Skip to main content
Before we get to the list, let me say that I think Steve Wilkins is really on to something with his version of the Federal Vision, as are most of its advocates. I recall reading a moving description of what worship is like at Auburn Avenue Pres. by my friend John Armstrong of ACT 3 several years ago, and thinking, "Wow, I want to worship there, and meet those people." When a friend of mine in a seminary class we shared defended Wilkins and the other FV advocates quite passionately, I decided to go to Auburn Avenue's website to find out what this was all about. I read the summary statement by its advocates--and Wilkins was one of the signatories--sensing nothing obviously amiss at the time, with respect to Reformed theology as I had lived it, and as one being trained in it to the present day. Many of these men have written or spoken truth into my daily life, helping me to see the act of submission to the Church (and to her life) as one and the same act as submitting to Christ Himself. Further, I found the "I Support Steve Wilkins!" group on Facebook, and began reading the charges against him, as well as a good bunch of his answers to specific questions put to him by his presbytery. I could see no glaring inconsistencies in his answers with respect to the most relevant texts, the warning passages in Hebrews. It may well bring out inherent tensions in Reformed theology in terms of understanding how the biblical texts square with traditional Reformed formulations of salvation, grace, and security, but that's not his fault, nor anyone else's. What the Reformed must decide is whether we/they really believe in "always reforming," and if there can be some objective criteria for determining what Reformed theology is and will be. And with that:

5 Semi-Snarky, Hopefully Useful Comments About Steve Wilkins's Mary Post (and the comments)

5. I think the Protestants and Catholics are talking past each other a bit. The Catholic says that he doesn't necessarily need blatant scriptural warrant for every doctrine in its full flower; the Protestant sees only accretions when those Catholic doctrines are fully articulated, because Tradition is not a valid source of proof.

4. By what means does one judge Catholic distinctives here as unscriptural? How many people are required before my exegesis passes from unreasonable subjectivism to acceptable interpretation? What if I don't read Mark 3 the same way?

3. Whether one judges especially liturgical or devotional practices to be biblical may depend on the use of typology. That is, one's hermeneutic may allow for scores of practices to be biblical that others may view as an appeal to tradition. I attended Dr. Feingold's lecture on the Fathers with respect to Mary as the new Eve, and it was fantastic. I can at least say that I can see why Catholics view Mariology as part of Christology. And Scotus definitely deals with the most pressing problem in a coherent way.

2. Presumptuous of us to assume that any of us are part of the Church, properly speaking, because in this case, the marks of the Church are precisely what is at issue. The Catholic claim is that Protestantism fails on at least 2 of the 4 traditional marks: “one, holy, catholic, and apostolic.” Namely, “one” and “apostolic”. Personally, I can’t give myself a good explanation for why ordination is not a sacrament in the non-Catholic world. Even using our own definition, something like, “A sacrament is a holy ordinance instituted by Christ, as a sign and seal of His benefits,” (WCF paraphrase) it’s really hard to see how you come out with only 2. It should be blindingly obvious that the church of the first 5 centuries did not view succession from the apostles as incidental to the preservation of orthodoxy. Thus, it strongly occurs to me that we need a powerful reason to deny ordination as a sacrament, and to deny that succession.

1. I have yet to see how Sola Scriptura as a principle issues forth in anything but subjectivism. The only way around this is to affirm an invisible church with visible manifestations that have no coherent relation to each other. I’ll let Mathison make his case, but that’s a tough one.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

A Friend I Once Had, And The Dogmatic Principle

 I once had a friend, a dear friend, who helped me with personal care needs in college. Reformed Presbyterian to the core. When I was a Reformed Presbyterian, I visited their church many times. We were close. I still consider his siblings my friends. (And siblings in the Lord.) Nevertheless, when I began to consider the claims of the Catholic Church to be the Church Christ founded, he took me out to breakfast. He implied--but never quite stated--that we would not be brothers, if I sought full communion with the Catholic Church. That came true; a couple years later, I called him on his birthday, as I'd done every year for close to ten of them. He didn't recognize my number, and it was the most strained, awkward phone call I have ever had. We haven't spoken since. We were close enough that I attended the rehearsal dinner for his wedding. His wife's uncle is a Catholic priest. I remember reading a blog post of theirs, that early in their relationship, she told him of the p
Hilarious Com-Box Quote of The Day: "I was caught immediately because it is the Acts of the Apostles, not the Acts of the Holy Spirit Acting Erratically."--Donald Todd, reacting to the inartful opposition of the Holy Spirit and the Magisterium. Mark Galli, an editor at Christianity Today, had suggested that today's "confusion" in evangelicalism replicates a confusion on the day of Pentecost. Mr. Todd commented after this reply , and the original article is here. My thoughts: By what means was this Church-less "consensus" formed? If the Council did not possess the authority to adjudicate such questions, who does? If the Council Fathers did not intend to be the arbiters, why do they say that they do? At the risk of being rude, I would define evangelicalism as, "Whatever I want or need to believe at any particular time." Ecclesial authority to settle a particular question is a step forward, but only as long as, "God alone is Lord of the con

Just Sayin.' Again.

One interesting objection to this chart has been to say that one gets stuck in a "loop" that doesn't resolve. This is a thinly-veiled way of putting forward the argument that we don't need absolute certainty in religious dogma. But Fred Noltie already dealt with this in the comments on another post. And to the specific objector, no less. I'll be blunt: The only principled thing to do is put down your Bible, resign your pulpit, and lead tours in Europe. Because a man must be able to distinguish dogma from human opinion, and this epistemology doesn't allow us to do that. One of dogma's distinguishing characteristics is infallibility; another is certainty. Without this, essential characteristics of God Himself are put into question. If we say that the most important Person any person could know is God, and the content of that knowledge (doctrine) is the means by which we know Him, it must be certain. This Reformed argument that certainty is a dangerous or un