The Works of Manton

I can hardly believe my eyes. But it is true. The complete 22-volume works of Thomas Manton are available for free download here. Manton was one of the very best Puritan preachers. I have benefitted enormously from his work.

Reply to Jeff Meyers, part 2

The second part of the 30 reasons document asserts that the study committee has only shown that the views in question (FV and NPP) are out of accord with the study committee’s interpretation of the WS, and that they have not shown that the views are out of accord with the WS themselves. In reality, this objection is an extension of the first objection regarding subscription. Indeed, the latter part of the second objection talks about the import of the good faith system subscription. I don’t have too much to say about point 2, other than that it is pure assertion with absolutely zero argumentation. Of course the report will never convince FV guys that their views are out of accord. Of course, it will convince the critics. I am rather disappointed that Jeff resorted to “no, it isn’t, yes it is” type of argumentation, which isn’t argumentation. What he would have needed to do is to demonstrate that the views in question are not out of accord with the WS, and especially demonstrate that the report’s view of the WS is not the only legitimate interpretation. Not a word of such argumentation. So, I hope he doesn’t expect the critics to take that one seriously.

Regarding point 3, the fact of Southern Presbyterians being appointed to the study committee is irrelevant to the outcome on the issues of election. If I had been appointed to the study committee, the result would hardly have changed a bit. I am not a Southerner, being a pastor in North Dakota. If Phil Ryken or Rick Phillips (neither of whom are Southerners) had been appointed, the result would not have been much different.  This is quite a fallacious argument.

Regarding point 4, which is one I have heard ad nauseum already from most FV advocates: the utter fallacy here is to suppose that the composition of the study committee as being “one-sided” guarantees a false picture of the situation. As many others have noted on this blog, there have been situations in church history in the past where an issue has come up. The church did not invite advocates of x position to participate, and yet the conclusions regarding x position have been regarded as valid. So, this argument is sophomoric and historically naive. Take the synod of Dort. Arminians were not invited. Are the Canons of Dort skewed? Of course not. They are biblical. So, this point is based on a complete fallacy. The point is this: critics do not view the FV as being in accordance with the WS, and that these views are an attack on the vitals of the Christian religion. That puts this whole discussion in a completely different arena than the creation days or women in the military.