The Ninth Commandment broken in the Heart, Gesture, Right, and Word (by James Durham)

[NaphtaliPress]

This is from James Durham's Practical Exposition of the Ten Commandments (Naphtali Press, 2003) page 388. One of the shorter lectures but very searching.

That we may sum up this command (which is
broad) into some few particulars, we may
consider it: 1. First, as it is broken, (1) In the heart. (2)
In the gesture. (3) In right. (4) In word.

(1) First, in heart a man may fail, [1] By suspecting
others unjustly; this is called evil surmising (1
Tim. 6:4), or as it is in the original, evil suspicion;
which is when men are suspected of some evil
without ground, as Potiphar suspected Joseph,
or it is jealousy, when this suspicion is mixed
with fear of prejudice to some interest we love, so
Herod was jealous when Christ was born, and the
neighboring kings when Jerusalem was abuilding.
There is, I grant, a right suspicion, such
as Solomon had of Adonijah, and wherein
Gedaliah failed in not crediting Johannan’s
information about Ishmael’s conspiracy against
his life.

[2] By rash judging and unjust concluding
concerning a man’s state, as Job’s friends did; or
his actions, as Eli did of Hannah, saying that she
was drunk, because of the moving of her lips; or
his end, as the Corinthians did of Paul, when he
took wages, they said it was covetousness, and
when he took it not, they said it was want of love
(see Rom. 14:4 and 2 Cor. 12:4, etc).

[3] By hasty judging, too soon passing sentence
in our mind from some seeming evidence of that
which is only in the heart, and not in the
outward practice, this is but to judge before the
time, and hastily (Matt. 7:1).

[4] There is light judging, laying the weight of
conclusions upon arguments or midses [means]
that will not bear it, as Job’s friends did, and as
the Barbarians suspected Paul to be a murderer,
when they saw the viper on his hand (Acts 25:4).
Thus the King Ahaseurus trusted Haman’s
calumny of the Jews too soon.

[5] The breach of this command in the heart may
be when suspicion of our neighbor’s failing is
kept up, and means not used to be satisfied
about it, contrary to that, Matt. 18:15, If thy
brother offend thee, etc; and when we seek not to
be satisfied, but rest on presumptions, when they
seem probable.

(2) Secondly, in gesture this command may be
broken, by nodding, winking, or such like (and
even sometimes by silence) when these import in
our accustomed way some tacit sinister
insinuation, especially when either they are
purposed for that end, or when others are known
to mistake because of them, and we suffer them
to continue under this mistake.

(3) Thirdly, by writing this command may be
broken (as Ezra 5:6; Neh. 6:5), where
calumniating libels are written, and sent by their
enemies against the Jews and Nehemiah; in
which respect many fail in these days.

(4) Fourthly, but words are most properly the seat
wherein this sin is subjected, whether they be
only or merely words, or also put in writing,
because in these our conformity or disconformity
to truth does most appear.

An earlier version of this lecture is available at:
http://www.thebluebanner.com/pdf/bluebanner10-1.pdf

​

 

[Christusregnat]

{Admin note: post moved here from the Warren thread to keep that thread on track.}

Hello Semper Fidelis,

While it may be true that there was a broad brush statement, it may also be appropriate to point out that Mr. Ritchie's information is not entirely incorrect (as the post from heidelblog served to illustrate: Theonomy and Federal Vision: Separated at Birth? « Heidelblog)

While not agreeing with the tone of Mr. Ritchie's post, or the broad-brushiness of it, there is something of substance behind the post. There are people who have been opponents of theonomy in the past, and the FV has been one way to link theonomy with an unfortunate error. Some have reluctantly made the link, others have happily made the link, others have not made the link. I think his point was that the Kleinian school of thought (which, if I'm not misled, is more popular at WSC than at other places) may find proponents who are over-eager to make the link.

Whether he's right or not, I can't say, but I can say that it might be a bit much to accuse Mr. Ritchie of violating the 9th cmd, and I would pray that the two of you are able to reconcile this publicly.

Godspeed,

Adam

This is apparently a phrase that Warren has used several times lately. I knew I had seen it before. See here.

BTW a lot of the WSCAL two kingdomers are probably happy with the association Warren made since they seem to dump on Kuyper and Kuyperianism every chance they get.

Yes, I often think to myself that WSC must be so happy that the FV has emerged, so that they can link anyone who believes in societal reformation (who is not a pietist) as being similar to the FV.

This kind of quote is un-called for. Whether or not you agree with some of the theological inclinations of the men at WSC, they are a group of thoughtful men that can hardly be painted with such a large brush. This is irresponsible and a violation of the 9th Commandment. It will not be tolerated here.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Adam,

I have moved this discussion here as the issue was the source of a suggestion that the 9th Commandment be highlighted.

Let me ask you a question, do you believe that the mere presence of an "element of truth" constitutes an honoring of the 9th Commandment:

Q143: Which is the ninth commandment?
A143: The ninth commandment is, Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor.[1]
1. Exod. 20:16

Q144: What are the duties required in the ninth commandment?
A144: The duties required in the ninth commandment are, the preserving and promoting of truth between man and man,[1] and the good name of our neighbor, as well as our own;[2] appearing and standing for the truth;[3] and from the heart,[4] sincerely,[5] freely,[6] clearly,[7] and fully,[8] speaking the truth, and only the truth, in matters of judgment and justice,[9] and in all other things whatsoever;[10] a charitable esteem of our neighbors;[11] loving, desiring, and rejoicing in their good name;[12] sorrowing for,[13] and covering of their infirmities;[14] freely acknowledging of their gifts and graces,[15] defending their innocence;[16] a ready receiving of a good report,[17] and unwillingness to admit of an evil report,[18] concerning them; discouraging talebearers,[19] flatterers,[20] and slanderers;[21] love and care of our own good name, and defending it when need requireth;[22] keeping of lawful promises;[23] studying and practicing of whatsoever things are true, honest, lovely, and of good report.[24]
(1. Zech. 8:16 2. III John 1:12 3. Prov. 31:8-9 4. Psa. 15:2 5. II Chr. 19:9 6. I Sam. 19:4-5 7. Josh. 7:19 8. II Sam. 14:18-20 9. Lev. 19:15; Prov. 14:5, 25 10. II Cor. 1:17-18; Eph. 4:25 11. Heb. 6:9; I Cor. 13:7 12. Rom. 1:8; II John 1:4; III John 1:3-4 13. II Cor. 2:4; 12:21 14. Prov. 17:9; I Peter 4:8 15. I Cor. 1:4-5, 7; II Tim. 1:4-5 16. I Sam. 22:14 17. I Cor. 13:6-7 18. Psa. 15:3 19. Prov. 25:23 20. Prov. 26:24-25 21. Psa. 101:5 22. Prov. 22:1; John 8:49 23. Psa. 15:4 24. Phil. 4:8);

I could probably highlight a few more places that ought to be highlighted. But, again, is a kernel of truth the standard for the 9th Commandment. Is a tenuous connection between one form of criticism and another enough to get over the bar of what God requires in the 9th Commandment?

LC Q 145: What are the sins forbidden in the ninth commandment?
A145: The sins forbidden in the ninth commandment are, all prejudicing the truth, and the good name of our neighbors, as well as our own,[1] especially in public judicature;[2] giving false evidence,[3] suborning false witnesses,[4] wittingly appearing and pleading for an evil cause, outfacing and overbearing the truth;[5] passing unjust sentence,[6] calling evil good, and good evil; rewarding the wicked according to the work of the righteous, and the righteous according to the work of the wicked;[7] forgery,[8] concealing the truth, undue silence in a just cause,[9] and holding our peace when iniquity calleth for either a reproof from ourselves,[10] or complaint to others;[11] speaking the truth unseasonably,[12] or maliciously to a wrong end,[13] or perverting it to a wrong meaning,[14] or in doubtful and equivocal expressions, to the prejudice of truth or justice;[15] speaking untruth,[16] lying,[17] slandering,[18] backbiting,[19] detracting,[20] tale bearing,[21] whispering,[22] scoffing,[23] reviling,[24] rash,[25] harsh,[26] and partial censuring;[27] misconstructing intentions, words, and actions;[28] flattering,[29] vainglorious boasting,[30] thinking or speaking too highly or too meanly of ourselves or others;[31] denying the gifts and graces of God;[32] aggravating smaller faults;[33] hiding, excusing, or extenuating of sins, when called to a free confession;[34] unnecessary discovering of infirmities;[35] raising false rumors,[36] receiving and countenancing evil reports,[37] and stopping our ears against just defense;[38] evil suspicion;[39] envying or grieving at the deserved credit of any,[40] endeavoring or desiring to impair it,[41] rejoicing in their disgrace and infamy;[42] scornful contempt,[43] fond admiration;[44] breach of lawful promises;[45] neglecting such things as are of good report,[46] and practicing, or not avoiding ourselves, or not hindering: What we can in others, such things as procure an ill name.[47]

(1. I Sam. 17:28; II Sam. 1:9-10, 15-16; 16:3 2. Lev. 19:15; Hab. 1:4 3. Prov. 6:16, 19; 19:5 4. Acts 6:13 5. Jer. 9:3, 5; Acts 24:2, 5; Psa. 3:1-4; 12:3-4 6. Prov. 17:15; I Kings 21:9-14 7. Isa. 5:23 8. Psa. 119:69; Luke 16:5-7; 19:8 9. Lev. 5:1; Acts 5:3, 8-9; II Tim. 4:6 10. I Kings 1:6; Lev. 19:17 11. Isa. 59:4 12. Prov. 29:11 13. I Sam. 22:9-10; Psa. 52:1 14. Psa. 56:5; John 2:19; Matt. 26:60-61 15. Gen. 3:5, 26:7, 9 16. Isa. 59:13 17. Lev. 19:11; Col. 3:9 18. Psa. 1:20 19. Psa. 15:3 20. James 4:11; Jer. 38:4 21. Lev. 19:16 22. Rom. 1:29-30 23. Gen. 21:9; Gal. 4:29 24. I Cor. 6:10 25. Mattt. 7:1 26. Acts 28:4 27. Gen. 38:24; Rom. 2:1 28. Neh. 6:6-8; Rom. 3:8; Psa. 69:10; I Sam. 1:13-15; II Sam. 10:3 29. Psa. 12:2-3 30. II Tim. 3: 31. Luke 18:9, 11; Rom. 12:16; I Cor. 4:6; Acts 12:22; Exod. 4:10-14 32. Job 4:6, 27:5-6 33. Matt. 7:3-5 34. Prov. 28:13; 30:20; Gen. 3:12-13; 4:9; Jer. 2:35; II Kings 5:25 35. Gen. 9:22; Prov. 25:9-10 36. Exod. 23:1 37. Prov. 29:12 38. Acts 7:56-57; Job 31:13-14 39. I Cor. 13:5; I Tim. 6:4 40. Num. 11:29; Matt. 21:15 41. Ezra 4:12-13 42. Jer. 48:27 43. Psa. 35:15-16, 21; Matt. 27:28-29 44. Jude 1:16; Acts 12:22 45. Rom. 1:31; II Tim. 3:3 46. I Sam. 2:24 47. II Sam. 13:12-13; Prov. 5:8-9; 6:33).

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Also, for the record, simply pointing out that a man violates the 9th Commandment does not mean that he has sinned against me. Every time a brother pointed out an error in another it would require reconciliation. By admitting that Daniel broadbrushed (broadbrushiness as you called it) in the matter, you have just accused him of violating the 9th Commandment based on the standard above.

 

[Christusregnat]

Semper Fidelis,

You are correct, if the gentleman wanted to cite specific individuals who manifested such a hasty linking of FV and theonomy, that would have been the right approach, while the hasty generalization was not appropriate. A "kernel of truth" standard is not what God's righteous command requires.

However, did the Apostle Paul sin by stating that "all Cretans are liars"? No, he made a broad-brush generalization that may not have been true in every particular. Whether or not Mr. Richie's "all Cretans are liars" generalization is correct is another matter for debate. However, the bare use of such a formulization does not, in my estimation, constitute a violation of the 9th cmd. It would depend on whether the generalization was generally true. I am in doubt that Mr. Ritchie's generalization is, but I do not know.

Also, would not a charitable esteem for Mr. Ritchie's good name call for assuming that he didn't, perhaps, intend to condemn the guiltless, in which it would be most appropriate to inquire of him further? (this would be covered under "covering of their infirmities" in the WLC, as you cited) The same rule applies to you, as you would (with justice) ask Mr. Ritchie or myself to apply in our communications. I do not accuse you here, but I am suggesting that your concern for the WSC faculty's good names may have put Mr. Ritchie's good name at stake (at least as far as I could tell in reading the posts).

Just some thoughts.

By the way, thank you for calling in the Puritans (I think Mr. Coldwell's quotations are puritan)! I am always edified, educated, convicted and challenged by such edifying reading.

Godspeed,

Adam

Adam,

I have moved this discussion here as the issue was the source of a suggestion that the 9th Commandment be highlighted.

Let me ask you a question, do you believe that the mere presence of an "element of truth" constitutes an honoring of the 9th Commandment:

Q143: Which is the ninth commandment?
A143: The ninth commandment is, Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor.[1]
1. Exod. 20:16

Q144: What are the duties required in the ninth commandment?
A144: The duties required in the ninth commandment are, the preserving and promoting of truth between man and man,[1] and the good name of our neighbor, as well as our own;[2] appearing and standing for the truth;[3] and from the heart,[4] sincerely,[5] freely,[6] clearly,[7] and fully,[8] speaking the truth, and only the truth, in matters of judgment and justice,[9] and in all other things whatsoever;[10] a charitable esteem of our neighbors;[11] loving, desiring, and rejoicing in their good name;[12] sorrowing for,[13] and covering of their infirmities;[14] freely acknowledging of their gifts and graces,[15] defending their innocence;[16] a ready receiving of a good report,[17] and unwillingness to admit of an evil report,[18] concerning them; discouraging talebearers,[19] flatterers,[20] and slanderers;[21] love and care of our own good name, and defending it when need requireth;[22] keeping of lawful promises;[23] studying and practicing of whatsoever things are true, honest, lovely, and of good report.[24]
(1. Zech. 8:16 2. III John 1:12 3. Prov. 31:8-9 4. Psa. 15:2 5. II Chr. 19:9 6. I Sam. 19:4-5 7. Josh. 7:19 8. II Sam. 14:18-20 9. Lev. 19:15; Prov. 14:5, 25 10. II Cor. 1:17-18; Eph. 4:25 11. Heb. 6:9; I Cor. 13:7 12. Rom. 1:8; II John 1:4; III John 1:3-4 13. II Cor. 2:4; 12:21 14. Prov. 17:9; I Peter 4:8 15. I Cor. 1:4-5, 7; II Tim. 1:4-5 16. I Sam. 22:14 17. I Cor. 13:6-7 18. Psa. 15:3 19. Prov. 25:23 20. Prov. 26:24-25 21. Psa. 101:5 22. Prov. 22:1; John 8:49 23. Psa. 15:4 24. Phil. 4:8);

I could probably highlight a few more places that ought to be highlighted. But, again, is a kernel of truth the standard for the 9th Commandment. Is a tenuous connection between one form of criticism and another enough to get over the bar of what God requires in the 9th Commandment?

LC Q 145: What are the sins forbidden in the ninth commandment?
A145: The sins forbidden in the ninth commandment are, all prejudicing the truth, and the good name of our neighbors, as well as our own,[1] especially in public judicature;[2] giving false evidence,[3] suborning false witnesses,[4] wittingly appearing and pleading for an evil cause, outfacing and overbearing the truth;[5] passing unjust sentence,[6] calling evil good, and good evil; rewarding the wicked according to the work of the righteous, and the righteous according to the work of the wicked;[7] forgery,[8] concealing the truth, undue silence in a just cause,[9] and holding our peace when iniquity calleth for either a reproof from ourselves,[10] or complaint to others;[11] speaking the truth unseasonably,[12] or maliciously to a wrong end,[13] or perverting it to a wrong meaning,[14] or in doubtful and equivocal expressions, to the prejudice of truth or justice;[15] speaking untruth,[16] lying,[17] slandering,[18] backbiting,[19] detracting,[20] tale bearing,[21] whispering,[22] scoffing,[23] reviling,[24] rash,[25] harsh,[26] and partial censuring;[27] misconstructing intentions, words, and actions;[28] flattering,[29] vainglorious boasting,[30] thinking or speaking too highly or too meanly of ourselves or others;[31] denying the gifts and graces of God;[32] aggravating smaller faults;[33] hiding, excusing, or extenuating of sins, when called to a free confession;[34] unnecessary discovering of infirmities;[35] raising false rumors,[36] receiving and countenancing evil reports,[37] and stopping our ears against just defense;[38] evil suspicion;[39] envying or grieving at the deserved credit of any,[40] endeavoring or desiring to impair it,[41] rejoicing in their disgrace and infamy;[42] scornful contempt,[43] fond admiration;[44] breach of lawful promises;[45] neglecting such things as are of good report,[46] and practicing, or not avoiding ourselves, or not hindering: What we can in others, such things as procure an ill name.[47]

(1. I Sam. 17:28; II Sam. 1:9-10, 15-16; 16:3 2. Lev. 19:15; Hab. 1:4 3. Prov. 6:16, 19; 19:5 4. Acts 6:13 5. Jer. 9:3, 5; Acts 24:2, 5; Psa. 3:1-4; 12:3-4 6. Prov. 17:15; I Kings 21:9-14 7. Isa. 5:23 8. Psa. 119:69; Luke 16:5-7; 19:8 9. Lev. 5:1; Acts 5:3, 8-9; II Tim. 4:6 10. I Kings 1:6; Lev. 19:17 11. Isa. 59:4 12. Prov. 29:11 13. I Sam. 22:9-10; Psa. 52:1 14. Psa. 56:5; John 2:19; Matt. 26:60-61 15. Gen. 3:5, 26:7, 9 16. Isa. 59:13 17. Lev. 19:11; Col. 3:9 18. Psa. 1:20 19. Psa. 15:3 20. James 4:11; Jer. 38:4 21. Lev. 19:16 22. Rom. 1:29-30 23. Gen. 21:9; Gal. 4:29 24. I Cor. 6:10 25. Mattt. 7:1 26. Acts 28:4 27. Gen. 38:24; Rom. 2:1 28. Neh. 6:6-8; Rom. 3:8; Psa. 69:10; I Sam. 1:13-15; II Sam. 10:3 29. Psa. 12:2-3 30. II Tim. 3: 31. Luke 18:9, 11; Rom. 12:16; I Cor. 4:6; Acts 12:22; Exod. 4:10-14 32. Job 4:6, 27:5-6 33. Matt. 7:3-5 34. Prov. 28:13; 30:20; Gen. 3:12-13; 4:9; Jer. 2:35; II Kings 5:25 35. Gen. 9:22; Prov. 25:9-10 36. Exod. 23:1 37. Prov. 29:12 38. Acts 7:56-57; Job 31:13-14 39. I Cor. 13:5; I Tim. 6:4 40. Num. 11:29; Matt. 21:15 41. Ezra 4:12-13 42. Jer. 48:27 43. Psa. 35:15-16, 21; Matt. 27:28-29 44. Jude 1:16; Acts 12:22 45. Rom. 1:31; II Tim. 3:3 46. I Sam. 2:24 47. II Sam. 13:12-13; Prov. 5:8-9; 6:33).

 

[Semper Fidelis]

I'm sorry Adam. You're reasoning does not follow. The OP was about Warren - is he Kuyperian. Warren has been criticized by at least one of the faculty at WSC publicly and Theonomists have been criticized by another member of the faculty. Was Warren criticized for being Kuyperian? Not that I've ever read or heard.

It does not at all do for the preserving of your neighbors' name to not only jump from Warren to Kuyper to FV to Theonomy in a tenuous connection but to then lay the charge at the entire faculty? This isn't even a close call. To actually ascribe to the faculty that they are "...happy that the FV has emerged..." is beyond the pale. You don't even have to be a Puritan to figure that out.

I was moderating. This is the standard here. You have just agreed the standard of the 9th Commandment was violated. A man's "good name" is not trashed when one points out a sin accurately. We could never point out sin if this was the case.

I am rebuked regularly and I do not hold my name so precious that I am unwilling to receive that rebuke and consider my sin and thank my brother for restoring me.

It was a reminder of the standards of conduct here and a clear violation thereof. As you agree that the 9th Commandment was clearly violated there's really no need to debate that point.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Also, I'm not aware of any euphemism that the WSC faculty is so happy that the FV has emerged. If that is a euphemism then I've never heard it before.

 

[Christusregnat]

Semper Fidelis,

Thank you for pointing out the intention behind your actions. However, my comments do not mention anything about a euphemism, nor were they related to the Warren / Kuyper question. I was merely seeking to point out that generalizations, per se, are not sin. Also, I admitted my ignorance of the party being generalized (WSC faculty), and therefore am unable to agree or disagree with the assessment that Mr. Ritchie's comments are beyond the pale. But then again, as I am not a moderator, it is not my duty to point out such things.

For the record, I do not consider broad-brushiness to be a violation of the 9th cmd, per se. As I said previously, it would depend on the circumstances. Otherwise, as I cited, the Holy Spirit's dictum through Paul would be a violation of the 9th cmd, which is an impossibility.

Thanks again for the dialogue!

Adam

I'm sorry Adam. You're reasoning does not follow. The OP was about Warren - is he Kuyperian. Warren has been criticized by at least one of the faculty at WSC publicly and Theonomists have been criticized by another member of the faculty. Was Warren criticized for being Kuyperian? Not that I've ever read or heard.

It does not at all do for the preserving of your neighbors' name to not only jump from Warren to Kuyper to FV to Theonomy in a tenuous connection but to then lay the charge at the entire faculty? This isn't even a close call. To actually ascribe to the faculty that they are "...happy that the FV has emerged..." is beyond the pale. You don't even have to be a Puritan to figure that out.

I was moderating. This is the standard here. You have just agreed the standard of the 9th Commandment was violated. A man's "good name" is not trashed when one points out a sin accurately. We could never point out sin if this was the case.

I am rebuked regularly and I do not hold my name so precious that I am unwilling to receive that rebuke and consider my sin and thank my brother for restoring me.

It was a reminder of the standards of conduct here and a clear violation thereof. As you agree that the 9th Commandment was clearly violated there's really no need to debate that point.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Semper Fidelis,

Thank you for pointing out the intention behind your actions. However, my comments do not mention anything about a euphemism, nor were they related to the Warren / Kuyper question. I was merely seeking to point out that generalizations, per se, are not sin. Also, I admitted my ignorance of the party being generalized (WSC faculty), and therefore am unable to agree or disagree with the assessment that Mr. Ritchie's comments are beyond the pale. But then again, as I am not a moderator, it is not my duty to point out such things.

For the record, I do not consider broad-brushiness to be a violation of the 9th cmd, per se. As I said previously, it would depend on the circumstances. Otherwise, as I cited, the Holy Spirit's dictum through Paul would be a violation of the 9th cmd, which is an impossibility.

Thanks again for the dialogue!

Adam

Adam,

You missed my point. Here is the passage you are referring to:

10For there are many unruly and vain talkers and deceivers, specially they of the circumcision: 11Whose mouths must be stopped, who subvert whole houses, teaching things which they ought not, for filthy lucre's sake. 12One of themselves, even a prophet of their own, said, the Cretians are alway liars, evil beasts, slow bellies. 13This witness is true. Wherefore rebuke them sharply, that they may be sound in the faith; 14Not giving heed to Jewish fables, and commandments of men, that turn from the truth.

The idea above is pretty well established in the literature surrounding the period. The issue here isn't one of Paul trying to make a point about some Cretians and then reverting to a "generalization". Paul is actually being very specific in how an elder is supposed to deal wtih unruly and vain talkers and deceivers. He illustrates his point with a euphemism of the day that Cretians are liars, beasts, and slow bellies. The idea of Cretian had become associated with that concept. We even use the ideas today in calling a person a Cretan. We don't have a Cretan in mind but what the concept represents.

You cannot violate the 9th Commandment against a concept, the 9th Commandment is with reference to a neighbor - an actual person. The "neighbors" in view here are talkers and deceivers and Paul is bearing true witness by applying a euphemism to drive home a point.

A modern euphemism you might be familiar with is "The American Dream." When somebody says "He's living the American Dream" the reference is to the individual and not to say that all Americans have the same dream. We all know what "The American Dream" represents and it is a concept. The American Dream is not our neighbor.

Back on point then, there is no euphemism or "saying" that "all WSC Profs are happy with the FV". In fact, it is well-documented that the opposite is the case. One could never use WSC as a byword for "happy with FV". Also, responses (subsequently deleted) made it abundantly clear that generalizations were not in view but a specific Professor's writings, which were then used to paint the entire rest of the faculty. Whatever else could be said about that particular faculty member, one could not argue that he is "happy with the FV." That much is apparently obvious to the most casual observer of the Federal Vision.

 

[Christusregnat]

Semper Fidelis,

I believe that you have publically misrepresented Mr. Ritchie's position. Please re-read, and you will note that you have misquoted his position. Mr. Ritchie said "Yes, I often think to myself that WSC must be so happy that the FV has emerged, so that they can link anyone who believes in societal reformation (who is not a pietist) as being similar to the FV."

The article that Mr. Ritchie produced later in the thread supported his assertion about at least one member of the WSC faculty, who does not appear to be saddened by the ability to link FV and theonomy. Mr. Ritchie, I can assure you, would link arms with WSC to fight FV; he's not stating that they are happy with FV, per se, but happy to be able to fight one of their opposing schools of thought: theonomy. Mr. Ritchie didn't say they were "happy with FV". I believe you have misrepresented Mr. Ritchie publically, and you owe him an apology.

Also, I'm again not sure what you mean by euphemism:

euphemism - definition of euphemism by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.

A euphemism is a polite term used in place of a harsh term in order to not jolt the mind of hearers. "All Cretans are liars" is about a specific set of people (Paul's neighbors, to whom Titus was ministering), which was a generalization, which might today be categorized as racism. It's like if I said, "All white men are nerds." They could even bring me forward as a case study This is not a euphemism, but a generalization. You stated:

"The issue here isn't one of Paul trying to make a point about some Cretians and then reverting to a "generalization"."

However, this is exactly what Paul does: first, he talks about some of the individuals living in Crete from the circumcision:

10For there are many unruly and vain talkers and deceivers, specially they of the circumcision: 11Whose mouths must be stopped, who subvert whole houses, teaching things which they ought not, for filthy lucre's sake. 12One of themselves, even a prophet of their own, said, the Cretians are alway liars, evil beasts, slow bellies. 13This witness is true. Wherefore rebuke them sharply, that they may be sound in the faith; 14Not giving heed to Jewish fables, and commandments of men, that turn from the truth.

The personal pronouns have been highlighted to show that the "specially of the circumcision" and the "all Cretians" generalization is applied to the specific case of them that Titus was to rebuke sharply. Probably specific members of the community or of the church that were liars, just like all Cretians. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but it appears that Paul's generalization is exactly what Mr. Ritchie appears to have engaged in, and is not a violation of the 9th cmd. His generalization is not "happy with FV", but "opponents of theonomy". I know two ministers in the OPC that were trained at WSC, and both have confirmed to me personally that "opponents of theonomy" is a good way of describing the general attitude of the faculty members that they were taught by at WSC.

I think, in order to prove that Mr. Ritchie has violated the 9th cmd, you may need to produce WSC faculty's condemnation of a linkage between FV and theonomy. Since Mr. Ritchie has proven his point by a specimin blog, it would behoove you to rebut his presumption, otherwise the case is his to this point in time, and I find his argument more convincing, since backed with evidence.

I have not made a judgment either way about WSC, but I will say that Mr. Ritchie produced evidence, and you have yet to do so.

Cheers,

Adam

Semper Fidelis,

Thank you for pointing out the intention behind your actions. However, my comments do not mention anything about a euphemism, nor were they related to the Warren / Kuyper question. I was merely seeking to point out that generalizations, per se, are not sin. Also, I admitted my ignorance of the party being generalized (WSC faculty), and therefore am unable to agree or disagree with the assessment that Mr. Ritchie's comments are beyond the pale. But then again, as I am not a moderator, it is not my duty to point out such things.

For the record, I do not consider broad-brushiness to be a violation of the 9th cmd, per se. As I said previously, it would depend on the circumstances. Otherwise, as I cited, the Holy Spirit's dictum through Paul would be a violation of the 9th cmd, which is an impossibility.

Thanks again for the dialogue!

Adam

Adam,

You missed my point. Here is the passage you are referring to:

10For there are many unruly and vain talkers and deceivers, specially they of the circumcision: 11Whose mouths must be stopped, who subvert whole houses, teaching things which they ought not, for filthy lucre's sake. 12One of themselves, even a prophet of their own, said, the Cretians are alway liars, evil beasts, slow bellies. 13This witness is true. Wherefore rebuke them sharply, that they may be sound in the faith; 14Not giving heed to Jewish fables, and commandments of men, that turn from the truth.

The idea above is pretty well established in the literature surrounding the period. The issue here isn't one of Paul trying to make a point about some Cretians and then reverting to a "generalization". Paul is actually being very specific in how an elder is supposed to deal wtih unruly and vain talkers and deceivers. He illustrates his point with a euphemism of the day that Cretians are liars, beasts, and slow bellies. The idea of Cretian had become associated with that concept. We even use the ideas today in calling a person a Cretan. We don't have a Cretan in mind but what the concept represents.

You cannot violate the 9th Commandment against a concept, the 9th Commandment is with reference to a neighbor - an actual person. The "neighbors" in view here are talkers and deceivers and Paul is bearing true witness by applying a euphemism to drive home a point.

A modern euphemism you might be familiar with is "The American Dream." When somebody says "He's living the American Dream" the reference is to the individual and not to say that all Americans have the same dream. We all know what "The American Dream" represents and it is a concept. The American Dream is not our neighbor.

Back on point then, there is no euphemism or "saying" that "all WSC Profs are happy with the FV". In fact, it is well-documented that the opposite is the case. One could never use WSC as a byword for "happy with FV". Also, responses (subsequently deleted) made it abundantly clear that generalizations were not in view but a specific Professor's writings, which were then used to paint the entire rest of the faculty. Whatever else could be said about that particular faculty member, one could not argue that he is "happy with the FV." That much is apparently obvious to the most casual observer of the Federal Vision.

 

[Stephen]

Semper Fidelis,

I believe that you have publically misrepresented Mr. Ritchie's position. Please re-read, and you will note that you have misquoted his position. Mr. Ritchie said "Yes, I often think to myself that WSC must be so happy that the FV has emerged, so that they can link anyone who believes in societal reformation (who is not a pietist) as being similar to the FV."

The article that Mr. Ritchie produced later in the thread supported his assertion about at least one member of the WSC faculty, who does not appear to be saddened by the ability to link FV and theonomy. Mr. Ritchie, I can assure you, would link arms with WSC to fight FV; he's not stating that they are happy with FV, per se, but happy to be able to fight one of their opposing schools of thought: theonomy. Mr. Ritchie didn't say they were "happy with FV". I believe you have misrepresented Mr. Ritchie publically, and you owe him an apology.

Also, I'm again not sure what you mean by euphemism:

euphemism - definition of euphemism by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.

A euphemism is a polite term used in place of a harsh term in order to not jolt the mind of hearers. "All Cretans are liars" is about a specific set of people (Paul's neighbors, to whom Titus was ministering), which was a generalization, which might today be categorized as racism. It's like if I said, "All white men are nerds." They could even bring me forward as a case study This is not a euphemism, but a generalization. You stated:

"The issue here isn't one of Paul trying to make a point about some Cretians and then reverting to a "generalization"."

However, this is exactly what Paul does: first, he talks about some of the individuals living in Crete from the circumcision:

10For there are many unruly and vain talkers and deceivers, specially they of the circumcision: 11Whose mouths must be stopped, who subvert whole houses, teaching things which they ought not, for filthy lucre's sake. 12One of themselves, even a prophet of their own, said, the Cretians are alway liars, evil beasts, slow bellies. 13This witness is true. Wherefore rebuke them sharply, that they may be sound in the faith; 14Not giving heed to Jewish fables, and commandments of men, that turn from the truth.

The personal pronouns have been highlighted to show that the "specially of the circumcision" and the "all Cretians" generalization is applied to the specific case of them that Titus was to rebuke sharply. Probably specific members of the community or of the church that were liars, just like all Cretians. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but it appears that Paul's generalization is exactly what Mr. Ritchie appears to have engaged in, and is not a violation of the 9th cmd. His generalization is not "happy with FV", but "opponents of theonomy". I know two ministers in the OPC that were trained at WSC, and both have confirmed to me personally that "opponents of theonomy" is a good way of describing the general attitude of the faculty members that they were taught by at WSC.

I think, in order to prove that Mr. Ritchie has violated the 9th cmd, you may need to produce WSC faculty's condemnation of a linkage between FV and theonomy. Since Mr. Ritchie has proven his point by a specimin blog, it would behoove you to rebut his presumption, otherwise the case is his to this point in time, and I find his argument more convincing, since backed with evidence.

I have not made a judgment either way about WSC, but I will say that Mr. Ritchie produced evidence, and you have yet to do so.

Cheers,

Adam

Adam,

You missed my point. Here is the passage you are referring to:

10For there are many unruly and vain talkers and deceivers, specially they of the circumcision: 11Whose mouths must be stopped, who subvert whole houses, teaching things which they ought not, for filthy lucre's sake. 12One of themselves, even a prophet of their own, said, the Cretians are alway liars, evil beasts, slow bellies. 13This witness is true. Wherefore rebuke them sharply, that they may be sound in the faith; 14Not giving heed to Jewish fables, and commandments of men, that turn from the truth.

The idea above is pretty well established in the literature surrounding the period. The issue here isn't one of Paul trying to make a point about some Cretians and then reverting to a "generalization". Paul is actually being very specific in how an elder is supposed to deal wtih unruly and vain talkers and deceivers. He illustrates his point with a euphemism of the day that Cretians are liars, beasts, and slow bellies. The idea of Cretian had become associated with that concept. We even use the ideas today in calling a person a Cretan. We don't have a Cretan in mind but what the concept represents.

You cannot violate the 9th Commandment against a concept, the 9th Commandment is with reference to a neighbor - an actual person. The "neighbors" in view here are talkers and deceivers and Paul is bearing true witness by applying a euphemism to drive home a point.

A modern euphemism you might be familiar with is "The American Dream." When somebody says "He's living the American Dream" the reference is to the individual and not to say that all Americans have the same dream. We all know what "The American Dream" represents and it is a concept. The American Dream is not our neighbor.

Back on point then, there is no euphemism or "saying" that "all WSC Profs are happy with the FV". In fact, it is well-documented that the opposite is the case. One could never use WSC as a byword for "happy with FV". Also, responses (subsequently deleted) made it abundantly clear that generalizations were not in view but a specific Professor's writings, which were then used to paint the entire rest of the faculty. Whatever else could be said about that particular faculty member, one could not argue that he is "happy with the FV." That much is apparently obvious to the most casual observer of the Federal Vision.

I am a regular subscriber to Modern Reformation Magazine and have a number of books by Michael Horton and have the utmost respect for the professors at WS/California. Daniel Ritchie was not the first one in the thread on Warren to make the comment about WSC. A moderator was the first one to make a comment and Daniel simply responded to it. His response was a reaction to the blog by Scott Clark, who is a solid theologian, so I do not believe it was a violation of the ninth commandment. These issues are here for discussion whether we all agree or not.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Semper Fidelis,

I believe that you have publically misrepresented Mr. Ritchie's position. Please re-read, and you will note that you have misquoted his position. Mr. Ritchie said "Yes, I often think to myself that WSC must be so happy that the FV has emerged, so that they can link anyone who believes in societal reformation (who is not a pietist) as being similar to the FV."

I have not misrepresented him. I dealt both with the premises and conclusion. The premise (the WSC must be so happy that the FV has emerged) is clearly impious. The broad conclusion: that they're eager for any excuse to label anything that argues for societal reformation as being similar to the FV is equally fallacious and, again, assumes the worst possible character motives of the WSC faculty. It even paints them as stupid because it would assume that they cannot even discriminate between a liberal who argues for social reform and a Federal Visionist. Liberation theologians - another form of the FV in the WSC faculties' minds?

The issue has nothing to do with whether or not WSC is sympathetic or not to Theonomy. The issue has everything to do with their integrity in how they go about it. The quote above paints them in the worse possible light as joyful that theological error has arisen to bolster their opposition to any view of Scriptures that does not comport to their own.

I will leave it to the reader to draw their own conclusions but I don't know how one can state that they actually agree with the WLC on this point and Durham's exposition of the 9th Commandment above and try to defend the argument that you just made.

You might particularly want to make note of this point:

(2) Secondly, in gesture this command may be
broken, by nodding, winking, or such like (and
even sometimes by silence) when these import in
our accustomed way some tacit sinister
insinuation, especially when either they are
purposed for that end, or when others are known
to mistake because of them, and we suffer them
to continue under this mistake.

On the note of euphemism, I should have used a different term and appreciate the definition. I knew it was an expression but didn't realize it was always a softer form of an expression. One could note that it is "gentler" to call someone a Cretan these days than to call them out for everything that the expression represents but that's besid the point. Either way, the note is still the same. Yes, Paul makes reference to particular Jews to which it applies but the point is that it is still a saying or an expression. I never disputed that it is OK to group people together by something that is generally representative of their train of thought. What I have questioned is the propriety of ascribing the same usage in this instance as if it is commonly accepted that the WSC is sinister in its desire for theological error. A more apt example of generalizing a concept with an institution would be the way historians talk about the old Princeton Theology.

If the comment was simply that WSC tends toward Klineanism then it would not have raised any eyebrows to note a school of thought. I don't think it takes a rocket scientist to figure out when that line is crossed.

 

[Christusregnat]

Rich (I finally figured out your name

Thanks again for taking the time to explain your position.

A few questions and thoughts:

1. In previous posts (one in the previous week, if memory serves), it has been explicitly stated that theonomists undermine the gospel of grace; is there any particular reason this was not attacked as a violation of the 9th cmd with the same vigor, nay, at all, while this one was seized upon?

2. As I previously requested, please provide evidence that Mr. Ritchie's statement is false. In my estimation, you have yet to do this, and for you to publicly call Mr. Ritchie a lawless man would require you to rebut his presumption: you have yet to do this. Please demonstrate that even one of the WSC faculty are grieved to hear things such as the Heidelblog's unfair grouping of FV with theonomy. I am ready to read. Not having done this, you, in my opinion, have not sufficiently cleared yourself of having misrepresented Mr. Ritchie.

3. That Mr. Ritchie was not stating that WSC faculty have parties and celebrate the rise of heresy seems too clear to be disputed. I think his expression, if taken in a charitable light, would indicate that the prevailing hostility to theonomy at WSC has caused certain of its faculty (representative samples?) to trace the FV theonomy as "twins". It is a tongue in cheek mode of expression, if I'm not mistaken, intended to get a point across. It may be mentioned that such a form of argumentation cannot be gainsaid as God Himself employs such figures of speech (sarcasm, tongue in cheek, hyperbole, etc.).

4. At least one other reader of these posts has already responded, and seems to agree that Mr. Ritchie was mistakenly accused of violating the 9th cmd. Perhaps this is cause for you to rethink your accusation.

5. I think Mr. Ritchie's comment was a sarcastic way of saying that WSC is Kleinian, and therefore opposes theonomy, and is therefore relieved to find that Shepherdism has invaded some theonomic circles. Such a fact makes the Kleinian argument against theonomy much easier to accept. I don't think it is wise to impute motives deeper than this to Mr. Ritchie, as I think that this would likewise constitute a violation of the 9th cmd.

6. Mr. Ritchie, in my short experience at PB, has seemed to prove a diligent and gracious student of Holy Scripture. I have found his manner engaging, that he is generally liked, and that his arguments are generally respected, even when disagreed with. As such, I think it was inappropriate for you to impute evil motives to a man with a good track record, and would hope that you would recognize his use of sarcasm for what it is: a way to get a point across.

Well, I think I've said quite enough, but to sum up, please provide evidence that WSC faculty, even one representative sample, are grieved at the linking of FV with theonomy. If you cannot do this, then I would urge you to publicly exonerate Mr. Ritchie.

Godspeed,

Adam

Semper Fidelis,

I believe that you have publically misrepresented Mr. Ritchie's position. Please re-read, and you will note that you have misquoted his position. Mr. Ritchie said "Yes, I often think to myself that WSC must be so happy that the FV has emerged, so that they can link anyone who believes in societal reformation (who is not a pietist) as being similar to the FV."

I have not misrepresented him. I dealt both with the premises and conclusion. The premise (the WSC must be so happy that the FV has emerged) is clearly impious. The broad conclusion: that they're eager for any excuse to label anything that argues for societal reformation as being similar to the FV is equally fallacious and, again, assumes the worst possible character motives of the WSC faculty. It even paints them as stupid because it would assume that they cannot even discriminate between a liberal who argues for social reform and a Federal Visionist. Liberation theologians - another form of the FV in the WSC faculties' minds?

The issue has nothing to do with whether or not WSC is sympathetic or not to Theonomy. The issue has everything to do with their integrity in how they go about it. The quote above paints them in the worse possible light as joyful that theological error has arisen to bolster their opposition to any view of Scriptures that does not comport to their own.

I will leave it to the reader to draw their own conclusions but I don't know how one can state that they actually agree with the WLC on this point and Durham's exposition of the 9th Commandment above and try to defend the argument that you just made.

You might particularly want to make note of this point:

(2) Secondly, in gesture this command may be
broken, by nodding, winking, or such like (and
even sometimes by silence) when these import in
our accustomed way some tacit sinister
insinuation, especially when either they are
purposed for that end, or when others are known
to mistake because of them, and we suffer them
to continue under this mistake.

On the note of euphemism, I should have used a different term and appreciate the definition. I knew it was an expression but didn't realize it was always a softer form of an expression. One could note that it is "gentler" to call someone a Cretan these days than to call them out for everything that the expression represents but that's besid the point. Either way, the note is still the same. Yes, Paul makes reference to particular Jews to which it applies but the point is that it is still a saying or an expression. I never disputed that it is OK to group people together by something that is generally representative of their train of thought. What I have questioned is the propriety of ascribing the same usage in this instance as if it is commonly accepted that the WSC is sinister in its desire for theological error. A more apt example of generalizing a concept with an institution would be the way historians talk about the old Princeton Theology.

If the comment was simply that WSC tends toward Klineanism then it would not have raised any eyebrows to note a school of thought. I don't think it takes a rocket scientist to figure out when that line is crossed.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Adam,

The facts are at your disposal above. I have given more than adequate explanation contrary to your assertion that I have given no evidence. If you do not care to evaluate his sarcasm on the basis of the standard that I laid out clearly then I cannot force you to evaluate it that way but I'm not going to continue in a pointless "back and forth" in the matter. You claim to agree, on the one hand, with the nature of the WLC and with Durham's exposition and then you take away with another what the 9th Commandment requires and forbids with your standards for propriety above that are not the WLC standards but your own.

I will leave it to the reader to decide. As for all the moderators who discussed this at length in back-channel, including all the ministers, there was nothing but agreement as we discuss all these matters and nothing is done that is not scrutinized. In fact, it was a minister who suggested we find Durham's quotation on this matter to provide a backdrop so that people will understand the nature of the 9th Commandment.

The irony in all of this interchange is your charge of misrepresentation. In other words, if true, I have violated the 9th Commandment.

I do not obviously agree that my pointing out a "sarcastic" misrepresentation as a 9th Commandment violation is, in itself, a 9th Commandment violation. People are comfortable with the idea that they might have been excessive in their rhetoric or painted a group in a bad light if you just call it "excess" or "sarcasm" or "over-reaching" or "misrepresentation". Call it anything, in fact, except a 9th Commandment violation and people will brush it aside. Call it for what it is and now we're dealing with "offense". I wonder why that is?

As for my part, I am not offended that you have accused me of violating the 9th Commandment. I do not impute "evil motives" in your suggestion that it is the case. I simply do not agree with it and you keep avoiding the obvious. You keep failing to interact with the substance of the nature of the 9th. You ask questions about whether or not the parties themselves were offended by another's polemic excess. You obfuscate by saying that not all generalizations are offenses but don't deal with this generalization. You shift the sand from one man's responsibility to criticize fairly to the ground that others have criticized his position. You admit to misrepresentation for sarcasm's sake and seem oblivious to the clear prohibition in the WLC's exposition.

I frankly find myself bewildered by this exchange but I can do no better than I have in trying to demonstrate plainly to you why I called it what I did. If you cannot accept my reasoning then nothing you have written has persuaded me that my application of the 9th Commandment per the WLC is anything but substantiated. For me to retract what I stated I would have to withdraw my subscription to the Westminster Standards on the nature of the 9th Commandment. This has nothing to do with being personal or too prideful to repent. I have openly repented of attitudes in the past, even toward the party in question. Why have I repented in the past? Because I, too, violate the 9th Commandment here. I do not claim to be guiltless in the standard required but, when flagrant here, I do not tolerate it in others simply because I'm still mortifying it myself. I will not embrace it and simply brush it off. It's not always called what it truly is but this board has and will moderate it.

Blessings!

Rich

 

[MW]

5. I think Mr. Ritchie's comment was a sarcastic way of saying that WSC is Kleinian, and therefore opposes theonomy, and is therefore relieved to find that Shepherdism has invaded some theonomic circles. Such a fact makes the Kleinian argument against theonomy much easier to accept. I don't think it is wise to impute motives deeper than this to Mr. Ritchie, as I think that this would likewise constitute a violation of the 9th cmd.

If this "sarcasm" is accepted as a matter of fact, why is there still dispute? Evil suspicion is a sin against the ninth commandment whether it is done sarcastically or not. I find it hard to understand why you are calling for exoneration when you acknowledge his fault. If you would like to see him reinstated then you should point out his fault to him so that he can confess it and we can all move on from this sorry mess.

 

[Christusregnat]

Rev. Winzer,

Below you stated that sarcasm is accepted as a matter of fact in my post. Indeed, it is. From what you state, it appears that you consider sarcasm a violation of the 9th cmd; is that so?

If that is so, then I would urge you to reconsider your position, as it appears to me that Scripture utilizes sarcasm in order to make a point, and it is unlawful to call something sin that God Himself, and His Apostles and Prophets, under divine direction, engage in.

Sarcasm:

1: a sharp and often satirical or ironic utterance designed to cut or give pain
2 a: a mode of satirical wit depending for its effect on bitter, caustic, and often ironic language that is usually directed against an individual b: the use or language of sarcasm
sarcasm - Definition from the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary


Here are a few examples of inspired sarcasm:

1 Kings 18:26 And they took the bullock which was given them, and they dressed it, and called on the name of Baal from morning even until noon, saying, O Baal, hear us. But there was no voice, nor any that answered. And they leaped upon the altar which was made. 27 And it came to pass at noon, that Elijah mocked them, and said, Cry aloud: for he is a god; either he is talking, or he is pursuing, or he is in a journey, or peradventure he sleepeth, and must be awaked. 28 And they cried aloud, and cut themselves after their manner with knives and lancets, till the blood gushed out upon them.

Isaiah 1:2 Hear, O heavens, and give ear, O earth: for the LORD hath spoken, I have nourished and brought up children, and they have rebelled against me. 3 The ox knoweth his owner, and the ass his master's crib: but Israel doth not know, my people doth not consider....11 To what purpose is the multitude of your sacrifices unto me? saith the LORD: I am full of the burnt offerings of rams, and the fat of fed beasts; and I delight not in the blood of bullocks, or of lambs, or of he goats. 12 When ye come to appear before me, who hath required this at your hand, to tread my courts? 13 Bring no more vain oblations; incense is an abomination unto me; the new moons and sabbaths, the calling of assemblies, I cannot away with; it is iniquity, even the solemn meeting. 14 Your new moons and your appointed feasts my soul hateth: they are a trouble unto me; I am weary to bear them.

Galatians 2:14 But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Peter before them all, If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews? 15 We who are Jews by nature, and not sinners of the Gentiles,

Galatians 5:11 And I, brethren, if I yet preach circumcision, why do I yet suffer persecution? then is the offence of the cross ceased. 12 I would they were even cut off which trouble you.


As you can see, God and His Apostles and Prophets utilize "a mode of satirical wit depending for its effect on bitter, caustic, and often ironic language that is usually directed against an individual". Elijah mocks their vain confidence, and his opponents literally cut themselves; God says He hates the very things He commanded Israel to do, because done in the wrong spirit; Paul tells Peter that they were not "sinners of the Gentiles" (clearly not in accordance with Romans 2 - 3, but used for effect); and Paul tells the Galatians that the circumcisers must themselves be circumcised. Sarcasm, plain and simple.

Therefore, to reiterate my point from my previous post, the mere charge of sarcasm convicts no man of anything. If the sarcasm is unwarranted, then there is sin. If the sarcasm is appropriate, and yet still a sin, then I would have to drag Elijah, Paul, and God Almighty down to condemnation for using that form of speech: a thing I can't and won't do.

As for evil suspicion, please see my previous post where I have stated my position on this. If Mr. Ritchie's original comment is read with a mind to find fault, then it can be seen as an "evil suspicion". If it read in the light of the common usage made of sarcasm in day-to-day speech, and in God's Holy Word, then there is no need to find fault, unless one would like to do so. And, as I stated, if one WANTS to find fault with someone's mode of expression, then THIS ITSELF is an example of evil suspicion.

Godspeed,

Adam

5. I think Mr. Ritchie's comment was a sarcastic way of saying that WSC is Kleinian, and therefore opposes theonomy, and is therefore relieved to find that Shepherdism has invaded some theonomic circles. Such a fact makes the Kleinian argument against theonomy much easier to accept. I don't think it is wise to impute motives deeper than this to Mr. Ritchie, as I think that this would likewise constitute a violation of the 9th cmd.

If this "sarcasm" is accepted as a matter of fact, why is there still dispute? Evil suspicion is a sin against the ninth commandment whether it is done sarcastically or not. I find it hard to understand why you are calling for exoneration when you acknowledge his fault. If you would like to see him reinstated then you should point out his fault to him so that he can confess it and we can all move on from this sorry mess.

 

[Christusregnat]

Rich,

As I have requested previoulsy, please provide an example of a WSC faculty member who condemns the link between FV and theonomy. That is all I ask. I suspect, however, from your responses that this cannot be done, and therefore Mr. Ritchie's point carries weight.

Godspeed,

Adam

Adam,

The facts are at your disposal above. I have given more than adequate explanation contrary to your assertion that I have given no evidence. If you do not care to evaluate his sarcasm on the basis of the standard that I laid out clearly then I cannot force you to evaluate it that way but I'm not going to continue in a pointless "back and forth" in the matter. You claim to agree, on the one hand, with the nature of the WLC and with Durham's exposition and then you take away with another what the 9th Commandment requires and forbids with your standards for propriety above that are not the WLC standards but your own.

I will leave it to the reader to decide. As for all the moderators who discussed this at length in back-channel, including all the ministers, there was nothing but agreement as we discuss all these matters and nothing is done that is not scrutinized. In fact, it was a minister who suggested we find Durham's quotation on this matter to provide a backdrop so that people will understand the nature of the 9th Commandment.

The irony in all of this interchange is your charge of misrepresentation. In other words, if true, I have violated the 9th Commandment.

I do not obviously agree that my pointing out a "sarcastic" misrepresentation as a 9th Commandment violation is, in itself, a 9th Commandment violation. People are comfortable with the idea that they might have been excessive in their rhetoric or painted a group in a bad light if you just call it "excess" or "sarcasm" or "over-reaching" or "misrepresentation". Call it anything, in fact, except a 9th Commandment violation and people will brush it aside. Call it for what it is and now we're dealing with "offense". I wonder why that is?

As for my part, I am not offended that you have accused me of violating the 9th Commandment. I do not impute "evil motives" in your suggestion that it is the case. I simply do not agree with it and you keep avoiding the obvious. You keep failing to interact with the substance of the nature of the 9th. You ask questions about whether or not the parties themselves were offended by another's polemic excess. You obfuscate by saying that not all generalizations are offenses but don't deal with this generalization. You shift the sand from one man's responsibility to criticize fairly to the ground that others have criticized his position. You admit to misrepresentation for sarcasm's sake and seem oblivious to the clear prohibition in the WLC's exposition.

I frankly find myself bewildered by this exchange but I can do no better than I have in trying to demonstrate plainly to you why I called it what I did. If you cannot accept my reasoning then nothing you have written has persuaded me that my application of the 9th Commandment per the WLC is anything but substantiated. For me to retract what I stated I would have to withdraw my subscription to the Westminster Standards on the nature of the 9th Commandment. This has nothing to do with being personal or too prideful to repent. I have openly repented of attitudes in the past, even toward the party in question. Why have I repented in the past? Because I, too, violate the 9th Commandment here. I do not claim to be guiltless in the standard required but, when flagrant here, I do not tolerate it in others simply because I'm still mortifying it myself. I will not embrace it and simply brush it off. It's not always called what it truly is but this board has and will moderate it.

Blessings!

Rich

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Rich,

As I have requested previoulsy, please provide an example of a WSC faculty member who condemns the link between FV and theonomy. That is all I ask. I suspect, however, from your responses that this cannot be done, and therefore Mr. Ritchie's point carries weight.

Godspeed,

Adam

P1: R. Scott Clark wrote a post linking FV and theonomy.
P2: None of the other faculty members have been read in print condemning it.
P3: Every faculty member reads the Heidelblog
P4: Even though R. Scott Clark is the only faculty member with a blog, the reason there is nothing in writing disagreeing with it is that all other faculty heartily concur.
P5: Someone who claims to be Rick Warren left a comment on a Tom Ascoll's blog claiming to be a Kuyper-Calvinist.
P6: Mike Horton has publicly criticized Rick Warren.
P7: Rick Warren was criticized because Mike Horton had the prescience to know that somebody claiming to be Rick Warren would state he is a Kuyper-Calvinist.
P8: Kuyper-Calvinism is despised at WSC as another form of societal reformation

Conclusion: Rick Warren was condemned by Mike Horton because he hates societal reformation just like the rest of the WSC Staff that reads every post by R. Scott Clark on the Hiedelblog who agree with it and are happy the FV is around to drive home their point.

Do you have knowledge that P3 and P4 are the case in order to assert so boldly that some point is established?

P7 is clearly not true given Adam's (Archlute) testimony of facts in the thread in question.

Let me take this one step further, Adam: Assuming my neighbor slanders me, does the 9th Commandment permit me to slander him in return?

 

[BobVigneault]

This thread has had some great moments of debate. "Thank you" to you all. I sure appreciate that you have all kept your emotions under control. Well done! It's my opinion that this thread has run it's course and may be showing signs that a healthy debate is tending toward obsession.

Let's leave this alone for now and step away. Take some time to put things in perspective and get some air. Oh there's so many more metaphors I would love to throw in here but instead, I'm just going to close this thread. Blessings.

 

[MW]

Rev. Winzer,

Below you stated that sarcasm is accepted as a matter of fact in my post. Indeed, it is. From what you state, it appears that you consider sarcasm a violation of the 9th cmd; is that so?

No, that is not so; the problem is not the sarcasm, but the fact that you acknowledge his sarcasm included an evil suspicion. It was emboldened for you: "and is therefore relieved to find that Shepherdism has invaded some theonomic circles." The sarcasm doesn't make this evil suspicion any less a violation of the ninth commandment.