So I continue to give Doug Wilson links (he rattled off his numbers today, so that’s why I’m acting all intimidated). But I can’t simply let this excellent post rest in my del.icio.us sidebar. The “distraction” must be quoted:

Steve holds to the Westminster Confession of Faith. If we are talking about original intent, he is far more in conformity to the Westminster than are his accusers. Ask any of those who are worked up about his teaching if they believe the two sacraments are effectual means of salvation. They will respond that they believe the sacraments are means of grace, but they are means of sanctifying grace, not saving grace. So then ask them why the Catechism question put it the way it did, instead of asking how the two sacraments are effectual means of sanctification. You will get a reply that amounts to them having an interpretive wand that they wave over certain words to make them mean, a la Lewis Carroll, what they want them to mean. They will perhaps add that this is why nobody wants to debate you. You keep getting off the point, which is that you are a heretic, and keep gravitating to extraneous material, like how the early Reformed fathers made almost all the same points you guys are making. “Like, man, who cares?” This is a postmodern era, and the TRs are now going in for advocacy history — the cheap and easy way of being historic and confessional. But they would rather not know about this because they still like believing that they are genuine conservatives.