An unholy alliance?

Josiah · #1 (**permalink**) 11-22-2007, 05:52 PM

BLOG and MABLOG

Is Doug Wilson suggesting that all federal vision critics are part of a "bizzare alliance" with the characters referenced in his blog? Perhaps someone can help me out on this one.

Daniel Ritchie · #2 (**permalink**) 11-22-2007, 05:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Josiah

BLOG and MABLOG

Is Doug Wilson suggesting that all federal vision critics are part of a "bizzare alliance" with the characters referenced in his blog? Perhaps someone can help me out on this one.

He is just talking a load of rubbish.

As a Christian Reconstructionist critic of the Federal Vision I am in league with none of the groups he mentions.

Josiah · #3 (**permalink**) 11-22-2007, 06:14 PM

I am trying to keep up with whats going on, being that i am not as familiar with the FV. The more i read of the these FV blogs the more I start to see the hollowness of some of their postings concerning the SJC.

py3ak · #4 (**permalink**) 11-22-2007, 07:16 PM

Sometimes it seems that the only way to proceed with a clear conscience is to say, "a plague a' both your houses."

Transformer · #5 (**permalink**) 11-27-2007, 03:34 AM

Thank you Josiah for recommending me this site. I look forward to fellowshipping with you online, now that you have moved away ;-)

Semper Fidelis · #6 (**permalink**) 11-27-2007, 04:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by py3ak

Sometimes it seems that the only way to proceed with a clear conscience is to say, "a plague a' both your houses."

It's absolutely disgusting reading the comments on those blogs. It's part of the reason I never really read them. I really hate embroiling myself into the specifics of who is doing what to whom. The whole thing has a Soap Opera feel to it.

One observation is that it certainly fuels the "look what we have to endure for Christ's name" chorus by Wilson. In a perfect world, all the orthodox would behave like their confessions would have them. I imagine every theological controversy has had folks on the wrong side believe they're in the right because of the alliances and emotions that can cloud from the facts at hand.

All those long discussions and side trails almost makes you forget why the LA Presbytery is being tried.

turmeric · #7 (**permalink**) 11-27-2007, 07:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SemperFideles

All those long discussions and side trails almost makes you forget why the LA Presbytery is being tried.

That is probably exactly the intent.

py3ak · #8 (**permalink**) 11-27-2007, 09:11 PM

Yes. Sometimes the orthodox holler "Long Live the Empress" and obscure the proceedings as much as anyone.

NaphtaliPress · #9 (**permalink**) 11-27-2007, 09:23 PM

Hellooo!

Controversy are like this. The orthodox are not always sweet and as well behaved as they should be, and often are jerks; that is part of the trial in God's providence; perhaps even a judgment (don't have Durham on Scandal to hand but he addresses this). Sometimes the guy that is wrong doctrinally is the more likable guy. I really don't think that is generally the case here; but don't disallow the possibility over the many discussions going on.

py3ak · #10 (**permalink**) 11-27-2007, 09:25 PM

And, as in the present case, sometimes the distinction between the two sides is not so clear as good doctrine/bad conduct vs. bad doctrine/good conduct. The iconoclastic controversy was about the dimensionality of the idols, not about their use.

NaphtaliPress · #11 (**permalink**) 11-27-2007, 09:34 PM

Explain what you mean by in the present case.

Quote:

Originally Posted by py3ak

And, as in the present case, sometimes the distinction between the two sides is not so clear as good doctrine/bad conduct vs. bad doctrine/good conduct. The iconoclastic controversy was about the dimensionality of the idols, not about their use.

Semper Fidelis · #12 (**permalink**) 11-27-2007, 10:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by py3ak

And, as in the present case, sometimes the distinction between the two sides is not so clear as good doctrine/bad conduct vs. bad doctrine/good conduct. The iconoclastic controversy was about the dimensionality of the idols, not about their use.

Depending upon what you mean I might have to disagree.

As I said, one of the reasons I don't read all the blogs and get bogged down in the heated arguments back and forth is that it's really ugly out there. I remember going into one of the blogs a while back to interact with Barlow and the emotions were so high that it was hard to even interact on very simple points. I think in the blogosphere there is much reason to say that it's hard to sift through who is where.

I frankly don't see that at all in the LA Presbytery case. Frankly the "TE Wilkins tripped over the Westminster Confession of Faith like some hidden booby trap that he never saw coming" defense is simply disingenuous. I also find it disingenuous that many men keep repeating that Wilkins is teaching about conditional election in a way that the WCF writers are silent about. It's the old "the WCF doesn't say everything there is to say about union with Christ and Wilkins is merely fleshing out the rest" part.

I don't know how men can continue to make that argument in light of the repeated proof that such is not the case. The idea of a Covenantal union with Christ and a "sort of" union with Christ for the reprobate is simply not Confessional and it's plain as day in the Confessions.

At the end of the day, what raises my ire more than anything is that the mudslinging obscures that point and it's very difficult to get anyone to talk about the actual Confessional question because of the circus that is distracting the point.

py3ak · #13 (**permalink**) 11-28-2007, 02:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NaphtaliPress

Explain what you mean by in the present case.

Quote:

Originally Posted by py3ak

And, as in the present case, sometimes the distinction between the two sides is not so clear as good doctrine/bad conduct vs. bad doctrine/good conduct. The iconoclastic controversy was about the dimensionality of the idols, not about their use.

Very simple. Matthew Winzer and T.E. Wilder, in my view, are the people who have criticized the FV in the most intelligible way. Yet their perspectives on the controversy don't seem to have a very high profile.

Semper Fidelis · #14 (**permalink**) 11-28-2007, 04:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by py3ak

Quote:

Originally Posted by NaphtaliPress

Explain what you mean by in the present case.

Quote:

Originally Posted by py3ak

And, as in the present case, sometimes the distinction between the two sides is not so clear as good doctrine/bad conduct vs. bad doctrine/good conduct. The iconoclastic controversy was about the dimensionality of the idols, not about their use.

Very simple. Matthew Winzer and T.E. Wilder, in my view, are the people who have criticized the FV in the most intelligible way. Yet their perspectives on the controversy don't seem to have a very high profile.

Well, I agree that they have been critical of the FV and so I'm not sure how this simplifies my own confusion about what exactly is the contention here.

Both in dialogues on the board and in personal conversation, it is quite apparent to me that Rev. Winzer agrees that the views that are being called un-Confessional are, in fact, un-Confessional. In fact, he was instrumental in bringing a great deal of clarity to me on that point.

But the two "houses" mentioned are not really what I'm concerned about anyway. It is interesting, is it not, that Wilson is one "house" here and the SJC is another. The problem is that Wilson isn't even in the PCA but he's content to blog about what's happening with a judicial case in a denomination he is not a part of.

I guess I'm sort of a simple guy. Sometimes I ask myself: "What is this subtlety that I'm missing here? Maybe I haven't read enough books yet to figure out how this is not a cut and dry matter."

I simply do not understand how someone can look at the Reformed Confessions, look at what TE Wilkins has taught and wrote, and then conclude that the charges are just completely bogus.

Now, maybe some of the circus surrounding this whole process is so distracting and annoying that, after awhile, people get disgusted. I mean, really, I read that Bayly Blog thing and my immediate thought was: "Man, I have some great moderators here on the Puritanboard." That discussion was all over the place beginning with a valid criticism about some stuff that undermined the credibility of some of the FV report and then ended up being some sort of potpourri of strange things including Wilson's view on slavery. I hardly remembered what the discussion was after reading halfway through and just had to stop because I couldn't take it anymore.

But even if a few men didn't handle themselves maturely prior to the report being received, the fact was that it was received and I hope you don't mean to imply that every TE and RE at the PCA GA should be condemned for agreeing with the report that the Federal Vision was un-Confessional.

So, when the smoke clears, and all the "who did what to whom" clears, I'm a pretty simple guy and I want this question answered: What are these guys teaching in a Reformed denomination and is it completely out of accord with the Confession? If the answer to the latter is "Yes" then there is a place at some point that some discipline is necessary. I honestly get a little tired of the "technical" objections that cloud what the issues are.

I believe the SJC's findings about the LA Presbytery's examination were substantially correct. I'm not a member of the PCA and so I simply hope that the men assigned to try the case will do so uprightly and with integrity. I believe the trial is not for unsubstantiated charges.

I, for one, have no interest in reading the major blogs from either side devoted to recounting all the soap opera concerns and claims that "...you just don't understand us...." Several months ago, in fact, I started a dialogue here on the PB over the issue of Conditional Election and interacted with some major FV proponents. They were very happy when Rev. Winzer seemed to "be their man" when he acknowledged that the term "Conditional Election" was part of the Reformed parlance. Of course, they kicked him immediately to the curb as soon as they realized that he flatly rejected their use of the term since it was 180 degrees out from what Owen and others meant by it. I gave up trying to dialogue because I've found that there really isn't much interest in interacting openly and honestly about the point once you point out the view is completely unconfessional. At that point, it's a "So What?" response from many which confirms the problem.

I also prefer to stay out of the dialogues because I still have friends inside the FV movement. I'll talk about the FV here because I cannot interact with the FV folks. If I did then I'm afraid I would get drug down in the muck and I have no desire for that.

py3ak · #15 (**permalink**) 11-28-2007, 10:34 AM

I don't know that there is an issue of contention. My point is simple: whether doctrinally or practically, the fact that your opponent is wrong doesn't necessarily mean that you are right. So if my contrincant jumps down my throat in an uncharitable way, that doesn't mean my behaviour is automatically beatific. If my opponent falls into Apollinarianism in refuting me, that doesn't mean that I am not a closet Nestorian (disclaimer for those who may not grasp illustrations: I am not a closet Nestorian).

I think there are two ways error damages the church: by deceiving us, and by pushing us through the force of reaction to behave in a way inconsistent with the truth, and by causing us to take up unBiblical positions simply because they seem to be the opposite of the error the other people are making.

We need to remember the positive goal: the defense of the truth; the edification of the flock; increased conformity to the image of Christ. If we don't fall into the errors of the FV but we fall into sin or we are pushed into other errors through the pressures of controversy on imperfectly sanctified minds, what have we gained? Has the devil not achieved his design in any case?

Stephen · #16 (**permalink**) 11-28-2007, 11:04 AM

I agree with you brother that we should be careful not to react in a way that is inconsistent with the truth, but at the same time we must remember that many who oppose FV do so out of concern for the integrity of the gospel. We must remember that controversy can become messy, but we are not to refrain from it. If you read Wilson I think he has become so arrogant that you miss his point. The reason that FV is confusing is because they speak in circles.

py3ak · #17 (**permalink**) 11-28-2007, 12:17 PM

I didn't realize until today that the Bayly's had weighed in again. Even the comments are helpful in that a lot of the major players in the most recent episode weighed in.

Stephen, it's not my intention to impugn anyone's motives. But surely one of the lessons of the RPW is that good motivations don't serve as an excuse.

Semper Fidelis · #18 (**permalink**) 11-29-2007, 03:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by py3ak

I don't know that there is an issue of contention. My point is simple: whether doctrinally or practically, the fact that your opponent is wrong doesn't necessarily mean that you are right. So if my contrincant jumps down my throat in an uncharitable way, that doesn't mean my behaviour is automatically beatific. If my opponent falls into Apollinarianism in refuting me, that doesn't mean that I am not a closet Nestorian (disclaimer for those who may not grasp illustrations: I am not a closet Nestorian).

I think there are two ways error damages the church: by deceiving us, and by pushing us through the force of reaction to behave in a way inconsistent with the truth, and by causing us to take up unBiblical positions simply because they seem to be the opposite of the error the other people are making.

We need to remember the positive goal: the defense of the truth; the edification of the flock; increased conformity to the image of Christ. If we don't fall into the errors of the FV but we fall into sin or we are pushed into other errors through the pressures of controversy on imperfectly sanctified minds, what have we gained? Has the devil not achieved his design in any case?

I agree with you to a point but it still ignores a larger issue.

I almost hear you saying that unless everybody at Nicea who condemned Arianism had to present their case with the same precision as Athanasius in order for the condemnation of Arianism to be valid.

I simply don't understand how, whether certain parties surrounding the controversy, especially notables in the blogosphere, have said dumb things, how that affects the particular case at hand.

I really must be too obtuse to get what you're saying so I'd prefer you stick to the specific case at hand. There is a minister by the name of Steve Wilkins who was accused of un-Confessional views. Do you think the Presbytery did its job in reporting whether or not his views were confessional or not? I'm not really interested in the circus surrounding it but trying to deal with the things that can be dealt with.

The circus surrounding the Arian controversy was even more spectacular and worldwide than this affair. If we measure the ability to find out error in the Church on the bar of misunderstandings and perceptions then no error would ever be rooted out of the Church.

Semper Fidelis · #19 (**permalink**) 11-29-2007, 03:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by py3ak

I didn't realize until today that the Bayly's had weighed in again. Even the comments are helpful in that a lot of the major players in the most recent episode weighed in.

Stephen, it's not my intention to impugn anyone's motives. But surely one of the lessons of the RPW is that good motivations don't serve as an excuse.