A Federal Vision debate?

Status
Not open for further replies.
But that debate was focused only on one aspect of FVT, whether or not a RC could be considered a "christian" in any sense of the word.
 
Right, I really didn't like the topic of the debate. It seemed to skirt the heart of the issue. Plus it also came down partly to a paedo/credo debate.
 
If a brief (approx 3hr) debate were to be all we could get, I would at least like to have the focus on a more serious aspect of the debate, such as whether or not someone is truly denying justification by faith alone.
 
David,

Aren't you assuming an awful lot about Doug? E.g., that he has a stable theology on fixed principles?

Have you read Wilson?

Why would it take a debate for Doug to be clear about justification?

I can tell you what I think about justification right now! I don't need a debate to make my views clear. Why does Doug need such?

rsc

Originally posted by Answerman
If a brief (approx 3hr) debate were to be all we could get, I would at least like to have the focus on a more serious aspect of the debate, such as whether or not someone is truly denying justification by faith alone.
 
Scott,

I have heard Doug Wilson also give brief definitions on his view of justification that sound pretty straight forward and orthodox, as he did in his CREC examination, so I don't think that the issue can be boiled down to whether or not a person can give a good brief summary of their position on a particular doctrine, so more time would be needed to demonstrate that he has in fact contradicted himself elsewhere in his writings or sermons. I don't think that this is too much to ask for if in fact it is so clear that he has done so.

All I would like to see is for some official representative from the other side to demonstrate the false teaching and/or the contradiction in his system in a format that he would be given a chance to respond and rebut so that a fair minded person could decide whether or not he is truly trying to obfiscate or not. I have yet to see such an exchange and I think that it would do more harm to the body of Christ to not have such an exchange than it would be to refuse such an offer.

I realize that such an exchange would probably not change the majority of people's minds but I would hope that a Christian's allegence to Christ would supersede any affection they might have for Doug if it could be demonstrated that he is actually is opposing our Lord and Saviour.

The only thing more that I could hope for is that a representative from the other side is very well versed and capable, someone like Sinclair Ferguson.
 
Originally posted by Answerman
...
All I would like to see is for some official representative from the other side to demonstrate the false teaching and/or the contradiction in his system in a format that he would be given a chance to respond and rebut so that a fair minded person could decide whether or not he is truly trying to obfiscate or not. I have yet to see such an exchange and I think that it would do more harm to the body of Christ to not have such an exchange than it would be to refuse such an offer.
...

A live debate is a terrible way for a person to make up ones mind about issues like the FV. The only information you can reliable glean from a debate is which debater is better at debating. It's not the best position that wins the debate, and it's not the best reasoning the wins, it's the one with the best rhetoric.

Regan won with "there you go again".
Someone else won with "I knew Jack Kennedy, and you're no Jack Kennedy".
Bush won by not being as technical and dry as his opponent.
Dukakis lost by not being emotional enough.
No wins using the best argument - most wins by rhetorical knock-out, the rest when with rhetorical point advantage.

Debates are like boxing events for the mind. You don't win by giving you opponent an equal exchange of blows - but by overwhelming your opponent with blows that he can not respond to.
 
Originally posted by Answerman
Scott,

I have heard Doug Wilson also give brief definitions on his view of justification that sound pretty straight forward and orthodox, as he did in his CREC examination, so I don't think that the issue can be boiled down to whether or not a person can give a good brief summary of their position on a particular doctrine, so more time would be needed to demonstrate that he has in fact contradicted himself elsewhere in his writings or sermons. I don't think that this is too much to ask for if in fact it is so clear that he has done so.

All I would like to see is for some official representative from the other side to demonstrate the false teaching and/or the contradiction in his system in a format that he would be given a chance to respond and rebut so that a fair minded person could decide whether or not he is truly trying to obfiscate or not. I have yet to see such an exchange and I think that it would do more harm to the body of Christ to not have such an exchange than it would be to refuse such an offer.

I realize that such an exchange would probably not change the majority of people's minds but I would hope that a Christian's allegence to Christ would supersede any affection they might have for Doug if it could be demonstrated that he is actually is opposing our Lord and Saviour.

The only thing more that I could hope for is that a representative from the other side is very well versed and capable, someone like Sinclair Ferguson.

And how would this satisfy you? After all, it has been done already. A conference was held and book came out of the process. You can read what both sides said then.

But, of course, as soon as people like Rich Lusk got pinned down on their ideas based on what they said in print, they retracted them in favor of more hard to pin down formulations. The FV people revile the OPC study committee because it criticizes Lusk for his published positions, and not just his latest, on the fly, formulations.

Just last week the Federal Vision changed again, after Matthew Winzer showed them the way right here on the Puritanboard. Mark Horne read that, and suddenly discovered that he could combine his rejection of the theology of the Covenant of Works with verbal formulas that sound like what his critics say he denies. So now Horne and those who follow him affirm Christ's active covenant obedience, the righteousness of that obedience and its imputation to us. In fact, Horne can even accept the Covenant of Works, provided it is construed in a Winzer sort of way (its essence denied).

Now they can give more correct sounding answers at presbytery examinations, while their underlying theology has not changed.

What Wilson wants is not a clear debate based on distinguishing positions. He wants to play rope-a-dope. He has a career to rescue. Unlike the other FV people this controversy is costing him a lot. He is a man with a national speaking career, books, a publishing house, a magazine, a college, a denomination, and who also wants a seminary. He can't manage this as a cult leader. He needs to be able to tap into the mainstream. He has a right wing and a left wing in his denomination that he needs to hold together. Further, he can't go left and pick up the emergent people like Biblical Seminary did, as Wilson has spent his career attacking and alienating such people. Just look at the anti-Wilson blogs and see who hates him.
 
Originally posted by R. Scott Clark
Aren't you assuming an awful lot about Doug? E.g., that he has a stable theology on fixed principles?

:detective:

I have heard this objection a few times, that is, that the FVers change their views form day to day, especially Wilson. I was wondering if anyone could show this to be the case by showing some quotes from Wilson that contradict each other.

:banana:

[Edited on 9-26-2006 by johnny_redeemed]
 
There have been long discussions on this. You could search the threads.

Not speaking for anyone but myself, the comments I've made about shifts in FV theology are based on years of reading their blogs, emails, etc.

Part of the difficulty in this discussion is that the leaders in this movement all hold variations of the FV. Shepherd is not identical to Wilson who is not identical to Wilkins etc.

There have been moves to create/name a movement and then to deny that a movement exists;

There have been strong denials of active obedience by some (e.g., Lusk and Shepherd) and now some seem to be revising their language (e.g., Wilson) on this;

At least one proponent of baptismal union has backed away from 1/2 of that formula (every baptized person is united ipso facto head for head to Christ). I don't know if that change represents a broader shift and that change is not yet public.

There may be others which I can't remember just now.

Does your question imply that the FV is a stable movement with a fixed core of doctrines?

rsc

rsc

Originally posted by johnny_redeemed
Originally posted by R. Scott Clark
Aren't you assuming an awful lot about Doug? E.g., that he has a stable theology on fixed principles?

:detective:

I have heard this objection a few times, that is, that the FVers change their views form day to day, especially Wilson. I was wondering if anyone could show this to be the case by showing some quotes from Wilson that contradict each other.

:banana:

[Edited on 9-26-2006 by johnny_redeemed]
 
Originally posted by R. Scott Clark
There have been long discussions on this. You could search the threads.

Not speaking for anyone but myself, the comments I've made about shifts in FV theology are based on years of reading their blogs, emails, etc.

Part of the difficulty in this discussion is that the leaders in this movement all hold variations of the FV. Shepherd is not identical to Wilson who is not identical to Wilkins etc.

There have been moves to create/name a movement and then to deny that a movement exists;

There have been strong denials of active obedience by some (e.g., Lusk and Shepherd) and now some seem to be revising their language (e.g., Wilson) on this;

At least one proponent of baptismal union has backed away from 1/2 of that formula (every baptized person is united ipso facto head for head to Christ). I don't know if that change represents a broader shift and that change is not yet public.

There may be others which I can't remember just now.

Does your question imply that the FV is a stable movement with a fixed core of doctrines?

rsc

I, for one, think that there is a fairly stable core, but it is not what anyone is debating.

The core of the Federal Vision is the use of Kline's symbolic theology to construct an institutional, clerical and ritual religion. (If I don't call it Christianity, remember that they themselves are Against Chrstianity,.)

In this religion you become one of God's people through baptism performed by a priest, and you remain one of God's people by the participation of weekly sacramental rites offered by a priest. In addition, it is important to have covenant renewal services in which a preist mediates for you, praying on behalf of the congregation to God. You depend on the priests to become saved and you stay saved through their rituals. If they withhold the rituals you are cut off. Thus, sanctification, at its core, is sucking up to the clergy so you can keep getting the sacraments.

For example, Doug Wilson, at a youth conference between two and three years ago, answered a question about someone who felt convicted of sin, and what he should do. Wilson's answer was, Has he been baptised? If so, is he under church discipline? If he has been baptised (got in) and is not under discipline (not put out), then he is OK and shouldn't worry.

This shows the externalism and ritualism of the FV. Note that Adolf Hitler (baptised, and never excommunicated) is then saved. Also Martin Heidegger who even had a Roman Catholic funeral, and a host of other like characters.

Now, who is not FV? Shepherd is a source for the FV, but not one himself. For one thing he does not go along with the New Perspectives stuff, and interprets Paul as teaching against those who are trying to earn salvation by their works. (For Shepherd, you need to do good works to be saved, but if you do works in order to be saved, then they count against you.) Sandlin is an open critic of the institutionalism and ritualism of the FV, although he is a follower of Shepherd. Schlissel has views similar to New Perspectives but he does not like the ritualism, as it goes against his Jewish sensibilities. So there are certain people who spoke at some key conferences, who are nevertheless quite distinct in their own theological position.

The problem is that there are a lot of critics who are Christian Reconstruction haters, and friendly to Meredith Kline, and they will give you a distorted view of the Federal Vision. Remember what Jordan said way back at the beginning: That while he is not opposed to paying attention to the trasformation of culture, that is not where it's at. What God wants is for us to obey in the area of worship, which is the important thing. What the people must do is submit to the clergy and pray. If they do, God will give them good clergy who will do the rituals right. If the church starts doing the rituals right, then God himself will transform the culture. We have bad govenment, etc. because we are bad people and God is punishing us, and we have bad clergy who bungle the rituals for the same reason. The operative meaning of "good" seems to be submission to clergy.

So before there was a Federal Vision there was a phase of rejection of Christian Reconstruction, critique of theonomy, and bitter attacks on Greg Bahnsen and Rushdoony. (How much the FV owes its monocovenantalism to Rushdoony, as opposed to getting it from the Canadian Reformed, Shepherd, and varous Dutch characters would be interesting to know.) Especially interesting was the Biblical Horizons conference in which Jordan introduced his critique of Theonomy, arguing that Moses did not give a law code, and opposing the use of the terms such as "commandment" when it was only Biblical to speak of the "Ten Words", etc.

Now, as Walter Kaiser pointed out, Kline invented a way to reconstruct dispensationalism within the framework of covenant theology. The interesting thing that results from this is that we find Klinites like Lee Irons arguing along the same lines (and being deposed from office for it) as the Candian Reformed and the Federal Vision, to wit: The law was given to the church (as is proved by the preamble, "I am the Lord thy God who brought you out of Egypt"), and therefore is not Covenant of Works material that would be binding on mankind as a whole, but is a sermonic exhortation to believers. This, of course, is distructive to theonomy, which only makes sense (Rushdoony notwithstanding) as exponding a moral equity of the law that is binding on society as a whole due to the Covenant of Works.

The pattern that Federal Vision people see here is grace and then law. God elects Israel, calls them out of Egypt, baptises them in the Red sea, and then gives them the law material as a way of life for a saved people. Those who don't keep it, though, die in the wilderness and do not make it into God's rest in the promised land.

[Edited on 9-27-2006 by tewilder]
 
There's no doubt that there are core ideas to the FV, but I'm not sure the theologies of the Federal Visionists is stable.

The core of the Federal Vision is the use of Kline's symbolic theology to construct an institutional, clerical and ritual religion. (If I don't call it Christianity, remember that they themselves are Against Christianity,.)

Connecting MGK to the FV is, however, a tour de force!

What do you mean by "symbolic theology?" Meredith is a confessional Reformed theologian. One can certainly oppose some of Meredith's views, but connecting him to the FV is passing strange! Especially since he's been opposing Norm Shepherd since 1974 and has been sounding the alarm re what became the FV for decades.

In this religion you become one of God's people through baptism performed by a priest, and you remain one of God's people by the participation of weekly sacramental rites offered by a priest.

There are ways in which this certainly true of the FV since they deny the internal/external distinction. They do verge on a kind of sacerdotalism. Some of them (e.g., Barach) have been wearing papist clerical collars.

Meredith, however, has never taught any such thing.

In addition, it is important to have covenant renewal services in which a preist mediates for you, praying on behalf of the congregation to God. You depend on the priests to become saved and you stay saved through their rituals.

Well, the Shorter Catechism (88) and the HC 65 do have a high view of the "due use of the ordinary means" but that's not the same thing as sacerdotalism. A means of grace theology is not sacerdotalism.

For example, Doug Wilson, at a youth conference between two and three years ago, answered a question about someone who felt convicted of sin, and what he should do. Wilson's answer was, Has he been baptised? If so, is he under church discipline? If he has been baptised (got in) and is not under discipline (not put out), then he is OK and shouldn't worry.

Yes, this is typical FV stuff. They substitute baptism for faith. What the convicted person must do is believe. If he has not been baptized, then, having believed he should be baptized. If he has been baptized, then, having believed, he should give thanks to God for his faithfulness to the covenant signs and seals.

Now, who is not FV? Shepherd is a source for the FV, but not one himself.

I'm not sure this is true. Norman holds all the major FV views and even though he denies being influenced (or even reading!) the NPP, he has the same covenantal nomist structure: in by grace, stay in by works/faithfulness. Norm is the real sponsor of the FV, but your point

So there are certain people who spoke at some key conferences, who are nevertheless quite distinct in their own theological position.

is well taken.

The problem is that there are a lot of critics who are Christian Reconstruction haters, and friendly to Meredith Kline, and they will give you a distorted view of the Federal Vision.

Well, I don't know that I'm a CR "hater," but I am a critic and I am friendly to MGK.

Is it possible that your evident animus to MGK is coloring your perception of these issues? Your attempt to tie him to the FV seems REALLY far fetched!

I think I've been fair in re the connection between the CR and the FV. I've made some connections (the Quest for Illegitimate Religious Certainty) but I've recognized that there are strong CR/Theonomic critics of the FV.

Remember what Jordan said way back at the beginning: That while he is not opposed to paying attention to the transformation of culture, that is not where it's at. What God wants is for us to obey in the area of worship, which is the important thing.

Yes, but he started out as a transformationalist and has morphed to wherever he is now. The question is whether there is an organic or logical connection between the two positions? I think you've made the connection for us:

If the church starts doing the rituals right, then God himself will transform the culture. We have bad government, etc. because we are bad people and God is punishing us, and we have bad clergy who bungle the rituals for the same reason. The operative meaning of "good" seems to be submission to clergy.

Jordan...introduced his critique of Theonomy, arguing that Moses did not give a law code, and opposing the use of the terms such as "commandment" when it was only Biblical to speak of the "Ten Words", etc.

This is another of Jordan's strange arguments.

Now, as Walter Kaiser pointed out, Kline invented a way to reconstruct dispensationalism within the framework of covenant theology.

What Walt Kaiser knows about covenant theology would make a very thin book! I have yet to meet a dispensationalist who could give a coherent account of covenant theology. They are remarkably insular and have been for their entire history so far as I can tell. Fred Lincoln did a couple of poor and ill-researched and argued essays in BibSac decades ago on the history of cT that were pretty influential among dispensationalists. I guess that Walt's relying on them for his knowledge of CT.

MGK rejects and has written against dispensationalism for 50+ years. How does rejection of dispensational program become support for it? He rejects its outlines and its particulars. He's taught the continuity of the covenant of grace for his entire career.

Yes, he has used some stronger language about the Decalogue (as Mosaic) than I wouldn't suppport, but that fact does not vitiate the basic Reformed structure of his theology any more than it made Cocceius non-Reformed. Nor is it fair to identify Lee Irons' theology wholly with MGK's.

Has MGK ever denied that the Decalogue is not, as moral law, binding on all people? Certainly he has taught and affirmed the covenant of works all his life. He was teaching the covenant of works when Mr Murray was calling it into question!

Lee does err, I think, in not recognizing the connection between the moral law and the natural law and the Decalogue. There are a lot of Klineans (e.g., David VanDrunen, Mike Horton, Bob Godfrey, Scott Clark) who do exactly that. So, Lee Irons isn't the only representative of MGK's covenant theology.

rsc
 
The core of the Federal Vision is the use of Kline's symbolic theology to construct an institutional, clerical and ritual religion. (If I don't call it Christianity, remember that they themselves are Against Christianity,.)

Connecting MGK to the FV is, however, a tour de force!

It is not as though I were the first one to notice this.

What do you mean by "symbolic theology?" Meredith is a confessional Reformed theologian. One can certainly oppose some of Meredith's views, but connecting him to the FV is passing strange! Especially since he's been opposing Norm Shepherd since 1974 and has been sounding the alarm re what became the FV for decades.

I mean the stuff in Images of the Spirite and in Kingdom Prologe, both books highly promoted by James Jordan in his proto-Federal Vision period, and which gave him the hermeneutic with which Jordan and Co. built their judeizing theology of ritual and symbol, which became the core of the Federal Vision (the "vision" part) theology. I recall him rebuking me for not having read those key books.


In this religion you become one of God's people through baptism performed by a priest, and you remain one of God's people by the participation of weekly sacramental rites offered by a priest.

There are ways in which this certainly true of the FV since they deny the internal/external distinction. They do verge on a kind of sacerdotalism. Some of them (e.g., Barach) have been wearing papist clerical collars.
[/quote]

Jordan wore and promoted those collars when no one had heard of Barach. (Jordan says they symbolize that the clergy are the slaves of Christ.) One should mention that it was the Anglicans, not the papists who invented them. But they are not important. What is important are the robes that are supposed to be worn for the Sunday ceremonies.

Meredith, however, has never taught any such thing.

Doesn't matter. He gave them their hermenutics.

In addition, it is important to have covenant renewal services in which a preist mediates for you, praying on behalf of the congregation to God. You depend on the priests to become saved and you stay saved through their rituals.

Well, the Shorter Catechism (88) and the HC 65 do have a high view of the "due use of the ordinary means" but that's not the same thing as sacerdotalism. A means of grace theology is not sacerdotalism.

With Jordan, in the proto-Federal Vision period, there came to be some idea of ritual perfection. The clergy had to pray exactly twice during the communion service, or it was disobedience and not honored by God, etc.

Now, who is not FV? Shepherd is a source for the FV, but not one himself.

I'm not sure this is true. Norman holds all the major FV views and even though he denies being influenced (or even reading!) the NPP, he has the same covenantal nomist structure: in by grace, stay in by works/faithfulness. Norm is the real sponsor of the FV, but your point

The pastor of the PCA church, from which I departed, is a protoge and personal friend of Shepherd's, but also highly devoted to N.T. Wright (although he claims to have come to the NPP type of thinking independently as a student at Westminster before finding Wright). He tried to persuade Shepherd to appreciate Wright, but Shepherd wasn't buying it.

But Shepherd is quite explicit in his writings that Paul was opposing the teaching that works earned salvation. The Federal Vision people follow the New Perspectives teaching in saying that Paul was not preocupied by this because such a teaching of works righteousness wasn't around for him to be opposing.
 
Originally posted by R. Scott Clark
Does your question imply that the FV is a stable movement with a fixed core of doctrines?
:book2:

No Sir, not at all. I am new (been studying it for less than 6 month) to the hold FV thing. I just keep hearing this charge, but I do not see it to be the case. NOT to say that it is not the case (hope you followed that). I just would like to see the move that has taken place.

:banana:

Just so there is no ambiguity...I am not at this time a person who would at all call himself and FVer. I do not know of ANY of there doctrinal distinctive that I hold for sure!
 
The problem is that there are a lot of critics who are Christian Reconstruction haters, and friendly to Meredith Kline, and they will give you a distorted view of the Federal Vision.

Well, I don't know that I'm a CR "hater," but I am a critic and I am friendly to MGK.

The way I would put is, Can we consider Hortonism and similar kingdom fleeing types of Churchianity to be confessional and Reformed?

Is it possible that your evident animus to MGK is coloring your perception of these issues? Your attempt to tie him to the FV seems REALLY far fetched!

I think I've been fair in re the connection between the CR and the FV. I've made some connections (the Quest for Illegitimate Religious Certainty) but I've recognized that there are strong CR/Theonomic critics of the FV.

It is the whole Westminster seminary trajectory that is reponsible: Murray, Van Til, Kline. All important to Christian Reconstruction, and all import to the Federal Vision. One difference between Christian Reconstruction and the Federal Vision is that Kline became even more important.

By the way, have you noticed who first picked up on the Federal Vision problem and why? It was not the seminary boys, who think that what happens outside the seminaries is not worthy of their attention, and who are therefore late to every problem (except for the particular ones they create themselves). It was the Christian Reconstructionists of the type that hold to the Westminster Confession and its idea of the Covenant of Works.

Now, as Walter Kaiser pointed out, Kline invented a way to reconstruct dispensationalism within the framework of covenant theology.

What Walt Kaiser knows about covenant theology would make a very thin book! I have yet to meet a dispensationalist who could give a coherent account of covenant theology. They are remarkably insular and have been for their entire history so far as I can tell. Fred Lincoln did a couple of poor and ill-researched and argued essays in BibSac decades ago on the history of cT that were pretty influential among dispensationalists. I guess that Walt's relying on them for his knowledge of CT.

Walter Kaiser is not a dispensationalist.

MGK rejects and has written against dispensationalism for 50+ years. How does rejection of dispensational program become support for it? He rejects its outlines and its particulars. He's taught the continuity of the covenant of grace for his entire career.

The difference in a nutshell is that dispensationalism makes the church a mystery parethesis in God's plan, whereas Kline makes Israel a mystery parenthesis. Both are theologies of retreatest (anti-Reformed) churchianity.

Has MGK ever denied that the Decalogue is not, as moral law, binding on all people? Certainly he has taught and affirmed the covenant of works all his life. He was teaching the covenant of works when Mr Murray was calling it into question!

It just goes to show that there are lots of ways to mess up theology.

Lee does err, I think, in not recognizing the connection between the moral law and the natural law and the Decalogue. There are a lot of Klineans (e.g., David VanDrunen, Mike Horton, Bob Godfrey, Scott Clark) who do exactly that. So, Lee Irons isn't the only representative of MGK's covenant theology.

rsc

What is needed is to recognize the relationship to the Covenant of Works, and therefore the relevance of the law for justice as a norm for everyone, and not limit salvation to a scheme to get naked souls into Plato's heaven.

[Edited on 9-27-2006 by tewilder]
 
Originally posted by R. Scott Clark
Timothy,

You evidently do not want to have a serious discussion.

Cheers,

rsc

You need to decide whether you want to stand on the high confessional ground or follow Van Til and Kline. You can't do both.

<blockquote>Finalement, dans la démarche de Kline l´Ã©lément typologique est certainement surdimensionné, car il globalise ce qui auparavant ne concernait que des éléments particuliers de l´Ã©conomie ancienne. Il ne reste ainsi aucune place pour certaines données très importantes dans la théologie réformée. En premier lieu, il ne reste aucune place pour le rôle théocratique de l´Ã‰tat concernant la Loi de Dieu, ce qui a été souligné, sans exception, par tous les réformateurs et par toutes les confessions de foi réformées. Sur ce sujet, nous pourrions parler même d´un consensus unanime des Pères réformés. En deuxième lieu, rendant typologiques aussi les éléments légaux de l´Ancienne Alliance, sont abolies toutes les affirmations de l´Ancien Testament sur la rémunération, temporelle ou éternelle, des Å“uvres, laissant aussi sans effet celles, très nombreuses, du Nouveau Testament (Lc 12,47-49 ; 19,12-27 ; 1 Co 11,30-32 ; Ep 6,2 ; 1 Th 4,6 ; 2 Tm 1,15-18 ; 4,14 ; 1 Pi 1,10-12 ; Ap 2,7.11.17.26-27 ; 3,5.12.21 ; 14,13 ; 20.12-13 ; 22,12) et des confessions de foi. En dernière instance, dans une démarche où toute la dimension légale de l´Ancien Testament est rendue totalement typologique, il ne reste pratiquement pas de place pour parler du troisième usage de la loi chez le chrétien. Étant donné que chez Kline et Karlberg l´alliance des Å“uvres n´est pas distinguée du rapport naturel de l´homme avec Dieu, la grâce est en rapport antithétique avec la nature. Certainement, cela suppose une variation importante de l´orientation fondamentale de la théologie réformée. Dans ce sens, et reprenant le point que nous avions laissé entrouvert plus haut, il faut remarquer que l´enseignement théonomique reste, sur ce point en particulier, plus proche de l´enseignement réformé originel.</blockquote>
 
Originally posted by tewilder
You need to decide whether you want to stand on the high confessional ground or follow Van Til and Kline. You can't do both.

<blockquote>Finalement, dans la démarche de Kline l´Ã©lément typologique est certainement surdimensionné, car il globalise ce qui auparavant ne concernait que des éléments particuliers de l´Ã©conomie ancienne. Il ne reste ainsi aucune place pour certaines données très importantes dans la théologie réformée. En premier lieu, il ne reste aucune place pour le rôle théocratique de l´Ã‰tat concernant la Loi de Dieu, ce qui a été souligné, sans exception, par tous les réformateurs et par toutes les confessions de foi réformées. Sur ce sujet, nous pourrions parler même d´un consensus unanime des Pères réformés. En deuxième lieu, rendant typologiques aussi les éléments légaux de l´Ancienne Alliance, sont abolies toutes les affirmations de l´Ancien Testament sur la rémunération, temporelle ou éternelle, des Å“uvres, laissant aussi sans effet celles, très nombreuses, du Nouveau Testament (Lc 12,47-49 ; 19,12-27 ; 1 Co 11,30-32 ; Ep 6,2 ; 1 Th 4,6 ; 2 Tm 1,15-18 ; 4,14 ; 1 Pi 1,10-12 ; Ap 2,7.11.17.26-27 ; 3,5.12.21 ; 14,13 ; 20.12-13 ; 22,12) et des confessions de foi. En dernière instance, dans une démarche où toute la dimension légale de l´Ancien Testament est rendue totalement typologique, il ne reste pratiquement pas de place pour parler du troisième usage de la loi chez le chrétien. Étant donné que chez Kline et Karlberg l´alliance des Å“uvres n´est pas distinguée du rapport naturel de l´homme avec Dieu, la grâce est en rapport antithétique avec la nature. Certainement, cela suppose une variation importante de l´orientation fondamentale de la théologie réformée. Dans ce sens, et reprenant le point que nous avions laissé entrouvert plus haut, il faut remarquer que l´enseignement théonomique reste, sur ce point en particulier, plus proche de l´enseignement réformé originel.</blockquote>

I'm not sure why you have reverted to speaking in tongues, but good point about the reformed consensus. I would only qualify that the consensus pertained to the magistrate being keeper of both tables of the law, and not necessarily to an institution resembling theocracy. And yes, if the old covenant is relegated to type, it leaves no moral teaching. However, it would be more appropriate to say that the reformers and the reformed confessions espouse theodidache, not theonomos. The OT judicial laws have doctrinal application, but have ceased to be a living law.
 
Originally posted by armourbearer


I'm not sure why you have reverted to speaking in tongues, but good point about the reformed consensus. I would only qualify that the consensus pertained to the magistrate being keeper of both tables of the law, and not necessarily to an institution resembling theocracy. And yes, if the old covenant is relegated to type, it leaves no moral teaching. However, it would be more appropriate to say that the reformers and the reformed confessions espouse theodidache, not theonomos. The OT judicial laws have doctrinal application, but have ceased to be a living law.

Happens to be a quotation from a dissertation recently accepted at a Reformed seminary with a good critique of 20th century American deviations on covenant theology.

I have thought this chapter should be translated, but my French isn't good enough.
 
Originally posted by tewilder
<blockquote>Finalement, dans la démarche de Kline l´Ã©lément typologique est certainement surdimensionné, . . . .</blockquote>

Indiquez l'auteur, s'il vous plait. :calvin:
 
Rev. Matthew,
Would you say that a person cannot say that they stand within the reformed consensus and deny the civil magistrate's duty to uphold both tables?

CT
 
Originally posted by ChristianTrader
Rev. Matthew,
Would you say that a person cannot say that they stand within the reformed consensus and deny the civil magistrate's duty to uphold both tables?

Hermonta,

Most certainly. He is a minister of God to society. The good the magistrate is to reward and the evil he is to punish is the good and evil as defined by the moral law of God. The modern concept of neutralising civil laws is a myth; by not instituting what is good and curbing what is evil, evil naturally prospers. The old adage stands -- for evil to prevail, it only requires a good man to do nothing. Hence our modern democracies, with their emphasis on the vox populi, can only grow increasingly worse with each passing generation. Only upon the basis of authoritarianism can the tendency to wax worse and worse be halted.

But I also acknowledge that democracy is an ordinance of man, and hence to be submitted to in so far as conscience is able. Blessings!
 
I completely disagree. You couldn't be more wrong. He lost because of that huge helmet in the tank picture!:banana:

Dukakis lost by not being emotional enough.

Sorry... second reading showed you were speaking of the debate itself, not the election. My bad. It was a great trip down memory lane just the same.

TE Wilder-

How is an understanding of two kingdoms tantamount to seeing the Gospel as "a way to get naked souls into Plato's heaven?" You lost me there.

thanks,


efw

[Edited on 10-3-2006 by ef]
 
Originally posted by ef
I completely disagree. You couldn't be more wrong. He lost because of that huge helmet in the tank picture!:banana:

Dukakis lost by not being emotional enough.

Sorry... second reading showed you were speaking of the debate itself, not the election. My bad. It was a great trip down memory lane just the same.

TE Wilder-

How is an understanding of two kingdoms tantamount to seeing the Gospel as "a way to get naked souls into Plato's heaven?" You lost me there.

thanks,


efw

[Edited on 10-3-2006 by ef]

I got the CDs of the first Westminster conference on justification (against the Federal Vision) and was appalled by the way the speaks talked, especially Godfrey. Just like fundies. They spoke of salvation and the church's mission as getting souls to heaven, as though they had never heard of the resurrection and as though God did not care for the whole man.

John Frame, who I generally do not care for, has a worthwhile article on it:

In Defense of Christian Activism
http://www.frame-poythress.org/frame_articles/2006InDefense.html

Then, what disturbs me even more, is this trumpeting of a defense of high Reformed confessionalism, when they are Vantillians and Klinites, the theological building blocks of the Federal Vision.

Go here:

[ame="http://www.amazon.com/God-Heaven-Har-Magedon-Covenantal/dp/1597524786/sr=8-1/qid=1159969275/ref=pd_bbs_1/104-5108754-8139923?ie=UTF8&s=books"]Amazon.com: God, Heaven, and Har Magedon: A Covenantal Tale of Cosmos and Telos: Books: Meredith G. Kline[/ame]

and read the reviews, especially the one with the Table of contents of Kline's God, Heaven, and Har Magedon, and the one with the quote from the praface. The is the heart of the Federal Vision and the reason for the ritualism. All this symbolic stuff is what the FVs think has to be reproduced in their rituals. As Kline himself admits, the symbol is dominant and "shapes our telling of the covenantal tale" (note also the shift to narrative, as opposed to "timeless truths", another FV hallmark).

Look also at the discription of history:

"This Har Magedon paradigm, which shapes our telling of the covenantal tale, consists in the following complex of elements: establishment of a kingdom covenant by the Lord of Har Magedon; a meritorious accomplishment by the covenant grantee, triumphant in the Har Magedon conflict; a common grace interim before the coming of the covenanted kingdom; an antichrist crisis; consummation of the Glory-Kingdom through a last judgment victory of the covenant Lord in a final battle of Har Magedon."

We are in the "common grace interim before the coming of the covenanted kingdom", which is the dispensational mystery parenthesis church age under another name.
 
Mr. Wilson noticed the proceedings on here.

Blog Water
Topic: Auburn Avenue Stuff

Some time ago, I posted a note on my invitation to a debate over Auburn Avenue issues. I did that here. And now, on The Puritan Board, there is an ongoing discussion of that invitation. The consensus appears to be that a debate with me would be a bad idea, with a few folks questioning the wisdom of this approach.

Just two comments. The first is that such a debate is not some crazy idea that I cooked up. "A bishop must . . . be able by sound doctrine both to exhort and to convince the gainsayers. For there are many unruly and vain talkers and deceivers, specially they of the circumcision: whose mouths must be stopped . . ." (Tit. 1:7-11). If my positions actually are what these gentlemen claim, then that means that I qualify as an unruly and vain talker, a deceiver, a Judaizer, and one whose mouth must be stopped. Okay, then. You can't have it both ways. If I really am that kind of man, where in North America is a recognized champion of orthodoxy who will provide the valuable service of shutting me up? "Ah, but Wilson is so slippery," say many on The Puritan Board. Okay. Isn't that precisely why you have to shut such people up? Their slipperiness subverting whole households and all? "But he contradicts himself, morphing his positions! Hard to pin down!" That's what they say, anyway, and apparently this is so obvious a failing in me that it should be child's play to demonstrate in a debate. Right? I would wager that the first century contained false teachers who were just as much a slippery gus as I appear to be in the eyes of some. St. Paul told Titus to do something about them. St. Paul is telling the TRs, given their premises, to do something about it also. But if they won't debate, then they have a responsibility to ramp down the rhetoric, and to knock off calling fellow Reformed ministers "unruly and vain talkers."

The second point has to do with an ad hom that was offered on the board, explaining why I am desperate for this debate. Apparently, I have a career to save, networks to preserve, contracts to sandbag, a high profile reputation to keep from tanking, and so on. Like Mark Twain, who said that reports of his death were greatly exaggerated, I really have to say a similar thing here. Through no merit of ours, and by His grace alone, God continues to bless what we are connected with, and we are most grateful to Him for it. New St. Andrews is bursting at the seams, Canon Press has a stack of new books at the printers now, Credenda is flourishing, our churches here in Moscow have been continuing to steadily grow, and the CREC is prospering. So my "desperation" for a debate needs to be grounded in something else, and if it needs to be nefarious, perhaps someone should suggest that I am being blackmailed. But whatever they say, the real reason for a debate is that I would like to make it plain to the broader Reformed community that Machen's warrior children don't really need another civil war.

And in the meantime, if this altar is God's, and the fire is going to fall, it doesn't matter to me how many buckets of blog water you pour on it.

From this blog post.

As I said in a parallel universe, if we are conceding that he has unmatched rhetorical skills we should sign a petition to get him on the Colbert Report --where's our Colbert Smiley?
 
Strange, but I checked out the blog and it appears Doug refuses to debate or engage a person named Micheal Metzler, so isn't it sort of the pot calling the kettle black? I mean maybe Guy Waters ought to say "Sure Doug I'm up for it, right after you polish off that slippery Metzler character"?
 
Perhaps Metzler is not a recognized proponent of a theological movement?
 
Perhaps Metzler is not a recognized proponent of a theological movement?

I don't see where the passage Wilson quotes makes that qualification, but anyhow, I don't know much about Metzler other than that he apparently wants to debate Wilson and Wilson refuses. I would think that if on a micro-level you have your own pot stirrer, who demands a debate and yet you say no, that at least you wouldn't get all preachy when somebody gives the same answer back to your request.
 
The Metzler case is actually somewhat interesting in that he is an example of what I mentioned earlier about Wilson having alienated his left. Metzler thinks that Wilson is not fair to the postmodern and emergent church people.

Now with the various FV people talking about the Wittgensteinization of Van Til, and reading Nietzsche and what not, one wonders how long the leaders can hold it together. Wilson, once again, has institutions to fund and run, and I doubt he foresaw all the directions that the movement would go in when he allowed himself to be sucked into it.

If it can't hold together, which faction will Wilson fasten onto?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top