But since this is a window into the great quality involved in the Study Committee, it needs to be faced. Is this reasoning really representative of the denomination? Does this quality really make us proud? Yet this from an RE on the committee. If you have any relationships in the PCA you should be emailing them a link to http://reformedmusing.wordpress.com so they can read and be amazed.
Mark, it might be more helpful for you to engage Robert’s post, rather than dismissing it like this. Dismissal and lack of interaction is precisely what you accuse the critics of doing. It does not ring quite true when you do that which you accuse the critics of doing.
“The sacraments present, both to good and to bad men, the grace of God. No falsehood attaches to the promises which they exhibit of the grace of the Holy Spirit. Believers receive what is offered; and if wicked men, by rejecting it, render the offer unprofitable to themselves, their conduct cannot destroy the faithfulness of God, or the true meaning of the sacrament.”
Lane, I don’t think you want Mark to interact with Robert’s post. Seriously.
Cool handle, LC.
I’m with Lane on this one. What’s the problem with the post? Oh, I understand you disagree with it. But even if it is wrong, it looked like a very mainstream PCA approach to the text. Do you really think this is out of the mainstream today?
I’m guessing arguments from silence only work when:
1) you want to reinforce the stance of those who already agree with you.
2) you want to break up a coalition by highlighting positions untenable to the majority of the coalition held by other members of the coalition.
So you are probably aiming for number 2. But if the views expressed are the very views that created the coalition to begin with…. well, an argument from silence fails. Which leaves you only with number 1. And in this case, I’m thinking number 1 will only lead to bitterness.
Whereas interaction can address 2 even if it is a majority view. For instance, I believe it would be inappropriate to simply point to an article against paedocommunion as an argument from silence since we all know pc is the majority view.
My 2 cents.
Guys, the problem is that the “misdirected mail” post is hypercalvinism.
When you create false distinctions in the gathered body you must come up with extra biblical ways of addressing the congregation:
When we preach, we don’t constantly try to preach differently to the elect and non-elect during every sermon. Personally, I usually end my exhortations with something like “And if anyone here today is not trusting in Christ…” followed by a short and clear gospel summary and charge.
As though the “elect” don’t need the gospel call… sheesh. The strangest thing about this is its mix of hyper Calvinism and a screwy Finney-lite alter call. Being a former Baptist perhaps I am reacting to strongly to that though…
Marshalling irrelevant texts, dealing with either the error of the full preterits (2 Tim 2:14-19) or the encouragement to quit living like the gentiles (Eph 4:17-24) and treating them as homiletics proof texts is just sad.
al sends
I think that’s understood, Steven. Please don’t be concerned that I’m in agreement with the post. For instance, years ago I wrote this:
http://www.hornes.org/2002/05/bobsled-sovereignty/
My point then (and implied now), is that the majority view is trending this way, and needs to be argued against. But it needs to be argued against with the understanding that it is the majority (thus, as I stated above, I don’t think an argument from silence is effective). I don’t think it is purposefully trending this way, and I don’t think folks are actively trying to embrace it. Rather, I think folks are responding against this or that perceived threat and they end up with this thing that looks/smells/tastes like hypercalvinism.
“Baptism is the outward sign of uniting with Christ for the elect, but for the non-elect it is a symbol of their condemnation.”
How on earth can something be a symbol if its true meaning ambiguously depends on an invisible reality? Doesn’t the very meaning of the word “symbol” imply that you can tell what it means by looking at it?
I mean, that statement is fine if we’re limiting the discussion to people who have already passed on, but it’s hardly useful in the context of a discussion of what baptism means to a given person during his earthly life, which, if I’m not mistaken, is pretty much what “this whole FV thing” is about.