From: “garver”
Subject: my response
Ok, well, I didn’t get any further feedback, so I guess it’s ok.
I’m headed to bed now. Today felt like Lent arrived a day early.
joel
Date: Wed, 9 Feb 2005 01:33:15 -0600
From: “Jonathan Barlow”
Subject: Re: my response
Joel — I’m not sure what you meant, in the conclusion, by a “process” of “confessional subscription”. Perhaps you meant a process of confessional interpretation or application or something? Just a small quibble. Maybe you even meant a process of discussing the nature of confessional subscription.
Good stuff, dude. I wonder if Ligon has ever given much thought to doctrinal development as a concept. Parts of the MVP report indicate to me that they have not even perceived a trajectory of development with regard to the ordo salutis that everyone seems to admit has happened.
I also found the MVP report hilarious in its praise of Guy Waters’ books. I haven’t seen any scholarly reviews of the book yet — how does Ligon know it has been widely lauded as “definitive” Reformed treatment? Perhaps he means that in his own wide travels he has personally lauded the book as definitive.
Personally, the MVP report drives me nuts. It is so poorly written, and its sample questions for candidates is virtually unchanged from the ones from three years ago on PCA News — have they learned nothing in the meantime?
— Jonathan
Date: Wed, 09 Feb 2005 10:33:19 -0000
From: “Robert T.”
Subject: Re: my response
Joel,
Thank you for your work on this. I would like to be able to send the link to several people, but first a few things need to be cleaned up:
These two sentences from the intro need to be worked on, they seem to contradict one another:
“In connection with the specific content of the MVP report, I’ve been thinking through these issues for sometime, particularly in the months since the publication of the preliminary MVP committee report, from which this final report emerges. Now that the final version of the report is public, I have begun to reflect upon it.”
From section 5 — spelling
“it seems to me that the actual [[postive]] theological constructions”
From Section 7 — spelling
“which generally reject “merit” with regard to the [[adminstration]] of the covenants”
From Section 13 — spelling
“the [[teriminology]] of the “lens of the decree” would not be in play at all”
From Section 14 — spelling
“It also seems to me that the AAPC Statement at this point is speaking in terms of phenomenology and [[pyschology]]“
From Section 16 — spelling
“Most [[problematicslly]], the AAPC Statement also says”
From conclusion — spelling
“confessional subscription as that is [[occuring]] within the PCA”
Thanks,
Robert Terry
Date: Wed, 09 Feb 2005 11:54:35 -0000
From: “garver”
Subject: Re: my response
Robert wrote:
Thank you for your work on this. I would like to be able to send the link to several people, but first a few things need to be cleaned up:
Thanks. Cleaned it up.
joel
Date: Wed, 9 Feb 2005 08:22:20 -0600
From: Jeff Meyers
Subject: Re: my response
On Feb 9, 2005, at 1:33 AM, Jonathan Barlow wrote:
I wonder if Ligon has ever given much thought to doctrinal development as a concept. Parts of the MVP report indicate to me that they have not even perceived a trajectory of development with regard to the ordo salutis that everyone seems to admit has happened.
Doctrinal development? You’ve got to be kidding. That’s liberalism.
The “Christian Observer” is sent to the clerk of our session every month. He gave me some copies of the recent edition last night, so before I trashed them I glanced through it when the meeting was slow. Consider these gems:
“Claiming to know something that the Bible teaches which is new or different from the Reformed Creeds and historic Reformed practice, is just a cloak for heresy.”
“Our doctrines are founded in the Bible and explained by our confessions. These beliefs were paid for in the blood of the fathers that we might not need to reinvent the wheel, as our faith was full grown and rolling when it came to us from them. We do not need new confessions or new exegesis to support our confessional positions. What we need are men and women of integrity to stand fast in the faith of our fathers. We need men who as officers of the church took at oath to support these beliefs as handed down to us in our confessional documents that have the guts to stand firm in the face of so-called scholarly assault of later generations. This is not scholarship but the attempt of weak men to find a fig leaf for their heretical views. . . I cannot see the intent or motivation of these men but I know that the Spirit of God is not in this present assault on our faith. . . . To these Johnny-come-lately scholars of the Bible I say repent or you shall likewise perish by the words of your own mouths, for it is you who believe works shall play a part in your own final justification.”
The first quotation comes from an article on Heidelberg Theological Seminary (by Robert Grossmann). The second is from the end of an short essay by Chuck Baynard called “New Perspective or Old Heresy.”
Did you say doctrinal development, you heretic?
Read that second quote again and think about how one will be characterized if one even suggests doctrinal development: a weak man, cowardly, no guts, no integrity, using a fig leaf as cover for heresy, a Johnny-come-lately pseudo scholar, without the Spirit of God, participating in the scholarly assault on our faith, etc.
Did someone say they wanted a fair hearing?
JJM
Date: Wed, 09 Feb 2005 14:37:01 -0000
From: “garver”
Subject: Re: my response
Jeff Meyers wrote:
Doctrinal development? You’ve got to be kidding. That’s liberalism.
“Our doctrines are founded in the Bible and explained by our confessions. These beliefs were paid for in the blood of the fathers that we might not need to reinvent the wheel, as our faith was full grown and rolling when it came to us from them. . .”
That’s positively nauseating.
You know, Albigensians and Arians and all other sort of folk shed blood for their beliefs too. Martyrdom is no test of orthodoxy.
From what I know of “the fathers” of the Reformed faith, the better part of them would be disgusted but the kind of doctrinal and biblical stand-still this fellow is advocating.
joel
Date: Wed, 09 Feb 2005 14:38:12 -0000
From: “garver”
Subject: Re: my response
Oh, in response to a couple of emails about point (17) — citing JBJ and Peter — I expanded my response to that particular point.
joel
Date: Wed, 9 Feb 2005 09:46:08 -0500
From: “Brian D. Nolder”
Subject: Re: my response
Is all of this somewhat the way a Roman Catholic responds to the gospel: “I just can’t admit that my parents (forefathers) were wrong”?
I plan to write an essay on this: we seem to take what we deem to be “good and necessary consequences” and give them equal (or God forbid, greater!) weight than that which is “expressly set down” in Scripture. This, IMO, is why we have become so sectarian.
BDN
Date: Wed, 09 Feb 2005 14:49:14 -0000
From: “garver”
Subject: Re: my response
Brian D. Nolder wrote:
I plan to write an essay on this: we seem to take what we deem to be “good and necessary consequences” and give them equal (or God forbid, greater!) weight than that which is “expressly set down” in Scripture.
As Aquinas says with regard to natural law, “although there is necessity in the general principles, the more we descend to matters of detail, the more frequently we encounter defects.”
joel
Date: Wed, 09 Feb 2005 15:44:23 -0000
From: “Cory Kloth”
Subject: Re: my response
Again, these type of public comments show the idolatry that many men have for the Reformers and the Confessional Standards. Paul, in writing about meeting a man who was caught up in the third heaven, had the humility to proclaim that 1) God knew the full meaning and that 2) he (Paul) had limited knowledge and did not know the full meaning of this man’s experience (2 Cor 12). To have the audacity to say that this faith as described in the confessions is THE absolute definitive explanation of the Christian faith is (IMOHO) boasting in ourselves rather than in Christ.
I recently taught this at SS when I have had the opportunity to preach @ Corneoli’s church in Greenville. I call it “Under Construction Theology”. Our theology should always be “changing” (following the hermeneutic spiral thesis) b/c of the following reasons:
1. Maturity of the individual believer. My theology is not the same as it was even a year ago b/c of the maturity that God is bringing through me by His sovereign plan (different understanding of His love, what suffering means, etc. . . more developed by these personal experiences)
2. The world of God’s revealed Word is being re-discovered. Think of the archeology and historical research that has been done over the past 100, 200, 500 years. This knowledge changes and so should our theology in relation to this knowledge. “If you don’t take the context, then you just have pretext.”
3. Perspectivialism. Time and space in relation to knowledge and experience will and should bring about differing theological viewpoints.
4. Awareness (and/or non-Awareness) of Corrupted Philosophical Worldviews. We sit here in 2005 and can see that many 17th and 18th century theologians seem to be more commited to a modern philosophical worldview rather than the Scripture. . . JUST AS in 100 and 200 years people will be reading our stuff and saying “well, they were influenced by their time period in these ways. . .” This is a reality that we live in which should bring about continued theological development.
Now, can we do this and still stay faithful to the Word? That is the challenge of being a Christian who holds his doctrine secure (Titus 2:1).
I think we are to quick to condemn (or agree with) new theological insights. Instead of waiting, listening, praying, and even seeing the impact of new theological insights for a decade or two before passing judgment, in this age of quick communication, maybe we are too quick to condemn new “movements?” I think this action is a lack of faith and trust knowing that it is God who is going to hold His church in the purity of doctrine rather than men who think they have unlimited knowledge in all things pertaining to God.
ck
Date: Wed, 9 Feb 2005 09:53:04 -0600
From: “Steve Wilkins”
Subject: Re: my response
Good stuff, dude. I wonder if Ligon has ever given much thought to doctrinal development as a concept. Parts of the MVP report indicate to me that they have not even perceived a trajectory of development with regard to the ordo salutis that everyone seems to admit has happened.
be assured, there is NOTHING that we might point out that Ligon has not considered. I know because he told me.
seriously, Ligon sincerely believes that we are poor, benighted, perhaps sincere, but utterly deceived souls when it comes to history, theology, and any number of other issues. For us to protest that our views do not constitute “another gospel” is a waste of breath because they hear it as a protest from one who doesn’t really understand what he’s doing nor the implications of his convictions.
We are not dealing with men who are seeking or desiring to understand us. They really believe (and I think for the most part, they believe this sincerely) that the only thing to be done with us is to remove us from the denomination and keep us out.
sw
Date: Wed, 9 Feb 2005 16:06:11 GMT
From: “Joe Thacker”
Subject: Re: my response
sw wrote:
seriously, Ligon sincerely believes that we are poor, benighted, perhaps sincere, but utterly deceived souls when it comes to history, theology, and any number of other issues. . . . We are not dealing with men who are seeking or desiring to understand us.
Seems to me that the report as a whole has such a condescending tone. Granted, I’m a jaded reader, but this sentence takes first place: “Second, we continue to esteem and love our brothers, whether they view the theologies of the NPP, NTW, NS and the AAT/FV as benign and useful, or have been influenced by their teachings.”
I hate to think of what might mild disdain might look like!
JAT
Date: Wed, 9 Feb 2005 16:08:48 GMT
From: “Joe Thacker”
Subject: Re: my response
ingnore the first “might” of that last sentence.
JAT
Date: Wed, 9 Feb 2005 10:38:35 -0600
From: “Steve Wilkins”
Subject: Re: my response
right, well, here’s what I’m talking about. I just received a note from Ligon (sending me my own personal copy of the MVP report) and in the note he points me to the very sentence you quote above and wants me to be sure and notice that they put it in the report (here’s what he says, quote: “I want to emphasize these words of the report to you”) it’s suppose to comfort me and show how humble and open (and appreciative?) they are toward us — And he is (I think) being completely sincere. I really think he believes this sort of statement shows great, broad catholicity and generosity of spirit.
“Strange” is not the word for it.
sw
Date: Wed, 9 Feb 2005 10:52:18 -0600
From: “Jonathan Barlow”
Subject: Re: my response
I thought that you requested the meeting with the committee — the report makes it sound like meeting with you was foundational to their work.
Also, do you know what they mean about sponsoring 30 hours of discussion? Do they mean some lectures or something given by the choir to the choir?
— Jonathan
Date: Wed, 9 Feb 2005 11:18:41 -0600
From: “Steven Wright”
Subject: RE: my response
Also, do you know what they mean about sponsoring 30 hours of discussion? Do they mean some lectures or something given by the choir to the choir?
Ligon’s church, First Pres of Jackson, sponsored three series of lectures by Guy Waters. The first was on NPP, which became the basis for his book. Then he gave a series of lectures on Norman Shepherd and a series on Federal Vision theology. They are making Guy their academic-theologian point-man. The tapes of these lectures are available from First Pres. [The distinction between First Pres Jackson and the MS Valley Presbytery is sometimes hard to find!]
Steven
Date: Wed, 9 Feb 2005 11:23:27 -0600
From: “Jonathan Barlow”
Subject: Re: my response
So how does the noun “discussion” fit in — the Q&A afterwards? Also, correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t Guy Waters’ expertise in biblical studies? What is his theological training like?
Date: Wed, 09 Feb 2005 17:34:13 -0000
From: “garver”
Subject: Re: my response
Jonathan Barlow wrote:
Also, correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t Guy Waters’ expertise in biblical studies? What is his theological training like?
He’s a WTS-Philly grad, isn’t he? MDiv, only; no ThM. PhD was Duke.
joel
Date: Wed, 9 Feb 2005 13:23:59 -0600
From: “Steve Wilkins”
Subject: Re: my response
I thought that you requested the meeting with the committee — the report makes it sound like meeting with you was foundational to their work.
that is correct, the meeting came about at my initiation. They had decided not to meet prior to that. I wish you all could have been present in this meeting. Every time we made an objection and tried to defend our position, Ligon would remind us that it was beyond the purview of the committee to deal with those questions — we were there just to allow them hear our concerns with their report (!). There was no substantive discussion.
Also, do you know what they mean about sponsoring 30 hours of discussion? Do they mean some lectures or something given by the choir to the choir?
I think they held a “retreat” at Twin Lakes for the presbytery some time in the last year or so, but I’m not sure.
sw
