Index of RINE Posts

I intend here to make sure that my discussion with Doug Wilson remains accessible to people. So I am going to post here an index not only of all my posts on RINE, but also all of Doug’s responses. Doug’s responses, plus any further back and forth will be in the parentheses. I have worked quite hard to make sure that all the blog posts are linked. If there are any I missed, I would greatly appreciate it if someone would point it out to me. It should be remembered that Doug and I often responded to each other in the comment section. This was an extremely difficult index to compile, as it was not always clear which post was responding to which. Furthermore, my computer didn’t like Wilson’s archive page for Auburn Avenue Stuff (too many posts on the page?). So, I had to sift through all of Wilson’s posts to find the responses to mine. This index will also be posted on my Federal Vision index.

Overall Review (Doug’s response); Chapter 1 (Doug’s response); Chapter 2 (Doug’s response); Chapter 3 (Doug’s response); Chapter 4 (Doug’s response, my response, Doug’s response); Chapter 5; Chapter 6 (Doug’s response to both chapter 5 and chapter 6, my response, Doug’s response); Chapter 7 (Doug’s response); Chapter 8 (Doug’s response, my response, Doug’s response); Chapter 9 (Doug’s response) Chapter 10, part 1 and Chapter 10, part 2 (Doug’s first response, my response Doug’s response, Doug’s second response) Chapter 11, part 1; Chapter 11, part 2 (Doug’s response); Chapter 12 (I could not find Doug’s response) Chapter 13 (Doug’s response) Chapter 14 (Doug’s response); Chapter 15 (Doug’s response, my response, Doug’s response, my response) Chapter 16 (Doug’s response, my response); Chapters 17-18 (Doug’s response, my response, Doug’s response); Chapter 19 (Doug’s response) Chapter 20 (Doug’s response); Chapter 21, part 1 (Doug’s response) Chapter 21, part 2 (Doug’s response); Chapter 21 penultimate (Doug’s response); Chapter 21 final (Doug’s response); Chapter 22, part 1 (Doug’s response, my response); Chapter 22, part 2 (Doug’s response, my response, Doug’s response); Epilogue (Doug’s response)



  1. anneivy said,

    March 26, 2008 at 5:18 pm


    This is dreadfully kind of you, Lane! I can’t begin to imagine what a time-consuming effort it was.

    Thanks ever so!

  2. greenbaggins said,

    March 26, 2008 at 5:50 pm

    Well, it is actually quite a bit more self-serving than you might realize, as this is important for my thesis.

  3. anneivy said,

    March 26, 2008 at 5:51 pm


    Well, never mind, then. ;-)



  4. greenbaggins said,

    March 26, 2008 at 5:58 pm

    Of course, if it benefits others, I won’t mind thanks here and there, so thanks! ;-)

  5. Ken Christian said,

    March 27, 2008 at 1:25 pm

    Again, Lane, please receive my thanks for the way you have interacted with Wilson and RINE over the past few months. As you know, I have not always agreed with your conclusions and/or concerns; but let me say that I think you have always been loving and even-handed in your critiques. That is really impressive as well as being something we should all admire and seek to imitate. Thanks, again. -Ken

  6. magma2 said,

    March 28, 2008 at 7:39 am

    Yes, Lane, you’ve given the chief advocate and defender of the false gospel of Federal Vision, along with his manifesto that openly proclaims salvation by faith and works, even if you failed to notice, the thumbs up on matters vital to the faith. Nice work. No wonder Ken Christian is besides himself praising your efforts. I confess, I only wish I was a lurker on Jordan’s unBiblical Horizons list serve. Champagne and cigars all round.

    Those interested in wading through the above index can read how Lane was led by the nose by Wilson and what we have in these reviews is really Wilson’s review of RINE. Wilson accomplished through the agency of Lane and his blog exactly what he hoped to accomplish through one of those in person public debates he was trolling for. Reading Lane’s review and interchange with his pal Doug ought to give everyone here precious insight into exactly why FVist were so desperate to get a few of their own on the PCA’s FV study committee. Admittedly, few are as skilled at speaking out of both sides of his mouth as Wilson, but on questions that cut to the heart of the gospel Wilson is in complete agreement with Horne, Meyers, Jordan, Leitheart, Wilkins and the rest of the FVists.

    I realize that Lane and perhaps his other defenders here will accuse me of “flaming” and all other nastiness for calling Lane a sucker. Of course, Lane will protest that he has not given Wilson a doctrinal clean bill of health. But, at the end of the day, whatever doctrinal differences Lane has with his pal Doug are just intramural. Certainly explains the high praise from Ken Christian.

  7. greenbaggins said,

    March 28, 2008 at 9:46 am

    So, Sean, what did you think of Mark T’s blog post on my interaction with DW? I’m curious.

  8. David Gray said,

    March 28, 2008 at 9:59 am

    >Mark T’s blog post on my interaction with DW

    Hmmm, till your comment prompted me to go look at it I didn’t realize I now feature (in a minor way) on the anonymous fellow’s hit list (assuming he/she is a fellow). Reminds me of Dennis Healey’s comment that the experience was rather like being savaged by a dead sheep.

  9. greenbaggins said,

    March 28, 2008 at 10:33 am

    Mark, please be more polite.

  10. greenbaggins said,

    March 28, 2008 at 10:33 am

    David, that goes for you, too.

  11. Todd Bordow said,

    March 28, 2008 at 10:35 am


    Don’t you think you are going a little overboard in your denunciation of Lane? We all do not fight the good fight the same way. Some of us pastorally have been dealing with the legalistic messes in people caused by the DW writings for such a long time that we have lost patience with the nice approach and are ready to call out clearly and forcefully what we know damages the sheep. Others may not have experienced this yet and need to be given time. Others may just have a different way of standing against something. I’m still amazed you jumped ship so quickly from the OPC after the Kinnaird trial, a trial that was as much about proper procedure than anything else. Though I disagreed with the outcome, I always defined Presbyterianism as the ability to live in the minority without whining. I just see Machen staying much longer trying to work from within than denouncing a whole body just as the fight gets started.
    I personally do not think Lane’s approach will accomplish much because people need to see more clearly the danger this false teaching poses, but who am I to judge his motives in all this?

    Todd Bordow

  12. Mark T. said,

    March 28, 2008 at 10:45 am

    I apologize, Lane, please delete the comment.

  13. greenbaggins said,

    March 28, 2008 at 11:01 am

    Thanks, Mark. Done. And thanks, Todd, for your comments. I do think that Sean’s comments do not understand my motives or my strategy in dealing with this from my vantage point. I tried sending him an email to explain this, but it bounced.

  14. magma2 said,

    March 28, 2008 at 11:04 am

    Not sure which post of Mark’s you’re referring to Lane? Is it the one where he reposted Todd Bordow’s letter correctly identifying Wilson as a religious fraud and “shyster”?

    I will say Mark and I have different opinions concerning your exoneration of Wilson on the one hinge upon which the gospel stands or falls. He seems to think that you still have some aces up your sleeves. I assured him there is nothing left and that you were taken for everything you own. Mark did say Wilson played you for a fool. We agree on that much.

    FWIW I too bought that nonsense of yours about getting more bees with honey, but I confess I didn’t think you were going to get stung. But, then, heretics and false teachers like Wilson are to be identified and exposed, not coddled and played with. Using Paul’s letter to the Galatians, you’d have us believe that Wilson is really playing the role of Peter. That he is guilty of merely playing the hypocrite, rather being the hardened Judaizer and perverter of the the gospel he really is.

    I’m confident as Mark continues to see you embrace Wilson, this FV shill, false teacher and deadly heretic, as your beloved but misguided brother in Christ, he will come to his senses. You on the other hand . . . .

    Let me put it this way, I’m nauseated and disgusted. I assure you, you have no idea what your one little statement affirming that Wilson holds to justification by faith alone and imputation meant to me. FWIW Wilson is no Peter. The only Peter here is you.

  15. magma2 said,

    March 28, 2008 at 11:06 am

    If your email bounced it is because you did not address it correctly. I can assure you if your email didn’t get through it’s not because of me. My email is magma2 AT gmail DOT com.

  16. greenbaggins said,

    March 28, 2008 at 11:26 am

    I was referring to this post:

    I have also sent you an email.

  17. magma2 said,

    March 28, 2008 at 11:34 am

    Hi Todd. No, I don’t think I’m going “overboard” in the least. I’ve actually been surprised by the deafening silence and even praise for Keister’s efforts following his staggering remarks.

    You wrote that you “personally do not think Lane’s approach will accomplish much because people need to see more clearly the danger this false teaching poses . . . .” Well, I think Lane’s approach accomplished a lot, more than Wilson would have ever hoped for, at least where it touches on the central truths of the gospel. Frankly, if Lane is correct then the gospel really isn’t being overthrown in Wilson’s case. Wilson just needs to do a better job of distancing himself from the other FV men he agrees with.

    The Kinnaird example is apt. Here we have the OPC that has a report on justification that is worth less than toilet paper seeing their highest court has exonerated a false teacher who virtually parroted Norm Shepherd on the role of works in justification. The only difference, and it is significant, is that the in the OPC their courts have spoken. The FV is not out of bounds per se, and as long as FVer’s adopt significantly ambiguous language their doctrines of salvation by faith and works are just fine. In Lane’s case all we have is a young and admired pastor from South Dakota who has been had. But, like I said on another thread, if Wilson were up on heresy charges for teaching a heretical scheme of salvation in the PCA and Lane were the deciding vote, Wilson too would be exonerated — and, for the very same reasons Kinnaird was.

    Also, while you might be a Machen, but I can assure you I’m not. Besides, I was never OPC. Being PCA is sad enough.

  18. greenbaggins said,

    March 28, 2008 at 11:38 am

    Sean, I am letting your comments stand for the moment, because I can imagine how you feel. But you have made your position very clear, and I think it would be in the best interests of all here if we let this issue stand where it is. No one can be in any doubt of where you stand, and your remarks are at least bordering on the caustic.

  19. Todd Bordow said,

    March 28, 2008 at 11:47 am


    If I am a Machen we are all in big do-do. I just think Machen set a good example in this. As for your former denomination, my mistake, but same point still applies to either.


  20. David Gray said,

    March 28, 2008 at 2:54 pm

    >David, that goes for you, too.

    Undoubtedly. But I miss the application in this situation. Feel free to email me if I’m being too dense in this matter.

  21. Steffen said,

    March 30, 2008 at 9:35 am

    Dear Pastor Keister,

    Just to say thank you so much for your work in reviewing RINE and especially for this index!

    Sorry for posting this as a comment, but I couldn’t find your e-mail address anywhere on the site.

    Yours in Him,


  22. Sam Steinmann said,

    April 1, 2008 at 3:09 pm

    I will add my thanks as well.

    And a note to the critics:
    I’m not in the PCA; I’m not in the OPC; I’m not in a denomination that subscribes to any of the Reformed Confessions. Having Scripture exposited, and that exposition discussed and clarified (including points of agreement and of disagreement), is very beneficial. I can’t go to my brethren with “the PCA ruled”; I can go with “I Peter says such-and-such, and in context of Paul’s teaching in Ephesians, the best understanding is thus-and-so.” Shrieking, name-calling, and wild denunciations of people who insist that the Scripture needs to govern our thinking aren’t helpful to me.

    So, again–thank you Pastor Keister.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: