tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9097408555576085021.post4517946048031842758..comments2023-06-19T01:01:06.019-07:00Comments on Fœdero Schism: The End of the Trinity Fest Part 1: First BlastMark T.http://www.blogger.com/profile/09673762599798493263noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9097408555576085021.post-50278494175074003512008-07-03T07:18:00.000-07:002008-07-03T07:18:00.000-07:00Hi Rick,Excellent comment.In his bio of Knox, Wils...Hi Rick,<BR/><BR/>Excellent comment.<BR/><BR/>In his bio of Knox, Wilson has a chapter called “Fiasco in Frankfurt” (pages 43–47), where he echoes the narrative in <A HREF="http://www.swrb.com/newslett/actualNLs/GBO_ch01.htm" REL="nofollow">your link</A>, which is where it gets tricky. He recognizes Knox’s efforts at keeping unity in the church and he denounces Cox across the board (points I believe we would all agree with), but he doesn’t comment either way regarding high v. low dispute (he was hiding his high church sympathies that are so apparent now). Rather, he focuses on the questions of peace and unity, which is where he has no capacity to recognize his own duplicity, or as you say “treachery.”<BR/><BR/>Wilson commends Knox for brokering peace between the two sides at the very time he helped Burke Shade split his church. Wilson lionizes Knox for keeping the unity when a couple years later he labored with all his might to split Sandlin’s charge (Church of the King–Santa Cruz). Wilson hails Knox for being a peacemaker, while he exhausts himself to disrupt the PCA. His inner fantasy cannot see the external reality. He doesn’t see his treachery. He shuts the snake mode out of his mind.<BR/><BR/>One thing I did not make clear is that the second half of the bio essentially addresses points of character, such as humility, humor, family, patriot, virtue, etc. That’s where he described how he sees himself and supported it with anecdotes from Knox. Quite delusional.<BR/><BR/>Thanks for checking in.Mark T.https://www.blogger.com/profile/09673762599798493263noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9097408555576085021.post-55458379988506232912008-07-02T19:39:00.000-07:002008-07-02T19:39:00.000-07:00That John Knox was a proto-Dougian is hilariously ...That John Knox was a proto-Dougian is hilariously absurd! Doug has more in common with the Imperious Coxian party that Knox disputed with during his time with the congregation in Frankfurt.<BR/><BR/>The Coxians even used a thoroughly Wilsonian trick - political treachery:<BR/><BR/>"In order to get rid of Knox, Cox and his company stooped to base political maneuvers. They accused Knox of treason before the civil authorities, citing portions of his Faithful Admonition to the Professors of God's Truth in England (1554). Knox was forced to leave Frankfurt, and so he returned to Geneva in 1555."* <BR/><BR/>Doug would have been so proud!<BR/><BR/>"Even after Knox's departure, the Frankfurt congregation could not achieve harmony."*<BR/><BR/>Ah, the 'fellowship of the grievance' strikes again.<BR/><BR/>Contra Knox, the Coxian party was also an advocate of the Anglican liturgy, much like the present-day Confederation of Reformed Anglo-Papists (C.R.A.P) advocate a 'high liturgy' in their churches.<BR/><BR/>Rick P<BR/><BR/>* for a brief description of Knox's troubles with the Coxian party, see: http://tinyurl.com/5jeeewAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9097408555576085021.post-24412723280260859752008-07-01T09:44:00.000-07:002008-07-01T09:44:00.000-07:00"not knowing the Scriptures or the power of God. T...<I>"not knowing the Scriptures or the power of God. The gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ proclaims “liberty to the captives” and “sets at liberty those who are oppressed.” It doesn’t misinform the masses under the guise of “faithful story telling.” It doesn’t justify cruelty to make light of human suffering, whether the suffering of galley slaves or Southern slaves."</I><BR/><BR/>Beautifully done, MarkT!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9097408555576085021.post-73677027192958689752008-06-30T10:06:00.001-07:002008-06-30T10:06:00.001-07:00Hi Sam,A thoughtful comment, as always.I don’t kno...Hi Sam,<BR/><BR/>A thoughtful comment, as always.<BR/><BR/>I don’t know didley about Van Til and I freely confess that the dust-up at GB a while back confused me a great deal. Some people love him while others, shall we say, don’t. Either way, I cannot comment on him at all.<BR/><BR/>That said, given your observation about “God’s understanding” (theocentric) I suppose the best way to summarize DW’s worldview is “Doug’s understanding,” which isn’t even anthropocentric — it’s purely dougocentric.Mark T.https://www.blogger.com/profile/09673762599798493263noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9097408555576085021.post-65433582774564513742008-06-30T10:06:00.000-07:002008-06-30T10:06:00.000-07:00Anon,Why are you so ashamed of your baptized name?...Anon,<BR/><BR/>Why are you so ashamed of your baptized name?<BR/><BR/>Actually, don’t answer that. I know the reason for your embarrassment.<BR/><BR/>Take comfort now, however, because I have a few surprises for you. Admittedly, this post went longer than I wanted, but I had to lay the foundation for the next two posts, and one of them is really going to light your fuse.Mark T.https://www.blogger.com/profile/09673762599798493263noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9097408555576085021.post-60745702207067758492008-06-30T04:06:00.000-07:002008-06-30T04:06:00.000-07:00Hi Mark, One of the strands of Van Tilian presup...Hi Mark,<BR/><BR/> One of the strands of Van Tilian presuppositionalism is the idea that "there are no 'brute' (ie, 'uninterpreted') facts." I'm not deeply familiar with Van Til's thought, but I believe that he taught that every 'fact' carries with it a halo of interpretations about its meaning. The only 'true facts' are those as interpreted by God, which (I think) is why Van Til reckoned that Christian trinitarianism was the only way to rightly understand the world. We have to look to God's understanding of the world if we are to rightly understand anything.<BR/><BR/> DW is by training a philosopher and assuredly is familiar with Van Til's ideas (doubtless much more so than I am). Your presentation of DW's philosophy of history suggests that DW was trying to follow Van Til. But it seems to me that where Van Til taught that right understanding of reality is found by hearing God's declarations (taking thought captive to the obedience of Christ), DW seems to be saying that right understanding of reality (historical realities) is found by interpreting it through the human agenda of "loyalty to fellow believers", whomever one may reckon them to be. The objective standard of God's understanding of the meaning of history is not explicitly in view (at least in the citations you have made). <BR/><BR/> If one were to interpret history (for example, the history of human bondage in North America) through the lens of God's declarations, one would conclude that Southern Slavery was a deeply evil thing. That it thrived in the context of a society that was in name committed to Christ shows how easy it is for notionally regenerate persons to deceive themselves through self-interest. One is tempted to believe that DW does this as well.<BR/><BR/> I have read that while some of Van Til's students have been prominent among the leading thinkers in Theonomy, CVT himself did not embrace Theonomy. I'm inclined to suspect that he likewise would not have gazed with approval on DW's philosophy of history.<BR/><BR/> Thanks for your 'blog.<BR/><BR/>SamAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9097408555576085021.post-52995600201365955852008-06-30T01:12:00.000-07:002008-06-30T01:12:00.000-07:00Ten hours of your week well spent. To think of all...Ten hours of your week well spent. To think of all the bird houses you could have made.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com