# Andrew Sandlin finally admits it



## fredtgreco (Mar 25, 2005)

http://culturalleadership.blogspot.com/2005/03/deformational.html



> Deformational
> Today Richard, my oldest son, a senior philosophy major at Cal, asked me, "If you had it to do over again, would you have joined your present religious affiliation." I retorted that he was very perceptive; silently thought a few moments; and then responded that, while I would have embraced Reformational themes, I would not have identified myself as staunchly Reformed.
> 
> I have come to believe that while this paradigm is quite tenable, it suffers from systemic (and not merely operational) flaws. I'll mention only two.
> ...






[Edited on 3/25/2005 by fredtgreco]

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## Scott Bushey (Mar 25, 2005)

uhhhhh


----------



## RamistThomist (Mar 25, 2005)

I remember reading that. I didn't think he was serious until now. Oh how the mighty have fallen. Not really, I never was a Sandlin fan.


----------



## BlackCalvinist (Mar 25, 2005)

> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> http://culturalleadership.blogspot.com/2005/03/deformational.html
> 
> 
> ...



Interesting. This 'stereotype' keeps popping up..... and popping up.... and popping up..... perhaps.... something is _wrong_ with *how* the doctrines of grace and reformed theology are being taught ?

Reactions: Sad 1


----------



## fredtgreco (Mar 25, 2005)

Kerry,

The funny thing is, that this stereotype could be tagged onto just about any communion. Think about it. Would you _really_ be shocked if it was about Romanists? Fundamentalists? Eastern Orthodox? I've even heard this stereotype about dispensationalists.

It is a classic case of a bad argument, when you cannot attack substance, you attack motives.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Peter (Mar 25, 2005)

The doctrines of grace should be taught as truth and everything contrary as falsehood. Sandlin's just sore because the reformed camp hasn't embraced his popish beliefs and Kerry's upset that dispensationalism is attacked on the PB. Christians are to witness against all error, even that of their brethren. If the proponents of the truth are boasting in themselves and not the Lord that is wrong, but the truth _ought_ to be ' grinding falsehood into the dust '. (BTW no hard feelings Kerry - People who depart from the paths whereto they've already attained DO upset me though, Mr. Sandlin has been progressively defecting from the truth for 25 yrs by his own reckoning)

"I think often they come close to commtting the sin of idolatry." Isn't this man a popish liturgicalist?

"It does seem to follow the Reformed Faith (in its historic, unreconstructed version, anyway) wherever it goes." What's that supposed to mean?? "Uncreconstructed"?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## RamistThomist (Mar 25, 2005)

> epistemic rationalists


?

Dont you just love it when they throw around the latest postmodern buzz words? Words "pregnant with meaning" but devoid of substance. Despite his horror with epistemic certainty he displayed a lot of it in that post.


----------



## AdamM (Mar 25, 2005)

On one level I'm glad that at least Andrew is bluntly honest about his current thinking. Dan Fuller's situation is sort of similar. Fuller who takes a Shepherdite approach admits it isn't compatible with Reformed standards (of course he thinks the standards are wrong.) I would hope that those in the PCA & OPC who hold to and promote the new perspectives would be at least as honest and just admit that the approach to the Faith as presented in the standards is either lacking and/or misses the mark in several key areas.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Poimen (Mar 25, 2005)

> _Originally posted by AdamM_
> On one level I'm glad that at least Andrew is bluntly honest about his current thinking. Dan Fuller's situation is sort of similar. Fuller who takes a Shepherdite approach admits it isn't compatible with Reformed standards (of course he thinks the standards are wrong.) I would hope that those in the PCA & OPC who hold to and promote the new perspectives would be at least as honest and just admit that the approach to the Faith as presented in the standards is either lacking and/or misses the mark in several key areas.



Yes, exactly! Don't they realize that they are causing great damage by hiding their true convictions?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Puritanhead (Mar 25, 2005)

_Originally whined by Andrew Sandlin:_


> ...
> First, its overemphasis on the judicial dimension of the Bible tends correspondingly to deemphasize the active, immediate, dynamic role of the Holy Spirit in the world and the Bible and the church. The Holy Spirit is the Absent One.
> 
> Second, its doctrinalism tends to produce mean, insulting, schismatic people. They have All The Truth, are akin to epistemic rationalists, and grind in the dust good Christians who disagree with them. They (alone?) read the mind of God. I think often they come close to commtting the sin of idolatry.



Sheesh... emphasis-smenphesis... I've never been blinded to the work of the Holy Spirit. The kind hand of providence that drew me to the "Reformed Faith" gave me a more systematic understanding of God's plan of redemption-- and kept me from a misplaced emphasis on the work of the Father in election or the Holy Spirit. We're not saved by predestination or justification-- that's only part of the equation. After reading, John Murray's _Redemption Accomplished and Applied_ I gained greater clarity and appreciation for the role of each person in the Godhead in our salvation. It was the _Reformed Faith_ that gave me the depth of understanding of the _ordo salutis_ (order of salvation)-- no other sect is so systematic and rational in their exegesis of the Scriptures. Though, my acceptance of the doctrines of grace, the so called "Reformed Faith" came just from reading the Bible... I buoyed my confidence in Calvinism, doctrines of grace, and Reformed theology by reading Reformed thinkers. 

I think Sandlin is way out of line -- in saying there is a misplaced judicial emphasis on the Bible amongst the Reformed. The "just shall live by faith..." and that's a doctrinal truth that the "Spirit-led" charismatic crowd, et al. often fail to articulate or proclaim from their pulpits. We live in an age of powder-puff Christianity and weak understanding of Scriptural truth, and that inevitably causes our evangelism message to suffer. With respect to my theonomist colleagues on the Puritanboard, if Sandlin wasn't so long entrenched in the more uncouthed, firebrand Reconstructionist wing-- I doubt he would come to surmise that we're collectively "insulting, schismatic people."



[Edited on 3-26-2005 by Puritanhead]


----------



## RamistThomist (Mar 25, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Puritanhead_
> With respect to my theonomist colleagues on the Puritanboard, if Sandlin wasn't so long entrenched in the more uncouthed, firebrand Reconstructionist wing-- I doubt he would come to surmise that we're collectively "insulting, schismatic people."
> 
> 
> ...



Sandlin is NOT a Reconstructionist and he routinely_ mocks_ them because they are not digging his Reformed Catholicity. 

Sandlin might have written a few complimentary articles about Rush years back, but when Rush died he made it clear on that aspect that he despised Reconstructionists.


----------



## RamistThomist (Mar 25, 2005)

Sandlin mocks Homeschooling Reconstructionists, calmly dealt with by Doug Philips

Sandlin mocks a theonomist

The pastor in reference is probably Joe Morecraft. Morecraft may have jumped the gun in some areas and could be rightly criticised there, on the other hand, On the other hand, if instead of a theonomist we were talking about some neo-evangelical who was borderline heretical in the opposite direction, Sandlin would just bubble over with syrupy praise for them and gush at how wonderful a person they are, "œflawed though he may be." Sandlin would never air dirty laundry from someone excommunicated from a church pastored by Armstrong, etc. Only when it serves his goal of trashing the independent thinking theonomists. The consummate pragmatist, his methods are entirely consistent with his philosophy and personal prejudice.

Sandlin, DL Bahnsen, went ballistic when Doug Phillips critiqued their conference and the infamous article on Hegemonic Patriarchy and Baby Machines. Here Sandlin shows how he hates when people throw accusations around, unless of course they buttress his cryptic condemnations of Christians who actually put Greg Bahnsen´s teachings into practice. This letter is the perfect example of how he wants to play the game - you specifically identify people without mentioning their name. 

In all fairness to Sandlin, he is a talented writer and communicator.

[Edited on 3--26-05 by Draught Horse]


----------



## turmeric (Mar 25, 2005)

Wasn't Calvin called the "theologian of the Holy Spirit"?


----------



## fredtgreco (Mar 25, 2005)

Oh, Meg, you're just a baptistic gnostic!


----------



## turmeric (Mar 25, 2005)

I'm in recovery - just need to let go & let God!


----------



## RamistThomist (Mar 26, 2005)

I think Warfield called him that.


----------



## MICWARFIELD (Mar 26, 2005)

Draught Horse - "NOT a Reconstructionist" and "a few complimentary articles"? Sandlin was the Author of Chalcedons "The Creed of Christian Reconstructionism". I also seem to remember more than a few pro Rushdoony articles.
I have his current website bookmarked, but have only been there a couple of times. In fact I havent really read much of him the past couple of years. Has he really moved that far away from his former writings?

Mike


----------



## Presbyrino (Mar 26, 2005)

> _Originally posted by OS_X_
> Interesting. This 'stereotype' keeps popping up..... and popping up.... and popping up..... perhaps.... something is _wrong_ with *how* the doctrines of grace and reformed theology are being taught ?



I think Spurgeon put it best:

"The old truth that Calvin preached, that Augustine preached, that Paul preached, is the truth that I must preach to-day, or else be false to my conscience and my God. * I cannot shape the truth; I know of no such thing as paring off the rough edges of a doctrine. * "

"We have to deal with a spirit, I know not how to denominate it, unless I call it a spirit of moderatism in the pulpits of protestant churches. *Men have begun to rub off the rough edges of truth, to give up the doctrines of Luther and Zwingle, and Calvin, and to endeavour to accommodate them to polished tastes. * You might go into a Roman Catholic chapel now-a-days, and hear as good a sermon from a Popish priest as you hear in many cases from a Protestant minister, because he does not touch disputed points, or bring out the angular parts of our Protestant religion. Mark, too, in the great majority of our books what a dislike there is to sound doctrine! the writers seem to fancy that truth is of no more value than error; that as for the doctrines we preach, it cannot matter what they are; "


----------



## Presbyrino (Mar 26, 2005)

> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> http://culturalleadership.blogspot.com/2005/03/deformational.html
> 
> 
> ...




I'm sure the Jewish Legalists found Paul to be mean, insulting and schismatic. 

Gal 1:8 But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed. 
Gal 1:9 As we have said before, so now I say again: If anyone is preaching to you a gospel contrary to the one you received, let him be accursed. 

That sounds pretty "mean & schismatic"

I'm sure the Arians found Athanisius to be mean, insulting & schismatic. 

I'm sure Peligius found Augustine to be mean, insulting & schismatic. 

I'm sure that the bishops who interegated Luther at the Diet of Worms found Luther to be mean, insulting & schismatic. 

I'm sure that Cardinal Sadolet found John Calvin to be very mean, insulting & schismatic.

I'm sure the Jehova's Witnesses & Mormons find Trinitarians to be also quite mean, insulting, schismatic folks.

[Edited on 3-26-2005 by sntijerina]


----------



## Poimen (Mar 26, 2005)

> _Originally posted by sntijerina_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> ...



 Stop being so schismatic with your posts about schismaticism in church history!

[Edited on 3-26-2005 by poimen]

[Edited on 3-26-2005 by poimen]


----------



## RamistThomist (Mar 26, 2005)

> _Originally posted by MICWARFIELD_
> Draught Horse - "NOT a Reconstructionist" and "a few complimentary articles"? Sandlin was the Author of Chalcedons "The Creed of Christian Reconstructionism". I also seem to remember more than a few pro Rushdoony articles.
> I have his current website bookmarked, but have only been there a couple of times. In fact I havent really read much of him the past couple of years. Has he really moved that far away from his former writings?
> 
> Mike



He WAS a Reconstructionist. He is not anymor and he makes that clear every now and then.


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Mar 26, 2005)

> Today Richard, my oldest son, a senior philosophy major at Cal, asked me, "If you had it to do over again, would you have joined your present religious affiliation." I retorted that he was very perceptive; silently thought a few moments; and then responded that, while I would have embraced Reformational themes, I would not have identified myself as staunchly Reformed.



I would not classify him as _MILDLY_ reformed. he ia anti-reformed. Glad he is waking up to the fact.



> I have come to believe that while this paradigm is quite tenable, it suffers from systemic (and not merely operational) flaws. I'll mention only two.
> 
> First, its overemphasis on the judicial dimension of the Bible tends correspondingly to deemphasize the active, immediate, dynamic role of the Holy Spirit in the world and the Bible and the church. The Holy Spirit is the Absent One.



He, again, as they do, remains totally ignorant of Reformational ideas around the Holy Spirit. He's not read much and is ignorant of historical thoelogy.



> Second, its doctrinalism tends to produce mean, insulting, schismatic people. They have All The Truth, are akin to epistemic rationalists, and grind in the dust good Christians who disagree with them. They (alone?) read the mind of God. I think often they come close to commtting the sin of idolatry.
> 
> This is by no means a blanket condemnation. It does seem to follow the Reformed Faith (in its historic, unreconstructed version, anyway) wherever it goes.



(i.e. ignornat people like me tend to get pushed around by scholars (and well-versed laymen) so the best I can do is insult them in some meaningless way that makes me feel better.)



> So, I think the problem is not only in the people but in the paradigm itself, a paradigm I lustily joined in my early 20's.
> 
> Somewhere about 25 years ago, I believe I lost my way, but I am trying to find my way to a better path.



I hope he finds Christ. Right now, he is believing a lie.

2 Thessalonians 2:11, "Therefore God sends them a strong delusion, so that they may believe what is false."


----------



## RamistThomist (Mar 26, 2005)

> So, I think the problem is not only in the people but in the paradigm itself, a paradigm I lustily joined in my early 20's.
> 
> Somewhere about 25 years ago, I believe I lost my way, but I am trying to find my way to a better path.



This is what I find hard to believe about RefCats. They want to cozy up to Rome because of tradition or unity or whatever, but they don't realize (or overlook) Trent, Papal Authority, Trent, etc. They are trying to have their cake and eat it too. What does he specifically want in theology? From reading ReformedCatholicism I get the idea that he wants a (r)eformed theology based on Catholic premises; i.e., I get to keep my soteriology but I will accept your ecclesiology and sacramentology. He doesn't realize that his soteriology will fall next. He doesn't realize that you can accept Augustine's victory over Pelagius and lose it if you accept Romanist's sacramentology.

PS: I am not implying that Reformed theology is based on catholic premises. 

[Edited on 3--26-05 by Draught Horse]


----------



## Bladestunner316 (Mar 26, 2005)

So what gospel is he preaching???


----------



## Poimen (Mar 26, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Draught Horse_
> 
> From reading ReformedCatholicism I get the idea that he wants a (r)eformed theology based on Catholic premises; i.e., I get to keep my soteriology but I will accept your ecclesiology and sacramentology. He doesn't realize that his soteriology will fall next. He doesn't realize that you can accept Augustine's victory over Pelagius and lose it if you accept Romanist's sacramentology.
> 
> [Edited on 3--26-05 by Draught Horse]



Yes excellent point. As many have noted, Augustine's sacramentology eventually won out over his soteriology, creating the crisis in the medieval church which precipitated the Reformation. It seems we may have to reform all over again.


----------



## RamistThomist (Mar 26, 2005)

I got that point from the interview that Mark Dever did with Ligon Duncan on NPP. It is available from www.9marks.org.


----------



## JohnV (Mar 26, 2005)

Is this the same Andrew Sandlin that was that over-the-top Reconstructionist a number of years back? I mean, isn't what he's complaining about just what he used to be?


----------



## RamistThomist (Mar 26, 2005)

Yes,
Same guy. That post he did was not merely aimed at Recons, but any who hold to Reformed theology and do not adhere to postmodern humility; i.e, you, Fred, me, anybody on Puritanboard


----------



## RamistThomist (Mar 26, 2005)

In his attempts to be culturally welwevant, Sandlin (and many of my postmodern friends) do not realize that their system hates the God of biblical revelation. They will say, "But we disagree with Derrida, good points he may have had elsewhere." But they do not realize that Pomo claims more of them. As the great theologian, Gandalf, said, "There is only one Lord of the Rings and he does not share power."


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Mar 26, 2005)

Well put, Jacob!


----------



## Scott (Mar 30, 2005)

Kerry G: I think you are on to something about "how" the doctrines of grace are taught. I know that George Grant suggests that when someone becomes reformed he not talk to anyone for 5 years! This is a joke, of course, but he is suggesting that becoming Calvinistic can be associated with becoming a bit bombastic.

The WCF provides some sage advice:



> The doctrine of this high mystery of predestination is to be *handled with special prudence and care*, that men, attending the will of God revealed in his Word, and yielding obedience thereunto, may, from the certainty of their effectual vocation, be assured of their eternal election. So shall this doctrine afford matter of praise, reverence, and admiration of God; and of humility, diligence, and abundant consolation to all that sincerely obey the gospel.



I think Fred is right too, that this is not limited to Calvinsim. My guess is that it is more associated with converts to a doctrine. Converts tend to be especially zealous. It can also be an expression of Paul's teaching that knowledge puffs up.

If you read Frankie Schaeffer or Clark Carlton (converts to Eastern Orthodoxy), they are fairly bombastic too. Schaeffer drips with a disdain for all things evangelical. 

Scott

[Edited on 3-30-2005 by Scott]


----------

