How concerned should we be?


  • Total voters
    46
Status
Not open for further replies.
A decade ago, I noticed that some Southern Baptists in the seminaries were fawning over N.T. Wright and were agreeing with the NPP in at least some of the areas where it differs from Reformed theology and even what might be termed traditional Protestant and Baptist teaching on justification.
In the mid to late 90's it had already creeped in by N. T. Wright's writings. Wright's teachings were being read and creeping into the Baptist Church I was a member of. It was fueled by Conferences also. Some of it was due to their attraction to eschatology and N. T. Wright was seemingly Amil and very Kingdom oriented. Reformation and Revival Journals were endorsing some of Wright's teaching concerning Luther and Justification. Wright is a very good writer. He was being lapped up like water in front of a dehydrated dog. I grew cautious when a guy I discipled (and who was a Pastor) decidedly didn't appreciate John Owen or Thomas Goodwin on Justification any longer. He is now Pastoring in a United Church of Christ. His view of scripture went south as he followed Wright and others.
 
A decade ago, I noticed that some Southern Baptists in the seminaries were fawning over N.T. Wright and were agreeing with the NPP in at least some of the areas where it differs from Reformed theology and even what might be termed traditional Protestant and Baptist teaching on justification. And these are men who some would consider to be Calvinistic or sort of identified with it at some time. One who was a doctoral student at the time and who is now a professor told me that he was a big Piper fan but was very angry about Piper's book on Wright. These types are typically less confrontational from a cultural standpoint than the Wilson type FVers are and are perhaps more interested in academic respectability. But it was evidence that Baptists aren't as immune to that kind of thing as some may have assumed simply because they reject infant baptism.
What does academic respectability have to do with having no part with heresy? Tim Keller has tons of academic respectability by today’s standards. But he is no Jonathan Edwards.
 
What does academic respectability have to do with having no part with heresy? Tim Keller has tons of academic respectability by today’s standards. But he is no Jonathan Edwards.

Because what some would view as old time Bible thumping (or Calvinist quoting) when it comes to justification is sneered at in academic circles, and Baptists are already sneered at. I’m not saying it is necessarily a conscious decision. Soft pedaling what the Bible says on certain hot button social issues so that you can maintain respectability in the business world and polite society isn’t always a conscious and deliberate decision either.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
What does academic respectability have to do with having no part with heresy? Tim Keller has tons of academic respectability by today’s standards. But he is no Jonathan Edwards.
Is anyone? I just wish those like Both Wright's had no following in either Reformed or Baptist circles.
 
Because what some would view as old time Bible thumping (or Calvinist quoting) when it comes to justification is sneered at in academic circles, and Baptists are already sneered at. I’m not saying it is necessarily a conscious decision. Soft pedaling what the Bible says on certain hot button social issues so that you can maintain respectability in the business world and polite society isn’t always a conscious and deliberate decision either.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

“Soft pedaling what the Bible says on certain hot button social issues so that you can maintain respectability....”

Sure it is (a conscious choice, short of willful self-deception). What is the faithfully legitimate reason for learned Christian men doing so?

Remember that talk Paul had to have with Peter?
 
“Soft pedaling what the Bible says on certain hot button social issues so that you can maintain respectability....”

Sure it is (a conscious choice, short of willful self-deception). What is the faithfully legitimate reason for learned Christian men doing so?

Remember that talk Paul had to have with Peter?
Or the Reformers when Rome threaten to kill them off for teaching heresy?
 
“Soft pedaling what the Bible says on certain hot button social issues so that you can maintain respectability....”

Sure it is (a conscious choice, short of willful self-deception). What is the faithfully legitimate reason for learned Christian men doing so?

Remember that talk Paul had to have with Peter?

Oh I agree that at some point it is a conscious decision. But it probably starts with something that isn't always necessarily wrong like "Well....you have to be smart and pick your battles" or "We don't want to be like Westboro or that guy in Phoenix" or "I don't want somebody to think I'm one of those fundamentalists, we need a little nuance" or whatever before it gets to outright compromise and apostasy.
 
Oh I agree that at some point it is a conscious decision. But it probably starts with something that isn't always necessarily wrong like "Well....you have to be smart and pick your battles" or "We don't want to be like Westboro or that guy in Phoenix" or "I don't want somebody to think I'm one of those fundamentalists, we need a little nuance" or whatever before it gets to outright compromise and apostasy.
Agreed, as no heresy just came in full blown, as it started out usually quoting scriptures to a degree, but off in some main issues.
 
Woke feminism in the church, which has largely been able to successfully cast the problem as one related to patriarchy, is ensconced. I praise God for those who at least attempt to raise the alarm.

Sane individuals know that we can work with people on causes of mutual concern without agreeing on other areas of doctrine.

Just because Scott Clark sees boogeymen everywhere doesn’t make it so.
 
Last edited:
Here's a much better question to ask:

WHY is Apologia "partnering" with the Wilsonites? What WORK are they accomplishing? Why is the Wilsonite camp doing the heavy lifting in this area and WHY are non-FV paedobaptists NOT doing it?
Greetings SeanPatrickCornell,

I found Dr. James White's book on Justification by Faith to be excellent.

Book Title: The God Who Justifies
The Doctrine of Justification

 
Sane individuals know that we can work with people on causes of mutual concern without agreeing on other areas of doctrine.
Yet if we have to rely on and thus effectively promote someone as heretical and ethically repulsive as Wilson to take the lead in the culture wars, then we're in even bigger trouble than I thought. Surely we can do better. Surely we must.
 
Sane individuals know that we can work with people on causes of mutual concern without agreeing on other areas of doctrine.
How far are you going to take that? I expect that you'll find, eventually, that you'll have to draw a line somewhere.

If Federal Visionists, because of their positions on social issues, are fine, then what about conservative Roman Catholics? JWs? Mormons? Muslims? We might share quite a few of the same positions with these. On the surface, at least. The foundations are very different however. A Christian is not merely a moralist; his morality is grounded in the Word. I think it quite obvious that he should think twice about partnering with anyone whose doctrine proves him an enemy of the gospel.
 
How far are you going to take that? I expect that you'll find, eventually, that you'll have to draw a line somewhere.

If Federal Visionists, because of their positions on social issues, are fine, then what about conservative Roman Catholics? JWs? Mormons? Muslims? We might share quite a few of the same positions with these. On the surface, at least. The foundations are very different however. A Christian is not merely a moralist; his morality is grounded in the Word. I think it quite obvious that he should think twice about partnering with anyone whose doctrine proves him an enemy of the gospel.
That is shown to be true, whenever we partner with Catholics on pro life, and with Muslims against gay marriages then?
 
That is shown to be true, whenever we partner with Catholics on pro life, and with Muslims against gay marriages then?

That raises issues of the public sphere and what a Christian's duty is in that sphere. And if we aren't theocrats, and if the public sphere isn't the Church, then the arguments against partnering with Catholics on theology wouldn't be the same ones as partnering with them against The Deep State.
 
Sane individuals know that we can work with people on causes of mutual concern without agreeing on other areas of doctrine.

I think the big red flag here is that the conference was under the banner of Reformed Theology, which implies that all of the participants hold to views that are at least to some degree legitimate expressions of Reformed theology. It might have been different if it was something about culture more broadly.

Some might argue that it is even worse than Evangelicals and Catholics Together since an evangelical is still an evangelical (whatever that is) and a Catholic is still a Catholic at the end of the day, despite the doctrinal indifference (at best) of the whole endeavor. But in this case everybody is considered to be Reformed.
 
That raises issues of the public sphere and what a Christian's duty is in that sphere. And if we aren't theocrats, and if the public sphere isn't the Church, then the arguments against partnering with Catholics on theology wouldn't be the same ones as partnering with them against The Deep State.
As long as not theology related, but cultural, ok to stand with them?
 
There's no need to team up with the FV crowd in order to take a stand on social issues. White and Apologia have their own platforms. They should just use them to say what they want to say.

This isn't the only instance in which Apologia has allowed their pro-life activism to influence their associations. I'm concerned they have elevated being pro-life to a central mark of grace in the believer and will overlook serious shortfalls in other areas of theology because so-and-so happens to be pro-life. And it's deeply ironic considering how libertarian they are in other areas of personal conduct.

Clark doesn't help himself but he's right here and White, instead of humbly admitting his error, has done his usual and dug his heels in. They're as bad as each other.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top