The Ninth Commandment broken in the Heart, Gesture, Right, and Word (by James Durham)

NaphtaliPress · #1 (**permalink**) 06-22-2008, 11:10 PM

This is from James Durham's Practical Exposition of the Ten Commandments (Naphtali Press, 2003) page 388. One of the shorter lectures but very searching.

That we may sum up this command (which is
broad) into some few particulars, we may
consider it: 1. First, as it is broken, (1) In the heart. (2)
In the gesture. (3) In right. (4) In word.

(1) First, in heart a man may fail, [1] By suspecting
others unjustly; this is called evil surmising (1
Tim. 6:4), or as it is in the original, evil suspicion;
which is when men are suspected of some evil
without ground, as Potiphar suspected Joseph,
or it is jealousy, when this suspicion is mixed
with fear of prejudice to some interest we love, so
Herod was jealous when Christ was born, and the
neighboring kings when Jerusalem was abuilding.
There is, I grant, a right suspicion, such
as Solomon had of Adonijah, and wherein
Gedaliah failed in not crediting Johannan’s
information about Ishmael’s conspiracy against
his life.

[2] By rash judging and unjust concluding
concerning a man’s state, as Job’s friends did; or
his actions, as Eli did of Hannah, saying that she
was drunk, because of the moving of her lips; or
his end, as the Corinthians did of Paul, when he
took wages, they said it was covetousness, and
when he took it not, they said it was want of love
(see Rom. 14:4 and 2 Cor. 12:4, etc).

[3] By hasty judging, too soon passing sentence
in our mind from some seeming evidence of that
which is only in the heart, and not in the
outward practice, this is but to judge before the
time, and hastily (Matt. 7:1).

[4] There is light judging, laying the weight of
conclusions upon arguments or midses [means]
that will not bear it, as Job’s friends did, and as
the Barbarians suspected Paul to be a murderer,
when they saw the viper on his hand (Acts 25:4).
Thus the King Ahaseurus trusted Haman’s
calumny of the Jews too soon.

[5] The breach of this command in the heart may
be when suspicion of our neighbor’s failing is
kept up, and means not used to be satisfied
about it, contrary to that, Matt. 18:15, If thy
brother offend thee, etc; and when we seek not to
be satisfied, but rest on presumptions, when they
seem probable.

(2) Secondly, in gesture this command may be
broken, by nodding, winking, or such like (and
even sometimes by silence) when these import in
our accustomed way some tacit sinister
insinuation, especially when either they are
purposed for that end, or when others are known
to mistake because of them, and we suffer them
to continue under this mistake.

(3) Thirdly, by writing this command may be
broken (as Ezra 5:6; Neh. 6:5), where
calumniating libels are written, and sent by their
enemies against the Jews and Nehemiah; in
which respect many fail in these days.

(4) Fourthly, but words are most properly the seat
wherein this sin is subjected, whether they be
only or merely words, or also put in writing,
because in these our conformity or disconformity
to truth does most appear.

An earlier version of this lecture is available at:
http://www.thebluebanner.com/pdf/bluebanner10-1.pdf

Christusregnat · #2 (**permalink**) 06-23-2008, 11:52 PM

{Admin note: post moved here from the Warren thread to keep that thread on track.}

Hello Semper Fidelis,

While it may be true that there was a broad brush statement, it may also be appropriate to point out that Mr. Ritchie's information is not entirely incorrect (as the post from heidelblog served to illustrate: Theonomy and Federal Vision: Separated at Birth? « Heidelblog)

While not agreeing with the tone of Mr. Ritchie's post, or the broad-brushiness of it, there is something of substance behind the post. There are people who have been opponents of theonomy in the past, and the FV has been one way to link theonomy with an unfortunate error. Some have reluctantly made the link, others have happily made the link, others have not made the link. I think his point was that the Kleinian school of thought (which, if I'm not misled, is more popular at WSC than at other places) may find proponents who are over-eager to make the link.

Whether he's right or not, I can't say, but I can say that it might be a bit much to accuse Mr. Ritchie of violating the 9th cmd, and I would pray that the two of you are able to reconcile this publicly.

Godspeed,

Adam

Quote:

Originally Posted by Semper Fidelis

Quote:

Originally Posted by Daniel Ritchie

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pilgrim

This is apparently a phrase that Warren has used several times lately. I knew I had seen it before. See here.

BTW a lot of the WSCAL two kingdomers are probably happy with the association Warren made since they seem to dump on Kuyper and Kuyperianism every chance they get.

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.

This kind of quote is un-called for. Whether or not you agree with some of the theological inclinations of the men at WSC, they are a group of thoughtful men that can hardly be painted with such a large brush. This is irresponsible and a violation of the 9th Commandment. It will not be tolerated here.

Semper Fidelis · #3 (**permalink**) 06-24-2008, 12:01 AM

Adam,

I have moved this discussion here as the issue was the source of a suggestion that the 9th Commandment be highlighted.

Let me ask you a question, do you believe that the mere presence of an "element of truth" constitutes an honoring of the 9th Commandment:

Quote:

Q143: Which is the ninth commandment?
A143: The ninth commandment is, Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor.[1]
1. Exod. 20:16

Q144: What are the duties required in the ninth commandment?
A144: The duties required in the ninth commandment are, the preserving and promoting of truth between man and man,[1] and the good name of our neighbor, as well as our own;[2] appearing and standing for the truth;[3] and from the heart,[4] sincerely,[5] freely,[6] clearly,[7] and fully,[8] speaking the truth, and only the truth, in matters of judgment and justice,[9] and in all other things whatsoever;[10] a charitable esteem of our neighbors;[11] loving, desiring, and rejoicing in their good name;[12] sorrowing for,[13] and covering of their infirmities;[14] freely acknowledging of their gifts and graces,[15] defending their innocence;[16] a ready receiving of a good report,[17] and unwillingness to admit of an evil report,[18] concerning them; discouraging talebearers,[19] flatterers,[20] and slanderers;[21] love and care of our own good name, and defending it when need requireth;[22] keeping of lawful promises;[23] studying and practicing of whatsoever things are true, honest, lovely, and of good report.[24]
(1. Zech. 8:16 2. III John 1:12 3. Prov. 31:8-9 4. Psa. 15:2 5. II Chr. 19:9 6. I Sam. 19:4-5 7. Josh. 7:19 8. II Sam. 14:18-20 9. Lev. 19:15; Prov. 14:5, 25 10. II Cor. 1:17-18; Eph. 4:25 11. Heb. 6:9; I Cor. 13:7 12. Rom. 1:8; II John 1:4; III John 1:3-4 13. II Cor. 2:4; 12:21 14. Prov. 17:9; I Peter 4:8 15. I Cor. 1:4-5, 7; II Tim. 1:4-5 16. I Sam. 22:14 17. I Cor. 13:6-7 18. Psa. 15:3 19. Prov. 25:23 20. Prov. 26:24-25 21. Psa. 101:5 22. Prov. 22:1; John 8:49 23. Psa. 15:4 24. Phil. 4:8);

I could probably highlight a few more places that ought to be highlighted. But, again, is a kernel of truth the standard for the 9th Commandment. Is a tenuous connection between one form of criticism and another enough to get over the bar of what God requires in the 9th Commandment?

Quote:

LC Q 145: What are the sins forbidden in the ninth commandment?
A145: The sins forbidden in the ninth commandment are, all prejudicing the truth, and the good name of our neighbors, as well as our own,[1] especially in public judicature;[2] giving false evidence,[3] suborning false witnesses,[4] wittingly appearing and pleading for an evil cause, outfacing and overbearing the truth;[5] passing unjust sentence,[6] calling evil good, and good evil; rewarding the wicked according to the work of the righteous, and the righteous according to the work of the wicked;[7] forgery,[8] concealing the truth, undue silence in a just cause,[9] and holding our peace when iniquity calleth for either a reproof from ourselves,[10] or complaint to others;[11] speaking the truth unseasonably,[12] or maliciously to a wrong end,[13] or perverting it to a wrong meaning,[14] or in doubtful and equivocal expressions, to the prejudice of truth or justice;[15] speaking untruth,[16] lying,[17] slandering,[18] backbiting,[19] detracting,[20] tale bearing,[21] whispering,[22] scoffing,[23] reviling,[24] rash,[25] harsh,[26] and partial censuring;[27] misconstructing intentions, words, and actions;[28] flattering,[29] vainglorious boasting,[30] thinking or speaking too highly or too meanly of ourselves or others;[31] denying the gifts and graces of God;[32] aggravating smaller faults;[33] hiding, excusing, or extenuating of sins, when called to a free confession;[34] unnecessary discovering of infirmities;[35] raising false rumors,[36] receiving and countenancing evil reports,[37] and stopping our ears against just defense;[38] evil suspicion;[39] envying or grieving at the deserved credit of any,[40] endeavoring or desiring to impair it,[41] rejoicing in their disgrace and infamy;[42] scornful contempt,[43] fond admiration;[44] breach of lawful promises;[45] neglecting such things as are of good report,[46] and practicing, or not avoiding ourselves, or not hindering: What we can in others, such things as procure an ill name.[47]

(1. I Sam. 17:28; II Sam. 1:9-10, 15-16; 16:3 2. Lev. 19:15; Hab. 1:4 3. Prov. 6:16, 19; 19:5 4. Acts 6:13 5. Jer. 9:3, 5; Acts 24:2, 5; Psa. 3:1-4; 12:3-4 6. Prov. 17:15; I Kings 21:9-14 7. Isa. 5:23 8. Psa. 119:69; Luke 16:5-7; 19:8 9. Lev. 5:1; Acts 5:3, 8-9; II Tim. 4:6 10. I Kings 1:6; Lev. 19:17 11. Isa. 59:4 12. Prov. 29:11 13. I Sam. 22:9-10; Psa. 52:1 14. Psa. 56:5; John 2:19; Matt. 26:60-61 15. Gen. 3:5, 26:7, 9 16. Isa. 59:13 17. Lev. 19:11; Col. 3:9 18. Psa. 1:20 19. Psa. 15:3 20. James 4:11; Jer. 38:4 21. Lev. 19:16 22. Rom. 1:29-30 23. Gen. 21:9; Gal. 4:29 24. I Cor. 6:10 25. Mattt. 7:1 26. Acts 28:4 27. Gen. 38:24; Rom. 2:1 28. Neh. 6:6-8; Rom. 3:8; Psa. 69:10; I Sam. 1:13-15; II Sam. 10:3 29. Psa. 12:2-3 30. II Tim. 3: 31. Luke 18:9, 11; Rom. 12:16; I Cor. 4:6; Acts 12:22; Exod. 4:10-14 32. Job 4:6, 27:5-6 33. Matt. 7:3-5 34. Prov. 28:13; 30:20; Gen. 3:12-13; 4:9; Jer. 2:35; II Kings 5:25 35. Gen. 9:22; Prov. 25:9-10 36. Exod. 23:1 37. Prov. 29:12 38. Acts 7:56-57; Job 31:13-14 39. I Cor. 13:5; I Tim. 6:4 40. Num. 11:29; Matt. 21:15 41. Ezra 4:12-13 42. Jer. 48:27 43. Psa. 35:15-16, 21; Matt. 27:28-29 44. Jude 1:16; Acts 12:22 45. Rom. 1:31; II Tim. 3:3 46. I Sam. 2:24 47. II Sam. 13:12-13; Prov. 5:8-9; 6:33).

Semper Fidelis · #4 (**permalink**) 06-24-2008, 12:08 AM

Also, for the record, simply pointing out that a man violates the 9th Commandment does not mean that he has sinned against me. Every time a brother pointed out an error in another it would require reconciliation. By admitting that Daniel broadbrushed (broadbrushiness as you called it) in the matter, you have just accused him of violating the 9th Commandment based on the standard above.

Christusregnat · #5 (**permalink**) 06-24-2008, 12:16 AM

Semper Fidelis,

You are correct, if the gentleman wanted to cite specific individuals who manifested such a hasty linking of FV and theonomy, that would have been the right approach, while the hasty generalization was not appropriate. A "kernel of truth" standard is not what God's righteous command requires.

However, did the Apostle Paul sin by stating that "all Cretans are liars"? No, he made a broad-brush generalization that may not have been true in every particular. Whether or not Mr. Richie's "all Cretans are liars" generalization is correct is another matter for debate. However, the bare use of such a formulization does not, in my estimation, constitute a violation of the 9th cmd. It would depend on whether the generalization was generally true. I am in doubt that Mr. Ritchie's generalization is, but I do not know.

Also, would not a charitable esteem for Mr. Ritchie's good name call for assuming that he didn't, perhaps, intend to condemn the guiltless, in which it would be most appropriate to inquire of him further? (this would be covered under "covering of their infirmities" in the WLC, as you cited) The same rule applies to you, as you would (with justice) ask Mr. Ritchie or myself to apply in our communications. I do not accuse you here, but I am suggesting that your concern for the WSC faculty's good names may have put Mr. Ritchie's good name at stake (at least as far as I could tell in reading the posts).

Just some thoughts.

By the way, thank you for calling in the Puritans (I think Mr. Coldwell's quotations are puritan)! I am always edified, educated, convicted and challenged by such edifying reading.

Godspeed,

Adam

Quote:

Originally Posted by Semper Fidelis

Adam,

I have moved this discussion here as the issue was the source of a suggestion that the 9th Commandment be highlighted.

Let me ask you a question, do you believe that the mere presence of an "element of truth" constitutes an honoring of the 9th Commandment:

Quote:

Q143: Which is the ninth commandment?
A143: The ninth commandment is, Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor.[1]
1. Exod. 20:16

Q144: What are the duties required in the ninth commandment?
A144: The duties required in the ninth commandment are, the preserving and promoting of truth between man and man,[1] and the good name of our neighbor, as well as our own;[2] appearing and standing for the truth;[3] and from the heart,[4] sincerely,[5] freely,[6] clearly,[7] and fully,[8] speaking the truth, and only the truth, in matters of judgment and justice,[9] and in all other things whatsoever;[10] a charitable esteem of our neighbors;[11] loving, desiring, and rejoicing in their good name;[12] sorrowing for,[13] and covering of their infirmities;[14] freely acknowledging of their gifts and graces,[15] defending their innocence;[16] a ready receiving of a good report,[17] and unwillingness to admit of an evil report,[18] concerning them; discouraging talebearers,[19] flatterers,[20] and slanderers;[21] love and care of our own good name, and defending it when need requireth;[22] keeping of lawful promises;[23] studying and practicing of whatsoever things are true, honest, lovely, and of good report.[24]
(1. Zech. 8:16 2. III John 1:12 3. Prov. 31:8-9 4. Psa. 15:2 5. II Chr. 19:9 6. I Sam. 19:4-5 7. Josh. 7:19 8. II Sam. 14:18-20 9. Lev. 19:15; Prov. 14:5, 25 10. II Cor. 1:17-18; Eph. 4:25 11. Heb. 6:9; I Cor. 13:7 12. Rom. 1:8; II John 1:4; III John 1:3-4 13. II Cor. 2:4; 12:21 14. Prov. 17:9; I Peter 4:8 15. I Cor. 1:4-5, 7; II Tim. 1:4-5 16. I Sam. 22:14 17. I Cor. 13:6-7 18. Psa. 15:3 19. Prov. 25:23 20. Prov. 26:24-25 21. Psa. 101:5 22. Prov. 22:1; John 8:49 23. Psa. 15:4 24. Phil. 4:8);

I could probably highlight a few more places that ought to be highlighted. But, again, is a kernel of truth the standard for the 9th Commandment. Is a tenuous connection between one form of criticism and another enough to get over the bar of what God requires in the 9th Commandment?

Quote:

LC Q 145: What are the sins forbidden in the ninth commandment?
A145: The sins forbidden in the ninth commandment are, all prejudicing the truth, and the good name of our neighbors, as well as our own,[1] especially in public judicature;[2] giving false evidence,[3] suborning false witnesses,[4] wittingly appearing and pleading for an evil cause, outfacing and overbearing the truth;[5] passing unjust sentence,[6] calling evil good, and good evil; rewarding the wicked according to the work of the righteous, and the righteous according to the work of the wicked;[7] forgery,[8] concealing the truth, undue silence in a just cause,[9] and holding our peace when iniquity calleth for either a reproof from ourselves,[10] or complaint to others;[11] speaking the truth unseasonably,[12] or maliciously to a wrong end,[13] or perverting it to a wrong meaning,[14] or in doubtful and equivocal expressions, to the prejudice of truth or justice;[15] speaking untruth,[16] lying,[17] slandering,[18] backbiting,[19] detracting,[20] tale bearing,[21] whispering,[22] scoffing,[23] reviling,[24] rash,[25] harsh,[26] and partial censuring;[27] misconstructing intentions, words, and actions;[28] flattering,[29] vainglorious boasting,[30] thinking or speaking too highly or too meanly of ourselves or others;[31] denying the gifts and graces of God;[32] aggravating smaller faults;[33] hiding, excusing, or extenuating of sins, when called to a free confession;[34] unnecessary discovering of infirmities;[35] raising false rumors,[36] receiving and countenancing evil reports,[37] and stopping our ears against just defense;[38] evil suspicion;[39] envying or grieving at the deserved credit of any,[40] endeavoring or desiring to impair it,[41] rejoicing in their disgrace and infamy;[42] scornful contempt,[43] fond admiration;[44] breach of lawful promises;[45] neglecting such things as are of good report,[46] and practicing, or not avoiding ourselves, or not hindering: What we can in others, such things as procure an ill name.[47]

(1. I Sam. 17:28; II Sam. 1:9-10, 15-16; 16:3 2. Lev. 19:15; Hab. 1:4 3. Prov. 6:16, 19; 19:5 4. Acts 6:13 5. Jer. 9:3, 5; Acts 24:2, 5; Psa. 3:1-4; 12:3-4 6. Prov. 17:15; I Kings 21:9-14 7. Isa. 5:23 8. Psa. 119:69; Luke 16:5-7; 19:8 9. Lev. 5:1; Acts 5:3, 8-9; II Tim. 4:6 10. I Kings 1:6; Lev. 19:17 11. Isa. 59:4 12. Prov. 29:11 13. I Sam. 22:9-10; Psa. 52:1 14. Psa. 56:5; John 2:19; Matt. 26:60-61 15. Gen. 3:5, 26:7, 9 16. Isa. 59:13 17. Lev. 19:11; Col. 3:9 18. Psa. 1:20 19. Psa. 15:3 20. James 4:11; Jer. 38:4 21. Lev. 19:16 22. Rom. 1:29-30 23. Gen. 21:9; Gal. 4:29 24. I Cor. 6:10 25. Mattt. 7:1 26. Acts 28:4 27. Gen. 38:24; Rom. 2:1 28. Neh. 6:6-8; Rom. 3:8; Psa. 69:10; I Sam. 1:13-15; II Sam. 10:3 29. Psa. 12:2-3 30. II Tim. 3: 31. Luke 18:9, 11; Rom. 12:16; I Cor. 4:6; Acts 12:22; Exod. 4:10-14 32. Job 4:6, 27:5-6 33. Matt. 7:3-5 34. Prov. 28:13; 30:20; Gen. 3:12-13; 4:9; Jer. 2:35; II Kings 5:25 35. Gen. 9:22; Prov. 25:9-10 36. Exod. 23:1 37. Prov. 29:12 38. Acts 7:56-57; Job 31:13-14 39. I Cor. 13:5; I Tim. 6:4 40. Num. 11:29; Matt. 21:15 41. Ezra 4:12-13 42. Jer. 48:27 43. Psa. 35:15-16, 21; Matt. 27:28-29 44. Jude 1:16; Acts 12:22 45. Rom. 1:31; II Tim. 3:3 46. I Sam. 2:24 47. II Sam. 13:12-13; Prov. 5:8-9; 6:33).

Semper Fidelis · #6 (**permalink**) 06-24-2008, 12:22 AM

I'm sorry Adam. You're reasoning does not follow. The OP was about Warren - is he Kuyperian. Warren has been criticized by at least one of the faculty at WSC publicly and Theonomists have been criticized by another member of the faculty. Was Warren criticized for being Kuyperian? Not that I've ever read or heard.

It does not at all do for the preserving of your neighbors' name to not only jump from Warren to Kuyper to FV to Theonomy in a tenuous connection but to then lay the charge at the entire faculty? This isn't even a close call. To actually ascribe to the faculty that they are "...happy that the FV has emerged..." is beyond the pale. You don't even have to be a Puritan to figure that out.

I was moderating. This is the standard here. You have just agreed the standard of the 9th Commandment was violated. A man's "good name" is not trashed when one points out a sin accurately. We could never point out sin if this was the case.

I am rebuked regularly and I do not hold my name so precious that I am unwilling to receive that rebuke and consider my sin and thank my brother for restoring me.

It was a reminder of the standards of conduct here and a clear violation thereof. As you agree that the 9th Commandment was clearly violated there's really no need to debate that point.

Semper Fidelis · #7 (**permalink**) 06-24-2008, 12:30 AM

Also, I'm not aware of any euphemism that the WSC faculty is so happy that the FV has emerged. If that is a euphemism then I've never heard it before.

Christusregnat · #8 (**permalink**) 06-24-2008, 12:52 AM

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by Semper Fidelis

I'm sorry Adam. You're reasoning does not follow. The OP was about Warren - is he Kuyperian. Warren has been criticized by at least one of the faculty at WSC publicly and Theonomists have been criticized by another member of the faculty. Was Warren criticized for being Kuyperian? Not that I've ever read or heard.

It does not at all do for the preserving of your neighbors' name to not only jump from Warren to Kuyper to FV to Theonomy in a tenuous connection but to then lay the charge at the entire faculty? This isn't even a close call. To actually ascribe to the faculty that they are "...happy that the FV has emerged..." is beyond the pale. You don't even have to be a Puritan to figure that out.

I was moderating. This is the standard here. You have just agreed the standard of the 9th Commandment was violated. A man's "good name" is not trashed when one points out a sin accurately. We could never point out sin if this was the case.

I am rebuked regularly and I do not hold my name so precious that I am unwilling to receive that rebuke and consider my sin and thank my brother for restoring me.

It was a reminder of the standards of conduct here and a clear violation thereof. As you agree that the 9th Commandment was clearly violated there's really no need to debate that point.

Semper Fidelis · #9 (**permalink**) 06-24-2008, 04:12 AM

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.

Christusregnat · #10 (**permalink**) 06-24-2008, 12:15 PM

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.

Stephen · #11 (**permalink**) 06-24-2008, 01:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Christusregnat

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

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.

I am a regular subscriber to Modern Reformation Magazine and have a number of books by Michael Horton and have the utmost respect for the professors at WS/California. Daniel Ritchie was not the first one in the thread on Warren to make the comment about WSC. A moderator was the first one to make a comment and Daniel simply responded to it. His response was a reaction to the blog by Scott Clark, who is a solid theologian, so I do not believe it was a violation of the ninth commandment. These issues are here for discussion whether we all agree or not.