As one very familiar with the work of James White, and having been myself involved in a number of discussions with him over the past year specifically arising out of my affiliation with the work in Moscow, this debate will be very interesting to me as well. There may be…many Reformed Baptists who are the friends of Presbyterians. However, James White is not one of these. To be sure, he is friends with men who *claim* to be Presbyterians, but these men are really more like low church, revivalistic Baptists in their sacramentology than classical Presbyterians. The one thread that ties them all together is not genuine *Reformed* theology, but a vicious, anachronistic, and in many ways outright prejudicial anti-Romanism that cannot stand to be challenged, but takes all challenges as being fundamentally “attacks on the Gospel”.
This will be an interesting debate, indeed. I think that many will come to see the absolute poverty of the type of Baptist theology (and I recognize that not all Baptist theology is like this) that hates the vision of catholic culture that this list is about–that is, hates historic Christianity and everything it stands for, and instead advocates the perpetuation of Modern novelties and faith-corroding compromises with the contemporary culture. If my experience with White is any indicator, I guarantee you that White’s major point against Wilson is going to be of the nature of “I don’t have any traditions in my exegesis of Scripture and so my exegesis of Scripture is objective, but you are a slave to your traditions and so you miss the *obvious* meaning that Roman Catholics are not even Christians because they do not parse the theology of justification correctly.” The metaphor of White’s entire ministry is “The Dividing Line”, and so I hope to see Wilson strongly portray the fact that men such as White draw that line, that antithesis, in the wrong place and so damage the cause of the Reformation and the *catholic* Christianity upon which it was based.
Hey, long time since your last shot across my bow! It had been 48 hours, so I started to wonder. Anyway, I sure hope you can attend the debate. There are all sorts of things you’ve said I’d love to ask DW about in your presence, especially those judgments about the wrath of God and all. Anyway, don’t you think it is just a bit odd to say that I am no friend to Presbyterians and then in the same breath say that all those I would call my friends are not really Presbyterians? You know some of those men are ordained ministers in the PCA, and yet you have, well, the gall to set yourself up as the arbiter of their “true” standing? Amazing, truly amazing. I will allow level-headed folks to read your materials and judge the accuracy of your use of terms like “vicious, anachronistic” and “prejudicial anti-Romanism,” and the rest of your “I’ve stuck my fingers in my ears so I can’t hear the refutation of my argument but I will continue repeating it because it is all I have to explain my flight off into zaniness and I know I can’t touch the text of Scripture to defend my new views so I will just call everyone else hateful and say they detest historic catholic Christianity and throw out a bunch of silliness about how exegesis really can’t tell you what God wrote in Scripture and now I will repeat myself yet again because I have run out of anything else to say” stuff. I just wanted to let all my Presbyterian friends know that their memberships had been revoked due to friendship with a Reformed Baptist (insert gasps here). I’m sure they will appreciate the notification.