Archive for the ‘Trey Austin’ Category

Grinding the Grain: Responding to the Substance of Trey Austin’s Arguments

May 5, 2008

Having disposed of the chaff in an earlier post (link), we may now turn to the grain portion of Trey’s recent post responding to questions I had posed as to the view of my theological opponents (or are they?) regarding the atonement.

I was a little disappointed to see that Trey decided to answer only the questions upon which I had noted agreement to an affirmative answer, and not to answer those questions that I thought might possibly highlight differences between us, the series of questions beginning “Or do you mean more that” here. Those were, in essence, the softball questions to which I hoped both sides of the matter could find harmony and agreement, and (to be clear) Trey affirmed each of those unifying questions.

Trey, however, provided some further commentary on the questions which thankfully provides some basis for highlighting the distinctions between the theology he is presenting and the theology that I am presenting.

To highlight those points, let me comment on a few (I hope, representative) things Trey says:

“This [i.e. “that Christ’s death was really and actually sufficient here and now not only for the elect but also for many more and anyone else”] can’t be true if, as some people explain, God put on the crucified Christ the particular sins of particular people and no others. “

This is a point where we differ. The intrinsic infinite value of Christ’s death is dependent on its nature: i.e. the fact that Christ was the God-man, the fact that Christ was innocent, and the fact that Christ’s death was voluntary. We can derive this knowledge from the Old Testament sacrificial system, in which animals were selected based on certain intrinsic attributes. Christ is the “lamb without blemish” and so forth, that has – by virtue of his nature as victim – infinite sufficiency.

Imputation is an application of that sufficiency.

To provide an analogy, suppose that you have a priceless Monet painting and you are in a bazaar seeking to buy food. There are a few corndog stands, a few cabbage vendors, and some folks selling rice by the bag. Whether you apply the value of painting to purchase a single corn dog, or whether you apply the value of the painting to buy all the food for sale in the bazaar, the painting has the same intrinsic value.

It would be improper to judge the entire value of the painting by that for which it was traded, just as it would be improper to evaluate the entire sufficiency of Christ’s death by the sins of the particular people for whom Christ died. The bartered-for item sets a lower bound on the value, but not an upper bound. Christ’s death is super-sufficient: it is intrinsically sufficient not only for those whose sins were imputed to Christ, but as well for those whose sins were not imputed to Christ.

“Note: you can hold to limited atonement without holding to limited imputation; and that’s the heart of this debate”

Part of the debate certainly is whether it is proper to call a view “limited atonement,” if the view encompasses unlimited imputation. Trey, however, does not set forth what he fully intends by this statement (in fact, it appears as a parenthetical), and consequently there’s little space to rebut its underlying unexpressed contentions.

“how could Christ’s work be really and truly sufficient for any person who is not elect, if their sins were never “paid for” in any sense, even provisionally”

I’ve omitted the question mark, because Trey seems to think this is a rhetorical question. The problem is that, as illustrated by the painting above, the sufficiency of the ransom is not determined by the thing ransomed. Christ’s death is sufficient to set all mankind free, though it was not applied to that end.

To ask, “how could Christ’s work … be sufficient … if their sins were never paid for,” is to ask “how could the painting be sufficient if it were not used to buy that bag of rice of there but only the corn dog?”

To add the qualification “even provisionally,” causes one’s eyebrows to arch, but Trey doesn’t trey to explain how something can be “provisionally” paid for, and so we need not explore that odd avenue at this time. Who knows but that we might find it not odd at all, if he explained it.

“And thus, as the one who is offering Christ sincerely, he [God] must have a real substance by which to say, “If you come, you will be saved.” If there were nothing in Christ for the non-elect, nothing of his work applicable to them, then when God offers salvation to the non-elect through his ministers, he would be lying. “

I’ve left of Trey’s rhetorical negation. Nevertheless, Trey seems to insist that God ground the conditional offer of salvation one way (by over-imputation, as it were) rather than another (by grace). The statement, “If you come, you will be saved,” is a true statement if everyone who comes is saved. That is so, quite regardless of whether Christ’s work is applicable in any way to people who don’t come.

This is rather elementary: what makes the statement, “If you come, you will be saved,” is a sincere intent on God’s part to save everyone who comes. It has really nothing whatsoever to do with the way that God accomplishes that salvation.

What Trey seems to have overlooked is the “grace” side of the picture. No one comes, unless Father draws him. The gospel offer is not a statement that everyone has the ability to come, or that Christ has provided salvation for the reprobate. The gospel offer is a conditional statement, and is true if God intends to honor his promise.

“had there been nothing in Christ or what he did for them or that was applicable to them, then they rejected nothing”

They rejected the command of God. The refused to turn from their sins. They refused to come to Christ. The rejected the way of salvation.

“I think we both agree that God has decreed to apply Christ’s redemptive work to the elect alone and to no others; that is not in disbute [sic] at all.” (italics carefully preserved)

Well, perhaps that is the case. Nevertheless, there seem to be suggestions from Trey’s side (perhaps not from Trey himself) that God decreed to “provisionally” apply Christ’s work – or that God decreed to actually apply Christ’s work in such a way so as to impute the sins of both elect and non-elect to Christ. That looming question-mark was the reason for the unanswered questions I posed in my original post. (incidentally, not every question-mark means that there is heresy lurking behind – it just means something is unclear)

“Take dogs, for instance. Dogs aren’t answerable for failing to come to Christ, and they accrue no guilt for rejecting him. That’s ridiculous example, you might say. I know; it is—not only because dogs aren’t rational beings, but also becasue [sic] they’re not willful sinners. But the point still remains that Christ died in *NO* sense for dogs. “

That’s certainly Trey’s point, but it is not the relevant point. Dogs are not commanded to repent and seek salvation. No one is commanded (as such) to be saved by Christ’s blood. Instead, men are commanded to avail themselves of repentance and faith – and without the grace of God, they refuse, thereby increasing their condemnation as rebels.

“If the strict particularists are correct (i.e., like those whom Dabney opposed, who said that, had God elected more, Christ would have had to suffer more for those in particular; their scheme being a “so much for so many” kind of commercialism), “

I’m not convinced that “strict particularists” is necessarily an adequate description of those whom Dabney opposed by opposing “so much for so many.” While certainly some few strict particularists would hold such a view, the view is more common among inconsistent universalists, who make arguments such as that Christ must have “paid for” each and every actual sin or the atonement was not sufficient for such sins. In fact, it is a “commercial” mentality “so much for so many” that seemingly underwrites the objection that if certain sins were not imputed to Christ, that Christ’s death was not sufficient to purchase forgiveness of those sins.

Regardless, though, of whether Dabney stands on my side of the aisle (for the time being), we do reject the “so much for so many” formulation. I reject it, and I know that Dr. White rejects it. In fact, even Dave Hunt rejects such a formulation. Apparently, Trey rejects it as well – which is good, and I’m glad of that.

Nevertheless, though it was not a “so much for so many,” Christ’s work was a payment, and a particular payment for particular people. It was (and is) a sufficient price for more than was purchased – and for more than could have been purchased (since its intrinsic sufficiency is much greater than the combined sinfulness of all humanity). Nevertheless, it is a ransom: Scripture says so.

“Clearly Paul makes a distinction between Christ being savior of all men and being savior for all who believe, but even while he makes that distinction, there is obviously some overlap in the core of his meaning, which is to say that it is a difference in degree of salvation (i.e., available as savior as opposed to being an effectual savior), not a difference in kind of salvation (i.e., temporal “salvation” vs. eternal salvation).”

I don’t think Trey could make out an exegetical case for the idea that it is a difference in “degree of salvation,” as opposed to a difference in “kind of salvation.” The idea of someone being saved from hell to some “degree” and not to the uttermost is a puzzling concept on its own. Trey, however, has not attempted to provide an exegetical explanation, and perhaps he really meant something other than “degree” in such a sense as 50% is a degree half way between “not at all” and “fully.” I’ve addressed this verse elsewhere, such as at item (23) on this list. For now that brief explanation should suffice.

Trey notes that another view of the same verse is “they [“many” early Reformers] in fact favor of interpreting it as an affirmation that Christ is the only Savior available to men through whom they might be saved”

This interpretation is not so entirely implausible that we would want to break fellowship over the difference. Indeed, it is a true statement that Christ is the only Savior available to men through they might be saved. Nevertheless, considering the verse within the context, and more carefully analyzing the Scriptural use of the terms involved, we have come to realize with (as Trey seems to admit) many of the Puritan scholars that the view of the verse as distinguishing between salvation merely of the body, and salvation of both the body and soul is what is best understood to be under discussion.

As I best understood, from the discussion in the chaff portion of Trey’s post, we should not expect to see any follow-up from him on this. Nevertheless, I hope he will thing again of his position of non-interaction, in favor of constructive dialog, debate, and explanation.

After all, since we are both writing in public, even if the other of us is not edified, perhaps those who read will be edified. Perhaps also, Trey might considering answering the more difficult questions that were posed in the original post, the series of questions beginning “Or do you mean more that” here, questions where we may (or perhaps not?) part ways. The object is not to divide, but to explain. After all, it would be a shame for merely semantic difference to divide Christian brethren.

To God be the glory,

-TurretinFan

Advertisements

Chaff Removal

May 5, 2008

Trey Austin begins his latest post with more personal antipathies – not against Dr. White, this time – but against this present anonymous author.

Trey writes:

“It has taken me a while to post this, primarily because i [sic] have decided not to pursue further interaction with TurretinFan.”

The fact that this purported resolution of Trey’s is the lead-in to a lengthy response to questions I posed is odd. Nevertheless, this sort of parting-shot mentality is something I’d steer my readers clear of. It has gotten other e-poligists in trouble in the past, especially when they post their next round of response to the folks they are supposedly ignoring.

“His anonymity is very problematic.”

My anonymity, of course, is problematic for people who want to make the debate personal. It is problematic for people who want to debate the other person, rather than the other argument. All that they can do is latch on to the anonymity itself as some sort of excuse for not addressing the issues. It is also problematic for those who think that there is justifiable jihad, or who simply want to take debate to the level of fisticuffs.

It is also somewhat problematic, one might argue, for the anoymous person. It limits the ability of the anonymous person to attach his personal positives to his arguments. Instead, it forces the arguments to stand on their own strength. It makes the writings speak for themselves.

“He can say or so [sic – perhaps “do” was intended?] anything he desires, and there is no way for anyone wronged to see [sic – perhaps “seek” was intended?] recourse and correct his behavior other than trying to contact him through his blog.”

Several responses here:

a) This isn’t really a problem for someone interested in dialogue, discussion, or even debate. It is a problem for someone who gets somehow personally injured by something that is said. Notice, however, that Trey doesn’t make any claims to falling into such a category. If he does think that something I’ve said somehow injures him, he really ought to contact me.

b) Which brings us to the second part of the issue, namely that not only can one contact the present author through the blog (such as by leaving a comment); but also by email (my email is available through my Blogger profile). In fact, many people have contacted the present author by email, though (at least in my memory) none has contacted the present author about a matter of personal injury, without receiving satisfaction. If there are any out there who feel they have been injured by something I wrote, I encourage them to please hurry to take advantage of the opportunity to resolve this with me privately, if possible.

c) Finally, of course, there is a further way for the matter to be remedied, namely publicly. If, for example, I were to say, “Trey believes in sacrificing goats in the New Testament era,” on my blog, Trey could set the matter straight by denying that on his own blog. Now, one would hope that I wouldn’t make things up about people, but if I did do so, and in public, there’s a public way to respond to those sorts of things.

As a continuation of (c), I encourage all my critics to use public fora like their own blogs to address what they perceive to be my public errors. More than one person has tried to sieze the opportunity to do so, and I am willing to let the record speak for itself. Put your response somewhere where the search engines like “Google” can see it, and anyone who is wondering can find the answer. On top of that, I normally do not delete links to the posts that I make, though I suppose I could, which makes it even easier for people to find your rebuttal.

“My personaly [sic] view is that this kind of hiding behind false names does not lend itself to open debate and discussion.”

“Hiding behind” false names (or behind no name at all) has a very long history of promoting open debate and discussion. Surely Trey is aware of that fact. In fact, I recently posted a discussion on the maxim “in the essentials, unity – in the non-essentials, liberty – in all things, charity.” As I noted there, the maxim first appeared in what is believed to have been a pseudonymous work.

And of course, in this day of 6+ billion people, simply a name (whether true or false) is almost equivalent to anonymity, until more details are provided. The Chinese are starting to really feel the burden of this problem as a small handful of family names dominate their population. Similar problems exist in the “Smith” and “Jones” clans in the English-speaking world.

Apparently, in the imagination of my theological opponent (or is he? more on that when we get to the grain of his post) open debate and discussion must be between people who have some way of tracking the other person down. If that kind of mentality bothers you, you and I are not alone.

“Children of light not not seek the darkness as a place to hide while they discuss the things of God.”

I wonder whether this was first penned by a pope who was unaware of a certain former monk’s whereabouts, or by Saul when he sought David’s life. I wonder if it was penned against those in the catacombs. Regardless of who penned it, it is absurd.

I present arguments in the light of the Internet. As far as I know, my arguments are more open to the light than arguments have ever been before in the history of mankind. I write in English, a language comprehensible to the vast majority of the Internet-equipped world, even where it is not their primary language – and a language from which many machines can translate into other languages for those who do not read English.

The arguments are open to the light. I don’t whisper heresy in secret: I proclaim the truth openly. If my arguments are bad, there errors are evident to the world. Indeed, given the media I use I cannot speak out of two sides of my mouth to two different people: instead I have to be consistent, using the same arguments defending the faith against Muslims as against Mormons and Papists.

“It also does not seem to me that TurretinFan is at all interested in learning anything at all, but only with “proclaiming” his view, cursorily “refuting” the other person’s (with whom he disagrees), and claiming that he has summarily answered it and done battle for the Kingdom of God.”

This sort of motive-questioning doesn’t deserve a detailed response. The short response is that the very post to which Trey goes on to respond is a post full of questions. Perhaps Trey which is to impugn my motives, but he could have placed his false claims in a more persuasive context!

“Well, that’s not what i [sic] call doing work for the Kingdom of God.”

No further comment.

“Bludgeoning people with your views is not what any Christian is called to do—and it would be ridiculous to call that ‘standing for the truth.'”

While that word “bludgeoning” is quite colorful, one sees the metaphor start breaking down when it comes out that my instrument of spiritual warfare is not the cudgel of “[my] views” but the sword of the Spirit, namely the Word of God: Scriptures.

“Thus saith TurretinFan,” would be an absurd cudgel. It’s shadowy weight would damage no heresy, nor leave the slightest scratch in the anti-Christian messages that exist. Throwing the force of the fact that I believe something to be true is like adding the most infintessimal antenna of the tiniest species of ant at the gates of the castle.

I suppose I could try to add some weight to my views by setting forth my name, credentials, etc. – but that would take away from the point of my presence here, which is to proclaim the Word of God, and the true doctrines of the church of the Living God.

To which end, may God give me grace,

-Turretinfan

P.S. I hope to turn shortly to the “grain” portion of Trey’s post.

Further Response from Trey

April 17, 2008

Trey has (I think) clarified that he does not want to come down on the matter of the Atonement one way or another.

“There are lots of folks who don’t want to come down on the matter one way or another. R. L. Dabney was one of those. David Ponter is also one. But like Dabney, while not taking a side on the issue, i see Ponter’s views as aligning most closely with Infralapsarianism, not with Amyraldism.”

I disagree with Trey, but there you have it. I see Dabney’s views coming down pretty clearly on the “strict” Limited Atonement side, and I see Ponter’s view coming down to the Amyraldian side of Dabney’s views.

Trey also seems to suggest that somehow there is confusion being made between Infralapsarian and Amyraldian. I am familiar with both categories, and I don’t see the connection that is being made.

This matter, however, has generated more heat than light on the matter, so I don’t have further comments on Trey’s further remarks at this time.

-TurretinFan

More of Trey Austin

April 14, 2008

Well, it seems that Mr. Austin does not like the correction he has received by those he considers his Christian brethren, so much that he has fired off a massive, multi-post response. I have addressed his multiple posts as a group.

1. Opening Post
In which Trey uses a colorful analogy involving dung, while falsely claiming, “Notice that Dr. White never refers to any other Christian with whom he has major disagrement as “brother.”” I seem to pretty clearly recall Dr. White calling Pastor Shishko a brother in Christ, even though Dr. White disagrees majorly with Pastor Shishko on the issue of Baptism.

2. Not the Reformed View (Round II)
In which Trey complains that he has been misunderstood, and claims that he was not saying that “my point was not that my own view is only Reformed view and Jame’s White’s isn’t.” He seems to be saying that he was complaining that there is a multiplicity of Reformed views on the subject – particularly on the subject of the doctrine of the Atonement. On the other hand, Trey actually wrote in his first article, “No more than you should have some Protestant Reformed theologian, who denies the free offer of the Gospel, and who denies common grace, to be the poster-child for being a Calvinist should you have James White out in the public eye representing himself and his lop-sided Calvinism as true and proper Calvinism.” Actually, though, the problem is that it is Trey’s contra-confessional view of the atonement (or at least the view that he seems to adopt vy his support of Ponter and company) that is “lop-sided Calvinism” if it can really be called Calvinism at all, rather than thinly-masked Amyraldianism. Again, lest Trey’s new intra-Reformed ecumenicism seem sincere, recall his claim: “So, if you want Puritanism of the modern variety, James White is your man; he tows the line to a tee. But if you want real, historical Calvinism, he’s not any kind of reliable source.” Now he claims, “So, understand, i’m arguing not that White’s view is not Reformed, nor am i arguing that it’s biblically wrong (though, i think it is), i am arguing that it’s only one among many Reformed views on the issue of God’s will concerning the salvation of the non-elect.” (all typos in original) Judge for yourself whether that’s the same argument or not.

3. Obligation to Critique Someone Else
In which Trey complains of having to deal with other subjects than the promotion of the distorted and logically incoherent view of the atonement advocated by Ponter and company. He complains that “In fact, having taken part in several forums devoted to internet apologetics, i have been increasingly convinced that it is a useless exercise that simply blakanizes positions rather than leading to understanding and mutual love.” (all typos original, I think “blakanizes” is supposed to be “Balkanizes”) Is it just my imagination or has the kettle of Internet apologetics been called black?

And he does so again in the same post, where he writes, “So, yes, it *IS* my business, and the business of every other Calvinist, how James White acts and how he displays a less than charitable attitude or a theological eccintricity that he presents as *THE* Reformed view, because, for good or for bad, many people will see that, recognize it as someone negative, as i do, and judge all Calvinists on that basis.” (again, all typos in original) Trey’s assisting those who advocate Amyraldianism-lite as though it were Calvinism, and then claims that conventional, confessional, middle-of-the-road Calvinism is not *THE* Reformed view. But if we are going to include Amyraldianism within the “Reformed View” broadly defined, then there is no strong reason to except Arminianism from the “Reformed View,” in which case the Reformed label is just something we should throw away, because it has lost its meaning.

Of course, the solution is to define Reformed theology by the major standards: the WCF, the LBCF, and even the canons of Dordt. The quasi-Amyraldianism of Ponter and company is not within the boundaries of any of those.

4. I Don’t Know Debate
In which Trey claims that he knows plenty about debate, and offers (based on his grade-school experience) some pointers to Dr. White. One hardly needs to provide commentary.

Trey seems to insist that he knows how better to answer questions. Thus, for example, he claims: “Hence, we can and should affirm that God desires the salvation of all the non-elect, insofar as he has commanded them to repent and believe and be saved, and insofar as he has told us plainly that it is his desire to see all men to be saved. God desires his commandments to be kept: That’s the heart of the assumption behind the preceptive will of God, and so we can rightly say that, anything God commands he desires to take place.”

Of course, Dr. White fully agrees with that statement, but such a statement would only confuse the issue, which was God’s sovereign desire, not his revealed will. In fact, all of those that Trey disparagingly refers to as “high Calvinists” (i.e. confessional Reformed folks) would agree that God desires (in one sense) that his commands be obeyed, and that one of his commands is that people repent and believe. But that sense is really not relevant to the debate that Dr. White was having with Mr. Gregg – a point that Trey seems willing to overlook in order to make a string of ad hominem attacks.

5. Personal Contact Needed?
In which Trey indicates that he feels justified in making his complaints public, apparently based in part (how, Trey doesn’t explain) on the subsequent public response by Dr. White. While I would agree that Trey might have been wiser to have complained to Dr. White privately first, before making himself appear absurd in a public forum, I also think that if Trey is responding to a public debate, he should feel free to do so publicly. Likewise, Trey should not complain that he is being responded to publicly, since he has made his amazing accusations a public matter (and I don’t think that Trey is necessarily complaining about that).

6. When Ad Hominem Arguments Go Wild
In which Trey complains that he has not seen substantiation for the claims that his initial post was ad hominem. Trey then complains that the present author’s introduction to my response to Tony Byrne’s post was ad hominem because I identified Tony’s connection to him and to their mutual friend (and theological ally), David Ponter. This truly is laughable.

Why so? It is laughable because (1) Trey imputes motives for the identification that are both unnecessary and inaccurate, and because (2) Trey does the very same thing. As to (1), the reason for providing identification is to help the readers make the connection to the pair of attacks recently launched on Dr. White. As to (2), Trey’s own self-label of “Reformed” and “Calvinist” are aimed to prejudice the reader in his favor. But I must qualify (2) a bit. It’s not quite the same thing, because I’ve actually demonstrated the non-Reformed nature of Tony’s and David’s (and, it appears, Trey’s) position, whereas Trey simply claims a label that doesn’t belong to him.

Furthermore, returning to (1), Trey goes even further off the deep end with his false claim that “[TurretinFan]’s trying to prejudice his audience against anything we say with regard to the sufficiency of Christ’s atonement by labeling us as “Quasi-Amyraldians.” This complaint is off the deep end for at least two reasons. One: as Trey himself admits, he hasn’t made a positive case at all – in fact – while he’s endorsed (one way or another) Ponter’s position, he hasn’t even made a negative position against the Reformed view of the limited atonement (as Tony and David have attempted). So, apparently (to Trey) I feel the need to rebut his position with an ad hominem, even though his position has not actually been presented. Two: it is the extent, not sufficiency, of the atonement that is at stake. If Tony, David, and company merely taught the unlimited sufficiency of Christ’s death, they would be within bounds of the Calvinistic view.

Moreover, returning again to (2), Trey himself uses labels on Dr. White to discredit Dr. White’s view as being the Reformed position. If it were ad hominem for me to use the label “Quasi-Amyraldian” (although I did not use it in the context of discrediting someone’s argument) all the more so it must be ad hominem for Trey to use a label in the context of discrediting Dr. White’s statements regarding the Reformed position.

Finally, the nail in the coffin was Trey claim that, “he also is engaging in guilt-by-association fallacy, by saying that Tony’s views are less than reliable because he is friends and in agreement with David Ponter.” (a) Actually, of course, I never make such a claim. Trey’s uncharitable assumption regarding the purpose for the association doesn’t convert a simple making of an association with an improper use of such an association. (b) Associating people by shared beliefs for the purpose of highlighting that shared belief is not the fallacy of guilt by association: it’s association by guilt. Trey would do well to get it straight. (c) Trey himself in post (1) above employed similar grouping (“his internet broadcast certainly was nothing more than an invitation to his sycophants to flood the blogosphere with responses”). (d) In Trey’s grouping, the inference was much harsher and prejudicial than in mine (comrades [mine] vs. sycophants [his]).

I hope Trey will see the error of his position, both with respect to Dr. White, but more importantly with respect to the Ponter position on the atonement.

If we believe in a Vicarious Atonement (and the Reformed church does) then those for whom Christ died – the elect nation for whom our High Priest offered His once-for-all sacrifice – will be saved. We should still affirm that Christ’s death is, as to its intrinsic worth, sufficient for all. But Christ is the good shepherd who laid down his life for his sheep.

But here’s my challenge to Trey Austin, who hands out debating tips to Dr. White. I have a debate blog all set up, and I’ve debated folks there before. If you’d like, we can debate (in writing) from Scripture the doctrine of the Atonement. I will take the view expressed in the Westminster Standards (WLC):

Question 59: Who are made partakers of redemption through Christ?

Answer: Redemption is certainly applied, and effectually communicated, to all those for whom Christ has purchased it; who are in time by the Holy Ghost enabled to believe in Christ according to the gospel.

If Trey believes that redemption was purchased for others to whom it will never be applied or effectually communicated, or who will never in time be enabled to believe in Christ according to the gospel, then I hope he’ll take up the challenge. I’m 100% ready to defend the true doctrine expressed in WLC 59 against any taker – whether it be Trey, Tony, David, or anyone else.

-TurretinFan

Not the Reformed View?

April 10, 2008

In a recent quarrelsome and ad hominem post, Rev. “Trey” Austin, III has the gumption to suggest (with the title of the post) that Dr. White’s view in a recent radio debate with Steve Gregg is “not the Reformed view.” Nothing could be further from the truth.

After receiving well-deserved chiding from Dr. White in the first comment in the combox of the post, Trey responds by admitting, “Dr. White, the point of my post is precisely with your attitde [sic] and actions as a person.” It’s nice to see that admission, but it is important to note the title of the post, which was not “Dr. White is a big meanie,” but “Not the Reformed View.”

Of course, the real reason that Trey is going ad hominem on Dr. White is because Trey’s view of the Atonement (at least, given his promotion of it, I presume it is his) evidenced here and generally in his support of the quasi-Amyraldian, David Ponter. It is disappointing to see such positions being advocated (implicitly or explicitly) by PCA pastors, because the position held by Ponter and company is contrary both to Scripture and the doctrinal standard of the PCA.

Perhaps God will use the mechanism of the Westminster Presbytery to rope in Trey’s errors in this matter.

-TurretinFan


%d bloggers like this: