On Face to Face Communication

February 2, 2008 at 5:55 am (Federal Vision, Heresy)

I, for one, am sick and tired of the excuse “You didn’t contact me,” coming from the FV. I am simply going to turn it around and ask the FV’ers, “Why didn’t you submit your publications to peer review that wasn’t already favorable to your view, so that you could anticipate where the misunderstandings could be, and thus clarify before you went to print?” This is often done in Ph.D. work, for instance. The question is whether someone is an expert in the field, not whether he agrees with the thesis. Furthermore, a disagreeing reader is often chosen specifically because he disagrees. The FV might respond, “Anyone who is a critic is not going to understand my writings.” Fine. But there goes any chance you might have had of convincing any critics, either. Are there absolutely zero critics who would be completely and utterly unwilling to do this kind of peer review? I find this hard to believe. Many of them might not want to, admittedly. But have the FV guys tried to do this? My impression is that the only peer review that was done (except for the Auburn Avenue Pros and Cons book) was done by those already favorable to their position. So, in not submitting their works to critical peer review, they have in effect asserted that their writings are clear enough that even critics should be able to understand them. So why complain now when the critics have taken them at their word?

142 Comments

Gabe Martini said,

February 2, 2008 at 11:21 am

Brother,

If a critic of an opponent’s viewpoint cannot re-state the opponent’s viewpoint to the opponent’s satisfaction before leveling criticism, said critic is not qualified to critique said opponent. This is also how things should be handled in peer review; e.g. John Piper’s examination of the Rt. Rev. N.T. Wright’s views on Justification.

Gabe Martini
greenbaggins said,

February 2, 2008 at 11:34 am

Gabe, if the FV’er resolutely determines that no critic *can* understand him, then we are at an impasse. It has been my experience with all FV’ers except Wilson that I am incapable of understanding the FV’er because I am not willing to agree with him.

Furthermore, in this case, at least with regard to the PCA FV’ers, there is no possibility that the FV’ers will ever say that the critics have understood them on any point, even if the critics have understood them on any point. No heretic has ever claimed to be understood, Gabe. Fortunately, they are not the final court of appeal. Finally, you haven’t even remotely answered the point of the post. Instead, you are trying to wrench the topic around to the supposed misunderstanding of the critics. My point is this: why didn’t the FV’ers submit their publications to people they thought might disagree with them? They should have done this long ago, before 2002, before any of the study committees had come out polarizing the two camps. That way, they could have ensured an academic, scholarly review of their work.
Mark T. said,

February 2, 2008 at 11:40 am

Pastor Lane,

You may be mistaken. The possibility exists that you don’t understand them when they complain in writing, “You didn’t contact me in person to clarify what I really meant.”

Thank you.
greenbaggins said,

February 2, 2008 at 11:44 am

(Slaps self on the forehead in frustration) Why didn’t I think of that? I should have submitted this post to an FV peer review so that they could have told me this.
David R. McCrory said,

February 2, 2008 at 12:02 pm

If it is left to a critic to do a peer review of the peer’s work, then the peerie may want to get a review of the peerer’s peer review. This obviously leads to the question, “Who would be an appropriate peer to do the peer reviews of the peer review? Ya’ll scholars ponder on that, I’m going to the fridge to do a beer review!
David R. McCrory said,

February 2, 2008 at 12:04 pm

I’m not sure how that got on there twice.
greenbaggins said,

February 2, 2008 at 12:06 pm

Already took care of it.
Gabe Martini said,

February 2, 2008 at 12:08 pm

Lane,

This is amusing, and that helps make up for the fact that you constantly equate the FV with heresy (whereas your denomination does not).

Regardless, you assume that I think you should agree with me before you can criticize me. That is not the case at all, and no one should claim that.

However, it is imperative that you be able to tell me what I am saying accurately before criticizing it. Many in the FV/TR discussion have not been able to do this, unfortunately. John Piper was able to do this in his peer review of N.T. Wright, though, and he is to be commended for it, even if I disagree with him. He was seeking the higher road of charity and love in the brotherhood of saints, and his critique of Wright has amounted to something worth considering seriously as a result of his love and charity.

My contention is that anyone who finds themselves unable to re-state what another party believes should consider strongly staying out of the discussion altogether. Otherwise, they are nothing but loud gongs and crashing symbols, and the possibility of charitable dialogue is vanquished. The possibility of peaceably being able to “agree to disagree” is long gone. Instead, there is the spirit of “we don’t want you here, so get out” found among the critics of FV, and that is something to be ashamed of, especially when the FV proponents are still scratching their hands, thinking, “Why did they say I believe that?”

Gabe Martini
Mark T. said,

February 2, 2008 at 12:09 pm

I wonder if the demand for face-to-face communication applies to all written works, including written transcriptions of sermons delivered from the pulpit. Perhaps they could clarify this for us, but not in writing.

And as long as we’re on it, it’s clear from Wilkins’ interpretation of the Indictment that he did not understand what the prosecution. For example, the Amends states:

Louisiana Presbytery . . . has evidenced its refusal to deal with the views of TE Wilkins . . . thereby creating an impasse that can only be resolved by Louisiana Presbytery either repenting (and showing its repentance by bringing TE Wilkins to trial in a fair and impartial way or by referring the matter pursuant to BCO 41), or failing which, having the ecclesiastical connection between Louisiana Presbytery and the Presbyterian Church in America dissolved by the General Assembly. . . .

However, Wilkins clearly misunderstood this easy remedy when he interpreted it to mean:

Furthermore, I believe Presbytery feared — based on threats set forth in the indictment of the presbytery — that if it did try me and, upon receiving and reviewing the evidence adduced by my accusers and by myself in my defense, exonerate me, the Presbytery would be cut off from the PCA.

In fact, it’s possible that we might have had a trial if Wilkins had contacted the prosecution in person to determine what they meant by their written words.

Is it too late for him to rescind his resignation?
its.reed said,

February 2, 2008 at 12:15 pm

Ref. #8:

Gabe: you demonstrate Lane’s points effectively.

On a few occassions on this blog I have written summaries of my understanding of FV positions, and have received affirmation from FV’ers that I’ve understood them accurately.

I then follow up with my critigue – only to hear “you don’t understand.”

At this point we’re simply repeating ourselves.
anneivy said,

February 2, 2008 at 12:25 pm

“If a critic of an opponent’s viewpoint cannot re-state the opponent’s viewpoint to the opponent’s satisfaction before leveling criticism, said critic is not qualified to critique said opponent.”

Does this apply to those who criticize Calvinism, such as the Caner brothers? I’m fairly certain they would not agree with a Calvinist’s description of their viewpoint.

Come to that, precious few atheists would agree with a Christian’s description or re-statement of their viewpoint.

Political conservatives aren’t generally given to agreeing with liberals’ re-stating of conservative viewpoints, and vice versa.

Really, if a necessary precondition for critiquing anyone else’s viewpoint is to have the other’s agreement that their viewpoint has been accurately stated, debate on virtually all topics would come to a screeching halt.

Hmmmm…..do you think the Pharisees believed that Christ was accurately re-stating their viewpoint when He leveled criticism at them?

You know, I sort of doubt it. ;-)
Gabe Martini said,

February 2, 2008 at 12:56 pm

Is/ought fallacy, Anne.

Politics isn’t where I’d look for examples of charitable, Christian dialogue.

The Pharisees’ problem wasn’t that Christ didn’t accurately re-state their viewpoints, it was that they didn’t see any problem with their viewpoints as re-stated to them. Jesus wasn’t being uncharitable, and being charitable doesn’t necessitate that you agree with someone. In fact, the whole Jesus example is just a red herring.

Reed, you go too far in your response. I acknowledge some people have accurately re-stated the FV positions, only to then disagree with them (such as yourself). My problem is with those who are either incapable or unwilling to be that charitable, while still leveling critique.
its.reed said,

February 2, 2008 at 12:59 pm

Ref. #12:

Gabe: fair enough. What’s too far in regards to being charitable? Is dismissing someone as a TR going too far?
greenbaggins said,

February 2, 2008 at 1:02 pm

Gabe, let me repeat for the umpteenth time what I mean by “heresy.” I have been using it in the sense of doctrine that is out of accord with the Standards. Whether it is soul-damning or not is a matter of debate amongst the critics. The word in the original is “false teaching.” The popular way of understanding is not necessarily the best. That is how the category on the sidebar works, etc. You have read my blog long enough to know this. So, there is no gap between me and my denomination on this point whatsoever. This is not a debate about words, but about ideas. So, if you say that I have to understand the FV accurately before I criticize them, then why did you criticize my supposed “departure” from what the PCA holds on the FV before you understood what I meant by the word “heresy?” This is especially acute because I have said often what I mean by “heresy,” including some very recent threads.

One reason why the critics want to see the FV’ers out of the PCA is that it doesn’t matter how carefully the critic writes, he is charged with misunderstanding, even when the following discussion demonstrates to the critics’ satisfaction that he did understand the FV’er. There is much more of that going on, in my mind, then there is misunderstanding the FV. Obviously you will disagree. But you are assuming that the FV’er is automatically correct when he claims to have been misunderstood. And that remains to be proven.
GLW Johnson said,

February 2, 2008 at 1:12 pm

You know, once all the FVers have all congregated in the CREC they ought to put together a committee( if they claim to be real Presbyterians, they gotta have committees) to develope their own lexicon. Heck, they already have their own language which nobody but they can understand- this would be a boon to the rest of us, especially to all those second year seminary students, who are the object of this exercise.
Ron Henzel said,

February 2, 2008 at 1:17 pm

Gabe wrote in comment 12: “My problem is with those who are either incapable or unwilling to be that charitable, while still leveling critique.”

Now there’s a blade that cuts both ways!

Meanwhile, I don’t think Anne was deducing “ought” from “is,” if what you mean by that is that she is suggesting that when people we criticize complain that we don’t understand them we should simply ignore those complaints and continue steamrolling over them because that’s the way the “real world” acts. I don’t hear her saying that at all.

I understand her position to be an extension of what Lane wrote in comment 2: “It has been my experience with all FV’ers except Wilson that I am incapable of understanding the FV’er because I am not willing to agree with him.” In other words: that when we perceive such complaints to be inherently phony—which, in the case of the FVers, I believe was all-too-common—to capitulate to them is simply to yield to an illegitimate silencing tactic.
Gabe Martini said,

February 2, 2008 at 1:38 pm

Replying to: #14…

Lane said: Gabe, let me repeat for the umpteenth time what I mean by “heresy.” I have been using it in the sense of doctrine that is out of accord with the Standards. Whether it is soul-damning or not is a matter of debate amongst the critics.

Oh, I see. I’ve never read you re-define heresy in this way, I’m sorry that I missed that whenever it has occurred. Incidentally, according to my understanding of how the word “heresy” is used in the Scriptures (e.g. as used in Titus), your definition of what is “acceptable” doctrine so to speak is heretical (schismatic), as you condemn the rest of the Christian faith by limiting what is “orthodox” to the Westminster Standards. Perhaps you wouldn’t say that anything else is “un-orthodox,” but I’m not familiar with your particular nuances in regards to the word heresy. That does help me understand why you’re using the term, though. Sorry to jump to conclusions based on my ignorance of how you’re using the word. Still, I would hope you wouldn’t see any and/or all beliefs which are contrary to the Standards as being soul-damning; that would be a little disheartening, from my perspective, as we are eliminating any chance of Lutherans, Baptists, Romanists, Eastern Orthodox, many Anglicans, Methodists, Pentecostals, and other broadly evangelical groups being resurrected unto life on the Last Day. Hopefully you don’t mean that. Hopefully you’re on the side of the “critics” in the “debate” over the exclusivity of salvation to those who adhere to the Westminster Standards that believes other people can, in fact, be resurrected unto life on the Last Day.

Replying to #13…

Reed said: Gabe: fair enough. What’s too far in regards to being charitable? Is dismissing someone as a TR going too far?

Defining what is “going too far” is a little bit of a gray area, admittedly. I would say we must use prudence and wisdom to determine how we should interact with others. To dismiss someone without any interaction or reasonable dialogue is — in most cases — not the best way to handle things, in my opinion. There may be extreme cases where it is best to not respond to or ignore the claims or accusations of some, but as a general rule, we should be open to hearing most people out, understanding their position, and responding with our thoughts. Even if we strongly disgree, this is the best way to handle things as Christians, I believe. I may be wrong, and there’s some gray areas here, as I’ve conceded, but this should be our preferred stance, I think.

Gabe Martini
Jeff Moss said,

February 2, 2008 at 1:52 pm

Lane, back to the subject of your original post:

Part of the problem is that the speakers at the 2002 Auburn Avenue Pastors’ Conference–where all the trouble started, apparently–were blindsided by the intensity of the criticism they received. I don’t think conference speakers in general are accustomed to submitting their talks to peer reviewers for input before actually delivering the talks at the conference. More typically, the pattern is for those who have gone to the conference (and others who hear recordings of the talks later) to chew over what is said and then express their agreement or disagreement.

If anyone should have submitted a document for peer review before issuing it, it was Covenant Presbytery of the RPCUS in their denunciation of the Auburn Avenue conference speakers. Without warning — and certainly without any preceding dialogue with the Reformed and Presbyterian pastors they were denouncing — they issued a statement calling the men’s teachings heretical and worthy of excommunication, and strongly implying that they were in danger of eternal damnation.

From that point on, many of the publications from the Federal Vision side were hurried attempts at self-defense, trying hard to restore the equilibrium that the RPCUS’s statement had disrupted so violently. And after these patterns of allegation and response had been set, maybe–just maybe–any submission of later FV publications for “peer review” would have seemed like locking the barn door after the horse had bolted.

(I spent two years as a missionary in Russia about the time the Auburn Avenue controversy was heating up, and did not become familiar with the issues until after I returned. If anything above is inaccurate because of my lack of information, I apologize.)
greenbaggins said,

February 2, 2008 at 2:08 pm

Jeff, the problem here is that the AAPC conference speakers knew good and well that their statements on many issues would go against the grain of Presbyterianism today. Let’s leave out the question of how they view themselves with regard to the tradition itself. If someone knows that he is going to sound controversial, he should make special effort to make himself clear, especially to those who might disagree. With regard to RPCNA, that was an entire denomination speaking. They are their peer group. They do not need the PCA or the OPC to tell them what to say. They approved that statement. However, I am not even referring primarily to the pastors’ conference, which is not written material, except in transcript form. I am referring primarily to written materials, the articles in _Federal Vision_, Wilson’s book, Leithart’s books, etc. When I finish my thesis, I plan on having a hostile (competent) reader rake it over the coals.

Gabe, I don’t know how you are coming to your conclusions. I define heresy carefully, and you assume that I think that everyone who doesn’t hold to the WCF is going to hell. Furthermore, I am not saying that it is a normal usage of the term. However, to say “redefine” is a bit pejorative. Is the popular sense the only legitimate usage of the word? Here is the Oxford English Dictionary’s definition of heresy: “Theological or religious opinion or doctrine maintained in opposition, or held to be contrary, to the ‘catholic’ or orthodox doctrine of the Christian Church, or, by extension, to that of any church, creed, or religious system, considered as orthodox.” In fact, nowhere in their entire article on the word do they include anything about “soul-damning.” Therefore, my use of the term is entirely legitimate, and hardly a redefinition.
Gabe Martini said,

February 2, 2008 at 6:00 pm

Lane,

I was attempting to understand “heretick” as the Bible uses the term; i.e. as schism.

I’m glad I misunderstood you, because now I’m no longer concerned over how you view non-Presbyterians.

Have a good weekend,
Gabe Martini
Ken Christian said,

February 2, 2008 at 6:42 pm

Brothers, the point of personal communication has very little to do with good scholarship, peer-review, etc. The reason one should communicate personally with a brother (particularly in one’s own denomination) before publically criticizing/condemning his views (published or not) is that common Christian charity requires such a thing. Can we not agree on even this?
Andrew Webb said,

February 2, 2008 at 7:06 pm

Funny, the FV guys claim to be able to accurately interpret and even condemn what I write, and yet none of them have ever picked up the phone and called me. Well, except for the one time I was called to deliver a tirade several years ago, but at no time did the FV man who called me ask what I’d meant, he assumed that I’d written what I meant.

Shame we can’t determine whether Finney or Briggs really were heretics seeing as we can’t contact them any longer. As such the judgment of charity should be that they were perfectly Reformed until we can at least assemble a study committee made up of people either favorable to or neutral on the subject of their theological views.

You know it’s also funny that in times past theological arguments were conducted entirely by tract, essay, article and letter without the parties involved talking to one another face to face. In the 16th and 15th centuries a face to face meeting would have resulted in one or the other party being burned, but that was back in the days when people took theology seriously.

Anyway, Lane your point about peer review is a good one, but then again the right approach to discussing new theology has seldom been “I’ll teach it, preach it, and publish it to the congregation and world first, and then react negatively and stubbornly continue when the vast majority of theological scholars in my camp (in theory at least) begin to tell me its an error.”
greenbaggins said,

February 2, 2008 at 7:11 pm

I wonder if the guys who wrote the new book _A Faith That Is Never Alone_ contacted the guys at WSC before attacking their articles.
greenbaggins said,

February 2, 2008 at 7:12 pm

BOQ You know it’s also funny that in times past theological arguments were conducted entirely by tract, essay, article and letter without the parties involved talking to one another face to face. In the 16th and 15th centuries a face to face meeting would have resulted in one or the other party being burned, but that was back in the days when people took theology seriously. EOQ

This is hilarious.
David Gray said,

February 2, 2008 at 7:24 pm

>You know it’s also funny that in times past theological arguments were conducted entirely by tract, essay, article and letter without the parties involved talking to one another face to face. In the 16th and 15th centuries a face to face meeting would have resulted in one or the other party being burned, but that was back in the days when people took theology seriously.

I’m assuming you are aware of the Marburg Colloquy…
Douglas Wilson said,

February 2, 2008 at 7:33 pm

Lane, Andy, everyone,

The point is not that you cannot read, understand, or debate with, someone you have never met or talked with on the phone. I have never spoken with Lane, or met him in person, but I have no complaint about his handling of what I write. I don’t think Piper interacted with Wright personally, but I think he did a fine and fair job representing him. So that is not the issue.

So what is the issue? The issue lies with two categories of critic — first, those who are constitutionally or dispositionally incapable of getting it right. Those who cannot understand the professor’s lectures need to show up for office hours. I am speaking here of those critics that have been shown to be guilty of misunderstandings, misrepresentations and distortions. Lest there be any mistake, there has been no response to my demonstrations of the slipshod work by Guy Waters, Scott Clark and others. And if you doubt that I have or could demonstrate this, why don’t you try to set up that debate I keep talking about between me and any of these gentlemen? I don’t keep saying that I am misunderstood, I keep proving that I am misunderstood. In response (with the exception of men like Lane), all I hear are the crickets.

The second kind of critic who should check personally is the critic who has ramped the stakes up really high. For example, when the first salvo of this war opened (“may God have mercy on their souls”), our critics — who had previously been in ministry together with us — consigned us to hell without so much as a personal appeal. That stinks. But if someone writes a response to something I write (about church government, say), and the bottom line of his disagreement is that he disagrees with what I wrote about church government, then great. More power to him.

But if we were previously working together, and he now thinks I am damned for my views, a personal appeal is certainly called for. And if he doesn’t think I am going to hell, but he does get my views on church government inverted and upside down, and I then demonstrate this, he has a responsibility to put it right. And if personal contact is necessary to help him put it right, then that is what he should do.
David Gilleran said,

February 2, 2008 at 8:15 pm

As one who was there for the AAPC 2002 conference, the tone was; here are somethings to debate among ourselves or this is what I am thinking about this subject. It was not here is a new theology, learn it, love it , believe it. It came across to me as the start of a discussion, not a final word.
magma2 said,

February 2, 2008 at 9:05 pm

Politics isn’t where I’d look for examples of charitable, Christian dialogue.

Contra Wilson who continually blames his critics for his failures (and his heresies), the impasse comes precisely at the phrase “Christian dialog.”

Anne nailed it. Yet, we still have men like Ken Christian whining that nobody picked up the phone. Frankly Ken, most of us have been back and forth on this issue for long enough that even the most non-committal Christian fence sitter realizes there is nothing on the other end but a dial tone. Give it a rest already.
David Gray said,

February 2, 2008 at 9:33 pm

>Yet, we still have men like Ken Christian whining that nobody picked up the phone.

Hey, I’d whine if my mother named me magma and I had an older brother with the same name.
Bret McAtee said,

February 2, 2008 at 9:40 pm

#26

As in Buddy Holly and the Crickets?

There could be worse things to be only hearing.
Roger Mann said,

February 2, 2008 at 11:27 pm

Hey, I’d whine if my mother named me magma and I had an older brother with the same name.

Huh? My only “whine” is that a number of people on this blog make no sense whatsoever. If the above comment was your attempt at humor, then you seriously need to keep your day job!
David Gray said,

February 3, 2008 at 5:52 am

>If the above comment was your attempt at humor, then you seriously need to keep your day job!

You must be FV. Pastor Johnson assures me that they’re the ones with no sense of humour…
GLW Johnson said,

February 3, 2008 at 8:22 am

DW
Accusing Waters and Clark of shipshod scholarship is rich indeed coming from someone who is permantly tainted with the scarlet letter ‘P’ hanging around his neck.
David Gray said,

February 3, 2008 at 8:45 am

>Accusing Waters and Clark of shipshod scholarship is rich indeed coming from someone who is permantly tainted with the scarlet letter ‘P’ hanging around his neck.

Now that was funny!
GLW Johnson said,

February 3, 2008 at 9:07 am

DG
I doubt that DW will be amused, but then again, I wasn’t making an attempt at humor.I was pointing out a very serious flaw that renders DW’s judgment on what passes for scholarship highly dubious.
greenbaggins said,

February 3, 2008 at 4:24 pm

Doug, I am glad for your words in some ways. I think it is finally time to lay to rest the argument that because someone didn’t contact so-and-so, that therefore they misunderstood them. Plainly you agree that this is not logical. I hope that everyone else takes notice, because I have heard this argument quite a lot from FV sympathizers commenting on this blog. It would seem that we disagree as to the understanding of the FV that men such as Guy Waters and Scott Clark have evidenced. I would like to point out, however, that in the new book _A Faith That Is Never Alone_, the men of that book accuse the FV critics of advocating a faith that is alone. They accuse the critics of driving a wedge between faith and works. I was profoundly underwhelmed by the book. The focus of the WSC book was justification. And in justification, when it comes to how we obtain the righteousness of Christ, the deepest possible wedge must exist between faith and works. When it comes to the Christian life, the complete *absence* of a wedge between faith and works must be evidence. None of the WSC authors would disagree with this, so the charge made by the book is completely slanderous. Ask any WSC professor what the relationship of faith and works is in sanctification, and listen to their answer. No wedge will be visible. So, in charging WSC with antinomianism (which is what such a wedge entails), do you not think, Doug, that the very qualities you have been mentioning that you think are present in the WSC professors are abundantly evident in the authors of this piece of junk book?
reformedmusings said,

February 3, 2008 at 9:37 pm

Lane,

I get a busy for a week and you hit the key issues on the head. I can never keep up. I’m glad that you’re back and telling it is like it is. Keep up the great work!
Douglas Wilson said,

February 4, 2008 at 10:22 am

Gary, the fact that you actually believe that the scarlet letter P has been placed around my neck is yet another example of what I am talking about. I have no more plagiarized than I have denied any of the five solas. Keep trying.
Douglas Wilson said,

February 4, 2008 at 10:28 am

Lane, we do agree that someone does not necessarily have to contact an author before critiquing him. I think they should contact him if 1. there was a personal relationship before and they are going to make a charge of heresy, or 2. if they are a bungler and need to talk to somebody that can help them get it right. But numbers 1 and 2 cover a large number of the contenders. As I have demonstrated.

I just recently obtained but have not yet read the Sandlin book. Thus I cheerfully have no opinions to offer. But I can say in principle that if guys on our side misrepresent the positions of guys on your side, then that is just as much of problem as all the times it has been done to me. The principle by which you judge you shall be judged, as the Lord put it, not meaning in any way to bring justification by faith alone into question by quoting this. I am sound, I tell you.
GLW Johnson said,

February 4, 2008 at 10:34 am

DW
The embarrassing fact , and one that you can not escape from ,is that you co-authored a book that was chocked full of plagiarism. You bear your share of responsiblity by virtue of having your name on the cover. It would be refreshing if you could stop spinning around long enough to acknowledge your cupability. But it seems that ever admitting that you are in the wrong is something that constitutionally you are unable to do.
tim prussic said,

February 4, 2008 at 11:46 am

GLW Johnson: Ad hominem attacks are not impressive and don’t help your case – quite the opposite, actually.

DW says, “I’ve demonstrated mistakes in the scholarship of scholars X & Y.”
GJ retorts, “Oh, yeah? Well, you’re a plagiarist anyway, so you can’t speak to mistakes in scholarship.”
TP thinks, “What the…, even if the charges are true, they’ve NOTHING directly to do with the subject.”

If a man commits plagiarism in one book doesn’t mean his critiques of the scholarship in another are therefore invalid. We could at least attempt to be logical, no?
GLW Johnson said,

February 4, 2008 at 12:38 pm

TP
DW accused Waters and Clark of faulty scholarship but evades his own responsibility for co-authoring a perfectly dreadful book ( that in and of itself doesn’t pass the smell test when it comes to what the question of responsible historical scholarship) that committs the cardinal sin of blatant plagiarism. Just to refresh your memory, but DW went to great lengths to ‘Clintonize’ what constitutes plagiarism. It was pathetic. So pardon me, but when DW starts talking about scholarship, I have a hard time believing he knows what he is talking about-so does a hundred or so faculty members at the Univ. of Idaho.
tim prussic said,

February 4, 2008 at 12:58 pm

Pr. Johnson, I still think – your accusations maybe completely true, but your criticism doesn’t logically follow. A personal hard time believing a man doesn’t equal a logical case against his assertions.
Tim Harris said,

February 4, 2008 at 4:29 pm

Where did this “Pr” for “pastor” get started? It not just me: I don’t see it mentioned at wiki either.
tim prussic said,

February 4, 2008 at 5:29 pm

I just copied David Gadbois.
Joshua W.D. Smith said,

February 4, 2008 at 5:52 pm

I have to say that I agree with Wilson on one critic, at least. This critic has a penchant for using Romanist terminology (e.g., infusion of grace, etc.) that the FV never uses and treating that as a good explanation of the FV. For his article on baptism, I sent him a double handful of quotes from Reformed is Not Enough in which Wilson says emphatically that the sacraments do no good without faith, and the response was: “Well, of course Wilson sounds orthodox–but he’s slippery.” So, when actual quotes from actual writings are dismissed are rejected on the basis of a person’s character, without any direct interaction with the person, isn’t that a problem?

Oh, and Lane, as a logician, you really need to lay off the “guilt by association” fallacy. Just because the FV say they are misunderstood and heretics also say they are misunderstood, that in no way whatsoever counts as evidence that the FV is heresy. Not that that is your major argument, by the way, but it shows up quite a bit in all the critics.

And on #42–I’m sure those professors at a public university were entirely objective, too…
David Gray said,

February 4, 2008 at 7:08 pm

>I have a hard time believing he knows what he is talking about-so does a hundred or so faculty members at the Univ. of Idaho.

There are many truths which I suspect the faculty of the University of Idaho would reject.
pandrewsandlin said,

February 4, 2008 at 7:39 pm

“I wonder if the guys who wrote the new book _A Faith That Is Never Alone_ contacted the guys at WSC before attacking their articles.”

This book is an example of academic discourse. WTS-C wrote a book; we wrote a response. We charged no one with heresy, only with honest exegetical, theological and historical mistakes. We were dealing with falsifiable assertions in texts. We were not dealing with the morality or ethics or theological sincerity of any contributors to the WTS-C book. It is a theological exchange, pure and simple.

Finally, I am sincerely grateful to this site for the willingness to conduct such discourse about the book — and I harbor no expectations of face-to-face conversations.
Tim Harris said,

February 4, 2008 at 9:46 pm

re #42: it seems as though if Wilson says the unacknowledged citations were inadvertent, and if there is a plausible story to back that claim up (which seems so to me), we should take accept it.

On the other hand, Wilson himself once wrote:

The problem with the pamphlet was that Wesley did not write substantial portions of it. In the course of approximately ten pages, Wesley used numerous sections taken verbatim from Samuel Johnson’s Taxation No Tyranny. In the first edition of Calm Address, Wesley did not indicate in any way that he had borrowed text from Johnson — Wesley represented the work as his own. This laid him open to the just charge of plagiarism, and those charges were not long in coming. In a preface to the second edition, Wesley acknowledged his indebtedness to the other pamphlet, but this was too late. A plagiarist does not cease to be a plagiarist because he admits the obvious after he has been caught. (Antithesis, 2/1 (Jan/Feb 1991, p. 29)

I will consider the case against Wilson closed as to plagiarism, if he acknowledges that he was too harsh toward Wesley, in not allowing that the uncredited citations in his first edition might also have been due to editorial oversight or carelessness.

Can’t have it both ways.
David Gray said,

February 4, 2008 at 10:00 pm

>Can’t have it both ways.

Given that the two instances, as I understand them, are not the same you don’t need to have it both ways.
Tim Harris said,

February 4, 2008 at 10:05 pm

David — Wilson takes the mere fact that uncredited citations occurred in Wesley’s edition as damning, even though he did give the credit in the second edition. That is how the instances are the same.
Douglas Wilson said,

February 4, 2008 at 11:03 pm

First, on Wesley. After my article on Wesley appeared in Antithesis, I received a letter from Arnold Dallimore commending the article, and basically affirming that what I had written about him wasn’t really the half of it. But I do agree in principle — if Wesley had been collaborating with others, had electronic transfer problems, if his editor had been an electronic nincompoop, if he plausibly claimed that the problem in the citations was entirely an accident, and corrected them in the next edition while owning full responsibility for the mistakes and sloppiness, then I would agree that my condemnation of him was far too harsh.

Gary, what you call “Clintonizing” was Steve Wilkins taking full responsibility for the citation problems, which occurred in his sections, and with me refusing to let him do that. I was the editor, and had not read Time on the Cross at that time, and with a topic that inflammatory I certainly should have. My name was on the cover, and the editorial error that I was part of was egregious, atrocious, embarrassing, and egregious. Is there a magic word I can put in here that keeps it from being Clintonesque? For my part, one thing I will not call it is plagiarism (intellectual theft) because it simply wasn’t. Those who want to read a full account of this can do so in the back of Black & Tan.

Gary, your partisanship is blinding you to issues of basic fairness here. In the past, before all this nastiness erupted, I have contributed to a book that you edited. Suppose — don’t worry! — citation problems are dnow iscovered in what I wrote and submitted to you, and they somehow got by you. It would be appropriate for you to take responsibility for any number of things editorially, but to demand that you take personal responsibility as though you were a plagiarist (because somebody else made a mistake that you missed) would be a bit thick. And, if someone were out there demanding that you take that kind of responsibility anyway, it would perhaps be a fair conclusion to think that such a one had an axe to grind. Wouldn’t it?
Tim Harris said,

February 4, 2008 at 11:58 pm

I really don’t think the electonicness of data transfer is very germane.
GLW Johnson said,

February 5, 2008 at 7:15 am

DW
I entered this fray because you and others in the ranks of the FV took it upon yourselves to venomously assail Guy Waters’ character and impugn his reputation because of his book ,’The Federal Vision and Covenant Theology: A Comparative Analysis’-which carried the endorsements of some pretty high-caliber men like David Calhoun,Carl Trueman, Michael Horton, Derek Thomas , Joel Beeke,Scott Clark, Rick Phillips and Chris Hutchinson.The only individual among the FV that actually dealt with Guy’s book in a truely scholarly fashion (as opposed to foaming at the mouth and calling down divine judgment on Waters -which was the refrain I heard over and over again from the FV mob) was Peter Leithart, who acknowledged that Waters had indeed fairly represented his views. You , on the other hand ,have consistently dismissed all of the FV critics as being motivated by sinister goals.You repeatedly refer to your critics as your ‘enemies’ and liken them to Alexander the coppersmith who troubled the apostle Paul. And it doesn’t seem to matter one bit to you that you are out of your league here. Candidly Doug, you are not a NT specialist like Guy Waters or Fowler White nor are you a historian of doctrine like Cal Beisner,Scott Clark and Sean Lucas. Again, you are not a systematic theologian in the class with Lig Duncan, Dick Gaffin,Mike Horton or Cornelis Venema. You were not trained in any of these fields- but you act like you are an expert in all of them! I will gladly acknowledge that your book on ‘Recovering the Lost Tools of Learning’ is a fine piece- it reflects your training and background in education. You also are at home in apologetical and philosopical issues( which is why I invited to to contribute along those lines to the book that Fowler White and I edited). You have a flare for words and are apt at conveying your thoughts in an engaging fashion with although at times your fondness for metaphors is a bit excessvive. But you seem positively recalcitrant to even slightly admitting that the vast army of FV critics- which includes not only individuals like those listed above- but a host of Reformed denominations. You are quickly gaining a very soiled reputation as the leader of a schismatic and devisive bunch of rogues. I did my best to privately admonish and warn you about this and you refused to listen. I appeal to you for the last time .
Douglas Wilson said,

February 5, 2008 at 12:58 pm

Gary, I don’t pretend to be an expert in all the fields you cite, and I am quite content to defer to my betters — and I am not just saying that. But I do think I am an expert in what I believe. If Guy Waters represented Peter fairly, according to Peter, then great. What he didn’t do is represent me fairly, which I have pointed out, and to which he has not responded. All the blurbs in the world from all the scholars in the world won’t change the fact that I know what I have said, and they demonstrably do not know.

Also, please keep in mind that I am on good terms with FV critics who have not misrepresented my views. That is the issue here.
tim prussic said,

February 5, 2008 at 1:30 pm

Since when does academic training insure truth? I keep hearing this shot at FV guys. “Well, you’re not even a trained specialist,” or “You don’t even have a seminary degree.” These are simply MORE ad hominem attacks. Just because a man doesn’t have a D.Phil. in history from Oxford doesn’t men that he’s wrong. Conversely, just because a fellow has one doesn’t make him right. Where, after all, was Jesus’ degree? Didn’t he run circles around the trained elite? And he didn’t even go to seminary?!? Knowledge indeed puffs up.

That said, I’m personally a huge proponent of advanced education and would like more myself. The education is good. The knowledge is good. Humility is good. Ad hominem arguments are not good.
rjs1 said,

February 5, 2008 at 4:18 pm

Doug,

Have you provided a rebuttal to Waters’ “misrepresentation” of your position and if so where can I find it?

Kind regards,

Richard
pduggie said,

February 5, 2008 at 4:27 pm

to the original post

It isn’t an excuse.

Its a complaint about bad behavior.
tim prussic said,

February 5, 2008 at 6:23 pm

pduggie, I don’t think you understood Pr. Lane…
Tim Harris said,

February 6, 2008 at 9:55 am

On the Wilson vs Wesley on plagiarism, here is an interesting statement from WTS that adds some further nuance:

There was a time when writers paid no attention to plagiarism. Chaucer and Shakespeare, for example, borrowed incessantly from other writers without acknowledgement, and never gave the matter a thought. But in the last century or so Western writers have taken an increasingly proprietary attitude toward their own work, and it is now considered common decency to give a writer credit for the use of his ideas, his words, or even the sequence in which his ideas are presented.

It would seem, then, that Wesley, being somewhere in the transition from the time of Shakespeare to “the last century or so,” may not have seen his copying as an ethical issue at all. Perhaps the issue then, in contrast to now, was seen as something other than theft simpliciter?
Douglas Wilson said,

February 6, 2008 at 8:06 pm

Richard,

You can find my response to Waters on my blog, under Auburn Ave stuff in the archives. A search on Waters should do the trick also.
Dewey Roberts said,

February 6, 2008 at 11:25 pm

Hey Doug,

I have laid the gauntlet down to you (in Wilkin’s Rationale) about all the false accusations you have made about the SJC for these past several months. My basic position about you is that you are a propagandist of disinformation. You artfully weave disinformation about the PCA and SJC into comments about known facts. That is always the best and most effective way to disinform. But your gig is up.
Now my advice to you would be to call Mickey Schneider when you get a chance and ask him about me. After you do so, I think you will probably decide that you don’t want to engage me in a battle of wits. Why? Because I won’t chase rabbits with you and I won’t let you get away with your nonsensical, ill-informed statements about the SJC any longer. I will force you to face the facts of the constitution of the PCA which will effectively cut your comments off at the knee. And I will make you show how the CREC is “better” by quoting from your constitution (that should be interesting!). After all, people who live in glass houses (like the CREC) don’t need to throw stones at those who have a historic Presbyterian constitution (like the PCA does).
Doug, it is your choice. Either go away quietly. Or, I am going to expose you to the blogging world as just a bully who is a propagandist of disinformation. It is your choice.
Eric F. Langborgh said,

February 8, 2008 at 8:34 am

Re: 62 – Randy “The Macho Man” Savage couldn’t have said it any better. Or Hulk Hogan: “Ew ya! Wacha gonna do when 10,000 Hulkamaniacs come crashing down on you?!?!?!”
Bill Lyle said,

February 8, 2008 at 10:37 am

RE: 62 – Dewey to be fair, because it is painfully obvious Doug Wilson has no knowledge of PCA Polity, I am posting a link for him to read up on our (PCA) Polity.

Click to access BCO%202007%20Combined%20for%20Web.pdf

I am confident after he studies up on PCA Polity, he will not “engage [you] in a battle of wits” because he will know the facts are on your (our) side and your statement that “[he is] a propagandist of disinformation,” is true.
Dewey Roberts said,

February 8, 2008 at 11:40 pm

Hey Eric,

I am not worried in the least about 10,000 hulkamaniacs. After all the vitriolic name calling and slander by Jordan and the disinformation campaign of Wilson and their friends, I would think that at least one of them would come out of hiding and defend their honor. I have laid down the gauntlet to Wilson and I will include Jordan. He called the SJC some pathetic and sinful names a few weeks ago. Okay, Jim- defend your crass comments with FACTS- or continue to hide in your shell. Which will it be? It is easy to throw out names- it is hard to support your statements with facts.
So, Eric- pay attention. Let me know when one of these brilliant theologians comes out of hiding. That should be an interesting day, indeed.
Bill Lyle said,

February 9, 2008 at 4:00 pm

Dewey,

Would you for me (and others on this list) summarize the CREC’s constitution (of course quoting their polity) about this whole matter? After our conversation the other day, I was blown away at your findings. Maybe Lane would allow you to do a side by side comparison. I know you would be able to quote chapter and verse (as Joe Friday would say … ‘just the facts’), then maybe the light would be shown on all the “vitriolic name calling and slander by Jordan and the disinformation campaign of Wilson.”

Bill
greenbaggins said,

February 9, 2008 at 4:43 pm

If Dewey would like to do that, I would post it on the blog as a separate post. Let me know if you would like to do that, Dewey. Thanks
Dewey Roberts said,

February 9, 2008 at 8:37 pm

Lane,

I would be happy to do so in the near future. I can’t do it in the next few days, though. But I think it will be quite interesting and it will also show that the CREC is not exactly a haven for Reformed churches. Basically, the CREC has almost no guarantees of due process or rights for churches, minsters, members, etc.
David Gilleran said,

February 9, 2008 at 9:39 pm

In making a quick glance at the CREC documents several things stand out as different from PCA and other polity. 1) It is based to a degree in criminal law. What I mean by that is that during the introduction and after the complaint is head any member of the court can make a motion to dismiss the case by 3/4 vote. 2) Unlike the PCA there is no automatic hearing of an appeal. The moderator sole power to determine to hear the case or not. 3) If the case is tried it is heard by three presbyters and then the presbytery of jurisdiction will either vote to sustain or deny the verdict.

Compared to the PCA BCO it is a small booklet. Many issues that come up in the PCA ROD are not covered in the CREC.
Tim Harris said,

February 9, 2008 at 9:58 pm

The “presbytery” is only an advisory body to the congregation, where all authority actually resides. Only the congregation creates and defrocks ministers. It is a congregational confederation. Many Presbyterians don’t seem to realize how crucial it is for the regional church to be the body that ordains and holds the credentials of ministers. The CREC constitution smacks of boys playing church in the backyard, that make up “rules” based on what they have, without understanding, observed. “They all get together each year to talk about this and that.” “I think each church is supposed to have men called elders.” etc.
Tim Harris said,

February 10, 2008 at 2:52 pm

I caveat these remarks that they are based on my copy of the CREC Constitution, which is dated 2005.

The idea of a smorgasbord of confessions (III C) is untenable. How could an elder rule authoritatively on a confession he is not sworn to? So, CREC escapes this problem by stipulating that ” controversies within a local congregation regarding matters arising from differences between our various confessions will not be adjudicated beyond the local church level” (III G). Now that’s handy!

But there is a subtle question-begging here also. In principle, how could it be known whether a controverted matter arises from a difference between the confessions? In general, that would itself need to be adjudicated — but it is not supposed to be by 3G if there in fact is a difference!

Moreover, the idea that a matter should be subject to appeal if but only if all the local churches are already on board with that issue (i.e., it is not in the category of “a difference between the confessions”) is simply untenable. Why not cut to the chase and simply not let any matter be appealed?

Even when that logical problem does not obtain, a local decision can only be appealed under two circumstances anyhow: “(1) when the session of elders is accused by two or more of the church members of participating in or tolerating grievous dishonesty in subscription to the doctrinal or constitutional standards of the local church; or, (2) when the session of elders is accused by two or more of the church members of gross misbehaviour” (IV M). Note that “grievous dishonesty in subscription” is really a subcategory of (2). So, a church member may not appeal a decision of session unless he is willing to accuse his elders of lying or other gross misbehavior!

The notion of gaining a more perspective reading of the confessional documents by appeal to the regional church, all the while presuming “honesty” and good behavior by all, is simply excluded!

Hardly any more tyrannical provision could be imagined.
Dewey Roberts said,

February 16, 2008 at 7:34 pm

Well, I see where Wilson has taken me up the gauntlet against me on his blog where I don’t have rights to post. I didn’t think he had the courage to debate issues out in the open where others can counter his arguments without him having the right to remove their posts. Hmmm. Why am I not surprised by his tactics?
David Gray said,

February 16, 2008 at 7:41 pm

>I didn’t think he had the courage to debate issues out in the open where others can counter his arguments without him having the right to remove their posts. Hmmm. Why am I not surprised by his tactics?

Where would neutral ground be?
anneivy said,

February 16, 2008 at 7:41 pm

Can’t you just get an ID for his blog? I’ve got one. I’m sure you’ll have no trouble getting set up with one. :-)
Dewey Roberts said,

February 16, 2008 at 7:48 pm

David,
Do you think his blog is neutral ground? I certainly don’t. Anne, I could apply for an ID, but I don’t want to do that. Besides, he admitted that he doesn’t know much about the constitution of the PCA. That is my definition of a bully- someone who pontificates and tries to intimidate people aboput which he knows almost nothing concerning. He has still not shown that the SJC has done anything wrong. Interestingly, he doesn’t want to assume we are innocence UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY. Hmmm
David Gray said,

February 16, 2008 at 7:57 pm

>Do you think his blog is neutral ground? I certainly don’t.

No, and neither is this blog. Where do you think he should take this up?
Keith LaMothe said,

February 16, 2008 at 8:02 pm

Mr. Roberts,

Thank you for joining in the discussions lately, your posts have helped me put some more pieces into the puzzle of understanding what’s going on. I’ll be praying for you in your role as prosecutor and as an elder in the PCA in this critical time.

Just to clarify, would you agree that if (*IF*) the SJCs actions were egregiously and obviously out-of-accord with Scripture, that their accordance or non-accordance with the PCA Constitution is mostly moot?

Thanks,
Keith
Dewey Roberts said,

February 16, 2008 at 9:33 pm

David,
First of all, I have more important things to do at the moment. Wilson has already told us that he is not an expert in the PCA’s constitution and has said that it just seems to him that the SJC has done things wrong. That kind of reasoning needs no response and deserves none either. But that is the BEST Wilson is going to be able to do. So, he has proved my point about him. He is a propagandist of disinformation.

Keith,
IF the constitution can be shown to be egregiously contrary to Scripture OR the SJC can be shown to have acted with disregard for the constitution of the PCA, then the SJC and the PCA deserve criticism for any actions which are unscriptural.
Mark said,

February 16, 2008 at 9:41 pm

Dewey, your reply to Keith would be great if you would follow through and give David a reply that was consistent with it.
Dewey Roberts said,

February 16, 2008 at 10:15 pm

LOL, Mark, I am still waiting on anyone- including Wilson- to show where the SJC has acted out of accord with our constitution. Your remarks would be great if you would do that. Having said that, Iam going to bow out of this discussion since NO ONE yet has attempted to do that- including you.
David Gray said,

February 16, 2008 at 10:30 pm

>First of all, I have more important things to do at the moment.

I hadn’t noticed that you don’t have time to be posting on blogs.
Ron Smith said,

February 17, 2008 at 9:19 pm

Mr. Roberts, RE: #80, Wilson has already answered this objection.
Keith LaMothe said,

February 17, 2008 at 10:32 pm

Dewey,

Thanks for the response. I guess it’s one of those too-obvious-to-need-to-ask questions, but I felt like there was a disconnect between that obvious fact and your apparent stance that a detailed knowledge of the PCA Constitution is necessary to be able to criticize the morality of the SJC/PCA moves against Wilkins and/or the LAP. While Wilson may be wrong, I believe he’s not particularly concerned with whether you’ve played by your denominational rulebook, as whether you’ve played by THE rulebook (i.e. Scripture). If you were to debate Wilson on THAT question, I would pay most rapt attention. If you give the appearance of being willing to debate the PCA Constitution (with a qualified opponent) but not willing to debate the relevant Scripture, then some of us aren’t going to think you “won” this round, so to speak.

I’m not saying that to go “nyah nyah”, just wanting to be honest about how things look from this bystander’s perspective. If y’all really want to counter Wilson’s accusations, you will have to put him squarely in his place with a head-on confrontation. For a moment there, it looked like you were going to confront him in some such fashion.

In any event, I’m sure you really do have better things to do. My opinion should be WAY down on your priority list, but there it is in case you cared.

Blessings,
Keith
Dewey Roberts said,

February 17, 2008 at 11:23 pm

Ron Smith and Keith LaMothe,
No, Wilson HAS NOT ANSWERED my question from the BCO or the Scripture. An answer would be to show the relevant Scripture passages which have been broken. An answer would be to show HOW the PCA’s constitution is contrary to Scripture and/or how the spirit of it has been broken. Wilson does none of this. He simply asserts that he knows it has been broken without giving any details. Typical Wilson speak. In terms of crtitical thinking, Wilson engages in egocentrist thinking. His position amounts to this, “What the SJC has done is wrong because I say it is wrong.” Now, if he had a better argument, he would have already brought it forth. He can’t and won’t show how the SJC has acted wrong- Scripturally, confessionally or constitutionally. He can’t because to attempt to do so would cause him to break away from his basic position of egocentrism. BTW, Keith, if I was the architect of a confused, unbiblical constitution like Wilson’s CREC document, I would NOT want to debate ANYONE on the Scriptural form of government or the cosntitution of an historical Presbyterian denomination like the PCA. Thus, the ONLY thing you will get out of Wilson is that sam old soin of, “I know what they have done is wrong.” Well, if it is that clear, then why can’t anybody answer my questions. But Keith, the PCA’s BCO is eminently Scriptural. Following the procedure of the BCO is not something distinct from following Biblical principles. So, believe what you want to Keith.
Scott said,

February 17, 2008 at 11:24 pm

Thanks Keith for your lucid comments. As an outsider as well, it seems from my vantage point that Dewey is going to need to tone down the rhetoric and get to the business of logically and exegetically answering Wilson’s objections about the Biblical justice/injustice of the proceedings in the SJC. Without that, his arguments lose all traction.
Dewey Roberts said,

February 17, 2008 at 11:25 pm

“I would NOT want to debate ANYONE…” I made a mistake above.
David Gray said,

February 18, 2008 at 7:32 am

>If you give the appearance of being willing to debate the PCA Constitution (with a qualified opponent) but not willing to debate the relevant Scripture, then some of us aren’t going to think you “won” this round, so to speak.

Well he’s ducked that one…
Keith LaMothe said,

February 18, 2008 at 8:33 am

Dewey,

Thanks again for responding. You are right, that IF Wilson is not substantiating his charges from either the Scripture or the PCA Constitution, then he’s just blowing hot air and ought to repent. I’ve posted a comment on one of his recent blog posts pointing to your most recent response in hopes that he will see it and respond.

I certainly understand the time constraints (and legal constraints, though I don’t understand all those) of your present situation, but if at all possible I would very much appreciate your seeing this “debate” through with Wilson. Perhaps you can’t persuade each other. Perhaps much of the bystanding crowd is also un-persuadeable. I confess, my sympathies with Wilson’s “side” are pretty strong, but I’ve seen mistakes and sins from the FV side (though most of the ones that come to mind were followed by apologies and repentance, FWIW), and perhaps there is a fatal flaw in Wilson’s criticism (nay, rebuke) of the PCA. Lots of people are watching this, if Lane’s webstats are any indication.

Anyway, I hope I’m not pestering you; I’m just a pew-sitting bystander and you are free to ignore me at any point without concern for offense.

Blessings,
Keith
Douglas Wilson said,

February 18, 2008 at 10:01 am

Okay, Dewey, let’s take these one at a time. First, the SJC indicted an entire presbytery for failing to indict Steve Wilkins. The SJC knew that Wilkins’ offenses were indictable without talking to him, questioning him, getting clarification from him. This is a clear violation of Proverbs 18:17. The only entity that had gotten clarification from Wilkins was the LAP, and that is what they were indicted for. Let’s start with that one.
Jeff Hutchinson said,

February 18, 2008 at 10:38 am

“Okay, Dewey, let’s take these one at a time.”

Dewey, I have a better idea. Let’s not. These matters may well be worth hashing out, but it is not worth yours or anyone else’s time to engage Doug Wilson on these matters.
Mark T. said,

February 18, 2008 at 10:50 am

Time out.

The record of the case never states, “the SJC indicted an entire presbytery for failing to indict Steve Wilkins.”
greenbaggins said,

February 18, 2008 at 10:52 am

Jeff, Dewey will be unable to interact on these issues, at least for a while, since he is the new prosecutor for the SJC against the LAP.
greenbaggins said,

February 18, 2008 at 10:56 am

Doug, how much heresy does a man have to *write* before a body of believers knows that there’s trouble? Add to that all the conference lectures. Add it all up. By your argument, we could never pronounce anyone to be in or out unless we had personally talked with the man. So, again, I ask, is it lawful to pronounce Charles Briggs to be out of conformity to the WS today, if no one is around who was alive when he was? I would really like you to answer this one, as you certainly haven’t yet.
kjsulli said,

February 18, 2008 at 11:06 am

Pr. Wilson, re: 89,

The SJC knew that Wilkins’ offenses were indictable without talking to him, questioning him, getting clarification from him.

The SJC’s charges against the LAP were based on the documents from LAP’s examination of Pr. Wilkins. They found enough evidence in these documents to provide a strong presumption of guilt, which means that LAP ought to have instituted process to bring Pr. Wilkins to trial. But LAP did not institute process, and LAP has since plead guilty to this charge, admitting that they should have found a strong presumption of guilt and therefore instituted process. So, guess what, Pr. Wilson? Prov. 18:17 does not apply. Pr. Wilkins never plead his case, as he was never brought to trial.
greenbaggins said,

February 18, 2008 at 11:13 am

Kyle, certainly the LAP’s examination of Wilkins provided some evidence for our indictment. We also used his other writings, as well as conference lectures. Furthermore, we clearly showed the progression in Wilkins’s thought, taking care to post his explanations of former statements, whenever he did explain them. So, not only did we insure synchronic context, but we also insured diachronic context. Look, everyone, the real point here is whether Wilkins should have been tried or not. The point is not, therefore, whether the SJC misunderstood what Wilkins was saying. The point is that the FV and its critics disagree about the import of what Wilkins said. We disagree about the implications of what Wilkins said. I honestly do not think that the disagreement is really over what Wilkins actually said.
kjsulli said,

February 18, 2008 at 11:19 am

Lane,

Thanks for the clarification.
Tim Harris said,

February 18, 2008 at 12:58 pm

Yeah, I mean as if you determine that someone’s teaching is poisonous, but when you ask him about it and he says, “don’t worry, it’s not poisonous,” that should end the matter!

Now, if Douglas means, he should have the error pointed out and be given a chance to repent and retract — that’s true, but can anyone seriously suggest that the many discussions did not afford that opportunity?
Adam said,

February 18, 2008 at 9:23 pm

“I am simply going to turn it around and ask the FV’ers, “Why didn’t you submit your publications to peer review that wasn’t already favorable to your view, so that you could anticipate where the misunderstandings could be, and thus clarify before you went to print?””

“My point is this: why didn’t the FV’ers submit their publications to people they thought might disagree with them? They should have done this long ago, before 2002, before any of the study committees had come out polarizing the two camps. That way, they could have ensured an academic, scholarly review of their work.”

As a younger man, let me say that I respect all of the men involved in the FV conflagulation, but I ran across these two quotations and I believe that there is a twofold response to the issue I’m quoting at above. I believer that many of the FVer material was readily available long before 2002. In fact, I’ve often wondered why it is that this didn’t come to the front of the class in the 1980s, when James Jordan was already publishing books not at all different on justification, high church/liturgy, and sacramental efficacy from what he and the rest of the FV crew are saying today. Perhaps someone can shed some light on that tangle here as well.

I have arranged here the FV books in chronological order.

1986: James Jordan writes “The Sociology of the Church,” in which he has an essay entitled “Conversion,” in which he tries to rethink the nature of conversion into the more covenantal, life-narrative way (there are many conversions over a lifetime). The whole book is arguing for the centrality of the church in all of life, just as the FVers now argue.

1988: Jordan writes “Through New Eyes,” which in chapter ten, argues for the strong sacramental efficacy so common of FVers.

1993: Peter Leithart writes “The Kingdom and the Power,” published by P&R, so I doubt very much if reformed folks were completely unaware of this book. In this book, he states that “unless we keep the feast [of communion] we will not enjoy the blessings of the kingdom,” (p. 123) and presents the same high efficacy of communion that he and the other FVers present today.

1995: P&R publishing releases “Back to Basics,” by David Hagopian, Roger Wagner, Douglas Jones, and Douglas Wilson, which lays out the foundations of reformed theology. It too argues, not always as articulate but always there, the high view of the covenant, sacrament, and church that the FVers emphasize today. Those on the critical side of the FV today were certainly aware of this book, as it is endorsed on the back by R.C. Sproul Sr., Jay Adams, E. Calvin Beisner, J.M Boice, James Kennedy, John Frame, and G.I. Williamson.

2000: Leithart publishes another book on the Lord’s Supper, “Blessed are the Hungry,” which received positive endorsement from Michael Horton. P&R also published Norman Shepherd’s “The Call of Grace,” which was praisingly endorsed by none other than Richard Gaffin.

2002: This year, P&R published Keith Mathison’s brilliant book, “Given For You,” on the Lord’s Supper and Calvin’s opinion of it, as well as a reformed history of its interpretation. Interestingly, his book concludes the same as in nearly every respect with the FV position on the supper, though it came along with glowing endorsements from Sproul Sr. (who wrote the preface), and Michael Horton once again. This is the same year the controversy broke out, and apparently nobody, including the fellows at P&R found nothing wrong with the views of the book.

2004: P. Andrew Sandlin publishes “Backbone of the Bible,” a book all on justification, all from a FV/Shepherdian point of view (Shepherd himself authored two chapters). This book’s preface was written by reformed heavyweight and well-respected John Frame, who went so far as to say that many of their points were good points and that “such criticisms [of shepherd’s views] are stupid, irresponsible, and divisive,” (p. xii).

2007: Leithart publishes “Solomon Among the Postmoderns,” a book on postmodernism and has nothing (directly) to do with the FV controversy. However, we find that the book is glowingly endorsed by Michael Horton, who said, among other things, that Leithart was “engaging in conversation rather than caricature,” that he “takes his interlocutors seriously,” and has delivered a “patient, well-informed, and well-written essay in godly wisdom.” This is important because it certainly suggests that if Leithart is taking postmodernists writings seriously, he would by all means also take the views of the anti-FV crowd seriously in his evaluation of their position and criticisms of his own.

I think this is enough to suggest that the FVers were certainly engaged in discussion with people who didn’t (or don’t now) agree with them and that many, many reformed people were aware of their work long before their teachings were deemed unacceptable. I submit these observations to you for all of our edification, and to help continue the discussion.
Jeff Cagle said,

February 18, 2008 at 10:20 pm

Adam (#98):

I would disagree with your assessment that Mathison’s book “concludes the same as in nearly every respect with the FV position on the supper…”

The most controversial aspects of the FV on the supper are the practice of paedocommunion and the reading of 1 Cor 11 that sweeps away the credocommunion argument for self-examination.

Mathison says this:

Identifying oneself with the body of Christ by partaking of the Supper, while showing contempt for other members of that body, is partaking of the Supper in an unworthy manner…As Paul says in verse 28, a person must honestly examine his true motives before partaking of the Supper. (p. 233)

(wrt paedocommunion) There is an apparent tension between what the Reformed confessions have always taught about membership in the covenant and in the visible church and what they have taught about the sacraments. In order to resolve this debate, these tensions will have to be more thoroughly addressed. If it is determined that these tensions are due to real contradictions in the confession, then revision of the confession will have to be pursued. (pp. 322-323)

Contrast this with the FV exegesis of 1 Cor 11.28 that claims that δοκιμαζω has nothing to do with self-examination, and with an insistence that paedocommunion be practiced.

So at least on this book, I would say that Mathison stands a space apart from the FV. And truthfully, the issues with the FV are a game of theological inches (with wider ramifications). I don’t disagree with every position found in the FV position paper.

Jeff Cagle
Dewey Roberts said,

February 18, 2008 at 10:25 pm

Jeff Hutchinson,

Just want to say how much I enjoyed meeting you at the GA last summer.
Jeff Cagle said,

February 18, 2008 at 10:27 pm

I should qualify #99: PCA FVers do not practice paedocommunion out of respect for the government of the church. They do, however, advocate it (nothing wrong with that).

Jeff Cagle
David Gray said,

February 18, 2008 at 10:32 pm

Mathison’s book is excellent and he definitely is not signed up for paedocommunion.
reformedmusings said,

February 18, 2008 at 11:29 pm

Jeff, RE #99,

I call the FVers on their abuse of the Greek in 1 Cor 11:28 here. I swear that they make this stuff up after half-a-dozen beers each.
Adam said,

February 19, 2008 at 2:10 am

Mathison does conclude that credocommunionists have not demonstrated their arguments clearly. He evaluates credocommunionist arguments: “Some of the serious questions raised by proponents of paedocommunion have not only not been adequately answered, but have not been dealt with at all. … The traditional Reformed doctrine of credo-communion has simply left a lot of questions unanswered,” (pp. 320, 322). On the same page, he notes that “proponents of paedocommunion have yet to be adequately answered,” (320).

I also found that in reading Mathison’s concluding chapter, that summarizes his argument and sets out a sort of credo concerning a Reformed understanding of Communion (chapter 8), it was for the most part reading what Wilson, Jordan, and Leithart have been claiming – that the Reformed community has fallen from its originally robust view as outlined by Calvin. The Supper communicates a special form of grace (typically) unavailable outside the table (and therefore not simply a memorial), the Supper is the means of our union with Christ (which the FVers have been saying for some time). My comment concerning Mathison was not to say that Mathison and the FVers are in total agreement; as you pointed out, they differ on paedocommunion, though as I noted above Mathison is quick to point out that the credocommunion position is the weaker of the two (see pp. 320-324 again, in which he simply does nothing but point out the problems with the credo position). His only criticism of paedocommunion in the book is to warn them of the risks of spliting or disobeying the rulings of the church in practice, and concludes:

“Those who maintain the doctrine of credo-communion need to deal more thoroughly with the questions that have been raised in order for it to be completely defensible. Those who maintain the doctrine of paedocommunion need to balance what they believe to be the Reformed doctrine of the covenant with what they believe about the Reformed doctrine of ecclesiastical authority and polity.”

Mathison is also at least willing to entertain the revising of the confessions if the paedocommunion position were found, via biblical study and prayer, to be sound (p. 323).

All of this, of course, is aside the point. My point was not that Mathison was a latent FVer. It was that the broad doctrines of covenant, sacrament, and Supper were so close, and the language so related between the two that I sometimes forgot I wasn’t reading Wilson, Lusk, or Jordan.

So I simply must conclude that either in the fundamentals of the Supper both sides of the debate find themselves bumping elbows on the same side of the table (will either side admit that? Would it hurt somebody to admit that, you know, on this thing those FV guys kinda have a point?), or that the problem has nothing to do with doctrine and more to do with personality. To travel back, somewhat, to the broader point of my first comment; what am I, as a committed Reformed Calvinist (and a member in good standing in the PCA), to do with the fact that the FV people have been teaching the same things, and their theology development has been virtually unchanged for ten years, nobody has had a problem with it, and suddenly in 2002 it’s The Great Heresy. And what are all of you to make of the fact that the most vocal and adamant of the FVs opponents once praised its leaders works as being “a much needed wake-up call to the church” (R.C. Sproul Sr.), “a standard text,” (E. Calvin Beisner), “magnificent,” (Jay Adams), and “should benefit anyone concerned about biblical growth in Christian life and witness,” (Richard Gaffin)?

I do not honestly think anyone can in good conscience say, “oh, we didn’t know until 2002.” The works are there. They were being read by the movers and shakers in the Reformed world – John Frame, Richard Gaffin, R.C. Sproul Sr., E. Calvin Beisner, etc. So what’s the problem and why wasn’t it a problem in 1988, in 1993, in 1995, or in 2000, but a mere two years later Doug Wilson and co. are the Darth Vaders of the Reformed world, marauding across the theological spectrum and seducing people with the dark side of their heresy? As someone who is well-read on the creation debate, the Van Til-Clark controversy, the theonomy conflict, and now the FV knucklefuzz, I’m not oblivious to the history of the FV conference that sparked the first shots across the prow.

The Reformed world was not unaware of their doctrines. This very much appears to be an arbitrary controversy, since it was fine one day and literally heresy (according to some) the next. This controversy is not the equivalent of sleeping beside someone every night only to roll over the next morning and ask, very much surprised, “Who on earth are YOU?”
Jeff Cagle said,

February 19, 2008 at 7:29 am

I agree with all of your comments in #104 re: Mathison.

As to the rest: good question. Seek out an answer.

Jeff Cagle
GLW Johnson said,

February 19, 2008 at 8:07 am

I would like to ask Adam if he could comment on the main bone of contention between the FV and their Reformed critics-the doctrine of justification and the what constitutes saving saving faith as well as the FV catagories of two kind of elections,two kinds of justification,two kinds of union with Christ. You won’t find Mike Horton’s endorsements on any of the FV books that deal with these issues.
Adam said,

February 19, 2008 at 3:48 pm

I’m not sure what you’re asking of me in the first part of your post. I don’t find myself really interested in outlining the difference between the FV and their critics. Are you asking what my position is on those issues? Incidentally, I don’t believe your argument that the FV has formulated two justifications or unions with Christ is sustainable. Re-read “REformed is Not Enough.” Wilson never argues for two kinds of unions with Christ (say), but rather that the union is applied differently to different people (say, ultimate elect and temporary elect). In terms of two kinds of election, Calvin himself even says it:

“God adopts the children together with the fathers; and so, consequently, the grace of salvation may be extended to those who are as yet unborn (Romans 9.7). I grant, indeed, that many who are the children of the faithful, according to the flesh, are counted bastards, and not legitimate, because they thrust themselves out of the holy progeny through their unbelief. But this in no way hinders the Lord from calling and admitting the seed of the godly into fellowship of grace. And so, although the common election is not effectual in all, yet may it set open a gate for the special elect.”

That’s from his commentary on Deuteronomy, I believe from chapter 28.

And GLW Johnson is right, you won’t find endorsements on explicit FV books on justification or union with Christ, but you will find Richard Gaffin endorsing Norman Shepherd’s “The Call of Grace,” so much so that he claims it “should benefit anyone concerned about biblical growth in Christian life and witness.” This is Norman Shepherd, a man who has been controversial in the Reformed community for thirty years, and yet his book is published by P&R, who clearly didn’t find his views heretical, and praised by Gaffin, who obviously didn’t either. In the book, Shepherd says,

“In Ephesians 1, Paul writes from the perspective of observable covenant reality and concludes from the visible faith and sanctity of the Ephesians that they are the elect of God. He addresses them as such and encourages them to think of themselves as elect. … Were some to fall away, he would no longer speak of them as the elect of God. However, he would not confess that ‘unfortunately’ his initial judgment had been wrong.”

and goes on to discuss his now infamous example of the vine and the branches. Richard Gaffin read that, and he concluded that it “should benefit anyone concerned about biblical growth in Christian life and witness,” and “provides valuable instruction [aka, read “Not heresy”] on what it means to live in covenant with God.” Huh. Richard Gaffin finds Norman Shepherd’s view of the covenant to “provide valuable instruction.” So I think it is simply not true that FV critics did not endorse books that dealt with the issues of covenant, election, and justification.

So again I ask: Why was it one day “valuable instruction” and the next consigned to hellfire and the equivalent of a modern-day Marcionite discussion panel?
GLW Johnson said,

February 19, 2008 at 3:59 pm

Adam
Could you comment on Shepherd’s consternation with the OPC study report that was produced with the help of Richard Gaffin.
Adam said,

February 19, 2008 at 5:17 pm

Would that help resolve the main proposition of my posts?

The OPC which Gaffin helped produce was written and presented in 2006 (I am assuming you’re refering to the OPC report on justification), four years after the dust up really hit its stride. It does not help answer the question as to why in 2000 Gaffin was fine to dance through the daffodils with Norman Shepherd, who had already been controversial for many years before that and WASN’T brought up on charges of heresy, aborent views on covenant, election, or justification.

And with the possibility you are refering to a different OPC report written some time before 2000 on Shepherd himself, it still does not explain why he so heartily endorsed it.

So the main issue still remains why Sproul, Gaffin, Beisner, Frame and so forth were both reading and endorsing works which dealt with the now controversial areas of covenant, election, and justification (mostly “Back to Basics” and “Call of Grace”). They didn’t have a problem – now they do.
GLW Johnson said,

February 19, 2008 at 5:30 pm

Adam
I am referring to the OPC report that was adopted by this past OPC GA and the one that Shepherd took vigorous exception- the very same one that Gaffin helped to draft. You also seem to forget that Shepherd’s position has been evolving and as such is not the same one that earlier did not have the same emphasis.
Ron Henzel said,

February 19, 2008 at 7:27 pm

Adam,

In comment 107 you wrote:

Wilson never argues for two kinds of unions with Christ (say), but rather that the union is applied differently to different people (say, ultimate elect and temporary elect).

You are dreadfully misinformed. Doug Wilson himself responded to me in his comment 162 on the post titled, “The Context for Sam Duncan’s Comment on the SJC”:

Ron, yes, I believe there are two kinds of covenant union with Christ — blessed and cursed, the kind that lasts forever, and the kind that does not.

As for your description of a “union [with Christ that] is applied differently to different people”: it’s as hard to tell which formulation is more heterodox as it is to figure out how it is possible to have to different kinds (or applications) of covenant union without having two different covenants.
Adam said,

February 22, 2008 at 12:09 am

Ron, thanks for clarifying that point. I have always understood Rev. Wilson’s position to be that anyone baptized is in the covenant, and therefore covenantally united with Christ; however, that Christ’s position in regard to the baptized person is different depending on whether the person is elect or not; aka, Christ’s attitude towards one person is in blessing, and His attitude towards another, not eternally elect, person to be a position of cursing. I don’t think we were really disagreeing, simply saying the same thing from different perspectives.

You say, “it’s as hard to tell which formulation is more heterodox as it is to figure out how it is possible to have to different kinds (or applications) of covenant union without having two different covenants.” So Christ cannot from the Throne of God look at every baptized person and say, “These are in My covenant through baptism. THESE folks are the elect and have my blessing. The others are liars pretending to be my sons and daughters, and my curse is upon them”?

Because so far as I understand it, this is all the FV is saying: 1) People get baptized. 2) These people are all brought into the household of God via the covenant (aka, they are claiming something about Christ – that He has claimed ME) in baptism. 3) We do not know the final roster in Christ’s election books. 4) Christ DOES know. 5) The eternally elect are given His blessings. 6) The temporary elect are speaking a lie about Christ (He has claimed ME) and as a result experience His covenantal curse. This is what Wilson said in his To A Thousand Generations, which incidentally has been around since 1998 as well. And it is what he said in REformed is Not Enough.

Once you grant the fact that there are covenantal blessings and curses in the New Covenant, which I’ve been convinced of for years, ever since I read Ray Sutton’s book That You May Prosper, the whole construction follows.

Since this brings us to where I stand on the Federal Vision, I will go ahead and say that I am somewhat sympathetic to their position, but do not at the moment align myself as a FV proponent. I am hesitant and cautious because of the cry of heresy, and so I continue to seek the scriptures regarding the issue (and follow this and Rev. Wilson’s blogs).
Jeff Cagle said,

February 22, 2008 at 1:19 pm

Adam (#112):

Here’s my take:

2) These people are all brought into the household of God via the covenant (aka, they are claiming something about Christ – that He has claimed ME) in baptism.

To my mind, 2) is the problematic statement. It baptism a statement by me about God (which is your ‘aka’ clause), or is it a statement by God about me (which is your ‘brought into the household of God’ clause)?

If the former, then it vitiates the theology of paedobaptism. If the latter, then it makes too strong a claim about the relationship of God to those who are baptized; namely, that God views them as part of his household.

From that point then follows all of the confusion about dual senses of ‘justification’, ‘union with Christ’, and so on. I think Wilkins really does want to retain the Westminsterian doctrines about decretal election. The problem is that his view of covenantal election becomes so strong that it threatens “election leakage”, which then starts spilling over into contradictions.

That’s only my opinion, of course.

Jeff Cagle
Mark said,

February 22, 2008 at 1:53 pm

.#113

“If the latter, then it makes too strong a claim about the relationship of God to those who are baptized; namely, that God views them as part of his household.”

But Jeff, that is exactly what the Westminster Confession states: that the visible Church, made up of all professing believers with their children, elect and reprobate, is the “house and family of God.”

I can add Biblical argumentation if you wish, but I have a hard time moving beyond, “Let’s establish the Reformed baseline.”

That is exactly the way that God views them.
Adam said,

February 22, 2008 at 2:59 pm

“If the former, then it vitiates the theology of paedobaptism. If the latter, then it makes too strong a claim about the relationship of God to those who are baptized; namely, that God views them as part of his household.”

Jeff, thanks for your comments. I think, though, that a paedobaptist position is solidified precisely on the point Wilson is making. If baptism is a statement about what God has done (He has claimed ME) rather than what we believe, then infants are more obviously in view by their very nature – aka, they cannot profess the faith or even talk, but if on the promises of God (to you and your children for a thousand generations; the children of believers are holy), then infants as children of believers should even more certainly be baptized.

Again, is God saying something or are we saying something in baptism? I think it is both. In baptism, we are saying that “God has chosen this person to be a member of his household,” AND the baptized person is saying, “I believe Jesus to be the risen Christ, and I count myself as a follower of Him.” Now, if this person is not elect, then he is lying double-fold, because in that case God has NOT chosen him, and he is not really counting himself as a follower, and thus comes under the judgment.

The question is then moved back to baptismal efficacy. What does baptism do, anyway? I just yesterday had a great conversation with a baptist co-worker on the subject of baptism. They argued that baptism doesn’t DO anything, it is simply a confirmation or statement that “I believe in Jesus,” and on that perspective then, baptism is hardly even necessary. So what does baptism do? It would be very hard to suggest the historical reformed position is that baptism does not bring us into the household of God, which is simply Israel or in the new covenant, the Church. You’re in the house, but some people in the house are dinner guests, and some people are wedding crashers pretending to be dinner guests, and will be eventually ejected.

This is how I understand what the FVers are saying.
Jeff Cagle said,

February 22, 2008 at 4:31 pm

Mark (#113):

But Jeff, that is exactly what the Westminster Confession states: that the visible Church, made up of all professing believers with their children, elect and reprobate, is the “house and family of God.”

Fair point. But now, in what sense?

I would argue, from WCoF 25.3-5, that the visible Church is “the Church as we see it”, and its primary purpose is to be the means by which God calls his (eternally) elect.

In other words, the visible Church is “the house and family of God” in the sense that it is the house and family of God as best we can see, and also it is the means by which God creates His temple.

As I read Wilkins, I see him moving beyond this to a farther point, that the visible Church is “in some sense” the Church as God sees it. Indeed, the joint FV statement (JVFS) holds up the visible Church as “the true church” and “not an approximate church”; I would invert that and say that the visible Church is an artifact of the limitations on our knowledge, and is necessarily approximate.

That doesn’t mean that we can despise it. Quite the contrary; the VC is to be honored as “the Church as we know it.” We jhave a core ethical obligation to treat it as the body of Christ. But that’s as far as it goes. We cannot push beyond this and say that God sees the visible Church as his body. Else, 2 Cor 6 makes no sense.

I’ve noticed that Jeff M. has been posting Frame material concerning this. It bears a strong resemblance to the direction I’m moving in.

But in any event, I think the core disagreement between me and the JFVS is this point about the church. Out of it arise all the other disagreements about justification.

Jeff Cagle
Mark said,

February 22, 2008 at 5:18 pm

I’m sorry, but the kingdom of our Lord Jesus Christ and the house and family of God out of which there is no ordinary possibility of salvation is simply not an entity. It is in every possible sense seen by God. He weeps over it and, because he loves the members there in, he warns them before judging them.

Luke 19:

41 And when he drew near and saw the city, he wept over it, 42 saying, “Would that you, even you, had known on this day the things that make for peace! But now they are hidden from your eyes. 43 For the days will come upon you, when your enemies will set up a barricade around you and surround you and hem you in on every side 44 and tear you down to the ground, you and your children within you. And they will not leave one stone upon another in you, because you did not know the time of your visitation.”

Revelation 3:

4 “And to the angel of the church in Laodicea write: ‘The words of the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of God’s creation. 15 “‘I know your works: you are neither cold nor hot. Would that you were either cold or hot! 16 So, because you are lukewarm, and neither hot nor cold, I will spit you out of my mouth. 17 For you say, I am rich, I have prospered, and I need nothing, not realizing that you are wretched, pitiable, poor, blind, and naked. 18 I counsel you to buy from me gold refined by fire, so that you may be rich, and white garments so that you may clothe yourself and the shame of your nakedness may not be seen, and salve to anoint your eyes, so that you may see. 19 Those whom I love, I reprove and discipline, so be zealous and repent. 20 Behold, I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in to him and eat with him, and he with me. 21 The one who conquers, I will grant him to sit with me on my throne, as I also conquered and sat down with my Father on his throne. 22 He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches.’”

I submit, Jesus saw Jerusalem and he saw the Church in Laodicea. Jesus is God. So those are seen by God.

There is no way what you are saying is remotely plausible as some sort of mainstream Reformed statement. I’m not judging whether it is allowable or anything. But it sounds really strongly hyper-calvinist.

And I don’t understand why I am hearing such extreme opinions while being on the receiving end of the sort of accusations that are made on this blog.
Mark said,

February 22, 2008 at 5:20 pm

117

ugh. First paragraph : “not an entity that God doesn’t see.”

Awkward double-negative. Should have said it differently anyway.
Jeff Cagle said,

February 22, 2008 at 8:00 pm

Adam (#115):

You’re right to point out that I overlooked the “both at once” option. For my part, baptism is a sign from God to us, rather than a sign from us to others.

This is how I understand what the FVers are saying.

I would love for them to be saying that, and perhaps some do. Wilkins, at least, explicitly rejected the “judgment of charity” view in his piece in “The Federal Vision.”

I actually have a stronger view of baptismal efficacy than even you have expressed. To my understanding, influenced by Calvin, baptism functions as a visible sermon of God’s grace, and it is efficacious *at the moment of faith* to effect real and saving union with Christ.

Grace and peace,
Jeff Cagle
Jeff Cagle said,

February 22, 2008 at 8:11 pm

Mark (#117):

There is no way what you are saying is remotely plausible as some sort of mainstream Reformed statement. I’m not judging whether it is allowable or anything. But it sounds really strongly hyper-calvinist.

Well, it’s certainly trying to be Reformed. :lol: And hyper-calvinist I’m not.

What part of it sounds that way to you? Also, did you read the link? Did that also sound hyper-Calvinist?

Finally, I think Luke 19 makes a better case than Rev 3, inasmuch as 3.19 could easily refer to the believers within the church whom he is disciplining (the non-believers falling more in the category of 1 Cor 10).

But your overall point is, I think, that the visible Church members are all loved by God, as demonstrated by the fact that Jesus wept even over the reprobates within Israel. Yes?

If so, then would you agree that this creates a tension with, say, the theology of John, in which the wrath of God remains on all unbelievers (and within context of, say, ch. 3, especially the unbelievers in Israel)?

Jeff Cagle
Mark said,

February 22, 2008 at 10:45 pm

Well sure there is tension. There is tension in Luke 19 when Jesus himself is going to destroy these people. (The tension is in John 3.16 where “world” actually designates reprobate Israel. But read through the verses that follow ant it is obvious that the world remains under judgment because it will not believe in Jesus.)

I’m all for tension. Common grace is tension. But I thought you had declared that there was none. There is simply how we see things v. something different that God sees.
David Weiner said,

February 23, 2008 at 9:29 am

Mark, re: 121,

Don’t mean to barge in on your conversation with Jeff; but, I sure would be interested in how you come to the view that world in John 3:16 designates reprobate Israel.
Ron Henzel said,

February 23, 2008 at 10:32 am

David,

Regarding your comment 122: you probably were not aware that this is how the new Federal Vision Bible translates John 3:16. It’s now out yet, but a friend of mine at Athanasius Press slipped me a copy of their latest draft of John, where it reads in 3:16:

For God so electively-loved reprobate Israel that He gave His only Son monocovenantally, that whoever among elect covenant members believes after being engrafted into Christ through baptism, he will not lose his justification but will be vindicated by his works on the last day.

I hear their working on a study Bible to come out after the Old Testament is finished. I suppose a “Life Application for the Federal Vision Bible” is not far behind. That should be interesting.
Jeff Cagle said,

February 23, 2008 at 11:07 am

David (#122):

Don’t mean to barge in on your conversation with Jeff; but, I sure would be interested in how you come to the view that world in John 3:16 designates reprobate Israel.

Glad to have your thoughts, David. BTW, the link in #116 is the first two-thirds of my thoughts on invisible and visible church that I promised to set down for you. Sorry it’s late.

But now re: John 3.16. I don’t think it’s central to Mark’s point here that the referent of ‘world’ is ‘Israel’; it could also mean ‘the whole planet of people’ or even (as Hodge) ‘the entire cosmos’ and the point would be equally well-established. His point is simply that common grace is in tension with God’s eschatological purposes. Namely, God tolerates with great patience the objects of his wrath, causes the sun to shine on them and the rain to fall on them. Moreover, this feature of God’s character is the basis for Jesus’ command to us to do likewise:

“You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be sons of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? And if you greet only your brothers, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect. — Matt 5.44-48

Note the “that you may be sons of your Father…”, a Hebrewism for “that you may be just like your Father…”

At some level, then, common grace is genuine grace, a “not giving to pagans as they deserve.”

Jeff Cagle
David Weiner said,

February 23, 2008 at 11:20 am

Ron, re: 123,

From your previous posts it is clear to me that you read the Bible with your eyes wide open and your mind fully engaged. I guess you’ll be running out to get a copy of this new, faithful to the text, translation! :) Talk about wolves in the sheep fold.
Jeff Cagle said,

February 23, 2008 at 11:25 am

Mark (#121):

I’m all for tension.

I’m not, entirely. I mean, there is irreducible tension packaged into our creatureliness, and we just live with that. But then there’s tension created by sin (cf. Rom. 8), and we live with that as ones discontent, longing for better.

And then there’s tension that is created by our own formulations, and that’s the area that we can actually reform in our own thinking. That latter tension, if it persists, leads to real pastoral problems in ministry and such. One way to view the development of medieval theology is the result of the tension between Augustine’s view of grace and Augustine’s view of the sacraments.

Of course, faulty attempts to remove tension cause problems too. You and I would agree that Hoeksema’s denial of common grace is one such problem, yes?

So let’s agree that what we’re talking about is the right way to handle the tension inherent in two strands of Biblical truth: On the one hand, those who have the right to belong to God’s people are those whom He has eternally elected (1 Cor 5.13-19; 2 Cor 6.14-18; John 1; John 3; John 15) — all others are destined for pruning because they don’t properly belong. And on the other, God’s plan for gathering his elect is to use human families and the church as we see it. He commands respect for the Church as we see it, and He shows care for it. And yet, He has not eternally elected all who are within the Church.

Is that a fair statement of the problem in your view?

David, I know that you are not going to be happy about my second strand. Let me ask you to consider the fact that we are commanded to respect “the Church as we see it” *as* “the Church”. We are to obey the local officers of our Church (not just any Christian minister worldwide). We are to treat the fellow members of the local Church as brothers in Christ, without the benefit of knowing their eternal state.

In that sense, there is some validity to the concept of “the visible Church.”

Regards,
Jeff Cagle
David Weiner said,

February 23, 2008 at 11:34 am

Hi Jeff, re: 124,

I have read and continue to consider what you have posted on your web site about the church. Great stuff. I have been waiting to comment until others had had a chance; but, since there had been none yet, I posted a comment last night. It has not yet shown up and I wasn’t sure if you were moderating comments or if I had pushed the wrong button?

I agree that the point about John 3:16 is not fundamental. It was just very surprising and so I thought I would ask. As to the bigger point about tension; I don’t have any problem at all. Thankfully, how God unfolds His plan is well above my pay grade.

At some level, then, common grace is genuine grace, a “not giving to pagans as they deserve.”

Really just a trivial point but I had thought that this is a definition of mercy and that it applies to both pagans and believers. I see God being effusive in pouring out His grace and mercy on all of us.
Jeff Cagle said,

February 23, 2008 at 11:49 am

Thanks, David. I didn’t get the comment, and I don’t moderate. :(

Jeff
David Weiner said,

February 23, 2008 at 11:57 am

Jeff, re: 126,

I hadn’t seen this comment when I sent # 127. First, I would not characterize my reaction as either happy or unhappy. As an aside, I have the greatest respect for your views. I just don’t see this the way you do; this causes me to keep looking.

We are to obey the local officers of our Church (not just any Christian minister worldwide).

I don’t see Scripture telling me to follow the orders of local officers of the Church. I see the Scriptures saying that the local officers are to speak the Word and to that extent I am to follow what they say. However, it really isn’t that I am following their commands.

We are to treat the fellow members of the local Church as brothers in Christ, without the benefit of knowing their eternal state.

Absolutely. AND, we are to be walking in the Spirit and we are to have discernment. So, after we have ALL been doing this for a while, the VC will much more closely approximate the Church. On the other hand, . . . .

Ah, I pushed the wrong button. I’m off to try once more.
Jeff Cagle said,

February 23, 2008 at 12:20 pm

David (#129):

Thanks. What do you make of this:

Remember your leaders, who spoke the word of God to you. Consider the outcome of their way of life and imitate their faith. … Obey your leaders and submit to their authority. They keep watch over you as men who must give an account. Obey them so that their work will be a joy, not a burden, for that would be of no advantage to you. — Hebrews 13.7, 17

Jeff
Mark said,

February 23, 2008 at 2:04 pm

Hey, really busy. But on John 3.16. Read the passage and ask who we know that Jesus actually said this and this isn’t John’s narrative. As far as I can tell, the red-letter cut-off point is rather arbitrary.

It seems to me John is saying that God and Jesus did something for the world but the world didn’t want it and is therefore condemned (“this is the judgment”).

Then take a look at John 15:

18 “If the world hates you, know that it has hated me before it hated you. 19 If you were of the world, the world would love you as its own; but because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, therefore the world hates you. 20 Remember the word that I said to you: ‘A servant is not greater than his master.’ If they persecuted me, they will also persecute you. If they kept my word, they will also keep yours. 21 But all these things they will do to you on account of my name, because they do not know him who sent me. 22 If I had not come and spoken to them, they would not have been guilty of sin, [3] but now they have no excuse for their sin. 23 Whoever hates me hates my Father also. 24 If I had not done among them the works that no one else did, they would not be guilty of sin, but now they have seen and hated both me and my Father. 25 But the word that is written in their Law must be fulfilled: ‘They hated me without a cause.’

And it continues in chapter 16:

1 “I have said all these things to you to keep you from falling away. 2 They will put you out of the synagogues. Indeed, the hour is coming when whoever kills you will think he is offering service to God. 3 And they will do these things because they have not known the Father, nor me. 4 But I have said these things to you, that when their hour comes you may remember that I told them to you.

So “the World” has a law that includes Scripture, synagoges, and they do what they do in service (they think) to God. That’s not the pagan world. Then go back and look at how Jesus says they did it to him first. Who opposed Jesus in John’s Gospel up to that point?

Go back to John 3. Jesus is talking to a teacher in Israel. It seems quite natural to me that John would cut in with an inspired overview.

But Jeff is right, this is all extraneous to the point.
David Weiner said,

February 23, 2008 at 3:10 pm

Jeff, re: #130,

That is the passage I had in mind. Again, isn’t it amazing how two people can look at the same thing and see very different messages!

So who is in view in this passage?
1) Leaders who spoke the Word of God. These are not people who bring 3 points and a poem to the church each week. These are men who proclaim God’s Word; not their own.
2) Their lives and faith witness just as much as the Word they proclaim. And, there is complete harmony between what they proclaim and what they live.
3) They are shepherds who understand the weight of the position they hold and care dearly for their flock.
4) They experience joy when their struggle builds up their body (and I don’t mean in number or in the size of the budget).
4) They have authority. What authority is this? I say it is the Word and only the Word. Anything else would be of man.
David Weiner said,

February 23, 2008 at 3:50 pm

Mark, re: #131,

I wonder what you would have written if you had not been busy! :) Thanks for the effort. I see now how you came to that conclusion. Let me just take the liberty of inserting ‘reprobate of Israel’ into 3:16 wherever the ‘world’ is in view and see how it reads:

For God so loved the reprobate of Israel, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever of the reprobate of Israel believes in Him should not perish, but have eternal life.

Sorry, but it is not the reprobate of Israel who believe. It is the elect that He had chosen of all the world, Jew and Gentile. In John 15 and 16 I can see how the main focus of the world is reprobate Israel. But, that does not control the context of 3:16.
Jeff Cagle said,

February 23, 2008 at 4:30 pm

David (#132):

Well, I think we agree that the leaders here are ones who have demonstrated their fidelty through proclamation of the Word.

But now a couple of objections:

1) – 4) are all correct. But oddly enough, those do not *guarantee* that the leaders themselves really are believers. They provide strong evidence of an inductive sort, but they don’t provide mathematical proof.

Thus, these “leaders” in view in Hebrews 13 are visibly seen to be faithful shepherds of the sheep. But given any pastor Joe Schmoe at a church, you will have no guarantee; and yet the command still remains. So if Alice is a member of Joe’s church, she has an obligated (limited!) to obey Joe as her elder.

So faithfully following this command could lead Alice into obedience to a non-believing elder, at God’s command! Of course, as soon as Alice discovers dispositive evidence of this fact, she has an obligation to find a new church (or bring charges, if the church government allows it).

The situation is even more clear in marriage. How many, many people married an apparent believer only to find out otherwise? And yet, a believing wife still owes obedience (limited!) to her unbelieving husband.

The point is that the objects of these commands can easily be unbelievers, perhaps even unbelievers within the visible Church.

4) They have authority. What authority is this? I say it is the Word and only the Word. Anything else would be of man.

No argument. But the command is to obey the *leaders*, not their authority; we can’t mentally shift the object of that command from “the person” to “what the person teaches.”

(I should say as an aside that the elders also have an obligation not to be overbearing or over-directive towards the congregation.)

In short, we cannot remove the human element from the process here. It would be lovely if we could divide the world into “the invisible church = God’s elect” and “the visible church = a mere human institution.”

But unfortunately for that theory, God has granted the leaders of the visible church authority to speak the word. This is why we ordain elders, instead of letting any Alfred or Bob stand up in the pulpit on Sunday. We recognize, at God’s command, certain human leaders within the church to make decisions for the church and also to proclaim the Word. As soon as we do that, we are creating, at God’s command, a human institution that He wants us to treat as the Church. The human members of that human institution are to be treated as my brothers in Christ.

And further, God has given to the visible church the practice of the sacraments. This is why we don’t allow just any old someone to go around baptizing.

There is an irreducible co-mingling of the invisible Church and the visible; the latter is God’s ordained means of gathering the former. And that opens up the possibility that the institution I am treating as “the Church” may well contain reprobates within.

Jeff Cagle
Mark said,

February 23, 2008 at 6:27 pm

For God so loved Israel, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into Israel to condemn the world, but in order that Israel might be saved through him. Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God.

And this is the judgment: the light has come into Israel, and people loved the darkness rather than the light because their works were evil. For everyone who does wicked things hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his works should be exposed. But whoever does what is true comes to the light, so that it may be clearly seen that his works have been carried out in God.

I submit this makes perfect sense as John’s appraisal of Israel’s response (as a whole, their leadership and organization) to God’s grace in Jesus’ ministry to them.
Mark said,

February 23, 2008 at 6:27 pm

Addition: John’s appraisal decades later.
Mark said,

February 23, 2008 at 6:31 pm

About Tensions

Trying to keep in mind both God’s complete control and exhaustive prescience and infallible plan, and that he loves and responds to his creatures, is not possibly, in my opinion, a tension resulting from sin. It is at the crux of the difficulty in understanding the creator/creature relationship with ethical beings. It is the riddle of being finite creations in the image of the infinite God.
David Weiner said,

February 23, 2008 at 6:38 pm

Jeff, re: #134,

No question that we are faced with a less than perfect situation and all we can do is to make the best of it with what resources God has gifted each of us. Not to be sarcastic; but we are to live by faith in Him. After all He is the one who set it up this way. So, the VC is to be treated as the IV and we should be on the look out to keep it as pure as we can. However, when we start acting in our own wisdom and strength, then we are in danger. Should we start excommunicating people for saying something we don’t like, then maybe we have really lost the bubble. I think we are in violent agreement over this. :)

But given any pastor Joe Schmoe at a church, you will have no guarantee; and yet the command still remains.

Only if the IV there has seen him as a faithful proclaimer/liver of the Word. If not, they have to leave and then it is only Joe Schmoe and the reprobate who are left. Now, if they are all comfortable or whatever and allow this sinful person to lead them and they sit under his teaching, then they will no doubt get what they deserve.

And yet, a believing wife still owes obedience (limited!) to her unbelieving husband.

I am sure we would agree that if he were to say to her that they ought to go out to rob a bank today, she should not submit. She is still responsible for being discerning. And, again, her submission is to God and only secondarily to her husband as long what he says lines up with what God has said. Same goes for all of us as regards submission to our church leaders.

But the command is to obey the *leaders*, not their authority;

Obey when they say what? For example, I want you to mow my lawn – not likely. This is clearly an abuse. On the other hand I may well choose to mow the lawn of my pastor because I see a need and I love him. Well, how far can they go from what is in the Word and not be in this area of abuse? What authority do they have beyond what the Word says?

We recognize, at God’s command, certain human leaders within the church to make decisions for the church and also to proclaim the Word.

I am really not trying to be argumentative here; but, I can’t think of where the Word gives the leader the right to make decisions for the church. Proclaim and live the Word, yes; Shepherd and care for the flock, yes; ensure that the electric bill gets paid, yes; be the CEO, no. Somebody else already has that position.
David Weiner said,

February 23, 2008 at 6:44 pm

Mark, re # 135,

YES! I fully agree with that use of world to refer to Israel, which included both a remnant and the reprobate.
Jeff Cagle said,

February 23, 2008 at 7:10 pm

David (#138):

I think we are in violent agreement over this.

Yes, I sense that we’re closer than I thought. At first, I heard you as denying any validity to the concept of visible Church altogether. Now, I see that you agree with me on the problem of knowledge. I think we’re still a space apart on the authority issue.

I fully agree with you that a congregation is supposed to assess the fruit of a pastor to determine whether his authority is visibly confirmed by his life.

And yet, a believing wife still owes obedience (limited!) to her unbelieving husband.

I am sure we would agree that if he were to say to her that they ought to go out to rob a bank today, she should not submit. She is still responsible for being discerning. And, again, her submission is to God and only secondarily to her husband as long what he says lines up with what God has said. Same goes for all of us as regards submission to our church leaders.

But the command is to obey the *leaders*, not their authority;

Obey when they say what? For example, I want you to mow my lawn – not likely. This is clearly an abuse. On the other hand I may well choose to mow the lawn of my pastor because I see a need and I love him. Well, how far can they go from what is in the Word and not be in this area of abuse? What authority do they have beyond what the Word says?

Here’s a test case loosely drawn from a real situation. Suppose Albert offends Bob. Albert makes an “attempt” at reconciliation that essentially boils down to “here’s why I was right and you’re still a poopy-head.”

The elders, I would argue, have the authority to tell Albert that more is required of him by Matthew 5.23-24.

This is the kind of thing I’m talking about where the rubber meets the road: the use of wisdom to assess whether or not Scripture is being rightly used. Yes, the authority of elders is limited — “mow my lawn” is not a valid exercise of shepherding authority. But it does extend somewhat beyond the mere words of Scripture into the area of interpretation of Scripture.

Albert might argue that in his view, he’s done what Matthew 5 requires. But if the elders say otherwise, then he has an obligation to listen and to submit.

That obligation is *not* absolute! That’s one reason that the PCA has an appeals system. Perhaps you are concerned that I mean some kind of absolutist system; I don’t.

What do you think?

I am really not trying to be argumentative here; but, I can’t think of where the Word gives the leader the right to make decisions for the church. Proclaim and live the Word, yes; Shepherd and care for the flock, yes; ensure that the electric bill gets paid, yes; be the CEO, no. Somebody else already has that position.

I actually agree with you that the elders’ job is to let Christ be the head. Still and all, someone has to make decisions about ministry priorities for the church. Whether that someone is a single pastor or a group of elders or an entire congregation, it will still be a group of people with all of the “knowledge problems” that we’ve agreed exist.

Jeff
David Weiner said,

February 23, 2008 at 8:33 pm

Jeff, re: # 139,

I think we’re still a space apart on the authority issue.

AHHH; but space can be large or small. I think it is small here. ;)

I enjoyed thinking about your test case.
First, Albert can not offend bob. Albert can do something and Bob can decide to be offended. Albert may or may not have been wrong; not enough information here to decide that. Bob, was clearly wrong for choosing to be offended.

Second, if Albert is defending himself when he attempts reconciliation, he is wrong. If in addition, he makes it clear that Bob is a poopy-head (I can’t believe I just typed that ;) ) then he compounds the injury and is doubly wrong. So, up to this point, it sounds like we have two young children interacting on a playground. (My guess is that most problems between church members fall into this category.)

The elders, I would argue, have the authority to tell Albert that more is required of him by Matthew 5.23-24.

I agree that they have the authority and also the responsibility to try to show Albert what God has to say about this situation. Unity of the body is clearly at stake; not to mention the sin that Albert is continuing in. I (being a silly dispy) would not point to that verse; I might go to Philippians 2:3; but I say that without any prayer on my part. As an elder approaching this situation, I would need much prayer. Fortunately, I am sure there are any number of verses that are applicable.

Third, Albert definitely has the obligation to submit to the elders as long as what they are telling him is God’s Word. Yes, interpretation makes things more difficult; very little is black and white. But Albert should be in submission to them while he stays in the church.

Forth, Albert does not seem like he gets it. I am not confident that any Scripture or spiritually loving pastor is going to have much influence on him. In protection of the flock; the pastor may have to use his authority as shepherd to remove Albert until he repents.

In closing the pastor has authority as long as what he says is completely in line with what Scripture says. And, of course, decisions like ministry priorities have to be made in the real world. But, how? Does the pastor define this or does God? Now, if God does not have the ability to speak to that pastor or He is just too slow to make His desire known, I guess we know how it will go. Yes, there is a line that can be crossed and that is where the pastor’s submission to the one who really has the authority comes in. Absent that, the church will not be a light on the hill regardless of what ministries they think they are carrying out.
Ron Henzel said,

February 25, 2008 at 10:34 am

Adam,

In comment 112 you wrote: “Once you grant the fact that there are covenantal blessings and curses in the New Covenant…”

Could you please specify precisely what you believe the New Covenant curses to be?