Pages

Wednesday, October 01, 2014

The Texas takeover


Tremper Longman has an update on the Machiavellian machinations at Westminster:
But why is Bruce getting this unprecedented honor at Westminster? There are many others from Westminster’s past who deserve acclamation. I would suggest two reasons. First, it is part of an attempt to distract us from what appears to be a strategy of narrowing the theology of the Seminary.
I appreciate his insight. I look forward to subsequent posts in which he gets to the bottom of Area 51, the Apollo moon "landings," and the International Jewish Conspiracy.
But this also tells us something about why Westminster is changing in the direction it is hermeneutically. Bruce, Peter and Greg and others (notice that this celebration is being co-sponsored by others from Dallas) are all part of a group that were associated with Dallas seminary forty or so years ago (Dave Garner also has a DTS background).
Their spiritual leader was S. Lewis Johnson of Believers Chapel. This group departed from their DTS background by rejecting dispensationalism, but they maintained a more literalist understanding of interpretation which includes a commitment to meaning found in the conscious intention of the human author.
Without question, this theology stands behind their rejection of Christotelic and affirmation of something that they call a Christomorphic reading of the New Testament use of the Old Testament.
That's very perceptive. However, his theory suffers from a prima facie inconcinnity‎ After all, aren't Carl Trueman, Iain Duguid, and Vern Poythress key players in this crypto-Dispensational takeover? In the interests of consistency, Tremper needs to rope them into the Texas cabal. Permit me to supplement Tremper's narrative. 
This all got started in the kitchen of W. A. Criswell. His mansion had a farmhouse kitchen with a big round table where he and his drinking buddies (Paul Pressler, Paige Patterson, John Walvoord, S. Lewis Johnson) used to play poker into the wee hours of the morning. That's where the plot was hatched to infiltrate the flagship of Reformed seminaries. They knew that dispensationalism wouldn't triumph unless they could sabotage Calvinism from within. A decapitation strike. The plan was to infiltrate Westminster with dispensational plants. 
So they needed recruits. Tremper has already done us a service by outing some of the spies. But what about the Texas connection vis-a-vis Trueman, Duguid, and Poythress?
To begin with, those are not their real names. Trueman is a pun for "man of truth", while Duguid is a pun for "do-gooder". So these are pseudonyms. Isn't it obvious? Like, duh!
Then there's Poythress. Honestly, does that sound like a real name to you? How many of your high school classmates had that surname? Think about it?
Here's a clue: is it just coincidental that Poythress is an anagram for "others spy"? I think not! He's a spy for Criswell and his cohorts. I mean, what could be more obvious?
Don't let that hokey English accent fool you: Trueman was born and bred in Amarillo. Trueman's real name is Boobie Miles. When he thinks nobody is listening, he sounds just like Rick Perry. He learned to fake that English accent by imitating Michael Caine in Alfie. 
Trueman's original ambition was to play for the Dallas Cowboys. That's before he blew out his kneecap at a homecoming game.
That's why he's always making fun of football. It's part of his cover. He bashes football to deflect attention away from the fact that he played football in high school. 
Then there's Poythress. He's actually from Paris, Texas. His real name is Sonny Crawford. His boyhood dream was to be a rodeo star. That's before he tore his rotator cuff from bronc riding. 
Then there's Duguid. He's from Archer City. His real name is Duane Jackson. He picked up his fake accent by imitating Christopher Timothy in All Creatures Great and Small. He was a teenage gas station attendant until the Blessed Virgin appeared to him in a beer bottle and commanded him to make a pilgrimage to First Baptist in Dallas. That's where he met up with his coconspirators. And the rest, as they say, is history. 

5 comments:

  1. James 5:19-20
    Does this verse deter P from TULIP?
    Who is verse 20 talking about, all sinners or just backsliders, or even people who have slided away from good doctrine (Galatians 1:8)?

    (sorry, don't know where to ask)

    ReplyDelete
  2. Also, what does it mean that we are not under law? Does that mean the law is set aside and useless?

    ReplyDelete
  3. Perseverance of the saints doesn't mean once saved always saved that leads to antinomianism rather we must keep following His commands and abiding in him as John records that Jesus said. God perseveres us with His Holy Spirit i.e. Romans 8, where those who walk by the Spirit are true Christians.
    As for the law, we are not under its condemnation its dispensation so to speak for our justification.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. For your latter question refer to Ersnt Kevan's books on the moral law and Christian liberty.

      Delete
    2. In context, when Paul says we are not under the law, it means that Christians are subject to the new covenant rather the Mosaic covenant.

      That doesn't mean everything in the Mosaic covenant is obsolete. As Paul later goes on to say, we are still subject to moral norms in the Mosaic covenant (13:9).

      Jews were subject to the Mosaic covenant in toto. Christians are not. There's some continuity, some carryover, but it's not a package deal. Not a take it or leave it proposition.

      There are two extremes to avoid: observing the Mosaic covenant in toto and disregarding the Mosaic covenant in toto.

      Considered as a covenant, the Mosaic covenant is defunct. It does, however, contain many moral norms which remain obligatory.

      Delete