Reference: http://lookuntothelord.com/2012/05/01/second-response-to-jason-brown-re-arminians/
Curt Wildy stated:
"Issue One: In the context of the posts on whether all of the elect will hear the gospel, did I ever, and in any form, deny “that truly regenerate people are in any way ignorant of doctrinal truth – at least as it pertains to the doctrines of grace?” I deny that regenerate saints will believe a false gospel or remain ignorant of the true Gospel; however, I never stated that they could not be ignorant of doctrinal truth pertaining the doctrines of grace. The issue is one of gospel ignorance versus ignorance of gospel details."
Brother Wildy states that children of God can be in ignorance of the true gospel, but not remain in it. He then states that the issue is one of gospel ignorance versus ignorance of gospel details. So it seems unclear whether he is advocating (1) that true children of God can be in gospel ignorance of the true gospel (for an undetermined span of time) but not remain in it, or (2) that true children of God can be in gospel ignorance as relating to what Brother Wildy considers peripheral, gospel details but not in regard to some set of core gospel doctrines that make up the true gospel.
The last two sentences of the quoted paragraph are contradictory parameters of ignorance of the regenerate. The second to last sentence places the ignorance of which the regenerate are capable somewhere between full, false gospel belief and ignorance of the true gospel. The problem with this statement, is that it contradicts the parameters of ignorance in the last sentence, which only allows gospel ignorance in details, not an ignorance of some aspect of the core gospel.
He gives an example of what he means in regard to the debate of legal fiction versus literal transfer of which debate he states:
"...however, it does not rise to the level of believing a false gospel or being ignorant of the true Gospel."
As can be seen in this quote, he denies that an ignorance of gospel details, as specified by the context of that debate, rises to the level of either believing a false gospel or being ignorant of the true gospel. By this, I take him to be arguing the latter sentence of the first quoted paragraph of his above rather than the second to last sentence of that paragraph.
Why does he admit, then, in the second to last sentence of the first quoted paragraph above, that the regenerate can be ignorant of the true gospel, but say that they will not "remain" in that state? He seems to be clearly contradicting himself.
Let us assume that he meant "be ignorant" instead of "remain ignorant", which makes his example fit.
He claimed that I misrepresented him by attributing to him the idea that gospel ignorance of details is the same as "true gospel" ignorance, and perhaps I did misrepresent him. My apologies, it was not intentional.
However, the distinction between these is not always clear to Brother Wildy. I read his blog posts on the Eternal Sonship of Christ versus Incarnational Sonship (http://lookuntothelord.com/2010/11/20/eternal-sonship-vs-incarnation-sonship-%E2%80%94-a-matter-of-damnable-heresy-part-ii/), and he cannot discern whether this issue is one that references gospel ignorance, entailing eternal damnation in those that believe it, or ignorance of gospel details, entailing just ignorance, presumably.
It is not clear to Brother Wildy whether this issue involves a denial of the true gospel or involves peripheral details. The problem is, however, that he clearly considers it possible that he mistakes something as a peripheral detail that logically controverts the true gospel, though the true gospel is nevertheless believed.
I suppose he believes that if it is damnable heresy, God will reveal it to him. Being undecided, I wonder how he could "put it on the back burner", as he states he would in his last blog post on that matter. How can he rest until he knows for sure? What of his mistaken uncertainty, if it should prove to be "damnable"? God has left him in an undecided state on a potentially heretical matter, how is this dissimilar to the state of babes in Christ that have placed studying the doctrines of grace "on a back burner"?
Since the truly regenerate, even according to Brother Wildy, can be intellectually mistaken about a doctrine they take to be peripheral but that logically entails denial of the true gospel, Brother Wildly must allow that they could mistakenly, in ignorance, disbelieve a doctrine that is a necessary part of the true gospel, believing it as peripheral or a mere detail, and undermine, on an intellectual, logical basis, the true gospel. He unintentionally, in a logical sense, admits both possibilities as regarding the matter of the Eternal Sonship of Christ.
Therefore, as regarding Issue One of Brother Wildy, his views seem less than clear even to him, let alone me.
No comments:
Post a Comment