tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7721714073908787942024-03-12T18:53:06.489-07:00Biblical Horizons Yahoos!Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger54125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-772171407390878794.post-22735197761236468802005-02-14T03:29:00.000-08:002010-10-05T06:03:27.803-07:00alliance of confessing evangelicals<b>Date:</b> Mon, 14 Feb 2005 03:29:20 -0000<br />
<b>From:</b> <a href="mailto:garvers1@yahoo.com">“garver”</a><br />
<b>Subject:</b> alliance of confessing evangelicals<br />
<br />
I was just looking on the ACE website and noticed that the Alliance Council has be reconstituted. Gone are almost all the Anglicans and Lutherans and more liturgically-minded Reformed (e.g., Horton) and in their place a panoply of Reformed Baptists. Weird. Explains why they changed the “R” in PCRT back to “Reformed” from “Reformational.”<br />
<br />
They say: “Our reconstituted Council, comprised of leading pastor-theologians who reflect major ecclesiastical and ministry networks in the Reformed community, is theologically, methodologically, and pastorally coherent.”<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.alliancenet.org/partner/Article_Display_Page/0,,PTID307086%7CCHID581338%7CCIID1920170,00.html">http://www.alliancenet.org/partner/Article_Display_Page/0,,PTID307086|CHID581338|CIID1920170,00.html</a><br />
<br />
<a href="http://tinyurl.com/6fzkz">http://tinyurl.com/6fzkz</a><br />
<br />
Lig Duncan’s the new president, if you hadn’t heard.<br />
<br />
joel<a name='more'></a><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<b>Date:</b> Mon, 14 Feb 2005 08:14:43 EST<br />
<b>From:</b> <a href="mailto:Calvin3Max@aol.com">Calvin3Max@aol.com</a><br />
<b>Subject:</b> Re: alliance of confessing evangelicals<br />
<br />
In a message dated 2/13/2005 10:30:33 PM Eastern Standard Time, garvers1@yahoo.com writes:<br />
<blockquote>I was just looking on the ACE website and noticed that the Alliance Council has be reconstituted. Gone are almost all the Anglicans and Lutherans and more liturgically-minded Reformed (e.g., Horton) and in their place a panoply of Reformed Baptists. Weird. Explains why they changed the “R” in PCRT back to “Reformed” from “Reformational.”</blockquote><br />
BHers,<br />
<br />
Any indicator this was deliberate or simply a case of those former members refocusing themselves on other ministries. These big movement things seem to run out of gas at some point, but a remnant always wants to keep them alive.<br />
<br />
Anybody know Michael Horton? I heard him on several tapes from the Ligonier panoply and he comes across there as shrill as a speaker. Keith Mathison quotes him at several points in his book <i>Given For You</i>. Is he someone sympathetic to where a church developing BH sympathies is going? Or is he anti in some place I have not encountered him yet?<br />
<br />
EricUnknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-772171407390878794.post-87344601686821264982005-02-12T16:18:00.000-08:002010-10-05T06:00:25.773-07:00alternative scripture lesson for tomorrow’s lectionary?<b>Date:</b> Sat, 12 Feb 2005 16:18:11 -0700<br />
<b>From:</b> <a href="mailto:tim@timgallant.org">“Tim Gallant”</a><br />
<b>Subject:</b> alternative scripture lesson for tomorrow’s lectionary?<br />
<br />
BHrethren,<br />
<br />
I know this is rather late in the asking, but any ideas for an alternative in the OT lesson for tomorrow? The BCP is using Ecclesiasticus.<br />
<br />
tim<br />
<br />
Tim Gallant<br />
Pastor, Conrad Christian Reformed Church<br />
http://www.timgallant.org<br />
tim | gallant site group<a name='more'></a><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<b>Date:</b> Sat, 12 Feb 2005 23:38:40 -0000<br />
<b>From:</b> <a href="mailto:garvers1@yahoo.com">“garver”</a><br />
<b>Subject:</b> Re: alternative scripture lesson for tomorrow’s lectionary?<br />
<br />
The Revised Common Lectionary has Genesis 2:15–17; 3:1–7.<br />
<br />
joel<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<b>Date:</b> Sat, 12 Feb 2005 16:44:52 -0700<br />
<b>From:</b> <a href="mailto:tim@timgallant.org">“Tim Gallant”</a><br />
<b>Subject:</b> Re: Re: alternative scripture lesson for tomorrow’s lectionary?<br />
<br />
Thanks, Joel. Is the remainder of the lectionary the same as BCP? (Tomorrow is from Matthew 5 and 1 Cor 3.)<br />
<br />
tim<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<b>Date:</b> Sat, 12 Feb 2005 23:46:28 -0000<br />
<b>From:</b> <a href="mailto:garvers1@yahoo.com">“garver”</a><br />
<b>Subject:</b> Re: alternative scripture lesson for tomorrow’s lectionary?<br />
<br />
Which BCP are you using, btw?<br />
<br />
The CofE 1662 BCP with the 1922 Revised Table of Lessons has Sirach, but gives Genesis 18 as an alternate. The US 1928 with the 1945 Revised Table also has Sirach, but gives Isaiah 58 as an alternative.<br />
<br />
joel<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<b>Date:</b> Sat, 12 Feb 2005 17:00:04 -0700<br />
<b>From:</b> <a href="mailto:tim@timgallant.org">“Tim Gallant”</a><br />
<b>Subject:</b> Re: Re: alternative scripture lesson for tomorrow’s lectionary?<br />
<br />
Heh. I don’t know. It says that it is “according to the use of the Episcopal Church,” and the edition was put together in 1990. It is published by Oxford University Press, and has a certificate inside:<br />
<br />
“I certify that this edtion of The Book of Common Prayer has been compared with a certified copy of the Standard Book, as the Canon directs, and that it conforms thereto.” — Charles Mortimer Guilbert, Custodian of the Standard Book of Common Prayer, February, 1990<br />
<br />
tim<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<b>Date:</b> Sat, 12 Feb 2005 17:04:22 -0700<br />
<b>From:</b> <a href="mailto:tim@timgallant.org">“Tim Gallant”</a><br />
<b>Subject:</b> Re: Re: alternative scripture lesson for tomorrow’s lectionary?<br />
<br />
Actually, now that I look at this again, I think I will go with the Psalm reading — Psalm 71 fits pretty well with my sermon.<br />
<br />
And yes, as you can see, I’m not following the entire lectionary. I’ve been using the OT and Epistles lessons, and lately I have been using the Gospels lessons for the law. (That’s obviously not always possible, but for the Sermon on the Mount it works.)<br />
<br />
tim<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<b>Date:</b> Sun, 13 Feb 2005 00:05:23 -0000<br />
<b>From:</b> <a href="mailto:jonamos@juno.com">“Jon Amos”</a><br />
<b>Subject:</b> Re: alternative scripture lesson for tomorrow’s lectionary?<br />
<br />
And the current US BCP (1979) has basically the same passage from Genesis 2 as the RCL:<br />
<br />
Genesis 2:4b–9, 15–17, 25–3:7.<br />
<br />
jon<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<b>Date:</b> Sat, 12 Feb 2005 18:08:17 -0600<br />
<b>From:</b> <a href="mailto:emglarson@msn.com">“WAYNE LARSON”</a><br />
<b>Subject:</b> Re: Re: alternative scripture lesson for tomorrow’s lectionary?<br />
<br />
Tim,<br />
<br />
I find http://www.textweek.com/ a very helpful resource. FWIW.<br />
<br />
wlUnknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-772171407390878794.post-60993403136482179922005-02-12T13:19:00.000-08:002010-10-04T05:26:44.678-07:00Paul’s Perspective — The Federal Vision: In Their Own Words<b>Date:</b> Sat, 12 Feb 2005 13:19:15 -0000<br />
<b>From:</b> <a href="mailto:garvers1@yahoo.com">“garver”</a><br />
<b>Subject:</b> Paul’s Perspective — The Federal Vision: In Their Own Words<br />
<br />
Has anyone seen this page before? Know anything about it or the folks who put it together?<br />
<br />
<a href="http://web.archive.org/web/20050308032821/http://www.paulperspective.com/">http://www.paulperspective.com/</a><br />
<br />
joel<a name='more'></a><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<b>Date:</b> Sat, 12 Feb 2005 13:22:47 -0000<br />
<b>From:</b> <a href="mailto:garvers1@yahoo.com">“garver”</a><br />
<b>Subject:</b> Re: Paul’s Perspective — The Federal Vision: In Their Own Words<br />
<br />
Hmm. . . . here’s its summary of the NPP:<br />
<br />
-----------------<br />
<br />
This theological movement accuses the Reformation of falsely reading the Augustine/Pelagius debate into their reading of Paul. In a complete recasting of our understanding of pre-Christian Judaism, the NPP rejects that Judaism was a religion of merit, but instead was a religion of grace, where you entered into relationship of God corporately through the covenant by grace, and maintained your status within the covenant by obedience to law by works. This pattern, termed by the NPP as “covenantal nomism”, is allegedly the same pattern of religion followed by the Apostle Paul — with the exception that Judaism was not Christianity. This approach launches a strong assault on the hallmark doctrines of the Reformation — justification by faith alone, imputation of Christ’s righteousness, and the law/gospel distinction — and replaces them with justification by faith and works, meritorious personal righteousness, and the law AS gospel.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<b>Date:</b> Sat, 12 Feb 2005 05:58:54 -0800<br />
<b>From:</b> <a href="mailto:dmcourtn@moscow.com">“Dale Courtney”</a><br />
<b>Subject:</b> Paul’s Perspective — The Federal Vision: In Their Own Words<br />
<br />
From https://registrar.godaddy.com/whois.asp?isc=<br />
<https: d="1&prog_id=GoDaddy&domain=PAULPERSPECTIVE%2Ecom" registrar.godaddy.com="" whois.asp?isc="&se=%2B&from_app=&mscssid=&pl_i"><br />
&se=%2B&from_app=&mscssid=&pl_id=1&prog_id=GoDaddy&domain=PAULPERSPECTIVE%2E<br />
com<br />
</https:><br />
<blockquote>The Email is http://GFPCA.org<br />
<br />
Organization:<br />
G. William Davis, III<br />
G. William Davis, III<br />
P.O. Box 10<br />
Thompson’’s Sta, TN 37179<br />
US<br />
Phone: 615.207.7842<br />
Email: bing@gfpca.org<br />
<br />
Created on..............: Wed, Oct 27, 2004<br />
Expires on..............: Fri, Oct 27, 2006<br />
Record last updated on..: Mon, Dec 06, 2004<br />
<br />
Administrative Contact:<br />
G. William Davis, III<br />
G. William Davis, III<br />
P.O. Box 10<br />
Thompson’s Sta, TN 37179<br />
US<br />
Phone: 615.207.7842<br />
Email: bing@gfpca.org</blockquote><br />
<br />
<br />
<b>Date:</b> Sat, 12 Feb 2005 14:36:34 -0000<br />
<b>From:</b> <a href="mailto:garvers1@yahoo.com">“garver”</a><br />
<b>Subject:</b> Re: Paul’s Perspective — The Federal Vision: In Their Own Words<br />
<br />
The website explicitly states that it is a ministry Grace Fellowship PCA in Thompson’s Corner, TN, pastored by Bing Davis (is “Bing” a nickname for “G. William”?): http://www.gfpca.org/<br />
<br />
Does anyone know this congregation and pastor?<br />
<br />
joel<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<b>Date:</b> Sat, 12 Feb 2005 08:57:19 -0600<br />
<b>From:</b> <a href="mailto:swilkins@auburnavenue.org">“Steve Wilkins”</a><br />
<b>Subject:</b> Paul’s Perspective — The Federal Vision: In Their Own Words<br />
<br />
This was posted on a public board by a member of Rick Phillips’ church. If Rick is softening it ain’t being communicated.<br />
<br />
sw<br />
_______<br />
<br />
What I would like to see is all the Federal heretics tossed out of the PCA and OPC pronto. Why this is taking so long is beyond me. Take two seconds to ready ANY of their works, and you find teaching that not only opposes the Standards, but also the Bible. NT Wright has proved over and over again that he teaches heresy and is antichrist. Wilson, though some shy away from calling him a heretic, teaches the same doctrines in most places which speak to these things as Wright does. Others that keep propagating this nonsense, like Jordan, Smith, Liethart, Lusk, Horne, etc., are heretical in their new fangled neo-nomianism. They keep shouting “Oh! You don’t understand us!” Nonsense! its so bogus. in other words, everybody misunderstand them except for themselves! They are false teachers that are doing damage to Christ’s church.<br />
<br />
Don’t get me wrong, I would be heartily inclined to see them repent of their works salvation. But I am not sure that is going to happen seeing how far they have dug themselves into a pit of false teaching. What would be great is to see someone like Wilson get his theology straight (because he is no good for historical theology or Westminsterian Theology) and come back around to embrace the truth instead o panhandling these errors. These guys in general are so poor at understanding Westminster.<br />
<br />
I am glad for men like Lig Duncan and Richard Phillips who are taking up certain political issues that need to be address with these men, as well as writing against them. We need more pens to come into the forefront and put these guys to to shame. Guy Waters put out a good book recently that is a helpful overview of the subject. I am working on a book that sets down covenant theology easily. That way the laymen in all our churches will at least have a good base to work from when they hear false teachers propagating this stuff.<br />
<br />
Its good news that a statement like this has emerged, and we need to see more of them.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<b>Date:</b> Sat, 12 Feb 2005 11:47:37 -0500<br />
<b>From:</b> <a href="mailto:Leithart@aol.com">Leithart@aol.com</a><br />
<b>Subject:</b> Re: Paul’s Perspective — The Federal Vision: In Their Own Words<br />
<br />
<< Liethart>><br />
<br />
Whew! At least he didn’t mention me!<br />
<br />
Peter LEIthart<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<b>Date:</b> Sat, 12 Feb 2005 10:55:50 -0700<br />
<b>From:</b> <a href="mailto:tim@timgallant.org">“Tim Gallant”</a><br />
<b>Subject:</b> Re: Paul’s Perspective — The Federal Vision: In Their Own Words<br />
<br />
Yeah, that was close, but you’re off the hook.<br />
<br />
:^pUnknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-772171407390878794.post-50260617529487105402005-02-12T09:47:00.000-08:002010-10-05T05:59:44.612-07:00Interesting take on my essay at paulperspective.com<b>Date:</b> Sat, 12 Feb 2005 09:47:34 -0600<br />
<b>From:</b> Mark Horne <mark@hornes.org><br />
<b>Subject:</b> Interesting take on my essay at paulperspective.com<br />
<br />
Our dear friend at Grace (wouldn’t this be an unpleasant website if the pastor wasn’t so full of grace?) links my essay on the necessity of new obedience:<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.hornes.org/theologia/content/mark_horne/necessity_of_new_obedience.htm">hornes.org/theologia/content/mark_horne/necessity_of_new_obedience.htm</a><br />
<br />
Then, apparently afraid the heresy might escape notice, he quotes from my conclusion:<br />
<blockquote>“Any attempt to make some apparent level of sanctification the condition for salvation is hostile to the Gospel. Indeed, **claiming that such a level is merely the “fruit of faith is no less legalistic and dangerous.** Matthew 18 gives us the process by which a professing believer may be considered an unbeliever, and that same chapter strongly warns against judging people or cutting them off from hope simply because of repeated sinning. The question is not how much someone obeys God but if they trust God. That trust, operating within a revealed structure of promise and warning, will be visible to oneself, to others, and to God.” (emphasis added — ed.)</blockquote><br />
If this is a smoking gun, then I don’t understand this man at all!<br />
<br />
BTW, in the essay I state quite strongly that apostates never had true faith. . . .<br />
<br />
Mark<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<b>Date:</b> Sat, 12 Feb 2005 10:49:52 -0700<br />
<b>From:</b> <a href="mailto:tim@timgallant.org">“Tim Gallant”</a><br />
<b>Subject:</b> Re: Interesting take on my essay at paulperspective.com<br />
<br />
Heh. Well, they linked my article on the two natures of Christ. Seems like a strange choice to me. Here’s the paragraph they quote:<br />
<blockquote>“Because Christ’s divine nature is never divided nor separated from the human nature, the fact that the divine is infinite and everywhere does not threaten our accessibility to the human nature, which is finite and spatially limited. When Christ acts for us in self-giving in the Supper, He is not merely giving us His Spirit. He is giving us Himself — His Spirit, His body, His blood. Chalcedon demands that He be at once wholly present, and yet not physically present. That is the mystery of the Incarnation, not the object of mere rational deduction.”</blockquote><br />
I dunno. Is the offense the doctrine of true presence?<br />
<br />
Very weird.<br />
<br />
tim<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<b>Date:</b> Sat, 12 Feb 2005 18:09:47 -0000<br />
<b>From:</b> <a href="mailto:garvers1@yahoo.com">“garver”</a><br />
<b>Subject:</b> Re: Interesting take on my essay at paulperspective.com<br />
<br />
Mark Horne wrote:<br />
<blockquote>Our dear friend at Grace (wouldn’t this be an unpleasant website if the pastor wasn’t so full of grace?) links my essay on the necessity of new obedience:</blockquote><br />
Of the excerpts he quoted from me, I thought all of them were pretty innocuous. The only things that might be red flags to someone are<br />
<br />
[a] the quote from “Baptism: Reformed and Catholic,” which is probably way too ecumenical for some folks’ tastes (of course, nevermind that it was a presentation to a largely Roman Catholic audience, more or less summarizing Scotty Old’s book on the Reformed baptismal rite)<br />
<br />
[b] the quote from “Ex Opere Operato,” which is taken out of a context where I go right on to say “the phrase is quite misleading to the typical Protestant ear and, in most contexts, probably should be avoided”<br />
<br />
joelUnknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-772171407390878794.post-41231519296547806612005-02-11T19:42:00.000-08:002010-10-04T06:38:22.663-07:00Martin Bucer pre-Leithartian?<b>Date:</b> Fri, 11 Feb 2005 19:42:42 -0600<br />
<b>From:</b> <a href="mailto:mark@hornes.org">Mark Horne</a><br />
<b>Subject:</b> Martin Bucer pre-Leithartian?<br />
<br />
Here’s a sample:<a name='more'></a><br />
<br />
Now the reason why God authorized men to use a rite of this nature, involving immersion or washing or sprinkling with water and received at the hands of the official ministers of religion, as the means of obtaining the washing away of their sins and hence also as the regular mode of initiation to the service of God, is to be found in his purpose to confirm and stimulate to greater vigor in them by this procedure the first and foremost principle of our salvation, namely, faith in the remission of sins, that is, in our unmerited justification. For God himself formed us in such a way that whenever we are seriously promising or conferring invisible realities our natural inclination is to do so by means of signs perceptible to the senses. The same procedure can be observed among all peoples in important transactions of every kind, for it is in this manner that treaties are concluded, kings installed, marriages contracted, and sales executed. Consequently, as far as this use of symbols is concerned, God deals with us in terms of our own practice, as he is accustomed to do in other respects as well. And since the whole of the covenant he has made with us and our entire salvation (which is his primary consideration in all his dealings with us) have their beginning and basis in our persuasion that he pardons our sins, in his wisdom he has willed to confirm and stimulate our faith in this pardon principally by his own symbol, and particularly at the time when men consecrate themselves to his service in a special way. For on that occasion they reflect more closely on their own unworthiness and his goodness, and as a result more fully forsake self and dedicate themselves to him for a life of complete holiness and a true readiness to serve the needs of all men.<br />
<br />
His purpose, however, to present the remission of sins through the agency of public ministers of religion was not determined solely by the fact that it is appropriate for physical symbols to be conferred at the hands of men. It was also his aim by this means to knit his own more closely together and to each other, and to bind them more securely to submission to religious instruction and admonition in the congregation. This should result from their realizing that the men from whom they received the counsels of salvation and to whom they must cleave as fellow members in the same body are able to shut or to open heaven to them, and to retain or to remit their sins. The Church of God, of course, has always possessed this power, and God has never failed to make use of its exercise for the salvation of his own whenever the Church has languished in spirit and the light of knowledge.<br />
<br />
It should now be clear from what we have said why God has required his Church in every age to use baptism and in this manner to introduce men to his service.<br />
<br />
Here’s another:<br />
<br />
And therefore, when the faithful, believing theses words and not doubting that they are addressed by the Lord to themselves (that they were in fact spoken only to them is proved by phrases in the context such as, “is given for you, is shed for you, is the new covenant,” which are all entirely alien to those who lack faith), truly eat the body of Christ and drink his blood, there is no reason based on the authority of Scripture which compels us on that account to tie the body of Christ to the bread in a physical manner, and not rather to confess that when Christ is eaten by faith by believers these words are completely fulfilled. The godly man hears that Christ offered bread to his disciples and said, “Take, eat; this is my body,” and believes that this is spoken to himself as well. Does he not truly eat the body of Christ even though no change occurs in the bread that he eats? A prince hands over to a judge elect a rod as the symbol of judicial authority, adding these words: “Behold, I hearby commit to you the authority of a judge.” The latter, believing his prince and accepting the rod, is at the same time constituted a judge, although the rod in itself remains nothing but a rod. Similarly by the symbol of the keys a person may receive the rights of the household, the keys remaining in their own essence the same as they were before.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<b>Date:</b> Sat, 12 Feb 2005 09:31:29 EST<br />
<b>From:</b> <a href="mailto:Leithart@aol.com">Leithart@aol.com</a><br />
<b>Subject:</b> Re: Martin Bucer pre-Leithartian?<br />
<br />
Mark,<br />
<br />
Thanks. But I’m rather say I’m a post-Bucerian. Or, that both Marty and I are simply Augustinians.<br />
<br />
PeterUnknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-772171407390878794.post-17118578249511207592005-02-11T18:13:00.000-08:002010-10-02T06:19:31.685-07:00This explains a lot<b>Date:</b> Fri, 11 Feb 2005 18:13:57 -0600<br />
<b>From:</b> <a href="mailto:mark@hornes.org">Mark Horne</a><br />
<b>Subject:</b> This explains a lot<br />
<blockquote>We’ll see in a few moments that in fact, our works flow from God’s grace, but God’s grace is not caused by something that we do. Salvation is by grace alone and it is not caused by something in us or something that we do. When we stress salvation by grace alone we are not just engaging in a quibbling theological discussion, as far as Paul is concerned. Paul says we are right at the heart of the truth of the Christian faith when we assert that works and grace can not be mixed in the matter of our right standing before God, in the matter of our justification, in the matter of our salvation.<br />
<br />
Why? Well, for a couple of reasons, first of all, to mix works and grace is to misunderstand the necessity of God’s divine favor. If we include works as a source of our salvation, if we include works as a means of our salvation, if we include works, even as a part of our salvation, we are robbing God of His glory and shifting the emphasis from what God has done to what we have done, and we’re suggesting that God loves us because we first loved Him, that God has shown us grace because we first reached out to Him, and of course that is the exact opposite message of the Scriptures. God, while we were yet ungodly sent His son to die, to draw us in. We love Him, John says, because He first loved us. So, mixing works and grace in salvation undercuts this consistent Biblical emphasis on the grace of God. We are going to see it tonight when we look at Exodus chapter 14 and 15, how God emphasizes that He alone saves His people.</blockquote><br />
Found here:<br />
<a href="http://www.fpcjackson.org/resources/sermons/romans/romansvol5to6/35aRomans.htm">fpcjackson.org/resources/sermons/romans/romansvol5to6/35aRomans.htm</a><br />
<br />
I’ll grant that some of this is right in that he is talking about a justified status. But, even at best he so merges justification and salvation that he ends up condemning Turretin and many others. Works must not be called a “means of salvation.”<br />
<br />
Lig is truly at war with the Reformed heritage, including the Westminster Assembly.<br />
<br />
And he goes on to say how he used to struggle with assurance. . . . .<br />
<br />
Strange.<br />
<br />
MarkUnknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-772171407390878794.post-17155143461279613482005-02-11T16:35:00.000-08:002010-10-02T06:19:13.796-07:00Peter Lillback<b>Date:</b> Fri, 11 Feb 2005 16:35:10 -0600<br />
<b>From:</b> <a href="mailto:mark@hornes.org">Mark Horne</a><br />
<b>Subject:</b> Peter Lillback<br />
<br />
Hey, I just saw the Trinity festival website. Has Peter discussed the current fracas with anyone?<br />
<br />
Mark<a name='more'></a><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<b>Date:</b> Fri, 11 Feb 2005 22:36:19 -0800<br />
<b>From:</b> <a href="mailto:dmcourtn@moscow.com">“Dale Courtney”</a><br />
<b>Subject:</b> RE: Peter Lillback<br />
<br />
Mark,<br />
<br />
You lost me. Fracas? Which one? :)<br />
<br />
pax,<br />
Dale<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<b>Date:</b> Sat, 12 Feb 2005 09:33:45 -0600<br />
<b>From:</b> <a href="mailto:mailto:jbjordan4@cox.net">“James B. Jordan”</a><br />
<b>Subject:</b> Re: Peter Lillback<br />
<br />
This is an utterly incoherent post. Guys, if you bring stuff like this up, please let us know where and what you’re referring to.<br />
<br />
El Bosso<br />
<br />
<br />
At 04:35 PM 2/11/2005, you wrote:<br />
<blockquote>Hey, I just saw the Trinity festival website. Has Peter discussed the current fracas with anyone?<br />
<br />
Mark</blockquote><br />
James B. Jordan<br />
Director, Biblical Horizons<br />
Box 1096<br />
Niceville, FL 32578<br />
http://www.biblicalhorizons.com<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<b>Date:</b> Sat, 12 Feb 2005 09:42:47 -0600<br />
<b>From:</b> <a href="mailto:mark@hornes.org">Mark Horne</a><br />
<b>Subject:</b> Re: Peter Lillback<br />
<br />
OK.<br />
<br />
There is a summer festival coming up in Moscow, Idaho.<br />
<br />
Speakers include Peter Lillback.<br />
<br />
Steve Wilkins is another speaker.<br />
<br />
Steve Wilkins is the antichrist who is greatly loved and respected by Ligon Duncan out of Duncan’s wonderful Christian charity toward horrifying heretics.<br />
<br />
Peter Lillback will be speaking with him at the same conference.<br />
<br />
This indicates PL is not really worried about becoming the object of LD’s great love and respect, for we all know that LD is magnanimous enough to spread his charity toward others.<br />
<br />
Which brings up my question, has Peter Lillback been in conversation with anyone of us about these issues?<br />
<br />
I didn’t even notice I had dropped Peter Lillback’s last name until JBJ’s post. Sorry!<br />
<br />
MarkUnknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-772171407390878794.post-59213708780994385812005-02-11T10:58:00.000-08:002010-10-02T06:22:13.864-07:00Ashbel Green from the Princeton Review<b>Date:</b> Fri, 11 Feb 2005 10:58:49 -0800 (PST)<br />
<b>From:</b> <a href="mailto:candncrain@yahoo.com">ChrisandNancy Crain</a><br />
<b>Subject:</b> Ashbel Green from the Princeton Review<br />
<br />
Bhers,<br />
<br />
I think the folks from MVP might agree with Ashbel Green’s observations on understanding doctrinal growth and the bible. The quote below is long but here’s a snippet: “I cannot believe that any great practical truth of the Bible has been hidden in such deep darkness, as to have escaped the saints of God, and all the pious and learned interpreters of his holy word, ever since the days of the apostles escaped their vision, that the clear and satisfactory development of it might be ushered on the world at the present time.” This view is nothing new in American Presbyterianism.<br />
<br />
I wonder what Green would say about the doctrine of justification by faith alone. It wasn’t taught until Martin Luther in the 16th c.<br />
<br />
Here’s the full quote:<br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
From “An Address to the Students of the Theological Seminary at Princeton” by Ashbel Green, May 16, 1831.<br />
<br />
Now, we have quite enough of such teachers in our country already; and I do beseech you, my young brethren, not to add yourselves to the number: and that you may not, see to it that you do not leave the seminary, till you have fixed every important doctrinal truth, as it lies in your mind and is an object of your faith, on the firm foundation of God’s word; and till you understand the consistency and harmony of all the parts of a. theological system. Are you ready to ask, whether I do not expect and wish, that you should endeavour to make some improvements in theology, in your future life. I must answer, as the logicians say, by distinguishing. <br />
<br />
If, by improvements in theology, the inquiry means an increase of clear perception and deep feeling, in relation to the beauty, glory, excellence, consistency and sweetness of evangelical truth — an increase, too, in a knowledge of the manner in which revealed truth may best be taught, inculcated and defended — an increase, also, of discernment, as to the errors to which the truth is opposed, and the consequent correction of some minor errors in your own minds — an increase, in a word, of your acquaintance and understanding of the Bible in all its parts, and of the glorious scope and tendency of the whole: if only this, or chiefly this, be intended by an improvement in theology, then, I say, I hope you will make great improvements; for I believe that such improvements will always be made by every minister of the gospel, just in proportion as he grows in grace, and persists in studious habits. But if, by improvements in theology, I am to understand what some vain talkers seem to intend, the making of some great and original discoveries of truths and doctrines, that no searching of the Scriptures has ever yet brought to light; then, I say, I pray God that you may never attempt, or think of making any such improvements; for, if you do, I have not a doubt you will run into false and delusive speculations and conclusions, injurious, and perhaps ruinous, to your own souls, and the souls of others.<br />
<br />
The fundamental truths of Holy Scripture have been given for the use and edification of God’s people in every age since the canon of Scripture was completed; and I cannot believe that any great practical truth of the Bible has been hidden in such deep darkness, as to have escaped the saints of God, and all the pious and learned interpreters of his holy word, ever since the days of the apostles escaped their vision, that the clear and satisfactory development of it might be ushered on the world at the present time. For myself, I would not listen for a moment to the man who should tell me that he had found something entirely new, and yet very important, in the doctrinal parts of the sacred Scriptures. If it is very new, I am sure it is not very important; for what is very important now, has certainly been so for many centuries past; and it violates all my maxims in regard to God’s revealed will, to admit that it contains fundamental, or very important practical truth, of which not a glimpse has been caught by the holiest and wisest men which the church of Christ has hitherto contained.<br />
<br />
On this subject, there is sometimes instituted what seems to me a very senseless analogy. It is asked, shall the most brilliant and important discoveries be frequently made in all the natural sciences, and shall no discoveries and improvements be made in theology, the most interesting and sublime of all sciences? But consider, my young friends, whether there is really any similarity at all between the two cases. On the subject of Christian Theology, God has made a revelation of his will, and all the revelation that he will ever make in this world: and he has made this revelation in a book which, as all Protestants believe, he intended for popular use. But have we received a revelation from God of a system of astronomy? No, certainly, unless we profess to be Hutchinsonians; and even then, we must not admit that the system can be improved. Have we gotten a revealed system of natural philosophy? of mathematics? of mechanics? Of gravitation? of attraction and repulsion? Of hydraulics? of pneumatics? of chemistry? Of electricity and galvanism? of heat? of light and colours? of the theory of the tides? of the fluxionary calculus? and of fifty other things, of a like kind, that might be named? Only show me a divine revelation on any one of these subjects — a finished and popular revelation, of all that the great Author of nature ever intends to make known in regard to that subject and I stand prepared to carry out my principle, and to say, that on that subject you are not to expect to make great discoveries and improvements. No, my young brethren, there is no resemblance whatever between theology and natural philosophy, that warrants the running of a parallel between them in the matter of improvement and discovery, by mere human intellect and effort-none whatever-and I must think it is a very stupid thing to institute any such analogy, as that which I have shown to be so palpably absurd.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<b>Date:</b> Fri, 11 Feb 2005 13:28:40 -0600<br />
<b>From:</b> <a href="mailto:rwlusk@bellsouth.net">“Rich Lusk”</a><br />
<b>Subject:</b> Ashbel Green from the Princeton Review<br />
<br />
Interesting.<br />
<br />
Charles Hodge liked to brag about how nothiong new had ever been taught at Princeton as well. (I guess he figured common sense realism wasn’t new . . .) There’s a kind of hyper-conservativism among many Presbyteirans. But just like poltical conservatives, because they are not vigilant in working towards God’s future and striving towards ever greater maturity (Eph. 4:11ff), they just slide unknowingly towards the same end as liberals. It just happens more slowly. If anything should be obvious from the history of Christian theology, it’s that things can’t just sit still. We’ll always be moving; the only question is where. But we cannot live in the past, no matter how hard we try. The “reformation” is an ongoing project, not a finished product and it will carry on with or without us.<br />
<br />
This kind of doctrinal conservativism is, in my view, sinful not only because it is idolatrous (as any irreformable tradition must be), but also because it is so highly sectarian. It implicitly creates an attitude of suspicion about other Christians who aren’t part of the “in-group.” You end up defining yourself in terms of yourself — in terms of your own tradition — and nothing beyond. Any discussion or dialogue with other branches of the church is regarded as dangerous because we might be swayed from the “truth” as our fathers professed it. A lot of this is just sentimentalism as well.<br />
<br />
I think the problem for a lot of folks is how do you relate doctrinal development to confessional integrity. It seems “doctrinal development” causes a crisis of conscience for some guys. A major issue here is how the confession of faith is supposed to function. In other words, how can we subscribe to the confession while still admitting that it is not the “final word”? This cannot just be a matter of taking “exceptions” to the “system.” And then we also have to ask who gets to decide what doctrinal developments are tolerable/intolerable/mandatory/etc.? Is it the denominational aristocracy? Is it done on a presbytery by presbytery basis (talk about tearing apart a denomination at the seams!)? Furthermore, in what forum is discussion over doctrinal development supposed to take place? Obviously a lot of men think pastor’s conferences are not the place . . . but that still doesn’t answer the question. How would a confessional denomination ever go about replacing its own confession? Has such a thing happened? Is it possible?<br />
<br />
The good thing about framing the issue in terms of doctrinal development is that it focuses the discussion squarely on the Bible, which is really the “high ground” for us. I think we win that argument every time. We can just say, “Yeah, we’re not southern — or even American — presbyterians, as much as we like that tradition. We’re not even 16th century presbyterians, as wonderful as that era was. We’re a new kind of presbyterian.” And then we can go from there.<br />
<br />
But I can also see how such a strategy would be extremely risky in the PCA. (On the other hand, think how much energy several of us have poured into proving that our views are in line with the confession and the tradition over the past several years — all with very little net result in terms of persuding anyone who was hostile to start with.)<br />
<br />
RL<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<b>Date:</b> Fri, 11 Feb 2005 20:02:36 -0000<br />
<b>From:</b> “garver” <garvers1@yahoo.com><br />
<b>Subject:</b> Re: Ashbel Green from the Princeton Review<br />
<br />
Rich Lusk wrote:<br />
<blockquote>> (On the other hand, think how much energy several of us have poured<br />
> into proving that our views are in line with the confession and the<br />
> tradition over the past several years — all with very little net<br />
> result in terms of persuding anyone who was hostile to start with.)</blockquote><br />
Well, given the emails I get from what seems to be a wider and wider circle of folks, we might not be persuading the hostile fringe, but the open-minded center seems favorably impressed.<br />
<br />
Even some of the relatively hostile fringes (e.g., Rick Phillips), despite continued resistance, have themselves changed and moved in our general direction.<br />
<br />
So, you biblical guys keep up the front line stuff and others will shore up the rear with the history stuff.<br />
<br />
joel<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<b>Date:</b> Fri, 11 Feb 2005 15:13:42 -0500<br />
<b>From:</b> <a href="mailto:powen@montreat.edu">“Owen, Paul”</a><br />
<b>Subject:</b> Ashbel Green from the Princeton Review<br />
<br />
Rich,<br />
<br />
I’m not sure I’m entirely with you here. Of course, I may not be understanding you. What it sounds like you may be saying is that the Reformers left the business of reforming the church unfinished, and it is up to us to pick up where they left off. I don’t think I would agree with that.<br />
<br />
I think you would agree that the purpose of the mainstream Reformation (as opposed to the Radical Reformation) was not to get back to NT Christianity in its pristine purity. In other words, they weren’t striving for some high goal which we will never actually arrive at until the eschaton (Eph. 4:13). They were simply trying to purge the Church of a finite number of moral and doctrinal illnesses and abuses which had developed over the centuries. I see no reason not to believe that these problems were largely dealt with (on a limited scale) through the establishment of the Protestant Churches. Of course, their vision to see the problems fixed on a wide scale, embracing the whole church, did not materialize. The Church of Rome, while instituting some reforms, never embraced the Reformers’ vision. If there is anything left undone, I would say it would be with respect to continuing to encourage Reformation within the Church as a whole (including Latin and Greek branches).<br />
<br />
I would also say that “evangelicalism” is in a dismal state, and needs to discover the insights of the Reformation. But I don’t see any evidence that we need to in any sense “move beyond” the doctrinal consensus of Reformational Christianity. (Again, you probably are not saying that, but it sometimes sounds that way.) The Synod of Dort has given us the closest thing to a statement of ecumenical Reformed orthodoxy that we could ask for, and other confessions and catechisms (Westminster, Belgic, Heidelberg) can delineate more specific denominational boundaries.<br />
<br />
I guess what I’m saying, bottom line, is that it seems to me that we hit a benchmark, a high water point, in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, and I see no evidence that the church should seek to press beyond it. The problem with modern Presbyterianism is not that it is tied down or hampered by the Westminster Confession, it is that many within the American Reformed denominations do not actually fit very well within the theological landscape of the Reformation as it existed in times past. Whereas you seem to want to point to the future, I think we need to look harder at the past.<br />
<br />
Again, I am generalizing based on your post, and I may well be missing the nuances of what you are trying to say. BTW, I have GREATLY benefited from your many writings, and consider myself heavily in your debt in helping me to see the breadth of the Reformed tradition. Thank you for that.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<b>Date:</b> Fri, 11 Feb 2005 15:05:38 -0600<br />
<b>From:</b> <a href="mailto:rwlusk@bellsouth.net">“Rich Lusk”</a><br />
<b>Subject:</b> Ashbel Green from the Princeton Review<br />
<blockquote>Well, given the emails I get from what seems to be a wider and wider circle of folks, we might not be persuading the hostile fringe, but the open-minded center seems favorably impressed.<br />
<br />
Even some of the relatively hostile fringes (e.g., Rick Phillips),<br />
despite continued resistance, have themselves changed and moved in our<br />
general direction.<br />
<br />
So, you biblical guys keep up the front line stuff and others will<br />
shore up the rear with the history stuff.</blockquote><br />
joel<br />
<br />
---------------<br />
<br />
Understand, Joel, that my post was not an attempt to tell anyone what to do or what strategy to implement. It was just some random thoughts, probably more or less generated by Jim’s BH post the the other day and the MVP report. I am glad to hear about softening resistance, especially on the part of Rick. Hope it continues.<br />
<br />
RL<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<b>Date:</b> Fri, 11 Feb 2005 15:35:09 -0600<br />
<b>From:</b> <a href="mailto:rwlusk@bellsouth.net">“Rich Lusk”</a><br />
<b>Subject:</b> Ashbel Green from the Princeton Review<br />
<br />
Thanks for the kind words Paul. I’ll have to be brief, but perhaps others will want to chime in and supplement or correct what I say here.<br />
<br />
I do agree with you that the 16th century represents a high water mark for theological development. And I don’t think that the Reformers were simply trying to recreate “NT Christianity” — they were not just oriented to the past but also to the future.<br />
<br />
However, I do not think (as you seem to imply) that the Reformation is the apex of doctrinal devlopment that God has in store for his people in history. In other words it is just “a” high water mark, not “THE” high water mark. The river is not finished rising.<br />
<br />
As a postmil guy, I can foresee history possibly going on for 1000s of years into the future, with many “reformations” still to come. But even aside from that kind of eschatological perspective, I think the 16th century (as wonderful as it was) does not represent the termination point in doctrinal maturation for the church. I think Eph. 4:11ff is very relevant here.<br />
<br />
Thus, I think our task is not repristinating the views of 16th century theologians. Nor is it simply trying to get every other branch in Christendom to see the beauty and goodness of the Westminster Confession (something that I think has zero chance of happening anyway, especially given how culture-bound that document is). I think the Reformed branch of Christendom, while outpacing most others in more ways than not, can still stand to learn from other traditions within the Christendom family. So it won’t simply be a matter of making them like us; it will be a matter of a new “synthesis,” something heretofore unforeseen, in the same way the 16th century Reformation could not have been anticipated by all that went before (and the allusion here to Phillip Schaff’s view of the structure of church history is intentional, even if I have to disagree with a lot of Schaff’s later work). Franly, I think the Reformers would accuse us of betraying their spirit and violating sola Scripture if we refued to be future oriented, and remained satisfied with what they accomplished.<br />
<br />
So, yes, I think the Reformers left a lot of unfinished business (paedcommunion, biblical-theological/typological hermeneutics, ritual theology, church architecture, music, eschatology, etc., not to mention areas where there were was no Reformational consensus (e.g., Sabbath/Lord’s day issues). Plus all kinds of new issues have cropped up that were simply not on the table in the 16th or 17th centuries (e.g., the role of women in the church; medical ethics; etc.). The 16th century alone does not provide the resources we need to deal with all that modern life and culture throws at us. The Reformed confessions do not deal with all the dilemmas we face. (This is why Tim Keller was exactly right when he pointed out at PCA GA a few years back that solving the “confessional subscription” issue would not solve the denomination’s deepest problems because those problems aren’t even addressed by the confession!)<br />
<br />
That’s why I call the “reformation” a “project” that still isn’t finished. Every generation has its role to play. And in that sense, I think we certainly have to “move beyond” the earlier Reformation, Lord willing, into a “new reformation.”<br />
<br />
Of course, I agree with you that the insights of the Reformation need to be appreciated more by Evangelicals, as well as by Greek and Latin Christians. But I think Eph. 4:11ff demands that we also have an openness to new light that God can shed forth from his Word, even if it breaks open the wine skins of the Westminster Confession. (Just consider the work of Jim Jordan, Peter Leithart, and N. T. Wright.)<br />
<br />
Note that in my Theologia paper on baptism and the Reformed tradition (the first paper I ever made public on the topic, written back in 2001), I included in the subtitle a reference to the “future” of Reformed theology. I really meant that — as I hopefully demonstrate in the article itself in the section on “The Way Forward.” We cannot simply rest on our laurels. While we need to always be studying our past and immersing ourselves in the best our tradition has to offer, we cannot assume that alone will be sufficient for the tasks God calls the church to perform in the future. It doesn’t make sense to say God gave all his light to one strand of the church in the mid 16th century.<br />
<br />
For more of my thoughts on doctrinal development in relation to “Reformed catholicity” you can look at my paper in Ref and Rev Journal, in the Winter 2004 issue.<br />
<br />
Hope that is helpful. Again, others should probably comment on this as well. There’s much more to say.<br />
<br />
Blessings,<br />
<br />
RL<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<b>Date:</b> Fri, 11 Feb 2005 18:06:26 -0500<br />
<b>From:</b> <a href="mailto:powen@montreat.edu">“Owen, Paul”</a><br />
<b>Subject:</b> Ashbel Green from the Princeton Review<br />
<br />
Good points Rich. I would certainly agree that in areas where the Westminster Standards and similar documents are silent, there is plenty of room for doctrinal development. Women’s issues, eschatology, theology of the environment, bioethics, and the list could go on. I don’t think I would disagree with you to that extent. Again, very stimulating thoughts!<br />
<br />
— Paul<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<b>Date:</b> Fri, 11 Feb 2005 16:15:32 -0700<br />
<b>From:</b> <a href="mailto:tim@timgallant.org">“Tim Gallant”</a><br />
<b>Subject:</b> Ashbel Green from the Princeton Review<br />
<br />
----- Original Message -----<br />
<b>From:</b> Owen, Paul<br />
To: bibhorizon@yahoogroups.com<br />
Sent: Friday, February 11, 2005 4:06 PM<br />
<b>Subject:</b> RE: [bibhorizon] Ashbel Green from the Princeton Review<br />
<blockquote>Good points Rich. I would certainly agree that in areas where the<br />
Westminster Standards and similar documents are silent, there is plenty<br />
of room for doctrinal development.</blockquote><br />
<br />
---------<br />
<br />
Why only where Westminster is silent?<br />
<br />
What about areas where the Westminster Standards are not wrong, but things could be more fully developed or better put? (I think of the matter of the covenant of works — what Westminster says is true enough, but it is very one-sided regarding the biblical material regarding God’s relationship to Adam.)<br />
<br />
And why should we treat Westminster as an irreformable authority? But if it is reformable, that means in principle that it could be wrong on some points. (I think of the issue of paedocommunion, for one, as Rich brought up.)<br />
<br />
tim<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<b>Date:</b> Fri, 11 Feb 2005 18:27:50 -0500<br />
<b>From:</b> “Owen, Paul” <powen@montreat.edu><br />
<b>Subject:</b> RE: Ashbel Green from the Princeton Review<br />
<br />
Hi Tim. Well, I’m very pragmatic. I don’t think that we need Reformations every hundred years or so. The Church went for 1,500 years before the Protestant Reformation burst forth, and though Luther seemed a lone voice at times, he was actually giving rise to criticisms of the Church which had been bubbling under the surface for quite some time. It wasn’t really just Luther vs. the Catholic Church. So I guess where I’m heading with this is that I think it is a lot more likely that I as an individual am going to get a theological issue wrong, than that the collected wisdom of the Westminster Divines is going to be wrong.<br />
<br />
I’m very skeptical of taking exceptions to the Westminster Standards, even minor ones, unless you can show me other Reformation-era voices expressing the same view. Views on the nature of the covenant of works were not monolithic in 17th century Reformed thought from what I can tell, so there should be breathing room there. Likewise, with paedo-communion (though I don’t hold to it), you at least have Musculus. So I would give that a pass. These are entirely different in nature then, from advocating modern theological views which did not find a significant voice in the sixteenth or seventeenth centuries.<br />
<br />
See where I’m coming from?<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<b>Date:</b> Fri, 11 Feb 2005 16:41:36 -0700<br />
<b>From:</b> <a href="mailto:tim@timgallant.org">“Tim Gallant”</a><br />
<b>Subject:</b> Ashbel Green from the Princeton Review<br />
<br />
----- Original Message -----<br />
<b>From:</b> Owen, Paul<br />
To: bibhorizon@yahoogroups.com<br />
Sent: Friday, February 11, 2005 4:27 PM<br />
<b>Subject:</b> RE: [bibhorizon] Ashbel Green from the Princeton Review<br />
<br />
<br />
Hi Tim. Well, I’m very pragmatic. I don’t think that we need<br />
Reformations every hundred years or so. The Church went for 1,500 years<br />
before the Protestant Reformation burst forth, and though Luther seemed<br />
a lone voice at times, he was actually giving rise to criticisms of the<br />
Church which had been bubbling under the surface for quite some time.<br />
It wasn’t really just Luther vs. the Catholic Church. So I guess where<br />
I’m heading with this is that I think it is a lot more likely that I as<br />
an individual am going to get a theological issue wrong, than that the<br />
collected wisdom of the Westminster Divines is going to be wrong.<br />
<br />
I’m very skeptical of taking exceptions to the Westminster Standards,<br />
even minor ones, unless you can show me other Reformation-era voices<br />
expressing the same view. Views on the nature of the covenant of works<br />
were not monolithic in 17th century Reformed thought from what I can<br />
tell, so there should be breathing room there. Likewise, with<br />
paedo-communion (though I don’t hold to it), you at least have Musculus.<br />
So I would give that a pass. These are entirely different in nature<br />
then, from advocating modern theological views which did not find a<br />
significant voice in the sixteenth or seventeenth centuries.<br />
<br />
-------------<br />
<br />
Well, I definitely hold to the authority of the historical Church. And the more unanimous something has been in Protestant tradition, the more I hesitate on the point.<br />
<br />
Nonetheless... it seems to me that your characterization of Luther is somewhat open to objection. It is not the case, after all, that all he did was blow away junk. He engaged in doctrinal development, plain and simple.<br />
<br />
Moreover, simply because we may not need reformations as large-scale as the 16th century one, that is no argument whatsoever against doctrinal development. Doctrinal development will involve incorporating Scripture better, and it need not directly contradict what has been handed down to us — but that is far from saying that it will not be a marked improvement.<br />
<br />
I return again to this Adamic covenant thing. It is true, as you say, that there is “room” there. But if I were to go thru all the major Reformers of the 16th-17th centuries, it seems to me that they all had a particular view of God’s relationship to Adam that I find problematic. Not because they take note of the commandments God laid on Adam, and not because they notice parallels between Adam and Israel’s reception of the Mosaic covenant — but because they *don’t* notice other things which, if taken into account, would make a huge difference in one’s view of what the Adamic administration was all about.<br />
<br />
[To get an idea of what I’m talking about, see here:<br />
http://www.covenantrenewal.com/covworks.htm ]<br />
<br />
So then: as far as I can see, the early Reformed had a spectrum of views on the Adamic covenant — and yet this spectrum all fell within a more or less defined framework, even when they didn’t explicitly use covenantal language. And yet, in my mind, that framework is flawed and must be moved beyond, because only half of the biblical evidence was incorporated into it.<br />
<br />
That’s just an example. And the truth is that I am very far from being eager to embrace theological fads. But the answer to fads is not simply to act as if the thinking has all been pretty much done for us already, I don’t think.<br />
<br />
tim<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<b>Date:</b> Fri, 11 Feb 2005 19:20:24 -0500<br />
<b>From:</b> <a href="mailto:powen@montreat.edu">“Owen, Paul”</a><br />
<b>Subject:</b> Ashbel Green from the Princeton Review<br />
<br />
Good points Tim. But there is a difference between saying that a formulation states only part of the truth, and saying that the truth that it does allege to state is not true after all. The former I could affirm, but not the latter. I’ll have to take a look at your essay. Thanks for pointing me to it.Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-772171407390878794.post-47211304679447116712005-02-11T05:32:00.000-08:002010-10-01T06:32:45.518-07:00garver vs. phillips?<b>Date:</b> Fri, 11 Feb 2005 05:32:26 -0000<br />
<b>From:</b> <a href="mailto:jon@barlownet.com">“Jonathan Barlow”</a><br />
<b>Subject:</b> garver vs. phillips?<br />
<br />
Joel,<br />
<br />
What the heck is Greco talking about here???<br />
<blockquote>“Adam,<br />
<br />
Yes, the “irenic” discussion has already started, including a deacon at 10th Presbyterian in Philadelphia basically insulting Richard Phillip’s Christian maturity, all because he is cited favorably by the report.”</blockquote><br />
<a href="http://www.puritanboard.com/forum/viewthread.php?tid=9146">puritanboard.com/forum/viewthread.php?tid=9146</a><a name='more'></a><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<b>Date:</b> Fri, 11 Feb 2005 05:42:41 -0000<br />
<b>From:</b> <a href="mailto:jon@barlownet.com">“Jonathan Barlow”</a><br />
<b>Subject:</b> garver vs. phillips?<br />
<br />
Oh, sorry, I see that it was Paul Duggan, not Garver, who is the deacon in question.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<b>Date:</b> Fri, 11 Feb 2005 12:00:28 -0000<br />
<b>From:</b> <a href="mailto:garvers1@yahoo.com">“garver”</a><br />
<b>Subject:</b> garver vs. phillips?<br />
<br />
Jonathan Barlow wrote:<br />
<blockquote>Oh, sorry, I see that it was Paul Duggan, not Garver, who is the deacon in question.</blockquote><br />
Though Paul’s not a deacon . . . are you, Paul?<br />
<br />
joel<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<b>Date:</b> Fri, 11 Feb 2005 7:42:24 -0600<br />
<b>From:</b> <a href="mailto:p.duggan@verizon.net">pduggan</a><br />
<b>Subject:</b> garver vs. phillips?<br />
<br />
Parish assistantUnknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-772171407390878794.post-72553789792400384982005-02-10T22:52:00.000-08:002010-10-01T06:03:07.382-07:00Still crazy after all these years. . .<b>Date:</b> Thu, 10 Feb 2005 10:52:51 -0600<br />
<b>From:</b> <a href="mailto:pdn@pobox.com">“Paul Nanson”</a><br />
<b>Subject:</b> Still crazy after all these years. . .<br />
<br />
Hmmm. . . I wonder what “sooper sekrit handshake required lists” the Webbmeister has been reading:<br />
<br />
<a href="http://tinyurl.com/6tqrl">http://tinyurl.com/6tqrl</a><br />
<br />
Grace & peace,<br />
<br />
Paul<a name='more'></a><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<b>Date:</b> Thu, 10 Feb 2005 13:32:11 -0600<br />
<b>From:</b> <a href="mailto:lists.bibhorizon@dbjordan.fastmail.fm">Douglas Jordan</a><br />
<b>Subject:</b> Still crazy after all these years. . .<br />
<blockquote>“[Waters] dared to point out that the fatal flaws in the Uberbishop’s theology. . . . I just find myself slightly amazed that anyone could find themselves theologically opposed to someone like Sinclair Ferguson and assume that its because he isn’t bright enough to understand what Tom Wright is saying.”</blockquote><br />
Fatal flaws? And then mentioning Ferguson? I guess Webb didn’t make it to the WTS Dallas New Perspective Discussion, where Sinclair made it very clear that he considered this debate an “argument among brothers.” Maybe since that time, Sinclair has decided that he doesn’t consider NTW a Christian brother, but I don’t think so. . . .<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<b>Date:</b> Thu, 10 Feb 2005 14:36:06 -0500<br />
<b>From:</b> <a href="mailto:powen@montreat.edu">“Owen, Paul”</a><br />
<b>Subject:</b> Still crazy after all these years. . .<br />
<br />
I have read Guy Waters’ book, and while he makes some decent points, his critiques are often aimed at straw men. I recently wrote an informal five-part review of his book in the form of an open letter over at reformedcatholicism.com, which can be found in the archives. I certainly hope that people aren’t gullible enough to take Waters’ book as some sort of final word on the matter.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<b>Date:</b> Thu, 10 Feb 2005 13:55:55 -0600<br />
<b>From:</b> <a href="mailto:mark@hornes.org">Mark Horne</a><br />
<b>Subject:</b> Still crazy after all these years. . .<br />
<br />
Thank you for giving me a second witness on this, Doug. I had heard a similar story but the lectures weren’t taped.<br />
<br />
I wonder if this is a new slogan from the LPS. I saw ReformedCatholicism.org accused of “bashing” Sinclair Ferguson as a general trait. I searched the site and could only find one time where I expressed some disagreement with him. I have to wonder if these people work themselves up along certain lines in private and then come out with fantastic accusations.<br />
<br />
Mark<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<b>Date:</b> Thu, 10 Feb 2005 20:37:39 GMT<br />
<b>From:</b> <a href="mailto:rmmccheyne@juno.com">“Joe Thacker”</a><br />
<b>Subject:</b> Still crazy after all these years. . .<br />
<br />
Paul, or anyone else that might know the answer to this,<br />
<br />
Is the Warfield list set up like the BH List? The reason I ask is because I followed a link on your post and was able to access Warfield List messages — all I had to do was sign in with my Yahoo ID. I’m not a member, so I can’t access the Members only section, but it looks like I could read posts whenever I wanted to.<br />
<br />
What prevents someone with a Yahoo ID from doing the same in relation to the BH List? Is our list as private as we think?<br />
<br />
Curiously,<br />
<br />
JAT<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<b>Date:</b> Thu, 10 Feb 2005 20:42:32 -0000<br />
<b>From:</b> <a href="mailto:garvers1@yahoo.com">“garver”</a><br />
<b>Subject:</b> Still crazy after all these years. . .<br />
<br />
Joe Thacker wrote:<br />
<blockquote>What prevents someone with a Yahoo ID from doing the same in relation to the BH List? Is our list as private as we think?</blockquote><br />
There are several different levels of “privacy” settings you can set in yahoogroups. BH is private to the max, while BBWarfield allows reading, but not posting, by outsiders.<br />
<br />
joel<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<b>Date:</b> Thu, 10 Feb 2005 14:46:47 -0600<br />
<b>From:</b> <a href="mailto:pdn@pobox.com">“Paul Nanson”</a><br />
<b>Subject:</b> Still crazy after all these years. . .<br />
<br />
The BH list archives are private (members only). The Warfield archives are public.<br />
<br />
Paul<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<b>Date:</b> Thu, 10 Feb 2005 20:51:21 GMT<br />
<b>From:</b> <a href="mailto:rmmccheyne@juno.com">“Joe Thacker”</a><br />
<b>Subject:</b> Re: Still crazy after all these years. . .<br />
<br />
Paul,<br />
<br />
I figured as much, but I just wanted to be sure.<br />
<br />
Thanks.<br />
<br />
JAT<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<b>Date:</b> Thu, 10 Feb 2005 16:56:57 -0600<br />
<b>From:</b> <a href="mailto:shade79@midwest.net">burke</a><br />
<b>Subject:</b> Still crazy after all these years. . .<br />
<br />
Bummers, man. I thought maybe the Anti-Christ was reading our messages, us unawares, and was using them to begin his reign of terror, thereby hastening the end.<br />
<br />
Back to my sermon. No excitement here (except for SW),<br />
<br />
BukreUnknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-772171407390878794.post-13360245311490595882005-02-10T20:41:00.000-08:002010-10-01T07:14:09.058-07:00JBJ on mp3???<b>Date:</b> Thu, 10 Feb 2005 20:41:55 -0600<br />
<b>From:</b> <a href="mailto:emglarson@msn.com">“WAYNE LARSON”</a><br />
<b>Subject:</b> JBJ on mp3???<br />
<br />
Jim or Ralph???<br />
<br />
A year or two ago someone brought up the notion of moving Jim’s taped material to mp3. Did that ever get off the ground? Seems like if there was an easy way to do it (beats me), it seems now would be the time — with so many folks buying up mp3 players. Anybody?<br />
<br />
wl<a name='more'></a><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<b>Date:</b> Fri, 11 Feb 2005 11:58:53 +0900<br />
<b>From:</b> <a href="mailto:ras@berith.org">“Ralph A. Smith”</a><br />
<b>Subject:</b> Re: JBJ on mp3???<br />
<br />
I have been putting Jim’s lectures onto MP3 little by little and will continue to do so. There are problems. For one thing, the voice volume is not consistent on the tape cassettes. One cassette is louder than another or one side of the cassette is louder than the other. Also, on many of the cassettes, there is a portion that is repeated when you turn the cassette over. All of this means that each lecture needs to be edited, which becomes a time consuming business. Simply turning on the tape cassette and recording it into the computer, then converting the AIFF file into MP3 is time consuming enough. But I am continuing to work on this.<br />
<br />
Jim is not a technological wizard — yet. He has not bothered to buy an MP3 recorder for himself and a good mike that allows him to record directly into MP3 format, copy the lectures onto his computer and burn CDs in less than a minute. Jim could make one copy of the whole BH conference on a CD that included labeling information for each lecture, etc. in less than one minute and the postage costs would be far less than for tape cassettes. He would save time, have higher quality material, and have lower costs. (I sent Jim the full set of lectures on 1&2 Samuel as MP3 files on CD.)<br />
<br />
Why doesn’t he do it? Because he has invested heavily in the tape cassette industry and he is working to keep his stock profile afloat. This is the dirty secret behind the lack of technology in BH land. We could have Jordan doing lectures that are put on camera and placed on the BH site for viewing by pay. We could have all the BH materials available for download directly — pay and download. Jim would spend no time at all recording, no time at the post office. All he would have to do is rake in the dough.<br />
<br />
But, his cassette stocks would plummet. He is invested too heavily in the cassette business to quit.<br />
<br />
There, Wayne, you have the sad truth of the matter.<br />
<br />
Ralph<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<b>Date:</b> Thu, 10 Feb 2005 22:43:53 -0600<br />
<b>From:</b> <a href="mailto:lists.bibhorizon@dbjordan.fastmail.fm">Douglas Jordan</a><br />
<b>Subject:</b> Re: JBJ on mp3???<br />
<br />
Some are already on mp3 at wordmp3.com. Unfortunately, the files are at 16kbps, which IMAO is too low. At least 32kbps is needed, preferably 64kbps.<br />
<br />
Ralph, how have you been solving the audio level problem? I tried to tackle it a while ago using dynamic range compression, but the problem is that drc is designed to make loud audio quieter, and my problem is that the loud levels are fine and the quiet stuff needs a boost. I solved this by running range compression across the file to make all the louds as quiet as the quiet stuff, then boosting the volume across the entire file. The problem is that this adds a lot of hiss/distortion to parts that were previously relatively distortion free — when I made all the loud parts quieter, the background hiss within them remained at the same level. Then when I boosted all the volume, this background hiss got boosted as well. So anyway, I don’t have a decent solution.<br />
<br />
What we really need is for everyone to double their giving to BH so Dad could study/write full time and have an assistant to put together all the orders and do all the technology stuff. Or, alternatively, we could all just go out and each find a few more people to add to the list. I wonder what would happen if each of us strove to get at least one new BHian this year. . .<br />
<br />
Doug<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<b>Date:</b> Fri, 11 Feb 2005 14:02:29 +0900<br />
<b>From:</b> <a href="mailto:ras@berith.org">“Ralph A. Smith”</a><br />
<b>Subject:</b> Re: JBJ on mp3???<br />
<br />
On Feb 11, 2005, at 1:43 PM, Douglas Jordan wrote:<br />
<blockquote>Some are already on mp3 at wordmp3.com. Unfortunately, the files are at 16kbps, which IMAO is too low. At least 32kbps is needed, preferably 64kbps.</blockquote><br />
Yes, I think 64 or higher. Really 80 or 90 is very good for listening and it does not take up so much space that it is prohibitive. Just no good for downloading.<br />
<blockquote>Ralph, how have you been solving the audio level problem?</blockquote><br />
I am using a Mac. I have PEAK, the Macintosh sound software for music, etc. I can do anything I want. I can even make Jim speak backwards (which I did on a few lectures and learned about his involvement in the death of the real Paul McCartney as well as the cassette business). The problem for me is that it all simply takes too much time.<br />
<br />
I am getting a G5 as soon as I can. Dual CPU 2.5 ghz. It will scream. I won’t have to sit around and wait for a minute or two every time I push the save button, etc.<br />
<blockquote>What we really need is for everyone to double their giving to BH so Dad could study/write full time and have an assistant to put together all the orders and do all the technology stuff. Or, alternatively, we could all just go out and each find a few more people to add to the list. I wonder what would happen if each of us strove to get at least one new BHian this year. . .</blockquote><br />
We also need to get someone like yourself who is technologically sophisticated to get a simply mp3 recorder and a decent mic for your father. There are various mp3 recorder options. I am looking at a new one that will cost only about $100, but I am not sure it will give me the quality I want. There are various things out there. Some of them allow you to record at 80 or 90 kbs. The file created is an mp3 file that can be copied directly into a computer and then burned directly onto a CD.<br />
<br />
At least this way, the stuff that Jim does from now on would 1) be recorded in a stabler longer lasting form; 2) be easier to copy and sell; 3) be easier to store; 4) easier to label and manage; and 5) be better quality.<br />
<br />
Start with this, Doug, and you could save your father an incredible amount of time. Teaching him to download the files onto a computer is easy (plug recorder into the UBS port and the disk appears on the desktop, drag and drop the lecture file). If it is difficult on his computer, buy him a mac. He could actually carry his mac around with him and record onto it directly — which is what I do.<br />
<br />
Ralph<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<b>Date:</b> Fri, 11 Feb 2005 08:37:25 -0600<br />
<b>From:</b> <a href="mailto:shade79@midwest.net">burke</a><br />
<b>Subject:</b> Re: JBJ on mp3???<br />
<blockquote>Jim is not a technological wizard — yet. He has not bothered to buy an MP3 recorder for himself and a good mike that allows him to record directly into MP3 format, copy the lectures onto his computer and burn CDs in less than a minute.</blockquote><br />
I will put up the first $50 to buy him an MP3 recorder of your suggestion, Ralph. Any others?<br />
<br />
Burke<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<b>Date:</b> Fri, 11 Feb 2005 09:39:39 -0500<br />
<b>From:</b> <a href="mailto:rpeele@mindspring.com">“Robbie Peele”</a><br />
<b>Subject:</b> Re: JBJ on mp3???<br />
<br />
Count me in!<br />
<br />
Robbie Peele<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<b>Date:</b> Fri, 11 Feb 2005 08:39:51 -0600<br />
<b>From:</b> <a href="mailto:shade79@midwest.net">burke</a><br />
<b>Subject:</b> Re: JBJ on mp3???<br />
<blockquote>Start with this, Doug, and you could save your father an incredible amount of time. Teaching him to download the files onto a computer is easy (plug recorder into the UBS port and the disk appears on the desktop, drag and drop the lecture file). If it is difficult on his computer, buy him a mac.</blockquote><br />
Yes, for only $499, and you can use your USB monitor and keyboard.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<b>Date:</b> Fri, 11 Feb 2005 08:41:54 -0600<br />
<b>From:</b> <a href="mailto:shade79@midwest.net">burke</a><br />
<b>Subject:</b> Re: JBJ on mp3???<br />
<br />
That’s $100 so far. Anybody else?<br />
<br />
Father Bucks<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<b>Date:</b> Fri, 11 Feb 2005 08:45:19 -0600<br />
<b>From:</b> <a href="mailto:mailto:jbjordan4@cox.net">“James B. Jordan”</a><br />
<b>Subject:</b> Re: JBJ on mp3???<br />
<br />
Buy me all you want. I don’t have time to fool with this. At all. Even if everyone else does the work. I only get 2–3 days per month to read and write as it is, and I’m not going to add anything more onto the catalogue and order-processing end of things. Sorry. Unless BH giving ups by about $1000 per month (see current mailing, to be sent out Monday), and I can get an office assistant, nothing is going to change.<br />
<br />
JBJ<br />
<br />
James B. Jordan<br />
Director, Biblical Horizons<br />
Box 1096<br />
Niceville, FL 32578<br />
http://www.biblicalhorizons.com<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<b>Date:</b> Fri, 11 Feb 2005 08:53:29 -0600<br />
<b>From:</b> <a href="mailto:shade79@midwest.net">burke</a><br />
<b>Subject:</b> Re: JBJ on mp3???<br />
<blockquote>Buy me all you want. I don’t have time to fool with this. At all. Even if everyone else does the work. I only get 2-3 days per month to read and write as it is, and I’m not going to add anything more onto the catalogue and order-processing end of things. Sorry. Unless BH giving ups by about $1000 per month (see current mailing, to be sent out Monday), and I can get an office assistant, nothing is going to change.<br />
<br />
JBJ</blockquote><br />
Ok, everyone, especially you psychological types on the list. This sounds like a “cry” of distress; Jim has real needs, very felt needs, and we must all band together to support and affirm him. He’s definitely feeling fragile this morning.<br />
<br />
Any suggestions?<br />
<br />
Father Affirm<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<b>Date:</b> Fri, 11 Feb 2005 10:19:00 -0500 (GMT-05:00)<br />
<b>From:</b> <a href="mailto:slinn@brevard.net">Scott Linn</a><br />
<b>Subject:</b> Re: JBJ on mp3???<br />
<br />
Greetings,<br />
<blockquote>Ok, everyone, especially you psychological types on the list. This sounds like a “cry” of distress; Jim has real needs, very felt needs, and we must all band together to support and affirm him. He’s definitely feeling fragile this morning.<br />
<br />
Any suggestions?</blockquote><br />
I’m sending out a cyber-hug.<br />
<br />
Scott Linn<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<b>Date:</b> Fri, 11 Feb 2005 09:42:31 -0600<br />
<b>From:</b> <a href="mailto:lists.bibhorizon@dbjordan.fastmail.fm">Douglas Jordan</a><br />
<b>Subject:</b> Re: JBJ on mp3???<br />
<br />
On Fri, 11 Feb 2005 08:53:29 -0600, <a href="mailto:shade79@midwest.net">burke</a> wrote:<br />
<blockquote>Ok, everyone, especially you psychological types on the list.</blockquote><br />
Psychological types? Something about this reminds me of James 2:16. . . He doesn’t need a hug, he needs CASH!<br />
<br />
So all you monetarily-endowed types on the list, pay attention... =)<br />
<br />
Doug the Cynic<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<b>Date:</b> Fri, 11 Feb 2005 09:46:09 -0600<br />
<b>From:</b> <a href="mailto:shade79@midwest.net">burke</a><br />
<b>Subject:</b> Re: JBJ on mp3???<br />
<br />
He has what is necessary for his body; I’ve seen all his Rush Limbaugh ties!<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<b>Date:</b> Fri, 11 Feb 2005 09:51:45 -0600<br />
<b>From:</b> <a href="mailto:shade79@midwest.net">burke</a><br />
<b>Subject:</b> Re: JBJ on mp3???<br />
<blockquote>I’m sending out a cyber-hug.</blockquote><br />
Good, good. This is very kind, sweet, and, good of you. Now, after the hug, which is very affirming, of course, what else do suggest? How else could you show your appreciation of Jim?<br />
<br />
Now, Doug has suggested CASH. Probably too cold, though, and way too impersonal. But maybe PayPal could work, or a VISA donation. Or something you don’t want to leave home without, something that can express your love and appreciation even beyond your ability to pay, maybe? That would be kind, personal, and affirming.<br />
<br />
What do you think?<br />
<br />
Father Affirmation<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<b>Date:</b> Fri, 11 Feb 2005 09:56:48 -0600<br />
<b>From:</b> <a href="mailto:lists.bibhorizon@dbjordan.fastmail.fm">Douglas Jordan</a><br />
<b>Subject:</b> Re: JBJ on mp3???<br />
<br />
Well, I realize my earlier response was a bit flippant and this situation deserves a more Ephesians 4:29ish response. So then, here is the “need of the moment:”<br />
<br />
Tuesday is the next trip to Russia. I’m guessing, then, that this entire weekend will be spent in a rush to get about a billion things done before departure as well as get this mailing sent before Tuesday. There’s probably a bit of added anticipation about the billion things that will need to be done instantly upon return.<br />
<br />
The discouraging thing is that probably most of the things that need to get done are unskilled work that could easily be done or helped by someone else.<br />
<br />
Doug<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<b>Date:</b> Fri, 11 Feb 2005 10:00:11 -0600<br />
<b>From:</b> <a href="mailto:shade79@midwest.net">burke</a><br />
<b>Subject:</b> Fwd: Re: JBJ on mp3???<br />
<br />
Hey Jim,<br />
<br />
Couple of ideas. How about an intern, that comes for a month or two, that you only provide room and board for? College girl or guy. Someone who could “touch” all the archives, but would also get you over the hump? That wouldn’t cost a $1000 per month. Maybe someone on the list has an older child in college or between that could come for a month or two this summer to help you out?<br />
<br />
Or, maybe instead of going to the beach during the conference, we could all come over and help you catch up in the afternoons? Maybe your short-term intern could put one or two people to work everyday, in the afternoons.<br />
<br />
Or, if just 20 people would give you $50 a month, you’d have your $1000/month. Or 40 give $25/month. I could do that. That’s $300/ year.<br />
<br />
Some ideas.<br />
<br />
Burke<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<b>Date:</b> Fri, 11 Feb 2005 16:01:24 -0000<br />
<b>From:</b> <a href="mailto:slinn@brevard.net">Scott Linn</a><br />
<b>Subject:</b> Re: JBJ on mp3???<br />
<br />
Greetings,<br />
<blockquote>How else could you show your appreciation of Jim?</blockquote><br />
I just set up a recurring contribution from my online banking account. It’s pretty puny, but it’s something.<br />
<br />
Scott Linn<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<b>Date:</b> Fri, 11 Feb 2005 10:15:58 -0600<br />
<b>From:</b> <a href="mailto:shade79@midwest.net">burke</a><br />
<b>Subject:</b> Re: JBJ on mp3???<br />
<br />
Most excellent. You will receive a BH lapel pin upon the arrival of the first contribution!<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<b>Date:</b> Fri, 11 Feb 2005 23:35:09 -0500<br />
<b>From:</b> <a href="mailto:jheaton@newcovenantschools.org">“John Heaton”</a><br />
<b>Subject:</b> RE: Re: JBJ on mp3???<br />
<br />
BHer’s,<br />
<br />
I’ve read the last few posts regarding technology, etc. and, while the posts are fairly glib regarding MP3’s, I understand Jim’s point — a 1000 bucks a month would go a long way to doing something about it. I would suggest that we actually think about this. Face it, JBJ changed my life. Because of it, I support BH, and, with a little more information, a plan of attack, and a specific goal, I would UP my support in a heartbeat.<br />
<br />
I contribute to BH to support the work (and to stay on this list), but I have often wished that BH had a “Friends of BH” organized and dedicated to raising money from the few of us who are so benefited by this list and Jim’s ministry. I have NO IDEA of the details of that *end* of BH, but if Jim and those closer were to put some form on the idea, I for one could/would give more.<br />
<br />
I’ve been in 501 (c) 3 parachurch (school) work for a decade now. I’ve raised four million bucks to build my own school by God’s grace, and, as far as I’m concerned, what I do doesn’t compare in the least with what he does. I think I know *something* about how stuff like this (fundraising) works. I know how hard it is, especially if you’re an *idea* guy. So face it, if FV/AAT/and anything and everything else we advocate is to be heard, we need to step up and put up. Some time back JJM advocated a printed journal. Where is it? and Why not? (no slam Jeff — these are things I would like to see and to which I would contribute. But, they take champions to make them happen.)<br />
<br />
Over the years I’ve strained to listen to HOURS of cruddy BH tapes of conferences I couldn’t attend wishing like h___ that Jim had some better recording equipment. It’s just not that difficult. I also know as the Head of a school in an operation of medium sophistication, that suggestions without real wheels is maddening to a busy man of ideas.<br />
<br />
JBJ ain’t getting any younger. His thoughts, and those of the incomparable Meyers, Bledsoe, Horne, Leithart, and yes, even BURKE, not to mention Lusk, Barach, Wilkins, Garver and all of you guys who are WAY OUTTA MY LEAGUE are worth recording in MP3 FORMAT for preservation and distribution. At the least, decent tapes of BH Conferences should be a project of THIS LIST. PERIOD. Jim can’t do it alone, but I gotta believe there’s enough talent and $$ on the list to make it happen.<br />
<br />
So Jim, I’ve had a chance to get it off my chest. I’ve been waiting to say this for a Loooooong time.<br />
<br />
We love you man. You can’t have my BUD, but wow can *WE* give”?<br />
<br />
<br />
John Heaton, Headmaster<br />
New Covenant Schools<br />
122 Fleetwood Drive<br />
Lynchburg, VA 24501<br />
434.847.8313<br />
www.newcovenantschools.org<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<b>Date:</b> Sat, 12 Feb 2005 21:06:54 +0900<br />
<b>From:</b> <a href="mailto:ras@berith.org">“Ralph A. Smith”</a><br />
<b>Subject:</b> Re: Re: JBJ on mp3???<br />
<br />
This is just an idea and it may be a bad one, so please take this suggestion with a grain or two of salt or a liter of two of beer.<br />
<br />
It occurred to me that we could make the BH list a pay-for-membership list. Perhaps something like this:<br />
<br />
Platinum member: $100 per month<br />
Gold member: $75 per month<br />
Silver member: $50 per month<br />
Peon Member: $25 per month<br />
Student Member: ?????????????<br />
<br />
In other words, student members are left up to Jim’s discretion. The others pay a monthly fee to be members of the BH mailing list. Of course, Jim could make exceptions for others as he pleases since some members contribute so much that their financial contributions would be less than their substantive input (Joel, for example).<br />
<br />
This is just a suggestion and it is partially dictated by my own situation. When I pay for a service, it is OK with the Japanese government. If I just donate, I am in trouble. I cannot do it. But for you all, paying for a service like be a member of the BH list should be tax deductible, I think. That would help most of you, too.<br />
<br />
Just a thought,<br />
Ralph<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<b>Date:</b> Sat, 12 Feb 2005 08:58:24 EST<br />
<b>From:</b> <a href="mailto:Leithart@aol.com">Leithart@aol.com</a><br />
<b>Subject:</b> Re: Re: JBJ on mp3???<br />
<br />
In a message dated 2/12/2005 4:08:27 AM Pacific Standard Time, ras@berith.org writes:<br />
<blockquote>Platinum member: $100 per month<br />
Gold member: $75 per month<br />
Silver member: $50 per month<br />
Peon Member: $25 per month</blockquote><br />
C’mon. If it’s gonna be BH, it’s gotta be gold, silver, bronze and iron.<br />
<br />
Peter<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<b>Date:</b> Sat, 12 Feb 2005 09:39:58 -0500<br />
<b>From:</b> <a href="mailto:slinn@brevard.net">Scott Linn</a><br />
<b>Subject:</b> Re: Re: JBJ on mp3???<br />
<br />
Greetings,<br />
<br />
Cheapskate that I am, I’ll be in clay.<br />
<br />
Scott Linn<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<b>Date:</b> Sat, 12 Feb 2005 10:33:31 -0600<br />
<b>From:</b> <a href="mailto:shade79@midwest.net">burke</a><br />
<b>Subject:</b> Re: Re: JBJ on mp3???<br />
<br />
Ralph,<br />
<br />
Thanks a lot. I offer to start giving Jim $25/month, and then you call me a “peon” by making that amount of giving the “Peon member” classification. You’re ruining my reputation, dissing me.<br />
<br />
Your lowly friend,<br />
<br />
peon<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<b>Date:</b> Sat, 12 Feb 2005 10:35:00 -0600<br />
<b>From:</b> <a href="mailto:shade79@midwest.net">burke</a><br />
<b>Subject:</b> Re: Re: JBJ on mp3???<br />
<br />
<br />
Yes, and “clay” can be for students!<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<b>Date:</b> Sat, 12 Feb 2005 11:17:18 -0700<br />
<b>From:</b> <a href="mailto:tim@timgallant.org">“Tim Gallant”</a><br />
<b>Subject:</b> Re: Re: JBJ on mp3???<br />
<blockquote>C’mon. If it’s gonna be BH, it’s gotta be gold, silver, bronze and iron.</blockquote><br />
Well, that beats gold, silver, wood, hay, and stubble. . . .<br />
<br />
tg<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<b>Date:</b> Sun, 13 Feb 2005 05:40:45 +0900<br />
<b>From:</b> <a href="mailto:ras@berith.org">“Ralph A. Smith”</a><br />
<b>Subject:</b> Re: Re: JBJ on mp3???<br />
<br />
Sorry, Burke, I didn’t even make the connection with your email and certainly didn’t mean to suggest that anyone should pee on you.<br />
<br />
Apologies,<br />
Ralph<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<b>Date:</b> Sat, 12 Feb 2005 16:54:53 EST<br />
<b>From:</b> <a href="mailto:edencity@aol.com">edencity@aol.com</a><br />
<b>Subject:</b> Re: Re: JBJ on mp3???<br />
<br />
Gents and Mesdames:<br />
<br />
I’m thinking for your consideration that somewhere amongst the members of the various congregations pastored by BH Forum members are marketing and business people whose expertise would be invaluable.<br />
<br />
Pax Christi,<br />
<br />
Chuck, unworthy servantUnknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-772171407390878794.post-25445160045757401582005-02-10T16:50:00.000-08:002010-10-05T06:23:00.048-07:00Tithing & Giving<b>Date:</b> Thu, 10 Feb 2005 16:50:50 -0700<br />
<b>From:</b> <a href="mailto:jbarach@telus.net">“John Barach”</a><br />
<b>Subject:</b> Tithing & Giving<br />
<br />
BHers —<br />
<br />
A couple of (repeat) questions:<br />
<ol><li>Where are you at on the issue of tithing? Jim, are you still happy with the line of argument you present in <i>The Law of the Covenant</i>?</li>
<li>How would you recommend teaching a congregation about giving? How do you address situations where people just don’t seem to be giving much? How about situations where you think giving may be dropping because people are voting with their wallets, engaging in a form of “tithe protest” against the direction the session is heading?</li></ol><br />
John<br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<b>Date:</b> Fri, 11 Feb 2005 09:11:01 +0900<br />
<b>From:</b> <a href="mailto:ras@berith.org">“Ralph A. Smith”</a><br />
<b>Subject:</b> Tithing & Giving<br />
<br />
On Feb 11, 2005, at 8:50 AM, John Barach wrote:<br />
<blockquote>2. How would you recommend teaching a congregation about giving? How do you address situations where people just don’t seem to be giving much? How about situations where you think giving may be dropping because people are voting with their wallets, engaging in a form of “tithe protest” against the direction the session is heading?<br />
<br />
John</blockquote><br />
In our church, we followed North’s advice about separating voting privileges from membership. That way children can be full members and yet not vote. And we can allow people to join our church whatever their theological confusion — within the limits of orthodox faith. Arminians, premillennialists, and presbyterians can join our church and receive weekly communion, etc. But they cannot vote unless they fulfill the qualifications of a voting member. Those qualifications include agreement with our doctrinal distinctives (including paedocommunion), being a member of the church for at least 3 years, tc. and tithing for at least one year.<br />
<br />
Any time a person quits tithing, for any reason, his voting privileges are gone until he has been tithing again for one year.<br />
<br />
It seems to me that all members ought to tithe, but we have the provision in part because of the economic hardships of some members. I suspect it may often be true that their hardships are sometimes the result of less than wise stewardship, but that is not for me to judge. If a person cannot or will not tithe, they cannot vote. Voting is a form of leadership and it is restricted to those who are qualified by their faith and life. Voting determines the future of the church and is a privilege of responsibility restricted to those who show with their tithes that they take their responsibilities seriously.<br />
<br />
I should add by the way that we do not treat all decisions as “privileged”. So, on many things the whole membership over 20 (age of adulthood) votes. But on the choice of officers, decisions about money, matters related to the church confession, etc., only those with voting privileges vote.<br />
<br />
How can we justify this Biblically?<br />
<br />
1) By analogy from Paul’s restrictions concerning charity. Paul distinguished between elderly members of the local church who were worthy to receive charity and those who were not. He set forth very strict criteria for someone to be a recipient of church funds. But he did not restrict membership in any such way. As soon as a person professed faith, he was baptized and received into membership. But that did not grant that person full access to every service provided by the church. If access to charity can be restricted, so can voting privileges.<br />
<br />
2) By the analogy of the authority of the elders of the church and the elders of the city. Elders of the church, like the elders of the city, are given administrative authority. They are functioning within the limits of that authority when they make decisions about how to govern the church in practical matters. Thus, we have made some practical administrative decisions. 1) In a mobile society in which people hardly know each other, membership for 3 years gives us a chance to get to know the people who have come into our church and them a chance to know us. 2) In a society in which financial responsibility — and every other sort of responsibility — tends not to be taken too seriously, restrictions that require financial responsibility seem appropriate and wise. Elders have the responsibility to lead the local church to maturity and this seems like one step in that direction. 3) etc.<br />
<br />
There are six other points on the Biblical justification of this approach to tithing that I cannot fully explain here, but Peter will set them forth completely in his new book on tithing.<br />
<br />
Ralph<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<b>Date:</b> Thu, 10 Feb 2005 16:22:33 -0800<br />
<b>From:</b> <a href="mailto:office@reformationcovenant.org">“Reformation Covenant Church”</a><br />
<b>Subject:</b> Tithing & Giving<br />
<br />
John,<br />
<br />
Four words: Show me the money!<br />
<br />
Seriously, we have a line in our membership vows at RCC that states that members will “Faithfully give God His tithe.” That way the elders have some leverage. :-)<br />
<br />
If you don’t have this, not sure what you can do except point to the biblical obligation of the tithe. Might tie into a lesson on submission and respecting authorities in general. The ends don’t justify the means, and submission is not submission if you only do what you agree with. I would think that this would be an important lesson for men to know . . . especially if they expect their wives to be submissive to them! Beyond that, the tithe is ulitmately submission to God and a means of giving thanks for everything that comes from Him. You know all this, but this is my two cents.<br />
<br />
Back to lurking. . .<br />
<br />
Isaac Mahar, Administrative Assistant to the Officers<br />
Reformation Covenant Church<br />
1201 John Quincy Adams St.<br />
Oregon City, OR 97045<br />
503.656.9444; Fax 503.650.1294<br />
Website: www.ReformationCovenant.org<br />
Email: Office@ReformationCovenant.org<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<b>Date:</b> Thu, 10 Feb 2005 18:27:36 -0600<br />
<b>From:</b> <a href="mailto:shade79@midwest.net">burke</a><br />
<b>Subject:</b> Tithing & Giving<br />
<blockquote>1. Where are you at on the issue of tithing?</blockquote><br />
I’m all for it!<br />
<blockquote>Jim, are you still happy with the line of argument you present in _The Law of the Covenant_?<br />
<br />
2. How would you recommend teaching a congregation about giving?</blockquote><br />
In Sunday school, new member’s class, economic conference; have Jim come and mention it!<br />
<blockquote>How do you address situations where people just don’t seem to be giving much? How about situations where you think giving may be dropping because people are voting with their wallets, engaging in a form of “tithe protest” against the direction the session is heading?</blockquote><br />
I teach that the tithe is the Lords, and they don’t have his permission to withhold it. But, if they don’t want to give it here, they are free to leave and go elsewhere and tithe. But they must tithe to the Lord via the local church.<br />
<br />
Burke<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<b>Date:</b> Thu, 10 Feb 2005 22:51:22 -0600<br />
<b>From:</b> <a href="mailto:lists.bibhorizon@dbjordan.fastmail.fm">Douglas Jordan</a><br />
<b>Subject:</b> Tithing & Giving<br />
<br />
John, this post might answer that question:<br />
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/bibhorizon/message/33243<br />
<br />
That is just a response to the earlier thread that starts with post 33210, so you might want to start there.<br />
<br />
Doug<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<b>Date:</b> Thu, 10 Feb 2005 22:55:22 -0600<br />
<b>From:</b> <a href="mailto:lists.bibhorizon@dbjordan.fastmail.fm">Douglas Jordan</a><br />
<b>Subject:</b> Tithing & Giving<br />
<br />
Okay, it’s late and I’m slow . . . I just noticed that you’d been a part of that earlier discussion, so your questions have it in mind. Oops. Well, maybe my post numbers will help the newbie groupers to find the earlier discussion a little easier, since yahoo searching certainly won’t help them!<br />
<br />
DougUnknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-772171407390878794.post-63108496463720617072005-02-10T14:36:00.000-08:002010-09-28T05:43:25.801-07:00Boanerges<b>Date:</b> Thu, 10 Feb 2005 14:34:46 -0700<br />
<b>From:</b> <a href="mailto:jbarach@telus.net">“John Barach”</a><br />
<b>Subject:</b> Boanerges<br />
<br />
BHers —<br />
<br />
What do you guys make of the name “Boanerges” given to James (Jacob) and John? Some commentaries say that Jesus named these guys “Sons of Thunder” because they were loud and obnoxious guys. Just look at how they wanted to call down fire from heaven later on.<br />
<br />
But it seems to me (and I’ve discovered that Van Bruggen agrees) that we have to treat the naming of James and John the same way we treat the naming of Simon. Simon’s new name “Peter” didn’t reflect something in his own character by nature, let alone something bad. Rather, that new name indicated who he was as Jesus’ disciple and who Jesus would make him. Something similar has to be said for the Sons of Thunder, too.<br />
<br />
But what is the meaning of “Sons of Thunder”? I suspect that Van Bruggen is right when he says that the term indicates that their voice is going to echo the voice of God, whose voice is often linked with thunder (e.g., when He speaks to Jesus, the people think it’s thunder).<br />
<br />
As a side-note, it is interesting to see (as Farrer, Horne, and Wright point out) that out of the twelve, Jesus chooses “three mighty men,” distinguished by their new names, which is another Davidic echo.<br />
<br />
John<a name='more'></a><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<b>Date:</b> Thu, 10 Feb 2005 15:34:00 -0600<br />
<b>From:</b> <a href="mailto:mailto:jbjordan4@cox.net">“James B. Jordan”</a><br />
<b>Subject:</b> Boanerges<br />
<br />
At 03:34 PM 2/10/2005, you wrote:<br />
<blockquote>What do you guys make of the name “Boanerges” given to James (Jacob) and John?</blockquote><br />
Simon Peter and these two guys were Jesus’ country-rock band: Rock Johnson and the Thunder Boys<br />
<blockquote>As a side-note, it is interesting to see (as Farrer, Horne, and Wright point out) that out of the twelve, Jesus chooses “three mighty men,” distinguished by their new names, which is another Davidic echo.</blockquote><br />
Also Daniel and his three, and especially Job and his betraying three (remember, J.B. is king and the three are King’s Friends, not Job’s personal pals).<br />
<br />
JBJ<br />
<br />
James B. Jordan<br />
Director, <a href="http://www.biblicalhorizons.com">Biblical Horizons</a><br />
Box 1096<br />
Niceville, FL 32578Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-772171407390878794.post-33092350564338861842005-02-10T13:43:00.000-08:002010-10-02T06:18:21.492-07:00Gaffin at WTS Dallas<b>Date:</b> Thu, 10 Feb 2005 13:43:18 -0600<br />
<b>From:</b> <a href="mailto:lists.bibhorizon@dbjordan.fastmail.fm">Douglas Jordan</a><br />
<b>Subject:</b> Gaffin at WTS Dallas<br />
<br />
On Tue, 08 Feb 2005 13:32:17 -0600, <a href="mailto:mailto:jbjordan4@cox.net">“James B. Jordan”</a> wrote:<br />
<blockquote>On this matter of language and communication, try listening to Wright and Gaffin at the AAPC conference. Wright spoke in English. Gaffin spoke in WCF. Frankly, listening to Gaffin was bizarre.</blockquote><br />
If any DFW-dwellers are interested in hearing more from Gaffin:<br />
<br />
DR. RICHARD GAFFIN LECTURING ON JUSTIFICATION Friday, February 11, 1:30pm<br />
<br />
Join us for a lecture by Dr. Richard B. Gaffin, Jr., Professor of Biblical and Systematic Theology, Westminster Theological Seminary, on the doctrine of Justification, followed by a Q & A session. Earlier this month at the Auburn Avenue Pastors Conference, Dr. Gaffin spoke on Pauline theology along with Dr. N.T. Wright whose writings have provoked much discussion within Reformed and Presbyterian circles. Dr. Gaffin’s upcoming lecture offers an opportunity for focused attention on one of the central doctrines under discussion. For information on Dr. Gaffin, please see <a href="http://www.wts.edu/faculty/faculty-htstudies.html#gaffin">wts.edu/faculty/faculty-htstudies.html#gaffin</a> Please reply to this email if you would like to attend.<br />
<br />
“Reply to this email” means send mail to Steve Vanderhill to let him know you’re coming. It’s more of a request than a requirement, though — you’d be fine if you just showed up. It may be interesting to see what Gaffin does (or doesn’t) say now that he’s had time to ponder the AAPC conference. . . .<br />
<br />
DougUnknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-772171407390878794.post-87777134663561955802005-02-10T08:06:00.000-08:002010-09-28T05:43:08.803-07:00Dead or Alive<b>Date:</b> Thu, 10 Feb 2005 8:06:38 -0600<br />
<b>From:</b> <a href="mailto:p.duggan@verizon.net">pduggan</a><br />
<b>Subject:</b> Dead or Alive<br />
<br />
The will of the reprobate are always dead.<br />
<br />
The will of the elect become alive.<br />
<br />
Is there a common operation of the Spirit towards those in the church which makes them alive while still remaining dead?<br />
<br />
Paul<a name='more'></a><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<b>Date:</b> Thu, 10 Feb 2005 14:30:26 -0000<br />
<b>From:</b> <a href="mailto:garvers1@yahoo.com">“garver”</a><br />
<b>Subject:</b> Dead or Alive<br />
<br />
Well, if you push the dead-alive thing too far — so that the elect and reprobate never share any actual operations of the Spirit — you end up having NO “common operations” of the Spirit and that too would run afoul of the WCF.<br />
<br />
joel<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<b>Date:</b> Thu, 10 Feb 2005 8:43:39 -0600<br />
<b>From:</b> <a href="mailto:p.duggan@verizon.net">pduggan</a><br />
<b>Subject:</b> Dead or Alive<br />
<br />
Clearly that would. And so, Saul can receive an operation of the Spirit to enable him to prohpesy and the goats can cast out demons, and everyone can say “Jesus is Lord” by the Spirit. But the WCF teaches that those who do so have dead wills, does it not? And Jesus teaches he “never knew them”.<br />
<br />
Paul<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<b>Date:</b> Thu, 10 Feb 2005 08:54:43 -0600<br />
<b>From:</b> <a href="mailto:mark@hornes.org">Mark Horne</a><br />
<b>Subject:</b> Dead or Alive<br />
<br />
Jesus only “never knew” the people in Israel who said good things about his preaching but never became his disciples. This passage simply does not apply to any of the issues to which it has been applied. Visitors outside the Church who have never been baptized but who like a preacher should hear about this warning.<br />
<br />
MarkUnknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-772171407390878794.post-73991055555888691652005-02-09T16:13:00.000-08:002010-09-27T06:31:08.076-07:00I’m baaaaaaaak . . . . now don’t everybody leave.<b>Date:</b> Wed, 9 Feb 2005 16:13:38 -0600<br />
<b>From:</b> <a href="mailto:DaleSmith@cpcpca.org">Dale Smith</a><br />
<b>Subject:</b> I’m baaaaaaaak . . . . now don’t everybody leave.<br />
<br />
Greetings All,<br />
<br />
I begged and plead and sent money . . . and I was granted, I think, probationary status.<br />
<br />
Blessings to all,<br />
<br />
Dale Smith<a name='more'></a><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<b>Date:</b> Wed, 9 Feb 2005 16:31:01 -0600<br />
<b>From:</b> <a href="mailto:mark@hornes.org">Mark Horne</a><br />
<b>Subject:</b> I’m baaaaaaaak . . . . now don’t everybody leave.<br />
<br />
Welcome back, Dale!<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<b>Date:</b> Wed, 09 Feb 2005 17:36:33 -0500<br />
<b>From:</b> <a href="mailto:prbuckley@aol.com">prbuckley@aol.com</a><br />
<b>Subject:</b> I’m baaaaaaaak . . . . now don’t everybody leave.<br />
<br />
Woo hoo! Welcome back, D. Lansing! That gnawing feeling that something was missing on the list just ended.<br />
<br />
PRB<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<b>Date:</b> Wed, 9 Feb 2005 15:38:03 -0700<br />
<b>From:</b> <a href="mailto:tim@timgallant.org">“Tim Gallant”</a><br />
<b>Subject:</b> I’m baaaaaaaak . . . . now don’t everybody leave.<br />
<br />
Welcome back, Dale. We missed ya.<br />
<br />
Darn kids. Filed the sights of my gun. . . .<br />
<br />
:^)<br />
<br />
timUnknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-772171407390878794.post-2869880594670963252005-02-09T14:35:00.000-08:002010-09-27T06:29:40.363-07:00Attack on Dale Smith and North TX pby<b>Date:</b> Wed, 9 Feb 2005 14:35:20 -0600<br />
<b>From:</b> <a href="mailto:mark@hornes.org">Mark Horne</a><br />
<b>Subject:</b> Attack on Dale Smith and North TX pby<br />
<br />
<a href="http://tinyurl.com/5d8pq">http://tinyurl.com/5d8pq</a><br />
<br />
Follow the link to see Dale’s ex-ruling elder comment on the same part of the report that I noticed:<br />
<blockquote>n one church, an AAT/FV sympathetic pastor has engineered the removal of an associate who was fully committed to the PCA doctrinal position but objected to the pastor’s extra- or anti-confessional views.</blockquote><br />
Sounds familiar!<br />
<br />
~Wayne Wylie~<br />
Attending, Mid Cities Presbyterian Church (OPC)<br />
<a href="http://www.mcopc.org">http://www.mcopc.org</a><br />
Bedford, TX<br />
<br />
-----------------------------------<br />
<br />
The Mississippi Valley report is stacked with unsubstantiated unreferenced gossip. In this case, and who knows where else, the report is actually presuming to ignore the official action of North Texas Presbytery in investigating Dale. They are also misinforming the public in not pointing out that this conflict erupted when the associate wanted to strip the Church of its Christmas and Easter observance.<br />
<br />
May God deliver the PCA from the League of Presbyterian Sociopaths.<br />
<br />
MarkUnknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-772171407390878794.post-55877007609406644092005-02-09T13:57:00.000-08:002010-09-25T06:22:53.793-07:00Blood transfusions<b>Date:</b> Wed, 9 Feb 2005 13:57:58 EST<br />
<b>From:</b> <a href="mailto:Leithart@aol.com">Leithart@aol.com</a><br />
<b>Subject:</b> Blood transfusions<br />
<br />
Hey, you medical and ethical and medical-ethical types,<br />
<br />
What do you think of blood transfusions? Are they covered by the prohibition of blood in Acts 15? Would blood transfusions have been prohibited under the law? Has anything changed to make it OK?<br />
<br />
Peter<br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
<br />
<br />
<b>Date:</b> Wed, 09 Feb 2005 13:14:27 -0600<br />
<b>From:</b> <a href="mailto:mailto:jbjordan4@cox.net">“James B. Jordan”</a><br />
<b>Subject:</b> Re: Blood transfusions<br />
<blockquote>Hey, you medical and ethical and medical-ethical types,<br />
<br />
What do you think of blood transfusions? Are they covered by the prohibition of blood in Acts 15?</blockquote><br />
No. Why would one think so? Eating is not involved.<br />
<blockquote>Would blood transfusions have been prohibited under the law?</blockquote><br />
No.<br />
<br />
JBJ<br />
<br />
James B. Jordan<br />
Director, <a href="http://www.biblicalhorizons.com/">Biblical Horizons</a><br />
Box 1096<br />
Niceville, FL 32578<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<b>Date:</b> Wed, 9 Feb 2005 14:17:59 -0500 (GMT-05:00)<br />
<b>From:</b> <a href="mailto:slinn@brevard.net">Scott Linn</a><br />
<b>Subject:</b> Blood transfusions<br />
<br />
Greetings,<br />
<blockquote>What do you think of blood transfusions? Are they covered by the prohibition of blood in Acts 15? Would blood transfusions have been prohibited under the law? Has anything changed to make it OK?</blockquote><br />
Get caught asking this question in public, and they’ll call you a JW.<br />
<br />
I was more opposed to transfusions and transplants before my daughter became diabetic. [So, I have no moral backbone.] Still, I think the eating of blood had more significant religious overtones in the OT era than it does in our world today. To me, the case of Adam donating a rib to give life to his wife seems to allow for us to sacrifice ourselves for others. I guess my main sticking point — when it comes to transfusions/plants — is if the donor will be killed by removing the organ. In other words, I’d give my kidney for my child, but I would oppose taking a pancreas for the Islets of Langerhans cells to cure her disease because it would kill the donor to take that organ.<br />
<br />
Just my random, unsolidified thoughts.<br />
<br />
Scott Linn<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<b>Date:</b> Wed, 9 Feb 2005 12:19:15 -0700<br />
<b>From:</b> <a href="mailto:tim@timgallant.org">“Tim Gallant”</a><br />
<b>Subject:</b> Blood transfusions<br />
<br />
At 12:57 PM 2/9/2005, you wrote:<br />
<blockquote><blockquote>Hey, you medical and ethical and medical-ethical types,<br />
<br />
What do you think of blood transfusions? Are they covered by the prohibition of blood in Acts 15?</blockquote><br />
No. Why would one think so? Eating is not involved.</blockquote><br />
Peter’s a closet JW, that’s why.<br />
<br />
:)<br />
<br />
tim<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<b>Date:</b> Wed, 9 Feb 2005 14:19:59 EST<br />
<b>From:</b> <a href="mailto:Leithart@aol.com">Leithart@aol.com</a><br />
<b>Subject:</b> Blood transfusions<br />
<br />
In a message dated 2/9/2005 11:19:00 AM Pacific Standard Time <a href="mailto:mailto:jbjordan4@cox.net">“James B. Jordan”</a> writes:<br />
<blockquote>Eating is not involved.</blockquote><br />
So there’s no analogy between taking in blood through the mouth and taking it directly into a vein?<br />
<br />
Peter<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<b>Date:</b> Wed, 9 Feb 2005 14:20:29 -0500 (GMT-05:00)<br />
<b>From:</b> <a href="mailto:slinn@brevard.net">Scott Linn</a><br />
<b>Subject:</b> Blood transfusions<br />
<br />
Greetings,<br />
<blockquote><blockquote>No. Why would one think so? Eating is not involved.</blockquote><br />
Peter’s a closet JW, that’s why.</blockquote><br />
I told you that was coming.<br />
<br />
Scott Linn<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<img border="0" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_43363SKSJyQ/TJvYrBlc5jI/AAAAAAAAACo/208lMlecOng/leithart.jpg" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;" /><b>Date:</b> Wed, 9 Feb 2005 14:33:54 EST<br />
<b>From:</b> <a href="mailto:Leithart@aol.com">Leithart@aol.com</a><br />
<b>Subject:</b> Blood transfusions<br />
<br />
In a message dated 2/9/2005 11:32:21 AM Pacific Standard Time, <a href="mailto:slinn@brevard.net">Scott Linn</a> writes:<br />
<blockquote>Peter’s a closet JW, that’s why.</blockquote><br />
JWism is the REAL telos of NPP, AAPC, Norman Shepherd, etc. I’m amazed the rest of you can’t see it, you blinded fools. Ligon does.<br />
<br />
Really, though, Burke drove me to it.<br />
<br />
Peter<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<b>Date:</b> Wed, 9 Feb 2005 12:37:49 -0700<br />
<b>From:</b> <a href="mailto:tim@timgallant.org">“Tim Gallant”</a><br />
<b>Subject:</b> Blood transfusions<br />
<br />
In a message dated 2/9/2005 12:33:21 AM Pacific Standard Time, <a href="mailto:Leithart@aol.com">Leithart@aol.com</a> writes:<br />
<blockquote>JWism is the REAL telos of NPP, AAPC, Norman Shepherd, etc. I’m amazed the rest of you can’t see it, you blinded fools. Ligon does.</blockquote><br />
Well, clearly, Ligon doesn’t. But that’s only because he thinks there are only two destinations, Rome or Geneva. Ha!<br />
<br />
tim<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<img border="0" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_43363SKSJyQ/TJvctm6KaZI/AAAAAAAAACw/_TYHfrBZs-Q/s320/pcd.jpg" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"/><b>Date:</b> Wed, 9 Feb 2005 13:40:49 -0600<br />
<b>From:</b> <a href="mailto:p.duggan@verizon.net">pduggan</a><br />
<b>Subject:</b> Blood transfusions<br />
<blockquote>Hey, you medical and ethical and medical-ethical types,<br />
<br />
What do you think of blood transfusions? Are they covered by the prohibition of blood in Acts 15? Would blood transfusions have been prohibited under the law? Has anything changed to make it OK?</blockquote><br />
One proponent of the Sanguine Vision has called into question the legitimacy of blood transfusions, employing for his concerns the same doctrines as former presbyterian covenant theologian Charles Russel.<br />
<br />
Ligonberry Dunkin Donut<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<b>Date:</b> Wed, 9 Feb 2005 12:45:07 -0700<br />
<b>From:</b> <a href="mailto:tim@timgallant.org">“Tim Gallant”</a><br />
<b>Subject:</b> Blood transfusions<br />
<br />
LOL<br />
<br />
Oops, I better say something substantial. Thankfully, we don’t get buked anymore.<br />
<br />
Acterally, I kinda miss it....<br />
<br />
tim<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<b>Date:</b> Wed, 09 Feb 2005 14:17:59 -0600<br />
<b>From:</b> <a href="mailto:mailto:jbjordan4@cox.net">“James B. Jordan”</a><br />
<b>Subject:</b> Blood transfusions<br />
<blockquote>So there’s no analogy between taking in blood through the mouth and taking it directly into a vein?<br />
<br />
Peter</blockquote><br />
Nope. None. Not even one.<br />
<br />
JBJ<br />
<br />
James B. Jordan<br />
Director, <a href="http://www.biblicalhorizons.com/">Biblical Horizons</a><br />
Box 1096<br />
Niceville, FL 32578<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<b>Date:</b> Thu, 10 Feb 2005 23:52:36 -0000<br />
<b>From:</b> <a href="mailto:rmaddoc@aol.com">“Robert Maddox”</a><br />
<b>Subject:</b> Blood transfusions<br />
<br />
<a href="mailto:Leithart@aol.com">Leithart@aol.com</a> wrote:<br />
<blockquote>Hey, you medical and ethical and medical-ethical types,<br />
<br />
What do you think of blood transfusions? Are they covered by the prohibition of blood in Acts 15? Would blood transfusions have been prohibited under the law? Has anything changed to make it OK?<br />
<br />
Peter</blockquote><br />
Peter,<br />
<br />
I think blood transfusions are a lot of fun. I gave blood yesterday for a church member. Receiving them can be fun too, if you need it, but then, whatever is making you need it probably isn’t fun.<br />
<br />
Not to make fun of such a serious subject, but this used to be a major issue for me. It is ironic that a large percentage of transfusions done 15 years ago could not be done now because payment criteria have changed. And why your interest now? You should have asked and answered this question 20 years ago while it still mattered. Now transplants of every sort are accepted as standard. (Is transfusion a transplant? Blood may or may not be considered an organ, but it is necessary for living and it is immunologically self.)<br />
<br />
Is transfusion eating? Certainly. By JBJ’s definition of eating, incorporating into yourself, it is just a rapid incoporation. If the prohibition against eating blood is to prevent us from attempting to live off someone else’s life in a magical way, that sure prevents blood transfusion. But my objection to transplants has softened to reservations. And most of those reservations have less to do with Acts 15 and more to do with practice.<br />
<br />
I can’t see how blood transfusions would have been allowed under the law (perhaps a rabbi can help). But something certainly has changed. We are now under the blood of Christ, and encouraged to lay down our lives for one another.<br />
<br />
Rob<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<b>Date:</b> Thu, 10 Feb 2005 18:29:42 -0600<br />
<b>From:</b> <a href="mailto:shade79@midwest.net">burke</a><br />
<b>Subject:</b> Blood transfusions<br />
<br />
I wouldn’t say magical, but in an idolatrous fashion, since it was tied up with false worship. A blood transfusion is not tied up with false worship.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<b>Date:</b> Fri, 11 Feb 2005 00:47:40 -0000<br />
<b>From:</b> <a href="mailto:rmaddoc@aol.com">“Robert Maddox”</a><br />
<b>Subject:</b> Blood transfusions<br />
<blockquote>I wouldn’t say magical, but in an idolatrous fashion, since it was tied up with false worship. A blood transfusion is not tied up with false worship.</blockquote><br />
Oh but that is my point. A blood transfusion is the ultimate in mechanistic idolatrous cures. You put the blood in and a life is saved.<br />
<br />
Rob<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<b>Date:</b> Thu, 10 Feb 2005 18:16:04 -0700<br />
<b>From:</b> <a href="mailto:tim@timgallant.org">“Tim Gallant”</a><br />
<b>Subject:</b> Blood transfusions<br />
<blockquote>Oh but that is my point. A blood transfusion is the ultimate in mechanistic idolatrous cures. You put the blood in and a life is saved.</blockquote><br />
I don’t find that compelling. By that standard, we could call virtually anything a “mechanistic idolatrous cure.” In fact, medicine is just one big project at giving mechanistic idolatrous cures.<br />
<br />
Now, of course, it *can* be. But I’m sure that you (especially you!) have no intention of calling the whole profession in principle idolatrous, even if it often may be in practice.<br />
<br />
tim<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<b>Date:</b> Fri, 11 Feb 2005 08:33:31 -0600<br />
<b>From:</b> <a href="mailto:shade79@midwest.net">burke</a><br />
<b>Subject:</b> Blood transfusions<br />
<blockquote>Oh but that is my point. A blood transfusion is the ultimate in mechanistic idolatrous cures. You put the blood in and a life is saved.</blockquote><br />
No, you eat blood as part of the idolatrous worship; a transfusion may be an ‘eating” in your estimation, but it is not part of a false worship service. What God forbids in the scriptures is the express eating of it in idolatrous, worship services.<br />
<br />
BurkeUnknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-772171407390878794.post-76430868431699635092005-02-09T05:39:00.000-08:002010-09-25T06:22:37.089-07:00My Response<b>Date:</b> Wed, 09 Feb 2005 05:33:39 -0000<br />
<b>From:</b> <a href="mailto:garvers1@yahoo.com">“garver”</a><br />
<b>Subject:</b> my response<br />
<br />
Ok, well, I didn’t get any further feedback, so I guess it’s ok.<br />
<br />
I’m headed to bed now. Today felt like Lent arrived a day early.<br />
<br />
joel<a name='more'></a><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<b>Date:</b> Wed, 9 Feb 2005 01:33:15 -0600<br />
<b>From:</b> <a href="mailto:jon@barlownet.com">“Jonathan Barlow”</a><br />
<b>Subject:</b> Re: my response<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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?<br />
<br />
— Jonathan<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<b>Date:</b> Wed, 09 Feb 2005 10:33:19 -0000<br />
<b>From:</b> <a href="mailto:rjterry777@charter.net">“Robert T.”</a><br />
<b>Subject:</b> Re: my response<br />
<br />
Joel,<br />
<br />
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:<br />
<br />
These two sentences from the intro need to be worked on, they seem to contradict one another:<br />
<br />
“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.”<br />
<br />
From section 5 — spelling<br />
“it seems to me that the actual [[postive]] theological constructions”<br />
<br />
From Section 7 — spelling<br />
“which generally reject “merit” with regard to the [[adminstration]] of the covenants”<br />
<br />
From Section 13 — spelling<br />
“the [[teriminology]] of the “lens of the decree” would not be in play at all”<br />
<br />
From Section 14 — spelling<br />
“It also seems to me that the AAPC Statement at this point is speaking in terms of phenomenology and [[pyschology]]“<br />
<br />
From Section 16 — spelling<br />
“Most [[problematicslly]], the AAPC Statement also says”<br />
<br />
From conclusion — spelling<br />
“confessional subscription as that is [[occuring]] within the PCA”<br />
<br />
Thanks,<br />
<br />
Robert Terry<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<b>Date:</b> Wed, 09 Feb 2005 11:54:35 -0000<br />
<b>From:</b> <a href="mailto:garvers1@yahoo.com">“garver”</a><br />
<b>Subject:</b> Re: my response<br />
<br />
Robert wrote:<br />
<blockquote>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:</blockquote><br />
Thanks. Cleaned it up.<br />
<br />
joel<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<b>Date:</b> Wed, 9 Feb 2005 08:22:20 -0600<br />
<b>From:</b> <a href="mailto:jeffmeyers@earthlink.net">Jeff Meyers</a><br />
<b>Subject:</b> Re: my response<br />
<br />
On Feb 9, 2005, at 1:33 AM, Jonathan Barlow wrote:<br />
<blockquote>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.</blockquote><br />
Doctrinal development? You’ve got to be kidding. That’s liberalism.<br />
<br />
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:<br />
<br />
“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.”<br />
<br />
“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.”<br />
<br />
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.”<br />
<br />
Did you say doctrinal development, you heretic?<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
Did someone say they wanted a fair hearing?<br />
<br />
JJM<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<b>Date:</b> Wed, 09 Feb 2005 14:37:01 -0000<br />
<b>From:</b> <a href="mailto:garvers1@yahoo.com">“garver”</a><br />
<b>Subject:</b> Re: my response<br />
<br />
Jeff Meyers wrote:<br />
<blockquote>Doctrinal development? You’ve got to be kidding. That’s liberalism.<br />
<br />
“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. . .”</blockquote><br />
That’s positively nauseating.<br />
<br />
You know, Albigensians and Arians and all other sort of folk shed blood for their beliefs too. Martyrdom is no test of orthodoxy.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
joel<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<b>Date:</b> Wed, 09 Feb 2005 14:38:12 -0000<br />
<b>From:</b> <a href="mailto:garvers1@yahoo.com">“garver”</a><br />
<b>Subject:</b> Re: my response<br />
<br />
Oh, in response to a couple of emails about point (17) — citing JBJ and Peter — I expanded my response to that particular point.<br />
<br />
joel<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<b>Date:</b> Wed, 9 Feb 2005 09:46:08 -0500<br />
<b>From:</b> <a href="mailto:nolder.1@opc.org">“Brian D. Nolder”</a><br />
<b>Subject:</b> Re: my response<br />
<br />
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”?<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
BDN<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<b>Date:</b> Wed, 09 Feb 2005 14:49:14 -0000<br />
<b>From:</b> <a href="mailto:garvers1@yahoo.com">“garver”</a><br />
<b>Subject:</b> Re: my response<br />
<br />
Brian D. Nolder wrote:<br />
<blockquote>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.</blockquote><br />
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.”<br />
<br />
joel<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<b>Date:</b> Wed, 09 Feb 2005 15:44:23 -0000<br />
<b>From:</b> <a href="mailto: ckloth@earthlink.net">“Cory Kloth”</a><br />
<b>Subject:</b> Re: my response<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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:<br />
<br />
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)<br />
<br />
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.”<br />
<br />
3. Perspectivialism. Time and space in relation to knowledge and experience will and should bring about differing theological viewpoints.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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).<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
ck<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<b>Date:</b> Wed, 9 Feb 2005 09:53:04 -0600<br />
<b>From:</b> <a href="mailto:swilkins@auburnavenue.org">“Steve Wilkins”</a><br />
<b>Subject:</b> Re: my response<br />
<blockquote>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.</blockquote><br />
be assured, there is NOTHING that we might point out that Ligon has not considered. I know because he told me.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
sw<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<b>Date:</b> Wed, 9 Feb 2005 16:06:11 GMT<br />
<b>From:</b> <a href="mailto:rmmccheyne@juno.com">“Joe Thacker”</a><br />
<b>Subject:</b> Re: my response<br />
<br />
sw wrote:<br />
<blockquote>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.</blockquote><br />
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.”<br />
<br />
I hate to think of what might mild disdain might look like!<br />
<br />
JAT<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<b>Date:</b> Wed, 9 Feb 2005 16:08:48 GMT<br />
<b>From:</b> <a href="mailto:rmmccheyne@juno.com">“Joe Thacker”</a><br />
<b>Subject:</b> Re: my response<br />
<br />
ingnore the first “might” of that last sentence.<br />
<br />
JAT<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<b>Date:</b> Wed, 9 Feb 2005 10:38:35 -0600<br />
<b>From:</b> “Steve Wilkins” <swilkins@auburnavenue.org><br />
<b>Subject:</b> Re: my response<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
“Strange” is not the word for it.<br />
<br />
sw <br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<b>Date:</b> Wed, 9 Feb 2005 10:52:18 -0600<br />
<b>From:</b> <a href="mailto:jon@barlownet.com">“Jonathan Barlow”</a><br />
<b>Subject:</b> Re: my response<br />
<br />
I thought that you requested the meeting with the committee — the report makes it sound like meeting with you was foundational to their work.<br />
<br />
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?<br />
<br />
— Jonathan<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<b>Date:</b> Wed, 9 Feb 2005 11:18:41 -0600<br />
<b>From:</b> <a href="mailto:mailto:pastorsteven@bethelpca.com">“Steven Wright”</a><br />
<b>Subject:</b> RE: my response<br />
<blockquote>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?</blockquote><br />
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!]<br />
<br />
Steven<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<b>Date:</b> Wed, 9 Feb 2005 11:23:27 -0600<br />
<b>From:</b> <a href="mailto:jon@barlownet.com">“Jonathan Barlow”</a><br />
<b>Subject:</b> Re: my response<br />
<br />
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?<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<b>Date:</b> Wed, 09 Feb 2005 17:34:13 -0000<br />
<b>From:</b> <a href="mailto:garvers1@yahoo.com">“garver”</a><br />
<b>Subject:</b> Re: my response<br />
<blockquote>Jonathan Barlow wrote:<br />
<br />
Also, correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t Guy Waters’ expertise in biblical studies? What is his theological training like?</blockquote><br />
He’s a WTS-Philly grad, isn’t he? MDiv, only; no ThM. PhD was Duke.<br />
<br />
joel<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<b>Date:</b> Wed, 9 Feb 2005 13:23:59 -0600<br />
<b>From:</b> <a href="mailto:swilkins@auburnavenue.org">“Steve Wilkins”</a><br />
<b>Subject:</b> Re: my response<br />
<blockquote>I thought that you requested the meeting with the committee — the report makes it sound like meeting with you was foundational to their work.</blockquote><br />
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.<br />
<blockquote>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?</blockquote><br />
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.<br />
<br />
swUnknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-772171407390878794.post-81397958022091313282005-02-08T19:18:00.000-08:002010-09-25T06:22:26.824-07:00Unusual Baptism Circumstance<b>Date:</b> Tue, 8 Feb 2005 19:18:26 GMT<br />
<b>From:</b> <a href="mailto:rmmccheyne@juno.com">“Joe Thacker”</a><br />
<b>Subject:</b> Unusual Baptism Circumstance<br />
<br />
Wise Counselors, <br />
<br />
Last night our Session was posed with an interesting circumstance. One of our elder’s sons is a missionary in Brazil, and he and his wife will be making a return trip to the USA for a wedding this Spring. Since their move to Brazil, a child has been born to them. Due to the circumstances they are in, the baby is yet to be baptized. The son wondered about having the baby baptized in our chuch while they are back in the States. Though the family is from an ARP church, the Session is all for baptizing the baby — seeing this as an extraordinary circumstance. (Also, the family would be in no position to return to the ARP church they attended in Canada when they were residing in Maine.)<br />
<br />
So, it seems pretty clear that the vows to the parents would be pretty standard, but what about vows to the congregation? We will certainly be praying for this family while they are in Brazil, but the standard vows don’t seem to apply since a) they will be thousands of miles away in Brazil; and, b) they do not have membership in our local congregation, or even our denomination (PCA). Any suggestions? <br />
<br />
As I already mentioned, the Session was unanimous in their decision to perform the baptism, but is there anything glaringly wrong with that decision? <br />
<br />
And let me request permission to share any insights provided with the Session, unless stated otherwise (of course, I can keep advice anonymous).<br />
<br />
Thanks in advance,<br />
<br />
Joe Thacker<br />
RP Church <br />
Lookout Mt. GA<a name='more'></a><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<b>Date:</b> Tue, 8 Feb 2005 11:26:46 -0800<br />
<b>From:</b> <a href="mailto:dmcourtn@moscow.com">“Dale Courtney”</a><br />
<b>Subject:</b> Unusual Baptism Circumstance<br />
<br />
Joe, <br />
<br />
In my experience, this is a fairly common occurrence. <br />
<br />
I was in the military for 20 years. We had our “home” church in Orlando. The military chapels (and chaplains) didn’t do baptisms — or, if they did, it was a private, affair. There were certainly no congregational vows. <br />
<br />
No matter where we were stationed in the USA, we took our kids back to Orlando for them to be baptized. <br />
<br />
pax,<br />
Dale<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<b>Date:</b> Tue, 8 Feb 2005 13:37:00 -0600<br />
<b>From:</b> Jeff Meyers <jeffmeyers@earthlink.net><br />
<b>Subject:</b> Unusual Baptism Circumstance<br />
<br />
On Feb 8, 2005, at 1:18 PM, <a href="mailto:rmmccheyne@juno.com">“Joe Thacker”</a> wrote:<br />
<blockquote>As I already mentioned, the Session was unanimous in their decision to perform the baptism, but is there anything glaringly wrong with that decision?</blockquote><br />
Nothing at all wrong with that decision. The child is baptized into the body of Christ, which, after all, is larger than the local church. <br />
<br />
The vows are added for clarification of what is already there in Baptism. They are not even necessary. There’s nothing about people taking any vows before or after Baptisms in the Bible.<br />
<br />
And the child might have been baptized by a pastor anywhere. The presence of the congregation is not necessary, if it is appropriate and helpful, all things considered.<br />
<br />
JJM<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<b>Date:</b> Tue, 8 Feb 2005 14:46:34 -0500<br />
<b>From:</b> <a href="mailto:nolder.1@opc.org">“Brian D. Nolder”</a><br />
<b>Subject:</b> Unusual Baptism Circumstance<br />
<br />
Jeff:<br />
<br />
I’m assuming the congregational vow was added to formalize the Reformation principle that the congregation, not simply one couple, are ‘the godparents’?<br />
<br />
BDN<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<b>Date:</b> Tue, 8 Feb 2005 13:44:52 -0600<br />
<b>From:</b> <a href="mailto:mark@hornes.org">Mark Horne</a><br />
<b>Subject:</b> Unusual Baptism Circumstance<br />
<br />
Joe, the congregations takes vows as representatives of the Church universal. They don’t have to take those vows for a particular infant if a family moves into town and the infant has just been baptized at another Church. Nor do they need to refrain from taking those vows if the family is going to soon move away.<br />
<br />
This is a good teaching opportunity as to what those vows mean and what our baptismal obligations are to all other Christians.<br />
<br />
Mark<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<b>Date:</b> Tue, 8 Feb 2005 14:30:18 -0600<br />
<b>From:</b> <a href="mailto:jeffmeyers@earthlink.net">Jeff Meyers</a><br />
<b>Subject:</b> Unusual Baptism Circumstance<br />
<br />
On Feb 8, 2005, at 1:46 PM, Brian D. Nolder wrote:<br />
<blockquote>I’m assuming the congregational vow was added to formalize the Reformation principle that the congregation, not simply one couple, are ‘the godparents’?</blockquote><br />
I’m not sure if this is correct. I’m glancing again at Old’s “The Shaping” and I don’t see the 16th century Reformers adding congregational vows. Parents took vows, and in some cases godparents. Not all of the Reformers thought godparents were wrong. The major mistake made by the Reformers was their misunderstanding of sacramentum as equivalent to “vow,” especially the kind taken by soldiers. This is even true for Calvin (Inst. 4.15.13). I suspect the congregational vows came to prominence in America. But I haven’t studied this. But it’s also true that the Reformers went overboard in wanted to explain everything. The sacraments don’t seem to work for us unless everything is verbalized.<br />
<br />
Bottom line: no matter what rationale we may come up with for congregational vows, they are NOT necessary for the valid administration of the sacrament. They MAY be part of the bene esse, but they are not of the esse of Baptism.<br />
<br />
JJM<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<b>Date:</b> Tue, 8 Feb 2005 16:04:32 -0500<br />
<b>From:</b> <a href="mailto:nolder.1@opc.org">“Brian D. Nolder”</a><br />
<b>Subject:</b> Unusual Baptism Circumstance<br />
<br />
I didn’t mean that the Reformers used congregational vows (hey, not even the OPC uses them!). What I meant is that they may be in the PCA’s DPW as a way to formalize that principle.<br />
<br />
BDN<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<b>Date:</b> Tue, 8 Feb 2005 15:30:10 -0600<br />
<b>From:</b> <a href="mailto:shade79@midwest.net">burke</a><br />
<b>Subject:</b> Unusual Baptism Circumstance<br />
<blockquote>I didn’t mean that the Reformers used congregational vows (hey, not even the OPC uses them!).</blockquote><br />
Are you saying that in the OPC, the congregation does not vow to help train up the child in Christ, assisting the parents where needed?<br />
<br />
Burke<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<b>Date:</b> Tue, 8 Feb 2005 16:50:51 -0500<br />
<b>From:</b> <a href="mailto:nolder.1@opc.org">“Brian D. Nolder”</a><br />
<b>Subject:</b> OPC DPW (was Unusual Baptism Circumstance)<br />
<br />
Burke:<br />
<br />
It is not in our DPW, though many congregations do make the vow (including ours), and it will likely be the revised DPW that we will (hopefully!) approve this summer.<br />
<br />
Brothers, I would ask you to pray about this (but also, remember the confidentiality of this list): the major author of the proposed revision that will likely be coming before our GA is a fan of Jeff’s book, and his own orders of service are explicitly covenant renewal. The OPC may end up with an explicitly covenant renewal model of worship in its DPW.<br />
<br />
BDNUnknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-772171407390878794.post-44920507846344231372005-02-08T17:24:00.000-08:002010-09-24T16:41:25.161-07:00The Heatonic Observation<b>Date:</b> Tue, 8 Feb 2005 17:24:44 -0500<br />
<b>From:</b> <a href="mailto:jheaton@newcovenantschools.org">“John Heaton”</a><br />
<b>Subject:</b> ad hoc report — MVP — it’s up<br />
<br />
All,<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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.*<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
My $02.<br />
<br />
John Heaton, Headmaster<br />
<a href="http://www.newcovenantschools.org">New Covenant Schools</a><br />
122 Fleetwood Drive<br />
Lynchburg, VA 24501<br />
434.847.8313<a name='more'></a><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<b>Date:</b> Tue, 08 Feb 2005 20:07:42 -0600<br />
<b>From:</b> <a href="mailto:mailto:jbjordan4@cox.net">“James B. Jordan”</a><br />
<b>Subject:</b> The Heatonic Observation<br />
<br />
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). <a name="BH"></a>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. . . .<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
JBJ >:-}<br />
<br />
James B. Jordan<br />
Director, Biblical Horizons<br />
Box 1096<br />
Niceville, FL 32578<br />
http://www.biblicalhorizons.com<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<b>Date:</b> Wed, 09 Feb 2005 02:37:33 -0000<br />
<b>From:</b> <a href="mailto:revbledsoe@yahoo.com">“Rich Bledsoe”</a><br />
<b>Subject:</b> The Heatonic Observation<br />
<br />
“James B. Jordan” wrote:<br />
<blockquote>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</blockquote><br />
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.<br />
<br />
RB<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<b>Date:</b> Tue, 8 Feb 2005 21:33:34 -0800<br />
<b>From:</b> <a href="mailto:dillard@coinet.com">Daniel Dillard</a><br />
<b>Subject:</b> The Heatonic Observation<br />
<br />
This is very helpful, John and Jim.<br />
<br />
So, when? Mind you, many of us will be forced to become church planters.<br />
<br />
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?<br />
<br />
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?<br />
<br />
So, again, when?<br />
<br />
Love in Christ,<br />
<br />
Dan Dillard<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<b>Date:</b> Wed, 9 Feb 2005 17:01:23 +0900<br />
<b>From:</b> <a href="mailto:ras@berith.org">“Ralph A. Smith”</a><br />
<b>Subject:</b> The Heatonic Observation<br />
<br />
Ok. I agree with Jim again.<br />
<br />
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!<br />
<br />
(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.)<br />
<br />
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!<br />
<br />
Orthodox Unweird Ralph<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<b>Date:</b> Wed, 9 Feb 2005 07:52:35 -0600<br />
<b>From:</b> <a href="mailto:mark@hornes.org">Mark Horne</a><br />
<b>Subject:</b> The Heatonic Observation<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
Mark<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<b>Date:</b> Wed, 09 Feb 2005 15:25:05 -0000<br />
<b>From:</b> <a href="mailto:revbledsoe@yahoo.com">“Rich Bledsoe”</a><br />
<b>Subject:</b> The Heatonic Observation<br />
<br />
“James B. Jordan” wrote:<br />
<blockquote>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</blockquote><br />
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? <br />
RB<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<b>Date:</b> Wed, 9 Feb 2005 10:37:50 -0500<br />
<b>From:</b> <a href="mailto:jheaton@newcovenantschools.org">“John Heaton”</a><br />
<b>Subject:</b> More Heatonic Observation<br />
<br />
Rich,<br />
<br />
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).<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
John Heaton, Headmaster<br />
New Covenant Schools<br />
122 Fleetwood Drive<br />
Lynchburg, VA 24501<br />
434.847.8313<br />
www.newcovenantschools.org<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<b>Date:</b> Wed, 09 Feb 2005 09:38:27 -0600<br />
<b>From:</b> <a href="mailto:mailto:jbjordan4@cox.net">“James B. Jordan”</a><br />
<b>Subject:</b> The Heatonic Observation<br />
<br />
At 02:01 AM 2/9/2005, you wrote:<br />
<blockquote>(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.</blockquote><br />
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.<br />
<br />
JBJ<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<b>Date:</b> Wed, 09 Feb 2005 09:40:01 -0600<br />
<b>From:</b> <a href="mailto:mailto:jbjordan4@cox.net">“James B. Jordan”</a><br />
<b>Subject:</b> The Heatonic Observation<br />
<br />
At 07:52 AM 2/9/2005, you wrote:<br />
<blockquote>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.</blockquote><br />
No it hasn’t. You can’t DO it. You can only THINK about it. Reformed Gnosticism wins again!<br />
<br />
JBJ<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<b>Date:</b> Wed, 09 Feb 2005 09:45:44 -0600<br />
<b>From:</b> <a href="mailto:mailto:jbjordan4@cox.net">“James B. Jordan”</a><br />
<b>Subject:</b> The Heatonic Observation<br />
<br />
At 09:25 AM 2/9/2005, you wrote:<br />
<blockquote>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?<br />
<br />
RB</blockquote><br />
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!!)<br />
<br />
JBJ<br />
Proud member of the same denomination as St. Paul, the Sect That Is Everywhere Evil Spoken Against<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<b>Date:</b> Wed, 9 Feb 2005 07:55:15 -0800<br />
<b>From:</b> <a href="mailto:dmcourtn@moscow.com">“Dale Courtney”</a><br />
<b>Subject:</b> The Heatonic Observation<br />
<br />
Jim,<br />
<br />
What were the answers to that question?<br />
<br />
pax,<br />
Dale<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<b>Date:</b> Wed, 09 Feb 2005 15:57:54 -0000<br />
<b>From:</b> <a href="mailto:revbledsoe@yahoo.com">“Rich Bledsoe”</a><br />
<b>Subject:</b> The Heatonic Observation<br />
<br />
OK. I’ll give you a break. I was just checking to see if you still had a pulse.<br />
<br />
RB<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<b>Date:</b> Wed, 9 Feb 2005 11:00:05 -0500<br />
<b>From:</b> <a href="mailto:nolder.1@opc.org">“Brian D. Nolder”</a><br />
<b>Subject:</b> More Heatonic Observation<br />
<br />
John:<br />
<br />
I think you are right. We need to be “the catholic Church.”<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
BDN<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<b>Date:</b> Wed, 09 Feb 2005 11:03:13 -0500<br />
<b>From:</b> <a href="mailto:Liberatd_believr@hotmail.com">“Dennis Bratcher”</a><br />
<b>Subject:</b> RE: The Heatonic Observation<br />
<br />
How does the CREC which officially has Baptist churches differ from the PCA with its ‘baptist lite’ theology?<br />
<br />
With Christian Greetings,<br />
Dennis Bratcher<br />
liberatd_believr@hotmail.com<br />
member Reformation Church in Blue Bell<br />
affiliated with the Canadian Reformed Churches<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<b>Date:</b> Wed, 09 Feb 2005 10:08:16 -0600<br />
<b>From:</b> <a href="mailto:mailto:jbjordan4@cox.net">“James B. Jordan”</a><br />
<b>Subject:</b> The Heatonic Observation<br />
<br />
At 09:55 AM 2/9/2005, you wrote:<br />
<blockquote>What were the answers to that question?</blockquote><br />
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?<br />
<br />
James B. Jordan<br />
Director, Biblical Horizons<br />
Box 1096<br />
Niceville, FL 32578<br />
http://www.biblicalhorizons.com <br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<b>Date:</b> Wed, 9 Feb 2005 11:26:17 -0600<br />
<b>From:</b> <a href="mailto:shade79@midwest.net">burke</a><br />
<b>Subject:</b> The Heatonic Observation<br />
<blockquote>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?).</blockquote><br />
Don’t forget Huss. He’s pc.<br />
<blockquote>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.”</blockquote><br />
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?<br />
<br />
Burke<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<b>Date:</b> Wed, 9 Feb 2005 10:42:47 -0700<br />
<b>From:</b> <a href="mailto:tim@timgallant.org">“Tim Gallant”</a><br />
<b>Subject:</b> The Heatonic Observation<br />
<br />
I certainly acknowledge a grain of truth to what John H observed, as well as your observations below, JBJ. <br />
<br />
But. . .<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
Don’t you agree?<br />
<br />
tim<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<b>Date:</b> Wed, 9 Feb 2005 11:46:15 -0600<br />
<b>From:</b> <a href="mailto:shade79@midwest.net">burke</a><br />
<b>Subject:</b> The Heatonic Observation<br />
<blockquote><blockquote>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?<br />
<br />
RB</blockquote><br />
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!!)</blockquote><br />
And the answer is?<br />
<blockquote>JBJ<br />
Proud member of the same denomination as St. Paul, the Sect That Is Everywhere Evil Spoken Against</blockquote><br />
STIEESA? I like the sound of it.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<b>Date:</b> Wed, 09 Feb 2005 11:45:49 -0600<br />
<b>From:</b> <a href="mailto:mailto:jbjordan4@cox.net">“James B. Jordan”</a><br />
<b>Subject:</b> The Heatonic Observation<br />
<br />
At 11:26 AM 2/9/2005, you wrote:<br />
<blockquote>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?<br />
<br />
Burke</blockquote><br />
Something new and unforeseeable. Meanwhile, as we learn from the bats in *The Flying Mouse*:<br />
<br />
“You’re nothin’ but a nothin’,<br />
A nothin’,<br />
<br />
A nothin’.<br />
You’re nothin’ but a nothin’,<br />
A nothin’s what you are.”<br />
<br />
JBJ <br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<b>Date:</b> Wed, 9 Feb 2005 11:48:28 -0600<br />
<b>From:</b> <a href="mailto:shade79@midwest.net">burke</a><br />
<b>Subject:</b> More Heatonic Observation<br />
<blockquote>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.</blockquote><br />
You win the “great quote of the day” award!<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<b>Date:</b> Wed, 9 Feb 2005 11:47:38 -0600<br />
<b>From:</b> <a href="mailto:mark@hornes.org">Mark Horne</a><br />
<b>Subject:</b> The Heatonic Observation<br />
<br />
I agree.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
I have a hard time conceding the word Presbyterian to Lig’s view.<br />
<br />
Mark<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<b>Date:</b> Wed, 9 Feb 2005 11:50:05 -0600<br />
<b>From:</b> <a href="mailto:shade79@midwest.net">burke</a><br />
<b>Subject:</b> The Heatonic Observation<br />
<blockquote>How does the CREC which officially has Baptist churches differ from the PCA with its ‘baptist lite’ theology?</blockquote><br />
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).<br />
<br />
<br />
Burke<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<b>Date:</b> Wed, 09 Feb 2005 11:51:23 -0600<br />
<b>From:</b> <a href="mailto:mailto:jbjordan4@cox.net">“James B. Jordan”</a><br />
<b>Subject:</b> The Heatonic Observation<br />
<br />
At 11:42 AM 2/9/2005, you wrote:<br />
<blockquote>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.<br />
<br />
Don’t you agree?<br />
<br />
tim</blockquote><br />
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, <br />
which always perverts the fathers.<br />
<br />
But I take your point.<br />
<br />
JBJ<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<b>Date:</b> Wed, 9 Feb 2005 10:54:38 -0700<br />
<b>From:</b> <a href="mailto:tim@timgallant.org">“Tim Gallant”</a><br />
<b>Subject:</b> The Heatonic Observation<br />
<br />
Burke wrote:<br />
<blockquote>Don’t forget Huss. He’s pc.</blockquote><br />
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.<br />
<br />
tim<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<b>Date:</b> Wed, 9 Feb 2005 12:02:14 -0600<br />
<b>From:</b> burke <a href="mailto:shade79@midwest.net">burke</a><br />
<b>Subject:</b> The Heatonic Observation<br />
<blockquote><blockquote>Don’t forget Huss. He’s pc.</blockquote><br />
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.</blockquote><br />
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.<br />
<br />
Burke<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<b>Date:</b> Thu, 10 Feb 2005 10:38:14 +0900<br />
<b>From:</b> <a href="mailto:ras@berith.org">“Ralph A. Smith”</a><br />
<b>Subject:</b> The Heatonic Observation<br />
<br />
On Feb 10, 2005, at 1:03 AM, Dennis Bratcher wrote:<br />
<blockquote>How does the CREC which officially has Baptist churches differ from the PCA with its ‘baptist lite’ theology?</blockquote><br />
Dennis,<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
Ralph<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<b>Date:</b> Wed, 09 Feb 2005 21:31:49 -0600<br />
<b>From:</b> <a href="mailto:mailto:jbjordan4@cox.net">“James B. Jordan”</a><br />
<b>Subject:</b> The Heatonic Observation<br />
<br />
On Feb 10, 2005, at 1:03 AM, Dennis Bratcher wrote:<br />
<blockquote>How does the CREC which officially has Baptist churches differ from the PCA with its ‘baptist lite’ theology?</blockquote><br />
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.<br />
<br />
JBJUnknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-772171407390878794.post-90789709999207191542005-02-08T15:30:00.000-08:002010-09-24T13:24:46.333-07:00OPC DPW<b>Date:</b> Tue, 8 Feb 2005 15:30:10 -0600<br />
<b>From:</b> <a href="mailto:shade79@midwest.net">burke</a><br />
<b>Subject:</b> Unusual Baptism Circumstance<br />
<blockquote>I didn’t mean that the Reformers used congregational vows (hey, not even the OPC uses them!).</blockquote><br />
Are you saying that in the OPC, the congregation does not vow to help train up the child in Christ, assisting the parents where needed?<br />
<br />
Burke<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<b>Date:</b> Tue, 8 Feb 2005 16:50:51 -0500<br />
<b>From:</b> <a href="mailto:nolder.1@opc.org">“Brian D. Nolder”</a><br />
<b>Subject:</b> OPC DPW (was Unusual Baptism Circumstance)<br />
<br />
Burke:<br />
<br />
It is not in our DPW, though many congregations do make the vow (including ours), and it will likely be the revised DPW that we will (hopefully!) approve this summer.<br />
<br />
Brothers, I would ask you to pray about this (but also, remember the confidentiality of this list): the major author of the proposed revision that will likely be coming before our GA is a fan of Jeff’s book, and his own orders of service are explicitly covenant renewal. The OPC may end up with an explicitly covenant renewal model of worship in its DPW.<br />
<br />
BDN<a name='more'></a><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<b>Date:</b> Tue, 8 Feb 2005 16:07:56 -0600<br />
<b>From:</b> <a href="mailto:jeffmeyers@earthlink.net">Jeff Meyers</a><br />
<b>Subject:</b> OPC DPW (was Unusual Baptism Circumstance)<br />
<br />
On Feb 8, 2005, at 3:50 PM, Brian D. Nolder wrote:<br />
<blockquote>Brothers, I would ask you to pray about this (but also, remember the confidentiality of this list): the major author of the proposed revision that will likely be coming before our GA is a fan of Jeff’s book, and his own orders of service are explicitly covenant renewal. The OPC may end up with an explicitly covenant renewal model of worship in its DPW.</blockquote><br />
Oh, very interesting. Is this new proposed DPW online for our viewing pleasure?<br />
<br />
JJM<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<b>Date:</b> Wed, 9 Feb 2005 08:35:01 -0500<br />
<b>From:</b> <a href="mailto:nolder.1@opc.org">“Brian D. Nolder”</a><br />
<b>Subject:</b> OPC DPW (was Unusual Baptism Circumstance)<br />
<br />
Jeff:<br />
<br />
If you check out the Minority Report on the OPC website, you will see something close to what will hopefully become the single report of the committee (again, brothers, confidentiality here is important: this combined report has not yet been made public, as far as I know, and it will be a major breakthrough for this committee).<br />
<br />
BDN<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<b>Date:</b> Wed, 9 Feb 2005 09:52:09 -0600<br />
<b>From:</b> <a href="mailto:jon@barlownet.com">“Jonathan Barlow”</a><br />
<b>Subject:</b> OPC DPW (was Unusual Baptism Circumstance)<br />
<br />
The link is:<br />
<a href=" http://opc.org/GA/DPW_Alternative.pdf"><br />
http://opc.org/GA/DPW_Alternative.pdf</a><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<b>Date:</b> Wed, 09 Feb 2005 15:56:43 -0000<br />
<b>From:</b> “garver” <garvers1@yahoo.com><br />
<b>Subject:</b> OPC DPW (was Re: Unusual Baptism Circumstance)<br />
<br />
Jonathan Barlow wrote:<br />
<blockquote>The link is:<br />
<a href="http://opc.org/GA/DPW_Alternative.pdf">http://opc.org/GA/DPW_Alternative.pdf</a></blockquote><br />
Or, since that doesn’t seem to be working, try:<br />
<br />
<a href="http://web.archive.org/web/20031204235833/http://opc.org/GA/DPW_Alternative.pdf">http://web.archive.org/web/20031204235833/http://opc.org/GA/DPW_Alternative.pdf</a><br />
<br />
or<br />
<br />
<a href="http://tinyurl.com/65yyx">http://tinyurl.com/65yyx</a><br />
<br />
joel<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<b>Date:</b> Wed, 9 Feb 2005 07:57:40 -0800<br />
<b>From:</b> <a href="mailto:dmcourtn@moscow.com">“Dale Courtney”</a><br />
<b>Subject:</b> OPC DPW (was Re: Unusual Baptism Circumstance)<br />
<br />
Jonathan,<br />
<br />
That link doesn’t work.<br />
<br />
pax,<br />
Dale<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<b>Date:</b> Wed, 9 Feb 2005 10:03:58 -0600<br />
<b>From:</b> <a href="mailto:jon@barlownet.com">“Jonathan Barlow”</a><br />
<b>Subject:</b> OPC DPW (was Unusual Baptism Circumstance)<br />
<br />
Yes, the link I provided is the correct link (from the opc.org “what’s new” page), but the file is not there, so Joel’s archive trick below is the way to get it.<br />
<br />
— Jonathan<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<b>Date:</b> Wed, 9 Feb 2005 11:17:56 -0500<br />
<b>From:</b> <a href="mailto:nolder.1@opc.org">“Brian D. Nolder”</a><br />
<b>Subject:</b> OPC DPW (was Unusual Baptism Circumstance)<br />
<br />
I wonder if it is not there because the committee is going to be replacing both the majority and minority with its unified report? If so, that is a good sign that they are making progress at coming together.<br />
<br />
BDN<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<b>Date:</b> Wed, 9 Feb 2005 11:26:17 -0600<br />
<b>From:</b> <a href="mailto:shade79@midwest.net">burke</a><br />
<b>Subject:</b> OPC DPW (was Unusual Baptism Circumstance)<br />
<blockquote>It is not in our DPW, though many congregations do make the vow (including ours), and it will likely be the revised DPW that we will (hopefully!) approve this summer. Brothers, I would ask you to pray about this (but also, remember the confidentiality of this list): the major author of the proposed revision that will likely be coming before our GA is a fan of Jeff’s book, and his own orders of service are explicitly covenant renewal. The OPC may end up with an explicitly covenant renewal model of worship in its DPW.</blockquote><br />
That’s great news, Brian, and surely something worthy of praying for. But how will that look? a bunch of covenant renewal worshipping Klineans! Blimey!<br />
<br />
Burke<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<b>Date:</b> Wed, 9 Feb 2005 14:21:34 -0500<br />
<b>From:</b> <a href="mailto:nolder.1@opc.org">“Brian D. Nolder”</a><br />
<b>Subject:</b> OPC DPW (was Unusual Baptism Circumstance)<br />
<br />
Burke:<br />
<br />
Actually, Horton (a card-carrying Klinean, I believe) is promoting an explicit covenant renewal model in _A Better Way_. The problem is a strictly First Use of the Law (which even Horton says we should not always do: the reading of the Law should sometimes come after the Prayer of Confession).<br />
<br />
BDNUnknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-772171407390878794.post-35524785594928496122005-02-08T15:12:00.001-08:002010-09-24T05:57:18.191-07:00ad hoc report — MVP — it’s up<strong>Date:</strong> Tue, 8 Feb 2005 15:12:01 -0600<br />
<strong>From:</strong> <a href="mailto:jon@barlownet.com">Jonathan Barlow</a><br />
<strong>Subject:</strong> ad hoc report — MVP — it’s up<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.fpcjackson.org/recent.htm">fpcjackson.org/recent.htm</a><br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
<br />
<br />
<strong>Date:</strong> Tue, 8 Feb 2005 21:27:46 -0000<br />
<strong>From:</strong> <a href="mailto:jeffrey.steel1@btinternet.com">“Jeff Steel”</a><br />
<strong>Subject:</strong> ad hoc report — MVP — it’s up<br />
<br />
Have you guys actually written thousands of pages? I haven’t read that much!! Hmm.<br />
<br />
Jeff<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<strong>Date:</strong> Tue, 8 Feb 2005 15:36:24 -0600<br />
<strong>From:</strong> <a href="mailto:mark@hornes.org">Mark Horne</a><br />
<strong>Subject:</strong> ad hoc report — MVP — it’s up<br />
<br />
I am a fool. I just printed this out, ran out of ink, so that the first pages (which printed last) are illegible, and it turns out that those are the only things I haven’t seen yet. . .<br />
<br />
Mark<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<strong>Date:</strong> Tue, 08 Feb 2005 21:48:28 -0000<br />
<strong>From:</strong> <a href="mailto:garvers1@yahoo.com">“garver”</a><br />
<strong>Subject:</strong> ad hoc report — MVP — it’s up<br />
<br />
Anyone find any significant changes to what we’ve already seen?<br />
<br />
joel<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<strong>Date:</strong> Tue, 8 Feb 2005 15:54:40 -0600<br />
<strong>From:</strong> <a href="mailto:mark@hornes.org">Mark Horne</a><br />
<strong>Subject:</strong> ad hoc report — MVP — it’s up<br />
<br />
Interesting letter. Lig Duncan’s “miscreants” are targeted from the beginning (“but alslo realizing that they all share a certain similar attraction to a distinct theological sub-culture within various Reformed denominations”). Someone thinks he has Ahasuerus’ signet ring.<br />
<br />
Also, we see why it was important for agents from MVP to lobby so hard outside their own presbytery, to sow suspicion and discord through gossip and unofficial trials without stipulated evidence: “In the PCA, at least two presbyteries have refused to transfer PCA ministers sympathetic to the AAT/FV into their presbyteries.” They go on to tell the trouble that Rich Lusk got into for the heretical notion that children under the age of nine should be regarded as Christians (though that level of detail is missing from the report, as is the admission on the part of the committee to the fact that pressure from outside the presbytery was being brought to bear.<br />
<br />
Of course, this is all second-hand, but so is all the gossip that is left so vague in this letter. If the Assistant Pastor who was removed is who I think it is, then there is an amazing alternative vision of the facts that was actually accepted by the Presbytery concerned. Nice of MVP to set them straight in one sentence without argument or evidence.<br />
<br />
Strange how a “not insignificant number of PCA teaching elders” who show “significant sympathy” with NP appears with no names of professors in the PCA and in trusted seminaries. The self-appointed “trusted churchmen and scholars” have spoken (or been spoken for?). Later, their presence is admitted in a limited and controlled way.<br />
<br />
Mark<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<strong>Date:</strong> Tue, 8 Feb 2005 17:24:44 -0500<br />
<strong>From:</strong> <a href="mailto:jheaton@newcovenantschools.org">“John Heaton”</a><br />
<strong>Subject:</strong> ad hoc report — MVP — it’s up<br />
<br />
All,<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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.*<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
My $02.<br />
<br />
John Heaton, Headmaster<br />
<a href="http://www.newcovenantschools.org">New Covenant Schools</a><br />
122 Fleetwood Drive<br />
Lynchburg, VA 24501<br />
434.847.8313<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<strong>Date:</strong> Tue, 8 Feb 2005 16:52:51 -0600<br />
<strong>From:</strong> <a href="mailto:mark@hornes.org">Mark Horne</a><br />
<strong>Subject:</strong> ad hoc report — MVP — it’s up<br />
<br />
Great advice John. But for the record my own hasty reply is never seeing the light of day. I vented on BH and that’s the end of it.<br />
<br />
I did blog one thing which I mention briefly:<br />
<blockquote><em>In one church, an AAT/FV-sympathetic pastor has engineered the removal of an associate who was fully committed to the PCA doctrinal position but objected to the pastor’s extra- or anti-confessional views.</em><br />
<br />
I so hope I don’t personally know of this situation even though it seems bizarrely familiar (like looking at a negative of a picture). How is it possible that a presbytery can make these sorts of statements that are themselves unreferenced and unquestionably highly debatiable? This is cited as evidence when it is actually a raw condemnation without a trial and is now in the public record as the act of a court.<br />
<br />
We live in a strange <em>de facto</em> polity that has virtually nothing to do with what I’ve ever thought was <em>de jure</em> Presbyterianism.</blockquote><br />
I decided not to publish this (well, it was up for a couple of seconds). I’m wondering what I should do with it.<br />
<br />
Mark<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<strong>Date:</strong> Tue, 8 Feb 2005 16:59:17 -0600<br />
<strong>From:</strong> <a href="mailto:jeffmeyers@earthlink.net">Jeff Meyers</a><br />
<strong>Subject:</strong> ad hoc report — MVP — it’s up<br />
<br />
On Feb 8, 2005, at 4:52 PM, Mark Horne wrote:<br />
<blockquote>I decided not to publish this (well, it was up for a couple of seconds). I’m wondering what I should do with it.</blockquote><br />
Let it go. Let the dead bury the dead. There’s only one lesson in all of this: none of us need bother inquiring into pastorates within the boundaries of MVP. The Lord will deal with this in good time. Wait and see.<br />
<br />
JJM<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<strong>Date:</strong> Tue, 8 Feb 2005 17:00:45 -0600<br />
<strong>From:</strong> <a href="mailto:rwlusk@bellsouth.net">“Rich Lusk”</a><br />
<strong>Subject:</strong> ad hoc report — MVP — it’s up<br />
<blockquote>Also, we see why it was important for agents from MVP to lobby so hard outside their own presbytery, to sow suspicion and discord through gossip and unofficial trials without stipulated evidence: “In the PCA, at least two presbyteries have refused to transfer PCA ministers sympathetic to the AAT/FV into their presbyteries.” They go on to tell the trouble that Rich Lusk got into for the heretical notion that children under the age of nine should be regarded as Christians (though that level of detail is missing from the report, as is the admission on the part of the committee to the fact that pressure from outside the presbytery was being brought to bear.</blockquote><br />
Yes, that was an intersting remark about my case. Actually, the committee (even when pressed) refused to state a reason why I was not recommended. It would be most honest for the report to just leave it at that. Nothing was said to me about being outside an acceptable range of theological diversity. The committee was even ready to allow me onto the floor of presbytery if the church wanted to pursue that route. The chair of the committee even said he’d have to recovene in order to make a formal statement, which they did not do. I don’t think they had decided on an acceptable range of theological diversity which is why they didn’t quite know what to do with me.<br />
<br />
In follow up, informal conversation with the chair of the committee, I basically got the impression that I was not recommended because the men did not yet “feel comfortable” with where I was theologically and still had questions. They wanted a wider body — in particular GA — to make a recommendation for the presbyteries on these issues (which will probably have to happen now that the MVP report is out). <br />
<br />
You’ll note Frank Barker is on the list of “leading pastor-theologians” who have raised concerns. Plus, Lig himself is regarded as “the theologian” for PCA folks around here. I think Frank is a great pastor — who can argue with the great missionary zeal of Briarwood, which has minustered to thousands of people in a multitude of languages, here in Bham and all over the world? — but he is not much of a theologian. And that’s fine — but I don’t know why they’d put him on the examinations committee.<br />
<br />
So, yeah, the MVP report of what happended to me is slanted. Still, though, I don’t think there’s any point trying to fight for a more honest record of the facts at this juncture. It would accomplish nothing profitable, and probably only make things worse. And besides, it’s not like that’s the grossest inaccuracy in the report! The thing has more falsehoods than truths.<br />
<br />
RL<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<strong>Date:</strong> Tue, 8 Feb 2005 23:10:46 GMT<br />
<strong>From:</strong> <a href="mailto:rmmccheyne@juno.com">“rmmccheyne@juno.com”</a><br />
<strong>Subject:</strong> ad hoc report — MVP — it’s up<br />
<blockquote>“In the PCA, at least two presbyteries have refused to transfer PCA ministers sympathetic to the AAT/FV into their presbyteries.”</blockquote><br />
I’m assuming Rich is one of the two mentioned. Whose the other? (Just for the record, my exam wasn’t a transfer.) <br />
<blockquote>“Members transferring from AAT/FV-friendly churches have attempted to force the sessions of the churches to which they have relocated to allow for their practice of AAT/FV distinctives relating to child communion and membership (and in one case have pursued a judicial appeal all the way through presbytery to the SJC).”</blockquote><br />
What’s this about? Anyone able to speak to this claim?<br />
<br />
JAT<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<strong>Date:</strong> Wed, 9 Feb 2005 11:26:17 -0600<br />
<strong>From:</strong> <a href="mailto:shade79@midwest.net">burke</a><br />
<strong>Subject:</strong> ad hoc report — MVP — it’s up <br />
<blockquote>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.<br />
<br />
My $02.<br />
<br />
John Heaton, Headmaster</blockquote><br />
Great argument, John, and I think this was Steve Wilkin’s purpose, speaking for him as I often do. When I heard his lecture at the end of 2002 on the children of the covenant being on the porch, not in the house and not in the world, he was throwing the gauntlet down. And he did. And it riled people. I believe at the time he wanted to confront the PCA on its ambiguity, on its indecisiveness towards children of the covenant. And to make his point, he called out the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse, and he brought it on. And then he got clobbered!<br />
<br />
But I’d say with you: go for the chocolate; and while acknowledging that chocolate nuggets have always been enjoyed, go for the pure stuff.<br />
<br />
My penny,<br />
<br />
Burke<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<b>Date:</b> Tue, 8 Feb 2005 18:52:06 -0600<br />
<b>From:</b> <a href="mailto:jon@barlownet.com">“Jonathan Barlow”</a><br />
<b>Subject:</b> ad hoc report — MVP — it’s up<br />
<br />
Aren’t there some factual errors in that first section? For instance — the hearings they allegedly organized, and didn’t Pastor Wilkins request the meeting, not that committee?<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<b>Date:</b> Wed, 09 Feb 2005 02:27:12 -0000<br />
<b>From:</b> <a href="mailto:garvers1@yahoo.com">“garver”</a><br />
<b>Subject:</b> response to ad hoc report — MVP<br />
<br />
I didn’t get a chance to get back to the response until a little bit ago, but something like the final version is up now:<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.joelgarver.com/docs/response.htm">joelgarver.com/docs/response.htm</a><br />
<br />
Gimme some feedback before folks go linking to it.<br />
<br />
I incorporated what most of you said, including some thoughts in the intro bouncing off of what John Heaton said.<br />
<br />
joel<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<b>Date:</b> Wed, 09 Feb 2005 19:57:55 -0000<br />
<b>From:</b> <a href="mailto:garvers1@yahoo.com">“garver”</a><br />
<b>Subject:</b> ad hoc report — MVP — it’s up<br />
<br />
Ya’ll noticed the new footnote on the FV/AAT precis, right? —<br />
<blockquote>“7. FV proponents may counter that they do not deny the legal and forensic dimensions of the covenant. We fully grant the point. This, however, is not at issue. We are claiming the manner in which the FV proponents formulate both the relational and the legal dimensions of the covenant results in downplaying the latter. In other words, FV formulations of the covenant are biblically imbalanced at the expense of of the legal and forensic.”</blockquote><br />
Talk about “shibboleth”!<br />
<br />
joel<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<b>Date:</b> Wed, 9 Feb 2005 14:21:43 -0600<br />
<b>From:</b> <a href="mailto:mailto:pastorsteven@bethelpca.com">“Steven Wright”</a><br />
<b>Subject:</b> ad hoc report — MVP — it’s up<br />
<br />
Joel wrote:<br />
<blockquote>Ya’ll noticed the new footnote on the FV/AAT precis, right? —<br />
<br />
<blockquote>“7. FV proponents may counter that they do not deny the legal and forensic dimensions of the covenant. We fully grant the point. This, however, is not at issue. We are claiming the manner in which the FV proponents formulate both the relational and the legal dimensions of the covenant results in downplaying the latter. In other words, FV formulations of the covenant are biblically imbalanced at the expense of of the legal and forensic.”</blockquote><br />
Talk about “shibboleth”!</blockquote><br />
John Frame makes a helpful point about this kind of thing in DKG:<br />
<blockquote>“It is impossible for theology to have precisely the same ‘emphasis’ as Scripture does. To do that, theology would have to simply repeat Scripture from Genesis to Revelation. But the task of theology, as we have seen, is not to repeat Scripture but to apply it. Thus theology not only may but ought to have a different emphasis from Scripture itself.” (p. 182)</blockquote><br />
steven<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<b>Date:</b> Wed, 9 Feb 2005 14:24:53 -0600<br />
<b>From:</b> <a href="mailto:jeffmeyers@earthlink.net">Jeff Meyers</a><br />
<b>Subject:</b> ad hoc report — MVP — it’s up<br />
<br />
On Feb 9, 2005, at 1:57 PM, garver wrote:<br />
<blockquote>Ya’ll noticed the new footnote on the FV/AAT precis, right? —<br />
<blockquote>“7. FV proponents may counter that they do not deny the legal and forensic dimensions of the covenant. We fully grant the point. This, however, is not at issue. We are claiming the manner in which the FV proponents formulate both the relational and the legal dimensions of the covenant results in downplaying the latter. In other words, FV formulations of the covenant are biblically imbalanced at the expense of of the legal and forensic.”</blockquote><br />
Talk about “shibboleth”!</blockquote><br />
I had not noticed this, but it is an amazing admission. Even if we grant the legal and forensic character of justification and covenantal relations, we are wrong because we don’t formulate it just the way they want. This is evidence that they are looking for conformity to terminology rather than faithfulness “to the system of doctrine taught in the Standards” (our ordination vow). This seems to be evidence that all of this is a backdoor attempt to enforce the worse form of strict subscription.<br />
<br />
So according to this paragraph “FV proponents” are accused of downplaying the legal in favor of the relational dimensions of the covenant. What is the name of Sam Hill does that mean? What’s the real difference, in their minds, between legal and relational dimensions? I’ve always thought that the legal was a subset of the relational. Otherwise stated, of all the ways persons have of relating, a legal relationship is one. Are they claiming some priority to legal relationships over relationships based on love and friendship? The way they state this seems odd to me. Do they think they are saying something profound. It’s nonsense.<br />
<br />
JJM<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<b>Date:</b> Wed, 9 Feb 2005 20:51:11 GMT<br />
<b>From:</b> <a href="mailto:rmmccheyne@juno.com">“Joe Thacker”</a><br />
<b>Subject:</b> ad hoc report — MVP — it’s up<br />
<blockquote>It is impossible for theology to have precisely the same ‘emphasis’ as Scripture does. To do that, theology would have to simply repeat Scripture from Genesis to Revelation.</blockquote><br />
This reminds me of Bishop Wright’s comment in one of the Q&A’s where he said, in effect, (quoting someone else, I believe) when you talk theology, if you don’t say everything there is to say then someone will accuse you of denying or not believing something else.<br />
<br />
(Kind of like what happens when conversing with Cal B.)<br />
<br />
JAT<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<b>Date:</b> Wed, 09 Feb 2005 13:52:37 -0800<br />
<b>From:</b> <a href="mailto:davidescott@qwest.net">“David E. Scott”</a><br />
<b>Subject:</b> ad hoc report — MVP — it’s up<br />
<br />
Someone on the study committee for the Pacific NW Presbytery just sent all the other committee members a link to the MVP report. Do you guys think it would be wise for me to offer Joel’s response as additional information, or just let the committee members draw their own conclusions from reading the MVP report? It’s hard for me to get a read on how the Southern Presbyterian stuff resonates (or doesn’t) out here in the NW.<br />
<br />
Thanks,<br />
Dave<br />
<br />
Rev. David E. Scott<br />
Covenant Presbyterian Church<br />
Issaquah, Washington<br />
www.covenant-pca.org<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<b>Date:</b> Wed, 9 Feb 2005 16:02:19 -0600<br />
<b>From:</b> <a href="mailto:swilkins@auburnavenue.org">“Steve Wilkins”</a><br />
<b>Subject:</b> ad hoc report — MVP — it’s up<br />
<blockquote>Someone on the study committee for the Pacific NW Presbytery just sent all the other committee members a link to the MVP report. Do you guys think it would be wise for me to offer Joel’s response as additional information, or just let the committee members draw their own conclusions from reading the MVP report?</blockquote><br />
absolutely!<br />
<br />
sw<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<b>Date:</b> Wed, 9 Feb 2005 16:03:23 -0600<br />
<b>From:</b> <a href="mailto:jon@barlownet.com">“Jonathan Barlow”</a><br />
<b>Subject:</b> ad hoc report — MVP — it’s up<br />
<br />
I think you should send them a link to Joel’s stuff. . . I mean, look at Rayburn’s sermons on this stuff. Plus, the MVP report only seems sad to us — to most others it will read like something responsible and even charitable. blecch<br />
<br />
— Jonathan<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<b>Date:</b> Wed, 09 Feb 2005 14:23:25 -0800<br />
<b>From:</b> <a href="mailto:davidescott@qwest.net">“David E. Scott”</a><br />
<b>Subject:</b> ad hoc report — MVP — it’s up<br />
<br />
ok, will do<br />
<br />
Rev. David E. Scott<br />
Covenant Presbyterian Church<br />
Issaquah, Washington<br />
www.covenant-pca.org<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<b>Date:</b> Wed, 9 Feb 2005 22:16:05 EST<br />
<b>From:</b> <a href="mailto:Calvin3Max@aol.com">Calvin3Max@aol.com</a><br />
<b>Subject:</b> ad hoc report — MVP — it’s up<br />
<br />
In a message dated 2/8/2005 6:04:20 PM Eastern Standard Time, jeffmeyers@earthlink.net writes:<br />
<blockquote>Let it go. Let the dead bury the dead. There’s only one lesson in all of this: none of us need bother inquiring into pastorates within the boundaries of MVP. The Lord will deal with this in good time. Wait and see.</blockquote><br />
JJM<br />
<br />
This is very interesting. When I was in seminary MVP was the easiest Presbytery in the PCA to pursue ordination. If you could breathe, find a Gospel, knew Genesis was in the OT, you passed. Arminians, four pointers, baptists, etc passed the exams.<br />
<br />
Perhaps this is all tied together. They were so loose for so long, that many old timers and perhaps ruling elders can’t discern the differences. Those who can are few in number and mostly of one bent.<br />
<br />
Eric.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<b>Date:</b> Wed, 9 Feb 2005 22:22:14 -0600<br />
<b>From:</b> <a href="mailto:jon@barlownet.com">“Jonathan Barlow”</a><br />
<b>Subject:</b> ad hoc report — MVP — it’s up<br />
<blockquote>This is very interesting. When I was in seminary MVP was the easiest Presbytery in the PCA to pursue ordination. If you could breathe, find a Gospel, knew Genesis was in the OT, you passed. Arminians, four pointers, baptists, etc passed the exams.<br />
<br />
Perhaps this is all tied together. They were so loose for so long, that many old timers and perhaps ruling elders can’t discern the differences. Those who can are few in number and mostly of one bent.<br />
<br />
Eric.</blockquote><br />
That sort of reminds me of the <a href=" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came...">Niemöller poem about Nazi Germany</a>, only in reverse.<br />
<br />
— JonathanUnknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-772171407390878794.post-21583125986960280892005-02-08T14:11:00.000-08:002010-09-24T05:35:34.087-07:00“Covenantal Grace”<b>Date:</b> Tue, 8 Feb 2005 14:11:56 -0600<br />
<b>From:</b> <a href="mailto:rwlusk@bellsouth.net">“Rich Lusk”</a><br />
<b>Subject:</b> “covenantal grace”; was responding to the MVP Report<br />
<br />
Nobody followed up on my earlier post regarding “covenantal grace,” but I did want to ask a question or two to Joel and anyone else who’s really familiar with the tradition of Reformed scholasticism.<br />
<br />
This is what I wrote last night:<br />
<a name='more'></a><blockquote>What I’m moving towards in terms of formulation is something like this:<br />
<br />
<a name="covenantal"></a>I think rather than formulating the matter simply in terms of special grace or common grace (with the Holy Spirit’s “common operations” usually put in the latter category), we need a third category: “covenantal grace,” I’ll call it. (This is somewhat analogous to Peter L’s creation of a “middle grace” category in a BH occasional paper some yrs back, to account for the fact that unbelievers are still often influenced by the church and the Bible. In other words “common” and “special” grace get mixed together in history.)<br />
<br />
Or to put it another way, we cannot just speak in terms of “state of nature” and “state of grace” as the WCF tends to do. We have to also have the category of “covenantal state.” This state is undifferentiated, at least in history. It is a state “common” to all within the covenant. And it is truly a gracious place to be.<br />
<br />
Covenantal grace can be thought of much the way we think of the “L” in Calvinism. We say the atonement is “sufficient for all, but efficient only for the elect.” Hence, we secure both the free offer of the gospel (Jesus died for YOU! we can tell the man on the street) as well as the sovereignty of God in salvation (he lays down his life for the sheep). Analogously, “covenantal grace” (the grace of baptism and covenant membership) is sufficient for all, but will be effectual only for those elected-unto-perseverance.<br />
<br />
In this way, we can say to a baptized person everything the Bible says about him. But we also leave open the possibility of apostasy becasue, after all, mere covnenant membership does not guarantee perseverance. We can say Romans 6:2–6, 8:31–39, and 11:18–22 to the same people, in the same direct (2nd person) language.<br />
<br />
I think somthing like this covenantal grace (sufficiant for all, efficient only for the elect) is clearly at work in a passage like Hebrews 6:4–8. That warning is open ended. The people in view have received blessings (enlightenment, tasted the heavenly gift, etc.), and yet two things are clear: they *might* persevere (6:9), OR they *might* apostastize (6:6). The blessings listed in 6:4–5 are enough to make perseverance possible, but they do not make perseverance an inevitable, come-what-may necessity. Thus, they are exhorted to keep their eyes fixed on Christ (Heb. 12:1–4), etc. These people are regarded as neither elect nor reprobate; they are regarded as covenant members who have the ability to endure to the end, but also remain in jeopardy until they cross the finish line of their Christian race. And there is no hint of contradiction.<br />
<br />
Isa. 5:1–7 works the same way. Israel has been blessed. Obedience, faithfulness, and perseverance were genuine *possibilities* for Israel. And yet apostasy was *possible* as well. It could go either way, and Israel chose to apostatize. Nevertheless, God can say to Israel, “What more could I have done for you?” In other words, “I gave you sufficient grace, and you still chose to reject me.”<br />
<br />
It is the category of “covenantal grace” that has been missing in most Reformed theology, at least since the rise of scholasticism. But I see all kinds of ways in which this kind of category could be of service to us exegetically and theologically and pastorally. I’d even thinnk it would have ecumenical payoffs since it would certainly undercut the best arguments for Arminianism, and perhaps bridge the Calvinist-Arminian divide.<br />
<br />
Obviously this raises questions about how “irresistible grace” in traditional Calvinism relates to my concept of “covenantal grace.” I certainly would want to guard against any notion that perseverance becomes something we do to add to God’s covenantal grace. But I think that can be done easily enough. I would still affirm the “I” in TULIP, but in a much more nuanced way.</blockquote><br />
Now, in thimking this over it dawned on me that I had come across the sufficient/efficient distinction before with regard to persevering grace. (Like just about any “insight” you think you’ve arrived at, you find after a while that it really came from another source.) Where had I seen it before? Jacob Arminius used language like this, though I don’t recall all the details. (I read some of Arminius yrs ago — he might be worth revisiting). <br />
<br />
I remember also that Arminius used Augustine quite a bit. I haven’t read much of Wesley but I wonder if his concept of “prevenient grace” has some connection with what I’m getting at in regards to “sufficient grace” or “covenantal grace” (though whatever the case, Wesley’s soteriology is still chock full of problems).<br />
<br />
My question is: Are there any Reformed scholastics who have used this kind of sufficient/efficiant distinction with regard to persevering grace? I know some scholastics made this kind of distinction with regard to the “L” in TULIP, but did they bring the same nuance to bear on the “I” and the “P”? I just haven’t read enough to know. As argued above, I think a distinction like this is exegetically warranted, even necessitated — but it’d be nice to know if others in the tradition solved the problem in the same way.<br />
<br />
RL<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<b>Date:</b> Tue, 8 Feb 2005 14:20:12 -0600<br />
<b>From:</b> <a href="mailto:mark@hornes.org">Mark Horne</a><br />
<b>Subject:</b> “covenantal grace”; was responding to the MVP Report<br />
<br />
I don’t know about the efficient/sufficient distinction, but John Murray follows Kuiper in dividing common grace into three types. Covenantal Common Grace is one of them. The essay is on the web somehere.<br />
<br />
mark<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<b>Date:</b> Tue, 8 Feb 2005 14:48:13 -0600<br />
<b>From:</b> <a href="mailto:rwlusk@bellsouth.net">“Rich Lusk”</a><br />
<b>Subject:</b> “covenantal grace”; was responding to the MVP Report<br />
<br />
Yes, that’s true, although as I recall, Murray ends up saying very, very little about it — other than admitting that whatever the apostates received in covenant is “the apex of non-saving grace” (or something like that). Murray’s seems pointed in the right direction, he just doesn’t travel that far down the road.<br />
<br />
Do you happen to know what work by Kuiper Murray was drawing from?<br />
<br />
RL<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<b>Date:</b> Tue, 8 Feb 2005 14:56:25 -0600<br />
<b>From:</b> <a href="mailto:mark@hornes.org">Mark Horne</a><br />
<b>Subject:</b> “covenantal grace”; was responding to the MVP Report<br />
<br />
no<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<b>Date:</b> Tue, 8 Feb 2005 15:08:20 -0600<br />
<b>From:</b> <a href="mailto:p.duggan@verizon.net">p.duggan@verizon.net</a><br />
<b>Subject:</b> “covenantal grace”; was responding to the MVP Report<br />
<blockquote>The blessings listed in 6:4–5 are enough to make perseverance possible, but they do not make perseverance an inevitable, come-what-may necessity. Thus, they are exhorted to keep their eyes fixed on Christ (Heb. 12:1–4), etc. These people are regarded as neither elect nor reprobate; they are regarded as covenant members who have the ability to endure to the end, but also remain in jeopardy until they cross the finish line of their Christian race. And there is no hint of contradiction.</blockquote><br />
But calvinism teaches believers to regard themselves as elect. They begin with no ability to do anything. It is solely election in the purposes of God and the irresistable grace of God that means they can endure.<br />
<br />
If the grace is resistable grace, then our total depravity will kick in an we’ll be lost. If the grace to endure to the end is resistable grace, then “something else” is actually determinative of our enduring to the end other than the resitable grace to endure to the end.<br />
<br />
Calvinism teaches us that this “somethign else” is knowable, and that we should predicate on it when whe read all of scripture. Calvinists might say “screw your ‘covenant’, I’ll rest in the irreststable grace of biblical calvinism”<br />
<br />
Paul<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<b>Date:</b> Tue, 8 Feb 2005 17:24:26 -0600<br />
<b>From:</b> <a href="mailto:rwlusk@bellsouth.net">“Rich Lusk”</a><br />
<b>Subject:</b> “covenantal grace”; was responding to the MVP Report<br />
<blockquote><blockquote>The blessings listed in 6:4–5 are enough to make perseverance possible, but they do not make perseverance an inevitable, come-what-may necessity. Thus, they are exhorted to keep their eyes fixed on Christ (Heb. 12:1–4), etc. These people are regarded as neither elect nor reprobate; they are regarded as covenant members who have the ability to endure to the end, but also remain in jeopardy until they cross the finish line of their Christian race. And there is no hint of contradiction.</blockquote><br />
But calvinism teaches believers to regard themselves as elect.</blockquote><br />
Does it really? If so, why I have known so many Calvinists who went through life wondering, “Am I elect?” What I have in view when I say they are regarded as neither elect nor reprobate is just that the writer is not looking at these people in terms of decretal categories. Covenantally, the are a new Israel. In fact, all the blessings he ascribes to them (enlightened, tasted the heavenly gift, etc.) derive from the OT exodus accounts. They are the people of the new exodus, and thus “elect” in the Deut. 7 (covenantal) sense. But they can fall from this election too, as Deut. bears out.<br />
<blockquote>They begin with no ability to do anything. It is solely election in the purposes of God and the irresistable grace of God that means they can endure. If the grace is resistable grace, then our total depravity will kick in an we’ll be lost. If the grace to endure to the end is resistable grace, then “something else” is actually determinative of our enduring to the end other than the resitable grace to endure to the end. Calvinism teaches us that this “somethign else” is knowable, and that we should predicate on it when whe read all of scripture. Calvinists might say “screw your ‘covenant’, I’ll rest in the irreststable grace of biblical calvinism”</blockquote><br />
I’m not denying iresistible grace, nor did I say anything about people “falling from irresistible grace.” Remember, I spoke of sufficient *and* efficient grace. But how do we know who has irresistible grace? I’m just reiterating the point of Isaiah 5:4: every covenant member has been offered grace sufficient unto perseverance. The promises regarding perseverance belong to the whole covenant community, though not all claim them. Those who do can only give thanks for God’s efficient grace; those who don’t can only blame themselves. How can some fall from “sufficient grace”? Well, I don’t know, but Adam had sufficient grace and he fell too. You can’t really give a coherent explantion of sin. If you could, sin wouldn’t be so utterly sinful. If “resting in irresistible grace” means exercising ongoing trust in Christ as the Author and Finisher of our faith, then great — but I can’t see how that’s “screwing the covenant.” That’s just what life in the covenant is supposed to look like. We keep covenant by faith, by keeping our eyes focused on the goal of Christ himself. Again, I’m not denying the validity of the classic scholastic distinctions. In an ultimate, eschatological sense, people are elected unto final salvation or they are reprobates. Those who fall away were destined to do so. But within history, many eternally reprobated folks come into the covenant, and experience a favorable relationship with God for a time. In Calvin’s language, they “justly believe they are reconciled” to their heavenly Father. Afterwards, they fall away. Others, who have come to experience that same favorable relationship with God as Father, persevere to the end because God sustains them. Yes, there’s a difference all along the way, but that difference is really known only unto God until it manifests itself in history. There’s no experiential or psychological checklist given to us in Scripture to tell whether we’ve been “truly converted” or not. If you could slice into Saul’s heart (or spiritual psychology) in 1 Sam 9—10, it would look a whole lot like David’s. All we can do is live by faith, clinging to the promises by looking to Jesus as the Author and Perfecter of our faith. Empirically, the seed that sprouted in the stony ground looked just like the sprout coming up from the good soil. Only *after* trail and persecution came, did the difference become manifest to creaturely observers. Covenantal grace gets differentiated out over time.<br />
<br />
RL<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<b>Date:</b> Tue, 8 Feb 2005 16:30:54 -0700<br />
<b>From:</b> <a href="mailto:jbarach@telus.net">“John Barach”</a><br />
<b>Subject:</b> “Covenantal Grace”<br />
<br />
Rich writes:<br />
<blockquote>Nobody followed up on my earlier post regarding “covenantal grace,” but I did want to ask a question or two to Joel and anyone else who’s really familiar with the tradition of Reformed scholasticism.</blockquote><br />
Well, I really don’t know much about what he taught, but you might want to check out William Heyns (1856–1933), one of the early profs at Calvin Theological Seminary. Heyns argued for some kind of “covenantal grace,” I believe. You can read a bit about him in Jelle Faber’s book on American Sessesion Theologians (which is attached to the copy of Klaas Schilder’s <i>Extra-Scriptural Binding</i>, which I suspect already have, Rich).<br />
<br />
According to Faber, Heyns rejected Kuyper’s “presumed regeneration,” but he also didn’t want to fall into the error of presumed non-regeneration, which he often saw, as he said, especially “if they — the children — have not abandone all joyfulness of youth, in order to excel as examples of gloomy piety” (<i>Handbook</i> 143).<br />
<br />
Heyns (along with Lammert Hulst) distinguished between God’s common grace, covenant grace, and saving grace. He rejects the idea that the things spoken of in the traditional Baptismal Form are only true “objectively.” He writes:<br />
<blockquote>It seems to us that there is Scriptural evidence unmistakably pointing to an actual bestowal on the covenant members of a certain measure of subjective grace also, so that the subjective spiritual condition of the covenant children is different from that of the children outside the covenant (<i>Manual of Reformed Doctrine</i> 136).</blockquote><br />
He references John 15, Romans 11, and Isaiah 5. He cites Acronius (1596), who says that “Christian nurture of covenant children is necessary, in order that they should not *degenerate*.” He also cites Beza, who said that “subjective covennat grace can be shaken out by unbelief.” He argues that parents, teachers, and ministers are not dealing with “unfit material,” with children who are spiritually blind and deaf, but with covenant children in whom the Lord has worked so that He may expect fruis of repentance and faith.<br />
<br />
In his 1907 <i>Handbook</i>, Heys even spoke “of a subjective covenant grace for all members of the covenant so that man's total incapacity by nature for the things that are of the Spirit of God is taken away, that there is in the covenant child an initial or incipient capacity of covenantal nurture” (Faber 41).<br />
<br />
Heyns also wrote:<br />
<blockquote>Even in the Covenant of Works the condition of obedience was not a condition for being taken into the Covenant, but for keeping the Covenant and for gaining its reward. In the same way faith and obedience are conditions for keeping the Covenant of Grace and for inheriting the promise, Heb. 6:15, whereas unbelief and disobedience make the Covenant member a Covenant breaker, who shall not enter in, Heb. 3:18–19 (Faber 42, no citation provided).</blockquote><br />
A few more quotations:<br />
<br />
Re: Isaiah 5:4: “Would He, Who is the true One, ask this? Would He be able to ask this, if what He had done to them had only consisted of outward working without giving the internal susceptibility for it?”<br />
<br />
If one wants to do justice to such expressions one has to come to the conclusion, whether one likes it or not, that Scritpure teaches us that each member of the covenant receives the gift of subjective grace. Each child of believers receives *sufficient to produce good fruits*. This gift is for all members of the covenant, not only for the elect.<br />
<br />
Concerning the covenant with Noah, we believe that it has been accompanied by the benefaction of a measure of more common grace, with such an incerase of common subjective grace that mankind, by its sin-resistant action, would be saved from sinking a second time into a deluge of iniquity as before the flood, and would be able to inherit the promise of that covenant. Why wuold it be unacceptable then, that the so much more glorious covenant with Abraham has been accompanied with the giving of subjective grace to all members of the covenant, with the result that the total insusceptibility of natural men to the things of the Spirit of God is taken away to the extent that the members of the covenant have an initial susceptibility.<br />
<br />
These quotations are taken from Schilder’s interaction with Heyns (Extra-Scriptural Binding 95ff.). Heyns was one of the major targets of Herman Hoeksema, which means he can’t be all bad. Schilder, too, took a few shots at him.<br />
<br />
I own a few of his books, but haven’t read him. Anyway, might be worth checking out. Unfortunately, most of his stuff is in Dutch, but some is in English.<br />
<br />
JohnUnknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-772171407390878794.post-50536239807301306172005-02-08T11:04:00.000-08:002010-09-23T06:44:41.986-07:00Joel’s Response<b>Date:</b> Tue, 8 Feb 2005 11:04:28 -0600<br />
<b>From:</b> <a href="mailto:jon@barlownet.com">“Jonathan Barlow”</a><br />
<b>Subject:</b> joel’s response<br />
<br />
Joel,<br />
<br />
I enjoyed your response to the MVP. Just a few things:<br />
<ol><li>You say that you’re “adverse” to controversy, but I think you mean “averse”.</li>
<li>“Make my own viewpoints clears” should be “clear”</li>
<li>Don’t forget to add the promised “concluding observations”</li>
<li>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.</li>
</ol><br />
Now, more thoughts:<br />
<a name='more'></a><ol><li>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.</li>
<br />
<li>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.</li>
<br />
<li>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.</li>
<br />
<li>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.</li>
<br />
<li>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.</li>
</ol>— Jon<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<b>Date:</b> Tue, 08 Feb 2005 17:39:55 -0000<br />
<b>From:</b> <a href="mailto:garvers1@yahoo.com">“garver”</a><br />
<b>Subject:</b> joel’s response<br />
<br />
Jonathan Barlow wrote:<br />
<blockquote>I enjoyed your response to the MVP. Just a few things:</blockquote><br />
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.<br />
<br />
joel<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<b>Date:</b> Tue, 08 Feb 2005 18:07:06 -0000<br />
<b>From:</b> <a href="mailto:garvers1@yahoo.com">“garver”</a><br />
<b>Subject:</b> joel’s response<br />
<blockquote>4. I would add some more footnotes here and there to your responses. <br />
<br />
For instance, in point 16 with the “conditional” and “sacramental” cleansing vs. the “absolute” cleansing language. Don’t give them wiggle room there.</blockquote><br />
Well, that’s most obviously from Turretin, though I can footnote it from various other authors as well.<br />
<br />
What other points would folks recommend footnoting?<br />
<br />
Does anyone have references to relevant bits of Wright or Dunn or whoever handy?<br />
<br />
I’ve changed the URL, btw, to:<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.joelgarver.com/docs/response2.htm">joelgarver.com/docs/response2.htm</a><br />
<br />
joelUnknownnoreply@blogger.com