I thought Waters’ answer about “heretical” was quite reasonable (here). But it raises the issue of how elastically one can spread the net by redefining “out of accord with the Westminster standards.”
Because Waters does not, ever or for the most part, even really allege any disagreements with the Westminster Standards. Rather, in his lectures and in their published transcripts, he continually discusses the “practical” consequences that he thinks one ought to follow from affirming this or that statement in the Westminster Confession (to see what I mean, search for the word, “practical” here. This interview was no different. He spent most of his time declaring how we ought to preach.
The bottom line for Waters, his books, lecture, and presbytery report, is that there is an oral tradition to the Westminster standards that must be followed. And since this is judicially unenforceable, infusing the PCA with enough flexibility to enforce the issue anyway, requires a great deal of informal propaganda work.
It will be interesting to see where this goes.
FYI, here is one of Guy Waters’ targets speaking back to him:
- Guy Waters
- Scholarship on stilts.
- Moses the blender.
- Three Extra Eggs in the Pudding
- Federal Vision Assurance
- You Betcher
- Salty Dogs & Crusty Lutherans
- Confessional Laxity Over At Mississippi Valley
- A Tulip From Calvin’s Garden
- Making the Necessary Qualifications
- Talmudic Layers of Revivalism
- Last Post on Waters