Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Interesting response from Wilkins. Amazing how he can agree with the Standards and disagree with them at the same time.
I have posted a bit of a quickie off-the-cuff The whole point of I John, indeed, is that the visible and invisible church BOTH EXIST NOW and are intermingled. How can a Reformed minister miss this? Jumpin’ Jehosaphat!
“this does not mean that there is such a thing as an “invisible Church” of which you must become a member.”
Oh really? Nicodemus WAS a member of the covenant body of Israel, but Jesus said that he had to be born again (unto the invisible church).
What I don't get is if Doug Wilson gets them, and the most prominent, most degreed theologians in the PCA don't, why don't they go over to Wilson's denomination? The affair with Sandlin and his church have made even more clear that it is Wilson's denomination, and that Wilson et al. are into Empire building. If the PCA is so wrong, and so intractable, then why not just leave?
in my opinion these men believe themselves to be Reformed and Christian. To leave would be to admit they're neither.
Dr. Clark
What do you think of the arguement that the Standards are speaking decretively but the Scriptures are speaking covenantally?
In a word: rubbish and all it's synonyms.
It's a re-hashing of the Calvin v the Calvinists argument that has been thoroughly discredited by a host of books and articles.
Beside the simply boring and tired C v C'ists argument the claim assumes other false premises. It assumes, e.g., a sort of dichotomy between biblical and systematic theology that didn't exist then as today; it assumes that the divines were unaware of how to read Scripture redemptive-historically or that they brought no such perspective to bear on their work.
As I've said many times, I dearly wish the ambitious and intelligent FV boys and their lesser minions would spend just a little time reading the Muller school. If they invested the same energy into Muller as the invest into Tom Wright and his biblicism they and we all would be well served.
rsc
In a word: rubbish and all it's synonyms.
But don't they assert the same is true of Wilson's sect? In that case, how is there any shame in realigning?
rsc
I agree they assert the soundness of Wilson's anti-Christian denomination (would that be a cult?), but from their point of view why should they realign? Realign to what? Besides, why should they give their opponents the pleasure of their departure? After all, it's only the blindness, boorishness and bigotry of their pea-headed critics that have made their insights and distincitves suspect in the first place. in my opinion realignment, while certainly a convenient solution, would be tantamount to running away.
Besides, the Presbyteries have a duty to hold these men to account for their gross and prolonged disruption of the peace and purity of the church. The OPC sinfully let Norm Shepherd realign himself with the CRC and see what that got them. Should the PCA follow suit in the case of Wilkins? Trying to sweep things under the rug makes the house look better, but does nothing to get rid of the dirt.
Greetings Dr. Clark,
It appears that the cry being raised up by some FV types is that TE Wilkins can't possibly be unorthodox if he claims to hold to the five points or affirms the sovereignty of God in salvation. Since you are very familiar with the history of Dort, isn't that also what the Remonstrates claimed? I'm not equating the specific errors of the Remonstrates to Rev. Wilkins, but it seems to me the idea that the claim that you believe in election or the sovereignty of God and that that then functions as a get out jail free card has never historically been the case.
Is my take on Dort wrong?
I'm getting notices that Doug Wilson and the FV folk are up in arms about my "lynching" comment.