Firstly, the report has passed. The report declares that the views of the FV and NPP are out of accord with the WS. That statement is made in the body of the exposition, and one of the declarations states that this report be commended as a faithful exposition of the WS.
Secondly, the FV has a very high view of ecclesiology (of the church). They believe (as do most Reformed folk, as well as the true church going all the way back to the early church fathers) that the church is our mother as God is our Father. They believe that a TE from one Presbytery does not have the right even to use the word heresy if the denomination has not used it. Correspondingly, then, it follows from their position that if the study committee report had used the word “heresy” to describe the FV, then anyone would be allowed to use the word to describe the FV. But the report has indeed said that the FV is out of accord with the WS, and that the FV strikes at the vitals of religion.
Thirdly, I would say that 95% to 98% of the Assembly voted to approve the report. That is well over 1200 commissioners.
Fourthly, if 1200 commissioners stated that my theology was out of accord with their doctrinal standards, my ecclesiology would compel me to submit to my brothers in Christ, as my ordination vows dictate. That submission should look like one of two things: I should either recant my theology that is out of accord with all these brothers, or I should leave the denomination. There is no room for the third option of staying in the denomination until they kick me out. My high ecclesiology forbids it. In this respect, it matters not one whit whether or not the FV men disagree with the report. Even if the report is dead wrong on just about everything it says, that would still not make any difference as to whether or not the FV men should leave. I have a friend who was a PCUSA minister. They strongly advised him to leave because his doctrinal position did not correspond to theirs. His high ecclesiology then made him leave that denomination. It was the denomination that was wrong, but the man left, since he could no longer square his views with that of the PCUSA. So, even supposing that there is not one ounce of truth in the entire report, the FV men should still either change or leave.
Furthermore, staying in the denomination while retaining such views would clearly not be studying the purity and peace of the denomination, which vow is yet another of the vows that we take as officers in the church. It will bring nothing but strife, strife, and more strife. I therefore strongly urge the FV men to consider the fact that it is possible (and, in fact, a desideratum) to worship apart for the sake of unity. It involves no ”loss of face,” no defeat, no disgrace, and no remonstrance on the part of the critics. In fact, the TRs’ respect for the FV men would go up rather enormously if they were to join the CRE. If the FV loves the PCA, then they will not seek to remain and cause more and more problems. Call the PCA narrow, TR, Southern, Baptistic, etc. (and I would dispute most of those points). But the PCA has sent a strong message that the FV is not wanted within its ranks. Therefore, one way or another, the FV should leave.
greenbaggins
glwjohnson
jeffhutchinson
davejes1979
reformedmusings
Reed Here
Andrew Webb
David Pearson said,
June 17, 2007 at 6:54 pm
One should not be surprised at the overwhelming defeat of FV. Anyone who has stacked a deck can attest to the easy defeat of one’s opponent.
The issue I’m bother by is the misrepresentation, character assassination and lack of charity. Brothers shouldn’t fight and bullies don’t win in the long run.
I agree that it may be time for FV to leave but it should be a time of mourning not gloating. A rift in the family ought to bring us all to repentance. Will Christ be divided yet again because brothers will not bear with one another? What did Paul mean where he said we should submit to one another in love? Not until we learn the answers to these questions will we have the High Ecclessiology we all seek.
I know there will be unkind words about this post saying that we are to be pure and narrow etc.That’s not the point I’m making.
How narrow and pure do we need to be until we are absolutely usless to those around us or the Church as a whole? Ever hear of the Wisconsin Synod Lutherans? They’re seperatists, so pure they don’t associate with anyone and the Church as a whole suffers by this sort of seperation.
I’ll be watching what happens and contemplating this quote from Alexander Pope over the next few months. He said, “it is with narrow souled people as with narrow necked bottles; the less they have in them the more noise they make in pouring out.”
I urge you all to listen!
Robert K. said,
June 17, 2007 at 10:33 pm
Their bluff on this issue has been long overdue to be called in a serious way.
Robert K. said,
June 17, 2007 at 10:43 pm
Their problem is their campaign is defeated if they are off to themselves. It’s no fun just being another denomination or church with bad doctrine. You lose the spotlight. You only attract evangelists to yourself. Much more fun to get inside a church or denomination that holds to biblical doctrine and attempt to change it. This is why FVists are so Alice-in-Wonderland in proclaiming – usually when pinned or cornered – such things as “Classical Covenant Theoligy IS Federal Visionist doctrine” or “FV is carrying the Standard for Reformed orthodoxy” and so on. The analogy of the old Popular Front is apt. ‘They’ were the real democrats. They were the ones for freedom (if ‘freedom’ is defined in their unique manner of course). For those who don’t know, Popular Front meant Moscow-directed fifth-column activity in non-Communist states and governments and popular media and so on. Wait a minute… Moscow…Moscow…
Xon said,
June 17, 2007 at 11:04 pm
“bluff…” this word, I do not think it means what you think it means.
Tim Wilder said,
June 17, 2007 at 11:16 pm
Practically speaking, where do they go? In the REC they have to appease the bishops, in the CREC they have to appease the bishop. If I were them, I would not trust my future to Wilson. If they start their own little shindig, it won’t hold together. There is too much variegated creativity still going on. Plus there is that whole Reformed Catholicism bent, which looks silly if they start or join a micro-denomination. They want to be in a big pond, but none of the big denominations will take them seriously as thinkers and leaders.
One of the striking things about the last year is the failure of the FV people to see how bad they made themselves look. If they stay and fight they will destroy whatever reputation they still have. They don’t seem to understand their own ability to do damage to themselves. Perhaps the option of doing a Daniel Kirk and joining the liberals will look better and better to them.
Clay Johnson said,
June 17, 2007 at 11:54 pm
BOQ So, even supposing that there is not one ounce of truth in the entire report, the FV men should still either change or leave.EOQ I must confess I don’t understand this position if one is committed to presbyterian polity. The body committed to determining whether a particular opinion, position, or teaching of a teaching elder is erroneous is the Presbytery in a case of process. Did you listen to the description of the Committee itself about the role of the report in church life and practice? As the recommendation stated, “teaching elders whose views are [OK, for the sake of erring on the side of submission to one another I will give you "may be"] out of accord with our Standards of their obligation to make known to their courts any differences in their views.”
A high ecclesiology would demand that those teaching elders who hold views that may be implicated by the report but who in good faith believe that their own particular positions are not out of accord with any fundamental of our system of doctrine (because the difference is hostile to the system or strikes at the vitals of religion) do exactly what Peter Leithart did immediately following the General Assembly’s adoption of the recommendations of the Report. From then on, it is up to the Presbytery to apply the standards of our Constitution and polity while giving the Report due weight and consideration, as summarized in the recommendations and as described by the committee members themselves in their presentation of the Report.
The very point of process and the power given church courts to conduct it is to make determinations exactly like these, is it not?
Robert K. said,
June 18, 2007 at 12:34 am
Yes, bluff. “I’m pretending to hold a good hand, but really I have nothing.” Now for the FVist: “I’m telling you I have respect for the church, I have a high view of the church, and hence for respecting the decisions of the church (etc.); but really I have no respect for your church if you don’t give me everything I demand.”
William Hill said,
June 18, 2007 at 5:06 am
*** Yawn ****
Robert K. said,
June 18, 2007 at 6:17 am
William says:
“*** Yawn ***”
Considering the subject of Green Baggins’ post this is telling.
Marshall said,
June 18, 2007 at 7:08 am
I agree with GB. Also, if you want to see a pictorial report of GA, I have one I did for my congregation here:
http://www.waysidechurch.org/ga2007/gareport.htm
William Hill said,
June 18, 2007 at 7:26 am
No actually I was thinking about how this is the same old news with the same rhetoric all over again. It is like the commercial that declares “try it again for the first time”.
There is nothing telling about any of this yammering and posturing that is going on…
J.W.M. said,
June 18, 2007 at 7:51 am
Could somebody email me a link to Leithart’s letter? It’s a slow day at work, and something to do would be welcome…
jared said,
June 18, 2007 at 8:12 am
Greenbaggins,
Two things:
1. It wasn’t a declaration that “states that this report be commended as a faithful exposition of the WS” it was one of the 5 recommendations. I suppose this seems nit-picky but I think it’s an important distinction.
2. There are only two declarations in the report which are problematic for many FV advocates (namely 7 and 8). But, as has been pointed out elsewhere, these two particular declarations aren’t wholly insurmountable either. Being a PCA member (a laymen, as it were) and a FV sympathizer, I don’t see any reason for certain FV advocates (e.g. Leithart) to be all up in arms about this report even though the report says it’s dealing with FV/NPP. It is, I’ve little doubt, dealing with certain “version(s)” of FV/NPP, but it seems to me that it is by no means a wholesale rejection of anything and everything that ’smacks’ of FV/NPP. As a laymen, I am more compelled to leave the PCA because it adopted this report “as is” than I am compelled by the report’s declarations and recommendations themselves (which aren’t condemning in my case).
Also, I think saying that “the TRs’ respect for the FV men would go up rather enormously if they were to join the CRE” assumes that TR’s have respect for the FV men. If many of the comments on the threads here are representative of TR’s opinion of FV, then this is a naive position on your part. [Okay, so that was three things...]
Xon said,
June 18, 2007 at 8:27 am
Robert, but what to you would constitute having respect for the PCA? Are you following Lane in simply recommending that the FV men leave for another denom? Or do you actually think (as David Gadbois, Tim Wilder, and others have suggested on this blog) that they are supposed to give up ministry altogether and hand their churches over to more “orthodox” men? You TRs are disagreeing among yourselves about what the “respectful” thing for FVers to do even is.
And I very much would like to hear a response to Clay’s fine comment # 5. If Lousiana Presbytery continues to think that Wilkins is okay, then what’s “presbyterian” about saying that he’s “not wanted” b/c of this report passed at GA? Why would a “high” ecclesiology mean that you respect the central declaration over the local process, all in the name of being “presbyterian”?
And, finally, I know for a fact of a handful of people (esp. the REs) who voted for this report b/c they thought they were more or less just “affirming” sola fide. IN other words, they weren’t trying to condemn any FV people per se; but Sproul got up and said “sola fide” is at stake and so everybody went ahead and voted “for” sola fide. The comments of the Report’s defenders during the actual discussion on the floor were also very modest in tone–i.e., all passing this report would really mean is that we as a denom have taken a stand on justification, outlined our position on it, etc.. One of the ways the defenders argued in order to get more votes was by downplaying any practical usage of this report as a club to beat “unwanted” men out of the PCA. But, of course, the flip side of democratic(ish) politics is often that what is said to get the votes is not the same as what is done after the votes are gotten. Perhaps that is all that is going on here, and I shouldn’t be surprised.
Sean Gerety said,
June 18, 2007 at 9:05 am
IMO anyone who thinks any of these men are going to leave on their own free will and as a matter of conscience is seriously mistaken. Look at the posts from the FVer’s here. Not only are they not heretics, but their doctrines are in perfect harmony with the WS even in spite of the Committee Report. The problem, they say, is the WS don’t go far enough. The Scriptures are much more “nuanced” and allow for “corporate election,” existential union, universally efficacious baptism, a conditional covenant, final justification based on the works born of faith, and the list of errors continue.
Some say their false doctrines contradict the WS, but they say those contradictions are only “apparent” (wonder where they got that sleight of hand from ;)
What if we simply allow these men to leave and preach their deadly heresies elsewhere? What then can we say about Presbyterian oversight and accountability? I’d say it’s a farce.
What about any responsibility all those who have been taken in by aspects of their false gospel, yet need to be confronted publicly and by Godly men in the hope to bring wayward brothers back to their senses? What about those who are committed teachers of this false gospel who need to be marked by the church, even if they’re embraced with open and loving arms by Wilson’s little cult?
Does the PCA really want to sweep this problem, which they have allowed to grow virtually unchallenged (at least officially) until now, under the carpet? My guess is yes indeed.
Aside from the Wilkins case, Leithart has now shoved it in the face of his own Presbytery and openly affirming at least 4 of the 9 declarations per his widely circulated letter to his stated clerk. As R.S. Clark said elsewhere; “He sent the letter to the whole world essentially putting the presbytery on trial.” He also wondered whether or not the men of Leithart’s Pres will rise to his challenge?
Not likely.
jared said,
June 18, 2007 at 9:27 am
Sean Gerety,
Do you think you could try and not be a slander-box for a post or two?
greenbaggins said,
June 18, 2007 at 10:23 am
Xon, you are saying what most other FV men have said in the past: that presbytery is the final court of appeal. It simply isn’t. The GA has power over the presbyteries. The SJC is the final and supreme court of the PCA. The Louisiana Presbytery is not done yet. A complaint has been filed to the SJC on theological grounds, and it will be addressed in the Fall meeting of the SJC. The SJC can reverse the presbytery’s decision, and is fully empowered by GA to do just that. I am at a loss to know why the FV guys seem to refuse to acknowledge this.
Sean Gerety said,
June 18, 2007 at 10:26 am
Jared, despite your pathetic attempt again at playing the wounded victim, I haven’t slandered anyone. I realize the truth sometimes is uncomfortable for you, but since you say you are now more compelled to leave the PCA because they adopted the report “as is,” the question I have is will you make good on that threat or continue to pretend that the Report missed the mark concerning your adopted and preferred theology?
Tim Wilder said,
June 18, 2007 at 10:27 am
“I am at a loss to know why the FV guys seem to refuse to acknowledge this.”
FV guys seem to think that “presbyterian” refers to presbytery, and don’t seem to know that it comes from the Greek word for elder. Elders are active at all levels of the denomination: session, presbytery and General Assembly, etc.
onefear said,
June 18, 2007 at 10:36 am
BOQ The SJC can reverse the presbytery’s decision, and is fully empowered by GA to do just that. EOQ
Although not addressed to me, I agree with this, of course; such process envisions the appeal rights you mention. The point is that through the process, the real theological issues in a particular set of circumstances will have been addressed (twice if the SJC is involved!) in light of the Standards and Scripture. This is a good thing.
I don’t know the appellate procedure very well. Is the GA able to overturn or reverse a decision of the SJC notwithstanding the fact that the GA delegated its authority to the SJC via its “Commission” status? Unlikely, I realize; but is it even possible?
greenbaggins said,
June 18, 2007 at 10:39 am
I don’t think that it is possible for the GA to overturn the SJC’s decision. That is due to its being a commission, which is *fully* empowered to act with the full authority of GA behind it. That is, of course, why there are so many members on the SJC, so as to provide a balanced and fair set of men to decide these kinds of things.
Clay Johnson said,
June 18, 2007 at 10:40 am
I was signed in at the time I posted #20. I authored both #5 and #20. Clay
Xon said,
June 18, 2007 at 10:46 am
I don’t refuse to acknowledge it, Lane. But:
a. It still strikes me as un-presbyterian way to proceed. The general reaction I hear from people who hear that there is an SJC which can unilaterally act on behalf of the entire GA and overturn the wishes of individual presbyteries is “Who’s idea was that?”
b. No such official GA/SJC override has happened yet. So I don’t see why “integrity” dictates that FV-leaning men abandon ship in anticipation of this happening.
b.ii. The Report is not a top-down “this is how it is, all presbyteries must do such-and-such” kind of deal. If that kind of a Report had passed, then I would agree with you that the PCA as a denom had more or less spoken and that was the end of it. But what we have here is a general declaration by the PCA–we affirm these 9 declarations, we recommed that presbyteries give is Report due consideration in their own deliberations, etc. There is nothing, in the Report itself, that requires, say, LA Presbytery to find Wilkins out-of-bounds. The presbytery can give the report due consideration and still disagree that Wilkins in any serious error. The presbytery is allowed to think for itself, in other words, unless and until some hard and fast rule is laid down by the denom. Which ain’t happened yet.
greenbaggins said,
June 18, 2007 at 10:55 am
It is not an un-Presbyterian way to proceed, since the PCA has actually decided to proceed in this way. The reason the SJC was formed was because these court cases were coming to the floor of GA and chewing up all the time of the commissioners, many of whom had no expertise in the legal ins and outs of Presbyterian law, precedent, etc. But your statement “Whose idea was that?” has nothing to do with whether or not the SJC can overturn a Presbytery’s decision. The fact is, they can.
The PCA has shown where it wants to go. This is the program. Anyone not on board with it, and not agreeing with the declarations and recommendations should leave or conform.
The intention of the report is for presbyteries’ use in determining cases like Wilkins’s case. The report has to be used in any further deliberation about Wilkins’s case.
Lee said,
June 18, 2007 at 11:22 am
Lane,
I want to make sure I understand your post. I get that you want the FV to leave the PCA and join the CRE. If I was in the PCA I probably would too, although it seems like putting off trouble until later. However, you say that a High Ecclessiology demands leaving when the rest of the denomination is against you. Just to be clear, do you think Machen was wrong to stay in the PCUSA until he was forced out since it was clear he worked against the denomination for year? Should he have quit earler? And you do think it was acceptable for Gilbert Tennent and the New Side to split the Presbyterian church during the Great Awakening because the Synod of Philadelphia made it clear that it was not on Gilbert’s side. He was justified in starting his own denomination?
I am afraid, I cannot agree.
jared said,
June 18, 2007 at 12:37 pm
Greenbaggins,
You say, “The PCA has shown where it wants to go. This is the program. Anyone not on board with it, and not agreeing with the declarations and recommendations should leave or conform.” But what of those FV advocates who do agree with the declarations and recommendations?
RBerman said,
June 18, 2007 at 3:51 pm
Jared, Declaration #3 says that the report is “a faithful exposition of the Westminster Standards.” I suppose some FV supporters will find a way to rationalize a way to claim to adhere to the report and to FV simultaneously, just as they find a way to claim adherence to LC 57-83 and to FV simultaneously. Hopefully most FV men will follow Leithart’s lead and present themselves to presbytery, rather than saying, “I think I’m in compliance, so there’s no reason to ask presbytery whether they agree.”
Lee, in retrospect it might indeed have been better if Machen and his friends had bailed on their denomination rather than wait to be expelled. They spent precious time fighting the system, and we now know that Machen didn’t have much time to spare in his life by then.
Andrew Malloy said,
June 18, 2007 at 4:32 pm
Lane,
You looked studly at GA, you were seen by anyone who was watching!!!
greenbaggins said,
June 20, 2007 at 1:53 pm
Lee, I would think that it is a wisdom issue when to leave when a denomination is against one. I think Machen could have left earlier. The PCUSA had rather obviously lost the church mark of the Word. Some in his position would have. I would have to do some more research to answer the Tennent question. I am afraid I always get the new side/old side mixed up with the old school/new school.
But, of course, this is not just a presbytery, but a whole denomination. What do you think they should do (of course you think they ought to repent of their teaching)? Do you think they ought to stay?
Lee said,
June 20, 2007 at 2:53 pm
Lane,
I want to be clear that I do think they ought to repent. However, I think the denomination adopting a study committee report is hardly the denomination speaking. Until someone is disciplined out, I do not think the denomination has spoken. Until that point, I see no real compelling reason to leave (if I were a FV guy). I believe the church speaks through her discipline, not through study committees. Right now there are at least three presbyteries that have exonerated FV beliefs. Until the PCA acts judicially, I see know compelling reason for FV guys to abandon ship. I know that the SJC has stuff in the works, but until they act, the PCA has not spoken.
greenbaggins said,
June 20, 2007 at 3:03 pm
Lee, did the Westminster divines speak when they drew up their confession of faith? How about the Canons of Dordt, and the HC and BC? Didn’t the church speak then?
Lee said,
June 20, 2007 at 4:21 pm
Lane,
I would argue that the Church did speak with those documents because they backed them up with discipline. The Remonstrants were excommicated for not adhering to Dort. If the Remonstrants had been allowed to stay in the church after the Canons of Dort would we still think the church spoke in the Canons? In almost all of those cases the church backed up its confessions with discipline to those who did not adhere (The WCF did not get instituted right away because of Crommwell, but I don’t want to go down rabbit trails). I do think the church is saying something through pronouncements like the Study Committee report, but if a church says they believe one thing, and never acts on it, do they really believe it? We point to those Reformed Confessions because the church backed them up with discipline. The church really believed them. I am not saying the PCA will not back up the study committee report. I hope they do. But until they do, they have not really closed the door on this controversy.
greenbaggins said,
June 20, 2007 at 4:23 pm
Lee, I think we are in basic agreement here. Maybe we can phrase it this way: the church starts to speak with statements like the study committee report, and then finishes speaking when she backs up the words with actions. I would certainly agree with this. How does that sound to you?
Lee said,
June 21, 2007 at 2:25 pm
Lane,
I can agree with that. I do think Machen was right to wait until they kicked hiim out, but we can argue about that some other time.
Ryan Close said,
June 25, 2007 at 6:56 pm
I just re-read LC 57-83 and can see no contradiction between the standards and what Leithart, or Jordan, or Wilson, or Wilkins claims to believe and teach.
Seems like Calvin and VanTill would be major suspects in this witch hunt. The Scriptures ARE much more “nuanced” and the Westminster divines were more more diverse, encompassing a variety of views including “covenatal election,” and baptismal efficacy. The Holy Scriptures warn, at least in most English translation, the elect not to fall away from the faith. Calvin said that in the Sacraments, God does not give us an empty sign, but annexes the reality of the thing signified to those who believe. And to the man, baptism makes on a member of the visible Church, an objective benefit and common grace of Baptism. I never read in the Confessions or the Bible that Holy Baptism only puts children into the “sphere of the covenant.” That is un-biblical language.
In one sense, Biblical speaking, we have been justified, we are being justified, and we will be justified. The Holy Scriptures speaks in all these ways. However, the stipulated theological term “justification” is used in a specific way in the Westminster Confession, thus we should use more stipulated language. We have been Justified, we are being sanctified, and we will be finally vindicated. I believe that the WC and Calvin as well as Kyuper and VanTill all agree with this.
In as much as the Committee’s Report expresses manifestly false conceptions of what the FV is, that conception is purely imaginary and RIGHTFULLY CONDEMNED AS HERESY! Unfortunately, many people believe certain persons actually believe this imaginary heresy even though they publicly and loudly deny it. To persist in the the accusations without proper discipline is unchristian and slanderous.
I don’t think they have anything to worry about because they have historic Evangelical dogmatics and more importantly, the language of Holy Scripture on their side. Besides they don’t believe in universally efficacious baptism, a conditional covenant, or final justification based on the works born of faith in the way they are accused of.
If they had no high regard for the Confessions they would not try so hard to square them with the Holy Scriptures which the Standards extols as the Word of God, which says, “Therefore let him who thinks he stands take heed lest he fall. Beware, brethren, lest there be in any of you an evil heart of unbelief in departing from the living God. But the ones on the rock are those who, when they hear, receive the word with joy; and these have no root, who believe for a while and in time of temptation fall away. f anyone does not abide in Me, he is cast out as a branch and is withered; and they gather them and throw them into the fire, and they are burned.”
But none of them deny Sola Fide which is what most commissioners thought they were voting to defend when they adopted the Report, so as much as these certain men still passionately hold to Sola Fide as articulated in the Confession, then they are not even indited by the Report. But those who deny Sola Fide, they are damn heretics!