>

Martyred for the Gospel

Martyred for the Gospel
The burning of Tharchbishop of Cant. D. Tho. Cranmer in the town dich at Oxford, with his hand first thrust into the fyre, wherwith he subscribed before. [Click on the picture to see Cranmer's last words.]

Collect of the Day

The Fifth Sunday after the Epiphany.
The Collect.

O LORD, we beseech thee to keep thy Church and household continually in thy true religion; that they who do lean only upon the hope of thy heavenly grace may evermore be defended by thy mighty power; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

Daily Bible Verse

Friday, July 19, 2013

Happy Birthday to Westminster Seminary: When Is the Funeral?



In my view both Westminster Seminary PA and CA and most other "reformed" seminaries today are no longer Calvinist or Reformed but have instead compromised with neo-orthodoxy and Arminianism to one degree or another.  So celebrating the birthday of Westminster PA is not really a celebration.  Van Til's theology and legacy has led to what we see today in the Presbyterian Church in America:  the Federal Vision error.  Folks like R. Scott Clark and other so-called "Calvinists" will not admit it but proposing paradox and analogy rather than the rational revelation of God in the Scriptures can only lead to skepticism.

To read Scott Clark's article, click here:  Happy Birthday to Westminster Seminary.

Charlie

7 comments:

Justin said...

Here is an interesting article that I came across. Thoughts?

http://veritasdomain.wordpress.com/2013/07/06/van-tillian-trinitarian-theology-its-orthodox-status-and-application-to-the-one-and-the-many

I rather see the PCA's issues right now as a repeat of what happened to it in the last century.

I still can't quite make the CVT/FV connection though. Many Van Tillians have fallen into the FV wolves' grip, but many more have not. Are you saying that a consistent CVTian will be an FVer, or that CVTian theology leads to an inability to combat FV?

Keep in mind that I have not read any of CVT's works through completely, only excerpts (sometimes long ones) here and there. Same with GC.

Random side question- Do you use the 1662 BCP? Does it implicitly or explicitly teach baptismal regeneration in your opinion?

Charlie J. Ray said...

I'll have to read the article to which you linked later. But I'm not saying that all Van Tilians are prone to the FV. I'm saying that Van Til's theology of paradox "allows" this sort of compromise. The reason no one understands Van Til is that Van Til didn't understand Van Til. He was an irrationalist who even at one point affirmed modalism by saying that God is both one Person and three Persons.

I think that anytime a theology of skepticism is affirmed the doors are wide open for all kinds of heresies, including the error of theonomists who exalt law above gospel and everything else. Norman Shepherd and Richard Gaffin exalt the union with Christ doctrine above justification by faith alone so as to combine imputed righteousness with obedience/sanctification. It's the same as the semi-pelagian error.

As for the 1662 BCP, the catechism makes a statement of faith that "this child is now regenerate." It is NOT teaching baptismal regeneration but rather, like all church members we presume them by faith to be regenerate. We can be proven wrong in both the case of the adult who is baptized and in the case of the infant who is baptized. The perseverance of the saints means actual perseverance, not "once saved always saved" no matter what you do.

Charlie

Justin said...

Charlie,

I'm saying that Van Til's theology of paradox "allows" this sort of compromise.

I see what you're saying better now. Thanks for elaborating!

SlimJim's article I referenced is pretty long!

like all church members we presume them by faith to be regenerate

Ok. I appreciate the time you took to answer that (random) question.

Charlie J. Ray said...

http://veritasdomain.wordpress.com/2013/07/06/van-tillian-trinitarian-theology-its-orthodox-status-and-application-to-the-one-and-the-many

Charlie J. Ray said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Charlie J. Ray said...

Here's a link to an article that expresses well my view of the Reformed Anglican doctrine of infant baptism:

Original Sin and Justification by Faith

Charlie J. Ray said...

In regards to the article you posted about Van Til's view of the Godhead, I have to say that the guy writing the article has no clue. He thinks that Jesus and the Father are "homoiousios" and not "homoousios". He says that they have a "similar" nature rather than the SAME divine nature.

That in and of itself shows how confused the man is. And the article is clearly a huge contradiction. God is one GOD and three Persons. God is not one Person and Three Persons. That would make the Trinity meaningless.

I would suggest that you read Clark's book on the Trinity and his other book, The Incarnation.

Charlie

Support Reasonable Christian Ministries with your generous donation.