The Castle Church Door

I do not necessarily speak for the other Christ the Center folks in responding the way I do to Scott Clark’s blog post about our FV discussion. This should be very clearly in mind. If the others decide they agree, fair enough, they can comment on my blog or elsewhere. The issue with Dr. Gaffin is certainly a WTS versus WSC issue, not just an issue regarding the Federal ...

Last time I went through the FV Joint Statement, I dealt with paragraphs 5-6 together. A word on the rhetoric of that post: what I mean when I say “in other words” is that this is the consequence of what is being said. I still do think these two paragraphs are the weakest section in the whole document. I really want to ask several questions, however. Could Doug please ...

Some of you might possibly be interested in an interview on the Federal Vision I recently did with Christ the Center group. I think we did get at a basic primer on the Federal Vision, what it is, and what are its dangers.

I always enjoy reading Doug’s rhetoric. It is always creative and colorful. One criticism that could never be levelled against Doug’s writing is “boring.” In this instance, it is the language used to describe his astonishment that I have apparently given Lusk a free and clean bill of health (perhaps unknowingly). Let me set the record straight on this issue. I have never criticized Lusk for saying that ...

if Scott saw that I needed a bit of help on the question of faith and obedience in relation to Doug, and decided to post this. At any rate, he expresses magnificently better than I could what I have been trying to say to Doug. I really cannot do better.   

Some really great arguments as to why the authors of the Westminster Confession of Faith were right in saying that the entirety of the moral law was given to Adam before the fall.

Doug has answered my post here. I am not going to answer every point. If he wants to think that he has checkmated me on certain issues, he can think that way. He has never answered my exegesis, nor has he shown how my alternatives to obedience/disobedience description of faith are not to the point. He has claimed that they are not to the point, but that is not the same ...

Doug has responded here. I want to remind us of what the main issue that started this long series of back and forth (surely the longest in our blog debate). The issue is this: is there a distinction to be made between works of the law, on the one hand, and obedience on the other in justification? I see that as the context for the whole debate. Everything ...

Doug has responded here to my post, and I think we are getting at some extremely important issues here. The question is this: can justifying faith be described in any way as obedience to God’s command? The reason I believe that Doug has not engaged my exegesis is that he does not yet realize that I have actually addressed this question. What my exegesis is intended to show is that the ...

I don’t recognize myself very much in this post. Something got garbled. It could have been me, or it could have been on Doug’s side. I make no immediate judgment. But at the moment, there is a clear mud of communication. At any rate, the arguments I was putting forward (or thought I was putting forward) bear very little resemblance to the arguments that Doug was cheerfully demolishing. I am very careful ...