A trailer for SOP released today that names many contributors to the project. Among them are many egalitarians (like Du Mez and Barr), slanderers of the brethren (Moore), proponents of CRT (Anyabwile), and various confessional P&R ministers. (2/10)
My question is Paul’s from 2 Corinthians 6:14: “What fellowship has righteousness with lawlessness? And what communion has light with darkness?” (3/10)
The cause of anti-Wilson is not so righteous that it justifies sin and doctrinal compromise along the way. The truth will not be vindicated by mixing it with falsehood. The sheep will not be protected by confusing them, misleading them, or exposing them to false teaching. (4/10)
What kind of sin and compromise am I talking about? Here is SOP (presumably Bell) promoting what is a direct attack on biblical and Reformed church discipline, which demands that accusations of sin be proven in church courts (which necessarily consist of qualified male elders). (5/10)
These folks can’t be confessional and Reformed while promoting ecclesiastical anarchy. Discipline is the third mark of the true church, and a core biblical and confessional doctrine (see Matt 18, 1 Cor 5-6, Belgic 29-32, WCF 24 and 30, the various BCOs and member vows) (6/10)
In a related development, Nick from Bell's former podcast Guilt Grace Gratitude (sort of) responded to me on Saturday, claiming that GGG has nothing to do with Bell or anything else related to this matter. (7/10)
I appreciate hearing from him on this. The problem is that Bell (both in May and now) has claimed that Nick was the one responsible for GGG representing Bell as a pastor, and also that Danny Hyde and OURC had his credentials. (8/10)
Either GGG was/is involved, or Bell is not telling the truth, but both cannot be true. So far there has been no further clarification from Bell or GGG. It would be nice to clear this up. (9/10)
In summary, we have more problems and questions now than we started with. SOP seems to be speeding towards release with no brakes but we still don't know the truth and men who should know better and could do something don't appear to be taking action. (10/10)
@threadreaderapp unroll
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
It is here that some of my former fellow Escondidans might jump in and say "But it's a Venn diagram! They overlap! VanDrunen's book even has it on the cover!" But while that overlap is claimed, the political is thought about/talked about in an almost exclusively negative way. 1/
In this camp, the church is what matters, the political doesn't. So even if someone from the camp happens to be politically positioned and active, they're more or less expected to do so in a disinterested fashion, primarily preserving the American status quo. 2/
Basically, just do whatever it takes to keep politics separate from us. The moment any political activity starts to look assertive in a pro-Christian direction, the hand-wringing begins about kingdom confusion, theology of glory, eschatological expectations, etc. 3/
You will see a lot of Meredith Kline sympathizers mine quotes from historic Reformed sources about things like the Covenant of Works. Going back to the sources is certainly good, but if we're going to do that, we need to go all the way back.
You certainly can find forms of republication in the tradition. However, it's not enough to say, "republication exists therefore Kline vindicated." One must look deeper, not only into the context of quotes but into doctrines that are prior to particular covenantal formulations.
How does the tradition speak about things like grace, works, law, and merit? In the thread I quoted above, it becomes clear that Reformed theology had a rather unified and unanimous understanding of merit that Kline did not follow (compare the quotes above to this: )meredithkline.com/klines-works/a…
So it seems Peter Bell is gearing up to release something Wednesday to prove he didn't misrepresent his licensure to churches. I don't see what exactly this accomplishes.
1. The major misrepresentation was not that Bell was a licentiate, but that he was a pastor. This misrepresentation was published for over a year by GGG. We determined in our investigation that Bell no longer had valid licensure, but that was secondary.
2. We never alleged that Bell was misrepresenting his licensure to churches. We noted a couple of details in our ecclesiastical letter like the incomplete MIF and some believing he was licensed in the RPCNA simply to outline the trail we followed and difficulty we had.
We confirmed with the Presbytery of Southern California (OPC) that Bell was not licensed to preach or approved as a stated supply. One minister said they had plans to ask the PSC to take Bell under care (a step before licensure) but to our knowledge this never occurred.
I confirmed with an elder at Oceanside URC that Bell was no longer licensed or a member there. This was doubly confirmed by friends who have access to the URCNA licensed exhorter list--Bell was not on it. Licensure expires, he either gave his up or didn't maintain it.
I also corresponded with bodies in the PCA and RPCNA, as Bell served as supply in the RPCNA for a time and my contacts in the RPCNA told me he left the RPCNA to pursue opportunities in the PCA. Still no licensure any of those places. I have all of this documentation.
I'm going to do a living thread of various Reformed and Reformed-adjacent ministries that took federal COVID bailout money through the Paycheck Protection Plan.
I did a piece on Reformed seminaries doing this about a year ago. Rather than duplicate those efforts, here you go. 1/onceforalldelivered.com/publish/posts/…
The Gospel Coalition took funds two times, totaling just under $800K. No big surprise there. 2/
By the way, current participants in federal loan programs certify compliance with Title IX, which has been interpreted by the current Department of Education thusly: ed.gov/news/press-rel…