Some cautions regarding the FV/NPP controversy

[BobVigneault]

Many theological warriors are rallying to do battle right now. Many theologs love a good fight. I don't. I'm a moderate, not in that I won't take sides, I will. Not in that I want peace at any price, I don't. I'm a moderate in that I believe every response should be thought out over time and examined for overly passionate overtones. In other words, let's moderate our responses.

Moderation is not an abundant commodity in the reformed community.

I have read through most of the OPC's Report on Justification and I have read quite a few responses to it. After the OPC General Assembly, the report will be official and we will be able to discuss it openly on the PB.

In the meantime, let me tell you what the general response is to the report by those implicated as proponents of NPP and FV. They are saying, "That's not what I meant!"

This response is the perfect expression of the most distinctive feature of the controversy - Ambiguous Language. We are arguing over what Paul meant when he used certain words, for example: "works of the law". NPP says we need to understand how the 1st Century pharisees understood these words. Well, believe it or not, there was a lack of clarity among the consensus 2000 years ago. So while we argue over the ambiguity of a first century idea we use brand new words like "future justification". In the 21st century there is a lack of agreement about what we mean when we say "future justification".

I don't want to engage any one in argument over these terms, not here anyway, but I want us to understand that much of the controversy has come about because the NPP people and the FV people have created an atmosphere, a forum that has given rise to so much ambiguity and wiggle room that our classical doctrines may be challenged depending on what these proponents mean.

The FV/NPP proponents are able to use that wiggle room and say, "That's not what I meant". So how do we solve a problem where no one is saying what they mean? What we will do is affirm again the doctrines as described with remarkable conciseness and clarity in the standards. We will then ask these creative thinkers if they hold to them. It will involve a lot of defining of words.

So for now, don't be so bent on taking a side as you are on seeking clarity in these matters. We are not dealing with demons or nazis or the anti-Christ. No one has been brandished a heretic yet. We are children of the King and there is a controversy within the royal family.

[Edited on 4-28-2006 by BobVigneault]

 

[NaphtaliPress]

Well, lack of clarity in language when discussing important doctrine is a stumbling block and an offense and the proponents are at the very least at fault for this.

 

[BobVigneault]

Yes, in fact I was going to edit my post and add that very sentiment. I don't have to now.

 

[AdamM]

A couple of observations:

- It seems odd to me that in this debate many FV proponents want to shift the primary responsibility for clear communication to the reader/listener, rather then to the writer/speaker. Isn't that backwards? If I find myself being consistently misunderstood, then shouldn't I first assume that the problem is mine and that I need to do a much better job explaining myself? The FV proponents seem to want to be able to write in ambiguous, confusing ways, equivocate on key terms and yet blame others when they believe that are being misread.

- Some FV web sites and writers seem to specialize in posting on controversial topics within the Reformed orbit and yet when those writings generate controversy (yea, big surprise) then, of course the problem is with the other folks.

- As I read many FV/NPP proponents they spend a bunch of time asking for irenic debate, but then turn around and savage their critics, showing absolutely none of the charity that they demand from others.

Thankfully, I know these points don't apply to all FV proponents, but I do think they are accurate in general.

 

[WrittenFromUtopia]

 

[BobVigneault]

So what you're saying Adam, is that we show up ready to compare what they propose against the standards and instead we end up arguing semantics. I agree, it's frustrating.

 

[NaphtaliPress]

 

[AdamM]

Bob,

Yes, I do think that occurs more often then not in the FV debates, but I do believe that when you peal away the layers of the onion that there really is a different theological paradigm at work in the FV then in historic Presbyterianism. I don´t think the FV proponents are heretics, miscreants or wife beaters and ironically in this debate the pro and anti-FV sides share many of the same concerns against the larger trends in ev-jellyism that are so pervasive today. Sitting across the bar and enjoying and barley pop I have no doubt that most would be fun company and we would have much in common. It´s just that in my opinion the solutions they propose (rooted in their theological model) are unhelpful and for those serving in Presbyterian denominations, not confessional.

I think the bottom line issue for Presbyterians in the FV and NPP debate is to what degree do our confessional standards guide and set the boundaries for our hermeneutics? That might a profitable discussion.

 

[C. Matthew McMahon]

If FV/NPP is so clear to the adherents of it, you would figure after 3 years of FV theology and 10 years of NPP theology that all of them could point to ONE thing that says: "this is what we simply believe."

Instead, for the last 3 years for FV and the last 10 years for NPP, lots of books, countless papers, even conferences, with debating and discussing with some of the most gifted theologians, they are still saying, "That's not what I meant!"

This is doubly problematic when they are trying to redefine the theology of the Westminster Confession, where, VERY CLEARLY, the church outlined their theology. It was SO CLEAR that other denominations and churches took the WCF and COPIED IT (Both the Independents with the Savory Declaration, and the Baptists with the 1689 Confession). Now that's CLEAR. Yet, one of the problems with FV and NPP theology is that they are ignorant of historical theology. So, they are trying to be clear, but aren't, while being ignorant of what they are trying to redefine, but really can't.

What they need to do is write a book together, have it published, and explain their views as a group. Oh, wait, they have DONE this twice, and still can't seem to get passed the phrase, "That's not what I meant!"

The hallmark of bad theology is always dubious ambiguity.

Even Arius was more precise.

 

[BobVigneault]

"The hallmark of bad theology is always dubious ambiguity."

Great proverb Matt, it even has rhythm. I'll commit that to memory.


"Even Arius was more precise."

I like that, I'll even go further. Even young Demosthenes was more articulate.... with the pebbles in his mouth...... drunk.

 

[wsw201]

One of the trends that I have been noticing more and more, and it is not just limited to FV or NPP though it is more pronounced within these paradigms, is "nuance"! Nuance provides the cover to "that's not what I meant" or "you just don't understand".

Precision is out and nuance is in!

 

[C. Matthew McMahon]

Before they were known as "œPuritans" formally, they were labeled with a term that has long been forgotten "“ the Precisionist.

The "œPrecisionist" is a very important term indeed. Its etymology derives from a Middle English word which first stems from the Middle French precis, and from Latin praecisus, (the past participle of praecidere means "œto cut off" which in turn is a derivation from prae + caedere "œto cut"). In its final form, it means "œexactly or sharply defined or stated". It retains the idea of being "œminutely exact," and pertains to one who strictly conforms to a pattern, standard, or convention. Precisionists, then, are men marked by a thorough consideration or minute measurement of small factual details. Puritans are Precisionists. It is because they are Precisionists that Puritans were, in fact, Puritans. Without being a Precisionist, one could never be a true Puritan. Some of the greater "œhistories" written about the Puritans use the label doctrinal Puritans for the term "œPrecisionists". However, the phrase "œdoctrinal puritans" is less descriptive than scholars would like, and it would be more helpful to use the term "œprecisionist."

We need more precisionists today.

 

[Arch2k]

 

[AdamM]

Matt, I think you make a great point.

Often times the FV material is triple qualified nuance on top of nuance and you need to have your super secret decoder ring to "get it". I often wonder if the proponents realize just how genuinely confusing the material is and how it reflects an tendency towards a type of elitism? I mean can you imagine your average guy in the pew trying to make sense of what Peter Leithart and Jim Jordan write? Or how about the different levels of discourse stuff? Perhaps if most of your day to day interaction is with other intellectuals and then your branching out involves visting blogs of folks just like you, then you wouldn't see it as a big deal, but in my opinion that's just another aspect of the FV problem.

 

[C. Matthew McMahon]

Adam,

I most assuredly agree.

But think about this, even the scholars seem to be mystified at their writings are well. They are saying to the theologians and scholars, "You misunderstand us."

 

[AdamM]

Adam,

I most assuredly agree.

But think about this, even the scholars seem to be mystified at their writings are well. They are saying to the theologians and scholars, "You misunderstand us."

That reminds me of something David Chilton said in his famous Tyranny in Tyler lecture. Chilton related that in the church at Tyler, Jordan's preaching got so confusing that here he was a reasonably well known and respected author of Reformed books, with solid academic credentials and as he sat there in the pew listing to the sermons, he couldn't make heads or tails out of what was being preached.

 

[NaphtaliPress]

No surprise, but Jordan's work comes under some critical handling in the RPW 60 year survey article in CPJ 2. http://www.cpjournal.com

 

[VictorBravo]

Originally posted by C. Matthew McMahon

We need more precisionists today.

Of course, it is hard to have precision if you don't think the Bible contains doctrines or propositions, but rather is a narrative that speaks on a poetic level. (I know, oversimplification, but I don't think it is too far off).

Which brings up a related but diverting question, has the discipline of Biblical Theology contributed to this desire to find nuance in everything?

Vic

 

[Jon]

Originally posted by BobVigneault
Many theological warriors are rallying to do battle right now. Many theologs love a good fight. I don't. I'm a moderate, not in that I won't take sides, I will. Not in that I want peace at any price, I don't. I'm a moderate in that I believe every response should be thought out over time and examined for overly passionate overtones. In other words, let's moderate our responses.

Moderation is not an abundant commodity in the reformed community.

I have read through most of the OPC's Report on Justification and I have read quite a few responses to it. After the OPC General Assembly, the report will be official and we will be able to discuss it openly on the PB.

In the meantime, let me tell you what the general response is to the report by those implicated as proponents of NPP and FV. They are saying, "That's not what I meant!"

This response is the perfect expression of the most distinctive feature of the controversy - Ambiguous Language. We are arguing over what Paul meant when he used certain words, for example: "works of the law". NPP says we need to understand how the 1st Century pharisees understood these words. Well, believe it or not, there was a lack of clarity among the consensus 2000 years ago. So while we argue over the ambiguity of a first century idea we use brand new words like "future justification". In the 21st century there is a lack of agreement about what we mean when we say "future justification".

I don't want to engage any one in argument over these terms, not here anyway, but I want us to understand that much of the controversy has come about because the NPP people and the FV people have created an atmosphere, a forum that has given rise to so much ambiguity and wiggle room that our classical doctrines may be challenged depending on what these proponents mean.

The FV/NPP proponents are able to use that wiggle room and say, "That's not what I meant". So how do we solve a problem where no one is saying what they mean? What we will do is affirm again the doctrines as described with remarkable conciseness and clarity in the standards. We will then ask these creative thinkers if they hold to them. It will involve a lot of defining of words.

So for now, don't be so bent on taking a side as you are on seeking clarity in these matters. We are not dealing with demons or nazis or the anti-Christ. No one has been brandished a heretic yet. We are children of the King and there is a controversy within the royal family.

[Edited on 4-28-2006 by BobVigneault]

This was a great post. The ambiguity likewise has me upset and, wanting to show the grace due brothers (if it be so), withholding judgment toward FV/NPP. However, at some point they need to start answering straight. It seems like everytime a negative implication is drawn from their position, they quickly backpedal and say they did not mean to say that, etc., etc.--you've already addressed it. It leads one to believe they are double-minded, and we all know what James says about the double-minded man. Eventually, they will get pinned down and forced into taking a stance. We will then know whether they speak the truth in Christ or not. I think until then, their words should be taken at face value. If they say something wrong, whether they intended to be wrong or not, they should be called on it. If they were more discerning and more careful with their phrases, they wouldn't have nearly as much explaining to do in the first place. Being a bad writer does not excuse you from having to defend your position.

Soli Deo Gloria

Jon

 

[Jon]

Originally posted by C. Matthew McMahon
Before they were known as "œPuritans" formally, they were labeled with a term that has long been forgotten "“ the Precisionist.

The "œPrecisionist" is a very important term indeed. Its etymology derives from a Middle English word which first stems from the Middle French precis, and from Latin praecisus, (the past participle of praecidere means "œto cut off" which in turn is a derivation from prae + caedere "œto cut"). In its final form, it means "œexactly or sharply defined or stated". It retains the idea of being "œminutely exact," and pertains to one who strictly conforms to a pattern, standard, or convention. Precisionists, then, are men marked by a thorough consideration or minute measurement of small factual details. Puritans are Precisionists. It is because they are Precisionists that Puritans were, in fact, Puritans. Without being a Precisionist, one could never be a true Puritan. Some of the greater "œhistories" written about the Puritans use the label doctrinal Puritans for the term "œPrecisionists". However, the phrase "œdoctrinal puritans" is less descriptive than scholars would like, and it would be more helpful to use the term "œprecisionist."

We need more precisionists today.

Great post. Precision is most assuredly a virtue. Say what you mean with conviction and clarity. Although many decry the Puritanical style of writing, I profit from it because it was frequently very precise and exact, even to the point of being overbearing.

I'd rather be burdened with too much detail than a lack of it.

Soli Deo Gloria

Jon

 

[ef]

While I have not read nearly as much of their literature as I see y'all have, I always wonder if this type of ambiguity is a symptom of postmodern relativism creeping into theological discussion. That is, deconstructionism from the world destroying our ability to communicate God's truth not only into the culture but even between fellow believers.

Ideological conservatives on the Evangelical right have spoken to this issue, typically using the pop defense of Truth mantra, but I haven't heard a lot of more orthodox Protestants discuss it. What larger barrier can there be to faithful preaching of the Word than where language in and of itself is debased as a means of communication?

I don't mean to preach to the proverbial choir, but this has been a big frustration for me as I have sought to maintain the purity and peace of the Church.

I love this forum and the discussions.

[Edited on 5-22-2006 by ef]