Do you honestly expect me to believe that you didn’t see this coming? You have been told before that it is coming. This is nothing new. Of course, from our perspective, it is preserving the purity and peace of the church, not a witch-hunt. Do you honestly expect guys like me to sit by and do nothing when we have the convictions that we have?
The ignorance of the history of Reformed theology found in clicking that thread is pretty stunning, but as Lane points out, not surprising given what we already know of these men’s intellectual blinders. These guys very simply have no familiarity with the Reformers original context, much less of the various systematic formulations which the second-generation scholastics came up with. The unfortunate thing is that they likely won’t ever be able to bring themselves to read the Reformers in the proper context. I’d suggest Paul Avis and Heiko Oberman as good places to start.
There’s also plenty of room for a transformative justification, just so long as this is kept in a secondary position of order.
Baptismal efficacy has also been adequately dealt with by David Wright, Hughes Old, and Bryan Spinks.
What I’d like to see, if ever it is possible, is for an elder statesmen (in the older days it would have been a godly prince) to step in and tell these folks to chill out and spend a decade in the study. All jets should be cooled, and the SJC should be left to decide on matters of pastoral discipline, not confessional theology.
More witch hunt rationalization. Appealing to a historically unprecedented and unaccountable agency under political crony control to get convictions of men against the judgment of their presbyteries. Every with hunter claims the authority of the law. Every witch hunter is called into account by God. He’s bigger than SJC.
I think you should really ignore these folks. We’ve got Lane sort of threatening Rob Rayburn, which is an absolute scream. Let him keep it up.
You should simply defend yourself based on your beliefs. There’s really no such thing as The Federal Vision. There is simply a list of conversation points. You’re pretty moderate by anyone’s standards, and so your defense should be just that. Show them your writings, affirm the confessional language. Sleep well at night.
You can’t change the ethos, and frankly the ethos is much bigger than the FV debate. There are a ton of “heretics” hiding under the rug, and honestly, “sounding the alarm” is how some of these guys find their fulfillment. Just keep a positive outlook on life and do your thing.
For there is a man whose labour is in wisdom, and in knowledge, and in equity; yet to a man that hath not laboured therein shall he leave it for his portion. This also is vanity and a great evil.
Ecclesiastes 2:21, KJV
I looked at your post on the Puritan Board and I noticed your signature line. You are working for the CRC and RCA, denominations that ordain women. Say it ain’t so, Lane.
So if you receive a member into one of those denominations, you are bringing them into a situation where they are ruled by women, contrary to I Tim. 2:12. Even if you don’t receive members, your mere presence in such a denomination gives credence to them and their ungodly ways.
Do you think that they can avoid fatally distorting the gospel if they can’t even read Paul right on matters of sexuality? (Heck, how long can they hold out against ordaining practicing homosexuals?) How long do you think you can hold out until you give in to their distortions? Or maybe it has already happened, and we just don’t know it yet.
Maybe you need to take a break from throwing stones until you move out of your own glass house.
The inconsistency of the witch hunt gets me. The Central Carolina Presbytery attacks the Federal Vision guys. But Friendly Hills Presbyterian Church, a member of that presbytery, had Ron Sider in for some lectures in 2006, and if even a peep was raised about it, I didn’t hear about it. Men in conformity with Westminster aren’t allowed, but non-Presbyterian Socialists are.
Of course it continues…it’s what these sorts live for.
Do you honestly expect me to believe that you didn’t see this coming? You have been told before that it is coming. This is nothing new. Of course, from our perspective, it is preserving the purity and peace of the church, not a witch-hunt. Do you honestly expect guys like me to sit by and do nothing when we have the convictions that we have?
Mark,
The ignorance of the history of Reformed theology found in clicking that thread is pretty stunning, but as Lane points out, not surprising given what we already know of these men’s intellectual blinders. These guys very simply have no familiarity with the Reformers original context, much less of the various systematic formulations which the second-generation scholastics came up with. The unfortunate thing is that they likely won’t ever be able to bring themselves to read the Reformers in the proper context. I’d suggest Paul Avis and Heiko Oberman as good places to start.
More specifically, final justification according to works is all over the place. I’ve listed a few of the sources here: http://wedgewords.wordpress.com/2008/07/18/double-justification-wrap-up/
There’s also plenty of room for a transformative justification, just so long as this is kept in a secondary position of order.
Baptismal efficacy has also been adequately dealt with by David Wright, Hughes Old, and Bryan Spinks.
What I’d like to see, if ever it is possible, is for an elder statesmen (in the older days it would have been a godly prince) to step in and tell these folks to chill out and spend a decade in the study. All jets should be cooled, and the SJC should be left to decide on matters of pastoral discipline, not confessional theology.
Anyone know where I can get a link to copies of the reports?
http://www.midasresources.com/Gold_Offer/Offer_AJ.html
That’s the gold page, Mark
More witch hunt rationalization. Appealing to a historically unprecedented and unaccountable agency under political crony control to get convictions of men against the judgment of their presbyteries. Every with hunter claims the authority of the law. Every witch hunter is called into account by God. He’s bigger than SJC.
Mark,
I think you should really ignore these folks. We’ve got Lane sort of threatening Rob Rayburn, which is an absolute scream. Let him keep it up.
You should simply defend yourself based on your beliefs. There’s really no such thing as The Federal Vision. There is simply a list of conversation points. You’re pretty moderate by anyone’s standards, and so your defense should be just that. Show them your writings, affirm the confessional language. Sleep well at night.
You can’t change the ethos, and frankly the ethos is much bigger than the FV debate. There are a ton of “heretics” hiding under the rug, and honestly, “sounding the alarm” is how some of these guys find their fulfillment. Just keep a positive outlook on life and do your thing.
For there is a man whose labour is in wisdom, and in knowledge, and in equity; yet to a man that hath not laboured therein shall he leave it for his portion. This also is vanity and a great evil.
Ecclesiastes 2:21, KJV
LANE,
I looked at your post on the Puritan Board and I noticed your signature line. You are working for the CRC and RCA, denominations that ordain women. Say it ain’t so, Lane.
So if you receive a member into one of those denominations, you are bringing them into a situation where they are ruled by women, contrary to I Tim. 2:12. Even if you don’t receive members, your mere presence in such a denomination gives credence to them and their ungodly ways.
Do you think that they can avoid fatally distorting the gospel if they can’t even read Paul right on matters of sexuality? (Heck, how long can they hold out against ordaining practicing homosexuals?) How long do you think you can hold out until you give in to their distortions? Or maybe it has already happened, and we just don’t know it yet.
Maybe you need to take a break from throwing stones until you move out of your own glass house.
The inconsistency of the witch hunt gets me. The Central Carolina Presbytery attacks the Federal Vision guys. But Friendly Hills Presbyterian Church, a member of that presbytery, had Ron Sider in for some lectures in 2006, and if even a peep was raised about it, I didn’t hear about it. Men in conformity with Westminster aren’t allowed, but non-Presbyterian Socialists are.
http://www.guilford.edu/about_guilford/news_and_publications/releases/ron_sider.html
I would like to hear Lane’s response at some point. Can someone direct him back here?