Confusio Sanctorum
I will be responding next week to Paul Owen's rather confused understanding of justification and baptism in the NT posted here.
In the meantime, while I won't respond to it at length, it think it is humorous to point out the confusion of another owner of that blog in his response to a recent blog article by Doug Wilson (which, a couple of days ago, I praised here). I think it is rather astounding that when Doug Wilson speaks of . . .
"faithful pastors" who must "fight" against "unfaithful [Roman Catholic] teachers" who lead "lying ministries" that must be "disrupted"; and that those faithful pastors are charged with warning the church against these men lest they be "carried about by every contradictory wind of doctrine to blow out of the magisterium"; and that "true unity" has its basis in "truth" and is "not advanced by an irenicism that tolerates the 'sleight of men'"; and that a shepherd that does anything less is a "shepherd who hates his own sheep"; and that a true shepherd of God "is one who fights the wolves"; and that "the wolves in sheeps’ clothing" (i.e., the "reformed catholic" crowd itself!) militate against this tendency on the part of true shepherds, and "they always raise a great cry—unity!"; and that when a true shepherd of God deals with this threat, he does not speak of "wolves abstractly considered," but instead "name names"; and that it is absolute "treachery to the cause of true unity to refuse to point out obvious departures from the faith—regardless of the honored position of the one departing"; and then cites Galatians 1:8-10 to show the biblical basis for it; asserts that a "faithful minister" must call the Roman Catholic error "deception"; concludes that true pastors are "to labor to this end"; they they must go by what the Word says, and not by what we see"; that they must "necessarily fight false teachers who want to introduce their birth defects into the process"; and that this approach alone represents "standing for the truth in love" and "advancing the cause of unity in truth" . . .
. . . the owner of "Confusio Sanctorum" responds by noting . . .
How "great a question" this is, and "especially since Wilson raises it in the context of the Protestant relationship to Roman Catholicism"; and that the article "is certainly very helpful"; and how he "cannot stress enough [his] agreement with Wilson’s biblical point"; and how Wilsons "exposition on Ephesians" is right on the mark (while not bothering to comment on Wilson's exposition of Galatians); and how much he "agrees with Wilson" that "faithful pastors must name those whom they consider to be wolves"; and that "Wilson is correct to say that Protestant pastors need to warn their flocks about the problems of Rome"--quickly qualifying that statement, of course, with the disclaimer that "Roman Catholic readers of this blog should not take much offense at my agreement with Wilson on the point of pastors warning their flocks about wolves" (even though Wilson himself gave no such qualification--indeed, it is apparent he simply isn't concerned whether the "wolves" might be offended at what he writes); and that Wilson's words are "greatly appreciated," and "quite helpful" . . .
But when I say the same things Wilson has said (indeed, at times not even as strongly as Wilson has stated it), I'm a "GNOSTIC" who, due to his "SLAVERY TO THE ENLIGHTENMENT" believes in "THE MYTH OF PURE OBJECTIVE TRUTH!!!!!!" and who "wants to FLEE FROM THE MATERIAL WORLD!!!!" while judging the souls of all those who are not "REALLY, REALLY REGENERATE!!!!" [caps in the original].
Go figure.
What's even more humorous is that the blog owner spins Wilson's words in such a way that at the end of the day (surprise!) Wilson's view actually falls right in line with the view of the blog owner himself. Here is what he concludes:
"It is simply not sufficient, nor is it fair, for us to learn to talk like Luther and Calvin on the days when they were most distressed about 'Romish idolatry' or 'Romanist knaves' trying to 'deceive' others and 'overthrow faith' with 'superstitions', and so forth, and leave it at that. (And in fact, in today’s climate, talking like Luther and Calvin might sometimes be more unhelpful than helpful–we should not forget that Luther’s most vicious rants have a more than equally vicious counterpart in those of Cochlaeus). This is not the 16th century, and if after 350 years we have still not learned anything from the open fratricide of the era of the Wars of Religion then we are to be deeply pitied."
These words are in praise of Wilson's article and are stated as though this is what Wilson really said.
Hogwash! Wilson specifically called these Roman teachers "deceivers" and "liars" and "wolves." How could he possibly have missed that?
Read Wilson's article for yourself; and then read the spin from "Confusio Sanctorum," and you'll see that the latter is simply a very sad attempt at trying to "save face" (and dignity, I suppose) over what are real contradictions between his own view and that of his much more biblically reasoned mentor.
In the meantime, while I won't respond to it at length, it think it is humorous to point out the confusion of another owner of that blog in his response to a recent blog article by Doug Wilson (which, a couple of days ago, I praised here). I think it is rather astounding that when Doug Wilson speaks of . . .
"faithful pastors" who must "fight" against "unfaithful [Roman Catholic] teachers" who lead "lying ministries" that must be "disrupted"; and that those faithful pastors are charged with warning the church against these men lest they be "carried about by every contradictory wind of doctrine to blow out of the magisterium"; and that "true unity" has its basis in "truth" and is "not advanced by an irenicism that tolerates the 'sleight of men'"; and that a shepherd that does anything less is a "shepherd who hates his own sheep"; and that a true shepherd of God "is one who fights the wolves"; and that "the wolves in sheeps’ clothing" (i.e., the "reformed catholic" crowd itself!) militate against this tendency on the part of true shepherds, and "they always raise a great cry—unity!"; and that when a true shepherd of God deals with this threat, he does not speak of "wolves abstractly considered," but instead "name names"; and that it is absolute "treachery to the cause of true unity to refuse to point out obvious departures from the faith—regardless of the honored position of the one departing"; and then cites Galatians 1:8-10 to show the biblical basis for it; asserts that a "faithful minister" must call the Roman Catholic error "deception"; concludes that true pastors are "to labor to this end"; they they must go by what the Word says, and not by what we see"; that they must "necessarily fight false teachers who want to introduce their birth defects into the process"; and that this approach alone represents "standing for the truth in love" and "advancing the cause of unity in truth" . . .
. . . the owner of "Confusio Sanctorum" responds by noting . . .
How "great a question" this is, and "especially since Wilson raises it in the context of the Protestant relationship to Roman Catholicism"; and that the article "is certainly very helpful"; and how he "cannot stress enough [his] agreement with Wilson’s biblical point"; and how Wilsons "exposition on Ephesians" is right on the mark (while not bothering to comment on Wilson's exposition of Galatians); and how much he "agrees with Wilson" that "faithful pastors must name those whom they consider to be wolves"; and that "Wilson is correct to say that Protestant pastors need to warn their flocks about the problems of Rome"--quickly qualifying that statement, of course, with the disclaimer that "Roman Catholic readers of this blog should not take much offense at my agreement with Wilson on the point of pastors warning their flocks about wolves" (even though Wilson himself gave no such qualification--indeed, it is apparent he simply isn't concerned whether the "wolves" might be offended at what he writes); and that Wilson's words are "greatly appreciated," and "quite helpful" . . .
But when I say the same things Wilson has said (indeed, at times not even as strongly as Wilson has stated it), I'm a "GNOSTIC" who, due to his "SLAVERY TO THE ENLIGHTENMENT" believes in "THE MYTH OF PURE OBJECTIVE TRUTH!!!!!!" and who "wants to FLEE FROM THE MATERIAL WORLD!!!!" while judging the souls of all those who are not "REALLY, REALLY REGENERATE!!!!" [caps in the original].
Go figure.
What's even more humorous is that the blog owner spins Wilson's words in such a way that at the end of the day (surprise!) Wilson's view actually falls right in line with the view of the blog owner himself. Here is what he concludes:
"It is simply not sufficient, nor is it fair, for us to learn to talk like Luther and Calvin on the days when they were most distressed about 'Romish idolatry' or 'Romanist knaves' trying to 'deceive' others and 'overthrow faith' with 'superstitions', and so forth, and leave it at that. (And in fact, in today’s climate, talking like Luther and Calvin might sometimes be more unhelpful than helpful–we should not forget that Luther’s most vicious rants have a more than equally vicious counterpart in those of Cochlaeus). This is not the 16th century, and if after 350 years we have still not learned anything from the open fratricide of the era of the Wars of Religion then we are to be deeply pitied."
These words are in praise of Wilson's article and are stated as though this is what Wilson really said.
Hogwash! Wilson specifically called these Roman teachers "deceivers" and "liars" and "wolves." How could he possibly have missed that?
Read Wilson's article for yourself; and then read the spin from "Confusio Sanctorum," and you'll see that the latter is simply a very sad attempt at trying to "save face" (and dignity, I suppose) over what are real contradictions between his own view and that of his much more biblically reasoned mentor.
posted by NA at 6:29 AM
<< Home