# An unholy alliance?



## Josiah (Nov 22, 2007)

BLOG and MABLOG

Is Doug Wilson suggesting that all federal vision critics are part of a "bizzare alliance" with the characters referenced in his blog? Perhaps someone can help me out on this one.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Nov 22, 2007)

Josiah said:


> BLOG and MABLOG
> 
> Is Doug Wilson suggesting that all federal vision critics are part of a "bizzare alliance" with the characters referenced in his blog? Perhaps someone can help me out on this one.



He is just talking a load of rubbish.  

As a Christian Reconstructionist critic of the Federal Vision I am in league with none of the groups he mentions.


----------



## Josiah (Nov 22, 2007)

I am trying to keep up with whats going on, being that i am not as familiar with the FV. The more i read of the these FV blogs the more I start to see the hollowness of some of their postings concerning the SJC.


----------



## py3ak (Nov 22, 2007)

Sometimes it seems that the only way to proceed with a clear conscience is to say, "a plague a' both your houses."


----------



## Transformer (Nov 27, 2007)

Thank you Josiah for recommending me this site. I look forward to fellowshipping with you online, now that you have moved away ;-)


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Nov 27, 2007)

py3ak said:


> Sometimes it seems that the only way to proceed with a clear conscience is to say, "a plague a' both your houses."



It's absolutely disgusting reading the comments on those blogs. It's part of the reason I never really read them. I really hate embroiling myself into the specifics of who is doing what to whom. The whole thing has a Soap Opera feel to it.

One observation is that it certainly fuels the "look what we have to endure for Christ's name" chorus by Wilson. In a perfect world, all the orthodox would behave like their confessions would have them. I imagine every theological controversy has had folks on the wrong side believe they're in the right because of the alliances and emotions that can cloud from the facts at hand.

All those long discussions and side trails almost makes you forget why the LA Presbytery is being tried.


----------



## turmeric (Nov 27, 2007)

SemperFideles said:


> All those long discussions and side trails almost makes you forget why the LA Presbytery is being tried.



That is probably *exactly* the intent.


----------



## py3ak (Nov 27, 2007)

Yes. Sometimes the orthodox holler "Long Live the Empress" and obscure the proceedings as much as anyone.


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Nov 27, 2007)

Hellooo!  Controversy are like this. The orthodox are not always sweet and as well behaved as they should be, and often are jerks; that is part of the trial in God's providence; perhaps even a judgment (don't have Durham on Scandal to hand but he addresses this). Sometimes the guy that is wrong doctrinally is the more likable guy. I really don't think that is generally the case here; but don't disallow the possibility over the many discussions going on.


----------



## py3ak (Nov 27, 2007)

And, as in the present case, sometimes the distinction between the two sides is not so clear as good doctrine/bad conduct vs. bad doctrine/good conduct. The iconoclastic controversy was about the dimensionality of the idols, not about their use.


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Nov 27, 2007)

Explain what you mean by in the present case. 


py3ak said:


> And, as in the present case, sometimes the distinction between the two sides is not so clear as good doctrine/bad conduct vs. bad doctrine/good conduct. The iconoclastic controversy was about the dimensionality of the idols, not about their use.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Nov 27, 2007)

py3ak said:


> And, as in the present case, sometimes the distinction between the two sides is not so clear as good doctrine/bad conduct vs. bad doctrine/good conduct. The iconoclastic controversy was about the dimensionality of the idols, not about their use.



Depending upon what you mean I might have to disagree.

As I said, one of the reasons I don't read all the blogs and get bogged down in the heated arguments back and forth is that it's really ugly out there. I remember going into one of the blogs a while back to interact with Barlow and the emotions were so high that it was hard to even interact on very simple points. I think in the blogosphere there is much reason to say that it's hard to sift through who is where.

I frankly don't see that at all in the LA Presbytery case. Frankly the "TE Wilkins tripped over the Westminster Confession of Faith like some hidden booby trap that he never saw coming" defense is simply disingenuous. I also find it disingenuous that many men keep repeating that Wilkins is teaching about conditional election in a way that the WCF writers are silent about. It's the old "the WCF doesn't say _everything_ there is to say about union with Christ and Wilkins is merely fleshing out the rest" part.

I don't know how men can continue to make that argument in light of the repeated proof that such is not the case. The idea of a Covenantal union with Christ and a "sort of" union with Christ for the reprobate is simply not Confessional and it's plain as day in the Confessions.

At the end of the day, what raises my ire more than anything is that the mudslinging obscures that point and it's very difficult to get anyone to talk about the actual Confessional question because of the circus that is distracting the point.


----------



## py3ak (Nov 28, 2007)

NaphtaliPress said:


> Explain what you mean by in the present case.
> 
> 
> py3ak said:
> ...



Very simple. Matthew Winzer and T.E. Wilder, in my view, are the people who have criticized the FV in the most intelligible way. Yet their perspectives on the controversy don't seem to have a very high profile.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Nov 28, 2007)

py3ak said:


> NaphtaliPress said:
> 
> 
> > Explain what you mean by in the present case.
> ...



Well, I agree that they have been critical of the FV and so I'm not sure how this simplifies my own confusion about what exactly is the contention here.

Both in dialogues on the board and in personal conversation, it is quite apparent to me that Rev. Winzer agrees that the views that are being called un-Confessional are, in fact, un-Confessional. In fact, he was instrumental in bringing a great deal of clarity to me on that point.

But the two "houses" mentioned are not really what I'm concerned about anyway. It is interesting, is it not, that Wilson is one "house" here and the SJC is another. The problem is that Wilson isn't even in the PCA but he's content to blog about what's happening with a judicial case in a denomination he is not a part of.

I guess I'm sort of a simple guy. Sometimes I ask myself: "What is this subtlety that I'm missing here? Maybe I haven't read enough books yet to figure out how this is not a cut and dry matter."

I simply do not understand how someone can look at the Reformed Confessions, look at what TE Wilkins has taught and wrote, and then conclude that the charges are just completely bogus.

Now, maybe some of the circus surrounding this whole process is so distracting and annoying that, after awhile, people get disgusted. I mean, really, I read that Bayly Blog thing and my immediate thought was: "Man, I have some great moderators here on the Puritanboard." That discussion was all over the place beginning with a valid criticism about some stuff that undermined the credibility of some of the FV report and then ended up being some sort of potpourri of strange things including Wilson's view on slavery. I hardly remembered what the discussion was after reading halfway through and just had to stop because I couldn't take it anymore.

But even if a few men didn't handle themselves maturely prior to the report being received, the fact was that it _was_ received and I hope you don't mean to imply that every TE and RE at the PCA GA should be condemned for agreeing with the report that the Federal Vision was un-Confessional.

So, when the smoke clears, and all the "who did what to whom" clears, I'm a pretty simple guy and I want this question answered: What are these guys teaching in a Reformed denomination and is it completely out of accord with the Confession? If the answer to the latter is "Yes" then there is a place at some point that some discipline is necessary. I honestly get a little tired of the "technical" objections that cloud what the issues are.

I believe the SJC's findings about the LA Presbytery's examination were substantially correct. I'm not a member of the PCA and so I simply hope that the men assigned to try the case will do so uprightly and with integrity. I believe the trial is not for unsubstantiated charges.

I, for one, have no interest in reading the major blogs from either side devoted to recounting all the soap opera concerns and claims that "...you just don't understand us...." Several months ago, in fact, I started a dialogue here on the PB over the issue of Conditional Election and interacted with some major FV proponents. They were very happy when Rev. Winzer seemed to "be their man" when he acknowledged that the term "Conditional Election" was part of the Reformed parlance. Of course, they kicked him immediately to the curb as soon as they realized that he flatly rejected _their use_ of the term since it was 180 degrees out from what Owen and others meant by it. I gave up trying to dialogue because I've found that there really isn't much interest in interacting openly and honestly about the point once you point out the view is completely unconfessional. At that point, it's a "So What?" response from many which confirms the problem.

I also prefer to stay out of the dialogues because I still have friends inside the FV movement. I'll talk about the FV here _because_ I cannot interact with the FV folks. If I did then I'm afraid I would get drug down in the muck and I have no desire for that.


----------



## py3ak (Nov 28, 2007)

I don't know that there is an issue of contention. My point is simple: whether doctrinally or practically, _the fact that your opponent is wrong doesn't necessarily mean that you are right._ So if my contrincant jumps down my throat in an uncharitable way, that doesn't mean my behaviour is automatically beatific. If my opponent falls into Apollinarianism in refuting me, that doesn't mean that I am not a closet Nestorian (disclaimer for those who may not grasp illustrations: I am not a closet Nestorian). 

I think there are two ways error damages the church: by deceiving us, and by pushing us through the force of reaction to behave in a way inconsistent with the truth, and by causing us to take up unBiblical positions simply because they seem to be the opposite of the error the other people are making. 

We need to remember the positive goal: the defense of the truth; the edification of the flock; increased conformity to the image of Christ. If we don't fall into the errors of the FV *but* we fall into sin *or* we are pushed into other errors through the pressures of controversy on imperfectly sanctified minds, what have we gained? Has the devil not achieved his design in any case?


----------



## Stephen (Nov 28, 2007)

I agree with you brother that we should be careful not to react in a way that is inconsistent with the truth, but at the same time we must remember that many who oppose FV do so out of concern for the integrity of the gospel. We must remember that controversy can become messy, but we are not to refrain from it. If you read Wilson I think he has become so arrogant that you miss his point. The reason that FV is confusing is because they speak in circles.


----------



## py3ak (Nov 28, 2007)

I didn't realize until today that the Bayly's had weighed in again. Even the comments are helpful in that a lot of the major players in the most recent episode weighed in.

Stephen, it's not my intention to impugn anyone's motives. But surely one of the lessons of the RPW is that good motivations don't serve as an excuse.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Nov 29, 2007)

py3ak said:


> I don't know that there is an issue of contention. My point is simple: whether doctrinally or practically, _the fact that your opponent is wrong doesn't necessarily mean that you are right._ So if my contrincant jumps down my throat in an uncharitable way, that doesn't mean my behaviour is automatically beatific. If my opponent falls into Apollinarianism in refuting me, that doesn't mean that I am not a closet Nestorian (disclaimer for those who may not grasp illustrations: I am not a closet Nestorian).
> 
> I think there are two ways error damages the church: by deceiving us, and by pushing us through the force of reaction to behave in a way inconsistent with the truth, and by causing us to take up unBiblical positions simply because they seem to be the opposite of the error the other people are making.
> 
> We need to remember the positive goal: the defense of the truth; the edification of the flock; increased conformity to the image of Christ. If we don't fall into the errors of the FV *but* we fall into sin *or* we are pushed into other errors through the pressures of controversy on imperfectly sanctified minds, what have we gained? Has the devil not achieved his design in any case?



I agree with you to a point but it still ignores a larger issue.

I almost hear you saying that unless everybody at Nicea who condemned Arianism had to present their case with the same precision as Athanasius in order for the condemnation of Arianism to be valid.

I simply don't understand how, whether certain parties surrounding the controversy, especially notables in the blogosphere, have said dumb things, how that affects the particular case at hand.

I really must be too obtuse to get what you're saying so I'd prefer you stick to the specific case at hand. There is a minister by the name of Steve Wilkins who was accused of un-Confessional views. Do you think the Presbytery did its job in reporting whether or not his views were confessional or not? I'm not really interested in the circus surrounding it but trying to deal with the things that can be dealt with.

The circus surrounding the Arian controversy was even more spectacular and worldwide than this affair. If we measure the ability to find out error in the Church on the bar of misunderstandings and perceptions then no error would ever be rooted out of the Church.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Nov 29, 2007)

py3ak said:


> I didn't realize until today that the Bayly's had weighed in again. Even the comments are helpful in that a lot of the major players in the most recent episode weighed in.
> 
> Stephen, it's not my intention to impugn anyone's motives. But surely one of the lessons of the RPW is that good motivations don't serve as an excuse.



The only thing I learn from this is how people _feel_ about the things that are going on. It reminds me of the OJ Simpson trial. The stuff surrounding the trial takes your eyes off of what is actually being tried.

I've always been sort of a "bottom line" guy that's more interested in the evidence in the case. I don't see any claims about the facts at hand. I think if we just focused on the Confessional issues and let the bloggers have their fun then it might focus us a bit more about what is actually being tried. Do you have _specific_ concerns about the validity of the charges or a _general_ concern that some people are just not being very nice?


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Nov 29, 2007)

Stephen said:


> I agree with you brother that we should be careful not to react in a way that is inconsistent with the truth, but at the same time we must remember that many who oppose FV do so out of concern for the integrity of the gospel. We must remember that controversy can become messy, but we are not to refrain from it. If you read Wilson I think he has become so arrogant that you miss his point. The reason that FV is confusing is because they speak in circles.



Good point, I have never come across so much double talk.


----------



## Stephen (Nov 29, 2007)

Semper, you raise a valid point. We sometimes forget what the issue is because we get bogged down in the side issues. I do not want to sound accusatory toward Louisana Presbytery, but I question if they really examined Steve Wilkins properly. If you look at the document (it is on Mt. Auburn Avenue's website) the elder asking the questions did not really probe into Wilkin's theology. He asked questions like, do you believe in a covenant of works and a covenant of grace? I am sorry but yes and no questions when reexamining a minister is not accepatable. I have sat in many examinations and have seem a much better job of asking a candidtate or minister questions. I feel that the presbytery tried to make it too easy for Wilkins and he really avoided the real issue of what he believes. I would like to hear others reaction to this. Remember, this is only my observation.


----------



## py3ak (Nov 29, 2007)

Rich, the up-or-down vote on Wilkins/Louisiana Presbytery is for the SJC of the PCA, not for me. I haven't read anything by Wilkins, so my views on his confessional status are non-existent. I haven't read the BCO so my views on the adherence to procedure are aso non-existent.

And I am *not* saying that unless something is done perfectly it ought not be done at all. But Eutyches was condemned for going too far in his condemnation of Nestorius. Do you think the devil cares whether we are Nestorians or Eutychians? In either case, we are not orthodox. And so we need to be careful in running error out of the church that we don't fall into error ourselves. I am not competent to address the specifics of Wilkins/LAP/SJC. But I am competent to observe that sin is sin and error is error, and if we guard the peace and the purity of the church through slander or lies or opposite error we're guarding the virginity of a maiden we've already deflowered.

Put that together with some statements by Rev. Winzer and Mr. Wilder and you've got my position in a nutshell.


----------



## turmeric (Nov 29, 2007)

I'm not sure what the argument is here; no one on this board wants to oppose the FV/NPP by slander-it's not necessary. The gates of Hell cannot stand against the Church. But the Church is full of justified sinners and sometimes people, especially on the Web it seems, lose their cool and say things that are unwise at best. I never read Wilson's blog, or any other FV blog, and I'm patiently waiting, as most of us are, for the SJC to finish its job. The wheels of Presbyterian church government grind slowly, but they grind exceeding fine.


----------



## py3ak (Nov 29, 2007)

I am not sure that there is an argument here, O Spicy One. I doubt that anyone would disagree with my thesis: controversy must be conducted in a godly way. And I suspect there might be a wide measure of approval also for my proposal that the FV controversy serves as a call to all of us to reevaluate the distinctively American contributions to Reformed theology and the relation between Biblical and confessional theology especially in the light of the resurgent interest in Protestant Scholasticism. 

I guess anger comes in when you suggest that some FV critics may not at all points have a leg to stand on. But unless one is to suggest that opposition to the FV constitutes an automatic inoculation against all forms of inconsistency or hypocrisy (or are willing to ignore that critics of the FV have differed among themselves at times) it seems like we must grant that. In other words, if we accept the call to re-evaluate, NAPARC may find some additional matters to be dealt with.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Nov 29, 2007)

py3ak said:


> Rich, the up-or-down vote on Wilkins/Louisiana Presbytery is for the SJC of the PCA, not for me. I haven't read anything by Wilkins, so my views on his confessional status are non-existent. I haven't read the BCO so my views on the adherence to procedure are aso non-existent.
> 
> And I am *not* saying that unless something is done perfectly it ought not be done at all. But Eutyches was condemned for going too far in his condemnation of Nestorius. Do you think the devil cares whether we are Nestorians or Eutychians? In either case, we are not orthodox. And so we need to be careful in running error out of the church that we don't fall into error ourselves. I am not competent to address the specifics of Wilkins/LAP/SJC. But I am competent to observe that sin is sin and error is error, and if we guard the peace and the purity of the church through slander or lies or opposite error we're guarding the virginity of a maiden we've already deflowered.
> 
> Put that together with some statements by Rev. Winzer and Mr. Wilder and you've got my position in a nutshell.



Well, it seems we're on the same page, which makes me wonder why you would then link to something a Wilson blog post where he compares the proceedings to Piracy. I don't know why your interest would not rest with the actual trial and, rather, with those talking about the trial. I haven't excused any bad behavior, I'm only interested in sticking with what is at stake and am less concerned that men stop acting childishly on their blogs then I am about whether or not orthodoxy in this particular case is rightly investigated.

I guarantee you that the majority of Elders in the PCA that voted to accept the FV report were not doing so because they were Internet bloggers.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Nov 30, 2007)

py3ak said:


> I am not sure that there is an argument here, O Spicy One. I doubt that anyone would disagree with my thesis: controversy must be conducted in a godly way. And I suspect there might be a wide measure of approval also for my proposal that the FV controversy serves as a call to all of us to reevaluate the distinctively American contributions to Reformed theology and the relation between Biblical and confessional theology especially in the light of the resurgent interest in Protestant Scholasticism.
> 
> I guess anger comes in when you suggest that some FV critics may not at all points have a leg to stand on. But unless one is to suggest that opposition to the FV constitutes an automatic inoculation against all forms of inconsistency or hypocrisy (or are willing to ignore that critics of the FV have differed among themselves at times) it seems like we must grant that. In other words, if we accept the call to re-evaluate, NAPARC may find some additional matters to be dealt with.



NAPARC congregations _constantly_ have things to deal with Ruben. I used to be a member of the SoCal OPC and then the big issues embroiling the Church were the framework hypothesis and then a huge controversy around Lee Irons. Many noted that some of those bringing up Irons on charges had their own issues. In fact, some of them today may even be FV proponents ironically enough. There are still some outstanding issues on whether that case was tried _perfectly_. In the final analysis his errors were rightly condemned but done so by imperfect men and sometimes imperfect motives. It's not an endorsement of the men but the fact that we can sometimes only deal with the error on hand that we're addressing.

It almost seems like you want them to _wait_ to deal with the FV until the entire PCA has become monolithically orthodox in all other areas. I agree that strange alliances form when dealing with certain errors. God even judges other nations in the Scriptures using His own enemies and then judges them for the pride they had in executing His plan.

This particular error _must_ be addressed. I'm not going to necessarily agree with the motivations of every man who disagrees with the error but the Gospel is not served either by allowing the error to continue. I don't doubt for a minute that this ends the problem within the PCA but it seems like you almost want to contribute to the problem itself by not dealing with the particular error and letting it be tried. Instead, you keep vaguely noting problems with the Church at large, offering no specifics, linking to a blog article that calls the process Piracy and then you say you have no problem with the particular charges.

Let's just quit beating around the bush here because it's really baffling many of us. What does Wilson have to do with the PCA trial and what does the fact that, in a 300,000+ person denomination, the fact that some critics of the FV are unorthodox themselves have to do _with the case at hand_? When it comes time to try a case, it's time to quit playing around and looking at the circus itself and focus on the facts. The Confession of Faith says one thing and there is a trial to determine if the LA Presbytery actually evaluated Wilkins' teaching against that document. This is not rocket science.


----------



## py3ak (Nov 30, 2007)

> Well, it seems we're on the same page, which makes me wonder why you would then link to something a Wilson blog post where he compares the proceedings to Piracy. I don't know why your interest would not rest with the actual trial and, rather, with those talking about the trial. I haven't excused any bad behavior, I'm only interested in sticking with what is at stake and am less concerned that men stop acting childishly on their blogs then I am about whether or not orthodoxy in this particular case is rightly investigated.
> 
> I guarantee you that the majority of Elders in the PCA that voted to accept the FV report were not doing so because they were Internet bloggers.



I'm not altogether sure what link you are referring to here, brother. On the Puritanboard I linked to my blog and to the Bayly's blog (twice), and to a webpage which expanded upon my brief Shakespearian quotation. On my blog I linked to Psalm 51, posts from Green Baggins and Mike Lawyer's blog (which since the time that I wrote have been removed, for which I am thankful) and to a previous discussion on the PB where T.E. Wilder made what I thought were some good points about criticizing the FV. So unless I'm overlooking something, there wasn't a link to Wilson. But in any case, I had understood the point of the pirate comparison to be that there is a voluntary and an involuntary departure from the good ship of the PCA.

I perfectly understand the point of view that the best thing to do with the peanut gallery is to ignore it (and let it be stated that there is no despectiveness intended in that designation: to my mind, everyone who is not directly involved in the proceedings is sitting in the cheap seats at the moment, including myself). But I think I may be forgiven a small concern when we have something of the virtual equivalent of a riot, with rotten tomatoes being flung liberally. And since the people in the peanut gallery profess the name of Christ, I don't think it's incorrect to remind them of some basic facts which that profession entails. 

I too hope that justice is thoroughly done in this case. I hope that God will be honored in the methods, result, and wider outcome of this case. I hope that the peace and purity of the church will be restored and defended. I am convinced that part of restoring that peace and purity is refuting and overthrowing the errors of the FV. I am also convinced that this is not enough: there are other errors to refute and overthrow. And peace and purity don't live without holiness: so we must not cease to be godly because we are in controversy -not because demeanor determines truth, but because we must all stand before the judgment seat of Christ.


----------



## py3ak (Nov 30, 2007)

SemperFideles said:


> NAPARC congregations _constantly_ have things to deal with Ruben. I used to be a member of the SoCal OPC and then the big issues embroiling the Church were the framework hypothesis and then a huge controversy around Lee Irons. Many noted that some of those bringing up Irons on charges had their own issues. In fact, some of them today may even be FV proponents ironically enough. There are still some outstanding issues on whether that case was tried _perfectly_. In the final analysis his errors were rightly condemned but done so by imperfect men and sometimes imperfect motives. It's not an endorsement of the men but the fact that we can sometimes only deal with the error on hand that we're addressing.



I was thinking about this today, and I suppose that the reason past eras may sometimes seem to be more peaceful is twofold. One is that we are not living then, so access to information is not so easy and emotions not so highly charged. The second is that this seems like the first controversy that has become really huge on the Internet.



SemperFideles said:


> It almost seems like you want them to _wait_ to deal with the FV until the entire PCA has become monolithically orthodox in all other areas. I agree that strange alliances form when dealing with certain errors. God even judges other nations in the Scriptures using His own enemies and then judges them for the pride they had in executing His plan.



Well, if I'm giving off this impression I'm certainly communicating unsuccessfully. I never stated, nor, I think, implied that I want people to wait to deal with the FV. Not at all. Deal away. Just keep an eye on your own heart.



SemperFideles said:


> This particular error _must_ be addressed. I'm not going to necessarily agree with the motivations of every man who disagrees with the error but the Gospel is not served either by allowing the error to continue. I don't doubt for a minute that this ends the problem within the PCA but it seems like you almost want to contribute to the problem itself by not dealing with the particular error and letting it be tried. Instead, you keep vaguely noting problems with the Church at large, offering no specifics, linking to a blog article that calls the process Piracy and then you say you have no problem with the particular charges.



See above and my previous post.



SemperFideles said:


> Let's just quit beating around the bush here because it's really baffling many of us. What does Wilson have to do with the PCA trial and what does the fact that, in a 300,000+ person denomination, the fact that some critics of the FV are unorthodox themselves have to do _with the case at hand_? When it comes time to try a case, it's time to quit playing around and looking at the circus itself and focus on the facts. The Confession of Faith says one thing and there is a trial to determine if the LA Presbytery actually evaluated Wilkins' teaching against that document. This is not rocket science.



I think this was answered in the post I made while you were typing this one. Please let me know if it didn't answer your concern and I will try again.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Nov 30, 2007)

Thanks for the post Ruben and the PM. To all viewing from the outside they might not know what love and esteem I have for you and I don't want this undermined by our exchange.

It was a case of us agreeing violently but the medium getting in the way of our agreement.


----------



## py3ak (Nov 30, 2007)

If nothing else is a matter of public recollection from this thread, let it at least be known that Rich is a dear brother, and I have nothing but respect and affection for him.


----------

