Quote:
Originally Posted by py3ak  Quote:
Originally Posted by NaphtaliPress Explain what you mean by in the present case. Quote:
Originally Posted by py3ak And, as in the present case, sometimes the distinction between the two sides is not so clear as good doctrine/bad conduct vs. bad doctrine/good conduct. The iconoclastic controversy was about the dimensionality of the idols, not about their use. | | Very simple. Matthew Winzer and T.E. Wilder, in my view, are the people who have criticized the FV in the most intelligible way. Yet their perspectives on the controversy don't seem to have a very high profile. |
Well, I agree that they have been critical of the FV and so I'm not sure how this simplifies my own confusion about what exactly is the contention here.
Both in dialogues on the board and in personal conversation, it is quite apparent to me that Rev. Winzer agrees that the views that are being called un-Confessional are, in fact, un-Confessional. In fact, he was instrumental in bringing a great deal of clarity to me on that point.
But the two "houses" mentioned are not really what I'm concerned about anyway. It is interesting, is it not, that Wilson is one "house" here and the SJC is another. The problem is that Wilson isn't even in the PCA but he's content to blog about what's happening with a judicial case in a denomination he is not a part of.
I guess I'm sort of a simple guy. Sometimes I ask myself: "What is this subtlety that I'm missing here? Maybe I haven't read enough books yet to figure out how this is not a cut and dry matter."
I simply do not understand how someone can look at the Reformed Confessions, look at what TE Wilkins has taught and wrote, and then conclude that the charges are just completely bogus.
Now, maybe some of the circus surrounding this whole process is so distracting and annoying that, after awhile, people get disgusted. I mean, really, I read that Bayly Blog thing and my immediate thought was: "Man, I have some great moderators here on the Puritanboard." That discussion was all over the place beginning with a valid criticism about some stuff that undermined the credibility of some of the FV report and then ended up being some sort of potpourri of strange things including Wilson's view on slavery. I hardly remembered what the discussion was after reading halfway through and just had to stop because I couldn't take it anymore.
But even if a few men didn't handle themselves maturely prior to the report being received, the fact was that it
was received and I hope you don't mean to imply that every TE and RE at the PCA GA should be condemned for agreeing with the report that the Federal Vision was un-Confessional.
So, when the smoke clears, and all the "who did what to whom" clears, I'm a pretty simple guy and I want this question answered: What are these guys teaching in a Reformed denomination and is it completely out of accord with the Confession? If the answer to the latter is "Yes" then there is a place at some point that some discipline is necessary. I honestly get a little tired of the "technical" objections that cloud what the issues are.
I believe the SJC's findings about the LA Presbytery's examination were substantially correct. I'm not a member of the PCA and so I simply hope that the men assigned to try the case will do so uprightly and with integrity. I believe the trial is not for unsubstantiated charges.
I, for one, have no interest in reading the major blogs from either side devoted to recounting all the soap opera concerns and claims that "...you just don't understand us...." Several months ago, in fact, I started a dialogue here on the PB over the issue of Conditional Election and interacted with some major FV proponents. They were very happy when Rev. Winzer seemed to "be their man" when he acknowledged that the term "Conditional Election" was part of the Reformed parlance. Of course, they kicked him immediately to the curb as soon as they realized that he flatly rejected
their use of the term since it was 180 degrees out from what Owen and others meant by it. I gave up trying to dialogue because I've found that there really isn't much interest in interacting openly and honestly about the point once you point out the view is completely unconfessional. At that point, it's a "So What?" response from many which confirms the problem.
I also prefer to stay out of the dialogues because I still have friends inside the FV movement. I'll talk about the FV here
because I cannot interact with the FV folks. If I did then I'm afraid I would get drug down in the muck and I have no desire for that.