The second part of the 30 reasons document asserts that the study committee has only shown that the views in question (FV and NPP) are out of accord with the study committee’s interpretation of the WS, and that they have not shown that the views are out of accord with the WS themselves. In reality, this objection is an extension of the first objection regarding subscription. Indeed, the latter part of the second objection talks about the import of the good faith system subscription. I don’t have too much to say about point 2, other than that it is pure assertion with absolutely zero argumentation. Of course the report will never convince FV guys that their views are out of accord. Of course, it will convince the critics. I am rather disappointed that Jeff resorted to “no, it isn’t, yes it is” type of argumentation, which isn’t argumentation. What he would have needed to do is to demonstrate that the views in question are not out of accord with the WS, and especially demonstrate that the report’s view of the WS is not the only legitimate interpretation. Not a word of such argumentation. So, I hope he doesn’t expect the critics to take that one seriously.
Regarding point 3, the fact of Southern Presbyterians being appointed to the study committee is irrelevant to the outcome on the issues of election. If I had been appointed to the study committee, the result would hardly have changed a bit. I am not a Southerner, being a pastor in North Dakota. If Phil Ryken or Rick Phillips (neither of whom are Southerners) had been appointed, the result would not have been much different. This is quite a fallacious argument.
Regarding point 4, which is one I have heard ad nauseum already from most FV advocates: the utter fallacy here is to suppose that the composition of the study committee as being “one-sided” guarantees a false picture of the situation. As many others have noted on this blog, there have been situations in church history in the past where an issue has come up. The church did not invite advocates of x position to participate, and yet the conclusions regarding x position have been regarded as valid. So, this argument is sophomoric and historically naive. Take the synod of Dort. Arminians were not invited. Are the Canons of Dort skewed? Of course not. They are biblical. So, this point is based on a complete fallacy. The point is this: critics do not view the FV as being in accordance with the WS, and that these views are an attack on the vitals of the Christian religion. That puts this whole discussion in a completely different arena than the creation days or women in the military.
greenbaggins
glwjohnson
jeffhutchinson
davejes1979
reformedmusings
Reed Here
Andrew Webb
Matt said,
May 11, 2007 at 11:03 am
You’re wrong. Arminians originally did have delegates to the Synod of Dort. It was only after they misbehaved and attempted to hijack the Synod with absurd grandstanding that they were ejected — and even then, not for theological reasons.
greenbaggins said,
May 11, 2007 at 11:04 am
Arminians played no part in the drawing up of the Canons of Dort. They were not invited to write anything. That is what I mean, so the example holds, and you know it does.
Tim Wilder said,
May 11, 2007 at 11:08 am
“Regarding point 3, the fact of Southern Presbyterians being appointed to the study committee is irrelevant to the outcome on the issues of election. If I had been appointed to the study committee, the result would hardly have changed a bit. I am not a Southerner, being a pastor in North Dakota. If Phil Ryken or Rick Phillips (neither of whom are Southerners) had been appointed, the result would not have been much different. This is quite a fallacious argument.”
Actually, we know what a committee not made of up Southern Presbyterians would say from the example of one of the FV’s own former heros and what he said about the FV theology on the OPC’s study committee which had Gaffin on the committee. Would putting the PCA’s equivalent of Gaffin on the PCA committee have changed anything? Also the RCUS shows us what non-Southern Presbyterians think.
Don Jones said,
May 11, 2007 at 2:06 pm
Lane, as Jeff pointed out, our standards call for us to use Robert’s Rules for committees. Those rules require that committees be balanced with representatives from all sides. In this instance, we deviated from our standards.
I will ask the question again: Is it acceptable to deviate from our standards if we are doing so in defense of said standards?
Glenn said,
May 11, 2007 at 2:13 pm
Lane,
If you had been on the committee, then maybe the representation of FV would have been more accurate. Maybe their claims about what the FV believe about election wouldn’t have been so skewed. I wish you were one of the committee members.
Oh well…
Andy Gilman said,
May 11, 2007 at 6:20 pm
Maybe this is jumping ahead Lane, but since Don brought it up I thought I would reply.
From Meyers “30 Reasons:”
[BOQ]
5. The failure to appoint men who could represent the FV viewpoint is probably a violation of Robert’s Rules of Order. Robert’s Rules (which the Assembly is required to follow unless it has adopted its own special rules) specifies that “special committees” (i.e. committees which are not permanent, standing committees but committees formed for particular purposes, such as for study, investigation, etc.) should be composed of
representatives of “all points of view”:
When a special committee is appointed for deliberation or investigation. . . it should represent, as far as possible, all points of view in the organization, so that its opinion will carry maximum weight (§49, “Appointment of Committees,” subtitle “Proper Composition of Committees,” emphasis added).
Robert’s Rules goes on to state, “The usefulness of the committee will be greatly impaired, on the other hand, if any important faction of the assembly is not represented.” Just as Robert’s Rules warned, the usefulness of this Report is indeed greatly impaired because of the Moderator’s failure to include qualified representatives of the assembly who could speak for the men associated with the FV.
[EOQ]
Notice Meyers says “PROBABLY a violation of Robert’s Rules of Order.” (my emphasis) This is indicative of the fact that Meyers has no case and is fishing for trivia. There is not a requirement in Robert’s Rules of Order that the committee be composed of all competing opinions. Maybe the chairman decided that the FV was not an “important faction.”
david said,
May 11, 2007 at 6:40 pm
Lane,
I don’t think Rev Meyers is referring to geography when he writes of ‘Southern Presbyterians’. But that aside…
Let us suppose that Jeffrey Meyers had been elected as Moderator last year. The GA also decided to form a study committee to examine FV and NPP theology, and as Moderator Meyers appointed ONLY those who were already publicly in favor with the FV positions. One supposes that you and Lig might object to that on the grounds of process – or something weak like that.
The fact of the matter is that the committee reached an altogether predictable conclusion, and did so while misrepresenting the views of FV sympathetic ministers. To put it a bit more succinctly, it doesn’t pass the smell test.
Tim Wilder said,
May 11, 2007 at 7:39 pm
“The fact of the matter is that the committee reached an altogether predictable conclusion”
In fact, it agreed with the two previous Reformed denomination study committees, including faculty from at least four seminaries, that studied the matter, those of the RCUS and OPC, how surprising is that?
Gabe Martini said,
May 11, 2007 at 7:53 pm
Wow, you have a lot of time on your hands.
david said,
May 11, 2007 at 8:42 pm
The question of course is not WHAT they studied, but rather WHO studied what. I don’t imagine for a moment that a ‘representative’ group would have reached a conclusion that was markedly different, at least from a majority standpoint. But there may well have been a minority report, the committee may well have been able to better articulate the views of the men whose views they are investigating, and the report could not have been subject to the criticism that it is the product of ’stacked’ committee (and oft-repeated complaint).
What is interesting is that the committee did not agree with three PCA Presbytery reports and or exams of the men in question: Northwest, Missouri, and Louisiana. So I am supposed to be encouraged that my comittee gave more weight to an OPC or RCUS report than I am to reports from within the PCA?
There has been such a rush to judgment on this issue, as I noted in a previous post, that at last year’s GA there was an Overture that the PCA simply adopt the OPC report. The problem of course was that the OPC had not even yet adopted that report!
I must continue to contend that a new and more representative committee (from all the various theological streams that flow in the PCA garden) would offer a more accurate report, a report more acceptable to many others, and a more beneficial report, especially when it comes to strengthening the churches and our elders.
This report may well be adopted at GA this summer. I really don’t have any take on how all of this will shake down in that regard. But if it does pass in its current form it will not be because the commmittee was balanced, representative, and accurate. If it passes it will have to be because the vast majority of the PCA’s elders at GA accept the committee’s findings as a fair summary of the teachng of the Scriptures and the Standards, and desire to put an end to theological debate on these issues.
Tim Wilder said,
May 11, 2007 at 8:51 pm
Re: 10 and the “and oft-repeated complaint”
But, of course, it you didn’t have the composition of the committee to complain about, you then would have simply made a different complaint and oft-repeated that one.
david said,
May 11, 2007 at 9:06 pm
I would? Why would I?
Your comment is not only presumptuous but contemptuous.
The complaint about the composition of the committee is oft-repeated precisely because it is as accurate as some of the statements about these FV brothers in the report are inaccurate.
Like (I hope) all PCA elders I hope for an excellent report that strengthens and deepens the peace and purity of the Church. Doesn’t appear to be happening with this report. That’s why I think another one will be needed.
Matt said,
May 11, 2007 at 11:20 pm
The Arminians deprived themselves of a chance to participate respectfully in the deliberations of the Synod of Dort by their behaviour at the Synod itself, where they had been duly seated. They had in fact been granted fair representation, and decided to reject it by their subsequent actions.
The FV men, on the other hand, were denied any representation on the Study Committee ab initio. Despite that, the tone of Jeff Meyers’ Response is gentlemanly and respectful.
Comparison with the Synod of Dort does not justify, but actually condemns, the course taken by the PCA in this matter.
On the topic of old councils, it is still amazing to me that you admit that the WA deliberately left room for men who denied the imputation of active obedience
(including Twisse, the assembly’s prolocutor), and yet you insist that the denial of this doctrine strikes at the vitals of the system of doctrine.
Matt said,
May 11, 2007 at 11:50 pm
Some details about Dort:
“Before travelling to Dort, the Arminian leaders conferred in Rotterdam. They chose officers, intending to present themselves as a kind of counter-synod. They would deal with Synod as a party in the controversy, after which the Government, with the advice of the foreign delegates, would give its verdict. Their main line of defense would be to attack the Contra-Remonstrants as blasphemous fanatics, concentrating on the supralapsarian [8] ideas of Gomarus.
“Simon Episcopius was their spokesman, seated opposite Bogerman. On the second day, an incident occurred which was typical of the sessions as long as the Arminians were present. Episcopius made a long oration, learned and eloquent, but, as many thought, impertinent. He cast aspersions on Synod, on the States-General, and on Prince Maurice. When asked to supply a copy, he first refused, claiming his copy was illegible. He then complied, but this rendering omitted all the passages dealing with political authorities.
“The battle continued. The Remonstrants persisted in denying Synod’s authority to judge over them. They wanted to speak to Synod as one party against another. At most, they would look for a settlement by majority agreement, after which the members would be free to submit or not. Bogerman replied that Synod had been legally convened by the States-General, an argument which should have been convincing to the Remonstrants, who held that the government had the highest authority, also in church matters.
“It became a long and tiresome struggle. When asked to put their objections to the Confessions into writing, the Remonstrants refused. When Bogerman asked each one of them if they acknowledged the Remonstrance of 1610 as truth, they all remained silent. They demanded that the doctrine of reprobation be handled first, rather than election, so as to make as odious as possible the teachings of the Counter-Remonstrants. Stalemate.”
From S. Vandergugten, on the web here:
http://www.geocities.com/pvrosman/The_Arminian_Controversy_And_The_Synod_Of_Doredt.html
David McCrory said,
May 11, 2007 at 11:56 pm
One must wonder if Gataker, Twisse, or Vines could pass a modern presbytery exam in certain PCA or OPC circles? Or are men who help form the Confession now outside it’s bounds?
Kevin said,
May 12, 2007 at 12:20 am
Who the committee members were is much ado about nothing. The committee was charged “to determine whether these viewpoints and formulations are in conformity with the system of doctrine taught in the Westminster Standards, whether they are hostile to or strike at the vitals of religion, and to present a declaration or statement regarding the issues raised by these viewpoints in light of our Confessional Standards.” The form of the question, whether the FV is outside the bounds of the FV, dictates that those who study and write the initial report not be partisans for the FV, lest they have a vested interest in the outcome. Following Meyer’s logic and changing the venue, would require that every time someone is accused of being outside the bounds of the WS, the PCA make sure that the committee charged with examining the man’s views include someone who holds the precise questionable positions being examined, just to make sure the committee is “balanced, representative and accurate.”
Meyers’ argument can, of course, be turned around: Do the FV advocates want to hear anti-FV men crying foul that the presbyteries that examined Wilkins, Leithart, Meyers, and Horne only received them because they were composed of men friendly to and advocates of the FV? Let’s drop the poisoning the well fallacy and deal with substantive issues.
Second, consider the size of the committee and then consider the size of the FV contingent within the PCA. My guess is that even a single committee member would have been a gross over-representation of their actual numbers within the PCA.
Andy Gilman said,
May 12, 2007 at 2:48 am
In #1 Matt said:
[BOQ]
You’re wrong. Arminians originally did have delegates to the Synod of Dort. It was only after they misbehaved and attempted to hijack the Synod with absurd grandstanding that they were ejected — and even then, not for theological reasons.
[EOQ]
I don’t know the history well enough to vigorously dispute this point, but judging by the article at the link you provided, it doesn’t seem to be true. Instead, that article gives the impression that the Arminians were not delegates, or participants in any of the eighteen committees, into which the Synod was divided. It indicates that the Arminians were “summoned” to the Synod.
And according to Schaff (http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/creeds1.ix.iii.iv.html):
“Episcopius and his friends—thirteen in all—were summoned before the Synod simply as defendants, and protested against unconditional submission.”
Andy Gilman said,
May 12, 2007 at 3:14 am
And according to Mark Shand, the Synod began deliberations on November 13th, 1618, but:
“The Arminians did not arrive at Dort until early December 1618. When they did arrive, their appearance turned into a farce. They were treated from the outset as the accused; a position which they rejected. [18] Under the leadership of Simon Episcopius, they resorted to several procedural manoeuvres designed to delay the Synod in its work. These tactics were employed, possibly in the hope that time would bring a favourable change in the political situation. As it was, their tactics prevented any official judgment being made at Dort until early January 1619, when, because of their attitude toward the Synod, they were dismissed. [19] The manner of their dismissal caused a measure of consternation among the English delegation.”
http://www.spindleworks.com/library/brj/brj_Nov99_english.htm
Andy Gilman said,
May 12, 2007 at 3:31 am
And here is a section from an account of the Synod, by one who was sympathetic to the Arminians:
The letters of the States General, inviting the foreign divines to the national synod, were issued on the 25th of June, 1618; and the members were summoned to meet together in the city of Dort, on the first day of November in the same year. The letters of invitation to the divines of the united provinces were dated Sept. 20th, and the synod of Dort was formally opened Nov. 13th. Whosoever casts his eye over the list of the foreign divines that composed this last of Protestant councils, will find scarcely one man who had not distinguished himself by his decided opposition to the doctrine of conditional predestination, and who was not consequently disqualified from acting the part of an impartial judge of the existing religious differences, or that of a peace-maker. This caused the famous Daniel Tilenus to observe, that “no persons were summoned to Dort who were not well known to be zealous promoters of Calvin’s predestination. In former ages, men were accustomed, first to go to the councils, and then to declare their sentiments: just the reverse of this is the practice in our days; for no one could be admitted into the synod of Dort unless he had previously manifested the bearing of his opinions.”
It will be perceived from the preceding statement, by what kind of ecclesiastical management the Remonstrants had been excluded from having any deputies in the synod of Dort. So completely had the Calvinistic plan of exclusion succeeded, that three of the members from Utrecht were the only Remonstrants in that synod. The reason of their being there at all, was, because that province was almost equally divided between Remonstrant and Calvinist churches, and it had been agreed that three of each denomination should be summoned. But so obnoxious were the persons as well as the doctrines of the Remonstrants to their adversaries, that they would not allow even those three individuals to have a place in the seat of judgment. In the twenty-fourth session, it was unanimously declared, that they could only be reputed as cited persons; however, as the Acts express it, “that this synod might not be exposed to calumnies, as if they wished to exclude them, it was allowed them to sit among the judges” on five conditions, the chief of which were, “that while the affairs of the Remonstrants were under discussion, they should not disturb the proceedings of the synod by unseasonable interruptions, and not acquaint their party with any thing done or said in the synod, which concerned their cause.” Two of them, after a day’s deliberation, united themselves with their suffering brethren; and the third, who was a layman, had seen enough of the partial conduct of that venerable assembly to induce him to absent himself from their farther deliberations. As the Remonstrants formed no part of the members convened, it was debated, in the fourth session, how they ought to be summoned. It was proposed and resolved, that a letter should be composed and sent to the whole body, that they might depute three out of each province as deputies to the synod. The president Bogerman then inquired, if all the Remonstrants were to be admitted; the president of the lay commissioners answered, that the ecclesiastical president and the secretaries should receive a private explanation from him respecting their numbers. In the interview which the two presidents and the secretaries had together, they concerted matters so well, that next day the preceding resolution for writing to the whole body was withdrawn for amendment; and it was finally agreed, that it should be left to the determination of the lay commissioners, what persons, and how many, should be convened. These gentlemen selected thirteen of the Remonstrants, to each of whom they addressed a letter of citation, commanding them to appear before the synod, “within fourteen days after the receipt of it, without any tergiversation, excuse, or exception, that in it they might freely propose, explain, and defend the before-mentioned five points as far as they were able and should deem to be necessary.”
http://www.imarc.cc/reghist/reghist2.html
Tim Wilder said,
May 12, 2007 at 7:28 am
Re: 14
“Episcopius made a long oration, learned and eloquent, but, as many thought, impertinent. He cast aspersions on Synod, on the States-General, and on Prince Maurice.”
Did he call them a pen of swine, perhaps?
greenbaggins said,
May 12, 2007 at 8:52 am
There are so many errors in these comments that it is hard to know where to begin. First of all, there are only two members of the study committee whose stance is well-known: Duncan and Lucas. The FV does not have any basis for impugning the objectivity of the other five members of the committee! This is what really irritates me about the “stacked deck” complaint. I have it on good authority that the RE’s were not even aware of the debate until after they started work on the committee. They were, in effect, tabula rasa. Furthermore, Grover Gunn and Paul Fowler have not been vocal at all, even if they were opposed to the FV before they started their work. So, calling it a stacked deck on the basis of two members of the committee is a bit rich.
Secondly, it is ludicrous to suppose that it was the tone of the Arminians that prevented them from being put on any of the committees. This is self-evident hogwash: it was their theology that prevented them from being put on the committees. Again, I ask, was Arminianism unfairly represented by the Canons of Dort, even though not one Arminian was a writer? In one sense, the tone of the Arminians is a total red herring. The fact of the matter is, no matter what the reason, *there were no Arminians writing the CD.* And yet, the Canons of Dort quite fairly represent Arminianism. In fact, the argument about the tone of the Arminians actually is a two-edged sword, since, if they did have bad tone, there would be a greater temptation on the part of the orthodox to misrepresent the Arminians, and it is to their credit that they did not.
Reply to Jeff Meyers, Part 3 « Green Baggins said,
May 12, 2007 at 9:29 am
[...] 9:29 am (Federal Vision, Heresy) With regard to point 5, I have really already dealt with it in this comment. It is the Moderator’s privilege and prerogative to choose the members of the study committee [...]
Don Jones said,
May 12, 2007 at 1:31 pm
Just read Robert’s Rules, Art 5.32, which discusses method of appointing committee members. In our case, the chair (moderator) appointed the committee, which per Robert’s Rules is the usual case for large assemblies. However, the rules indicate “that when the chair appoints the committee he may wish time to make his selections, which, however, must be announced to the assembly.” My understanding — please correct me if I am wrong — was that the appointment of the committee members was not done until after GA. If so, then we did not follow Robert’s Rules, which indeed does put us out of accord with our standards.
The reason committee members must be selected at the time is to prevent a stacked deck, whether real or apparent. It would have prevented the entire discussion that is ongoing about the committee membership and whether it was a stacked deck or not.
greenbaggins said,
May 12, 2007 at 1:48 pm
Don, you are misreading that section of the Rules. The time needed for the Moderator to appoint the committee is nowhere stated to be time *during* the assembly’s meeting. In which case, it is not the actual appointment that needs to be announced to the GA, but merely the time needed to appoint the committee, which can extend beyond the time of GA. In other words, the thing that needs to be announced to the GA is not the appointees, but the decision to put off the appointment until after the GA has met. Since our precedent in GA is always that the Moderator appoints the members, needing no ratification by the Assembly, and since the members are usually appointed after GA has met, the precedent is understood. Therefore, there is no violation of Robert’s Rules here.
Andy Gilman said,
May 12, 2007 at 2:05 pm
Don, have you abandoned Jeff Meyer’s claim (which you endorsed in #4), and have you now decided to level a new attack on the General Assembly’s adherence to Robert’s Rules of order?
Let’s suppose, for the sake of argument, you have actually found a parlimentary error in the Assembly’s proceedings; will you invalidate the entire work of the assembly because you managed to find a procedural error? Did you notice in the same section of Robert’s Rules, where it says “If it is desired to permit the chair to appoint a committee after adjournment, it must be authorized by a vote?” Do you know whether or not a vote was taken to give the Moderator this authority? If you don’t know this, then shouldn’t you find out, before casting aspersions on the assembly’s work?
greenbaggins said,
May 12, 2007 at 2:07 pm
Added to Andy’s excellent point must be the precedent that the Moderator usually appoints the committee after adjournment. That is the understood way of doing things at our GA. No procedural error.
Tim Wilder said,
May 12, 2007 at 3:22 pm
“The second part of the 30 reasons document asserts that the study committee has only shown that the views in question (FV and NPP) are out of accord with the study committee’s interpretation of the WS, and that they have not shown that the views are out of accord with the WS themselves.”
I was just dealing with a Jehovah Witness who came by the door, and told me that he was interested in what the Bible itself taught, and not with man’s interpretations. I pointed out that he was a man, and that every time he opened his mouth there was an interpretation coming out.
Don Jones said,
May 12, 2007 at 5:58 pm
I have not cast aspersions. I am trying to obtain clarification in the debate, as I clearly indicated by my asking for correction (#24) if I was wrong in my understanding that the committee was appointed after the fact. My understanding of Robert’s Rules (RR) is that members are supposed to be named and announced to the assembly before adjournment. Thank you for the confirmation that the committee was appointed after the fact, as well as that being our normal course of action (I have never attended GA).
Jeff’s comments do correctly reflect RR in Art 9.52: “A committee for deliberation or investigation, on the contrary [in contrast to an action committee -- dj], should be large, and represent all parties in the assembly, so that its opinion will carry with it as great weight as possible. The usefulness of the committee will be greatly impaired if any important faction of the assembly is unrepresented on the committee.” A study committee is clearly a committee of investigation. FV is controversial, with conflicting rulings within and without the PCA on whether it represents a departure from our standards or not. Since we have TEs in the PCA who are members in good standing and support FV (not to mention Presbyteries that have ruled that PCA TEs who are FV advocates are in compliance with the standards), Jeff has a valid point and the study committee should have included some of them. While we may be in compliance with the letter of RR, since they do not mandate a balanced committee, we are out of accord with the spirit of RR.
Because we violated the intent of RR, I think we are out of compliance with our standards since they require us to follow RR. As is evident by the comments on this blog, we are paying the price for not having a balanced committee. The committee’s report does not appear to be reducing confusion, as was their charge, but increasing it (especially if the report has misquoted FV advocates as seriously as Jeff claims; I look forward to the discussion here on that point).
Someone asked who Jeff Meyers is. He is the pastor of Providence Reformed Presbyterian Church (PCA) in St Louis, MO and author of The Lord’s Service: The Grace of Covenant Renewal Worship. Of course, the book is published by Canon Press, so that might make him a heretic in the eyes of some ;-) The book was recommended to me by several PCA TEs (I am one quarter of the way through it).
Matt said,
May 13, 2007 at 9:37 am
Lane,
The point about Dort is that the Arminians were summoned in order to answer for themselves. The Synod actually hesitated quite a bit over whether to dismiss them and use their published writings as evidence for their views. The point is that the original intent of the Synod was to have the Arminian delegates present and answering for themselves.
Now, I think the FV is orthodox, and more orthodox than TRs. But if the PCA is going to study their views, with a view to condemning them, then why did the committee not include an FV man or two? Even if the aim of the committee were to condemn, the inclusion of a couple FV guys need not have prevented that. It would just mean a condemnatory majority report, and a dissenting minority report.
Further, the main reason the Arminians were ejected was that they did not submit to the authority of the Synod. Their plan was to appeal to the civil authorities, since some of the most prominent civil authorities supported them, and to represent the Synod as an equal party with themselves in the dispute.
The FV men have done nothing of this sort. Their complaint is that, though being members in good standing of the PCA, and though having been exonerated by several presbyteries of the PCA, they were nonetheless given no representation on the committee. They have not undermined or attempted to run around the authority of GA. They have done nothing to deserve ab initio exclusion from the committee.
But — let us remember — all this is just one of the THIRTY reasons, Lane. The imbalance of the committee RESULTED in 29 other reasons not to adopt the report — including the fact that the committee makes serious errors of fact about the FV men’s views, and the fact that the committee misrepresents the Westminster Standards. Those are much more serious matters. After all, the real problem is not that the committee was imbalanced, but that consequently it did a bad job.