Archive for the ‘Federal Vision’ Category
Someone at Doug Wilson’s BLOG suggested a video of a witch burning… Someone is painting a ‘false one’ on the LAP… Follow the logic, find the witch.
“NOBODY expects the Spanish Inquisition! Our chief weapon is surprise…surprise and fear…fear and surprise…. Our two weapons are fear and surprise…and ruthless efficiency…. ” So said the boys of Python.
When you are righteous in your own eyes there is nothing out of bounds when it comes to behavior. Think about it… If one is saving Christendom from the rot of Arianism, then Alexander can be excused if he let fly a few invectives against Arius. Right?
But, what if you are wrong in your assumptions? What if your flaming tongue is not directed against a modern day Nestorius? What if your invective is cutting into a faithful minister of the Gospel Believing/Professing Church of almighty God? What then?
One anti-FV blogger has mused that the way a straying airman under his command mended his ways is a model for the elders within the Louisiana Presbytery to deal with Pastor Steve Wilkins.
I will try and summarize his tale. It seems that the writer of the blog, Bob Mattes, served our country in the Air Force. He was in command of some kind and was in the process of seeing that an airman under his command was removed from active service by way of a courts martial. Apparently the airman was charged with a crime. The smooth operation of the removal process was gummed up when a friend of the young man offered an alibi for the time-frame in question.
Colonel Mattes (I assume he was a colonel but I don’t know for sure) decided that he would talk to the friend in person and had him standing tall in front of him and even read him is rights (just to let the young man know the seriousness of the affair). The young man was scared straight and recanted his alibi for the delinquent airman.
It appears from the narrative that the good Colonel ended up with the right results. His use of office to intimidate a young airman resulted in the conviction of a dirtbag (that’s military talk for a member who is a drag on his unit and whose mere presence is a detriment to good order and discipline). We can all rest easy knowing the CO rooted out one of the military’s misfits.
But, what if the airman had been telling the truth? What if standing in front of the old man, with the senior enlisted leader of your unit right there as well, caused the young man to abandon truth and righteousness to protect his job? What then?
In the case of the SJC… what if they are wrong and this committee is calling other elders onto the carpet and threatening their ministries, while Pastor Wilkins and they are in fact guilty of nothing? All of Mr. Mattes’s urging to abandon Pastor Wilkins to his fate is reprehensible if he is not guilty of anything. No, I take that back… It is reprehensible to use the authority of the Church to brow beat someone even if you believe them to be guilty. They should not lord their authority over others the way the Gentiles do. Or so I’ve heard
Bob Mattes, ends his advice to the Louisiana Presbytery with these words:
The SJC has given Louisiana Presbytery the opportunity to plead guilty by February and fix its errors. That would certainly cause the least additional disturbance to the peace of the denomination. The alternative would be for Louisiana Presbytery to try to defend the indefensible and stand by Wilkins and his aberrant Federal Vision theology, which has already been rejected by the PCA almost unanimously.
By being loyal to the wrong people, Louisiana Presbytery will undoubtedly further harm and disturb the peace and purity of the church. As with the young airman years ago, Louisiana Presbytery needs to learn not to be loyal to the wrong people.
That’s a lesson worth learning-then and now.
Get it? We have given you every opportunity to plead guilty! What is wrong with you people and your misplaced sense of loyalty? Confess to your witchcraft, accept the authority of the
PopeSJC and all will be forgiven. Torquemada would be proud.
It is good to see the discussion, but there seems to be a bit of:
“You despise tradition!”
“No I don’t.”
“Yes you do.”
“I Love the bible”
“Sure, but you hate the fathers.”
Like I said though… it is good to see folks at least talking.
An anagram for “Federal Vision” is
An anagram for “The Federal Vision” is
Heat (or hate) over infidels.
So: if that bunch of loafer divines weren’t up to their shenanigans, then there wouldn’t be so much hate over these infidels.
Now that’s theological discourse!
I showed my daughters the video of Britney Spears’ MTV appearance as an object lesson in my personal war for their souls. It is tragic what has happened to this young lady. I pray that someone near her would posses the gospel and deliver it in a winsome way. May God see fit to redeem her both from her private hell and the final one, prepared for the Devil and his angels.
But, that is not the reason for this post…
Am I the only person in the world that did not know that her name is an anagram for Presbyterian? Have I been under a rock? Does this have deeper mystical meaning, particularly for the Federal Vision?
Okay! You saw me give David a chance didn’t you? ‘Be the hero,’ I said; ‘save us from banality,’ I said. Alas, it is left to me to change my way and way of the blog…
In my devotions in the AM, when I get to work, I often use this little gem from Crossway Bibles, publishers of the ESV: “Daily Light on the Daily Path.” It is often edifying and gets me to open my Bible, which is a good thing.
The format is interesting. It takes various biblical texts and strings them together. Often this is called “stringing pearls.” It has the advantage of pointing you various texts in the Bible that may cover the same theme. It has the disadvantage of pulling texts out of context. But, again, it makes one go to the Bible and that is a good thing – – right?
The reason I write all of that is to point you to one passage in today’s ‘Light.’ Here is one section of the Bible that publishers quoted:
Is 43:25-26 “I, I am he
who blots out your transgressions for my own sake,
and I will not remember your sins.
26Put me in remembrance; let us argue together;
Lovely verses but what is the context? (more…)
Okay… Here is the deal. I started thinking about this some time ago, when I read the following in Bernard Cottret’s biography of John Calvin:
“A terrible suspicion, however, dogged Calvin throughout his life, that of Arianism.” (page 125)
My thought process was pushed further along when I read this from Doug Wilson:
One of the earmarks of shrewd insight is the ability to see what corresponds to what. Who is like this person? Who is like that one? Who are the reformers, speaking the language of Scripture afresh? Who are the heretics, flaming with the rhetoric of reformation, but denying the substance? Who are the curators and librarians, custodians of treasures they cannot understand anymore?
When the massive confusion of real reformation breaks out, how do you decide what to do? Simple. The children of Abraham will do the works of Abraham.
My thinking all came to a head today when I read something totally unrelated to the previous quotes:
No, I am not talking about JJ Walker from the TV show Goodtimes (man I am old). This JJ is James Jordan and he wrote an excellent article on the proper use of the WCF. Here is a quote but make sure you go HERE and read the whole thing:
…the Standards are often a consensus document. The men at the Westminster Assembly did not all agree with each other about everything. There was a variety of views on things like what happens at baptism, for instance, and the imputation to the elect of the “active obedience” of Jesus, for another. Often the Standards reflect an attempt to form a consensus, or to do justice to the concerns of all parties. Hence, it is often quite wrong to use the Standards to argue for only one very particular understanding of, say, baptism or imputation, and to insist that anyone disagreeing with that view is out of step with the Standards
If you are not familiar with the various positions on the Federal Vision let me recommend a couple of sites to you:
First, our friend Doug Wilson discusses it frequently over at Blog and Mablog. Much of Pastor Wilson’s writing is in response to charges leveled against him or a nebulous “they”, but it is well worth the read.
Second, the Federal Vision website is maintained by some folks who do not believe the Federal Vision theology is unorthodox.
Finally, Green Baggins stands in opposition.
That being said, there seems to be some discussion over the issue of what is called “Sacramentalism.” It is usually typed with a curled lip and followed by spitting on the ground, when applied to FV proponents. But, the word itself is bandied about without much definition and I would like to define here if we could.
This may not help much but here goes…
From Dictionary.com we have the following definitions of Sacramentalism:
1. a belief in or emphasis on the importance and efficacy of the sacraments for achieving salvation and conferring grace.
2. emphasis on the importance of sacramental objects and ritual actions
3. The doctrine that observance of the sacraments is necessary for salvation and that such participation can confer grace.
4. Emphasis on the efficacy of a sacramental.
Let’s dispense with number three. I think that definition is closer to sacradotalism than whatever is meant by the opponents of the FV.
One, two and four seem to have promise. Is what we mean by Sacramentalism a belief that the sacraments are important and effectual? If that is the case then the Sacramentalist is in keeping with the Westminster Confession of Faith.
Here is what the WCF says about the sacraments (with highlights from your friendly poster): (more…)