Part Two

Of my interview with Scott Clark.

132 Comments

  1. GLW Johnson said,

    March 15, 2010 at 8:59 am

    I would encourage all the FV sympathizers to not only listen to Lane’s interview with Scott but to hear Jordon’s entire rant. This is the man who has been dubbed the Godfather of the FV.

  2. David Gray said,

    March 15, 2010 at 10:07 am

    You don’t have to be a fan of Jordan to have reservations about how some folk have gone about addressing concerns with FV ministers in their denomination.

  3. GLW Johnson said,

    March 15, 2010 at 10:16 am

    In all candor, DG, the venom that Jordon spits out ought to be embarrassing to Doug Wilson-but apparently it isn’t.

  4. David Gray said,

    March 15, 2010 at 10:21 am

    >In all candor, DG, the venom that Jordon spits out ought to be embarrassing to Doug Wilson-but apparently it isn’t.

    I found Jordan embarrassing on about the only occasion I’ve been exposed to him and I’m not FV.

  5. GLW Johnson said,

    March 15, 2010 at 10:28 am

    DG
    Would that those in positions of influence in the FV shared your assessment.

  6. Vern Crisler said,

    March 16, 2010 at 2:04 am

    Lane I think you and Scott misunderstood what Jordan meant by theocratizing the world through baptism. He is not specifically talking about using baptism to force people into a new Christendom, as the Roman church did in the past.

    Jordan is talking about a Church First movement. He has been talking about that ever since I’ve known him (1979 or so). It is really, IMO, a fatalistic view, similar to Nock’s “Isaiah’s Job” idea. Just leave society and the state alone, and worry about the church instead. If you do that, state and society will eventually come along later because of the church’s influence.

    It ends up being a form of sacral retreat, much like, ironically enough, the views of some radical 2K theologians. Jordan’s view is sacral retreat now, theocracy later, whereas for R2K theologians it’s sacral retreat now and forever, amen.

    To put it another way, Jordan’s claim that theocracy starts with baptizing babies — the so-called butterfly effect — is simply a way of affirming the primacy of ecclesiology over politics.

    Of course, some butterfly effect theorists do not take loss of energy by way of 2nd law of thermodynamics into account, and Jordan doesn’t take the dangers of retreat from politics to ecclesiology into account.

    Anyway, other than that, good discussion,.

  7. Reed Here said,

    March 16, 2010 at 5:54 am

    Vern: this sounds much more like what we see in Moscow, ID. An enclave-like mentality, yes?

  8. Zrim said,

    March 16, 2010 at 6:43 am

    …the state and society will eventually come along later because of the church’s influence.

    It ends up being a form of sacral retreat, much like, ironically enough, the views of some radical 2K theologians. Jordan’s view is sacral retreat now, theocracy later, whereas for R2K theologians it’s sacral retreat now and forever, amen.

    Not really, Vern. 2K doesn’t really have a notion of the churchly influence of society in the first place. 2Kers in Moscow would be about as far away from Christ Church et al as they could get, likely standing shoulder to shoulder in the common sphere with the worried residents of Moscow six days a week. Sacral retreat once a week, full immersion six days a week, amen.

  9. jeffhutchinson said,

    March 16, 2010 at 7:35 am

    One of the highly ironic things about this decades-long kerfuffle is that there is no real evidence that these Rushdoony/Shepherd/Jordan/FV theories of eventual world domination are even working, anywhere, by any measure. How many actual human beings are we even talking about who believe the Theonomist/FV/CREC theories? I wouldn’t be surprised if, say, Perimeter PCA in Atlanta, by itself, outnumbers the whole of this decades-long “movement.”

  10. Kurt said,

    March 16, 2010 at 7:49 am

    Mr. Hutchinson, what do you mean by, “theories of eventual world domination”? If you mean postmillenialism, then the current condition of the world is no indication of the doctrines truth or falsity. Our sanctification does not happen all at once and sometimes we all revert back to old ways for a time, don’t we? If what you mean is some sort of political involvement, then I have seen very little political involvement among most theonomists. In fact, I see no more political involvement than protesting abortion clinics. If you want to call that “political involvement”. What I have seen is a greater perponderance of Christian Education, Classical Education, and Home Education among these sorts of people. What is it you are referring to?

  11. jeffhutchinson said,

    March 16, 2010 at 7:58 am

    Thanks for asking, I don’t mean postmillenialism per se, but the Rushdoony/Jordan/CREC flavor of postmillenialism. And I grant all your points.

  12. jeffhutchinson said,

    March 16, 2010 at 9:36 am

    Oh, and Lane, it should go without saying, but thanks so much for taking the time to give this interview (and for all the time you have taken over the years to make what you had to say in the interview worth listening to!).

  13. Reed Here said,

    March 16, 2010 at 10:09 am

    I found the most amazing thing in the interview the repeated mantra that the FV critics do not understand the FV. I was not amazed by the repetition (that, after al, is expected of a mantra).

    I was amazed, rather, by the connection of this to the work of the Spirit. If I got Jordan right, our failure to understand is evidence of our judgment by the Lord.

    Given Jordan’s hermeneutic, I’m not too surprised by his use of Gn 11 as proof of this. It makes sense he would make this kind of argument, and it is typical example of the kind of silliness we’ve come to expect from him.

    Still, the gathering at which he spoke, surrounded by Wilson and Leithart (as described in the interview), does give the impression that the argument was not shocking to that audience. It appears that this is either an argument heard before, or one so obviously consistent with their worldview that the audience saw the “logic” of it immediately.

    Does anyone know if he, other FV’ers have used other texts to support this argument?

    Does this fit in with their triumphalist/golden jewish dreams/world domination (love it Jeff! :-) ) scheme? I.O.W. are their opponents in the reformed world to be categorized in with the same group as their pagan-secular opponents, say in Moscow, ID?

    If so, this has an interesting dispensational persecutory twist flavor to it, with the “Recognized Church” siding with the pagans against the “real church”.

    Man, that is a self-justifying system if there ever was one.

    (Aside, I’m surprised that one with such intellectual accumen as Leithart would sit there and let his reputation be associated with such doggerel. Does make one wonder where his head/heart are.)

  14. Kurt said,

    March 16, 2010 at 10:13 am

    Mr. Hutchinson, my apologies I took you outside of the context of the previous posts. It seems reasonable brothers to put the Church first, does it not? To take care of your own children and prove yourself there before you seek the office of elder and care over the Church family seems reasonable. It seems wise to make sure that the Church of God is not a laughing stock of groups saying entirely different things about central doctrines before the Church talks about matters with which it is not as centrally concerned. Now I do not mean that one must not talk about what the Scripture says about the State. Even the revised Westminster Standards take a Dogmatic view of what the Scripture says about the state and such should be taught by the Church. And these doctrines taught in the WCF do indeed BIND the state. What is wrong with these things? How is what theonomists are doing different from what I have written?

  15. Vern Crisler said,

    March 16, 2010 at 10:21 am

    #13
    Hi Reed,
    Jordan and his FV epigones are extreme covenantalists. In the past, extreme covenantalists saw a nearly one-to-one correspondence between the Israelite theocracy and their own political situation (i.e., John Knox and the Scots). Jordan goes one step further and applies what happened in the Old Testament not to the state but to the church. That’s why he can end up with a silly analogy between the Tower of Babel and alleged Reformed misunderstandins of FVism.

  16. greenbaggins said,

    March 16, 2010 at 10:50 am

    Thanks, Jeff, for your kind words. :-)

  17. jeffhutchinson said,

    March 16, 2010 at 11:44 am

    “I.O.W. are their opponents in the reformed world to be categorized in with the same group as their pagan-secular opponents, say in Moscow, ID?”

    Great question. The answer is yes.

  18. Reed Here said,

    March 16, 2010 at 11:51 am

    Yeah Jeff, I kind of get that impression (at least) too.

  19. jeffhutchinson said,

    March 16, 2010 at 12:02 pm

    Kurt,

    Exhibit A of the James Jordan/FV/CREC postmillenial theonomists is Steve Wilkins and the League of the South.

    Exhibit B is Doug Wilson and the way his neighbors (Christian and non-Christian) feel about him in Moscow.

    What is your assessment of the fruit the James Jordan/FV/CREC postmillenial theonomists have borne for the gospel?

  20. Reed Here said,

    March 16, 2010 at 12:30 pm

    Thanks Vern.

  21. David Gray said,

    March 16, 2010 at 1:33 pm

    >Exhibit B is Doug Wilson and the way his neighbors (Christian and non-Christian) feel about him in Moscow.

    How did Stephen’s neighbors feel about him?

    Some folk find that pagans like them better when they adopt a more liberal understanding of Christianity. Of course as Machen observed that leaves them outside Christianity altogether.

  22. Reed Here said,

    March 16, 2010 at 1:49 pm

    David: many of us do not know first hand exactly all that has gone on in Moscow, ID. Yet the credible testimony of some there, both believers and non-believers, belies the direction of your obsevation.

    I note that the criticism of the CREC there is decidedly not observably related to an opposition to anything near the kind of proclamation Stephen was stoned for.

    E.g., one thing for which Wilson and company incurred the ire of their neighbors was the insensitive promotion of a revisionist perspective on ante-bellum slavery. Stephen was stoned for declaring that our spiritual slavery is at an end in Christ.

    Comparing these two at the least snaps the bands of credulity.

  23. David Gray said,

    March 16, 2010 at 2:50 pm

    >E.g., one thing for which Wilson and company incurred the ire of their neighbors was the insensitive promotion of a revisionist perspective on ante-bellum slavery.

    You mean the one praised by Eugene Genovese?

    If you don’t think he’d take less heat up there if he were a pagan then you’re reading different material than I have.

  24. Kurt said,

    March 16, 2010 at 2:55 pm

    #19
    Mr. Hutchinson,

    Thank you for your response. You wrote:

    >Exhibit A of the James Jordan/FV/CREC postmillenial theonomists is Steve Wilkins and the League of the South.

    -I suppose that you mean that being apart of the “League of the South” is something unbecoming a minister of the gospel. Perhaps it is unwise. One can still sympathize with the cause of the South and not be a part of an organization which would put one on others hate list. But does this mean that ministers in good standing are not to be members of the Republican Party or any group? Surely they do not stand for all that is right in the world. There may be many people who disapprove of such a membership and think that their pastor is out to lunch. Ought a pastor seek to disassociate himself from every thing out in the world that may offend someone somewhere?

    -Concerning Exhibit B, I am only slightly aquainted with Pastor Wilson’s troubles. But I beleive Mr. Gray has given a good response.

    >What is your assessment of the fruit the James Jordan/FV/CREC postmillenial theonomists have borne for the gospel?

    -I beleive the modern Christian Education, Homeschooling Education, and Classical Education movements owe a great deal to postmillenial theonomists. Christian Liberty Press was a pioneer in providing homeschooling materials. And take a look at how Classical and Christian Schools have spread today. Has not Pastor Wilson been partially responsible for this boon?

    Lest you think that Christian Education is not fruit bourne for the gospel, I give myself as evidence. If it were not for Pastor Gene Helsel, a friend of Pastor Wilson’s, it is unlikely that I would have ever become reformed. I, a baptist teenager was told, “Kurt, you ought to read this book. It is called ‘The Holiness of God’ by R. C. Sproul.” I read it and now I am a Presbyterian. Of course, it is more complicated than that. :)

    Lest you think that my personal sanctification is not fruit bourne for the gospel, I give my family as evidence. I have a vision for Christian Education inspired by the beautiful truth that my raising of my children in the fear and admonition of Jehovah, with the blessing of the Holy Spirit, and under King Jesus, the ruler over the nations of the earth, will bear fruit, some a hundred-fold, some sixty-fold, and some thirty-fold. I look at my daughter Esther, my sons Caleb and Luke, and I see a river flowing from the temple:

    9 Swarms of living creatures will live wherever the river flows. There will be large numbers of fish, because this water flows there and makes the salt water fresh; so where the river flows everything will live. 10 Fishermen will stand along the shore; from En Gedi to En Eglaim there will be places for spreading nets. The fish will be of many kinds—like the fish of the Great Sea. [e] 11 But the swamps and marshes will not become fresh; they will be left for salt. 12 Fruit trees of all kinds will grow on both banks of the river. Their leaves will not wither, nor will their fruit fail. Every month they will bear, because the water from the sanctuary flows to them. Their fruit will serve for food and their leaves for healing.”Ezk. 47: 9-12

    I have a hope that God will use our feeble and mundane efforts in giving our children the truth that they be a part of God’s work in the world and feel the same way he does. As Isaiah wrote, “He will not grow faint or be discouraged till he has established justice in the earth; and the coastlands wait for his law.” Is. 42:4.

    And with Paul, I seek to enculcate in my children a life that exudes doxology to God at the thought of his converting the mass of Paul’s brothers according to the flesh to the Gospel of Jesus Christ:

    33 Oh, the depth of the riches and wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are his judgments and how inscrutable his ways!

    34 “For who has known the mind of the Lord,
    or who has been his counselor?”
    35 “Or who has given a gift to him
    that he might be repaid?”

    36 For from him and through him and to him are all things. To him be glory forever. Amen.” Ro. 11

    Is this fruit bourne for the gospel? Perhaps you only speak of conversions. Well, as my children grow older, I may be a witness to the fact that they were converted. Pray, preach and work brothers!

  25. Art said,

    March 16, 2010 at 3:22 pm

    Lane:

    I just took some time to listen to this dialogue between you and Dr. Clark and want to thank you both so much for the time spent explaining Federal Vision and its problems in this type of forum — and then making the interview readily available online. I am convinced that many in the PCA are still remain unfamiliar with various FV positions (and errors). While nothing can replace a thorough study of the issues, this type of dialogue moves quickly to identify key pitfalls in FV teaching. I hope your link to this interview will lead to many people having one of those “aha” moments. Keep up your good work.

  26. Reed Here said,

    March 16, 2010 at 3:36 pm

    David: I have no idea who Eugene Genovese is. Feel free to explain why his opinion should matter, but I doubt it will.

    I am very familiar with all the arguments Wilkins and Wilson use in their case, having done substantial personal study of primary sources in antebellum southern history. These do not deny the basic facts these men bring forth. They do deny their use of those facts, to wit, to offer sympathetic support for a system built on the back of man-stealing. No such wickedness ever should receive anything more than a sad nod from a Christian.

    My criticism of your comparison has nothing to do with Wilson’s status before Christ. It has to do with your comparison of his community’s opposition to him with Jerusalem’s opposition to Stephen. The latter was based on Stephen’s profession of the gospel.

    I’m not saying Wilson has not professed the gospel. I am saying that the community opposition he receives is decidedly not opposed to that profession. Rather, it is opposed to such foolishness as the insensitive promotion of Wilkins misguided idolizing of a part of southern history.

    You can say that was not their intention. I’ve reflected that possibility in the use of the word “insensitive” in my criticism. In a decidedly pagan multi-culturalist community, with its own version of radicals who think the Nazi’s final solution as rather ingenenious, bringing for this topic was rather foolish of them. For sure it has nothing to do with promoting the gospel!

    You know better than this David. I’m surprised you’re defending this.

  27. David Gray said,

    March 16, 2010 at 4:01 pm

    >David: I have no idea who Eugene Genovese is. Feel free to explain why his opinion should matter, but I doubt it will.

    He is arguably the greatest living scholar on the antebellum South. In general academia, not our reformed world.

    >I am saying that the community opposition he receives is decidedly not opposed to that profession.

    And I’ve read an awful lot of internet opposition which is not merely based on his work regarding slavery.
    >For sure it has nothing to do with promoting the gospel!

    Neither did Fred Anderson’s “Crucible of War”. I’m still glad he wrote it.

    >You know better than this David. I’m surprised you’re defending this.

    Comes from being a history major I suspect. Although mind you I didn’t read the book written with Wilkins but rather the one that replaced it due to the plagiarism problem. I’ve seen quotes from the original. They didn’t seem to radically differ but maybe those in opposition didn’t quote the worst parts. It is certainly a defensible work if Genovese saw fit to praise it.

  28. Towne said,

    March 16, 2010 at 7:01 pm

    Mr. Gray (#26):

    Would it be too much to ask for a direct affirmation from you, to the effect that manstealing has no defense?

  29. David Gray said,

    March 16, 2010 at 7:05 pm

    >Would it be too much to ask for a direct affirmation from you, to the effect that manstealing has no defense?

    Give me your name and I’ll give you an answer.

  30. Kurt said,

    March 16, 2010 at 9:01 pm

    #27

    Mr. Towne,
    Kidnapping is a wicked crime, but is buying a man, who was bought by a man from a man who stole him an equally wicked thing? Is it better to let him be sold to a plantation in Brazil where he would be worked to death or die from disease a better fate?

  31. Towne said,

    March 16, 2010 at 10:28 pm

    Kurt (#27)

    First of all, my apologies to Rev. Keister and Rev. DePace for departing from the thread topic.

    Mr. Gray’s response is nothing more than subterfuge. As such it is grievous. You at least appear to ask a serious question, and I commend your agreement that all manstealing is wicked crime.

    So I will answer your question with the reply that I stand by my Reformed Presbyterian forebears, who were fighting this evil in the 18th century. I affirm the Puritan fathers, who wisely taught that it is better to suffer the greatest adversity than to commit the least sin. And I point you to the contemporary example, that you simply cannot capitulate to kidnappers by paying their ransom, for all that you accomplish is the furtherance of an evil industry. The logical end of your solution would be to impoverish your own people while enriching the kidnappers in order to mutually enslave a foreign people.

    I suspect you know that the argument employed in your question is not a new one. It was employed by some in the American colonial era and thereafter. But I do not remember having ever read of an instance where the purchased man was then set free (and any rare example would only serve to underscore my point).

    And in closing, Towne is not my surname, thank you.

  32. Reed Here said,

    March 17, 2010 at 6:41 am

    David: you are being obtuse in an egregious manner.

    Eugen Genovese: first a marxist scholar, now a traditionalist after his conversion to Roman Catholicism. While I do not doubt his credentials for identifying the facts, I do disregard his ability to rightly interpret them. He will always come up short. He did in his marxist interpretation of ante bellum slavery, and now his traditionalist/RCC interpretation, according to his equally respected critics. (I did my homework David.)

    I find it highly problematic that you would reference Genovese to defend Wilson on this regard.

    Full disclosure: my undergraduate degree is a double major, American History and Political Science. Along the way toward this degree I was blessed to participate in one (maybe two, I forget) graduate level courses in which the issue of how the historian goes about his business was the main matter, and Southern slavery was the topic of focus.

    I first heard Wilkin’s case (made in this book) before it was written at a speaking engagement. I subsequently read the first edition of the book (the one riddled with plagarism). I deemed it now worthy of reading again, as he distinctly whitewashes that the ante bellum South joined in and profited from the wickedness of those who engaged in the original kipdnapping.

    Guess my shock at your obtuseness comes from being an informed Amercian History major who has studied his Bible. I’m sorry to sound so obnoxious David, but I quite can’t believe what I’m hearing from you.

    Man-stealing is wicked, as is participating in it any manner. (Kurt, your justification of buying from the kidnapper is atrocious!!! Buy the man and free him, yes. Buy the man and maintain his slavery – you have joined in and affirmed the original affront against God. Shame on you for writing such a wicked opinion!!!)

    The good qualities of the ante bellum South are not the issue (there were many and I’d love to see them restored). Nor are the bad qualities of the South the issue (there were some, and some still with us, and I pray for their demise regularly).

    The issue is the propriety of comparing the Jews’ opposition to Stephen’s preaching of the gospel with the community opposition Wilson and company receive for the insensitive “preaching” of the glories of life in the ante bellum South, even for slaves. The two are not in any way congruent. It is offensive to compare the former with the latter, as if Christ in any way affirmed the South for its participation in man-stealing!!!

    It is arguable that this issue is the single most egregious in the eyes of the Moscow, ID community. It is egregious in the eyes of the university community (more or less pagan), the civil community (a mixed community), and the rest of the Christians in the community. (Do you want to condemn them out of the Church for opposiing this?)

    About the only part of the (broader, just outside town) Moscos, ID community that was not offended by this insensitivity is the white-supremacist (neo-nazis) in their enclave outside of town. In fact, I would not be surprised if they are probably quite pleased with it, and have added the Wilkins/Wilson book to their literature campaigns.

    As to other examples that might be mentioned as to why the community in Moscow, ID is so offended by the ministry of Wilson and company, you may very well find one that expressly deals with the pagan’s rejection of the gospel. I do not know of any.

    On the other hand, the record is replete with opposition based solely on Wilson and company’s failure to even begin to behave like good neighbors. I admit that Wilson and company believe they are putting forward a broad-based gospel. By default then (according their definition), any community opposition is “opposition to the (Wilson and company) gospel.”

    This is ridiculous. Stephen was not stoned because he told the Jews life under the Romans was not so bad, and actually it was better than what they had before when they were free of this tyranny. He was stoned for proclaiming Jesus as the Messiah.

    Again, the comparison is simply wrong. One is a proclamation of glory. The other is a whitewashing of the deepest stain of wickedness.

  33. David Gray said,

    March 17, 2010 at 6:54 am

    >Man-stealing is wicked, as is participating in it any manner. (Kurt, your justification of buying from the kidnapper is atrocious!!! Buy the man and free him, yes. Buy the man and maintain his slavery – you have joined in and affirmed the original affront against God. Shame on you for writing such a wicked opinion!!!)

    Reed, with all due respect, Paul would seem to differ with you. As Paul was authoritative in a way that you are not I have to yield to Paul. As Kurt notes a distinction can be drawn between kidnapping and owning slaves.

    Now if you actually did study slavery in the antebellum South then I’m sure you are aware that the practice had an extremely wide degree of variance from the outright hellish to practices which arguably fell within scriptural guidelines. The South, both in law and in practice, did not confine slavery within such scriptural limits (whereas arguably some owners did) and as such can legitimately be seen as falling under judgment for the same.

    Does any of this make legalized slavery wise policy? No. But if one actually accepts the authority of scripture then I don’t see that one can make a blanket statement that owning slaves is inherently sinful.

  34. David Gray said,

    March 17, 2010 at 6:55 am

    >Mr. Gray’s response is nothing more than subterfuge. As such it is grievous.

    Sorry, I don’t permit myself to be interrogated by someone who is too much the coward to use their name. Such dishonourable cowardice is truly grievous.

  35. Mason said,

    March 17, 2010 at 6:59 am

    Reed @ 31 –

    Excellent post! That any Reformed Christian could come on here (or anywhere else) and defend pre-emancipation American slavery is unfathomable. It was a wrong and sinful institution – does anything more need to be said? Even if there is a speck of truth in arguments put forward by Wilson and Wilkins (and I don’t think there is), what’s the point in deliberately offending neighbors, both Christian and non-Christian alike?

  36. David Gray said,

    March 17, 2010 at 7:00 am

    >Even if there is a speck of truth in arguments put forward by Wilson and Wilkins (and I don’t think there is), what’s the point in deliberately offending neighbors, both Christian and non-Christian alike?

    In matters of history truth is always an adequate defense.

  37. Matt Beatty said,

    March 17, 2010 at 7:00 am

    Reed,

    Perhaps if Wilson is the villain you and others think he is (I think RSC said or implied that Moscow/CREC was a cult…) why a man as popular AND orthodox as John Piper invites him to speak as his Desiring God conference? Why didn’t invite – oh, say – R. Scott Clark? Or Lane?

    Is Piper in the habit of inviting 1) heretics or those who don’t have Reformed bona fides OR 2) meglomaniac cult-leaders who revel in idiosyncratic behavior and love to heap praise on themselves?

    I’ve long believed that there is a great deal of jealousy of Wilson in certain quarters of the PCA/OPC because Wilson didn’t go to your seminaries, read the same books, get excited about the same things and yet…reading these comments only confirms it.

    Piper can see this; in spite of considerable theological differences (postmil vs. premill, etc.), he still believes Wilson to be an asset in the Christian community…

    How do you explain this?

    Matt

  38. Bobby Avant said,

    March 17, 2010 at 7:12 am

    Why would a minister of the gospel write a book (even if it is accurate which I’m not yeilding) when the publication of that book enflames the community and does harm to racial relations? Ask reformed African Americans what kind of damage this kind of book does to racial relations. (You have to search high & low for reformed black churches we havn’t exactly been exemplary in bridging the racial gulf).
    Just observe how Wilkin’s League of the South activities have damaged the reputation of the PCA in north LA.
    There was absolutely no reason for a minister of the gospel to write a book like this. Even without the FV controversy this would be more than enough for me to be wary of both Wilson & Wilkins

  39. Mason said,

    March 17, 2010 at 7:18 am

    David @ 35 –

    It’s called tact. If you were at a friend’s house for dinner and the food was terrible, MUST you comment that the food was terrible? Isn’t that being unnecessarily offensive? Even if it’s true, is there a NEED to say it? Just because something is true doesn’t mean it has to be said. Even if Wilson/Wilkins are correct (and they’re not), it was foolish to make those comments on slavery.

    Matt @ 36 –

    Piper invited Wilson to the Desiring God conference for the same reason Tim Keller invited N.T. Wright to speak at Redeemer this Spring. Both Wilson and Wright have major theological flaws, but that doesn’t discount everything they have to say on every subject. Conversely, just because a Reformed man like Piper invites Wilson to a conference does not validate all of the latter’s ministry.

  40. Bobby Avant said,

    March 17, 2010 at 7:26 am

    “In matters of history truth is always an adequate defense.”

    The minister of the gospel is not a historian. While the truth of his book is a big if it is still not advisable for a pastor to write a book(fiction or nonfiction) that will harm his ability to proclaim the gospel.
    For example: You pastor a church that has a large Russian community. Why would you then write a book on the history of the Russian mob in the USA? Esp if you know that despite the truth that it will only harm your ability to proclaim the gospel to the community that is in your midst?

  41. Kurt said,

    March 17, 2010 at 7:30 am

    #31
    Hello Pastor Reed,
    You wrote:

    >(Kurt, your justification of buying from the kidnapper is atrocious!!! Buy the man and free him, yes. Buy the man and maintain his slavery – you have joined in and affirmed the original affront against God. Shame on you for writing such a wicked opinion!!!)

    My comment was in no way intended to justify buying from a man bought from a man who stole him. It was intended to bring out the fact that doing so is not the same as manstealing. It was also intended to indicate the ethical delimma for the people of the south. Was the practice of slavery lawful in the New and Old testaments? If so, would it be wise for me to own a slave? Should Philemon have been excommunicated? I understand the dilemma of capitulating to kidnappers, or capitulating to men who would ferry people in a ship in such a dispicable manner. But do you think that people in the South tried to end the slave trade? Do you think they were successful? I do not wish to justify the wrongs of the south. But I do believe that the United States today is guilty of greater evils still. Can you think of any?

  42. David Gray said,

    March 17, 2010 at 7:36 am

    >Just because something is true doesn’t mean it has to be said. Even if Wilson/Wilkins are correct (and they’re not), it was foolish to make those comments on slavery.

    The entire publishing world is nobody’s house. And in matters of history truth trumps utilitarianism.

  43. Bobby Avant said,

    March 17, 2010 at 7:43 am

    If Wilson & Wilkins wanted to write about the issue of slavery in the OT & NT then no one would complain but they essentially wrote an aplogy for Southern slavery.
    If they only wanted to write about Southern slavery then it should have been approached with much more sesitivity then was used. This is not a topic to be treated lightly.

  44. Bobby Avant said,

    March 17, 2010 at 7:49 am

    “The entire publishing world is nobody’s house. And in matters of history truth trumps utilitarianism.”

    Yes truth is vitally imprtant but the problem is that Wilson & Wilkins didn’t write the TRUTH but an APOLOGY for American slavery.
    Wilson & Wilkins are not historians but ministers of the gospel. Even if their book were true it is unwise because it harms their ability to proclaim the gospel to ALL.

  45. Bobby Avant said,

    March 17, 2010 at 7:58 am

    >>>But do you think that people in the South tried to end the slave trade?
    No. There were early groups formed in the South to end slavery that were formed in the late 18th century but these disappeared by the 19th when the cotton gin made the cotton trade so profitable. The Constitution ended the transAtlantic slave trade but this was controversial and not heavily supported in the South.
    >>Do you think they were successful? ?? obviously not since slavery didn’t end til the end of the War in 1865. Unless of course you mena the trans- Atlantic slave trade. then see above.

    >>I do not wish to justify the wrongs of the south. But I do believe that the United States today is guilty of greater evils still. Can you think of any?
    And what do the evils of today have to do with the evils of yesterday? Do we whitewash the evils of yeasterday because of relativism? Do we whitewash the evils of Jim Crow segregation because of abortion?

  46. David Gray said,

    March 17, 2010 at 7:58 am

    >Yes truth is vitally imprtant but the problem is that Wilson & Wilkins didn’t write the TRUTH but an APOLOGY for American slavery.

    And yet we find that serious historians can disagree with your take on the subject. With apologies to Reed, if Genovese thought the work had merit then it is not outside the historical pale.

  47. Ron Henzel said,

    March 17, 2010 at 8:08 am

    David,

    Regarding your comment 32: in Paul’s day, urban unemployment was at levels high enough that it would likely spark political revolution if it had occurred anywhere in the Western world in the past 200 years. As a consequence, a very high percentage of people (I don’t know if there are any reliable estimates, but it was very common) actually sold themselves into slavery in order to survive. In fact, it’s difficult for modern Americans to make sense of Paul’s argument in Rom. 6:15-23 without this background information, since the version of slavery perhaps never involved the actual offering of one’s self to another as a slave (cf. Rom. 6:16). That alone made ancient slavery much different from the more recent American version, which also became inextricably bound to race in a way that ancient slavery never was (witness the fact that “white slavery” laws persisted on the books of many states well into the 20th century). Add to that the fact that because slaves were often more of an economic burden than an asset there were well-established and frequently-used procedures for manumission (the freeing of slaves), and an objective investigator is forced to conclude that there was much in Greco-Roman slavery that made it quite different in character from American race-based chattel slavery. It was also practiced in a far different context. If Paul had commanded slave owners to release their slaves it could have resulted in destitution and even starvation for those “liberated.”

    Comparing the situation in which the Christian church found itself vis-à-vis slavery in the first century, when the church was new, to the situation 15 to 18 centuries later, by which time it had properly become a common view in Western Christendom that Christians should at the very least not hold fellow-Christians as slaves, is like comparing grapes and watermelons. In any event, it is not legitimate to treat the admotions of Paul to slaves and masters as if they are endorsements of or justifications for slavery.

  48. Bobby Avant said,

    March 17, 2010 at 8:13 am

    And yet we find that serious historians can disagree with your take on the subject. With apologies to Reed, if Genovese thought the work had merit then it is not outside the historical pale.

    Yes Genovese did endorse it & he is a serious historian. But that dosen’t change the fact that W&W who are primarily Ministers of the Gospel wrote a book about a Historical topic that evokes great emotions and opinions. A book like this even it it is not outside the historical pale does great harm because it is written by a pastor.

    If I’m pastoring a church in Vancouver it would probably be unwise to write a book that purports to show that most of B.C. should belong to the USA b/e bad fath by the British.

  49. Bobby Avant said,

    March 17, 2010 at 8:14 am

    should read: Because of bad faith by the British

  50. David Gray said,

    March 17, 2010 at 8:15 am

    >But that dosen’t change the fact that W&W who are primarily Ministers of the Gospel wrote a book about a Historical topic that evokes great emotions and opinions.

    I think this statement pretty much critiques itself.

  51. David Gray said,

    March 17, 2010 at 8:21 am

    Ron,

    You make some good points although slavery in the Roman Empire encompassed far more than just those who had sold themselves into slavery. Nor do I believe Paul told people to persist in sin in order to reduce unemployment or avoid hunger. He could easily have told them to free the slaves but to continue to provide them employment in a free rather than slave relationship. As to the view becoming common in the West that Christians should not hold Christians as slaves that is also true. But it is a view that seems impossible to square with Scripture. A more nuanced view, and one that can be squared with scripture, would not just say “slavery is sin” but would rather critique slavery as practiced in America, both in law and in common practice, and would find it culpable on those grounds, in general, recognizing that this was not universally true. That can be squared with both scripture and the facts on the ground.

  52. Bobby Avant said,

    March 17, 2010 at 8:22 am

    It evokes great emotions especially within the black community. Why would a minister of the gospel want to write a book that offends 30% of the population in his community? (Wilkins)
    Wilson probably wrote it to tweak the liberal secular community in Idaho.

  53. Reed Here said,

    March 17, 2010 at 8:25 am

    David:

    You say: “Reed, with all due respect, Paul would seem to differ with you. As Paul was authoritative in a way that you are not I have to yield to Paul. As Kurt notes a distinction can be drawn between kidnapping and owning slaves.”

    This is nothing more than eisegesis. You are both flattening the context in which Paul wrote (I refer you to Ron’s beginnings of an explanation), as well as flattening the context of ante bellum slavery. You do not agree with Paul. Your have perverted him to support a wicked opinion.

    Pleas drop the sarcasm, “if I did study slavery in the south.” Yes, I’m aware of what you say. Yes, I’m aware that fewer than 5% of southern whites owned more than 2 slaves. Yes.I’m aware that the description in Uncle Tom and in Mandigo were the exception to the rule. I’m also are that such exceptions were rarely (they were sometimes) stopped in the ante bellum South. They may be exceptions, but they were exceptions considered acceptable within the system.

    And still you refuse to deal with my main point!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    Comparing Wilson and company’s insensitive portrayal of southern slavery with Stephen’s proclamation of the gospel IS A GROSS WICKEDNESS.

    That you have persisted in this gives me great concern. All I can do at this point is to plead with you to repent of such blaspheme against the gospel.

    Please

  54. Reed Here said,

    March 17, 2010 at 8:29 am

    Matt, no. 37: respectfully, you are not addressing the point of my conversation with David. The issue at hand is not whether or not WIlson is an asset to the Christian community.

    The isssue is whether or not it is appropraite to compare the opposition (broadly speaking) in Moscow, ID to Wilson with the opposition of the Jews who stoned Stephn for his proclamation of the gospel.

    Your arguments in defense of Wilson’s asset value therefore are rather pointless. For sure I’m not interested in any argument that says in effect, “but the man has done so much good, therefore he cannot be criticized.” Please do not post such structured arguments again, as they are not welcome.

  55. David Gray said,

    March 17, 2010 at 8:31 am

    >Comparing Wilson and company’s insensitive portrayal of southern slavery with Stephen’s proclamation of the gospel IS A GROSS WICKEDNESS.

    Sigh. Reed, what I was doing was pointing out that the fact that a pagan community reacts harshly against a Christian does not mean that the Christian is in error. You and others try to blacken Wilson’s name by simply pointing out that there is great hostility to him in the community. That means nothing. Arguing the merits would mean something. And again it is clear from the writings I read by these folk that the whole book controversy is only, at most, a bit of what was going on. And someone writing history should be honest, not sensitive.

    >That you have persisted in this gives me great concern. All I can do at this point is to plead with you to repent of such blaspheme against the gospel.

    I appreciate your concern, not least because coming from you I believe it to be genuine. To try and relieve you of your concern let me flatly state that I am not drawing equivalence between writing a book on American slavery, be it correct or in error, with Stephen’s presentation of the gospel. Period.

    Do you believe that Wilson bears witness, in any way at all, to the gospel in Moscow, Idaho?

  56. David Gray said,

    March 17, 2010 at 8:32 am

    BTW, I’m not saying you haven’t addressed the merits at all but rather that particular argument does not do so.

  57. Reed Here said,

    March 17, 2010 at 8:32 am

    David:

    You say: “A more nuanced view, and one that can be squared with scripture, would not just say “slavery is sin” but would rather critique slavery as practiced in America, both in law and in common practice, and would find it culpable on those grounds, in general, recognizing that this was not universally true. That can be squared with both scripture and the facts on the ground.”

    And that is exactly what Wilkins/Wilson book does not do. But this is a side consideration.

    More at issue, Stephen proclaiming the gospel = Wilson proclaiming the niceties of ante bellum slavery!?!?! David, we’re not even comparing apples and oranges.

  58. David Gray said,

    March 17, 2010 at 8:33 am

    >More at issue, Stephen proclaiming the gospel = Wilson proclaiming the niceties of ante bellum slavery!?!?! David, we’re not even comparing apples and oranges.

    Please see above.

  59. Bobby Avant said,

    March 17, 2010 at 8:38 am

    David you ignore my point that while a book on American slavery that states the Southern Slavery was not that bad may be acceptable within the world of history scholars(although it would prob get a cool reception) that it is unwise for a minister of the gospel to write because it affects his ability to minister.

  60. Kurt said,

    March 17, 2010 at 8:39 am

    #45
    Hello Bobby,

    The slave trade I asked about was the overseas trafficking of slaves. My apologies for not using the correct word.

    I do not intend to white wash anything. I believe that there were great abuses of the institution of slavery. That was sin. And the whole country was judged for it, and is still today reaping the consequences of sin. My intent was to point out the ethical dilemma of buying a slave from the port. Calling sin sin is good. But to demonize the South is bad. Are there people here who are demonizing the South? I do not think so. Are there godly christians who believe that owning a slave per se is sinful? Yes. And, of course, there are godly christians who do not believe that owning a slave per se is sinful. Let me say again, slavery as it was practiced in the South was sinful. But slavery in the general sense of the term was not per se sinful. Otherwise God would have instituted sin in Israel. Does this make sense?

    As to Wilson, I have read the book which apparently had plagerism in it. Perhaps it went too far in justifying slavery in the South. I seem to remember parts where it condemned certain practices of slavery. Perhaps they were incorrect in their portrayal of slavery as it was. Are we to say ministers ought not to write books on controversial subjects of history that have to do with our nations sin? Are we to say that ministers ought not to blog on subjects of history that have to do with our nations sin? I know. I know. Pastor Wilson misrepresented the sin of the South. But the fault would be that he misrepresented the South and not that he talked about it.

  61. David Gray said,

    March 17, 2010 at 8:39 am

    >David you ignore my point that while a book on American slavery that states the Southern Slavery was not that bad may be acceptable within the world of history scholars(although it would prob get a cool reception) that it is unwise for a minister of the gospel to write because it affects his ability to minister.

    Respectfully, I am not ignoring it but rather declaring it to be untrue.

  62. Bobby Avant said,

    March 17, 2010 at 8:46 am

    “Respectfully, I am not ignoring it but rather declaring it to be untrue.”

    So are you saying that Wilkins who lives in a community that is probably 30% black not have a concern how that community feels about his writing a book that whitewashes american slavery? (or shows it to be not that bad if you don’t like the term whitewash)
    Should Wilson & Wilkins be concerned that their book makes bridging racial bridges for the reformed churches more difficult? If no why not?

  63. Reed Here said,

    March 17, 2010 at 8:48 am

    David:

    You say: “You and others try to blacken Wilson’s name by simply pointing out that there is great hostility to him in the community.”

    That is an accusation against me you can easily recant. I have never participated in an effort to blacken Wilson’s name. Feel free to document where I have done so.

    In this conversation included, I have repeatedly brought this back to the one main issue, your egregious comparison between Stephen’s opposition and Wilson’s. You are the one who made that comparison, so sighing at me it just rudeness.

    I’ve already acknowledged the possibility that some of the opposition might be expressly, or even indirectly opposition Wilson’s proclamation of the gospel. I’ve also pointed out that all the public reports you and I have had access to demonstrate that at least all the opposition of which we know is decidedly not opposition to the proclamation of the gospel.

    I’m not even arguing that the opposition is right in their opposition. The simple fact is this – the opposition is based on the actions of Wilson and company that do not have to do with a proclamation of the gospel. The issue of the slavery book (and surrounding) events is ONLY relevant in that it is arguably the source of most of the opposition. At the very least it provides the bulwark of the opposition on which the rest of the opposition follows.

    To drift off into an effort to defend Wilson’s views of ante bellum slavery, and then to defend ante bellum slavery per se, and then to propose a “nuanced” defense using Scripture is to do two things: 1) assume I don’t get this, and 2) ignore that this is not the issue!!! If you want to debate slavery per se, I’m actually confident you would find use closer than you think.

    (Although I think your suggestion and Kurt’s affirming that the NT pattern is 1 for 1 comparable with the ante bellum south misses a huge red flag.)

    You say, “To try and relieve you of your concern let me flatly state that I am not drawing equivalence between writing a book on American slavery, be it correct or in error, with Stephen’s presentation of the gospel. Period.”

    And my response is, yes at first, you made a rather unqualified and careless comparison between the community opposition Wilson receives with the opposition Stephen received. I was the one who brought up the slavery brouhaha, for the reasons stated above (it is central to the community’s opposition to Wilson).

    You could have easily backed off that, and merely gone to other examples of community opposition (you still can; I’m willing to acknowledge and rejoice in any opposition Wilson receives for proclaiming the gospel). Instead you’ve spent a plethora of comments now trying to “nuance” your way out of the offense.

    At the beginning I’d say you unknowing stuck you toe in it. Since then you’ve jumped in and been swimming around.

  64. David Gray said,

    March 17, 2010 at 8:49 am

    >Should Wilson & Wilkins be concerned that their book makes bridging racial bridges for the reformed churches more difficult? If no why not?

    They should be concerned as to whether they told the truth. If someone requires lies in order to be content they should be made uncomfortable.

  65. David Gray said,

    March 17, 2010 at 8:54 am

    >And my response is, yes at first, you made a rather unqualified and careless comparison between the community opposition Wilson receives with the opposition Stephen received. I was the one who brought up the slavery brouhaha, for the reasons stated above (it is central to the community’s opposition to Wilson).

    I’m sure I could have provided a more nuanced statement, sometimes I tend to assume a certain level of understanding that is too optimistic on occasion. My error.

    >You could have easily backed off that, and merely gone to other examples of community opposition (you still can; I’m willing to acknowledge and rejoice in any opposition Wilson receives for proclaiming the gospel).

    I don’t follow you. Perhaps you’re assuming something regarding my understanding.

    >Instead you’ve spent a plethora of comments now trying to “nuance” your way out of the offense.

    That’s not how I view what I’ve done.

    >At the beginning I’d say you unknowing stuck you toe in it. Since then you’ve jumped in and been swimming around.

    How was my blanket statement not sufficient for you?

    We have a few issues here.

    Did Wilson tell the truth in his book?
    If he did tell the truth should he have desisted for expedient reasons?

    I think those are worth addressing.

    I never meant to say that writing a book about slavery is the same as proclaiming the Gospel and still don’t believe I’ve said that. If it was read that way apologies for my clumsiness with words.

  66. Reed Here said,

    March 17, 2010 at 8:57 am

    Kurt:

    You say: “I believe that there were great abuses of the institution of slavery. ”

    You betray a weakness in your understanding in the use of the word “institution.” As David has pointed out, one must be biblically nuanced.

    The OT institution of slavery was completely moral. It is possible that this was partially patterned in the indentured servanthood institution at the beginning of the colonial period, but even this has to be nuanced (it was not completely moral).

    But the ante bellum institution of slavery was rooted in man-stealing (kidnapping). In the same OT that affirms a institution of slavery, it also ascribes capital punishment for any practice of kidnapping. E.g., if you bought a slave who was kidnapped, you could not claim protection under the OT slavery institution. It was condemned.

    There is no way in which one can say that the immorality of ante bellum negro slavery was mitigated by the supposed fairer life conditions of the slaves. It was an institution rooted in kidnapping. It was wicked. End of story.

    This is not to ignore the sincere and godly efforts of numerous southerners. It is to admit that sin is sin!!

  67. David Gray said,

    March 17, 2010 at 9:01 am

    BTW I haven’t noticed anyone around here saying that we should avoid R.L. Dabney, who actually wrote things much more problematic than anything Wilson has written.

  68. David Gray said,

    March 17, 2010 at 9:03 am

    BTW here is a telling quote from one of Wilson’s leading critics, Dr. Nick Gier, Professor Emeritus of Philosophy, University of Idaho.

    “I do admit that my goal is to discredit Wilson, because I believe that the type of religion he espouses is dangerous and destructive. (I have found chilling parallels between Islamic and Christian fundamentalism) I have fought religious fundamentalism all my life and this movement does not deserve our respect or tolerance, but it requires our strongest condemnation.”

  69. David Gray said,

    March 17, 2010 at 9:06 am

    Of course Dabney also wrote history, his “Life and Campaigns of Stonewall Jackson” is well regarded.

  70. Bobby Avant said,

    March 17, 2010 at 9:06 am

    The interesting thing about history is that its rarely a neutrally held subject so in many cases it does evoke great emotion. If I were pastoring a typical PCA church in AL or MS and wrote a book on the failings of Robert E Lee I’m not many of you would be suprised to find out that my church would have problems. The history of slavery is a subject deeply felt by most African Americans and for good reason their ancestors were held in bondage. Not to take those feelings into account would be foolish.

    The League of the South at the very least flirts with racism. It advocates that the Southern states secede. I’m sure most blacks see Jim Crow not far behind. Wilkin’s association with a group like this (which I’m told he has distanced himself from but not apologized for) is unwise at best and it wrecks his ability to sahre the gospel to all at worst.

    Wilson is in a liberal community in Idaho. What do you think this does to his witness.

    David you say they should be concerned that their book speaks the truth & you use Genovese as support that their book speaks the truth. But with the mass of historians panning their book it can probably be said that the truth of their book is debatable at best.

    If I want my community to become uncomfortable then I want it to be because the are offended by the gospel not by my views of slavery.

  71. Reed Here said,

    March 17, 2010 at 9:13 am

    David:

    You say community opposition to Wilson is akin to community opposition to Stephen.

    I say that such a comparison is incredulous because the one (Wilson’s) is not opposition based on the proclamation of the gospel. I used the most egregious example, the slavery issue, because this is the source of the most community opposition. Visit Moscow, ID and take a survey of the community, “what do you think of Wilson and company.” I dare say that the common denominator will be this issue (there will be others, but this will be the one in all responses).

    You defend the comparison with questions about an “expert’s affirmation of the facts of the book. You do not say, “No not that issue, but other issues. I compared Wilson to Stephen because the community hates his proclamation of the gospel.”

    You continued to defend the comparison over a number of posts.

    You are now backing away from it. I take it you are sincere in backing away, even though you are not owning your own words.

    Now back to the main point, comparing Wilson’s opposition to Stephen’s is incredulous. This is because the primary (dominant, commonly identified) community opposition to Wilson is not based on proclamation of the gospel (as Stephen’s opposition was). Wilson’s opposition is primarily based on his and company’s actions that are perceived by the community to be opposed to the best interests of the community.

    As far as I know these issues are not matters of Christian morality. (E.g., there are some who do not like my opposition to gambling in our state). Instead they are matters dealing with how Wilson and company interact with their community.

    Again, show me one good example where the community has taken a strong stand against Wilson and company for their proclamation of the gospel, and I’ll retract and admit the comparison the Stephen.

    This is not an issue of the theoretical possibility. I agree and live in the expectation of it (of course, being more amil than post that is no credit to me). It is, as you’ve suggested, a matter of the facts as we know them.

    Would that opposition to the FV (this is where we started) were wrongly based, because I have hope in Christ of a repentance that is far more powerful than any silly Spirit of Babylon curse made up by Jordan.

    Would that opposition in his own community was expressly based on Wilson’s proclamation of the gospel. The record of the facts (from both sides) does not merit that judgment.

    Comparing Wilson to Stephen in this regard is incredulous and ridiculous.

  72. March 17, 2010 at 9:17 am

    To respond to some comments from the beginning of this post it never ceases to amaze me how people still fail to understand the Theonomic and Post-Millennial thesis. Go read Greg Bahnsen’s “No Other Standard”. He dealt with and answered these same critiques twenty years ago.

    Also can people please stop the frankly libelous accusation of the link between FV and Theonomy? People seem to forget that the first denomination to call FV heretical was the RPCUS, an explicitly Theonomic denomination. How many times does this link need to be proven false before people stop placing out there as fact?

    Also as an aside literally next to no one in the Post-Millennial camp thinks that it will take a couple of years of preaching the Gospel and poof the world is perfect. Post-Millennialism teaches that when the whole epoch of history is considered at the end of time Christianity will come out on top. Looking back at the last thirty years and then saying “look Post-Millennialism is false” is beyond absurd.

  73. Kurt said,

    March 17, 2010 at 9:18 am

    #66
    Pastor Reed,

    Okay. Because men were stolen and sold to someone who in turn sold them to someone else means that the person who bought them is duty bound to free them. And because these men were stolen at the beginning of the process the institution of slavery in the South was sinful. If that is what you are saying, then I can buy that. So then, southerners could not have solved the problem by taking just rules for slavery and applying them universally. The only solution to avoid sin was to immediately free all slaves who were kidnapped. I can buy that. Am I tracking with you Pastor Reed?

  74. David Gray said,

    March 17, 2010 at 9:20 am

    >You say community opposition to Wilson is akin to community opposition to Stephen.

    What I said in explanation was “Reed, what I was doing was pointing out that the fact that a pagan community reacts harshly against a Christian does not mean that the Christian is in error.”

    >You are now backing away from it. I take it you are sincere in backing away, even though you are not owning your own words.

    I’m not owning the way you read my words. I explained what I meant by my words. I apologized if I didn’t write them in a manner where they could be clearly understood.

  75. David Gray said,

    March 17, 2010 at 9:28 am

    BTW, regarding the Gier quote above, he is a Unitarian.

  76. Bobby Avant said,

    March 17, 2010 at 9:33 am

    “regarding the Gier quote above, he is a Unitarian.”

    I’m sure opposition to Wilson in Moscow has mixed motives. The problem is that Wilson has allowed the offense that comes with proclaiming the gospel to be confused with his whitewashing of Southern slavery.

  77. Reed Here said,

    March 17, 2010 at 9:44 am

    David:

    You say: ‘What I said in explanation was “Reed, what I was doing was pointing out that the fact that a pagan community reacts harshly against a Christian does not mean that the Christian is in error.”’

    Agreed. You then used a comparison between Stephen and Wilson, yes?

    If so, my original point stands. Theoretically opposition to Stephen could be akin to the community opposition Wilson recieves. I’ve challenged this as merely theoretical, and quite contradicted by the stated reasons for opposition. Therefore the comparison is quite wrong to make.

    Again, let’s find a legitimate basis for giving Wilson biblical credit for any opposition to the gospel he is receiving. I am opposed to your blanket such endorsement, as much (most?) of the opposition he receives is not so based. It does a disservice to him and to the Church at large to make the blanket equation you have made.

  78. David Gray said,

    March 17, 2010 at 9:44 am

    >The problem is that Wilson has allowed the offense that comes with proclaiming the gospel to be confused with his whitewashing of Southern slavery.

    Wilson wrote that “In one sense, the antebellum South was a Christian nation, but it was a Christian nation that invited, and received, a genuinely sever judgement from the God who is not mocked.” (page 90) Is that a whitewashing?

  79. David Gray said,

    March 17, 2010 at 9:46 am

    Reed,

    How then do you take Gier’s quote? Is it all a matter of differences on historical interpretation (although he gladly grabs that cudgel) when he says:

    “I do admit that my goal is to discredit Wilson, because I believe that the type of religion he espouses is dangerous and destructive. (I have found chilling parallels between Islamic and Christian fundamentalism) I have fought religious fundamentalism all my life and this movement does not deserve our respect or tolerance, but it requires our strongest condemnation.”

  80. Bobby Avant said,

    March 17, 2010 at 9:48 am

    The original book (which I read) taken as a whole is a whitewash.

  81. David Gray said,

    March 17, 2010 at 9:50 am

    Or we have the individual who maintains “Not On The Palouse, Not Ever” on which he states:

    “A home with a view” by Nancy Wilson. It explains how a wife must view her husband as her head. Weird stuff.

    I’m assuming the headship of a husband doesn’t strike anyone around here as weird.

  82. Reed Here said,

    March 17, 2010 at 9:52 am

    Kurt, no. 73:

    Your syllogism is insufficient as far as it goes. It is too narrow at a number of points. E.g., the “only solution” was not purchase and freeing the slaves. The South could have chose to refuse to have anything to do with it. They could have raised an voluntee army to go an put down the Muslim based source of the kidnapping. There are a host of things that “could have been done.”

    The facts if history muddy things up. E.g., the U.S. is to be commended, in part, for eliminating the importation of slaves after a certain date. They are to be judged in the same regard because this partial solution made the economic incentives to retain slavery stronger.

    Stop seeking to justify the South. There is no need to do so. In Christ we are free to announce fully the basis for our condemnation – because He cares for it all. Starting from this point historically eliminates the worldly wisdom way of viewing things. The “on the one hand,” “but on the other,” is a futile effort based on the notion that if only the scales can be balanced exoneration can be secured.

    There is no exoneration for the South, but praise Jesus their is forgiveness!

    My point is not, what might make it moral. My point is simply that it was immoral.

  83. Reed Here said,

    March 17, 2010 at 9:55 am

    Reminder: I minister at 1st PCA, Montgomery, AL, first church established in our fair city, 1824. We have a long history of efforts to both mitigate and remove the results of slavery, including the planting of our first daughter in the 1880’s for the black members of our congregation who wanted a church in their own community.

    We also have our share of history of support and defense of the unfortunate institution. We cannot afford to rest on our “on the other hand” actions. Our only security is the perfections of Christ’s merits!

  84. David Gray said,

    March 17, 2010 at 10:00 am

    >Our only security is the perfections of Christ’s merits!

    Hopefully I can say Amen to that without getting you in trouble…

  85. Reed Here said,

    March 17, 2010 at 10:00 am

    David: headship of the husband is not weird to me at least. (Although I do think that hosw this has worked out in the patriarchalism Wilson’s community demonstrates some imbalance in his views here. This, however, is a criticism more than a quibble, but less than say FV concerns, so I care not to give it time for debate.

    I do not see this one statement as either dominant or typical of the community opposition in Moscow, ID. More likely it is a “garnishment,” the sprig of parsely on the side of the plate of opposition. Show me that this (or similar) is the main portion on the plate, and then we’ll consider it.

  86. Reed Here said,

    March 17, 2010 at 10:01 am

    No David, no trouble there.

  87. Reed Here said,

    March 17, 2010 at 10:09 am

    David: as to the Gier quote, I have a number of reactions.

    1. I suspect at the end of the day he may lump me in with Wilson. Not because of essential similarities, but because of his own unexamined presuppositions. E.g., his lumping of Islamic and Christian fundamentalism demonstrates that his critic is more ideology driven than understanding driven.

    2. I think, with some significant qualifications, that he is right to label Wilson’s as a variety of fundamentalism. The comparison, I think, is culturally-historically accurate in terms of how Wilson’s world-view works out. It prescribes a boundary of “what” the Christian life must be that does not match up with what I understand the Scripture to teach.

    3. But these are aside. Gier’s critic of Wilson is not fundamentaly opposition to the gospel. It is opposition to a book which paints a rosy picture of ante bellum slavery. If I remember correctly, Gier also denies opposition to the central tenents of the gospel. E.g., while I expect he might disagree with me in my reformed convictions, he would not exert the opposition to me that he has on the basis of this book.

    Again, this is not opposition to the proclamation of the gospel.

  88. Reed Here said,

    March 17, 2010 at 10:12 am

    David, no.78: your quote is an example of why I used the word ‘insensitive” for my criticism of the book and surrounding activities. Such comments are too far, too few between, and not essential to the argument of the book. In fact they are rather more incidental “of courses.” If he and Wilkins had made them fundamental to their premise, I think they might have offered something much more helpful to the subject matter.

  89. Kurt said,

    March 17, 2010 at 10:14 am

    #83
    Pastor Reed,

    To clarify, I do not believe that the south was right to purchase slaves who were kidnapped. I do not think that it was my intent to justify such activity. I merely wished to highlight the dilemma. Is it wrong to highlight such dilemmas? And yes, they could have prevented the slave ships from coming into harbor. I agree. I wonder, however, how you justify military action against other nations outside of thier borders and jurisdiction for engaging in any sort of evil that is not against the nation itself. Just curious.

  90. Reed Here said,

    March 17, 2010 at 10:18 am

    Kurt: highlighting the dilemma is fine. Your first response was not merely highlighting the dilemma but offering some grounds for justification. That is what I was challenging.

    As to the issue of the use of force by a nation against another nation, I fail to see the connection here. But may it suffice to say that I am more or less comfortable with the jus bellum (just war) position. Civil magistrates, after all, are given a sword.

  91. Bobby Avant said,

    March 17, 2010 at 10:30 am

    >>”I wonder, however, how you justify military action against other nations outside of thier borders and jurisdiction for engaging in any sort of evil that is not against the nation itself.”
    I believe he is saying that the North was unjust in its taking up arms against the South.

  92. Reed Here said,

    March 17, 2010 at 10:34 am

    Bobby: I hope you’re not right. The inferences here are too sad.

  93. Kurt said,

    March 17, 2010 at 10:37 am

    #90
    Pastor Reed,

    What I wrote was:

    Mr. Towne,
    Kidnapping is a wicked crime, but is buying a man, who was bought by a man from a man who stole him an equally wicked thing? Is it better to let him be sold to a plantation in Brazil where he would be worked to death or die from disease a better fate?

    I believe that the above is not an attempt to justify the South. It was intended to highlight the dilemma of the buyer alone. I do not condone buying men who where kidnapped. Perhaps you referred to a passage which would indicate that having a kidnapped person in your possession would necessitate the prosecution of that man in the exact same way a kidnapper would be prosecuted. If you can produce such a passage or neccessary deduction, then I repent of my above statement in dust and ashes.

    I still wonder whether a nation has a right to go to use military action against someone outside of their jurisdiction. Africa is not a colony of the US.

  94. Bobby Avant said,

    March 17, 2010 at 10:46 am

    “I still wonder whether a nation has a right to go to use military action against someone outside of their jurisdiction. Africa is not a colony of the US.”

    This makes no sense. When did the USA take action in Africa? Other than the actions in Somalia in 92.

  95. Reed Here said,

    March 17, 2010 at 10:47 am

    Kurt: I understood what you said. And I disagree. You offer an either/or scenario that specifically asks if this does not mitigate the original wickedness. It serves, in this regard, to say in effect, “well at least the South did better than letting those poor slaves go to a worse fate in Brazil.” You’re asking if this is a mitigation of the evil is a question which assumes the answer is yes.

    If you did not intend to in this manner infer some justification for ante bellum slavery, then you made a poorly worded argument. Please take no undue offense at my jumping on you.

    If the “war” track is in response to my offering of other actions the South could have taken, you are taking my comment beyond the bounds of my intent. I was very general on purpose, as I am aware of the ethical minefield.

    My sole reason for using that, and the other examples, was to demonstrate that your’s was not the only solution, as you said. My response was not to propose alternative solutions with an eye to their relative moral merit. I think my later comment to you demonstrates that this kind of approach to such topics, in my opinion, is fatally flawed in the first place.

  96. Kurt said,

    March 17, 2010 at 10:49 am

    Gentlemen,

    I wrote:

    >I still wonder whether a nation has a right to go to use military action against someone outside of their jurisdiction. Africa is not a colony of the US.

    I should have inserted at the end of the first sentence FOR CRIMES NOT PERPETRATED AGAINST THAT NATION whether they be individuals businesses or independent states.

  97. Bobby Avant said,

    March 17, 2010 at 10:53 am

    >I still wonder whether a nation has a right to go to use military action against someone outside of their jurisdiction. Africa is not a colony of the US.

    It still makes little sense. Are you saying that to correct slavery the USA would have to invade Africa? It seems illogically connected to your argument.

  98. Reed Here said,

    March 17, 2010 at 11:03 am

    Bobby: I believe Kurt is referring to one comment I made to him concerning other “options” for the south. As it is, he read too much into my comment. I hope I’ve given him sufficient respones to let go of this rabbit trail, as I recommend to you also.

    Nothing here to debate I believe.

  99. Bobby Avant said,

    March 17, 2010 at 11:06 am

    thats fine. It just made little sense but I must have overlooked your comment.

  100. Kurt said,

    March 17, 2010 at 11:06 am

    #97
    Mr. Avant,

    I am not saying tht to correct slavery the USA would have to invade Africa. They could merely prevent the slave ships from docking or entering their waters. The part you have quoted refers to this statement by Pastor Reed in #82:

    >They could have raised an voluntee army to go an put down the Muslim based source of the kidnapping.

    I was questioning the lawfulness of such an action.

  101. Bobby Avant said,

    March 17, 2010 at 11:13 am

    Kurt, as I said I must have overlooked Pastor Reed’s comment. I’ll only add that its hard to take action against something that you are an active participant in. That includes the South, the North(New England took part in the trade and slavery existed in the North until the early 19th century. Sojourner Truth was a slave in the North), the British, Spanish, Portugese, etc.
    That is to say slavery & manstealing was not a sin that belonged solely to the South.

    Thanks for the clarification.

  102. Kurt said,

    March 17, 2010 at 11:19 am

    #98
    Pastor Reed,

    Okay. I will attempt to be more clear in my communication. I did not intend to force a false dilemma. Just because I chose only two alternatives does not mean that there where only two. You can have the last word on that. Let me say again, I do not believe that Southern Slavery was justifiable. I do not believe that the buying of kidnapped people is justifiable.

    Whew! I wish we were talking face to face Pastor Reed.

    Thanks.

  103. Reed Here said,

    March 17, 2010 at 11:39 am

    Yes, Kurt, I agree, these things do go better face to face. I apology for my failures in not making this exchange more consistent with the Christlikeness we both affirm.

    Thank you for the clarification.

  104. Kurt Scharping said,

    March 17, 2010 at 12:18 pm

    #72

    Mr. Glaser,

    You wrote:

    >Also can people please stop the frankly libelous accusation of the link between FV and Theonomy? People seem to forget that the first denomination to call FV heretical was the RPCUS, an explicitly Theonomic denomination. How many times does this link need to be proven false before people stop placing out there as fact?

    I appreciate your frustration and your post. People tend to either ignore or be ignorant of this fact. One can understand their ignorance of the RPCUS. It is quite a small denomination and their people do not get much press. Therefore I think it best we right sympathetically about this fact and not vent our frustration. When one does these things they sound shrill. That does not help our cause but hurts it. Once again, I appreciate your post. But we have enough frustration and emotion just trying to communicate clearly without our venting. Perhaps you did not intend this. I understand. But we can try better, can’t we?

    Just to clarify for everybody reading this. I AM NOT FV.

    Thanks.

  105. March 17, 2010 at 7:10 pm

    “They should be concerned as to whether they told the truth. If someone requires lies in order to be content they should be made uncomfortable”

    FV people should stay away from academics. The book was trash, and not because of harming racial sensitivities. Stuff like calling the pre War South the most Christian civilization in the world is so butt stupid that it makes one gag. Brothels outside CSA army camps, sadistic concentration camp guards like Albrecht, ghouls and brutes like Cantrell…Afrikaners never had anything like that.

    Their plagiarism would have gotten them kicked out of any accredited university anywhere in the world, and that’s just one other indication that they may very well be nice people. A very dear friend says Pastor Wilkins is one of the best Christian men she’s ever known, and I accept this on her testimony, and I accept he’s a better Christian man than myself. But he needs to stay away from academic activity.

    I had an argument with my pastor about this Sunday. He feels many FV leaders are purposely leading people astray. I think that may be true, but those whom I know or have accepted character evaluations of seem to me great people who just aren’t that strong on critical thinking.

  106. David Gray said,

    March 17, 2010 at 7:40 pm

    >Just to clarify for everybody reading this. I AM NOT FV.

    OK, we’ll postpone the stoning…

  107. Reed Here said,

    March 17, 2010 at 8:12 pm

    David: you’re not keeper of the pile, are you?

  108. David Gray said,

    March 17, 2010 at 8:37 pm

    > David: you’re not keeper of the pile, are you?

    I’m the alternate on odd numbered days…

  109. GLW Johnson said,

    March 18, 2010 at 7:06 am

    David Gray
    Personally,Wilson getting egg all over the front of his face over the heavily plagiarized little book he co-authored with Wilkins on Southern slavery is not my concern as humorous as I found it to be. However,his association with the likes of James Jordon and his behaving like one of the wildeyed ,looney Zwickau prophets ought to raise redflags even with you.

  110. TE Stephen Welch said,

    March 18, 2010 at 7:33 am

    Benjamin, I want to echo my strong agreement with your response in #72. Everyone knows that Sandlin, Schlissel, Jordan, and some FV men were associated with theonomy or at least a reconstructionist viewpoint, but it is a real leap to suggest that there is a connection between theonomy and the FV heresy. Sandlin and Schlissel were both associated with Chalcedon at one time but have no associatiaon with it now because of their departure from the Reformed confessions. Mark Rushdooney has certainly denied the heresy of FV. Jordan claims to have worked for Coral Ridge Ministries, but are we to assume that Dr. James Kennedy was a sympathizer of the FV? Read some of Jordan’s material and you will see that he denies things that theonomists would affirm. If you follow some of the Federal Visionists they are always looking for some “new” positon or doctrine to follow. They are not even consistent with theonomy. Rev. John Otis in his book, Danger in the Camp has offered a strong rebuke and critique of FV and he is certainly a theonomist. His denomination has offered one of the most strongest condemnations of the FV. Otis has written one of the most detailed accounts of what Shepherd and other Federal Visionists have promoted. I for one have never seen anyone actually spell out what the connection is between the two. It is important when battling error and defending the faith that we stick to the issues and not try to confuse it with other things that have no connection with it.

  111. March 18, 2010 at 8:25 am

    There’s no connection to the two. I lived up there with Rushdoony for two years and brought the typesetting of Ross House Books in house. When the local FV guru said if Rush were alive today he’d be FV I honestly was shocked. Mark uses words like horrified to describe what his dad would think about the FV. He was always nice, but he had a huge contempt for those of lesser intelligence who thought they’d stumbled on something novel, or to use his words, have come to believe that they are original thinkers.

  112. GLW Johnson said,

    March 18, 2010 at 8:33 am

    Tim
    You might remember that it was Doug Wilson who claimed that the controversy surrounding the Fv was nothing more than a renewal of the old debate about theonomy. Looking back it looks like Wilson was trying to gain ‘street cred’ for the FV from those who were sympathetic to theonomy.Doesn’t appear to have worked.

  113. Jeff Cagle said,

    March 18, 2010 at 8:58 am

    The connection is correlative, not causative: both groups are postmillennial and believe in a highly visible kingdom.

  114. Dean B said,

    March 18, 2010 at 10:03 am

    “The connection is correlative, not causative:”

    The FV theonomists grew up listening to criticisms of the WCF on sections dealing with law, now they emphasize a mystic union for everyone in the visible church at the expense of the legal aspect spelled out in the WCF.

    Their objection to the WCF over law and legal may not be causative but it certainly leads to confusion.

  115. Kurt said,

    March 18, 2010 at 10:25 am

    #114
    Mr. Dean B,

    I have not grown up listening to criticisms of the WCF sections dealing with the Law. I recommend you read “No Other Standard” by Greg Bahnsen on this topic of the WCF and the general equity clause. I also recommend “Wholesome Severity Reconciled with Christian Liberty” by George Gillespie. Not all Westminster Divines interpreted the general equity clause in the same way as George Gillespie and Samual Rutherford(See Rutherford’s “Free Disputation Against Pretended Liberty of Conscience”) are examples. Or at least they did not apply it in the same way. For another example see Jeremiah Bourrogh’s “Irenicum” for how he applied the OT civil law. I grant that they were not all an assembly of theonomists. But Gillespie sure sounded like one. There was a varience of opinion while of course they could agree on some aspects of what the general equity clause meant.

    Blessings.

  116. greenbaggins said,

    March 18, 2010 at 11:08 am

    I don’t believe it is legitimate to connect theonomy and FV in this way. Jordan left theonomy before he became FV, and there are several theonomists today who would vigorously oppose the FV, including an entire denomination.

    On the question of theonomy and the Westminster divines, one must now consult the 2009 Confessional Presbyterian Journal, with original sources compiled chronologically by Chris Coldwell, and analyzed by Matthew Winzer:

    http://www.cpjournal.com/

  117. Kurt Scharping said,

    March 18, 2010 at 12:04 pm

    #116
    Pastor Lane,

    I have been thinking about getting some of the CP journals for some time. I hope to order this one soon. I anticipate that it will be quite informative.

    Thanks for posting this.

  118. greenbaggins said,

    March 18, 2010 at 12:23 pm

    You should order all five, and get it at a discount. All 5 are excellent.

  119. TE Stephen Welch said,

    March 18, 2010 at 2:35 pm

    # 113

    Jeff said, “both groups (referring to theonomists & FV) are postmillenialial”

    So what, both are postmillenial. This does not determine that there is a correlation. Jonathan Edwards and some of the Puritans were Postmillenial. Ian Murray is a Postmillenial, so that means they were Federal Visionists according to your argument.

  120. Jeff Cagle said,

    March 18, 2010 at 3:03 pm

    Stephen (#119):

    I think you may have misunderstood. “Correlation” means nothing more nor less than “they have this in common.”

    There is a famous phrase in science: “Correlation does not equal causation.” That is, some correlations are mere coincidence.

    Which is, I think, what you are trying to point out. We’re on the same page here.

  121. Reed Here said,

    March 18, 2010 at 3:03 pm

    Stephen: you’re over-reading what Jeff said. He specifically denied any causitive relation between the two.

  122. March 19, 2010 at 5:26 am

    Here’s part of what Mark Rushdoony said about the FV/NP:

    My father would be horrified at the Federal Vision/ New Perspective on Paul theology, which did not become prominent in Reformed circles until after his death. He may have quoted from Wright (I don’t know offhand) but he often quoted from those with whom he had disagreements, so a mere use as a reference would not represent anything more than that reference.
    My father used very traditionally Reformed language and definitions, all of which these new ideas reject. See Systematic Theology, p. 660, the first sentence as an example).

  123. TE Stephen Welch said,

    March 19, 2010 at 7:41 am

    Jeff and Reed my apologies if I misunderstood your point. I realize that correlation and causation are not the same. It seemed to me that an argument was being made to show a strong case between theonomy and FV. Forgive me if I overstated or misunderstood your point.

    On a different note, my concern with the FV (other than it is heretical) is that in another ten years or less many of these men will be spouting another theological error because it is like a new fad. In a conversation I had a few years ago with a Reformed man he stated that he has great concern that much of our theological discussion has become academic and there is little regard for piety or holiness. We must stand for right doctrine but it was always cause us to have a great love for God and a greater zeal for holiness.

  124. Jeff Cagle said,

    March 19, 2010 at 8:17 am

    Stephen,

    I’m sorry I came across that way. I was trying for the opposite point — theonomy and FV join in their notion of visibly present kingdom, but the similarity ends there.

  125. March 19, 2010 at 1:54 pm

    I know I’m late to this discussion, but back in the day, when I was more involved in these discussion, James Jordan emailed me that if an adult expressed a “felt need” for Christ, he would first baptize him, and only afterward, explain to him the concepts of Law and Gospel. The important thing was to get him “in Christ,” through water baptism. Jeff Myers also emailed me to say that he would consider baptizing a whole tribe if the chief converted and could guarantee that he would teach the tribe the faith. This stuff is part and parcel with FV theology. Christendom, lock, stock and barrel.

  126. jeffhutchinson said,

    March 19, 2010 at 1:58 pm

    Chris,

    Would you remind me/us about your conversation with Doug Wilson at the Knox Colloquium regarding postmillenialism being the core of the FV agenda? Am I remembering that right?

  127. Ron Henzel said,

    March 19, 2010 at 2:14 pm

    Stephen wrote:

    On a different note, my concern with the FV (other than it is heretical) is that in another ten years or less many of these men will be spouting another theological error because it is like a new fad.

    This echoes thoughts I’ve been having for some time now. Yesterday these thoughts were further confirmed as I listened to parts 1 and 2 of Lane’s interview with Scott Clark, and laughed until pop corn I was eating nearly shot out my nose as they played a recording of the prophet Jordaniah prophesying about how God is supposedly judging the Reformed churches who oppose the FV by inflicting a Babel-like auditory dysfunction upon them. I don’t think Jimmy’s belt goes through all the loops anymore. Who knows what we can expect next? Communes? Polygamy? A real estate development in Guyana? I think we’re dealing with some inherently unstable individuals.

  128. March 19, 2010 at 4:30 pm

    Jeff,

    It was basically just a confirmation of what I think he has said many other places that postmillenialism led him to Calvinism; that he became convinced of what he sees as Reformed eschatology before he became convinced of the doctrines of grace. That doesn’t prove anything except to perhaps help explain why earthly cultural transformation is so central to Wilson’s theology, something I don’t think he would deny.

  129. Joshua W.D. Smith said,

    March 20, 2010 at 1:11 am

    Reed,

    I don’t think that the slavery issue is by any means the main one for opposition to the Kirk in Moscow. One of their most vocal critics is a liberal “Christian” whose main argument is their “homophobia,” i.e., their public stand that homosexuality is a sin that requires repentance–and repentance is part of the gospel. Some members of the church, acting as private citizens, mocked the repeal of the town’s laws against topless sunbathing by satirizing the radical feminist approach to sexuality, and the university has been really mad at them every since. One of the most vocal critics at the university in motivated by his view that “fundamentalist Christianity” (defined as actually believing the Bible) is identical to fundamentalist Islam. Members of the city council used backdoor means to try to get NSA College out of downtown, then denied claimed they just wanted to apply the law fairly. That had nothing to do with the slavery issue.

    While I’m not sure that the comparison to Stephen is apt, there is real opposition to the Kirk in Moscow simply because they are vocal Christians, not only because of the slavery issue. It’s strange that we believe the unbelievers’ and apostates’ accounts of these things…

  130. jeffhutchinson said,

    March 20, 2010 at 11:18 am

    Joshua,

    Here at Greenbaggins we actually believe that unbelievers and apostates still have eyes and ears and the ability to observe and reason. Meanwhile, your spin of the opposition to the Kirk in Moscow is just that, spin. Are you a member of the Kirk, or a student at one of the Kirk’s schools?

    But back to the main point of this thread: Lane gave an insightful interview with Scott Clark, highlighting the irrationality and loose-screwedness of the leading light of the FV movement, James Jordan; I weighed in with a comment meant to highlight that there are not very many actual flesh-and-blood human beings that follow James Jordan’s leadership (I think there are more members of the Perimeter PCA churches in Atlanta, all by themselves, than the whole FV movement); people took offense thinking I was demeaning all postmills or all theonomists or somesuch; the usual Doug Wilson apologists weighed in, and here we are.

  131. reedhere said,

    March 21, 2010 at 6:46 am

    Thanks Jeff.

    Joshua, glad you agree the comparison to Stephen is incredulous.

  132. March 21, 2010 at 9:47 pm

    On John Piper’s invitation of Wilson to the DGM conference:

    [audio src="http://heidelblog.files.wordpress.com/2009/09/heidelcast-episode-2.mp3" /]

    [audio src="http://heidelblog.files.wordpress.com/2009/10/heidelcast-episode-3-high-res-version.mp3" /]

    http://heidelblog.wordpress.com/2009/06/26/gentle-rebuke-brother-john/

    The reality is that John has demonstrated that he thinks that the FV is nothing more than consistent Presbyterianism, revealing that he quite misunderstands Reformed/Presbyterian theology, piety, and practice.


Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: