A Federal Vision debate?

[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.

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]

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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]