I wondered when this essay would be written

I’ve long seen the tensions within the so-called Federal Vision on Classical Reformed ethics.  I appreciate a lot of the work the guys at Calvinist International do. I also note it is radically at odds with James B. Jordan, the godfather of the Federal Vision. Evidently, Jordan noticed that, too.

Advertisements

5 comments on “I wondered when this essay would be written

  1. Daniel says:

    Quoting from the article:

    “This positions him to be the herald of a new age, who speaks with the authority of a new age; previous ages are thus imperfect not simply as all ages are, but rather, are deeply tainted with paganism which only he and a few predecessors have been able to see and correct. But since his authority is his personal exegesis, this makes it hard to tell the difference, in methodological principle, between himself and Charles Taze Russell, who accepted Wyclif and Luther, to be sure, but only as partly-right (he got to define which part, and this could change) missing links on the way to himself, in an evolutionary course defined by himself.”

    I would simply note that what he here describes as Jordan’s malady and blasts him for it can just as easily be applied to the entirety of the Protestant revolution.

    Quote:

    “Doubtless some judicious Christian student in 2510, perusing Mr. Jordan’s interesting insights into Genesis, will kindly forgive him his credulous infatuation with the swirling paisley patterns of late 20th century popular hippie physics, and he will be right to do so; Mr. Jordan could certainly extend that kind of charity to our ancestors.”

    Nice.

    Quote from Jordan: “You will find out that the majority of young Muslim men have their first sexual encounter being raped by older men.”

    Wedgeowrth then questions Jordan for this line of argument. Sad to say, having spent a year (in total) in Arab countries (mostly Iraq), this might actually be true (it might not be a statistical majority but there are many). It was common knowledge that this sort of thing went on. Those countries were also “dry” countries–except that they weren’t (except for the weather that is)–as there was a ton of alcohol available. And in Dubai–American men were, in broad daylight mind you, accosted by prostitutes. Islam is just as depraved in practice as they are in dogma.

    I actually read the whole thing and can agree with much of it, except the parts where I don’t of course.

    I would also note that I agree with much of Wedgeworth’s analysis.

    • Olaf's Axe says:

      *** and blasts him for it can just as easily be applied to the entirety of the Protestant revolution. ***

      Except the Protestants saw themselves as Reforming Catholics. They simply pointed out where Rome’s accretions, and the Anchorite Church’s prevailing philosophies of anti-embodiment, prevented a full articulation of the gospel.

      I didn’t know that about Arab countries.

      On principle I automatically disagree with everything Jordan says. ANd Jordan’s analysis of “Greek” and “Hebrew” mindsets is a bit crude. Still, the Hebraic philosophy *Is* different from Hellenism, which I think both CI and Jordan failed to note.

      • Daniel says:

        Jordan is kind of like Luther in the way that everything is hyperbolic and bombastic. I have thought lately about whether or not the FV leads to Rome or Constantinople or if it’s the rigid confessionalists. Leithart, et al, have criticized those like Stellman and Keister on the grounds that it is actually the rigidity of the TR movement that leads to Rome while the TRs claim that it is the FV’s flirtation with non-reformed faiths that does the trick. I think both parties have valid arguments.

        I understand the argument that the Protestants saw themselves as wanting to “correct” Rome’s errors and facilitate reform in that way, but at what point was there a general consciousness that that was not happening/going to happen and at what point does your point become moot? Because that’s not what actually happened…right?

        I also would like to note that I am unaware of any serious attempt by the reformers (save the Tubignen (sp?) Lutherans) to interact with the Orthodox. To which group of protestants are you referring when you say that the reformers were battling the Orthodox philosophies of anti-embodiment–thus preventing a full articulation of “the gospel.” Your use of the last word of my previous sentence is question-begging by the way–since the reformed “gospel” is certainly not my gospel, nor can it historically be said to be “the gospel”–which many PROTESTANT historians have noted quite ably.

        Also, did you see the series that Robin Phillips did over at Orthodoxy and Heterodoxy? Thought you might interact over there as there seem to be more heavy-hitters over there (vice Orthodox bridge)…

        Interesting as always–thank you for the response.

        Daniel

  2. Daniel says:

    That last line can be stricken from the record…

  3. Olaf's Axe says:

    *** but at what point was there a general consciousness that that was not happening/going to happen and at what point does your point become moot?***

    When Trent anathematized the gospel

    ***I also would like to note that I am unaware of any serious attempt by the reformers (save the Tubignen (sp?) Lutherans) to interact with the Orthodox. ***

    Geography was a huge factor, if nothing else. And almost all of Orthodoxy outside of Russia was controlled by the Turk, who themselves weren’t interested in dialogue. Further, Alexis I Romanov expelled all English from Moscow. Cromwell did a lot to ravage the Turkish navy, but that’s about it.

    ***To which group of protestants are you referring when you say that the reformers were battling the Orthodox philosophies of anti-embodiment–thus preventing a full articulation of “the gospel.” ***

    Pretty much across the board, but hte most articulate statements are from Bucer and Knox.

    ***Also, did you see the series that Robin Phillips did over at Orthodoxy and Heterodoxy? Thought you might interact over there as there seem to be more heavy-hitters over there (vice Orthodox bridge)…***

    I had a few responses. His realism-nominalism line is completely bunk

Comments are closed.