# What do you all think: Mark Horne's comments on Paul....



## john_Mark (Aug 8, 2004)

Just wonder if you all have any comments about this post.
This post is taken from here: Http://www.reformedcatholicism.com/archives/000252.html

The Potential Problems of Pauline Hermeneutical Sectarianism

Every exegete worth his salt [whatever that expression means] knows that appealing to "the analogy of faith" is a course fraught wilth potential error. Saying that the "clear" Scriptures interpret the "unclear" Scriptures is just begging to be used to drive the various sectors of Christendom further away from one another as they sneer at each others' arguments from the Bible for violating "the analogy of faith"--which means, violating what we have established from the verses that we think are important and are certain that we understand correctly. One has to be very careful that one uses the analogy of faith in a way that honors the whole of Scripture as God's word--the very thing that analogy of faith is designed to promote.

But there is another risk about the analogy of faith as typically practiced. Throughout the history of the Church the Pauline letters have held a privileged place--almost to the extent of making them ultra-canonical. In some cases, the heirs of the Reformation have actually taken pride in being "Paulinists."

And this is the oddity. According to the analogy of faith we are to interpret clear texts with unclear texts. In point of fact a great majority of Christian thinkers have held up the Pauline texts as being the key to unlocking the Scriptures. But according to the Bible, that is exactly backwards:

Therefore, beloved, since you are waiting for these, be diligent to be found by him without spot or blemish, and at peace. And count the patience of our Lord as salvation, just as our beloved brother Paul also wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, as he does in all his letters when he speaks in them of these matters. There are some things in them that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures. You therefore, beloved, knowing this beforehand, take care that you are not carried away with the error of lawless people and lose your own stability. But grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. To him be the glory both now and to the day of eternity. Amen (Second Peter 3.14-18).

This is, as far as I know, the only Scriptural witness that a particular portion of Scripture is "hard to understand." It would seem to me that, according to the analogy of faith, we should be interpreting Paul in light of the other Scriptures rather than the other way around.

I think this is worth thinking about. Of course, in truth, the Doctrine of Scripture means we must understand the Bible in the context of the whole Bible. At its best, the analogy of faith articulates this principle. By itself, even apart from Peter's warning, the analogy of faith should warn us from giving priority to any one part of God's Word over against the rest. But, if "Paulinism" is especially tempting to some, Peter should help us resist.
Posted by Mark Horne at August 7, 2004 07:28 PM


----------



## panicbird (Aug 8, 2004)

Peter does not say that all of Paul's writings are hard, but that "some" are. Therefore, to say that Peter warns us of Paulinism is quite a stretch. There are texts in Paul that are clear (as in the rest of Scripture); there are other texts in Paul that are unclear (again, as in the rest of Scripture). We should allow the clear ones to help us in interpreting the unclear, even the clear parts of Paul for the unclear parts of other Scripture texts.

What is this guy driving at?

Lon


----------



## Authorised (Aug 8, 2004)

There was once a time where wages were paid in salt and workers would comment about the quality of another's work with reference to salt.


----------



## Bryan (Aug 9, 2004)

I thought the responce James white gave was a good one, infact I read it first this morning...I'm not sure what all the fuss over his responce is about...

Bryan
SDG


----------



## fredtgreco (Aug 9, 2004)

Typical Mark Horne, who is at the center of all things contrary the Westminster Confession in the PCA. Got an anti-Reformation, anti-Presbyterian, anti-Wesminster view, don't worry about it, Mark probably holds it: paedocommunion, church calendar, New Perspective on Paul, sacramentalism, etc.

The fuss is that James White (along with Ligon Duncan and a few others) actually has the unmitigated gall to point out that Horne merrily throws away centuries of Reformed consensus theology in favor of his own brilliance.

Bottom line, don't trust Horne on anything anymore unless it is confirmed by another source. He has over and over again made himself an untrustworthy teacher.

Now let's wait and see what sort of rapier-like wit he uses to insult me on his blog.


----------



## cupotea (Aug 9, 2004)

*aside*

Fred,

I cannot tell you how pleased I am to hear you say what you have here. I have recently left a message board because it had been taken over by Shepardites and Wilsonites and Horneists and no discussion could proceed without it's devolving into a debate on the issues pertinent to that heresy.

I'm a pretty simple guy. What understanding I have of systematic theology as a discipline has come through a study of history more than anything else. The question I continually ask myself when I encounter the mad ramblings of this group is this: Do these chaps really believe they know better than Sproul, Duncan, Godfrey, Clark, Van Til, Machen, Hodge, Warfield, Edwards, Knox, Turretin, Calvin, Luther and Augustine (just to name a few)? 

I won't pretend to be an expert on this, but the more I learn about it, the less I like it and may may God speed the day when the PCA is rid of this pestilence.


----------



## fredtgreco (Aug 9, 2004)

Michael,

You don't have to worry about me being a Shepherdite. I'm a simple guy that takes his vows seriously.

By the way, say hello to Don R for me. I pray the work is going well in Warren.


----------



## wsw201 (Aug 9, 2004)

[quote:6915556545]I'm a pretty simple guy. What understanding I have of systematic theology as a discipline has come through a study of history more than anything else. The question I continually ask myself when I encounter the mad ramblings of this group is this: Do these chaps really believe they know better than Sproul, Duncan, Godfrey, Clark, Van Til, Machen, Hodge, Warfield, Edwards, Knox, Turretin, Calvin, Luther and Augustine (just to name a few)? 
[/quote:6915556545]

Michael,

The short answer is YES!! :flaming:


----------



## cupotea (Aug 9, 2004)

Thanks for the confirming responses, guys. And I will forward a greeting to Don from you Fred.


----------



## openairboy (Aug 10, 2004)

[quote:d703125e24="fredtgreco"]

Bottom line, don't trust Horne on anything anymore unless it is confirmed by another source. He has over and over again made himself an untrustworthy teacher.

Now let's wait and see what sort of rapier-like wit he uses to insult me on his blog.[/quote:d703125e24]


Just curious, have you personally interacted with Mark on these issues? Have you brought to the attention of the Presbytery that he is an "untrustworthy teacher"? Or have you been the judge, jury, and, here on the internet, the executioner? That is quite an accusation about someone that, to my knowledge, has not been tried by any ecclesiastical court, but only on the internet, especially if you are concerned with Presbyterian Government, the Book of Church Order, and, hopefully above all of these, the Bible.

If you have not approached Mark in a Biblical manner and brought the Presbytery into the matter, then this is a completely irresponsible post by an elder.

God bless America.

openairboy


----------



## openairboy (Aug 10, 2004)

[quote:e3d4c6c712]="Steadfast"]*aside*

What understanding I have of systematic theology as a discipline has come through a study of history more than anything else. The question I continually ask myself when I encounter the mad ramblings of this group is this: Do these chaps really believe they know better than Sproul, Duncan, Godfrey, Clark, Van Til, Machen, Hodge, Warfield, Edwards, Knox, Turretin, Calvin, Luther and Augustine (just to name a few)? [/quote:e3d4c6c712]

Well, I guess it really depends on what you are saying here. 

Do you agree with Augustines views of the Sacraments? What about his view of the Church? If not, are you saying that you know better than him? Is Warfield right that the Reformation is the triumph of Augustine's soteriology over his ecclesiology? Why would one need to triumph over the other? Does Warfield know better than Augustine? Do we know better than him? 

Would you come down with Van Til or Clark on their controversy? If Clark, would you agree with Robinson that Van Til's views are heretical? Which one of these guys do we know better than? 

Do you agree with Luther's sacerdotalism? In Luther's view, does baptism save? Does Luther hold to perseverance of the saints? What about limited atonement? Do you and know better than him?

Is Calvin or Luther right in their view of the sacraments? Who knows better?

To shotgun out a bunch of names is no help, especially when they held such an amazingly wide and divergent views as they relate to many of the issues under discussion, isn't helpful.

openairboy


----------



## openairboy (Aug 10, 2004)

[quote:571d848a35="Paul manata"][quote:571d848a35]
Would you come down with Van Til or Clark on their controversy? If Clark, would you agree with Robinson that Van Til's views are heretical? Which one of these guys do we know better than? 
[/quote:571d848a35]

Van Til.

Robbinson's critiques are sophmoric

We know better than Clark.

 [/quote:571d848a35]


     

That's good! I agree!

openairboy


----------



## cupotea (Aug 10, 2004)

The issue with 'Shepherdism' ('Wilsonism', 'Federal Visionism', call it what you like) as I understand it, is the nature of baptism as not only signifying, but in some sense 'activating' election, or, perhaps less hamfistedly, the conclusion that the language of most Reformed baptismal rites implies a greater connection between the Sacrament and ones election beyond anything vaguely 'presumptive'.

Leaving it as relating merely to this I will admit that there were a couple of names I dropped that ought not to have been in there, Augustine and Luther most notably.

My point was not to say that all these people affirmed the WCF. It was merely to give examples of Reformers and other godly ministers who have, throughout history, understood baptism to effect covenant membership but not necessarily (though perhaps in some sense presumptively) election per se.

You have rightly pointed out that Luther and Augustine shiouldn't be in that bunch and for that I am grateful, but the sacerdotalism, ecclesiology etc. of this or that person I named are somewhat beside the point.

And may I say, sir, that the tone of your post here is more than just a bit off-putting. It is one thing to take issue with a person's characterization of an issue of theology and quite another to accuse him of executing the offices of judge, jury and hangman and then call into question his ordination as a ruling elder. There are ways to do things and there are ways not to do things. As a person with vast exoperience in how not to do things, I hope you will take my meaning charitably.

I will state my own position as clearly as I can, I am not an elder, just a layman with an interest in these things:

The doctrine of Justification[i:abed1fa55e] per sola fide [/i:abed1fa55e]is the article by which the church stands or falls. Any tampering with it, either by manifestation of a 'new perspective on Paul' or a reimagining of the nature of Sacramental Baptism is at least ill-advised and at worst simply heretical. It has not been demonstrated that these men, Shepherd, Wright, Wilson (and I lump them together whether they, or you, like it or not) have more properly understood Paul on these points pertaining to our redemption than have the Reformers and their theological children down through the years and I find the implication that they have to be simply ridiculous.


----------



## fredtgreco (Aug 10, 2004)

[quote:8a534f204f="openairboy"][quote:8a534f204f="fredtgreco"]

Bottom line, don't trust Horne on anything anymore unless it is confirmed by another source. He has over and over again made himself an untrustworthy teacher.

Now let's wait and see what sort of rapier-like wit he uses to insult me on his blog.[/quote:8a534f204f]


Just curious, have you personally interacted with Mark on these issues? Have you brought to the attention of the Presbytery that he is an "untrustworthy teacher"? Or have you been the judge, jury, and, here on the internet, the executioner? That is quite an accusation about someone that, to my knowledge, has not been tried by any ecclesiastical court, but only on the internet, especially if you are concerned with Presbyterian Government, the Book of Church Order, and, hopefully above all of these, the Bible.

If you have not approached Mark in a Biblical manner and brought the Presbytery into the matter, then this is a completely irresponsible post by an elder.

God bless America.

openairboy[/quote:8a534f204f]

Actually, I have interacted with Rev. Horne on some of these issues on other internet fora.

As far as I know, his Presbytery is aware of his views - they are public - and has chosen to do nothing. That is there decision.

I have in no way acted as executioner. I have informed others of his abberant views. He clearly supports paedocommunion, which is not only outside the Westminster Standards, it is contrary to the teaching of every branch of professing Western Christendom:
http://www.hornes.org/theologia/content/mark_horne/is_paedocommunion_really_a_bad_idea.htm
http://www.hornes.org/theologia/content/mark_horne/
a_brief_response_to_rev_richard_bacons_opposition_to_paedocommunion.htm

He clearly agitates the church on this issue in contravention of his vow.

He is also a clear supporter of N.T. Wright and Norman Shepherd:
http://www.hornes.org/theologia/content/mark_horne/call_of_grace_a_pastors_book_review.htm
[quote:8a534f204f]"The Call of Grace is an excellent manual to put in the hands of laymen to teach them how to rest in God’s grace while taking seriously the prize of the upward call of God in Christ Jesus. It is the only book written at a popular level that explains covenant theology. This is an odd situation, but before Shepherd wrote his book it was even stranger."[/quote:8a534f204f]

I am willing to be patient and wait for the General Assembly to rule on both Shepherd and Wright. But I will not sit idly by and allow others to be drawn astray by this. Horne has chosen (deliberately) to publicly write, he should be prepared to be (publicly) criticized.

At least he would be aware of that given his public criticisms of otehrs for taking the Confession's position on matters.


----------



## openairboy (Aug 10, 2004)

[quote:8b53241ed8="Steadfast"]The issue with 'Shepherdism' ('Wilsonism', 'Federal Visionism', call it what you like) as I understand it, is the nature of baptism as not only signifying, but in some sense 'activating' election, or, perhaps less hamfistedly, the conclusion that the language of most Reformed baptismal rites implies a greater connection between the Sacrament and ones election beyond anything vaguely 'presumptive'.

Leaving it as relating merely to this I will admit that there were a couple of names I dropped that ought not to have been in there, Augustine and Luther most notably.

My point was not to say that all these people affirmed the WCF. It was merely to give examples of Reformers and other godly ministers who have, throughout history, understood baptism to effect covenant membership but not necessarily (though perhaps in some sense presumptively) election per se.[/quote:8b53241ed8]

Luther and Augustine make these guys look like childs play when it comes to the Sacrament 'activating' salvation. Are they teaching heresy? You describe the issue above as a "pertinent heresy", address the Shepherdite issue here as it relates to baptismal efficacy, but you named a few guys, Augustine and Luther, that are sacerdotalists and going beyond the WCF. Are they still godly?


[quote:8b53241ed8]You have rightly pointed out that Luther and Augustine shiouldn't be in that bunch and for that I am grateful, but the sacerdotalism, ecclesiology etc. of this or that person I named are somewhat beside the point.[/quote:8b53241ed8]

If the point deals with the efficacy of baptism and election, then the names you mentioned aren't besides the point, but completely relevant. Lets just apply the heresy lable consistently and say that Augustine's sacerdotalism and ecclesiology are heretical. Augustine was involved with pertinent heresy. Can you believe he thought baptism washed away original sin? 

That great Reformer, Martin Luther, says this about baptism, "[i:8b53241ed8] affirm that Baptism is no human trifle, but that it was established by God Himself. Moreover, He earnestly and solemnly commanded that we must be baptized or we shall not be saved. No one is to think that it is an optional matter like putting on a red coat. It is of greatest importance that we hold Baptism in high esteem as something splendid and glorious. The reason why we are striving and battling so strenuously for this view of Baptism is that the world nowadays is full of sects that loudly proclaim that Baptism is merely an external form and that external forms are useless.... Although Baptism is indeed performed by human hands, yet it is truly God's own action." 

So, when we drop names and describe them as being involved in "pertinent heresy", then drop other names that teach the same "pertinent heresy", I just believe that we should be consistent. 


[quote:8b53241ed8]And may I say, sir, that the tone of your post here is more than just a bit off-putting. It is one thing to take issue with a person's characterization of an issue of theology and quite another to accuse him of executing the offices of judge, jury and hangman and then call into question his ordination as a ruling elder. There are ways to do things and there are ways not to do things. As a person with vast exoperience in how not to do things, I hope you will take my meaning charitably.[/quote:8b53241ed8]

I ask that you reread my post, because I don't see it in any way as you described it. It was said that a post by Pastor Hornes was "typical Mark Horne...[b:8b53241ed8]Don't trust Horne on anything [/b:8b53241ed8]anymore unless it is confirmed by another source. [b:8b53241ed8]He over and over again made himself an untrustworthy teach[/b:8b53241ed8]. Now lets wait and see what sort of rapier-like wit he uses to insult me on his blog." And, "I take my vows seriously", suggesting the others don't. This sounds well beyond anything I have stated and calling into question one's ordination, but I understand that you guys are in the same corner, so Frame's perspectivalism is an issue here.

Another poster said cryptically, "There was once a time where wages were paid in salt and workers would comment about the quality of another's work with reference to salt." I'm sure this was simply for the edification of the body.

You describe "Horneists" as teaching "pertinent heresy" and you look forward to the day that God rids the PCA of this "pestilence." This isn't calling into question someones ordination?

I never questioned Fred's ordination as an elder, please show where this is even implied in my post? I am simply _asking[/i:8b53241ed8] if he has approached this issue in a Biblical manner. A pastor of good standing has been called an heretic and part of a plague, and my tone is off-putting? 


[quote:8b53241ed8]I will state my own position as clearly as I can, I am not an elder, just a layman with an interest in these things:

The doctrine of Justification[i:8b53241ed8] per sola fide [/i:8b53241ed8]is the article by which the church stands or falls. Any tampering with it, either by manifestation of a 'new perspective on Paul' or a reimagining of the nature of Sacramental Baptism is at least ill-advised and at worst simply heretical. It has not been demonstrated that these men, Shepherd, Wright, Wilson (and I lump them together whether they, or you, like it or not) have more properly understood Paul on these points pertaining to our redemption than have the Reformers and their theological children down through the years and I find the implication that they have to be simply ridiculous.[/quote:8b53241ed8]

Just apply your confessional standards consistently to the Augustines and Luthers of the world.

openairboy_


----------



## openairboy (Aug 10, 2004)

[quote:fc4124c997]Actually, I have interacted with Rev. Horne on some of these issues on other internet fora.

As far as I know, his Presbytery is aware of his views - they are public - and has chosen to do nothing. That is there decision.

I have in no way acted as executioner. I have informed others of his abberant views. He clearly supports paedocommunion, which is not only outside the Westminster Standards, it is contrary to the teaching of every branch of professing Western Christendom:
http://www.hornes.org/theologia/content/mark_horne/is_paedocommunion_really_a_bad_idea.htm
http://www.hornes.org/theologia/content/mark_horne/
a_brief_response_to_rev_richard_bacons_opposition_to_paedocommunion.htm

He clearly agitates the church on this issue in contravention of his vow.

He is also a clear supporter of N.T. Wright and Norman Shepherd:
http://www.hornes.org/theologia/content/mark_horne/call_of_grace_a_pastors_book_review.htm
[quote:fc4124c997]"The Call of Grace is an excellent manual to put in the hands of laymen to teach them how to rest in God’s grace while taking seriously the prize of the upward call of God in Christ Jesus. It is the only book written at a popular level that explains covenant theology. This is an odd situation, but before Shepherd wrote his book it was even stranger."[/quote:fc4124c997]

I am willing to be patient and wait for the General Assembly to rule on both Shepherd and Wright. But I will not sit idly by and allow others to be drawn astray by this. Horne has chosen (deliberately) to publicly write, he should be prepared to be (publicly) criticized.

At least he would be aware of that given his public criticisms of otehrs for taking the Confession's position on matters.[/quote:fc4124c997][/quote]

This issue isn't public debate of his public writings, so I don't mind people debating his theology publicly.

Well, give paedo-communion a decade, because that dam is cracked and the waters are coming.

openairboy


----------



## fredtgreco (Aug 10, 2004)

[quote:8065e62e66="openairboy"]Well, give paedo-communion a decade, because that dam is cracked and the waters are coming.[/quote:8065e62e66]

That is why the Church must use its authority and discipline those who teach such heresy. The Church must not make the same mistake Machen made in "debating" a fundamental issue in journals or on the internet. Men need to be denied ordination, denied licensure, denied transfer and charged.


----------



## openairboy (Aug 10, 2004)

[quote:45da54e7e3="fredtgreco"][quote:45da54e7e3="openairboy"]Well, give paedo-communion a decade, because that dam is cracked and the waters are coming.[/quote:45da54e7e3]

That is why the Church must use its authority and discipline those who teach such heresy. The Church must not make the same mistake Machen made in "debating" a fundamental issue in journals or on the internet. Men need to be denied ordination, denied licensure, denied transfer and charged.[/quote:45da54e7e3]

I think the liberal use of the "heresy" card is on the wane in most peoples books, at least in the circles I've mingled, and has almost reached the relevance of the "race" card in the broader culture. Most of the heresy hunters cry wolf a little too often, so a real threat will go unnoticed. Fortunately, most within the PCA recognize their (the heresy hunters) influence is at a bare minimum (the churches are usually tiny, non-influential in the church or culture around them, and younger folk won't listen to them) and few, at least in my generation, take them seriously anymore (which I think is the biggest spur in their seemingly curmudgeon spirits). 

Paedo-communion, which has many advocates within the PCA, hardly comes close to undermining the Faith. When every theological disagreement is met with the word heresy, then the word simply loses its meaning.

Semper Reformanda
openairboy


----------



## fredtgreco (Aug 10, 2004)

[quote:5214f99ac0="openairboy"][quote:5214f99ac0="fredtgreco"][quote:5214f99ac0="openairboy"]Well, give paedo-communion a decade, because that dam is cracked and the waters are coming.[/quote:5214f99ac0]

That is why the Church must use its authority and discipline those who teach such heresy. The Church must not make the same mistake Machen made in "debating" a fundamental issue in journals or on the internet. Men need to be denied ordination, denied licensure, denied transfer and charged.[/quote:5214f99ac0]

I think the liberal use of the "heresy" card is on the wane in most peoples books, at least in the circles I've mingled, and has almost reached the relevance of the "race" card in the broader culture. Most of the heresy hunters cry wolf a little too often, so a real threat will go unnoticed. Fortunately, most within the PCA recognize their (the heresy hunters) influence is at a bare minimum (the churches are usually tiny, non-influential in the church or culture around them, and younger folk won't listen to them) and few, at least in my generation, take them seriously anymore (which I think is the biggest spur in their seemingly curmudgeon spirits). 

Paedo-communion, which has many advocates within the PCA, hardly comes close to undermining the Faith. When every theological disagreement is met with the word heresy, then the word simply loses its meaning.

Semper Reformanda
openairboy[/quote:5214f99ac0]

Wow, did you get that memo verbatim from the N.T. Wright advocates? Or the paedocommunion advocates?

Somehow I think a doctrine that has been unanimous among the Reformed, Lutherans, Baptists, Methodists, Episcopalians, and even Romanists qualifies as an essential of the faith. The only thing that probably has greater uniform witness in the church is the Trinity and the Second Coming (Oh, I forgot, that is under attack today also by hyper-preterists).

The real truth is that outside of a few people harping on the internet and in some journals, 99,999 out of 100,000 professing Christians think that paedcommunionists are either nuts, a bad joke, or downright scary. The real problem is not the heresy-hunters (when was the last heresy trial you heard of), but the fact that the Reformed churches seem to be the place of last refuge for "new ideas" that can't even manage the weak cache of The Purpose Driven Church.

As for what the PCA thinks about this, I think you would be very surprised what the church would do if the paedocommunists were not so circumspect and deceptive in their efforts to undermine the Confession of the church and what they have vowed. But maybe the PCA would do nothing; it would still not change the fact that such a pernicious doctrine urges parents to force judgment down their children's throats.


----------



## openairboy (Aug 10, 2004)

[quote:cb6b89af9b="fredtgreco"]Wow, did you get that memo verbatim from the N.T. Wright advocates? Or the paedocommunion advocates?[/quote:cb6b89af9b]

Nope, just general observations I have made.

[quote:cb6b89af9b]Somehow I think a doctrine that has been unanimous among the Reformed, Lutherans, Baptists, Methodists, Episcopalians, and even Romanists qualifies as an essential of the faith. The only thing that probably has greater uniform witness in the church is the Trinity and the Second Coming (Oh, I forgot, that is under attack today also by hyper-preterists).[/quote:cb6b89af9b]

The Trinity and Second Coming are completely different issues and testified to quite differently in the Ecumenical Councils. That's a little too appley and orangey for my blood. Besides, I grew up in the Episcopal Church and the Eucharist was administered to infants. My knowledge of the history of the doctrine is minimal, but they claimed it was practiced until the 13th century and continues in the Eastern churches to this day. Until Trent, can you demonsrate that the rejection of paedo-communion was testified as an essential doctrine? Like the Apostles Creed, was anyone baptized into the rejection of paedo-communion? One baptism for the foregiveness of sins is testified in an ecumenical capacity, the baptists reject this, but we don't reject them. Why the rejection of this universal testimony? What position has a more universal testimony, the condemnation of paedo-communion or the rejection of multiple baptisms?

[quote:cb6b89af9b]The real truth is that outside of a few people harping on the internet and in some journals, 99,999 out of 100,000 professing Christians think that paedcommunionists are either nuts, a bad joke, or downright scary. The real problem is not the heresy-hunters (when was the last heresy trial you heard of), but the fact that the Reformed churches seem to be the place of last refuge for "new ideas" that can't even manage the weak cache of The Purpose Driven Church.

As for what the PCA thinks about this, I think you would be very surprised what the church would do if the paedocommunists were not so circumspect and deceptive in their efforts to undermine the Confession of the church and what they have vowed. But maybe the PCA would do nothing; it would still not change the fact that such a pernicious doctrine urges parents to force judgment down their children's throats.[/quote:cb6b89af9b]

Oh come now, 99,999 out of 100,000 professing Christins think they are "[i:cb6b89af9b]nuts, a bad joke, or downright scary[/i:cb6b89af9b]"? The fact that several ministers in the Missouri Presbytery and several faculty at Covenant Seminary hold to paedo-communion (not to mention a multitude of students I have spoken with) demonstrates that this doesn't even hold in the PCA, but I'm sure CTS is a den of iniquity.

Yea, but you can freely call into question their integrity, because you disagree with them. Yup, they are all evil, wicked men, who are all circumspect and deceptive, leading away the multitudes with their pernicious doctrine. Hey, I admit, it is pretty good rhetoric and you have a sharp tongue, but most people view it simply as that, except for those that are already in the choir. If that's what is needed to rally the troops, then go for it.

The Times They Are A-Changin',

openairboy


----------



## Ranger (Aug 10, 2004)

Well, there are 25 million Southern Baptists in the United States, and I can assure you that all 25 million (myself included) think it's nuts, lol.


----------



## john_Mark (Aug 11, 2004)

*Keith, are you rC?*

On another thread here http://www.puritanboard.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=5751&highlight= you said you are "Reformed (Catholic)" and I am wondering if you are part of this new "Reformed Catholic" movement?


----------



## openairboy (Aug 11, 2004)

*Re: Keith, are you rC?*

[quote:61ddd24d07="john_Mark"]On another thread here http://www.puritanboard.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=5751&highlight= you said you are "Reformed (Catholic)" and I am wondering if you are part of this new "Reformed Catholic" movement?[/quote:61ddd24d07]

To be honest, I don't know much about it, so it is hard to say that I am a part of that movement. In a sense, and not to sound too idealistic, Romantic, or reductionistic, but I don't desire to be a part of any trend, movement, or theological fad, but I desire to be a part of the "one holy catholic [universal] and apostolic church." In light of that, the Apostles Creed, Nicene Creed, Chalcedon, and the Athanasian Creed have become more front and center than the WCF and/or any other post-reformation creed. 

Briefly, I was your typical Calvinist in college. I thought "Calvinism" was the end all be all of Christianity and everything was seen in light of 5 measly points. It didn't matter what the verse said, I had my 5 point system, which Jesus himself gave me, and I would gladly be the most ungracious cuss with anyone that differed. After all, it is grace alone and God's choice, but lets not extend that grace to others, especially while they are still ungodly in their theological beliefs, and lets practically believe that everyone has the free-will to end up there. After all, didn't we get here due to more study and devotion than those around us? 

A few years ago I realized that the Church existed before the Reformation, had standards of unity, and that Luther didn't set out to restore the Church, but to reform it. That's what I want to be a part of, the one holy catholic and apostolic church. Does the Church need "reforming"? Yes, but not restoring. I will leave the restoring to the Church of Christ and others. 

I don't, however, believe Luther had everything right, especially when it comes to the issue on which the Church stands or falls. I believe the central thrust of the Church is Christology, note the aforementioned (ecumenical) Creeds, and a fruit of that is my justification (I fully affirm the WCF's statement on justification). I don't believe the central issue is "me and God", narrowing the discussion to my justification, but the issue is Jesus and the fact that he rose from the dead. That, I believe, is what Paul passed on as first importance. The rock that God builds His Church upon is the revelation that Jesus is the Son of Man. 

Is that a Reformed Catholic? 

openairboy


----------



## wsw201 (Aug 11, 2004)

Keith,

You have made some comments regarding Luther and Augustine. I would suggest that you double check your source material. Though Augustine may have been accused of supporting a type of Baptismal Regeneration, this has been widely debated. Regarding Luther, the idea that he believed in any type of baptismal regeneration or that any Sacrament activated Salvation just does not hold up. In fact, later in Luther's life he and Melanchton changed their positions concerning the Lord's Supper with the Variata. Peter Lillback discusses this issue in his article on Confessional Subscription Among the 16th Century Reformers. I know that many have attempted to divide Calvin and Luther on many issues, but any careful examination of source documents will show that Calvin and Luther, especially Luther in his later years, were in agreement on virtually everything. In fact Luther noted that if Calvin was at Marburg, the issue of the Supper would have been resolved.

Regarding Mr. Horne, I have met him as he is a member of my Presbytery. The fact that he is in "good standing" does not mean he is right. The fact that the Presbytery has been patient with his views does not mean that there is no concern.

You also might reconsider your comments regarding Peadocommunion. We have discussed this issue before on PB. The evidence from Scripture must be the controlling factor in any real discussion concerning Peadocommunion. To simply look at history and say they did it in the past is not very compelling. As Cyprian said " there is no error like an old error". You might want to read Roger Beckwith's article that I posted in the Pastoral Concerns Forum under the Age of Becoming a Communicant Member thread. This is an excellent article dealing with Scripture and peadocommunion. I suspect that those whom you know in the PCA are not willing to change the Westminster Standards because they cannot support their position with any exegetical evidence since Scripture nowhere notes that infants or small children participated in Passover after Israel was established in Canaan.


----------



## Craig (Aug 11, 2004)

[quote:7182d283ef]I don't, however, believe Luther had everything right, especially when it comes to the issue on which the Church stands or falls[/quote:7182d283ef]
uzzled: uzzled: Please consider re-reading Galatians.


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Aug 11, 2004)

[quote:e4db6df268]Though Augustine may have been accused of supporting a type of Baptismal Regeneration, this has been widely debated. [/quote:e4db6df268]

Wall's History of Infant Baptism clears this up quite a bit, and traces the early father's use of the term and idea surrounding "regeneration." It is more loosy associated with the entirety of the Christian life than what we have more defined it in terms of exclusively the heart change.

I would agree with Craig - justification assumes Christology. Without understanding, rightly, justification, the conversion of a sinner falls to the ground. It necessarily creates a distinction between grace and works.

[quote:e4db6df268]Paedo-communion, which has many advocates within the PCA, hardly comes close to undermining the Faith. [/quote:e4db6df268]

Actually, advocates of PC are demonstrating in published writings that they are doing just that - undermining the FAITH. A perusal of "Reformed is not Enough" screams "undermine historical orthodoxy!" Not to mention the writings of Shepard, Dunn and Wright.


----------



## john_Mark (Aug 11, 2004)

*Re: Keith, are you rC?*

openairboy said [quote:a3600ba150] I don't, however, believe Luther had everything right, especially when it comes to the issue on which the Church stands or falls. I believe the central thrust of the Church is Christology, note the aforementioned (ecumenical) Creeds, and a fruit of that is my justification (I fully affirm the WCF's statement on justification).[/quote:a3600ba150]

I am curious as to what way you see that affirming sola fide as the correct understanding of faith as it relates to the gospel adversely effects one's Christology? (I hope I am understanding that this is what you are saying.)


----------



## wsw201 (Aug 11, 2004)

[quote:d3d2890de3]Wall's History of Infant Baptism clears this up quite a bit, and traces the early father's use of the term and idea surrounding "regeneration." It is more loosy associated with the entirety of the Christian life than what we have more defined it in terms of exclusively the heart change. [/quote:d3d2890de3]

Good point Matt. Many people have the same problem with Calvin and his use of the word "regeneration" as compared to how it is used today.


----------



## Scott (Aug 11, 2004)

[quote:be2ba688c9]Somehow I think a doctrine that has been unanimous among the Reformed, Lutherans, Baptists, Methodists, Episcopalians, and even Romanists qualifies as an essential of the faith. The only thing that probably has greater uniform witness in the church is the Trinity and the Second Coming (Oh, I forgot, that is under attack today also by hyper-preterists). [/quote:be2ba688c9]

Fred: You have been careful to limit your observations to Western Christiainty, evidently to exclude Eastern Orthodoxy. Eastern Orthodox are thes second largest denomination in the world, with approximately 200 million adherents worldwide (compared to PCA, 300,000 or Roman Catholic, 1 billion). My understanding is that they practice PC. We should take this into account in the debate, as this is not a small number.

BTW, I deny PC.


----------



## openairboy (Aug 11, 2004)

[quote:846c4fe197="wsw201"]Keith,

You have made some comments regarding Luther and Augustine. I would suggest that you double check your source material. Though Augustine may have been accused of supporting a type of Baptismal Regeneration, this has been widely debated. Regarding Luther, the idea that he believed in any type of baptismal regeneration or that any Sacrament activated Salvation just does not hold up. In fact, later in Luther's life he and Melanchton changed their positions concerning the Lord's Supper with the Variata. Peter Lillback discusses this issue in his article on Confessional Subscription Among the 16th Century Reformers. I know that many have attempted to divide Calvin and Luther on many issues, but any careful examination of source documents will show that Calvin and Luther, especially Luther in his later years, were in agreement on virtually everything. In fact Luther noted that if Calvin was at Marburg, the issue of the Supper would have been resolved.[/quote:846c4fe197]

Of course our presuppositions come into this discussion and if we denounce "baptismal regeneration" the way most people around here do, then we have to reinterpret our favorite saints so our invective language doesn't apply to them, namely Augustine and Luther. Anyway, the majority of my sources on Luther are discussions with professors and students from Concordia Theological Seminary, so the Missouri Synod Lutherans could have it wrong, but I find them a capable source.

[quote:846c4fe197]Regarding Mr. Horne, I have met him as he is a member of my Presbytery. The fact that he is in "good standing" does not mean he is right. The fact that the Presbytery has been patient with his views does not mean that there is no concern.[/quote:846c4fe197]

That's completely different than saying he is deceptive, untrustworthy, not to be trusted on ANYTHING, etc. Don't hear what I am not saying.

[quote:846c4fe197]You also might reconsider your comments regarding Peadocommunion. We have discussed this issue before on PB. The evidence from Scripture must be the controlling factor in any real discussion concerning Peadocommunion. To simply look at history and say they did it in the past is not very compelling. As Cyprian said " there is no error like an old error". You might want to read Roger Beckwith's article that I posted in the Pastoral Concerns Forum under the Age of Becoming a Communicant Member thread. This is an excellent article dealing with Scripture and peadocommunion. I suspect that those whom you know in the PCA are not willing to change the Westminster Standards because they cannot support their position with any exegetical evidence since Scripture nowhere notes that infants or small children participated in Passover after Israel was established in Canaan.[/quote:846c4fe197]

Keep in context my comments. I was shotgunned with the fact that the greatest testimony, outside of the Trinity and the second coming, is that of an anit-paedocommunion condemnation throughout Church HISTORY, so I responded in kind, i.e., my personal church history and the history of the Church, albeit briefly. I haven't advocated a position, but don't believe these men are full of guile and undermining the faith. If history isn't very compelling, then why is everyone yelling that these men are rewriting church history and rejecting the reformation? Because it is compelling. I recognize, as I'm sure you do, that I don't interpret the Scriptures in a vacuum. History may not be the final bench, but it should influence every discussion and is compelling to me. Your last sentence reminds me of my discussion with prooftext baptists on baptism. Again, the nature of my discussion so far is largely in light of various comments made about the integrity of these men and the inflammatory rhetoric around this issue. The fact that there is a diversity of opinions throughout Church history should temper our judgments, but most people hear what they want.

openairboy


----------



## openairboy (Aug 11, 2004)

[quote:9a8f37c702="Craig"][quote:9a8f37c702]I don't, however, believe Luther had everything right, especially when it comes to the issue on which the Church stands or falls[/quote:9a8f37c702]
uzzled: uzzled: Please consider re-reading Galatians.[/quote:9a8f37c702]

I will re-read Galatians in due time. As it is, I believe the revelation that Jesus Christ is the Son of Man is the Rock on which Christ will build His Church. Confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, and you shall be saved. It is not confess with your mouth justification by faith alone and believe in your heart that you are justified by faith in faith alone and you shall be saved. It is amazingly Christocentric and not centered upon me.

openairboy


----------



## fredtgreco (Aug 11, 2004)

[quote:3cf6c997bb="Scott"][quote:3cf6c997bb]Somehow I think a doctrine that has been unanimous among the Reformed, Lutherans, Baptists, Methodists, Episcopalians, and even Romanists qualifies as an essential of the faith. The only thing that probably has greater uniform witness in the church is the Trinity and the Second Coming (Oh, I forgot, that is under attack today also by hyper-preterists). [/quote:3cf6c997bb]

Fred: You have been careful to limit your observations to Western Christiainty, evidently to exclude Eastern Orthodoxy. Eastern Orthodox are thes second largest denomination in the world, with approximately 200 million adherents worldwide (compared to PCA, 300,000 or Roman Catholic, 1 billion). My understanding is that they practice PC. We should take this into account in the debate, as this is not a small number.

BTW, I deny PC.[/quote:3cf6c997bb]

Scott,

You are correct that I excluded EO. I do that because I have really no knowledge of their practices and I don't wish to get into a debate about something I don't know about.

I do know that the EOs deny the filioque, which is a significant departure from the critical Biblical doctrine of the Trinity (notice that it was earlier stated that PC is not like the Trinity), and that they also deny justification by faith alone, to an even greater degree than Rome's synergy. So to lean on them for a practice does not carry much weight in my book.

In the final analysis, my comments about the breadth of non-PC views was merely to show how significant an issue it was.

I'm not claiming that you were saying otherwise, but I just wanted it to be clear for all.


----------



## openairboy (Aug 11, 2004)

webmaster said:


> [quote:8b2dee585c]
> 
> Actually, advocates of PC are demonstrating in published writings that they are doing just that - undermining the FAITH. A perusal of "Reformed is not Enough" screams "undermine historical orthodoxy!" Not to mention the writings of Shepard, Dunn and Wright.[/quote:8b2dee585c]
> 
> ...


----------



## openairboy (Aug 11, 2004)

*Re: Keith, are you rC?*

[quote:d80921279c="john_Mark"]openairboy said [quote:d80921279c] I don't, however, believe Luther had everything right, especially when it comes to the issue on which the Church stands or falls. I believe the central thrust of the Church is Christology, note the aforementioned (ecumenical) Creeds, and a fruit of that is my justification (I fully affirm the WCF's statement on justification).[/quote:d80921279c]

I am curious as to what way you see that affirming sola fide as the correct understanding of faith as it relates to the gospel adversely effects one's Christology? (I hope I am understanding that this is what you are saying.)[/quote:d80921279c]

Mark, may I ask you to restate the question? Before I attempt to answer I would like to make sure I understand you correctly.

thanks, openairboy


----------



## DTK (Aug 11, 2004)

With all due respect, there really is no doubt that Augustine embraced a form of baptismal regeneration. After my own study, I don't think that can be accurately denied. But for Augustine, baptism only initiated regeneration, since Augustine viewed regeneration as a life-long process (in contradistinction to an instantaneous act) only completed at one's death. Thus for Augustine, all the regenerate attain glory, for the simple fact that regeneration is only completed at death. He likewise held that justification and sanctification were processes, along with regeneration. At times, he failed to distinguish adequately between regeneration, justification and sanctification.

Now, as a side note, when I read Mark Horne's comments on Paul's writings as referenced by Peter, I instantly thought of the words of another ancient commentator...

[b:ebd24c903f]Ambrose (c. 339-97):[/b:ebd24c903f] In most places Paul so explains his meaning by his own words, that he who discourses on them can find nothing to add of his own; and if he wishes to say anything, must rather perform the office of a grammarian than a discourser. Letter 37. See Goode, [i:ebd24c903f]The Divine Rule of Faith and Practice[/i:ebd24c903f], Vol. 3, p. 262, Chemnitz, [i:ebd24c903f]An Examination of the Council of Trent[/i:ebd24c903f], Vol. 1, p. 167, and Whitaker, [i:ebd24c903f]A Disputation on Holy Scripture[/i:ebd24c903f], pp. 398, 492, who all render [i:ebd24c903f]plerisque[/i:ebd24c903f] as "most." 
[b:ebd24c903f]Latin text:[/b:ebd24c903f] In plerisque ita se ipse suis exponat sermonibus, ut is qui tractat, nihil inveniat quod adjiciat suum; ac si velit aliquid dicere, grammatici magis quam disputatoris fungatur munere. Jacques Paul Migne, [i:ebd24c903f]Patrologiae Latinae[/i:ebd24c903f], Epistola XXXVII.1, 16:1084 (Paris: J.-P. Migne, 1857-87). The translation found in [i:ebd24c903f]Fathers of the Church[/i:ebd24c903f], Vol. 26, Saint Ambrose: Letters 54. Ambrose to Simplicianus (New York: Fathers of the Church, Inc., 1954), p. 286, has mistranslated this word [i:ebd24c903f]plerisque[/i:ebd24c903f] to read "in some instances" rather than the correct translation of "most places."

Blessings,
DTK


----------



## fredtgreco (Aug 11, 2004)

[quote:0eb518b6d5="openairboy"][quote:0eb518b6d5="webmaster"]

Actually, advocates of PC are demonstrating in published writings that they are doing just that - undermining the FAITH. A perusal of "Reformed is not Enough" screams "undermine historical orthodoxy!" Not to mention the writings of Shepard, Dunn and Wright.[/quote:0eb518b6d5]

Whether you assume that certain advocates are undermining the faith is different than saying PC undermines the faith. Shepherd, Dunn, and Wright, to my knowledge, make no statements on paedo-communion. Wright may, b/c of its practice in certain Anglican circles that he may travel, but lumping all these names together is unhelpful.

openairboy[/quote:0eb518b6d5]

Wright is an open advocate of paedcommunion. This may be confirmed in a number of places, including http://www.paedocommunion.com/whoswho/. He is so because it fits in perfect with his soteriology.


----------



## DTK (Aug 11, 2004)

[quote:87644b9429] Of course our presuppositions come into this discussion and if we denounce "baptismal regeneration" the way most people around here do, then we have to reinterpret our favorite saints so our invective language doesn't apply to them, namely Augustine and Luther. Anyway, the majority of my sources on Luther are discussions with professors and students from Concordia Theological Seminary, so the Missouri Synod Lutherans could have it wrong, but I find them a capable source. [/quote:87644b9429]

This is simply not true. I do not embrace baptismal regeneration, and yet can plainly state that this was the view of Augustine without any invective. I firmly believe that both Augustine and Luther, while admired and respected by myself, were wrong on baptismal regeneration as well. Thus overstating your case isn't helpful to the discussion.

I have read E. Brooks Holifield, [i:87644b9429]The Covenant Sealed: The Development of Sacramental Theology in Old and New England, 1570-1720[/i:87644b9429]. And he made an interesting comment about the controversy that arose in the time period he covers, which sheds some light on the present day controversy...

[b:87644b9429]E. Brooks Holifield:[/b:87644b9429] The vocabulary of the sacramentalists revealed their intention: to elevate baptism by combining two theological traditions, Reformed orthodoxy and medieval scholasticism. To speak of the Christian life in terms of potency, or form, and actualization, or matter, was to appropriate scholastic imagery. "Initial grace" was a Reformed adaptation of the medieval gratia prima, also given to children in baptism. Baxter recognized later the similarity between "seminal grace" and the scholastic notion of infused habits. Burges and Ward carefully inserted the older language into their orthodox Calvinism, but they could not entirely eliminate the incommensurabilities. The medieval language depicted the Christian pilgrimage as a gradual development, approximate to salvation in ascending stages and levels of growth, nourished by sacramental grace from beginning to end. Earlier Reformed theologians spoke of progressive sanctification after the effectual call, and they argued about preparatory development in adults prior to the experience of saving grace, but the sacramentalist language seemed to depict the whole of a man's spiritual life, from infancy to glorification, as an unbroken continuum beginning with baptism. The problem was to combine that vocabulary with a traditional Puritan notion of genuine conversion as a specifiable experience, restricted to the elect, moving them into a new sphere of life, discontinuous with their past. Puritan theology often consisted of the artful manipulation of images, and Burges and Ward accordingly proposed a sacramental theology based on medieval images of salvation as a new creation.
Few of their Puritan contemporaries shared their vision, however, and the initial response was therefore hostile. When Ward first published his ideas around 1627, a close friend, John Davenant, advised that he not "sett that controversy on foot," and when Burges published his treatise he complained that he received for his effort nothing but "clamors, slanders, and revilings without end or measure." E. Brooks Holifield, [i:87644b9429]The Covenant Sealed: The Development of Sacramental Theology in Old and New England, 1570-1720[/i:87644b9429] (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1974), pp. 85-86.

I think it is wrong to view the sacraments as "converting ordinances," and that we may do so without in any way detracting from their efficacy.

Blessings,
DTK


----------



## openairboy (Aug 11, 2004)

[quote:67c1bf514e="DTK"][quote:67c1bf514e] Of course our presuppositions come into this discussion and if we denounce "baptismal regeneration" the way most people around here do, then we have to reinterpret our favorite saints so our invective language doesn't apply to them, namely Augustine and Luther. Anyway, the majority of my sources on Luther are discussions with professors and students from Concordia Theological Seminary, so the Missouri Synod Lutherans could have it wrong, but I find them a capable source. [/quote:67c1bf514e]

This is simply not true. I do not embrace baptismal regeneration, and yet can plainly state that this was the view of Augustine without any invective. I firmly believe that both Augustine and Luther, while admired and respected by myself, were wrong on baptismal regeneration as well. Thus overstating your case isn't helpful to the discussion.[/quote:67c1bf514e]

Hi,
I would recommend reading through this thread and others and look at the language used against "baptismal regeneration" and/or its "advocates" (read: assumed advocates). There is little question that much of it is invective; after all, they are not to be trusted, etc. 

A generalization, which I made, by definition includes exceptions, and I am glad that you are one, but I still stand by my initial statement that people are interpreting Augustine and Luther in light of their presuppositions that whatever they taught it couldn't have been any form of "baptismal regeneration" (as an aside: amazing what a divesity of uses of regeneration, sanctification, and justification is used throughout the history of the church), because we want to denounce Hornes, etc., but still want to hold up Augustine in some capacity.

So, assuming for arguments sake that the Federal Vision guys, Mark Hornes, etc., believe in baptismal regeneration and you want to denounce them as being deceiving, preaching another gospel, etc., just apply this to Augustine and Luther. That is all that I am asking, especially in light of what you say about Augustine's views on justification, sanctification, and regeneration. Folks, just apply your condemnations consistently. Go on and join the "Outside the Camp" gang and pronounce your anathemas on everyone that differs with you. 

Improving my baptism,
openairboy


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Aug 11, 2004)

[quote:c3a171be39]Whether you assume that certain advocates are undermining the faith is different than saying PC undermines the faith. [/quote:c3a171be39]

First, those who hold to PC undermine faith. As I said, this is seen vividly in one of the largest proponents of PC in Doug Wilson, and in his recent writings both in articles and in his books.

Second, unless you have the ability to know whether one is converted or not, it is impossible to properly enforce communion upon any other ground than profession as commanded (as both the OT and NT demonstrate with both Passover and Communion.) The [i:c3a171be39]non-exegetical [/i:c3a171be39]gymnastics done to overthrow the plain teaching of 1 Cor. 11 is astounding to me by proponents of PC. They are attempting to invent something that is simply not in the text, or reinterpret something they want to read into the text, not because of the text, but because of their new theological slant. 

Third, as Fred said, Wright does affirm PC, and does so because of his soteriology. If one denies that they are following Wright or Shepherd but are advocates of PC, then they are simply not logically following their "new" theology.

[quote:c3a171be39]but lumping all these names together is unhelpful. [/quote:c3a171be39]

Actually, lumping birds of a feather together is very helpful because they compliment each others theological stance. To read one is to get to know the others by default. To say they are not birds of a feather is to simply overlook their writings altogether.


----------



## DTK (Aug 11, 2004)

[quote:3f167e4434] ...then we have to reinterpret our favorite saints so our invective language doesn't apply to them, namely Augustine and Luther. [/quote:3f167e4434]

This is the particular accusation to which I took exception. I simply haven't seen this in these exchanges.

Blessings,
DTK


----------



## openairboy (Aug 11, 2004)

[quote:90f47abab4="webmaster"][quote:90f47abab4]Whether you assume that certain advocates are undermining the faith is different than saying PC undermines the faith. [/quote:90f47abab4]

First, those who hold to PC undermine faith. As I said, this is seen vividly in one of the largest proponents of PC in Doug Wilson, and in his recent writings both in articles and in his books.[/quote:90f47abab4]

To me, this is the same that saying infant baptism is the road to Rome. Rome holds to the Trinity, incarnation, etc., etc., so I'm going to reject, b/c clearly they are corrupt. Hang out with some Bible Believers and your argument, to me, is in the same vein.


[quote:90f47abab4]Second, unless you have the ability to know whether one is converted or not, it is impossible to properly enforce communion upon any other ground than profession as commanded (as both the OT and NT demonstrate with both Passover and Communion.) The [i:90f47abab4]non-exegetical [/i:90f47abab4]gymnastics done to overthrow the plain teaching of 1 Cor. 11 is astounding to me by proponents of PC. They are attempting to invent something that is simply not in the text, or reinterpret something they want to read into the text, not because of the text, but because of their new theological slant.[/quote:90f47abab4]

More apples and oranges. My friends at Southern Seminary tell me the same thing when it comes to infant-baptism, so this is a minimal charge. 

[quote:90f47abab4]Third, as Fred said, Wright does affirm PC, and does so because of his soteriology. If one denies that they are following Wright or Shepherd but are advocates of PC, then they are simply not logically following their "new" theology.[/quote:90f47abab4]

Are you saying Wright, Shepherd, etc., are Eastern Orthodox? This is a nice sleight of hand, but rather irrelevant. Oh, and all those that believe in infant baptism are in Rome.

openairboy


----------



## openairboy (Aug 11, 2004)

[quote:00ddb5e27c="DTK"][quote:00ddb5e27c] ...then we have to reinterpret our favorite saints so our invective language doesn't apply to them, namely Augustine and Luther. [/quote:00ddb5e27c]

This is the particular accusation to which I took exception. I simply haven't seen this in these exchanges.

Blessings,
DTK[/quote:00ddb5e27c]

Well, instead of wasting time putting together a list, I will simply quote from this thread earlier:

"The issue with 'Shepherdism' ('Wilsonism', 'Federal Visionism', call it what you like) as I understand it, is the nature of baptism as not only signifying, but in some sense 'activating' election, or, perhaps less hamfistedly, the conclusion that the language of most Reformed baptismal rites implies a greater connection between the Sacrament and ones election beyond anything vaguely 'presumptive'." Earlier this individual describe the "Shepherdites" as "mad ramblings", "heresy", and the sarcastic, "do these chaps really think they are smarter"...

I just happen to see language like "mad ramblings", "heresy", and to sarcastically mock their position as being invective. 

That will be my last comment in this particular issue, but feel free to respond, b/c we will just have to agree to disagree at this point.

openairboy


----------



## DTK (Aug 11, 2004)

[quote:d06f9f0cde] Well, instead of wasting time putting together a list, I will simply quote from this thread earlier:

"The issue with 'Shepherdism' ('Wilsonism', 'Federal Visionism', call it what you like) as I understand it, is the nature of baptism as not only signifying, but in some sense 'activating' election, or, perhaps less hamfistedly, the conclusion that the language of most Reformed baptismal rites implies a greater connection between the Sacrament and ones election beyond anything vaguely 'presumptive'." Earlier this individual describe the "Shepherdites" as "mad ramblings", "heresy", and the sarcastic, "do these chaps really think they are smarter"...

I just happen to see language like "mad ramblings", "heresy", and to sarcastically mock their position as being invective. [/quote:d06f9f0cde]

Well, by lumping in the names of Augustine and Luther, you simply engaged in the very thing of which you've accused others. Now, I have endeavored to be specific in my critique concerning your "lumping in by way of reference Augustine and Luther," and though I have clarified it the second time, I think you have still missed it. 

Blessings,
DTK


----------



## JohnV (Aug 11, 2004)

Getting back to the original question:

I read the quotation in the first post, though I did not look up the website. But what I read is questionable at best. It is notable for the lack of saying anything substantial. There is the suggestion of taking Paul in context with the rest of Scripture, which insinuates that this is not normally done. But we all know that is not true, not after so many years, decades, and even centuries of struggle in the Reformed churches. We also know most of the letters in the NT are written by Paul, that it is he that concentrates more on doctrine than others, especially in Romans and Galations, and that even Peter recognized the place and importance of Paul's letters in all the churches. So even if we were to determine that something substantial is being said, it must then be noted that it says far too much for it's intent. 

One does not need to be a doctrinal expert to see the indications of pretenses. The quotation above does not address what it should have, and what it does address it shouldn't have.


----------



## openairboy (Aug 11, 2004)

[quote:9e664c746d="DTK"][quote:9e664c746d] Well, instead of wasting time putting together a list, I will simply quote from this thread earlier:

"The issue with 'Shepherdism' ('Wilsonism', 'Federal Visionism', call it what you like) as I understand it, is the nature of baptism as not only signifying, but in some sense 'activating' election, or, perhaps less hamfistedly, the conclusion that the language of most Reformed baptismal rites implies a greater connection between the Sacrament and ones election beyond anything vaguely 'presumptive'." Earlier this individual describe the "Shepherdites" as "mad ramblings", "heresy", and the sarcastic, "do these chaps really think they are smarter"...

I just happen to see language like "mad ramblings", "heresy", and to sarcastically mock their position as being invective. [/quote:9e664c746d]

Well, by lumping in the names of Augustine and Luther, you simply engaged in the very thing of which you've accused others. Now, I have endeavored to be specific in my critique concerning your "lumping in by way of reference Augustine and Luther," and though I have clarified it the second time, I think you have still missed it. 

Blessings,
DTK[/quote:9e664c746d]

Huh? What lumping are you talking about? What invective language, which is the original flow of our discussion, have I used? I honestly don't have a clue what you are talking about and I don't find any specific critique of my "lumping", because our (the two of us) discussion has had nothing to do with lumping, so I am confused on this one. Please reread my posts and carry on the context of whatever "lumping" you see, because there is simply no abusive language leveled towards these men or "lumping", depending on what you are trying to say with this word, of any kind.

If you are trying to say that I've lumped Augustine with Luther with Hornes with Federal Vision, etc., then you are reading something that isn't there. If you take the original context of how their names entered the discussion, I think this will clarify any "lumping" issues you think you see.

 
openairboy

openairboy


----------



## DTK (Aug 11, 2004)

Your questions indicate to me that you haven't understood me, and I'm not willing for my part to press the issue any further.

Cheers,
DTK


----------



## fredtgreco (Aug 11, 2004)

This is pretty much done. Closing.


----------

