Comments on: a call to understanding http://brandoncozart.com/archives/2007/03/06/a-call-to-understanding/ Tue, 06 Jan 2009 11:35:34 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.7 hourly 1 By: rich http://brandoncozart.com/archives/2007/03/06/a-call-to-understanding/comment-page-1/#comment-3554 rich Sun, 10 Jun 2007 01:22:29 +0000 http://rmfo-blogs.com/cozart/archives/2007/03/06/a-call-to-understanding/#comment-3554 Brandon, I am sorry as well. I have been unnecessarily suspicious. I agree that the problem was a biblical problem. I also realize that systemetization of Scripture was necessary to Paul's critique of the Judaizers. But I, least of all Presbyterians, want to say that a confession would be sufficient to prove their error. The Bible is the authority for Christians, and one thing I am frustrated with by the anti-FV folks is their lack of citation of Biblical support for their arguments, merely resorting to the semantics of our confessions to prove their point. I have critiques of some of the FV folks as well, but mostly they are actually critiques of the NPP. I am not pro- or anti- FV, but I am worried about folks in seminary right now, as, from my outside perspective, the critiques of the FV and NPP by our reformed seminaries have not been Biblical critiques. (though I think that our confessions are Biblical. I just think that the confessional language must be shown publicly to be Biblically precise. Again, I think the confessions are precise and Biblical in their precision.) Well, sorry to get side-tracked. I have been reading a lot of stuff to be in the context of the current debates in Presbyterianism, and it is not necessarily as I suppose. I am going to comment on your B of T conference remarks as well. Brandon,

I am sorry as well. I have been unnecessarily suspicious. I agree that the problem was a biblical problem. I also realize that systemetization of Scripture was necessary to Paul’s critique of the Judaizers. But I, least of all Presbyterians, want to say that a confession would be sufficient to prove their error. The Bible is the authority for Christians, and one thing I am frustrated with by the anti-FV folks is their lack of citation of Biblical support for their arguments, merely resorting to the semantics of our confessions to prove their point. I have critiques of some of the FV folks as well, but mostly they are actually critiques of the NPP. I am not pro- or anti- FV, but I am worried about folks in seminary right now, as, from my outside perspective, the critiques of the FV and NPP by our reformed seminaries have not been Biblical critiques. (though I think that our confessions are Biblical. I just think that the confessional language must be shown publicly to be Biblically precise. Again, I think the confessions are precise and Biblical in their precision.)

Well, sorry to get side-tracked. I have been reading a lot of stuff to be in the context of the current debates in Presbyterianism, and it is not necessarily as I suppose. I am going to comment on your B of T conference remarks as well.

]]> By: cozart http://brandoncozart.com/archives/2007/03/06/a-call-to-understanding/comment-page-1/#comment-3316 cozart Mon, 07 May 2007 03:27:37 +0000 http://rmfo-blogs.com/cozart/archives/2007/03/06/a-call-to-understanding/#comment-3316 rich, sorry i haven't responded until now. i just saw your comment. of course i think that the Judaizers were advocating things such as circumcision as necessary for salvation/justification and that Paul rightly condemned them for preaching another gospel. and, with the issue you're speaking of, i definitely think it is a confessional problem and, more than that, a biblical problem! my point in posting the quote was, as the title indicates, a call to understanding. to actually have knowledge of what others' views are before they are condemned. understanding, however, does not mean that others cannot be wrong! it just means that we should not speak (or condemn) out of ignorance or based on hearsay. this is a widespread problem in Reformed circles that reaches in to areas other than the justification issue, and it's something i've been guilty of myself. that's why this quote struck me so deeply. hope you're doing well. we need to catch up! rich,

sorry i haven’t responded until now. i just saw your comment. of course i think that the Judaizers were advocating things such as circumcision as necessary for salvation/justification and that Paul rightly condemned them for preaching another gospel. and, with the issue you’re speaking of, i definitely think it is a confessional problem and, more than that, a biblical problem!

my point in posting the quote was, as the title indicates, a call to understanding. to actually have knowledge of what others’ views are before they are condemned. understanding, however, does not mean that others cannot be wrong! it just means that we should not speak (or condemn) out of ignorance or based on hearsay.

this is a widespread problem in Reformed circles that reaches in to areas other than the justification issue, and it’s something i’ve been guilty of myself. that’s why this quote struck me so deeply.

hope you’re doing well. we need to catch up!

]]> By: Wright http://brandoncozart.com/archives/2007/03/06/a-call-to-understanding/comment-page-1/#comment-3190 Wright Wed, 28 Mar 2007 01:17:24 +0000 http://rmfo-blogs.com/cozart/archives/2007/03/06/a-call-to-understanding/#comment-3190 Brandon, This quote from Baxter is very good. I have been doing an article on "Carl Henry and his Critics," in which I try to respond to accusations made against him even by evangelical theologians. It has been a very sad task for me, as I have had to refute really outrageous criticisms of him by people who should know better. One of the worst was Van Til, followed by his disciple Conn, but others have been equally guilty (such as Bloesch and Ramm, and their disicples, such as Olson and Grenz). I think I have done this to others also. As I have written this article, I have asked God to forgive me for comparable slander and to keep me from repeating this mistake. All too often, we have fallen into the sin that Baxter describes. I think it especially good that you see this at your young age, when most budding theologians (including me at that time!) are so sure of themselves that they mistake proud enthusiasm and self-righteous assurance for true zeal that comes from love for God and other believers. I'm really proud of you for this. Wright Brandon, This quote from Baxter is very good. I have been doing an article on “Carl Henry and his Critics,” in which I try to respond to accusations made against him even by evangelical theologians. It has been a very sad task for me, as I have had to refute really outrageous criticisms of him by people who should know better. One of the worst was Van Til, followed by his disciple Conn, but others have been equally guilty (such as Bloesch and Ramm, and their disicples, such as Olson and Grenz). I think I have done this to others also. As I have written this article, I have asked God to forgive me for comparable slander and to keep me from repeating this mistake. All too often, we have fallen into the sin that Baxter describes. I think it especially good that you see this at your young age, when most budding theologians (including me at that time!) are so sure of themselves that they mistake proud enthusiasm and self-righteous assurance for true zeal that comes from love for God and other believers. I’m really proud of you for this. Wright

]]> By: rich http://brandoncozart.com/archives/2007/03/06/a-call-to-understanding/comment-page-1/#comment-3053 rich Thu, 08 Mar 2007 03:49:45 +0000 http://rmfo-blogs.com/cozart/archives/2007/03/06/a-call-to-understanding/#comment-3053 So what does Paul condemn the Judaizers for in Galatians? Is it not a systematic problem (read: a confessional problem)? If you use a hermeneutic that says that the problem was not a works-justification, then I can use that same hermeneutic to show that the Bible never teaches a WCF view of justification. In which case you are at the tipping point of the entire Reformation. So what does Paul condemn the Judaizers for in Galatians? Is it not a systematic problem (read: a confessional problem)? If you use a hermeneutic that says that the problem was not a works-justification, then I can use that same hermeneutic to show that the Bible never teaches a WCF view of justification. In which case you are at the tipping point of the entire Reformation.

]]>