Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
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.
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.
...
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.
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?
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?
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.
[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
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,.)
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.
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.
Now, who is not FV? Shepherd is a source for the FV, but not one himself.
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 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.
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.
Now, as Walter Kaiser pointed out, Kline invented a way to reconstruct dispensationalism within the framework of covenant theology.
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.
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.
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
Originally posted by R. Scott Clark
Does your question imply that the FV is a stable movement with a fixed core of doctrines?
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.
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.
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
Originally posted by R. Scott Clark
Timothy,
You evidently do not want to have a serious discussion.
Cheers,
rsc
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>
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.
Originally posted by tewilder
<blockquote>Finalement, dans la démarche de Kline l´Ã©lément typologique est certainement surdimensionné, . . . .</blockquote>
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?
Dukakis lost by not being emotional enough.
Originally posted by ef
I completely disagree. You couldn't be more wrong. He lost because of that huge helmet in the tank picture!
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]
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.
Perhaps Metzler is not a recognized proponent of a theological movement?