Comments on: The Padded Room http://butler-harris.org How can you have the last word if you haven't heard the first? Tue, 27 Dec 2011 15:49:35 +0000 hourly 1 By: M http://butler-harris.org/the-padded-room/comment-page-3#comment-33072 M Wed, 10 Sep 2008 15:36:13 +0000 http://butler-harris.org/the-padded-room/#comment-33072 Elliot’s book has me very concerned. The perspectivalism discussion comes at the end and isn’t the center or largest source of his unease. It is the views of Sheppard, Gaffin, Kainared, Green and others which seemingly have been defended and upheld often in a scandalous or conspiratorial manner by Westminster and the General Assembly. It appears based on Elliot’s research that this behavior and these views have been infiltrating the denomination for quite some time without challenge, and when there is some challenge it appears that Westminster or the Assembly pull some shady business to achieve their goals. I’ve mentioned the book to an elder at my church – he was unaware of it or any problems. I intend to speak about it with others in order to get a proper grasp on the situation. I recommend reading the book if you haven’t, there sure is a lot in there. Elliot’s book has me very concerned. The perspectivalism discussion comes at the end and isn’t the center or largest source of his unease. It is the views of Sheppard, Gaffin, Kainared, Green and others which seemingly have been defended and upheld often in a scandalous or conspiratorial manner by Westminster and the General Assembly. It appears based on Elliot’s research that this behavior and these views have been infiltrating the denomination for quite some time without challenge, and when there is some challenge it appears that Westminster or the Assembly pull some shady business to achieve their goals. I’ve mentioned the book to an elder at my church – he was unaware of it or any problems. I intend to speak about it with others in order to get a proper grasp on the situation. I recommend reading the book if you haven’t, there sure is a lot in there.

]]> By: TJH http://butler-harris.org/the-padded-room/comment-page-3#comment-32695 TJH Sat, 06 Sep 2008 01:55:07 +0000 http://butler-harris.org/the-padded-room/#comment-32695 M -- quite so. The closest you could come to speaking of voluntary withdrawal in that case would be those besides Machen that left "voluntarily" to form the OPC. However, they stood with Machen and believed that when he was kicked out they were kicked out. M — quite so. The closest you could come to speaking of voluntary withdrawal in that case would be those besides Machen that left “voluntarily” to form the OPC. However, they stood with Machen and believed that when he was kicked out they were kicked out.

]]> By: M http://butler-harris.org/the-padded-room/comment-page-3#comment-32669 M Fri, 05 Sep 2008 22:01:08 +0000 http://butler-harris.org/the-padded-room/#comment-32669 Elliot says that Machen left the PCUSA throughout his book and thus argued that seperating as opposed to sticking things out and being kicked out was justifiable. My understanding was that Machen was kicked out, am I mistaken? Elliot says that Machen left the PCUSA throughout his book and thus argued that seperating as opposed to sticking things out and being kicked out was justifiable. My understanding was that Machen was kicked out, am I mistaken?

]]> By: TJH http://butler-harris.org/the-padded-room/comment-page-3#comment-32545 TJH Fri, 05 Sep 2008 03:20:19 +0000 http://butler-harris.org/the-padded-room/#comment-32545 M -- I have only flipped through the book, but I did attend a conference the burden of which was Elliot presenting the material in view-graph format. I am sympathetic to their concerns, but (1) some of his criticisms indicate a lack of understanding. Most egregious was his attack on Dr Poythress' perspectivalism, which he clearly does not understand. Even the true concerns showed a lack of patience with the brethren. Thus, (2) in my opinion, the concerns do not warrant breaking fellowship. Indeed, I am inclined to think that breaking away with such slight effort at understanding and reform is schismatic, and did harm to both themselves and to the OPC. M — I have only flipped through the book, but I did attend a conference the burden of which was Elliot presenting the material in view-graph format. I am sympathetic to their concerns, but (1) some of his criticisms indicate a lack of understanding. Most egregious was his attack on Dr Poythress’ perspectivalism, which he clearly does not understand. Even the true concerns showed a lack of patience with the brethren. Thus, (2) in my opinion, the concerns do not warrant breaking fellowship. Indeed, I am inclined to think that breaking away with such slight effort at understanding and reform is schismatic, and did harm to both themselves and to the OPC.

]]> By: M http://butler-harris.org/the-padded-room/comment-page-3#comment-32446 M Thu, 04 Sep 2008 15:57:58 +0000 http://butler-harris.org/the-padded-room/#comment-32446 Have either of you read Christianity and Neo-Liberalism - The spiritual crisis in the Orthodox Presbyterian Church and beyond by Paul M. Elliott? If so what are your thoughts on it? Have either of you read Christianity and Neo-Liberalism – The spiritual crisis in the Orthodox Presbyterian Church and beyond by Paul M. Elliott? If so what are your thoughts on it?

]]> By: TJH http://butler-harris.org/the-padded-room/comment-page-3#comment-22031 TJH Tue, 26 Feb 2008 15:58:26 +0000 http://butler-harris.org/the-padded-room/#comment-22031 Joshua (continuing from <a href="http://butler-harris.org/archives/145#comment-21772" rel="nofollow">earlier thread</a>) -- no, that's not <em>why</em> we write about opera; it was just an apropos-that throw-away comment. I think some people (and I have been the chief sinner) on both the Right and Left in the church get a "mission from God" attitude; the thrill of battle gets in their blood; they start to live for doing battle. Which is understandable -- as Lee said, it is a good thing war is so terrible, or we would grow to love it. And I think Chesterton said somewhere, there must be something great about warfare, or so many Christian men would not have been drawn to becoming soldiers. Nevertheless, in our saner moments we need to remember the obvious -- our life on earth is meant to be developed at the hearth and in the field and woods. War is to be an exceptional time of discipline and readiness. Joshua (continuing from earlier thread) — no, that’s not why we write about opera; it was just an apropos-that throw-away comment.

I think some people (and I have been the chief sinner) on both the Right and Left in the church get a “mission from God” attitude; the thrill of battle gets in their blood; they start to live for doing battle. Which is understandable — as Lee said, it is a good thing war is so terrible, or we would grow to love it. And I think Chesterton said somewhere, there must be something great about warfare, or so many Christian men would not have been drawn to becoming soldiers.

Nevertheless, in our saner moments we need to remember the obvious — our life on earth is meant to be developed at the hearth and in the field and woods. War is to be an exceptional time of discipline and readiness.

]]> By: ElizaF http://butler-harris.org/the-padded-room/comment-page-3#comment-19713 ElizaF Tue, 29 Jan 2008 18:00:59 +0000 http://butler-harris.org/the-padded-room/#comment-19713 A question about authority. You join a church with a decent session. New men are nominated, some of whom may not only be non-confessional (of course for me one has to be almost 100% to be considered confessional), but also, the man is insensitive and you've seen this in action. (Not only that but he slandered Ron Paul! Now you see why I am asking!) Therefore, you vote against him, but the tyranny of the majority prevails and now you are "under the authority" of one who doesn't know the WCF from the WLC (slight exaggeration). What do you do? Submit? Allow him to come to your house to check up on you spiritually? How does that work? A question about authority. You join a church with a decent session. New men are nominated, some of whom may not only be non-confessional (of course for me one has to be almost 100% to be considered confessional), but also, the man is insensitive and you’ve seen this in action. (Not only that but he slandered Ron Paul! Now you see why I am asking!) Therefore, you vote against him, but the tyranny of the majority prevails and now you are “under the authority” of one who doesn’t know the WCF from the WLC (slight exaggeration). What do you do? Submit? Allow him to come to your house to check up on you spiritually? How does that work?

]]> By: Tim H http://butler-harris.org/the-padded-room/comment-page-3#comment-15843 Tim H Fri, 09 Nov 2007 04:47:17 +0000 http://butler-harris.org/the-padded-room/#comment-15843 A couple years before he died, I heard Samuel Francis give a speech in which he argued very cogently that being armed for self-defense is a right belonging to every man that is more fundamental even than the Constitution -- like the right to eat, or breathe. As a matter of conscience, I am persuaded. On that assumption, the question of permits is one of pragmatics -- how to minimize interference from a lawless "magistrate." Sort of like, if the magistrate asked you to have a permit before eating. As far as carrying in your automobile, I offer two thoughts. 1. We should all resist a "request" to have our premises (house or car) searched, <em>even if there is absolutely nothing to hide</em>. If all Americans had this spirit, there would be a lot less to fear. 2. Anecdotal, but maybe worth something:  a guy was pulled over in a national park in a different state for a minor vehicular infraction. In the course of obtaining license and registration, the officer discovered a rod. He made a scene -- driver and passenger having to put hands on the dashboard, a lot of blustery verbiage, etc. But in the end, he returned the rod and there was no ticket or incident. Was he just a "nice guy"? Or did he know that he wouldn't really have a case uncovering heat carried by an American, and discovered through no fault of his own? A couple years before he died, I heard Samuel Francis give a speech in which he argued very cogently that being armed for self-defense is a right belonging to every man that is more fundamental even than the Constitution — like the right to eat, or breathe. As a matter of conscience, I am persuaded.

On that assumption, the question of permits is one of pragmatics — how to minimize interference from a lawless “magistrate.”

Sort of like, if the magistrate asked you to have a permit before eating.

As far as carrying in your automobile, I offer two thoughts.

1. We should all resist a “request” to have our premises (house or car) searched, even if there is absolutely nothing to hide. If all Americans had this spirit, there would be a lot less to fear.

2. Anecdotal, but maybe worth something:  a guy was pulled over in a national park in a different state for a minor vehicular infraction. In the course of obtaining license and registration, the officer discovered a rod. He made a scene — driver and passenger having to put hands on the dashboard, a lot of blustery verbiage, etc. But in the end, he returned the rod and there was no ticket or incident.

Was he just a “nice guy”? Or did he know that he wouldn’t really have a case uncovering heat carried by an American, and discovered through no fault of his own?

]]> By: Joshua http://butler-harris.org/the-padded-room/comment-page-3#comment-15841 Joshua Fri, 09 Nov 2007 03:37:46 +0000 http://butler-harris.org/the-padded-room/#comment-15841 In my state they require fingerprinting. I could keep a gun in my house without fingerprinting, or carry it with me (and my family) when we travel by getting fingerprinted. The latter gives me more freedom to protect my family, the former limits my freedom to a house which is owned by the government anyway through eternal property tax, and eminent domain (another constitutional afforedment. In my state they require fingerprinting. I could keep a gun in my house without fingerprinting, or carry it with me (and my family) when we travel by getting fingerprinted. The latter gives me more freedom to protect my family, the former limits my freedom to a house which is owned by the government anyway through eternal property tax, and eminent domain (another constitutional afforedment.

]]> By: GV http://butler-harris.org/the-padded-room/comment-page-3#comment-15840 GV Fri, 09 Nov 2007 03:28:39 +0000 http://butler-harris.org/the-padded-room/#comment-15840 I get the principle and agree wholeheartedly, but I am really struggling with whether or not the benefit of carrying (and especially my wife) is worth "setting principle aside" (I can't believe I just said that). My objection to the fingerprinting is identical to TJH. However, I have wondered to myself when the day comes that it will be "more than a matter of principle," whether I've been fingerprinted won't really matter. The question then will only be, "At what point am I willing to pull the trigger?" I'm really trying to figure out the wisest action here, so feel free to share any other thoughts. I appreciate your perspective. I get the principle and agree wholeheartedly, but I am really struggling with whether or not the benefit of carrying (and especially my wife) is worth “setting principle aside” (I can’t believe I just said that). My objection to the fingerprinting is identical to TJH. However, I have wondered to myself when the day comes that it will be “more than a matter of principle,” whether I’ve been fingerprinted won’t really matter. The question then will only be, “At what point am I willing to pull the trigger?” I’m really trying to figure out the wisest action here, so feel free to share any other thoughts. I appreciate your perspective.

]]>