Comments on Cogitati: Meribah: A Review of Guy Waters's _Federal Vision...

Hey nice blog. Although it�s not what I was lookin...

2006-12-20T19:02:00.000-08:00

Hey nice blog. Although it�s not what I was looking for. I am looking for info on Payday Loans or a Cash Advance so I can buy some Hoodia Diet Pills.. I found your blog very interesting

Ronnie,This was in a private correspondence. I am ...

2006-07-08T06:03:00.000-07:00

Ronnie,
This was in a private correspondence. I am just double-checking to see if it is okay to name them. Rich is not available at the moment.

I will have to see if I get permission to use thei...

2006-07-07T17:45:00.000-07:00

I will have to see if I get permission to use their names. But you are certainly free to contact Rich himself. I promise, he won't bite ... at least not hard.

This is odd. Why would their an issue revealing the names of scholars? Also, if they don't want their names mentioned then why would you make the claim, because it means nothing without the backing of the scholars.

Thanks for the reply, Bill.I'm still troubled by y...

2006-07-07T14:12:00.000-07:00

Thanks for the reply, Bill.

I'm still troubled by your post for the reasons I've stated, and I'm not sure you've understood my concerns (I can be a bit oblique), but I'll not trouble you any longer.

Peace.

Ronnie,I will have to see if I get permission to u...

2006-07-07T13:54:00.000-07:00

Ronnie,
I will have to see if I get permission to use their names. But you are certainly free to contact Rich himself. I promise, he won't bite ... at least not hard.

JeffandTroy,Yes, I am aware of the difference betw...

2006-07-07T13:53:00.000-07:00

JeffandTroy,
Yes, I am aware of the difference between Presbyterian and Reformed. As I recall, though, our PCA, for instance, encourages the use of the Heidelberg Catechism. This must mean that there is substantial agreement between the two.

To answer your question about contacting Dr. Waters: no I didn't. I am not critiquing whether or not he is in conformity with our Standards. I believe that he is. I am critiquing his method(s) of argumentation and the conclusions he draws from that argumentation. I am not saying "Dr. Waters believes this and that is out of accord with the Standards and/or the gospel." If I were trying to represent his views, I would have certainly contacted him. I am not calling into question his orthodoxy at whatever level. I am calling into question his criticism of others. There is a difference between the two.

Now, as regards covering his sins (or however you stated it): For several years now I have been relatively silent about these issues publicly. I did not wish to entangle myself in this debate because it is an endless quagmire (as the men critiqued will tell you). But people have been engaging in some pretty nasty name-calling and accusations. They go through investigations and all the proper channels, are acquitted, and still people like Waters act as if none of that matters. If this type activity is "covered" all the time, the church will eat itself alive.

You mentioned Calvinist scholars reviewing Rich Lu...

2006-07-07T11:49:00.000-07:00

You mentioned Calvinist scholars reviewing Rich Lusks comments on Calvin and saying they were accurate, could you please tell us who these Calvin scholars are?

Bill,Thanks for the reply.I note that while I made...

2006-07-07T11:18:00.000-07:00

Bill,

Thanks for the reply.

I note that while I made reference to "Presbyterian orthodoxy," you referred to "Reformed orthodoxy." I am assuming you would acknowledge that there is a difference, and that the boundaries for officers in the PCA are described by the former and not merely the latter.

I note, as well, your continued claim that Mr. Waters has been (and is currently being, as long as he doesn't retract certain things) "uncharitable," and as such is "under God's judgment." Believing as you do, it is apparent that you have already foregone one of the biblical options you had before you, that of "covering over" his supposed sin (with your blog that bus has left the station). So, may the Lord guide you from His Word in your next steps of love for a brother whom you believe to be in the very, very frightening place of being under God's judgment.

[A minor point: I may be wrong, but I am assuming you did not "share (your) critiques with (Mr. Waters) before (you blogged) them," as you say he needed to do in order to be charitable. Now, I actually don't think you needed to, but neither do I believe he needed to, so I wouldn't want either of you criticized on that point.]

The larger point is this. When a person claims they are being misrepresented or misunderstood, that surely does not mean nothing, but it just as surely does not settle the matter either.

Many times in my life I have felt misrepresented by others. During one period of my life my presbytery found fault with my behavior and character and even aspects of my teaching, and I felt horribly misrepresented and misunderstood. Years (and I do mean years, as I am a slow learner) later I saw that they had not misrepresented me nor misunderstood me, and I began to repent.

Surely "the heart is deceitful above all things" and no one can be trusted to see themself with 100% accurately.

When certain folks claim Mr. Waters (and not just Mr. Waters, incidentally, but whole churches and presbyteries and denominations) have misrepresented them, that certainly counts for something, but it just as certainly does not settle the matter. And so your raising that issue does not settle the matter, as it seems you might be saying it does.

May the Spirit of God take us captive to do His will.

Dear Bill,Sorry, I obviously had you mixed up with...

2006-07-07T10:33:00.000-07:00

Dear Bill,

Sorry, I obviously had you mixed up with another Bill Smith. I have removed the post.

Webling,I think you might have me confused with so...

2006-07-07T09:46:00.000-07:00

Webling,
I think you might have me confused with someone else. I have never commented on the John Wood case. I was only coming into the PCA when that was at it's hottest.

I don't recall writing much of anything about the silliness of what was/is going on in the PCA.

There are a number of Bill Smiths out there, and I have been mixed up with another at certain times.

JeffandTroy,I never said that Dr. Waters was outsi...

2006-07-07T09:40:00.000-07:00

JeffandTroy,
I never said that Dr. Waters was outside the pale of Reformed orthodoxy. He is well within it. I have criticized the fact that he does not believe these men to be. His criticisms are uncharitable readings of these men, even though they have qualified and nuanced their statements. Waters and others who have taken this track (while I am certain being sincere) have caused these men seemingly unending grief. The fact that he refused to meet with any of these men or share his critiques of them before they were published is not charitable behavior. Creating and sustaining these types of factions within the church over things that have been debated for centuries does come under God's judgment. Paul's first letter to the Corinthians says as much.

You may not agree with my critique. I expected many wouldn't. If Dr. Waters finds glaring inaccuracies in it, I will gladly retract them and publicly repent through the same medium through which I disseminated this information. I hope that in light of the fact that, for instance, Peter Leithart has shown where Dr. Waters has misrepresented him, that Dr. Waters will be willing to do the same.

I think the statement "God's harshest judgment" is...

2006-07-07T07:06:00.000-07:00

I think the statement "God's harshest judgment" is not too harsh. There is such a thing as "God's harshest judgment meted out to His elect."

By the way, it is probably true that none of the men in the PCA are advocating infant communion. But I can affirm as a member of Ralph Smith's church (CREC) that our church practices infant communion, if "infants" includes babies that are capable of taking solid food. We wouldn't require the child in question to be able to give verbal expression to his faith in Christ before allowing him to partake of the Eucharist. (The CREC is, of course, by no means monolithic in this regard.) I would be inclined to describe the position of most pastors in the PCA who are favorable to "paedocommunion" as "low-bar credocommunionists." For what it's worth . . .

I offer the following in a spirit of brotherly and...

2006-07-07T06:09:00.000-07:00

I offer the following in a spirit of brotherly and charitable dialogue. This would be my review of your review:

"Meribah: A Review of Guy Waters _Federal Vision and Covenant Theology_" is the latest critical offering from the so-called so-called Federal Vision (FV), a subject that has been debated in American Presbyterian and Reformed circles over the past several years. While some will hail this review as the death knell for FV critics, it will only appeal to those who are already pre-disposed to the author's conclusions. Those who are able to recognize poor argumentation will find no lack of it in this review. The author is unable to argue with the one he critiques from his point of view. Even if Waters is wrong in his conclusions, the author does not prove it because he is playing on a different field, using his own categories to critique someone who is speaking from a position of Presbyterian orthodoxy. He does not do well at internally critiquing Waters' views. He only asserts that his views must be inconsistent at points because they do not fit into his categories. Because of this he has not fulfilled the first requirement of a good debate: state your opponents position to his satisfaction. The person he critiques would not agree that he has accurately stated his fundamental positions at many points (even though there are times that he does). Certainly he uses extensive quotes. But as he himself states in his review concerning Waters’ quoting of Calvin, even extensive quotes can be taken out of context. (Incidently, Waters had a presbytery, a Reformed publishing house, and a host of other Reformed scholars examine his work and affirm that he had captured the thought of Presbyterian orthodoxy.) So, extensive quotations do not a good review make. Capturing the overall thought–the system of thought–is what is needed. I submit that this reviewer has not done that. The author's method of argumentation employs “wiggle words,” overstatement leading to false conclusions, guilt by association, false dilemmas, and direct misrepresentations (that can be proven from the very quotes he uses).

etc. etc.

Except that I would not end my review of your review by threatening you with "God's harshest judgment," because I am assuming that was the whole point of Christ's work on the cross on your behalf.

Mark,I will edit my review to reflect this. Thanks...

2006-07-07T05:13:00.000-07:00

Mark,
I will edit my review to reflect this. Thanks.

Bill

Interesting review. Haven't read the book yet, not...

2006-07-06T20:18:00.000-07:00

Interesting review.

Haven't read the book yet, not all of your review, but one thing that strikes me about Water's complaint that the FV is 'diminished' in its apprehension of the legal and forensic qualities of covenant, while many textx that deal with covenant are 'patently' legal, is that the primary text the FV is interested in, Genesis 1-3 is NOT a legal text with the charcater of a covenant document, which Murray and others have recognized.

FYI, Bill, I belong in the same category as Wilkin...

2006-07-06T18:48:00.000-07:00

FYI, Bill, I belong in the same category as Wilkins and Leithart. Not only was I received by the presbytery, but in light of accusations and suspicions I was investigated and declared Confessional.

Thanks for your work.