The following was a response by Marc to my comments on Doug Wilson’s post at his blog entitled, “Major and Minor.” Here is the response:
To Douglas Wilson, there are really no majors.
==There are Lutherans who don’t agree with me on what it means to be born again, but that’s all right because they are born again (Doug Wilson).==
And there are Pelagians who don’t agree with him on the ground of salvation, but that’s all right because they have been saved based on the only ground of salvation (Wilson’s stupid logic).
Why not keep going? There are atheists who don’t agree with him on the existence of God, but that’s all right because they have been saved by the God in whom they don’t believe.
==And there are Reformed evangelicals who would say exactly the same thing about it that I would — the only problem being that they are not in fact born again themselves (Doug Wilson.==
And how could that be so, Mr. Wilson? How would you judge the Lutheran to be born again and these particular Reformed evangelicals who are not born again? What is your standard? Wouldn’t these be the people whom you would accept in the presbytery exam for ordination?
== Now when I say that I don’t care “what they say,” that sentiment has to be placed in context. I would care very much what they say about it at a presbytery exam for ordination. But when it comes to receiving them to the Lord’s Table, I don’t care at all. It is the Lord’s Table, not mine, and my job is to receive the same people the Lord receives, to the best of my ability (Doug Wilson).==
When it comes to receiving people at the Lord’s Table, Wilson will take the Lord’s Supper with Lutherans, Arminians, and even Pelagians — anyone whom, in His judgment (based on what standard?), the Lord receives. So, Mr. Wilson, whom does the Lord receive? Where’s your cutoff? Where’s the line past which you say, “No, I will not take the Lord’s Supper with that person, because that person is not born again”? I haven’t seen his cutoff, just as I haven’t seen Machen’s cutoff. But there has to be a cutoff, unless you’re going to admit atheists at the Lord’s Table, right, Mr. Wilson? So where is it? And what is the biblical basis for it? That would be a very interesting thing to see.
[BTW, Mr. Wilson, isn’t your presbytery the Lord’s presbytery and not yours? Aren’t these ministers the Lord’s ministers and not yours? So your use of “Lord’s” to justify your differentiation between clergy and laity is nonsensical.]
To God alone be the glory,
Marc
Agrammatos 