There is a saying that, in an internet debate, the first person to call his opponent a Nazi has lost. I’m thinking we need a TR application that the first person to claim his opponent is equal to a mainliner justifying sodomites, or is an “angel of light,” has pretty much lost all credibility.
Of course, it would be different if there was a theological or exegetical argument being offered. But if we have nothing to work with besides a transparent concern for relationships rather than truth–manifested as an appeal to prejudices and tribal loyalties rather than any sort of principled reasoning–then there’s not much hope that the case can be salvaged. It will stir up those who already agree or those who are part of a cult of personality, but it won’t persuade anyone else. Anyone who cares more about truth than appearances is not going to be swayed.
I thought the slam on a former “respected member of the reformed Baptist world”–identified in a way that would reveal him to anyone who wanted to know–was particularly unattractive. Tim knows very well there is plenty of Reformed Presbyterian support for his target’s realization that (some) Roman Catholics are heaven-bound Christians (just like some Baptists and Presbyterians). Or consider this from Hodge’s Systematic Theology under the heading, The Teaching of the Spirit:
Although the inward teaching of the Spirit, or religious experience, is no substitute for an external revelation, and is no part of the rule of faith, it is, nevertheless, an invaluable guide in determining what the rule of faith teaches. The distinguishing feature of Augustinianism as taught by Augustine himself, and by the purer theologians of the Latin Church throughout the Middle Ages, which was set forth by the Reformers, and especially by Calvin and the Geneva divines, is that the inward teaching of the Spirit is allowed its proper place in determining our theology. The question is not first and mainly, What is true to the understanding, but what is true to the renewed heart? The effort is not to make the assertions of the Bible harmonize with the speculative reason, but to subject our feeble reason to the mind of God as revealed in his Word, and by his Spirit in our inner life. It might be easy to lead men to the conclusion that they are responsible only for their voluntary acts, if the appeal is made solely to the understanding. But if the appeal be made to every man’s, and especially to every Christian’s inward experience, the opposite conclusion is reached. We are convinced of the sinfulness of states of mind as well as of voluntary acts, even when those states are not the effect of our own agency, and are not subject to the power of the will. We are conscious of being sold under sin; of being its slaves; of being possessed by it as a power or law, immanent, innate, and beyond our control. Such is the doctrine of the Bible, and such is the teaching of our religious consciousness when under the influence of the Spirit of God. The true method in theology requires that the facts of religious experience should be accepted as facts, and when duly authenticated by Scripture, be allowed to interpret the doctrinal statements of the Word of God. So legitimate and powerful is this inward teaching of the Spirit, that it is no uncommon thing to find men having two theologies, one of the intellect, and another of the heart. The one may find expression in creeds and systems of divinity, the other in their prayers and hymns. It would be safe for a man to resolve to admit into his theology nothing which is not sustained by the devotional writings of true Christians of every denomination. It would be easy to construct from such writings, received and sanctioned by Romanists, Lutherans, Reformed, and Remonstrants, a system of Pauline or Augustinian theology, such as would satisfy any intelligent and devout Calvinist in the world.
So Tim’s target, as an “intelligent and devout Calvinist,” satisfied that “Romanists” as members of one “denomination” among others, are satisfactory. This earns him the imputation that his destination is either Byzantium or Rome. Why would that be the case? There is certainly nothing in the real historic Reformed tradition that mandates one must choose to either not be Reformed or else declare all Roman Catholics are going to Hell.
(Late revisionist claims that the only theological homes are either “Geneva or Rome” should be recognized for what they are: clumsy attempts to justify slandering Reformed believers as crypto-Roman Catholics. Of course, the “only-two-options” claim could just as logically go in the completely opposite direction–so that all but the most hardened Pope is actually an Evangelical Calvinist. But these slogans are never intended to be decoded by logic. The intended conclusions are just as much axioms as the principles that are invented to lead to them.)
The fact is that it is Tim’s quasi-unidentified target who cares more about truth than relationships.
Many of my former supporters don’t like what I’m saying, but it’s become clear to me how nasty, rigid, and legalistic that community is. Ever since I’ve taken this new path, former supporters have attacked me and accused me in the most vile way. Standing for truth has shown up the hatefulness of my former friends…
This is an interesting statement to quote critically under a headline claiming that the bad guys are begging, “Can’t we all just get along?” It doesn’t sound to me like Tim’s target wants to get along with people like him because he knows it would be at the expense of truth. There he stands, and Tim can only claim on the basis of his own deep authority that this means he will soon probably become Eastern Orthodox.
I have to admit, the Bayly brothers have an interesting blog. What sort of outrage will they articulate next?–often against another member of their own denomination’s ministry? This time it was the “new perspectivists.” A short while ago it was a friend of mine for writing a tract that is actually worthwhile to read, as opposed to merely being fun polemics. Never satisfied to simply disagree, we are assured that this fellow minister is a pawn in Satan’s hands. (Odd how much easier it is to blog this than to write a formal letter to Greg’s presbytery.) It is hard to not occasionally detour on the information superhighway so you can glance at the carnage.
But I don’t think it is serving any real Christian purpose. If Tim has some argument that Luther was right about Galatians, I’d love to see it. As it is, to the extent that his attack applies to his own denomination, no one he is attacking denies justification by faith alone or any other orthodox doctrine. No one denies that every sin deserves eternal punishment by a Holy God. No one denies that no one can do anything to deserve God’s mercy. No one denies that one must trust in Christ in order to be justified by his death and resurrection–an extrinsic righteousness.
This is the basic breakdown in Tim’s analogy. While there are mainliners who justify sodomy, there is no one Tim can point to in the Evangelical world who embraces tridentine merit theology. The only way to define people as heretics is to mandate sweeping unargued shibboleths. If you disagree with Luther’s commentary on Galatians you are Romanists; here I stand, I can do no other.
Well, in my opinion, Tim is wrong. We may learn about the proper practice of the Lord’s Supper because the Corinthians “just happened” to be doing it wrong, but justification by grace through faith only through the alien righteousness of Christ in his death and resurrection is not something that depends on a response to a First-Century Galatian false teacher preaching merit legalism. It is thoroughly worked out in all of Scripture, Genesis, Deuteronomy, Ephesians, and Titus, to name a few books off the cuff (not to mention, the positive teaching of Galatians and Romans themselves also declare this plainly). Preaching through First Corinthians I found plenty of great material that proclaimed salvation by grace alone without ever having to insist (or finding any Reformed commentator who felt he had to insist) that the error-teaching Corinthians were teaching salvation by works instead of grace.
(Sometimes, it almost seems as if anti-NPP Evangelicals really agree with higher critics and against N. T. Wright that Paul did not really write Ephesians. If we don’t have a Lutheran scenario in Galatians, then we have no protestant doctrine.)
Frankly, I have simply never seen anyone address the concerns I have raised about the rush to condemn PCA ministers who appreciate the work being done in Pauline scholarship that comes under the heading, “New Perspective.” In fact, I have witnessed an amazing propensity to change the subject and write–well, write about the things Tim chooses to write about rather than engaging in the exegesis of Galatians. Making false claims about people with whom one disagrees seems to be the preferred strategy to articulating arguments to persuade those people they are wrong (or at least not reformed or whatever). It seems as if there was never any reason to think: as soon as one hears that some believe that the false teachers in Galatia are not proto-Roman Catholics, one not only knows by instinct that they are wrong, but that they are morally perverse for considering such a position–pretending to be Protestant while really heading to Rome.
(Here’s a mental exercise: Read the Westminster Confession and Catechisms and write down all the things that a Presbyterian minister, who subscribes to these documents, is required to believe about the prevalent theology of first-century Judaism. Or better, given the fact that the prooftexts appended to these documents have never been required as part of the doctrinal standards–thus allowing for a steep decline in Presbyterian preaching regarding the sacrament of baptism–list what a Presbyterian must believe about “the works of the law.”)
If “new perspectivists” are really in such great error, has anyone done more to harden them than Tim? Would he be prone to reconsider his position in response to such an attack?
For further reading:
Getting Some Perspective on the “New Perspective”: What’s at stake (or not!) for Reformed Pastors regarding the contemporary discussion of Paul and “the works of the law”?