ChristianHedonist
Puritan Board Freshman
James Jordan posted a blog today at Biblical Horizons essentially equating Presbyterians (the PCA in particular) with the Roman Catholicism the Reformers rejected: Rome? Why Bother? Biblical Horizons
FVer attempts to equate Presbyterians (PCA) with medieval Romanists...
- Thread starter ChristianHedonist
- Start date
- Status
Grillsy
Puritan Board Junior
James Jordan posted a blog today at Biblical Horizons essentially equating Presbyterians (the PCA in particular) with the Roman Catholicism the Reformers rejected: Rome? Why Bother? Biblical Horizons
Interesting...although he seems to not understand the point of the Reformation in the first place.
That blog article has all the substance and "tug at your emotions" appeal of a Chick tract.
Grillsy
Puritan Board Junior
Wayne
Tempus faciendi, Domine.
How does one pronounce "ex opere operato"?
Phonetically, it is close to "Klaatu barada nikto"
That doesn't help, does it?
Reformed Thomist
Puritan Board Sophomore
How does one pronounce "ex opere operato"?
Ex... Oh-pare-ay... Oh-pare-ah-toe.
And roll the R's.
There's 30 seconds of my life I won't get back. Isn't there some hole Jordan can crawl into so no one needs to listen to his blather?
ChristianHedonist
Puritan Board Freshman
He does seem to raise a few weaknesses that can be found among some contemporary Presbyterians (regarding worship and a lack of singing a lot of Psalms, for instance), but the comparisons to Rome (and comparing the FVers to the Reformers) are completely nonsensical.
Caroline
Puritan Board Sophomore
The article doesn't even make any sense ...Here's my top three reasons that James B Jordan exactly the same as the ancient Egyptian King Tutankamun:
(1) There is picture of the sun on his blog, and King Tut's father was an avid sun worshipper.
(2) Their names are both frequently shortened to something with three letters: Jim / Tut
(3) They are both carbon-based life forms (at least, we assume so, although we'd like to get a DNA sample from Jordan just to be on the safe side).
Wow, it's amazing! What compelling evidence!
The Minch retraction must have hit a nerve.
http://www.puritanboard.com/f77/fv-defender-retracts-50691/
http://www.puritanboard.com/f77/fv-defender-retracts-50691/
Christusregnat
Puritan Board Professor
James Jordan posted a blog today at Biblical Horizons essentially equating Presbyterians (the PCA in particular) with the Roman Catholicism the Reformers rejected: Rome? Why Bother? Biblical Horizons
Does Jordan smoke weed before he writes?
SolaScriptura
Puritanboard Brimstone
Indeed... I think it is telling that his rant only took 30 seconds (actually, about 34 for me...) to read.
His blog post is so ridiculous, that if it had come from someone else - someone from the PB perhaps - I would have thought it was a humorous bit of tongue in cheek critique...
-----Added 7/14/2009 at 08:18:50 EST-----
Here's my top three reasons that James B Jordan exactly the same as the ancient Egyptian King Tutankamun:
(1) There is picture of the sun on his blog, and King Tut's father was an avid sun worshipper.
(2) Their names are both frequently shortened to something with three letters: Jim / Tut
(3) They are both carbon-based life forms (at least, we assume so, although we'd like to get a DNA sample from Jordan just to be on the safe side).
Wow, it's amazing! What compelling evidence!
But that is almost precisely the kind of arguing he employs!
Quickened
Puritan Board Senior
James Jordan posted a blog today at Biblical Horizons essentially equating Presbyterians (the PCA in particular) with the Roman Catholicism the Reformers rejected: Rome? Why Bother? Biblical Horizons
Does Jordan smoke weed before he writes?
I am glad i wasnt in the middle of drinking any kind of liquid when i read this.... i would have spit it all out!!
Caroline
Puritan Board Sophomore
That was my favorite line.
I don't even really care whether people have wine or grape juice for communion. A case can certainly be made that it should be wine. But I'm allergic to wine, so I guess I'm doomed to be a Roman Catholic. I'll start building the shrine to Mary in my living room ...
William Price
Puritan Board Freshman
Who is this guy, and why did I just waste 45 seconds of my life reading a bunch of lies???
Zenas
Snow Miser
I read something he wrote once... once.
If I ever see his name attached to a piece of work, I don't waste my time reading it. The one thing I did read had a picture of him in one of those funny nose/fake glasses combo and the caption "Sproul and the rest of those clowns...". I wish I had spent my time doing something else.
If I ever see his name attached to a piece of work, I don't waste my time reading it. The one thing I did read had a picture of him in one of those funny nose/fake glasses combo and the caption "Sproul and the rest of those clowns...". I wish I had spent my time doing something else.
Poimen
Puritan Board Post-Graduate
And just when you thought Jordan could not write something even dumber...he goes ahead and proves you wrong.
He's a parody of himself.
Kind of ironic charge, "Gnosticism", when you think about it.
it isn't the Reformed and Presbyterians going down the neo-Gnostic ritual road!
At the tremendous risk of making the worst sorts of friends...
I have, in fact, gathered gold from JJordan.
It's 1) been a long time, years actually, since I read any of his text-handling, so I cannot and will not vouch for its present state;
and 2) I do not recommend that Average Joe tole lege his stuff--the gold I've gathered has been like panning for gold in a silt-filled stream: you work 16 hours, and get 1/20 of a gram.
Numerology, hyper-liturgics, finding in Scripture a symbological labyrinth, ... I have, in fact, gathered gold from JJordan.
It's 1) been a long time, years actually, since I read any of his text-handling, so I cannot and will not vouch for its present state;
and 2) I do not recommend that Average Joe tole lege his stuff--the gold I've gathered has been like panning for gold in a silt-filled stream: you work 16 hours, and get 1/20 of a gram.
it isn't the Reformed and Presbyterians going down the neo-Gnostic ritual road!
Bruce, that is sort of like the kid claiming there's got to be a pony in all this (uh-um)....
Robert Truelove
Puritan Board Sophomore
My thoughts on Jame's Jordan's recent blog post regarding the PCA and Federal Vision (http://biblicalhorizons.wordpress.com/2009/07/14/rome-why-bother/)...
"...here is little for the congregation to do but sing some hymns. That’s why the Reformers wrote liturgies."
This is in light of his "high church" view of worship; meaning, "what we need is liturgy that looks more like Anglicanism (or even Rome) than the worship of historic Presbyterian and Reformed churches". Jordan's solution for congregational participation looks more like a return to the wrote forms of The Book of Common Prayer which are soundly and rightly uprooted in the Westminster Standards (see "The Directory for The Public Worship of God").
While Jordan does have a point when it comes to the reality of modern deviations from biblical worship in Presbyterian circles (this is what gives his arguments any steam to those who actually give him any attention), the answer is not an anglicanized high church liturgy (okay, romanized). The answer is a return to the faithful adherence to the regulative principle of worship.
"Neither real psalms nor metrical psalms are much in evidence in conservative Presbyterianism today."
I find no fault with his position on the need of a return to the use of Psalms in worship.
"Medieval Rome also served wafers as bread, and people only came to communion once a year. Modern conservative Presbyterians are served crackers, not bread, and usually only a few times a year."
Once again I am in agreement. Both the elements of the sacrament (wafers in place of bread broken) and the frequency should be reconsidered. I consider the later of more importance than the former since it is dealing with the institution of the sacrament (Christ broke bread, not handed out wafers, while frequency is instituted as "as often as you do this"--though consideration of the pattern of the 1st Century church should be properly weighed).
"The same is identically true today. “Federal Vision” people have shown repeatedly that their teaching is right in line with the Reformation, and have been answered over and over with citations from Confessions and Catechisms wrenched from context and fitted with new meanings."
The former cogent points are but momentum to slough forth this drivel. The only valid argument Federal Vision proponents have on this point is that there have been some who have critiqued them who truly do not get historic Reformed Theology. Particularly the doctrine of the sacraments. I refer to the "memorialists". However, Federal Vision has been soundly critiqued and found wanting by men who do understand historic Reformed theology. However, no sooner than they receive their spanking from a qualified critic then they cry foul; stating we should be more interested in the Scriptures than in the confession. Why not just be honest and say they don't agree with the confession on certain points or believe it to be deficient and believe their views are what the Scriptures are actually getting at?
From my perspective in all this mess, this argument is all but over.
"The Papists at the time of the Reformation pulled various power games to suppress the Reformers. At that time, this included murder. Today, the conservative Presbyterians resort to internet slander, creating “investigatory commissions” that contain no one sympathetic to any other views, and holding secret meetings."
"Internet slander" is a difficulty, but the fault ultimately lies with the Federal Vision proponents. It was they who went public with their teachings before taking them privately before church courts. It was they who initially inflamed the 'blogosphere'. If you launch your rubbish on onto the Internet, don't cry foul when a response comes via Internet (there are proper and improper responses and one should expect both).
I think the real beef is the statement about investigatory commissions that do not contain anyone sympathetic to the Federal Vision. I share frustration regarding "investigatory commissions". Indeed, the snails pace it has taken the PCA to deal with what I believe to be a serious deviation should alarm modern Presbyterians to the fact that their ecclesiastical government is, at this time, stuck in a mire. If the PCA had taken even twice as long to deal with this as the RPCUS, Federal Vision would have never gotten out of the box to have its hay day.
Whining about not having representation reminds me of the Remonstrants whining over essentially the same thing at the Synod of Dort. Here is a relevant quote from Wikipedia...
"Episcopius was their chief speaker; and with great art and address did he manage their cause. He insisted on being permitted to begin with a refutation of the Calvinistic doctrines, especially that of reprobation, hoping that, by placing his objections to this doctrine in front of all the rest, he might excite such prejudice against the other articles of the system, as to secure the popular voice in his favor. The Synod, however, very properly, reminded him, that they had not convened for the purpose of trying the Confession of Faith of the Belgic Churches, which had been long established and well known; but that, as the Remonstrants were accused of departing from the Reformed faith, they were bound first to justify themselves, by giving Scriptural proof in support of their opinions. The Arminians would not submit to this plan of procedure because it destroyed their whole scheme of argument. However, the Synod firmly refused to make any concessions on this point of order. Day after day they were reasoned with and urged to come and scripturally defend their published doctrines. . . The Arminians would not submit to this course and were thus compelled to withdraw. Upon their departure, the Synod proceeded without them."
In our day, schismatics just cut tail and run to another ecclesiastical body when it seems adjudication is immanent.
If the PCA is to be critiqued for its response to Federal Vision, it should ultimately be in this manner...After all the turmoil caused by Federal Vision advocates, to allow an ordained minister to simply leave without facing charges is a shameful failure to administer church discipline.
"...here is little for the congregation to do but sing some hymns. That’s why the Reformers wrote liturgies."
This is in light of his "high church" view of worship; meaning, "what we need is liturgy that looks more like Anglicanism (or even Rome) than the worship of historic Presbyterian and Reformed churches". Jordan's solution for congregational participation looks more like a return to the wrote forms of The Book of Common Prayer which are soundly and rightly uprooted in the Westminster Standards (see "The Directory for The Public Worship of God").
While Jordan does have a point when it comes to the reality of modern deviations from biblical worship in Presbyterian circles (this is what gives his arguments any steam to those who actually give him any attention), the answer is not an anglicanized high church liturgy (okay, romanized). The answer is a return to the faithful adherence to the regulative principle of worship.
"Neither real psalms nor metrical psalms are much in evidence in conservative Presbyterianism today."
I find no fault with his position on the need of a return to the use of Psalms in worship.
"Medieval Rome also served wafers as bread, and people only came to communion once a year. Modern conservative Presbyterians are served crackers, not bread, and usually only a few times a year."
Once again I am in agreement. Both the elements of the sacrament (wafers in place of bread broken) and the frequency should be reconsidered. I consider the later of more importance than the former since it is dealing with the institution of the sacrament (Christ broke bread, not handed out wafers, while frequency is instituted as "as often as you do this"--though consideration of the pattern of the 1st Century church should be properly weighed).
"The same is identically true today. “Federal Vision” people have shown repeatedly that their teaching is right in line with the Reformation, and have been answered over and over with citations from Confessions and Catechisms wrenched from context and fitted with new meanings."
The former cogent points are but momentum to slough forth this drivel. The only valid argument Federal Vision proponents have on this point is that there have been some who have critiqued them who truly do not get historic Reformed Theology. Particularly the doctrine of the sacraments. I refer to the "memorialists". However, Federal Vision has been soundly critiqued and found wanting by men who do understand historic Reformed theology. However, no sooner than they receive their spanking from a qualified critic then they cry foul; stating we should be more interested in the Scriptures than in the confession. Why not just be honest and say they don't agree with the confession on certain points or believe it to be deficient and believe their views are what the Scriptures are actually getting at?
From my perspective in all this mess, this argument is all but over.
"The Papists at the time of the Reformation pulled various power games to suppress the Reformers. At that time, this included murder. Today, the conservative Presbyterians resort to internet slander, creating “investigatory commissions” that contain no one sympathetic to any other views, and holding secret meetings."
"Internet slander" is a difficulty, but the fault ultimately lies with the Federal Vision proponents. It was they who went public with their teachings before taking them privately before church courts. It was they who initially inflamed the 'blogosphere'. If you launch your rubbish on onto the Internet, don't cry foul when a response comes via Internet (there are proper and improper responses and one should expect both).
I think the real beef is the statement about investigatory commissions that do not contain anyone sympathetic to the Federal Vision. I share frustration regarding "investigatory commissions". Indeed, the snails pace it has taken the PCA to deal with what I believe to be a serious deviation should alarm modern Presbyterians to the fact that their ecclesiastical government is, at this time, stuck in a mire. If the PCA had taken even twice as long to deal with this as the RPCUS, Federal Vision would have never gotten out of the box to have its hay day.
Whining about not having representation reminds me of the Remonstrants whining over essentially the same thing at the Synod of Dort. Here is a relevant quote from Wikipedia...
"Episcopius was their chief speaker; and with great art and address did he manage their cause. He insisted on being permitted to begin with a refutation of the Calvinistic doctrines, especially that of reprobation, hoping that, by placing his objections to this doctrine in front of all the rest, he might excite such prejudice against the other articles of the system, as to secure the popular voice in his favor. The Synod, however, very properly, reminded him, that they had not convened for the purpose of trying the Confession of Faith of the Belgic Churches, which had been long established and well known; but that, as the Remonstrants were accused of departing from the Reformed faith, they were bound first to justify themselves, by giving Scriptural proof in support of their opinions. The Arminians would not submit to this plan of procedure because it destroyed their whole scheme of argument. However, the Synod firmly refused to make any concessions on this point of order. Day after day they were reasoned with and urged to come and scripturally defend their published doctrines. . . The Arminians would not submit to this course and were thus compelled to withdraw. Upon their departure, the Synod proceeded without them."
In our day, schismatics just cut tail and run to another ecclesiastical body when it seems adjudication is immanent.
If the PCA is to be critiqued for its response to Federal Vision, it should ultimately be in this manner...After all the turmoil caused by Federal Vision advocates, to allow an ordained minister to simply leave without facing charges is a shameful failure to administer church discipline.
Last edited:
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
