Scott Clark is responding to the FV statement also, which can be found here. In this post, he compares us to terrorists, among other things.
“Will the PCA signatories really submit to the judgment of the presbyteries or will they flee to the waiting and willing arms of that woman of easy virtue in Moscow?”
I have been called a lot of things in my day, but that’s a ripe one.
“The de facto leader of the FV movement is also the de facto leader of the FV movement”
Now I, king of the typos, am not going to make a big deal out of this. But I think he meant for one of those FVs to actually be CREC. And, further, it is pretty plain from the context that he was talking about me.
So here’s my little question. Among all the wild injuns attacking us, there seems to be a consensus that I am the most orthodox sounding. Even Clark, in a rare moment of catholicity forced by not yet having turned off this comments feature, allowed that I was “on the fence.” But in the past, I have been an odd anomaly, not quite fitting in what is thought to be the real FV world. And yet now I am the de facto leader of the whole schebeal.
So which is it? And whichever way he answers the question — full disclosure here — in about three moves I will say checkmate.