The Triumph of the Gospel
June 13, 2007 at 9:20 pm (Federal Vision, Heresy, New Perspective on Paul)
The report passed today by an overwhelming majority. Someone made a motion to postpone, so as to include exegetical discussion in the report, as well as add two members sympathetic to the FV. The motion was defeated by about a two to one majority. The recommendations themselves passed by approximately 95%. Indeed, that is probably a conservative estimate. It was a resounding triumph for the study committee report.
David McCrory said,
June 13, 2007 at 9:22 pm
Is this report binding?
Susan said,
June 13, 2007 at 9:30 pm
Yay! I actually got to watch it all online :-). The Windows Media Player on my computer has pretty much been uncooperative any other time I’ve pulled up the GA in the last day+, but it worked from 3:00-5:00 EST :-). I was actually anticipating a more rousing debate on the issues, not just a debate on postponement, but I’m glad it didn’t turn into an all-out brawl or anything. Many prayers answered today :-).
Ben G. said,
June 13, 2007 at 9:59 pm
*sigh*
And just when I thought I could get comfy in this denomination, too…
William Hill said,
June 13, 2007 at 10:18 pm
No, the report is not binding…
A denomination was weakened today by the TR’s and any argument to the contrary is simply a waste off bandwidth.
jared said,
June 13, 2007 at 11:13 pm
GreenBaggins,
Joe Novenson was the pastor who made a motion to postpone the vote (though I’m sure you know that); he’s a very well known and well respected pastor in my area (Chattanooga, TN and Lookout Mountain, GA). This study report would benefit emensely from taking Novenson’s advice in adding two more committee members and requiring exegesis. I don’t doubt that Novenson agrees with the spirit (and maybe even the gist) of the report but the report itself was not all that it should have been for the ramifications it will have throughout the denomination. A resounding triumph for the study report yes, but a huge failure on the part of the PCA in her “effort” to preserve the purity and unity of the church.
Patrick Poole said,
June 14, 2007 at 12:20 am
I must confess a degree of personal satisfaction in this overwhelming decision by the fathers and brothers of the PCA. When I first posted the Paul Perspective website in December 2005, the Federal Vision was on very few radars. That project was born out of a last minute request for information from a former pastor of mine in Birmingham who sat on the presbytery’s Candidates and Credentials committee that was considering Rich Lusk’s transfer. He knew close to nothing about Federal Vision theology, but got up to speed quickly after I sent him Lusk’s contributions to the Knox Colloquium and several other of his essays.
Predictably, the Federal Vision crowd will whine and moan about this decision. Rather than receiving instruction and admonition from their fathers and brothers, many of them will jump ship (and thereby Presbyterianism itself) for the CREC (aka “The Fellowship of the Grievance”), where they will fit right in with the other malcontents and denominational fugitives. There they can say along with Hamlet, “I could bound myself in a nutshell and count myself king of infinite space…”
gospelordeath said,
June 14, 2007 at 1:23 am
The mandate for the study committee was as follows:
The 34th PCA General Assembly appointed an ad interim committee, to study the soteriology of the Federal Vision, New Perspective, and Auburn Avenue Theologies which are causing confusion among our churches. Further, 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 (M34GA, 34-57, III, pp. 229-30).
The study committee was not asked to interpret Scripture - though I agree that probably would have been helpful. However, the PCA already has adopted a statement on how they think Scripture should be interpreted, and it’s called the Westminster Confession of Faith. This report simply fulfills its mandate, to show how the FV/NPP (which are not beautiful, unique snowflakes, but rightly conflated with each other as different gospels than the true gospel) is teaching stuff contrary to what the PCA has been teaching from its inception.
No one is condemned by this report. Ideas only are interacted with. Now presbyters have some way to guide them in bringing charges and trying cases, but no one can be brought up on charges according to this report. It’s a study committee report, meant to educate the churches and clear up confusion. Now the church as a whole can study the report, so that they are wise and not taken in by these wolves in sheep’s clothing, who claim to agree with the Westminster Confession. But now two denominations (the OPC and the PCA) who hold to the WCF, have both resoundingly spoken with one voice, saying, “No, you DON’T believe our confession, and you aren’t teaching our confession. You don’t believe like we do.” Effectively removing the disguise from the wolf, so that he no longer looks like a sheep, but is shown to be a wolf.
Now everyone can recognize the wolves among us. Beware wolves, your days are numbered. For a while you may continue to eat the fat and clothe yourselves in the wool, but soon you will have to give an account. Oh Lord hasten the day.
I praise God for proving himself faithful to the PCA, even as he has done for the OPC.
Mike G.
Westminster Seminary California
Proud rejecter of different gospels
Christopher Witmer said,
June 14, 2007 at 3:49 am
A denomination was weakened today by the TRs
Yes, it was. But was the kingdom of God weakened as a result?
The church has witnessed bigger reversals before. (Arius/Anastasius, etc.) This is just one skirmish, and the battle for the PCA, let alone for the gospel, is far from finished.
Don’t put away your weapons of Christian warfare just yet!
Right about now the TRs are probably tempted to vigorously wave their “PCA, love it or leave it” signs. The proper response to that would be, “Well, I love it so why don’t you leave it? (John Robbins could use someone to keep him company outside the camp.) Or take me to court and throw me out, if you can prove that I’m a heretic. But you’ll have to let me cross-examine you and you had better be ready to accept the penalty when you are shown to have borne false witness in a church court.”
Christopher Witmer said,
June 14, 2007 at 3:50 am
Oops, make that Athanasius, not
Anasatasius.Christopher Witmer said,
June 14, 2007 at 3:54 am
I’d like to suggest an alternative title for this post:
How about Triumph des Willens?
G.L.W.Johnson said,
June 14, 2007 at 7:21 am
Jared
Your concluding remark has historical precedence. The Remonstrant leader Episcopius maded a remarkably similar complaint about disrupting the peace and unity of the churches after the Synod of Doort declared the Arminians to be outside the confessional boundaries of the Reformed faith.
Tim Wilder said,
June 14, 2007 at 7:25 am
Re: 5
“This study report would benefit emensely from taking Novenson’s advice in adding two more committee members and requiring exegesis.”
The only reason the FV wants exegesis is to give them something besides doctrine to reject and nitpick. They would always find some commentator who interprets each text another way, then then they would scream “Are you saying the HE is a heretic?” It is pure politics.
Tim Wilder said,
June 14, 2007 at 7:38 am
Re: 6
Last night I want back to reread many of the emails from two and a half years ago on the secret FV discussion lists. Lusk had been rejected by Evangel Presbytery but the FV was confident. Soon they would inevitably sweep to victory in the PCA. Their intellectual superiority made their movement unstoppable. Seminary professors who attended the Auburn Avenue conference concurred. Even a Westminster East faculty member had confided (so they said) that the seminary was discussing revoking the degree of the a leading critic of the FV because it was an embarrassment to the school.
They went on to discuss what they should do to Ligon Duncan and others who had opposed them. Someone suggested bringing charges against them, but in the end they decided, graciously (in their minds), that public shame an humiliation would be punishment enough for Duncan.
Now the FV has gone down to overwhelming defeat. The seminary professors never came out of the closet to help. What do we see in the FV blogs today? Now the line is that, while it was too hard to defeat the politics of the General Assembly, in the judicial cases the Federal Vision will triumph. For in a judicial case it is possible to go mano a mano with an accuser and the giant intellects of the FV man will invariably carry the day.
The FV men imagine that with their sophistry and twisting and turning, redefining terms, and constantly recrafting their positions to evade the latest refutation they are going to impress the church courts. What they are going to do is exasperate and alienate the church courts.
Chris Coldwell said,
June 14, 2007 at 7:47 am
RE #8 Interesting. This may explain some of the bitterness. Was this personal correspondence Tim (i.e. you were on the receiving “to line”; or did you obtain copies somehow?
jared said,
June 14, 2007 at 7:48 am
G.L.W. Johnson,
The difference being, of course, that FV advocates aren’t Arminian.
Tim Wilder,
Novenson isn’t FV, as far as I know; so it wasn’t exactly FV people wanting exegesis. Since the WS are propounded as the PCA’s theology handbook, it seems entirely reasonable to request that clarification of such issues involved with the NPP and FV should include, you know, Scripture. Two more committee members and another year would’ve made this report all the more potent as an official position on something supposedly so important and vital to the integrity of the WS.
Tim Wilder said,
June 14, 2007 at 8:03 am
Re: 9
There was a time when Wrightsaid archives were public (inadvertently, the member said later) and I read the old stuff at that time, but I was never a member of these lists, nor did I take the Masonic secrecy oath that they apply.
Chris Coldwell said,
June 14, 2007 at 8:03 am
That’s weird. When I posted, there were a number of posts not here and my number was correct. What I meant by #8 is now #13. My post was until a minute ago number 9, now it is 14.
Chris Coldwell said,
June 14, 2007 at 8:05 am
Tim, you should consider donating your email archive one day to the PCA archives then; would make interesting reading I’m sure.
BTW, you have a private message from me over on PuritanBoard.
G.L.W.Johnson said,
June 14, 2007 at 8:09 am
Jared
No, that is not the issue. The issue is that in both cases, the Arminians and the followers of the FV ,did not like the outcome and made similar complaints about disrupting the unity of the churches etc.My friend, Jim Cassidy ( who Lane has a link to in the side column) has some very very perceptive observations in the aftermath of the vote.But I personally doubt the FV are going to heed him or anyone else. They are right and everybody who thinks otherwise is considered a pawn of Satan.
David McCrory said,
June 14, 2007 at 8:13 am
Is there anything of substance, i.e. doctrinally, in the report FV’ers would be opposed to?
Tim Wilder said,
June 14, 2007 at 8:14 am
Re: 18
Gary North’s slogan used to be: “Open agendas, openly arrived at.” The Federal Vision neither believes nor practices this.
greenbaggins said,
June 14, 2007 at 8:15 am
Jared, it seems to me that whether or not the report was a resounding failure to preserve the peace and purity of the church is almost entirely dependent on whether you agree with the results of the report. It was at least 95% of the assembly which voted to approve the report. Is it a perfect report? What report exists that is perfect? I (as a self-professed TR) would have preferred a report with more bite. But such a report would have had a hard time on the floor. This report does what I wanted it to do: declare these views out of accord with the Standards. And good-faith folk and TR’s united around the Gospel yesterday. You can see that from the humble answers, which included Bill Lyle and Fred Greco on the same side, as well as the report, which had Lig Duncan and Paul Fowler on the same side. This is simply not an issue of good faith subscription, as has been amply demonstrated by the vote. My trust in the PCA received a much-needed boost yesterday.
Contrary to Jon Barlow’s claims, there is no way that 80 churches are FV in the PCA, since only about 40-50 votes were against the report. I fully expect the FV to minimize the importance of this report. Practically the only thing one will hear from the internet is how unbinding this is on anyone, and how they can ignore it. However, as Paul Fowler said, serious and due consideration must be given to this report. We are committed to that in approving this report. I do think that the FV ought to find a more congenial home for themselves. Why not join the CREC? What is so incredibly difficult about doing something like that? There are Anglicans out there, Lutherans, Baptists, Methodists, etc. We worship apart from them *for the sake of* unity. We showed our unity yesterday. The FV is not a part of it. Therefore, they should worship apart from us *for the sake of* unity. There are many folk in this world (in fact, most!) who do not hold to the WS. They worship apart from us. I think the PCA has shouted at the top of their lungs what the WS teach.
David McCrory said,
June 14, 2007 at 8:21 am
It is interesting to note the degree to which the issue of Sola Fide played in many’s concerns. It seemed a particular concern for Sproul. I’ve been saying FVT revolves around the doctrine of Sola Fide for some time now. I’m glad to see Sproul come around to my way of thinking.
Sean Gerety said,
June 14, 2007 at 8:41 am
while it was too hard to defeat the politics of the General Assembly, in the judicial cases the Federal Vision will triumph. For in a judicial case it is possible to go mano a mano with an accuser and the giant intellects of the FV man will invariably carry the day . . . The FV men imagine that with their sophistry and twisting and turning, redefining terms, and constantly recrafting their positions to evade the latest refutation they are going to impress the church courts. What they are going to do is exasperate and alienate the church courts.
While a great victory for the gospel, it is only a small first and symbolic step.
While the Wilkins case is already under review, members of the various Presbyteries ought to immediately begin to expose the rest of these false teachers to process — starting with those specifically mentioned in the Report. That said, it would be a grave mistake to underestimate these expert spinners of paradoxes who can speak “yes” and “no” with ease to every biblical truth.
Unfortunately, many who might be charged with adjudicating these cases, should they arise, have been formally trained in this epistemic double-speak and view the idea of biblical paradox as the height of Christian piety and a sign of creature to Creator submission.
That is certainly the case in the OPC and explains why NOT ONE defender of FV/NPP have been brought under process (so far as I know) since their much heralded report passed. Besides, what would be the sense, the OPC courts have already spoken on this issue per the case of John Kinnaird.
Also, don’t forget personalities and pedigrees go a long way too especially in, as you say, mano a mano confrontations. Let’s face it, the pastorate ain’t called an old boy network for nothin’.
Long and short, passage of the report was a good first step, but the PCA courts at every level need to be resolute, dispassionate, and, most importantly, able to keep their eyes on the issues and not get sucked into personalities and twisted around paradoxes.
Tim Wilder said,
June 14, 2007 at 8:47 am
Re: 22
“Contrary to Jon Barlow’s claims, there is no way that 80 churches are FV in the PCA, since only about 40-50 votes were against the report.”
The story of the 80 churches is roughly this: Somebody reported on an FV blog that some PCA insider had given a talk to some missionaries in Africa saying that there were 80 FV churches that they planed to put out of the PCA. So on the basis of this story the FV guys started talking about their 80 churches. If the incident happened at all, it might have been an offhand remark. There never was a count that I know of.
jared said,
June 14, 2007 at 8:48 am
G.L.W. Johnson,
See, but it is the issue because many FV advocates uphold the WS without any substantial exceptions (e.g. Wilson and those of his ilk) whereas the Arminians were outright opposed to the Calvinists of Dordt. I’ll have to check out Cassidy’s blog when I get off work later today since my company filter doesn’t let Xanga through, thanks for pointing me in his direction though.
Greenbaggins,
Thanks for the thoughtful response and I don’t entirely disagree with you. I think the problem is that FV isn’t a system of theology like the Standards are and that there are those who would consider themselves FV advocates who are also aligned with the WS; that is, they don’t disagree with the report’s interpretation of the Standards but they do disagree with the reports representation of FV view(s). Novenson’s motion would’ve given more substance (and maybe even more of the bite that you were seeking) to the report as an aid and a teaching reference for those presbyteries which aren’t familiar with FV/NPP. As it stands now, the PCA’s official position is that FV advocates are brothers in Christ but that FV has nothing helpful to contribute to theology, which is simply untrue. To tout the adoption of the report as “the triumph of the gospel” seems to imply that FV actually teaches a different gospel, which is also untrue (and not in accordance with the spirit of the report either). You would know better than I since you were there and I haven’t had a chance to watch/listen to the proceedings, but it seems as though the PCA is merely paying lip service to FV advocates by considering them brothers in Christ while many (apparently 95% or more) believe they are in need of repentence from grievous error; at least if comments in this thread (and others) are a good microcosm of opinion.
Sean Gerety said,
June 14, 2007 at 8:52 am
It is interesting to note the degree to which the issue of Sola Fide played in many’s concerns. It seemed a particular concern for Sproul.
What was sad was the TE who spoke immediately before Sproul and in favor of the motion to shelve the report for another year and bring in known FV ideologues to help craft a statement they can more easily work around, was my former pastor. Ironically, while attending that church the name of R.C. Sproul was ubiquitous. Half the Sunday school classes at any one time were going through some Sproul video, tape series or book. Sproul’s remarks were quite a slap in the face — frankly to all FV men and their supporters (which includes all those foolish enough not to see through that particular motion).
Tim Wilder said,
June 14, 2007 at 8:58 am
Re: 18 (new numbering)
Don’t see anything on PB newer than last October. You can reach me at tewilder at comcast dot net
Sean Gerety said,
June 14, 2007 at 9:05 am
I do think that the FV ought to find a more congenial home for themselves. Why not join the CREC?
Because that would be admission that their views were heterodox all along.
Sean Gerety said,
June 14, 2007 at 9:10 am
To tout the adoption of the report as “the triumph of the gospel” seems to imply that FV actually teaches a different gospel . . . .
That’s where you’re wrong and the Report - as is - makes clear. I would say a different scheme of salvation constituents a different gospel (and the FV has no gospel at all).
jared said,
June 14, 2007 at 9:30 am
Sean Gerety,
You must have missed the part of the Study Report which says, “The committe also affirms that we view the NPP and FV proponents in the PCA as brothers in Christ.”
anneivy said,
June 14, 2007 at 9:43 am
Y’know, Jared’s correct about that, and this seems to be a definite division of opinion in the PCA….do the doctrines rejected in the nine declarations indicate NO gospel or an inaccurate gospel? Out of line with Christianity itself or out of line with PCA doctrine?
Maybe they should put put together a committee….
>;^>
pduggan said,
June 14, 2007 at 10:38 am
“Gary North’s slogan used to be: “Open agendas, openly arrived at.” The Federal Vision neither believes nor practices this.”
When there is no agenda, you don’t need to be open.
The only open agenda is acceptance of paedocommunion
Vern Crisler said,
June 14, 2007 at 11:56 am
Jim Jordan said: “And it does not help, of course, when unstable young men, tossed about by every wind of doctrine, drift through the Federal Vision Conversation and then move on to Eastern Orthodoxy or Rome or Anglo-Catholicism. But that cannot be helped. It is the risk we take for being Biblical and open to the future.”
Jordan assumes that the movement of FVists into these sects is merely an accidental part of the Federal Vision. He doffs his cap to this problem but quickly moves on, missing the true danger. He does not understand that those who swim the Tiber (to borrow a phrase from James White) do so because they think they are being consistent with the sacramentalism, liturgicalism, and “objectivity” taught by Jordan and other FVists.
I suppose this is one of the worst parts of the Federal Vision response; an unwillingness to understand the fears of Reformed people that FV leads “essentially” to the Tiber and beyond.
Doug Wilson has tried to understand more than others, but still doesn’t seem to get it. I’ve always thought that Warfield’s book “Perfectionism” addressed proto-FV long ago, with his attack on conditionalists.
The behavior of the PCA in this matter seems exemplary in my opinion. I hope they publish more on the subject.
Cordially,
Vern
Jim Cassidy said,
June 14, 2007 at 12:08 pm
Does anyone know if anyone had their negative vote recorded for either of the two votes taken during the report? Was there a protest filed?
Stewart said,
June 14, 2007 at 12:30 pm
Vern,
I’d have to disagree with you and Jordan. Conversion to RC is not just an FV problem. Moreover, it’s a completely unsupported assertion. Have you done a survey or something? where are the nu numbers? I’ve personally known several non-FV people who have converted to RC, and the one thing that drove them to it was the perceived need for doctrinal authority. If anyone is in danger of converting to RC, it would be the strict subscriptionists in the PCA.
William Hill said,
June 14, 2007 at 12:58 pm
Absolutely Stewart. This is a point of concern I have held for quite a long time. But the TR’s are not interested in “doctrinal purity”. They are interested in that precious confession that has, based on yesterday’s vote, become the rule of the day in the PCA. The Bible? BAH! Who needs that!!? We have the Confession! [tongue planted firmly in cheek]
So, I propose send an overture to the 36th PCA GA and move to have WCF 1.10 stricken from the Confession. It has no meaning yesterday and it has had close to none in the last 5 years.
A denomination was weakened yesterday because we cannot even delibarate the matter from the Bible. Oh sure…I know, the report used Scripture references. Ya? How many of them did you look up actually?
Even Luther, at the Diet of Worms, was allowed to speak for himself before the council even though he had written a tome of stuff prior. Shame on the PCA for not listening to the wise counsel of Joe Novenson (by the way…he stated right on the floor that he is NOT an FV advocate and could vote easily for the report as it was BUT he was concerned that there were factors missing and that they could be dealt with if a more balanced committee was formed).
Sean Gerety said,
June 14, 2007 at 1:13 pm
“You must have missed the part of the Study Report which says, “The committe also affirms that we view the NPP and FV proponents in the PCA as brothers in Christ.”
No, I didn’t miss it. I think some might be deluded into following the errant teachings of the so-called “Federal Vision” who are brothers. Paul called such misguided people in Galatians “bewitched” as I recall. Others are just present day Judiazers and are not brothers in the least. Both, particularly if they’re TE’s or RE’s, should be brought under process.
Consequently, the report was, in my view, overly presumptuous at that point. I would have left that statement out. But as has been said, the report isn’t perfect. It got so much else right and clearly so, it is hard to quibble about that small point (even if FVer’s and their few defenders have really latched on to that statement).
On a different note, I never thought I’d find myself agreeing with Vern Crisler about anything. I guess that is one of the unintended side blessings of this controversy and this report.
Sean Gerety said,
June 14, 2007 at 1:15 pm
It got - should have been It’s got . . . DOH!
Xon said,
June 14, 2007 at 1:22 pm
I’m having trouble figuring out what exactly the “TRs” think that FVers are supposed to do now. Patrick Poole seems to think that going to another denomination would be dishonorable. Others (I’m thinking, I think, of Jeff Hutchinson?) seem to say that we should do this and they wish us well. “You will be happier if you just go to a denom that shares your views.” etc. But then others (like Patrick in #6) insinuate that you are not properly honoring the authority of “the church” if you leave. So, what exactly are FV sympathetic ministers supposed to do? Stay in the PCA, but step down from ministry and hand their congregations over to a more “orthodox” successor? (This would seem, but I’m not sure, to be Patrick’s view)? Or are they supposed to go to the CREC or somewhere else and take up a status in the TR mind similar to Lutherans or Episcopalians (fit to minister, just not here)?
Sean Gerety said,
June 14, 2007 at 1:28 pm
There is no question that Novenson’s motion was what we call in politics a “poisoned pill.” It was designed to kill the Committee report as written so that, at the very least, known FV men could be added in order to rewrite the report to make it more conducive and inclusive of their heresies.
The motion had one purpose, not three and I’m glad to see the VAST majority of men at the GA weren’t fooled. Sproul really did give the speech of the day and brought things into focus (even if some of the men here can’t see it).
There was the notable exception which was a speech by a mustached man (don’t recall his name) who said of the call for exegesis that he was “satiated” with exegesis on the subject. His whole speech was really well done and first class all the way.
I’ll have to watch the feed again to see if I can catch his name.
Jeff Waddington said,
June 14, 2007 at 1:41 pm
Sean:
That mustached man was TE David Coffin.
Tim Wilder said,
June 14, 2007 at 1:43 pm
Re: 39
“I’m having trouble figuring out what exactly the “TRs” think that FVers are supposed to do now.”
Repent, resign your church offices, and humbly learn.
Stewart said,
June 14, 2007 at 1:49 pm
All Sproul did was engage in flamboyant show boating. It was just like watching British Parliament on TV.
jared said,
June 14, 2007 at 1:56 pm
Sean Gerety,
So what, exactly, are these “errant teachings of the so-called ‘Federal Vision’”? Is it the teaching that justification is by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alon? Is it the teaching that there are those in the visible church now who are not members of the invisible church? Is it the teaching that God’s covenant with Adam was a gracious covenant as was His covenant with Noah, Abram, Jacob, Moses, and Jesus? Is it the teaching that baptism covenantally obligates faithfulness on the part of the baptized regardless of whether the individual is an infant or an adult? Is it the teaching that salvation comes solely by the atoning work of Jesus Christ in his life, death, resurrection and ascension? Or maybe it’s the teaching that Jesus’ righteousness is imputed (accounted, credited, considered as merit) to us such that God sees us (and our sin) through Jesus’ cleansing blood? For which of these teachings is the Federal Vision advocate “bewitched”?
barlow said,
June 14, 2007 at 2:11 pm
Just for the record, I never claimed there were 80 “FV churches” in the PCA - I’m not even sure what it would mean for a church to be an “FV church”.
I do know that Tim Bayly reported hearing from someone (Richard Phillips maybe?) that the anti-FV was targeting 85 FV churches. So you can search Tim Bayly’s archives to find that claim.
Anyway, just wanted to disclaim taking part in the statistics game; I’m not good at remembering numbers anyway.
Stewart said,
June 14, 2007 at 2:14 pm
One thing came through loud and clear from the GA. Everything that can and should be said about the bible has already been said. All the exegesis has been done, and there is really no need for further scholarship. We’ve got the bible pretty much figured out. The WCF with its proof texts is really all we need. Man, that’s good to know.
gospelordeath said,
June 14, 2007 at 2:14 pm
The FV/NPP strategy seems quite clearly to be to “agree” with everything the orthodox say about their own theology, and then when the orthodox accuse the FV/NPP guys of teaching stuff that’s out of accord with the Scriptures, they merely respond that they don’t understand what they’re saying. So the orthodox, trying to be charitable, say, ok, well then what are you saying? And everything comes out all double talk. It is no wonder that formal charges aren’t being brought.
barlow said,
June 14, 2007 at 2:17 pm
Just to suggest a better analogy since Dort seems to be a favorite well of imagery here.
Imagine if the Synod of Dort had not allowed the British delegation to participate. That’s what this is more like. It isn’t like the FV guys are Arminians trying to get on the committees at Dort. They are more like the British delegation - Calvinists all, but not willing to give in at all points to certain other Calvinists. Dort is the result of a long consultation between a lot of different kinds of Reformed thinkers. One could imagine a Turtledove novel where Dort kicks out the British delegates and the Church… Bottom line is that it is very possible that the Canons of Dort would have looked different without British participation. Just like the FV report would have looked different if even one FV member was on the committee.
As for the constant refrain for the FV guys to join the CREC church - can I get a show of hands from all of you on here that you believe the CREC is a true church? That its baptisms are licit and valid. That its members can commune in PCA churches and transfer to PCA churches? That its ministers are ministers of the Gospel with a licit and valid ordination?
As for me, I’m in the PCA because I’m a Reformed Presbyterian; it’s really not any more complicated than that.
theologian said,
June 14, 2007 at 2:18 pm
Stewart,
I think it’s a bit unfair to say, “Everything that can and should be said about the bible has already been said. All the exegesis has been done, and there is really no need for further scholarship. We’ve got the bible pretty much figured out. The WCF with its proof texts is really all we need.”
I thought that it was clear that scholarship could be expanded or clarified. The only thing that scholarship within churches that adhere to the Standards should not do is contradict the Standards.
PCA GA Report of ad interim on Federal Vision, New Perspective on Paul, etc. « Theologian said,
June 14, 2007 at 2:24 pm
[...] Green Baggins and Gomarus blog about the PCA rejecting FV, etc. Posted by theologian Filed in [...]
Sean Gerety said,
June 14, 2007 at 2:34 pm
So what, exactly, are these “errant teachings of the so-called ‘Federal Vision’”?
Read the report. If that’s not enough, TE David Coffin said he has a stack of books on the subject. (Thanks Jeff Waddington for telling me the name and saving me the trouble of going through the debate again). I have my own stack of books if you’d like to borrow them. If not, Trinity Foundation has been publishing articles and books on Neo-Liberalism or the so-called “FV” for over a decade.
From your remarks I’d say you’re well behind the curve and need to catch up.
Xon said,
June 14, 2007 at 2:42 pm
GospelorDeath: such a serious name, such a sense of humor!
Xon said,
June 14, 2007 at 2:48 pm
Soft moderate Tim Wilder answers my “what are FVers supposed to do now?’ question directly, which I appreciate:
But what is Wilkins, say, supposed to repent of? Teaching that justification is not by faith alone (which, acc. to Sproul, is what yesterday’s vote was really all about)? But he doesn’t teach that. And you believe that everyone who currently goes to Aub Ave Pres Church by their own free choice and who apparently resonates with the teaching there should bring in a pastor who teaches different stuff? And everyone, should simply stay “humble” and remain in the PCA while all this deprogramming takes place?
Chris Hutchinson said,
June 14, 2007 at 3:03 pm
Jon & Xon,
First, Jon, you asked for a show of hands. I, for one, believe that CREC churches are true churches. I don’t agree with all their emphases, but so what? (As it is a confederacy with different confessions, I am not sure that I would call the CREC itself a “Church” per se, as opposed to a confederation of churches, but that is a quibble, and I haven’t really thought that through.)
Xon, a good first step might be what Peter Leithart did, voluntarily. One might send up where one stands on the nine declarations to one’s own court and see what they say. Of course, I don’t know *who* should do that, but if an officer reads those declarations and has doubts about them, I would think he should let his own court know that.
And as you are a candidate, even though you have not had need of a theological exam yet, it might be considered part of your preparation for the ministry to get their advice in this matter, since you seem to have strong opinions in these matters. And you did take vows to submit to your presbytery in that regard (BCO 18-3.2), so it might not hurt to let them know where you stand and see what they say.
For that matter, Doug lists Peter as a CREC minister on his blog, and Peter planted a church for the CREC, and still pastors it, so I don’t understand the hesitancy to switch, given that he is giving his energies for the furtherance of that confederation. But that is between him and his presbytery.
I’m going to be away from the computer helping my associate pastor move, so please don’t take my further silence as rudeness.
Blessings, Chris H.
anneivy said,
June 14, 2007 at 3:08 pm
How about #7?
“The view that one can be ‘united to Christ’ and not receive all the benefits of Christ’s mediation, including perseverance, in that effectual union is contrary to the Westminster Standards.”
This was one of the declarations that was dead on target, ISTM.
anneivy said,
June 14, 2007 at 3:14 pm
Darn it, Chris, you snuck in between my post and Xon’s, which is the one I was responding to. ;^)
You bring up a good point, considering how the question has been swirling around the netsphere: “What’s a/the practical application for the declarations?”
Since elders are supposed to alert their presbytery if they are out of step with the PCA system of theology (is that the term? It’s “system of something”, I’m fairly confidant); this is a handy checklist of possible areas in which someone these days might be out of step. IOW, if an elder believes one CAN be united to Christ yet not receive every single one of the benefits of Christ’s mediation, he needs to tell his presbytery that.
barlow said,
June 14, 2007 at 3:14 pm
Wow, I was about to type something and then Lane Keister just appeared on the GA broadcast. Surreal, yo.
anneivy said,
June 14, 2007 at 3:15 pm
Dang! I missed it! =8^o
barlow said,
June 14, 2007 at 3:17 pm
Anne - are you willing to allow someone to distinguish between various ways of being in union with Christ? For instance limiting the full sense of union with Christ to the elect only yet allowing that union with the visible church is still, in some sense, union with Christ’s body?
jared said,
June 14, 2007 at 3:26 pm
Sean Gerety,
I have read the report. The recommendations of the report don’t detail any specific errors and the declarations detail what is contrary to the teaching of the Westminster Standards, not necessarily contrary to Scripture. Only two of the declarations are problematic for Federal Vision advocates and those two would not be difficult to resolve via taking exception or some other official roundabout; in other words, they are practically non-essential. On top of all of this, nowhere does the report call FV/NPP advocates to repentence because of unfaithfulness to the gospel or to the Scriptures. So, I ask again, what, according to you are these “errant teachings” of Federal Vision such that they are in need of repentence? Because the PCA, now officially, only sees them as outside of the Standards, not outside of the Faith, as you seem to believe.
Xon said,
June 14, 2007 at 3:29 pm
Pastor Hutchinson, I appreciate your suggestion about doing what Leithart did, and I agree. But thar really is, as you say, a “first step.” I’m thinking a bit further down the road here, assuming that the TRs get an unequivocal condemnation of an individual FV sympathizing minister. Suddenly there is a lot of talk of the “authority of the Church” in this, as FV men are being told to “submit” to that aurhority. But it isn’t clear what the TRs who say this mean, exactly. Or, more accurately, it looks like there is a difference of opinion among the TRs on this very point.
So, my question can be put this way: Leithart has put his response to the nine declarations out there. Suppose his presbytery is full of Christ Hutchinsons who all vote to find him out of accord. So, Leithart is now an ordained PCA minister whose views have just been officially found problematic by his presbytery. What is the honorable thing to do at that point, in your estimation? Tim seems to think that it would be to stay in the PCA but give up all ministerial authority. You (Pr Huthinson) seem to think that it would be to just go ahead and join the CREC, and godspeed.
Am I following the two opinions, or are there more?
anneivy said,
June 14, 2007 at 3:36 pm
So long as it’s clearly understood that the non-elects’ ‘union with Christ’ is a purely TEMPORAL union with no special grace conferred (i.e. the non-elect receive no special, particular grace that’s provided through Christ’s mediation), sure.
But there’s nothing new or different about that, is there? Isn’t that fairly standard issue Presbyterian doctrine? To put it crassly, Christ’s elect get the spiritual good stuff but the non-elect don’t?
So far’s I’ve been able to tell, one of the foundational doctrinal distinctives of the FV is that the non-elect in the Church get spiritual good stuff, too. Maybe not the same as the elect, either in quality or quantity, but some.
Isn’t that the point of contention?
barlow said,
June 14, 2007 at 3:41 pm
Anne - when you say “special” grace, I’m not sure exactly what you mean. Grace is God’s favor shown to human beings. Don’t the non-elect receive grace from God in the church that the non-elect outside of the church do not receive? Isn’t being a member of the visible church a “grace”?
barlow said,
June 14, 2007 at 3:43 pm
And I’m not sure what you mean by “stuff” - we Protestants don’t have a substantive approach to grace, do we?
anneivy said,
June 14, 2007 at 4:30 pm
Well, they’re not supposed to, anyway.
Look, put it this way; I’d have preferred to see positive statements made as those declarations in lieu of negative statements. Had I been writing ‘em, #7 would have been phrased thusly:
“One who is united to Christ receives all the benefits of Christ’s mediation, including perseverance.”
There. One either agrees or one does not.
When someone is regenerated by the Holy Spirit, he receives a new nature…becomes a new person in Christ. The grace conferred on him is unique to the elect. No similar grace is conferred on someone who is not of the elect.
I’m no theologian, ye ken. Doubtless my explanation is lacking, but it’s the best I can do. Perhaps someone else can punch it up a trifle and say it better than have I.
Wouldn’t be difficult. ;^)
Sean Gerety said,
June 14, 2007 at 4:38 pm
The recommendations of the report don’t detail any specific errors and the declarations detail what is contrary to the teaching of the Westminster Standards, not necessarily contrary to Scripture.
Not necessarily contrary to Scripture according to whom? You? Mark Horne? Peter Leithart? Doug Wilson? Steve Wilkins? Rome?
Keep sticking to that Jared. I’m reminded of the old saying, every heretic has his Scriptures. Regardless, to the extent the Confession accurately expresses the biblical truth concerning imputation which is by faith alone and union with Christ, not to mention perseverance, election, baptism, regeneration, the church and on and on, the so-called FV stands in stark contrast to this confession. It is a different religion. It is not the religion of the WCF and it appears that the vast majority of the PCA RE’s and TE’s represented at the GA agree.
Next are you going to tell me all the FV men stayed home and that accounts for their poor showing (despite the crowing of FV defenders here prior to the GA)?
barlow said,
June 14, 2007 at 4:52 pm
If by regeneration, you mean “effectual calling” then I can assure you that all FV people believe only the elect receive this.
But back to union - restating the point positively while still leaving “union” undefined doesn’t really get us to the issue here which is whether there is any sense in which we’d like to say that the non-elect experience union with Christ for a time.
jared said,
June 14, 2007 at 5:00 pm
Sean Gerety,
Not necessarily contrary to Scripture according to the Scriptures themselves. I’m sorry to be the one to inform you but the PCA does not possess a quorum on Truth. Every heretic does have his Scriptures taken in isolation from Scripture as a whole, I will happily agree with you on this account. However (for the third time now?), the study report is not accusing FV/NPP of heresy in the sense that you seem to be understanding.
In truth, Federal Vision does not stand in stark contrast with the Confession in as much as the Confession is a sound exposition of Scripture. While one of the questions that the FV raises has been “to what extent is the Confession an accurate expression of biblical truth?”, there are those FV advocates who do not believe it is inaccurate as much as it is incomplete (e.g. Wilson and, within the PCA, Leithart); this is an important distinction. At any rate, since you seem incapable (or unwilling) to engage in sincere and charitable discussion of these matters, I am going to cease dialgue with you before I become inhospitable towards you myself.
anneivy said,
June 14, 2007 at 5:22 pm
Jon, I just don’t think we’re going to HAVE a meeting of the minds on this, I fear.
There’s the elect and there’s everyone else. Some of those “everyone elses” are sovereignly placed by the LORD in His Church, and what’s more, some of those “everyone elses” are sovereignly given more desire to worship a deity than others. Just as there are very devout Muslims, while some who are born and raised in faithful Muslim homes couldn’t care less, and ditto for Mormons, Jews, and every other religion on the planet, the non-elect worshipers who are placed by God in His Church will show great enthusiasm while never actually coming to faith in the Christ who is.
An outwardly devout non-elect church member isn’t receiving any interior grace different than a devout Buddhist.
There’s nothing worse than being a non-elect church member, as they sit in the assembly of the saints (i.e. “in Christ”), they hear God’s Word preached, they hear the gospel offered, they take communion, etc. They are utterly, totally, completely without excuse. When they do not come to faith in Christ it’s an absolute rejection of Him, and all these temporal blessings will garner covenant curses at judgment.
Sean Gerety said,
June 14, 2007 at 5:53 pm
there are those FV advocates who do not believe it is inaccurate as much as it is incomplete (e.g. Wilson and, within the PCA, Leithart);
I’m well aware of Wilson’s attempt to dress his false gospel in Confessional language and have interacted with him at length here: http://www.trinitylectures.org/product_info.php?cPath=21&products_id=136
William Hill said,
June 14, 2007 at 5:55 pm
Jared — contact me at hillwf@gmail.com at your leisure please…
William Hill said,
June 14, 2007 at 5:57 pm
LOL! You interacted with him? C;mon Gerety, of all the books out there that stands in opposition to the FV that one is hardly given the time of day in most lists I have read. However, I would hardly call it interaction. I have an idea. Why not come on Covenant Radio and debate him on the issue. Now that I would love to hear and since I simply moderate the debate and say “time” every so often I won’t have to do any work.
William Hill said,
June 14, 2007 at 5:58 pm
Hey Anne, do you know who the elect are actually? Do your elders?
William Hill said,
June 14, 2007 at 6:07 pm
According to the Confession and the WSC and WLC there is a union of sorts with Christ based on the covenant. I simply don’t understand the hub-bub. Bottom line: It is a confessional position. Now you may not like the idea that the baptized child is “joined” to Christ in some sense but that is simply confessional language and it squares with the Bible. Does that mean the wet baby is now “Ex opere operato” regenerated? No. However, is it possible the baby was already regenerated in the womb or later? Yes, it is possible. If this were a courtroom and you were asked, as a witness, “is it possible the baby was regenerated in the womb” you would have to say — “yes, it is possible”.
Gee, are you regenerated? How can I possibly know this? I can see evidence. I can ascertain certain things but at the end of the day all I have is what you tell me and if your life reasonably agrees with your words I give you the benefit of the doubt. On the otherhand I know of some people that behave more godly (that is, they are morally decent people even by the Bible’s standards) than many professing Christians and they could care less about Church, God, the Bible and other matters. Common grace at work? Sure. Did God give it to them. You bet.
barlow said,
June 14, 2007 at 6:28 pm
Anne - I think what you’ve said is completely true, and I promise I’m not trying to be obtuse, but I don’t know what “interior grace” is. Grace is God’s favor. He shows it to “the world” by not destroying it, on account of Christ, and he shows it to the elect by uniting them to Christ and saving them. He also shows grace to some of the non-elect - he not only doesn’t destroy them immediately, along with the world, but he also brings them into the church for a time. In the church, they have new relationships, sit under the preaching of the word, have a temporary faith, etc. The Reformed tradition calls these people “temporizers” and there is a whole right side to Perkins’s “Golden Chaine” that begins with some of the non-elect receiving an “ineffectual call” and receiving the word with joy.
Anyway, this would be a rather picky theological point if it didn’t have pastoral implications. The FV seems to just be owning up to the fact that Reformed Tradition fares no better in giving its people assurance than the Arminian tradition does. We simply push the question “am I saved” back to the prior question “am I elect” but we still must develop and promulgate assurance-granting forms of piety.
There is also something aesthetically unpleasant about saying, of every previously faithful church member who apostasizes “he never really was saved” when we’d each be hard pressed to express the difference between his and our experience of God’s work. We can express it theologically, of course, but experientially probably not.
I also think that the FV is right in arguing that I John 2:19 has zip to do with the apostasy question - it is about false teachers - and yet the imagery of this passage haunts our systematic theologizing about the apostate.
Ok, gotta go finish mowing the yard.
Chris Hutchinson said,
June 14, 2007 at 7:01 pm
Xon,
I’m back. First of all, I am sure there are more than two opinions about what should be done. I can only give my own, and even then, I am just spitballing.
If I was in Presbytery X, I would refer a letter such as Peter’s to the Credentials committee and let them meet with him and explain his answers, and then let them make a recommendation to the presbytery. If I were on that committee, I would want to hear the TE out, and I would come in, Lord willing, with both hard questions and an open mind/heart to have my questions answered satisfactorily.
I think then that there are three or four possibilities:
1) The TE’s views would be found to be in accord with the WCF straight up;
2) The TE and the Presbytery would agree that he had heretofore unseen exceptions to the WCF that were nonetheless acceptable exceptions, and these would be recorded (per the RAO on Presbytery records).
3) The TE and the local church and the Presbytery decide that the KOG would be best furthered if they simply put an end to the questioning by parting ways peacefully without further investigations, etc. This is how Ceder Springs left for the EPC, and how City Church left for the RCA.
4) The TE and the Presbytery would agree that the TE had heretofore unseen exceptions to the WCF, which do in fact strike at the fundamentals, so that something must be done. These could be:
a) Errors which would make him unfit to be an Elder in the PCA, so that it was agreed that he and his church, if willing, simply leave the PCA peacefully by majority vote (as the BCO allows). His credentials would either be transferred, or he would simply demit his PCA credentials, and the new body would handle it as they wished.
b) Errors which were serious enough to cause him to demit, and to cause his presbytery and him to reconsider whether he ought to be a minister in any denomination. So he would simply become a member of a local PCA church. I have never heard of anyone doing this in the 35 year history of the PCA. Most who demit do so out of a lack of a sense of calling, not over doctrine.
c) Errors which were so serious that actual charges must ensue, and even though he could obviously still leave, he would leave under discipline, which again, could or could not be honored by other denominations. (I note here that Steve Schlissel was deposed by the CRC in the early ’90s, but many conservative reformed churches ignored their ruling because they believe he was treated unjustly by an increasing liberal denomination. In fact, in his book on Evangelical Reunion, Frame calls denominationalism the ultimate appeal court. And I note that at least one PCA TE under discipline found a haven in the CREC, which looked at the trial papers and determined that he was unjustly treated.)
So, obviously, some are worried about #4c happening all over the place. I don’t see it happening. More likely, in my not so well informed opinion, depending on the person, are options 1, 2 or 3 or 4a. It is possible that one or two cases go as far as 4c.
But PLEASE keep in mind I am hardly an insider. This is not based on anything but pure speculation.
So again, I am just spitballing, but if there is anything useful here, it is that each case must be considered individually and each presbyter given a full and fair hearing if his own views come into question at the local level.
FWIW,
Chris H.
Top Posts « WordPress.com said,
June 14, 2007 at 7:02 pm
[...] The Triumph of the Gospel The report passed today by an overwhelming majority. Someone made a motion to postpone, so as to include exegetical […] [...]
David Gadbois said,
June 14, 2007 at 7:27 pm
Xon, I think there are levels of “honorability” at work here.
1. The most honorable thing for FV advocates to do would be to repent of their errors and teach orthodox doctrine. If there is an inability or unwillingness to do this, proceed to step two.
2. The next most honorable thing to do would be to take Tim Wilder’s advice and find a new day job. Commend your congregation to a replacement pastor and avoid divisiveness.
3. Failing that, the next most honorable thing would be to switch denominations to one that does not subscribe to the Westminster Standards or 3 Forms of Unity. Whether that would put someone in a similar category to Lutherans and Anglicans, or whether it would put someone more in the side of Rome (a false church) would depend on the severity of doctrinal error. If I had to guess, my guess would be that most URCs would not commune FV proponents.
David Gadbois said,
June 14, 2007 at 7:41 pm
Jared said “Only two of the declarations are problematic for Federal Vision advocates and those two would not be difficult to resolve via taking exception or some other official roundabout; in other words, they are practically non-essential”
Jared, I don’t think you understand the whole point of the declarations - they are trying to tell us that those AREN’T points one can take exception on. Remember that the committee was tasked to find if certain views “strike at the vitals of religion” and make declarations accordingly.
I also have the feeling that (especially after reading post #45) that you don’t see what the problem is here because you have been mostly reading Wilson’s kinder, gentler FV writings, and haven’t been exposed to some of the nuttier things his more heterodox friends have said. It is hard for me to come away with such a rosy view of what FV theology entails after acquainting myself with the other proponents who aren’t quite as concerned with appearing orthodox as Wilson is.
I also have a distinct feeling, and perhaps I am wrong, that many of the FV laymen have not actually read the Report.
Patrick Poole said,
June 14, 2007 at 8:18 pm
Re: #40
So glad Xon was able to step in and speak for me while I was away today. Admittedly, it is a chore divining my innermost thoughts, especially for someone who has never once spoken to me.
If there is anything dishonorable about the FV crowd leaving for the CREC, it was only that they refused to take their PCA ordination vows seriously and admit that they were out of accord with the WS. Lusk’s case is a perfect example. When he was voted down by Evangel Presbytery, he didn’t submit to the wisdom of the elders, but instead, assumed the job in Bham anyways and lead the church out of the PCA for the non-Presbyterian fields of the CREC. For all they talk about church authority, the FVers rarely practice what they preach.
If Xon wants to complain about a prisonhouse, damned if they do leave the PCA and damned if they don’t, it is one of their own making. That’s what you get for pretending to be confessional when you’re making it up as you go along. The CREC will be a perfect final resting place for the FV. Requiescat in pace.
Andrew McCallum said,
June 14, 2007 at 8:21 pm
Jon,
You bring up some very interesting points in #76 and previously. If all the FV means by being joined with Christ is that they sit under the preaching of the Word and have experienced the fellowship of God’s people and so on, then sure, no problem with that. Yes, the non-decretally elect person who is in the church can experience all sorts of beautiful things and be blessed by those in the church. But maybe many in the FV believe more than what you express in #76? I get the feeling that there is some latitude in what the FV folks do believe is this regards. There’s a difference between saying that these non-elect taste of the good things in the church and saying that for instance, they are in some sense justified, unless something different is meant by the term justified than how is used in the confession (since those who are justified are those who will be glorified in the WCF).
In the second paragraph of #76, am I correct in understanding that you think that the issue of assurance the only reason why FV advocates want to speak of the non-elect as being bound to Christ? I thought that there would probably be more practical implications but perhaps not. On this issue of assurance I have to say that I’m not aware of assurance being a problem in non-FV churches. Is it? I’ve been in lots of non-FV Reformed churches and can’t say that I’ve heard this problem expressed but maybe I haven’t visited enough churches. I have read Puritan works (Mead’s _The Almost Christian Discovered_ comes to mind) where the authors fret over and over again as to whether they are demonstrating enough fruit to really justify their faith. But I can’t say that I’ve seen this same kind of morbid introspection in modern Reformed churches. Perhaps you have.
Thanks again for your comments. I think you generally state things very fairly and calmly. In this debate there is a definite need for those qualities!
Cheers for now,
Andrew
Andrew Malloy said,
June 14, 2007 at 8:41 pm
R. Scott Clark states that Leithart in his letter to his presbytery contradicts 1,2, 5, and 6 of the 9 declarations.
Patrick Poole said,
June 14, 2007 at 8:43 pm
Re: #77
Chris,
Just a polite correction on a point you made in 4c (though your assessment of the options for the FV is right on). The CREC exonerated Burke Shade even before they had the trial record from Illiana Presbytery. I have a copy of the CREC minutes from that Christ Church meeting when someone suggested that they wait until they had examined all the records, when Doug Wilson himself stepped in and said that a commitment had already been made to Shade to bring him into the CREC. I wrote several posts about that last year at Pooh’s Think (which I believe is down now).
Here is the relevent portion of the CREC minutes:
“Doug Wilson reminded the elders that we have already agreed this situation is not a barrier to Burke Shade and his church being accepted into the CRE, and that he has communicated this to Burke. The elders agreed that, further review of the material, the burden of proof is on the committee to overturn our previous decisions [to vindicate Burke—P], which would only happen if new, clear information against Burke appears. The elders would like a report from the committee by July 27. This recommendation considered as a motion passed.” (Christ Church Elder Meeting Minutes, July 13, 2000, emphasis added)
Yes, the FV will find a cozy home in the CREC free from the trouble of biblical discipline.
Chris Hutchinson said,
June 14, 2007 at 8:57 pm
Patrick,
Thanks for the correction. Also, I think I failed to note that in my options that of course the TE and the Presbytery could DISagree with one another about whether a belief was either 1) an exception at all; 2) an acceptable exception; or 3) struck at the vitals of religion.
In that case, both sides would have to follow their own consciences in the matter and do what they thought most served truth and charity. Which might mean a trial, I suppose. I was just trying to be as optimistic as possible about a TE and his presbytery agreeing to the best possible course for all involved. Maybe too idealistic.
Chris H.
jared said,
June 14, 2007 at 9:14 pm
David Gadbois,
It is certainly true that my main exposure to FV has been through Wilson and Leithart, though I wouldn’t say they are trying to “appear” orthodox. I have always been under the impression (falsely perhaps) that Wilson is sort of the “top dog” as far as FV is concerned. It also doesn’t help that I can’t really afford the 10 or so books (N.T. Wright, Shepherd, all the collection-of-essays books, etc.) I feel like I should read in order to be “in the know”, as it were, on all of the issues involved. Nor does the public library here in Chattanooga carry such books. I’m not trying to make excuses for myself, just trying to partially confirm your assessment of my understanding of FV.
Having said that, I do believe I understand the purpose of the study and of the declarations. I also understand that many people still recite (honestly and sincerely) the Apostle’s Creed even though they don’t really believe that Jesus literally descended into hell. Maybe that’s a poor comparison… What I’m saying is that with careful consideration one who “fully embraces” FV (like Wilson) can agree with all nine of the declarations and still consider themselves FV. As I’ve mentioned before, FV isn’t a system so the declarations aren’t going to spell expulsion for some (perhaps many) FV advocates.
For example, the two declarations I’m thinking of in particular are 7 and 8. With 7 one can “get around” by asking what does ‘union in Christ’ mean and/or imply. If we are talking about that vine/branch union then the declaration is in error according to the Scriptures because John does not speak anything about the benefits those branches are receiving, whether they are saved branches or not. In that sense of ‘union with Christ’ I think it is quite safe to say that one can be receiving benefits while connected to the vine yet not persevere in the end. Why? Because the declaration is against a view which entertains the notion of an ineffective effectual union. It would be like saying one of those fruitful branches gets cut off at the last moment, it just won’t happen; no FV advocate is going to entertain that notion (no Christian at all should entertain that notion).
The committee report really and truely would have been far more potent and effective had it been given another year and two more committee members (Wilkins and Leithart maybe?). What I’ve been saying (along with all my “sympathizer” friends) is that we shouldn’t be throwing out the baby with the bath water. That, however, seems to be the modus operandi of every report which has been published. I, for one, do not believe the general consensus should give rise such vitriolic criticism and judgment as I have seen just on this blog alone. It should give rise to sharp caution, certainly, but not to outright animosity, disdain, and prejudicial hatred of particular individuals.
As to FV laymen reading or not reading the report, well, I can only speak for myself. I read it the day I was informed of its existence (my wife gets the byfaithonline newsletter in her email and told me about it). I’ve poked around in it a bit (as you can tell on my blog) and will continue to study over it working out my own view and deciding whether or not I should remain a PCA member. As of now I feel no compulsion to go even though General Assembly has adopted the study report; I simply don’t know enough and (as you’ve noticed) haven’t read enough to say one way or the other any more strongly than I currently do. In that vein, I suppose I should spend more time in those articles on the page you linked rather than shooting off on this blog! Thanks for the interaction.
barlow said,
June 14, 2007 at 9:14 pm
Patrick - I don’t think you have accurate information about Rich Lusk.
Here is the pastoral letter Lusk wrote in 2005 where he explains the situation:
http://www.trinity-pres.net/pastoral-letters/summer2005.php
Accuse him of deception if you wish, but you were not there to hear the committee and its reasons and have not read a transcript and if you had, you’d have more information than even Lusk had about the committee’s thoughts.
Anne Ivy said,
June 14, 2007 at 9:38 pm
Jon, I’m not a theologian, so I’m not even going to pretend to be a go-to gal regarding what is the precise nature of grace, okay?
It’s not a commodity but OTOH it is SOMETHING that is given to us or bestowed upon us in some manner. Quite likely it has its roots buried in an attribute of the LORD’s we don’t come close to grasping. I say it is a “something” based upon how Paul refers to it:
“Since we have gifts that differ according to the grace given to us, each of us is to exercise them accordingly…” Romans 12:6
“But I have written very boldly to you on some points so as to remind you again, because of the grace that was given me from God.” Romans 15:15
“And God is able to make all grace abound to you, so that always having all sufficiency in everything, you may have an abundance for every good deed…” 2 Corinthians 9:10
“He predestined us to adoption as sons through Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the kind intention of His will, to the praise of the glory of His grace, which He freely bestowed on us in the Beloved.” Ephesians 1:5-6
Um, you and I are going to have to agree to disagree regarding God granting some of the non-elect a “temporary faith.” You sez He does. I sez He doesn’t. Not faith in the Christ who is, at any rate. The only people who hear His voice and follow Him are His sheep, and He doesn’t lose one of those.
If they’re lost, they weren’t His sheep, meaning they didn’t hear His voice, meaning they never knew Him.
To be honest, this is something that has flummoxed me for a while now: how can there be any assurance whatsoever if the (theoretical) faith of the non-elect is not only experientially the same as that of the elect, but is a sign of God’s grace, except the non-elect’s faith will eventually wither and die because of the grace being withdrawn?
I might occasionally fret a bit as to whether or not my faith is true, and if I am in fact hearing the Master’s voice, but I’m confidant that IF my faith IS true, and I AM hearing His voice, my faith will never, ever wither and die. IOW, if it’s a true faith it’s a gift from God by grace and one which will never fail nor will the sustaining, life-giving grace ever be withdrawn.
But if I thought that I might BE actually hearing the Master’s voice but that someday my spiritual “ears” might go deaf so I hear Him no longer….what sort of assurance is that? It’s not even a theoretical assurance.
When you’ve finished wrestling the lawn into submission and eaten dinner, I’d be obliged if you’d be kind enough to have a crack at ’splaining it to me, for I honestly don’t get it.
Patrick Poole said,
June 14, 2007 at 9:39 pm
I have no doubt that’s his story, and I’m not surprised in the slightest that you’re willing to receive it unquestioned. Again, I worked with a member of the committee in question providing them with documentation on Lusk’s written positions, and I received my information from one of the committee members immediately after the fact. Have you talked with any member of that Evangel Presbytery C&C committee?
How is my taking his witness at face value (as I mentioned above, the man was also my former pastor) any less than you taking Lusk at his word?
Chris Hutchinson said,
June 14, 2007 at 9:41 pm
What a gracious (if wordy — but that’s Rich!) letter. When I met Rich, I thought he was dead wrong on some points, even dangerously so. But he has a very gentle and humble demeanor even as he presses his point of view with vigor.
Barb said,
June 14, 2007 at 10:04 pm
TIM WILDER:
The Wrightsaid list has had closed archives FAR longer than 2005 or late 2004 from which your cited references must date due to chronology. Further, as co-mod of the list, I recall no such email conversation on Wrightsaid. Therefore, your information is highly questionable. Who is your source? Whoever it is, he is not trustworthy.
Bryan said,
June 14, 2007 at 10:25 pm
Anne,
How do you know that the internal, phenomenal experience of the apostate-to-be, prior to their apostasy, is qualitatively different from your own?
- Bryan
Gabe Martini said,
June 14, 2007 at 10:45 pm
You were a lot shorter in person than I imagined. I guess that explains some things.
barlow said,
June 14, 2007 at 11:07 pm
Anne - temporary faith is a staple in Reformed history. I’m not saying you have to believe it, I’m just saying it has been there. It is in Calvin and just about everyone else. Most distinguish between the quality of the faith of believers and unbelievers. As for assurance, the WCF recognizes that it is difficult to obtain and that having assurance of salvation is not necessary for salvation. It does say that we can have infallible assurance, but I’m not sure if they mean infallible with regard to the object or the subject. I’ve found similar language on both sides of that question. As for your more personal question - in my own life, I have absolutely no assurance that I’ll be faithful in 10 years; it’s just a hope and a prayer based upon the character of God and not on my own character. The PCA pastor who married me and my wife apostasized. I have a friend from seminary who just became an atheist. Heck, John Gerstner’s son was involved in some kind of “meet a teenager in the park” sting. How can I be so cocksure that I won’t end up the same way? For me, knowing that I’m in Christ today is good enough; I don’t tend towards excessive worry about that. But back to the theology of the matter, my area of historical study is basically British Calvinism and American Puritanism, and if you had a nickel for every distraught Puritan seeking assurance, you’d have a pile of moola. If you have access to those Banner of Truth “puritan sermon” collections, I would suggest reading the sermon “What Relapses are Inconsistent with Grace?” by the Rev. John Sheffield. I’m pretty sure he died in 1680. It is a sermon on Hebrews 6:4-6 - one of those notorious “apostasy passages” and his treatment is very nuanced.
Patrick - what information did you receive from the committee members? What are the differences between their testimony and Rich’s? Is Rich wrong about the locus of the committee’s concern?
Anne said,
June 14, 2007 at 11:25 pm
Thanks for the reply, Jon. I’m sorry to be dim as a five-watt bulb, but I’m finding it nigh unto impossible to square a God-given temporary faith in the Christ who is with His words in John 10:
“But you do not believe because you are not of My sheep. My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me; and I give eternal life to them, and they will never perish; and no one will snatch them out of My hand.”
Faith and hearing His voice are symbiotic, are they not? It requires faith to hear His voice, and one must hear His voice to follow Him in faith? And those who are His sheep and because of that believe in Him will never perish?
I’m absolutely cross-eyed with confusion. How does this allow for someone hearing His voice and following Him and having faith in Him but being lost and perishing?
barlow said,
June 14, 2007 at 11:36 pm
It’s not being dim, it’s just something we never talk about in the Reformed churches anymore, so there’s no reason it shouldn’t sound foreign and even wrong.
Without bringing in other passages where Jesus talks about receiving the word with joy and yet falling away, I will just point out that the Reformed tradition doesn’t consider those with temporary faith to be sheep. Jesus doesn’t say “*only* my sheep hear my voice.” The hard-hearted people to which he addresses this prophetic condemnation are not his sheep. But that doesn’t mean there aren’t goats with faith who ultimately reject Jesus. I have no clue what God’s purposes are with such goats; I think of Saul, for instance, and of Judas.
barlow said,
June 14, 2007 at 11:43 pm
And I should clarify that the temporary faith of the goats is not sheep-like faith, even if it looks like it from the outside. I don’t know how to explain the difference specifically, but I think it is important to maintain that there is a difference in order to be confessional and in line with the tradition.
Clay Johnson said,
June 15, 2007 at 12:06 am
Re: Post 76
BOQ There is also something aesthetically unpleasant about saying, of every previously faithful church member who apostasizes “he never really was saved” when we’d each be hard pressed to express the difference between his and our experience of God’s work. We can express it theologically, of course, but experientially probably not. EOQ
In my experience with church discipline, this is a good, if understated, description of what is absolutely gut wrenching about those parishioners who enter into gross sin, refuse to repent, are excommunicated, and never look back from their sin. As an elder, you sit through the extended process of praying for, seeking, pleading for their repentance and reconciliation knowing that there is no reason other than God’s continuing grace that your position and their position are not reversed. Experientially this is aw(e)ful .
G.L.W.Johnson said,
June 15, 2007 at 4:14 am
If William Hill’s view of the WS is wide spread among those sympathetic to the FV then the gig is up. It is the confessions that define what ‘Reformed’ means, not Mr.Hill or me or anyone else. And if Mr.Hill really believes what he says about the WS, he should do the honorable thing and go find a church that better reflects his own anti-confessional views.
William Hill said,
June 15, 2007 at 4:30 am
Uh huh…sure Mr. Johnson . The Bible defines what “reformed” means sir. You know, I can argue the reformed faith (without all the buzzwords and rhetoric) without the Confession. The Confessions are fine but I prefer the Bible. However, your comment is simply a weak attempt to sidetrace what I actually said. So…
And yes, I do believe what I said about the WS. Why? Becuase it is flat out accurate. I do not need a degree to see it. Funny thing, some with degrees seem to be more blind to the obvious than us degree-less dummies.
G.L.W.Johnson said,
June 15, 2007 at 5:12 am
Mr. Hill
How can you argue the ‘Reformed Faith’ from Scripture without reference to the confessional definition of what ‘Reformed’ means? You can’t ,and all you are displaying is your pietistic mind-set( that is not intended to be an insult, merely descriptive of an attitude you are displaying).I am sure that some of your FV colleagues will quickly take you aside and fill you in because you are not helping their cause one bit with this line of reasoning.
Andrew McCallum said,
June 15, 2007 at 5:58 am
Jon,
Your statements in #93/94 are what I was trying to ask you about earlier. You speak about this “temporary faith” as being something we don’t “talk about in the Reformed churches” but I think we do. We just don’t draw out the implications that some in the FV do. Sure we believe what Jesus talked about in the parable of the tares. People come into a church, express faith, join in the life of the church, and then later leave. If this is what you mean by “temporary faith” then no problem. But if you mean that these folks actually enter into the various components of the ordo salutis and become really justified, adopted, etc in some sense then we have some concerns.
And on assurance, I’m still trying to figure out if you feel that this is a big problem in non-FV Reformed churches. Whenever I have heard Wilson or Wilkens talk about this I’m left scratching my head trying to figure out what’s broken that needs fixing. Is there a problem that I’m unaware of that only the FV thinking can fix?
Cheers,
Andrew
Robert Harris said,
June 15, 2007 at 6:08 am
Having followed the debate on this blog since the committee’s report was made public. In that time I have not seen (or I’ve missed) some substantive Scriptural arguments for the issue of union with Christ as it relates to the non-elect. So my question is for me to better understand this issue. Could someone please explain, or point me to a place which explains, what Christ himself meant by ‘Every branch in me that does not bear fruit he takes away’ in John 15?
Patrick Poole said,
June 15, 2007 at 6:20 am
Jonathan,
I’m waiting to hear from you exactly what deficiency of “accurate information” (#86) on the situation I have. On a second read of Lusk’s piece, I think he confirms things as I’ve presented them here: he gets turned down by Evangel Presbytery C&C committee, doesn’t consider the findings of the C&C committee about his qualifications for the ministry nor does he follow-through on his options with the presbytery (going to the floor w/ a negative committee recommendation), and instead leads the church out of the PCA to the CREC where his views are acceptable. How does what I have said thus far contradict his own testimony? What exactly are you taking issue with?
Bret L. McAtee said,
June 15, 2007 at 8:03 am
The Temporary ‘Faith’ (not Temporary Faith) issue is easily answered by I John 2:19.
It can’t be Temporary saving faith because saving faith by definition is permanent. To suggest that there is such a thing as Temporary saving faith is to deny the Biblical Faith. It is the very thing that Arminians champion.
Truly non-saving ‘faith’ masquerades itself wonderfully at times as saving faith. Certainly a non-saving ‘faith’ that brings one into some kind of contact with the age to come makes one more responsible for rejecting what God offered. Still in the end non saving faith was only a counterfeit and only gave a non saving salvation.
Bret
Stewart said,
June 15, 2007 at 8:10 am
Gary,
Would you go on Covenant Radio and debate some of the things? It would be beneficial for all. What do you say?
anneivy said,
June 15, 2007 at 8:36 am
Jon (whom I don’t want to overburden with comments to which he feels obliged to respond, bless him) wrote: “…that doesn’t mean there aren’t goats with faith who ultimately reject Jesus. I have no clue what God’s purposes are with such goats; I think of Saul, for instance, and of Judas.”
As I said, we’re going to have to agree to disagree, for I can’t see any Scriptural warrant for goats who hear Christ’s voice, i.e. goats with faith. The entire John 10 passage wherein Christ speaks of His sheep is drenched in “only”, to the point it’d be redundant for Him to include it. It’s an enormously powerful imagery that Christ employed, as shepherds would move through the combined flocks of sheep, calling, and THEIR sheep would hear their voice and follow.
I’d love to see that someday! From what I’ve read, it still happens in some areas of the world.
Last night I tried, but couldn’t find any place that says goats do the same thing. Found the blog of a Christian woman who has goats, and in a post she wrote about this very passage, she noted that “they are stubborn, are always getting into trouble, usually by themselves but the