Which of them should be the greatest...
(Tim) Here’s how Turretin begins his 223 pages on the sacraments:
As God willed to enter into a covenant with the church…in order to apply to her the salvation purchased by Christ, so (such is his goodness) for the greater confirmation of faith, he has condescended to seal this covenant by sacraments as seals, that by them as badges he might distinguish and separate his people from the rest of the world. On this account, the necessity to consider them is incumbent upon us. No only to ascertain more distinctly their nature and use; but also to unravel more easily the numerous and most important controversies which are wont to be agitated about them by various adversaries.
For we cannot behold without grief that those things which were instituted by God to be bonds and symbols of union and concord among Christians, have been made (by the depravity of men) the seed plot of contentions and the apple of discord which has torn asunder Christians by a mournful divorce. (Francis Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology)
David and I realize we’ve lost friends by defending Doug Wilson, but this isn’t the first time. Ten years ago when, in addition to serving as pastor of this church, I also served as Exec. Dir. of the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, a theologian with whom I worked sent me a nine page letter seeking to demonstrate the many errors of Wilson’s Reforming Marriage. After reading the letter, I realized The Guild would never acknowledge Doug’s faithful work guarding the good deposit, and that my time working with CBMW was over. It took a year or so to extricate myself, but during that time it was clear I couldn’t continue to stand with this theologian and the other professional academics at the center of the council unless I was willing to change my sphere of reference from the Church to the academy.
What am I insinuating? Nothing, really. Rather, let me explicitly state my own conviction...
(which I believe David shares) that much of the opposition Doug has suffered over the years, both locally and nationally, has been the product of the normal sins that corrupt communities and the Church: jealousy, anger, envy, gossip, slander, and pride.
Anyone who’s spent time in the academic world knows the jealousy that gives birth to the political infighting candidates for post-baccalaureate degrees (particularly doctoral candidates) are tormented by. I’ve lived in four places where higher education is the predominant cultural context—Boulder, Colorado; Madison, Wisconsin; Boston, Massachusetts; and now Bloomington, Indiana—and the stories of jealousy and petty intrigue are constant.
Yesterday, for instance, I listened to the account of a young woman at IU’s Jacobs School of Music who decided to take a semester break from her studies here in Bloomington to attend a folk music program at an eastern university. But when she asked her voice professor/teacher here at IU for a recommendation, the professor refused to give one and she had to find another professor who was willing to write one.
Why did her own voice teacher refuse her request? Because Jacobs profs are commited to highbrow music and voice training, not folk music for the masses. And it didn’t even matter that the young woman was planning to return to IU after the semester out east; there would be no compromise. Such stories are a dime a dozen and in no way peculiar to musicians.
Can it really be that officers of Christ’s Church who believe in man’s depravity and the necessity of sanctification of life and doctrine can’t see the jealousy, anger, envy, gossip, slander, and pride that permeate our discussions? Brothers, are we completely blind to it in ourselves or others? And if so, what does this indicate about our shepherding of our flocks or the state of repentance and sanctification in our own hearts?
Yes, of course Doug Wilson is guilty of these same sins. I am, too—more than Doug ever has been, I’m sorry to admit. But Doug is also the victim of these sins, and has been suffering attacks motivated by them for years now, going back long before the Federal Vision movement began.
It should be a truism. But for the record, let me say that it’s David’s and my judgment that the community of reformed biblical and theological scholars has about the same temptations and sins we all grew up with on school playgrounds where Johnny and Stephen were cool, but Jacob was a dork; then in high school where Frank and Kyle were on the varsity basketball team but Jon was alternative, spending his free time tearing up Library Mall on his skateboard; in college where Jake and Sam were frat boys who had nothing to do with the emo crowd; in the Upper Room where they began fighting about which of them was the greatest.
Yes, some of what Doug Wilson has written has been uncharitable, misleading, unwise, heterodox, and pugnacious. But what of us? Can it really be true that Doug has a log and the rest of us only a sliver?
I’ve never been much for moral equivalency, but in this particular battle I’m willing to run the risk of sounding like it’s my modus operandi for the sake of causing us all to examine ourselves. Should Christ be divided?
Yes, there is a battle that needs to be fought again over such issues as the nature and meaning of the sacraments; the covenant status of children of believers; the significance of works in the coming judgment of believers; and the place of the Church in the salvific work of the Holy Spirit within “those who are being saved.” But that battle should be fought in a way that at least tries to demonstrate to the watching world that truth matters to Christians more than status and cliques; and that we still believe church councils and general assemblies and presbyteries and sessions err.
When have reformers ever been embraced? When have they ever escaped being associated with men they’d have preferred keep silent? And of course, we'd all do well to keep in mind the old adage that it’s very hard to hold a minority position with equanimity.
May God bring us back to the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace His sacraments were intended to produce.
Clearnote Churches
Clearnote Fellowship
Christ the Word
Monthly archive
- June 2013 (15)
- May 2013 (28)
- April 2013 (33)
- March 2013 (43)
- February 2013 (28)
- January 2013 (41)
- December 2012 (31)
- November 2012 (37)
- October 2012 (38)
- September 2012 (21)
- August 2012 (28)
- July 2012 (46)
Popular Posts
Tags
Recent Comments
- Joel Linton on The irrepressible influence of ungodly and godly fathers...
- Joel Linton on Homeschooling, church discipline, and the education of our children...
- high back executive chair on Athanasius College: an alternative to old schools' hyperinflated tuition...
- can i get my ex back after a year 2 on Athanasius College: an alternative to old schools' hyperinflated tuition...
- Abram Hess on Theological critique of Escondido Two Kingdoms theology (VIII): Machen was a culture warrior...
Comments
Amen!
The issue is not baptism, nor is it Doug Wilson's 'battles' or personality. The issue is the defense of sound doctrine as it is laid out in the Reformed confessions. The issue is people pretending to be something they are not, with intent to redefine something they don't value or understand. The issue is also the means and tactics being employed to effect this redefining of Reformed Theology. The borrowing from secular academia of deconstruction and sophistical pomo say-anything rhetoric.
If Doug Wilson and his fellow FVists want to draw up a new confession of faith and call it the Moscow Confession of Faith then do it, but he won't because he needs the light of the truth of the Reformed confessions just as the moon needs the light of the sun to be seen and taken notice of...just as the Koran or the Book of Mormon need the light of the truth of the Old and New Testaments, however dimly and distortedly reflected, to give them 'some' air of authority. Without it they'd be the Book of Urantia.
Doug Wilson does not want to be the Book of Urantia. Hence the forced contortionist activity of attempting to square his Romanist works salvation with classical covenant - Federal - theology. Not even he believes it...but it gets him ALOT of attention, doesn't it? So did the other Moscow when they pretended to be democrats and freedom fighters and messed with things that haev great value which they didn't value...
Bayly Bros,
Right on.
The tenor of this debate, even from the earliest, has made normal academic discourse almost impossible. That being the case, many people on all sides have spoken in ways which they'd like to take back (hopefully they'd like to). If we could defuse things (which we can't), there would be more than enough substance to review (the role of folks like Bucer and Burgess in the Reformed tradition- just to name a few).
In regards to Doug Wilson, even if he isn't "credentialed," it cannot be denied that he's surrounded himself with men who are. NSA's getting a lot of Ph.D's these days, and from places that count.
Do y'all have a vested interest in making sure that Mr. Wilson is seen as a victim? Here is a guy tearing up Reformedom (along with his opponents, to be sure) and he is a victim?
That's like trying to get somebody to feel sorry for the crocodile because the Gnus organized and decided to try and fight back.
I seriously doubt that any of those who are reputed to be pillars in the Church are experiencing envy over Doug Wilson's status. They just flat think he is wrong.
Until y'all give some concrete examples of people being envious I think this is just so much smoke that detracts from the reason that those who are reputed to be pillars don't like Wilson is because they believe he is playing the pied piper and deluding the innocent.
But, I must admit, I always try to believe the best about people.
Bret
Yes, undoubtedly "Reforming Marriage" was deluding the innocent for many years, so gnu with clear eyes, valiant hearts, and great faith, seeing the continuation of these delusions today in the form of the Federal Vision, are joining together to return to the lair for a second foray against the crocodile.
And you think that those reputed to be pillars in the Church are put off by Wilson for writing 'Reforming Marriage'?
Scratch harder. The answer is further below that layer of skin.
Bret
Tim: I personally appreciate you interjecting these comments. I also think it is important for us to consider what the scriptures tell us: In James 4 it tells us: "11 Do not speak evil against one another, brothers [or sisters]. The one who speaks against a brother or judges his brother, speaks evil against the law and judges the law. But if you judge the law, you are not a doer of the law but a judge. 12 There is only one lawgiver and judge, he who is able to save and to destroy. But who are you to judge your neighbor?"
I certainly have to remind myself of this often.
Blessings.
See the link for Robert K's opinion of the Westminster Standards--their teaching on the necessity of the visible church are "unbiblical doctrine."
Given that, I'd take "the issue is the defense of sound doctrine as it is laid out in the Reformed confessions," with a large dose of salt.
>"See the link for Robert K's opinion of the Westminster Standards--their teaching on the necessity of the visible church are "unbiblical doctrine."
Given that, I'd take "the issue is the defense of sound doctrine as it is laid out in the Reformed confessions," with a large dose of salt."
Hm? What link? And for the record I have engaged in long debates on GreenBaggins against FVists defending the doctrine of the visible/invisible church. Methinks you read a portion of something and didn't get the context. The Reformed doctrine on visible church is a bit lost these days, by the way. Read Richard Muller's entry on Ecclesia in his Dictionary of Latin and Greek Theological Terms.
And again: what link?
And, methinks I've been dealt with the only way FVists and their supporters can deal with criticism: I've been banned... Have fun with your Romanish poison... And remember: as an FVist (or supporter!) - Always fear man more than you fear God...
Robert, the link he's referring to is reached by clicking his name below the comment.
And, to my knowledge, you weren't banned, your defunct email address was banned. To post here, you have to identify yourself and take accountability for your words. I may have misunderstood the Baylys, however.
Keith
Kudos. I have found the mere mention of Doug's name, to many, was an occasion for throat-clearing and a rolling of the eyes. Before Auburn Avenue. And from men who should know better. When I poke around a little, I can't help but think that the real motivation (as my own heart would amply testify) on these ministers' parts is envy.
Doug is not without sins, but I think that for many of us who support (broadly) the work the Lord has done through him, we look at the "establishment" around us and see very little that is attractive. Tiny, ingrown churches with no compelling vision of what Christ is for one's person, family, church, or civilization. Of course, we could be self-deluded. Always a possibility. But that critcism cuts both ways. For all the discussion I've read of how "tyrannical" Doug (and the Moscow cult) can be, my experience in PCA/OPC churches has left me wanting. Greatly.
The fact that you're NOT supportive of many of the recent "developments" in FV/AA circles and can still find room in your theological tent for a guy like Doug (at least) is lost on critics like this Robert K character who refuses to identify himself on blogsites (and who enjoys the protection of many bloggers - like Green Baggins -who protect his anonymous accusations). These folks simply can't believe that they could be wrong, or at least overreacting.
Doug should be thankful - as should we all - to have friends like you.
Kudos. I have found the mere mention of Doug's name, to many, was an occasion for throat-clearing and a rolling of the eyes. Before Auburn Avenue. And from men who should know better. When I poke around a little, I can't help but think that the real motivation (as my own heart would amply testify) on these ministers' parts is envy.
Doug is not without sins, but I think that for many of us who support (broadly) the work the Lord has done through him, we look at the "establishment" around us and see very little that is attractive. Tiny, ingrown churches with no compelling vision of what Christ is for one's person, family, church, or civilization. Of course, we could be self-deluded. Always a possibility. But that critcism cuts both ways. For all the discussion I've read of how "tyrannical" Doug (and the Moscow cult) can be, my experience in PCA/OPC churches has left me wanting. Greatly.
The fact that you're NOT supportive of many of the recent "developments" in FV/AA circles and can still find room in your theological tent for a guy like Doug (at least) is lost on critics like this Robert K character who refuses to identify himself on blogsites (and who enjoys the protection of many bloggers - like Green Baggins -who protect his anonymous accusations). These folks simply can't believe that they could be wrong, or at least overreacting.
Doug should be thankful - as should we all - to have friends like you.
Robert,
The link is reached by clicking on my name at the previous comment; it's a link to the GreenBaggins comment thread where you and I discussed the Westminster definition of the visible church, and the statement that "outside [the church] there is no ordinary possibility of salvation."
Robert K. writes, above: "And, methinks I've been dealt with the only way FVists and their supporters can deal with criticism: I've been banned..."
Come on, Robert; you've not been banned and it's pathetic to claim you have. If people reading this thread haven't been following the comments under "Slander," they'd miss the clear explanation I made to you. Namely, that since you posted comments under a false E-mail address, I banned that false E-mail address. Not you, but your false E-mail address. Here's how I explained it there:
>So, Robert K., if you're going to comment, you are required to identify yourself and use an E-mail address that works. And if you fear this will expose you to a lot of spam, either figure out a way to sign your E-mails in a way you don't mind, or switch to Gmail. But either way, give us a path to a functional E-mail address.
>Meanwhile, since you've told us the E-mail address you've used isn't real, I've banned that particular E-mail address from being able to validate any comments posted on this blog. I'm sure you understand.
Speak the truth, brother.
After writing the above comment to "Robert K.," also known as "R.K.," I sent an E-mail to the new E-mail address he used to post the above comment. Checking to see if he was still refusing to identify himself and using a false E-mail address, I wasn't surprised just now to receive this E-mail:
*************************
Delivered-To: (Tim Bayly)@gmail.com
From: Mail Delivery Subsystem
To: (Tim Bayly)@gmail.com
Subject: Delivery Status Notification (Failure)
Date: Tue, 04 Dec 2007 08:46:06 -0800 (PST)
This is an automatically generated Delivery Status Notification
Delivery to the following recipient failed permanently:
SwordoftheSpirit@av1611.com
Technical details of permanent failure:
PERM_FAILURE: SMTP Error (state 13): 550 5.1.1 No such user p57si365285pyb
**********************************
Men, we need to be accountable for our words and accountability begins with identifying ourselves.
Recently, someone "explained" to me that it was a great risk to him professionally to allow his name to be associated with comments on the internet, and so he almost never does it. I asked him whether he'd ever considered the cost David and I pay for making our convictions and commitments known on this blog?
Clearly this was a new thought to him.
One can go through life protecting one's influence; that's one way to live. But as R. C. Sproul said to me one time about ten years ago, he's always wanted to write a book titled "The Myth of Influence" in which he'd point out that all those people who don't do or say things because they're trying to protect their influence never ever seem to get around to using that influence.
I often tell people that the stuff David and I write that makes others go berserk would have caused reformed pastors of past centuries to yawn. And this is a tragedy largely caused by the reformed pastors of today making a decision to protect their influence instead of using it. The pastorate of the reformed world, even without an established religion, has become a sinecure.
Imagine teaching elders across the PCA actually preaching and writing what they believe, and following the Apostle Paul in asking their sheep to pray for them that the Holy Spirit would make them even more bold! What a day that would be.
Well, to return to Mr. Anonymous, he's now really and truly banned. Not his E-mail address, but he himself. But of course, it would be the work of a moment for him to get around this ban. That's life.
Tim,
I greatly appreciated this post. Thank you.
Seth
Here is my email. When I thought I was banned it was obviously because you had done something to not accept comments from the email I'd listed.
As to the visible church: that discussion in Reformed Theology is under the category of the essence of the church. Roman Catholics see the essence in the visible and local (and by the way the 'teaching church', i.e. their clerical hierarchy). Protestants see the essence of the church in the invisible and spiritual communion of the saints.. Read Berkhof if you don't believe me...
And read Richard Muller on the invisible/visible church. For one thing you'll see that when Calvin says that there is no salvation outside the visible church he is referring to the church made up of the elect, not the mixed church. This is what I was getting at with the doctrine of the visible/invisible church being lost today. See Muller's dictionary of Latin and Greek theological terms.
And GreenBaggins and everyone else over there knows my full name and more than a few have emailed me at the email the Bayly's now have. This call for non-anonymity is always disingenuous. Think about it: how do I know you are who you say you are? In my case, I don't care. Because I only am interested in defending biblical doctrine from false teachers who pretend to be something they are not.
There's a reason Federal Vision wants to get rid of the doctrine of the visible/invisible church. To get a good example why read Calvin's reply to Sadoleto and see how Calvin invoked that doctrine to defend Geneva and the Reformation from that devil's minister.
Robert,
I have commented extensively on GreenBaggins, and have no idea what your full name is.
I think you are completely muddling orthodox teaching on the visible/invisible church distinction. "Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves: for they watch for your souls" makes the visible church, with disciplinary authority and ordained elders, ordinarily necessary for salvation. That's reflected in the Reformed confessions. The essence of the church is a non-helpful term; let's talk about the authority of the church. The invisible church has no ability to exercise authority (as its membership is known only to God), and no need to do so (as its membership are all saved and will persevere.) The church has God-granted authority; that "church" logically must be the local church.
Again: based on your comments in the linked thread, I'm understanding your position to be that the Westminster standards are unbiblical.
>"Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves: for they watch for your souls" makes the visible church, with disciplinary authority and ordained elders, ordinarily necessary for salvation.
Of course I'm sure you know this is how Roman Catholics argue. If you read the whole Bible not a vew verses back of the verse you quote lets you know what the authority is: the Word of God.
The essence of the church may not be a helpful phrase to you, but it was to Berkhof and the Reformers. Again, this doctrine of the invisible church comes to the fore in spiritual warfare as it did during the Reformation. Read Calvin's reply to Sadoleto for an explicit example of this.
Either you're a Reformed/Calvinist or you're not. You can this or that Reformed doctrine 'is not helpful' all you want, but so can Arminians or Mormons or what have you.
I find the Westminster Standards to be brilliantly drafted documents representing apostolic biblical doctrine. Five solas, doctrines of grace, classical covenant - Federal - theology.
I'm not of the party that wants to revise them either, for the record.
But we all need the Spirit to be not only able to see but to value apostolic biblical doctrine. May the Spirit come into all hearts. Engage the Word of God, humbly, and in a dedicated manner.
And, ps, I've been over at GreenBaggins for a while and I don't know Xon's last name or who pduggin or Jared or etc., etc. is. Lane K. has exchanged emails with me, and he knows my name, as do one or two of his new moderators, so...
I'm a street Calvinist. A lowly Christian. Who defends sound doctrine especially when people appear who call themselves one thing and preach something else. They need to be confronted harshly. Other's, like Mormons or whatever, just need to be taught, or given the Word of God and all that. Wolves in sheep's clothing are another matter...
>Of course I'm sure you know this is how Roman Catholics argue.
The Reformers didn't argue with Rome on every point, merely those where Rome was wrong. They were focused on being obedient to God and conforming to the scriptures, not on being different from Rome when Rome was right. Now we see people who wish to be Protestants who think that the apex of Christianity is not being Roman Catholic. I'd rather be obedient to scripture and differ from Rome when Rome is wrong. Sort of like Calvin, Luther and those fellows who drafted the Westminster Confession of Faith.
Dear Robert Kagan,
Thanks for giving us your real E-mail address. I've lifted the ban.
Dear Robert Kagan
I wish to bring charges against you for calling me a porno-say-anything liar on this blog. Kindly inform me of the body that you are answerable to so that I can formally lodge a complaint.
Yours sincerely
You can contact me at: (one word) roger dubarry at talk talk (also one word) dot com. I am the Rev. Roger du Barry of the Farnham Reformed Church in England. You can call me at 07960 then 886 zero four one. Use the international code for the UK.
And the international code for the UK is 44
Tim & David
I wish to make clear that prior to the birth of the Federal Vision at the now infamous Auburn Ave. conference, I had no issues with Doug Wilson, in fact he and his wife Nancy spoke here. Our Christian School was a charter member of ACCS. I recruited DW and Doug Jones to contribute to the book that Fowler White and I edited, 'Whatever Happened to the Reformation?' (P&R,2000). Our church supported Ralph Smith, a CREC missionary in Japan and I personally finacially supported 'Credenda/Agenda' ( and I must have given away dozens of copies of 'Reforming Marriage' and 'Her Hand In Marriage'). All of that dramatically changed after the Auburn Ave. thing blew up.As I have stated elsewhere, I wrote directly to DW to express my concerns, not once ,not twice, but repeeatedly-and got rebuffed. DW contented over at Green Baggins, where I also rehearsed this story, that he personally did not respond to my letters because the tone was hostile and combative. This stunned me, so i promptly posted the conclusion of my first letter to show that my tone was nothing like that and gave DW permission to post any of my correspondance to back of his claim-but he did nothing except make an unfounded charge against me.So ,just for the record, please be informed that I did not go into this controversy with a personal axe to grind against DW. My issues were then and now, exclusively theological in nature. DW has excerbated the situation by his duplicity and by insinuations about personal friends of mine-but our chief disagreements center around the innovations of his fellow FVers.
Roger,
Not that it's material to the case, but you typed:
"porno-say-anything"
Whereas Robert had typed:
"pomo say-anything"
Just trying to keep the Mondegreens out of the formal paperwork.
Keith
Robert,
When I said, "the phrase 'the essence of the church' is not helpful", I did not mean to imply that it was not true, or helpful for some purposes; I meant that in discussing the necessity of submitting to the ordained elders, it is not the place to focus.
So--the Westminster standards are "brilliantly drafted documents representing apostolic biblical doctrine"? Does that include Chapters 25 (The Church), 28 (Baptism) and 30 (Church Censures)? Are you explicitly changing your position from the one you took in the linked comment, quoted below?
Your second point, by the way: [One problem with "baptistic" views is] ignoring that the visible, local church, to which one should submit, is a necessity for Christians. (”The visible Church…is the kingdom of the Lord Jesus Christ, the house and family of God, out of which there is no ordinary possibility of salvation.”)
is plain silly. Submit to what? Man? ...I’m a prophet, a priest, and a king. Who do I submit to? ... You see you have problems with this unbiblical doctrine of yours, that it is unbiblical being its main problem.
Correction: my email address is dot net, not dot com. Apologies.
I said in that comment I submit to my King and Saviour and Lord and High Priest and Prophet Jesus Christ. This language disturbs sacerdotalists because it is a statement made by Christians who fear God and not man.
And your Hebrews verse, I just have to remind you again, is referring to the Word of God as authority, not man. Do you have the Word of God?
I've nuked probably 50 Roman Catholic apologists who come on with that verse (just as Calvin nuked - not to get anachronistic - the redoubtable minister of the Beast Cardinal Sadoleto). Get up to speed with the Reformation. It is the recovery of apostolic biblical doctrine and practice.
And once again, learn the Reformation doctrine of the visible/invisible church. You are on thin ground here because as a Federal Visionist you despise this doctrine and want to dispense with it (it's in the Westminster Standards). When Calvin or any Reformer who held to this doctrine said there is no salvation outside the visible church by 'visible church' he was referencing NOT 'a building you can gnaw the paint off of with your teeth' (as I like to say Wilson might put it) but to communion of the elect sans the hypocrites, non-elect, etc. I know this is confusing, but do a little study in historical theology. Calvin wasn't a Roman Catholic. Read his reply to Sadoleto to see starkly his position on this issue. Sadoleto came on to the Genevans EXACTLY as you are coming on to me.
I fear God, not man. The Word of God is my authority, no man. Jesus Christ is my Mediator, not man. Get it? Got it? I hope so, because if not we are on opposite sides of a very serious battle line that will form in good time (the return of the King).
Roger, if the shoe fits...
Robert Kagan, please tell me who you are answerable to so that I can bring charges against you for slander and language unbefitting a Christian. You have my contact details.
I said if the shoe fits because I don't recall ever invoking your precious, high-falutin' name. Even if I did, so what. Are your doctrinal views protected by some law I'm not aware of? When did I enter your theocracy? You can't attack biblical doctrine and then say you're immune from criticism 'by law'. Get a grip.
Robert,
The point isn't immunity from criticism (for Roger). The point is accountability (for you).
Steve Wilkins has been accused (not formally, yet) of heterodoxy. You have just been accused of heteropraxy. Both kinds of errors, if they're actually being committed, are grounds for discipline.
Suppose for the moment the SJC finds LAP guilty of failure to indict, instructs that a trial of Wilkins be held, and Wilkins is found guilty. What would you think if Wilkins and his church decided at that point to laugh at the PCA and say that "We fear God, and not men, therefore we do not accept your decision"? Would you think that they were justified in ignoring the authority of the PCA?
Also, if your pastor and/or session agrees with what you've been writing, or at least doesn't think it's a sin, these charges would not harm you.
Keith
Frankly, Keith, no doctrine is safe if everything has to be submitted to Bleak House. I don't know why you think any Christian X is protected in this manner. When you critique arminians do you go through a process with their church? What weird world are these FVists dragging you all into? They are wolves in sheep's clothing. I say that and back it up. They don't like being confronted because they can't defend their actions or their doctrine. They prefer to deal with soft, duped Christians who are easy to run over. They are all angry these days because they thought everything was soft enough for them to easily make their push then all of the sudden all we hardcore types meet them out on the field of battle and suddenly they turn into lawyers and bureaucrats. When unconfronted they are actively after justification by faith alone; when confronted they start babbling about baptism ("Oh, we didn't really mean what we said about sola fide!")
So, Robert--your own church's (you know, the one with elders that you have willingly submitted yourself to, that administers the sacraments, and outside which there is no ordinary possiblity of salvation) judicial procedures are "Bleak House"?
And for myself--yes, if I'm a slanderer in my discussion with, say, a Jehovah's Witness, he does and should have liberty--probably even obligation--to inform my elders of that, if he can't bring me to repentance by dealing with me privately.
I've obviously come in late, but could someone do me a favour and list out clearly what FV does stand for and where it differs from standard Reformed theology? Because the thing is almost like one of those interminable arguments within the Fundamentalist tradition in which anathemas of almost Papal proportions are thrown around on a regular basis (see www.wayoflife.org/fbns2 for more of what I'm getting at)
Or otherwise, is it a question how many Reformed theologians can dance on the head of a pin?! I remain to be convinced.
FVists call criticism and confronting of their false teaching 'slander'. Of course they do. If a Jesuit enrolls into a Reformed church and starts pushing for a redefinition of the confession of that church and is confronted he'd play the same game.
You confront false teaching head on, and you don't play games with false teachers. Playing their games with them is doing what they want you to do. They want to muck up the environment any and every which way they can. Defile language, shift the subject(s) at hand, claim victimhood, go on the offence, accuse people of slander, call for peaceful dialogue, go for the throat if no opposition is present. They want to hide the truth of apostolic biblical doctrine (what Reformed Theology/Calvinism is a nickname for) in the darkness they had it in prior to the Reformation. Christians exist that won't allow them to do that. Too bad. And guess what? My Sword and my shield are weapons they have no defense against, and I will and do use them. Until the return of the King, when it gets *real* serious for false teachers...
>"I've obviously come in late, but could someone do me a favour and list out clearly what FV does stand for and where it differs from standard Reformed theology? Because the thing is almost like one of those interminable arguments within the Fundamentalist tradition in which anathemas of almost Papal proportions are thrown around on a regular basis (see www.wayoflife.org/fbns2 for more of what I'm getting at) Or otherwise, is it a question how many Reformed theologians can dance on the head of a pin?! I remain to be convinced."
If you can't discern the battlefield why do you show interest. I think you are being maybe a degree or two disingenuous. *Disingenuous bewilderment* is a tactic of false teachers and their followers. Like trying to stick a knife into somebody's eye and when confronted saying: "But what is the problem here? I had no idea you were standing there! Why would you think I would want to do such a thing...? My, my, now; can't we all just get along? Surely there is nothing here so important that it is worth disturbing the brotherhood over?"
I have a fairly keen interest in theology. It's because I don't understand the firefight going on here that I'm asking questions to find out more. Anyway, I'm not from the Reformed tradition, hence some of my other comments.
So, would you kindly explain what the problem with FV is?
Robert Kagan is the product of an atomized Christianity that rejects the teaching of the reformers, the Westminster Confession of Faith and the consensus of the church. He does not submit himself to the accountability and discipline of the church as both scripture and the reformed confessions teach and glorifies his pseudo-autonomous existence in his statements above. He is very American in that regard but not very reformed or even Christian in that regard.
Robert Kagan, just so that you clearly understand what is happening here, I have nothing to say about your beliefs. They are of no interest to me. I am not interested in your opinion of my beliefs either. No interest at all.
You are being accused of sinful behaviour, namely, filthy speech and slander. I tried to show Mark Priestap that it is false that the FV is harmful to sola fide. In that context you accused me of being a "porno say-anything" liar.
I wonder if you are the same person on the Bagginses site whom I offered mp3s of my Bible studies on Galatians to prove that point, and who failed to even respond.
You are being asked to have the bottle to face the consequences of your actions. Now pony up your church affiliation.
>I'm not from the Reformed tradition
To a Calvinist (five solas, doctrines of grace, Federal Theology) saying that you are not from the Reformed tradition is saying you can't yet see let alone value apostolic biblical doctrine. If that is the case you'll neither see how it is being attacked, nor will you know in your heart why it is a serious matter when it is attacked. If it is merely one of many 'traditions' to you you're not currently in a position to be enlightened on any current necessary defense of the faith that you are observing.
Having said that what makes these Federal Vision (or whatever they are calling themselves these days) more mischievous than the average carrier of Romanish, poisonous doctrine is they are playing the Communist Popular Front game of pretending to be something they are not and infiltrating churches and denominations institutions that hold to apostolic biblical doctrine (there aren't many left). This gives them leverage they wouldn't get with their small numbers alone. They thought the field was clear to do with unopposed, but Christians appeared immediately to oppose them and they've been angry about ever since, but no dissuaded to continue their mischief. I.e. if they were just any other group with bad doctrine nobody would pay any attention to them. They are self-identifying as Reformed, Calvinist Christians while pushing Roman Catholic doctrine, so God's own more attuned to watching the movements of the enemy are directly on their case. They are turning out to be a bit zombie like though in that you have to do more than usual to put them down. They're going down, though, by degree they expose themselves and get put down. The Word of God is their enemy, so they're not in any good position for any kind of victory...
Roger, read Calvin's response to Sadoleto. That speaks for me...
Robert,
I can understand that emotions may be running high, but I do not believe you answered my question, so I will put it another way:
Is Steve Wilkins obligated to accept the authority of the PCA (through the SJC)? If he is tried and found guilty, and he replies that he will not accept the verdict because he "fears God and not men", do you have a problem with that?
Keith
To Robert K - you still haven't answered my question as to where FV differs from standard or mainstream Reformed Theology. In what way or where are they actually arguing for Roman doctrine, for example?
And even if I am not from that [Reformed] background, I still think I can understand the nuances involved.
Ross,
We've all been over this ground so many times it's hard to know where to start, I don't think Robert was trying to dodge the question.
A few bullet points:
- Most (if not all) FV teachers teach the "objectivity of the covenant", essentially that trinitarian baptism brings the baptized into the covenant, even though they don't necessarily "get saved" at that point and may be non-elect and never "get saved". This is not necessarily a big disagreement with their critics (many of whom accept the objectivity of the covenant).
- Similarly, most FV teachers teach that NECM's (Non Elect Covenant Members) do gain some (not all) of the benefits of the covenant. Some go so far as to say that they receive union with Christ (in a sense), though they do not receive perseverence in the faith and will ultimately be cut off from Christ. The main point of disagreement is on *which* benefits the NECM's get, with a common anti-FV standard being that NECM's don't get any of the Ordo Salutis benefits (Regeneration, Faith, Repentence, etc.)
For further reading I'd suggest digging through Pastor Lane Keister's blog (http://greenbaggins.wordpress.com/2007/01/03/federal-vision-index/)
Blessings,
Keith
With Wilkins it's a confessional matter. The confession smokes him out. If he want to hold to his unique FVist distinctives, fine, don't do it in a church or denom where he has to subscribe to the Westminster Standards. He wants to both pretend that he holds to them - and - redefine them and ideally change them. Either he holds to the confession or he doesn't. Wilkins is one of the FVists who are currently 'inside the tent', pretending to be something they are not. If they can change the confession within a church and demon that holds to it it is much more valuable a victory for them than if they just merely start their own churches with their common bad doctrine. In the latter case they just become one of many heterodox groups with their own file at the IRS.
Robert Kagan, you do not adhere to the WCF so why do you worry about Wilkins?
Pages