Since no one is interested in my constructive attempts, perhaps I need to revisit my postscript on the stacked and rigged commitee report and its contradiction of the teaching of its own members.

What I wrote seems clear to me, but apparently it is not to our blogging ruling elder and member of the committee. And he brings in several other complications.

First of all, yes, Dr. Ligon Duncan’s statement is entirely orthodox and confessional,

What God is doing is not merited. Adam has not merited this. We use the phrase Covenant of Works, not to say that man earned these blessings, but to express the fact that this original relationship had no provision for the continuation of God’s blessings if disobedience occurred. So it was a covenant contingent upon Adam continuing in his obligations. (emphasis all in the original).

That was my whole point. Dr. Duncan the lecturer on Covenant theology relates the confessional opinion. Dr. Duncan the condemner of the innocent and false accuser of the brethren makes up things (with help) like, “Merit relates to the just fulfillment of the conditions of the covenant of works” (LC 55, 174).” Early Duncan (and present Ducan from his church website) says something that is true and can be substantiated. Later Duncan says something contrary and smears everyone who agrees with his earlier self. Earlier, Adam merited nothing by fulfilling the covenant of works. Later, fulfilling the covenant of works is “precisely” what is merit according to Westminster, and here, let me show you two citations from the Larger Catechism that don’t say anything of the kind to prove it to you.

By the way, the earth is really flat and anyone who says otherwise is not theologically sound. If you don’t believe me, you need simply turn to page 34 in the original edition of Lewis Carroll’s Alice through the Looking Glass and the opening words of Tom Paine’s Common Sense….

Oh, sorry, I guess I got inspired.

Anyway, as I was saying, no one is claiming that Dr. Duncan was unconfessional, but just the opposite.

Secondly, no one is claiming to know anything about anyone’s email. Rather, when wild generalizations are circulated about “a few Federal Vision advocates,” those who are known as such on the web, and who have no idea what the blogger is talking about or why anyone would say such a thing, tend to want ward off any false impressions of what they believe. Had someone originally said these were statements from private emails and people I had never heard of, then I might not have felt compelled to correct the record.

Finally, we don’t seem to be using an impartial definition of vitriol. If you don’t like counter accusations, wisdom would dictate you not make false ones in the first place. But we can deal with the many details of what vitriol has been communicated in later posts. it will probably take more than one.