# James Jordan rant article on Calvinistic Thought



## WrittenFromUtopia (Oct 27, 2005)

I'd be very interested to hear your thoughts and reactions to this article.


----------



## Bladestunner316 (Oct 27, 2005)

How much influence does this man have?


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Oct 27, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Bladestunner316_
> How much influence does this man have?



Quite a lot on the internet.


----------



## Anton Bruckner (Oct 27, 2005)

Yep, he's the preterist James B. Jordan.


[Edited on 10-27-2005 by Slippery]


----------



## wsw201 (Oct 27, 2005)

I am not surprised by this at all. He is right about one thing and that is that he has been advocating an FV type view for a long time. I have no doubt if anyone read the articles he mentioned would see that the FV issues are nothing new (in fact Norm Shepherd has been advocating a version of them since the '70's). What Mr. Jordan fails to realize is that the vast majority of Reformed folk don't pay any attention to what he says, either when he was in Tyler, or now. Jordan is a fringe player.


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Oct 27, 2005)

More specifically, what are your reactions to this part of the article:



> But the main problem that is generating controversy is actually fairly well put by the Mississippi Valley report: "œProponents of the FV identify themselves as Reformed. Most appeal to the writings of the sixteenth century Reformers in support of their views. Many regard the Reformed thought of the British Puritan and American Presbyterian traditions to have capitulated to the Enlightenment, what is termed revivalism, and what is termed baptistic theology."
> 
> Well, that´s about right. The Protestant Reformation in all its branches was a sacramental, liturgical, musical, and bibliocratic movement. Prior to the Reformation, people attended the Lord´s Supper once a year, if that. For Calvin and the other reformers, Jesus had promised to meet objectively with His people at His table, and so all the reformers believed very strongly in weekly communion, and they strove to implement it.
> 
> ...


----------



## Peter (Oct 27, 2005)

> Those who want to bang the drum for a 450-year old tradition are dooming themselves to irrelevance. Our only concern is to avoid being beat up by them as they thrash about in their death-throes.



Why don't we re-evaluate our concept of the diety of Christ too? After all, anyone who "bangs the drum" for a 1,800 year old tradition is doomed to iwelavence.

Justification is a settled doctrine. It has been debated and defined. The lines have been drawn and if you cross the line you are an enemy.


[Edited on 10-27-2005 by Peter]


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Oct 27, 2005)

Peter, what does that have to do with what I just quoted?


----------



## wsw201 (Oct 27, 2005)

I saw those comments too. Interesting spin on the Reformation. I have seen this type of argument before where the Magistrial Reformers views have been corrupted by the later "Scholastic" Reformers. Paul Helm has a book out on "Calvin and the Calvinists". Though it doesn't spcifically address Jordan's comments, he does a good job of showing the the later Reformers didn't leave Calvin in the dust and form a new type of Reformed theology.

Maybe Scott Clark will see this thread and can give more insight to Jordan's comments.


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Oct 27, 2005)

Would you classify Turretin as part of the "first" or "second" reformation?


----------



## Peter (Oct 27, 2005)

> _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> Peter, what does that have to do with what I just quoted?



nothing


----------



## wsw201 (Oct 27, 2005)

> _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> Would you classify Turretin as part of the "first" or "second" reformation?



Most everyone that I have read would say that the second reformation began with Beza. So Turretin would fall into the second reformation camp.


----------



## Peter (Oct 27, 2005)

> _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> Would you classify Turretin as part of the "first" or "second" reformation?



first.


----------



## Peter (Oct 27, 2005)

> _Originally posted by wsw201_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> ...



2nd reformation Scotland is considered 1638-1649, in the Netherlands it was later, into the 18th century. Im not aware of any "2nd Reformation" in Switzerland. Just to point out how stupid Jordans quote is (the one Gab just quoted), the generation after the Scottish 2nd Ref was so concerned with "Bibliocentric Reform" and so absolutely against "church only pietism" that they fought and died defending their socio-religious compact the SL&C.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Oct 27, 2005)

Notice how he doesn't actually quote anybody that agrees with him? No Calvin scholars _of any stripe._ No Reformational sons. No presentation of an opposing view, followed by any critique. Nope. Just his own authority. Just his _ipse dixit._

Jordan has always been an "original" thinker. He also believes apparently any idea that comes into his head deserves publication. All one needs do is review his newsletters for the past 20 years. Some of it is so fanciful, it might as well be from another planet.

Jordan and others can gather a diverse following from all corners via the internet. When he persuades a good many to come live in one place under one rule, the result is a Tyler train-wreck. So, its back to the diffused salt-and-light method. Which often spreads dissention in formerly stable church-bodies by "true believers" who think everyone must become Jordanites like them, now that they've been enlightened.

Jordan claims that the FV types have the right "package". They alone have collected all the right strands of the Reformation heritage, and now present the last best hope for the future of the church. Of course, it is not FV's similarites to other Reformed folks that makes them "identifiable", but rather their heterodoxy on specifics. That is why they have no home in any of the Reformation's churches, except a micro-denomination or group her or there. That is why, in a search for home, having left the Refomation's children behind them, some fall into the heavy gravitational well of Rome.

Because ultimately it isn't the "package," its some specific piece of the package that takes on special lustre. Liturgy, sacramental efficacy, history, grandeur, societal transformation, whatever. Some other tradition takes over. Anglican, Lutheran, E.O., even pentacostal. Anything but the "recognizable corruptions" of whichever Reformed church they left behind. There is just too much pride at stake for many of them to reconsider their positions.

Like most problems or issues, Jordan's et al concerns deserve consideration. To the degree that we are forced to consider afresh the Reformation and its developments, well and good. "Strengthen what remains... for I have not found your deeds complete in the sight of my God." Semper Reformanda. But do not buy into heterodoxy--FV or any other kind--simply because of some shrill caterwauling from the fringe.


----------



## wsw201 (Oct 27, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Peter_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by wsw201_
> ...



Peter,

You are correct. I was answering Gabe's question in the context of Jordan's division between the Reformation and the later Reformers. (I hope that was what Gabe was asking  )


----------



## fredtgreco (Oct 27, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Contra_Mundum_
> Jordan and others can gather a diverse following from all corners via the internet. When he persuades a good many to come live in one place under one rule, the result is a Tyler train-wreck. So, its back to the diffused salt-and-light method. Which often spreads dissention in formerly stable church-bodies by "true believers" who think everyone must become Jordanites like them, now that they've been enlightened.



Which makes it all the more concerning to see the plaudits heaped upon Jordan in PCA and OPC circles on the internet.


----------



## wsw201 (Oct 27, 2005)

> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Contra_Mundum_
> ...



It never ceases to amaze me. Someone recommended his book on creation a while back. After reading the first two chapters I started to get a headache (I think it was from being bored). I haven't picked it up since.

If it were not for the internet Jordan would only be a footnote to the Tyler disaster.


----------



## fredtgreco (Oct 27, 2005)

> _Originally posted by wsw201_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> ...



And this highlights the main danger of the internet - namely that one can have no eccelesial backing, no accountability to real people and still be "a teacher in Israel"


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Oct 27, 2005)

> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by wsw201_
> ...


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Oct 27, 2005)

> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by wsw201_
> ...



Thus the sore on the post-modern information highway today - the dreaded *blog*!


----------



## Robin (Oct 27, 2005)

I know Fred won't believe me....but I do hear the PCA is going to formally condemn FV next synod. 

Hope....

Meanwhile, we need to be discerning and wary of "Internet theologians." (Not including Matt, of course.)



Robin


----------



## Archlute (Oct 27, 2005)

Wayne,

I read his book on creation a while back as well, but I got a little further than you, I think. For not only does he discuss the creation days debate, but he also uses the book as a polemics platform as well. I believe it is in the the third or fourth chapter where he inexplicably launches off on this tirade against a "false" modern day calvinism, and why we should all become paedo-communionists. It really had nothing else to do with the real debate. So if he wants to critique P&R for putting out works with a critically flawed scholarship, he should also critique Canon Press for putting out works with a methodologically flawed scholarship. Half of the junk coming out of there would never make its way past any serious editor, which is the reason that they had to establish their own press.

Anyway, it is a flaw of the internet that allows these guys to make such a continually irritating stir.


----------



## Robin (Oct 28, 2005)

Remember....the Biblical model is "ordination" and a presbyterian church order. Not self-appointment; self-publish; no accountability.



r.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Oct 28, 2005)

> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> And this highlights the main danger of the internet - namely that one can have no eccelesial backing, no accountability to real people and still be "a teacher in Israel"


Well put. I point out to people all the time the danger of groups like the Calvary Chapel franchise because their system relies, to a great extent, on the cult of personality.

I think it is easy to condemn Church bodies but, on issues of Orthodoxy, I prefer a glacial response. It ought not be as easy as one man's (or a group of small men) insights into the Scriptures to move a Church to reconsider centuries' old understandings of certain principles.

I'm a firm believer in _Semper Reformanda_, but I also believe that there is wisdom found in the counsel of many elders. Might the Church body err in it's judgments? Surely. But the Godly should labor and pray for reform in due season. There isn't a sense of Godly patience in those seeking instant reform. 

Let's go outside the bounds of ecclesiastical bodies then and blog our opinions as individuals and get an audience of followers who are attracted to our skill in polemics and self-appoint ourselves as a judge of an ecclesiastical body. That's easier and more satisfying than laboring humbly within the Church and praying for Reform. I would say, in fairness, some of his opponents are guilty of the same imprudence in lobbing the "heretic" bomb too readily in the same medium and with the same lack of ecclesiastical authority to do so as individuals.

I am not well read enough to dispute claims regarding the history of Reformed thought. There may be some valid criticisms about a general need, in some Presbyteries, to allow for a wider range in liberty concerning some doctrines. What concerns me, in the article, is a resignation that "...they're all just so stupid now and can't think the way Reformed people used to." I think the moment one resigns themselves to that thought they are in a very dangerous place where the Church is no longer good enough for them.

Bottom line for me is that the visible Church body, whether you find yourself in PCA, OPC, RPCNA, ... is going to have some huge warts. Some are going to be too strident in certain areas and others' less so. But, to be in the Church and humbly seeking to refom it and willing to stuff certain convictions for the sake of the Communion of the Saints and a Godly expectation that God will continue to reform His Church, is always preferable to washing your hands of the mess and annointing yourself as head of a new Church body.

Just some meandering reflections on the matter as it has been bugging me for some time.


----------



## wsw201 (Oct 28, 2005)

A friend of mine said that Jordan is in the OPC. SAY IT AIN"T SO!!!


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Oct 28, 2005)

> _Originally posted by wsw201_
> A friend of mine said that Jordan is in the OPC. SAY IT AIN"T SO!!!


Yep; for many years. I got in some hot water years ago in the first iteration of the Presbyterians-OPC forum for taking strong exception to some of Jordan's mischaracterizations of my church (he at that time still insisted the Tyler excommunications still stood; something that is pretty strained to maintain but Bahnsen believed that he remained desparate to do so); the modeator shut it down fast. See here.


----------



## Peter (Oct 28, 2005)

> _Originally posted by SemperFideles_
> I'm a firm believer in _Semper Reformanda_, but I also believe that there is wisdom found in the counsel of many elders. Might the Church body err in it's judgments? Surely. But the Godly should labor and pray for reform in due season. There isn't a sense of Godly patience in those seeking instant reform.



Semper Reformanda doesn't mean tearing down the achievements of the past and starting fresh every 500 years it means building upon them. The Reformers didn't find it needful to question or alter long established doctrines the Church hammered out and codified a millennia prior. The object of their reforms were abuses that became unquestioned traditions. The truths of the Reformation have already been fought for and established, now let us move on past the first principles of the oracles of God. Let semper reformanda mean a closer personal application of the truths of the reformation. That's actually what the 2nd Refomation divines believed they were doing.



> I would say, in fairness, some of his opponents are guilty of the same imprudence in lobbing the "heretic" bomb too readily in the same medium and with the same lack of ecclesiastical authority to do so as individuals.



Good point. I'll step back now.

[Edited on 10-28-2005 by Peter]


----------



## Herald (Oct 28, 2005)

> _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> I'd be very interested to hear your thoughts and reactions to this article.



At least N.T. Wright is more gracious in his condemnation of the Reformation. This guy needs to go back in to have his bolts tightened.


----------



## Herald (Oct 28, 2005)

If the paradigm of the Reformation is passe, why are so many being impacted by the Sovereignty of God and shedding their Arminian trappings? I am one of them. I cannot cite statistics, but I am not the only one who has had his eyes opened to the truth.


----------



## wsw201 (Oct 28, 2005)

> _Originally posted by NaphtaliPress_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by wsw201_
> ...





Okay. Is he an officer in the OPC? SAY THAT AIN'T SO!!!


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Oct 28, 2005)

As far as I know, he is not an officer. I don't think he was ever ordained was he? I have never been clear on that.


----------



## pdn (Nov 27, 2005)

Rest east. Jordan is a member of Trinity Pres. in Valparaiso, FL, which is part of a little micro-denom called Providence National Presbytery.

Paul Nanson
Colleyville, PCA


----------



## pdn (Nov 27, 2005)

What's wrong with a rant, anyway? I thought you guys appreciated a good rant.

Paul Nanson
Colleyville PCA


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Nov 27, 2005)

{Moderate} 

We want people to be edified on the board, not simply ranting. Ranting is venting which is not helpful.


----------



## pdn (Nov 27, 2005)

Oh, sorry... coulda fooled me.
Paul Nanson
Colleyville PCA


----------



## Scott Bushey (Nov 27, 2005)

Paul,
Just for the record, as long as your ranting is biblical, orthodox and edifying, have at it. If it borders upon absurd or anti-confessional, duck as the frags will fly.


----------



## pdn (Nov 27, 2005)

Scott, looks like your avatar died.

Paul Nanson
Colleyville PCA


----------



## Scott Bushey (Nov 27, 2005)

> _Originally posted by pdn_
> Scott, looks like your avatar died.
> 
> Paul Nanson
> Colleyville PCA



Yea....I have allergies.


----------

