The editor of the Reformed Presbyterian Witness has decided to end the monthly DRC columns by the Rev. William H. Chellis. For some of us, at least, these articles were the best things we'd ever seen the Witness publish. Oh, well, you know what Jesus said about casting pearls before the swine. If you are interested, you may send complaints here.However, as the Lord often does, this disappointment may turn out to be a blessing. We hope that our blog readers will follow us to this new site, where we can perhaps discuss matters more openly.

add to discussion

or create a new discussion:

The editor of the Reformed Presbyterian Witness has decided to end the monthly DRC columns by the Rev. William H. Chellis. For some of us, at least, these articles were the best things we'd ever seen the Witness publish. Oh, well, you know what Jesus said about casting pearls before the swine. If you are interested, you may send complaints here.However, as the Lord often does, this disappointment may turn out to be a blessing. We hope that our blog readers will follow us to this new site, where we can perhaps discuss matters more openly.

add to discussion

or create a new discussion:

We've privatized the DRC blog, somewhat. Not that we ever officially spoke for the RPCNA, but now we are explicitly advertising ourselves as just a couple of pastors (and their friends) who like to discuss matters pertaining to the kingdom of Christ. Let the conversation continue!

add to discussion

or create a new discussion:

If we are taking about the Gospel being at stake, I agree. I have not suggested otherwise. What I have suggested, and I think Jeff and Peter have been a bit vague in their responses, is that if you are agreeing with the substance (i.e. recieving the whole of Christ’s perfect righteousness as our sole and perfect righteousess before God) I think they have not endangered the gospel. If they are simply speaking the language of the tradition in its earlier stages, fine. Still, I am fully convinced (and I think the historical theologians would back me up) that Calvin, Ursinus, and oth... [read more]

add to discussion

or create a new discussion:

Can the gospel be a stake depending on where you are? Before proceeding, let me start by affirming my belief in the imputation of the active obedience of Christ, and so I’m cool. But let me add that I don’t believe, just as John Owen didn’t believe, that denial of it amounts to a denial of the gospel. Here’s why. Unless we are far gone in sectarianism, the gospel is the same gospel wherever you go in the world. It is not possible to give the Lutherans a pass on their failure to affirm the imputation of the active obedience of Christ while nailing Presbyterians who do... [read more]

add to discussion

or create a new discussion:

Dr. Hart asked me why I reject “the imputation of the active obedience of Christ” (IAOC). My answer to the question is simple: the most significant reason denying the IAOC is important to me is the odd recent insistence by some that confessing that formulation is necessary in order to maintain one’s Reformed credentials. I will deny the IAOC with gusto as long as people keep insisting on binding my conscience with such a formulation. You see, I confess and embrace the Westminster Confession of Faith, chapter 20 “Of Christian Liberty, and the Liberty of Conscienc... [read more]

add to discussion

or create a new discussion:

I agree with Darryl Hart’s reading of Robert Rollock. Rollock was an early covenant theolgian and it is anachronistic to demand that his theological language look exactly like it would after various controversies helped us define our more precise understanding. Rollock, like Ursinus in his Large Catechism, is rolling Christ’s active and passive obedience into His total righteousness: Q. 87. What benefit accrues to us from the suffering and death of Christ? A. The one sacrifice, by which he has merited for us reception into the covenatn of divine grace, that is, remission o... [read more]

add to discussion

or create a new discussion:

I got suckered. Darryl challenged the seriousness of FV. Harumph, said I - touchily. Of course I’m serious. I mean, I write books. How could I not be serious? Wrong answer. I don’t know exactly what Darryl means when he talks about our lack of seriousness, and I don’t agree that a “serious” effort at reform has to follow the channels he seems to suggest. But he’s hit on something important. “Playful” has not been the most natural modifier of “Calvinist.” But it should be. Doug Wilson has often talked of promoting what I t... [read more]

add to discussion

or create a new discussion:

Peter asks in an earlier post how much of FV the folks here contributing have read. It points to a psychological trait that I am still trying to understand, not simply on Peter’s part but in several interactions I’ve had with folks who identify with FV. It is a certain touchiness about being criticized. When attacked, FV’s defense is to claim that it is well represented in the mainstream Reformed tradition. As James Jordan has insinuated, the mainstream (read: PCA and OPC) are really sectarian; FV is mainstream and catholic. That perception conflicts with other descrip... [read more]

add to discussion

or create a new discussion:

Following upon on my earlier post, let me continue. To reject a covenant of works based on perfect obedience is to create real confusion (pastoral and academic) over the nature of justification. Some argue that the law/gospel distinction is Lutheran and not Reformed. This is because they have not read enough of the Reformed tradition and because they have failed to understand the controling nature of the Covenant of Works as synonymous with the law. This creates a great threat to our doctrine of justification. Now, I realize that law/gospel is not necessarily absolute and that the law se... [read more]

add to discussion

or create a new discussion: