Semper Fidelis,
I believe that you have publically misrepresented Mr. Ritchie's position. Please re-read, and you will note that you have misquoted his position. Mr. Ritchie said "Yes, I often think to myself that WSC must be so happy that the FV has emerged,
so that they can link anyone who believes in societal reformation (who is not a pietist)
as being similar to the FV."
The article that Mr. Ritchie produced later in the thread supported his assertion about at least one member of the WSC faculty, who does not appear to be saddened by the ability to link FV and theonomy. Mr. Ritchie, I can assure you, would link arms with WSC to fight FV; he's not stating that they are happy with FV, per se, but happy to be able to fight one of their opposing schools of thought: theonomy. Mr. Ritchie didn't say they were "happy with FV". I believe you have misrepresented Mr. Ritchie publically, and you owe him an apology.
Also, I'm again not sure what you mean by euphemism:
euphemism - definition of euphemism by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.
A euphemism is a polite term used in place of a harsh term in order to not jolt the mind of hearers. "All Cretans are liars" is about a specific set of people (Paul's neighbors, to whom Titus was ministering), which was a generalization, which might today be categorized as racism. It's like if I said, "All white men are nerds." They could even bring me forward as a case study
This is not a euphemism, but a generalization. You stated:
"The issue here isn't one of Paul trying to make a point about some Cretians and then reverting to a "generalization"."
However, this is exactly what Paul does: first, he talks about some of the individuals living in Crete from the circumcision:
Quote:
|
10For there are many unruly and vain talkers and deceivers, specially they of the circumcision: 11Whose mouths must be stopped, who subvert whole houses, teaching things which they ought not, for filthy lucre's sake. 12One of themselves, even a prophet of their own, said, the Cretians are alway liars, evil beasts, slow bellies. 13This witness is true. Wherefore rebuke them sharply, that they may be sound in the faith; 14Not giving heed to Jewish fables, and commandments of men, that turn from the truth.
|
The personal pronouns have been highlighted to show that the "specially of the circumcision" and the "all Cretians" generalization is applied to the specific case of
them that Titus was to rebuke sharply. Probably specific members of the community or of the church that were liars, just like all Cretians. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but it appears that Paul's generalization is exactly what Mr. Ritchie appears to have engaged in, and is not a violation of the 9th cmd. His generalization is not "happy with FV", but "opponents of theonomy". I know two ministers in the OPC that were trained at WSC, and both have confirmed to me personally that "opponents of theonomy" is a good way of describing the general attitude of the faculty members that they were taught by at WSC.
I think, in order to prove that Mr. Ritchie has violated the 9th cmd, you may need to produce WSC faculty's condemnation of a linkage between FV and theonomy. Since Mr. Ritchie has proven his point by a specimin blog, it would behoove you to rebut his presumption, otherwise the case is his to this point in time, and I find his argument more convincing, since backed with evidence.
I have not made a judgment either way about WSC, but I will say that Mr. Ritchie produced evidence, and you have yet to do so.
Cheers,
Adam
Quote:
Originally Posted by Semper Fidelis  Quote:
Originally Posted by Christusregnat Semper Fidelis,
Thank you for pointing out the intention behind your actions. However, my comments do not mention anything about a euphemism, nor were they related to the Warren / Kuyper question. I was merely seeking to point out that generalizations, per se, are not sin. Also, I admitted my ignorance of the party being generalized (WSC faculty), and therefore am unable to agree or disagree with the assessment that Mr. Ritchie's comments are beyond the pale. But then again, as I am not a moderator, it is not my duty to point out such things.
For the record, I do not consider broad-brushiness to be a violation of the 9th cmd, per se. As I said previously, it would depend on the circumstances. Otherwise, as I cited, the Holy Spirit's dictum through Paul would be a violation of the 9th cmd, which is an impossibility.
Thanks again for the dialogue!
Adam | Adam,
You missed my point. Here is the passage you are referring to: Quote: |
10For there are many unruly and vain talkers and deceivers, specially they of the circumcision: 11Whose mouths must be stopped, who subvert whole houses, teaching things which they ought not, for filthy lucre's sake. 12One of themselves, even a prophet of their own, said, the Cretians are alway liars, evil beasts, slow bellies. 13This witness is true. Wherefore rebuke them sharply, that they may be sound in the faith; 14Not giving heed to Jewish fables, and commandments of men, that turn from the truth.
| The idea above is pretty well established in the literature surrounding the period. The issue here isn't one of Paul trying to make a point about some Cretians and then reverting to a "generalization". Paul is actually being very specific in how an elder is supposed to deal wtih unruly and vain talkers and deceivers. He illustrates his point with a euphemism of the day that Cretians are liars, beasts, and slow bellies. The idea of Cretian had become associated with that concept. We even use the ideas today in calling a person a Cretan. We don't have a Cretan in mind but what the concept represents.
You cannot violate the 9th Commandment against a concept, the 9th Commandment is with reference to a neighbor - an actual person. The "neighbors" in view here are talkers and deceivers and Paul is bearing true witness by applying a euphemism to drive home a point.
A modern euphemism you might be familiar with is "The American Dream." When somebody says "He's living the American Dream" the reference is to the individual and not to say that all Americans have the same dream. We all know what "The American Dream" represents and it is a concept. The American Dream is not our neighbor.
Back on point then, there is no euphemism or "saying" that "all WSC Profs are happy with the FV". In fact, it is well-documented that the opposite is the case. One could never use WSC as a byword for "happy with FV". Also, responses (subsequently deleted) made it abundantly clear that generalizations were not in view but a specific Professor's writings, which were then used to paint the entire rest of the faculty. Whatever else could be said about that particular faculty member, one could not argue that he is "happy with the FV." That much is apparently obvious to the most casual observer of the Federal Vision. |