.comment-link {margin-left:.6em;}

Shadows of Divine Things

My Photo
Name:
Location: Texas, United States

This site is devoted to theological and philosophical investigations of the spiritual meanings of life, current events, music, spiritual growth, nature, and learning to be attuned to listening to the 'language of God.' The name of this blog comes from one of Jonathan Edwards's journals which he called 'Shadows of Divine Things,' and later renamed 'Images of Divine Things.' As a Christian I am continously on a spiritual journey to grow more into the image of Christ, to understand what it means to be crucified with Christ. To seek the truths of the Christian Faith is of upmost importance, and to know that any truths that are found outside of Christianity are present there because they ultimately point to God. I have an M.A. in theology and apologetics and I completed one year of graduate studies in Philosophy at Marquette University.

Friday, March 03, 2006

Wright on Justification in Paul’s Letter to the Galatians (After Thoughts)

Back in 1997 or 1998 when I first read What Saint Paul Really Said, as a good friend of mine from Marquette University often liked to say—I was scandalized. Back then I was so entrenched in my reformed thinking that this book offended me. Almost ten years later, tons of research in Paul’s epistles, deeper research into the Catholicity of the Reformation, a deeper and formal study of hermeneutics (inside and outside the classroom), and my studies in Luther's theology, I’m not as scandalized with this second reading.

For the last ten years I have struggled with certain aspects of reformed theology, especially as it has been presented by contemporary thinkers (i.e. the confusion between the gospel proclamation and the doctrine of imputation, the casting away completely of Church Tradition as if it had no importance at all, etc.). Moreover, when I always came to the texts of Paul (and the book of James), there were various things that just did not “click” within my reformed framework, certain texts that did not make sense in light of certain thinkers/reformed commentaries. After reading Wright for the second time certain things about Paul’s Epistles just jumped out at me and they made more sense. It was as if I was in a dark room and could surmise the things that were in the room with me, and knew where they were located and to a certain extent what they were, but then someone came into the room and turned the light on and my vision cleared up a bit.

All that being said, the question remains, am I totally convinced by Wright’s small work? Not completely, but it has at least opened my eyes to a newer way of looking at Paul. Furthermore, many of the Pauline texts that “baked” my mind when I read them many years ago and confused my “reformed” senses suddenly made much more sense. So, with this history of entrenchment in reformed doctrine I can fully understand that when someone who is in that same position reads Wright they seemed “scandalized.” As it was stated in the comments to one of these posts, a person simply cannot read Wright’s work once and then suddenly be convinced by it — “it takes an extended discussion face to face walking through numerous texts after much reading to make some progress” as David declared. This work by Wright is a culmination of about 25 to 30 years of researching Paul’s text and hammering out the issues to understand Paul’s thought. However, I would also venture to say that someone cannot read Wright's work once and then suddenly be unconvinced by it. There is simply more to it than that.

In summation, I think what Paul is getting at, in a very broad sense, is the gospel is the proclamation of the Jewish Messiah who is Jesus, and His fulfillment of the Law, His life, death and bodily resurrection. As Wright describes it, “The gospel itself is neither a system of thought, nor a set of techniques for making people Christians; it is the personal announcement of the person of Jesus. That is why it creates the church, the people who believe that Jesus is Lord and that God raised him from the dead. ‘Justification’ is then the doctrine which declares that whoever believes that gospel, and wherever and whenever they believe it, those people are truly members of his family, no matter where they came from, what colour their skin may be, whatever else might distinguish them from each other.”

Regardless of your theological background, whether reformed or not, I do recommend Wright's work to you. It is at least worth considering.

25 Comments:

Blogger T.B. Vick said...

David you state:
"The reformed position is no longer a viable historical interpretation of the text in my opinion."

I realize there are perhaps other issues that might keep you Protestant, but based on what you stated above what keeps you from becoming Roman Catholic?

Jill? 8-)

3:55 PM, March 03, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

David,

You said, “Rom 6 then tells how baptism unites us to that death and life of Christ.”

Now, I’m not discussing Justification and the NPP here, it’s really just a question about your view of baptism in general and your statement that Paul tells us how we are united to Christ, namely through baptism. Maybe a better way to say it… has the NPP changed your view of baptism…?
ie- baptismal regeneration/Federal Vision etc..
(Please understand that I’m not mocking, but rather, I’m genuinely curious.)

I have been accused on this blog of “proof-texting” or building a case on one or two verses etc. Is it possible that you may be liable to the same accusation here in Romans 6:3-5.

Now I know there are quite a few commentators, and many of them good men, who say that Paul is now talking about water baptism, and some say that Paul is actually
talking about the mode of baptism and even who the right recipients of baptism should be etc.. I know it’s a legitimate position among some commentators. But it seems to me that Paul is using baptism here as an illustration. The baptism analogy is to signify our union with Christ. Paul has not discussed baptism up to this point, (noticeably absent before and after ch. 6) and he doesn’t discuss it after this point, and not every time baptism is mentioned, does it mean water baptism.

NAS 1 Corinthians 10:1-2 – “For I do not want you to be unaware, brethren, that our fathers were all under the cloud, and all passed through the sea; and all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea;”

Now, if baptism always means water baptism, who were the only
people “baptized” in the sea when the children of Israel passed through? The children of Israel went through a “waterless” baptism if you will. The Egyptians were the only people immersed in water. So what is Paul speaking of when he speaks of baptism into Moses? He is stressing that the children of Israel were united to Moses. My point is that it could be possible that Paul is merely stressing a union with Christ, symbolized in baptism, rather than explaining how one is united to Christ through baptism? Am I in dis-agreement with you here? Not sure.

Is it possible that Paul is using baptism here as an illustration?

Now, maybe, I’m understanding you wrong, or we are actually saying the same thing here. Maybe, a little clarification is what I’m looking for. Thanks.

Gage

11:12 AM, March 06, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Funny point on Sunday School... I didn't know if that was NPP or just being Methodist (;

2:58 PM, March 06, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Well see, I understand your points from other passages... my point was whether or not Paul is actually explaining how one is united to Christ in Romans 6, since it's so obviously absent in the rest of the letter.

It would seem to me that the apostle doesn't describe "how" but only tries to make analogy of what being "united to Christ" is.

An argument about a certain point in baptism may be made, but it would be hard to do that from Romans 6.

Again, I'm not sure of your current understanding on baptism from your last post, thus my argument about 1 Cor. 10- to stress the importance of being united. Seems to me that Paul was concerned about divisions in Corinth- "So I hear some of you guys are divided" (my paraphrase).

In 1 Cor. 1- Paul says we were "all baptized into Moses", "all ate the same spiritual food", "all drank the same spiritual drink" etc... to show that unity of the body under Moses. It seems to me that it's possible, that's all Paul is doing in Romans 6- stressing the idea of what it means to be united to Christ.

The issue in 1 Cor. 1 that you brought up, being baptized "into Paul" seems to makes my point as just being an analogy to describe unity, or an illustration to describe unity. "1 Cor. 1:10 "I urge you, brothers and sisters,10 by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, to agree together, to end your divisions, and to be united by the same mind and purpose."

I guess the only point is, that not all the time that baptism is mentioned is it water baptism, but sometimes it may be just an illustration for the reader to understand being united. I hope that makes sense.

3:19 PM, March 06, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Okay, I'm not sure I understand your position on baptism, but that's okay, I'll digest it some more later.

My only point was that in Romans 6 and 1 Cor 10, that it is possible that Paul is simply using baptism as an illustration for being united. "Don't you know you are united to Christ" (Rom 6) and "Don't you know that they were united with Moses" so Corinth- stop being divisive- ie.. 1 Cor. 10. I appreciate your comments.

Side note: I've read WSPRS now three times- twice in the last six months and once two years ago. I'm now reading Waters book and will be back in fray... so to speak- when I'm done with that. We have some severe differences, and I think some that will not be reconcilable (for me). But I just thought I would tell you, because I have seen it said (paraphrasing) that when someone doesn't get Wright the first time that's understandable, but if they look at it again... then they might get it etc... I'm not coming into the NPP argument just reading Wright once... just so you know. A few months ago I saw Sinclair Ferguson speak on the matter for three hours... I'm slated to read Stehndal and Davies as well...Thanks.

4:57 PM, March 06, 2006  
Blogger T.B. Vick said...

Gage,
I would also recommend Climax of the Covenant and Wright's commentary of Romans (in the New Interpreter's Commentary Set). And Although I have not read this work as of yet, I was recommended (and actually bought a copy) of Wright's latest work Paul in Fresh Perspective.

And, as Chris suggested, over at Mike Bird's blog is an article he wrote and published titled Incorpaorated Righteousness. If you need to link to that check the comments in the first article I posted on Wright.

5:08 PM, March 06, 2006  
Blogger T.B. Vick said...

Actually, I was wrong about Climax you can still get it at Amazon, new or used. My bad.

7:11 PM, March 06, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

David, you said,
"I can only tell you Gage that I know Ligon Duncan (Systematics 3), Ferguson (whom I admire, Systematics 2), Guy Waters (classmate in NT studies, now at a small Reformed school). You will find you are swimming in a small pond of NPP deniers who have a professional interest not to mention a huge amount of ego invested in this."

I don't think it helps your argument to say that those who deny the NPP do so out of some sense of ego. That doesn't seem fair to me. It seems to question the conviction of these men, who happen to disagree with NPP. It is close to an ad hominem argument. "Well they obviously don't hold to NPP because of their own ego, or they may lose their pastorate, or prominent teaching position." I heard Sinclair in person- He doesn't strike me as a man who has much of an ego (other than any normal depraved man has)- he actually believes NPP is in error. An Ad hominem argument could me made against Wright and others as well. For instance- I could say, "Wright is so ecumenical, and wants so much to be a person who bridges the gap between Rome and Geneva, that he will do anything to get there." I also could say that "The Church of England is so weak, that nobody cares what he says, so he brings his new ideas to the America's where he will be listened to." I know you wouldn't think that would be fair.

As far as the current agreement among NT scholarship goes... I'm not sure of your claim, for one, that would take more convincing, but even if I granted that NPP opponets were in a "small pond", it is not a force of argument that holds much weight for me personally.

If they are wrong, then they are wrong. Seems to me that Luther was in the minority at Worms. Huss was in the minority, as was Wycliffe. However, that doesn't prove that they were wrong to me. It is my perception that the more weighty argument is that the NPP turns on its ear, the last 500 years of Reformed Scholarship ie.. Calvin, Luther, Bucer, Beza, Warfield, Edwards, Charles Hodge, Berkhoff, Westminster Divines, Owen, Venema, Packer,Pink, Ferguson, Boettner, Charnock, Sproul, etc..

That seems to have more weight with me at least, than what the current class of NT scholars say. In other words, I would have more of an concern, personally of dis-agreeing with the Reformed Theologians since the reformation, then a new class of NT professors.

I know some current theologians who proclaim the openness of God theory, which I reject,obviously. Swimming in that small pond is actually quite alright with me.

Note: I mean no offense, honestly, so please don't take offense. These are my thoughts on the matter, from a purely historical perspective. Maybe my thoughts would change if I was seminary trained, other than a reading, hack, lay observer. But it seems unfair to me to characterize some modern day reformed folks opposed to NPP on the basis of ego, or position of prominence. I am opposed to NPP, and have no dog in the fight. I actually am just a salesman, who loves the Gospel of Christ. I put myself somewhat in the shoes of Ligon for instance... If I were in his position, right now, knowing what I know, I too would be arguing against the NPP. Now, that's me, but I think it also may be that those opposed to NPP have at least in their mind, as in mine, a good reason for opposing NPP other than the fact I may have to seek ordination in a different denomination.

By the way, I appreciate your thoughts on baptism. I think we disagree somewhat, but you have cleared up my confusion on your position. Thanks.

10:11 AM, March 07, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

David, I had another thought on "being in a small pond". It seems to me that Reformed Scholarship and seminaries have always been in a "small pond".

But what would you say about those who are NPP enthusiasts going to reformed/confessional churches, or teaching in a reformed and or confessional seminary? I am thinking about someone who may teach at Westminster for instance... just a hypothetical...

Wouldn't there be a lack of integrity for someone teaching in a school or church that has WCF as their confession, while holding NPP. I am most curious about this aspect, since you have said that the NPP is gaining ground in reformed circles.

For example- If I "converted" to NPP, I would not got to a Presbyterian Church, much less serve in one... or teach in a presby seminary etc...

Your thoughts...? I am curious because of what you said,
"(I hope after this was done that the WCF could quietly then be left behind for a new simpler, less-detailed, less divisive confession.)"

I have a friend who is a NPP enthusiast who is trying to be accepted in a presby denomination... I told him that it is not appropriate in light of WCF 11. Your thoughts?

10:42 AM, March 07, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hmmmm.... Intersting perspective- but I don't drink kool-aid (smiling here).

What about my last post about the practical implications of joining a Presby church or teaching in a confessional church and holding NPP...in light of WCF for example- etc. I'll wait to see.

7:51 PM, March 07, 2006  
Blogger T.B. Vick said...

David States: "But the irony of the situation is doubled if Wright is correct about Paul on justification. That doctrine meant the dividing wall between Jews and Gentiles was gone and people of all status were united as one in Christ. Now a relatively tiny sect has used their view of that very doctrine to make a renewed ethnic church cut off from all of christendom. Even the reformers could not have meant this to happen."

I think the above is very telling and quite true to a large extent. The reformers (especially Luther) did not intend to begin new factions by the hundreds, and new denominations by the same numbers.

As Friedrich Heiler (Luther/Reformation scholar) stated, "It was not Luther's idea to set over against the ancient Catholic Church a new Protestant creation; he desired nothing more than that the old Church should experience an evangelical awakening . . . Luther and his friends wished, as they were never tired of emphasizing, to be and remain Catholic."

8:17 PM, March 07, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Interesting on your friends... who go to FW Presbyterian... I'm a member of FW Presbyterian as well. Who are your friends, so I can extend the rh of fellowship? It's good to see you are still doing God's work in proseltyzing them..(:
(Smiling here)

On the point of those who hold to NPP "going" or "joining" a presbyterian church. I too do not believe that membership requires theological precision. The church would be empty if that were the case- and would also be less than evangelical. On that point we agree and I believe we also agree with the PCA. But I do believe that teachers/ or those seeking ordination do require theological precision to some extent.

I had more in mind, the ethics of one who holds NPP teaching in a presby seminary or seeking ordination in a presby denom.

In the case of a teacher or one seeking ordination...

I have in mind a friend of mine seeking ordination, and someone like you and Todd.
To me for someone who is a NPP advocate, who wants to join a presby church- would be habitually unhappy. I liken this to me hypothetically wanting to join a baptist church. I may be allowed to join, although some reformed baptist churches would expect my daughter to be re-baptized, and I suspect my wife and I to be re-baptized in order to join, although we we both "immersed" in baptist churches.

These are hurdles that would personally prevent me from joining, although I may find it necessary to just "attend".

Knowing the confession, if I was a NPP advocate- it would seem hard for me personally to join a PCA church. Although I may still be allowed to join and disagree with WCF Ch. 11 on justification, I'm not sure it would be right. I am placing more importance on Ch. 11 vs. taking an exception on something like the Sabbath or Civil Magistrate.

Note: Traditionally there has always been exceptions on those aspects of the confession (sabbath/civil magistrate) for those seeking ordination, and a non issue for those just seeking membership. But on Ch. 11- this may be a sticky point for members who deny the confessional standards on justification. I personally would advise someone seeking membership who denied the reformed view of justification by the imputed righteousness of Christ to join somewhere else.
It would certainly be a point of division for those teaching or seeking ordination.

Knowing that, if I was a NPP advocate, it seems to me that I should try to join an EP church. The concern is on the ethics of holding NPP and trying to join/teach/or be ordained in a church that is confessionally against NPP.

I guess this is an issue for me because of a friend that I know that is struggling with this right now. I also have the baggage of seeing a baptist member try to get a PCA church to be baptist. Even if the baptist was right- it seems unethical to me. I'm just curious is it a simple choice? Ie.. Shouldn't a baptist go to a baptist church, and shouldn't a NPP advocate go to a church that is amiable to the NPP, or at least not confessionally against it?
Is the issue not as black and white as I see it?

It seems to me the idea of the regular layperson having NPP views is at least a gray area for wanting to join a presby church. But it doesn't seem gray to me for those teaching/ seeking ordination.
Your thoughts?

9:40 AM, March 08, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Thanks David. I will not mention anything in regards to your wife's sister and her husband. I am sincerely just wanting the opportunity to extend fellowship/meet them. It's an area of my life that is weak, and I am purposefully trying to improve. What you said in confidence will remain in confidence.

I just know that someone attending a new church or joining a new church, it can be hard to be a new kid on the block. It was especially hard and a time of grieving occured for me leaving a church after 14 years of involvement. I know it can be hard.

On PCA politics- not sure- Chappell is often received by mixed emotions... but rest assured, there are many, myself included who are NPP detectives ready and willing to sniff out any and all sympathies to Wright...
(: I'm having fun here)

Thanks David, enjoyed the conversation.

12:39 PM, March 08, 2006  
Blogger T.B. Vick said...

Gage and David,

I have been keeping up with your dialogue in these and other comments and have benefited greatly - you both have added some great dimensions to my thinking on this issue.

My wife and I are actually looking for churches outside of the PCA and OPC (mainly due to the points Gage has brought forth) and moving more into Reformed Episcopal or mainline Protestant of some sort (perhaps a more conservative PCUSA church).

The PCA, unfortunately, is now split - to a certain degree - over the NPP. Albeit, I have no vested interest in the PCA denomination - especially since our exodus from the last PCA church where we were members - along with Gage and his family - which was, to a small degree, more like a group of ex-Baptists trying to be PCA, though we did love that church.

Anyway, time will tell whether the PCA will ultimately embrace the NPP or at least some form of it (i.e. Mike Bird's article is a fairly well balanced article - though I am still reading it and re-reading it to make sure I understand his points very well).

At various conferences (PCA conferences) I have attended where Horton, Ferguson, Sproul, et. al. were speaking, I would hear people ask them very pointed questions about the WCF (I cannot recall the specific questions at this moment, just the end results and how they answered - this was 12 to 15 years ago) and these guys did not answer these people's concerns very well. At that time this caused me to begin to question the WCF and how it was received and viewed within these denominations. Moreover, I saw then and still do today how the WCF is treated as if it is an "unquestionable confessional" document - which in my mind was no different than what I thought was going on in the Catholic Church (at that time in my thinking anyway).

Of course, in these denominations and maybe amongst those who I know well within these denominations, they might perhaps see my move away from the WCF towards the NPP as a denial of the gospel - although that really seems absurd to me.

But that is where I stand at this stage anyway. You both have given me much to think about - and I have kept my views quiet for several years now simply based on the fact that I am tired of debate and controversy (remember I went to SES for nearly 4 years - the "Mecca" of debate and such). It gets old having to defend everything I believe or even research to consider adhering to - unfortunately in the last PCA church I was a member I had to keep quiet about some of the things I was considering or researching - and that should not be the case for me or the denomination - thus our move away from all that.

1:34 PM, March 08, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Todd you said,
"maybe amongst those who I know well within these denominations, they might perhaps see my move away from the WCF towards the NPP as a denial of the gospel - although that really seems absurd to me."

Todd- if I am included in those who you "know well with these denominations" let me say this:

First, it would not be a move away from the WCF that would lead me to believe that you deny the gospel. My points of emphasis in the related blogs with David were to say, to deny WCF Ch. 11 means you "aren't presbyterian nor should you be." In my view being presbyterian means something... namely, not being in disagreement with the WCF Ch. 11. I personally don't care if someone disagrees with the confession, my Lutheran friends have issues with it as well. But they are consistent in the fact that they aren't trying to be presbyterian.

Whether or not you are moving away from the gospel is a different issue, and I have blogged ad nauseum on that issue. My question was geared toward the idea that NPP advocates have moved away from being Presbyterian and should not be presbyterian.

What constitutes being presbyterian is the issue for me in my blogs on this subject with David. To me, a NPP advocate (especially a teacher or one seeking ordination) can't be consistently and eithically presbyterian if he denies WCF Ch. 11.

The Book of Church Order may help here.

PCA Book of Church Order- 19-3. Questions for Licensure.

1. Do you believe the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments, as originally given, to be the inerrant Word of God, the only infallible rule of faith and practice?

2. Do you sincerely receive and adopt the Confession of Faith and the Catechisms of this Church as containing the system of doctrine taught in the Holy Scripture?

I'm not sure how an advocate of NPP could answer question two in the affirmative.

The confession is an not an "unquestionable document". I have never heard it taught as such. However, it is just that there has to be consistent adherance to it to be a teacher/ or ordained minister. Even those seeking ordination in the PCA have exceptions or scruples, in certain instances of the Confession. Historically, it's just not accurate to say that it's an "unquestionable document". When the Confession was first adopted in the US- In 1729 the first organized synod of Presbyterians in America, voted to adopt it as their confession and then the majority of the ministers immediately took exceptions on Sabbath Adherence and The Civil Magistrate. But they would never allow an exception of Ch. 11.

Since the adoption of the Confession the Presbyterian Church has always taught that the WCF is a statement of faith-.

I don't see the OPC of being different than the PCA on this issue.

From OPC.org- Officers in the Orthodox Presbyterian Church take a vow to "sincerely receive and adopt" these confessional documents "as containing the system of doctrine taught in the Holy Scriptures."

From - THE WESTMINSTER CONFESSION OF FAITH
Edited with an Introduction by Michael Marlowe
© 1996 by Michael D. Marlowe

"In 1729 the first organized synod of Presbyterians in America, meeting in Philadelphia, adopted the original Westminster Confession, with some reservations, as its official statement of doctrine, requiring every candidate for ordination to disclose any disagreement with the Confession, in which case the Presbytery must refuse him ordination if it finds him to be in disagreement with "essential and necessary articles."

The key here is "essential and necessary articles" I submit justification and imputation are necessary and essential articles, no matter if the NPP says they aren't.

Is the Confession Divisive?
I have to answer yes, in some cases. Where people do not agree with statements of faith in the Confession of Faith, there may well be, and has been, division. But then nothing is more divisive than the Bible itself. Think of the trouble the prophets of the Old Testament got into at times when they faithfully proclaimed the Word of the Lord which came to them. And remember the division Jesus caused when he began to define the truth concerning himself in John 6:66, ‘From that time many of his disciples went back and walked no more with him’. Only twelve left, and one of them an imposter. The living Word had divided them. However, the true believers were united in Christ and his words. See vs.67-69

"A little revolution now and then is a healthy thing, don't you think?" - from Red October- Tom Clancy.

3:46 PM, March 08, 2006  
Blogger T.B. Vick said...

Gage states: "First, it would not be a move away from the WCF that would lead me to believe that you deny the gospel. My points of emphasis in the related blogs with David were to say, to deny WCF Ch. 11 means you "aren't presbyterian nor should you be." In my view being presbyterian means something... namely, not being in disagreement with the WCF Ch. 11. I personally don't care if someone disagrees with the confession, my Lutheran friends have issues with it as well. But they are consistent in the fact that they aren't trying to be presbyterian."

I understand what you are saying, Gage, and I agree (but I am sure you would mean an agreement with more than merely ch. 11, would you not?)

Gage states: "The confession is an not an "unquestionable document". I have never heard it taught as such."

True. The PCA/OPC, etc. (and yourself) may not teach the confession as an "unquestionable doctrine" but they (maybe not you) act as if it is (I've witnessed this first hand) . . . in a practical sense it is treated as such. I think that those Presby's who adhere to the WCF do so to have a confession or a set of standards, so to speak, you are correct in saying a structure is needed within the denomination. That's true of any denomination (this is in fact a very Catholic way of thinking).

Gage states:
"Whether or not you are moving away from the gospel is a different issue, and I have blogged ad nauseum on that issue. My question was geared toward the idea that NPP advocates have moved away from being Presbyterian and should not be presbyterian."

I agree, you are not saying anything new here.

Also, no need for the history lesson regarding the PCA Book of Church Order, I agree with your points on that. :-)

Gage states:
"Is the Confession Divisive?
I have to answer yes, in some cases. Where people do not agree with statements of faith in the Confession of Faith, there may well be, and has been, division. But then nothing is more divisive than the Bible itself. Think of the trouble the prophets of the Old Testament got into at times when they faithfully proclaimed the Word of the Lord which came to them. And remember the division Jesus caused when he began to define the truth concerning himself in John 6:66, ‘From that time many of his disciples went back and walked no more with him’. Only twelve left, and one of them an imposter. The living Word had divided them. However, the true believers were united in Christ and his words. See vs.67-69"

No issue with me regarding the WCF being divisive - Federal vision adherents have proven that to be the case, etc. However, your example of John 6:66 has nothing to do with the WFC. Moreover, I am not rejecting the teachings of Jesus, nor am I rejecting the gospel message that Jesus is the Jewish Messiah, who lived, dies, and was resurrected, and who also declared that we should repent and embrace the Kingdom of God. That is what Christ taught, I agree and believe.

With reference to your quote from Clancy, love it! Great quote "A little revolution now and then is a healthy thing, don't you think?" That quote really applies to the view of the NPP doesn't it? (chuckles out loud) 8-)

4:16 PM, March 08, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Todd,
"That's true of any denomination (this is in fact a very Catholic way of thinking)."

Ahhh... I love the ecumenical language here...8-) very NT Wrightish of you.

However, I'm still protesting- hence- I'm still protestant. 8-)

I think you would agree that there has to be a sense of some "necessary and essential" doctrines that are non-negotiable. I just happen to believe that Ch. 11- is one of those "necessary and essential" doctrines for being presbyterian. Thus the need for having a set of standards in a denomination. Todd you said..."I am sure you would mean an agreement with more than merely ch. 11" Yes, I would agree. Ch. 11 is the sticky point for NPP enthusiasts, that's why I used it as an example.

Next- I was not trying to equate John 6 with the WCF- I know it has nothing to do with the WCF, obviously. My point was that sometimes proclomation of truth divides. That's my only point there. Some theologians today, are arguing for a nicer gentler Jesus who caused no divisions- my point was sometimes division is a good thing, ie... John 6.

On the clancy quote- you NPP advocates cannot steal that quote from me 8-). I had it first. I think with the ecumenical leanings of many today- that quote is aptly applied to those who hold to the historic confessions, surely a historic reading of Clancy would support my idea... (Ha!)

In the Album- Rattle and Hum- Bono said in his opening mantra on "Helter Skelter"- "Charles Manson stole this song from the beatles, and we're stealing it back."-
The Clancy quote in this sense is mine! Although I will allow you to enjoy it.... out of Christian charity of course. :()

7:32 AM, March 09, 2006  
Blogger T.B. Vick said...

Gage states: "that quote [Clancy's] is aptly applied to those who hold to the historic confessions"

Gage, which confessions would those be?

8:53 AM, March 09, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

All of those that agree with me.

2:34 PM, March 09, 2006  
Blogger T.B. Vick said...

Gage that's very telling!

8-)

2:43 PM, March 09, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

At least I'm honest... and you do understand, that in all things, I like to have fun...

2:54 PM, March 09, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

oh I forgot... and I'm just trying to stay in (the covenant)... ():

How am I doin?

2:56 PM, March 09, 2006  
Blogger T.B. Vick said...

That would depend on which confessions adhere to you (big smile and chuckle over here)

8-)

btw - you never answered my question about Steph . . . when is your number two due?

4:35 PM, March 09, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Well- after reading Sanders... I feel pretty good about it...

Steph's due May 20th- with our Son-
John Calvin Thomas Browning- you knew it had to be a name like that didn't you..?

4:54 PM, March 09, 2006  
Blogger T.B. Vick said...

Well, we will continue to pray for a safe and healthy delivery.

He's going to have a cool name ;-)

7:22 PM, March 09, 2006  

Post a Comment

<< Home