Cringe-worthy No Quarter November trailer

Status
Not open for further replies.
As David Gadbois remarked nearly three years ago:

“What makes me sad about this whole business, stretching back 15 years now to the 2002 Auburn Avenue Conference, is the destructive divisiveness it has caused within the reformed churches, the churches that have been broken apart, churches leaving their denominations, massive failures of church discipline to correct/expel FV adherents, the apostates to Rome it created, the MASSIVE amount of time, energy, and resources of Christ’s church that were diverted to address these errors (time we could have been reaching the lost, evangelizing, church planting, etc.).”

First comment taken from here: https://greenbaggins.wordpress.com/2017/01/17/douglas-wilson-federal-vision-no-more/
 
RWD said:
Taylor,

I’m sorry but I thought you were asking for evidence of him harming the sheep when you posted: “But I haven't noticed any evidence posted or cited with regard to things like harming the sheep (outside of issue people have with his doctrine).”

I understood you to be looking for concrete evidence that would either: (a) legitimize the concerns people have had with Wilson’s doctrine, or (b) point to additional (non doctrinal) ways in which Wilson harmed the sheep.

If you’re satisfied with (a), that Wilson indeed did harm the sheep with confusing and even damning doctrine, then I think (b), for all practical purposes, is moot. In other words, if Wilson did (a), then (b) pales insignificant.

Yes, I agree we must be even hyper careful in light of the Ninth Commandment. However, I’m not quite sure how it’s even possible to harm the sheep by introducing damnable heresy without also harming the sheep in other divisive ways. Doug Wilson’s teaching and associations did just that. Not only did FV disturb the souls of the saints, FV destroyed churches and relationships.

Wilson should have renounced his pulpit ministry and taken his seat in the pew years ago. Even his public apology was more of the same, utterly confusing.

I appreciate your earnest desire to defend one’s good name. That is honorable.
Click to expand...

I see. Yes, when I requested evidence for “harming the sheep,” I added the deliberate qualifier “outside issues with false doctrine” because “harming the sheep,” at least in this case, was mixed in with this like accusations of sexual abuse, blackmailing, etc. I wasn’t sure if “harming the sheep” then had to do merely with false doctrine, or something more. That’s why I wanted examples, because I just didn’t know what that phrase meant.

And I want to re-emphasize, I have no particular interest in defending Wilson. I have never read anything he’s written, not even a blog post. I’ve never even heard him speak. It’s not like I am trying to defend him (frankly I don’t really particularly like him, outside of his social commentary), and I don’t want it to come off that way. I guess these days I am particularly sensitive to people on social media (which includes this forum) throwing labels out at people, without giving credible, concrete evidence in that context (i.e., not simply saying, “Go look it up”), and then suspecting everyone who doesn’t entirely want to believe them of being in sincere support of said person and their alleged sin. It happens all the time and everywhere.

But, as I said earlier, people here have provided evidence, for which I am thankful, and which I will look into.

Sorry for the confusion.
 
While I dislike dissention and seeing things torn apart there was a creeping in that is always at our doorstep. Auburn Avenue was only a place in time where things culminated into a merging of various things. Some people think it started with Norman Shepherd. Meredith Kline was a pendulum swing in the opposite direction in reaction to him. Both are fringes that produced problems that took a lot of time away and there are damages on both sides. The one thing that has arisen from the ashes to me is that the Standards have proven to be a place that has produced a reliable guide in truth. Both sides of the extreme pendulum swings proved to have problems that have been destructive to the souls they heavily influenced. But the strengthening of the Standard's position has been obvious to many. And I am not Machen's Warrior Child. I have grown to love the Standards because of this process though. I know many people who have. I actually believe there has been a strengthening that has happened since the disease that both sides have has been exposed. I also believe we are going to need that strengthening because I believe we are headed for harder times.
 
Taylor Sexton said:
I see. Yes, when I requested evidence for “harming the sheep,” I added the deliberate qualifier “outside issues with false doctrine” because “harming the sheep,” at least in this case, was mixed in with this like accusations of sexual abuse, blackmailing, etc. I wasn’t sure if “harming the sheep” then had to do merely with false doctrine, or something more. That’s why I wanted examples, because I just didn’t know what that phrase meant.

And I want to re-emphasize, I have no particular interest in defending Wilson. I have never read anything he’s written, not even a blog post. I’ve never even heard him speak. It’s not like I am trying to defend him (frankly I don’t really particularly like him, outside of his social commentary), and I don’t want it to come off that way. I guess these days I am particularly sensitive to people on social media (which includes this forum) throwing labels out at people, without giving credible, concrete evidence in that context (i.e., not simply saying, “Go look it up”), and then suspecting everyone who doesn’t entirely want to believe them of being in sincere support of said person and their alleged sin. It happens all the time and everywhere.

But, as I said earlier, people here have provided evidence, for which I am thankful, and which I will look into.

Sorry for the confusion.
Click to expand...

My suspicion was you might have taken issue with whether one could substantiate the non doctrinal infractions. Frankly, some of those seem pretty out there to me. If they can be substantiated, I personally would not want to become acquainted with the evidence(s). Hopefully if they’re legitimate, I hope they’ve already been addressed ecclesiastically and that suitable counseling is in place. I have no opinion on the allegations.

Always appreciative of you, Taylor. :)
 
RWD said:
Hopefully if they’re legitimate, I hope they’ve already been addressed ecclesiastically and that suitable counseling is in place
Click to expand...

Normally you would be correct. But this isn't a regular church setting. This is the CREC. Wilson is the pope. But even more, presbyteries in the CREC (at least then) can only recommend.
 
An off topic here but since I am a beginner to understanding FV theology, do you have any stuff concerning its destructive effect to the church of Christ?
 
I’m wondering if Wilson has been morphing into a modern day (albeit much crustier version of)William Jennings Bryan with an emphasis on culture war and political clout. The Church will continue to be attacked from every side regardless, but Machen maintained the first things of Reformed faith, notably the doctrines of grace and sin. Our interest in public, temporal and worldly matters seem to fast-track the church down a wrong course which eventually backfires. It seems like history keeps repeating. https://www.ligonier.org/learn/articles/holding-line/
“in several successive General Assemblies, the denomination showed no willingness to be divisive and chose instead administrative solutions that were designed to lessen the tensions. One of these measures involved a study committee whose report blamed conservatives for the contentiousness in the church, and it called for all sides, especially conservatives, to stop their public criticisms of liberals. The drive for unity had supplanted a concern for correct doctrine.”

“What stands out in the denominational part of the fundamentalist controversy is that the ecumenical drive that had dominated Protestant agencies since 1870 had cultivated an organizational ethos that made theological disagreement anathema. In effect, Protestants, as the Presbyterian example makes clear, never had a real chance to hear or debate the new ideas that were being taught or critiqued in the seminaries because of the need to avoid problems that might divide the churches organizationally. ...The slogan of the era fittingly was “doctrine divides, ministry unites.”

“Bryan and Machen, for instance, though opposed to liberalism, did so for different reasons. For Bryan, liberalism was threatening Christian civilization in the United States, hence the need to expurgate evolution from the public schools. But Bryan gave little support to the efforts that Machen initiated in the Presbyterian Church. As Machen explained in his most popular book, Christianity and Liberalism (1923), the real cause for alarm in the church was not how God created or in what way Christ would return, as important as these teachings might be. Something far more basic was at stake, namely, the doctrines of sin and grace.”
“What was at stake in the fundamentalist-modernist controversy was not the secularization of America but the secularization of the church.”
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

R
The origins and meaning of the phrase "light from any quarter"
Replies
3
Views
770
Tom Hart
T
NaphtaliPress
  • Locked
Confessional Presbyterian journal 7 (2011) available end of November, contents below
Replies
9
Views
2K
NaphtaliPress
NaphtaliPress
P
  • Locked
We need better champions against Wokeism (the Founders Trailer disaster)
2 3 4
Replies
105
Views
11K
VictorBravo
VictorBravo
B
  • Locked
no post
Replies
0
Views
1K
BJClark
B
SolaScriptura
  • Locked
no post
Replies
9
Views
2K
BrianBowman
B
Back
Top