Christology-Mark Jones goes after Ligoniers....

[Semper Fidelis]

You're not going to catch me defending parachurch at the expense of real Church and I agree with the concern about the goofy ecclesiology of St. Andrews. What's sad about that, in my mind, is that these kind of works don't last. The longer I'm Presbyterian the more I realize the frustrating aspects of the Church government are also part of the reason that it preserves the Church. I'm also not for replacing catechisms or creeds. My main point was to separate out the issues. Seeing as how we're agreed that the issues of the relative orthodoxy of the statements (that need to be fixed) and the "right" of any individual or group to propose something of use to the Church (what they do with it is up to them) are different issues.

I will note that they said it was composed by the Teaching Fellows (which includes Sinclair Ferguson and now Derek Thomas). Don't know if they had a hand in it or not.

Look, guys, I consider you my friends. I'm just trying to get us to judge their motives with charity and keeping the criticism focused where it ought to be focused.

I'll admit that I'm a bit compromised when it comes to R.C. Sproul. I was a former Roman Catholic in a charismatic congregation in 1997 struggling mightily with sin and wondering why I couldn't "let go" to overcome the sin in my life when I heard R.C. on the radio. I bought Faith Alone and it's the reason I'm in the PCA. Whatever faults he has (and at times things that make me sad and concerned), I still feel an eternal set of gratitude.

Is this the reason I want to cut him some slack? Not necessarily. I guess I just feel like the whole "piling on" seems incongruous. I struggle, for instance, with parachurch ministries like the Navigators but when Jerry Bridges died I couldn't pretend like he had never written anything of value to the Body simply because some of the stuff he did was irregular. It makes me wonder if Christ would say something like: "He that is not against us is for us." Yes, I try, with a lot of people, to get them to re-think some of their irregular works but I also don't want to be curmudgeon-y.

 

[DMcFadden]

Rich, Sproul was key to rescuing me at a critical point in my life as well. I consider him my favorite "popularizer" of theology (and in my lexicon that is a GOOD thing). And, I found the statement on Christology to be fresh and exciting (especially the inclusion of the active and passive forms of obedience and propitiation). But, as a non-Presbyterian, it does trouble me to think of PCA pastors in an independent church.

 

[Mr. Bultitude]

Ligonier has posted a FAQ on the Christology statement that elaborates on many of the issues raised herein:

http://www.ligonier.org/blog/faq-ligonier-statement-christology/

So first they inappropriately issue a new creed... THEN they create a catechism about it? Unbelievable!

 

[MW]

I'm not certain I'm following your logic but, just to be clear, you are stating that the reason why a book exists with 5 different views on inerrancy is because of the Chicago Statement on Inerrancy.

It is worth doing a study on how the dogmatic power has been understood in the reformed tradition. Statements by voluntary bodies can hold no authority for those who believe in the divine right of the church. They show themselves to be divisive. If every voluntary society put forward such statements the divisions would be evident for all to see.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

I'm not certain I'm following your logic but, just to be clear, you are stating that the reason why a book exists with 5 different views on inerrancy is because of the Chicago Statement on Inerrancy.

It is worth doing a study on how the dogmatic power has been understood in the reformed tradition. Statements by voluntary bodies can hold no authority for those who believe in the divine right of the church. They show themselves to be divisive. If every voluntary society put forward such statements the divisions would be evident for all to see.

I'm sorry Matthew, what you said is true with respect to authority to adopt dogmatic statements. I might note, however, that your statement does not have any dogmatic power as it is offered by a private person.

That said, you have not demonstrated the logical connection between a statement on inerrancy and the fact that people with differing views write books. It may offer polemical fodder but you haven't demonstrated any other connection.

 

[MW]

I'm sorry Matthew, what you said is true with respect to authority to adopt dogmatic statements. I might note, however, that your statement does not have any dogmatic power as it is offered by a private person.

Rich, There is a right of private judgment and a fellowship of private conference, and that is what we are participating in. The corporate and public power belongs to the church. A corporate and public statement by a voluntary society is something else.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Does the fact that your statements made here are read by thousands change your private judgment into a public statement?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

 

[earl40]

I'm sorry Matthew, what you said is true with respect to authority to adopt dogmatic statements. I might note, however, that your statement does not have any dogmatic power as it is offered by a private person.

Rich, There is a right of private judgment and a fellowship of private conference, and that is what we are participating in. The corporate and public power belongs to the church. A corporate and public statement by a voluntary society is something else.

Also does this all not boil down to a TE practicing out of bounds. As a former RC, like Rich, I see the problems created by an unbiblical ecclesiology and calling a voluntary society a ministry as if any of the teachings has the backing of a proper ecclesiology.

May I add I can write the above knowing I have scripture, and our confessions, to back up what I am saying. I know one will experienced VERY hostile comeback from many otherwise reformed brothers and sisters if the suggestion is made that Pastor Sproul is teaching anything unreformed as defined in our confessions.

 

[Backwoods Presbyterian]

Does the fact that your statements made here are read by thousands change your private judgment into a public statement?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

Is MW a public/corporate (in both senses of that word) entity who acts and speaks for public and church-wide purposes?

 

[greenbaggins]

There are few people who love Sproul as well as I do. I grew up on his teachings and videos. As many have here noted, he has popularized Reformed theology in a way that few others have done. When he is right, he is really right.

However, he has some theological faults, as all theologians do. Sproul is, I believe, incorrect in his views on the Sabbath, and on his views concerning images of Christ. And I believe he is incorrect in his view of Christology on some points. The standard Reformed formulation on this point is that whatever can be said of either the human or the divine nature can be said of the person as a whole. Furthermore, what is true of one nature can be said of the whole person, which can, in turn, be designated by either nature. This is why it can be said that Mary is the God-bearer, the theotokos, or that God redeemed the church with His own blood. It is the person of Christ who died on the cross, not some abstracted human nature. Sure, God cannot die, but that is different than saying that the person of Christ died on the cross. Charles Hodge's Systematic Theology has one of the very best discussion of these points. If anyone is confused on this point of Christology, I would point them to Hodge.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Does the fact that your statements made here are read by thousands change your private judgment into a public statement?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

Is MW a public/corporate (in both senses of that word) entity who acts and speaks for public and church-wide purposes?

He certainly makes public statements that are read by thousands here. We get about close to a million unique visitors per year.

Here's a public statement made by a parachurch organization: http://www.tbsbibles.org/basis/doctrine-of-holy-scripture

Has this statement led to writing of books with differing views on the Doctrine of Holy Scripture?

 

[Backwoods Presbyterian]

I'll be honest. I do not really understand the point you are trying to get at here with conflating MW's posts on the PB and Ligonier.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

Ligonier has posted a FAQ on the Christology statement that elaborates on many of the issues raised herein:

http://www.ligonier.org/blog/faq-ligonier-statement-christology/

So first they inappropriately issue a new creed... THEN they create a catechism about it? Unbelievable!

Really? This sort of ready, fire, aim is getting out of hand. Where in that FAQ do you see anyone claiming to have issued a new creed? In fact the content therein quitclaims any notion of the sort.

Of course, one can say a creed is a concise statement of belief (so says the explanatory essay), which would mean when taken nakedly, anytime we concisely state what we believe we are making creeds. Of course we are not, we are only making statements with no ecclesial authority.

Given the level of discussion taking place here, at least one goal of the Ligonier Statement is happening...conversations are abounding.

Ligonier Ministries is a Florida non-profit corporation, not a church:
http://tinyurl.com/nn84b5j
http://tinyurl.com/jozn6y2

 

[Semper Fidelis]

I'll be honest. I do not really understand the point you are trying to get at here with conflating MW's posts on the PB and Ligonier.

It's probably more snarky than useful. I wasn't conflating the two. I was only trying to argue that posts on a public board are not really a form of private correspondence.

I agree that the form of the Ligonier Statement has the form of a creed. By external accounts, then, it gives the impression that a creed has been proferred by a parachurch. They call it a public statement but, again, there is the surface level concern that they have assumed to themselves the authority of the Church to make theological pronouncements.

It's problematic on the surface due to the impression it offers. I get it. One needs to go into the FAQ to figure out that it's not really a creed or that there is no intention to supplant Church authority.

I offered the TBS' statement on the doctrine of Holy Scripture that contains both the form of a "We Believe" that could be met with the same disapprobation but I think most of us are accustomed to "societies" (even if that's just another name for parachurch) summarizing key doctrines because they're trying to influence the Church to think a certain way. We typically don't decry these efforts.

I guess I look at the Ligonier statement as something along the lines of something that is meant to be instructive (because they say as much). In fact, in a real sense, even the errors in the Christology have been an impetus for Churchmen to point out why some of the language is dangerously imprecise even in the tense of some verb choices or other emphases.

Also, I think of some of the Overtures that we see that deal with a general laxity around doctrine. Semper Reformanda means that we're trying to deal, in part, with the Church's slide either by neglect or ambivalence. One could argue that we never needed an Overture to make explicit that Intinction is an unlawful practice within a Confessional Presbyterian body. The reasons for the rise of such practices into psuedo-Anglicanism is a general neglect and ignorance of the Confessional standards and the practical import of the doctrines. The only way to begin the process by which one might add a section to the BCO would be for somebody to sit down a draft a copy that might eventually be adopted by the highest court and the Presbyteries. While it is in its unadopted form someone might conclude that a private individual is trying to state something for the Church but we understand that the language is intended for the Church's adoption.

Leaving aside what Ligonier is, one could view the statement as something that they offer as that "draft" of something that Churches might give consideration for. How the Churches use it is up to them but its existence in a certain form does not in itself make it a creedal formula or one in which they have assumed for themselves the role of the Church. They've offered it up for the Church's use.

 

[Jack K]

I usually take it as a good sign when someone cares enough about correct doctrine to make a statement about it. That such a statement will likely not be as robust or precise as the Westminster Standards is a given.

 

[MW]

Does the fact that your statements made here are read by thousands change your private judgment into a public statement?

The fact I hold public office in a church makes me publicly responsible for the statements I make, but that is all. My aim, by God's grace, is to speak to individuals on an individual basis. I do not issue "statements," in the official sense of that word. The Presbytery that ordains ministers exercises that dogmatic power, and the men under the Presbytery ought to submit to that power.

 

[Mr. Bultitude]

Really?

No. It was a joke. I thought that at least the wink would make that clear.

Where in that FAQ do you see anyone claiming to have issued a new creed?

Nowhere. But lots of people in this thread have claimed it. Hence the joke. An FAQ is written in a question-and-answer format, much like a catechism, so I drew a parallel between the historic practice of writing confessions and catechisms and this release of a Christology statement and FAQ. For a laugh.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Does the fact that your statements made here are read by thousands change your private judgment into a public statement?

The fact I hold public office in a church makes me publicly responsible for the statements I make, but that is all. My aim, by God's grace, is to speak to individuals on an individual basis. I do not issue "statements," in the official sense of that word. The Presbytery that ordains ministers exercises that dogmatic power, and the men under the Presbytery ought to submit to that power.

What's your opinion on TBS' Statement? More of the same?

 

[earl40]

The fact I hold public office in a church makes me publicly responsible for the statements I make, but that is all. My aim, by God's grace, is to speak to individuals on an individual basis. I do not issue "statements," in the official sense of that word. The Presbytery that ordains ministers exercises that dogmatic power, and the men under the Presbytery ought to submit to that power.

May I assume the practice of "out of bounds" is something that should not be in existence in Presbyterianism? Of course I am making an assumption that I believe to be correct.

 

[alexandermsmith]

Scott-

Your concerns are well justified. I, frankly, find some of the arguments against what you are saying historically and ecclesiastically bizarre.

1) The Westminster Confession and Catechisms were drawn up by an authorised assembly, the authority being given them by parliament. These documents were then adopted by an authorised body, i.e. the general assembly of the Church of Scotland. They were then passed on to those bodies which sprang from the Church of Scotland, and other Presbyterian denominations' authorised assemblies adopting them. They weren't composed and adopted by individual presbyteries or organisations loosely affiliated with the denominations.

2) Yes there have been numerous confessions and creeds written during history, but in the Reformed church there are only six that hold any ecclesiastical authority: the Three Forms of Unity (themselves adopted by an authorised synod) or the Westminster Standards. The other confessions/catechisms were either replaced by these (if they were officially adopted by the authorised bodies) or they never had ecclesiastical authority.

3) The Ecumenical creeds were composed and adopted, again, by authorised councils.

4) The fact that we are living in an age of voluntarism and fragmentation does not in any way void the authority of these documents. If we no longer have the authority to issue new ecclesiastical creeds and confessions it is because the Reformed church at large has abandoned the Biblical Establishment principle. It has left the church "at sea", as they say.

When someone writes an article they are expressing their own opinion. The same applies when someone writes a book, or posts a comment on a blog. Even preaching does not have the authority that an official confession or creed has. To make this argument- that they are all of a spectrum- is utterly disingenuous. This document has been issued as a creed with the purpose of being used as a creed. They not only have no authority to do this, they have done it badly. I'm, shall we say, unclear as to the motivation behind the great drive today to produce new creeds. But I'm very suspicious of it...

 

[MW]

What's your opinion on TBS' Statement?

I am not a member of the TBS because of its parachurch nature. They not only make statements of doctrine which are questionable, but also conduct public worship and promote speakers who teach on the doctrines of the faith.

At the same time I am thankful for the distribution of Bibles and the other materials which they produce.

 

[MW]

May I assume the practice of "out of bounds" is something that should not be in existence in Presbyterianism? Of course I am making an assumption that I believe to be correct.

Contrary to Independency the Presbyterian view of the ministry is that it is catholic. The church is at present quite fragmented, and we desire her to be brought back to a state of visible unity. If a minister being "out of bounds" facilitates unity it would be a good thing. If it is fostering Independency it would be a bad thing.

 

[Scott Bushey]

Matthew's post sparked a thought; I have been to a Ligonier conferences in the past. If I recall, in their presentations of speakers, they start out their day with times of prayer and then worship music and then, finally, the speaker. Yes, there is no official call and no benediction but again, as I have posited earlier, it is much like a church worship service. Does anyone see this as problematic? I guess one could compare this to a private home gathering (but in a larger level) where song is used and a speaker teaches. I dunno, it's gets a bit suspect for me when all the bells and whistles are present: pastors, teachers, prayer,song, etc.

I don't want to over think this, mind you. Just some random thoughts.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Matthew's post sparked a thought; I have been to a Ligonier conferences in the past. If I recall, in their presentations of speakers, they start out their day with times of prayer and then worship music and then, finally, the speaker. Yes, there is no official call and no benediction but again, as I have posited earlier, it is much like a church worship service. Does anyone see this as problematic? I guess one could compare this to a private home gathering (but in a larger level) where song is used and a speaker teaches. I dunno, it's gets a bit suspect for me when all the bells and whistles are present: pastors, teachers, prayer,song, etc.

I don't want to over think this, mind you. Just some random thoughts.

It's interesting that I just wrote a book on George Whitefield and his impact on American Evangelicalism.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

What's your opinion on TBS' Statement?

I am not a member of the TBS because of its parachurch nature. They not only make statements of doctrine which are questionable, but also conduct public worship and promote speakers who teach on the doctrines of the faith.

At the same time I am thankful for the distribution of Bibles and the other materials which they produce.

Thank you. I appreciate the interaction. We don't have to agree on all points for me to value your thoughts.

 

[Scott Bushey]

Matthew's post sparked a thought; I have been to a Ligonier conferences in the past. If I recall, in their presentations of speakers, they start out their day with times of prayer and then worship music and then, finally, the speaker. Yes, there is no official call and no benediction but again, as I have posited earlier, it is much like a church worship service. Does anyone see this as problematic? I guess one could compare this to a private home gathering (but in a larger level) where song is used and a speaker teaches. I dunno, it's gets a bit suspect for me when all the bells and whistles are present: pastors, teachers, prayer,song, etc.

I don't want to over think this, mind you. Just some random thoughts.

It's interesting that I just wrote a book on George Whitefield and his impact on American Evangelicalism.

How can I get a copy of that, Rich?

 

[Scott Bushey]

Rich,
From what you have written or know, is the parachurch idea a recent development in church history?

 

[Semper Fidelis]

This document has been issued as a creed with the purpose of being used as a creed.

While we can agree on some points, this point is a violation of the 9th Commandment in what it requires and forbids.

 

[BGF]

This document has been issued as a creed with the purpose of being used as a creed.

While we can agree on some points, this point is a violation of the 9th Commandment in what it requires and forbids.

From the Explanatory Essay on The LIGONIER STATEMENT on CHRISTOLOGY:

Paragraph labeled FOR WORSHIP AND EDIFICATION

Ligonier humbly offers this statement for the church. From the early centuries, Christians have used creeds in the church’s liturgy. It is hoped that this statement might serve the same purpose.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

@Mr. Bultitude

Given that statement from Ligonier, I owe David an apology for taking him to task (and missing his intended humor) on the matter. It seems undeniable that Ligonier proffers the Statement in hopes of it being used as a creed by the church.

Please accept my sincere apology, David. I was wrongheaded and should haven taken my own advice to avoid firing before aiming at another.