Puritan Board and it's potential for edification

[JohnV]

It was not long ago that Wilson was a Reformed Baptist, and now he gives communion to babies. What next? Who knows?

Of all things, Wilson´s paedocommunionism is the least of the trouble. Justification is much more important a topic to deal with.

And even this is not half as bad the the glaring mistake of contempt for the church and for the Word, preaching things based solely on his own convictions, which are as changing as the wind even for the most stable of men. For me, I don't have to get into all these new perspectives, they've already blown their convincing ability, no matter how solid they think their reasoning is, simply because they acted unilaterally, which is a betrayal of their office, not a licence within their office. No matter how glaring a heresy one preaches, the real fault is that they presented it as God's Word when they had no warrant from anyone but themselves. It doesn't even have to be a heresy; it becomes a heresy when they preach it as God's Word when it isn't.

That is the reason not to listen to anything any of the A-4 men preach. That's my reason, anyways. And Matt is by far well within that bounds to advise as he did.

You won't find this schismatic kind of attitude in Matt or Scott. No matter how strong a stand they have taken, they have always respected the person and the individuality of each of us. What they have had issue with is not that people have different views, but that they jump to certain conclusions without hearing either the tenor or the particulars of what was said with the same amount of care that Matt or Scott had when they presented their sharpened views. Maybe they haven't reacted in the best way every time, but neither have I so I am not going to throw stones at them. They have my respect, for they have earned it.

[Edited on 8-1-2005 by JohnV]

 

[C. Matthew McMahon]

I think your post was very helpful overall. I appreciate your friendliness and your forthrightness, and your clarifications.

 

[fredtgreco]

Originally posted by webmaster

It was not long ago that Wilson was a Reformed Baptist, and now he gives communion to babies. What next? Who knows?

Of all things, Wilson´s paedocommunionism is the least of the trouble. Justification is much more important a topic to deal with.

Actually, at the risk of getting both Matt and Greg on my case, I would disagree with this. Why?

Because I don't think that Wilson has been clearly articulating against sola fide. He has made some problematical statements and other problematical associations. But he has clearly embraced paedocommunion. And I would argue that paedocommunion will lead nearly inevitably to the denial of evangelical (in the old, good sense of the word) theology. Paedocommunion is all about membership over profession, presumption over revival. I would argue that any problems that Wilson would have with traditional Reformed formulations on justification (a-la WCF or 3FU) stem from his paedocommunion, rather than the reverse.

There is a reason why paedocommunion has only been adopted by Eastern Orthodox churches, and why EO churches have the doctrine of salvation that they do.

 

[raderag]

I find it extremely edifying.

However, I find myself posting on another board much more often as I get to interact with Christians from other traditions. I would hope that somehow PB could somehow be a beacon of light to others in that people in other traditions could directly interact with PB through honest questions without having to affirm a reformed confession.

 

[LawrenceU]

I've been thinking some all day on this and other issue related to leading a forum such as this. Whether we like it or not we must realise that everything said here has a much larger audience than those registered, and what is said here because of the nature of rapid written response is very different from the written 'debates' of ages past. In that light:

Greg beat me to the punch on one account: how are switches and theological positions handled by one in leadership? I am a pastor. There are positions which I hold that I do not share openly with everyone in my congregation at the same level of information. Do they affect my preaching? Certainly. For example: I believe in the RPW. I've taught that principle from the pulpit and never once used the theological name tag. I hold some views that are vastly more conservative theologically than many in my congregation. I don't however air those all or most of the time. I try to prayerfully and wisely use the underlying principles of those convictions in education and edification and trust that the Holy Spirit will use that to shape the hearts and lives of our members.

Secondly, there is a great deal of potential for edification on the PB. It's existence is not something to be taken lightly and involvment with it in a leadership level is not to be taken lightly as well. There are 'oodles' of people who lurk this board; both Christian and non-Chrisitian, reformed and unreformed. Words said here show up in some of the strangest places and conversations. Given that it adds gravity to what is taking place here. Its edification factor or tearing down factor are greater that what appears on the surface.

I apologise for the rambling nature of this post. I'm still perculating on more thoughts and directions.

 

[C. Matthew McMahon]

Originally posted by fredtgreco

Originally posted by webmaster

It was not long ago that Wilson was a Reformed Baptist, and now he gives communion to babies. What next? Who knows?

Of all things, Wilson´s paedocommunionism is the least of the trouble. Justification is much more important a topic to deal with.

Actually, at the risk of getting both Matt and Greg on my case, I would disagree with this. Why?

Because I don't think that Wilson has been clearly articulating against sola fide. He has made some problematical statements and other problematical associations. But he has clearly embraced paedocommunion. And I would argue that paedocommunion will lead nearly inevitably to the denial of evangelical (in the old, good sense of the word) theology. Paedocommunion is all about membership over profession, presumption over revival. I would argue that any problems that Wilson would have with traditional Reformed formulations on justification (a-la WCF or 3FU) stem from his paedocommunion, rather than the reverse.

There is a reason why paedocommunion has only been adopted by Eastern Orthodox churches, and why EO churches have the doctrine of salvation that they do.

Not to jump on your case - do you think laymen would be more intrigued by new covenantal ideas surrounding justification, or surrounding paedocommunion? I would tend to think new ideas on justification would be more attractive that "paedo...what?" But I see your point.

 

[raderag]

Originally posted by LawrenceU
There are 'oodles' of people who lurk this board; both Christian and non-Chrisitian, reformed and unreformed.

Do we know this is true, and if so, to what extent?

 

[fredtgreco]

Originally posted by webmaster

Originally posted by fredtgreco

Originally posted by webmaster

It was not long ago that Wilson was a Reformed Baptist, and now he gives communion to babies. What next? Who knows?

Of all things, Wilson´s paedocommunionism is the least of the trouble. Justification is much more important a topic to deal with.

Actually, at the risk of getting both Matt and Greg on my case, I would disagree with this. Why?

Because I don't think that Wilson has been clearly articulating against sola fide. He has made some problematical statements and other problematical associations. But he has clearly embraced paedocommunion. And I would argue that paedocommunion will lead nearly inevitably to the denial of evangelical (in the old, good sense of the word) theology. Paedocommunion is all about membership over profession, presumption over revival. I would argue that any problems that Wilson would have with traditional Reformed formulations on justification (a-la WCF or 3FU) stem from his paedocommunion, rather than the reverse.

There is a reason why paedocommunion has only been adopted by Eastern Orthodox churches, and why EO churches have the doctrine of salvation that they do.

Not to jump on your case - do you think laymen would be more intrigued by new covenantal ideas surrounding justification, or surrounding paedocommunion? I would tend to think new ideas on justification would be more attractive that "paedo...what?" But I see your point.

No jumping perceived.

I think that laymen are more intrigued by paedocommunion, and that teachers are more intrigued to teach it. Why? Becuase it has the appearance of orthodoxy. It also has the advantage of being able to hold on to some classic formulations and merely be presenting an improvement, or a semper reformanda, even a sola Scriptura.

Experience bears this out. Which did NT Wright teach first? Wilkins? It was paedocommunion. In fact, there is no coincidence to me that the vast majority of NPP and FV supporters in the PCA and OPC were first paedocommunion advocates.

 

[raderag]

Originally posted by joshua

Originally posted by raderag
I find it extremely edifying.

However, I find myself posting on another board much more often as I get to interact with Christians from other traditions. I would hope that somehow PB could somehow be a beacon of light to others in that people in other traditions could directly interact with PB through honest questions without having to affirm a reformed confession.

I think because PB requires adherence to a reformed confession is precisely one of the greatest reasons the board is edifying.

I agree, but I think it would be nice for it to be opened up for questions and interaction in a limited way. If you really want to understand your theology, then test it against those that disagree.

[Edited on 8-1-2005 by raderag]

 

[fredtgreco]

Originally posted by raderag

Originally posted by LawrenceU
There are 'oodles' of people who lurk this board; both Christian and non-Chrisitian, reformed and unreformed.

Do we know this is true, and if so, to what extent?

Yes, it is absolutely true. Both Lawrence and I can vouch for firsthand conversations with many who are lurkers or non-posters.

But as objective evidence, consider this:

• There are 1215 members of PB. This is AFTER I purged all zero-posters about 6 months ago
• In the past year alone, AFTER we established membership validation procedures (a bio, membership in a church, etc), roughly 400 people have joined
• Right now (3:17 CT), there are 18 registered user online. There are also 21 Guests online.

[Edited on 8/1/2005 by fredtgreco]

 

[raderag]

Originally posted by fredtgreco

Originally posted by raderag

Originally posted by LawrenceU
There are 'oodles' of people who lurk this board; both Christian and non-Chrisitian, reformed and unreformed.

Do we know this is true, and if so, to what extent?

Yes, it is absolutely true. Both Lawrence and I can vouch for firsthand conversations with many who are lurkers or non-posters.

But as objective evidence, consider this:

• There are 1215 members of PB. This is AFTER I purged all zero-posters about 6 months ago
• In the past year alone, AFTER we established membership validation procedures (a bio, membership in a church, etc), roughly 400 people have joined
• Right now (3:17 CT), there are 18 registered user online. There are also 21 Guests online.

[Edited on 8/1/2005 by fredtgreco]

That is great to here. Of course, I am sure that some of my statements will live in infamy.

 

[LawrenceU]

Originally posted by raderag

Originally posted by LawrenceU
There are 'oodles' of people who lurk this board; both Christian and non-Chrisitian, reformed and unreformed.

Do we know this is true, and if so, to what extent?

As Fred stated I, he, and others on the board have had many converstations with lurkers. Mine are mostly people in my geographical area who recognise me and then contact me. Other times people have mentioned reading something here in conversation. It would be interesting to do a study of hits and IP if that were possible.

To see why this might be taking place just use google. There is a growing awareness of Reformed thinking among many younger Christians. In this they often begin to be intrigued by the Puritans. (This wonderful by the way!) They will inevitably turn to the internet for research and reading. Let's just suppose that they read something about EP. Type 'exclusive psalmody puritan' into google and see what pops up. Type in baptism. I could go on. APM and PB pop up regularly at the top end of search engine lists.

 

[VirginiaHuguenot]

See this thread.

 

[Scott Bushey]

Lawrence writes:

......who recognise me

Lawrence, how do they recognize you??? isn't that a picture of Pastor James?

 

[LawrenceU]

Actually, it was the posting of that photograph that led to my discovery by some folks. They went to all the trouble of going to the 11th GA Artillery site and finding my email address there. As it turns out they live just a little piece from us. The others are young folks who are connected to our ministry in one fashion or another, or know folks that are. It doesn't take much when you already know me to know that its me.

Well, even while trying to be clandestine I've been found. There are no other pastors with my name in the state. So, if you'll notice, I've now thrown caution to the wind and listed my church. I've already been 'hauled up' for my doctrinal stances by the higher ups so it really doesn't matter any longer. But, neither am I spoiling for a fight.

 

[Bladestunner316]

Why do people stay if they are not edified?

Blade

 

[Scott Bushey]

Originally posted by Bladestunner316
Why do people stay if they are not edified?

Blade

Nathan,
That question has been posed with no response. I'd surely like to know as well???

 

[pastorway]

That is not the correct question to ask in the first place.

If one is not edified we should not ask, "Why are you here?" or even worse, "Why haven't you left yet?"

We should ask, "Why are you not edified and what can we do to change that so that you might be edified in your future participation."

And personally, I give a big to Greg and Lawrence and what they have posted. The board used to be more edifying than it is currently. The more narrow the discussions become the more hostile an environment we seem to have to endure.

Phillip

[Edited on 8-2-05 by pastorway]

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

Originally posted by raderag
I find it extremely edifying.

However, I find myself posting on another board much more often as I get to interact with Christians from other traditions. I would hope that somehow PB could somehow be a beacon of light to others in that people in other traditions could directly interact with PB through honest questions without having to affirm a reformed confession.

(1Ti 6:3-5) If any man teach otherwise, and consent not to wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which is according to godliness; He is proud, knowing nothing, but doting about questions and strifes of words, whereof cometh envy, strife, railings, evil surmises, Perverse disputings of men of corrupt minds, and destitute of the truth, supposing that gain is godliness: from such withdraw thyself.

(2Ti 2:23-26) But foolish and unlearned questions avoid, knowing that they do gender strifes. And the servant of the Lord must not strive; but be gentle unto all men, apt to teach, patient, In meekness instructing those that oppose themselves; if God peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth; And that they may recover themselves out of the snare of the devil, who are taken captive by him at his will.

I actually believe having a confessional group helps keep focus. The adherence to the confessions keep us central to the scriptures and each other. Our conclusions are more focused around the doctrines of God instead of ideas about them. If anyone wants to ask a question they can e-mail the webmaster and I am sure he will respond in kind. This helps to keep the unity we have on this board. It limits the strife and problematic people who would just want to cause problems. Since we are not an organized church it helps us keep the unity of spirit. I believe keeping confessional members is a mainstay and very beneficial to all who look from afar and near. It is definitely beneficial to us who participate In my humble opinion.

For Christ's Crown and Covenant, Randy


P.S. I believe we are a beacon of light. I have visited other boards and find them to be just one big disagreement and very little unity. We may disagree on baptism and ep but we have much more in common and better fellowship in spirit than the other forums I have visited. I have had much more personal interaction with these guys also. What a great group of guys and gals to pray with. We all know who our head is. It isn't Matt or Scott or anyone else. It is the Holy Triune God. That is light.

[Edited on 8-2-2005 by puritancovenanter]

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

Originally posted by pastorway


......And personally, I give a big to Greg and Lawrence and what they have posted. The board used to be more edifying than it is currently. The more narrow the discussions become the more hostile an environment we seem to have to endure.

Phillip

[Edited on 8-2-05 by pastorway]

I do agree with Phil about this.

 

[BrianBowman]

I have had some more time to ponder the "edification factor" here on PB. In the spirit of what Pastor Way has just shared, I would add the following:

In general "Educated Reformed folk" tend to have the reputation of being a bit stiff, doctrinaire, and not able to fully suffer those with less finely tuned rhetorical skills. A clearly visible theme in the Scriptures is the responsiblity of "superiors" to nuture, teach, and instruct "inferiors". The Westminister Larger Catechism says the following:

129. What is required of superiors towards their inferiors?
It is required of superiors, according to that power they receive from God, and that relation wherein they stand, to love, pray for, and bless their inferiors; to instruct, counsel, and admonish them; countenancing, commending, and rewarding such as do well; and discountenancing, reproving, and chastising such as do ill; protecting, and providing for them all things necessary for soul and body: and by grave, wise, holy, and exemplary carriage, to procure glory to God, honor to themselves, and so to preserve that authority which God has put upon them.

Of course there are numerous New Testament Scriptures that bear on this with great authority, clarity, and precision.

Clearly there are many here (e.g. Matt, Scott, Fred, Bruce, etc.) who are "superiors". While I'll admit that given my background I may be an "odd duck" here on the PB, I think an extra measure of tenderness for newcomers who at not seasoned in the Reformed Faith would be welcome. Frankly, I know enough to "argue dangerously", but that's about it in this circle of intelligentsia.

I think the "Reformed Crowd" in general would do well to a page out the Southern Baptist (... and I dare say even Pentecostal) "playbook" and give some "sloppy agape" every once in while. I'm honestly not trying to be critical, and I'll admit that I'm probably still a "wounded pup" from seeing my former "dispensational nirvana" slowly meltdown as a tangled web of deception, immorality, and severe doctrinal error was exposed in the leaders of my former ministry. Also, there many other such wounded out there in cyber-space and I would hope the solidity of the Reformed perspective, presented here on the PB, would offer healing for us one and all.

[Edited on 8-2-2005 by BrianBowman]

 

[Bladestunner316]

I think you guys missed what I was saying I wasnt implying that we should try to figure out why people are not edified. Its nto that per se. Its more if you are not getting anything out of this then why stay? its simple I think i dont mean to be rude but if you dont like it here or anywhere why stay? Im not saying I dont want people to stay I dont want people to leave. i want to see this place grow. I just dont understand why when some people are clearly disgusted with this place why stay? you understand what Im saying. I Love it here best message board Ive been on. i by all means want this place to be welcome to all who subscrine and am disapointed by those who are discouraged. But that is why we have moderators. There there to listen and help out with any concerns. anyway sorry if rubbed people the wrong way.

In Christ,
Blade

 

[Scott Bushey]

Originally posted by Bladestunner316
I think you guys missed what I was saying I wasnt implying that we should try to figure out why people are not edified. Its nto that per se. Its more if you are not getting anything out of this then why stay? its simple I think i dont mean to be rude but if you dont like it here or anywhere why stay? Im not saying I dont want people to stay I dont want people to leave. i want to see this place grow. I just dont understand why when some people are clearly disgusted with this place why stay? you understand what Im saying. I Love it here best message board Ive been on. i by all means want this place to be welcome to all who subscrine and am disapointed by those who are discouraged. But that is why we have moderators. There there to listen and help out with any concerns. anyway sorry if rubbed people the wrong way.

In Christ,
Blade

Nathan,
I agree. It's that simple, if you do not find edification here and you continue to frequesnt this place, then you may be even sinning coming here. Do something more constructive, more edifying with your time. As well, edification comes in degree's as well as it is interpreted differently by different people. These people have different intellects. One person could be edified by the deep cerebral conversations and another person bored to tears, not understanding at all what is being said. The person whom is bored will not be edified.

As far as your comment Phillip, even though Lawrence and yourself feel that the board was more edifying in days past, does not mean that it is not more edifying today to another individual. You mention conversations that have become more narrow leading to this sentiment. Why wouldn't you want to 'narrow' things down? Christ was accustomed to looking at even the jots and tittles; should we not follow His lead. As Matt has said, having to use one's brain and really think is painful; sanctification is painful. If pain brings sanctification, so be it.


[Edited on 8-2-2005 by Scott Bushey]

 

[LawrenceU]

I have no problem at all with one narrowing his theological understanding. As a matter of fact I work in that direction all the time. However, what disturbs me at times is how some take their narrowing and then imply that unless others are in the self same position then they are lesser in some form or another. In the epistles of Paul we see him making statments that allow for a great variety of personal convictions in areas such as days, meats, etc. He does this without judging - except for the one who foists his convictions upon others.

Jesus said that not a jot or tittle of the Law would pass until all was fulfilled. That is the only time the words are used in the entirety of the gospels. In referring to the minutae of the law and its interpretation he presses that the weightier matters of God's word have primary importance. We must be sure and keep our priorities straight. I'm not implying anything here, just stating a position. (Matt 23.23)

 

[Scott Bushey]

Lawrence,
I appreciate what you have said. I only mention 'jots & tittles' as an example that Christ did in fact give creedance to the 'minutia'.

My point is, what might be edifying to one person may not be to the next & vice versa.

 

[pastorway]

we cannot make the mistake of believing that change in theological positions automatically means that people are being sanctified. Sanctificiation does lead us into deeper understanding of the Word and will of God, but we cannot always equate change with growth.

In fact, it is also true that, as Greg rightly posted, we look to those who do not make major shifts, those who are mature in what they believe, as being able to provide reliable, stable leadership. It is difficult to follow a person who makes major changes in quick successsion, even if by quick we are looking at several years.

Pastors especially are to be mature, stable, settled in the areas of major doctrinal stance. I am not saying that pastors cannot change, but if he does, especially in a major area, he needs wisdom and understanding in conveying that to his congregation. A sudden change in leadership is usually never good for the congregation as a whole.

And it is the CHURCH we are to be edifying ( "building up" ), not ourselves!! So when I say that the board has been more edifying in the past, I do not say that just about edifying me, but overall my concern is that things have become so narrow that those new to the reformed faith will not even know what we are talking about and certainly then the church is not being built up, but confused.

I tend to look at the board pastorally rather than personally - what benefit is this to the church corporately. And of late, in my opinion, it has been far from edifying.

Phillip

[Edited on 8-2-05 by pastorway]

[Edited on 8-2-2005 by webmaster]

 

[doulosChristou]

Originally posted by pastorway
we cannot make the mistake of believing that change in theological positions automatically means that people are being sanctified. Sanctificiation does lead us into deeper understanding of the Word and will of God, but we cannot always equate change with growth.

In fact, it is also true that, as Greg rightly posted, we look to those who do not make major shifts, those who are mature in what they believe, as being able to provide reliable, stable leadership. It is difficult to follow a person who makes major changes in quick successsion, even if by quick we are looking at several years.

Pastors especially are to be mature, stable, settled in the areas of major doctrinal stance. I am not saying that pastors cannot change, but if he does, especially in a major area, he needs wisdom and understanding in conveying that to his congregation. A sudden change in leadership is usually never good for the congregation as a whole.

And it is the CHURCH we are to be edifying ( "building up" ), not ourselves!! So when I say that the board has been more edifying in the past, I do not say that just about edifying me, but overall my concern is that things have become so narrow that those new to the reformed faith will not even know what we are talking about and certainly then the church is not being built up, but confused.

I tend to look at the board pastorally rather than personally - what benefit is this to the church corporately. And of late, in my opinion, it has been far from edifying.

Phillip

Thank you. You just articulated one of the points I was trying to make above, and you did a much better job of it. Also, "it is the CHURCH we are to be edifying ( building up ), not ourselves!"

[Edited on 8-2-2005 by webmaster]

 

[C. Matthew McMahon]

{MODERATE}

I don't think that discourse really is edifying for the conversation. What was said in the Admin forum should remain there unless you want us to move the entire thread where this was being discussed into the public forum. That also would not suit the gist of this conversation.

 

[LawrenceU]

what might be edifying to one person may not be to the next & vice versa.

Yes, that is true.

 

[C. Matthew McMahon]

If that is true, then Phillip and Greg are misunderstanding the nature of the board, as to what they just posted and dittoed.