And it is going to build at the corner of South Endwright and West Gifford Roads, just down the street from where Tim Bayly struts his stuff as a godly, manly promoter of praise bands.
Actually, this is a fabrication, but I do wonder what Tim, who wonders where the Escondido men are — here’s one answer — would think of a rival church right down the road from his congregation. Tim recently tried again to tarnish the reputation of two-kingdom folks by asserting that someone like me would oppose Archbishop of Nigeria’s recent decision to form a diocese in Indianapolis.
Anglican bishops from Africa are violating parish boundaries here in these United States, planting orthodox Christian parishes where the presiding Anglican/Episcopal authorities have betrayed the faith. Is this good or bad?
Ask Darryl Hart and his fellow Escondidoites and it’s bad… Right? After all, this is the sort of thing that was done by Anglicans like Whitefield during the Great Awakening, and Darryl and his fellow Orthodox and Old Light Presbyterians oppose such violations of proper ecclesiastical boundaries. . . .
For myself, though, I’m not holding my breath waiting for Old Presbyterians to mount a campaign against men like Nigeria’s Anglican Archbishop Nicholas Okah for trampling on the proper local Anglican authorities here in Indianapolis.
Unlike Tim, I believe that the United States is and should be a free country. Unlike Tim, I don’t pine for the days of Calvin’s Geneva when civil magistrates would have run out of town priests and pastors who had come ministering without an invitation. Unlike Tim, I know what my response would be to this situation — which is, what happens in the Anglican church stays in the Anglican church.
And unlike Tim, I know that the Old Siders he disparages actually reacted the way that Tim Bayly would if a new church started right down the road, and if the new pastor said that members at Clearnote Fellowship should leave their congregation to worship at Clearword Church because Tim Bayly was an unregenerate hypocrite (which is what Gilbert Tennent said about Old Siders). I don’t know for sure, but I suspect Tim would exhibit some of his manliness and not sit by while a fellow minister called him names or took away his flock.
Funny how if you look at something you thought you understood, you end up identifying with the people whom you denigrate.
961 Comments
Federal visionists (along with Dan Fuller, and except for two of his books, John Piper) tell us that obeying the gospel (works of faith) is the right way of pursuing the law. (Piper’s Future Grace is where he most agrees with Fuller, and his The Future of Justification response to NT Wright is where he most disagrees with Fuller)
One of the best rebuttals to this federal visionist idea is an older essay by David Gordon in WTJ (Spring 1992): “Why Israel did not obtain Torah Righteousness; A note on Romans 9:32.”
Gordon writes that the verse should be translated not “as if it were”, but “because the law is not of faith” in line with Gal 3:12. “The qualification works-and-not faith in Gal 3:10-13 is parallel to the qualification works and not faith in Romans 9:32.”
“If one group attained what the other did not, the difference between them might lie in the manner in which they pursued it. This is now what Paul says however. The two groups did not pursue the same thing (the gentiles pursued nothing). Paul’s point therefore is NOT that the Gentiles pursued righteousness in a better manner (by faith) than the Jews. Rather, God’s mercy gives what is not even pursued.”
“When Paul asks why the Jews did not attain unto the Torah, his answer addressed the NATURE of the law- covenant (Torah demands perfect obedience), not the nature of the PURSUIT of the law-covenant.”
Those who say “we cause the death of Jesus to save us, and we do it the right way, with the faith and not works” do not understand the gospel. We and our “covenant-keeping” don’t do it ANY way. God did it. God did it at the cross, for the elect. God imputes that cross-work to the elect, and the elect believe this gospel.
Mark: To be specific, I would need to know if you want me to talk about the covenant (Genesis 17) of the “visible administration of the Abrahamic covenant.
I would like for you to lay out your own understanding of the situation. I anticipate that your answer will not include a “visible administration”, since you don’t (appear to) believe in one.
How do you, Mark, cut the cake?
Feel free to refer to my answer for purposes of contrast, but do not feel constrained to use my categories.
McMark,
Nevermind the last bit on Rom 5, you clarified it later. At least what I read of it. I think.
Sean, we don’t disagree that there is a distinction to be made between God’s decretal election and visible churches. It’s not in question that there is a distinction. The difference between Jeff and me is about the nature of the visibility. (I think he’s 1.dividing “visible administration” off from “covenant” in a way which is not consistent with the Bible, or with the WCF, or with Kline/Horton. and 2. I think he’s cherry-picking what he keeps–if sacrifices get dropped after the Sacrifice, why don’t the circumcisions get stopped after Christ’s circumcision?).
Of course I would be delighted to hear more about how you track differently than Jeff on the use of the c word. Jeff is taking a somewhat minority position, and good for him. But I also would imagine that you and Jeff would agree with me (and David Gordon) in disagreeing with how the federal visionists (Doug Wilson) talk about the elect become non-elect.
I even think, Sean, you might not agree with Kline that it’s premature to talk about decretal election as long as the conditions of the new covenant have “not yet” been fulfilled. Someday we need to get back to those essays by Pratt and Niell about the “newness of the new covenant” (Case for Covenantal Infant Baptism) It’s ironic to me that both Kline and Shepherd don’t think pastors should be talking about decretal election when they talk about covenants. (Or the gospel, in Shepherd’s case)
DGH,
That it extends to both tables of the law, did Scripture not teach, we might learn from profane writers; for no man has discoursed of the duty of magistrates, the enacting of laws, and the common weal, without beginning with religion and divine worship. Thus all have confessed that no polity can be successfully established unless piety be its first care, and that those laws are absurd which disregard the rights of God, and consult only for men. — Calv Inst 4.20.9
McMark,
If I go back to Jeff’s 10:45 post, I don’t see much light between us on the covenant score, and the neonomians are right out. Can you explain # 1 on your issue with Jeff(succinctly)? On # 2, that makes me think your conflating Mosaic with Abrah.(you may not, it just reads that way) and what’s cherry-picking or unbiblical about replacing circumcision with baptism(NC sacrament of initiation) if Paul does it.
I’m a touch rusty on my Kline, but I would think he’s honoring the the creator/creature distinction, pretty boilerplate reformed better done with the lutherans.
sb; better done BY the Lutherans
Jeff, Thanks. Not working for me.
DGH: “Not working” meaning, You disagree with me that “Calvin thinks God is a person whose rights are to be respected”, OR you disagree with Calvin that God’s rights need to be respected judicially?
Jeff, I don’t like Calvin’s construction without some explanation. I’m ambivalent about rights talk generally. It doesn’t sit well describing God, as if he’s a citizen.
Back to the original subject of this post (sort of). I watched Wilson’s Clearnote sponsored lecture at the U of Indiana. The lecture about put me to sleep (the protesters antics were humorous), but the 2 hours of Q&A between gay, bisexual, queer, trans, etc. etc. as well as various theological liberals and Wilson was priceless. Wilson did a pretty good job. Some of the questions were pretty good, too.