Friendly Fire

Get it here.  Or, read a review here.


Explore posts in the same categories: Uncategorized

28 Comments on “Friendly Fire”

  1. ray Says:

    Hey Sean, friendly fire … my foot 🙂

    I plan to read it … and may submit it as a book review in The Standard Bearer.

    This calling heretics and doctrinal idiots …. “brothers” is not immune to the PC in America. I received a verbal spanking this week on the URC forum for rejecting the CRC and the CREC as recommended congregations to visit. I called them both liberal and unreformed … I was told I was not being fair.

    There’s too many sucky babies, as many pacifiers … and obviously not enough “men” who will take a stand … call things for what they are … and put these doctrinal idiots in their place…

    This so called “brother” business is a pukefest, a loathsome stench.

    What ever happened to “Mark T” over at the Federal Schism Blog? It’s been stagnant … thought you may know.

  2. qeqesha Says:

    Hi Sean,
    Congratulations for another output in defence of “the faith once delivered to the saints”! I have read “Not Reformed at all!” and got to understand the way Wilson, through subtlety and plain contradiction and false reasoning deceives many and obscures the free gospel of our salvation!
    ray, one wonders how those who call these men “precious brothers” arrive at that conclusion in the light of the strong warning against error and equally scathing and condemnatory language in scripture against false teachers! On the other hand, they may be right in calling them their “brothers”, certainly not mine!


  3. Sean Gerety Says:

    Hi Ray, I would love to have you review it for SB. As for Mark T, I have no idea. I emailed him privately some time ago and never heard back. I hope he’s alright.

    Hi Denson. Thanks. As you may already know, Not Reformed was mostly John. I was just glad to be part of the project. John was originally just going to run a review of Wilson’s book I had written as a double issue of Trinity Review. I just can’t fathom how anyone can read Wilson Reformed is Not Enough and fail to conclude that Wilson is nothing more than a clever charlatan.

  4. Gus Gianello Says:

    Dear Sean,
    Congratulations! I have enjoyed and agreed with thoroughly every book that you have written. That is not a testament to you, but to Christ who has raised up an able warrior. I plan on getting this soon.

  5. Paijo Says:

    Unfortunately, Trinity Foundation does not allow transaction via bank transfer. It is difficult for us from Indonesia to purchase the books published by TF. Once I decided to order via a book provider, but the price tripled the original price.

  6. Paijo, The Trinity Foundation accepts Visa or MasterCard, and if that does not work you can send an international money order. Any further questions, email me Thanks. Tom Juodaitis, The Trinity Foundation, The Bible alone is the Word of God.

  7. speigel Says:

    I was just on a forum reading a topic about how Christians should view FV/NPP people. So far, consensus on the forum says that FV/NPP leads to heresy but isn’t heresy itself. Someone likened it to Arminianism or Roman Catholicism. (Should RCC’s even be considered brothers?) So maybe that’s why people call FV/NPP people brothers.

  8. Sean Gerety Says:

    I don’t know what forum you were on, but the FV/NPP doesn’t lead to heresy; its already arrived.

    There is an interesting piece and discussion over at Scott Clark’s blog concerning the FV denom, the CREC, making inroads in Europe. I think Clark is spot on when he writes things like:

    …”The FV is a profound corruption of the gospel masquerading as the Reformed faith.”

    …”I know some Arminians (Tom Oden comes to mind) who get the gospel. I don’t know any FV folk who get the gospel.”

    …”If “the gospel” was being preached, I would rejoice. That’s the issue. That’s why most of the NAPARC churches have rejected the FV (and why the CREC is not in NAPARC) — because the gospel isn’t being preached!”

    Of course, Clark doesn’t have everything so right:

    Whatever the case the movement of the FV into Europe is bad news for the future of the Reformed churches there. I hope they look closely at the the American confessional churches have done and that they act to protect themselves against this virus and these wolves.

    It would be a grave mistake to look to American confessional churches for guidance. Other than writing a couple of reports, some better than others, but all altogether useless in stopping the spread of the FV/NPP movements, the American Pres/Reformed denoms have completely failed to protect the sheep for the simple fact that they have not successfully prosecuted EVEN ONE FV/NPP teacher on the charge of heresy. Instead, the PCA calls its main FV/NPP teachers “brothers in Christ” and exonerates them when examined on a Presbytery level,which, I suppose, all explains why those on your forum can’t even see that Romanism is a false gospel.

  9. speigel Says:

    @Sean: The forum I was referring to was the PuritanBoard.

    Ironically, on the forum, it was RS Clark that said “The FV is, as William Ames said of Arminianism, an error tending to heresy but not heresy itself.”

  10. Sean Gerety Says:

    Well, that’s a contradiction. Do you have the link?

  11. speigel Says:

    RS Clark’s is the last post as of the time I’m typing this:

  12. Sean Gerety Says:

    Bizarre. Charitably one would be tempted to excuse Clark as simply contradicting himself, but since he advocates contradictions in his own theology and considers such thinking central to the Reformed tradition, who knows?

    Perhaps in his mind the FV is “a profound corruption of the gospel masquerading as the Reformed faith” … and is at the same time only “an error tending to heresy but not heresy itself.” It is both heresy and non-heresy at the same time. Or, perhaps, “a profound corruption of the gospel masquerading as the Reformed” is not really heresy at all but only tending toward it?

    Is there any wonder why the FV/NPP continues to grow and spread and now even in Europe?

    Thanks for pointing that one out Speigel.

  13. Sean Gerety Says:

    FYI, R.S. Clark said:

    I doubt that the FV is “heresy” strictly defined. In the narrow definition, heresy is a denial of the two natures of Christ, the Trinity, the existence of original sin, or something on that order.

    Evidently someone can deny the gospel and still not be a heretic according to Clark. Go figure. Evidently the pope of Rome isn’t even a heretic according to Dr. Clark.

  14. Lauren Kuo Says:

    N.T. Wright and the New Perspective have become very appealing to youth leaders and young men fresh out of Bible College within the Christian church. I think it is because it is new and fresh and gives these young guys a sense of intellectual air or superiority. The NPP is the Trojan Horse of the church today. It is a false gospel disguised in the scholarly writings of a misguided theologian. I am so saddened to see this virus spread to so many denominations and now even continents.

  15. Lauren Kuo Says:

    I have observed on other sites several men who were in the PCA, Covenant Seminary, and WTS have left for the Roman Catholic Church or to Anglicanism. What is it about the PCA that drives them to Roman Catholicism?

  16. Ron Gilbert Says:

    Interesting question Lauren.
    One might also ask, What is it about Clarkianism that led two authors of Trinity Reviews, who once adherred in some respect to Clark’s (and consequently Robbins) views (Michael Czapsky and David Reuters[?]) to end up teaching at Roman Catholic colleges?
    This is simply a fallacious argument (ad hominem or asserting the consequent?): to say that there is something inherent to the PCA that leads to RCatholicism because men leave the one for the other is as invalid as saying that Clarkianism leads to Rome as well.
    I’m afraid you’ve been duped, as others have been, by Clark/Robbins rhetoric and their insufficient theological, epistemological, and philosophical base.

  17. Sean Gerety Says:

    It certainly is anecdotal Ron, despite the rest of your vitriolic spit. Since Lauren was only asking a question, I hardly think her remarks can be characterized as fallacious. Besides, there IS something inherent to the PCA that leads to Romanism and that is the complete inability of PCA TE’s and RE’s to do anything about those who continue to advance the Romanish FV & NPP within the bounds of the PCA. I guess you haven’t noticed there are entire Presbyteries within the PCA where the systems of salvation advanced by the FV & NPP are openly taught with complete impunity and where well known FV/NPP teachers have been publicly exonerated and protected.

    Oh, yeah, I know, the PCA has a report supposedly repudiating the FV/NPP while calling the demonstrable Christ denying heretics cited in the report “brothers in Christ.” Must be one of those Vantilian paradoxes. 🙂 LOL!

    BTW, Michael (Czapsky) Sudduth was privately taken to task by Dr. Robbins years ago and publicly on the Yahoo Clark list for working for an RC University. FWIW IMO Robbins’ public rebuke has more to do with Sudduth’s tired attacks on Clark’s Scripturalism than any legitimate philosophic disagreement. As, for David Reuters, I never heard of him nor can I find his name listed in the TR archives. Sorry.

    Do me a favor, next time you decide to post here try and show some evidence that you know what you’re talking about. Thanks in advance.

  18. Cliffton Says:

    The main reason that many in the PCA and all other Presbyterian and Reformed churches seek out the Roman Catholic Church/State is because those individuals deny that Truth is solely propositional and therefore deny that our relationship to God is solely intellectual. They have a form of godliness and yet deny His power. That is, they resist the Truth.

    To answer your question Lauren, the PCA, as a denomination, does not communicate to its members the Biblical view of Truth. Neither do most, if not all other Reformed and Presbyterian denominations, as denominations, communicate to its members the Biblical view of Truth. Rome offers the only other alternative… and they communicate it to their members.
    Of course ultimately, the reason why many in Reformed and Presbyterian denominations resist the Truth and seek out Italy’s Rome and England’s Rome is because God has ordained such men to this condemnation.

  19. Sean Gerety Says:

    Clifton, obviously you’re just another brainwashed dupe who has taken in “by Clark/Robbins rhetoric and their insufficient theological, epistemological, and philosophical base.” =8-P

  20. Bob S Says:

    What is it about the PCA that drives them to Roman Catholicism?

    Two items that are foundational to the mix.
    1. The PCA came out of the old SPres church on fundamentalist issues – Chapt. 3 of the WCF was already a lost cause. And if fundamentalist soteriology is arminian and the latter according to Packer’s comments in his historical foreword to Luther’s Bondage of the Will, is essentially popery . . .
    2. The PCA (Amer.Pres.?) version of the WCF alters the Reformation testimony and witness that the pope is the antichrist, sitting as he does in the temple (church) of God and claiming to be God (2 Thess. 2).

    FTM here is the Catholic Perspective on the Federal Vision. The author is a former grad of Westminster East.
    Nuff said imo.

  21. Ron Gilbert Says:

    Sean, I will not respond to you in kind. Jesus has changed me.

    It was David Reiter, maybe? He was, with Sudduth, a winner of the Clark Prize. Found it.

    So, how is expressing my opinion that others are duped by false teaching, which proposition John made a 30 year career of, and you a lesser one, apparently, “vitriolic spit”?

    If it applies to me, it applies to you: Romans 2…you who teach others, do you commit the same sins?

    Let us be careful, Sean of how we apply this standard, yes?

    Are you interested in discussion? In knowing the facts? Or, are you God’s self-appointed Hammer, taking upon yourself the mantle John dropped of smashing your perceived enemies?

    Am I your enemy if I tell you the truth?

  22. Sean Gerety Says:

    Besides Taylor Marshall, don’t forget that one of Rome’s most devoted and prized apologists, Robert Sungenis, got his MA in Theology at WTS in the early 80’s and I’m quite sure Norm Shepherd was one of his profs.

    Also, Scott Hahn was a PCA minister. Not surprisingly his conversion to Romanism was as the result of his study of covenant theology. Dr. Robbins knew Hahn personally when he was a Reconstructionist PCA pastor in Fairfax, VA. You can read a very timely account about Hahn here:

    The above piece is, believe it or not, from 1994. More evidence that Dr. Robbins was well ahead of the curve on the FV and the incredible debt those who continually deride him actually owe him. Take for example this bit concerning Shepherd’s relationship to Hahn while STILL A PCA PASTOR:

    While he was at Gordon-Conwell being supported by a Calvinist Christian businessman, Hahn adopted the Roman Catholic view of justification: “When Christ formed the New Covenant with us, then, it was much more than a simple contract or legal exchange, where he took our sin and gave us his righteousness, as Luther and Calvin explained it…. In fact, I discovered that nowhere did Saint Paul ever teach that we were justified by faith alone! Sola fide was unscriptural! “I was so excited about this discovery. I shared it with some friends, who were amazed at how much sense it made. Then one friend stopped me and asked if I knew who else was teaching this way on justification. When I responded that I didn’t, he told me that Dr. Norman Shepherd, a professor at Westminster Theological Seminary (the strictest Presbyterian Calvinist seminary in America) was about to undergo a heresy trial for teaching the same view of justification that I was expounding. “So I called Professor Shepherd and talked with him. He said he was accused of teaching something contrary to the teachings of Scripture, Luther and Calvin. As I heard him describe what he was teaching, I thought, Hey, that is what I’m saying” (30-31).

  23. Sean Gerety Says:

    Sean, I will not respond to you in kind. Jesus has changed me.

    Into what Ron? I have my own ideas if you’d like me to share them with you?

    It was David Reiter, maybe? He was, with Sudduth, a winner of the Clark Prize. Found it.

    “Maybe”? Maybe what Ron? Does Reiter teach at a RC college or not?

    I did find a Professor Reiter when I Googled the name, but what I came up with is:

    David D. Reiter
    Associate Professor of Philosophy
    Arrival at Erskine 2007
    Education Background: B.A. Covenant College, M.A.R. Westminster Seminary, Ph.D. University of Nebraska-Lincoln

    Interestingly, according to the TR you linked, the Reiter who won the prize also was “educated at Covenant College and Westminster Seminary.” Now, I’m unfamiliar with Erskine, but what I could find is that it is “A Christian liberal arts college which is a part of the Associate Reformed Presbyterian tradition.” Now perhaps this is the same Reiter who was the prize winner and did at one time teach at a RC college, who knows, do you?

    There is no debate that Sudduth did teach at an RC college and that he is a big reason, if not the reason, why Dr. Robbins discontinued giving out the prize. That’s considerably more than the PCA has done concerning the FV & NPP teachers and pastors currently filling PCA pulpits.

    So, how is expressing my opinion that others are duped by false teaching, which proposition John made a 30 year career of, and you a lesser one, apparently, “vitriolic spit”?

    John must have been guilty of false teaching, after all you say so, right Ron? Why don’t you put a little thought behind your spit and vinegar and demonstrate your charge. Because if all you can do is spit, please do it elsewhere and prove to us all that Jesus has really changed you.

    Are you interested in discussion? In knowing the facts? Or, are you God’s self-appointed Hammer, taking upon yourself the mantle John dropped of smashing your perceived enemies?

    If you have an argument Ron, offer it. So far describing what you’ve said as “vitriolic spit” is just me being nice and considerably more honest than you seem to be. After all, you’re interested in facts aren’t you? As for taking up John’s mantle, I have no delusions of ever being able to fill his shoes. I’m just one of many who are deeply indebted to Clark/Robbins and what you call “their insufficient theological, epistemological, and philosophical base.”

    Am I your enemy if I tell you the truth?

    Not at all. When will you start?

  24. Ron Gilbert Says:

    You are off, way off, and you’ve been duped.

  25. Sean Gerety Says:

    For those who may not either know or recall or even care, but Ron here was fired from the Trinity Foundation for violating his confidentiality agreement with Dr. Robbins and was caught secretly providing one of Doug Wilson’s men with information he evidently thought incriminating of his employer. Evidently even Federal Visionists in Wilson’s employ have more integrity than Ron does and informed John of his dishonesty and deception.

  26. Gus Gianello Says:

    Here is an anecdote–for what its worth. I went to a PCA church in Toronto in the 90’s. At the time I was a reconstructionist–hallelujah!I am now free. The pastor told me he gave the Lord’s supper to a “repentant” homosexual. The pastor’s definition of repentance in the case of this “Christian” homosexual, was that ONLY every three months, he would–the homosexual–fly out to Winnipeg and have a one night stand with a “buddy”. I was rightly offended and scandalized. I went to the session and protested, telling them that unless the pastor ceased and desisted from giving the Lord’s Supper to this unrepentant-repentant homosexual, I would leave. I was called a fanatic for my trouble. This was the same church where a woman in front of the whole congregation called those of us who did not support the pastor’s ministry (because of other issues) “bastards” and told us to go to hell. She was never disciplined. I left, one year later the church died, and I was labelled a schismatic.

    My conclusion? They were well on the way to being RC at the congregational level. The clergy has a special relationship with God and must not be criticized; the laity are not to judge. Sacraments are more important than the Word. Does it apply to the whole PCA? Of course not. But I do have an acquaintance in a PCA presbytery in Texas. He was rebuked and threatened with discipline at his presbytery for not honoring his Christian brother the pope.

    So as far as the PCA, RPCNA, URCNA, CRC, Bible Presbyterians and OPC go–I’ll have church at home, ala “Imperious Presbyterians” thank you.

    1. It’s not slander, gossip or sinful, if it’s in the mouth of two or three witnesses. Its exposing a hidden agenda.
    2. Going on a man’s blog, which is HIS property and starting a string with mealy mouthed intellectually dishonest jabs at him, and his dead friend is not only impolite but also indicative of “how much he has changed.” There is a difference between piety and religious hypocrisy. Talk to Silas Marmer.
    3. Inconsistency on the part of Tom Juodaitus does not mean that the doctrine of the Trinity Foundation is wrong. IF he is inconsistent–and it is gossip to assume that he is without two or three witnesses, and Mssr. “I have changed” is not a credible witness (see John 8)–that is between him and God.
    4. I sometimes chuckle when I hear you Yanks talk. You are so naive when it comes to socialism and facsism. Canada is a THOROUGHLY fascist country. Will you now accuse me of being inconsistent for participating in TOTALLY government run health care. I get free meds (samples) from my doctor to help with my Type II diabetes. I taxpayer of Ontario pays for my doctor. So am I inconsistent, that is, by implication a hypocrite? Or am I a prisoner of the Dominion of Canada, and the Province of Ontario, who will be jailed if I try to pay for my medical visits? You see, in Canada, you go to jail for trying to get private healthcare. Only three countries in the world do that: North Korea, Cuba, and Canada.


  27. Ron Says:

    Sean: “Since Lauren was only asking a question, I hardly think her remarks can be characterized as fallacious.”

    She made an assertion. A proposition is always the meaning of a declarative sentence, and all interrogatives may be put into declarative form.

    Lauren: “I have observed on other sites several men who were in the PCA, Covenant Seminary, and WTS have left for the Roman Catholic Church or to Anglicanism. What is it about the PCA that drives them to Roman Catholicism?”

    Syllogism: Men go to the RC Church/Anglicanism + men leave the PCA = There’s something about the PCA that drives them to RC/Anglicanism.

    False. There’s nothing in the premises that leads to the conclusion.

    The premise, “Men go to the RC Church/Anglicanism” is not allowable under Clarkian terms, either. Men Whether it is asserted ‘one’, ‘several’, or ‘many’, as Bob S and Clifton assert, that would require an INDUCTION, which a consistent Clarkian holds to be false in every instance.

  28. Sean Gerety Says:

    Ron, I don’t get the sense that Lauren intended her question to be understood as rhetorical. And you certainly haven’t shown that she intended it that way. Questions are neither true or false and cannot be used as a premise in an argument. So, and to be charitable, I don’t think Lauren was making an argument.

    Dr. Elihu Carranza who wrote the companion workbook to Clark’s Logic writes:

    A proposition is a form of words in which the predicate is affirmed or denied of the subject of a declarative sentence. A proposition is the meaning of a declarative sentence. Declarative sentences are either true or false. Propositions are the premises and conclusions of arguments. Other sentences, in expressing commands, posing questions, or conveying exhortations are neither true nor false. Some questions, rhetorical questions, are intended as propositions; but if a question is not rhetorical, then it is neither true nor false.

    The way I and I think others here understood Lauren, and was certainly the natural, not to mention the charitable, way to read her, is that she was saying:

    Several well known men who were in the PCA, Covenant, and WTC have left for the RCC.

    Is there something inherent in the PCA, Covenant and WTC that leads men to Rome?

    Now, there is something inherent in the PCA that does lead men to Rome or Rome lite and that is a version of Roman soteriology is preached with impunity within the PCA and in a number of PCA Presbyteries. Do you deny this Ron?

Leave a Reply

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

You are commenting using your 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: