A recent Ref 21 post by Prof. Carl Trueman compares the World Vision flip flop on homosexual "marriage" and the firing of the Mozilla CEO because he donated to Cqlifornia's Prop 8 in 2008 which supported traditional marriage. His conclusion is that the sword of economic boycott works both ways and Christians shouldn't complain, but realize that's how the cookie crumbles in the real world. (World Vision reminds us of Zondervan and their gender neutral NIV. Public outcry put the last on hold, but Z had its way in the end. Any guesses on how long WV holds the line?) Besides evangelical doesn't really mean evangelical when it comes to evangelical para church organizations or businesses. So now we know.
The Stacked Deck
There are a couple of objections. One, there is not a level playing field out there. The main stream moron media, the courts, the schools and the other elite powers that be, are all pushing for marital rights for sodomites and lesbians despite the fact that the LGBTQ@#%? whatever contingent in society is a marked minority. The Kinsey Report notwithstanding (Judith Riesmann among others, dismantled that fraud and egregious propaganda long ago), at most we are talking about 1 to 3 percent of the population. (Even 5 percent would be hopelessly optimistic in our opinion, but in la la land, one never knows what the progressives will dream up next.)
The Big Lie
Two, the campaign for "equal rights/protection" is a lie. While it purports to be another way of saying everyone is equal before the law, all it really is about is the French Jacobin notion of egalite, i.e. the egalitarian perversion of equal opportunity to mean "equal outcome" or "equal results". And since both male and female homosexual liaisons don't measure up to the historic definition of marriage, ergo we need to do some meddling, preferably by the coercive power of the state, so that everybody can get "married" and live happily ever after. See. Wasn't that easy, boys and girls?
After all, it is not just the pursuit of happiness that is constitutionally guaranteed, but the attainment of happiness. Which is to say government guarantees, if not supplies an education, a job, healthcare and a marriage. If not also children, if homosexuals are allowed to adopt. (I know. It's not loving to forbid homosexuals to love children. Therefore they must be allowed to adopt them.)
Fundamental Reality, Not Fundamentalism
But the big objection in our opinion, is number three. This does not have to be a religious or Christian issue per se. While it is true that marriage between Adam and Eve - not Adam and Steve - was first instituted by God in the Garden before the fall, so too the one in seven day of rest is equally a mandate of the moral/natural law. Which means evangelicals cannot really consistently violate one creation ordinance, even as they complain about the perversion of the other. Still, it's called common sense. From time immemorial the union of a man and woman has produced children which the same couple by and large with yes, help from other family members and the community at large, raise to adulthood. Yes, there have been and are exceptions to the rule, but when by the same token have homosexual relationships ever been raised to the status of marriage, even granting that homosexuality has been around since time immemorial?
In other words, where for all practical purposes do these knuckleheads think children come from? The dry cleaners? And who raises them? After their three square meals a day at the local daycare cum
public government school and a trip to the Boys and Girls Club, we sit the young'uns down in front of the HiDef TV section at Walmart open 24 hours a day to be further edumacated/entertained before they drift off to sleep sucking their thumbs? When all is said and done, it still comes down to a man and a woman, regardless if the same sexers resort to artificial insemination, surrogacy or adoption to provide children for their categorically sterile unions. While it is true, not all marriages produce children, what is the exception for traditional marriage, is the rule for the sodomites and lesbians.
Luv, Luv, Luv
Further, the dessicated, if not degenerate definition of marriage now current, is all about "love", if not emotion. We readily grant that charity, which is what the hoary old King James Bible calls love, plays a distinct part in your average marriage, but really. To make it all boil down to affection or love, is to regress to an infantile narcissism. What's next? Will people in the future be able to marry their suitcases? Their toasters? How about their bicycles? And if not, why not?
The Other Big Lie (No, Not Obamacare)
Or better yet their offspring, siblings or parents? And if not the latter threesome, again why not? As Joe Sobran would have it, channeling a raucous Juvenal, at least the heterosexual versions of these pairings got the poop chute figured out. Not to mention, so much for that other Big Lie; that heterosexuals get to marry "anybody they want to"/whomever they love. All the while incest, polygamy and group marriages are verboten. Which fact is conveniently ignored by the homosexualists. Because it contradicts the approved
fairytale narrative about "discrimination".
The Building Blocks of Society
The family is the first school, church, business and state. If things go gunnybag in the family, everybody else in society is playing catch up to fix it. (In other words, we interrupt the regularly scheduled dreck to announce that the family has been around a lot longer than the humanitarian hunger and poverty fighting World Vision and it has done a better job to boot.) Which means the whole pogrom about marriage equality is really about anything but. In our day, all it actually does is further the growth of the totalitarian state. That is because when all is said and done, only the civil magistrate has coercive power; the power to physically compel people to do something - as in fine, imprison or execute. As opposed to just firing, flunking, excommunicating or just avoiding someone in any other sphere of society. In this case it is the coercive power that has been perverted in order to compel equal outcomes/results, if not the equal attainment of happiness, i.e. healthcare and marriage for everyone. Because they are all "equally protected" by law. Or so the
non sequitur argument goes.
Equal Time For Reality?
But more than that, in reality the whole "marriage equality" schtick really is nothing more than an assault on reality. One might as well argue for equal protection for square circles or unicycles must be permitted to have two wheels. In other words, this is not about discrimination - even that of discernment - rather this is all about distortion of reality, if not history. What supercilious stupidities and audacious inanities will we be subjected to next? Will our stormtroopers for the brave new world order have something to say about gravity? That it is not fair that what goes up, must come down? Or will we be told on the pains of a bankrupting lawsuit and threat of jail something a little more mundane? That pigs can fly and not just first class on SouthWest, but solo in the pilot's seat?
Sexual nirvana and same sex utopia awaits breathlessly. Boo reality. Hiss discrimination. Welcome stupidity and death. Along with, in the mean time, more big government to speed up the process. Sounds like fun. Only bigots, haters and
homophiles homophobes could object.
Perverts? Nah, that category is just a figment of your imagination.
Thursday, April 10, 2014
Sunday, January 19, 2014
All The While Spray Painting Targets And Snipe-hunting For Protestant Fish In a Roman Barrel Full of Cloistered Monkeys
Particularly since the same interlocutor has just given us "Clark, Frame, and the Analogy of Painting a Magisterial Target Around One’s Interpretive Arrow " in which he attempts to frame confessionalist RS Clark in his own words, of committing the same crime as Clark accuses biblicist John Frame to be guilty of: Setting oneself up as the interpretive authority over Scripture.
The reformed again, at least have a case for their apostolic succession of doctrine, while romanists emphasize apostolic succession for their bishop and lump all who disagree into the camp of the anabaptists, who only claim to read the holy Book by the light that comes in the crack in their own individualistic roof, the Scriptures having just dropped out of the sky and down their chimney a half hour ago.
After all, Luther had acknowledged that his teachers Arnoldi, Trutvetter and von Staupitz had first pointed him to Scripture and helped him clarify the true biblical meaning of repentance in the sense of metanoia or 'an about face turning from sin' contra the prevailing understanding of "doing penance". And all of his teachers were Roman clergy in good standing with the church.
And this from a papist apologist who has told us elsewhere that:
Of course an inquirer who is considering the Catholic paradigm as a whole will consider how the Catholic paradigm (which includes these five doctrines) makes sense of all the available historical, biblical, patristic, and philosophical data, in relation to the other available paradigms.Yet perhaps there really are no other available paradigms, aside from the anabaptist straw man masquerading as the Presbyterian and Reformed paradigm of Sola Scriptura contra the Sola Solipsism parody that Mr. Cross and the Called to Communion cadre continually parrot.
End of Story.
Straighter than narrow
Where ever we go
It's me and my Arrow
Scripture Interprets Scripture According To Scripture
All this again, contra the countless examples in the Old Testament, never mind that of Christ and the apostles in the New, or even the solitary example of the Bereans Act 17:11, of: "it is written". As in the constant refrain and the repeated appeal in Scripture . . . . to Scripture. Not "it is written in Tradition". Not "it is written by the Magisterium". Not "it is written in the ex cathedra Papal Bull". Rather "it is written" is written in - of all places - Scripture and it refers to - of all things - Scripture, i.e. the written word of God.
Of all this, Mr. Cross writes not, though somebody like the apostle Paul does. In his second letter to Timothy, Paul has the audacity to say that Timothy "from a child (brephos) has known the Scripture which enabled him to become wise unto salvation in Christ Jesus (3:15)". Of our roman interlocutor's schtick, that Scripture is unknowable, if not uninterpretable, apart from the sacramental magisterial authority of the Roman bishop, Paul knows and says nothing. But then again, perhaps our Romanist philosophy professor has never been a child and has always been a grown up adult that wears a purple
Assumptions, Presumptions and Accusations vs. Proof
But if as Mr. Cross tells us elsewhere, "The accuser has the burden of proof", then Mr. Cross assumes what he needs to prove:
One, that the reformed confessions are not in submission to Scripture, but lord it over Scripture contra what they explicitly declare; that they are unreformable not only in principle, but in practice.
Two, Scripture never ever clearly interprets or expressly appeals to itself over and above other authorities, magisterial or no. IOW “it is written” cannot be found within the apostolic deposit of canonical Scripture nor does it refer to the same.
Three, solipsistic private protestant judgement, if it is even capable of understanding his (infallible?) argument for the infallible sacred sacramental magisterial authority of the pope, is just as equally incapable of understanding Scripture.
In other words, Mr. Cross needs to come clean about his magisterial witch hunt with a crooked arrow if he really expects to be taken for anything but a sophist for the papal cause; which is to say, a liar for an ecclesiastical regime, which is itself built on lies about Scripture, reason or history (aka tradition). Till then he gets to play bow and arrows all by himself as by all rights he should. But only if his mother, Rome does not come and take his sharp toys away from him for fear he'll hurt himself.
*Correction: with apologies for the mistake. See here for an overview of Cross's background.
Thursday, February 07, 2013
Over at Triablogue regarding Is It Sinful To Produce Or Want Evidence Like The Shroud Of Turin? the same thing John Bugay was complaining about regarding the CtC site happened – at TB.
As below, we couldn’t even get a “Your comment is awaiting moderation”.
Guess we don’t rate like John.
The discussion was going along swimmingly and then blip.
Out like a light.
There are any number of problems with the post, but the chief one is the one that closes the "awaiting moderation" comment below.
(T)he argument from John 20:29 is:The full comment replying to the italicized reads:
Blessed are all those who have believed the evidence written in Scripture and believed in Christ.
But the Shroud of Turin is not one of the evidences written in Scripture.
∴ Those who believe in it are not blessed.
Another passage of Scripture and a new argument is needed to prove that the Shroud of Turin is a good thing.
steve2/07/2013 1:38 AM
"Don’t know CM’s work or beliefs. Warfield didn’t think there were any if I understand the gist of him on Perfectionism. In light of the purpose of miracles in Act 2:22, Heb. 2:4 I am inclined to say no."
So, for instance, you don't think God ever heals anyone in answer to prayer.
Distinguish. Can God work through, beside or without means such as prayer and medicine? Yes, but in that Scripture is sufficient for our faith his economy is not miraculous like it was in the past I believe is the standard reformed answer.
"See above. What kind of evidence. Fallible or infallible?"
So you're admitting that your appeal to Lk 16:31 is qualified. Some people believe when they witnessed the Resurrection.
Distinguish. Are we in the same position as the apostles where we could witness the evidence for, much more Christ risen in the flesh?
"Paul’s conversion as an apostle was miraculous. Can/will it happen again. (Mohammed?Joesph Smith?)"
Do you agree with the Westminster Confession that the Pope is the Antichrist (a la Mt 23, 2 Thes 2, Rev 13)?
Yes, but one the beast in Revelation performs false miracles. Two, do you want to argue that the two witnesses are to be interpreted literally as what along with their miracles? Further is not the resurrection of sinners dead in their tresspasses a miracle?
Because we are not archaelogists, but Christians. We require infallible proof...IOW by this time more and more TB looks to be promoting lutheranism and evidentialism."
Perhaps you can identify the author of the following statement:
"We determine what books have a place in this canon or divine rule by an examination of the evidences which show that each of them, severally, was written by the inspired prophet or apostle whose name it bears; or, as in the case of the Gospels of Mark and Luke, written under the superintendence and published by the authority of an apostle. This evidence in the case of the Sacred Scriptures is of the same kind of historical and critical proof as is relied upon by all literary men to establish the genuineness and authenticity of any other ancient writings, such as the Odes of Horace or the works of Herodotus. In general this evidence is (a) Internal, such as language, style, and the character of the matter they contain; (b) External, such as the testimony of contemporaneous writers, the universal consent of contemporary readers, and corroborating history drawn from independent credible sources."
Wrong question. What does the WCF1:4,5 ultimately say about why men believe Scripture?
Notwithstanding the previous arguments and evidences, “our full persuasion and assurance of the infallible truth and divine authority thereof, is from the inward work of the Holy Spirit bearing witness by and with the Word in our hearts.”
Can we say that about the Shroud of Turin?
Jason Engwer2/07/2013 5:34 AM
"Paul’s conversion as an apostle was miraculous…. Could they be mistaken?... Acts while canonical describes what was going on before the canon was closed. And dreams as one of the 'diverse manners' God has previously chosen to reveal himself have ceased (WCF1:1)."
You give us no reason to apply Luke 16 beyond the people Jesus is addressing in that passage. Instead, you assume without argument that Jesus is addressing all unbelievers.
Then, when Paul's conversion contradicts your reading of Luke 16, you dismiss his conversion as "miraculous". How does the miraculous nature of his conversion resolve the problem it poses for your reading of Luke 16? All conversions are miraculous. And some of those miraculous conversions are brought about by means of encountering the risen Jesus or evidence for his resurrection.
Distinguish. God makes the rules and he can set them aside.What infallible evidence do we have today for his resurrection found or recorded outside of Scripture?
You then dismiss all post-Biblical converts who cite evidence for Jesus' resurrection as a factor in their conversion. You ask, "Could they be mistaken?" Asking that question doesn't give us reason to think it's probable that they're all mistaken. And we don't assume that people are mistaken about their conversions as our default position. If you want us to think they were mistaken, you need to provide some reason for reaching that conclusion. People aren't normally dishonest or experiencing a memory lapse, for example, so we don't begin with an assumption that people are probably wrong about what they're saying regarding a subject they're in a good position to judge. So far, in order to preserve your speculative reading of Luke 16, you not only have to dismiss Paul's conversion, but also the claims of many post-Biblical converts.
Is your or my testimony on anything, never mind our conversion equal with Scripture? To ask is to answer the objection.
Then you dismiss Cornelius' conversion by citing the Westminster Confession and making a comment about the canon and dreams. Why is it that we should avoid spending time and other resources on an extra-Biblical source like the Shroud, because it's extra-Biblical, yet it's acceptable for you to study and cite extra-Biblical sources like the Westminster Confession? And how does citing the Westminster Confession reconcile Cornelius' conversion with your reading of Luke 16?
WCF1:6 Not only Scripture, but the good and necessary consequences of Scripture are Scripture.
Thus Jesus with the Sadducees regarding the woman with 7 husbands. He appeals not to his own authority, which they don’t accept, but to Scripture which they do, much more an implication of Scripture and chides for their unbelief.
Cornelius lived before the close of canon when extrabiblical signs and wonders were part of the economy. With the death of the apostles and the close of canon, as per WCF1:1 Scripture replaced the former unwritten evidences/revelations.
"What are those contexts?"
I've already explained, many times. Similarly, a hymn, a book, or an archeological artifact wouldn't have to convert people in order to be useful in some manner.
True, but the argument from John 20:29 is:
Blessed are all those who have believed the evidence written in Scripture and believed in Christ.
But the Shroud of Turin is not one of the evidences written in Scripture.
∴ Those who believe in it are not blessed.
Another passage of Scripture and a new argument is needed to prove your point.
Tuesday, December 18, 2012
One was more than a little disappointed to read the current Ref21 website headline article, “It’s the Most Wonderful Time of the Year” by Mr. Hays, (which has since been superseded by an article on the Newton school shooting. Digging around even further, we did find two excellent articles by Roy Blackwood, Reforming Your Bible Study and The Exercise.)
While it is well enough written as far as it goes, it evades the real question regarding the celebration of Christmas among evangelically confessional churches, at least the presbyterian. IOW “invidious associations” of paganism, popery or partying upon the holiday are not of the essence of a principled concern or objection from Scripture.
Rather the P&R churches, contra the Lutheran or Anglican, understand the good and necessary consequences of the Second Commandment to be that ‘whatsoever is not commanded – explicitly or implicitly in Scripture – is forbidden in the worship of God’. In other words, what is called the Regulative Principle of Worship (RPW). Thus the Larger, Shorter and Heidelberg Catechisms on the Second Commandment and the Westminster Confession Chapt. 21 On Religious Worship, if not also the Belgic Confession Art. 32 Of the Order and Discipline of the Church.
Consequently as the Appendix to the Westminster Assembly’s Directory of Worship states, “Festival days, vulgarly called Holy-days, having no warrant in the word of God, are not to be continued”. “No warrant” as in “uncommanded”. And if uncommanded, forbidden.
Again, while we are commanded in Scripture to observe Christ’s resurrection once a week, not once a year at Easter – that is after all the reason for the switch from the seventh to the first day when it comes to the 4th commandment – and his death in the Lord’s Supper, we are never commanded to observe or celebrate his birth whatever the associations it might have for us, sentimentally or culturally notwithstanding.
Granted the continental reformed churches have not been as consistent or agreed with the presbyterian on the point. Early on – arguably, if not largely due to the civil magistrate’s sponsorship of the traditional feast days according to Van Dellen and Monsma’s Commentary on the Church Order – the same Order called for the congregations to religiously improve those days, though previously the churches had set them aside.
Yet it must also be recognized that the 1566 General Assembly of the Church of Scotland only took exception to the Second Helvetic Confession in a letter to Beza when it came to observing the “festival of our Lord’s nativity, circumcision, passion, resurrection, ascension and sending the Holy Ghost upon his disciples” in the 24th chapter. Why? “(F)or we dare not religiously celebrate any other feast day than what the divine oracles have prescribed”. The Word does not command it. Or the RPW if you will.
In the next century, Geo. Gillespie was a well known Scotch representative at the Westminster Assembly (1643-49), in part due to his previous Dispute Against English Popish Ceremonies (1637). This is the classic presbyterian work on worship that skewers the largely Anglican arguments for not only the indifference of feast days such as Christmas, but also their lawfulness, expedience and necessity. Needless to say, Gillespie’s conclusion is that all four arguments fall short of carrying the day.
For that matter, William Ames was an Nonconformist minster who fled persecution in England for Holland, only to serve as an advisor to the Moderator of the famous Synod of Dordt (1618) and later as a theological professor at Franeker. [His Marrow of Theology was very popular in America and though he died before moving there, his widow, children and library made the voyage after his death to New England.] He quotes an early church father Hospinian in his Fresh Suit Against Human Ceremonies in God’s Worship (1633) to the effect that “Not the day, but the Word of God, etc. puts us in mind of the nativity, resurrection and ascension of Christ”.
In light of all this, one might hope for some clarification on the issue from the Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals. Again, invidious associations with paganism are the least of the classic confessional objections to the “most wonderful time of the year”.
And that with all due reverence and respect to the memory of that most noted, revered and eminent minstrel of good cheer and singer of theological songs, one Andy Williams.
Thank you very much,
[See also here, for a "Christmas Day" sermon by Calvin.]
Saturday, November 17, 2012
at 7:51 PM
Monday, February 06, 2012
Not Ron Paul (unless Voddie Baucham don't have clue) or even the Newt Gingrich in the recent Repuglican debate. Rather we know that those who criticize Paul for not reading his 20 year old newsletters, can't be anybody -- mainstream media or member of Congress - involved with passing the Patriot Act, the TARP Bailout or ObamaCare, all of which were "Too Big to Read". In other words, for one, we're talking major mainstream hypocrisy.
More Smoke and Mirrors
Friday, February 11, 2011
He shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient;
One Ring to rule them all, One Ring to find them
One Ring to bring them all and in the darkness bind them
In the Land of Mordor where the Shadows lie
Yet as others have asked, is there any constitutional mandate for what was presented as the resolution of the problems that are facing the nation? But to ask is to answer, you silly goose. Perish the thought. May it never be.
Tweedledum and Tweedledee may be separate entities for tax purposes, but by and large, they are still both firmly rooted in the trunk of the Dire Necessity of More Big Government Management/Control of the Economy - whether indirect, through corporate collusions and cartels (fascism) or direct, through actual ownership of business, i.e. Government Motors (communism). In other words, whether direct or indirect, government control of the economy is of the essence and definition of socialism, however it escapes the talking heads. Ben Gleck can't understand that Social Security is a socialist program, however much that Jon Stewart Leibowitz might chide him about it on the Daily Show because at the least, both of them are really in favor of the fascist version of socialism, with respective emphases on either warfare or welfare. But it's all ice cream, regardless of the flavor.
Monday, January 24, 2011
A Report from the Friends of the First Amendment Society
As the Federal Vision more and more is starting to resemble a theological gong show, no doubt the Larger Catechism on the Ninth Commandment will be permanently drug (sic) out of cold storage and "hurt feelings" will be the de facto response to anything resembling plain and blunt speech, which in its turn will be labeled intemperate "hatespeech" and consequently dismissed via Geo. Orwell's memory hole. Even those who oppose the FV run the risk of being sucked in, as the following items might indicate.
Likewise, the title above has already transgressed the thin red line for the discerning reader, but we takes our chances in these days of declining literacy, theological or otherwise. That Scripture itself refers to heresy, idolatry or apostasy in terms of whoring around is, of course, completely beyond the pale of modern moderate calvinism and the finer sort of tea parties to which brazen faced women are seldom invited. But to continue.
The Green Hobbit Society
Nevertheless Mr. Meyers in 2007 signed the Joint Federal Vision Statement, which makes for a prima facie case that Prov. 30:20 contains the substance of Mr. Meyers's apology, if it does not contain, at the very least, a wholesale, full scale repudiation of the JFVS - which it did not:
Such is the way of an adulterous woman; she eateth, and wipeth her mouth, and saith, I have done no wickedness.Likewise any discussion or critique of that same apology is misdirected/mistaken if it fails to aknowledge the obvious. To put it very mildly. Which is pretty much what happened at Bilbo's blog.
Partners in Crime/Band of Brethren
Of Meyers's PCA brethren, Messrs. Wilkins, Leithart and Horne, who also signed the JFVS, Wilkins of Louisiana Presbytery and his congregation has since fled - surprise, surprise - PCA jurisdiction in Jan. 2008 for the safe haven of the Confederation of Reformed Evangelical Churches (CREC) to escape - what else? - censure for his FV theology. Peter Leithart, though a member of Pacific NW Presbytery of the PCA, serves a CREC church in Moscow, Idaho and is currently facing charges in the same presbytery after the PCA's Standing Judicial Commission directed the PacNW to re-examine Mr. Leithart's views. (As below, we think a standing judicial commission more pragmatic than presbyterian.)
Friday, October 15, 2010
Impatience with Fundamentalism and
Infatuation with Mysticism
Due to Studied Ignorance of the Protestant Reformation
While this is not a complete book review, just an examination of the Prologue which can be read for free on the internet, to Frank Schaeffer's latest book, some things are still a dead giveaway. Schaeffer still tells us what he thinks as bluntly as he used to in the old days when, as “Frankie”, an angry young evangelical, he wrote A Time for Anger, The Myth of Neutrality in 1982.
Now however, in his latest title of 2009, Patience with God: Faith for People Who Don't Like Religion (or Atheism), while Frank is beyond being crazy for God, he’s still crazy - as in irrational. (But that’s OK because it’s part of being both religious and experience oriented according to Frank.) His latest tells us of his irritation with and rejection of both evangelical and the secular “New Atheism” fundamentalism as opposed to his fascination with Kierkegaard’s philosophical existentialism, if not again Eastern Orthodoxy, which always hovers in the background.
Mr. Schaeffer is either genuinely ignorant of, if not that he deliberatively chooses to ignore, Biblical Christianity, at least as it was understood and confessed at the Protestant Reformation in the Reformed Faith by the Presbyterian and Reformed churches in concocting his rebuttal of fundamentalism. Of course, Mr. Schaeffer is entitled to his opinion on these matters; that is beyond question. That his arguments are new, of substance and persuasive is an entirely different matter. Consequently an examination and critique of both evangelical fundamentalism on the one hand and existentialism and Eastern Orthodoxy on the other is in order, as below and in contrast to Mr. Schaeffer's evasion of the orthodox and Biblical solution to the issues he raises.
Monday, January 11, 2010
[Something else grubbed up from the archives and formatted for the web, in light of Mr. Schlissel's latest confusion on the RPW.]
Letter to the Editor
Mr. Doug Wilson
August 10, 2001
In order to forestall any incipient prelacy in the New World order, Moscow, Idaho style, the Credenda Agenda, if not its good Editor, need to stop hem-hawing around and clarify its position on worship. Specifically this means explicitly affirming the historic reformed exposition of the Second Commandment commonly known as the Regulative Principle of Worship (the RPW hereafter): "Whatsoever is not commanded in Scripture is forbidden in the worship of God."