Linc Ashby: Bildad and Reformed Theology
Jim Jordan gives FV critics a history lesson. (HT to Michael at BHT)
Leithart quotes Wilken on how the ECFs used the Scriptures. Excellent stuff, that.
Letters from the Perilous Realm
Theology, Politics, and Life in Elfland
-
Boar's Head Tavern
-
Photos
-
{ 3 comments… read them below or add one }
chris holdridge 08.26.07 at 9:58 pm
On the Jordan article:
How come FV guys continue to label themselves FV guys while saying they don’t like the label and while pointing out all the differences they have with other FV guys?
How come FV guys continue to marginalize themselves with the label they don’t like while arming themselves with seemingly common arguments against a common foe in their “critics?”
If I were an FV guy who didn’t ask for the label and who disagreed with other FV guys and didn’t like the way FV guys were being treated, I’d stop calling myself an FV guy and start posturing myself for real discourse independent of the stoic, less thoughtful, and less discerning views.
‘Twas a good history lesson, though.
Travis Prinzi 08.26.07 at 10:12 pm
Well said. I think the new-ness of all of this makes it rather complicated. It really is unfortunate that there still hasn’t been a sit-down, exegetical discussion, or conference, or whatever. Instead we get shots across the blogosphere, across published books, and at GAs that are counterproductive. Guilt is shared by both parties.
I do wonder (and I’m still new to this myself, so I may be way off) - does this whole debacle in the PCA reveal a bit of an identity crisis? Is the PCA primarily sola Scriptura, or primarily confessional? If the former, why the appeal first and foremost to the Confession? Shouldn’t an exegetical discussion always happen first?
chris holdridge 08.26.07 at 10:32 pm
Dude, that’s so “last GA.”
Just kidding.
#1: anyone who says they have no identity crisis is lying to you and revealing it by their insistence (”I’m just a child of God!”) The same goes for groups.
#2: I think the presumption of one who calls himself “confessional” is that the confessions hold an a priori sola Scriptura position. That guy will always say that the confessions taught him what sola Scriptura means. The confessional guy thinks that FV guys want to challenge that, thereby making everyone sola wierd-o-a.
To tow the line: the committee was doing what it was asked to do. To go a little deeper: I wish there had been a different committee with a different task, more like the one you suggest.
But I just add that to my list of many wishes for the way we reformed folk do discourse.