Anti-Federal Vision Study Bible

Civbert · #1 (**permalink**) 02-01-2008, 10:58 AM

Have you all seen this blog?

Anti-Federal Vision Study Bible

Read a few posts and you'll start to see the problem. This blog figured it out: Federal Vision Sock-Puppetry. Both sites are anonymous.

Civbert · #2 (**permalink**) 02-04-2008, 10:11 AM

Anyone?

py3ak · #3 (**permalink**) 02-04-2008, 10:41 AM

I hadn't seen until you linked to it. I thought it was funny.

greenbaggins · #4 (**permalink**) 02-04-2008, 10:43 AM

Oh, it's a totally FV site. They just accused me of advocating a faith that is alone.

etexas · #5 (**permalink**) 02-04-2008, 10:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by greenbaggins

Oh, it's a totally FV site. They just accused me of advocating a faith that is alone.

Gasp!

Ivanhoe · #6 (**permalink**) 02-04-2008, 12:16 PM

I thought it was a tongue in cheek joke, like the mock atheist blog started a few summers ago.

Zenas · #7 (**permalink**) 02-04-2008, 12:50 PM

These guys are super-mature.

py3ak · #8 (**permalink**) 02-04-2008, 06:13 PM

I don't think anyone on our side is subtle enough to pretend to be rabid FV and carry it off, do you?

Civbert · #9 (**permalink**) 02-05-2008, 10:39 PM

The site bothers me greatly. There are many layman who, like myself not long ago, found the FV issues confusing. It would be easy for some people to read a site like this, and think this is a real anti-FV site. Maybe worse, they might actually agree with what is posted. Especially because the posts mix true and false ideas.

The site is a parody of anti-FV views. But a parody necessarily starts by building or copying the original ideas, and then exaggerates them and mixing them with humor or sarcasm. However, sarcasm is often conveyed by tone of voice. Text intended to be sarcasm is often mistaken for serious thought.

The sarcasm of this site is too subtle to be clearly conveyed. There are no cartoons or disclaimers. I think the site will potentially mislead people who are seriously trying to learn about this issue. And the site is getting notice and showing up on Google searches. I'd like to see more genuine anti-FV bloggers warning others about the site, so the Google searches that find the site, will also find the warnings.

DMcFadden · #10 (**permalink**) 02-05-2008, 11:27 PM

Here is how Lane reacted to the site . . .

Quote:

Originally Posted by greenbaggins

Oh, it's a totally FV site. They just accused me of advocating a faith that is alone.

Here is what Lane was reacting to . . .

Quote:

As you know, the Reformed faith is under constant attack by the Federal Vision and other heretics, but we can be thankful for our friends over at Greenbaggins and especially the Grace Evangelical Society (love their web address – faithalone.org!). Together, these stalwart defenders of the Reformed faith are fighting to make sure that faith is always alone.

Yikes! I tend to agree that the site is not only posted by FV proponents, but that it represents a mean-spirited anti-Reformed message at that. However, people unaware of the details of the FV position, unlearned in theology, or just plain gullible (so why is Doug Wilson taking it at face value???), could have their brains scrambled a bit by this site. What a waste of sarcasm.

Civbert · #11 (**permalink**) 02-06-2008, 08:58 AM

More evidence that the the Anti-Federal Vision Study Bible is fooling people:

Jeff Meyers has posted on the Corrigenda Denuo blog the following:

Quote:

I've been reading and thinking carefully about these studies lately and am pretty much convinced that I need to ask to have my name removed from the Federal Vision Joint Statement (available here). The arguments presented at the Anti-Federal Vision Study Bible site are devastating to our cause. It's Lent, so I repent.

link

Meyers is being sarcasitic. That is clear. But it still implies that the AFVBS is a legitimate anti-FV site.

Civbert · #12 (**permalink**) 02-06-2008, 12:51 PM

FYI: I've added this comment to a few blogs where they refer to the AFVSB:

Quote:

WARNING: The Anti-Federal Vision Study Bible site is a parody of the arguments against Federal Vision. The site itself is a strawman set up by an anonymous FV proponent. Do not be fooled.

-- Anthony Coletti

But I still hope more FV opponents will also add a post warning people about the site. Hopefully, when people do a search on "Anti-Federal Vision Study Bible", these warnings will show high in the results.

I would post warnings directly on the AFVSB blog, but it does not allow comments.

P.S. At this time (2/6/08), when doing a Google search on "Anti-Federal Vision Study Bible", this very thread on the Puritain Boards is at the top of the results.

Quote:

Anti-Federal Vision Study Bible - The PuritanBoard
Have you all seen this blog? Anti-Federal Vision Study Bible Read a few posts and you'll start to see the problem. This blog figured it out: Federal.
www.puritanboard.com/f77/anti-federal-vision-study-bible-28965/

greenbaggins · #13 (**permalink**) 02-06-2008, 12:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DMcFadden

Here is how the site characterized Lane . . .

Quote:

Originally Posted by greenbaggins

Oh, it's a totally FV site. They just accused me of advocating a faith that is alone.

Here is Lane's response . . .

Quote:

As you know, the Reformed faith is under constant attack by the Federal Vision and other heretics, but we can be thankful for our friends over at Greenbaggins and especially the Grace Evangelical Society (love their web address – faithalone.org!). Together, these stalwart defenders of the Reformed faith are fighting to make sure that faith is always alone.

Yikes! I tend to agree that the site is not only posted by FV proponents, but that it represents a mean-spirited anti-Reformed message at that. However, people unaware of the details of the FV position, unlearned in theology, or just plain gullible (so why is Doug Wilson taking it at face value???), could have their brains scrambled a bit by this site. What a waste of sarcasm.

Dennis, are ya sure you don't have my response and their charge a bit mixed up?

Ivan · #14 (**permalink**) 02-06-2008, 01:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Civbert

More evidence that the the Anti-Federal Vision Study Bible is fooling people:

Jeff Meyers has posted on the Corrigenda Denuo blog the following:

Quote:

I've been reading and thinking carefully about these studies lately and am pretty much convinced that I need to ask to have my name removed from the Federal Vision Joint Statement (available here). The arguments presented at the Anti-Federal Vision Study Bible site are devastating to our cause. It's Lent, so I repent.

link

Meyers is being sarcasitic. That is clear. But it still implies that the AFVBS is a legitimate anti-FV site.

Is Jeff Meyers a pastor in St. Louis?

greenbaggins · #15 (**permalink**) 02-06-2008, 01:12 PM

Yes, a PCA pastor in St. Louis who has signed the FV document.

Ivan · #16 (**permalink**) 02-06-2008, 01:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by greenbaggins

Yes, a PCA pastor in St. Louis who has signed the FV document.

I had a brief point of contact with him via emails. Frankly, his being from St. Louis was what caught my attention. I'm from the St. Louis area and was interested in finding contacts with Reformed-minded individuals there.

Ivan · #17 (**permalink**) 02-06-2008, 01:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by greenbaggins

Yes, a PCA pastor in St. Louis who has signed the FV document.

I see Mark Horne signed the document. Again, as I recall, he is an elder with Meyers at the same church in St. Louis.

DMcFadden · #18 (**permalink**) 02-06-2008, 02:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by greenbaggins

Dennis, are ya sure you don't have my response and their charge a bit mixed up?

Duh! That's what I get for doing posting on PB while watching election returns!

As any competent redaction critic could tell you, utilizing the same tools as they employ with the Synoptics, the original post (ipissima verba Dennis) citing the blog and the good doctor lacked the explanatory comments and they were evidently scribal interpolations by a dyslexic nitwit sometime after the fact. Indeed, if you compare the lexical data on word usage, you will find that the person who placed the comments above each of the quotations could certainly not have been the same individual who penned the final paragraph (beginning "Yikes . . ."). While I believe that the confusing sentences were added a few minutes after the original post, they are clearly secondary. Perhaps we should simply dismiss them from the argument, unless you wish to focus on the final canonical shape of the material. In that case, I will simply have to say that the trajectory of interpretation leads me to believe that since the text means whatever it means to me, it really doesn't matter if the sentences are logically backwards.

greenbaggins · #19 (**permalink**) 02-06-2008, 02:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DMcFadden

Quote:

Originally Posted by greenbaggins

Dennis, are ya sure you don't have my response and their charge a bit mixed up?

Duh! That's what I get for doing posting on PB while watching election returns!

As any competent redaction critic could tell you, utilizing the same tools as they employ with the Synoptics, the original post (ipissima verba Dennis) citing the blog and the good doctor lacked the explanatory comments and they were evidently scribal interpolations by a dyslexic nitwit sometime after the fact. Indeed, if you compare the lexical data on word usage, you will find that the person who placed the comments above each of the quotations could certainly not have been the same individual who penned the final paragraph (beginning "Yikes . . ."). While I believe that the confusing sentences were added a few minutes after the original post, they are clearly secondary. Perhaps we should simply dismiss them from the argument, unless you wish to focus on the final canonical shape of the material. In that case, I will simply have to say that the trajectory of interpretation leads me to believe that since the text means whatever it means to me, it really doesn't matter if the sentences are logically backwards.

You crack me up.

k.seymore · #20 (**permalink**) 02-06-2008, 03:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by py3ak

I hadn't seen until you linked to it. I thought it was funny.

Yeah, why did God sovereignly choose to give the FV'ers a disproportionate amount of clever humor? Faith is never alone when it enters the party with a blonde joke in its arms. See? I can't do it–not even a courtesy "lol" funny.

Maybe this is a good FV test:
Presbytery: "Do you find the writings set before you to be humorously satirical?"
Member on trial: "Are they... um... supposed to be... uh..."
Presbytery: "Alright, you've passed the first test. Now for the second: Could you tell us your best joke."
Member on trial: [tells his best joke which involves Calvin, Luther and Michael Bolton entering a bar with a red wagon in tow]
Presbytery: [loud groans, horribly contorted faces] "Ok, you're safe."
[large rubber stamp hits pile of paper containing the charges leaving behind the large red word, O R T H O D O X. Then everyone jumps up and starts cheering and dancing to the song "footloose."]

At least that's how I imagine the Presbyterian church works, forgive me for being Baptist.

py3ak · #21 (**permalink**) 02-06-2008, 03:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by k.seymore

Quote:

Originally Posted by py3ak

I hadn't seen until you linked to it. I thought it was funny.

Yeah, why did God sovereignly choose to give the FV'ers a disproportionate amount of clever humor? Faith is never alone when it enters the party with a blonde joke in its arms. See? I can't do it–not even courteously "lol" funny.

Presumably this is part of the judgment on us.