Waitin For The Fat Lady To Sing

I know for a fact that some FV reps are frequenting my humble blog. And since I have had no luck getting Mr. James Jordan to answer questions I posed on a few more popular blogs, or any other FV rep for that matter, I’ll ask here. If for no other reason, then just for the record.

James Jordan said in his nebulous apology:

. . . being neither in the PCA nor a presbyterian, anything beyond a general expression of concern or horror at how these affairs are being conducted is inappropriate.

So which is it Mr. Jordan? Are you merely “concerned” or are you “horrified?” There’s a big difference. And exactly which “affairs” are being conducted inappropriately? At this point in my Christian experience I actually find it a bit amusing when those who claim to uphold the tenets of good church discipline suddenly find themselves on the receiving end of the process now cry foul.

I witnessed the discussion leading up to the adoption of the study report at General Assembly last year – which BTW, was commisioned 1 year before. Discussions, debates, books, position papers, etc. were taking place long before that. Hardly a rush to judgement.

How many more years should we all toss this ball back and forth anyway? Why continue to disturb the peace of the PCA when it’s painfully obvious that the time for talk is now over? What more can be said that hasn’t already been said?

It would seem that the Federal Visionists, even the ones who are not members of the PCA, are hell-bent on setting up their siege engines at the walls of the PCA, so to speak. If I were a person who found myself at odds with my denominations “view” of the Westminster Standards, and the judicial process, and the supposed antinomian haters of the kingship of the Lord Jesus who deny that fiducia is part of saving faith??? who are members therein, and I had nothing but contempt and angry words of hatred to spew forth toward them, yata yata yata, I would want to wash my hands of the whole thing and/or remove myself from that denomination as quickly as possible. Hey, I guess I’m just weird that way. Go figure.

You know what they say – it ain’t over till the fat lady sings and she just ain’t singing.

Have a nice day!

Dueling Bible Verses

Rom 8:28 And we know that for those who love God all things work together for good, for those who are called according to his purpose.
Rom 8:29 For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers.
Rom 8:30 And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified.

One morning I heard the following statement regarding Romans 8:28-30 on the Voice of Prophesy:

“First of all, I believe that the “predestination” flavor of Romans 8:28-30 is entirely trumped by the clarion gospel statement of II Peter 3:9. When we purchase airtime here at the Voice of Prophecy, I promise you, this is the verse we hold to!”

PREACHING TO THE BRICK WALL

That’s incredible. Preaching To The Brick Wall indeed!

Did you you know that one verse could “trump” another? This is especially handy if you don’t like what the “trumped” verse says. Too bad the host of VOP ripped 2 Pet 3:9 out of context and failed to consider “audience relevance.”

2Pe 3:9 The Lord is not slow to fulfill his promise as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance.

So what do you think? Did the host of VOP rip this verse out of context and wrongly use it as a club to beat down the “predestinarian flavor” of Romans 8:28-30? Does Peter really mean to say that God desires every individual ever born into this world to be saved without exception? Is this really what Peter says? I’ll give my Arminian friends a hint. The context just doesn’t allow for this much desired interpretation. What say you?

Federal Vision’s Roman Strawman

Let’s look at another section of the John Otis/Steve Schlissel debate.

In his defense of justification by faith alone, Mr. Otis makes reference to Genesis 15:6 as well as Romans 4:3

Gen 15:6 And he believed the LORD, and he counted it to him as righteousness.

Rom 4:3 For what does the Scripture say? “Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness.”

Mr. Schlissel counters with Genesis 26:4,5:

Gen 26:4 I will multiply your offspring as the stars of heaven and will give to your offspring all these lands. And in your offspring all the nations of the earth shall be blessed,
Gen 26:5 because Abraham obeyed my voice and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes, and my laws.”

Here we see the usual FV game of dueling verses. Notice Mr. Schlissel’s emphasis on obedience. 

FVers fall into the same trap as Roman Catholics and Arminians when they play this game of my verse trumps your verse. Their view or interpretation of a passage is nothing more than a proof text out of context. They fail to consider their proof text in light of what Scripture says as a whole on a particular topic. In other words, Mr. Schlissel’s view sets up a glaring contradiction between Genesis 26:4 & 5 and Genesis 15/Romans 4 and denies effectual calling and regeneration at the same time. The reformed view suffers from no such dilema.

But, it’s really not my purpose to go into detail about these things in this post. I’m more than happy to entertain a discussion of this nature in the combox, but my point is to be found elswhere in Mr. Schlissel’s words quoted below.

But you’re telling people they don’t need to obey Him. Jesus will take care of it for them. All they have to do is make some mental assent and then they can do what ever they want. And that’s supposed to be the historic Reformed faith. That’s HOOEY! -Steve Schlissel

If I didn’t know better, I would think that this comment was straight out of the mouth of a Roman Catholic apologist. This is a stock, off the shelf, Roman Catholic charge/strawman against justification by faith alone. It’s quite shocking to hear such a charge come from the lips of a pastor formally trained in the reformed tradition. Since when do the reformed teach “easy-believism?” Steve Schlissel should know better. I believe he actually does, but I see that he’s not above building his very own Roman styled strawman.

Federal Vision or Federal Blindness?

Today I listened to a mini-debate between John Otis of the RPCUS and Federal Vision representative Steve Schlissel. Unfortunaltely, Mr Schlissel was late to the debate and it had to be cut short. What little I heard though spoke volumes about the FV mindset.

The first problem was a request Mr. Schlissel made of Mr. Otis regarding justification by faith alone.

I would like to hear Mr. Otis make his case for his theology from 64 of the 66 books of the Bible, not using Galatians or Romans. I would particularly be interested in having him make the argument from the OT since I assume he believes that salvation is the same in both administrations of the covenant.

Well, Mr. Otis fulfilled this request very competently. I don’t think I could have been as gracious. For me, such a ridiculous request would have ended the debate. The fact that Steve Schlissel thought it was necessary to hog-tie John Otis in that way demonstrates how twisted FV theology really is.

Like I said, Mr. Otis made his case effortlessly using one verse from Genesis 15. But, even if he couldn’t what does it really prove? Among the many doctrines that the FV redefines, do we now need to argue about progressive revelation as well? Why would anyone want to embrace an argument that requires you to slap a muzzle on two pivotal New Testament epistles? No doubt some smart cookie has an answer for me. We will see.

I have more to say on this debate, but it will have to wait for another post.