Presbyterians Together

Status
Not open for further replies.
Originally posted by fredtgreco
I was talking with someone intimately familiar with the controversy and his remark was, "It is remarkable that for someone who is so "balanced" there is not one criticism of the FV that he finds credible or valuable."
Click to expand...

He´s right. As I read this paper, I was thinking, "œThis guy must´ve just said he´s not FV so that non-FVists will actually read his paper."

Seriously, if he can´t think of one legitimate objection to FV then I would think that he would be intellectually dishonest to NOT become FV.
 
Originally posted by DTK
Originally posted by fredtgreco
Not just your opinion. I was talking with someone intimately familiar with the controversy and his remark was, "It is remarkable that for someone who is so "balanced" there is not one criticism of the FV that he finds credible or valuable."
Click to expand...

Ditto! It makes one wonder if the author of the document is counting on the naiveté or stupidity of his readers, perhaps he's the one being naïve. Moreover, it seems to suggest that those of us who are opposed to the FV/NPP are being uncharitable. I, for one, take exception to that.

Moreover, if we are Presbyterians, then let's take the matter to our church courts to adjudicate this doctrinal controversy rather than circulate petitions for sympathetic tolerance of something that has become doctrinally divisive. We've read and heard so much from the FV side about conciliar authority, while in practice they argue their case publicly over the internet.

DTK

[Edited on 5-12-2006 by DTK]
Click to expand...

Exactly David.

And I suppose that it is pure conincidence that after screaming "take it to the church courts" so often (one minister in particular having used this call ad nauseam), now that church courts are finally dealing with this - the OPC justification report, various overtures in the PCA, etc., the call is now - let's stop the judicial process because it is so uncharitable.
 
"Why is that surprising?"

I was asking if it is surprising. That's why I used a question mark.
 
Originally posted by fredtgreco
Originally posted by DTK
Originally posted by fredtgreco
Not just your opinion. I was talking with someone intimately familiar with the controversy and his remark was, "It is remarkable that for someone who is so "balanced" there is not one criticism of the FV that he finds credible or valuable."
Click to expand...

Ditto! It makes one wonder if the author of the document is counting on the naiveté or stupidity of his readers, perhaps he's the one being naïve. Moreover, it seems to suggest that those of us who are opposed to the FV/NPP are being uncharitable. I, for one, take exception to that.

Moreover, if we are Presbyterians, then let's take the matter to our church courts to adjudicate this doctrinal controversy rather than circulate petitions for sympathetic tolerance of something that has become doctrinally divisive. We've read and heard so much from the FV side about conciliar authority, while in practice they argue their case publicly over the internet.

DTK

[Edited on 5-12-2006 by DTK]
Click to expand...

Exactly David.

And I suppose that it is pure conincidence that after screaming "take it to the church courts" so often (one minister in particular having used this call ad nauseam), now that church courts are finally dealing with this - the OPC justification report, various overtures in the PCA, etc., the call is now - let's stop the judicial process because it is so uncharitable.
Click to expand...

Mark Horne (remember him?) takes every opportunity he can to remind people that he is a member in good standing of his presbytery... hopefully other presbyteries will not allow FVists to hide behind orthodox language.

[Edited on 5-13-2006 by Contra_Mundum]
 
Why don't they just call it what it really is? Instead of Presbyterians Together they should call it Unconfessional Presbyterians Together? How many points in the Confession do they have to deny and rework before they admit to not being confessional? (And what's with non-Presbyterians signing this so-called "Presbyterian" document?)

Are we bound to see schisms in the church on account of this? Does this thing smell of Auburn Affirmation, or what?

AN AFFIRMATION
designed to safeguard the unity and liberty
of the Presbyterian Church in the United States of America
Click to expand...

And, for some odd reason, the document quotes Calvin:
For not all articles of true doctrine are of the same sort. Some are so necessary to know that they should be certain and unquestioned by all men as the proper principles of religion...Among the churches there are other articles of doctrine disputed which still do not break the unity of faith...Does this not sufficiently indicate that a difference of opinion over nonessential matters should in nowise be the basis of schism among Christians? (Institutes 4.1.12)
Click to expand...
What? What is this fascination with quoting Calvin when trying to prove your point, while completely taking him out of context? This document is arguing for "tolerance" for anti-confessional beliefs--Calvin is arguing for unity in the face of "petty dissensions" (which certainly can't refer to what's contained in confessional documents).

One of the purposes of the Confession in the first place is that it is the basis of our unity! To be anti-confessional is to be schismatic. Therein seems to be the irony in their call for "anti-confessional togetherness."

:mad:

[Edited on 5-13-2006 by StaunchPresbyterian]
 
This document, and particularly this quote by Frame are reminiscent of what often happens in SBC circles to cut off debate when theology begins to be discussed and debated: "Sit down and shut up, all this theological discussion about what the Bible actually teaches is a distraction so let's whip up enthusiasm for evangelism and missions, because we can all agree on that, right?" Before long, you have the Power Team coming in, and drama, films, and other foolishness crowding out the ministry of Word and Sacrament.

I'd be about as likely to sign this as I would Evangelicals and Catholics Together, to which the title of PPT bears an eerie resemblance. I think those who have compared it to the Auburn Affirmation (in the sense of it eroding confessionalism) are probably on to something.

And regarding censoriousness, you can find it on the FV side in spades, with their pejorative code words "Southern Presbyterian" "gnostic", "Zwinglian" and "revivalistic" being recklessly bandied about (usually being applied to people whose beliefs are anything but Zwinglian, revivalistic, etc.; many just assume that if you disagree with them that the label fits) and when used, acting as that ends the debate.

"Baptistic" is another favorite of theirs, and as some have pointed out, a good many if not a majority of those pushing for paedocommunion and hypercovenantalism are from baptistic backgrounds and have overreacted to the other extreme.

[Edited on 5-14-2006 by Pilgrim]
 
Originally posted by SolaScriptura
Originally posted by fredtgreco
I was talking with someone intimately familiar with the controversy and his remark was, "It is remarkable that for someone who is so "balanced" there is not one criticism of the FV that he finds credible or valuable."
Click to expand...

He´s right. As I read this paper, I was thinking, "œThis guy must´ve just said he´s not FV so that non-FVists will actually read his paper."

Seriously, if he can´t think of one legitimate objection to FV then I would think that he would be intellectually dishonest to NOT become FV.
Click to expand...

:ditto: to Fred and Ben here. These were my thoughts as well upon reading the paper.
 
"Jonathan Edwards believed that censoriousness among Christians was one of the reasons why the Great Awakening lost its revival power. I believe he was right! And I believe that censoriousness is having the same kind of negative effect in our conservative Presbyterian circles today. The document 'Presbyterians and Presbyterians Together' is a wonderful Edwardsean call to orthodox and evangelical Presbyterians to avoid censoriousness for the sake of the Gospel. I am honored to sign the document and I hope that many, many others will do so as well."
-- Samuel T. Logan
Click to expand...

Maybe I am just stupid but what revival or Great Awakening did I miss. This is not the same thing. This is another downgrade controversy that is being addressed. Well, maybe it is a little more since we have a confessional church.

[Edited on 5-15-2006 by puritancovenanter]
 
Originally posted by puritancovenanter
"Jonathan Edwards believed that censoriousness among Christians was one of the reasons why the Great Awakening lost its revival power. I believe he was right! And I believe that censoriousness is having the same kind of negative effect in our conservative Presbyterian circles today. The document 'Presbyterians and Presbyterians Together' is a wonderful Edwardsean call to orthodox and evangelical Presbyterians to avoid censoriousness for the sake of the Gospel. I am honored to sign the document and I hope that many, many others will do so as well."
Click to expand...

If censoriousness could kill a revival, as some of my folk might say, "It ain't a revival." Did censoriousness stop the work of the Spirit in Acts? No.

How is this different than, "You weren't healed because you didn't have enough faith/someone doubted." Really? Didn't someone doubt when Paul was bitten by that snake? Did Paul die? Didn't someone say, after seeing Paul under a pile of rocks, "Man, he must be dead."? Didn't someone say at the shipwreck, "We're all going to die."?

That's the difference between apostolic power and what has passed for "revival" since the 18th century.

This rhetoric also sounds like another version of: "It's those (unregenerate) confessional types again...." or "the danger of an unconverted ministry."

With them (the revivalists) it too often comes down to who is "more spiritual" or who is regenerate and who isn't.

Are those really the right categories for conducting this discussion?

rsc
Click to expand...
 
Dr. Clark,

I happen to think Gilbert Tennent's sermon is outstanding, and I do think that there is much danger in an unconverted ministry. I do think that confessionalism alone, without regeneration, will lead (at best) to dead orthodoxy.

Don't get me wrong, though: I do not for one minute believe that we must throw out confessionalism. We simply must recognize that confessionalism alone is not enough.

But I do agree with your criticism of that quote, especially your appeal to Scripture. :)
 
[The Reformed tradition, particularly as expressed confessionally, represents
a definite set of dogmatic contours, doctrinal boundaries, and exegetical
trajectories. And that is a tradition we happily and warmly embrace as our
own, in conformity with Holy Scripture.]

my favorite line is about "exegetical trajectories"

I am going dress up as purple dinosaur in my next bible study and ask people to happily and warmly embrace my exegetical trajectories.

:p
 
Originally posted by SolaScriptura
Dr. Clark,

I happen to think Gilbert Tennent's sermon is outstanding, and I do think that there is much danger in an unconverted ministry. I do think that confessionalism alone, without regeneration, will lead (at best) to dead orthodoxy.

Don't get me wrong, though: I do not for one minute believe that we must throw out confessionalism. We simply must recognize that confessionalism alone is not enough.

But I do agree with your criticism of that quote, especially your appeal to Scripture. :)
Click to expand...

Well, you're not alone, a lot of folk like that sermon, but it was unfair and, to his credit, he repented of it later in his career.

There is no such thing as dead orthodoxy.

If it's orthodox, it isn't dead. If it's dead, it isn't orthodox.

rsc
 
Originally posted by R. Scott Clark
Well, you're not alone, a lot of folk like that sermon, but it was unfair and, to his credit, he repented of it later in his career.

There is no such thing as dead orthodoxy.

If it's orthodox, it isn't dead. If it's dead, it isn't orthodox.
Click to expand...

I believe he repented of his tone, not of his point.

Please don't split hairs... I think you know exactly what I'm talking about when I make reference to "dead orthodoxy." ;)

Dead refers to the state of the heart... orthodox refers to the nature of their confessed beliefs.

[Edited on 5-15-2006 by SolaScriptura]
 
Originally posted by SolaScriptura
Originally posted by R. Scott Clark
Well, you're not alone, a lot of folk like that sermon, but it was unfair and, to his credit, he repented of it later in his career.

There is no such thing as dead orthodoxy.

If it's orthodox, it isn't dead. If it's dead, it isn't orthodox.
Click to expand...

I believe he repented of his tone, not of his point.

Please don't split hairs... I think you know exactly what I'm talking about when I make reference to "dead orthodoxy." ;)

Dead refers to the state of the heart... orthodox refers to the nature of their confessed beliefs.

[Edited on 5-15-2006 by SolaScriptura]
Click to expand...

I'm not splitting hairs, I'm challenging your definition of "orthodoxy." I don't accept the premise of your analysis. Mere profession of truth isn't orthodoxy.

We have, today, a truncated view of orthodoxy. If we asked any of "orthodox" of the 16th or 17th centuries, they would say, "no, that's an insufficient definition of orthodoxy." Orthodoxy entails true faith and true faith presupposes regeneration.

We're the Pharisees orthodox? No. They were painted tombs.

I think that you might have confused Whitefield's reconsideration of his tone with Tennent's repentance for his sermon. Whitefield did apologize publicly for the tone of some of his ciriticisms of his critics. Tennent, however, realized using the "U" word was a mistake.

First, it isn't reformed. Second, it's not our business. It's not a private judgment. It is an ecclesiastical matter. If a session/consistory has not judged one to be outside of the kingdom, then we may not say that they are (even if we might harbor such suspicions in our hearts).

See Frank Lambert, Inventing "œThe Great Awakening," (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1999), 185-221.

rsc
 
I use the standard definition that is employed to refer to the situation in Lutheranism that gave rise to pietism.

Call it what you will, but I know lots and lots and lots of people who can give you all the right answers - what is in their head is orthodox - but they are dead in their sins.

According to my class notes - and trust me, I am a diligent note taker - in 1756 he apologized for his "intemperate manner." Perhaps my professor was wrong...

Regarding the Pharisees... it wasn't their doctrine that Jesus condemned... it was its lack of effect on their lives.
However, I will concede that Paul apparently makes reference to unorthodox soteriology within the Jews in general (surely it would include the Pharisees) in Rom 9:32.

I'm simply trying to point out what I believe to be quite obvious: you can have a person affirm orthodox doctrine yet be dead in their sins.
In fact, just yesterday I began reading Joseph Alliene who says basically the same thing... ;)

[Edited on 5-15-2006 by SolaScriptura]
 
Originally posted by SolaScriptura
I use the standard definition that is employed to refer to the situation in Lutheranism that gave rise to pietism.
Click to expand...

But I doubt the standard definition. It's written by mostly pietist scholars studying pietism. It's a self-interested definition.

As I read the lit, the scholars of pietism make everyone who ever prayed or attended a Bible study into a pietist.

In other words, the beg the question, the assume the conclusion. The use the regnerate/unregenerate scheme in their definition!

Call it what you will, but I know lots and lots and lots of people who can give you all the right answers - what is in their head is orthodox - but they are dead in their sins.
Click to expand...

This is interesting. It breathes the spirit of G. Tennent.

Ben, be careful here. Are you saying that you know members of true churches who are admitted to the table who are actually sinning impenitently? How do you know this, by observation (you're not claiming special revelation I trust)?

If so, have you approached these persons about the incongruity between their lifestyle and their profession of faith?

Is their session aware of their impenitent sinning?

"Dead orthodoxy" (for the sake of discussion) exists because we allow it to exist - by not exercising the third mark of the true church!

If folk do not live according to their profession of faith and if they live impenitently, they should come under discipline. Such folk, by my definition are not really orthodox.

rsc
 
Dr. Clark,
What about "dead orthodoxy" in Calvinists who don't evangelize? How should the church discipline them? I see this as a serious problem in the Reformed church. For many, the doctrine is right. They aren't immoral outwardly, and they know all the right answers, but they never spread the gospel. How should a session go about correcting that?
 
Originally posted by puritansailor
Dr. Clark,
What about "dead orthodoxy" in Calvinists who don't evangelize? How should the church discipline them? I see this as a serious problem in the Reformed church. For many, the doctrine is right. They aren't immoral outwardly, and they know all the right answers, but they never spread the gospel. How should a session go about correcting that?
Click to expand...

Well, they aren't very orthodox are they?

Why should we concede that hyper-Calvinism is "orthodox?"

That's why I keep saying that there is much more to being Reformed than predestination.

As to immorality in the church, I guess that's been a problem since Corinth. I'm not making light, but trying put it in some context.

The answer is not to play "guess the elect," but to discipline those who profess faith and live impenitently.

rsc
 
I don't mean to say "discipline those who don't do evangelism," because I don't accept the premise.

I think we ought to distinguish between what is done in the pulpit (evangelism) from what is done by the "pew" as it were -- witness.

I'm not advocating discipline for those who do not witness sufficiently. Who would judge that? On what basis?

I'm advocating discipline for those who openly defy their profession, who bring the church into disrepute and who scandalize the church.

Otherwise, regarding the "pew," we must pray and teach and wait for the Spirit to work. Willingness to testify to one's faith and the faith are borne of faith and conviction and compassion for the lost. I think that most folk will do what they see their pastor do.

If ministers won't fulfill their duty to "evangelize" by preaching the gospel then that is a matter for ecclesiastical discipline.

rsc
 
Originally posted by R. Scott Clark
I don't mean to say "discipline those who don't do evangelism," because I don't accept the premise.

I think we ought to distinguish between what is done in the pulpit (evangelism) from what is done by the "pew" as it were -- witness.

I'm not advocating discipline for those who do not witness sufficiently. Who would judge that? On what basis?

...
rsc
Click to expand...

I think we can discipline Christians who fail to evangelize via the pulpit. I know you are speaking of more official or "church" discipline, but is not the "sermon" also is a tool of discipline in an informal yet powerful way? We chastise as well as encourage the body through sermons. The Spirit will convict those who are not living out their faith as fully as they should.
 
Originally posted by Civbert
Originally posted by R. Scott Clark
I don't mean to say "discipline those who don't do evangelism," because I don't accept the premise.

I think we ought to distinguish between what is done in the pulpit (evangelism) from what is done by the "pew" as it were -- witness.

I'm not advocating discipline for those who do not witness sufficiently. Who would judge that? On what basis?

...
rsc
Click to expand...

I think we can discipline Christians who fail to evangelize via the pulpit. I know you are speaking of more official or "church" discipline, but is not the "sermon" also is a tool of discipline in an informal yet powerful way? We chastise as well as encourage the body through sermons. The Spirit will convict those who are not living out their faith as fully as they should.
Click to expand...

Yes, I agree, given the distinction between what laity do (witness) and what ministers do (evangelize).

We should pray that God the Spirit will use the gospel to move his people to witness to their faith and the faith.

We should discipline ministers who fail to discharge their most fundamental duty - to preach the gospel; which is nothing but evangelism.

rsc
 
Acid Ink takes this on.

Wednesday, 24th May, 2006
Little Known Document Recovered By Archivist

In 1860 the Democratic Party was the one institutional structure that was holding together the Union. Eventually the Democratic Party splintered into two parties -- the Northern Democrats who supported Stephen A. Douglas, and the Southern Democrats who supported John Breckenridge.

Now, what's not so well known is that those who were responsible for the division in the Democratic Party published a document that held out hope of reconciliation between the two factions. This document was titled as, "Democrats and Democrats Together." This document promised that those who had been instrumental in the division in the party would henceforth deal charitably with their fellow Democrats.

The 'Democrats and Democrats Together' document garnered many signatories but most of them were from Democrats who had, ironically, been the ones who stirred up the strife that they were now trying to conciliate or they were Democrats who were clueless about the Party politics that had been going on for years, or most odd of all, the document was signed by many Republicans, Whigs, and various Know Nothings.

Of course we know from History that the 'Democrats and Democrats Together' document had absolutely no effect of calming the troubled waters in the Democratic party of 1860.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

C
  • Locked
FVer attempts to equate Presbyterians (PCA) with medieval Romanists...
2
Replies
33
Views
5K
NaphtaliPress
NaphtaliPress
Back
Top