# Seagoon's Timeline of the Wilkins FV affair



## NaphtaliPress (Nov 27, 2007)

Yahoo! Groups
Thanks Andy!



> Sorry about the lateness of this reply, I have been incredibly busy of late.
> 
> ****, what I wrote was not intended to be an ad hom against Wilson. I have nothing against the man personally. Rather it was intended to be an appeal to a wise maxim that your mentor R.C. Sproul long ago taught me when considering an assertion: * "consider the source."*
> 
> ...


----------



## Poimen (Nov 27, 2007)

I read this on another website. Very helpful Andy.


----------



## Bladestunner316 (Nov 28, 2007)

thank you for posting this I hope they keep updating this it helps those like me get a better grasp of whats going on.


----------



## Stephen (Nov 28, 2007)

According to the information published by the PCA Jeffrey Steel was removed from office as a Teaching Elder in 2004. I do not know the details of his removal, but I think it is a wakeup call to those of us who are Reformed. We have so many in our circles defecting to Rome or Angl-Catholicism (which is nothing but Romanism w/out a pope) and most of this defection can be laid at the feet of Norman False Sheperd and other so-called Protestants in the FV movement. Rome is a false church and the pope is the anti-Christ, as the WCF so clearly states. I saw this defection coming years before the FV movement was even an issue. Men like Scott Hahn & Marcus Broady were falling in love with a Romantic view of Rome, not realizing how deceitful she is. I fear that others from the FV movement will defect to Rome, but then they will be forced to drink from the harlot's cup. May God give us a vision for a new Reformation that calls the church to embrace the gospel of salvation by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone. Soli Deo Gloria!


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Nov 28, 2007)

Wilson replied to Andy, and Andy has replied on bbwarfield till? he gets access to post a reply on Wilson's blog.
Yahoo! Groups
There's a lot indenting formating so I'm not sure of the value of reposting it here but I'll try and see.
--- Wed Nov 28, 2007 2:43 pm
--- In [email protected], "Andrew J. Webb" wrote:


> Dear Brothers and Sisters in Christ,
> 
> I really didn't want to get into a direct exchange with Doug Wilson over the matter of discipline concerning Steve Wilkins and Louisiana Presbytery but given that he has responded to me directly on his blog and both asks questions and implies that I made groundless assertions, I don't really feel like I have much of a choice but to reply. I'm going to go ahead and post Wilson's reply, but I should point out that Doug's post quotes my original very selectively, and at times it's unclear where what I wrote ends and how he responds begins. For that reason, I'd recommend reading my original post first if you haven't already done so: Yahoo! GroupsAndy then argues that FV advocates by definition will cry procedural foul so long as our views are not upheld, which is manifestly false. He says, "the only way the FV community will consider a report 'fair' and the scholars who prepared it 'wise' is if it approves their theology." Oh, I don't know. My threshold is much lower than that. I would have considered a study committee report procedurally fair if they had not, for example, stacked it with all opponents, nothing but opponents, opponents all the way down.​*Manifestly* false? Ok, I'll bite. Show me a few examples of when a denominational or seminary report that labeled the FV a serious error (if not a heresy) was _not_ attacked by FV advocates on procedural grounds ("they didn't contact the authors personally", "the committee members were (you may choose more than one) biased, incompetent, disingenuous, hypocritical, ignorant, sloppy, etc., etc.) Also by Wilson's criteria, the Canons of Dordt were procedurally unfair because the council was "stacked" with Calvinists.Substance and process are different issues. I have repeatedly named FV critics who are obviously fair-minded and judicious men. I know they are out there, and I pray that some of them are on the SJC. So there is a difference between a decision with which we differ and a decision which is obviously a judicially-coated bum's rush.​It's at the point that I almost want to break off the dialogue. "_Judicially-coated bum's rush_?" We have men like Sean Lucas, the Dean of Faculty from our denominational seminary on the committee and its to be assumed that these men are closed-minded, sinister, unfair and incapable of accurately assessing a theological movement? Given that the FV has been discussed to death via books, papers, conferences, debates, colloquiums, DVDs, the internet, etc. for at least five years (longer if one includes contributing movements like Shepherdism and the NPP), and that its proponents have had ample time to present their case and have only been able to persuade a tiny minority, I find it bizarre that they would demand that we look for people who either haven't been exposed to the FV and come to decision or some of its open proponents to populate the committee. Where is the requirement that a study committee have active proponents of the issue being studied on it and how does a lack of them _nullify _the validity of the conclusions of such a study? Historically the reformed have not felt constrained to put _proponents _of a position suspected of being in error on the commission studying it, rather they have sought Christian men who were qualified to judge and render an assessment. Is Wilson asserting that this committee and the OPC committee that drew the same conclusions were _unqualified to assess a system of doctrine_? For instance, was the old PCUS study committee report that determined that Dispensationalism was _not _compatible with the Standards in error because the assembly did not take care to make sure Dispensationalists were well-represented on the committee? Are we to assume that we can't come to a fair assessment of whether having foxes in the hen-house is a good idea unless we have foxes represented on the committee?
> 
> ...


----------



## SEAGOON (Nov 28, 2007)

Hi Chris,

Thanks for posting this. BTW there is a typo at the end. It should read:

"1) Do you believe that not only church officers, but church *members* have a right to scrupulously fair trials conducted strictly according to an established written procedure, including the ability to face their accusers, see and present their own evidence etc. before any sort of verdict is rendered or censure administered?"

Now if I can just find someone able to post this to Blog and Mablog....


----------



## DTK (Nov 28, 2007)

Andy said: 


> If I went around arguing that a majority of Reformed people disagree with me because - even after they've read my copious writings on the subject - they don't understand what I'm saying, after a while I might begin to wonder if the problem wasn't me.


This is where, I confess, I lost control and began to LOL. Nothing like stating the obvious!

DTK


----------



## a mere housewife (Nov 28, 2007)

"Now if I can just find someone able to post this to Blog and Mablog...."

I posted a link on two threads.


----------



## SEAGOON (Nov 28, 2007)

a mere housewife said:


> "Now if I can just find someone able to post this to Blog and Mablog...."
> 
> I posted a link on two threads.



Thanks much for doing that! I can't get on the board myself.

- Andy


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Nov 28, 2007)

Corrected it; glad to do it.


SEAGOON said:


> Hi Chris,
> 
> Thanks for posting this. BTW there is a typo at the end. It should read:
> 
> ...


----------



## a mere housewife (Nov 28, 2007)

Rev. Webb, I was happy to post them for you. Unfortunately I don't know how to link so that the page loads to the relevant post: but I did try to direct people to scroll down the page (and if you are reading this, you've scrolled too far -smiles).


----------

