Puritan Board and it's potential for edification

[Scott Bushey]

Puritan Board and it\'s potential for edification

How do you define edification, or that which is edifying? Is edification confused with happiness and joy? Could one be edified (biblically) and yet not happy or joyous over the edification process?

ed·i·fi·ca·tion ( P ) Pronunciation Key (d-f-kshn)
n.
Intellectual, moral, or spiritual improvement; enlightenment.

ed·i·fy ( P ) Pronunciation Key (d-f)
tr.v. ed·i·fied, ed·i·fy·ing, ed·i·fies
To instruct especially so as to encourage intellectual, moral, or spiritual improvement.

Main Entry: ed·i·fy
Pronunciation: 'e-d&-"fI
Function: transitive verb
Inflected Form(s): -fied; -fy·ing
Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French edifier, from Late Latin & Latin; Late Latin aedificare to instruct or improve spiritually, from Latin, to erect a house, from aedes temple, house; akin to Old English Ad funeral pyre, Latin aestas summer
1 archaic a : BUILD b : ESTABLISH
2 : to instruct and improve especially in moral and religious knowledge; also : ENLIGHTEN, INFORM

Rom 15:2 Let every one of us please his neighbour for his good to edification.

Act 9:31 Then had the churches rest throughout all Judaea and Galilee and Samaria, and were edified; and walking in the fear of the Lord, and in the comfort of the Holy Ghost, were multiplied.

1Co 14:26 How is it then, brethren? when ye come together, every one of you hath a psalm, hath a doctrine, hath a tongue, hath a revelation, hath an interpretation. Let all things be done unto edifying.

2Co 12:19 Again, think ye that we excuse ourselves unto you? we speak before God in Christ: but we do all things, dearly beloved, for your edifying.

Eph 4:11 And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers;
Eph 4:12 For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ:
Eph 4:13 Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ:
Eph 4:14 That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive;
Eph 4:15 But speaking the truth in love, may grow up into him in all things, which is the head, even Christ:

Eph 4:29 Let no corrupt communication proceed out of your mouth, but that which is good to the use of edifying, that it may minister grace unto the hearers.

If the board IS edifying; how is it edifying?
If it is not, how is it not?

*Feel free to add your definition!

[Edited on 7-30-2005 by Scott Bushey]

 

[Me Died Blue]

I couldn't have said it better.

Originally posted by Scott Bushey
Could one be edified (biblically) and yet not happy or joyous over the edification process?

I would definitely answer yes to this question, and in fact add that in order to have a full, rounded edification in time, such a lack is even necessary at times, for it is one thing God uses to edify us.

 

[Bladestunner316]

 

[JonathanHunt]

The PB has great POTENTIAL to be edifying.

However, I have often found it cold, insulting, and particularly recently, bizarre.

Let's look at the POTENTIAL and get to it.

JH

 

[Augusta]

It had better be edifying! I spend enough time here.

 

[Bladestunner316]

 

[C. Matthew McMahon]

Originally posted by JonathanHunt
The PB has great POTENTIAL to be edifying.

However, I have often found it cold, insulting, and particularly recently, bizarre.

Let's look at the POTENTIAL and get to it.

JH

1) What can we do to press towards "edifying" (i.e. identify the "potential things).

2) Insulting - this is part of the character of the posters that should be chagned. We have to work on this.

3) Bizzare - what is bizzare? (Explain?)

 

[just_grace]

Usefulness...

I find it a bit stiff at times but that's the 'Reformed' thing. I like it. It's one of the best Christian boards on the net, mind you I have not been to many.

Keep up the good work.

David

 

[Bladestunner316]

No Baptist Fire is better

 

[C. Matthew McMahon]

I have a serious question -

5 people voted that the PB is NOT edifying.

Why are you still here if it is not edifying?
I somewhat do not understand that.

I'm looking for consctructive criticism to make the board better, so I ask this in all sincereity.

 

[Bladestunner316]

The only thing is maybe some feel out numbered so it can create a sense of cat backed into corner type feeling.

Blade

 

[alwaysreforming]

I always find the Board edifying.

Certainly debates can become overheated, but one has to understand going in that the potential for misunderstandings and hurt feelings is raised significantly due to the "monotone" of the typed word, and the potential for a sentence to be read in a negative light is always there due to the inner voice of the reader.

However, even in the "barbed exchanges" the spirit of the Board usually wins out as most people come around to working things out charitably.

If there was a better Board, I'd be there instead of here. But having so little like-minded fellowship elsewhere, the PB is like a drink of water in a desert. I need it!

 

[VirginiaHuguenot]

I am greatly blessed by this Board and enjoy the virtual fellowship immensely. Just yesterday I had the privilege of meeting a fellow PB'er in person for the first time and I hope to meet more in time, as the Lord wills. I am also thankful for the prayers of so many as well as the encouragement to pray. There are times when there is more heat than light on the Board, but cooler heads usually prevail. When it gets too hot, I like to retire to the Puritan Pub for a pint with the brethren

or the Prayer forum . I count it a great joy to be a part of this forum and I say with Tiny Tim, "God bless us, everyone!"

 

[Puritanhead]

I haven't posted the most edidying posts lately... i need to get my priorities straight...

 

[turmeric]

I like discussing theology with people when they are gentle in their approach. I understand that on doctrinal essentials we shouldn't give an inch, but on non-essentials, or in debates on essentials where a person is genuinely struggling (sometimes with their own unwillingness to believe the truth), I wish we'd be slower in lowering the boom. It makes conversation about non-essentials seem more threatening than they should be, especially when these latter conversations are pursued with the same degree of intensity as the ones on essentials. (Read; I don't want to get banned for not being a preterist or for believing EP is a matter of conscience, I would rather tell jokes any day.)

 

[Tirian]

I definately find PB to be edifying.

Though I havent suffered the following - one thing I have noticed is that new posters trying to enter into a discussion are sometimes told "we've discussed this line of thinking many times before" etc. You know, the search tool on this site only goes so far... For example, I've found it to be poor at multi-word searching. I think it is more helpful (an edifying) for those who have participated in discussions previously to provide the link to the relevant threads. I know that when I am familiar with a particular thread, I find it easier to search & locate it than if I were doing a general search on a topic.

Also, we must also be mindful of encouraging each other at all times. I'm encouraged when I see people with differing points of view gently draw out arguments on either side to cement their thinking (or change their mind). In this kind of atmosphere, it may become easier for more lurkers to become posters knowing that they will recieve loving encouragement - even if they only new to the faith or new to reformed theology.

Matt

 

[satz]

I've found this board to on the whole be edifying and challenging. As with any internet medium, peopl are emboldened by the anonymous nature of the board to speak in ways they wouldn't do face to face, which can lead to some overheated arguments. But on the whole i find the spirit of this board to be a good christian witness. Certainly this is the best board is have yet found on the 'net.

I think that all because topics may not be on grand gospel issues does not mean they are not edifying. The gospel should be our primary focus, but all of life is to be lived to the glory of God and discussing even trivial things with christian brother can, as long as time considerations are taken into account.

Also, some questions regarding if certain things are sin or not may seem stupid to some who say the answer is simply to focus on the glory and holiness of God. While this is certainly good counsel, different christians struggle with different things and sometimes need more rebuke and encouragement to give up sins which may feel very 'obvious' to us.

 

[Arch2k]

The puritanboard is wonderful. For me, it is so great to retreat to a place that as far as the reformed confessions are concerned, we are for the most part like minded. Even in my own church, exception after exception is given to the standards with distaste for debate or discussion. Simple things like images of God are forbade not because it is absolutely wrong and idolartry in the sight of God, but because it might cause us weak "ultra" reformed folk to stumble.

Debate and discussion is good. Ignorance is bad. If any of us is corrected in our thinking, we should be extremely thankful for our new found knowledge of the truth. THIS is sanctification. Let us debate with rigor, but be honest with the truth, and all in love.

Thank you all for this board.

 

[JohnV]

It has been on my mind a great deal in the past few months that I should resign from the Board. There are things that are having undue influence on my posts. I don't like the way I wrote some things after I wrote them, but I am very reluctant go back and change posts after my initial edit. I feel I must leave them as I wrote them. And they rub me constantly.

But what has kept me from resigning is that this Board is edifying. I mean, I can write my thoughts or ideas down, and I get feedback from godly people that build me up. Either I am wrong about something, and I am corrected, or I may be right but not very precise, or even misleading, and I get corrected. Or we discuss and it becomes a learning and growing for all the participants. That to me is what edification is. I grow in the Word and in the fellowship with my Saviour and with His other servants, my fellow boarders.

The leadership has been great. Whenever it was challenged to lead, it led. Whenever it was challenged to solve, it solved. Whenever it was challenged with things to overcome, it overcame. Are we heading the right way? Sometimes it is right to question that, when we look at snippets of the Board's life, but on the whole we have certainly headed the right direction, as proven, I believe, by the kind of participation we've achieved.

 

[BrianBowman]

Until God led me to the Reformed Faith a little over a year ago, I was a former Charismatic (1980-88) then profligate (1989-94) then Dispesationalist (1994-2004). Generally I have found the PB to be edifying. I so agree that sometimes our banter gets a bit overheated. If we were face-to-face and willing to pray on our knees together I think we would all have much more charity and fewer words to say.

Even though I don't always understand his depth of "Covenantal Logic" I am extremely grateful to Matt for his scholarship and leadership on this board. What I have experienced here so far is helping me grow in sound doctrine, Christian character, and into Christ's image.

Much Love, Grace, and Peace in our Lord Jesus Christ!

 

[Bladestunner316]

To JohnV

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

Let me tell you what the PB has done for me.

I had a very hard marriage which ended in divorce. I ended up with my 3 lovely boys though. During the time of my marriage I had to quit discipling others and got left out in the dark concerning theological controversy. NPP and NCT infected some of my friends in the mean time. I happened on apuritansmind and started looking at the PB. I had never done a forum because I just didn't have the time or energy.
So I came to the forum out of sync and pretty beat up.

As a Reformed Baptist I did feel a little ganged up on in a few threads but I learned to live with it. At least people were serious about their relationship with Jesus and they knew what they were talking about.

To put it mildly, The Puritanboard pulled me up to where I needed to be concerning the knowledge of what was going on in modern day theology. I have been able to competently discuss the issues with my friends. Plus, I have been incredibly encouraged in my pursuit of God and His righteousness. I have also picked up a few friends along the way.

So I give the Puritanboard an A+ for edification and encouragement.

Thanks Matt, Scott, Fred, Josh, Phil, and all the other moderaters. Thanks to all of you who participate on the board. I am a better person because of you all. Thanks for your prayers. My Kidneys are doing better for some Unknown reason. God has been faithful.

And I also like the dancing .

Be Encouraged, Randy

P.S. I am not a dispensationalist as I have been accused. I believe in Covenant Theology. And I am Reformed. Just not a paedo-baptist.


[Edited on 8-1-2005 by puritancovenanter]

 

[BobVigneault]

Thank you all! This thread has been edifying. Randy, I got a bit misty reading your last post, thank you for the encouraging words.

The gripe I hear about fellowshipping on the internet is that because of the insulation of the virtual distance and the partial anonymity of the posters, they will be more brazen, bold and boisterous (intentional alliteration) than they are in 'real' life. As new members come in and participate I have seen this exagerated bravado but over time it's gets tempered.

I think the insults are a product of posters who have learned to communicate on other less civil websites. I believe the PB approximates the same type of personal dynamics one would find in any 'real' world setting. When someone oversteps their bounds others will usually chime in and matters are handled in a manner worthy of the gospel.

I sure have grown since meeting you people. I agree with those who assess this board as one of the more gentler on the web. Some discussions we have are fun and benign and others are more serious and pointed. Those that are more serious ought to be so and remind us that there ARE matters of GREAT consequence in the church, and matters we ought to be passionate about.

Gentleness is the defining characteristic of very few children of men and we do struggle here to give a well reasoned and edifiying response but we will find that struggle anywhere.

Praise God that the moderators dare to ask such a question.

 

[New wine skin]

We have a great liberty and freedom in this country to enjoy and benefit from such resources as the Puritan Board chat room. While I don't post as often as I would like, I do read many of the strings, which spurs and challenges me to further study. I also gain from the insight and community, albeit "a virtual community", from which I find edification and encouragement. The reality of occasional friction among posters does not diminish the benefit gained and the quenched thirst of reformed fellowship poured out to those like myself who live amidst a desert of religious syncretism.

 

[doulosChristou]

My honest, tough answer is yes sometimes but mostly no.

Strengths:

There are a handful of truly gifted teachers and ministers of the Word who occasionally make very edifying posts. Some of the things posted even years ago by such men continue to influence me for the better. The PB has the potential for much good. We provide helpful information to one another such as the best places to buy Reformed books on the cheap, the location of solid churches when members relocate, and first-hand evaluations of various theological seminaries across the country. It has been edifying to join in praying for a member´s specific need and seeing God answer our prayers. I have had the privilege of meeting several members in person and making strong and faithful friends in the Lord as a direct result of this board.

Weaknesses:

The church today is weak and compromised with worldliness, and the board reflects that. The main problems that detract from the board´s edification potential can be summed up in three categories: 1) unstable leadership, 2) unstable groupies, and 3) rampant, uncharitable immaturity. By leadership, I primarily refer to Matthew and, secondarily, to Scott. Matt recently made the very good point that "œwe ought not to propagate anything written by [Doug Wilson] since his views are currently being disseminated and evolving." What I believe Matt meant by this is that Wilson is not a trustworthy guide because he has made significant shifts in so short a span of time that we have no safety in knowing where he is ultimately going to end up. It was not long ago that Wilson was a Reformed Baptist, and now he gives communion to babies. What next? Who knows? Well, it was also not long ago that Matt was a Reformed Baptist and a prolific critic of paedobaptism. Last week, he was a critic of the psalm-only camp. There´s nothing wrong with sweeping changes and massive theological shifts in keeping with one´s conscience, but it makes for unstable leadership. If a Presbyterian in the mold of Fred "“ a firm rock whom you know where he stands today and where he will still be standing tomorrow even if you disagree on some points "“ were to be the owner of the board, we´d have a more edifying board. The problem is severely compounded when Matt makes these exhibitionist doctrinal shifts online. This is where the groupies come in to play.

Matt has obviously been gifted with a sharp, active, and forceful mind. As a prolific writer, thinker, and owner of APM, it is natural that he would attract groupies. I have seen similar websites emerge, and it is inevitable that whoever is the webmaster will receive a certain number of disciples. He steps out of the role on occasion, but Scott for the most part is Matt´s most faithful disciple. When Matt makes a new shift, I imagine that after he forcefully uses his logic to convince his wife ("œwe need to baptize our babies," for example), Scott is the next to conform. Yet, it´s the other groupies that I see as problematic because they often conform too quickly to even give the semblance of having studied the issue at hand. Most of them grew up in a-theological SBC churches, logged on to the Internet, went to the PB, and now seem to drink whatever kool-aid Matt offers, little to no questions asked. As this happens the circle of orthodoxy appears to narrow ever tighter and those of us on the outside begin to feel a bit less welcome. I maintain that, given the added responsibility of having disciples one did not ask for, Matt´s exhibitionist doctrinal shifts online are inappropriate. However, the greater fault is with those who conform to Matt without due diligence or who examine a thing not because it is the thing God wishes for them to examine in their heart at the time but because it is the faddish thing on the PB at the time. The recipe for disaster is when newly converted groupies lack the maturity and graciousness to interact in a manner worthy of their calling go charging at others with their new weapon.

This may sound old-fashioned, but the young need to know their place. They need to respect their elders. They need to quietly listen to those more mature in the faith. Above all, they need to show reverence and respect for those who are actively serving the church as pastors. Frankly, among those of all ages, there is a lot of worldliness, pride, arrogance, immaturity, and thin-skinned little boys who ought to know by now how to be men of God. There have been many examples over the years of juvenile behavior. That Christians behave this way in a very open and public setting reflects the fact that we live in times in which the church is weak and compromised. There was recently a thread with pictures comparing America's President to a monkey and an ape. Most Calvinists like to argue, and I am no exception. However, just from reading most threads, one gets the impression that many, in a personal encounter, could reduce an atheist to tears and a fetal position but not have the first clue about how to lovingly offer them the glorious gospel of Jesus Christ. I realize that human nature tends to interact in ways online one would never do in person. Yet, we must call this what it is "“ hypocrisy. I´ve personally participated in the guilt on this board of being thin-skinned and ungracious and immature, and I ask your forgiveness. I don´t have nearly the time I once did to participate here (classes begin again in 2 weeks for me), but I am resolved to be, as often as I am here, a part of the solution.

I realize I´ve been blunt and a bit personal. If I´ve wounded anyone´s pride with my answer, I pray it is the faithful wound of a friend. To summarize, here are the three things that I believe need to be done to tap into the board´s potential for edification. 1) Matt, you need to become a leader in the mold of Fred. You didn´t ask for disciples but you got "˜em. So, you need to be careful what you say, when and how you say it, and think about how the groupies are going to receive it. Stop being a fanatical hyperist; start being a rock. 2) Matthew fans, you need to let God set the agenda for what areas, theological and otherwise, He needs to be dealing with you about, rather than this message board. Also, submit to and respect your elders. 3) We all need to mortify our pride, esteem all other posters as higher than ourselves, love the brethren, and get thicker skin.

 

[Scott Bushey]

Greg,
Is it possible that I was paedo or EP before Matt was?

 

[doulosChristou]

Originally posted by Scott Bushey
Greg,
Is it possible that I was paedo or EP before Matt was?

Scott,

Absoutely! In fact, over the years you've begun to influence your teacher almost as much as he influences you. As with EP, you made the switch while Matt was still wrestling with himself. By dubbing you his disciple, I don't mean to imply that you don't think for yourself. You're the kind of disciple any teacher would want. Somehow, you and Matt do follow the same trails to the same destinations at more or less the same time.

 

[Scott Bushey]

Thanks Greg.

 

[C. Matthew McMahon]

My honest, tough answer is yes sometimes but mostly no.

Strengths:

There are a handful of truly gifted teachers and ministers of the Word who occasionally make very edifying posts. Some of the things posted even years ago by such men continue to influence me for the better. The PB has the potential for much good. We provide helpful information to one another such as the best places to buy Reformed books on the cheap, the location of solid churches when members relocate, and first-hand evaluations of various theological seminaries across the country. It has been edifying to join in praying for a member´s specific need and seeing God answer our prayers. I have had the privilege of meeting several members in person and making strong and faithful friends in the Lord as a direct result of this board.

Great!

Weaknesses:

The church today is weak and compromised with worldliness, and the board reflects that. The main problems that detract from the board´s edification potential can be summed up in three categories: 1) unstable leadership, 2) unstable groupies, and 3) rampant, uncharitable immaturity. By leadership, I primarily refer to Matthew and, secondarily, to Scott. Matt recently made the very good point that "œwe ought not to propagate anything written by [Doug Wilson] since his views are currently being disseminated and evolving." What I believe Matt meant by this is that Wilson is not a trustworthy guide because he has made significant shifts in so short a span of time that we have no safety in knowing where he is ultimately going to end up.

This is not what I meant at all about Wilson. Time has nothing to do with it. Wilson is no longer trustworthy because he is 1) teaching things contrary to the Scriptures and 2) teaching things contrary to the WCF. As David King rightly said about offering information on one´s views on another thread: "œI don't think such a question's answer can be reduced to the mechanics of time, anymore than one's maturity in Christ on any given subject can be reduced to a measurement of time."

It was not long ago that Wilson was a Reformed Baptist, and now he gives communion to babies. What next? Who knows?

Of all things, Wilson´s paedocommunionism is the least of the trouble. Justification is much more important a topic to deal with.

Well, it was also not long ago that Matt was a Reformed Baptist and a prolific critic of paedobaptism.

4 years is not long enough to make a switch after studying CT for 15 years? Maybe its not for some people. Maybe they need 20 years. It was "just right" for me - I needed 4. But I´m not following you. How long is too long, and how short is too short? Again, "œ"œI don't think such a question's answer can be reduced to the mechanics of time, anymore than one's maturity in Christ on any given subject can be reduced to a measurement of time." Isn´t sanctification something God does in us?

Last week, he was a critic of the psalm-only camp.

This has been an ongoing study for me for over 6 years. Is 6 years too short? I think the time issue is going to bite (bit) you. I will always be a critic until I switch views so that I´m sure I cover my bases. Can you give us a "œchart" or something that may help us determine what is too long or too short a time to make theological changes (i.e. sanctification)?

There´s nothing wrong with sweeping changes and massive theological shifts in keeping with one´s conscience, but it makes for unstable leadership. If a Presbyterian in the mold of Fred "“ a firm rock whom you know where he stands today and where he will still be standing tomorrow even if you disagree on some points "“ were to be the owner of the board, we´d have a more edifying board. The problem is severely compounded when Matt makes these exhibitionist doctrinal shifts online. This is where the groupies come in to play.

This is not against Fred at all "“ but that is bunk. Bunk is a good theological word to use occasionally. Was the Reformation unstable? A stable leader who is in error, would not be a stable leader that we would want. If continually conforming to the Bible and Confession is wrong, a bad thing, that is not "œinstability" - Luther and Calvin would call it Reformation. Semper Reformanda? Now if I, or anyone else, was credo this week, and paedo next week, and credo the week after, and paedo the week after that, then please, by all means, call that unstable. Double minded and unstable in all I do. That would definitely be unstable. But does reformation mean instability?

Matt has obviously been gifted with a sharp, active, and forceful mind.

If I were unstable, that could not be the case! But I appreciate the compliment.

As a prolific writer, thinker, and owner of APM, it is natural that he would attract groupies. I have seen similar websites emerge, and it is inevitable that whoever is the webmaster will receive a certain number of disciples. He steps out of the role on occasion, but Scott for the most part is Matt´s most faithful disciple. When Matt makes a new shift, I imagine that after he forcefully uses his logic to convince his wife ("œwe need to baptize our babies," for example), Scott is the next to conform. Yet, it´s the other groupies that I see as problematic because they often conform too quickly to even give the semblance of having studied the issue at hand. Most of them grew up in a-theological SBC churches, logged on to the Internet, went to the PB, and now seem to drink whatever kool-aid Matt offers, little to no questions asked. As this happens the circle of orthodoxy appears to narrow ever tighter and those of us on the outside begin to feel a bit less welcome.

This is a problem that every pastor has to deal with, and every theologian has to deal with. No one should ever accept information at face value. That is a problem that we have all through church history. Scott, though, just for the record, was a paedo-baptist and someone who held to EP before I did. My switch never takes place unless I am sure I have covered every exegetical angle I can, and I´m sure I´m not going to be surprised, for example, by satire.

I maintain that, given the added responsibility of having disciples one did not ask for, Matt´s exhibitionist doctrinal shifts online are inappropriate.

Greg, come on, this is a ridiculous assertion. Take five minutes and think about what you wrote and how it applies to Augustine, Luther, Owen, Calvin, etc. The greats of the church history. I´m not saying I´m great, but think about the application of the "œdon´t publish your switches" mentality. If you mean "“ "œMatt writes things" "“ by "œexhibitionist" that is an impossible inappropriateness to deal with. Augustine, for example, wrote far more prolifically than I, volumes and volumes, and towards the end of his life finally composed a "œretraction" of his errors. I guess he swayed lots of people and should not have been such an exhibitionist. Calvin revised the Institutes how many times before we have it in its current form? How many pages did it expand? How many chapters? And this is the most widely accepted reformation document ever written. Calvin was Roman Catholic and became protestant and lots of people followed him. Is that bad? Was he unstable? Study Calvin´s life and you will see he went through a great amount of writing and editing in the Institutes as he refined his views. Even in Strasbourg, during his sabbatical, it was a time of prolific writing. Lots of people followed him. The Institutes must have been an inappropriate exhibition. Cutting to the chase: What the real problem is, people don´t like where I´m going. For example, if I was gradually becoming a Credobaptist, you would be cheering me on. Be honest!

However, the greater fault is with those who conform to Matt without due diligence or who examine a thing not because it is the thing God wishes for them to examine in their heart at the time but because it is the faddish thing on the PB at the time. The recipe for disaster is when newly converted groupies lack the maturity and graciousness to interact in a manner worthy of their calling go charging at others with their new weapon.

I wholly agree with this. People should never follow a fad, and never accept something unless they are doing their due diligence and study in a prayerful manner. But this is a different problem than whether I should or should not write down my thoughts and place them on APM or the PB.

This may sound old-fashioned, but the young need to know their place. They need to respect their elders. They need to quietly listen to those more mature in the faith. Above all, they need to show reverence and respect for those who are actively serving the church as pastors.

True. This needs to be kicked up a notch on the board.

Frankly, among those of all ages, there is a lot of worldliness, pride, arrogance, immaturity, and thin-skinned little boys who ought to know by now how to be men of God. There have been many examples over the years of juvenile behavior. That Christians behave this way in a very open and public setting reflects the fact that we live in times in which the church is weak and compromised. There was recently a thread with pictures comparing America's President to a monkey and an ape. Most Calvinists like to argue, and I am no exception. However, just from reading most threads, one gets the impression that many, in a personal encounter, could reduce an atheist to tears and a fetal position but not have the first clue about how to lovingly offer them the glorious gospel of Jesus Christ. I realize that human nature tends to interact in ways online one would never do in person. Yet, we must call this what it is "“ hypocrisy. I´ve personally participated in the guilt on this board of being thin-skinned and ungracious and immature, and I ask your forgiveness. I don´t have nearly the time I once did to participate here (classes begin again in 2 weeks for me), but I am resolved to be, as often as I am here, a part of the solution.

I agree with this overall.

I realize I´ve been blunt and a bit personal. If I´ve wounded anyone´s pride with my answer, I pray it is the faithful wound of a friend. To summarize, here are the three things that I believe need to be done to tap into the board´s potential for edification. 1) Matt, you need to become a leader in the mold of Fred. You didn´t ask for disciples but you got "˜em. So, you need to be careful what you say, when and how you say it, and think about how the groupies are going to receive it. Stop being a fanatical hyperist; start being a rock.

I don´t mind personal at all. I do mind when its incorrect. Let´s say for argument´s sake that I´m turning to Theonomy (I´m not, but let´s just say that) "“ at what time do you think it would be best to let others know? Is there a set time period? How long, how short? Etc? Your "œrock analogy" isn´t going to hold up in comparison to the sanctification process that Christ has laid on each one of us, and for each of us its different. Moses is int he wilderness, sees a bush burning and learns something new in 5 seconds. When God is around, bushes can burn and not be consumed. That was about a radical thing as anyone had ever seen. It did not take him long to process the information. Maybe it´s a bad thing Fred is a rock. Maybe there are views he needs to change. Is it a good thing, then if he didn´t change them? This is not a "œpride issue" it´s a practical question. Luther was not a rock in this respect. Neither was Calvin. Their works represented their views at the time. If retractions are needed to be made because of Christ´s sanctification, they made them. Otherwise, we would be a church bereft of any writings at all. No one would ever be "stable enough."

Since Greg is very much right about my influence, I repeat "“ I am not becoming a theonomist.

2) Matthew fans, you need to let God set the agenda for what areas, theological and otherwise, He needs to be dealing with you about, rather than this message board. Also, submit to and respect your elders.

I don´t necessarily agree here either because God uses lots of things in our lives to change our minds on things towards further sanctification. I do agree that PB should not be the MAIN source, but it certainly could be a huge source. Lots of churches have little fellowship of this kind because people do not like to talk about things as deep. And yet, I have received thousands of emails from people all over the planet who tell me that APM and PB have helped them immensely change their views of things that they needed to see more clearly. I praise God for that (who am I?). That does not mean they neglect the means of grace they have at their local church "“ that for them should be their #1 means of grace. The PB or APM should be WAY down the list. But could it be that God is sovereign over the PB as well, and just maybe there are theological ideas that are being sparked here so they, and you, consider them Greg? I guess that would include "œGod´s agenda" in our sanctification!

3) We all need to mortify our pride, esteem all other posters as higher than ourselves, love the brethren, and get thicker skin/

I agree very much.

 

[doulosChristou]

Originally posted by webmaster

Weaknesses:

The church today is weak and compromised with worldliness, and the board reflects that. The main problems that detract from the board´s edification potential can be summed up in three categories: 1) unstable leadership, 2) unstable groupies, and 3) rampant, uncharitable immaturity. By leadership, I primarily refer to Matthew and, secondarily, to Scott. Matt recently made the very good point that "œwe ought not to propagate anything written by [Doug Wilson] since his views are currently being disseminated and evolving." What I believe Matt meant by this is that Wilson is not a trustworthy guide because he has made significant shifts in so short a span of time that we have no safety in knowing where he is ultimately going to end up.

This is not what I meant at all about Wilson. Time has nothing to do with it. Wilson is no longer trustworthy because he is 1) teaching things contrary to the Scriptures and 2) teaching things contrary to the WCF. As David King rightly said about offering information on one´s views on another thread: "œI don't think such a question's answer can be reduced to the mechanics of time, anymore than one's maturity in Christ on any given subject can be reduced to a measurement of time."

Oh, okay. Then we disagree a bit about the time thing.

Originally posted by webmaster

It was not long ago that Wilson was a Reformed Baptist, and now he gives communion to babies. What next? Who knows?

Of all things, Wilson´s paedocommunionism is the least of the trouble. Justification is much more important a topic to deal with.

I agree.

Originally posted by webmaster

Well, it was also not long ago that Matt was a Reformed Baptist and a prolific critic of paedobaptism.

4 years is not long enough to make a switch after studying CT for 15 years?

Four years is about right. I certainly didn't mean to imply that you make these shifts lightly or even hastily.

Last week, he was a critic of the psalm-only camp.

Originally posted by webmaster
This has been an ongoing study for me for over 6 years. Is 6 years too short? I think the time issue is going to bite (bit) you.

Ah, I see where our thoughts are diverging. As far as time goes, I put as much emphasis on the maturation time after a great shift (one needs time to move beyond the cage stage) as I do on the time of study leading up to the shift. But shifting, per se, is not a bad thing. As I wrote:

There´s nothing wrong with sweeping changes and massive theological shifts in keeping with one´s conscience, but it makes for unstable leadership.

I didn't mean unstable leader. I specifically meant unstable leadership.

Originally posted by webmaster
This is not against Fred at all "“ but that is bunk. Bunk is a good theological word to use occasionally.

It's a good word.

Originally posted by webmaster
Was the Reformation unstable?

Yes, in a good way as I'm sure you'd agree.

Originally posted by webmaster
A stable leader who is in error, would not be a stable leader that we would want. If continually conforming to the Bible and Confession is wrong, a bad thing, that is not "œinstability" - Luther and Calvin would call it Reformation. Semper Reformanda? Now if I, or anyone else, was credo this week, and paedo next week, and credo the week after, and paedo the week after that, then please, by all means, call that unstable. Double minded and unstable in all I do. That would definitely be unstable. But does reformation mean instability?

Let me clarifly what I meant. You are an influential leader over many who visit and participate here on this Internet site. Imagine a real world leader, say a pastor of a Reformed Baptist church. He becomes convinced of paedobaptism. Does he hint at the Wednesday night service that he is about to undergo a major theological shift to be announced on Sunday? Does he take to the pulpit on Sunday and preach against the evils of not giving covenant children the sign and seal? Or, does he speak to the other elders in private, make organized arrangements to be replaced as pastor, and then graciously leave to find fellowship in a paedobaptist communion? One way is more stable than the other.

Originally posted by webmaster

Matt has obviously been gifted with a sharp, active, and forceful mind.

If I were unstable, that could not be the case! But I appreciate the compliment.

But seriously, I meant the structure, not you personally.

Originally posted by webmaster

As a prolific writer, thinker, and owner of APM, it is natural that he would attract groupies. I have seen similar websites emerge, and it is inevitable that whoever is the webmaster will receive a certain number of disciples. He steps out of the role on occasion, but Scott for the most part is Matt´s most faithful disciple. When Matt makes a new shift, I imagine that after he forcefully uses his logic to convince his wife ("œwe need to baptize our babies," for example), Scott is the next to conform. Yet, it´s the other groupies that I see as problematic because they often conform too quickly to even give the semblance of having studied the issue at hand. Most of them grew up in a-theological SBC churches, logged on to the Internet, went to the PB, and now seem to drink whatever kool-aid Matt offers, little to no questions asked. As this happens the circle of orthodoxy appears to narrow ever tighter and those of us on the outside begin to feel a bit less welcome.

This is a problem that every pastor has to deal with, and every theologian has to deal with. No one should ever accept information at face value. That is a problem that we have all through church history. Scott, though, just for the record, was a paedo-baptist and someone who held to EP before I did. My switch never takes place unless I am sure I have covered every exegetical angle I can, and I´m sure I´m not going to be surprised, for example, by satire.

I know it and covering every exegetical angle should be exemplified.

Originally posted by webmaster

I maintain that, given the added responsibility of having disciples one did not ask for, Matt´s exhibitionist doctrinal shifts online are inappropriate.

Greg, come on, this is a ridiculous assertion. Take five minutes and think about what you wrote and how it applies to Augustine, Luther, Owen, Calvin, etc. The greats of the church history. I´m not saying I´m great, but think about the application of the "œdon´t publish your switches" mentality. If you mean "“ "œMatt writes things" "“ by "œexhibitionist" that is an impossible inappropriateness to deal with. Augustine, for example, wrote far more prolifically than I, volumes and volumes, and towards the end of his life finally composed a "œretraction" of his errors. I guess he swayed lots of people and should not have been such an exhibitionist. Calvin revised the Institutes how many times before we have it in its current form? How many pages did it expand? How many chapters? And this is the most widely accepted reformation document ever written. Calvin was Roman Catholic and became protestant and lots of people followed him. Is that bad? Was he unstable? Study Calvin´s life and you will see he went through a great amount of writing and editing in the Institutes as he refined his views. Even in Strasbourg, during his sabbatical, it was a time of prolific writing. Lots of people followed him. The Institutes must have been an inappropriate exhibition. Cutting to the chase: What the real problem is, people don´t like where I´m going. For example, if I was gradually becoming a Credobaptist, you would be cheering me on. Be honest!

You took what I said wrong. I'm not advocating "never publish your switches." What I meant by "exhibitionist" was the way in which you first posted a "teaser" stating that you were about to make a shift. You hinted that it had to do with worship. A guessing game ensued. You then gave a word jumble. Then, after everyone understandably waited expectantly, you made your shift. Again, I'll pick on Fred again. Had someone in Fred's mold made such a shift, I doubt he would have publicized it the very day he made the shift, let alone before he had made it. Considering you have a following, it would make sense to be a little more prudent and give it a while.

Originally posted by webmaster

However, the greater fault is with those who conform to Matt without due diligence or who examine a thing not because it is the thing God wishes for them to examine in their heart at the time but because it is the faddish thing on the PB at the time. The recipe for disaster is when newly converted groupies lack the maturity and graciousness to interact in a manner worthy of their calling go charging at others with their new weapon.

I wholly agree with this. People should never follow a fad, and never accept something unless they are doing their due diligence and study in a prayerful manner. But this is a different problem than whether I should or should not write down my thoughts and place them on APM or the PB.

Yes, I agree.

Originally posted by webmaster

I realize I´ve been blunt and a bit personal. If I´ve wounded anyone´s pride with my answer, I pray it is the faithful wound of a friend. To summarize, here are the three things that I believe need to be done to tap into the board´s potential for edification. 1) Matt, you need to become a leader in the mold of Fred. You didn´t ask for disciples but you got "˜em. So, you need to be careful what you say, when and how you say it, and think about how the groupies are going to receive it. Stop being a fanatical hyperist; start being a rock.

I don´t mind personal at all. I do mind when its incorrect. Let´s say for argument´s sake that I´m turning to Theonomy (I´m not, but let´s just say that) "“ at what time do you think it would be best to let others know? Is there a set time period? How long, how short? Etc? Your "œrock analogy" isn´t going to hold up in comparison to the sanctification process that Christ has laid on each one of us, and for each of us its different. ... Maybe it´s a bad thing Fred is a rock. Maybe there are views he needs to change.

Maybe instead of "rock," I should have said more pastoral. I obviously think that there are several views Fred needs to change, and I am not knocking change itself. We are all being sanctified. Yet I do think that change in leaders leads to less stable leadership. A leader can get a "shifty" reputation. A lot of shifts beg the question, "what next?"

Originally posted by webmaster

2) Matthew fans, you need to let God set the agenda for what areas, theological and otherwise, He needs to be dealing with you about, rather than this message board. Also, submit to and respect your elders.

I don´t necessarily agree here either because God uses lots of things in our lives to change our minds on things towards further sanctification. I do agree that PB should not be the MAIN source, but it certainly could be a huge source. Lots of churches have little fellowship of this kind because people do not like to talk about things as deep. And yet, I have received thousands of emails from people all over the planet who tell me that APM and PB have helped them immensely change their views of things that they needed to see more clearly. I praise God for that (who am I?). That does not mean they neglect the means of grace they have at their local church "“ that for them should be their #1 means of grace. The PB or APM should be WAY down the list. But could it be that God is sovereign over the PB as well, and just maybe there are theological ideas that are being sparked here so they, and you, consider them Greg? I guess that would include "œGod´s agenda" in our sanctification!

I don't doubt that God could lead people en mass out of error and into deeper truth through the late night stirringd of one man on an Internet board, but I don't believe that's what's happening here. I've noticed that God rarely does the "en mass" thing even in local churches. It is usally on an individual basis. This makes sense since each believer is at a different place, struggling with different failures, needing to be corrected in different areas. I find it implausible that Exclusive Psalm singing was the pressing sin issue in the lives of your individual followers, even if it may have been for you. I certainly may be wrong, though. Please take whatever is constructive from my criticisms and disregard the rest.