The Face of the Federal Vision

jordan-mug.jpg

FV guru and prophet in his own mind, James Jordan, has gone postal. For documentation of his complete mental unraveling go here and here. What will be interesting to see is the inevitable fallout and how men like FV apologist and shill Doug Wilson will try and deflect such clear and evident lunacy from such a prominent FV spokesman and luminary. Commenting on one blog site where Jordan similarly lost his nut, an elder in a CREC candidate church wrote:

“Wowsers . . . I gotta tell y’all- we do not appreciate Mr. Jordan’s approach AT ALL. Uncool- just unnecessary and downright divisive.”

Now, don’t get me wrong, the divisive thing is a good thing. I appreciate Mr. Jordan’s efforts. I really do. I mean, what possible unity can there be with Christ and the FV? Besides, even while spitting bile he makes some great points that P&R men everywhere need to learn. For example, over at Greenbaggins(es) Jordan barks:

Some men remain in the PCA because God has told them they have a duty to help the 7000 who have not yet bowed the knee to antichrist. They hatred of the Kingship of Jesus, which characterizes so much of the PCA, is with fighting. The Reformed faith is that faith includes fiducia, and this is still worth fighting for, regardless of how many antinominian blogs hate it.

Admittedly, even when he is not wearing his disguise, including the one where we’re supposed to believe he is a Christian man and teacher, Jordan still looks foolish, but he does provide another great example why Christian men everywhere – particularly RE’s and TE’s who think their seminary training was the last word – need to read and study Gordon Clark’s, What is Saving Faith. According to the Trinity Foundation website :

This is the combined edition of two of Dr. Clark’s seminal books: Faith and Saving Faith and The Johannine Logos. Both books deal with the crucial issue of justification by faith alone in a new fashion: by deriving a definition of faith (belief) from the Greek New Testament rather than from Latin theologians. It is both ironic and telling that most Protestants, when asked to define the word “faith,” sound like they are exegeting the Vulgate. No one before Dr. Clark has examined, collated, and systematized the wealth of Scriptural material relevant to the definition of faith. The result is a refreshing and exhilarating defense of the doctrine of justification through belief alone.

Refreshing and exhilarating are apt descriptions. So is roter-rooter for the mind. While most P&R men are universally and interminably confused on the central question of what is saving faith and to their shame, it’s clear Jordon and his ilk haven’t got a clue.

Fiducia is translated trust and the word trust is synonymous with belief. Yet, in the lexicon of FV heretics like Jordan, fiducia means works. Or, per that other gospel hater, Doug Wilson, it means “faithfulness” and believing means doing as he repeatedly asserts in his sustained attack against the Christian faith, Reformed is Not Enough. Well, it should be as plain as the nose on Jordan’s face that belief alone is not enough either for these men who all pretend to uphold the biblical and Confessional doctrine of justification which is by belief alone. Yet, in the fevered minds of FV men like Jordan and Wilson justification by belief alone is “antinomian.” Not surprisingly their big brothers in Rome make the same charge. So, not only do these men say foolish things, now they’ve finally found a look that goes with their doctrines.

One other interesting sidebar is that another FV man, PCA pastor Mark Horne, looks to be on the fast track to Moscow if Andy Webb has anything to say about it. Consider this from the comment section at Greenbaggins(es):

January 17, 2008 at 3:07 pm

Mark,

You and Jeff [Meyers] have publicly stated that you are in agreement with the teaching of Steve Wilkins and in print you have said basically the same things he has about a wide range of subjects from Baptism to Perseverance. The SJC, which is the highest judicatory of the PCA, has stated that Wilkins’ teachings raise a “strong presumption of guilt” and that he should have been brought to trial. You teach the same things, therefore the strong presumption of guilt applies to you too. Additionally the GA of the PCA by at least at 90% margin declared your teachings to be in error. I strongly suspect you have been shielded simply by the glacial speed at which we do discipline, the hope that a natural realignment would occur, and the PCA’s natural aversion to bringing charges on doctrinal matters.

That your teaching is erroneous is not a libel, it is the official declaration of at least 7 denominations, various seminaries, and the SJC.

Here is the clincher just in case Pastor Horne didn’t get the message:

And yes, Mark, if you won’t realign, and if no one in your Presbytery will bring charges against you and Jeff for your FV theology, I’ll go the exceedingly tedious way and bring charges from outside. I still have hopes that someone in Missouri will file first however. Clearly, the idea that you can stay in communion with men you FV men describe as fools, devils, antichrists, and Pharisees is idiotic.

I confess, Pastor Webb doesn’t strike me as someone who makes idle threats. To quote the CREC elder mentioned above — Wowsers!

Advertisements
Explore posts in the same categories: Heresies, James Jordan

18 Comments on “The Face of the Federal Vision”

  1. rgmann Says:

    First, as a member of a PCA church, I hope that Pastor Webb (or someone in the MO Presbytery) will bring charges against Mark Horne and Jeff Meyers. The time has come to cut this FV tree down root and branch.

    Second, I’d like your opinion on the below quote from the “The Defense of the Augsburg Confession.” While I’m not (and never have been) a Lutheran, this does seem to be an acceptable definition of saving faith. What do you think?

    But that faith which justifies is not merely a knowledge of history, [not merely this, that I know the stories of Christ’s birth, suffering, etc. (that even the devils know,)] but it is to assent to the promise of God, in which, for Christ’s sake, the remission of sins and justification are freely offered. [It is the certainty or the certain trust in the heart, when, with my whole heart, I regard the promises of God as certain and true, through which there are offered me, without my merit, the forgiveness of sins, grace, and all salvation, through Christ the Mediator.] And that no one may suppose that it is mere knowledge, we will add further: it is to wish and to receive the offered promise of the remission of sins and of justification. [Faith is that my whole heart takes to itself this treasure. It is not my doing, not my presenting or giving, not my work or preparation, but that a heart comforts itself, and is perfectly confident with respect to this, namely, that God makes a present and gift to us, and not we to Him, that He sheds upon us every treasure of grace in Christ.] (The Defense of the Augsburg Confession, Article IV (II): Of Justification, 48)

  2. rgmann Says:

    At “Green Bagginses” blog, under “The Discussion Phase is Clearly Over” thread, Gabe Martini echoed this same FV mis-understanding of fiducia:

    Post 45: The WCF presents obedience and yielding to God’s commands as part of the definition of saving faith.

    I intended to post the following response, but the “comments” option was locked before I could finish writing it. I hope you don’t mind if I post it here:

    This is just plain sophistry. The WCF clearly distinguishes between the “grace of faith” — which is the “the work of the Spirit of Christ” (WCF 14.1) — and the various “acts” that it produces in the life of a believer:

    “By this faith, a Christian…acteth differently, upon that which each particular passage [of Scripture] containeth; yielding obedience to the commands, trembling at the threatenings, and embracing the promises of God for this life, and that which is to come.” (WCF 14.2)

    The “grace of faith” is what causes the Christian to yield “obedience to the commands” — obedience is not “part of the definition” of saving faith itself. This is precisely what Scripture teaches as well: “By faith Abraham obeyed…” (Heb. 11:8). “Faith” and the works of “obedience” it produces is clearly distinguished in Scripture!

    “Therefore it is of faith that it might be according to grace.” (Rom. 4:16)

    “And if by grace, then it is no longer of works; otherwise grace is no longer grace. But if it is of works, it is no longer grace; otherwise work is no longer work.” (Rom. 11:6)

    Also, as Jeff Cagle correctly pointed out, “obedience is not the principle act of saving faith” in the WCF. Indeed, “obedience to the commands” and “the principle acts of saving faith” are quite plainly distinguished from one another:

    “But the principle acts of saving faith are, accepting, receiving, and resting upon Christ alone for justification, sanctification, and eternal life, by virtue of the covenant of grace.” (WCF 14.2)

  3. rgmann Says:

    Sorry, Sean, my last post should have included this quote from your initial post:

    Fiducia is translated trust and the word trust is synonymous with belief. Yet, in the lexicon of FV heretics like Jordan, fiducia means works. Or, per that other gospel hater, Doug Wilson, it means “faithfulness” and believing means doing as he repeatedly asserts in his sustained attack against the Christian faith, Reformed is Not Enough.

    At “Green Bagginses” blog, under “The Discussion Phase is Clearly Over” thread, Gabe Martini echoed this same FV mis-understanding of fiducia:

    Post 45: The WCF presents obedience and yielding to God’s commands as part of the definition of saving faith.

    I intended to post the following response, but the “comments” option was locked before I could finish writing it. I hope you don’t mind if I post it here:

    This is just plain sophistry. The WCF clearly distinguishes between the “grace of faith” — which is the “the work of the Spirit of Christ” (WCF 14.1) — and the various “acts” that it produces in the life of a believer:

    “By this faith, a Christian…acteth differently, upon that which each particular passage [of Scripture] containeth; yielding obedience to the commands, trembling at the threatenings, and embracing the promises of God for this life, and that which is to come.” (WCF 14.2)

    The “grace of faith” is what causes the Christian to yield “obedience to the commands” — obedience is not “part of the definition” of saving faith itself. This is precisely what Scripture teaches as well: “By faith Abraham obeyed…” (Heb. 11:8). “Faith” and the works of “obedience” it produces is clearly distinguished in Scripture!

    “Therefore it is of faith that it might be according to grace.” (Rom. 4:16)

    “And if by grace, then it is no longer of works; otherwise grace is no longer grace. But if it is of works, it is no longer grace; otherwise work is no longer work.” (Rom. 11:6)

    Also, as Jeff Cagle correctly pointed out, “obedience is not the principle act of saving faith” in the WCF. Indeed, “obedience to the commands” and “the principle acts of saving faith” are quite plainly distinguished from one another:

    “But the principle acts of saving faith are, accepting, receiving, and resting upon Christ alone for justification, sanctification, and eternal life, by virtue of the covenant of grace.” (WCF 14.2)

  4. magma2 Says:

    I don’t think anyone in the MO will take action against either man. I think it is up to Andy at this point. I think he would be a perfect choice to draw up charges that are in accord with the BCO and compile a case that would stick (the latter part shouldn’t be too hard since both men have had a lot to say certainly in print).

    As far as the statement explaining saving faith, it is not bad. I would think words like “heart” and “knowledge” could be defined. FWIW I think the WCF definition of saving faith is just fine too, even if too many read into the figure of speech “receiving and resting.”

  5. magma2 Says:

    I intended to post the following response, but the “comments” option was locked before I could finish writing it. I hope you don’t mind if I post it here:

    I apologize about not having the comments open for you, but I was concerned considering the amount of traffic due to John’s open letter to Lew Rockwell. I’ll fix it so you can post at will. 🙂

  6. Jeff Meyers Says:

    Sean,

    Please remove the photo of Jordan that appears in this post. It is my property and I did not give you permission to use it here. You have stolen what belongs to me without asking my permission. Your are clearly in violation of copyright laws.

    Thank you.

    Jeff Meyers

  7. Jeff Meyers Says:

    You should know that James Jordan has apologized and asked for forgiveness.

    You can read his apology here (toward the bottom of the comments) or you can read it here:

    —————————
    Gentlemen,

    I hereby ask your forgiveness for my several overheated posts over the last few days. I have deleted all but the first, which is the only thing I had any right to post to you; to wit: that there is nothing wrong with anyone’s commenting on the public actions and behavior of certain parties in the PCA, behavior that is public and that some regard as shocking and scandalous.

    I was out of line in my comments here, partly because the rhetoric I employed is not appropriate in a public blog, and partly because, being neither in the PCA nor a presbyterian, anything beyond a general expression of concern or horror at how these affairs are being conducted is inappropriate.

    I allowed my friendship with persons I believe are being wrongfully persecuted to inflame my language, and I wrote in anger, and I should not have done so.

    So, please forgive me for having troubled your waters, and be assured that it will not happen again.

    Sincerely,

    James B. Jordan
    ————————

  8. magma2 Says:

    You’ll notice I added a note to my readers and have honored your request.

    As for Jordan’s so-called “apology,” was this little bit of damage control hatched in your private so-called “Biblical Horizons” list serve or did he just forget to take his medication?

    What he and you should be apologizing for are the damnable doctrines you teach in the name of Jesus Christ. Instead it seems you’re more concerned with silly pictures. Pathetic.

  9. Jeff Meyers Says:

    Thank you for removing my image from your site. I appreciate it.

    Jeff Meyers

  10. Machaira Says:

    . . . being neither in the PCA nor a presbyterian, anything beyond a general expression of concern or horror at how these affairs are being conducted is inappropriate.

    So which is it Mr. Jordan? Are you merely “concerned” or are you “horrified?” There’s a big difference. And exactly which “affairs” are being conducted inappropriately? I witnessed the discussion leading up to the adoption of the study report at General Assembly last year – which BTW, was commisioned 1 year before. Discussions, debates, books, position papers, etc. were taking place long before that. Hardly a rush to judgement. How many more years should we all toss this ball back and forth anyway? Why continue to disturb the peace of the PCA when it’s painfully obvious that the time for talk is now over? What more can be said that hasn’t already been said?

  11. rgmann Says:

    FWIW I think the WCF definition of saving faith is just fine too, even if too many read into the figure of speech “receiving and resting.”

    Do you mean to say that “receiving and resting” doesn’t mean to “grab with our hands and take a nap”? Who would have ever guessed?

  12. magma2 Says:

    Thank you for removing my image from your site. I appreciate it.

    Actually, don’t thank me quite yet. Since you cite copywrite law and have asserted that I am in violation of it for posting your portraiture of Jokester Jordan which is directly relevant to my article, please tell me which portion of the US Copyright Code I have violated by posting your handiwork? Citation please.

    Also, please explain why the use of the photo, or any of the other photos of your other FV friends publicly mocking the PCA’s highest court isn’t already protected by the fair use clause of the US Copywrite Code?

    Let me just say I have a hard time believing you’re telling the truth, which is a polite way to say I think you’re lying and I may have been a little too quick to believe you.

    Thanks in advance for your consideration.

  13. magma2 Says:

    Hi Jeff, one more thing . . . about that so-called “apology” from Jordan. I went back and reviewed the comments on that site and I’d like to know what exactly he is supposed to be apologizing for? FWIW I’ve seen second rate political candidates issue better crafted feigned apologies. As far as I can tell he deleted a couple of posts which were just further reiterations of his already insane rant against the courts of the PCA. He clearly stands by his comments since they were not removed. So, since you evidently missed them, here are Mr. Jordan’s relevant comments per the link you provided:

    “The actions of the Star Judicial Chamber of the PCA are so openly wicked and evil, and so totally tyrannical, that is makes the Papacy look like small potatoes by comparison.”

    So what exactly is he supposed to be apologizing for again?

  14. magma2 Says:

    Hi Jeff, I did a little research of my own following the lead of the Federal Schism site and came across the following explanation of the fair use clause of the U.S. copyright act. I decided to put the picture back up until such time as you can explain how I am violating copyright laws by using the picture. I think I was a little too quick to take your word for it, as I certainly don’t want to violate any laws. I’m open to correction if you can explain how I have erred. I’ve highlighted the relevant bits for you. Thanks for your patience and understanding.

    . . . the courts gradually created a doctrine of “fair abridgment,” which later became “fair use,” that recognized the utility of such actions. The doctrine only existed in the U.S. as common law until it was incorporated into the Copyright Act of 1976, 17 U.S.C. § 107, reprinted here:

    Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include—

    1. the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
    2. the nature of the copyrighted work;
    3. the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
    4. the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

    The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors.[1]

    The four factors of analysis for fair use set forth above derive from the classic opinion of Joseph Story in Folsom v. Marsh, 9 F.Cas. 342 (1841), in which the defendant had copied 353 pages from the plaintiff’s 12-volume biography of George Washington in order to produce a separate two-volume work of his own. The court rejected the defendant’s fair use defense with the following explanation:

    [A] reviewer may fairly cite largely from the original work, if his design be really and truly to use the passages for the purposes of fair and reasonable criticism. On the other hand, it is as clear, that if he thus cites the most important parts of the work, with a view, not to criticize, but to supersede the use of the original work, and substitute the review for it, such a use will be deemed in law a piracy….

    In short, we must often… look to the nature and objects of the selections made, the quantity and value of the materials used, and the degree in which the use may prejudice the sale, or diminish the profits, or supersede the objects, of the original work.


  15. […] OK, he could have left James Jordan home since here is a man who is clearly no help to anyone (see here), but he could have marshaled all the shining lights in the FV/NPP to his defense. Why, it would […]

  16. raykikkert Says:

    ….and Bozo the Clown is at it again this week at the Shire …. he is sorry alright… just not in the way he has portrayed “sorry” to be.

    As JR has stated …. JJ should also start blog posts as with any new book of his….. with the introduction …… “Once upon a time” …..

    Hello Sean … glad to finally find out where you are since your time at the rtdisc forum.

    How are you?

  17. magma2 Says:

    I’m doing very well thank you. I can’t recall for sure, but I believe I was given the left-foot of fellowship on rtdisc as well? If I remember correctly, I rubbed some OPC pastor the wrong way for not embracing the idea of God’s universal desire for the salvation of all men or something along those lines. Maybe that was another list. It probably had something to do with my tone. Now only if I could get a pair of glasses like Jimmy’s I’m sure it would help.

  18. raykikkert Says:

    I think it was the right foot … they try to be polite you know:)

    I must admit…. I am getting an eye opener this week.

    First Green Baggins, here , and especially at “Mark T.’s” blog.

    These are all new to me.

    This Mark T guy pulls no punches … wowzers is right.

    Al Capone …. lol

    I chuckled at what Mr. Meyers had to say … and of course your response … he is whining over a picture …. really?


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: