On why CREC always lose to Anchoretism

I posted a comment at Orthodox Bridge on the Future of Protestantism comparing it to the Nevin-Hodge debate and they blocked it, saying it wasn’t relevant.  To anyone who’s read more than twenty minutes of American religious history in the late 19th century, it  is painfully relevant.

Further, he brought up Nevin in the original post, and I continued the thought on Nevin, and then I’m told irrelevant comments will be blocked. Wisdom is justified by her children.  I think they are beginning to see just how silly a hard realist-essentialism is, on which both Nevin and Orthodoxy depend, and knowing I was about to back the truck up and unload Hodge’s critique of Nevin, they took their ball and went home.  Or took my ball, rather.

I still have a number of issues which they won’t touch, probably because these issues can’t be addressed with copy/past quotations by Ignatius and Pelikan. They are ontological questions which require internal analysis, which is one of the reasons why I am not welcome there.

That, however, is not the point of this post.  I think the Future of Protestantism debate effectually demonstrated why the more “stout” FV/CREC guys will always lose the debates with Anchorites.  Once you admit that these traditions are in some degree normative today (by using languages and analogies calling them “mother”), and your only line of attack is, “Respect us, too! We’re hip. You need us,” you will always be fighting on a line of retreat.

Even Doug Wilson recognizes this and makes some fairly good points.  I Wish he would see the FV for what it is today and call it as such.

As the greatest genius of the War Between the States said, “Get ‘em skeered and keep the skeer on ‘em!”



3 comments on “On why CREC always lose to Anchoretism

  1. It’s interesting that Wilson quotes the Reformers to back up his assertion that Roman Catholics (and their baptism) should be admitted to the table on Protestant terms. However, it’s highly unlikely that the Reformers themselves would have allowed conscious Roman Catholics at the table. To me, there’s just a little bit of historical revisionism going on here if he doesn’t make clear that his fidelity to the Reformers really only goes so far.

    • I noticed that the other day. I can grant to WIlson that many Reformers accepted Roman baptisms, but knowing that John Knox stood guard at the table with a drawn sword, I doubt he would have let a Roman approach.

  2. You need a like button on your blog!!! 😉

Comments are closed.