Reply to Jeff Meyers, Part 8
May 18, 2007 at 10:26 am (Federal Vision, Heresy)
Point 17 is about the imputation of Christ’s active obedience. Notice that Meyers completely ignores LC 70 in dealing with chapter 11 of the WCF. It is also noteworthy that Jeff does not deal with the arguments of the OPC report concerning the IAO and the Gataker, Twisse, Vines issue. This can be found on pp. 72-76 in the online version, and pp. 140ff in the book form. The argument by the OPC is that Shepherd’s view of the WCF 11 is speculative at best. There is strong evidence, presented in that OPC report that the WS are not consensual at least at this point. I quote the OPC report:
It is crucial to recognize that the only time, as far as we know, that there was a debate in the Westminster Assembly of Divines directly focused on the question of the imputation of the active obedience of Christ in justification, the Assembly determined positively to affirm the active obedience by the addition of the word “whole” to the revision of Article 11 of the Thirty-Nine Articles. (p. 74 online version).
There is some evidence that Gataker did not agree with the final version. Twisse was already dead even by the time the WA voted on this article. See further the excellent article by Dr. Jeff Jue in this book. In other words, Meyers is simply echoing the speculative claims of Norman Shepherd, which have been challenged quite stiffly by the OPC report. The fact is that the WS teach the IAO. This is utterly clear from LC 70, which has this phrase, “the perfect obedience and full satisfaction of Christ, by God imputed to them.” This must be allowed its due weight. The OPC report also weighs the evidence of the Savoy document and concludes that it is not evidence that the WS are consensual on this point, since it can be argued that the Savoy only made more clear what was already taught by the WS. In short, Meyers is not well-read enough on this debate to pronounce that the WS are consensus documents on the IAO. I believe that the WS teach IAO, as do almost all interpreters subsequent to the WS.
Number 18 is making a mountain out of a molehill. “Sweeping claims?” What, pray, is so incredibly sweeping about saying that the WS know the difference between a condition and a requirement? So Meyers has proved that the WS use the two terms synonymously once. That doesn’t prove his point, however. What the report is saying is that conditions imply obedience. whereas requirements are something which God can provide. In other words, the concepts behind the report at this point are simply the difference between the CoW, which had obedience as a requirements, and the CoG, which has faith as a requirement. Meyers commits the word-concept fallacy when he says that the words are not used in such a way. It is not to the point, since the point is clearly that Adam was required to obey in order to obtain eternal life by pactum merit, whereas the condition of the new covenant is faith, a condition which God fulfills. See, I just used the words in exactly the opposite way that Meyers thinks that the Report intended for them to be defined, but I used them in such a way as to affirm the substance of the report. This is not a debate about words, but about concepts.
Number 19 is utterly vitiated by one single consideration: in 18.2, are we to suppose that election is not one of the promises of salvation upon which is grounded the believer’s assurance? Election is a promise to us related to perseverance. Those whom God has elected, He will also preserve to the end. What God has started, He will finish. Therefore, election is one of the promises that grounds our assurance. The promises of God constitute a rather large category into which fall many things, as I am sure Meyers will acknowledge. But what Meyers does not seem to affirm is that election is a promise of salvation. So, Meyers does not have a point there either. In fact, Meyers leaves himself open to the charge that he believes election has nothing to do with grounding assurance. Nor is his point about “celebration” any more cogent. He misreads what the report means by “celebrate.” Celebrate does not here mean “jubilation,” but rather “speak highly of something.” And the WS certainly do speak highly of election’s role in our salvation and assurance. Again, this is really nitpicky. Many of these things that Meyers is bringing up are being read through the FV lense, and are thus “bad.” But he winds up misinterpreting the Report, the very thing he accuses the Report of doing to the FV. We’ll get to the charges of misrepresentation next post, DV.
Jeff Hutchinson said,
May 18, 2007 at 12:11 pm
Thank you, thank you, thank you, Lane.
I have lost count of the times I have heard FV men and their enablers claim that we are not allowed to require that officers in the PCA confess the imputation of Christ’s whole obedience (active and passive), because of Gataker, et al.
I am not an especially well trained church historian, but neither are those modern voices demanding that the PCA’s tent be big enough to include them.
Andrew Voelkel said,
May 18, 2007 at 1:04 pm
If the PCA is going to require that all ministers affirm –
the imputation of the whole obedience of Christ (active & passive) as being necessary for “justification”, –
then we should simply amend the Standards to clarify our position.
The fact that both “FV” & “anti-FV” ministers are claiming to embrace the true sense of the confession on this issue is evidence that we need to restate the orthodox position.
What are your thoughts? — Do you think that amending the Standards would be a reasonable thing to do?
Chris said,
May 18, 2007 at 1:35 pm
Well, I guess this solves it:
http://www.leithart.com/archives/003027.php
Keith LaMothe said,
May 18, 2007 at 1:37 pm
Well, if the Report is adopted at GA, does it not become a functional amendment of clarification?
I confess ignorance of the procedures and policies, but if the Report passes and the situation does finally come down to a PCA FV pastor on trial, can the Report be cited as authoritative in any sense?
greenbaggins said,
May 18, 2007 at 1:42 pm
Why should we amend what is actually taught there? I agree with Keith on this, except that the Report does not have constitutional authority. It has moral weight.
Andrew Voelkel said,
May 18, 2007 at 2:33 pm
The argument would be –
to amend it in order to “clarify” what is taught.
Keith LaMothe said,
May 18, 2007 at 2:39 pm
And my question is whether the adoption of the Report by GA would be functionally the same as saying “Ok, this Report is the correct interpretation of the Standards on the matters that it addresses.”
Sort of like the adoption of the Westminster Standards being a statement like “Ok, these Standards are the correct interpretation of the Bible on the matters that it addresses.”?
I’m not trying to be critical of the process, just figuring out if that’s what adoption of the Report would mean.
Andrew Voelkel said,
May 18, 2007 at 2:44 pm
I suspect that the adoption of the report will mean “different things to different people”. Those who love the report, will place a lot of weight on it. Those who don’t, may dismiss it on the grounds that it does not carry “constitutional authority”. That is why it may be necessary to amend the constitution.
Jeff Hutchinson said,
May 18, 2007 at 2:53 pm
Andrew,
I, too, have wondered whether an amendment to clarify what is taught might be appropriate. I definitely think clarification is in order, given that the practices of the different Presbyteries in the PCA (to speak only of my communion) differ.
At this point, however, I think it is best not to attempt an amendment to the Standards, for two reasons. First, this would put us just a tad out of step with all the other national and foreign denominations that affirm the Standards. Either we all amend, or best to leave it alone, is my thinking. (See, I do have a love for catholicity in my bones!).
Second, clarification on a case by case basis ought to be (I say OUGHT to be; whether or not it actually is and has been is what has gotten the PCA into this mess, in my opinion) handled at the Presbytery interview level. A fellow who denies the NEED for the active obedience of Christ being imputed to his account ought to (again, I say OUGHT TO) send up enough red flags to any committee such that, in brotherly conversation, they would be able to uncover for him all the systemic inconsistencies such an impoverished understanding causes.
In other words, if a fellow takes exception to the “recreation clause” of the Standards, that leaves the rest of the Standards relatively intact, and red flags rarely need to go up. But if a fellow, being asked, for instance, WHAT HIS UNDERSTANDING OF THE PHRASE “PERFECT OBEDIENCE AND FULL SATISFACTION OF CHRIST” (LC 70) is, and it comes out that he does not believe in the active obedience being imputed to his account; the Committee ought to (AGAIN, I say “ought to”) be able to show their brother any number of places in the Standards where his lack of full understanding does mischief to the system of doctrine itself.
But I am so glad for the heart that sees the desperate need for clarity at this point, and am happy to be wrong about the “how to’s.”
Jeff Hutchinson said,
May 18, 2007 at 3:00 pm
Also, I just ran across this from the Wall Street Journal, which is something of a modest parallel:
“The Evangelical Theological Society executive committee–of which I am a member, as a past president of the society myself–released a statement thanking Mr. Beckwith for his many contributions to the society and expressing its desire to maintain cordial relations with him. The committee also noted that his resignation was appropriate, since the ETS affirms that ‘the Bible alone . . . is the Word of God written.’
“The phrase ‘the Bible alone’ in the ETS context refers to the 66 books in the Old and New Testaments of the Protestant canon and thus rules out Mr. Beckwith’s continued membership, given that the Roman Catholic Church accepts additional books in the canon, commonly referred to as deuterocanonical or apocryphal books. Mr. Beckwith maintains that he can still sign the ETS statement with full integrity because it does not enumerate the 66 books, but he voluntarily withdrew his membership in the interests of avoiding a rancorous debate in the society.”
The ETS could clarify for those who disagree that the context is plain enough, but instead (I am assuming here) they appealed to their brother not to force their hand, which would just cause everybody a lot of time and energy, and, at the end of the day, Beckwith’s belief that the context allows for the inclusion of the Apocrypha, would be ruled out of bounds.
I know that different brothers (include ALL seven critics at the Knox Colloquim AND that Colloquium’s Moderator) have made this same type of appeal to the FV men within the PCA, and I know that they have decided, instead, to “force their hand.”
In this respect, Francis Beckwith is my hero.
Andrew Voelkel said,
May 18, 2007 at 3:01 pm
Good points Jeff.
I suppose it would not be wise to amend (i.e. clarify) the Westminster Standards without it being a joint effort between reformed denominations.
But that leaves Presbyteries with the authority to say that men who differ on the active obedience of Christ can still serve in the PCA.
That is what seems to have happened with Missouri Presbytery, Louisiana Presbytery and some others.
What a pickle!
Jeff Hutchinson said,
May 18, 2007 at 3:06 pm
I agree. We are pickled pigs feet. And I mean that in the best possible way! The Lord loves his vinegared bride–always has and always will.
Jeff Hutchinson said,
May 18, 2007 at 3:09 pm
“…he voluntarily withdrew his membership in the interests of avoiding a rancorous debate in the society.”
Jeff Hutchinson said,
May 18, 2007 at 3:09 pm
This must be said, so let it be said:
“…he voluntarily withdrew his membership in the interests of avoiding a rancorous debate in the society.”
Jeff Hutchinson said,
May 18, 2007 at 3:11 pm
And finally (are any of my FV brothers, who love catholicity, listening, and willing to follow Francis Beckwith’s commendable example of love for the PEACE of the Church):
“…he voluntarily withdrew his membership in the interests of avoiding a rancorous debate in the society.”
Jenny F said,
May 18, 2007 at 3:23 pm
Jeff- great point. If only they were so commendable.
Andrew Voelkel said,
May 18, 2007 at 3:31 pm
If the FV guys could change their denominational affiliation while still being considered brothers in Christ, they might consider it.
But we should not expect them to leave cheerfully under the label “heretic”.
If heresy charges continue, the FV guys will probably feel forced to “fight it out.”
If the heresy language is dropped, then I bet things would proceed more smoothly.
anneivy said,
May 18, 2007 at 3:34 pm
To be fair, I can see where it’s a much bigger deal for a pastor of a church in a particular denomination to leave the denomination, as I’d think that’d usually mean there goes his livelihood.
Resigning from the ETS is one thing; a denominational pastor resigning from his denomination (if that’s the appropriate term, and it most likely isn’t) is something else again. What if the assembly doesn’t WANT to change denominations? What about the property? What about health insurance? What about…what about…what about….?
Mind, I’m not in the slightest disagreeing with Jeff’s point, simply noting that human nature (plus mortgages, car payments, tuitions, and increasing gasoline bills - it hit over $3/gal. at the station on the corner of I-30 and Montgomery St. today) being what it is, taking the high road can look all but impossible, I daresay.
Wish I had ten bucks for each time I knew I really ought to do THIS, but did THAT instead due to serious risk-aversion.
Andrew Voelkel said,
May 18, 2007 at 3:40 pm
In addition to what anneivy said, we must also remember is that it really would not make since for a minister to leave the PCA if he believes he is within the bounds of orthodoxy as defined by the PCA.
Remember: The FV guys really believe they are within the bounds of our Standards.
If/Once the PCA clarifies or redefines our Standards in such a way that the FV guys can no longer subscribe, then it would be much more reasonable to expect them to leave. Until then, they might just as well argue that everyone else should leave.
Andrew Voelkel said,
May 18, 2007 at 3:43 pm
typo: delete “is” in first sentence.
Jeff Hutchinson said,
May 18, 2007 at 3:46 pm
Well, I did say it is was only “something of a modest parallel” !
And, what’s with this whole “to be fair” thing? I say LET ‘EM HAVE IT WITH BOTH BARRELS.
Kidding. Kidding.
Keith LaMothe said,
May 18, 2007 at 3:51 pm
Jeff,
For the record, there is another way of looking at your point.
On the one hand, I have serious reservations whenever someone says something like “Non-elect covenant members enjoy some of the benefits of Christ that were purchased by Him at the cross.” On the other hand, I have to wonder if my discomfort with that idea is grounded in the Scriptures (or the Standards, for that matter), or if it’s just my inner Baptist getting the heebie-geebies. “How are the sacraments effectual means of salvation?”, well, can you say anything other than “they aren’t” without granting more of the FV argument than has been done?
Further, relating to one thing Wilson said in that post:
“The last thing in the world that the anti-FV people want is any kind of open forum where questions get to be asked in both directions. They don’t want this in a voluntary set-up, as in a debate. They don’t want it in a judicial setting, as in an open trial.”
Maybe I’m being an agitator (again, inner Baptist, you know), but I really, really want to see some “kind of open forum where questions get to be asked in both directions”. And I want answers. I’ve seen too much misrepresentation, too much confusion, to be convinced that these FV pastors are being thrown out for the right reasons unless those reasons are formally, officially, and explicitly enumerated, with cross examination and clearly meeting these criteria:
1) taught by the accused pastor
2) contrary to the Standards in the “striking at the vitals of religion”
3) not held by any of the Westminster Divines, Calvin, or other obviously accepted fathers of the Reformed and Presbyterian tradition
At this point, a trial looks like the most likely situation where this would happen.
But my wishes are really of zero relevance in the whole matter. That’s probably a good thing.
By the way, I am very grateful for Lane’s review of Wilson’s RINE, I wish more of the fracas were conducted in such a fashion.
Keith LaMothe said,
May 18, 2007 at 3:53 pm
I intended the word “sense” to be at the end of the line “2) contrary to the…”, but apparently I wasn’t making any, so the word didn’t make it.
Susanna said,
May 18, 2007 at 4:02 pm
Our family can testify - we took the risk of taking the high road by resigning our position in an FV church; we have children who are watching to see if their parents really believe what the Bible says. God has proven to be all sufficient and full of grace and mercy; He can be trusted. Standing for the truth will pay for the gas, and the mortgage, and tuition. It is called living by faith in God’s Word. For He is our Shield and exceedingly great reward (Gen. 15:1).
But just a reminder - the FV is not leaving in numbers; the others are. It could be in the future that the only ones left in the PCA are the FV
Matthew Paul Buccheri said,
May 18, 2007 at 4:16 pm
To all your friends who are talking “amendment:” First, it is not a “constitutional amendment.” If adopted, the report is nothing more than a suggestion. Which means we can choose to take it or leave it as presbyteries, churches and individuals. I choose to leave it! (And I will vote “nay” to it being adopted!)
Jeff Hutchinson said,
May 18, 2007 at 4:19 pm
While I know that good men have made the same sort of direct and personal and at first private appeal to the FV men within the PCA as the ETS board (I am assuming) made to Francis Beckwith, I don’t know anything about why the appeal has not been heeded in this case, while it was with Beckwith.
Y’all’s two proposed reasons (financial implications, and not being convinced one is, in fact, out of accord with the Standards) are as good as any I can think of. And, putting myself in their shoes, and assuming these are their reasons for not leaving, I can understand their hesistancy. I don’t agree with it, but I can understand it.
If I were a postmillenialist (which I think all the FV men are) I would think a better strategy–and I offer this at no extra charge–would be a tactical retreat, as follows:
First, a tactical retreat is NOT a surrender, it is wise and dignified and face-saving [dignity doesn't matter to amillenialists, who are content with being thought the "scum of the earth" (1 Cor 4:13), but it seems to matter to many postmillenialists].
Second, in light of–from their perspective–the obvious hardhearted and unyielding baptistic fundamentalist ignorant unlearned stupidity of “the TR’s” (I like being thought of as a TR every now and then; those who know me think it hilarious that I would be so considered), it would plainly be easier, not to mention more fun, to bring reform to the PCA from the outside, over time.
Third, as postmillenialists, they have time on their side! No need to beat one’s head against a wall and keep having people like Jeff Hutchinson and his brother Chris, year after year after annoying year, appeal to them to leave for greener pastures. MAN, would that ever get old! SOMEBODY make those brothers SHUT UP, PLEASE! Instead, take a long term strategy; tactically retreat, re-fortify in, say, the CREC, and trust that the forward-looking seminaries will be cranking out graduates for several thousand years. Meanwhile, because the PCA is only a micro-presbyterian blip in Christendom, it shouldn’t even take more than a generation or two to re-take the necessary ground.
Chris said,
May 18, 2007 at 4:33 pm
Don’t worry. We will take it. I am voting nay with Matt!
Jeff Hutchinson said,
May 18, 2007 at 4:34 pm
“Our family can testify - we took the risk of taking the high road by resigning our position in an FV church; we have children who are watching to see if their parents really believe what the Bible says. God has proven to be all sufficient and full of grace and mercy; He can be trusted. Standing for the truth will pay for the gas, and the mortgage, and tuition. It is called living by faith in God’s Word. For He is our Shield and exceedingly great reward (Gen. 15:1).”
“But just a reminder - the FV is not leaving in numbers; the others are. It could be in the future that the only ones left in the PCA are the FV”
Susanna,
As with the mysterious “Don Jones” who posts here, but who has yet to tell me a bit more about himself so that I even know whether I am communicating with a real person or a collection of them, it is always something of a gamble to invest a little time responding to someone who (in your case, probably for good reasons) remains anonymous.
With that being said, thank you for your testimony. I hope you are in a healthy church now. You may be right about the future of the PCA, though I, of course, hope you are not. You are welcome to visit any of the churches of the Western Carolina Presbytery. You won’t find any uniquely-FV views in any of our churches. I have no idea how long that will last, but the lines seem to be holding for now! And in the meantime we are planting more churches and experiencing overall and encouraging growth as sister churches in this region of the country.
Listen, one of my Associate Pastors has an earring; how TR can we really be?
Chris said,
May 18, 2007 at 4:35 pm
Afterall, its the little things you can’t answer. again:
http://www.leithart.com/archives/003027.php
greenbaggins said,
May 18, 2007 at 4:35 pm
So, Matthew, let me get this straight. If the GA approves this report, then you are going to thumb your nose at the denomination and say that the denomination has no church discipline on the national level? What happens if the SJC rules that LA presbytery incorrectly exonerated Wilkins? Are you going to stay, if you hold to the same beliefs?
Jeff Hutchinson said,
May 18, 2007 at 4:37 pm
Chris,
Your “nay” won’t count if you don’t register as a Commissioner to the GA with your full name. The GA needs to know that you are a real person, not to mention really an elder in the PCA. Just a friendly little heads-up! :)
Susanna said,
May 18, 2007 at 4:38 pm
Can a person and his family worship God in spirit and in truth in a church whose elders hold to 45/9 errors on the doctrine of justification? Do you desire your children to sit in Sunday school week after week under the teaching of an elder who holds to 45/9 errors on the doctrine of justification?
Jeff Hutchinson said,
May 18, 2007 at 4:39 pm
Chris,
Peter Leithart’s question is a bit weightier than what your full name is. I might answer his “little” question if you answer mine! :)
Chris said,
May 18, 2007 at 4:42 pm
Right Lane. :) And you are right as well Jeff–very weighty. But then again, the little things that go unanswered….and remain so.
Todd R. Harris said,
May 18, 2007 at 4:42 pm
“I know that different brothers (include ALL seven critics at the Knox Colloquim AND that Colloquium’s Moderator) have made this same type of appeal to the FV men within the PCA, and I know that they have decided, instead, to “force their hand.””
Did they decide to force their hand or did they decide to listen to and submit to their presbyteries?
Jeff Hutchinson said,
May 18, 2007 at 4:43 pm
Lane,
I can’t converse on the same level as you WTS guys, so I’ll leave you to go at it with Metro New York’s Matthew Paul Buccheri. Don’t let him up until he provides a satisfactory answer!
But maybe I’ll be better equipped to enter in after I pick up my doctorate next Thursday at graduation. We’ll see.
Susanna said,
May 18, 2007 at 4:49 pm
Jeff,
Thanks so much for your concern - I think you know why this woman remains anonymous. We have had enough of the FV venom to last a lifetime. They may have meant it for evil, but God has brought great good to our family and our ministry. Our children have become stronger in the Lord through this experience. And, His Word has become so precious and real to us. It just saddens us that our troubles had to come from the church that we love.
Jeff Hutchinson said,
May 18, 2007 at 4:51 pm
Todd,
Good point. Both.
And, thinking about it, I actually am glad they did not just leave. If whole Presbyteries are the problem, we need to know that.
“Hutchinson, YOU WANT THE TRUTH? YOU CAN’T HANDLE THE TRUTH!”
If the truth is that whole Presbyteries in the PCA are functionally dysfunctional, or, worse, that there are certain Presbyteries where the FV holds a majority, we’ll see whether a young Lieutenant (which I once was, actually) like me can handle it.
One way or another, that is the gripping third act yet to come….
Jeff Hutchinson said,
May 18, 2007 at 4:56 pm
Susanna,
I understand. As I said on another thread, I have kept files of the venom that I have seen ordained PCA men spill (can you “spill” venom? whatever) against critics of the FV. So I have no reason to doubt your account. You won’t get a lot of my prayers (being anonymous and all), but I will pray for you and your family, trusting the Lord to sort that out.
But I guess that resorting to the spiritual realm makes me a Gnostic to the FV. Again I will use the all-purpose word: Whatever!
Andrew Duggan said,
May 18, 2007 at 5:04 pm
Re: 26,
Jeff, you are right. They will retreat. That’s why I think you should not repeat the mistakes of the conservatives in the PCUSA. in the early 20th century. It won’t take all that long only about 30 years. It might take even less. If this leaven can’t be purged now, then the PCA is leavened already.
Todd R. Harris said,
May 18, 2007 at 5:08 pm
About venom. Is anyone in the FV really as venomous as Scott Clark or John Robbins?
Jeff Hutchinson said,
May 18, 2007 at 5:10 pm
Andrew,
“If this leaven can’t be purged now, then the PCA is leavened already.”
I agree.
(For the record, we’re just using metaphors here. I am not equating the “leaven” of the FV with wicked unbelief, a la the book of Jude. Whatever their personal ethics–and Susanna apparently has some horror stories to tell–their doctrine is categorically different than, say, the local unbelieving PCUSA folks that are continuing to make life miserable for Montreat Presbyterian, which has finally left it for the EPC. I am using “leaven” as a metaphor for that which would eventually eliminate Presbyterian identity.)
Andrew Duggan said,
May 18, 2007 at 5:11 pm
Re 38
Jeff, you should definitely be looking at whole presbyteries. Otherwise they will be quiet FV factories. Even though most have been taught that 1837 was a bad year in Presbyterian history, I actually think that the Old School was wise at that point.
Susanna said,
May 18, 2007 at 5:13 pm
Sigh… to Todd
Jeff, we have a file full too.
Chris said,
May 18, 2007 at 5:14 pm
little things:
http://www.upsaid.com/mac47/index.php?action=viewcom&id=955
Jeff Hutchinson said,
May 18, 2007 at 5:20 pm
Re #41:
Personally, I haven’t read anything cruel from Scott Clark.
But, to answer your question with one part of one tiny taste, from just one interaction, of what some FVer’s have said to just one critic [everyone, please weep for me; I am nothing without your pity :) ]
==========================
“Here is the honest truth. These silly replies are being shown for what they are and anyone with any academic abilities at all can see right through this immature ranting by comments like this one, Jeff. You’re going to have to do a lot better than this! But for some, I imagine you won’t. That is the sad truth beyond this controversy. Will you please help us see what you see? We’re all looking forward to it.”
“Jeff, you are so in the wrong in the way you have treated this man. God will vindicate him from you.”
“Lets delete Jeff H’s comments and all comments related to it.”
“Jeff’s post…is a sad commentary on the state of Presbyterianism today.”
“I think we’re in the middle of a TR inquisition already and since they’re humorless prigs, there’s not even any beer!”
” ‘There is a way that seems right to a man who attacks ad hominemly, but in the end leads to him becoming a body part that subsumes two buttocks.’ “
Jeff Hutchinson said,
May 18, 2007 at 5:24 pm
Susanna,
Please send me an email, or call me at church (Trinity PCA, Asheville; phone number is on the website, I think). I promise I’ll wait at least 24 hours before posting your name and address and social security number all over the internet.
Actually, I will of course keep your identity private.
Jeff Hutchinson said,
May 18, 2007 at 5:27 pm
Okay, I’m off to my family, finally. I know I will be SO missed.
(Chris, I don’t think anyone is bothering to read links that anonymous people offer. Growing up near DC, there were always these guys on 14th Street wearing trench coats in the summer and sunglasses at night, who’d come up to you and whisper, “Hey, you want to buy some films?”)
Todd R. Harris said,
May 18, 2007 at 5:28 pm
Hey, I think I recognize a few of those. “Humorless prigs” sounds familiar. The “buttocks” one, thankfully, does not. Thanks for sharing!
But, honestly, don’t the critics often write with the same edge and tone? Critics who frequent Lane’s blog certainly do, Hutchinsons excepted.
Todd R. Harris said,
May 18, 2007 at 5:32 pm
And isn’t the Warfield List also full of this kind of thing, too?
Todd R. Harris said,
May 18, 2007 at 5:32 pm
And the Puritan Board?
Jeff Hutchinson said,
May 18, 2007 at 5:35 pm
Todd,
Some critics have been jerks, yes.
Now, I may be wrong, but I don’t remember any ordained officers in the PCA, who are critics of the FV, acting like jerks.
And, to my knowledge, no one in my congregation (my guess is that maybe only 2 out of our 550 members have ever even been on the internet searching out these things), for whom I am responsible, has ever acted like a jerk towards the FV. And, to my knowledge, no one in my Presbytery, with whom I am in avowed spiritual communion, has ever acted like a jerk towards the FV.
I actually think I have been the jerkiest of all the ordained PCA critics. But I’m trying to lighten up.
Okay, I said I was out of here, now I mean it…..
anneivy said,
May 18, 2007 at 5:36 pm
So sinners infest those sites, too?
Mercy Maud.
Who’d have thunk it?
;-)
greenbaggins said,
May 18, 2007 at 5:39 pm
Todd, Jeff’s point is not that the critics are always above board when it comes to tone. I think what Jeff would like to say is that there is no way that the FV critics can take the moral high ground when it comes to tone. There are sinners on both sides. Let’s get on with the show. I really don’t like focusing on tone at the expense of content.
Frankly, I am still waiting for someone on the FV side to actually deal with my arguments in the post. That has not been done yet.
Todd R. Harris said,
May 18, 2007 at 5:45 pm
Lane, are you uncomfortable thinking of people searching your blog for jerky comments and put downs from PCA ministers?
Smiley face.
greenbaggins said,
May 18, 2007 at 5:47 pm
I think that would not be wise. There are plenty of them from all sorts of people.
Todd R. Harris said,
May 18, 2007 at 5:48 pm
Ministers and non-ministers. Moderators and non-moderators.
Smiley face with wink.
greenbaggins said,
May 18, 2007 at 5:50 pm
With regard to the moderator of this blog, I am really not qualified to comment. Others must judge. ;-)
Chris Hutchinson said,
May 18, 2007 at 6:07 pm
Matthew Paul Buccheri,
If you are still reading these comments, do you want to give us your reasons why you are planning to vote “nay?”
What do you think of the nine declarations at the end of the report? Which ones don’t you agree with?
And yes, everyone, I know I just ended a sentence with a preposition. It’s like late Friday….
Chris Hutchinson
Blacksburg, VA
barlow said,
May 18, 2007 at 8:50 pm
The problem with bringing up over the top rhetoric is that the anti-FV guys get to choose who they will use to represent the FV. And so if Garrett Craw says something blunt (as is his want) then you can point to it as an “FV” thing. Very convenient. Personally, calling someone a pig (which I do not think is appropriate) is not half as offensive as the MARS report that says that men (who are even if the critics are believed merely Arminians) have threatened the Gospel itself. I’ll take Wesley over a lot of reformed guys any day.
As for Clark, he constantly belittled me in my discussions with him, and I tried to ignore it as I, step by step, illustrated that he believes in justification as a legal fiction and veers very close to antinomianism. I think we all need to just press through the rhetoric and get to the point. And asking people over and over which recommendation they don’t approve of misses the point that the recommendations are not in a vacuum, and though sloppily worded themselves, they also reflect the content of an overall very sloppy report.
Jeff Hutchinson said,
May 18, 2007 at 8:58 pm
Hey Jon.
I didn’t follow your discussions with Clark, so, leaving your comments about that aside, I agree with your larger point, that “we all need to press through the rhetoric and get to the point,” but I have to then part ways with you that “the point” is NOT the recommendations and declarations of the report.
And so, to paraphrase, “I think we all need to press through the he said/she said about process, and get to the point: Are the nine declarations and the five recommendations of the Study Committee wise or not? Is anyone against them? If so, which ones and why?”
barlow said,
May 18, 2007 at 9:15 pm
Does scripture have a bi-covenantal structure?
barlow said,
May 18, 2007 at 9:24 pm
In the report, when they put “elect” in scare quotes, are they speaking of decretal election or covenantal election?
Jeff Hutchinson said,
May 18, 2007 at 9:26 pm
Does reality?
barlow said,
May 18, 2007 at 9:29 pm
Is imputation really by means of faith? Do we have to say that this is the means, or is the PCA tent big enough for some to believe that it is by means of union? Is Christ’s active obedience important because God needs to be able to see me as having been obedient to the law or is it important because Christ becomes a sin offering for us and he needs to be without blemish in order to be the right kind of sacrifice? (2 cor. 5)
Jeff Hutchinson said,
May 18, 2007 at 9:30 pm
I don’t think they put “elect” in scare quotes; I think they put “elect” in good-old-normal quotes on occasion. Why else might they have put quotation marks around the word “elect” at various points in the paper?
barlow said,
May 18, 2007 at 9:30 pm
I would say that redemptive history has a bicovenantal structure, but not the scriptures. Covenant theology is a second order way of understanding the flow of God’s self revelation, and redemptive history has a major break after Adam’s sin, and so it is appropriate to speak of two covenants. But nowhere does the confession require people to believe that the bible itself has a bicovenantal structure, unless you count the older idea of a “testamentary covenant” that hasn’t been taught in our circles for years.
barlow said,
May 18, 2007 at 9:32 pm
What does “merit” in scare quotes mean? Meredith Kline’s covenant of strict justice and no grace? Where is that in the confession? If “merit” means simply the value of Christ’s work, active and passive, who would disagree? How does this point help anyone figure out what anyone believes?
barlow said,
May 18, 2007 at 9:35 pm
Does the bible say that our lives are hidden in Christ with God? If this a merely legal imputation on God’s part, or does he actually unite us to the actively obedient covenant head by the Spirit? Point five tries to make hay out of Lusk’s mode of expression and misses the point.
barlow said,
May 18, 2007 at 9:37 pm
Who holds the view in #6? And are we condemning the idea of a covenantal union? If so, we oppose WEstminster which essentially teaches this - baptism unites one to the visible church. My suspicion is that they mean only to rule out the “saving benefits” mentioned, but this is not the way it is worded.
barlow said,
May 18, 2007 at 9:40 pm
Point seven is a tautology. It inevents the phrase “effectual union” (kind of like the offspring of effectual calling and union with Christ) in order to basically say that everyone ought to oppose the idea that any but the elect receive the kind of union with Christ that only the elect have. Well, everyone already opposes that idea. The lager question is whether joining the church in any sense means joining the body of Christ. If so, then yes there is a kind of union, short of the kind of union the elect experience. Also, some reformed scholars in the past have chalked even common grace up to being a benefit of Christ’s mediation, and this point would rule out that legitimate perspective. This is a sloppy point.
barlow said,
May 18, 2007 at 9:42 pm
Point 8 interesting. In the WCF “regeneration” is basically effectual calling, and so I don’t think anyone would deny this point because only the elect receive effectual calling. Since William Perkins, though, reformed folks have spoken of an “ineffectual calling” and the various steps of semi-progress in the faith that the non-elect make before their ultimate apostasy. This is the way that the tradition does justice to the “apostasy passages” in the scriptures. The FV guys are simply sticking up for that in new ways.
Jeff Hutchinson said,
May 18, 2007 at 9:43 pm
The PCA tent is big enough for everyone and anyone who will acknowledge themselves to be sinners in the sight of God, believe in the Lord Jesus Christ as the Son of God, resolve and promise to live as becomes the followers of Christ, promise to support the Church in its worship and work, and submit themselves to the government and discipline of the Church, and promise to study its purity and peace.
As for the requirements for office, that is another matter.
I would love for it to happen, JUST ONCE IN THE HISTORY OF THE WORLD, for a pastor to be told by his denomination that his theology has been discovered to be out of accord with the system of doctrine of the church, and for his response to be:
“You know, I LOVE my church. I cannot in good conscience change my views, but I meant it when I promised to work hard for the purity and peace of my church. I did not promise that I would work hard ONLY IF THEY LET ME BE A PASTOR. I promised to work hard for my church no matter what. And so I gladly submit, and will serve the church in every way that a non-ordained officer is able to serve the church. And in the meantime, I sure hope they will help me find gainful employment! Thank You, Lord, that I am part of Your Family. Being even a doorkeeper here is better than I deserve.”
Jeff Hutchinson said,
May 18, 2007 at 9:45 pm
I might be able to come back to this, but have to go just now. I hate to sound morbid, or overly dramatic, but a friend just died, and my wife and I need to check into that.
All blessings to you, Jon. And keep singing that Wilco. You have a great voice.
barlow said,
May 18, 2007 at 9:46 pm
Point 9 is ambiguous. What does “based on” mean? Obviously, our eternal destiny is something established in life itself, so the final judgment doesn’t “base” our destiny on our actions. But it does base our judgment on our thoughts, words, and deeds. Jesus will bring every deed to light. To say otherwise is to create a lot of places where the scriptures can’t mean what they obviously mean. Perhaps the committee has misunderstood the other side here. I remember having to memorize that the final judgment will a. not determine our eternal destiny, and b. will be based on thoughts, words, and deeds for Dr. Peterson’s systematics test at Covenant Seminary. THat’s just plain jane stuff.
Matthew Paul Buccheri said,
May 18, 2007 at 9:47 pm
Friends and foes,
I took a vow that asks me to uphold the constitution of the denomination (the WCF, LC, SC and BCO). Everything else, as I understand the BCO saying, is “advisory.”
barlow said,
May 18, 2007 at 9:48 pm
And so, in closing, Jeff, we have 9 points that do not admit of a simple “yes I affirm” or “no I don’t affirm” because they are poorly worded, and include terms without definition. You cannot isolate these affirmations from the report itself; they are like the rash that follows the fever. But the patient’s problem is the fever, not the rash.
Are you willing to grant this?
barlow said,
May 18, 2007 at 9:49 pm
Sorry about your friend - hope you can be of help to the grieving.
Anyway, when you have time, would love to hear your thoughts.
barlow said,
May 18, 2007 at 9:51 pm
Sorry for all my type-os, I’m trying to be quick so I can go be with my lady friend now that the four children are in bed.
thomasgoodwin said,
May 18, 2007 at 9:53 pm
72 “The FV guys are simply sticking up for that in new ways.”
And that can mean a lot of different things, from orthodoxy to error, depending on how they do this. And are you suggesting that FV critics are not “sticking up” for “ineffectual calling” as it has been understood historically? Because, if you are, that’s simply not true!
Mark
Matthew Paul Buccheri said,
May 18, 2007 at 9:55 pm
Oh, and lastly: First, let’s not confuse this report (even if excepted) as a “disciplinary document.” An “advisory” one, maybe. Second, the SJC is where matters of discipline take place for TEs in this denomination, not your blog. Thirdly, as for my views, I hold to the Standards as a good faith subscriptionist (which, as I understand it, is still allowable)!
barlow said,
May 18, 2007 at 10:43 pm
Mark - didn’t mean to imply otherwise, sorry if I was unclear.
Chris Hutchinson said,
May 18, 2007 at 10:44 pm
Jonathan,
I don’t have time to respond right now (it is late), but THANK YOU for actually dealing with the declarations themselves. As I read your posts quickly, I could see some of where you are coming from. But for now, let me just say I appreciate your living up to your word in post 60 and getting to the point(s).
If one is convinced that the declarations themselves are no good, then vote it down. I can live with that. But for most, I think they are clear enough to merit (!) approval.
Chris
Chris Hutchinson said,
May 18, 2007 at 10:53 pm
Matthew,
Re. # 81. Thank you for partially answering one of my questions.
But I would say this an advisory report, DEFINITELY, or are you not ecumenical and/or humble enough to accept the declarations of your OWN general assembly?
I know that sounds obnoxious, but re-read your post, and ask yourself whether you sound like a loyal churchman or just one more typical American evangelical individualist. Seriously.
Your second point is certainly right. But I still don’t see what the harm is in discussing the Declarations (as J. Barlow has), especially since you have declared your opposition with no reasons given.
Going to bed now,
Chris H.
Jeff Hutchinson said,
May 18, 2007 at 11:03 pm
I, too, want to thank you, Jon.
I have a request of Lane, if he has the time. Could you, perhaps, start one thread for each of the nine declarations, and then re-post Jon’s (and anyone else’s posts) in their respective places? Otherwise it will be hard to speak to all of them at once, or only some of them, or only the odd numbered ones, etc.
Plus, the point of THIS thread (your excellent responses to Meyers’ points 17-19) will get buried forever.
P.S. If anyone has the time to pray and emotional energy to spare, you are welcome to visit the website of the friend of mine who died after a long battle with cancer; a young husband and father of three. He was one of my best friends at my first pastorate, the PCA church in Durham/Chapel Hill. Thanks so much.
http://www.caringbridge.org/cb/viewHome.do
Jeff Hutchinson said,
May 18, 2007 at 11:51 pm
Matthew,
Tag-teaming with my brother here, as he is off to bed. And actually, I am too, just after this. Perhaps you’ll think I ought to have gone to bed before this. We shall see.
First, thank you for your courage and integrity to come on here, fully identified and not anonymous, and forthrightly tell us what you think. Genuinely, I thank you.
Second, you wrote, “If adopted, the report is nothing more than a suggestion. Which means we can choose to take it or leave it as presbyteries, churches and individuals. I choose to leave it!”
Restating what I think my brother’s point is (or perhaps hijacking it and changing the meaning into my own): What authority–real flesh and blood and yes fallible and human authority–do you gladly submit to? I’m not asking what authority you will begrudgingly submit to, but what authority will you gladly submit to? I’m talking about real flesh and blood brothers that can see you and touch you and actually give you both “suggestions/advice” and commands.
What if your Session studied how to welcome visitors, and then “suggested” that you stand by the door each week before and after services, and you thought that was a really bad idea? What if your Session “suggested” that you stop wearing your collar (sorry if that one is touchy…is it hate speech for me to bring that up?), and you feel completely unwilling to do so? I am sure you do not respond with “Unless you command me, I am going to take your words as nothing more than a suggestion. Which means I can choose to take it or leave it. And I choose to leave it!”
Constitutionally, you are unquestionably right; if the report is received and commended at this summer’s GA, it is “pious advice,” without judicial authority. I myself have not followed all the advice that each particular GA has given. But, character wise, would you recommend hiring an Assistant Pastor whose attitude towards the Session is “All they can do is give me suggestions. Which means I can take them or leave them. And I choose to leave them”? Would you recommend ordaining a man whose attitude towards his denomination is “I can take or leave whatever the GA says”? Surely you wouldn’t think such a man has the character necessary to be an elder, character which requires WILLINGLY submitting to authority (1 Peter 5; “willingly, not under compulsion”), not only when judicially forced into it.
What if the overwhelming majority of the GA votes to receive and commend the report? What if men you respect vote to receive and commend it? What will it take to change your mind? Is it even possible that you might change your mind? Are you even open to the idea that some of the things you were taught by your favorite professors at WTS were just flat out wrong? You vote against this report, and then, lo and behold, you look up and find that an overwhelming majority of your PCA brothers voted to receive it? Are you going to use the tired “city/country” prejudice to justify your vote to yourself (”bunch of country bumpkins…”)? Or perhaps the even tireder “North/South” one? Please tell me you won’t play the “educated/uneducated” card.
Or will you scratch your head, and go to the Lord, and have a long conversation with Him about whether you maybe, just maybe, have not been properly valuing things that need to be valued, and been overly valuing things that ought not to be valued.
It’s late, I’ve gone on too long, probably unfairly. Please forgive me. I don’t even know you. It may help to know that one of my Associate Pastors, Donnie Williams, his father-in-law, Mr. Austin (I forgot his first name because I just call him Mr. Austin) is one of your elders at Redeemer. So you and I are closer than even Kevin Bacon could have arranged.
It may also help to know that we had a great time hosting Charlie Drew (Redeemer NYC’s first ever Associate) and his church planter, Reyn Cabinte, down here in hicksville a couple of weekends ago. We invited them down to explore the possibility of a church planting partnership, and to find out how we could help with Reyn’s plant 14 blocks north of Columbia University. Ask Reyn what his impression of me/us here at Trinity was.
We had a great time together. The Study Committe Report had just come out that week, so I didn’t presume that they had had the time to read it yet. But I told them bluntly, “We need to know where you stand on these theological issues. We are not interested in supporting more churches who hold to the unhelpful distinctives of the NPP and FV.” They promised to read the report and get back to me. They are good brothers; I was honored to get some time with them. They blessed my whole congregation.
We know where you stand now, dear brother. But is there any chance that you will stand with us in what I think is a sounder, stronger, more cheerful and lively place?
Your brother in Christ,
Jeff Hutchinson
Trinity PCA
Hicksville, USA
Jeff Hutchinson said,
May 19, 2007 at 12:39 am
Jeff Meyers has sworn off this site, but he happily engaged me over at the new Reformed News site. Anyone still following these “Reply to Jeff Meyers” threads here may well be interested.
http://www.reformednews.com/labels/news.html
Black&TanInTheAM said,
May 19, 2007 at 5:54 am
Response to JJM #7
“The language of improvement of baptism is clearly tied to faith, which is the improvement of baptism, not to the water by itself. Therefore, one is only united to Christ when one comes to faith.”
**Here, GB, I must ask you to exegete John 15.
“It is quite clear here that Steve Wilkins affirms that people who will not persevere (who are decretally reprobate) nevertheless have true union and communion with Christ, stated in direct violation of the line of argumentation above given in questions 65-68.”
**Again, please exegete John 15.
“But Travis, the WS say that there can be no true union between reprobates and Jesus.”
**I would have to disagree. It says they never truly come to him and this by faith. This adverb does not negate the initial credal union (if an adult) and baptism. For instance, Joe Bubblegum hears you preach the gospel and responds. He is baptised and under your tutelage he is discipled. Within a period of four years he yearns for his former life of girls, girls, girls. He leaves the church and never (to this day) returns. [Now, this is the case with my former pastor’s good high school chum.] Here is my take on this. We’ll call him Gavin (for that is his name). Gavin was married to Christ (really) and ate with Christ quarterly (truly). Gavin truly and really broke the covenant. He is an apostate son. Why? Because he was baptised. Is this not the case? Yes, it is. When Gavin dies and if he dies in rebellion to Christ he will be judged an apostate son. Why? Because he was baptised.
Now, imagine another scenario. Gavin never got baptised. Let’s change the gender and name. Her name is Gina. She has attended church and “celebrated” the supper for the past five years. She has a profession of faith but no baptism. She is waiting til her children (all teens) come to faith. Now, to be sure, this church is not reformed in any Calvinistic sense. Here is what I say. She is not married to Christ. She has a profession of faith. She will tell my mother that she loves Jesus and serves in the church ad nauseum but I say she is not united to Christ. There is no covenant to break here. Truly, really, or otherwise. Why? B/c she has not been baptised. Now, contra Gavin, Gina will not die an apostate daughter. She will not suffer the same wrath as Gavin. Why? B/c she was not baptised. A person’s personal faith means nada without the Church’s thumbs up and blessing in the sacrament. This is the rule. Are there exceptions? Yes. But those are not the norm, they are exceptions. The rule is “no Church as madre, no God as padre.”
This is the power of the sacraments. Indulge me, again. Our baptist brethren do not apply the sign to infants because of their ordo salutis. The sign belongs to no one but those of faith. I feel we TRs are no less baptistic than they when we apply the sign. I am left scratching my head so often when I see cov’t children baptised. “So, what just happened? I know you went to lengths telling me what didn’t happen but I’m not sure what to believe did happen.” Here’s what didn’t happen: “This baptism does not save this baby. This baptism does not take away this child’s sins. This baptism does not unite her to Jesus. This baptism does not regenerate this child…ad infinitum & nauseum. BUUUUUUT this baptism does acknowledge that when this child comes to faith all of God’s promises held out to her and her parents will be true of her. In this baptism today God promises these parents to save their child when she comes of age and believes. God promises today to take away her sins, to unite her to Christ, to regenerate her and give her all the benefits that befit a child of God when she believes. Amen and amen. Let us pray….” (to be continued)
Now, as to the above, this is what is preached in every non FV church in the PCA. I hear it regularly. And it truly breaks my heart. Here’s why. What are we saying that Baptists are not? Our reformed baptisms are nothing less than baptist dedications. They are. We emasculate Christ and dehydrate the element. We end up saying NOTHING less than an evangelist at a crusade. “If you will but come to Jesus he will…..” The only thing missing is water. Why not (I know why not, it’s rhetoric) baptise everyone and say, “OK, when you get around to believing this stuff…” How is what we do different than our baptist brethren? You might want to say “much in every way” but your dehydrating the element negates your wishes. Here is what we end up saying, “God has blessed this family. You parents are blessed. God has given you a covenant child to raise into the faith. Pray for her. Teach her. Discipline her. She is not a Christian yet, though. She must make your faith her own. She is privileged in every way. She will hear the Gospel from a young age and be taught all the principles of our faith. How blessed she truly is…”…anon. Actually, I lied. This was a baptist dedication ceremony.
Now, I can hear you retort. But I have to confess, b/c of what I hear we believe about baptism, I truly do not know why we apply the water. Truly I don’t. Unless it actually means something. Unless it actually threatens something. Unless the sacrament actually means something sacred (save some future desperate-hopeful-finger-crossing-hope) we are refined baptists.
…continued…10 years pass and she apostasizes and dies unrepentant. At her funeral, the same pastor who said the above says, “Remember all that stuff I said about this child when she came to faith because she was baptised? Never mind.”
Matthew Paul Buccheri said,
May 19, 2007 at 6:57 am
Jeff,
I’ll answer you in no particular order:
Where I stand may have little to do with what I believe. All commissioners in our denomination have the right to vote as they will. There is no crime in that. Moreover, we must remember that emotions play a role too. And it’s my belief and hope that some (especially those who have not tracked along with the issues as closely as others–which I believe to be the majority of the denomination, especially REs) would vote carefully. And we should keep in mind that some TEs are not happy with the way this is being handled. It feels a lot like a witch hunt to many. My own feeling is that a document like this can only cause problems since it is NOT constitutionally binding. It can take on a life of its own and be treated thereafter as a constitutionally binding document. So, my vote is guided by a hunch just as much as it is guided by not agreeing with all things it states.
Jeff, what surprises me about your response is this statement: “I myself have not followed all the advice that each particular GA has given.” So, you admit that you do not and have not embraced all thing under advisement! Yet, your entire post attempts to argue that I (and others) must embrace the committee’s word. I find that to be inconsistent. So, to use your own analogy back on you, if you session asked you to stand at the door at the church and greet church-goers, your own words would suggest that you may or may not do so. Therefore, you are as arbitrary as I am (or others) in these matters.
As for Mr. (John) Austin, he’s an amazing man! (So, we are connected by 2 degrees of separation). As for associates at Redeemer, Charlie is #5: Jeff White, Scot Sherman, Jim Om and Claude Hubbard preceded him. Reyn is a good man too! I was on the commission that ordained him this past winter.
In closing, we need to be sure that we don’t bind the consciences of people as they think through this. That is not our place. In other words, a “nay” vote is not a morally wrong thing at this point. It is one of two allowable responses to the report. I look forward to meeting you a GA. Please stop me and introduce yourself…
Your brother in X,
Matty B.
Sean Gerety said,
May 19, 2007 at 8:20 am
I think it is important to recognize that for Meyers his rejection of Christ’s active obedience is not because he thinks the distinction between active and passive can apply both to Christ’s moral obedience and cross work and therefore is a somewhat artificial distinction. What Meyers denies is that Christ’s moral obedience is imputed to believers.
Per Meyers:
“What is being debated and his been a mater of controversy WITHIN Reformed theology for centuries is whether Jesus merited something by all his good works he accomplished in his life that is then “imputed” to believers.”
Therefore, I think everyone needs to be clear on this point, for Meyers when he reads, say, LC 70 and that justification is “but only for the perfect obedience and full satisfaction of Christ, by God imputed to them, and received by faith alone,” he does not see “perfect obedience” as applying to all Christ’s “good works he accomplished in his life that is then ‘imputed’ to believers.”
Active/passive distinction aside, for Meyers Christ’s moral obedience is not imputed to believers by faith alone and that this is somehow a “matter of controversy” amongst Protestants. That is unbelievable and a clearer rejection of the Christian doctrine of imputation, the very heart of the Gospel, could hardly be found . . . anywhere. FWIW I have debated Roman Catholics who haven’t been as forthright and candid about their rejection of the Gospel.
Finally, regardless of whether or not the Committee Report is accepted, and it most definitely should be, it would be a greater tragedy if men like Meyers are ever allowed to leave the PCA without being brought under disciplined for such a brazen departure from the faith. The OPC failed miserably in its duty in the case of Norm Shepherd who was allowed to leave the OPC in “good standing” and continued to teach and preach his false gospel in the CRC. While that’s only one example, the case of John Kinnaird is another, the OPC will be held accountable for her many failures in dealing with this controversy and her little report on FV/NPP will be held up to her shame. I just fear the PCA will follow suit and think she has really accomplished something by adopting a Committee report, even one as praise worthy as the one being discussed.
greenbaggins said,
May 19, 2007 at 8:45 am
Matt, the vote is not Jeff’s issue. Anyone who will can vote against the report, and have varying reasons for doing so. That’s not Jeff’s point, however. Jeff’s point is this: what if it passes? In other words, what happens *after* the vote, if it is approved?
Matthew Paul Buccheri said,
May 19, 2007 at 8:58 am
Again my friend, it is merely “ADVISORY!” What do you guys not understand?
greenbaggins said,
May 19, 2007 at 9:04 am
We understand that it does not have constitutional authority. But it does have moral authority. Stop talking to us as if we didn’t understand Presbyterian polity! The GA is hoping for 1400 commissioners. Let’s say they get that. And let’s say the report passes by 1200 to 200 (I actually think that’s going to be generous). If I had 6 guys telling me that I was outside the bounds (merely advisory!) to every 1 guy telling me I was in, I would think I was not wanted in the PCA. If that many told me that I was outside the bounds, then I would come to the conclusion that I should leave the denomination *for the sake of* unity. Unity would not suffer a defeat if the FV guys left to join the CREC. And, I’m sorry, the disunity currently in the PCA is not due (at least not entirely) to the TR crowd. The FV has torn churches apart. This I have seen with my own eyes.
Todd R. Harris said,
May 19, 2007 at 9:09 am
“The FV has torn churches apart. This I have seen with my own eyes.”
Can you be more specific?
Matthew Paul Buccheri said,
May 19, 2007 at 9:38 am
Lane,
I haven’t commented on your blog for quite some time, and now I remember why I stopped. The document, if it passes, (and I think you’ll be surprised how many more vote against it) is NOT authoritative in any way, shape or form. Where are you getting this stuff Lane? Again, your bulldog tactics–and I might even add, conscience binding statements–are what’s wrong! You are forgetting that a “nay” vote is allowed to all by all; you are attempting to pigeonhole people because they stand against the document, either because of its content or other reasons; and you are showing a lack of ecumenism, even within the denomination–it sounds like you desire a Orson Wells outcome, where every looks the same, dresses the same, talks the same, etc. Contrary to you “unity” statement: Diversity is good! (Within reason.)
greenbaggins said,
May 19, 2007 at 9:54 am
Why did I know, Todd, that you were going to ask that? The answer is no, I will not be more specific. I have already gotten into trouble before when I got specific, and so I will not do so again. Such are the imperfections of the blogosphere.
Matt, you are doing the very thing that you accuse the critics of doing: misunderstanding my statements. Instead of reading it in a charitable way, you put the most bull-doggish interpretation upon my words. What part of “you can vote no” didn’t you understand? As I said, there may be more than one reason why someone would wish to vote no on such a document ranging from procedural problems to content. Where have I ever said that I think the FV’s vote should be stripped away from them, and their votes shouldn’t count? Because it sounds like that’s what you are accusing me of saying.
But you are naive in the extreme if you think that the Report will have no effect on the SJC’s dealing with the LA Presbytery, if the Report passes. It establishes precedence, just like other study committee reports have in the past. Matt, I want you to read this overture from Auburn Avenue Presbyterian Church, and tell me that it was not intended to have any kind of authority at all:
http://www.auburnavenue.org/officialpositionstatements/Freemasonry.htm
Notice especially WCF 31.3-4.
What you are telling me, then, is that if someone wanted to be a Freemason, and wanted to be a pastor in Auburn Avenue Presbyterian Church, then that church has absolutely no authority whatsoever to refuse that man ordination.
Todd R. Harris said,
May 19, 2007 at 10:07 am
Fair enough. I’ve observed a church split connected with these issues recently, and I think it would be very fair to say that *the conflict between the FV and its critics* has torn churches apart, but to say merely that “the FV has torn churches apart” doesn’t ring true.
greenbaggins said,
May 19, 2007 at 10:12 am
It does ring true in the case I have in mind.
Matthew Paul Buccheri said,
May 19, 2007 at 10:12 am
Lane,
Remember, even the SJC can choose not to use the document in cases that comes its way. It is naive to think that it has some sort of power and authority. Remember, it is an “advisory” document to presbyteries. It is NOT the final word of the denomination on the matter. As for my “uncharitable” reading: it is difficult to read the thoughts on this blog charitably–thoughts that slander TEs in good standing every singe day. The fact that you list this discussion under the heading of Heresy” (which is undetermined as of yet) immediately slanders those who disagree with you.
greenbaggins said,
May 19, 2007 at 10:14 am
So, what of Douglas Wilson’s votes of confidence? Or haven’t you been following my review of RINE? You paint with a mighty broad brush, there, Matt.
Anne Ivy said,
May 19, 2007 at 12:49 pm
Matt, ISTM the thing about having a submissive heart is that such a one does not submit only when *forced* to do so. You appear to be promoting a heart attitude of “I only have to do that which I’m compelled to do.”
As a Christian wife it’s both my duty and my, um, pleasure (well, most of the time, anyway) to submit to my husband. In practice he only rarely issues an actual *order*; most of my submission involves submitting to him when he basically offers advice and counsel, letting me know THIS is what he’d PREFER I do.
There are women who DO only submit when they absolutely have to, mind. So long as their husband doesn’t make something an actual command they feel free to ignore his preferences in favor of their own.
Not that a pineapple of perfection such as myself ever does that, of course. Mercy Maud. Heavens to Betsy, no. Never happens. [rolling eyes]
Having a submissive spirit is not just for Christian wives, though. It’s incumbent on all Christians to submit to their legitimate authorities, including church authorities. Mind, if those authorities are commanding something that is inherently and innately sinful, then naturally that’s a different matter entirely.
I’m not seeing how NOT including the FV doctrinal distinctives would rise to - well, make that ‘descend to’ - the level of sin, though. IOW, would it be a sin for someone who privately believes the FV’s doctrinal distinctives are correct to agree to neither promote nor teach them?
Frankly, I don’t see how. From what I’ve read, there are paedocommunionists in the PCA who willingly submit to their denominations rejection of that practice. They disagree with it, but they submit to it. The PCA is surely enriched by the presence of such men with submissive hearts.
[clearing throat] This is another reason I’m not at all convinced the holders of the FV are going to act as a bulwark against encroaching egalitarianism in the PCA, as they like to say they will. A heart attitude of “I only submit when it pleases me to do so, or when compelled” could easily qualify as the motto of the egalitarian movement, couldn’t it?
A. Dollahite said,
May 19, 2007 at 1:27 pm
Anne,
When you say, “This is another reason I’m not at all convinced the holders of the FV are going to act as a bulwark against encroaching egalitarianism in the PCA, as they like to say they will,” I’m forced to ask if you have ever actually read the positions of FV men on egalitarianism? If you have, please point me to one supporting egalitarianism. If you haven’t, seriously, go to Doug Wilson’s or Peter Leithart’s blogs and search egalitarianism to read what they actually believe. I’m sure you’ll find their words encouraging.
barlow said,
May 19, 2007 at 1:40 pm
Matthew - the SJC itself is headed by Aquila and co-chaired by Paul Fowler. It is hard to separate this report’s passage from the SJC’s use of it in judicial cases. In this particular case, without trying to impute motives or anything, there is no separation of powers, and no reason to think that the report doesn’t reflect the personal opinions of the SJC’s leadership.
And one more point about being submissive. Take Jeff Meyers, for instance. He is in complete submission to his presbytery. The MO Presybtery considered these issues and came up with a statement that keeps the proper confessional boundaries. Defending oneself is not being unsubmissive, nor is objecting to the injustice implicit in this committee’s makeup and appointment.
anneivy said,
May 19, 2007 at 1:50 pm
Andy, t’would appear you did not read my post carefully, as I most assuredly did NOT say FV supporters overtly encourage egalitarianism.
What I said is that a posture of “I can ignore the authorities over me unless, one, I agree with what they’re saying, or two, they force me to do so” is the heart attitude of egalitarianism, yet it is heard from quite a few FV’ers.
Setting aside the specific doctrines held by either group, the overarching, and ISTM more insidious, error is *that* mindset.
anneivy said,
May 19, 2007 at 2:05 pm
Jon, certainly there is nothing wrong with defending oneself or offering constructive criticism where constructive criticism is required.
The bit I’d responded to was what if the report IS accepted? At least one FV supporter apparently intends to ignore it, saying it’s merely “advisory” and without teeth.
My point is that if it’s wrong for a Christian woman to shrug off what her husband wants because it, too, is merely advisory, then I’m at a loss as to how it’s not equally wrong for a member of a denomination to do the same.
Remember, I’m hitting the fast-forward button here….the GA’s come and gone and the report was adopted.
Matthew Paul Buccheri said,
May 19, 2007 at 2:24 pm
Anneivy,
If point 105 is referring to me, that is an assumption on your part. I have never come out as a “support” nor have I railed against the FV. Just a clarification.
A. Dollahite said,
May 19, 2007 at 2:26 pm
Anne,
I understand what you said, but your insertion of egalitarianism as an issue against which this supposed FV attitude of would fail to fight was humorous considering how adamantly opposed to egalitarianism the FV is. It’s not that people like Wilson, Leithart, Wilkins, etc. don’t “overtly encourage egalitarianism,” they come right out and vehemently oppose it. Egalitarianism seemed out of place in your argument, which prompted my question. (And yes, I know Wilson and Leithart are not currently pastors of PCA churches.)
With respect to the substance of your argument, that the FV has some mindset that includes ignoring authorities when it suits their purposes, it seems a bit far reaching. Show me a few examples of this attitude from FV leaders. There will always be renegade authority haters in any group, but I want to know where the leadership of the FV promotes rebellion against authority. As Matthew points out in #89, people choose not to follow certain advice all the time without it being a case of insidious rebellion. As for a positive example of FV submission, Steve Wilkins is one of those paedocommunionist in a PCA church submitting to the PCA’s rules on paedocommunion.
Andrew Voelkel said,
May 19, 2007 at 2:36 pm
I’ve been thinking this statement —
“FV men should just leave the PCA because…”
Despite some people’s desire to see “FV ministers” leave the denomination, we must remember that they are not necessarily free to do that.
Ordained ministers in the PCA are under the authority of their Presbyteries. If a Presbytery has examined a man’s life & theological views and has found him to be acceptable for service in that Presbytery, then the “buck stops there. If other people in the PCA differ with a Presbytery decision, they can bring it to GA.
Ministers cannot “just leave” their posts at their own discretion — they must be “released” by their Presbyteries.
anneivy said,
May 19, 2007 at 2:43 pm
Then good for Steve Wilkins, by jingo. Quite seriously. (I disagree strenuously with some of what he teaches, but by all accounts he’s a stand-up guy, and his willingness to put his examination replies online was most kind of him.)
As for your demanding I tell you “where the leadership of the FV promotes rebellion against authority”, first, I didn’t specify leadership, did I? I don’t believe I did. My comment was mostly a response to other comments on the “meta” (irritating word), here and elsewhere. And second, there’s “rebellion against authority” and there’s “rebellion against authority.” Sometimes it’s overt and unmistakable…such as the ECUSA’s refusal to submit to the higher Anglican authorities…but other times it’s a good deal more subtle. I’m suggesting that unless a woman is on the alert at virtually all times for how she can serve and submit to her husband, she’s not actually doing a spiffy job of submitting at all.
And I’m suggesting the same regarding denominational submission. Taking a stance of “I’ll submit only when I jolly well have to and not otherwise” isn’t truly submitting to one’s denominational authority.
Perhaps the PCA-FVers I’ve run across will surprise me - pleasantly - if the report is adopted and ruefully submit to it. (True cheerful submission is high-order sanctification, which most of us have a hard time with….the operative word being “us”, as in “me too.”)
So far I’m not terribly optimistic, though.
Andrew Voelkel said,
May 19, 2007 at 3:00 pm
Final thought on this very long thread: (your site is very popular Green Baggins)
If the PCA loves this study report, and feels that it is a faithful exposition of the Westminster Standards, then we should vote to give it Constitutional Authority.
Until that happens, the opinions expressed in the report will not (cannot) trump the opinions of Presbyteries.
Matthew Paul Buccheri said,
May 19, 2007 at 3:38 pm
Well said Andrew!
barlow said,
May 19, 2007 at 3:44 pm
Jeff - I wrote up my reasons and put them on my blog here:
http://www.barlowfarms.com/index.html?cm_id=1867789
If you want to discuss them there, that’s good for me - I don’t read this blog every day, but I’ll be sure to see the discussion over on my blog. Plus, the discussion will be about the one thing - the 9 declarations.
A. Dollahite said,
May 19, 2007 at 3:58 pm
Anne,
Allow me to apologize if my earlier post sounded like I was “demanding” anything. It was intended to be more of a kind request.
Again, regarding the substance of your argument - that the FV includes/involves an attitude of rebellion against authority - I’m politely asking for you to please show me the evidence. I agree with you that, “Taking a stance of “I’ll submit only when I jolly well have to and not otherwise” isn’t truly submitting to one’s denominational authority.” But I would like to see the evidence that such an attitude exists among the FV. And the reason I specified the leadership is because it’s easy to find rogue people on all sides of a debate who have ungodly attitudes about authority. I’m sure I could find an FV critic or two who despise authorities, but I wouldn’t use them as evidence that FV critics in general should be considered rebellious against their authorities.
anneivy said,
May 19, 2007 at 5:15 pm
No, it was MY fault for using the word “demanding”. That was tacky of me. Such a loaded word!
Truth be told, however, it’s awfully difficult to carry on a reasonably normal conversation if everyone has to be prepared to footnote every word they say.
Do I have “evidence” that will come close to satisfying you?
Nope. It’s largely implicit and diaphanous, and to be frank, it’s doubtless a good deal subjective, in that what sends up red flags to me very likely doesn’t for you. And vice versa, naturally.
There can be no denying it’s tricky to chart a course between slavish obedience to a denomination in the sense of tacitly handing one’s conscience over to it and earnestly relying upon it to tell one what one should believe, and properly respecting the denomination’s authority to teach.
For my part, I don’t have the problem with “alphabet soup” Presbyterianism that so many others appear to have. Denominations are fluid and changeable, and just because one of ‘em’s orthodox and doctrinally reliable on a particular date is no guarantee the same will be true at a later date. If one’s denomination begins to deteriorate, try to halt it. If it doesn’t stop, shake the dust of it off your feet and move on.
OTOH, there’s not much point in belonging to a denomination if one is determined that one is going to teach and believe whatever one wants, and the denomination can lump it if it doesn’t like it, with a “Nanny-nanny-boo-boo! You can’t catch me!” attitude. Which is how some FV’ers in the blogsphere tend to come across.
Which brings me right back to the sense of deja vu I get from reading and listening to the FV when it comes to how they speak of and respond to their denominations (mainly the PCA, though a bit from the OPC, too)….it’s almost a carbon copy of how the egalitarians reacted when their respective denominations initially weren’t enthusiastic about the proposed doctrinal improvements and fine-tunings. When the denominational authorities would point out they were going against the denomination’s standards, the egalitarians said Scripture was their standard. The egalitarians insisted there was room for both the traditional viewpoint as well as the egalitarian viewpoint, and can’t they all just get along? Arguments in favor of “big tents” were prominent. And rebelling a