The dark army of the Jesuits marches on
R. Scott Clark has apparently been appointed the front man to deflect a flurry of publicly made charges that his institution - Westminster Seminary California - has not only been infiltrated by Jesuits, but is friendly to counter-Reformation Jesuit tactics and strategy. Unfortunately for WSC and Mr. Clark he is not sounding very believable. He is also making his situation worse by deleting comments to his post made by people who have inside information and are naming names. (Mr. Clark, do you really think nobody ever sees comments that you delete?) One commenter linked to this article which Dr. Clark was not eager for anybody to read (this commenter was also naming names). The default sacerdotalism of Mr. Clark and his institution has come from somewhere. Overall, the battle for these Protestant institutions was lost when they all got down on their knees to the Jesuits and accepted their Romanist/Alexandrian 'bibles'. Personally I'm content to just watch them as they sink further and further into the hell and Beast system they so seem to desire to be a part of.
5 Comments:
A side note: it's very possible that the targeted impatience of the Federal Vision leaders (Jesuits all) towards Westminster Seminary California is *because* this institution was suppose to be *usable* by now due to Jesuits having attained teaching positions there; and the particular annoyance with Dr. Clark that the Federal Vision leaders have publicly displayed is obviously due to, in their view, Dr. Clark's innocence as to what is supposed to be happening (because they otherwise see Dr. Clark as being fully given over to their side regarding their Jesuit 'bibles' and the default sacerdotalism Clark pushes). In other words Clark doesn't understand what he teaches, but he still doesn't yet have enough of the spirit of the devil to get on board with the Jesuits and their program. I.e. he's a *problem.* He frustrates them. Annoys them. "Can't we get that boy out of the way?" the Federal Vision Jesuits say in exasperation.
I'd like to see the deleted comment. Did you save it?
No, you know, you don't think of saving every comment you read. I notice Clark mentioned in a further comment that he deleted someone's comment saying it was 'too long', or something like that. It sounded like the guy knew Clark and the other people involved, and Clark seems to mention him by his first name, though he may do that with all his commenters.
The guy's theme I recall was the mixing of darkness with light. Basically the lukewarmness of Christian academia. He also mentioned Clark was defensive and not believable.
Again I say the obvious: when you've adopted Romanist manuscripts and 'bibles' based on them you have already gone over to the system of the Beast at the foundational level.
I saved it and emailed it to Stephen Macasil the guy named in the comment as Morey's understudy. His email is on the Biblical Thought website. Here's the comment deleted by Scott Clark. It is odd that he said it was deleted for what it was "promoted???"
_______
*Dr VanDrunen’s first book, on Thomas Aquinas, (cue more spooky music), was published by Peter Lang. The booklet to which you refer, A Biblical Case for Natural Law, was published by the Acton Institute. There are both Protestants and Roman Catholics involved in this socially and economically conservative think tank.*
>Depending on how one interprets Scripture, a case “can” be made against this as a sinful venture between light and darkness. But that would require too much effort in convincing one that Rome has a false gospel and are therefore not brethren, not really the topic here.
*His most recent book is to be published by P&R, so I guess, that, judging by who his publisher is, he must be P&R now.*
>Well, this seems like it’s a step backwards in this discussion. Again, I don’t think that Morey is saying that a publisher determines the author anymore than a school determines the man. His article you linked to seems to take several aspects into consideration such as the subject, the publisher, the dedication to a Jesuit priest, as well as the Jesuit training from Loyola. It sounds like Morey is connecting the dots and in disappointment saying, “looks like the Jesuits finally got a man inside our walls.” After all, as a Westminster alum he “can” say this. Being taught the Reformed faith by John Murray, Cornelius Van Til, John Frame, and others, maybe he knows something that you don’t about the efforts to separate Rome & Geneva in this area of conflict. According to the article, he states that Van Til would have condemned Van Drunen’s booklet as heresy.
*So, Protestants should not make common cause on social issues with Roman Catholics?*
>Personally, my answer is not if it requires abandoning sola scriptura or disobeying scripture. But my view isn’t really on the table here. But I do believe I am on the side of the reformers, puritans, and WTS on this (for the most part). But Morey’s article seems to criticize natural theology and natural law. Maybe he’s more of a divine command theorist, thus his low view of religious naturalists.
*Does Morey check the religious affiliation of every donor who sends him money? If a Roman publisher wanted to publish my book and pay me royalties, I shouldn’t take the deal? How far are we willing to take this sort of separatism? So there is no such thing as common life together?*
>This could be opening up a can of worms if we fully explore the biblical answers to your questions. The question would be why a Roman publisher would want to publish your work. It could be said that your book was obviously Roman-friendly, and if it were, it could be called into question whether or not it affirms Roman doctrine rather than refute it with the true gospel of Jesus Christ according to Scripture [which I do not believe Rome possesses].
*We can’t have Roman Catholic friends? We can’t learn anything from Roman scholars? We shouldn’t read Roman books?*
>We’d have to discuss what fellowship light has with darkness, Christ with Belial, Believers with unbelievers, etc. This isn’t the best question here, I think.
*I won’t be a party to that sort of deliberate ignorance and bigotry.*
>Looking past the lingo and at the argument itself, I can see how this reasoning, if accepted and worked out fully, can lead to the destruction of the Reformed faith as we know it. There’s an obvious disagreement between you and Morey, just like there is between Van Drunen and Kloosterman (sp?), the alarming reality is when the OPC sides with Rome and smites fellow Reformed brothers. The argument hinges, from my vantage point, on the noetic effects of the Fall, depravity, special revelation, etc. These issues have Reformed distinctions that seem to be overlooked or put away in order to promote natural law theory. I have to say that Morey and Kloosterman are sounding more Reformed “on this issue” than their opponents.
*Look, if there’s a Roman conspiracy afoot it’s a failure. There are about 60 million Roman Catholics in the USA and they’re not very faithful at all. The papists have a too much worry about in their own house, how can they expect to infiltrate WSC? As far as I know there are a handful of (visible) Bishops in the Catholic Conference who are traditionalists. Most of them oppose the current pope. Many of them aren’t very good Catholics themselves, judging by the Catholic Catechism.*
>I’m afraid that you just revealed a very, well, I hate to say ignorant, but an ignorant view of the Jesuits and the counter reformation. Many agree that the Jesuit objective is to release protestants from sola scriptura, not convert them to Rome immediately. You have commented on biblicalthought.com in the past, an article by Stephen Macasil (studies under Morey) that kind of summarizes this here: http://biblicalthought.com/blog/ad-maiorem-dei-gloriam/
*Are you suggesting that Dr VanDrunen can be bought? If so, I think he must be a wholly owned subsidiary of WSC since we pay him a lot more than the Acton Institute ever did!*
>I don’t know Dr. Clark, you sound very defensive here. I thought you’d see this differently, like many Christians, and consider it bold, noble and faithful what Morey is doing in defending the faith against the false Roman religion.
_________
This is a penetrating gash that really exposes the contrroversy. No wonder they hate Morey so much. He nails them to the wall.
That's the one I saw. I seem to recall there were others, or at least one other. The person named Gil seemed to get some deleted, or it was around his comments. Anyway, Clark cut of the commenting function for a reason.
Clark reduces making a stand against the Beast system to 'bigotry'. Academic Reformed Christian are more comfortable in the company of Romanists than in the company of born again believers.
You see the same thing with Federal Vision. The same Reformed academics are more comfortable in the company of those false teachers than in the company of the born again believers who confront them boldly and directly.
Post a Comment
<< Home