» Site Navigation | | | |  | 
06-25-2009, 02:52 PM
|  | Puritanboard Senior | | Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Sandy, Oregon
Posts: 2,063
Thanks: 453
Thanked 870 Times in 398 Posts
| | | An excellent essay from Dr. Clark regarding Piper's statements on Wilson/Wright Here
Didn't have time to figure out which forum to place this in, so please move where appropriate.
__________________
Adam J. Myer
Slated for the Jan. 10th Chaplains Basic Officer Leadership Course
Estacada Christian Church
Sandy, Oregon Soli Deo Gloria | | The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to Archlute For This Useful Post: | | 
06-25-2009, 02:57 PM
|  | Administrator | | Join Date: May 2003 Location: Dallas, Texas
Posts: 22,425
Thanks: 2,918
Thanked 6,138 Times in 2,590 Posts
| |
This gave me a tickle: Quote: |
Calling a Baptist “Reformed” is like calling Presbyterians “Baptist” because they believe in believer’s baptism.
|
__________________ Josh Hicks, Chloë's Dad Christ Covenant Reformed Presbyterian Church, RPCGA Facebook - The Calvinist Vent Board Rules - Signature Rules - Suggestion Box It is God that multiplies our sorrows.... God, as a righteous Judge, does it, which ought to silence us under all our sorrows; as many as they are, we have deserved them all, and more: nay, God, as a tender Father, does it for our necessary correction, that we may be humbled for sin, and weaned from the world by all our sorrows; and the good we get by them, with the comfort we have under them, will abundantly balance our sorrows, how greatly soever they are multiplied. - Matthew Henry | 
06-25-2009, 03:25 PM
|  | Puritanboard Outlaw | | Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: College Station, TX
Posts: 298
Thanks: 115
Thanked 140 Times in 54 Posts
| | |
YAY! I was soooo hoping he'd have a comment or two about this matter!
Signed,
Fan Girl
__________________ Patricia
Communicant Member
Westminster Presbyterian Church, PCA
College Station, TX Give yourself to prayer, to reading and meditation on divine truths: strive to penetrate to the bottom of them and never be content with a superficial knowledge.
David Brainerd | | The Following User Says Thank You to ubermadchen For This Useful Post: | | 
06-25-2009, 03:36 PM
|  | Puritanboard Sophomore | | Join Date: May 2006 Location: Vancouver, BC
Posts: 992
Thanks: 48
Thanked 283 Times in 205 Posts
| | Quote:
Originally Posted by Archlute Here
Didn't have time to figure out which forum to place this in, so please move where appropriate. | A very good comment from Dr. Clark, especially his exegesis of the super-Apostles text and how FV advocates are a modern parallel.
I have one question and two comments. Not being familliar with the ins and outs of NPP/FV let alone where Wilson's views unite and differ with the standard NPP/FV position, has Wilson ever repudiated the NPP/FV's "the radical re-definition of 'justification' to a socio-religious boundary marker" in favour of the “forensic declaration by God that a sinner is accepted by God on the sole basis of the imputation of Christ’s righteousness and received the faith resting and receiving alone?”
My first comment is that Piper seems to be reading into Wilson's neo-Presbyterian view of covenant membership through the lens of Baptist ecciesiology as if they were the same thing. But they aren't.
My second comment is: beware double negatives! Dr. Clark wrote ""Both groups still deny that, after all this time, after all these pixels and all the ink spilled, their critics still do not understand them!" Perhaps he meant to write: "both groups still affirm...their critics still do not understand them?"
__________________
In Christ's love and service
Mr. Tim Cunningham,
BMus. (Trombone Performance), University of Toronto
Dip. CS, Regent College, Vancouver
Member, First Baptist Church
Vancouver, BC
------------
"I once sat in darkness, and waited for the moon to rise.
I once sat in darkness, and waited for the sun to shine.
I once sat in darkness, when all the light I'd waited for was gone.
Then Jesus came, and now the only true light, ever, shines in me."
– John Deacon -
| 
06-25-2009, 05:20 PM
|  | Puritanboard Graduate | | Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: Ukiah, California
Posts: 3,996
Thanks: 1,458
Thanked 1,107 Times in 694 Posts
| |
He said panoply. | 
06-25-2009, 05:30 PM
|  | Administrator | | Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: Hague, North Dakota
Posts: 3,061
Thanks: 981
Thanked 2,450 Times in 839 Posts
| | Quote:
Originally Posted by timmopussycat Quote:
Originally Posted by Archlute Here
Didn't have time to figure out which forum to place this in, so please move where appropriate. | A very good comment from Dr. Clark, especially his exegesis of the super-Apostles text and how FV advocates are a modern parallel.
I have one question and two comments. Not being familliar with the ins and outs of NPP/FV let alone where Wilson's views unite and differ with the standard NPP/FV position, has Wilson ever repudiated the NPP/FV's "the radical re-definition of 'justification' to a socio-religious boundary marker" in favour of the “forensic declaration by God that a sinner is accepted by God on the sole basis of the imputation of Christ’s righteousness and received the faith resting and receiving alone?”
My first comment is that Piper seems to be reading into Wilson's neo-Presbyterian view of covenant membership through the lens of Baptist ecciesiology as if they were the same thing. But they aren't.
My second comment is: beware double negatives! Dr. Clark wrote ""Both groups still deny that, after all this time, after all these pixels and all the ink spilled, their critics still do not understand them!" Perhaps he meant to write: "both groups still affirm...their critics still do not understand them?" | On your question, I would say that Wilson affirms that justification is a forensic declaration by God that a sinner is accepted by God on the sole basis of the imputation of Christ's righteousness, and received by faith alone. Where it becomes trickier is in his denial of the law/gospel distinction as normally formulated (he believes that law and gospel are not two categories of Scripture itself, but rather two applications that can come from any Scripture), and also the nature of faith itself, both of which issues factor in heavily and create confusion when they are not articulated clearly. He is too close, in my opinion, to Shepherd's formulation that we are justified forensically by a living and active faith, as if the living and active part of faith was the reason that we are justified. Still, if one places him on a teeter-totter, he is still on the orthodox side, in my opinion. But he does not have the clarity of the WCF on this.
| 
06-25-2009, 05:47 PM
|  | Puritanboard Sophomore | | Join Date: May 2006 Location: Vancouver, BC
Posts: 992
Thanks: 48
Thanked 283 Times in 205 Posts
| | | Shepherd's formulation Quote:
Originally Posted by greenbaggins On your question, I would say that Wilson affirms that justification is a forensic declaration by God that a sinner is accepted by God on the sole basis of the imputation of Christ's righteousness, and received by faith alone. Where it becomes trickier is in his denial of the law/gospel distinction as normally formulated (he believes that law and gospel are not two categories of Scripture itself, but rather two applications that can come from any Scripture), and also the nature of faith itself, both of which issues factor in heavily and create confusion when they are not articulated clearly. He is too close, in my opinion, to Shepherd's formulation that we are justified forensically by a living and active faith, as if the living and active part of faith was the reason that we are justified. Still, if one places him on a teeter-totter, he is still on the orthodox side, in my opinion. But he does not have the clarity of the WCF on this. | Now I am no fan of Shepherd (I think he did a poor job of supervising Bahnsen's MTh thesis) but I have not studied his recent views in detail.
I fully affirm that works have no place in justification whatever, but isn't the statement "Faith alone justifies but the faith that justifies is never alone" essentially making the same point as saying that the only "faith" that will in the end result in justification is a living and active faith? Or does Shepherd mean something else by his formulation?
| 
06-25-2009, 05:53 PM
|  | Administrator | | Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: Hague, North Dakota
Posts: 3,061
Thanks: 981
Thanked 2,450 Times in 839 Posts
| | Quote:
Originally Posted by timmopussycat Quote:
Originally Posted by greenbaggins On your question, I would say that Wilson affirms that justification is a forensic declaration by God that a sinner is accepted by God on the sole basis of the imputation of Christ's righteousness, and received by faith alone. Where it becomes trickier is in his denial of the law/gospel distinction as normally formulated (he believes that law and gospel are not two categories of Scripture itself, but rather two applications that can come from any Scripture), and also the nature of faith itself, both of which issues factor in heavily and create confusion when they are not articulated clearly. He is too close, in my opinion, to Shepherd's formulation that we are justified forensically by a living and active faith, as if the living and active part of faith was the reason that we are justified. Still, if one places him on a teeter-totter, he is still on the orthodox side, in my opinion. But he does not have the clarity of the WCF on this. | Now I am no fan of Shepherd (I think he did a poor job of supervising Bahnsen's MTh thesis) but I have not studied his recent views in detail.
I fully affirm that works have no place in justification whatever, but isn't the statement "Faith alone justifies but the faith that justifies is never alone" essentially making the same point as saying that the only "faith" that will in the end result in justification is a living and active faith? Or does Shepherd mean something else by his formulation? | Shepherd means what the Roman Catholic Church means: justification cannot happen unless the faith is formed by love. In other words, the living-ness and the active-ness of faith is the reason it justifies, rather than the fact that it lays hold of Christ's righteousness. Of course, they will respond that it cannot lay hold of Christ's righteousness unless it is alive. Yes, of course. But that is different from saying that it is faith's aliveness that is the instrument, rather than the nature of faith itself. Hope this is clear. Shepherd is a false teacher.
| | The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to greenbaggins For This Useful Post: | | 
06-25-2009, 05:54 PM
|  | Puritanboard Junior | | Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: wandering around
Posts: 1,860
Thanks: 155
Thanked 315 Times in 228 Posts
| | Quote: |
Wilson being examined by his own presbytery in his own denomination is like the pope being examined by a college of cardinals whom he has appointed!
|
__________________
Matt
Reformed Baptist
Christ Community Church
|  | | Thread Tools | | | | Display Modes | Linear Mode |
Posting Rules
| You may not post new threads You may not post replies You may not post attachments You may not edit your posts HTML code is Off | | | |