Thread: Help with new book on FV in the PCA.

I found this link about a new book on FV.

Book Review: Can the Presbyterian Church in America be Saved? LuxLucet

The author is named Sean Gerety. Using the search on PB, I noticed it appears that he may have been a poster on this website. His status says (Inactive).

Has anyone read this book or would you recommend it?

Thanks.

From just reading that link, he makes it sound as if 85% of the PCA is FV.

Typical Gerety: bomb throwing, everything is Van Til's fault, and only disciples of Robbins can save us.

Originally Posted by fredtgreco

Typical Gerety: bomb throwing, everything is Van Til's fault, and only disciples of Robbins can save us.

Thanks but can you expand on this? I assume you are saying it might not be worth reading?

Originally Posted by Soonerborn

Originally Posted by fredtgreco

Typical Gerety: bomb throwing, everything is Van Til's fault, and only disciples of Robbins can save us.

Thanks but can you expand on this? I assume you are saying it might not be worth reading?

I would not recommend it. I believe that the FV is serious problem, but I do not think that Gerety has correctly identified it source (or the solution). He typically uses hyperbole, which is especially unhelpful in this kind of theological controversy. He did indeed use to post here, but was banned.

There is more on this book at Lane Keister's blog (Green Baggins) from which he was also banned for his language and tone.

I’m Back (And Heads Up, Sean Gerety) Green Baggins

I think the book has some good points. I agree with some of his assessment concerning Van Til also, but I am not so sure that it is as Central to the problem as SG wants to make it. I personally don't think the right problem is being addressed. I might be incorrect but I think one of the main problems has to do with monocovenantalism and the view of grace and merit the FV guys take. I left a comment on the blog. To hastily I should say. I didn't check the grammar nor the wording.

We all don't see things as clear as we probably should.

There is a discussion in the comments to a recent post by Scott Clark on his blog where he engages Sean in discussian. Reading that will give you Sean's flavor. (Hint: very sour).

Something Weird in the Siouxlands Heidelblog

Wow, that guy behaves in an un-loving manner, provokes a rebuke, and then calls the other person un-loving.

Irony? Hypocrisy? Yes. To phrase it in the language of the vulgar, what a lamer.

Er... I know that Gerety has made a number of alarmist statements in the past that have upset folk, and I know that he has a Robbins/Clarkian agenda, but I get a little bit of a chuckle out of some of the posts here regarding his tone. There have been statements made just as uncharitably on this site, if not more so, from many here than that which I have read from Gerety. I do not exempt myself from that assessment, either.

In fact, as little as I have in common with Gerety's theological views, I will still go out on a limb to state that men with whom I have much more in common theologically (Horton, Clark, Hart, etc.) have made statements on air or in print (digital or otherwise) that equal or surpass what Gerety wrote on Scott Clark's blog.

Again, I am in no way making defense of Gerety's agenda, but I am making defense of our Lord's commands, as I believe we have some "log removing" to do in this regard.

Originally Posted by Archlute

Again, I am in no way making defense of Gerety's agenda, but I am making defense of our Lord's commands, as I believe we have some "log removing" to do in this regard.

He's right.

Edit:

Ok, while you have a point, I've never heard a member in good standing on this board say something like this:

You remind me of all the whining Vantilians who complained loudly about Robbins’ excellent Van Til, The Man and the Myth, but who were impotent to refute any of the arguments he raised in the booklet. Instead like little girls they complained about his “tone".

The guy sounds like a bully, and I know because I can be one.

Originally Posted by Archlute

Er... I know that Gerety has made a number of alarmist statements in the past that have upset folk, and I know that he has a Robbins/Clarkian agenda, but I get a little bit of a chuckle out of some of the posts here regarding his tone. There have been statements made just as uncharitably on this site, if not more so, from many here than that which I have read from Gerety. I do not exempt myself from that assessment, either.

In fact, as little as I have in common with Gerety's theological views, I will still go out on a limb to state that men with whom I have much more in common theologically (Horton, Clark, Hart, etc.) have made statements on air or in print (digital or otherwise) that equal or surpass what Gerety wrote on Scott Clark's blog.

Again, I am in no way making defense of Gerety's agenda, but I am making defense of our Lord's commands, as I believe we have some "log removing" to do in this regard.

Adam,

In one sense you are correct, but I have never (not here, not at GB, nor anywhere else) ever heard Sean apologize or even acknowledge that he has been over the top or imprudent. And I will say that while others have made singular worse statements (perhaps), Sean's ratio is like 90% / 10% in favor of bomb throwing, much higher than almost anyone else I have known.

I liked that quote. It reminds me of how when my boys and I go at it, my Mom hates it and so does my Sister. I go to put them in their place and they grow too sympathetic to the waywardness of the boys because they don't like to hear the bickering. It is a female trait in my estimation. So I think it applies. I can't attest to the truthfulness behind the comment about not refuting Clark though.

Side note... I also don't think the comment SG made was necessary and is of no profit. He would have been docked here for it. I would have put him on ice. Time for a cooling down period.

Thanks for giving me something more to think about, men. In particular, Fred's statement about the lack of apologies. You are right, I do not recall having come across an apology from him before, and it has been the case that most on this board, or the other blogs, etc, that I mentioned, have made apology for things that they have written or spoken.

Now the big hurdle we need to overcome in our circles is when men do make an apology for something they have said or written, and they receive in return the response from their opponents (who have yet to forgive them anyway) of "I don't feel it was sincere enough. You need to make another". Ha! Talk about bullying!

I've had some interaction with Mr. Gerety, most of it civil. It probably helps that I'm not VanTillian. I think AustinWW's description of his view of the PCA is correct. He sees a generalized unwillingness to deal with the FV'ers in our midst and thus vastly over-estimates the numbers and influence of FV men in the PCA. In doing so, he sees an almost overwhelming problem and his frustration rises to the level of panic sometimes. I think that's what's behind the bomb throwing.

He wrote an excellent analysis of my presbytery's actions on his blog, God’s Hammer but his tone leaves something to be desired, and I told him so. He didn't like it much, of course.

I think that I ought to be careful in criticizing him, because, while I disagree with his analysis, I agree with his passion. In my opinion the problem in the PCA is not so much the FV guys (though that is bad) it is the guys who don't hold FV themselves, don't really understand it, and are quite willing to let the FV men remain where they are in the name of "peace" and being "loving" (i.e. niceness.) That's a very serious problem. I could easily become an alarmist bomb-thrower over that.

Like someone said above, beams and motes.

Luther had a way with words and was passionate...

Originally Posted by bouletheou

In my opinion the problem in the PCA is not so much the FV guys (though that is bad) it is the guys who don't hold FV themselves, don't really understand it, and are quite willing to let the FV men remain where they are in the name of "peace" and being "loving" (i.e. niceness.) That's a very serious problem.

That problem isn't just limited to the FV problem. It seems to be a systemic problem in the PCA with the current structure of tiny presbyteries. In some it has surfaced as FV. In some, modern premil dispensationalism. In some, women deacons serving as equals to the male deacons.

The question is, 'what can we do about it'.

Originally Posted by Soonerborn

I found this link about a new book on FV.

Book Review: Can the Presbyterian Church in America be Saved? LuxLucet

The author is named Sean Gerety. Using the search on PB, I noticed it appears that he may have been a poster on this website. His status says (Inactive).

Has anyone read this book or would you recommend it?

Thanks.

Hi,

I have read it and I recommend it.

I have only read excerpts from the book and offer no comment on the substance of argumentation in it.

Based on having perused the gentleman's blog a couple times and his interactions on Green Baggins, including infraction for bad behavior, I sense a wrong spirit toward the brethren.

Granted, passion for an issue can sometimes be mistaken for that, but personal denigration and mischaracterization is something else. The ninth commandment is involved, with all the more harm done when a public platform is used. Repentance is required, regardless of the 'rightness' of a cause.

I'm constrained also to say excerpts from the book mischaracterize "Green Baggins" and all we know he has done to engage and expose the serious error of "federal vision."



Enough said

Originally Posted by Scott1

I have only read excerpts from the book and offer no comment on the substance of argumentation in it.

This is too bad, because appreciating the message of the book is much more important than bashing the messenger.

Originally Posted by TeachingTulip

Originally Posted by Scott1

I have only read excerpts from the book and offer no comment on the substance of argumentation in it.

This is too bad, because appreciating the message of the book is much more important than bashing the messenger.

No one is doing the latter here, but "the messenger" has earned a reputation for doing that to others, including some on the Board.

Originally Posted by Scott1

Originally Posted by TeachingTulip

Originally Posted by Scott1

I have only read excerpts from the book and offer no comment on the substance of argumentation in it.

This is too bad, because appreciating the message of the book is much more important than bashing the messenger.

No one is doing the latter here, but "the messenger" has earned a reputation for doing that to others, including some on the Board.

The message and warnings of the book are being overlooked due to supposed faults of the messenger.

Do you think this is wise?

Which is more important to discuss?

The health and good of the church, or the personality of one who would warn of dangers?