Mr. Bultitude
Puritan Board Freshman
Apology accepted, Patrick.
Christology-Mark Jones goes after Ligoniers....
- Thread starter Scott Bushey
- Start date
- Status
Your point? Is it offered as a creed or a statement?
Since we want to be PRECISE and actually use our minds carefully, an offered statement is not a creed. It can become a creed but is not so at the offering. Think with your minds and not your emotions. Do they hope their statement will be adopted by those who have ecclesiastical authority so to do? Yes. Is it a creed as offered? They explicitly deny this. One may argue that they are confused but to impute motives to elders when the witness of their own hand denies their imputed intent would be chargeable in a Church court and I would assume that an elder would understand this.
alexandermsmith
Puritan Board Junior
I figured an apology would be too much to ask for. I guess falsely accusing people of 9th commandment violations isn't itself a 9th commandment violation. Your accusation has been exposed for the falsity it is. Others who made the same accusation have graciously apologised. Follow their example.
Alexander,
I presume you are familiar with the WLC on the 9th Commandment but I will quote it for you:
Now, I want you to read the FAQ: http://www.ligonier.org/blog/faq-ligonier-statement-christology/
Specifically the very first point:
Note that they underline and use the word *statement* over an over. They offer it up as a statement. Some may hope that an ecclesiastical body may adopt it as a creedal or confessional statement (but we'll get to that point further in the FAQ). You may think them confused in their thought they can even offer a statement but they're schooled in Church history well enough to know that they have no authority to make creedal statements.
If this is not inferred from what they say then they make it crystal clear when they state:
Clearly, they don't believe they have any authority to "...issue a creed..." as you have charged them with.
Don't argue with me over your perceived injury.
Take the WLC on the 9th Commandment and go through it clause by clause and then compare your statement that they issued this as a creed to the Church and compare it to each clause.
I am content to let the Lord judge my words that I have written to you and I will not apologize for pointing out your untruthful statement. You have not promoted the good name of your neighbor.
I have absolutely no problem with those who disagree with me here on the propriety of Ligonier to even offer up a statement on Christology. You have read me interact and peaceably disagree with them. None of them have assigned motives to the men that you have.
Read what you wrote carefully and consider what the 9th Commandment requires of you.
What we have then is the clear statement of ordained ministers who state that they have no ecclesiasitical authority to do anything more than offer a statement that they hope will benefit the Church and we have a member in a Presbyterian Church accusing them, on the basis of no witnesses, that they are issuing a creed.
I presume you are familiar with the WLC on the 9th Commandment but I will quote it for you:
Now, I want you to read the FAQ: http://www.ligonier.org/blog/faq-ligonier-statement-christology/
Specifically the very first point:
Note that they underline and use the word *statement* over an over. They offer it up as a statement. Some may hope that an ecclesiastical body may adopt it as a creedal or confessional statement (but we'll get to that point further in the FAQ). You may think them confused in their thought they can even offer a statement but they're schooled in Church history well enough to know that they have no authority to make creedal statements.
If this is not inferred from what they say then they make it crystal clear when they state:
Clearly, they don't believe they have any authority to "...issue a creed..." as you have charged them with.
Don't argue with me over your perceived injury.
Take the WLC on the 9th Commandment and go through it clause by clause and then compare your statement that they issued this as a creed to the Church and compare it to each clause.
I am content to let the Lord judge my words that I have written to you and I will not apologize for pointing out your untruthful statement. You have not promoted the good name of your neighbor.
I have absolutely no problem with those who disagree with me here on the propriety of Ligonier to even offer up a statement on Christology. You have read me interact and peaceably disagree with them. None of them have assigned motives to the men that you have.
Read what you wrote carefully and consider what the 9th Commandment requires of you.
What we have then is the clear statement of ordained ministers who state that they have no ecclesiasitical authority to do anything more than offer a statement that they hope will benefit the Church and we have a member in a Presbyterian Church accusing them, on the basis of no witnesses, that they are issuing a creed.
earl40
Puritan Board Professor
Rich does our ecclesiastical body of the PCA have a responsibility to correct any content of the statement since RC is a pastor in good standing in our denomination? Or should we (I am speaking of the presbytery) simply leave it alone knowing it is simply a statement of a organization that is not accountable to any particular body?
I am asking this in all sincerity.
Backwoods Presbyterian
Puritanboard Amanuensis
In the quote Brett gave it explicitly says, "It is hoped that this statement might serve the same purpose" as the creeds of the early church in the worship of the people of God.
Now whether or not we should be using creeds in worship at all is a different question, but it seems obvious that is how Ligonier wanted it to be used.
Ben,
Read the whole FAQ and think through this more carefully:
They are NOT issuing a creed. I agree that some may desire that the end result could be that some Churches might use it as such but it is NOT issued as a creed in the offering.
Even you believe it is not a creed. Are you disagreeing with them that they actually have the authority to issue a creed?
His ministerial credentials are held in a Presbytery so if there are any unorthodox elements then "Yes". Keep in mind that Ligonier has acknowledged some of the criticism about some of the phrasing.
I have to run. I'll pick up on Scott's question about Whitefield shortly because it's an interesing one.
I understand we need to be careful on the expressed intent. But getting back to the OP: The enterprise leaves a bad taste given the result that it has already caused division, misunderstanding, and hard feelings. Now, I don't know everyone well enough to clear any side; there are strong personalities involved; but it just has stink on it now whomever is at or more at fault.
alexandermsmith
Puritan Board Junior
Semper Fidelis,
I don't know how many times you need this to be pointed out to you before you accept it, but here it is again: Ligonier specifically say they offer this pronouncement "to the church"; they then specifically reference the historical creeds and specifically say they hope this will be used in the same way. It comes across as if you are deliberately misinterpreting these words to suit your own position. Whatever else they say in other questions, they say this here.
So do not get on your high horse with me. I don't know why you are are so personally invested in defending them on this specific point, but you can't because their own words condemn them. Maybe they misspoke; maybe they didn't understand what they were saying. But that would be ascribing motivations to them. What we do know is what they said. The issue is not whether they have the authority to issue creeds, but whether what they have done is to do so. It doesn't matter how forcefully you deny you have the authority to do something: if you then go ahead and do it, you've still done it.
Your anger in response to this is unbecoming.
I don't know how many times you need this to be pointed out to you before you accept it, but here it is again: Ligonier specifically say they offer this pronouncement "to the church"; they then specifically reference the historical creeds and specifically say they hope this will be used in the same way. It comes across as if you are deliberately misinterpreting these words to suit your own position. Whatever else they say in other questions, they say this here.
So do not get on your high horse with me. I don't know why you are are so personally invested in defending them on this specific point, but you can't because their own words condemn them. Maybe they misspoke; maybe they didn't understand what they were saying. But that would be ascribing motivations to them. What we do know is what they said. The issue is not whether they have the authority to issue creeds, but whether what they have done is to do so. It doesn't matter how forcefully you deny you have the authority to do something: if you then go ahead and do it, you've still done it.
Your anger in response to this is unbecoming.
Bill The Baptist
Puritan Board Graduate
Not to presume to speak for Rich, but I think you are missing the distinction he is making here. A creed is issued by an ecclesiastical authority and is binding on the churches in light of that authority. The statement that Ligonier made is merely being offered up to the churches and can only become binding, and thus a creed, upon acceptance by churches in whom ecclesiastical authority rests.
LOL.
Angry? No. As I stated my conscience i clear on this point. I have demonstrated their explicit statement that they do not even believe they have the authority to issue a creed.
You don't think they have the authority to issue a creed and they don't so, clearly, neither side thinks they issued a creed.
You state that I'm misinterpreting them. Can you please provide a way to interpret this statement, made by Presbyterian ministers, to even infer that they believe they are issuing a creed. Do they state they have the authority to do so?
Again, let's be clear on what you stated:
Do you believe they have the authority to issue a creed?
Do they believe they have the authority to issue a creed?
Why is this important to me? Because I hate party spirits and the way that people get carried away by them. It is sinful behavior. I am less interested in defending Ligonier and more interested in what the actual truth of the matter is on this point.
alexandermsmith
Puritan Board Junior
Bill,
I see your point. To clarify: I don't think Ligonier themselves think they are on a par with the Westminster Assembly or one of the Ecumenical Councils. But I would disagree with you that a document only becomes a creed when it is issued by an authorised ecclesiastical authority. A creed is a specific type of document that summarises the faith in a list of articles. Just as a catechism is a document which summarises the faith in a question and answer format and so on. A catechism is a catechism whether it's officially adopted or officially delivered or not; a creed the same. I think, really, in all due respect to yourself, it becomes semantics to say that a document is only a creed when delivered by an authorised body. This document has been drawn up like a creed; it's been delivered in reference to previous creeds; and it's delivered with the hope it will function as those creeds. If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's a duck.
Personally, I see this as more another example of the unthinking, ahistorical spirit alive in the church today: it's 2016, time for another statement on Christology. I'm not saying the motivation behind the production of this specific document is nefarious, or that Ligonier is trying to seize control of the Protestant faith. What it is is muddled thinking; ecclesiastically unsound, arising from ecclesiastical ignorance; and another manifestation of a larger desire today to keep producing new confessions, which I do think is suspicious and dangerous.
What I have reacted to in this discussion is Semper Fidelis' anger and resentment towards people criticising Ligonier for this action. I entered this discussion because from what he was saying, I thought Semper Fidelis believed they did have the authority to issue creeds. To discover, as it would appear, that he doesn't believe this I'm left confused as to what his point actually is. As I say, I don't think they did it maliciously but I do think it's unwarranted and damaging and, yes, presumptuous. And the fact is, they themselves hope this document will be taken up by the church to be used as the older creeds have been. I just don't understand why Semper Fidelis refuses to take them at their word and feels the need to use doublespeak to defend Ligonier.
I appreciate your reasoned, conciliatory tone and I hope you are not offended by my response. And I would just wish others could be as civil.
Alexander,
I will say this one more time and then I'm going to start moderating you for being churlish.
I have not made any "angry" statements. I have made factual statements. I am, in fact, taking the ministers at Ligonier "...at their word..." when they say that they offer it as a statement in the hopes that it might serve the Church. I think I've been pretty plain throughout this thread in noting the difference between statements and creeds. It was my very first point. I actually had not even read their FAQ when I noted that they had even named it a statement on Christology and compared it to the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy.
As I've also noted the ecclesiasitical methodology for any text to become an adopted Confession or catechism is for it to be in some sort of draft that is then adopted by the court with the ecclesiastical authority to do so. Speaking as a fool, I've been an Elder for several years now and have served in both Presbytery and General Assembly committees for almost all those years. I've composed Overtures that have flowed through the process of the courts. At their drafting by me they are not public statements. They are brought to the Session and then the Presbytery and up to GA and, at each stage, men can strike or amend language. Once they are adopted by the Church they take on that status.
If you follow anything Chad Van Dixhorn has written or spoken about, this was the process that the Westminister Assembly used to formulate the Confession and Catechisms - motions, substitutes, amendments, etc. The WLC and the WSC were not catechisms of the Church in their first draft. Wording was proposed by, let's say, a single minister and then it would undergo some revision. That minister was not "issuing a catechism" then he wrote something in that form but his work (and the work of the committee) contributed to what became the final form. This is how ecclesiastical courts operate.
As I said before, the Teaching Fellows at Ligonier are mostly Presbyterian ministers. Among them are Sinclair Ferguson and Derek Thomas. I don't know the process they used to compose this statement but I know that they are also not "fly by the seat of their pants" kind of men. They are my superiors both in terms of age and ability and I will assume the best of them.
They know full well the process I just described and know full well that if their statement was ever to be adopted by a Church that it would have to go through the process I just described. If this ever went through the courts of the PCA (highly doubtful), what was offered would merely be a "first draft". That statement would be subject to the Church's authority to settle on the language it's courts decided upon and the final form would be constitutional and not first draft. The mere fact that a statement is in a certain form does not make it creedal or confessional. One might say that a statement is in the form of a catechism or creed but that is different from saying that a statement is a catechism or creed of a Church.
Is this word games?
No. We're Presbyterians. Before I was licensed to preach, I was very careful to correct people who stated that I had preached a sermon. Prior to my licensure, I had no authority and I exhorted. It is the business of the Church to license or ordain and so I recognized that my action (though in the form of preaching) was not preaching because I only had the authority to exhort.
Many of the puritans wrote catechisms (some published and some not at the time) most of which did not become adopted by the church. Some were looked to as models by those who would eventually produce the shorter and larger catechisms of the Westminster Assembly.
Bill The Baptist
Puritan Board Graduate
Alexander,
I have learned many things during the past five years of participating on this board, and one of the things I have learned is that Rich is very passionate and will argue vigorously for what he believes in. It is easy to be offended by this, as I once was, but if you will take a step back and consider what he is saying, you will find that you can learn a great deal from him. That does not mean that you must always agree with him, but you should not assume that he is attacking you merely because he is forceful and passionate.
alexandermsmith
Puritan Board Junior
I'm barred from defending myself so what can I say.
{sigh}
I don't know if it's my American English. If you wish to give better explanation to your comments then do so.
However, refrain from the ad hominem attacks repeatedly calling others' "angry" or "unbecoming" because they are explaining themselves and you disagree with their explanations. Stop trying to discern the motivations of men *underneath* what they actually write.
I've been trying (unsuccessfully) to get you to see that your charge against the ministers at Ligonier is not borne out even by the language of the initial summary where they "hope" that it will be used by the Church. It is a possible inference of their words but then you have to actually read the FAQ where they explicitly state that they understand they are not the Church. They literally bend over backwards to try to allay concerns that they think they have the authority to issue creeds.
If you take the time to read the FAQ (and remember there are ministers in good standing behind these answers) then it might cause you be more circumspect in your criticism. It might not but do try to remember that these are men who are attacked repeatedly and try to infer what it might be like to receive barbs from people who presume to know their motives and will not even acknowledge when they admit they might need to change their Statement.
Mark Jones was heartened by Ligonier's response to its critics. Perhaps we can be as well.
Having run this board now for over a decade I can tell you that it's no fun when people write blogs about you or attack you. It's hard not to respond. Yes, as Bill noted, I'm passionate (intense) about things. I'm even a first-class jerk sometimes. I've read that Calvin had a volcanic temper that he was ashamed of but that passion was used well of God (as I hope he sometimes uses my own).
I don't know if it's my American English. If you wish to give better explanation to your comments then do so.
However, refrain from the ad hominem attacks repeatedly calling others' "angry" or "unbecoming" because they are explaining themselves and you disagree with their explanations. Stop trying to discern the motivations of men *underneath* what they actually write.
I've been trying (unsuccessfully) to get you to see that your charge against the ministers at Ligonier is not borne out even by the language of the initial summary where they "hope" that it will be used by the Church. It is a possible inference of their words but then you have to actually read the FAQ where they explicitly state that they understand they are not the Church. They literally bend over backwards to try to allay concerns that they think they have the authority to issue creeds.
If you take the time to read the FAQ (and remember there are ministers in good standing behind these answers) then it might cause you be more circumspect in your criticism. It might not but do try to remember that these are men who are attacked repeatedly and try to infer what it might be like to receive barbs from people who presume to know their motives and will not even acknowledge when they admit they might need to change their Statement.
Mark Jones was heartened by Ligonier's response to its critics. Perhaps we can be as well.
Having run this board now for over a decade I can tell you that it's no fun when people write blogs about you or attack you. It's hard not to respond. Yes, as Bill noted, I'm passionate (intense) about things. I'm even a first-class jerk sometimes. I've read that Calvin had a volcanic temper that he was ashamed of but that passion was used well of God (as I hope he sometimes uses my own).
Rather than blame each other for 9th commandment violations you could look at it as a genuine difference of interpretation and explore why you are interpreting it differently. It appears Rich is concerned for the reputation of the ministers behind the statement while Alexander is concerned for the integrity of the church against parachurch impositions. That seems to suggest something objective which could be profitably discussed.
And now having meddled in other men's matters I suppose I can expect to have my face ripped off.
And now having meddled in other men's matters I suppose I can expect to have my face ripped off.
Isn't there some way of putting "ripping your face off" in some Aussie abbreviated way that ends in "ie"?
I'm content that I made my point. I'm not looking to convict Alexander of a violation but merely to get him to think through the issue. I do not consider the concerns about authority to be trivial even if I disagree with the idea that there was some extraordinarily overstep of bounds in this case given their stated aims.
I'm content that I made my point. I'm not looking to convict Alexander of a violation but merely to get him to think through the issue. I do not consider the concerns about authority to be trivial even if I disagree with the idea that there was some extraordinarily overstep of bounds in this case given their stated aims.
Like chuckin' a sickie or firin' up the barbie? There doesn't appear to be any. It's obviously an un-Australian thing to do.
I have fond memories of vegemite and bickies at your home in 2007.
ZackF
Puritan Board Professor
This is the first I've ever read "vegemite" and "fond memories" in the same sentence.
Time flies. I hope it's not too long before we do it again.
- Status
