Wednesday, November 16, 2005

To Rome or Relativism?

Finally, the high regard for Mercersburg Theology is open and apparent. They wish to be High Church Calvinists like John Nevin and Philip Schaff. I am sorry that Rev. Meyers thinks that Nevin is not understood and that he is used as an albatross to tie around necks. Nevin and Schaff destroyed the German Reformed Church. They ran out members that disagreed, they forced Liturgy and new theology on the church. It lead to decades of strife, contentiousness, and hostility. In the end, Nevin won because they controlled the seminary. The RCUS merged with the Evangelical Lutheran church, and then they merged with a Congregational group to make the United Churches of Christ. Rev. Meyers is right about one thing. Being a Mercersburg High Church Calvinist is not being on the road to Rome and her doctrine. It is on the road to no doctrine at all.

If the Reformed tradition turning into the UCC is not proof enough, then examine the new denomination of the Confederation of Reformed Evangelical Churches (CREC). This denomination is permeated with Federal Vision proponents such as Wilson, Sandlin, and I believe Leithart ministers in one of their churches. There constitution allows member churches to choose which Reformed confession to follow including the Westminster and the London Baptist confession. What about the differences over such things as sacraments? Those differences are not important. Doctrinal unity gives way to organic unity. The Federal Vision is not on the road to Rome for even Rome recognizes doctrine is important. The Federal Vision is on the road to relativism.


Anonymous said...


Where have you been?

Anonymous said...

Of course you know that Princeton Theological Seminary and the PCUSA are in a similar state of liberal disrepair because of the teaching of Hodge, Warfield, and Alexander,

Logical fallacies 101: Post hoc, ergo propter hoc.

You win the "whata schmuck" award this week.

Anonymous said...

Why stop there? Luther caused the ELC with his high sacramental views and since Nevin and Schaff were reduplicating Calvin's view of the sacraments, it is ultimately Geneva Johnnies fault!

Garrett said...

As a soon-to-be pastor in the CREC I find the denomination's broadness on confessions (all reformed by the way) admirable. The fact that the CREC has some of the most dogmatic high-sacramentalists in American Reformdom and is still able to accept other reformed viewpoints is frankly refreshing. I have seen allot of brotherly kindness and working out of John 17 on this side of the fence.

Finally, denominations like the PCA are filled with extremely divergent theological viewpoints that flesh out all of the acceptable confessions of the CREC. They just do it unofficially.

Fred Carpenter said...

Lee, you really need to get a grip!

The sad truth is that, even if you came to see something different from your strict vow of the TFU and OP perspective in how you interpret it, you couldn't believe it publicly anyway unless you demitted the RCUS ministry; that's the box you're in, so all you can do, apart from growth and change, is to see the sky falling around you;

see Mark Hornes's comments todayand his positive growth, which is something you FEAR, and sadly your vow closes the GRowth door anyway...Fred carpenter

Anonymous said...

Silly, Lee.

Lee said...

I have posted my reply to the Post Hoc fallacy charges above. I do hope that you all will review the evidence carefully. I look forward to more comments and discussion.


Matt Powell said...

I think any anonymous comment (especially a negative one) is reduced in credibility by about 99% just by virture of being anonymous.

But strict subscription and growth in understanding hardly seem to be so utterly incompatible as you make them, Fred. For one thing, it would assume that our individual knowledge already equals that of all of the men who wrote those creeds, which is quite a stretch. It also assumes that the statements of the creeds are utterly exhaustive on every issue, which of course they are not. They are not exhaustive of all positions even on those positions which they cover.

Fred's statements are quite insulting to the RCUS and betray his ignorance of the wide variety of positions that men in the RCUS hold on many issues, while still professing strict subscription to the 3FU.