White/Wilson debate?
- Thread starter blhowes
- Start date
- Status
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Clerk
This is what irritates me: is the debate even on Justification? Isn't the resolution Are Roman Catholics our Brothers? Justification will no doubt be mentioned, but don't you think that a more clear resolution could have been picked, or am I missing something?
blhowes
Puritan Board Professor
Jacob,
I may be wrong about the focus. The impression that I got at http://aomin.org/cruise/debate.htm was that the proper understanding of justification would play heavily into answering the question.
BTW, if anybody's interested, James White has been doing a series about justification during his church's Sunday School class - http://www.prbc.org/sunsch.htm. I listened to the "Active and Passive Obedience of Christ" this morning and it was a blessing.
My wife and I have just returned from the debate/conference. It was an interesting time. I was in the sahdow of Wilson, but sadly my back pain did not go away.
The debate centered on are Catholics are brethren. Or more specifically, does Trinitarian baptism bring someone into the covenant. I don't think either side conclusively proved thier points. It is a huge issue, and there just wasn't enough time.
The second day, was Tom Ascol, David King, Steve Camp, Eric Svendson, James White, Phil Johson. They spoke on justification, Reformed Presbyterian position on the Auburn situation, central themes of the gospel, etc...
It was a good time.
The debate centered on are Catholics are brethren. Or more specifically, does Trinitarian baptism bring someone into the covenant. I don't think either side conclusively proved thier points. It is a huge issue, and there just wasn't enough time.
The second day, was Tom Ascol, David King, Steve Camp, Eric Svendson, James White, Phil Johson. They spoke on justification, Reformed Presbyterian position on the Auburn situation, central themes of the gospel, etc...
It was a good time.
blhowes
Puritan Board Professor
This may be a naive question, but in general do you think that many/most Presbyterians would have sided with Wilson in this debate?
I don't know how widespread the practice is among reformed churches, but on the board in the past some have said that they believed it wouldn't be necessary to rebaptize someone who had been baptized as an infant in the catholic church. The baptism was considered valid because the catholic church used the trinitarian formula. If the covenant sign was valid, they must have been in the covenant all along, though in an apostate church.
Sounds like a good cast of players discussing some interesting topics.
I'm not real informed about the Auburn controversy or about Doug Wilson? Is Doug Wilson part of that controversy, or are they two separate animals?
Glad you had a good time. Did they happen to say if the debate will be online on James White's website?
I don't think most Presbyterians would side with Wilson. In fact, the RPCUS has accused Wilson and Schlissel of heresy. I forget who the other teacher's name was. Generally, a Presbyterian church will leave it up to you if you want to be rebaptized if you were originally baptized in the Roman church. However, Wilson goes too far in saying that you enter the Covenant through the covenant sign. It destroys the doctrine of justification by faith alone. In reading Schlissel's latest article, I've noticed that imputation is almost a non-entity in his new view. You can find some good material on this issue at chalcedon.org. Click on their newsletter.....
I would say that Wilson is definately on the other side of the Alpha/Omega crowd in regards to the Auburn Avenue & New Covenantal types.
From Pastor David King's speech, I can say that most Presbyterians wouldn't agree with Wilson. He (King) was very passionate about the Auburn Ave crowd being in the wrong.
The dabate and conference should be available on the site, as are the majority of the debates. They did video record it.
From Pastor David King's speech, I can say that most Presbyterians wouldn't agree with Wilson. He (King) was very passionate about the Auburn Ave crowd being in the wrong.
The dabate and conference should be available on the site, as are the majority of the debates. They did video record it.
blhowes
Puritan Board Professor
So officially the roman catholic baptism is a valid one? If its valid, then aren't they in the covenant? If not, at what point do they become part of the covenant?
I'm missing something here. How does Wilson saying that you enter the Covenant through the covenant sign destroy the doctrine of justification by faith alone? I didn't think that CT equated being in the covenant with being saved?
For my part, the issue is his inability to understand and articulate the doctrine of the visible and invisible church. That is the cause of the problems.
It would seem that Wilson at the very least is inconsistent but at worst heretical, lets hope it's the former. Also does anyone think it's wise to read Credenda/Agenda in which Doug Wilson is the editor. I found this interesting statement in their statement of faith
Hmmm....does that look suspicious to anyone else or it just me?.
VanVos
Hmmm....does that look suspicious to anyone else or it just me?.
VanVos
To your first question, I am not saying I agree with the belief that a Roman baptism could be a "valid" baptism. The general belief, as held by Hodge, is that as long as it is performed in the right "formula" it is valid. I disagree with that, personally. I don't think a baptism performed by blatant heretics is valid. But, I was offering the general consensus.
In response to your second question, as one of the other posters commented, Wilson fails to distinguish between the visible and invisible church. Surely one can be baptized and so be a part of the visible covenant community. Just as an Israelite could be circumcised and so be a part of the visible covenant community in the OT. But one can be baptized (or circumcised in the OT) and not be a part of the true, invisible church. Wilson makes no distinction between the two. In my view, and in the view of others, he makes baptism the instrumental cause of our salvation. The problem with Wilson and Schlissel is that they are not entirely clear on their position. They waste more time attacking their opposition then clarifying their own position. This is just what I gather from them. in my opinion, their theology is Roman at the core.
[Edited on 11/04/2004 by Reformed1]
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Clerk
It shouldn't. He is reading BOTH Romans and James. From his website he stated that the reason he includes RCC in the Covenant is so they could properly be classified as Covenant Breakers.
True it is using both Romans and James. But why don't they make it more clear as to what doctrine of justification is? To me it kind of reminds me of some modalist statements I've read, there always seems to be a lack of clarity, or they stop short of fully explaining themselves. Unless of course he clarifies his position else where, but I have yet to of read anything like that.
VanVos
[Edited on 9-11-2004 by VanVos]
VanVos
[Edited on 9-11-2004 by VanVos]
luvroftheWord
Puritan Board Sophomore
Why would that look suspicious? Sounds like Bible teaching to me.
- Status
Similar threads
