RSSThanks for a Great Discussion
W.H. Chellis
For nearly three weeks the DRC has been home to a great discussion. I want to thank all of our contributors for participating and all our readers for reading.
May the Lord bless these conversations as the NAPARC community continues to try to wrestle with the difficult questions raised by the present controversy.
Peter
October 6th, 2007 at 4:58 pm
Bill, thank you and the others of DRC for sponsoring this. Blessings to you all.
DWilson
October 7th, 2007 at 9:30 pm
And Bill, I would like to thank you all as well. May God bless everyone in this thing.
JMeyers
October 8th, 2007 at 9:05 am
Thanks for allowing me to participate. Forgive me if I’ve been too bombastic at times. You all have been very gracious. Thank you!
D Hart
October 8th, 2007 at 2:29 pm
Whatever (playful).
Not sure we changed any minds (serious). But I appreciate your hosting the attempt.
GAS
October 9th, 2007 at 1:02 am
Pastor Chellis,
Thank you for hosting this discussion. The direct examination of the FV elite in this forum produced more light compared to the usual heat produced in other cyber forums. If I may I’d like to share a couple of things that stood out from this seat in the peanut gallery.
1. The FV attempt to provide a greater sense of assurance to it’s parishoners. Ironically, in this attempt to provide greater assurance, they must deny the precious Reformed doctrine of Perserverance, thus denying one of God’s most precious promises, and raise up in Romish fashion the Sacraments to primary grace which must as a result reduces the role of personal faith. Perhaps the FV have a valid point that the Reformed Churches have overemphasised the decrees at the expense of the promises but it seems odd that they would try to correct this by means of denying a promise.
2. The role of the conscience. There was much discussion about Biblicism and Tradition and the interaction between the two but no direct discussion on the role of the conscience and the Church. No doubt this is due to the fact that Calvin left us with a tension between the two. Calvin, dismissing the medieval role of reason and will as the primary forces, elevated conscience as that last “reed” of the imago dei with direct connection with transcencence which at the same time is informed by the Church. If we are to believe Caleb we would assign all of modernities ills on this concept. The reactionaries against the FV would to a lesser extent diminish the role of the conscience. The FV, on the other hand, take an almost ana-baptistic view of the conscience. Both sides seem to want to dismiss the tension by camping on either side of the divide.
JMeyers
October 9th, 2007 at 3:25 pm
GAS: 1) None of us are denying the precious Reformed doctrine of Perseverance. That’s an outrageous claim. Prove it.
1b) We are not “raising up” the sacraments “in Romish fashion” to a “primary grace which as a result reduces the role of personal faith.” This is precisely the kind of misguided, inflated rhetoric that cripples the very possibility of serious discussion.
2b) We hold to an “ana-baptistisic view of the conscience”? You must referring to my post. Again, this is hardly helpful. I took my stand because I was being judged as unconfessional and unreformed and an enemy of the Reformation doctrine of justification on the grounds that I would not confess the EXTRA-confessional shibboleth “the imputation of the active obedience of Christ” formula. I grounded my view of freedom of conscience in the chapter 30 of the WCF. I cited Calvin’s example. I think I was acting quite traditionally. I am happily conscience bound to what I have subscribed to in the WCF. That’s a far cry from anabaptist ideology and practice.
The FV concern is NOT for some abstract individual liberty of conscience. That’s a side issue FORCED on us by a mad pack of ecclesiastical dogs ripping and tearing at us because we’ve dared to act as if the Bible alone is the supreme judge by which all controversies of religion are to be determined.
GAS
October 12th, 2007 at 7:53 pm
JMeyers,
1. “Prove it”.
James Jordan: “So, in a sense, I refuse to engage the question.”
All the sophist arguements aside that quote from Jordan sums up the position. In essence, it’s a denial that the regenerating gift of the Holy Spirit is a unconditional, eternal gift.
1b. I stick by my characterization.
2b. JMeyers: “The real reason I deny it is because I’m being told that I must affirm it even though I do not find it in the Westminster Standards or in the Bible.”
Your protestation would hold more water if you actually denied [the IOCAO] if were based upon facts instead of a mere perceived slight.