Why These “Discussions” Are Worthless

   Michael J.G. Pahls wrote this morning, “This statement itself, however, shows why White is not Reformed. He presupposes that one’s doctrines of the church and sacraments are external and indifferent to one’s doctrines of God and Scripture or the gospel.” This illustrates why I have so little taste for the “You are not Reformed, we are, hug a Romanist with me now!” folks on the net. Anyone who can throw out such a wild-eyed statement in the face of such overwhelming published documentation to the contrary leaves me shaking my head. My point all along has been to point out I believe what I believe because of that very consistency, but men like Pahls have no interest, it seems, in hearing that. I, for one, find these silly debates very frustrating simply because I see how much work needs to be done on so many fronts. I have introduced so many to the doctrines of grace, and yet, when I do so, I always have in the back of my mind the nagging concern that while these folks may be greatly excited to see the wondrous truths of God’s holy and omnipotent Kingship over His creation, and how the Gospel is about God’s self-glorification, not man’s “felt needs,” they will probably, eventually, run into the “downside” of the community that teaches those truths—those who while confessing these same truths end up marginalizing them in favor of their petty arguments about who is “truly Reformed.” Meanwhile, so many of these same folks will inconsistently sow seeds of doubt as to the perspecuity of Scripture, the clarity of the gospel, and any number of other issues all in the name of “catholicity.” While I will never stop decrying the soul-crushing slavery of Roman religion, I have no interest at all in wasting any more time with those who think it enjoyable to sit in their comfy personal libraries while lobbing off literary artillery shells at those on the front lines.