Not another DW thread

Semper Fidelis said:
Just to be crystal clear, the confession of and agreement with the Westminister Standards or the Three Forms of Unity is not an "echo chamber". It is a well understood and practiced branch of the Christian communion for centuries. There is not a single, visible Reformed communion that has failed to condemn Federal Vision theology.

If anything, the CREC is an idiosyncratic group, as are FV adherents in general. They have no historical roots, and the heyday of their theology is past.

We hardly even talk about it anymore because FV theology is generally irrelevant in the Church as a whole. It doesn't make the error any less erroneous, but Reformed communions excise Elders who teach it and they exist for their idiosyncratic communions and do little for the Church catholic.
Click to expand...
That’s called begging the question.
 
Semper Fidelis said:
Just to be crystal clear, the confession of and agreement with the Westminister Standards or the Three Forms of Unity is not an "echo chamber". It is a well understood and practiced branch of the Christian communion for centuries. There is not a single, visible Reformed communion that has failed to condemn Federal Vision theology.

If anything, the CREC is an idiosyncratic group, as are FV adherents in general. They have no historical roots, and the heyday of their theology is past.

We hardly even talk about it anymore because FV theology is generally irrelevant in the Church as a whole. It doesn't make the error any less erroneous, but Reformed communions excise Elders who teach it and they exist for their idiosyncratic communions and do little for the Church catholic.
Click to expand...
How much has your denomination grown in the last 50 years?
 
@Moderators

I have profited much from this thread - seeing the varied responses to Kevin DeYoung's article and Doug Wilson himself. As with so many DW threads (of which I now have the dubious honor of being among those foolhardy enough to initiate them) it seems to be spiraling, and speaking for myself, I would be happy to see this thread closed, as I believe the profitable portion of the discussion has already transpired.
 
Semper Reformada said:
That’s called begging the question.
Click to expand...
First, fix your profile and your signature if you desire to continue to participate. Either you are in the RPCNA or you are non-denominational. Which is it? Your first name is not Knox, either.

We were said to be an echo chamber. I fail to see that pointing out that Confessional integrity is an "echo chamber".

A large number of posts in this thread have not focused on the "mood" of Wilson's posts but on the theological errors that have been well documented, argued over years, and studied by Church courts.

It is not remotely contestable that both several theological views and practices of the CREC are outside the bounds of Westminsterian orthodoxy. I've been in the "examination of Pastors" at the Presbytery and denominational level for 13 years. I deal with idiosyncratic views all the time. I've also been around long enough to see movements sprout, seem to be moving large numbers, and ultimately fizzle out.

It's not that I believe that Presbyterianism that remains faithful to the system of doctrine in the Westminster Standards is the only branch of the Church, but I do know that it is faithful to the Scriptures and that it has stood the test of time around the world and has flourished.

I've also watched as various pretenders to claim to adopt the Westminster Standards try to downplay the coherence or importance for cultural reasons -both from the progressive end or the "we need to stop the liberals" end. The work of reforming from within a large denomination takes a lot of patience and energy, and thankfully, many who have disturbed my denomination have moved on, even as the popularity of certain movements has waned.

As for my concern from others that conservatives within the NAPARC congregations are either close-minded or preventing the Church from growing as rapidly as she might, I am accustomed to the charges but generally ignore foolish or ignorant persons. Faithful Church work is difficult. It's why one must battle the temptation to move off mission. It's also wearisome to stand for the truth and to have to remind people what is in our Standards and why it's there. It's much easier to "get along" with people leading the Church in errant directions than it is to stem its influence.

At the end of the day, conservative PCA elders align with the cultural concerns Wilson raises. In fact, KDY does. There is nothing "echo chamber" about Wilson's cultural critiques, and (as I noted) his methods are debatable. Yet, to a man, every time Wilson comes up, PCA Elders that I know point out to the dangers of the theology itself because we can get our cultural critiques from any corner of the internet. We've been in the trenches for many years now standing to prevent error more or less successfully. We know this enemy. It is not hard for a theologically astute person to understand the objections to CREC theology. I think many NAPARC persons would even simply consider Wilson and the CREC to be just another semi-errant branch of the Church if they would simply not obfuscate where they depart from Westminster and that they ought not to be confused with being Reformed in soteriology or sacramentology but their own distinct branch. It is the fact that Wilson pretends the concerns are either petty attacks or even primarily due to cultural factors that make him so distasteful. This is the reason he is not taken seriously - because he is not truthful with what we all know divides us theologically, first and foremost, and not culturally.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top