From: “John Heaton”
Subject: ad hoc report — MVP — it’s up
All,
This is a hasty reply to the MVP report which I read. Hasty replies are ill-advised in Proverbs but this is BH after all. You’ll understand if I don’t make complete sense. Plus, I don’t have a dog in this hunt.
The MVP report to one *outside* like me who has more in common with rank and file pastors who are unaware of the whole bru-ha-ha, is neither acerbic or offensive. Yes, I KNOW you aren’t happy with it.
However, you who wish to advocate NPP/AAT/FV in the PCA in the name of X and in the interest of theological development must admit an important thing and conform your rhetoric and tactics to this reality: You DO NOT represent the status quo. You DO NOT represent the PCA as they conceive it, and YOU cannot pretend that you’re NOT *dangerous.*
We have the same problem in the REC. Our bishops want to re-Anglicanize the church, which is fine by me. But they can’t pretend that the REC is returning to its roots and its old paths. We all know what the REC is, has been, etc., and, though many believe it *should* be changed, the rhetorial burden of proof is on those who want to change it. In doing so, we can’t pretend that its really nothing more than changing the window dressing. Too many parishes know better.
Thus, avoid seeking the sympathy vote. No one will feel sorry that you’re persecuted (except those of us on BH who are sympathetic to you — but can’t vote). Above all you have to appear that you are being totally HONEST about the implications of what you advocate, rather than simply minimizing the issues under the cover of reformed diversity. It won’t work. I mean, the discussions on this list are animated prescisely BECAUSE the NPP is so provocative and interesting and worth pursuing. These ideas have great consequences and you have to be the first to say it. Clearly identify the tension and fight the battle there.
Those who disagree understand this and are negatively provoked. Thus, I think the MVP report is of great rhetorical value. It is very instructive not because it obscures or reveals the ulterior motives of those who are *out to get you.* They see something very clearly that you had better recognize — they are vanilla, and you are now chocolate. You’ll only win it by persuading the PCA that chocolate is better, not by insisting that chocolate nuggets have always been enjoyed, permitted, or otherwise mixed in the reformed recipe.
My $02.
John Heaton, Headmaster
New Covenant Schools
122 Fleetwood Drive
Lynchburg, VA 24501
434.847.8313
Date: Tue, 08 Feb 2005 20:07:42 -0600
From: “James B. Jordan”
Subject: The Heatonic Observation
Well, John, sounds good to me. I’ve said for years that paedocommunion and non-pc cannot live together any more than infant and adult baptism. And by returning to pc, we drive back 1000 years, and definitely back before the Reformation. We also don’t like the rationalism of the “grammatical historical method” (a good way of weeding out about 95% of what the text means). I — and since BH is me, we — don’t think metrical psalms are real psalms and think Calvin and the Reformed tradition made a huge mistake by substituting metrical psalms for real ones — a gnostic move, since the assumption is that the IDEAS of the text are all that matter, and not the shape thereof. I could go on. . . .
Oh, it’s true enough: We depart from the whole Reformation tradition at certain pretty basic points. It’s no good pretending otherwise. I think the PCA is perfectly within its rights to say no to all BH types. We are NOT traditional presbyterians. The PCA suffers us within itself, but we are poison to traditional presbyterianism. We are new wine, and the PCA is an old skin. So, for the sake of the people we are called to minister to, we do our best. But we don’t really “belong” there.
I mean, think about it. Would any of you seek ordination in a Baptist denomination? No. Then why do you seek ordination in non-paedocommuning Presbyterian/Reformed denominations? Don’t tell me that these aren’t the same question, because at the practical level, American presbyterianism is just “Baptist light.” That’s what Banner of Truth Calvinism is, and why it’s been Reformed Baptists who most appreciate it. That what Duncan is. That’s what the So. Presbyterian tradition is. That’s what American individualist conversionist presbyterianism is: Baptists who sprinkle babies.
I can’t really put feet on this, but I “feel” sure that the Reformation tradition is rationalistic precisely because it is anti-pc. Or maybe better, these are part of one complex. Being anti-pc was the greatest mistake of all the Reformers (except Musculus, and who cares about him?). This mistake is part of the heart of the Reformation; they knew about pc and rejected it. This has affected, or else helps be a part of, all kinds of things, like piety, liturgy, and hermeneutics.
So, why are you trying to get ordained presbyterian? Why not seek to get ordained Baptist? There are a whole lot more baptists out there. A bigger pond. Larger sphere of influence.
Well, it’s because the baptists won’t have us, and so far the presbys will. But there’s no reason why the presbys should receive us, since sacramentally speaking we are NOT Reformed and NOT presbyterian.
I’m a little bit sympathetic with Duncan & Co. when they suspect some of you guys are not being honest when you try to show that you’re just good traditional Reformed guys. I guess it’s a good thing I did not make it to the Knox Seminary discussion, because I would have openly said, “I’m not on the same page as Calvin and the Reformation in these regards.” Showing that the Reformed tradition is wider and muddier than Duncan wants it to be is fine, but the fact is that if you believe in pc, you’re not in the Reformed tradition at all in a very significant and profound sense. No more than you’re Baptists.
JBJ >:-}
James B. Jordan
Director, Biblical Horizons
Box 1096
Niceville, FL 32578
http://www.biblicalhorizons.com
Date: Wed, 09 Feb 2005 02:37:33 -0000
From: “Rich Bledsoe”
Subject: The Heatonic Observation
“James B. Jordan” wrote:
Well, John, sounds good to me. I’ve said for years that paedocommunion and non-pc cannot live together any more than infant and adult baptism. And by returning to pc, we drive back 1000 years, and definitely back before the Reformation. We also don’t like the rationalism of the “grammatical historical method” (a good way of weeding out about 95% of what the text
I think what you say here is exactly correct Jim. Just as well face up to it. The entire Reformation movement, and for that matter, the entire Protestant movement, is the movement of the “individuation of the human race.” Well, that has now been achieved. Protestantism was not a mistake, it was necessary, just as moving out of your parents home and establishing yourself as a mature adult is necessary for every human being in our time. But now, we have to move beyond this. Just what are the practical implications of “in Christ” of the Pauline epistles? They are not Puritan individualism.
RB
Date: Tue, 8 Feb 2005 21:33:34 -0800
From: Daniel Dillard
Subject: The Heatonic Observation
This is very helpful, John and Jim.
So, when? Mind you, many of us will be forced to become church planters.
The CREC looks encouraging in that it allows for paedocommunion. A big question in my mind is: will it get bogged down in 16th and 17th century confessional issues the way doctrinally-minded OPC/PCA folks have?
In terms of the Heatonic/Jordanian Observations, it would seem a new confession would be in order — perhaps a 21st century counterpart to the Nicene Creed?
So, again, when?
Love in Christ,
Dan Dillard
Date: Wed, 9 Feb 2005 17:01:23 +0900
From: “Ralph A. Smith”
Subject: The Heatonic Observation
Ok. I agree with Jim again.
Like I learned to do in the 1980s when I lost support of the dispensational churches that first sent me to Japan. At that time, I got a full time job and supported myself. Now our church is large enough to handle most of the monthly support, but this post probably is the death nell to the little bit of help I still get from the States. Good bye Presbyterian friends!
(By the way, Kevin, now you know your future as long as you follow BH theology. You think your support is thin now? Just wait until Jim speaks at the next Knox Seminary discussion. That is the fun of all this. No one never knows what Jim is going to do next. But after all, we are pioneers and pioneers don’t eat steak and sushi. We eat the beef jerky and MacDonalds hamburgers we can dig out from the trash bin. Life with BH is exciting, Kevin. Hold on and enjoy your poverty. It’s worth it.)
At least the CREC will not kick me out because even though I follow weird Jim as far as I can, I am still less weird than Burke — by a long shot!
Orthodox Unweird Ralph
Date: Wed, 9 Feb 2005 07:52:35 -0600
From: Mark Horne
Subject: The Heatonic Observation
Just a couple of points of clarification. 1. I wouldn’t hesitate to pursue ordination in the Baptist church. I’d promote young child baptism. 2. Paedocommunion has been granted. It is indeed as radical as you say but it still is a done deal in this presbytery and others. So if that’s the issue, then the PCA is *not* traditional Presbyterian. Lig needs to leave.
Mark
Date: Wed, 09 Feb 2005 15:25:05 -0000
From: “Rich Bledsoe”
Subject: The Heatonic Observation
“James B. Jordan” wrote:
Well, John, sounds good to me. I’ve said for years that paedocommunion and non-pc cannot live together any more than infant and adult baptism. And by returning to pc, we drive back 1000 years, and definitely back before the Reformation. We also don’t like the rationalism of the “grammatical historical method” (a good way of weeding out about 95% of what the text
But here is my caveat Jim. What is your alternative? One more “pure” denomination (Protestant sect)??? How many more times do we need to go down this road? Or, is it the case that a new coalition is growing everywhere that transcends denominational lines?
RB
Date: Wed, 9 Feb 2005 10:37:50 -0500
From: “John Heaton”
Subject: More Heatonic Observation
Rich,
I think the solution is simply to move the boundary posts out a little bit. Call me latitudinarian, but this is precisely what must happen. The church of X is so big in its catholicity that we cannot/dare not be so narrow as is required by the strictures of things like the WCF. Anglicanism, to cite but one example, is a good case in point. You might not like the fact that the priest next door harbors *heretical* teaching, but widely divergent views survive in one church. Orthodoxy as defined by the ecumenical creeds should be a better guide for the essentials. We might be uncomfortable with that, but so what, it means that the *visible* church could be full of heretics. But we already knew that because Jesus said so (wolves, he called them, I think).
The only alternative is the pursuit of the right doctrine by the standards of whomever is in charge, which leads to a narrowness that excludes conversation.
In this whole matter I am SHOCKED at the problem you all face. There is a profound inability for the PCA and its ministers to have a fruitful dialog about theology. It is disturbing to me that the definitions established at 1647 descending through the So. Pres. Church are considered so right and worth preserving that the church can no longer have a conversation about matters of faith. Ever. I don’t get it.
John Heaton, Headmaster
New Covenant Schools
122 Fleetwood Drive
Lynchburg, VA 24501
434.847.8313
www.newcovenantschools.org
Date: Wed, 09 Feb 2005 09:38:27 -0600
From: “James B. Jordan”
Subject: The Heatonic Observation
At 02:01 AM 2/9/2005, you wrote:
(By the way, Kevin, now you know your future as long as you follow BH theology. You think your support is thin now? Just wait until Jim speaks at the next Knox Seminary discussion. That is the fun of all this. No one never knows what Jim is going to do next.
At the AAPC Wright/Gaffin affair, one evening Steve had Douglas Wilson and me and a bunch of faculty guys from WTS and CTS and RTS over for dinner. After lots of chat, Wilson said, “We’d like to be helpful to all you men. Maybe you could share with us in what ways we’ve put you on the spot and made it harder for you.” I leaned over to Doug, who was sitting beside me, and said, “Let’s not do that. I’d like to get to bed before 4 am.” It got a pretty good laugh. I’m such a funny guy. Everybody loves me because of that.
JBJ
Date: Wed, 09 Feb 2005 09:40:01 -0600
From: “James B. Jordan”
Subject: The Heatonic Observation
At 07:52 AM 2/9/2005, you wrote:
Just a couple of points of clarification. 1. I wouldn’t hesitate to pursue ordination in the Baptist church. I’d promote young child baptism. 2. Paedocommunion has been granted.
No it hasn’t. You can’t DO it. You can only THINK about it. Reformed Gnosticism wins again!
JBJ
Date: Wed, 09 Feb 2005 09:45:44 -0600
From: “James B. Jordan”
Subject: The Heatonic Observation
At 09:25 AM 2/9/2005, you wrote:
But here is my caveat Jim. What is your alternative? One more “pure” denomination (Protestant sect)??? How many more times do we need to go down this road? Or, is it the case that a new coalition is growing everywhere that transcends denominational lines?
RB
Denominationalism is over because the Galatian heresy of closed communion is over. The 3rd age, the protestant age, is over. (Gimmeabreak, Bledsoe. You and I have known the answer to this question for 30 years!!)
JBJ
Proud member of the same denomination as St. Paul, the Sect That Is Everywhere Evil Spoken Against
Date: Wed, 9 Feb 2005 07:55:15 -0800
From: “Dale Courtney”
Subject: The Heatonic Observation
Jim,
What were the answers to that question?
pax,
Dale
Date: Wed, 09 Feb 2005 15:57:54 -0000
From: “Rich Bledsoe”
Subject: The Heatonic Observation
OK. I’ll give you a break. I was just checking to see if you still had a pulse.
RB
Date: Wed, 9 Feb 2005 11:00:05 -0500
From: “Brian D. Nolder”
Subject: More Heatonic Observation
John:
I think you are right. We need to be “the catholic Church.”
The problem is that the Church as a whole no longer practices discipline. We also need to be “the holy Church.” I think our problem today is that we in conservative Reformed circles have tried to solve this problem more through tight doctrinal standards rather than the rebuking of sin that we find in the NT (Acts 5; 8 [Simon Magus]; 1 Cor. 5, Gal. 2, etc.). We have decided to focus on “knowledge” more than “holy love.” We produce people who (semmingly) know how to “think,” but not really live, because they don’t know how to be holy or loving.
My problem with the mainline churches is not so much their doctrinal “breadth”; it is their tolerance for all behavior except someone who says that certain behavior is unChristian.
BDN
Date: Wed, 09 Feb 2005 11:03:13 -0500
From: “Dennis Bratcher”
Subject: RE: The Heatonic Observation
How does the CREC which officially has Baptist churches differ from the PCA with its ‘baptist lite’ theology?
With Christian Greetings,
Dennis Bratcher
liberatd_believr@hotmail.com
member Reformation Church in Blue Bell
affiliated with the Canadian Reformed Churches
Date: Wed, 09 Feb 2005 10:08:16 -0600
From: “James B. Jordan”
Subject: The Heatonic Observation
At 09:55 AM 2/9/2005, you wrote:
What were the answers to that question?
There were no answers. We just all had a laugh and went on talking about NTW and other stuff. I’m sure I’ve cause a little bit of grief for Jack Collins, who was across the table from me (and friendly), but what’s the point of discussing it?
James B. Jordan
Director, Biblical Horizons
Box 1096
Niceville, FL 32578
http://www.biblicalhorizons.com
Date: Wed, 9 Feb 2005 11:26:17 -0600
From: burke
Subject: The Heatonic Observation
I can’t really put feet on this, but I “feel” sure that the Reformation tradition is rationalistic precisely because it is anti-pc. Or maybe better, these are part of one complex. Being anti-pc was the greatest mistake of all the Reformers (except Musculus, and who cares about him?).
Don’t forget Huss. He’s pc.
This mistake is part of the heart of the Reformation; they knew about pc and rejected it. This has affected, or else helps be a part of, all kinds of things, like piety, liturgy, and hermeneutics. So, why are you trying to get ordained presbyterian? Why not seek to get ordained Baptist? There are a whole lot more baptists out there. A bigger pond. Larger sphere of influence. Well, it’s because the baptists won’t have us, and so far the presbys will. But there’s no reason why the presbys should receive us, since sacramentally speaking we are NOT Reformed and NOT presbyterian. I’m a little bit sympathetic with Duncan & Co. when they suspect some of you guys are not being honest when you try to show that you’re just good traditional Reformed guys. I guess it’s a good thing I did not make it to the Knox Seminary discussion, because I would have openly said, “I’m not on the same page as Calvin and the Reformation in these regards.”
Really? I thought we were discussing on this list the resurgence of “calvinistic sacramentology”, or something like that. And if we aren’t “Reformed” and not “Presbyterian” then what are we? What do you have in mind?
Burke
Date: Wed, 9 Feb 2005 10:42:47 -0700
From: “Tim Gallant”
Subject: The Heatonic Observation
I certainly acknowledge a grain of truth to what John H observed, as well as your observations below, JBJ.
But. . .
I don’t buy the thrust of the argument. I’m sorry, but we all know well enough that “our” crowd, paedo and all, is WAY closer to the 16th century Reformers than are people like Lig Duncan. It’s NOT EVEN CLOSE. So why aren’t we telling them to go start their own sect? Because we are too catholic for that, and that’s good. But there is NO WAY I would give them the sort of high ground implied in John’s post. Not in your context. If you were in a denomination that was 100% faithful to the whole shape and spirit of the 16th century Reformers (dream on), then I would concede the point. But as it is, a denomination that is really and truly closer to Calvin than AAPC types is darn rare, if it exists at all.
Don’t you agree?
tim
Date: Wed, 9 Feb 2005 11:46:15 -0600
From: burke
Subject: The Heatonic Observation
But here is my caveat Jim. What is your alternative? One more “pure” denomination (Protestant sect)??? How many more times do we need to go down this road? Or, is it the case that a new coalition is growing everywhere that transcends denominational lines?
RB
Denominationalism is over because the Galatian heresy of closed communion is over. The 3rd age, the protestant age, is over. (Gimmeabreak, Bledsoe. You and I have known the answer to this question for 30 years!!)
And the answer is?
JBJ
Proud member of the same denomination as St. Paul, the Sect That Is Everywhere Evil Spoken Against
STIEESA? I like the sound of it.
Date: Wed, 09 Feb 2005 11:45:49 -0600
From: “James B. Jordan”
Subject: The Heatonic Observation
At 11:26 AM 2/9/2005, you wrote:
Really? I thought we were discussing on this list the resurgence of “calvinistic sacramentology”, or something like that. And if we aren’t “Reformed” and not “Presbyterian” then what are we? What do you have in mind?
Burke
Something new and unforeseeable. Meanwhile, as we learn from the bats in *The Flying Mouse*:
“You’re nothin’ but a nothin’,
A nothin’,
A nothin’.
You’re nothin’ but a nothin’,
A nothin’s what you are.”
JBJ
Date: Wed, 9 Feb 2005 11:48:28 -0600
From: burke
Subject: More Heatonic Observation
My problem with the mainline churches is not so much their doctrinal “breadth”; it is their tolerance for all behavior except someone who says that certain behavior is unChristian.
You win the “great quote of the day” award!
Date: Wed, 9 Feb 2005 11:47:38 -0600
From: Mark Horne
Subject: The Heatonic Observation
I agree.
Basically, Lig’s position, and the position of others, is that if you aren’t mainstream, they have the right to kick the crap out of you. My understanding was that if you views were confessional or ruled as allowable by the Presbytery (paedocommunion) you were to be treated with love and respect as a brother.
I have a hard time conceding the word Presbyterian to Lig’s view.
Mark
Date: Wed, 9 Feb 2005 11:50:05 -0600
From: burke
Subject: The Heatonic Observation
How does the CREC which officially has Baptist churches differ from the PCA with its ‘baptist lite’ theology?
Because we are reformed catholics who love them, and they us; while the PCA does not love their catholic reformed brethren (nor want them around).
Burke
Date: Wed, 09 Feb 2005 11:51:23 -0600
From: “James B. Jordan”
Subject: The Heatonic Observation
At 11:42 AM 2/9/2005, you wrote:
I certainly acknowledge a grain of truth to what John H observed, as well as your observations below, JBJ. But. . . I don’t buy the thrust of the argument. I’m sorry, but we all know well enough that “our” crowd, paedo and all, is WAY closer to the 16th century Reformers than are people like Lig Duncan. It’s NOT EVEN CLOSE. So why aren’t we telling them to go start their own sect? Because we are too catholic for that, and that’s good. But there is NO WAY I would give them the sort of high ground implied in John’s post. Not in your context. If you were in a denomination that was 100% faithful to the whole shape and spirit of the 16th century Reformers (dream on), then I would concede the point. But as it is, a denomination that is really and truly closer to Calvin than AAPC types is darn rare, if it exists at all.
Don’t you agree?
tim
Well, it’s semantics, I guess. I’m not conceding them the high ground, because in a world of Ascension, the high ground is where Jesus is, moving on up. No, I concede them the low ground of idolatrous traditionalism,
which always perverts the fathers.
But I take your point.
JBJ
Date: Wed, 9 Feb 2005 10:54:38 -0700
From: “Tim Gallant”
Subject: The Heatonic Observation
Burke wrote:
Don’t forget Huss. He’s pc.
Well, he is now, ’cause he’s in heaven. But don’t confuse Huss himself with the Hussite advocacy of paedo, which as far as I know emerged shortly after his death.
tim
Date: Wed, 9 Feb 2005 12:02:14 -0600
From: burke burke
Subject: The Heatonic Observation
Don’t forget Huss. He’s pc.
Well, he is now, ’cause he’s in heaven. But don’t confuse Huss himself with the Hussite advocacy of paedo, which as far as I know emerged shortly after his death.
I’ll have to look up my research on him I did for a sermon years ago. If I remember correctly, he was an advocate of pc, as well as the church that followed him. But being as old as I am, I could be mis-remembering.
Burke
Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2005 10:38:14 +0900
From: “Ralph A. Smith”
Subject: The Heatonic Observation
On Feb 10, 2005, at 1:03 AM, Dennis Bratcher wrote:
How does the CREC which officially has Baptist churches differ from the PCA with its ‘baptist lite’ theology?
Dennis,
I would describe the difference this way: The CREC tolerates Baptist churches that are Calvinistic but does not allow them to dominate the group. Paedocommunion is allowed by the CREC and actually practiced by a large number of churches. The PCA, on the other hand, requires “baptist lite” of its members and in some places disciplines those who go for something else.
Ralph
Date: Wed, 09 Feb 2005 21:31:49 -0600
From: “James B. Jordan”
Subject: The Heatonic Observation
On Feb 10, 2005, at 1:03 AM, Dennis Bratcher wrote:
How does the CREC which officially has Baptist churches differ from the PCA with its ‘baptist lite’ theology?
Thou prejudicest the discussion by asking about theology. I was talking about ethos, piety, liturgical piety, etc. Think in those terms and I think the difference between the two groups can begin to be set out.
JBJ
