Vintage73.com - Latest Comments

Re: On the Vitals of Religion

Tim LeCroy — Wed, 20 Sep 2017 17:07:33 -0000

I think your question is getting at the desire of a lot of folks to have something more definite in terms of allowable differences or a set of standards that a presbytery agrees to for their group. But the problem is that such a document is unconstitutional, in that it adds to the constitution without going through the proper channels. Two years ago at RPR a presbytery was cited for stating that no one would be accepted into their presbytery unless they were strict 6 day, 24 hour creationists. The problem was that they put it in their by-laws. They had to change that because the GA upheld the citation.

Re: On the Vitals of Religion

Ian Hard — Wed, 20 Sep 2017 15:08:39 -0000

Would an appropriate application of this be for presbyteries (or other bodies) to make explicit its terms of admission under Preliminary Principle 2, instead of arbitrarily applying BCO 21-4.f? We may not like the terms, but we can acknowledge their right to set them. This would seem to me to protect 21.4.f from some of the abuses you seem to hint at.

Re: Your Preferences Aren’t the Point of Worship

kj — Tue, 11 Jul 2017 13:26:34 -0000

Sam, Dr. Johnson gives a far more well reasoned and charitable argument for his position/preferences than you give credit. Moreover, your response is less than compelling and dare I say an over simplification of his concerns. Peace.

Re: Your Preferences Aren’t the Point of Worship

Blake Law — Wed, 05 Jul 2017 23:50:58 -0000

The biblical RPW is not primarily intended to keep peace among men, but to reverence God and spare men from his wrath against all will-worship and strange fire offered to him. I believe a painfully honest application of the biblical RPW would spare us from these disputes over preference (which really have no end in sight). If we were able to mentally clean the slate and start from the "drawing board", only incorporating those elements that are proven by apostolic example or explicit command in the NT, well we certainly wouldn't have musical instruments, among a host of other things! These types of debates would be a thing of the past. This would be my prayer for you, Pastor Johnson, and the PCA.

Re: Your Preferences Aren’t the Point of Worship

Daniel — Wed, 05 Jul 2017 19:09:59 -0000

Two thing. First, TJ himself there was nothing "invalid" about the worship services. He wasn't coming at it from the principles of RPW elements of worship.

Second, aren't folks making the same categorical error as broader evangelicalism in equating worship with mere congregational singing. If the ministry of the Word is most central to worship, why is there a focus on the circumstances of congregational praise and not on the ministry of the Word?

Re: Your Preferences Aren’t the Point of Worship

Andy Wilson — Wed, 05 Jul 2017 18:06:58 -0000

I am having a difficult time understanding why you think that Terry Johnson was wrong to express his disappointment with the fact that the worship services at GA reflect a clear departure from the principles that Reformed Christians have historically employed to keep public worship reverent and focused upon the Word. There are some in the PCA who think that traditional Reformed worship really is the best form of worship. We do not hold this view as a matter of personal preference, but on the basis of the principles that give Reformed worship its peculiar shape. Why is it wrong to think that Reformed worship is the best form of worship? How is this any different than thinking that Reformed theology is the best theology? Isn’t the person who abandons Reformed worship in favor of some other form saying that he or she thinks that that other form is the best form of worship? It doesn’t really seem fair to criticize a presbyterian minister merely because he laments the fact that the worship services at the annual meeting of a presbyterian denomination are no longer distinctively presbyterian. I think the basic problem here is that your article commits the very error that you accuse Johnson of committing: saying that worship form is merely a matter of personal taste.

Re: Your Preferences Aren’t the Point of Worship

Just The Pianist — Wed, 05 Jul 2017 11:17:55 -0000

Thank you Mr. Johnson and Mr. DeSocio for your articles. The worship of our almighty God is such an honor and privilege. It is beautiful to see that both of you take the worship of our God seriously. Your articles encouraged me to reread Westminster Confession of Faith Chapter 21, Colossians 3:16, Ephesians 5:19, James 5:13 and I Corinthians 14:15. Once again, I studied that seemingly illusive Regulative Principle of Worship, which both sides of the worship music argument seem to throw out like it is the end all. I came away from all of this reading extremely thankful for these things:
1. Elders that take worship very seriously, yet put on a unified front. They encourage the musicians in the church to use their gifts, while making sure that we tastefully worship our Lord in spirit and truth.
2. Submissive musicians, who honor their elders wishes and agonize over playing for God's glory rather than their own. Many of whom are volunteers, who put in hard hours of practice for the edification of the church.
3. I am extremely thankful for my PCA Church that sings a Psalm, Hymn and a chorus for worship. Does it please everyone? No. I have learned from my many years of being a church musician that not every one is pleased with the music at church at any given moment...not even my own family members. These are the complaints that I have heard over the sixteen years I have played for my church: The Psalm is too long. The hymn is too slow. The music is too loud. The key is too high. The chorus is too... you get the idea.
4. God normally expects much less from me than man does. For this, I am grateful.
Thank you to all of the Elders, who take our worship seriously. No matter how hard we try, it will never be what our mighty God deserves, yet somehow He is pleased with our meager efforts. Thank you, Musicians, who pour out your heart and soul into making worship pleasing to God and the ear. It can be a thankless job, but God is glorified and that is all the thanks that we need.
May we continue to praise our wonderful Savior in spirit and in truth, in unity in the midst of diversity, with hearts of love for Him and one another.

Re: Your Preferences Aren’t the Point of Worship

raewhitlock — Wed, 05 Jul 2017 11:05:07 -0000

Didn't we talk about this exact same thing about five years ago? Remember "Vacationland PCA"?

Re: Your Preferences Aren’t the Point of Worship

IslandJoeRedux — Wed, 05 Jul 2017 11:00:53 -0000

Hello Sam,
I was expecting to read something more substantive regarding your criticism of Terry Johnson's essay when I saw the title of your article, but when you primarily try to reduce his argument to opinion or cultural difference....

"In this TAR article, Dr Johnson lays out an argument that worship at this year’s General Assembly was generally problematic based on his preferences. He didn’t object to some new element; there wasn’t a lack of Scripture or prayer that bothered him, he just didn’t like it........
........What makes me so frustrated is that the RPW is meant to protect our gathering from the opinions and preferences of individuals, especially those who might suggest that worship is somehow defective because that person didn’t like it. But when Dr. Johnson takes to a public platform and when this platform is named for another elder in the PCA, we are in a situation where a few are attempting to burden the church’s worship with their opinions."

...I don't think you have really addressed it at all. It's not like there hasn't been much written and discussed regarding his viewpoints (including his own writings) in the PCA over the years that his essay reflects on. I'd suggest you read these short booklets by Dr. Johnson, then come back with another essay on the substance.

Leading in Worship
Reformed Worship
Contemporary Worship
Worshiping with Calvin
Serving with Calvin

Re: Your Preferences Aren’t the Point of Worship

Daniel — Wed, 05 Jul 2017 10:57:14 -0000

Johnson isn't appealing to the WCF either. He is exalting circumstances to (almost) the position of elements. Even Johnson admits there was nothing 'invalid' (i.e. in violation of the Regulative Principle of Worship) at GA worship gatherings.

Re: Your Preferences Aren’t the Point of Worship

Deplorable Toad — Wed, 05 Jul 2017 09:26:26 -0000

"He summarizes Reformed worship generally, referencing without interacting with any Biblical exegesis"... I don't see Biblical exegesis here either.
"Biblical exegesis" is a most convenient way to undermine subscription to the Westminster Confession. Even the PCA's BCO is not constitutionally authoritative in its entirety. Makes one wonder why anybody would argue about making Chapter 59 constitutionally authoritative.
Rev. Johnson has his finger on the pulse of the PCA, and the prognosis is not good.

Re: Your Preferences Aren’t the Point of Worship

walter — Wed, 05 Jul 2017 01:45:25 -0000

more division in low church protestantism.

Re: Kinism, Racism, & Morton Smith

ToeKneeBelowKnee — Mon, 18 Jul 2016 23:41:44 -0000

Deleting posts, eh ? Good Grief.

Re: Kinism, Racism, & Morton Smith

UnreconstructedRebel — Mon, 18 Jul 2016 23:26:25 -0000

I find the whole line of scriptural reasoning in this article to be fundamentally flawed. God ordained in the Garden that marriage and family would be the fundamental building blocks of human society, but after the Fall, the family proved to provide insufficient barriers to ungodly miscengenation (Gen 6:2) which gave rise to such wickedness as to require the destruction of all mankind save Noah and his family. After the Flood, God ordained that mankind should be further divided according to ethnic nations (Gen 10:32) as a means of partitioning the tendency towards consolidation of political power in multi-national empires which always carry a negative connotation in scripture. The Table of Nations is given in Gen 10 PRIOR to the events at Babel. Indeed, it was the refusal of mankind to disperse and form separate ethno-nations that led to Babel where God further compounded the segregation of ethnic differences with linguistic differences. Note that the language barriers were an act of divine judgement against rebellious man - the division into ethnic groups, on the other hand, was divinely ordained and precedent.

The foundational principle of ethno-nationalism is further reinforced with the calling of Abraham and the nation of Israel in the OT. The concept of structuring the civil law to give priority to one's own kind is ubiquitous in the Law of Moses, e.g., the difference in debt redemption and enslavement for fellow Hebrews vs aliens. The author, like most contemporary Christians, simply cannot get their mind around the idea of separation ethno-nations being normative, so they claim that the gospel eliminates or nullifies the division dating from Babel. This is demonstrably false, as we've already seen that ethno-national divisions pre-date Babel, they are reiterated in the NT (Act 17:26) and indeed, they persist until the end times (Rev 19:15), they persist through the millenium and the binding of satan (Rev 20:3) and even into the New Heavens and New Earth (Rev 21:24,26 and Rev 22:2)

In the grand scope of history, people have always divided themselves according to ethnicity and formed broad political self-governing nations. The alternative is empire - anyone care to argue that Babylon or Rome are the preferred model for mankind over ethno-nations? It is modern day soft-marxists who are out of step with the bible and with the thinking of reasonable people down through history. It isn't a matter of "oppression" or "hate" to live amongst your own people any more than it is an act of oppressing your neighbor because you dwell in your own house with your own family. Such arguments are ultimately futile, self-defeating and destructive and this article is a prime example.

Re: Kinism, Racism, & Morton Smith

sdesocio — Mon, 18 Jul 2016 16:53:50 -0000

Please read our notice about commenting.

Re: Kinism, Racism, & Morton Smith

sorleyboy — Mon, 18 Jul 2016 16:38:14 -0000

More Cultural Marxist drivel.

Re: Kinism, Racism, & Morton Smith

Jon Price — Mon, 18 Jul 2016 15:26:55 -0000

I'm willing to test your theory

Re: Kinism, Racism, & Morton Smith

Jon Price — Mon, 18 Jul 2016 15:23:13 -0000

I'd rather debate someone who doesn't hide their identity. When people like you start using your real names, I'll be glad to actually engage in discussion.

Re: Kinism, Racism, & Morton Smith

Jon Price — Mon, 18 Jul 2016 15:04:20 -0000

Nope, Christians have had the same understanding of Scripture for hundreds of years. You just obviously only read those who's cultural presuppositions made them blind... just like you.

Re: Kinism, Racism, & Morton Smith

ToeKneeBelowKnee — Mon, 18 Jul 2016 14:42:02 -0000

Invoking scripture thru volunteering to subject ones self to a knowingly false assurance that the sacred text calls for annihilating human distinctives by way of adulteration is sin.
- tkbk -

Re: Kinism, Racism, & Morton Smith

Jon Price — Mon, 18 Jul 2016 14:33:29 -0000

Does it bother you that you have no understanding of Scripture? It would bother me if I was resting my eternal destiny on it.

Re: Who Decides Who’s Confessional?

David J. Cimino — Mon, 11 Jul 2016 23:50:01 -0000

Say what you will about Andy Webb, as I see him linked to up above. At least he is doing what he's doing in public, and not behind closed doors. (Cough cough, national partnership, cough)

Re: Who Decides Who’s Confessional?

E. Burns — Fri, 01 Jul 2016 23:03:13 -0000

Great and true point you make about the ARP and the RPCNA in terms of Deaconnesses. But the RPCNA made this decision on more exegetical grounds, not to capitulate to the culture like the PCA is doing. I think that decision was wrong, but the reasons the RPCNA did it were dramatically different then what we see in the PCA. Hence, Jon's post here is the disingenuous position. Also as both these denominations are indeed in strong and Biblical (confessional) health it should also be pointed out that the leading ethos and tide in these denominations is away from women in the role of deacon. Most of the up and coming men out of seminary are opposed to women deacons and hardly any of the churches in the RPCNA have women in the role. The way the tide is turning it is only a matter of time before it is officially changed. Just the opposite direction of the PCA.

Why doesn't Jon and V-73 instead go after the awful doctrine of Federal Vision and its infestation into the PCA?

That's the problem in the PCA, on the one hand you have the "hipster progressives" (for deaconesses) and on the other you have the "conservatives" (against) , but hardly any who will fight for doctrines over which the church stands of falls. I agree there are very few confessionalists in the PCA. Plus, a lot of them leave and for good reason at that. Here> http://theaquilareport.com/...
And don't tell me the PCA wrote a paper against FV, what a joke, a paper with zero teeth and backbone. Please!!

Re: Who Decides Who’s Confessional?

jp_burgh — Fri, 01 Jul 2016 00:07:46 -0000

Thank you for engaging in this discussion, but I don't believe you help further the conversation at all. You simply are looking to shut it down.

First, you use the ARP as your prime example against my complaint. I never mentioned the ARP in my post. I would agree with you assessment of the ARP, which is why I didn't use them as an example. Also, they aren't as confessional as the RPCNA.

Second, you attempt to discredit the RPCNA, so that you don't have to engage a difficult reality. You said the RPCNA was 'engaged in it's social gospel depths' like that's a bad thing, and use prohibition as your example. But, you forgot to mention the abolition of slavery. Oh, that's just 'social gospel.' While you try to discredit the RPCNA, maybe they were actually living out the true gospel (which has deep social implications) when other 'confessional' denominations were far from the gospel. In fact they were teaching and preaching in such a way to keep slavery alive and well. History has shown who was true to God's Word and the Confession, and it was the RPCNA.

Finally, even if I bought into your faulty history and logic, you seem to have missed my point. Those claiming the name confessional don't have the right to claim it, and call all others progressives or liberals. This isn't a confessional issue, and those claiming the title couldn't even function in the most confessional denomination.

Re: Who Decides Who’s Confessional?

Cameron Shaffer — Thu, 30 Jun 2016 11:25:34 -0000

Thanks, this was very helpful.