope it makes it through this time:
Rev. Keister,
Why is it that those of us who are honestly evaluating all sides of this FV issue have to put up with the vastly over-abundant vitriol and entirely unedifying antics of one RobertK, and the occasional clone to him? He is brazen to pronounce about the state and ultimate destination of others’ souls. He is quick to label others as ravenous wolves, though it is his fangs that are bared and his drool that is soaking computer screens all over cyberspace. I and others have bought huge shovels to try to get through a huge mountain of dung he has thrown around here and it is becoming increasingly difficult to find the pony.
The anti-FV side is more than adequately represented here, so banning his presence would hardly be censoring that point of view. He adds nothing constructive or of unique and positive substance to the debate. Banning RobertK simply requires blocking his URL; it does not require your monitoring of the hundreds of comments this blog receives.
Please do us all a favor in this regard and rid this blog of him. Greenbaggins is the only place left to have a (potentially) civil discussion, but RobertK is like the dead deer in the pool of still water – entirely toxic to anyone who wades or drinks here.
Respectfully yours,
–Eric
Garrett said,
August 27, 2007 at 2:14 pm
Mark T.,
HwaHaHaHaHa (infused with an evil Bella Lugosi-esqe sound)
greenbaggins said,
August 27, 2007 at 2:23 pm
Eric, on this blog, I have been called Satanic, glory-seeking, arrogant, cultist, Anabaptist, stupid, naive, and more by FV proponents. I have allowed their comments to remain, for the most part, on my blog. I can ignore them, if I choose. I would rather have dignified, respectful debate on this blog. I would rather that Robert dial down his rhetoric, as it is not convincing any FV proponents of the error of their ways. But the FV can hardly say that it has the moral high ground in this respect. And it doesn’t matter who struck first, either. I am glad that you are respectful. I will always stay on that level with you, and I would hope the other critics would do the same. It does nothing to have mere rhetoric. I want discussion of real issues. That being said, I am not going to ban RobertK. In reading this comment, he should know where I stand, and what I would like to have. There are real issues, and the FV proponents are not dumb (except Stewart). You don’t have to read his comments, though, if you don’t want to. And, as I said, many of his comments, intended to be funny, have been taken seriously by the FV crowd. It’s a simple misinterpretation. And his comments are not entirely toxic to everyone who wades or drinks here. I doubt any of the critics find his statements particularly toxic.
Dean said,
August 27, 2007 at 2:29 pm
Pastor Keister
I agree with Eric.
I am not for censoring speech but it seems the latitude Robert allows himself in these discussions is as wide as the Mississippi River and is not beneficial to those whose tolerance is as wide as a sectarian garden hose.
While I think some of what Robert says is mildly funny his rhetoric is not winsome. There is a difference between being sharp and being spiteful. IMHO I believe Robert crosses that line regularly.
Mark T. said,
August 27, 2007 at 3:14 pm
Tim Prussic,
Last week you asked me to provide a list of the “defrockees, excommunicants, church-splitters, and other rejects” that govern the CREC; pease see comments 25, 29, 34, and 70 of this thread for a short list. Then let me know if that does not satisfy you, I’ll give you some more stellar examples of CREC ministerial standards.
Thank you.
Robert K. said,
August 27, 2007 at 3:53 pm
>>”Well, read John Brown’s section on Law. Do you agree with that? Do you think that R.S. Clark or the Southern pietists would allow that to be taught in their churches?”
I have the 2002 edition published by Christian Focus/Reformation Heritage. It has no index and a limited contents page. Could you direct me to the page or section you have in mind? I was quoting, it just so happens, from Brown’s ST in an earlier thread on the subject of law, but there are obviously many subjects involved in the law that you could be talking about.
tim prussic said,
August 27, 2007 at 3:58 pm
Mr. T., I did not ask you (to my recollection, anyway) for any such list. I just commented on your obvious double standard: Pastor Wilson, in your estimation, cannot call the PCA corrupt, but you can slander all the leadership of the CREC in one blow. THAT was my point. YOUR point seems to be to air other people’s dirty laundry.
The fact that you’re so happily willing to spread dirt in Christian pastors is, indeed, quite depressing to me. Evidently, you’re the type that gets his hands on SOME of the info and acts as if he sat in on every session meeting with a polygraph. Any fair-minded reader of your posts already KNOWS that you don’t know what you’re talking about, so please stop dragging people’s names through the mud so you can have something on the FV and CREC.
Frankly, Mr. T., your slander against the men I know (like Pastor Turri) makes me sick. It’s quite evident that you’ve no respect for the officers of Christ’s church. Had you respect, you wouldn’t suppose yourself to be in the know regarding things at which you couldn’t even guess. Do us all a favor, Mr. T., and stick to the IDEAS being discussed and quit slandering ministers of the gospel.
Keith Phillips said,
August 27, 2007 at 5:12 pm
Dear Mr. Baggins,
Thanks for yet another reply.
Regarding point 1 — I guess I can get to work on getting to personally know folks on both sides of this debate. It’s probably idealistic and naive, but it seems to me that (a) our church ought to have some way of handling matters that doesn’t result in — “Of course you say that, you’re part of a good ol’ boys club . . . No I’m not, you are,” and (b) that doesn’t require me to get to personally know people that live thousands of miles from me.
Regarding point 2 — point well made and taken.
Regarding point 3 — We may just have to agree to disagree on this one and leave it at that. I quite enjoy good comedy and rhetoric, and I don’t see either in Robert K’s writing.
Tim Wilder said,
August 27, 2007 at 5:28 pm
Re: 166
“I have the 2002 edition published by Christian Focus/Reformation Heritage. It has no index and a limited contents page. Could you direct me to the page or section you have in mind? I was quoting, it just so happens, from Brown’s ST in an earlier thread on the subject of law, but there are obviously many subjects involved in the law that you could be talking about.”
That’s odd, because I have the same edition, and the table of contents runs for four pages. It includes this:
BOOK VI.
Of the External Dispensation of the Covenant of Grace, by the Law, the Gospel, &c.
CHAP I. Of the Law of God; it nature; kinds; permanency; manifestation; qualities; obedience to it summarily considered; order commandments; rules of understanding them; duties required and sins forbidden in each:–threefold form of the moral law; and its several uses to men, to sinners, and to saints. 450-500
Note that the above is part of his discussion of the Covenant of Grace, not of the Covenant of Works, which is the first half of BOOK III. Notice also that he gives the law twice as much space as he does the doctrine of the Church (BOOK VII), and just as much as the Gospel and the Ordinances combined.
Mark T. said,
August 27, 2007 at 5:30 pm
Tim Prussic,
It’s not slander if it’s true and if you sleep with dogs, don’t complain if you wake up with fleas.
Thank you.
tim prussic said,
August 27, 2007 at 5:45 pm
That’s the thing, Mark. Honestly, do you KNOW anything about those cases beyond superficial facts? Do you really know enough to drag men through the mud? Everyone reading this know they none of us but those involved have enough information, so don’t pretend to be judge, jury and executioner for stuff of which you know very little. Don’t act like you know what’s TRUE. Mind your own business.
The dogs I sleep with, by the way, are Bible Presbyterian dogs. The BPC has come down (in a non-binding way) against the Federal Vision. I’m not in bed with the FV guys for a second. I’m a fairly impartial party. I see some truth in FV critiques of current American Reformed culture and I see some merit in the opposition to the FV. I don’t see any merit, however, in your slander and character assasination.
tim prussic said,
August 27, 2007 at 5:47 pm
All, please forgive my misspelling of assassination there at the end. I know, I know, it’s got the word “ass” in it twice – can’t believe THAT slipped by me!
Mark T. said,
August 27, 2007 at 6:08 pm
Tim Prussic,
I only know what I read in the CRE minutes. If the CREC does not want these FACTS spread around, then they should not publish them:
Now please take a word of advice from someone who means you no ill will. Stop jumping to highly emotional conclusions without argument or evidence. When you frame your arguments, think each proposition through making sure that your next proposition logically follows, because most of the time it does not, which is when your emotional over-investment does not let you unwind.
So if you respond to this, please think each line through twice before you hit “Submit Comment,” because I really mean you no harm.
Thank you.
Robert K. said,
August 27, 2007 at 6:16 pm
>>”That’s odd, because I have the same edition, and the table of contents runs for four pages. It includes this:
BOOK VI.
Of the External Dispensation of the Covenant of Grace, by the Law, the Gospel, &c.
CHAP I. Of the Law of God; it nature; kinds; permanency; manifestation; qualities; obedience to it summarily considered; order commandments; rules of understanding them; duties required and sins forbidden in each:–threefold form of the moral law; and its several uses to men, to sinners, and to saints. 450-500″
Notice the reference, though, is to a 50 page swath of text, and you didn’t give me any indication at all what you were referring to regarding the law. Right?
And you still havn’t.
My experience with FVists is you have basic non-understandings of law and gospel. I hear Jordan using the phrase “merit theology” in a way where he obviously has no clue – or intentionally and mischievously is pretending to have no clue – as to who merits what and for whom and how it is grace for one party and so on.
Please be more specific. I know you want to simply make a John Brown reference and give Federal Vision followers who are ignorant of Reformed Theology an easy impression that John Brown is some how in a proto-FV camp, but why don’t you make a specific reference rather than talking about how much space Brown gives to this or that.
Eric F. Langborgh said,
August 27, 2007 at 6:21 pm
Dear Rev. Keister,
Re: your #163 – I completely agree that there are bad apples in every bunch, and I have certainly witnessed some untoward behavior from some in the pro-FV crowd. So I would say that the worst from all sides should be banned.
However, other than the Satanic charge thrown your way – which is clearly a mile beyond the pale – the rest of the list your provide, though not respectful, does not fall to the level of RobertK’s persistent charges that so many FVers are in fact wolves, are in fact reprobate, and are in fact going straight to hell – with RobertK drooling in glee at the prospect he claims certain knowledge of. Surely you see the qualitative difference here? After all, one can be an Anabaptist and still be a brother in Christ – and I certainly consider Anabaptists my brothers, however woefully mistaken they are. So, I say again, ban the worst from all sides, but RobertK should be the first to go.
Respectfully,
–Eric
tim prussic said,
August 27, 2007 at 6:26 pm
Mr. T., thanks for all your advice on posting. I’ll take it. Please take mine on godly conduct with reference to your accusations and slander.
Despite jumbled sentences/words, I think the logical flow of my comments is a-okay. I don’t have a spell check on the work computer and am often in a rush. That’s just the way it is with my errors in typing. To attribute that, however, to being highly emotional is merely an other of your sly little personal attacks, which attacks don’t discredit the clear IDEAS that I proffer in my posts. I don’t hope to convince you of this. There are, however, a goodly number of silent readers who know exactly what I’m saying.
The scant defense you put forward for your slander falls under its own weight. What happened with Pastor Turri? Do you know names, occassions, contexts, and specifics? ABSOLUTELY NOT! So, as I said before, mind your own business.
Robert K. said,
August 27, 2007 at 6:31 pm
Eric, Federal Vision denies justification by faith alone. As is most all heretics it is their main ‘prey’. They know the church stands or falls on that doctrine. They know it is the one doctrine that separates people from the Kingdom of God and the system of the Beast. And they parade as Calvinist/Reformed pillars. This puts them in a unique category.
tim prussic said,
August 27, 2007 at 6:37 pm
Mr. K., statement #177 is simply false. The FV does not deny justification sola fide. Some in their midst might (though I have yet to see the evidence), but to attribute that to all FV men clearly demonstrates your ignorance and/or maliciousness.
Robert K. said,
August 27, 2007 at 6:53 pm
Some do, some don’t, some don’t but with qualification (the definition of ‘by’, for instance, or ‘faith’, or ‘justification’). Who cares? To even be near other people who deny it gives you away.
FOR TIM WILDER:
The best – or at least a quick – way to see what John Brown of Haddingtom thought about law is to approach it through the ‘Marrow Controversy.’ Do a search on that (it’s actually quite relevant to the FV debate). Then read this by Brown himself. Though it is a bit involved, and you have to have a grasp of the controversy and issues re law and gospel involved, yet there it is.
I’d not attempt the FV practice of clipping excerpts out-of-context with the above link as you will most certainly embarrass yourself.
The Marrow of Modern Divinity would be a good assignment for all who think they might be to some degree favorable to Federal Visionist doctrine.
tim prussic said,
August 27, 2007 at 7:24 pm
Re: #179: Who cares? Who cares about honesty? Who cares about not bearing false witness against your neighbor? Commandments and righteousness, phooey! Get ’em at all costs. Yup, I’ve given myself away, alright, and so have you, Mr. K.
You anti-FVers aren’t doing your cause any service on this blog. Resorting to dishonesty and slander looks really bad cuz it is. You’re zeal against the FV actually masks problems within the FV.
Robert K. said,
August 27, 2007 at 7:46 pm
Who cares about people who affirm and deny out of both sides of their mouths and who use language like liberal academics? Who cares?
On a similar subject notice Leithart’s reluctance to write a Federal Vision systematic theology. He was asked if he would by Wilkens in the interviews linked above. Notice that just about any level of Reformed theologian can write a Reformed ST and often does write one. Of course Leithart brings a secular academic’s tactical and political thinking to such an endeavor. He’s not going to do anything that will expose his position and threaten his vanity, and he knows if he wrote a Federal Vision systematic theology he would be laughed off any stage he took for the rest of his life.
Mark T. said,
August 27, 2007 at 7:53 pm
Tim Prussic,
I realize that you think the logical flow of your comments is a-okay, but they’re not. For example, you wrote,
Since you made this ridiculous assertion, please show me where I ever attributed your highly emotional conclusions to your errors in typing, or whatever you meant, and I will apologize immediately.
But when you cannot prove your statement, please reconsider what I wrote to you before.
Thank you.
tim prussic said,
August 27, 2007 at 8:55 pm
Mr. T., nitpicking just makes you look worse. Far be it from you to deal with the substance, admit your slander, repent and move on. No, no… change the topic and hope to save face.
This doesn’t bode well for any theological discussion when men aren’t man enough to admit small faults, they certainly won’t be man enough to admit a big one.
Tim Wilder said,
August 27, 2007 at 10:01 pm
Re: 174
“Notice the reference, though, is to a 50 page swath of text, and you didn’t give me any indication at all what you were referring to regarding the law. Right?”
“And you still havn’t. ”
And I won’t. I expect you to study all 50 pages.
Tim Wilder said,
August 27, 2007 at 10:09 pm
Re: 179
“The best – or at least a quick – way to see what John Brown of Haddingtom thought about law is to approach it through the ‘Marrow Controversy.’”
The best way to see what John Brown of Haddington thought about law is to read what John Brown of Haddington wrote about the law where he discussed it specifically and systematically.
Dave H said,
August 27, 2007 at 10:23 pm
All
Please stop requesting RobertK’s removal. I’m a home schooling father and it is a great excersize for my two boys (11 and 9) to witness on this site how men like RobertK and his cohort can call themselves Christians but state such filth, and spew such harsh anger and name calling. We oft put down the WCF and pick up that black Book and read I Cor 13; and then the three of us have a good (though equally sad) laugh at grumpy young men. And even some who claim to be in the ministry leading others to live Christ-like lives. We also have lessons on being hurt by a brother, on imaturity, illogical statements, not bridling the “keystoke”, envy, etc. For them that have ears, let them hear…
Thanks for the school projects.
Robert K. said,
August 27, 2007 at 10:49 pm
>>>Re: 174“Notice the reference, though, is to a 50 page swath of text, and you didn’t give me any indication at all what you were referring to regarding the law. Right?”
“And you still havn’t. ”
And I won’t. I expect you to study all 50 pages.<<<
I could read/study all 50 pages and still not know what you were driving at; but it’s become apparent you didn’t know what you were driving at yourself. You were just engaging in the ‘say anything to deflect’ (or the say whatever to make innocents think historic theologian ‘X’ belongs to your camp) tactic of the Federal Vision.
tim prussic said,
August 27, 2007 at 10:52 pm
Dave H sounds like a papist. Whaddya think, boys?
Robert K. said,
August 27, 2007 at 10:53 pm
>>>Re: 179
“The best – or at least a quick – way to see what John Brown of Haddingtom thought about law is to approach it through the ‘Marrow Controversy.’”
The best way to see what John Brown of Haddington thought about law is to read what John Brown of Haddington wrote about the law where he discussed it specifically and systematically.<<<
Actually, the context the Marrow Controversy gives is a rather good way to get at what Brown’s doctrine of the law was. You could learn about Brown *and* about law and gospel at the same time.
I would imagine your Federal Vision teachers have not made too many mentions of the Marrow Controversy. It is a ‘nothing new under the sun’ that convicts the FV as age-old common bad doctrine.
Robert K. said,
August 27, 2007 at 10:55 pm
Dave H. is probably a fine father and nice man, but for the purposes of seeing sin he needs to compare himself to God rather than me. He will always come out as a fine, decent fellow if he compares himself to me.
Terry W. West said,
August 27, 2007 at 11:21 pm
Am I missing something? When did Tim Wilder become a FV defender?
Confused,
Terry
Ruben said,
August 27, 2007 at 11:28 pm
Re: #189.
As far as I know, Robert, (do you know a certain Caroline Trace, by the way?) you are the first person to confuse Mr. Wilder with a Federal Visionist. Thanks for the laugh. You can read his comments on the Wilkins and the Doppelganger thread to set the record straight.
Robert K. said,
August 27, 2007 at 11:37 pm
If I mis-wrote forgive me. Tim Wilder and Terry West must have become cross circuited in my mind somewhere up there…
Robert K. said,
August 27, 2007 at 11:41 pm
Going back to #133, where I thought I was being challenged by an FVist regarding John Brown of Haddington’s bona fides re law and gospel I can see I misread (I guess). Rereading though it’s not obvious what you, Tim, are getting at. May be water under the bridge at this point…
Terry W. West said,
August 27, 2007 at 11:50 pm
Robert k,
I think you may have just showed your hand. I think what is really going on here is that anyone who disagrees with you must be wrong and therefore FV even if they don’t know it.
Goodnight,
Terry
Robert K. said,
August 27, 2007 at 11:55 pm
Read #133. It’s not really saying anything. If the author was pro-FV, which I assumed thinking it was you, my assumption of what he was getting at would have been legitimate. Nice try to Stalinize me from the photograph though.
Robert K. said,
August 27, 2007 at 11:59 pm
I take biblical doctrine seriously because what you hold to has correspondence in the spiritual realms. Any coming off of, or conceding degrees of, the five solas is like shaking hands with the devil. “I don’t agree with everything the old Dragon has to say, but I can agree with some of it… Because I’m a thoughtful, nuanced, critical thinker…”
kamelda said,
August 28, 2007 at 8:44 am
Not to accuse anyone here of being Caroline Trace, but I agree with my husband that some comments/behavior patterns of some here sound disturbingly like hers. I corresponded with her at some length and found out that she has cut herself off from all association with the visible church, that she has unorthodox if not heretical views of illumination that tied directly into her views about discretion (the duping of the masses and her own infallible Spirit-led judgment), and that she is probably not in her right mind — more sad as her mind is a singularly sharp one gone awry. People have been I think rather embarrassed for hailing the comments of this oddly sharp (as in intelligent) and acridly humorous woman under other names (she masqueraded successfully as a man with a doctor’s degree on the Puritan board) only to see her go to pieces (in the end she is often reduced to profanity etc) or find out who she really was. I have much sympathy for her and again I am not accusing anyone of being her. But I do believe that people taken in by sheer invective will be embarrassed by the judgment of history (no matter who is right and wrong here), if not before.
I’m not sure to what use a lot of this tends. Isn’t the point at issue exactly the demonstration of where the FV have doctrinally erred? Whether or not they have bad characters or a buddy system is not really a proof — there are also bad characters and a buddy system in the TR camp, and the way in which such remarks are generally made on both sides, seems to reflect far more on the characters and the buddy system of those who make them. More importantly, how can the doctrinal debate usefully advance as long as arguments are being made that can be hurled right back at the other side? Besides I sincerely doubt that it can be proved that Rev. Wilson is a very bad man. And I say this as someone opposed (as Rev. Wilson can testify if he remembers me from his blog and several emails to which he responded graciously though I am quite the average unimportant person in all this) to the FV doctrine.
tim prussic said,
August 28, 2007 at 9:40 am
But the thing is, Mr. K., that not a few things you’ve branded as “FV” can very easily be shown to be historically Reformed. You’re a Reformed Baptist, no? That’s fine, but it’s not Reformed. When we start working with the Reformed concept of covenant and sacraments (specifically, the Calvinist side of Reformed), I’d be surprised if you didn’t take exception. That doesn’t mean, however, that the other folks in the discussion are FV, Papists, crypto-Lutherans, etc… it could mean that YOUR thinking is out of step with historic Reformed thought. Mr. K., just think about that as a possibility. Is it possible that your perception of Reformed doctrine is skewed by your Baptist leanings? Similarly, is it possible that my perception of Reformed doctrine is skewed because of my own leanings? Yes and yes?
Ruben said,
August 28, 2007 at 10:12 am
Re: #194. It seems quite obvious to me what Mr. Wilder is getting at. He is stating here, as he has stated on more than one occasion in the past, including previous blog comments here, that while the FV is wrong, this does not mean that every critic of them is automatically right. I think we could all agree, to take an example that is not meant to correspond on every point, that the Mormon polemic against Islam could be fraught with as many problems as the real error it opposes.
greenbaggins said,
August 28, 2007 at 10:43 am
RobertK, the guilt by association argument does not necessarily work all the time. On the one hand, someone could be talking quite jovially with an FV person, and not endorse their theology. I think if Wilson invited me to have some wine at his place, I would go without any hesitation (I don’t drink beer). I think that even if Mark Horne or Jeff Meyers would extend the same invitation, I would go. Wilkins also. I oppose error wherever I find it. But differentiation is quite crucial to this. Not every FV proponent is heretical on every point. I have been getting emails from people who say they affirm justification by faith alone, based on the imputation of Christ’s active and passive obedience, and not in any way dependent on our works, and yet you have attacked them as being a false brother. I have tried to be gentle with you, Robert. But I will say it a bit more clearly: tone down the rhetoric, and stop the personal attacks. There are many FV people who read this blog and want to have a civil, decent (though heated, possibly) debate about real theological issues. I want that to happen as well. And the FV people are not monolithic. For instance, Wilson is not in the same ball-park as the rest of the FV guys. I have said that, and proven that, I think.
Robert K. said,
August 28, 2007 at 2:22 pm
>”But the thing is, Mr. K., that not a few things you’ve branded as “FV” can very easily be shown to be historically Reformed. You’re a Reformed Baptist, no? That’s fine, but it’s not Reformed.”
Infant baptism is not a Reformed distinctive. Roman Catholics practice it and have done so long prior to the Reformation.
>”When we start working with the Reformed concept of covenant and sacraments (specifically, the Calvinist side of Reformed), I’d be surprised if you didn’t take exception. That doesn’t mean, however, that the other folks in the discussion are FV, Papists, crypto-Lutherans, etc… it could mean that YOUR thinking is out of step with historic Reformed thought.”
Bapstism doesn’t define classical covenant theology either. All the Reformed theologians who, for instance, see the Mosaic covenant as a republication of the Covenant of Works (I know this gets technical for many at this point) would say, or could say, the credo position is the authenic Reformed position vis-a-vis classical covenant theology. This is neither here nor there though regarding FV. FV always start talking about baptism when they are pressed on their views of justification by faith and works.
>”Mr. K., just think about that as a possibility. Is it possible that your perception of Reformed doctrine is skewed by your Baptist leanings? Similarly, is it possible that my perception of Reformed doctrine is skewed because of my own leanings? Yes and yes?”
In confronting Federal Vision liberals one only need talk about the five solas. They program is to Romanize Reformed Theology, in the usual age-old common ways the proud unregenerate have attempted to do that. They are a bit more in a unique category though in that they are not just criminals, they are criminals wearing stolen police uniforms. They’re telling their adherents they are Calvinist, Reformed, Westminsterian pillars.
A FINAL NOTE TO THE ABOVE:
The longer you spend time in their (FV, or any false teachers) company the more you risk merging, by degree, and small concession (knowingly made or not) with them. Wilson, for instance, is not a good man. He will post photographs on his blog to show he’s a ‘good’ man because he has a family, etc., etc. So what. What he does with language alone puts him in the worst category of false teacher. Mormons are good with the familial, civic righteousness. That’s what their religion is about, to a great extent. That’s all Wilson has with his false gospel as well. Though I wouldn’t automatically grant even civic righteousness. When you look into the inner life and traditions of mormons you can find some weird things…
Jonathan Bonomo said,
August 28, 2007 at 2:39 pm
“Bapstism doesn’t define classical covenant theology either. All the Reformed theologians who, for instance, see the Mosaic covenant as a republication of the Covenant of Works (I know this gets technical for many at this point) would say, or could say, the credo position is the authenic Reformed position vis-a-vis classical covenant theology.”
Apparently, there is no conflict between being a “good man” and fabricating history for the purpose of self-justification.
Robert K. said,
August 28, 2007 at 2:55 pm
>”Apparently, there is no conflict between being a “good man” and fabricating history”
Many at reformedcatholicism conflate the history of redemption with Schaff’s History of the Christian Church.
Robert K. said,
August 28, 2007 at 3:13 pm
Reading now…
Jonathan Bonomo said,
August 28, 2007 at 3:26 pm
“Many at reformedcatholicism conflate the history of redemption with Schaff’s History of the Christian Church.”
That may well be, Robert, but I personally do not. I do not rely upon outdated historians for my historical work, and have in fact openly criticized Schaf’s historiography at a number of points, as well as made it clear that his work is dated. As a student of nineteenth century theology, and specifically nineteenth century American Reformed theology, my study of Schaff is primarily historical in its own right. For secondary sources on historical matters I much prefer more recent historians such as Kelly, Pelikan, McNeill, Gerrish, Obermann, Dickens, MacCulloch, Marsden, Noll, et c.
Thanks for your concern, though.
tim prussic said,
August 28, 2007 at 3:48 pm
Mr. K., you’ve managed to miss my points at every point in post #199. When I speak of the Reformed faith vis-a-vis the Reformed Baptist faith, I’m not speaking of the Reformed faith vis-a-vis everything else. Simply put, I’m not talking about Rome mistaking the Reformed faith, I’m speaking about YOU mistaking it. I’m not saying this or that doctrine DEFINES the Reformed faith, I’m saying the historic Reformed faith differs for YOU and other Reformed Baptists – and that not just in a single doctrine. What I’m talking about is a broad mindset, not the specific doctrine of infant baptism.
Here’s an example of what I mean, but on my part: I’m a theonomist, so I honestly tend to read both Reformed symbols and Reformed theologians with something of a slanted eye. Maybe I’m wrong and maybe I’m right, but I admit that my mindset effects my reading and understanding. Doctrine’s are not so narrow as only to have effect in their own domain. My theonomy effects a great deal of my thinking in lotts of areas and your baptistic thought effects a great deal, too. That’s what I’m getting at, Mr. K.
You seem to want to persist in your tunnel vision of Reformed-Baptist thought. You really think that RB notions are full-fledged Reformed. I’ll grant that they’re one subsection of Reformed thought and that they’re honorable. It seems that your limited catholicity prevents you from returning the favor to one who is actually Reformed and not RB.
Robert K. said,
August 28, 2007 at 4:02 pm
For the record I don’t identify as Reformed Baptist. I simply don’t make the sacraments any more than Scripture does, and as long as the paedos (as they claim) don’t believe in baptismal regeneration then it’s not a central thing. The entrance into the Covenant of Grace is by the Word and the Spirit, effectual calling/regeneration. Being born again. Not by ritual.
I can move in either camp.
Your theonomy is hamstringing you. Many FVists or FVist supporters have entered the faith via that crooked gate. Throw off all crank baggage. I was effectually called by a preacher who simply read the Bible but who also had alot of dispensational and worse doctrine. I didn’t see any reason to carry it with me as I began to learn doctrine myself. What one really needs to do is simply engage the Word of God itself. In a real, humble, dedicated way. This will put you on the straight and narrow way regarding doctrine and practice. If anything will.
tim prussic said,
August 28, 2007 at 4:44 pm
Thanks for the admonition… I didn’t arrive at the Reformed faith through a crank theonomist, I studied my way into a thoughtful theonomistic position. That, however, is beside the point. I only wanted it to function as an example.
To the point, I think that your baptistic tendencies run far deeper than you imagine. You say you can move in either camp, and that’s so, but you’re not mainstream in the Reformed camp (or the Baptist one, either, I’d imagine). All I’ve been driving at here is this: Is it possible that you’re vision of Reformed theology is skewed by your baptistic mindset? Also, do you recognize that your RB tendencies (self-identity notwithstanding) are divergent from garden-variety Reformed thought?
Robert K. said,
August 28, 2007 at 5:24 pm
You keep refusing to recognize that infant baptism is not a Reformed distinctive. I would not be Reformed, or in the mainstream of Reformed, if I denied one of the five solas or the doctrines of grace or classical covenant theology.
Once a person has regeneration by the Word and the Spirit ritual baptism debates are of no interest. They are actually empty. And phrases such as “baptistic tendencies” are empty as well.
God regenerates, you can’t do it, but fear God only and engage His Word. The living Word of God is the wildcard. He says, when you move towards Him He will move towards you (James 4)… And when God says it it’s not Arminianism…
tim prussic said,
August 28, 2007 at 5:37 pm
MINDSET, Mr. K., I’m talking about mindset. This is ridiculous!
Can you even attempt to answer my questions? Is that to much to ask, for an actual EXCHANGE of ideas?
Also, why do you always end in a homily? How annoying…
Robert K. said,
August 28, 2007 at 6:04 pm
>”Also, why do you always end in a homily? How annoying…”
Why because I’m wearing white flowing robes…
Robert K. said,
August 28, 2007 at 6:18 pm
I forgot:
You talk of ‘mindset.’ A distinctive of liberal theologians is they assume thiings such as Descartes changed human nature. Apostolic biblical doctrine rides above human currents just as regeneration by the Holy Spirit comes down from above an individual’s thought and activity. (Word of God being the wild card.) There’s nothing new under the sun.
Homily: A new heart trumps ‘mindsets.’ Illumination and discernment of the Holy Spirit takes one out of any deterministic philosophical bondage one might want to pose to categorize one’s doctrinal foes…
Jonspach said,
August 28, 2007 at 6:30 pm
Yeah Tim, forget about mindsets and get a new heart!
And to think that I believed that you were regenerate all this time… but no longer! Robert K. has shown me the truth – no one with the illumination and discernment that comes from the Holy Spirit by way of a new heart would dare to speak of these “mindsets”.
::rolls eyes::
Is anyone else having flashbacks of the Wilson/Hitchens debate a couple of months back, where Hitchens just kept dodging the questions?
Robert K. said,
August 28, 2007 at 8:04 pm
Words like this will come out of James B. Jordan’s mouth: “After van Til nobody can think like that anymore.”
Really…
As I said: liberals think philosophers and philosophies alter human nature. And they don’t realize biblical doctrine lives at a universal realm that rides above philosophical schools and eras and what have you.
They also don’t realize – or don’t want to acknowledge – Scripture answers anything vain human beings can experience or think up or make up.
Doug Wilson says: “The Westminster Confession of Faith says nothing about evolution, for instance…” No, chapter 4 doesn’t touch on that subject at all…
WILSON: “The reason we must alter the confessions and reformulate Reformed doctrine is because modernity and the enlightenment rewired how human beings think. We are no longer of the time and culture of the apostles…”
JORDAN: “That’s exactly right, Doug. And to even make the point more gory just think of this: prior to van Til nobody even had a concept for “culture of the apostles.” What van Til did for us is to open up a part of our brain matter we weren’t even using so that we could see for the first time things the apostles and Christians since the apostles to the time of van Til couldn’t see. Of course we need to reformulate Reformed doctrine.”
WILSON: “We’re riding around in buggies.”
JORDAN: “And Satan owns the road, so we’d better get better equipped.”
WILSON: “Fast.”
News Around the Blogs « Reformed Musings said,
August 30, 2007 at 11:00 pm
[…] Baggins offered an Analogy for DW, which created a firestorm of over 200 comments. That has to be close to a record. Lane also posted […]
P. Andrew Sandlin said,
September 5, 2007 at 5:20 pm
RE comment #134
Gary, in the interests of accuracy, I am not a member of John Armstrong’s board of directors, though I am sympathetic with and a supporter of ACT 3. I see you are discussing with Douglas the possibility of a debate over the FV. I would be happy to participate in such a debate as a critic who does not hold the FV heretical. Such an offer will fall on diffident ears of folks whose only two options seem to be fulsome accolades or fulminating recriminations.
I would also be willing to debate the question: “How Should Reformed Ministers Treat Other Congregations in Their Own Denomination?”
greenbaggins said,
September 5, 2007 at 5:36 pm
Andrew, welcome to my blog.
GLW Johnson said,
September 6, 2007 at 9:42 am
Andy
My misunderstanding, I thought you were-or had been. As for the debate you referred to-no, I am not planning any such thing with Doug Wilson( for reasons that I will not again rehearse again) ,but am I to understand that you are supportive of the FV despite the well documented difficulties you have had with DW?
P. Andrew Sandlin said,
September 6, 2007 at 1:06 pm
No, Gary, as I’ve said and published many times publicly, I am not a FV supporter; but neither do I deem this view heretical. Whatever “difficulties” there are with Douglas, they certainly do not imply I hold him as a heretic. Such is silly tripe.
I hope this clears things up.