# A Federal Vision debate?



## DaveJes1979

From Wilson's blog: http://www.dougwils.com/index.asp?Action=Anchor&CategoryID=1&BlogID=2844

------------

Some weeks ago, after I finished reading Guy Waters' book on the Federal Vision, I contacted him, and offered to work with him to set up some kind of discussion/debate between the two of us. I was willing to fly to Jackson and have our interaction there. Our phone conversations were very cordial, but he was not interested in a face-to-face debate of that kind. He indicated that a written debate would be a possibility, so I wrote up a proposal and sent to him. That debate would be published in Credenda, and Dr. Waters would have the freedom to publish it in whatever setting he would like.

Today I heard back from him. He wrote that he had "been advised by [his] presbytery's study committee on the New Perspectives and Federal Vision that [he] not engage in this debate." Wishing to respect their counsel, Dr. Waters declined the invitation.

Unfortunately, that being the case, I would like to extend the invitation more broadly. I would like to ask any anti-FV pastor or theologian (who would be recognized as a credible spokesman for that position), and who is willing to identify with Dr. Waters' critique of the FV, to please contact me.

--------------

Hmmmm...any takers?

Cheers, all.


----------



## R. Scott Clark

Someone emailed me about this today. To forestall other such posts: my response is "no." 

1) I'm not quick enough to debate well. A debate plays to the strengths of the glib, of which Doug is chief. I'm a plodder. It took me several years to get a handle on this business (NPP/FV). I doubt I can hear his argument, analyze it, and respond constructively as quickly as necessary in a debate. 

2) Doug's views keep morphing. When Mike pressed him in the interview Doug just "shape-shifted" his way through the interview. One week merit is bad, the next week he's (sort of) in favor of active obedience. How does one debate a moving target?

3) Do debates actually accomplish anything? Does anyone ever actually LEARN anything at a debate? I've seen them and my impression is that they attract the faithful from both sides and the committed leave as committed as before? Should anyone change views on the basis of debate?

4) If a speaker does a poor job in making a case or in rebuttal, does that mean he has a weak argument? 

5) They take a lot of prep time. I would rather spend my time writing and teaching. 

6) Sometimes they do damage. I saw a debate several years ago where some of the participants let their emotions get the better of them and some friendships were damaged permanently and unnecessarily. We've all seen Internet debates go south.

7) The Hart/Frame debate is a good example of the weakness of even of a written debate. I'm a big fan of DGH but I don't think he did a good job making the case for the RPW (which he admits; he thought it was a lark, after all it was only an "Internet thing") and now it circulates as some sort definitive case for the RPW. 

8) Is there an "up side" for the confessionally orthodox? Does it advance the gospel? Does it advance the understanding of the orthodox pov? Is my view remotely ambiguous? Is it hard to find? Are my criticisms obscure? Am I likely to say anything new in a debate? I think the obvious answer to all these questions is: No.

rsc



> _Originally posted by DaveJes1979_
> From Wilson's blog: http://www.dougwils.com/index.asp?Action=Anchor&CategoryID=1&BlogID=2844
> 
> ------------
> 
> Some weeks ago, after I finished reading Guy Waters' book on the Federal Vision, I contacted him, and offered to work with him to set up some kind of discussion/debate between the two of us. I was willing to fly to Jackson and have our interaction there. Our phone conversations were very cordial, but he was not interested in a face-to-face debate of that kind. He indicated that a written debate would be a possibility, so I wrote up a proposal and sent to him. That debate would be published in Credenda, and Dr. Waters would have the freedom to publish it in whatever setting he would like.
> 
> Today I heard back from him. He wrote that he had "been advised by [his] presbytery's study committee on the New Perspectives and Federal Vision that [he] not engage in this debate." Wishing to respect their counsel, Dr. Waters declined the invitation.
> 
> Unfortunately, that being the case, I would like to extend the invitation more broadly. I would like to ask any anti-FV pastor or theologian (who would be recognized as a credible spokesman for that position), and who is willing to identify with Dr. Waters' critique of the FV, to please contact me.
> 
> --------------
> 
> Hmmmm...any takers?
> 
> Cheers, all.


----------



## tewilder

Don't assume that this is a proposal for a definitive debate, pro and con, on the Federal Vision. 

It is probably about showing that Doug Wilson does not personally hold any of those horrible views that are attributed to the Federal Vision. The purpose of the debate would then be to have accusations raised so that he can explain, regarding each charge, how he does not believe that thing in that sense. Then he will proclaim himself cleared of all taint and suspicion. He is relying on the status of his opponent to make this vindication definitive.


----------



## AdamM

Scott, since any debate with Doug Wilson on the Federal Vision is guaranteed to be a three-ring circus, I'd question your sanity if you even seriously considered it.

[Edited on 10-4-2006 by AdamM]


----------



## RamistThomist

My cultural knowledge is nil. What's a three ring circus?


----------



## tewilder

> _Originally posted by Draught Horse_
> My cultural knowledge is nil. What's a three ring circus?



A big one. They can stage three acts at once.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

> _Originally posted by Draught Horse_
> My cultural knowledge is nil. What's a three ring circus?



Kids these days...

I guess Circuses are pretty rare these days. I can't even remember the last time I saw one advertised.

_Cirque de Soliel_ doesn't count. They're too refined and artsy to count as a Circus.


----------



## Kevin

Come on guys... "don't debate it might make the other guy look good"???

Truth never fears a challenge. 

If Dr Clark doesn't feel God has given him the gifts to take up the challenge OK. We all do what we can & no one would doubt that Dr Clark Can do alot more the 99% of the rest of us can do.

But to use this as an excuse to avoid letting that "tricky Doug Wilson" get away with "proving" he is orthodox...that seems a bit narrow minded.

I can't imagine any of the Holy Apostles or fathers worrying about how the other guy "looked".


----------



## R. Scott Clark

Kevin,

My reluctance to debate Doug or anyone is not a matter of fear. I've been preaching the gospel since 1984 (and officially since 1988). I've preached in city missions, on the street, in the pulpit, and on the radio, and anywhere anyone would let me. I've gone door to door, handed out tracts, called folks on the phone, recorded cassettes and done what I could to make known the foolishness of the gospel. 

I've had to talk with folk face to face about excommunication and the jeopardy of their eternal souls. That's a lot more frightening than any debate!

I give papers before (sometimes) hostile academic guilds composed of world-class scholars - despite profound misgivings about my own weakness.

I've been dealing with articulate, thoughtful, and sometimes sharp-tongued students for 11 years. 

I've never feared anyone when it comes to making Christ known. 

I have learned, however, that there it is possible to cast pearls before swine. 

I've watched Mike Horton -- who really is quick on his feet and brilliant! -- try to argue/talk with Doug and I don't see any benefit. I don't see any evidence either that Doug is willing to have an honest exchange nor do I see any evidence that such debates have any benefit for the orthodox. I do see that the unorthodox use such things to their own advantage. That's different than Paul speaking on Mars Hill. Do you have any evidence that the apostles "debated" the errorists named in Scripture (e.g., 1 Tim 1:19-20)? I don't think so. 

As I asked, what is the _benefit_ of such a debate? Do you have any _evidence _ that these things produce any real enlightenment or understanding that is not better accomplished through writing and reading? I get the sense that some folk want a debate for the spectacle and excitement of it, to watch gladiators in the arena. I get the impression that some folk might not want to do the hard work of reading and digesting all this material for themselves, that they want others to do their work for them.

It might be emotionally satisfying to watch Matt Dillon gun down a bad guy, but the gospel is not a gunfight. 

rsc

[Edited on 9-20-2006 by R. Scott Clark]


----------



## Kevin

Thanks Doc.

I didn't mean to imply that you were afraid to face him. I understood your point from your first post.

Thats why I (tried) to point out that you have done more for the kingdom than most of us posting here have.

My point was only that the FVers' as a group seem more willing to debate then their critics.

IF DW's review of Waters book is correct then we would all profit from an open & frank exchange. If not a face to face debate then in print.

Again I did not mean to imply that I thought YOU were afraid! 

And you are correct I was thinking of St Paul on Mars hill. As far as the Holy Apostles debating "errorists" you may be (probably are) correct. The Fathers on the other hand...not to mention the reformers.

My only concearn here is that we have a tendency to hunker down with other "split-p's" who think-just-like-us and stay away from discussions with others in the reformed world WHO EVERYONE KNOWS ARE WRONG.

just my


----------



## tewilder

> _Originally posted by Kevin_
> 
> 
> My point was only that the FVers' as a group seem more willing to debate then their critics.
> 
> IF DW's review of Waters book is correct then we would all profit from an open & frank exchange. If not a face to face debate then in print.
> 
> 
> just my



Suppose a debate is proposed between two groups. One group objects to having the connections drawn between its ideas, and the implications drawn out. They think that is wrong. They also object to "abstract propositions" and "narrow crabbed scholasticism", these being their terms for cogent criticisms. 

Suppose further that this side also continually recreates itself, and denounces criticism based on the published ideas as unfair, because those were yesterday's ideas, not what they thought up today.

Finally, suppose this group constantly tries to justifiy itself by appropriating material by older writers and ignoring the systematic context of that material.

Then, suppose that on the other side is a group that regards theology as a science, indeed as the queen of the sciences. It seeks to develop and explore the systematic relations between ideas in order to understand them better and to test the truth of their theological formulations by examining their mutual implications, and their adequacy as a whole system.

What sort of debate can these two groups have?


----------



## R. Scott Clark

Kevin,

I take your point and appreciate your kind words (for which I was not looking) but when did readiness to debate become a virtue? 

How is that different from contentiousness? It might be, but how?

I write here because I see evidence of mutual understanding (most of the time) and because I learn from the board and want to contribute as I can. In other words, there's benefit from writing and reading here.

What is the _benefit_ of a debate with a leader of sect be it Doug Wilson or Harold Camping? (I think there are real parallels - neither of them will listen to or unite with the mainstream of confessional Reformed churches)

As I understand the history of "debating," it is derived from the medieval academic practice of the disputation in which a topic or question was put to a student and he had to make an oral defense of a proposition. It was meant to demonstrate mastery of basic academic skills. It lives on in, to some degree, in the "oral defense" of the MA thesis (which we practice here in the MA HT program) and the "viva voce" for the PhD.

The ecclesiastical form of that exercise was known as a "colloquy." The Protestants held "colloquies" (discussions) among themselves repeatedly in the 16th century, some of which have been chronicled in English language volumes such as Jill Raitt's marvelous work on the Colloquy of Montbeliard. Those meetings (see my essay on the Regensburg Collquy in MR and a forthcoming essay this summer in a volume from P&R) are like our "debates" with affirmative and rebuttal presentations. 

I've participated in and defended the value of such things. ACE used to hold colloquies in Colo Springs and I participated in some of those. I did learn from talking with people from outside my tradition, but spirit of these things was a little different than what is being proposed. For example, I would love to get a group of confessional Reformed scholars to meet with a group of confessional Lutheran scholars (one of the things ACE used to do). I always learn something when I talk with the confessional Lutheran fellows. I wouldn't mind participating in a colloquy with responsible Roman scholars or in other discussions of that sort.

I am suspicious. As Sherlock Holmes says, "The game is afoot." Indeed. Now that the OPC has recommended a highly critical report for study, the RCUS has spoken, Barach has left the URC, and now that the PCA has a study committee, suddenly there is a call for debate. Why now? It couldn't be politics could it? Rallying the troops?

What is there to debate? With Rome we have clear issues. With Lutherans we have clear issues. With the FV we have clear issues, but with Doug? Is he FV or isn't he? I think it depends with whom he's talking. I think he speaks one way on video and with Mike and another way in Credenda, in his pulpit, and in his books. 

Consider:

Is there a FV? (well, there was, but then there wasn't. There is when they want there to be for conferences and books but "no," when they have to account for it theologically). 

He's written about the Reformation in volumes published by Crossway but he's also written Reformed is not enough. So apparently, Reformed isn't enough except when Doug wants it to be. Imputation of active obedience is silly (but now it's not, but it's not THAT important).

Is it worth the effort it would take to sort through all this stuff? How would it not be debating a chimera? How would it not become the business of unwinding of the world's largest ball of theological twine?

rsc



> _Originally posted by Kevin_
> Thanks Doc.
> 
> I didn't mean to imply that you were afraid to face him. I understood your point from your first post.
> 
> Thats why I (tried) to point out that you have done more for the kingdom than most of us posting here have.
> 
> My point was only that the FVers' as a group seem more willing to debate then their critics.
> 
> IF DW's review of Waters book is correct then we would all profit from an open & frank exchange. If not a face to face debate then in print.
> 
> Again I did not mean to imply that I thought YOU were afraid!
> 
> And you are correct I was thinking of St Paul on Mars hill. As far as the Holy Apostles debating "errorists" you may be (probably are) correct. The Fathers on the other hand...not to mention the reformers.
> 
> My only concearn here is that we have a tendency to hunker down with other "split-p's" who think-just-like-us and stay away from discussions with others in the reformed world WHO EVERYONE KNOWS ARE WRONG.
> 
> just my


----------



## Bladestunner316

I'll debate them when they put out a systematic theology.


----------



## DaveJes1979

I think that good old-fashioned published literature is the way to carry on a "debate." Think of Luther's responses to Erasmus in "Bondage of the Will." That's the sort of thing you need in order to have a scholarly and influential response to doctrinal errors.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Dr. Clark,

Great posts as usual.

I'm not certain of the precise history of debate but I think much of it does bear great resemblance to the Sophists' use of persuasion in Ancient Greece. So much of what makes a person seem correct is whether or not they're going to catch somebody on some small point or keep them off-balance. Due to a lack of time, a good debater can put the other on the defensive and control the terms of what is discussed. Like Sophistry, debating is popular to modern society because persuasion is more important than truth.


----------



## Robin

> _Originally posted by tewilder_
> Don't assume that this is a proposal for a definitive debate, pro and con, on the Federal Vision.
> 
> It is probably about showing that Doug Wilson does not personally hold any of those horrible views that are attributed to the Federal Vision. The purpose of the debate would then be to have accusations raised so that he can explain, regarding each charge, how he does not believe that thing in that sense. Then he will proclaim himself cleared of all taint and suspicion. He is relying on the status of his opponent to make this vindication definitive.



 

This is called "free publicity."

Doug Wilson's manners appeal to the sinful arrogance and self-validating bent of "sons of thunder Christians." He has no intention of possibly being corrected on false views.

Robin


----------



## RamistThomist

Just curious: how come no one would personally and publically debate Greg Bahnsen on theonomy, if theonomy was so obviously wrong that any covenant child could refute?


----------



## R. Scott Clark

Jacob,

This is an interesting question for a couple of reasons. I see theonomy as a sort of analogue to the FV. Both movements reflect a similar pathology in the Reformed corpus. Both reflect what call the Quest for Illegitimate Religious Certainty. The FV is making the doctrine of justification a little more "reasonable," by reducing the scandal of the cross and the offense of the gospel. As it turns out, we do have a small part in justification! That's just a little more reasonable than the confessional Protestant alternative. Theonomy represents another side of the same quest. It offers a kind of ethical precision and a kind of ethical authority that reduces ambiguities to certainties and, on its premises, makes Christian ethics a little more "reasonable." Put the quarter in the slot, pull the handle and out comes the correct ethical answer to one's particular question. The same spirit that produced the Talmud produced Rush's Institutes. The same devotion to the rabbis gives us the fascination with Rabbi Rousas, Rabbi Gary, and Rabbi Greg.

Second, let me question a premise of your question. I've been thinking about and dealing with theonomy since you were (probably) a child. I don't know anyone, even one ardently opposed to theonomy, who thinks that it's childplay. I am convinced that it's profoundly wrong, but I've never thought it was "easy." Like the FV, theonomy has to be unravelled and that's hard work. Further, just as there are varieties of the FV, there are varieties of theonomy. Just as the FV is a moving target, so theonomy was a moving target. Today hardly anyone wants to admit being a theonomist. I half expect someone to deny that Greg was really a theonomist! 

Third, both movements have in common a deep concern for the collapse of the culture and our place in it. Some versions of theonomy/reconstructionism have culture being gradually regenerated through Christian influence and some expect a cataclysm out of which arises a Reconstructionist phoenix. FV wants to regenerate the culture through sacerdotalism (baptismal union). Both are visions of Christendom restored.

These factors help explain why so many theonomists have been attracted to the FV and vice-versa. I realize that not all theonomists are FVists nor are all FVists theonomists and I realize that some theonomic groups have been justly critical of the FV, nevertheless, I regard those arguments as a family fight.

The reluctance to debate Greg was grounded in some of the same concerns that folk have about the FV. At first it was regarded as a weird novelty, to which the critics didn't want to give credibility, and then it was viewed as a threat. The perception of the FV has gone through the same process. At first, no one wanted to take it seriously. It was only after the Kinnaird case that people really began to pay attention (and Kinnaird denies holding the FV, but his relations to the FV weren't clear a couple of years ago). Now churches are acting to protect themselves against the FV. 

Theonomy may be patently wrong, but that doesn't mean that it's an easy case to make. Like the FV, theonomy is a huge ball of twine that has to be unwound in multiple directions. 

Like theonomy/reconstructionism, FV has strong, colorful leaders. 

Like Doug Wilson, Greg was fast on his feet and a good debater. Greg was a trained philosopher and could be intimidating. That also probably contributed to reluctance to debate him. 

Non-theonomic students at WSC, when I was a student, who wanted to enter this presbytery of the OPC lived in mortal terror of being grilled by Greg. He was said to question non-theonomic students ruthlessly on the floor of presbytery unless they had taken private tuition from him! I'm not saying that this is fact, it's just my recollection of what happened c. 1984-7. I guess theonomists will deny it ever happened. "St Greg could never have done such a thing." 

I also remember Rabbi Gary saying once that if anyone criticized theonomy that he would "bury" them (ala Kruschev). I got some pretty heated correspondence for daring to offer some mild criticisms of theonomy/reconstructionism in a short dictionary article! Imagine what would happen to one who dared to question one of the Rabbis directly? 

rsc



> _Originally posted by Draught Horse_
> Just curious: how come no one would personally and publicly debate Greg Bahnsen on theonomy, if theonomy was so obviously wrong that any covenant child could refute?


----------



## RamistThomist

Thanks Dr Clark.
You and Horton are far more experience on this than I will be, but you two look much younger than your age! (That was an off-hand compliment).

I believe, if I am not mistaken, that Meredith Kline said that "child" remark in his original WTJ review of Theonomy. I will re check it later. 

True, Frame did say Bahnsen overdid it in presbytery floor. But then again, theonomists in some presbyteries get grilled pretty hard, too. 



> The same devotion to the rabbis gives us the fascination with Rabbi Rousas, Rabbi Gary, and Rabbi Greg.



Are people not devoted to the White Horse Inn, ACE, etc? I have had some sinful attitudes by immature people thrown at me from the above. Does that make it wrong? no. Movement mentalities are bad in all areas.



> Both reflect what call the Quest for Illegitimate Religious Certainty



This is a good issue but would derail the present discussion. You answered my question. Thanks.


----------



## KenPierce

Let's not forget that Sproul debated Bahnsen at RTS, not on theonomy, but apologetics (moderated by John R. de Witt). So, there's one man that wasn't scared of Bahnsen! 

Dr. Clark's counsel on debates is wise. Debating is often preaching to the choir, and that not in edifying fashion. I don' t recall the apostles entering into debates. 

Plus, as any high school debater knows, one can win a debate and be completely wrong, or lose a debate, and be completely right. Rhetorical skills and truth are not the same thing.

Wilson is good because he is so slippery in his use of language, and has no problem contradicting himself. That reduces debate to a magician's hat trick. Whoever is rhetorically sharpest, can get off the "you're no Jack Kennedy" line, wins, regardless of the merit of the ideas.

I love debates as much as the next person, and probably would enjoy nothing better than sitting down and watching all the firing lines back to back, but I do not see how they advance the cause of Biblical truth.


----------



## RamistThomist

> Let's not forget that Sproul debated Bahnsen at RTS, not on theonomy, but apologetics (moderated by John R. de Witt). So, there's one man that wasn't scared of Bahnsen!



That's true. How come Ligonier doesn't advertise that debate and sell it?


----------



## ChristianTrader

> _Originally posted by Draught Horse_
> Just curious: how come no one would personally and publically debate Greg Bahnsen on theonomy, if theonomy was so obviously wrong that any covenant child could refute?



Because a majority of critics are antinomian and dont wish to have it exposed. (If one is not a two table person it is basically almost pointless to talk about theonomy. One has bigger issues to deal with) They also wanted to take their cues from Kline who was willing to say a good bit as long as he got the only word.

CT


----------



## ChristianTrader

> _Originally posted by Draught Horse_
> 
> 
> 
> Let's not forget that Sproul debated Bahnsen at RTS, not on theonomy, but apologetics (moderated by John R. de Witt). So, there's one man that wasn't scared of Bahnsen!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's true. How come Ligonier doesn't advertise that debate and sell it?
Click to expand...


Cause he lost?

CT


----------



## AdamM

> That's true. How come Ligonier doesn't advertise that debate and sell it?



I'm not 100% sure, but I seem to remember that in the old days they did offer it. 

I suppose the whole issue of who "won" that debate takes us right back to Dr. Clark's point. If you were a presup going in, I'm sure you thought Bahnsen won, but even then, who "won" that debate might be irrelevant to the truth of the issue. I think of it like this, even though (in my opinion) he's usually dead wrong on the issues, in most debates I've witnessed, James Carville can often mop up the floor with his opponent, making them look silly. Also, didn't John Eck twist Luther like a pretzel in a debate too, although I'm sure most of us here think truth was on Luther's side?

[Edited on 9-21-2006 by AdamM]


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia

I find it a little troubling how this "offer to debate" is being proposed by Mr. Wilson. It seems, for lack of a better term, childish. I may be entirely wrong, as one's temperment and attitude is difficult to discern over the internet, but that is how it comes across to me, personally. I don't see the "need" for this debate at all. This is an issue for the Church to decide on, and Mr. Wilson isn't even a "part of the Reformed Church," ecclesiastically speaking, in my opinion. In fact, one could argue -- based on his own writing and spoken word -- that he does not believe this to be the case as well. His independency and seperation from any NARAPC body is a problem for me. *shrug*


----------



## tewilder

> _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> I find it a little troubling how this "offer to debate" is being proposed by Mr. Wilson. It seems, for lack of a better term, childish. I may be entirely wrong, as one's temperment and attitude is difficult to discern over the internet, but that is how it comes across to me, personally. I don't see the "need" for this debate at all. This is an issue for the Church to decide on, and Mr. Wilson isn't even a "part of the Reformed Church," ecclesiastically speaking, in my opinion. In fact, one could argue -- based on his own writing and spoken word -- that he does not believe this to be the case as well. His independency and seperation from any NARAPC body is a problem for me. *shrug*



Wilson's "independency and seperation from any NARAPC" was not a problem for those who used to invite him to speak at conferences, subscribed to his magazine, read the books that he wrote and read the books that he published. 

But given the doom that seems to be overhanging the Federal Vision, Wilson's identification with the Federal Vision may be a problem for the present and potential future consumers of his publications and services. 

Wilson has to do something about this. Perhaps he regrets being led in this direction by his pals, but he has to show the he never intended whatever excesses it eventually becomes the consensus that the Federal Vision has committed.

Wilson has to do something to maintain his standing. Probably, he has already waited too long. Already he has become much more of a target than the people who came up with the Federal Vision theology. There are various blogs devoted to attacking him, something I don't know to be the case with other FV types.


----------



## R. Scott Clark

> ...a majority of critics are antinomian and dont wish to have it exposed



Or maybe not!

rsc


----------



## Magma2

> _Originally posted by tewilder_
> Perhaps he regrets being led in this direction by his pals, but he has to show the he never intended whatever excesses it eventually becomes the consensus that the Federal Vision has committed.



If he has regrets concerning his chosen path then wouldn't it be more fitting to repent instead of debate?


----------



## Answerman

Since one of the qualifications for an elder is to be able to refute those who contradict (Titus 1:9) shouldn't someone stand up and take up this challenge. As a layman, I would personally like to hear a clear presentation of where DW (or FVT) is teaching heresy with the opportunity for a response and a rebuttal.

In previous generations, Christian leaders seemed willing to carry on a debate for days or even weeks amongst entire assemblies of representatives investing the needed time to clarify the issues. I personally would like to see at least a week long debate with multiple representatives from each side hammering out the true differences between the positions so that any pronouncement of heresy could be grounded on a accurate representation of the position(s) in question. I know that this may sound like I am asking too much, but in my opinion, this appears to be the most biblical method for resolving such conflicts, as in the Jerusalem council in Acts 15. I realize that the circumstances are a little different, since we have a muct more divided church, but I would at least like to see a joint effort by reformed denominations come together and settle this issue in this way.

As we saw in Luther's case, a call to recant without giving a person an adequate opportunity to give a response could spark a reformation.

I know that some will claim that they have been given and adequate opportunity, but I have yet to see a meeting between the two sides that spends enough time to have the issues clarified. Please let me know if such a meetings has already taken place.

For Christ's Crown and Covenant,
David


----------



## RamistThomist

James White and Doug Wilson debated this issue two years ago, or so. While White is a good guy, a few Reformed people wondered if White was the person to debate him. I guess they wanted a paedo guy to go after him.


----------



## Answerman

But that debate was focused only on one aspect of FVT, whether or not a RC could be considered a "christian" in any sense of the word.


----------



## RamistThomist

Right, I really didn't like the topic of the debate. It seemed to skirt the heart of the issue. Plus it also came down partly to a paedo/credo debate.


----------



## Answerman

If a brief (approx 3hr) debate were to be all we could get, I would at least like to have the focus on a more serious aspect of the debate, such as whether or not someone is truly denying justification by faith alone.


----------



## R. Scott Clark

David,

Aren't you assuming an awful lot about Doug? E.g., that he has a stable theology on fixed principles? 

Have you read Wilson?

Why would it take a debate for Doug to be clear about justification?

I can tell you what I think about justification right now! I don't need a debate to make my views clear. Why does Doug need such?

rsc



> _Originally posted by Answerman_
> If a brief (approx 3hr) debate were to be all we could get, I would at least like to have the focus on a more serious aspect of the debate, such as whether or not someone is truly denying justification by faith alone.


----------



## Answerman

Scott,

I have heard Doug Wilson also give brief definitions on his view of justification that sound pretty straight forward and orthodox, as he did in his CREC examination, so I don't think that the issue can be boiled down to whether or not a person can give a good brief summary of their position on a particular doctrine, so more time would be needed to demonstrate that he has in fact contradicted himself elsewhere in his writings or sermons. I don't think that this is too much to ask for if in fact it is so clear that he has done so.

All I would like to see is for some official representative from the other side to demonstrate the false teaching and/or the contradiction in his system in a format that he would be given a chance to respond and rebut so that a fair minded person could decide whether or not he is truly trying to obfiscate or not. I have yet to see such an exchange and I think that it would do more harm to the body of Christ to not have such an exchange than it would be to refuse such an offer.

I realize that such an exchange would probably not change the majority of people's minds but I would hope that a Christian's allegence to Christ would supercede any affection they might have for Doug if it could be demonstrated that he is actually is opposing our Lord and Saviour.

The only thing more that I could hope for is that a representative from the other side is very well versed and capable, someone like Sinclair Ferguson.


----------



## Civbert

> _Originally posted by Answerman_
> ...
> All I would like to see is for some official representative from the other side to demonstrate the false teaching and/or the contradiction in his system in a format that he would be given a chance to respond and rebut so that a fair minded person could decide whether or not he is truly trying to obfiscate or not. I have yet to see such an exchange and I think that it would do more harm to the body of Christ to not have such an exchange than it would be to refuse such an offer.
> ...



A live debate is a terrible way for a person to make up ones mind about issues like the FV. The only information you can reliable glean from a debate is which debater is better at debating. It's not the best position that wins the debate, and it's not the best reasoning the wins, it's the one with the best rhetoric. 

Regan won with "there you go again".
Someone else won with "I knew Jack Kennedy, and you're no Jack Kennedy".
Bush won by not being as technical and dry as his opponent.
Dukakis lost by not being emotional enough.
No wins using the best argument - most wins by rhetorical knock-out, the rest when with rhetorical point advantage.

Debates are like boxing events for the mind. You don't win by giving you opponent an equal exchange of blows - but by overwhelming your opponent with blows that he can not respond to.


----------



## tewilder

> _Originally posted by Answerman_
> Scott,
> 
> I have heard Doug Wilson also give brief definitions on his view of justification that sound pretty straight forward and orthodox, as he did in his CREC examination, so I don't think that the issue can be boiled down to whether or not a person can give a good brief summary of their position on a particular doctrine, so more time would be needed to demonstrate that he has in fact contradicted himself elsewhere in his writings or sermons. I don't think that this is too much to ask for if in fact it is so clear that he has done so.
> 
> All I would like to see is for some official representative from the other side to demonstrate the false teaching and/or the contradiction in his system in a format that he would be given a chance to respond and rebut so that a fair minded person could decide whether or not he is truly trying to obfiscate or not. I have yet to see such an exchange and I think that it would do more harm to the body of Christ to not have such an exchange than it would be to refuse such an offer.
> 
> I realize that such an exchange would probably not change the majority of people's minds but I would hope that a Christian's allegence to Christ would supercede any affection they might have for Doug if it could be demonstrated that he is actually is opposing our Lord and Saviour.
> 
> The only thing more that I could hope for is that a representative from the other side is very well versed and capable, someone like Sinclair Ferguson.



And how would this satisfy you? After all, it has been done already. A conference was held and book came out of the process. You can read what both sides said then.

But, of course, as soon as people like Rich Lusk got pinned down on their ideas based on what they said in print, they retracted them in favor of more hard to pin down formulations. The FV people revile the OPC study committee because it criticizes Lusk for his published positions, and not just his latest, on the fly, formulations.

Just last week the Federal Vision changed again, after Matthew Winzer showed them the way right here on the Puritanboard. Mark Horne read that, and suddenly discovered that he could combine his rejection of the theology of the Covenant of Works with verbal formulas that sound like what his critics say he denies. So now Horne and those who follow him affirm Christ's active covenant obedience, the righteousness of that obedience and its imputation to us. In fact, Horne can even accept the Covenant of Works, provided it is construed in a Winzer sort of way (its essence denied).

Now they can give more correct sounding answers at presbytery examinations, while their underlying theology has not changed. 

What Wilson wants is not a clear debate based on distinguishing positions. He wants to play rope-a-dope. He has a career to rescue. Unlike the other FV people this controversy is costing him a lot. He is a man with a national speaking career, books, a publishing house, a magazine, a college, a denomination, and who also wants a seminary. He can't manage this as a cult leader. He needs to be able to tap into the mainstream. He has a right wing and a left wing in his denomination that he needs to hold together. Further, he can't go left and pick up the emergent people like Biblical Seminary did, as Wilson has spent his career attacking and alienating such people. Just look at the anti-Wilson blogs and see who hates him.


----------



## johnny_redeemed

> _Originally posted by R. Scott Clark_
> Aren't you assuming an awful lot about Doug? E.g., that he has a stable theology on fixed principles?





I have heard this objection a few times, that is, that the FVers change their views form day to day, especially Wilson. I was wondering if anyone could show this to be the case by showing some quotes from Wilson that contradict each other. 



[Edited on 9-26-2006 by johnny_redeemed]


----------



## R. Scott Clark

There have been long discussions on this. You could search the threads. 

Not speaking for anyone but myself, the comments I've made about shifts in FV theology are based on years of reading their blogs, emails, etc.

Part of the difficulty in this discussion is that the leaders in this movement all hold variations of the FV. Shepherd is not identical to Wilson who is not identical to Wilkins etc. 

There have been moves to create/name a movement and then to deny that a movement exists;

There have been strong denials of active obedience by some (e.g., Lusk and Shepherd) and now some seem to be revising their language (e.g., Wilson) on this;

At least one proponent of baptismal union has backed away from 1/2 of that formula (every baptized person is united _ipso facto _ head for head to Christ). I don't know if that change represents a broader shift and that change is not yet public.

There may be others which I can't remember just now.

Does your question imply that the FV is a stable movement with a fixed core of doctrines?

rsc

rsc



> _Originally posted by johnny_redeemed_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by R. Scott Clark_
> Aren't you assuming an awful lot about Doug? E.g., that he has a stable theology on fixed principles?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have heard this objection a few times, that is, that the FVers change their views form day to day, especially Wilson. I was wondering if anyone could show this to be the case by showing some quotes from Wilson that contradict each other.
> 
> 
> 
> [Edited on 9-26-2006 by johnny_redeemed]
Click to expand...


----------



## tewilder

> _Originally posted by R. Scott Clark_
> There have been long discussions on this. You could search the threads.
> 
> Not speaking for anyone but myself, the comments I've made about shifts in FV theology are based on years of reading their blogs, emails, etc.
> 
> Part of the difficulty in this discussion is that the leaders in this movement all hold variations of the FV. Shepherd is not identical to Wilson who is not identical to Wilkins etc.
> 
> There have been moves to create/name a movement and then to deny that a movement exists;
> 
> There have been strong denials of active obedience by some (e.g., Lusk and Shepherd) and now some seem to be revising their language (e.g., Wilson) on this;
> 
> At least one proponent of baptismal union has backed away from 1/2 of that formula (every baptized person is united _ipso facto _ head for head to Christ). I don't know if that change represents a broader shift and that change is not yet public.
> 
> There may be others which I can't remember just now.
> 
> Does your question imply that the FV is a stable movement with a fixed core of doctrines?
> 
> rsc



I, for one, think that there is a fairly stable core, but it is not what anyone is debating.

The core of the Federal Vision is the use of Kline's symbolic theology to construct an institutional, clerical and ritual religion. (If I don't call it Christianity, remember that they themselves are _Against Chrstianity,_.) 

In this religion you become one of God's people through baptism performed by a priest, and you remain one of God's people by the participation of weekly sacramental rites offered by a priest. In addition, it is important to have covenant renewal services in which a preist mediates for you, praying on behalf of the congregation to God. You depend on the priests to become saved and you stay saved through their rituals. If they withhold the rituals you are cut off. Thus, sanctification, at its core, is sucking up to the clergy so you can keep getting the sacraments. 

For example, Doug Wilson, at a youth conference between two and three years ago, answered a question about someone who felt convicted of sin, and what he should do. Wilson's answer was, Has he been baptised? If so, is he under church discipline? If he has been baptised (got in) and is not under discipline (not put out), then he is OK and shouldn't worry.

This shows the externalism and ritualism of the FV. Note that Adolf Hitler (baptised, and never excommunicated) is then saved. Also Martin Heidegger who even had a Roman Catholic funeral, and a host of other like characters.

Now, who is not FV? Shepherd is a source for the FV, but not one himself. For one thing he does not go along with the New Perspectives stuff, and interprets Paul as teaching against those who are trying to earn salvation by their works. (For Shepherd, you need to do good works to be saved, but if you do works in order to be saved, then they count against you.) Sandlin is an open critic of the institutionalism and ritualism of the FV, although he is a follower of Shepherd. Schlissel has views similar to New Perspectives but he does not like the ritualism, as it goes against his Jewish sensibilities. So there are certain people who spoke at some key conferences, who are nevertheless quite distinct in their own theological position.

The problem is that there are a lot of critics who are Christian Reconstruction haters, and friendly to Meredith Kline, and they will give you a distorted view of the Federal Vision. Remember what Jordan said way back at the beginning: That while he is not opposed to paying attention to the trasformation of culture, that is not where it's at. What God wants is for us to obey in the area of worship, which is the important thing. What the people must do is submit to the clergy and pray. If they do, God will give them good clergy who will do the rituals right. If the church starts doing the rituals right, then God himself will transform the culture. We have bad govenment, etc. because we are bad people and God is punishing us, and we have bad clergy who bungle the rituals for the same reason. The operative meaning of "good" seems to be submission to clergy.

So before there was a Federal Vision there was a phase of rejection of Christian Reconstruction, critique of theonomy, and bitter attacks on Greg Bahnsen and Rushdoony. (How much the FV owes its monocovenantalism to Rushdoony, as opposed to getting it from the Canadian Reformed, Shepherd, and varous Dutch characters would be interesting to know.) Especially interesting was the Biblical Horizons conference in which Jordan introduced his critique of Theonomy, arguing that Moses did not give a law code, and opposing the use of the terms such as "commandment" when it was only Biblical to speak of the "Ten Words", etc.

Now, as Walter Kaiser pointed out, Kline invented a way to reconstruct dispensationalism within the framework of covenant theology. The interesting thing that results from this is that we find Klinites like Lee Irons arguing along the same lines (and being deposed from office for it) as the Candian Reformed and the Federal Vision, to wit: The law was given to the church (as is proved by the preamble, "I am the Lord thy God who brought you out of Egypt"), and therefore is not Covenant of Works material that would be binding on mankind as a whole, but is a sermonic exhortation to believers. This, of course, is distructive to theonomy, which only makes sense (Rushdoony notwithstanding) as exponding a moral equity of the law that is binding on society as a whole due to the Covenant of Works.

The pattern that Federal Vision people see here is grace and then law. God elects Israel, calls them out of Egypt, baptises them in the Red sea, and then gives them the law material as a way of life for a saved people. Those who don't keep it, though, die in the wilderness and do not make it into God's rest in the promised land.

[Edited on 9-27-2006 by tewilder]


----------



## R. Scott Clark

There's no doubt that there are core ideas to the FV, but I'm not sure the theologies of the Federal Vision_ists_ is stable.



> The core of the Federal Vision is the use of Kline's symbolic theology to construct an institutional, clerical and ritual religion. (If I don't call it Christianity, remember that they themselves are _Against Christianity,_.)



Connecting MGK to the FV is, however, a tour de force! 

What do you mean by "symbolic theology?" Meredith is a confessional Reformed theologian. One can certainly oppose some of Meredith's views, but connecting him to the FV is passing strange! Especially since he's been opposing Norm Shepherd since 1974 and has been sounding the alarm re what became the FV for decades. 



> In this religion you become one of God's people through baptism performed by a priest, and you remain one of God's people by the participation of weekly sacramental rites offered by a priest.



There are ways in which this certainly true of the FV since they deny the internal/external distinction. They do verge on a kind of sacerdotalism. Some of them (e.g., Barach) have been wearing papist clerical collars. 

Meredith, however, has never taught any such thing. 



> In addition, it is important to have covenant renewal services in which a preist mediates for you, praying on behalf of the congregation to God. You depend on the priests to become saved and you stay saved through their rituals.



Well, the Shorter Catechism (88) and the HC 65 do have a high view of the "due use of the ordinary means" but that's not the same thing as sacerdotalism. A means of grace theology is not sacerdotalism.



> For example, Doug Wilson, at a youth conference between two and three years ago, answered a question about someone who felt convicted of sin, and what he should do. Wilson's answer was, Has he been baptised? If so, is he under church discipline? If he has been baptised (got in) and is not under discipline (not put out), then he is OK and shouldn't worry.



Yes, this is typical FV stuff. They substitute baptism for faith. What the convicted person must do is _believe_. If he has not been baptized, then, having believed he should be baptized. If he has been baptized, then, having believed, he should give thanks to God for his faithfulness to the covenant signs and seals.



> Now, who is not FV? Shepherd is a source for the FV, but not one himself.



I'm not sure this is true. Norman holds all the major FV views and even though he denies being influenced (or even reading!) the NPP, he has the same covenantal nomist structure: in by grace, stay in by works/faithfulness. Norm is the real sponsor of the FV, but your point 



> So there are certain people who spoke at some key conferences, who are nevertheless quite distinct in their own theological position.



is well taken. 



> The problem is that there are a lot of critics who are Christian Reconstruction haters, and friendly to Meredith Kline, and they will give you a distorted view of the Federal Vision.



Well, I don't know that I'm a CR "hater," but I am a critic and I am friendly to MGK.

Is it possible that your evident animus to MGK is coloring your perception of these issues? Your attempt to tie him to the FV seems REALLY far fetched!

I think I've been fair in re the connection between the CR and the FV. I've made some connections (the Quest for Illegitimate Religious Certainty) but I've recognized that there are strong CR/Theonomic critics of the FV.



> Remember what Jordan said way back at the beginning: That while he is not opposed to paying attention to the transformation of culture, that is not where it's at. What God wants is for us to obey in the area of worship, which is the important thing.



Yes, but he started out as a transformationalist and has morphed to wherever he is now. The question is whether there is an organic or logical connection between the two positions? I think you've made the connection for us:



> If the church starts doing the rituals right, then God himself will transform the culture. We have bad government, etc. because we are bad people and God is punishing us, and we have bad clergy who bungle the rituals for the same reason. The operative meaning of "good" seems to be submission to clergy.





> Jordan...introduced his critique of Theonomy, arguing that Moses did not give a law code, and opposing the use of the terms such as "commandment" when it was only Biblical to speak of the "Ten Words", etc.



This is another of Jordan's strange arguments. 



> Now, as Walter Kaiser pointed out, Kline invented a way to reconstruct dispensationalism within the framework of covenant theology.



What Walt Kaiser knows about covenant theology would make a very thin book! I have yet to meet a dispensationalist who could give a coherent account of covenant theology. They are remarkably insular and have been for their entire history so far as I can tell. Fred Lincoln did a couple of poor and ill-researched and argued essays in BibSac decades ago on the history of cT that were pretty influential among dispensationalists. I guess that Walt's relying on them for his knowledge of CT. 

MGK rejects and has written _against_ dispensationalism for 50+ years. How does rejection of dispensational program become support for it? He rejects its outlines and its particulars. He's taught the continuity of the covenant of grace for his entire career.

Yes, he has used some stronger language about the Decalogue (as Mosaic) than I wouldn't suppport, but that fact does not vitiate the basic Reformed structure of his theology any more than it made Cocceius non-Reformed. Nor is it fair to identify Lee Irons' theology wholly with MGK's. 

Has MGK ever denied that the Decalogue is not, as _ moral law_, binding on all people? Certainly he has taught and affirmed the covenant of works all his life. He was teaching the covenant of works when Mr Murray was calling it into question! 

Lee does err, I think, in not recognizing the connection between the moral law and the natural law and the Decalogue. There are a lot of Klineans (e.g., David VanDrunen, Mike Horton, Bob Godfrey, Scott Clark) who do exactly that. So, Lee Irons isn't the only representative of MGK's covenant theology.

rsc


----------



## tewilder

> The core of the Federal Vision is the use of Kline's symbolic theology to construct an institutional, clerical and ritual religion. (If I don't call it Christianity, remember that they themselves are _Against Christianity,_.)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Connecting MGK to the FV is, however, a tour de force!
Click to expand...


It is not as though I were the first one to notice this.



> What do you mean by "symbolic theology?" Meredith is a confessional Reformed theologian. One can certainly oppose some of Meredith's views, but connecting him to the FV is passing strange! Especially since he's been opposing Norm Shepherd since 1974 and has been sounding the alarm re what became the FV for decades.



I mean the stuff in _Images of the Spirite_ and in _Kingdom Prologe_, both books highly promoted by James Jordan in his proto-Federal Vision period, and which gave him the hermeneutic with which Jordan and Co. built their judeizing theology of ritual and symbol, which became the core of the Federal Vision (the "vision" part) theology. I recall him rebuking me for not having read those key books.




> In this religion you become one of God's people through baptism performed by a priest, and you remain one of God's people by the participation of weekly sacramental rites offered by a priest.



There are ways in which this certainly true of the FV since they deny the internal/external distinction. They do verge on a kind of sacerdotalism. Some of them (e.g., Barach) have been wearing papist clerical collars. 
[/quote]

Jordan wore and promoted those collars when no one had heard of Barach. (Jordan says they symbolize that the clergy are the slaves of Christ.) One should mention that it was the Anglicans, not the papists who invented them. But they are not important. What is important are the robes that are supposed to be worn for the Sunday ceremonies.



> Meredith, however, has never taught any such thing.



Doesn't matter. He gave them their hermenutics.



> In addition, it is important to have covenant renewal services in which a preist mediates for you, praying on behalf of the congregation to God. You depend on the priests to become saved and you stay saved through their rituals.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, the Shorter Catechism (88) and the HC 65 do have a high view of the "due use of the ordinary means" but that's not the same thing as sacerdotalism. A means of grace theology is not sacerdotalism.
Click to expand...


With Jordan, in the proto-Federal Vision period, there came to be some idea of ritual perfection. The clergy had to pray exactly twice during the communion service, or it was disobedience and not honored by God, etc.



> Now, who is not FV? Shepherd is a source for the FV, but not one himself.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not sure this is true. Norman holds all the major FV views and even though he denies being influenced (or even reading!) the NPP, he has the same covenantal nomist structure: in by grace, stay in by works/faithfulness. Norm is the real sponsor of the FV, but your point
Click to expand...


The pastor of the PCA church, from which I departed, is a protoge and personal friend of Shepherd's, but also highly devoted to N.T. Wright (although he claims to have come to the NPP type of thinking independently as a student at Westminster before finding Wright). He tried to persuade Shepherd to appreciate Wright, but Shepherd wasn't buying it.

But Shepherd is quite explicit in his writings that Paul was opposing the teaching that works earned salvation. The Federal Vision people follow the New Perspectives teaching in saying that Paul was not preocupied by this because such a teaching of works righteousness wasn't around for him to be opposing.


----------



## johnny_redeemed

> _Originally posted by R. Scott Clark_
> Does your question imply that the FV is a stable movement with a fixed core of doctrines?




No Sir, not at all. I am new (been studying it for less than 6 month) to the hold FV thing. I just keep hearing this charge, but I do not see it to be the case. NOT to say that it is not the case (hope you followed that). I just would like to see the move that has taken place. 



Just so there is no ambiguity...I am not at this time a person who would at all call himself and FVer. I do not know of ANY of there doctrinal distinctive that I hold for sure!


----------



## tewilder

> The problem is that there are a lot of critics who are Christian Reconstruction haters, and friendly to Meredith Kline, and they will give you a distorted view of the Federal Vision.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, I don't know that I'm a CR "hater," but I am a critic and I am friendly to MGK.
Click to expand...


The way I would put is, Can we consider Hortonism and similar kingdom fleeing types of Churchianity to be confessional and Reformed?



> Is it possible that your evident animus to MGK is coloring your perception of these issues? Your attempt to tie him to the FV seems REALLY far fetched!
> 
> I think I've been fair in re the connection between the CR and the FV. I've made some connections (the Quest for Illegitimate Religious Certainty) but I've recognized that there are strong CR/Theonomic critics of the FV.



It is the whole Westminster seminary trajectory that is reponsible: Murray, Van Til, Kline. All important to Christian Reconstruction, and all import to the Federal Vision. One difference between Christian Reconstruction and the Federal Vision is that Kline became even more important.

By the way, have you noticed who first picked up on the Federal Vision problem and why? It was not the seminary boys, who think that what happens outside the seminaries is not worthy of their attention, and who are therefore late to every problem (except for the particular ones they create themselves). It was the Christian Reconstructionists of the type that hold to the Westminster Confession and its idea of the Covenant of Works. 



> Now, as Walter Kaiser pointed out, Kline invented a way to reconstruct dispensationalism within the framework of covenant theology.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What Walt Kaiser knows about covenant theology would make a very thin book! I have yet to meet a dispensationalist who could give a coherent account of covenant theology. They are remarkably insular and have been for their entire history so far as I can tell. Fred Lincoln did a couple of poor and ill-researched and argued essays in BibSac decades ago on the history of cT that were pretty influential among dispensationalists. I guess that Walt's relying on them for his knowledge of CT.
Click to expand...


Walter Kaiser is not a dispensationalist. 



> MGK rejects and has written _against_ dispensationalism for 50+ years. How does rejection of dispensational program become support for it? He rejects its outlines and its particulars. He's taught the continuity of the covenant of grace for his entire career.



The difference in a nutshell is that dispensationalism makes the church a mystery parethesis in God's plan, whereas Kline makes Israel a mystery parenthesis. Both are theologies of retreatest (anti-Reformed) churchianity. 



> Has MGK ever denied that the Decalogue is not, as _ moral law_, binding on all people? Certainly he has taught and affirmed the covenant of works all his life. He was teaching the covenant of works when Mr Murray was calling it into question!



It just goes to show that there are lots of ways to mess up theology. 



> Lee does err, I think, in not recognizing the connection between the moral law and the natural law and the Decalogue. There are a lot of Klineans (e.g., David VanDrunen, Mike Horton, Bob Godfrey, Scott Clark) who do exactly that. So, Lee Irons isn't the only representative of MGK's covenant theology.
> 
> rsc



What is needed is to recognize the relationship to the Covenant of Works, and therefore the relevance of the law for justice as a norm for everyone, and not limit salvation to a scheme to get naked souls into Plato's heaven.

[Edited on 9-27-2006 by tewilder]


----------



## R. Scott Clark

Timothy,

You evidently do not want to have a serious discussion.

Cheers,

rsc


----------



## tewilder

> _Originally posted by R. Scott Clark_
> Timothy,
> 
> You evidently do not want to have a serious discussion.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> rsc



You need to decide whether you want to stand on the high confessional ground or follow Van Til and Kline. You can't do both.

<blockquote>Finalement, dans la dÃ©marche de Kline l´Ã©lÃ©ment typologique est certainement surdimensionnÃ©, car il globalise ce qui auparavant ne concernait que des Ã©lÃ©ments particuliers de l´Ã©conomie ancienne. Il ne reste ainsi aucune place pour certaines donnÃ©es trÃ¨s importantes dans la thÃ©ologie rÃ©formÃ©e. En premier lieu, il ne reste aucune place pour le rÃ´le thÃ©ocratique de l´Ã‰tat concernant la Loi de Dieu, ce qui a Ã©tÃ© soulignÃ©, sans exception, par tous les rÃ©formateurs et par toutes les confessions de foi rÃ©formÃ©es. Sur ce sujet, nous pourrions parler mÃªme d´un consensus unanime des PÃ¨res rÃ©formÃ©s. En deuxiÃ¨me lieu, rendant typologiques aussi les Ã©lÃ©ments lÃ©gaux de l´Ancienne Alliance, sont abolies toutes les affirmations de l´Ancien Testament sur la rÃ©munÃ©ration, temporelle ou Ã©ternelle, des Å“uvres, laissant aussi sans effet celles, trÃ¨s nombreuses, du Nouveau Testament (Lc 12,47-49 ; 19,12-27 ; 1 Co 11,30-32 ; Ep 6,2 ; 1 Th 4,6 ; 2 Tm 1,15-18 ; 4,14 ; 1 Pi 1,10-12 ; Ap 2,7.11.17.26-27 ; 3,5.12.21 ; 14,13 ; 20.12-13 ; 22,12) et des confessions de foi. En derniÃ¨re instance, dans une dÃ©marche oÃ¹ toute la dimension lÃ©gale de l´Ancien Testament est rendue totalement typologique, il ne reste pratiquement pas de place pour parler du troisiÃ¨me usage de la loi chez le chrÃ©tien. Ã‰tant donnÃ© que chez Kline et Karlberg l´alliance des Å“uvres n´est pas distinguÃ©e du rapport naturel de l´homme avec Dieu, la grÃ¢ce est en rapport antithÃ©tique avec la nature. Certainement, cela suppose une variation importante de l´orientation fondamentale de la thÃ©ologie rÃ©formÃ©e. Dans ce sens, et reprenant le point que nous avions laissÃ© entrouvert plus haut, il faut remarquer que l´enseignement thÃ©onomique reste, sur ce point en particulier, plus proche de l´enseignement rÃ©formÃ© originel.</blockquote>


----------



## MW

> _Originally posted by tewilder_
> You need to decide whether you want to stand on the high confessional ground or follow Van Til and Kline. You can't do both.
> 
> <blockquote>Finalement, dans la dÃ©marche de Kline l´Ã©lÃ©ment typologique est certainement surdimensionnÃ©, car il globalise ce qui auparavant ne concernait que des Ã©lÃ©ments particuliers de l´Ã©conomie ancienne. Il ne reste ainsi aucune place pour certaines donnÃ©es trÃ¨s importantes dans la thÃ©ologie rÃ©formÃ©e. En premier lieu, il ne reste aucune place pour le rÃ´le thÃ©ocratique de l´Ã‰tat concernant la Loi de Dieu, ce qui a Ã©tÃ© soulignÃ©, sans exception, par tous les rÃ©formateurs et par toutes les confessions de foi rÃ©formÃ©es. Sur ce sujet, nous pourrions parler mÃªme d´un consensus unanime des PÃ¨res rÃ©formÃ©s. En deuxiÃ¨me lieu, rendant typologiques aussi les Ã©lÃ©ments lÃ©gaux de l´Ancienne Alliance, sont abolies toutes les affirmations de l´Ancien Testament sur la rÃ©munÃ©ration, temporelle ou Ã©ternelle, des Å“uvres, laissant aussi sans effet celles, trÃ¨s nombreuses, du Nouveau Testament (Lc 12,47-49 ; 19,12-27 ; 1 Co 11,30-32 ; Ep 6,2 ; 1 Th 4,6 ; 2 Tm 1,15-18 ; 4,14 ; 1 Pi 1,10-12 ; Ap 2,7.11.17.26-27 ; 3,5.12.21 ; 14,13 ; 20.12-13 ; 22,12) et des confessions de foi. En derniÃ¨re instance, dans une dÃ©marche oÃ¹ toute la dimension lÃ©gale de l´Ancien Testament est rendue totalement typologique, il ne reste pratiquement pas de place pour parler du troisiÃ¨me usage de la loi chez le chrÃ©tien. Ã‰tant donnÃ© que chez Kline et Karlberg l´alliance des Å“uvres n´est pas distinguÃ©e du rapport naturel de l´homme avec Dieu, la grÃ¢ce est en rapport antithÃ©tique avec la nature. Certainement, cela suppose une variation importante de l´orientation fondamentale de la thÃ©ologie rÃ©formÃ©e. Dans ce sens, et reprenant le point que nous avions laissÃ© entrouvert plus haut, il faut remarquer que l´enseignement thÃ©onomique reste, sur ce point en particulier, plus proche de l´enseignement rÃ©formÃ© originel.</blockquote>



I'm not sure why you have reverted to speaking in tongues, but good point about the reformed consensus. I would only qualify that the consensus pertained to the magistrate being keeper of both tables of the law, and not necessarily to an institution resembling theocracy. And yes, if the old covenant is relegated to type, it leaves no moral teaching. However, it would be more appropriate to say that the reformers and the reformed confessions espouse theodidache, not theonomos. The OT judicial laws have doctrinal application, but have ceased to be a living law.


----------



## tewilder

> _Originally posted by armourbearer_
> 
> 
> I'm not sure why you have reverted to speaking in tongues, but good point about the reformed consensus. I would only qualify that the consensus pertained to the magistrate being keeper of both tables of the law, and not necessarily to an institution resembling theocracy. And yes, if the old covenant is relegated to type, it leaves no moral teaching. However, it would be more appropriate to say that the reformers and the reformed confessions espouse theodidache, not theonomos. The OT judicial laws have doctrinal application, but have ceased to be a living law.



Happens to be a quotation from a dissertation recently accepted at a Reformed seminary with a good critique of 20th century American deviations on covenant theology.

I have thought this chapter should be translated, but my French isn't good enough.


----------



## turmeric

J'ai mon francais oubliee, mais ici on peut interpreter pour nous!

[Edited on 9-29-2006 by turmeric]


----------



## VictorBravo

> _Originally posted by tewilder_
> <blockquote>Finalement, dans la dÃ©marche de Kline l´Ã©lÃ©ment typologique est certainement surdimensionnÃ©, . . . .</blockquote>



Indiquez l'auteur, s'il vous plait.


----------



## VictorBravo

I guess I'm too slow. I didn't see your mention of the dissertation.


----------



## ChristianTrader

Rev. Matthew,
Would you say that a person cannot say that they stand within the reformed consensus and deny the civil magistrate's duty to uphold both tables?

CT


----------



## MW

> _Originally posted by ChristianTrader_
> Rev. Matthew,
> Would you say that a person cannot say that they stand within the reformed consensus and deny the civil magistrate's duty to uphold both tables?



Hermonta,

Most certainly. He is a minister of God to society. The good the magistrate is to reward and the evil he is to punish is the good and evil as defined by the moral law of God. The modern concept of neutralising civil laws is a myth; by not instituting what is good and curbing what is evil, evil naturally prospers. The old adage stands -- for evil to prevail, it only requires a good man to do nothing. Hence our modern democracies, with their emphasis on the vox populi, can only grow increasingly worse with each passing generation. Only upon the basis of authoritarianism can the tendency to wax worse and worse be halted.

But I also acknowledge that democracy is an ordinance of man, and hence to be submitted to in so far as conscience is able. Blessings!


----------



## ef

I completely disagree. You couldn't be more wrong. He lost because of that huge helmet in the tank picture!



> Dukakis lost by not being emotional enough.



Sorry... second reading showed you were speaking of the debate itself, not the election. My bad. It was a great trip down memory lane just the same.

TE Wilder-

How is an understanding of two kingdoms tantamount to seeing the Gospel as "a way to get naked souls into Plato's heaven?" You lost me there.

thanks,


efw

[Edited on 10-3-2006 by ef]


----------



## tewilder

> _Originally posted by ef_
> I completely disagree. You couldn't be more wrong. He lost because of that huge helmet in the tank picture!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dukakis lost by not being emotional enough.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry... second reading showed you were speaking of the debate itself, not the election. My bad. It was a great trip down memory lane just the same.
> 
> TE Wilder-
> 
> How is an understanding of two kingdoms tantamount to seeing the Gospel as "a way to get naked souls into Plato's heaven?" You lost me there.
> 
> thanks,
> 
> 
> efw
> 
> [Edited on 10-3-2006 by ef]
Click to expand...


I got the CDs of the first Westminster conference on justification (against the Federal Vision) and was appalled by the way the speaks talked, especially Godfrey. Just like fundies. They spoke of salvation and the church's mission as getting souls to heaven, as though they had never heard of the resurrection and as though God did not care for the whole man.

John Frame, who I generally do not care for, has a worthwhile article on it:

In Defense of Christian Activism
http://www.frame-poythress.org/frame_articles/2006InDefense.html

Then, what disturbs me even more, is this trumpeting of a defense of high Reformed confessionalism, when they are Vantillians and Klinites, the theological building blocks of the Federal Vision.

Go here:

[ame="http://www.amazon.com/God-Heaven-Har-Magedon-Covenantal/dp/1597524786/sr=8-1/qid=1159969275/ref=pd_bbs_1/104-5108754-8139923?ie=UTF8&s=books"]Amazon.com: God, Heaven, and Har Magedon: A Covenantal Tale of Cosmos and Telos: Books: Meredith G. Kline[/ame]

and read the reviews, especially the one with the Table of contents of Kline's God, Heaven, and Har Magedon, and the one with the quote from the praface. The is the heart of the Federal Vision and the reason for the ritualism. All this symbolic stuff is what the FVs think has to be reproduced in their rituals. As Kline himself admits, the symbol is dominant and "shapes our telling of the covenantal tale" (note also the shift to narrative, as opposed to "timeless truths", another FV hallmark). 

Look also at the discription of history:

"This Har Magedon paradigm, which shapes our telling of the covenantal tale, consists in the following complex of elements: establishment of a kingdom covenant by the Lord of Har Magedon; a meritorious accomplishment by the covenant grantee, triumphant in the Har Magedon conflict; a common grace interim before the coming of the covenanted kingdom; an antichrist crisis; consummation of the Glory-Kingdom through a last judgment victory of the covenant Lord in a final battle of Har Magedon."

We are in the "common grace interim before the coming of the covenanted kingdom", which is the dispensational mystery parenthesis church age under another name.


----------



## py3ak

Mr. Wilson noticed the proceedings on here.



> Blog Water
> Topic: Auburn Avenue Stuff
> 
> Some time ago, I posted a note on my invitation to a debate over Auburn Avenue issues. I did that here. And now, on The Puritan Board, there is an ongoing discussion of that invitation. The consensus appears to be that a debate with me would be a bad idea, with a few folks questioning the wisdom of this approach.
> 
> Just two comments. The first is that such a debate is not some crazy idea that I cooked up. "A bishop must . . . be able by sound doctrine both to exhort and to convince the gainsayers. For there are many unruly and vain talkers and deceivers, specially they of the circumcision: whose mouths must be stopped . . ." (Tit. 1:7-11). If my positions actually are what these gentlemen claim, then that means that I qualify as an unruly and vain talker, a deceiver, a Judaizer, and one whose mouth must be stopped. Okay, then. You can't have it both ways. If I really am that kind of man, where in North America is a recognized champion of orthodoxy who will provide the valuable service of shutting me up? "Ah, but Wilson is so slippery," say many on The Puritan Board. Okay. Isn't that precisely why you have to shut such people up? Their slipperiness subverting whole households and all? "But he contradicts himself, morphing his positions! Hard to pin down!" That's what they say, anyway, and apparently this is so obvious a failing in me that it should be child's play to demonstrate in a debate. Right? I would wager that the first century contained false teachers who were just as much a slippery gus as I appear to be in the eyes of some. St. Paul told Titus to do something about them. St. Paul is telling the TRs, given their premises, to do something about it also. But if they won't debate, then they have a responsibility to ramp down the rhetoric, and to knock off calling fellow Reformed ministers "unruly and vain talkers."
> 
> The second point has to do with an ad hom that was offered on the board, explaining why I am desperate for this debate. Apparently, I have a career to save, networks to preserve, contracts to sandbag, a high profile reputation to keep from tanking, and so on. Like Mark Twain, who said that reports of his death were greatly exaggerated, I really have to say a similar thing here. Through no merit of ours, and by His grace alone, God continues to bless what we are connected with, and we are most grateful to Him for it. New St. Andrews is bursting at the seams, Canon Press has a stack of new books at the printers now, Credenda is flourishing, our churches here in Moscow have been continuing to steadily grow, and the CREC is prospering. So my "desperation" for a debate needs to be grounded in something else, and if it needs to be nefarious, perhaps someone should suggest that I am being blackmailed. But whatever they say, the real reason for a debate is that I would like to make it plain to the broader Reformed community that Machen's warrior children don't really need another civil war.
> 
> And in the meantime, if this altar is God's, and the fire is going to fall, it doesn't matter to me how many buckets of blog water you pour on it.



From this blog post.

As I said in a parallel universe, if we are conceding that he has unmatched rhetorical skills we should sign a petition to get him on the Colbert Report --where's our Colbert Smiley?


----------



## AdamM

Strange, but I checked out the blog and it appears Doug refuses to debate or engage a person named Micheal Metzler, so isn't it sort of the pot calling the kettle black? I mean maybe Guy Waters ought to say "Sure Doug I'm up for it, right after you polish off that slippery Metzler character"?


----------



## py3ak

Perhaps Metzler is not a recognized proponent of a theological movement?


----------



## AdamM

> Perhaps Metzler is not a recognized proponent of a theological movement?



I don't see where the passage Wilson quotes makes that qualification, but anyhow, I don't know much about Metzler other than that he apparently wants to debate Wilson and Wilson refuses. I would think that if on a micro-level you have your own pot stirrer, who demands a debate and yet you say no, that at least you wouldn't get all preachy when somebody gives the same answer back to your request.


----------



## tewilder

The Metzler case is actually somewhat interesting in that he is an example of what I mentioned earlier about Wilson having alienated his left. Metzler thinks that Wilson is not fair to the postmodern and emergent church people. 

Now with the various FV people talking about the Wittgensteinization of Van Til, and reading Nietzsche and what not, one wonders how long the leaders can hold it together. Wilson, once again, has institutions to fund and run, and I doubt he foresaw all the directions that the movement would go in when he allowed himself to be sucked into it.

If it can't hold together, which faction will Wilson fasten onto?


----------



## RamistThomist

> _Originally posted by AdamM_
> Strange, but I checked out the blog and it appears Doug refuses to debate or engage a person named Micheal Metzler, so isn't it sort of the pot calling the kettle black? I mean maybe Guy Waters ought to say "Sure Doug I'm up for it, right after you polish off that slippery Metzler character"?



Go back to the blog posts when Wilson was ripping McLaren apart. Metzler is a postmodernist who has a personal axe to grind. That doesn't make him wrong, per se, but I would exercise caution with him. He definitely wouldn't side with Westminsterian Calvinism.


----------



## AdamM

> Go back to the blog posts when Wilson was ripping McLaren apart. Metzler is a postmodernist who has a personal axe to grind. That doesn't make him wrong, per se, but I would exercise caution with him. He definitely wouldn't side with Westminsterian Calvinism.



I see.

I'm not endorsing Metzler's positions at all, but just found it curious that he apparently feels misrepresented by Wilson and wants a debate to interact on the issues.


----------



## RamistThomist

> _Originally posted by AdamM_
> 
> 
> 
> Go back to the blog posts when Wilson was ripping McLaren apart. Metzler is a postmodernist who has a personal axe to grind. That doesn't make him wrong, per se, but I would exercise caution with him. He definitely wouldn't side with Westminsterian Calvinism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I see.
> 
> I'm not endorsing Metzler's positions at all, but just found it curious that he apparently feels misrepresented by Wilson and wants a debate to interact on the issues.
Click to expand...


He very well could have been misrepresented (but I remember the whole comments on the posts---he seemed like an "Ishmael"--a wild donkey of a man at war with everyone), but the issues he would want to debate would be along the lines of:

Thesis: Brian McLaren is a really good theologian.


----------



## RamistThomist

> _Originally posted by tewilder_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by ef_
> I completely disagree. You couldn't be more wrong. He lost because of that huge helmet in the tank picture!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dukakis lost by not being emotional enough.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry... second reading showed you were speaking of the debate itself, not the election. My bad. It was a great trip down memory lane just the same.
> 
> TE Wilder-
> 
> How is an understanding of two kingdoms tantamount to seeing the Gospel as "a way to get naked souls into Plato's heaven?" You lost me there.
> 
> thanks,
> 
> 
> efw
> 
> [Edited on 10-3-2006 by ef]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I got the CDs of the first Westminster conference on justification (against the Federal Vision) and was appalled by the way the speaks talked, especially Godfrey. Just like fundies. They spoke of salvation and the church's mission as getting souls to heaven, as though they had never heard of the resurrection and as though God did not care for the whole man.
> 
> John Frame, who I generally do not care for, has a worthwhile article on it:
> 
> In Defense of Christian Activism
> http://www.frame-poythress.org/frame_articles/2006InDefense.html
> 
> Then, what disturbs me even more, is this trumpeting of a defense of high Reformed confessionalism, when they are Vantillians and Klinites, the theological building blocks of the Federal Vision.
> 
> Go here:
> 
> [ame="http://www.amazon.com/God-Heaven-Har-Magedon-Covenantal/dp/1597524786/sr=8-1/qid=1159969275/ref=pd_bbs_1/104-5108754-8139923?ie=UTF8&s=books"]Amazon.com: God, Heaven, and Har Magedon: A Covenantal Tale of Cosmos and Telos: Books: Meredith G. Kline[/ame]
> 
> and read the reviews, especially the one with the Table of contents of Kline's God, Heaven, and Har Magedon, and the one with the quote from the praface. The is the heart of the Federal Vision and the reason for the ritualism. All this symbolic stuff is what the FVs think has to be reproduced in their rituals. As Kline himself admits, the symbol is dominant and "shapes our telling of the covenantal tale" (note also the shift to narrative, as opposed to "timeless truths", another FV hallmark).
> 
> Look also at the discription of history:
> 
> "This Har Magedon paradigm, which shapes our telling of the covenantal tale, consists in the following complex of elements: establishment of a kingdom covenant by the Lord of Har Magedon; a meritorious accomplishment by the covenant grantee, triumphant in the Har Magedon conflict; a common grace interim before the coming of the covenanted kingdom; an antichrist crisis; consummation of the Glory-Kingdom through a last judgment victory of the covenant Lord in a final battle of Har Magedon."
> 
> We are in the "common grace interim before the coming of the covenanted kingdom", which is the dispensational mystery parenthesis church age under another name.
Click to expand...


With exception to the reference on Van Til, an otherwise hearty AMEN!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## R. Scott Clark

There are more and there are less orthodox ways of appropriating the rhetoric of narrative theology. Like BT it can be made to serve good and evil masters.

Mike Horton (Covenant and Eschatology; Lord and Servant) and Kevin Vanhoozer (the Drama of Doctrine) are good examples of such orthodox appropriations. 

Speaking about Scripture as a "story" or speaking about "symbols" or "rituals" is not wrong. It's observing the form in which the history of redemption comes to us.

MGK has never juxtaposed "timeless truths" against the history of redemption. Like Vos he hold the system of truth confessed in the Westminster Standards and he focuses his study on the progress of revelation in the context of the history of redemption.

As in the musical Oklahoma where the rancher and the farmer should be friends, so to in theology the biblical/exegetical theologian and the systematician should be friends. Mike Horton has made a particularly good case for this in his series published at WJKP.

See also this popular essay.


----------



## InwooJLee

"Kline is an ardent defender of inerrancy, the historicity of Adam, a covenant of works, and justification via imputed righteousness. But then he did take on the theonomists, so that explains the militancy of the opposition against him." --Kim Riddlebarger. 

Amen to that.


----------



## ChristianTrader

> _Originally posted by InwooJLee_
> "Kline is an ardent defender of inerrancy, the historicity of Adam, a covenant of works, and justification via imputed righteousness. But then he did take on the theonomists, so that explains the militancy of the opposition against him." --Kim Riddlebarger.
> 
> Amen to that.



Yeah he took them on when he knew they would not be allowed to reply. Kinda like taking on Tyson with his hands tied behind his back.

CT


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia

> _Originally posted by ChristianTrader_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by InwooJLee_
> "Kline is an ardent defender of inerrancy, the historicity of Adam, a covenant of works, and justification via imputed righteousness. But then he did take on the theonomists, so that explains the militancy of the opposition against him." --Kim Riddlebarger.
> 
> Amen to that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah he took them on when he knew they would not be allowed to reply. Kinda like taking on Tyson with his hands tied behind his back.
> 
> CT
Click to expand...


So are you going to bite someone's ear off? That must be in the Levitical law somewhere...


----------



## tewilder

For those still trying to figure out the Federal Vision thing, Doug Wilson has a blog post yesterday (10-6-2006) called "High Zwinglianism", which is absolutely not to be missed.


----------



## RamistThomist

> But then he did take on the theonomists, so that explains the militancy of the opposition against him." --Kim Riddlebarger.



The editor of Westminster Journal did not allow anyone to respond to Kline. Sounds like a fair match.


----------



## ef

> I got the CDs of the first Westminster conference on justification (against the Federal Vision) and was appalled by the way the speaks talked, especially Godfrey. Just like fundies. They spoke of salvation and the church's mission as getting souls to heaven, as though they had never heard of the resurrection and as though God did not care for the whole man.



I'm not familiar with the conference. Are you lamenting their lack of emphasis upon those areas you cite or suggesting that their positions necessarily lead to a neglect of the whole man? As a former fundie who has fallen in love with the Reformed theology of WSC I can say that, if you're suggesting the latter, you're sadly mistaken.



> John Frame, who I generally do not care for, has a worthwhile article on it:
> 
> In Defense of Christian Activism
> http://www.frame-poythress.org/frame_articles/2006InDefense.html



In your comments to brother Clark you suggested that Van Tillianism was connected _necessarily_ to FV but here you're suggesting I read an essay by a devout Van Tillian to bolster your position? That doesn't jibe.

As for the essay it seems to me that he misses the point of what Horton says in the Christianity Today article to which he purports to be responding. Horton, at least according to my reading, would not argue against the cultural impact Christians are to have as their presence in the world as "salt and light," just against their making the changing of the civil order a necessary and explicit goal of the Church _in and of itself._



> Then, what disturbs me even more, is this trumpeting of a defense of high Reformed confessionalism, when they are Vantillians and Klinites, the theological building blocks of the Federal Vision.



I've not seen you offer a clear connection to justify this assertion. Dr. Clark tried to discuss that with you, but that didn't really seem to go anywhere. I'd like to hear more of what you have to say.



> Go here:
> 
> http://www.amazon.com/God-Heaven-Ha...=pd_bbs_1/104-5108754-8139923?ie=UTF8&s=books
> 
> and read the reviews, especially the one with the Table of contents of Kline's God, Heaven, and Har Magedon, and the one with the quote from the praface. The is the heart of the Federal Vision and the reason for the ritualism. All this symbolic stuff is what the FVs think has to be reproduced in their rituals. As Kline himself admits, the symbol is dominant and "shapes our telling of the covenantal tale" (note also the shift to narrative, as opposed to "timeless truths", another FV hallmark).



Just because two theological views have certain similarities does not, at least in my mind, mean that they necessarily are related does it? I mean, I could say that CRs tend toward social gospel and draw all kinds of examples to support it but you and I both know that'd be a load of bunk.

Dr. Clark pointed out that the use of narrative comes in more and less orthodox ways. When using it to express the continuity of the Scriptures concerning the concept of sacraments do you see a problem with that, other than that the FV people have done the same thing? Are you suggesting that these two things are _necessarily_ connected; that anyone who observes the first must logically hold the latter?



> Look also at the discription of history:
> 
> "This Har Magedon paradigm, which shapes our telling of the covenantal tale, consists in the following complex of elements: establishment of a kingdom covenant by the Lord of Har Magedon; a meritorious accomplishment by the covenant grantee, triumphant in the Har Magedon conflict; a common grace interim before the coming of the covenanted kingdom; an antichrist crisis; consummation of the Glory-Kingdom through a last judgment victory of the covenant Lord in a final battle of Har Magedon."
> 
> We are in the "common grace interim before the coming of the covenanted kingdom", which is the dispensational mystery parenthesis church age under another name.



I was raised a hyper-dispensationalist and can reproduce whatever charts you'd like me to in support of that theological viewpoint. I can honestly say, beyond the shadow of a doubt, that no dispensationalist would ever recognize "common grace interim before the coming of the covenanted kingdom" as equal to the dispensation of grace or whatever the one you ask wants to call their "church age." I haven't read that book so I can't speak to Kline's use of the term, but that doesn't bare the least amount of resemblance to the language of dispensationalism.

Further, I do not believe that FV, which is what you'd said Kline was connected to somehow, has anything to do with dispensationalism... the fundie freaks I was raised with think I'm a Papist because I use the word "sacrament," nevermind attaching "means of grace." The FV and dispensationalism are equally heretical rides off opposite sides of the horse of orthodoxy, it seems to me.

[Edited on 10-11-2006 by ef]


----------



## RamistThomist

> In your comments to brother Clark you suggested that Van Tillianism was connected necessarily to FV but here you're suggesting I read an essay by a devout Van Tillian to bolster your position? That doesn't jibe.
> 
> As for the essay it seems to me that he misses the point of what Horton says in the Christianity Today article to which he purports to be responding. Horton, at least according to my reading, would not argue against the cultural impact Christians are to have as their presence in the world as "salt and light," just against their making the changing of the civil order a necessary and explicit goal of the Church in and of itself.



While I still disagree with Wilder on Van Til, I think I know why he, a non-vantillian, recommended this essay. Frame tried to show (and he should have done a more thorough job) that certain aspects of Klinean Two-Kingdoms leads to political inactivism by Christians. He should have focused on Lee Irons and the hyperBT movement. 

As to Horton's charge to church and civil change, some people are guilty of that, no doubt. I am one of these evil Kuyperians and I myself have never argued that the Chuch exists for the sake of changing the political sphere (Bahnsen didn't argue that, Frame doesn't, Morecraft doesn't, Sandlin might--and that would be a valid criticism but that's all).


----------



## brymaes

> Just Call Me Trevor
> Topic: Auburn Avenue Stuff
> 
> In the history of the Church, Christians have certainly divided over inconsequential matters before. Should you make the sign of the cross with two fingers or three? They have also divided over momentous issues, where the gospel itself was at stake. The magisterial Reformation was an example of this.
> 
> Sometimes issues arise where it is hard to categorize. There is enough confusion over theological terminology and usage to make the discussions themselves difficult, and if you throw in personal suspicions and ecclesiastical turf issues, you have yourself a perfect storm. Might the gospel itself be at stake? Maybe. Might the gospel itself be at stake either way you go? Maybe.
> 
> The FV controversy provides a very good example of this. How many issues are connected to it? There are quite a few, and they are all of them weighty. The relationship of faith and works, justification by faith alone, hermeneutics, sacramental theology, paedocommunion, the centrality of liturgy and worship, the exile of the Church in the Babylon of modernity, and lots more than that. So for people on both sides this is not a simple "do we baptize with heads upstream or downstream" issue.
> 
> As a bona fide guy on the FV side of things, I definitely have sharp differences with those who are on the warpath against us. But as a confessional Reformed minister, who has honestly subscribed to the Westminster Confession of Faith, I am also convinced that many of the "distinctives" I am accused of promulgating are not distinctives at all, but are in fact the teaching and doctrine of the Confession. And so this means I believe our adversaries are actually out of conformity with the teaching of the Confession at a number of points.
> 
> At the same time, I believe that at the heart of the TR concerns are some issues that they are quite right to be concerned about, and which they have the right and responsibility to defend and make a big deal out of. On these concerns, they do represent the teaching of the Reformers. The systematics course in Greyfriars Hall, our ministerial training program, is a course through the Westminster Confession, and there are a number of central issues there where I believe FV advocates have a responsibility to emphasize their whole-hearted agreement. As I told my students recently, there are many ways in which I consider myself a TR. Or make that a TRFVer. Just call me Trevor.
> 
> But here is the problem. I have found that for many on the other side of this fracas, the more I emphasize my agreement with certain evangelical essentials (e.g. the absolute necessity of the new birth), the more it convinces my adversaries that I am a disingenuous sneak. I have resolved to affirm any FV truths that are grounded in Scripture and the honored traditions of the Reformed faith (and there are many). In fact, sola Scriptura is one of our central traditions, but that is a subject for another day. But I have refused to take this stand in a glib either/or way. Why rush to divide? I have approached the whole deal in as catholic a both/and way as possible. But far from establishing my orthodoxy in some quarters, it has merely served as an clinching argument for my theological dishonesty.
> 
> And this is why I think it is necessary to turn the charge around. Catholicity in this discussion does not require that we refrain from vigorous debate. Given the state of the church, and the turmoil this whole controversy has engendered, focused debate is most necessary. To continue the accusations without being willing to debate is the real intellectual dishonesty. The broader Reformed church coming to consensus and like-mindedness on this complex set of issues will not be accomplished by all of us preaching to our respective choirs.
> 
> And so, again, I would like to reissue the invitation to the debate that Guy Waters declined. I would be more than willing to meet in charitable Christian debate with any credible representative of and spokesman for the mainstream anti-FV position. We would arrange a time and place mutually agreeable, conduct the debate, and make the audio and video tapes available for distribution by both sides.
> 
> In issuing this invitation, I want specifically to invite men like Ligon Duncan, Scott Clark, Cal Beisner, or Joe Morecraft. If any of you are willing, please contact us. The invitation is also open to any young, capable Elihu who is embarrassed by the silence of his elders.


----------



## CharlesG

Considering Hebrews chapter 6 or the views of marriage, how would a non-FVer interpret these contexts? The ones in Hebrews chapter 6 fell away from something and if we reject the covenant schema, what were they in that they fell from? Similarly, the unbeliever is sanctified in the marriage because of the believing partner. 

Regards,

CharlesG


----------



## Magma2

> _Originally posted by theologae_
> 
> 
> 
> Just Call Me Trevor
> Topic: Auburn Avenue Stuff
> 
> In issuing this invitation, I want specifically to invite men like Ligon Duncan, Scott Clark, Cal Beisner, or Joe Morecraft. If any of you are willing, please contact us. The invitation is also open to any young, capable Elihu who is embarrassed by the silence of his elders.
Click to expand...



I wonder why Dr. Robbins was omitted? Give the ink he's split on his blog attacking Robbins you'd think he would at least make the list. Of course, if no one bothers to debate Wilson it would just irritate him more, so there might be some advantage in doing just that.


----------



## Romans922

> _Originally posted by theologae_
> 
> 
> 
> Just Call Me Trevor
> Topic: Auburn Avenue Stuff
> 
> In the history of the Church, Christians have certainly divided over inconsequential matters before. Should you make the sign of the cross with two fingers or three? They have also divided over momentous issues, where the gospel itself was at stake. The magisterial Reformation was an example of this.
> 
> Sometimes issues arise where it is hard to categorize. There is enough confusion over theological terminology and usage to make the discussions themselves difficult, and if you throw in personal suspicions and ecclesiastical turf issues, you have yourself a perfect storm. Might the gospel itself be at stake? Maybe. Might the gospel itself be at stake either way you go? Maybe.
> 
> The FV controversy provides a very good example of this. How many issues are connected to it? There are quite a few, and they are all of them weighty. The relationship of faith and works, justification by faith alone, hermeneutics, sacramental theology, paedocommunion, the centrality of liturgy and worship, the exile of the Church in the Babylon of modernity, and lots more than that. So for people on both sides this is not a simple "do we baptize with heads upstream or downstream" issue.
> 
> As a bona fide guy on the FV side of things, I definitely have sharp differences with those who are on the warpath against us. But as a confessional Reformed minister, who has honestly subscribed to the Westminster Confession of Faith, I am also convinced that many of the "distinctives" I am accused of promulgating are not distinctives at all, but are in fact the teaching and doctrine of the Confession. And so this means I believe our adversaries are actually out of conformity with the teaching of the Confession at a number of points.
> 
> At the same time, I believe that at the heart of the TR concerns are some issues that they are quite right to be concerned about, and which they have the right and responsibility to defend and make a big deal out of. On these concerns, they do represent the teaching of the Reformers. The systematics course in Greyfriars Hall, our ministerial training program, is a course through the Westminster Confession, and there are a number of central issues there where I believe FV advocates have a responsibility to emphasize their whole-hearted agreement. As I told my students recently, there are many ways in which I consider myself a TR. Or make that a TRFVer. Just call me Trevor.
> 
> But here is the problem. I have found that for many on the other side of this fracas, the more I emphasize my agreement with certain evangelical essentials (e.g. the absolute necessity of the new birth), the more it convinces my adversaries that I am a disingenuous sneak. I have resolved to affirm any FV truths that are grounded in Scripture and the honored traditions of the Reformed faith (and there are many). In fact, sola Scriptura is one of our central traditions, but that is a subject for another day. But I have refused to take this stand in a glib either/or way. Why rush to divide? I have approached the whole deal in as catholic a both/and way as possible. But far from establishing my orthodoxy in some quarters, it has merely served as an clinching argument for my theological dishonesty.
> 
> And this is why I think it is necessary to turn the charge around. Catholicity in this discussion does not require that we refrain from vigorous debate. Given the state of the church, and the turmoil this whole controversy has engendered, focused debate is most necessary. To continue the accusations without being willing to debate is the real intellectual dishonesty. The broader Reformed church coming to consensus and like-mindedness on this complex set of issues will not be accomplished by all of us preaching to our respective choirs.
> 
> And so, again, I would like to reissue the invitation to the debate that Guy Waters declined. I would be more than willing to meet in charitable Christian debate with any credible representative of and spokesman for the mainstream anti-FV position. We would arrange a time and place mutually agreeable, conduct the debate, and make the audio and video tapes available for distribution by both sides.
> 
> In issuing this invitation, I want specifically to invite men like Ligon Duncan, Scott Clark, Cal Beisner, or Joe Morecraft. If any of you are willing, please contact us. The invitation is also open to any young, capable Elihu who is embarrassed by the silence of his elders.
Click to expand...



what day did wilson write this?

[Edited on 10-17-2006 by Romans922]


----------



## Romans922

> _Originally posted by CharlesG_
> Considering Hebrews chapter 6 or the views of marriage, how would a non-FVer interpret these contexts? The ones in Hebrews chapter 6 fell away from something and if we reject the covenant schema, what were they in that they fell from? Similarly, the unbeliever is sanctified in the marriage because of the believing partner.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> CharlesG



Make sure you look at who the people are who fell away and then look a few verses later and it says...BELOVED, whereas prior to this it isn't to the beloved.


----------



## tewilder

> _Originally posted by Romans922_
> 
> 
> what day did wilson write this?
> 
> [Edited on 10-17-2006 by Romans922]



He posted it on the 14th. Which shows he wants to keep the issue alive.

But, he already has a debate. Waters wrote a fat book. Now Wilson can write a fat book saying what it is he does not like about the Waters book and setting out his own ideas clearly.

He should be able to do it in 300 pages or so. If he really has something to say.


----------



## NaphtaliPress

Yea; when being ignored by one's betters try shaming them; that will work.


> In issuing this invitation, I want specifically to invite men like Ligon Duncan, Scott Clark, Cal Beisner, or Joe Morecraft. If any of you are willing, please contact us. The invitation is also open to any young, capable Elihu who is embarrassed by the silence of his elders.


----------



## py3ak

Chris, at least Cal Beisner has not ignored him --he got mentioned in the preface Beisner wrote to Waters' book.
And Dr. Clark has addressed himself to the topic of Wilson on this board, at least.


----------



## NaphtaliPress

Ruben, 
I was strictly speaking to the current drive to drum up debate partners.


----------



## CharlesG

> _Originally posted by Romans922_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by CharlesG_
> Considering Hebrews chapter 6 or the views of marriage, how would a non-FVer interpret these contexts? The ones in Hebrews chapter 6 fell away from something and if we reject the covenant schema, what were they in that they fell from? Similarly, the unbeliever is sanctified in the marriage because of the believing partner.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> CharlesG
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Make sure you look at who the people are who fell away and then look a few verses later and it says...BELOVED, whereas prior to this it isn't to the beloved.
Click to expand...


The ones that fell away were ones in the external covenant and not a part of the internal covenant; as most theologians speak of. Two covenants within a larger covenant of grace. The wolves/sheep, wheat/tares, etc., all growing or living within the same environment, yet with two different natures. 

Regards,

CharlesG


----------



## Romans922

> _Originally posted by py3ak_
> Chris, at least Cal Beisner has not ignored him --he got mentioned in the preface Beisner wrote to Waters' book.
> And Dr. Clark has addressed himself to the topic of Wilson on this board, at least.



I believe Guy Waters was going to interact with Wilson more after he wrote the book, but the presbytery (MVP) has suggested that Ligon, Guy and the rest of the Presbytery hold off on debates, etc. until the Denomination makes its decision on the matter or writes a study report.


----------



## R. Scott Clark

Charles, 

If I may, you might want to take a look at:





See the essay:

"Baptism and the Benefits of Christ: The Double Mode of Communion in the Covenant of Grace."

rsc


----------



## CharlesG

> _Originally posted by R. Scott Clark_
> Charles,
> 
> If I may, you might want to take a look at:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> See the essay:
> 
> "Baptism and the Benefits of Christ: The Double Mode of Communion in the Covenant of Grace."
> 
> rsc



I can only find a link where you have to buy the pamphlet. Do you have a free link where the article is?

Regards,

Chas

[Edited on 10-18-2006 by CharlesG]


----------



## R. Scott Clark

Charles,

No, you'll have to order that number of the Journal or persuade the editor to let you have a copy of that article _gratis_.

Chris Coldwell, editor of the CPJ, is a member of the board.

rsc



> _Originally posted by CharlesG_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by R. Scott Clark_
> Charles,
> 
> If I may, you might want to take a look at:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> See the essay:
> 
> "Baptism and the Benefits of Christ: The Double Mode of Communion in the Covenant of Grace."
> 
> rsc
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I can only find a link where you have to buy the pamphlet. Do you have a free link where the article is?
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Chas
> 
> [Edited on 10-18-2006 by CharlesG]
Click to expand...


----------

