Puritan Board implodes
One Matthew Winzer, a pastor from Australia who has the status of an oracle over at the PuritanBoard, is currently coming out of the closet as a proto-Romanist, useful idiot in the service of Federal Vision doctrine. In Winzer's case: foundationally in the service of his demand for infant baptism. More proof, as well, that Reformed paedo-baptists are default sacramentalists and more comfortable in the company of Rome than in the company of any real Protestants.
Am I being too hard? No. I first saw these flaws in Mr. Winzer when he willfully threw the Covenant of Redemption under the bus because, yes, in some byzantine way it threatened his all-important infant baptism doctrine. Imagine that: denying the foundation of the Covenant of Grace to 'save' infant baptism.
Then, his arguments for being against any notion of a republication of the Covenant of Works on Sinai exposed further willful confusion on his part. Again, his demand to protect infant baptism, from the most byzantine threats imaginable, caused him to deny the spine of Federal Theology.
Then, not surprisingly, comes denial of the Federal Vision main target: the Covenant of Works in the Garden itself. Rev. Winzer denies it. He has to. As do all Federal Visionists. As do all sacramentalists.
This is why you don't put your faith in man for biblical doctrine, and you don't fear man. Fear God alone, it is the beginning of wisdom.
[This post was written for the benefit of readers of the PuritanBoard, some of whom read this blog because I used to be a member of their forum and they think I'm crazy and like to see what I'm saying about them. Any overstatements are designed to get them to think. Notice in the thread linked above that Mr. Winzer waves off not only Reformed theologians like Charles Hodge but the Westminster Confession itself. Whatever gets in the way of one's demands!]
32 Comments:
I'm not sure what Winzer means here but he is NOT a Federal Visionist. You really ought to tread lightly here.
There are Calvinists who deny the CoW without being FV, although they are in serious error. Herman Hoeksema is an excellent example of this.
I know, at this point I said I'm overstating to make a point. Winzer *is* showing the same petulance as the FVists, though, in demanding something that goes against what he putatively holds to, Federal Theology. Look how he picks and chooses Reformed theologians as a way to ignore broad consensus. And his reason for it seems to be sacramental. He may not be at leader-level of Federal Vision, but useful idiot, as I said, is a possibility. I.e. *they* would consider him a useful idiot.
Winzer also invokes the name Kline in the exact same way Federal Visionists do. Pretending that Kline's view is 'novel' and that it is solely represented by him, when it is basic historic Federal Theology. This is sort of the Alinsky tactic where you demonize something by focusing on one person associated with it and demonizing that person ("My, my, did you know Kline had strange views of the six days of creation?" -- I believe Kline was off-the-mark here, but it's a side issue re the Covenant of Works, etc.) and then getting a smear by association. And usually the quotes they use are from where Kline is defending classic Reformed doctrine against those who would twist it all in the direction of works righteousness.
You really should undertake to substantiate the charge that I have denied either the covenant of redemption or the covenant of works. I do not write in a corner. My views are expressed in a place that can be freely accessed. I maintain the everlasting covenant between the Father and the Son. I deny that this is a separate covenant to the covenant of grace. That is the doctrine of the Westminster Larger Catechism. Relative to the covenant of works, at no point have I denied it in the thread to which you have linked. Quite the opposite, I have given the strongest support possible to the covenant of works by tying it to the two Adam construct of Pauline thought.
Blessings!
Yours sincerely,
Rev. Matthew Winzer
My comments were drawing from your posts on the PuritanBoard over time. I'm aware that you are more, I don't know, I guess Scottish, rather than Dutch, in your seeing the Covenant of Redemption and Grace more together than separate, but it was the reason you seemed to give for seeing this - a defending of paedo-baptism - that I remarked on as, in so many words, self-serving (sacramentology trumps the mechanics of God's plan of redemption only in the mind of a paedo-baptist, which is silly).
Reading through the thread it can be very easily concluded that don't see a Covenant of Works. By the way it's inanely pious to make your argument that Adam couldn't possibly merit anything from God. Whenever I see this argument made (including from Federal Visionists who are also being deceptive in their piousness) it is dripping with a shallow piousness.
There is also a bit of always learning, never being able to come to understanding of the truth. Or, refusing to come to understanding of the truth.
The very reason false teachers are able to play games so easily with Reformed theologians (often from within the camp of Reformed Theology) is because of the petulance and juvenile piousness refusal to come to the truth of academic Reformed theologians. It's a regeneration issue, which is why they squeal so loud when you bring up regeneration in any conversation on the subject. Ridiculous, juvenile, inane, silly, and frankly, to use internet lingo, a big epic fail on the part of Reformed theologians. I'm a street Calvinist, and I can see the truth. The seminiary boys? They remain boys.
On the Covenant of Redemption again, like it or not the Westminster Confession of Faith was drawn up when covenant theology was not mature. The Sum of Saving Knowledge shows the direction that document was moving in and really exists in.
CT:
1.) Matthew Winzer is no seminary boy, which I assume is a man who bought an expensive degree only to learn bad (or no) theology. He is one of the few helpful people on Puritan Board. He deserves far more respect than you gave him.
At this point I'm confused whether he is proposing Hoeksema-style monocovenentalism or is trying to distinguish the Westminster Standards from Kline.
Now I understand Westminster to teach "pactum merit" and that's where things get sticky. To make things more confusing, Winzer uses a quote from Anthony Burgess that is commonly used by FVers to support their innovations.
For reference, here is an FV denial of Pactum Merit:
http://wedgewords.wordpress.com/2008/02/22/john-calvin-on-merit-vs-reward/
Here is an FV denial using the same Burgess quote:
http://sacradoctrina.blogspot.com/2004/12/merit-and-obedience-reformed-tradition.html
Here's Herman Hoeksema's classic statement of monocovenentalism:
"Not only is it impossible for Adam to have attained to that higher glory in the heavenly tabernacle, but it was equally impossible for him to have merited it. But Christ is worthy of the resurrection, of life eternal. He is the Son of God in human nature. And He humbled Himself deeply into death and hell in perfect obedience of love. Hence, it was entirely according to the justice of God that in the same measure that He humbled Himself He should be highly exalted and attain to the state of immortality in eternal glory."
Burgess says Adam "could not merit that happiness which God would bestow upon him." Why not? Isn't that how God arranged things for Adam: that he is offered a reward for obedience?
Maybe Winzer can explain what he believes, because I don't see how he still holds to WCF 7.2.
2.) Could you explain the comment about the SoSK?
Just that in the Sum of Saving Knowledge, usually included in the group of documents known as the Westminster Standards, the Covenant of Redemption is explicitly mentioned, many times.
On the other material in your latest comment, this is why I referred to Winzer as a useful idiot of the Federal Vision people. Useful idiot sounds harsh, but it just means naive people who are doing the work - or furthering the work - of more evil people.
If you're going to connect Winzer with FV, you need more evidence. People espouse monocovenental views without drifting toward salvation by works.
Winzer's writing reflects that he is well-studied in Reformed theology and has lots of real life pastoral experience. So that points against him being a naive sucker for Jordan and Meyers to exploit.
On a separate point, I wonder if Winzer is around to address my (non-inflammatory) confusion about what he is and isn't saying.
Usually those guys consider my blog beneath them to comment on. They do a one off comment, but then take a shower. More of that respecting of persons that goes on. But in fairness to them I don't exactly provide a welcoming atmosphere. But how can I? I'd have to be one of them, and I'm not.
I'm not really saying Winzer is consciously Federal Vision, but that his sacramentalism places him at least in useful idiot range of Federal Vision. This is why FVists can so easily have their way with Reformed paedo-baptisms. The un-confessed baptismal regeneration that is default in their approach to the faith. Ritual and man over the word and the Spirit.
Concerning the connection with the Scottish, the fact is that Scottish theologians like Rutherford, Gillespie, Dickson, etc., were the foremost expositors of the covenant of redemption distinct from the covenant of grace. It was likewise a movement in Scottish theology in the 18th century (the Marrow movement) which drew attention back to the singularity of the covenants of redemption and grace. Thomas Boston being a prominent expositor. It is unnecessary and unhelpful to identify views on this subject as being distinctly Scottish or Dutch.
On the Burgess quotation, I can honestly say that I had not read it in pro-FV literature. I have read and analysed Burgess' work for its own worth and contribution to the history of reformed theology. FWIW, Burgess was not alone in the position he has stated. Numerous Westminster divines, including Rutherford, make the same point.
As I don't deny the covenant of works I fail to see the connection which is being made with Hoeksema.
Any charge of denying the covenant of works is superficial at best. (1) It is based on the denial of the "merit" which some connect to the covenant; but numerous theologians who are acknowledged proponents of the covenant of works deny the concept of merit associated with it. (2) On the exegesis of Gen. 1-3. I deny that the Hebrew "berith" is to be found in these chapters, and for good exegetical considerations. However, I affirm that there was a covenant of works operative on the larger stage of biblical revelation in light of the two Adam structure of Paul's soteriological message. Given that affirmation it is simply false to accuse me of denying the covenant of works, or being pro-FV or Romanist or anything else of that nature.
"Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment," John 7:24.
Blessings!
Yours sincerely,
Rev. Matthew Winzer
Interesting for a blog which proclaims that the author is devoted to "doing the two great commandments of Christ at the practical level (i.e. actually doing them)" to contain a post in which said author is guilty of flagrant violations of the ninth (and sixth) commandments, among others. You should be ashamed of yourself.
And a shot from a moralist.
Again, the very reason age old false teachers like modern day Federal Visionists (age old in that they want to teach the age old heresy of faith by works and thus bring people into the dominion of the Beast) can so easily traumatize and play with modern Reformed paedo-baptist Christians is because of the baptismal regeneration Reformed paedo-baptists sneak into the back door of their theology in the dead of night. Fallen nature demands man and ritual be exalted over the word and the Spirit.
Infant baptism is also the default way to grow a church when regeneration by the word and the Spirit is played down in practice.
I detected over several posts over several months if not years that Mr. Winzer was justifying his stances ultimately on the protection of infant baptism. And his stances just happen to fall in line with the same stances taken by Federal Visionists.
I said he was in useful idiot range of Federal Vision. I stand by it, and nothing I've read from Wimzer here gives me reason to change anything. The fact is he didn't and might not still know that he was - is - in such range. Me saying it perhaps has played a role in his own education, and he may express himself differently in the future. Or, he may petulantly not.
A moralist? Interesting slander.
Ma'am, you call yourself one who puts the two great commandments of Christ into practice, yet your blog is full of slanderous character assassination, vulgar language and blasphemous uses of God's Holy name. This is, pure and simple, rank hypocrisy. The fact that you refuse to acknowledge it when pointed out to you is a further aggravation of what seems to be par for the course on your blog. I fully expect, of course, to be slammed again for my comments - but the truth is plain for all to see.
Were you wearing a tall pointy hat when you wrote that? I feel like a Templar. Or a Cathar. Or a Waldensian. Or somebody caught with a Bible in the land of the Beast.
And we see the doctrine of the moralist. Justification by not being a 'potty mouth.'
The faith is not about being good. It's about making contact. You need to be good soil that can value and protect and hold seed if the farmer should give you some. Transforming a little, or a lot, of shit from the world helps too.
Boston's rejection of the Covenant of Redemption was borne of the same piousness that says Adam couldn't merit anything from God. Pre-fall Adam and Jesus Christ were and are not in the position of fallen man. Both - in their own way - were dealing with God one-on-one. Jesus of course being God dealing with God the Father in the economy of redemption.
The Covenant of Grace gets us out of the courtroom; the Covenant of Redemption is our legal standing as subjects of the
Kingdom of God. The devil can confront you outside the courtroom. If you don't know you stand by right on the foundation of the Covenant of Redemption ( the Pactum Salutis), you will be a much less effective spiritual warrior.
Now, my metaphor can be questioned in part. The Covenant of Grace arguably does more than merely get us innocent out of the courtroom, but that is just to say there is an organic connection between the CofR and the CofG. But without recognizing the existence of the CofR we are more ignorant and less well-armed on the battlefield. Not worth giving up just to sound a note of extra polished apple piety.
You wrote, "Boston's rejection of the Covenant of Redemption was borne of the same piousness that says Adam couldn't merit anything from God."
Boston did not deny the covenant of redemption. He denied that it is a distinct covenant to the covenant of grace. In the words of the Westminster Larger Catechism, the covenant of grace is made with Christ as the second Adam and in Him with all the elect as His seed. The issue does not pertain to the existence of a covenant made with Christ for the redemption of God's elect. That is assumed. The issue is solely concerned with the question as to whether the covenant made with Christ is a separate and distinct covenant to that which is made with the elect.
You seem to lack the ability to distinguish basic differences in theological discussion. The best service you might render to the kingdom of God in such a state is to be a little more ready to listen and slower to speak.
Blessings!
Yours sincerely,
Rev. Matthew Winzer
Right, because me and aBrakel and Vos and Berkhof and etc. have no reason to see a Covenant of Redemption separate from the Covenant of Grace other than our inability to make theological distinctions.
You, Mr. Winzer, are unable to discern the most basic attacks on biblical doctrine coming from the usual angles false teachers attack biblical doctrine. Denying merit in the Garden and in the intra-Trinitarian covenant for reasons of 'more pious than thou' is not just inane it plays into the hands of the false teachers whose eternal target is justification by faith alone and want people in bondage to the system of the Beast earning their salvation by their own works.
And, again, like it or not the Westminster Confession and Catechisms were drawn up before covenant theology was mature. In the group of documents called the Westminster Standards is the Sum of Saving Knowledge where the Covenant of Redemption is named four or five times explicitly.
It's possible to get a complete understanding of Federal Theology (which is classical Covenant Theology systematized), but in my experience not many people have it. For whatever reason. Usually the reason has to do with some shade of sacramentalism and sacerdotalism the Reformed person is clinging to.
The understanding of these matters is borne of spiritual warfare, Mr. Winzer. You are stuck a bit in the study and the pulpit.
When you merge or confuse the Covenant of Redemption with the Covenant of Grace you are merging and confusing works with grace. You are doing what the false teachers attempt to do from about 63 different angles (whatever is working for their era).
You have to understand this basic fact of Federal Theology: there is only *one* way to be saved: *works.* Repeat: there is only one way to be saved, and it is works. *Either your own (good luck with that), or Jesus Christ's, appropriated by the grace of faith. Period.
If you don't yet understand the above statement you won't understand the Covenant of Redemption or why is it the basis of *both* the Covenant of Grace - and - the Covenant of Works, and why it must be seen as distinct.
We're surrounded by a world of spiritual beings, some good, some bad. The spiritual battlefield where light comes into conflict with darkness is everywhere once regenerated by the word and the Spirit. If you don't know your Constitution, your Magna Carta, that that you boldly stand upon in the face of accusing angels and demons, you will be a weakened warriour, a more ignorant warrior, a more unsure warriour, the very armour of God which you need at the foundational, essential level of your being will be incomplete or debased. That foundation is the Covenant of Redemption, the Pactum Salutis. That is the foundation you stand on, legal and otherwise, and boldly claim a right to when the devil and a thousand demons demand you in bondage to their darkness.
Doctrine is armour of God.
Mr. Winzer is most likely long gone, but here, from a thread on this subject from the PuritanBoard, is what seems to be Mr. Winzer's main objection to a separate Covenant of Redemption:
"If you can show that your position does not leave the elect with terms to accomplish, then you will do your position a service."
In other words, if the Covenant of Grace includes the elect as parties how is it that works can't be involved? Well... Works are involved. Only Jesus accomplishes them. What God demands of us He gives us ability to do. By grace. Grace for us, works for Jesus.
Again, the Covenant of Redemption under girds not just the Covenant of Grace but the Covenant of Works as well. And, again, there is only one way to be saved: works. Either your own (again, good luck with that) or Jesus Christ's, appropriated by the grace of faith.
Those who teach works righteousness confusedly (to those who don't understand) need to get rid of merit in the Garden, as well as Jesus meriting anything. Because they have to get 'works being done for us' out of the picture, and they do this with a grand pious sweep of "grace, grace! all is grace!" Then, "Oh, by the way, faith is actually faithfulness, and you do have to provide just the right amount of works to be saved, how much we won't tell you, and, oh, again, by the way, our little program of ritual and sacerdotalism we have here, you'll have to play along carefully with that, and, oh, um, if you'd like to take a little swim over there to Rome, well, we won't actively stop you..."
As I noted above, Mr. Winzer is a bit abashed of his sacramentalism and clericalism and it is motivating his disdain of any talk of merit by any of the two Adams. Why, what use would the good reverend Winzer have if Christ does it all? Unthinkable.
This: "What God demands of us He gives us ability to do."
Should have read: "What God demands of us He gives us freely."
In the Covenant of Grace.
Rev. Winzer:
Please realize that your accuser, who sometimes uses the name "CT" or Catherine Trace, is believed to be suffering from grievous maladies and melancholy.
CT refuses to attend church and claims every congregation is apostate, and scoffs at the means of grace and sacraments. She twists the pro-KJV position to support her opposition to the institutional church.
CT also calls herself a "Fourth Way" Christian and follows the occult teachings of P. D. Ouspensky and Maurice Nicoll. She has other blogs where the oogie-boogie stuff gets greater emphasis. Like this one:
http://0140190112.blogspot.com/
CT also tends to go on public tirades which are leaden with obscene language, such as this:
http://thucydides67.blogspot.com/2005/07/devil-attacks-and-defiles-word-of-god.html
So take her diatribes with this in mind.
I have read and valued Winzer's comments for years. Your conclusory post reads like a sports blog. Given that, let me just say, Winzer is money.
Winzer is good on the Received Text, but his main thing is to desire to have the Westminster Standards to be perfect and to comfortably rest in them, works of man after all. He also is a bit over the line on the baptismal regeneration side (default for paedo-baptists to one degree or another inevitably), and hence his lack of discernment for the lines of attack of current false teachings such as Federal Vision.
Reverend Winzer is one of the most knowledgeable teachers I have ever read, he is consistently Reformed, whoever owns this blog is just bored and willing to slander the name of godly men for fun it seems. Of course one(CT or whoever) would think Winzer is FV if they are a baptist, because we who adopt infant baptism are seen as a type of Romanist no matter what our views on Regeneration/Justification are just because of our belief that baptism can further bless or further curse, baptism DOES SOMETHING in our view, which baptists totally disagree with and hate! CT should take a break from FV and get back to studying the sacraments...OOPS! I mean.."THE ORDINaNCES" :P
In Christ- Charlie
It's always the case when Reformed criticize Reformed that it seems like fragging, or going after people who are 99% on-the-mark, but it's a fact that that 1% can give everything away; but the situation is this: once one has discernment for on-the-mark doctrine one has to call it like one sees it. The attacks on on-the-mark apostolic biblical doctrine come from outside and from inside, and - also - they come from the consciously wicked and from the unconsciously confused. In Winzer's case he is an academic/pulpit type who has currently weak discernment for spiritual warfare and specifically from the current attacks on justification by faith alone coming from the current crop of false teachers. I point it out because I, as a follower of Christ, will defend apostolic biblical doctrine, and I don't worry about people taking offense or getting their vanity or feelings hurt.
I am but an ignorant lurker.
I find the Puritan Board very disturbing.
On the Puritan Board, I see many pastors refer to themselves with lofty titles like Rev., Doctor, etc.
In light of Matthew 23, 8-12, and many other verses, you are not to exalt yourself in any way.
We are suppose to be brothers. (At least that how I interpret the Bible.)
Oh, you may say, many pastors use honorific titles. That must proof it's right. I don't think so.
The PB loves to mock Benny Hinn and many others outside the Reformed faith.
I certainly don't agree with Mr. Hinn, but mocking anyone is sickening - to me at least.
Every time I see Mr. Hinn mocked, I wonder how a confused Pentecostal lurker would react to the mocking.
I fear he might say, "Benny may be wrong, but those Reformed people really are nasty.
And yes, that is how many outside the Reformed faith view Reformed people.
The Puritan Board drove me from Reformed theology.
The attacks on CT really disturb me.
If you disagree with this person fine, but leave out personal insults.
People at the PB love to criticize others, but I rarely see anyone on that site confess to any sin.
I'll give "Dr. Matt MacManhon" credit for one thing. In the past, he has confessed to overeating.
For the most part, the PB is populated by people that make me sick.
They strike me as being self-righteous know-it-alls that LOVE to argue.
This is just my opinion. Feel free to disagree and mock me.
If you disagree with me, well, that proves that I am wrong.
All church denominations are united by one belief. Our specific creed is right. Everyone else is wrong.
A poster said:
"Please realize that your accuser, who sometimes uses the name "CT" or --------, is believed to be suffering from grievous maladies and melancholy."
How does this comment develop the argument?
When the poster says "-- is believed", he is using unproven allegations to attack another.
Yes CT is harsh, but if CT is sinning that doesn't give you the authority to publicly express unsubstantiated insults.
A Christian is suppose to rise above the fight and NOT issue unproven personal insults.
Again, this is just my opinion.
Thanks for you comments, anon. I indeed am too harsh and out-of-control with the language much of the time. I tend to write *just after* reading something or some exchange that has effected me strongly thus my writing about is in the heat of the moment tends to read as over-the-top to people who don't have the immediate context, but that isn't an excuse because I can be mocking and mean and so on for any reason. I don't aspire to leadership or teaching positions, though I'm, like most people I guess, much less crazy or confrontational in person.
I always have to remember this truth about language: you can communicate anything while still using calm, cool, and collected language.
ps- But you shouldn't be put off of anything based on how human beings behave. Truth is truth, and base your assessment of Reformed Theology on sound systematic theologies and other kinds of Reformed books and so on.
Post a Comment
<< Home