From: “Jonathan Barlow”
Subject: joel’s response
Joel,
I enjoyed your response to the MVP. Just a few things:
- You say that you’re “adverse” to controversy, but I think you mean “averse”.
- “Make my own viewpoints clears” should be “clear”
- Don’t forget to add the promised “concluding observations”
- I would take out the bit about seeing the points earlier than the public release of them. Just let ’em wonder how your kung fu is that good.
Now, more thoughts:
- It strikes me that your response is of a lot higher quality than the MVP report itself. At some point, it will be tiring to keep throwing your pearls before swine, but be encouraged because there are some others looking over the shoulders of the swine who will not be able to stay on their side and live with themselves.
- It also strikes me that a lot of the points you bring up are the kinds of things that a true, working committee would have brought up — ambiguities, etc. I think it goes to the fact that this report reads like one or two guys wrote it and it was accepted with little critical sharpening.
- There is no forum for theological discussion in the PCA. If you listen to Barach’s first speech at the first AAPC F.V. conference, it sounds a lot like thinking out loud about these matters. I don’t know of any place besides such a conference and online that there is for thinking out loud about these matters. And yet these MVP guys and their supporters often sound a note of being too good for internet discussions. Frankly, that wears thin with me given the absence of alternatives for interaction. I hope that in your conclusion you can address the unfortunate path this has taken, the distrust shown by people on these matters, the lack of a spirit of discussion on these matters, etc.
- I would add some more footnotes here and there to your responses. For instance, in point 16 with the “conditional” and “sacramental” cleansing vs. the “absolute” cleansing language. Don’t give them wiggle room there.
- These MVP guys + Phillips and Fesko and others really believe that Historical Theology is on their side in these matters. I am continually amazed at this. I don’t know what it will take, but it won’t be long before even the Westminster Assembly Project starts generating data that will hurt their cases. At some point, they are just going to have to draw their wagons tighter and stop talking about the reformed tradition and focus on some subset — “we’re upholding traditional southern presbyterianism” or something like that. I already see Ligon’s language of supporting “Ordinary Means churches” and his building of parallel structures to oppose the PPLN. Frankly, I am shocked at Fesko’s and his friends’ (some World Magazine hack) treatment of the PPLN — personal attacks on them, etc. Weird.
Date: Tue, 08 Feb 2005 17:39:55 -0000
From: “garver”
Subject: joel’s response
Jonathan Barlow wrote:
I enjoyed your response to the MVP. Just a few things:
Thx, esp for catching typos I’d probably never notice. The more general points are quite helpful as well, esp for how I might finish this thing off.
joel
Date: Tue, 08 Feb 2005 18:07:06 -0000
From: “garver”
Subject: joel’s response
4. I would add some more footnotes here and there to your responses.
For instance, in point 16 with the “conditional” and “sacramental” cleansing vs. the “absolute” cleansing language. Don’t give them wiggle room there.
Well, that’s most obviously from Turretin, though I can footnote it from various other authors as well.
What other points would folks recommend footnoting?
Does anyone have references to relevant bits of Wright or Dunn or whoever handy?
I’ve changed the URL, btw, to:
joelgarver.com/docs/response2.htm
joel
