nominalist747
Puritan Board Freshman
I have something of a meta-question. How do we determine that someone is unorthodox? I've tried to point out very orthodox statements by some of the FV guys, but the response has been "sure they say orthodox things, but they also say unorthodox things." So how do we weigh the orthodox sayings against the unorthodox? How many of the latter does it take to tip the scales? I'll make a brief opening statement:
It seems that the judgment of charity would require us to believe the orthodox statements until and unless there are unorthodox statements that directly contradict the orthodox ones, or can be clearly demonstrated to significantly undermine the substance (not just the wording) of the orthodox sayings. So, for example, if someone declares they believe in justification by faith, but say elsewhere that they believe in justification by works, and they clearly mean the same thing by 'justification' in both places then there's a problem; otherwise, we may want to disagree with their terminology (e.g., if in the second instance they use 'justification' to mean 'vindication,' rather than the specific confessional meaning), but we shouldn't claim they are substantially unorthodox. I guess this is just to say that we should be sure we are arguing over the substance, not just the exactly wording.
It seems that the judgment of charity would require us to believe the orthodox statements until and unless there are unorthodox statements that directly contradict the orthodox ones, or can be clearly demonstrated to significantly undermine the substance (not just the wording) of the orthodox sayings. So, for example, if someone declares they believe in justification by faith, but say elsewhere that they believe in justification by works, and they clearly mean the same thing by 'justification' in both places then there's a problem; otherwise, we may want to disagree with their terminology (e.g., if in the second instance they use 'justification' to mean 'vindication,' rather than the specific confessional meaning), but we shouldn't claim they are substantially unorthodox. I guess this is just to say that we should be sure we are arguing over the substance, not just the exactly wording.