The Highway Forums General Discussion Open Forum The Passion

Dear Fred:

How about a clear heads up on this?

Is Pastor McArthur clearly for, or against, the viewing of the Passion, based on the clear teaching of the historical Reformed Faith's Position on the Second Commandment, as evidenced in the confessions already referenced on this board?

Or, on the other hand, because of the position I have heard espoused on other sites with respect to NCT, has a softer, more "tolerant" and "flexible" approach been adopted toward the Second Commandment and the "boogy man" of antinomianism?

See here:

http://pub54.ezboard.com/fdiscussingreformationfrm1.showMessage?topicID=478.topic

for more on the "boogy man" where we find statements like the following from fred:

"Critiques like Barcellos's tend to be one sided and he attacks boogey men, like the false charges of antinominism, rather than dealing with what are really the core issues of the significance of the New Covenant."

and from Rich Barcellos:

"The book does not mention the "boogey" man of antinomianism. I dealt with that in the Table Talk article. Before the article was sent to Table Talk, I asked three PhDs in 17th century Reformed theology to read it. They did, and each one agreed with my assessment, at least from the historical point of view. My claim in the article is that NCT is doctrinally/theologically antinomian. That is, though they certainly don't teach nor live as practical antinomians (i.e., lawless), their doctrine ends up advocating a view which is against the Moral Law as understood in Reformed Theology."

Thanks, in advance, for being clear on this, because I for one don't want to waste my time if John is going to steer his hearers away from the historic reformed faith as evidenced in the Confessions, and indeed in the Word of God itself as it is quoted here:
In Him,

Gerry