# Expose on Doug Phillips



## VirginiaHuguenot

Cult-Watch Ministry Publishes Article Exposing Doug Phillips


----------



## RamistThomist

VirginiaHuguenot said:


> Cult-Watch Ministry Publishes Article Exposing Doug Phillips



I am not going to defend Phillips, but Chris Ortiz did an "expose" on that "expose site."


----------



## RamistThomist

Again, I don't have a dog in this hunt, but have read some counter-rebuttals

http://www.chalcedon.edu/blog/2007/05/beware-of-agents-of-defamation.php

There was another piece from Chalcedon dated May 8, 1:40 A.M. that should more light. I think Ortiz removed it. If so, then I will not post it (I have it on my google reader). To put it nicely, the sins the lady was guilty of were not just the usual reformed internet sins (e.g., backbiting, libel, slander); they were much worse.

But in honor of Ortiz (and mainly because i really don't care either way), I won't post the expose.


----------



## Gryphonette

"Jen's Gems"....I wonder if this might turn out to be the same "Jen" as the "Jennifer Epstein" who was 'outed' by Matthew Chancey on a blog site the latter called "Who is Mrs. Binoculars?"

According to Chancey, Jennifer and Mark Epstein waged a virtual vendetta against Doug Phillips.

Personally never been much for Phillips', I dunno what you'd call it, worldview, maybe, but I don't think he deserves the treatment he's received from the Epsteins.

The Epsteins were also - _apparently! allegedly!_ - involved in the infamous "Frank Vance" kerfluffle regarding Ligonier several months back.

Point being, if _this_ Jen is _that_ Jennifer, it'd likely be most prudent to avoid her.


----------



## RamistThomist

Gryphonette said:


> "Jen's Gems"....I wonder if this might turn out to be the same "Jen" as the "Jennifer Epstein" who was 'outed' by Matthew Chancey on a blog site the latter called "Who is Mrs. Binoculars?"
> 
> According to Chancey, Jennifer and Mark Epstein waged a virtual vendetta against Doug Phillips.
> 
> Personally never been much for Phillips', I dunno what you'd call it, worldview, maybe, but I don't think he deserves the treatment he's received from the Epsteins.
> 
> The Epsteins were also - _apparently! allegedly!_ - involved in the infamous "Frank Vance" kerfluffle regarding Ligonier several months back.
> 
> Point being, if _this_ Jen is _that_ Jennifer, it'd likely be most prudent to avoid her.



That sort of says what I wanted to say (it is the same Jen, If I recall correctly). Still, the blog post that I want post (because the original poster took it down) would be very...unsettling to "Jen."


----------



## KMK

> There didn’t seem to be a readily accessible Statement of Faith on the site, so I emailed Doug Phillips to request one. I received a response from Doug’s personal assistant, Bob Renaud, with a link to the Statement of Faith. After looking over this portion of the web site, I e-mailed Bob with several questions:
> 
> - Does one have to affirm Calvinism in order to be viewed as a believer?
> - If a church holds to dispensational theology rather than reformed theology, would you consider it a Christian church or a false church?
> - As you talk about a church teaching the “whole revelation of God,” would that mean that to be considered a Christian Church they would have to agree with your view of patriarchy?
> - There are several forms of church government practiced, all claiming to be the biblical form. Are there any that you would regard as not biblical and if a church uses that form of government are they considered to be not a Christian church?
> 
> I have sent these questions via e-mail on January 6 and January 25, 2007; and so far, I have not received a response. This increases our concerns rather than lessening them. *Is it intentional or do they realize that the language in this section of the web site comes across as implying that if one doesn’t agree with Vision Forum’s position, they are at the very least in rebellion to God’s revealed will?*…




Oh No! Doug is doomed! He is not an ecumenist! How dare he!

Seriously, wait till she gets a load of PB!


----------



## Semper Fidelis

I don't agree with the emphasis he places on certain things but calling his teaching cultic is pushing it.


----------



## Kevin

SemperFideles said:


> I don't agree with the emphasis he places on certain things but calling his teaching cultic is pushing it.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot

I posted this article to see what the reaction from the PB community would be. I note that most have said they are not willing to defend Doug Phillips but neither would they want to listen to Jennifer Epstein. Like others, I don't have a "dog in this fight." It sounds like a very complicated situation and I am not qualified to say who's right and who's wrong. But for me, a lot of red flags go up if this part of her message (a summary of her excommunication) is true:



> As a self-appointed, unordained, sole elder of Boerne Christian Assembly, Mr. Phillips pronounced an “excommunication” on a member family of his church in 2005. 2 The “excommunication” was vindictive and appears to have been motivated over a difference in political views. 3 The “trial” was conducted without any due process in what can only be described as a Kangaroo Court. The accused were tried in absentia. No witnesses were called. No defense was afforded the accused. No specific, detailed list of charges was made. No evidence was provided. Any actual valid excommunicable sins had already been repented from, including a pre-conversion sin that had been repented of fifteen years prior. 4 A prominent Pastor has since described the excommunication as “the Salem Witch Trials.” The family has attempted ever since to be reconciled with Mr. Phillips, but he has refused all offers to meet with them, thus confirming his vindictiveness.



The Chalcedon Foundation is free to say what they want, but I for various reasons, and since by their own admission they have a close relationship with Phillips' family and ministry, do not put a lot of stock in what they say. 

The forthcoming article should probably be judged after it is published in full form and read, rather than before. I hope it will be Biblical and scholarly. We shall see. 

My main concern with Doug Phillips' ministry, for the record, has to do with charge #4 by Jennifer Epstein:



> Doug Phillips is known as a leader in what is known as the “Patriarchy” movement. However, his conduct as a pastor makes it apparent that he is more of a misogynist than a Patriarch. “Let the women keep silent” (1 Cor. 13:34) is taken to such an extreme at BCA that women cannot make prayer requests or even introduce their guests. Women aren’t even permitted to get the elements of the Lord’s Supper for themselves. If their husbands aren’t present, they must be served by another man, or one of her sons, even if that son is too young to take the Lord’s supper himself. Mr. Phillips’ treatment of women is degrading and demeaning, and he does not treat them as fellow heirs of Christ Jesus.



I know someone who has personally attended that church and observed that fathers are the ones who administer the sacrament of the Lord's Supper. They get to decide who in their family is eligible, and have been observed administering the sacrament to little children and infants. I know that many paedo-communionist churches are affiliated with Phillips' National Center for Family-Integrated Churches. And I'm not clear on the current relationship between Phillips and R.C. Sproul, Jr., but it appears they were pretty close in 2004. I think the Patriarchy movement which has lead to this very warped view of the father being the family priest (not in the sense of lead his family in family worship which is good, but in the sense of administering the sacraments, thus usurping the ministerial office) has led to paedo-communion, which I view as a serious error.


----------



## LadyFlynt

Andrew, you spoke well. I am for much of the material VF puts out and their stands on certain issues. I have noticed an extreme misuse in the applications however, that remind me of abusive churches we have attended in the past.


----------



## Kevin

Well said Andrew.

For what it's worth Fundamental Baptists have just "taken a stand" against the Phillips "movement". The main issue they have is the unity with people based on your view of childrens church and ignoring other doctrines.

As is often the case the critic (Jen) has as much to be criticised as the target(Phillips). Yet... some of these issues are troublesome.


----------



## KMK

VirginiaHuguenot said:


> And I'm not clear on the current relationship between Phillips and R.C. Sproul, Jr., but it appears they were pretty close in 2004.



Not disagreeing, Andrew, but what does this have to do with anything? Is association with Jr. a bad thing? My wife is a big fan. Is there something I need to know?


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot

KMK said:


> Not disagreeing, Andrew, but what does this have to do with anything? Is association with Jr. a bad thing? My wife is a big fan. Is there something I need to know?



R.C. Sproul, Jr. is a noted paedo-communionist who was deposed from the RPCGA on those grounds as well as another scandal he was involved in. There has been some discussion of him in previous threads.


----------



## Kevin Lewis

VirginiaHuguenot said:


> I posted this article to see what the reaction from the PB community would be. I note that most have said they are not willing to defend Doug Phillips but neither would they want to listen to Jennifer Epstein. Like others, I don't have a "dog in this fight." It sounds like a very complicated situation and I am not qualified to say who's right and who's wrong. But for me, a lot of red flags go up if this part of her message (a summary of her excommunication) is true:
> 
> 
> 
> The Chalcedon Foundation is free to say what they want, but I for various reasons, and since by their own admission they have a close relationship with Phillips' family and ministry, do not put a lot of stock in what they say.
> 
> The forthcoming article should probably be judged after it is published in full form and read, rather than before. I hope it will be Biblical and scholarly. We shall see.
> 
> My main concern with Doug Phillips' ministry, for the record, has to do with charge #4 by Jennifer Epstein:
> 
> 
> 
> I know someone who has personally attended that church and observed that fathers are the ones who administer the sacrament of the Lord's Supper. They get to decide who in their family is eligible, and have been observed administering the sacrament to little children and infants. I know that many paedo-communionist churches are affiliated with Phillips' National Center for Family-Integrated Churches. And I'm not clear on the current relationship between Phillips and R.C. Sproul, Jr., but it appears they were pretty close in 2004. I think the Patriarchy movement which has lead to this very warped view of the father being the family priest (not in the sense of lead his family in family worship which is good, but in the sense of administering the sacraments, thus usurping the ministerial office) has led to paedo-communion, which I view as a serious error.



Andrew,
I believe when you say "they get to decide who takes communion" I believe it would be more accurate to say, they are using discernment as the head of their household as to who should take communion or not - meaning as they lead thier family, they hopefully know their children well enough to know if they will bring judgment upon themselves for taking communion if they are not regenerated believers.

Also, I am fairly doubtful that they practice paedocommunion, as they are credobaptist. Because of this, I think they would only allow those who have made a clear profession of faith to take communion. I could be wrong though.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot

Reformed-Kermit said:


> Andrew,
> I believe when you say "they get to decide who takes communion" I believe it would be more accurate to say, they are using discernment as the head of their household as to who should take communion or not - meaning as they lead thier family, they hopefully know their children well enough to know if they will bring judgment upon themselves for taking communion if they are not regenerated believers.
> 
> Also, I am fairly doubtful that they practice paedocommunion, as they are credobaptist. Because of this, I think they would only allow those who have made a clear profession of faith to take communion. I could be wrong though.



What I mean to say is that fathers in that church -- according to a first-hand report by someone that I trust -- determine to whom in their family they will administer the sacrament of the Lord's Supper and then administer the sacrament to those individuals (ie., it is the father's discretion who in their family they will administer the sacrament to and if age is an issue it is an issue for the father to decide). And according to the report of Jennifer Epstein, sons may administer the sacrament to their mothers when the father is absent.


----------



## Kevin Lewis

*Okay -*



VirginiaHuguenot said:


> What I mean to say is that fathers in that church -- according to a first-hand report by someone that I trust -- determine to whom in their family they will administer the sacrament of the Lord's Supper and then administer the sacrament to those individuals (ie., it is the father's discretion who in their family they will administer the sacrament to and if age is an issue it is an issue for the father to decide). And according to the report of Jennifer Epstein, sons may administer the sacrament to their mothers when the father is absent.



Andrew,

Thanks for the follow up. I guess unless I am missing something, I would tend to agree with that (besides possibly the part about the sons administering it to their mothers.) How would you look at that? Would you allow kids to choose for themeselves if they want to take it or not? 

I know I have some young kids that if they were given the opportunity, they would surely grab one (or a whole handful for that matter), but if I allowed this, they may bring themselves under judgment. I am not paedobaptist so of course we do not follow paedocommunion. Any thoughts?

Also, I have read a lot about Jennifer Epstein (et al) on various blogs and followed much of her criticism of Doug Phillips. I just talked with Doug Phillips personally last weekend at a homeschool conference here in Orlando and what I know of him and Vision Forum, I would highly recommend. We need to be very careful what we hear, read and we believe from the internet so that we do not judge ourselves. Any thoughts?


----------



## LadyFlynt

Mr. Lewis, I had been in a Credo-Baptist church that permitted and was starting up with paedo-communion...beyond professing children.


----------



## Gryphonette

They went straight from credobaptism to paedocommunion? 

Wow. That's a heck of a leap.


----------



## LadyFlynt

Yep...


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot

Reformed-Kermit said:


> Andrew,
> 
> Thanks for the follow up. I guess unless I am missing something, I would tend to agree with that (besides possibly the part about the sons administering it to their mothers.) How would you look at that? Would you allow kids to choose for themeselves if they want to take it or not?
> 
> I know I have some young kids that if they were given the opportunity, they would surely grab one (or a whole handful for that matter), but if I allowed this, they may bring themselves under judgment. I am not paedobaptist so of course we do not follow paedocommunion. Any thoughts?
> 
> Also, I have read a lot about Jennifer Epstein (et al) on various blogs and followed much of her criticism of Doug Phillips. I just talked with Doug Phillips personally last weekend at a homeschool conference here in Orlando and what I know of him and Vision Forum, I would highly recommend. We need to be very careful what we hear, read and we believe from the internet so that we do not judge ourselves. Any thoughts?



In Presbyterian polity, it is the duty of the session to examine covenant children before they can become a communicant. Parents, no doubt, are involved in the process in various ways, but fundamentally, it belongs to the session to determine who is eligible to partake of the Lord's Supper. And it belongs to the ministerial office to administer the sacraments.

Westminster Confession of Faith, Chap. 27:



> 4. There be only two sacraments ordained by Christ our Lord in the Gospel, that is to say, Baptism and the Supper of the Lord: neither of which may be dispensed by any but by a minister of the Word lawfully ordained.a
> 
> a. Mat 28:19-20, 19; 1 Cor 4:1; 11:20, 23; Heb 5:4.



Westminster Form of Presbyterian Church Governement: 



> Pastors....First, it belongs to his office,...2. That the ministers of the gospel have as ample a charge and commission to dispense the word, as well as other ordinances, as the priests and Levites had under the law, proved, Isa. lxvi. 21. Matt. xxiii. 34. where our Saviour entitleth the officers of the New Testament, whom he will send forth, by the same names of the teachers of the Old....To administer the sacraments.



Presbyterian Reformed Church, Form of Government: 



> Unto the pastor alone appertains the administration of the sacraments, in like manner as the ministry of the word, for both are appointed by God as means to teach us, the one by the ear, the other by the eyes and other senses.



Administration of the sacraments is a ministerial function, which is why I referred previously to the administration of the sacraments (whether by fathers or by sons generally speaking) as "usurping the ministerial office." 

As to the issue of believing what we read on the internet, you are quite right that we ought to be slow to believe charges made against a brother. I was very hesitant to even bring this whole issue up. But my concerns about Doug Phillips pre-date the first time I ever heard of Jennifer Epstein. Friends who have attended his church (not the Epsteins, whom I do not know personally) have cautioned me about him based on their observations. There are a number of concerns that I have not even mentioned here. 

As for the Epstein case, since she was excommunicated it is a public matter. She has no court of appeal, but has given an account of events and provided documentation publically that provide a reasonable person with grounds to be concerned. Yes, it is wise to remember Proverbs 18.17. This case clearly warrants as much transparency as possible. The spotlight should be shined on all parties because either the Epstein excommunication should be backed up with documented evidence and her charges publically refuted thus showing her for what Phillips says she is, or else this is a case of the abuse of church discipline on unBiblical grounds. Dismissing her as a vindictive person without evidence is also unBiblical. If she is wrong, let it be shown where she is wrong. It ought to be a simple matter, concerning the issues that I have focused on, to prove that Phillips' church follows due process in the matter of church discipline and does not allow fathers or sons generally to administer the sacrament. I am waiting for the evidence. I would be delighted to see Doug Phillips vindicated in these and other matters. What I see instead of transparency is an effort to shun and encourage others to shun someone simply on the word of Doug Phillips without any substantive explanation. This is not a proper exercise of the keys of the kingdom. 

Well, I have said my peace, I think. It is possible there is no fire, even though there is plenty of smoke. But there should be light shined on this situation, and lots of it, that the truth of the matter may be known.


----------



## KMK

VirginiaHuguenot said:


> As for the Epstein case, since she was excommunicated it is a public matter. She has no court of appeal, but has given an account of events and provided documentation publically that provide a reasonable person with grounds to be concerned. Yes, it is wise to remember Proverbs 18.17. This case clearly warrants as much transparency as possible. The spotlight should be shined on all parties because either the Epstein excommunication should be backed up with documented evidence and her charges publically refuted thus showing her for what Phillips says she is, or else this is a case of the abuse of church discipline on unBiblical grounds. Dismissing her as a vindictive person without evidence is also unBiblical. If she is wrong, let it be shown where she is wrong. It ought to be a simple matter, concerning the issues that I have focused on, to prove that Phillips' church follows due process in the matter of church discipline and does not allow fathers or sons generally to administer the sacrament. I am waiting for the evidence. I would be delighted to see Doug Phillips vindicated in these and other matters. What I see instead of transparency is an effort to shun and encourage others to shun someone simply on the word of Doug Phillips without any substantive explanation. This is not a proper exercise of the keys of the kingdom.



Is this similar to what happened to Sproul Jr? Is that why you brought him up?


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot

KMK said:


> Is this similar to what happened to Sproul Jr? Is that why you brought him up?



I only mentioned Sproul, Jr. because he is known for his paedo-communion views and his (apparently) close relationship with Doug Phillips _may_ be therefore relevant since paedo-communion is one of the areas of concern with Doug Phillips.


----------



## KMK

VirginiaHuguenot said:


> I only mentioned Sproul, Jr. because he is known for his paedo-communion views and his (apparently) close relationship with Doug Phillips _may_ be therefore relevant since paedo-communion is one of the areas of concern with Doug Phillips.



Sorry. I am just reeling. I have benefited greatly from the work of so many that the PB generally holds in disrepute. The writings of Sproul Jr. (who is also on the Amazing Grace dvd), Phillips, Kent Hovind, John MacArthur, Douglas Wilson (I just finished his awesome book, "Fidelity") I guess the HS is able to use these sinful men in spite of themselves.

BTW, does PB take a stand against paedocommunion the way it does FV?


----------



## Contra_Mundum

FV advocates are specifically disallowed because a further declaration as to its heterodoxy has been declared by the board's overseeing (incidentally) church.

Paedo-communion is simply unconfessional, non-creedal. So, to advocate it is to deny the confessions at that point. We ask people who want to join whether they agree with one of the confessions. They have a duty to be honest at that point, and let the screening fall out as it may. But one will not be allowed to advocate it since it has no creedal/confessional church support.


----------



## Redaimie

Would Doug Phillips be considered FV? 
Is there a connection between the "extreme" patriarchal view & FV?


----------



## Gryphonette

*The HS had best be able to....*



KMK said:


> I have benefited greatly from the work of so many that the PB generally holds in disrepute. The writings of Sproul Jr. (who is also on the Amazing Grace dvd), Phillips, Kent Hovind, John MacArthur, Douglas Wilson (I just finished his awesome book, "Fidelity") I guess the HS is able to use these sinful men in spite of themselves.



...seeing as how "sinful men" are the only sort available to be our theologians. 

I've met and am on a friendly basis with RCJR, though don't agree with him on a LOT of his, um, _unique_ ways of looking at things, but still, in some areas he's aces, as is his father, MacArthur, Wilson, et al.

Just need to be centered with regard to one's own theology, knowing what one believes and why one believes it, and then they may be enjoyed and benefited from through the careful use of discernment. Off the top of my head I can't think of any theologian, extant or otherwise, who can be swallowed whole without chewing.


----------



## KMK

Gryphonette said:


> Off the top of my head I can't think of any theologian, extant or otherwise, who can be swallowed whole without chewing.



I like that one!


----------



## Redaimie

From the link above if this is true, isn't that contrary to the gospel?
Is Doug Phillips church only for believers who are invited?



> I started asking around everywhere I went if anyone knew of a home church in the San Antonio area. I asked people at the grocery store, on the street, friends, everyone. We were desperate. Finally, a friend of a friend of a friend told me about a “home” church an hour away. I called, but was told simply, “No.” Crestfallen, we continued visiting various churches in the area, but – nothing.
> 
> Several weeks later, I called this lady back, practically begging to be allowed to visit.


----------



## RamistThomist

Redaimie said:


> From the link above if this is true, isn't that contrary to the gospel?
> Is Doug Phillips church only for believers who are invited?



Possibly, but I would take it with a grain of salt. 

Someone ignored the chalcedon link I gave because they weren't objective (who is?) and are friends with Phillips. So be it. I still didn't post the other link I have saved in my files which is absolutely damning (to the case, not to the person's salvation) to the other side. I won't post it for ecclesiastical reasons.


----------



## NaphtaliPress

Draught Horse said:


> Possibly, but I would take it with a grain of salt.
> 
> Someone ignored the chalcedon link I gave because they weren't objective (who is?) and are friends with Phillips. So be it. I still didn't post the other link I have saved in my files which is absolutely damning (to the case, not to the person's salvation) to the other side. I won't post it for ecclesiastical reasons.


Mod. I for one appreciate that. All, feel free to discuss if so and so is a paedocommunist or whatever, but as often stated PB is not going to resolve controversial discipline cases, botched or otherwise. Churches hardly do this well, and PB is not a church court with any standing. Please do not rehearse this one here for review.


----------



## Redaimie

Draught Horse said:


> Possibly, but I would take it with a grain of salt.
> 
> Someone ignored the chalcedon link I gave because they weren't objective (who is?) and are friends with Phillips. So be it. I still didn't post the other link I have saved in my files which is absolutely damning (to the case, not to the person's salvation) to the other side. I won't post it for ecclesiastical reasons.



Jacob,

I did read your link too & thanks for posting it, I understand there are two side & I'm trying to be objective. The question I asked should be verifiable & I would really like to know from anyone who knows this church. Is it by invitation only?

blessings,


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Here is a link with other links in it to illumine and give a knowledge of some of the stuff that has happened and is happening.

http://www.visionforum.com/about/issues/al/


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot

For the record, the PB has allowed lengthy discussions of previous church discipline cases in at least a couple of instances, such as here and here.


----------



## NaphtaliPress

Whether those threads were like cases the other mods can judge. But the details of this lady's case are not going to be rehearsed here or the case retried. The PB mods, I think I can safely say, are generally committed to the principle that the board is not a church and if we are more scrupulous now in how we apply that to discussions, so be it. So I repeat,



NaphtaliPress said:


> All, feel free to discuss if so and so is a paedocommunist or whatever, but as often stated PB is not going to resolve controversial discipline cases, botched or otherwise. Churches hardly do this well, and PB is not a church court with any standing. Please do not rehearse this one here for review.


----------



## Redaimie

NaphtaliPress said:


> Whether those threads were like cases the other mods can judge. But the details of this lady's case are not going to be rehearsed here or the case retried. The PB mods, I think I can safely say, are generally committed to the principle that the board is not a church and if we are more scrupulous now in how we apply that to discussions, so be it. So I repeat,





My questions are directed in trying to discern if the "extreme" patriarchal churches tend to lead to a pattern of spiritual abuse & exclusetivity that would make bringing a non Christian to church problematic. I am wondering what connection there is between the "extreme" patriarchal movement & FV theology. If my questions are not appropriate for this forum please let me know & I'll gladly delete them.


----------



## RamistThomist

Redaimie said:


> I am wondering what connection there is between the "extreme" patriarchal movement & FV theology. If my questions are not appropriate for this forum please let me know & I'll gladly delete them.



About as much connection as "covenant theology leads to FV." Doug Phillips has openly opposed Wilson on justification, covenant, etc. True, there are some patriarchal churches that are FV (I haven't seen any, heard of any, etc.). Most extreme patriarchal churches are baptistic, whereas the FV, to put it mildly, is not baptistic.


----------



## KMK

I brought up FV and only did so to clarify PBs stance on paedocommunion. I in no way was suggesting that VF or Phillips or patristic churches were FV. Sorry for any confusion.


----------



## refbaptdude

VirginiaHuguenot said:


> What I mean to say is that fathers in that church -- according to a first-hand report by someone that I trust -- determine to whom in their family they will administer the sacrament of the Lord's Supper and then administer the sacrament to those individuals (ie., it is the father's discretion who in their family they will administer the sacrament to and if age is an issue it is an issue for the father to decide). And according to the report of Jennifer Epstein, sons may administer the sacrament to their mothers when the father is absent.



Andrew,

I have heard the same reports. 

I am very suspicious when it comes to Vision Forum.


Grace to you,
Steve


----------



## NaphtaliPress

Redaimie said:


> My questions are directed in trying to discern if the "extreme" patriarchal churches tend to lead to a pattern of spiritual abuse & exclusetivity that would make bringing a non Christian to church problematic. I am wondering what connection there is between the "extreme" patriarchal movement & FV theology. If my questions are not appropriate for this forum please let me know & I'll gladly delete them.





refbaptdude said:


> Andrew,
> I have heard the same reports.
> I am very suspicious when it comes to Vision Forum.
> Grace to you,
> Steve


I have no problems with fears or suspicions; I have my own; but (and I'm speaking generally, not to these posts) if they are veiled accusations back it up or don't say it. And the specific discipline case as already noted will not be covered here or retried. Blogs can do that. In fact, if anyone is hot to expose Phillips or Vision Forum, start your own blog.


----------



## Kevin Lewis

*Not the norm though*



LadyFlynt said:


> Mr. Lewis, I had been in a Credo-Baptist church that permitted and was starting up with paedo-communion...beyond professing children.



I do not believe this to be the norm in churches though (credeobaptist churches practicing paedocommunion). On the contrary, this would be an exception.


----------



## Kevin Lewis

*I beg to differ*



refbaptdude said:


> Andrew,
> 
> I have heard the same reports.
> 
> I am very suspicious when it comes to Vision Forum.
> 
> 
> Grace to you,
> Steve



I beg to differ. I have only had positive experiences with the Vision Forum materials and staff. I think Doug Phillips is a man of God and is being used in a huge way to help complacent fathers turn their hearts back toward their children. 

Why would you say you are so suspicious? What has your exposure to Doug Phillips and Vision Forum been?


----------



## KMK

The problem I see here is that some are suspisious of VF for reasons that they cannot bring forth because it would be gossip. But the problem is that by saying that you have dirt on a man but then refuse to say what it is causes everyone's imaginations to go crazy. Everyone starts to imagine things that are actually worse than the truth. It might be best for everyone just to leave the man alone and let things play out. There is nothing that VF sells, that I have seen, that could be harmful. Maybe some don't want to attend his church, but then many PBers would not want to attend my church either.


----------



## Blueridge Believer

I hope noone every does an expose on me.


----------



## Kevin

Blueridge reformer said:


> I hope noone every does an expose on me.



I'm working on it now!  

I could use some help coming up with a catcy name for my website...

So far all I got is "Can a Baptist be reformed??? & What so Blue about that Ridge???" It looks kinda-sorta greenish from here.


----------



## RamistThomist

KMK said:


> The problem I see here is that some are suspisious of VF for reasons that they cannot bring forth because it would be gossip. But the problem is that by saying that you have dirt on a man but then refuse to say what it is causes everyone's imaginations to go crazy. Everyone starts to imagine things that are actually worse than the truth. It might be best for everyone just to leave the man alone and let things play out. There is nothing that VF sells, that I have seen, that could be harmful. Maybe some don't want to attend his church, but then many PBers would not want to attend my church either.



this might be referring to me but I was actually holding stuff back on the bloggers who are hating on VF. I actually like VF's catalogue.


----------



## Redaimie

KMK said:


> The problem I see here is that some are suspisious of VF for reasons that they cannot bring forth because it would be gossip. But the problem is that by saying that you have dirt on a man but then refuse to say what it is causes everyone's imaginations to go crazy. Everyone starts to imagine things that are actually worse than the truth. It might be best for everyone just to leave the man alone and let things play out. There is nothing that VF sells, that I have seen, that could be harmful. Maybe some don't want to attend his church, but then many PBers would not want to attend my church either.




I'm not interested in what FV sells period though we do have a bugle we bought for our son from them. 
I'm interested in knowing about the "extreme" patriarchal movement. As I have said I have questions about the whole thing, exclusesivity, shunning families, discipline, education, accountability, evangelism etc but I assure you I'll refrain from asking anymore since it's obvious my questions are being miss understood & I'll just ignore the whole movement & just hope I never find myself having to know more.


----------



## RamistThomist

Redaimie said:


> whole thing, exclusesivity, shunning families, discipline, education, accountability, evangelism etc but I assure you I'll refrain from asking anymore since it's obvious my questions are being miss understood & I'll just ignore the whole movement & just hope I never find myself having to know more.



It's not that they are being "ignored" (your questions), but this is a forum and there are about 10 rabbit trails per post. To answer one of your questions, I don't think they have said rules about "invitation only" to church. That's a pretty hefty deal and it would probably be best to go to the horses' mouth.

As to discipline, if it is merely church discipline, then it is biblical. Now, they might go about it wrongly, but I doubt anybody here has any firsthand experience to say whether they do or don't, so we have to assume innocent until proven guiilty.

Per education, they homee school, but so do many in Reformedom.

Per "shunning", I like this one. Be careful in reading this accusation. It can either be, "Such and such family was excommunicated for biblical reasons and don't like the consequences of it." Or it can be more serious, but again, we need more reliable firsthand information to verify that.

Per accountability, I would need more reliable info (what was the question per accountability?)

Per evangelism: I think they believe in it. I don't know why they wouldn't.


----------



## KMK

Draught Horse said:


> this might be referring to me but I was actually holding stuff back on the bloggers who are hating on VF. I actually like VF's catalogue.



I actually was not directing my comments at anyone, but rereading the post I can see why some would think so. I was just reflecting on how these issues are difficult. No one wants to gossip, but at the same time these accusations are made public. I guess, being a VF fan, I wouldn't want his ministry to suffer because of internet accusations which are a dime a dozen.

As for questions about 'extreme patriarchy', I don't know what that is. Some people think 'any' patriarchy is extreme.


----------



## Redaimie

Draught Horse said:


> As to discipline, if it is merely church discipline, then it is biblical. Now, they might go about it wrongly, but I doubt anybody here has any firsthand experience to say whether they do or don't, so we have to assume innocent until proven guiilty.
> 
> Per education, they homee school, but so do many in Reformedom.
> 
> Per "shunning", I like this one. Be careful in reading this accusation. It can either be, "Such and such family was excommunicated for biblical reasons and don't like the consequences of it." Or it can be more serious, but again, we need more reliable firsthand information to verify that.
> 
> Per accountability, I would need more reliable info (what was the question per accountability?)
> 
> Per evangelism: I think they believe in it. I don't know why they wouldn't.




What I mean by discipline is, what exactly is disciplined? 
The items below also cover my education questions.

For example are the items below subject to discipline? From what I read it would mean a woman cannot work outside her home or send the kids to Christian school nor would it be allowed to send a daughter to college.

From the VF site:

http://www.visionforumministries.org/home/about/biblical_patriarchy.aspx



> 14. While unmarried women may have more flexibility in applying the principle that women were created for a domestic calling, it is not the ordinary and fitting role of women to work alongside men as their functional equals in public spheres of dominion (industry, commerce, civil government, the military, etc.). The exceptional circumstance (singleness) ought not redefine the ordinary, God-ordained social roles of men and women as created. (Gen. 2:18ff.; Josh. 1:14; Jdg. 4; Acts 16:14)
> 
> 
> 
> 17. Fathers are sovereign over the training of their children and, with their wives, are the children’s chief teachers. Christian parents are bound to obey the command personally to walk beside and train their children. Any approach to Christian education ought to recognize and facilitate the role of fathers and mothers as the primary teachers of their children. (Deut. 4:9; 6:6ff.; Ps. 78:3-8; Prov. 1:8; Eph. 6:4; )
> 
> 
> 
> 19. Since the educational mandate belongs to parents and they are commanded personally to walk beside and train their children, they ought not to transfer responsibility for the educational process to others. However, they have the liberty to delegate components of that process. While they should exercise great caution and reserve in doing this, and the more so the less mature the child, it is prudent to take advantage of the diversity of gifts within the body of Christ and enjoy the help and support that comes with being part of a larger community with a common purpose. (1 Cor. 12:14ff.; Gal. 4:1,2; 6:2; Eph. 4:16)





By accountability I mean, are there any courts beside themselves, how does one appeal a decision?
By evangelism I wonder how the non believer can fit in, if they have all this extra biblical criteria required.


----------

