# FVer attempts to equate Presbyterians (PCA) with medieval Romanists...



## ChristianHedonist (Jul 14, 2009)

James Jordan posted a blog today at Biblical Horizons essentially equating Presbyterians (the PCA in particular) with the Roman Catholicism the Reformers rejected: Rome? Why Bother? Biblical Horizons


----------



## py3ak (Jul 14, 2009)

James Jordan? Why bother?


----------



## Grillsy (Jul 14, 2009)

ChristianHedonist said:


> James Jordan posted a blog today at Biblical Horizons essentially equating Presbyterians (the PCA in particular) with the Roman Catholicism the Reformers rejected: Rome? Why Bother? Biblical Horizons



Interesting...although he seems to not understand the point of the Reformation in the first place.


----------



## Quickened (Jul 14, 2009)

Solid compelling argument by Jordan


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Jul 14, 2009)

That blog article has all the substance and "tug at your emotions" appeal of a Chick tract.


----------



## Grillsy (Jul 14, 2009)

Semper Fidelis said:


> That blog article has all the substance and "tug at your emotions" appeal of a Chick tract.



ZING!


----------



## Poimen (Jul 14, 2009)

Some of what he says may have some substance to it but Jordan's ranting is intended to provoke, not to (never?) build up or edify. in my opinion, it falls within the category of rejecting a divisive man (Titus 3:10).


----------



## Confessor (Jul 14, 2009)

I would accuse FV teaching of being similar to Catholicism. Baptism _ex opere operato_ makes one a Christian? Justified by faith and works?



How does one pronounce "_ex opere operato_"?


----------



## Wayne (Jul 14, 2009)

Confessor said:


> How does one pronounce "_ex opere operato_"?



Phonetically, it is close to "Klaatu barada nikto"

That doesn't help, does it?


----------



## Reformed Thomist (Jul 14, 2009)

confessor said:


> How does one pronounce "_ex opere operato_"?



Ex... Oh-pare-ay... Oh-pare-ah-toe.

And roll the R's.


----------



## fredtgreco (Jul 14, 2009)

There's 30 seconds of my life I won't get back. Isn't there some hole Jordan can crawl into so no one needs to listen to his blather?


----------



## ChristianHedonist (Jul 14, 2009)

He does seem to raise a few weaknesses that can be found among some contemporary Presbyterians (regarding worship and a lack of singing a lot of Psalms, for instance), but the comparisons to Rome (and comparing the FVers to the Reformers) are completely nonsensical.


----------



## re4med (Jul 14, 2009)

His comments are over the top...but then again, that is par for the course.


----------



## Caroline (Jul 14, 2009)

The article doesn't even make any sense ...

Here's my top three reasons that James B Jordan exactly the same as the ancient Egyptian King Tutankamun:

(1) There is picture of the sun on his blog, and King Tut's father was an avid sun worshipper.

(2) Their names are both frequently shortened to something with three letters: Jim / Tut 

(3) They are both carbon-based life forms (at least, we assume so, although we'd like to get a DNA sample from Jordan just to be on the safe side).

Wow, it's amazing! What compelling evidence!


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Jul 14, 2009)

The Minch retraction must have hit a nerve. 
http://www.puritanboard.com/f77/fv-defender-retracts-50691/


----------



## Christusregnat (Jul 14, 2009)

ChristianHedonist said:


> James Jordan posted a blog today at Biblical Horizons essentially equating Presbyterians (the PCA in particular) with the Roman Catholicism the Reformers rejected: Rome? Why Bother? Biblical Horizons



Does Jordan smoke weed before he writes?


----------



## SolaScriptura (Jul 14, 2009)

fredtgreco said:


> There's 30 seconds of my life I won't get back.



Indeed... I think it is telling that his rant only took 30 seconds (actually, about 34 for me...) to read.

His blog post is so ridiculous, that if it had come from someone else - someone from the PB perhaps - I would have thought it was a humorous bit of tongue in cheek critique...

-----Added 7/14/2009 at 08:18:50 EST-----



Caroline said:


> The article doesn't even make any sense ...
> 
> Here's my top three reasons that James B Jordan exactly the same as the ancient Egyptian King Tutankamun:
> 
> ...





But that is almost precisely the kind of arguing he employs!


----------



## Quickened (Jul 14, 2009)

Christusregnat said:


> ChristianHedonist said:
> 
> 
> > James Jordan posted a blog today at Biblical Horizons essentially equating Presbyterians (the PCA in particular) with the Roman Catholicism the Reformers rejected: Rome? Why Bother? Biblical Horizons
> ...



I am glad i wasnt in the middle of drinking any kind of liquid when i read this.... i would have spit it all out!!


----------



## Caroline (Jul 14, 2009)

> “Grape juice” communion is for all intents and purposes identical with Roman Catholic communion.



That was my favorite line.

I don't even really care whether people have wine or grape juice for communion. A case can certainly be made that it should be wine. But I'm allergic to wine, so I guess I'm doomed to be a Roman Catholic. I'll start building the shrine to Mary in my living room ...


----------



## William Price (Jul 14, 2009)

Who is this guy, and why did I just waste 45 seconds of my life reading a bunch of lies???


----------



## Zenas (Jul 14, 2009)

I read something he wrote once... once. 

If I ever see his name attached to a piece of work, I don't waste my time reading it. The one thing I did read had a picture of him in one of those funny nose/fake glasses combo and the caption "Sproul and the rest of those clowns...". I wish I had spent my time doing something else.


----------



## Poimen (Jul 14, 2009)

NaphtaliPress said:


> The Minch retraction must have hit a nerve.
> http://www.puritanboard.com/f77/fv-defender-retracts-50691/



Without a doubt: Reformed Gnosticism Strikes Again


----------



## Zenas (Jul 14, 2009)

Rev. Kok,

I blame you for tricking me into wasting 2 minutes of my life reading enough of the article to cause me the urge to vomit.


----------



## Curt (Jul 14, 2009)

The spirit of confusion.


----------



## fredtgreco (Jul 14, 2009)

Poimen said:


> NaphtaliPress said:
> 
> 
> > The Minch retraction must have hit a nerve.
> ...



And just when you thought Jordan could not write something even dumber...he goes ahead and proves you wrong.


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Jul 14, 2009)

He's a parody of himself. 


fredtgreco said:


> Poimen said:
> 
> 
> > NaphtaliPress said:
> ...


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Jul 14, 2009)

Kind of ironic charge, "Gnosticism", when you think about it.At the tremendous risk of making the worst sorts of friends...
I have, in fact, gathered gold from JJordan.

It's 1) been a long time, years actually, since I read any of his text-handling, so I cannot and will not vouch for its present state;

and 2) I do not recommend that Average Joe _tole lege_ his stuff--the gold I've gathered has been like panning for gold in a silt-filled stream: you work 16 hours, and get 1/20 of a gram.​Numerology, hyper-liturgics, finding in Scripture a symbological labyrinth, ... 
it isn't the *Reformed and Presbyterians* going down the neo-Gnostic ritual road!


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Jul 14, 2009)

Bruce, that is sort of like the kid claiming there's got to be a pony in all this (uh-um)....



Contra_Mundum said:


> Kind of ironic charge, "Gnosticism", when you think about it.At the tremendous risk of making the worst sorts of friends...
> I have, in fact, gathered gold from JJordan.
> 
> It's 1) been a long time, years actually, since I read any of his text-handling, so I cannot and will not vouch for its present state;
> ...


----------



## BJClark (Jul 15, 2009)

Interesting w/ all the chatter here about this I'd think there were more responses to what was written, but there was only ONE..


----------



## Robert Truelove (Jul 15, 2009)

My thoughts on Jame's Jordan's recent blog post regarding the PCA and Federal Vision (http://biblicalhorizons.wordpress.com/2009/07/14/rome-why-bother/)...

_"...here is little for the congregation to do but sing some hymns. That’s why the Reformers wrote liturgies."_

This is in light of his "high church" view of worship; meaning, "what we need is liturgy that looks more like Anglicanism (or even Rome) than the worship of historic Presbyterian and Reformed churches". Jordan's solution for congregational participation looks more like a return to the wrote forms of The Book of Common Prayer which are soundly and rightly uprooted in the Westminster Standards (see "The Directory for The Public Worship of God").

While Jordan does have a point when it comes to the reality of modern deviations from biblical worship in Presbyterian circles (this is what gives his arguments any steam to those who actually give him any attention), the answer is not an anglicanized high church liturgy (okay, romanized). The answer is a return to the faithful adherence to the regulative principle of worship.

_"Neither real psalms nor metrical psalms are much in evidence in conservative Presbyterianism today."_

I find no fault with his position on the need of a return to the use of Psalms in worship.

_"Medieval Rome also served wafers as bread, and people only came to communion once a year. Modern conservative Presbyterians are served crackers, not bread, and usually only a few times a year."_

Once again I am in agreement. Both the elements of the sacrament (wafers in place of bread broken) and the frequency should be reconsidered. I consider the later of more importance than the former since it is dealing with the institution of the sacrament (Christ broke bread, not handed out wafers, while frequency is instituted as "as often as you do this"--though consideration of the pattern of the 1st Century church should be properly weighed).

_"The same is identically true today. “Federal Vision” people have shown repeatedly that their teaching is right in line with the Reformation, and have been answered over and over with citations from Confessions and Catechisms wrenched from context and fitted with new meanings."_

The former cogent points are but momentum to slough forth this drivel. The only valid argument Federal Vision proponents have on this point is that there have been some who have critiqued them who truly do not get historic Reformed Theology. Particularly the doctrine of the sacraments. I refer to the "memorialists". However, Federal Vision has been soundly critiqued and found wanting by men who do understand historic Reformed theology. However, no sooner than they receive their spanking from a qualified critic then they cry foul; stating we should be more interested in the Scriptures than in the confession. Why not just be honest and say they don't agree with the confession on certain points or believe it to be deficient and believe their views are what the Scriptures are actually getting at?

From my perspective in all this mess, this argument is all but over.

_"The Papists at the time of the Reformation pulled various power games to suppress the Reformers. At that time, this included murder. Today, the conservative Presbyterians resort to internet slander, creating “investigatory commissions” that contain no one sympathetic to any other views, and holding secret meetings."_

"Internet slander" is a difficulty, but the fault ultimately lies with the Federal Vision proponents. It was they who went public with their teachings before taking them privately before church courts. It was they who initially inflamed the 'blogosphere'. If you launch your rubbish on onto the Internet, don't cry foul when a response comes via Internet (there are proper and improper responses and one should expect both).

I think the real beef is the statement about investigatory commissions that do not contain anyone sympathetic to the Federal Vision. I share frustration regarding "investigatory commissions". Indeed, the snails pace it has taken the PCA to deal with what I believe to be a serious deviation should alarm modern Presbyterians to the fact that their ecclesiastical government is, at this time, stuck in a mire. If the PCA had taken even twice as long to deal with this as the RPCUS, Federal Vision would have never gotten out of the box to have its hay day. 

Whining about not having representation reminds me of the Remonstrants whining over essentially the same thing at the Synod of Dort. Here is a relevant quote from Wikipedia...

"Episcopius was their chief speaker; and with great art and address did he manage their cause. He insisted on being permitted to begin with a refutation of the Calvinistic doctrines, especially that of reprobation, hoping that, by placing his objections to this doctrine in front of all the rest, he might excite such prejudice against the other articles of the system, as to secure the popular voice in his favor. The Synod, however, very properly, reminded him, that they had not convened for the purpose of trying the Confession of Faith of the Belgic Churches, which had been long established and well known; but that, as the Remonstrants were accused of departing from the Reformed faith, they were bound first to justify themselves, by giving Scriptural proof in support of their opinions. The Arminians would not submit to this plan of procedure because it destroyed their whole scheme of argument. However, the Synod firmly refused to make any concessions on this point of order. Day after day they were reasoned with and urged to come and scripturally defend their published doctrines. . . The Arminians would not submit to this course and were thus compelled to withdraw. Upon their departure, the Synod proceeded without them."

In our day, schismatics just cut tail and run to another ecclesiastical body when it seems adjudication is immanent. 

If the PCA is to be critiqued for its response to Federal Vision, it should ultimately be in this manner...After all the turmoil caused by Federal Vision advocates, to allow an ordained minister to simply leave without facing charges is a shameful failure to administer church discipline.


----------



## ColdSilverMoon (Jul 15, 2009)

I was completely lost reading those two posts - Reformed Gnosticism? Conservative Presbyterians as Papists? I'm sure he had a point to make and maybe it has some merit - but I couldn't find any coherent argument behind his absurd, hyperbolic assertions....


----------



## Zenas (Jul 15, 2009)

BJClark said:


> Interesting w/ all the chatter here about this I'd think there were more responses to what was written, but there was only ONE..



Not worth responding to.


----------



## Caroline (Jul 15, 2009)

The only thing that I found worthwhile to some extent was the 'internet slander' bit. But that was extremely ironic, considering that seemed to be the entire point of Jordan's article--slandering and inflaming the opposition.

I will say that I have known the shoe to be on the other foot as well. I have a dear friend who has been cruelly hurt by being painted as a 'Federal Vision' supporter and a heretic, over his repeated objections that he does not believe or teach what he is reported to believe and teach. At this point, I think he has just given up arguing, because he figures people have already made their minds up and nothing that he says makes any difference--people believe what they read online.

But Jordan isn't helping either. I mean, this is obviously a guy looking for a fight (and a fight on the internet) and then claiming persecution when he gets one.
_____________________________



> This Star Judicial Chamber has exercised its power to threaten to dissolve the Louisiana Presbytery if it did not fail to condemn the teachings of one of its members — after the Presbytery itself had twice exhonerated him.



As an aside: I'm getting lost in all the negatives in this sentence in the article. The SJC would dissolve the Louisiana Presbytery 'if it did not fail to condemn'. So they would get dissolved unless they supported the guy? After they had already exhonerated him? I don't get it ...


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Jul 16, 2009)

Looks like the Reformed Gnosticism Strikes Again piece is gone; I am having deja vue. Jordan did a hit piece like this before and then took it down I seem to recall. Oh well. It's still in google under the cache if anyone wants to save it for posterity.


----------

