The Covenant of Works
June 20, 2007 at 1:44 pm (Federal Vision)
I have already addressed this issue in several posts here, here, here, here, here, and here. I do not wish to duplicate what I have already said in those posts. What I am interested in doing here is to try to nail down what Wilson is willing to say about the CoW. He affirmed that he was a bi-covenantalist. This is good, because it wasn’t excessively obvious from the book.
One important point here is the relationship of law and grace in the mind of God. Wilson says that he doesn’t buy the equal ultimacy of law and grace. I would answer: is God more gracious than He is holy? Is the righteousness of God more or less important than the love of God? I don’t think we can make either more important in the mind of God. Surely we have to say that holiness and love are equally ultimate in the mind of God. That is the reason why God has to find the way of atonement the way He did: to be just and the justifier of the ungodly. Surely God is infinite, eternal and unchangeable in all His attributes. One does not trump another. If that is so, then one attribute does not trump another in His dealings with us, either. The only way He can be merciful to us is if He drained the cup of His wrath dry, squeezing it out on Jesus. Justice and mercy kissed each other on the cross. They are equally ultimate.
So, the questions come down now to the issue of how we define the relationship God had with Adam. We agree that it is covenantal. Wilson has certainly affirmed that. What was the nature of that covenant? Was eternal life for Adam conditioned upon perfect and personal obedience? I agree wholeheartedly that for God to have a relationship with Adam required condescension on God’s part. God is God, and we are not. However, that condescension was before the Fall. Furthermore, it does not rule out pactum merit. Wilson has allowed (with careful qualifications) that one can speak of such merit as synonymous with perfect and personal obedience. So then, is Wilson comfortable with chapter 7 of the WCF? Does he agree that Adam had the law of God written in his heart (WCF 4.2), and had the power to fulfill it (ibid)?
To address briefly the question about GA and the vote, I will say that the commissioners received the report no later than Tuesday. Most received it on the internet. Many received it on Monday, giving them two days to read the report, which after all is only 30 pages, one hour’s reading. I think, therefore, that it is speculation to assert that the men who voted that day were only supporting sola fide. It was clearly explained by the committee itself that they were voting on all the recommendations (which, if I remember rightly, were all read out in full), which commended the report as a faithful exposition of the WS, and that the declarations were correct. That was the vote. If anyone thought that they were only upholding sola fide, then there is precious little evidence for it. Dr. Sproul was making justification the rhetorical point of his address. Surely we must think of him as using justification as the most important issue, but not exclusive of the other soteriological concerns. Dr. Sproul is not so ignorant as to think that election, covenant, perseverance, etc., were not issues. But he didn’t have thirty minutes to make a speech. How does Wilson know that many have barely heard of this stuff? Almost every pastor I conversed with at GA had heard something about it, and already had an opinion.
Xon said,
June 20, 2007 at 2:51 pm
Not to nitpick your choice of words, but…”had heard something about it, and already had an opinion” is not exactly incompatible with “had barely heard of this stuff.” Lots of people form opinions while barely knowing anything about it, and barely knowing anything could mean you “think I heard something…”
A substantive concern: Perhaps you could give this its own post, Lane, but I would REALLY be interested in reading your take on how exactly FV compromises on “justification sola fide.” This is not clear to me from the more nuanced things you have written, and frankly sounds like a throwback to the halcyon days of 2002 when Morecraft and company were releasing anathemas against the “Auburn Avenue 4″ over things that had very little to do with anything anyone actually said at the Pastor’s Conference. Frankly, my own theological world fell a little bit last Wednesday when Dr. Sproul (may God give us more like him!) stood up and said what he said. Whatever people may think about my influences now, Sproul almost single-handedly got me through my Wesleyan-Holiness college with my sanity in tact. Both his radio program and his books; I devoured them all. I could quote him almost chapter and verse, etc. But Wed. he sounded like my grandpa (God bless him), who toward the end of his life had a way of just wondering into conversations from the other room and saying off-the-wall things that didn’t really fit. And we all just had to sit and smile politely. “Gentlemen, justification sola fide is at stake” was that kind of a moment, and it hurt my precious little heart to see it.
But anyway…about that post request I have. What do you mean when you say that justification is an “issue”. Do you just mean it in that way that systematic theologians can make everything relate to everything else, and so everything in some sense comes back to “justification”? I assume you have something more specific in mind. And I don’t see how it can be Imp of Act Obed, because Lutherans don’t believe that and I’ve never heard a Reformed person say that Lutherans deny sola fide. Anyway, genuinely curious…
greenbaggins said,
June 20, 2007 at 3:02 pm
Well, to get the ball rolling, how about you tell me what you think of this post:
http://humbleanswers.wordpress.com/2007/06/05/justification/
Xon said,
June 20, 2007 at 3:03 pm
But “justice” is not equal to “law”, and “mercy” is not equal to “gospel”. Wilson denies that law is equally funamental to gospel in the way God deals with mankind. These are not attributes of God, but outworkings in (covenantal) history of His will. Of course, God’s will and its outworking comes from all of His attributes equally together, but this doesn’t mean (does it?) that law and grace must be equally fundamental within that outworking, unless we think that law is just the strict outworking of justice and nothing else and that gospel is the strict outworking of mercy/love and nothing else. But this doesn’t seem right to me. Rather, all of God’s attributes go together to produce God’s works “extra nos,” and I agree that we cannot even begin to sort all that out and we would be teetering on blasphemous foolishness even to make the attempt. We cannot evaluate, or prioritize, or hierarchicalize, God’s attributes (love is more fundamnetal than justice, etc.). But, we can make observations about the way God works outside of Himself in the world. Whatever exact “combination” of His various equally-ultimate attributes produces those works, we can look at the works themselves and we can see that in everything God is doing grace/goodnews. Even when He gives the law, He is doing grace. But when He does grace, He isn’t always doing law along with it, though he is always acting justly.
God’s attribute–justice–is always ‘present’ in everything He does. But “law” is not an attribute; it is a divine “work.” And God is not obligated to always do all of His various works equally often or with the same intesnity. I don’t know, I’m getting a little in need of a nap at this point and might not be communicating clearly enough.
reformedmusings said,
June 20, 2007 at 3:08 pm
I arrived in Memphis on Sunday to prepare for convening the new Overtures Committee on Monday afternoon. Starting from the time I arrived in the convention center Monday morning, I had quite a number of people that I’d never met before recognize my name and thank me and the committee for our work. I believe that the report was very widely read, and we intentionally kept it short to ensure that it would be widely read and used.
As to the presentation at GA, Dr. Fowler opened by addressing commonly expressed concerns, Dr. Duncan laid out the report contents, Dr. Lucas explained every declarations in detail, and John White explained the recommendations and their implications. Even if a few did not read the report in its entirety, the committee’s presentation was designed so that the commissioners would know exactly that for which they were voting.
I personally think that it is demeaning to say that our brothers voted in ignorance of the report but simply on the basis of Dr. Sproul’s remarks. Dr. Sproul’s remarks, BTW, showed that he understood the subject very well. I notice that no one is criticizing Dr. Gilchrist’s theatrical comment about the emperor with no clothes, though I love Dr. Gilchrist as a brother. I suppose that we only critique that with which we disagree.
Lane, I also want to thank you for your blog and your diligence therein. You have been and remain a comfort and encouragement, but I have no idea how you get the time for all this.
anneivy said,
June 20, 2007 at 4:00 pm
I’ll be the mug, demonstrating my lamentable, and habitual, ignorance….
Reformedmusings, may I know who you are? ;^)
anneivy said,
June 20, 2007 at 4:01 pm
I did close that italics thingummy, didn’t I?
Robert K. said,
June 20, 2007 at 4:01 pm
Man in a fallen state perverts God’s law. God’s law for man with the full, unfallen image of God is not in any way or manner ‘less than’ the Gospel. FVists are constantly conflating, mixing, confusing the pre-fall and post-fall states of man. The law for pre-fall Adam was not a curse or a distortion. When we die to the law we die to the perverted, distorted curse, not to God’s law as it stands in perfect harmony with the image of God in man.
greenbaggins said,
June 20, 2007 at 4:05 pm
Reformed Musings is Robert Mattes, RE in the PCA, and member of the ad interim study committee.
Stewart said,
June 20, 2007 at 4:09 pm
“Dr. Sproul’s remarks, BTW, showed that he understood the subject very well. I notice that no one is criticizing Dr. Gilchrist’s theatrical comment about the emperor with no clothes..”
And Sproul’s comments weren’t theatrical? Pahhhhlease…
reformedmusings said,
June 20, 2007 at 4:13 pm
Anne - It’s an honor to answer your question. I’ve admired your reasoning and grasp of Scripture as a lurker on this and several other blogs for a few weeks now.
Lane has been kind enough to link my day-old blog (Reformed Musings) in his blogroll on the left side, as I have linked to his. If I knew more about blogging, my name link on the post would have gone to my blog rather than the PCA website. I think that I fixed it, but old entries are apparently static. I hope that it’s OK on this post.
To your question - I was blessed to be one of the seven members of the PCA Ad Interim Study Committee on Federal Vision, etc. So as not to duplicate everything here, you can read a bit about me on the blog and on its About page.
I have limited time to spend on the blogs, so won’t be posting heavily. You all are doing a great job defending the orthodox Reformed/Biblical position.
Anne Ivy said,
June 20, 2007 at 4:25 pm
Stewart, mayhap I’m wrong but the impression I got was that yes, Dr. Sproul’s comments were made with a definite dramatic flair, but then so were Dr. Gilchrist’s, yet it’s only Dr. Sproul who is being criticized for his “theatrics.”
High drama at a Presbyterian GA?
Who’d have thunk it? >;^>
P.S. Robert, it’s nice to “meet” you, and thank you for the kind words.
NHarper said,
June 20, 2007 at 4:54 pm
Why is it we feel the need to defend the PCA report to Douglas Wilson? He is not in the PCA. He is not a positive force for the gospel as he holds 9/45 errors on the vitals of the Christian faith (PCA/MARS).
Jesus never defended Himself to the Pharisees. He always tried to avoid them and when they questioned Him, He condemned them as hypocrites, white-washed tombs, and vipers. Then they hated him even more.
To win a brother who has erred, you must first rebuke him before you offer forgiveness. Mr. Wilson must repent so that he can receive forgiveness. So far, he has shown no sign of repentance but only contempt. He calls our defense of the Gospel “dog breakfast”. He is communicating to us that he does not want forgiveness from God or from others. So, all that is left for us to do is to ignore his antics and pray for him. Let’s stop wasting our time venerating and defending ourselves to this man who has hurt the Gospel.
Jeff Hutchinson said,
June 20, 2007 at 5:33 pm
Robert,
Thank you for your very hard work on the Study Committee. You are exactly right. The estimated 95-98% of the Commissioners who voted to commend and recommend your work to Sessions and Presbyteries cast informed votes.
Perfectly, completely, and exhaustively informed votes? Of course not (who ever has perfect, complete, and exhaustive knowledge in this life?). But genuinely, truly, and sufficiently informed votes? Certainly. Both the report itself, and the presentation of the Committee, brought well-sufficient information to the Commissioners.
I noticed two other things about the debate. One, no one at all even raised a peep about not having had sufficient time to be studied up on the matter. No one. In that respect, Jeff Meyers mailing out his 30 reasons document to probably every Session in the PCA (we even got one here) was a great blessing. The only folks who made reference to it came “loaded for bear” even more informedly against the FV and in favor of the Study Committee Report. Second, did anyone even abstain??? When we vote, say, for members of committees, there are LOTS of abstentions, because lots of us don’t know either candidate. But did anyone at all abstain on this vote; i.e. did anyone in their conscience feel like they would be casting an uninformed vote? There might have been a smattering, but I don’t remember any abstentions at all.
And so, from my perceptions, having been present and having talked non-stop with elders before during and after, it is plain to me that elders in the PCA know the issues well enough, and want the FV out of the PCA.
I may be wrong, but it might be a better idea to trust my assessment, than, say xon’s, barlow’s, or dougwilson’s, three unordained men who, though they frequent this blog, were not present, speak only for their own perceptions, and champion the FV faction within the PCA (despite the fact that one of them isn’t even in the PCA). On the other hand, folks are free to believe what they want to believe. In the timeless words of U2 and the poets before them, “No one is blinder than he who will not see.”
Elders in the PCA know enough about the FV/NPP to want it out of our pulpits. But folks are free to believe what they want to believe, and can continue to keep talking and blogging and commenting to their heart’s content.
By the way, the % of FV/NPP advocates within the PCA doesn’t even rise to the level of 2-5%, because I know of at least one brother who voted AGAINST the report precisely because he thought it wasn’t strong enough to condemn the FV as “another gospel”!
reformedmusings said,
June 20, 2007 at 6:16 pm
Jeff,
First, thank you for your kind words. Second, well said on the rest.
“Elders in the PCA know enough about the FV/NPP to want it out of our pulpits.”
That’s the overwhelming sense that I got at GA from the people with whom I talked. Convening and vice chairing the Overtures Committee provided active contact with a wide variety of commissioners from all over the PCA. People that weren’t there have no idea how unpopular FV was amongst the commissioners, and the commissioners were not ignorant of the facts. That’s just wishful thinking by those who have a hard choice to make now. All the blog posts on the net won’t change that.
From what I’m reading in the blogs, at least some FV folks won’t repent or go quietly and honorably, further damaging the PCA. Not only does that violate their ordination oaths, it distracts and takes resources from the spreading of the gospel in obedience to the Great Commission. Sad behavior from folks who claim to love and uphold the gospel.
jared said,
June 20, 2007 at 7:51 pm
Lane,
Would you say that Wilson’s theology falls under the “condemnation” of the 9 declarations?
Michael Saville said,
June 20, 2007 at 9:01 pm
Robert,
If men are being unfaithful to ordination vows than its the duty of their presbyteries to deal with it. However, no charges have been brought, and the decision to leave a pastoral charge does not belong to a minister alone–it also matters what his presbytery and congregation believe to be God’s will in the matter.
reformedmusings said,
June 20, 2007 at 11:41 pm
Michael,
A TE can leave a call amiably with the concurrence of his congregation (to terminate their call), or leave to accept another call in another denomination, or simply resign the PCA at any time. Yes, there is Presbytery follow-up, but the SJC has ruled that this is just to ensure that proper procedures were followed. Presbytery cannot overrule a congregation if they and their Session followed proper procedures.
There’s no procedural impediment to PCA officers holding to or advocating Federal Vision theology to honoring their vows and either repenting or leaving the PCA for the CREC like some already have in the last few years.
markhorne said,
June 20, 2007 at 11:43 pm
Nor any impediment for them to continue to honor their vows by remaining where they are called with their presbytery’s approval.
Michael Saville said,
June 21, 2007 at 12:42 am
Robert,
I’m aware of what our BCO allows with respect to ministers leaving. I (personally) believe that those responsible for establishing the pastoral relation should also have imput in its dissolution. Regardless, there is no reason that a man should have to just leave if his presbytery deems that his views are acceptable. It is the responsibility of presbyteries to determine if a minister holds to the System of Doctrine. If a minister holding FV views believes that he holds to the System of Doctrine and his presbytery concurs, than your issue should be with the presbytery rather than the individual minister.
William Hill said,
June 21, 2007 at 4:55 am
Nor any impediment for them to continue to honor their vows by remaining where they are called with their presbytery’s approval.
Yep. How many presbyteries have examined FV men and clearerd them of violating the WCF?
reformedmusings said,
June 21, 2007 at 6:52 am
“Yep. How many presbyteries have examined FV men and clearerd them of violating the WCF?”
Well, let’s see. One in the PCA was a mock examination by people who almost spent more time apologizing to the examinee for putting him through the ordeal than actually doing the cursory exam. Even then, the vote was pretty close. A complain has been filed against that presbytery with the SJC in that case.
In the only other such examination in the PCA of which I’m aware, the examining committee admitted that they didn’t understand the examinee’s views and needed more time to consider them. AFAIK, they haven’t been given that time.
These are hardly what I’d consider concluded cases. Plus, they were both before the 35th GA’s vote on the report. The GA’s action probably won’t make a difference in the first case as I’m sure they aren’t done apologizing to the examinee yet, but it might in the second case since that individual had the integrity to openly declare his standing on the nine declarations.
Mark Duncan said,
June 21, 2007 at 7:29 am
I must take issue with Reformed Musings. I am chairman of the examination committee of Louisiana Presbytery. Did Mr.Musings read the written exam we gave TE Wilkins? Did he listen to the 5 hour oral exam? Steve’s exam was hardly “cursory.” I have no idea what he means by the rediculous statement that we were “apologizing” to Steve, but should we not all treat our brothers with courtesy and respect?
Louisiana Presbytery determined that Steve’s views are not inconsistent with the Standards (other than his noted exceptions).
All you anti FVers out there need to realize that while the Confession fits into the bible, the entire bible cannot fit into the confession. The Standards are a summary of bible doctrine, shaped by the historic context of the Church of the 1640’s.
markhorne said,
June 21, 2007 at 8:05 am
TE Mark Horne was examined in response to internet rumors and associations with “FV” Cleared by Candidates and Credentials committee. Report received without dissent by MO pby.
markhorne said,
June 21, 2007 at 8:06 am
Peter’s not the only one being honest with his presbytery and anyone else about the nine declarations.
Xon said,
June 21, 2007 at 8:06 am
Robert, would you admit that your objectivity is lacking here, and that it is at least understandable why having a committee full of people who only see things your way might be a concern?
Jeff Hutchinson said,
June 21, 2007 at 8:16 am
Xon, this is what is known as confessional unity. 95-98% of the Commissioners to the GA only want men IN THE DENOMINATION who “see things Robert’s way;” it is hardly a matter anymore of the makeup of a now-dismissed-with-thanks Committee.
Some presbyters, and some Presbyteries, are plainly out of step with the denomination, but time will either bring about greater confessional unity, or the peace of the denomination will continue to be troubled by folks like you, who wrote this above about R.C. Sproul, “Wed. he sounded like my grandpa (God bless him), who toward the end of his life had a way of just wondering into conversations from the other room and saying off-the-wall things that didn’t really fit. And we all just had to sit and smile politely. ‘Gentlemen, justification sola fide is at stake’ was that kind of a moment.”
You are welcome to interpret that moment in that way, but you demonstrate your foolishness by doing so.
reformedmusings said,
June 21, 2007 at 8:53 am
Robert, would you admit that your objectivity is lacking here, and that it is at least understandable why having a committee full of people who only see things your way might be a concern?
Xon,
Would you like that Red Herring pickled or broiled? The committee fairly studied and evaluated a massive amount of publications, writings, and statements by Federal Vision advocates, then carefully summarized it all in the report. Leithart has publicly stated that we got his views right, and his are the most complex. 95+% of the GA commissioners agreed that the committee faithfully executed the task we were given and approved our recommendations. As we say in football, the fat lady is singing…
It seems to me that those who continue to wrangle over the outcome really want to be congregationalists with no accountability. What does it mean to be under Presbyterian polity if not that the Spirit guides and speaks through the many? And we’re not talking about a bare majority. Whether you or anyone else disagrees with the 95+% decision is irrelevant, but should be cause for serious self-examination and submission to the brothers. I believe it says something about that in the ordination oaths of both TEs and REs. But I don’t see any self-examination evident on the blogs.
philip said,
June 21, 2007 at 8:56 am
reformedmusings,
It seems to me that your rhetoric doesn’t match the recommendations of the report. I’m curious, if you think those amenable to FV teachings should either repent or, “go quietly and honorably,” why wasn’t this sort of recommendation in the report? If the purpose of the report was to facilitate purging the PCA of all FV pastors, why didn’t the comittee recommend judicial actions to that end?
reformedmusings said,
June 21, 2007 at 9:00 am
Here’s a passage relevant to this situation:
BCO 3-6: “The exercise of ecclesiastical power, whether joint or several, has divine sanction when in conformity with the statutes enacted by Christ, the Lawgiver, and when put forth by courts or by officers appointed thereunto in His Word.”
Last I checked, the GA is a court populated by officers so appointed. Perhaps this is another Federal Vision exception?
philip said,
June 21, 2007 at 9:11 am
okay, so following that line of reasoning, would you raise any issue with ad interim study committees being referred to as a “jury” on issues of doctrine?
And, so you know, I am simply trying to figure the polity of the PCA out.
Xon said,
June 21, 2007 at 9:13 am
Actually, the FV contention is that the phrase “in conformity with the statutes enacted by Christ, the Lawgiver” does not apply here.
You don’t get to ‘weigh in’ on matters differently than Christ has weighed in on them. Just as children do not have to obey their fathers if their father tells them to commit a crime, so we do not have to “obey as the Lord” people who tell us we believe things we DON’T even believe, that things we do believe have implications they DON’T have, CONDEMN us on the basis of those misrepresentations, etc.
If the PCA came out with a report that said, “Xon Hosteter, and all the Hostetterites, deny that 2+2=4, and are therefore condemned.” What exactly am I supposed to do with that? What does “submission” look like in this case? “Oh, my brothers and fathers have spoken, so I guess I do believe that 2+2=4! I repent!” ?? This can’t be what you are advocating.
This is a point I made to Gary over on Barlow’s blog last week. Just for one minute, I’m asking you to consider this from the FV perspective (if you want to ask that I reciprocate and walk in your moccassins, then I openly accept your guidance as to how to do so). Instead of rushing immediately to “submit to this declaration,” consider what you are actually asking from an FV perspective. You are demanding that we “submit” to a declaration that is so obviously erroneous as to be embarrassing, that makes statements about our beliefs that we don’t believe, etc. If my father told me to “Bark the ice ceram like your uncle used to”, telling me that I have an obligation to obey my parents doesn’t give me a whole lot of help as to what to do.
I believe in justification sola fide, for instance. Apparently a bunch of people in the PCA voted last week to publically proclaim that I don’t. But I do. I just honestly don’t know what kind of “submission” you are looking for. Admit that I don’t believe something even though I do believe it? Will that make you happy?
Xon said,
June 21, 2007 at 9:14 am
As for your charge that I was raising a red herring by asking you about your bias, this isn’t what I was trying to do at all. I was not making an argument. I wasn’t arguing “the cmte was biased, therfore its conclusions are wrong”, or anything of the sort. I was simply asking you a question. Which you have no obligation to answer directly, and apparently chose not to. C’est la vie.
anneivy said,
June 21, 2007 at 9:17 am
I daresay the FV would like to see an “in some sense” inserted between “sanction” and “when.” >;^>
Not to mention, there is the qualification “when in conformity with the statutes enacted by Christ”; if the FV’er don’t agree that the exercise of ecclesiastical power was thus conformed, then whatever that exercise was may be legitimately ignored.
This is just a guess on my part, mind.
G.L.W.Johnson said,
June 21, 2007 at 9:26 am
Xon
You made a point? When? Are you referring to that ice pick attack on me over at BarlowFarms? Well I guess you could call that a ‘point’.( put smiling face here so that everyone knows you are joking). I find it very interesting that Leithart was also the only FV to actually acknowledge that Guy Waters corrected identified his position-while all the other FV that Waters evaluated howeled and complained that they had been distorted. Once again, Leithart is up front in acknowing that the PCA report correctly depicts his views at a number of points.
markhorne said,
June 21, 2007 at 9:29 am
#28 doesn’t sound at all like what we were told at GA about what we were voting on.
Did the declarations get made part of our church constitution?
markhorne said,
June 21, 2007 at 9:31 am
“Some presbyters, and some Presbyteries, are plainly out of step with the denomination,”
But are in conformity to the confession, which is all the denomination requires.
Jenny F said,
June 21, 2007 at 9:33 am
Since there is a committee member on here, may I post a question near and dear to my heart? Let’s use a “hypothetical” situation- say there is a church in our presbytery who is practicing paedo-communion. With the adoption of the report, what happens now?
Jenny F said,
June 21, 2007 at 9:34 am
Re: 35
Clarification: assuming they choose not to leave the PCA.
Stewart said,
June 21, 2007 at 9:41 am
Jeff, which presbytery are you in?
Jeff Hutchinson said,
June 21, 2007 at 9:48 am
Stewart,
Who are you? You can find out which Presbytery I am in by clicking on my name, which links to my church’s website, which tells which Presbytery I am in.
Meanwhile, who are you? What church are you a member of? Are you an elder? etc.
Vern Crisler said,
June 21, 2007 at 9:53 am
Robert said:
“It seems to me that those who continue to wrangle over the outcome really want to be congregationalists with no accountability.” (#27)
Hey, don’t blame “congregationalists” or us booze-guzzling Cromwellian Independents for the behavior of Federal Visionists.
Vern
Michael Saville said,
June 21, 2007 at 10:06 am
As I remember, the Study Committee sought to minimize the significance of adopting there recommendations. As I recall, Dr. Fowler emphasized our GA didn’t have the power to bind people to a specific interpretation of the Confession (unlike other Reformed donominations). If adopting the recommendations meant that “FV men” should then pack up and leave the PCA why didn’t the Committee members says so when they presented the report?
philip said,
June 21, 2007 at 10:12 am
Michael, My memory of the proceedings was similar to yours, which is why Robert Mattes statements here are relatively alarming. I understand his time is limited in writing comments on this webpage, but I (along with others I am sure) am hopeful he will answer your question.
greenbaggins said,
June 21, 2007 at 10:17 am
Jenny, the PCA has already ruled on this that paedo-communion is not what we practice. No FV guy of which I am aware (who is in the PCA) practices it. Wilkins believes in paedo-communion, but does not practice it, in accordance with the presbytery’s direction. And no presbytery of which I am aware allows such a practice.
Robert K. said,
June 21, 2007 at 10:30 am
“All you anti FVers out there need to realize that while the Confession fits into the bible, the entire bible cannot fit into the confession. The Standards are a summary of bible doctrine, shaped by the historic context of the Church of the 1640’s.”
Yes, now I see why the FVists are teachers. This is very deep and insightful. R. C. Sproul is reading the above and slapping his forehead; how could he have missed that? John Calvin is looking down from heaven in utter amazement, wishing he’d had such teachers to set him on the right path. The Dutch Second Reformation Puritans are burning their works…
markhorne said,
June 21, 2007 at 10:32 am
Ditto to what GB said (if you need two witnesses). Bear in mind the BCO doesn’t set an age limit. Are young children being examined?
I know firmly paedocommunion pastors who feel convinced they should wait longer to examine than other firmly anti-paedocommunion pastors.
But the practice is illegal and no presbytery has the authority to permit it.
Jeff Hutchinson said,
June 21, 2007 at 10:37 am
Michael,
Good question.
The General Assembly of the PCA is not an ordaining body. Since it does not possess the power to ordain a man to office, it does not possess the power to depose a man from office. Presbyteries alone (for teaching elders) and Sessions alone (for Ruling Elders and Deacons) possess this power to ordain and depose. This is what Paul Fowler (and others) were alluding to.
But just as a Presbytery can discipline a Session for ordaining men whose theology or character (or both) make them unfit to serve as officers in the PCA, the General Assembly can discipline a Presbytery for ordaining or maintaining on their rolls men whose theology or character (or both) make them unfit to serve as officers in the PCA.
FV men (like Mark Horne, who comments above) have to decide what to do. Many folks, including Lane, think it would be honorable for them to leave (helping to preserve the peace of the church), but I don’t think anyone is saying they have to leave. If they choose to ask their Presbyteries to circle their wagons around them, and take on the whole denomination on their behalf, they are free to do that.
Presbyteries that currently have FV men on their rolls (like Louisiana Presbytery, Missouri Presbytery, and Pacific Northwest Presbytery) also have to decide what to do. They can choose to heed the wisdom of the General Assembly and see things through with their FV men until they are no longer on their rolls, or they can forthrightly defend both their FV men and their right to maintain FV men on their rolls, and wait for the response of next year’s General Assembly.
Several years ago the South Florida Presbytery allowed a man to be on their rolls who denied the eternal generation of the Spirit from the Son. When GA asked them to answer for that, they circled the wagons for one year, defending both the man and their right to have him on their rolls. When GA then appealed to them once again, with elevated brotherly seriousness (a special order for early in the Assembly was docketed, and the vote to approve the communication from GA to the Presbytery was overwhelming–not quite as overwhelming as last Wednesday’s vote on the FV, but overwhelming nonetheless), they came back to the next GA wonderfully repentant. Even better, the man himself had repented of his aberrant views.
Michael Saville said,
June 21, 2007 at 10:56 am
Thanks Jeff,
I certainly realize that presbyteries have the right to listen to the voice of this GA on the matter. My point was that during the presentation of the report, there was no hint that the adoption of the recommendations meant that FV men should take it upon themselves to leave. Also, I agree with you that it’s the presbytery that is the key thing. If “FV men” remain in good standing and you think they should be gone, then your issue is with the presbytery. Oh, and FYI, I am a TE in the PNW presbytery so I’m familiar with some of the goings on here.
markhorne said,
June 21, 2007 at 11:02 am
Jeff, all my exceptions to the WCF & Catechisms passed review of records just fine. So I’m not sure your precedent works.
Mark Duncan said,
June 21, 2007 at 11:07 am
Robert K’s sarcasm aside, much of the anti FV rhetoric at least implies that Westminster is the final word in theology and is so comprehensive and exhaustive in its teaching that to suggest there is biblical teaching above and beyond the teaching of the Confession is regarded as gross error or even heresy. Is this not the Roman error of elevating tradition over Scripture?
Having said that, had I been able to speak at last week’s GA, (time expired with me at the mic) I was going to point out that, notwithstanding all the Confessional flag waving raised in the report, that the assembly should not adopt the report because it is, at points, contrary to the Standards.
Jeff Hutchinson said,
June 21, 2007 at 11:36 am
Hey there, Michael. Good to make your aquaintance.
When you wrote, “I certainly realize that presbyteries have the right to listen to the voice of this GA on the matter,” did you mean to write “responsibility” rather than “right?” I hope so.
I agree with you that “during the presentation of the report, there was no hint that the adoption of the recommendations meant that FV men should take it upon themselves to leave.” While it may be appropriate for individual elders within the PCA, speaking as individuals, to give brotherly suggestions to FV men about what they now should or shouldn’t do, I think it would have been inappropriate for members of the Committee, speaking as a Committee of the Assembly, to give that sort of counsel. And so I am glad they didn’t, and wouldn’t have.
And you are right about the focus of concern. If, after this Assembly, FV men are allowed to remain in good standing, their Presbyteries then reveal themselves to be fundamentally unhealthy, and the PCA’s problems become not merely that particular men hold to unhealthy views, but also that particular Presbyteries demonstrate an unhealthy lack of discernment and discipline. By “unhealthy” I do not mean “satanic” or “demonic” or anything like that! Just that every court of the Church needs to grow in wisdom, and for a Presbytery to critique itself, and ask itself whether it has in fact made mistakes in the past that now need to be corrected–that would be a beautiful movement of the Holy Spirit.
May the Lord bless both of our churches and both of our Presbyteries with “the wisdom that comes from above.”
Jeff
Xon said,
June 21, 2007 at 11:50 am
Gary, yeah, when I made that point on Barlow’s blog, you came back immediately with “and I thought we were friends.” And then later over here you said something about how “If I promised not to say mean things about you any more, I could get a part in the movie you’re making with Guy Waters”. I took all of these as just jokes on your part (obviously the movie thing was a joke, but I mean I took your insinuation that I had been mean or unfriendly to be a joke.) Now you seem to be insisting on the point, and frankly I have never been more befuddled over a claim that I’ve been mean in my entire life. And I’ve had LOTS of conversations in college where over-sensitive evangelicals got offended, and frankly I WAS being kinda mean. But here I just have no idea what you are talking about.
My comment was a defense of myself and other FV men, and by defense I don’t mean “nasty counteroffensive motivated by self-defense”. I mean soft, pleading, please-see-this-from-my-perspecitve-for-just-a-moment defense. In fact, I was e-mailed by a couple of people who found my comment really helpful and passed it on to more “sensitive” types as helpful words to understand where “we” are coming from. My point is that the general perception of my comment was kind of cheeseball, if anything. But you somehow felt an “ice pick”? Why, because I told you that you were doing a “touchdown dance?” Come on, you cannot be serious that that hurt your feelings. If it did, though, then I do apologize; but you strike me as tougher than that.
For the record (if the reader does not care, then he may simply skip over this comment), since you have referenced it twice here, I’ll repaste the comment I made on Barlow’s blog last week. Here it be:
Sean Gerety said,
June 21, 2007 at 11:55 am
Presbyteries that currently have FV men on their rolls (like Louisiana Presbytery, Missouri Presbytery, and Pacific Northwest Presbytery) also have to decide what to do.
I would like to add the James River Presbytery to that list and if James River I have to think perhaps other Presbyteries include FV men on their rolls.
Michael Saville said,
June 21, 2007 at 12:15 pm
Jeff, “responsibility” would have been a better choice of words on my part. Though a presbytery may still conclude that GA was mistaken in its action. Blessings.
Jeff Hutchinson said,
June 21, 2007 at 12:35 pm
Thanks, Michael.
And, yes, a Presbytery may still conclude that GA has erred in a particular respect. But they must then be prepared to endure the consequences of their not having submitted to GA.
It is fairly common for a Presbytery to differ with GA over a particular decision that is minor in its implications (i.e. “You erred by not setting a proper quorum for the commission to ordain John Doe.” “No we didn’t”). Usually, if there even are consequences for such “disobedience,” the consequences are minor.
But this would be the first time in the history of the PCA that a Presbytery dared to differ, not only with such an overwhelming majority of the Assembly, but with the Assembly on such a central matter. I sure hope no Presbytery decides to go that route! I will not ask you to speculate (because it would be only that) as to how your Presbytery is going to respond to Peter Leithart’s letter to your Stated Clerk, but I will be praying for you and all the brothers there.
jared said,
June 21, 2007 at 12:40 pm
Jeff,
I hope that “all the brothers there” includes Leithart…
reformedmusings said,
June 21, 2007 at 12:55 pm
I have a new post on my blog in which I attempt to answer some of the church government-related questions raised here. I don’t know if one can post html links in comments, so I won’t try.
Everything that Dr. Fowler and John White said at GA was exactly correct. The issue is not whether the GA voted–or even has the power to vote–FVers from the PCA. The GA overwhelmingly voted approved/accepted the five recommendations of the report, which included accepting the included nine declarations as faithful to the Standards (note that carefully, MD). Those declarations then delineated specific views the GA accepted/declared as out of accord with the Standards. That is now the GA’s official position in accordance with Preliminary Principle 2 and BCO 3-6. The vote didn’t change the constitution at all. All the GA did was make explicit what was already true but being denied by the FV community. That, I believe, is the pill on which the FV folks are choking.
So the FV folks here miss the point. The point is that every TE and RE in the PCA freely accepted the Westminster Standards as “containing the system of doctrine taught in the Scriptures,” and swore to be in submission to the brethren. If anyone hold views contrary to the nine declarations in the report, which have been accepted as faithful to (and subordinate to) the Standards, they are now by definition out of accord with the Standards in the PCA. That’s not new–they already were out of accord. All the report did was say so. So all this constitutional stuff is just a smoke screen.
The point of my new blog post is to explicitly remind FV TEs and REs that to which they swore at ordination. That’s the real issue before us. Any TE or RE than cannot answer the nine declarations in conformity with the Westminster Standards now, in accordance with their ordination vows, is duty bound to declare their non-conformity like one had the courage to do this week.
One quick word on the desire for Biblical exposition: Read the Scripture references in your copy of the Standards. That exposition was done in great detail 400 years ago by learned men and, to the best of my knowledge, the Scriptures haven’t been revised since then. This is just another smoke screen.
It absolutely amazes me the lengths that folks will go to ignore their responsibilities under the BCO, blaming the committee and the GA instead of their own aberrant views that they freely hold. The committee merely and faithfully carried out its charge–as exactly as possible–which it was given by the 34th GA and report to the 35th GA. That our committee, after considerable study, came to the same conclusions as the OPC, RCUS, BPC, RPCNA, WTS, Mid-America, etc., and that those conclusions were accepted by 95+% of our brethren at the GA, should greatly magnify the impact of BCO 3-6 which I quoted in a previous post. Remember the “submission to the brethren” part of the ordination oath?
Now, if anyone thinks that their FV views really are Biblical, yet those views are out of accord with the Westminster Standards as reinforced by the GA vote and the votes of all those others just mentioned, then may you go in peace with God’s blessing. There are plenty of other places to serve besides the PCA. The CREC comes to mind.
Again and for the third time to be perfectly clear, the report didn’t change anything in the PCA’s constitution. All is did was state what was already true but being denied by a very small minority in the PCA. Given what was already true, I would think that in the interest of the peace and purity of the church, FV proponents would quietly move on to someplace that welcomes their views rather than foster continued division and harm the peace of the Church.
Jeff Hutchinson said,
June 21, 2007 at 1:05 pm
Jared,
It does. And I hope you will join me (and 95-98% of the commissioners to this year’s Assembly) in praying for Peter Leithart to repent of his aberrent views, and for his Presbytery to hold him accountable as the GA has asked (and requires) them to.
Michael Saville said,
June 21, 2007 at 1:11 pm
Robert,
IOur primary standard is the Word of God. f a person believes that their views are biblical, yet out of accord with the Standards they may also seek to change the the Standards–our own constitution makes provision for such changes for the reason that we are first and foremost committed to the scriptures.
reformedmusings said,
June 21, 2007 at 1:29 pm
While it may be appropriate for individual elders within the PCA, speaking as individuals, to give brotherly suggestions to FV men about what they now should or shouldn’t do, I think it would have been inappropriate for members of the Committee, speaking as a Committee of the Assembly, to give that sort of counsel. And so I am glad they didn’t, and wouldn’t have.
Absolutely, Jeff, and well said. Beyond being inappropriate, it wasn’t in the committee’s charter, and we faithfully executed our charter from the 34th GA as closely as possible–nothing more or less. We were asked to do a study, not conduct a trial.
Articles on my blog and any comments I make on other blogs or otherwise are my own and only my own as an officer in the PCA. I’ve made that clear here and on my blog, and am happy to have this opportunity to make this clear again.
Robert K. said,
June 21, 2007 at 1:31 pm
“Robert K’s sarcasm aside, much of the anti FV rhetoric at least implies that Westminster is the final word in theology and is so comprehensive and exhaustive in its teaching that to suggest there is biblical teaching above and beyond the teaching of the Confession is regarded as gross error or even heresy. Is this not the Roman error of elevating tradition over Scripture?”
No. Because truth actually exists, and it doesn’t exist in Roman tradition. It does exist in classical Reformed Federal theology.
And, for an example of orthodox Reformed theologians filling out biblical doctrine look to Geerhardus Vos and some of his better students. They are a good example of how a theologian can be original and orthodox at the same time. Reformed Theology is hardly in some kind of uninspired rut. What FV is is a lot of second rate intellectual theology dilletantes falling into very old, very common bad-doctrine pot holes.
reformedmusings said,
June 21, 2007 at 1:48 pm
If a person believes that their views are biblical, yet out of accord with the Standards they may also seek to change the the Standards–our own constitution makes provision for such changes for the reason that we are first and foremost committed to the scriptures.
Absolutely, Michael. Good luck.
Of course, the other issue is that FV isn’t Biblical, either. The OPC did a nice job with a piece of that. Please see my blog post on “Failure to Communicate.” The problem is that FV is using hermeneutical and exegetical frameworks that differ markedly from the way the Reformed have done them for 400 years. Only the FV folks seem enamored with those frameworks.
And please, could everyone please call me Bob. Only my dear, departed grandmother called me Robert, and only when she was mad at me. Thanks!
Mark Duncan said,
June 21, 2007 at 1:56 pm
Mr. Musings said: “One quick word on the desire for Biblical exposition: Read the Scripture references in your copy of the Standards. That exposition was done in great detail 400 years ago by learned men and, to the best of my knowledge, the Scriptures haven’t been revised since then.”
Yes, by all means, read the scripture proofs. WCF chapter 28 cites Titus 3:5 with regard to baptism. That is, baptism is the “washing of regeneration.”
Who is being unconfessional?
Mark Duncan said,
June 21, 2007 at 2:01 pm
Robert K said: “No. Because truth actually exists, and it doesn’t exist in Roman tradition. It does exist in classical Reformed Federal theology.”
Robert, do you really mean that no truth exists in the Roman tradition?
And, as a matter of fact, I believe that the so called “FV” is nothing other than classical Reformed Federal Theology. Read Calvin.
Michael Saville said,
June 21, 2007 at 2:05 pm
Bob,
Just to be clear, I have no immediate plans to seek changes to the Standards! I just wanted to be clear that this option is available, and it is not wrong in our church to pursue it. The issue is pretty much beside the point since all the “FV men” that I’m aware of believe that their views conform to our System of Doctrine. Presbyteries will now decide if that’s the case.
markhorne said,
June 21, 2007 at 2:06 pm
Q. 153. What doth God require of us, that we may escape his wrath and curse due to us by reason of the transgression of the law?
A. That we may escape the wrath and curse of God due to us by reason of the transgression of the law, he requireth of us repentance toward God, and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ,[990] and the diligent use of the outward means whereby Christ communicates to us the benefits of his mediation.[991]
Proverbs 2:1-5. My son, if thou wilt receive my words, and hide my commandments with thee; So that thou incline thine ear unto wisdom, and apply thine heart to understanding; Yea, if thou criest after knowledge, and liftest up thy voice for understanding; If thou seekest her as silver, and searchest for her as for hid treasures; Then shalt thou understand the fear of the LORD, and find the knowledge of God. Proverbs 8:33-36. Hear instruction, and be wise, and refuse it not. Blessed is the man that heareth me, watching daily at my gates, waiting at the posts of my doors. For whoso findeth me findeth life, and shall obtain favour of the LORD. But he that sinneth against me wrongeth his own soul: all they that hate me love death.
————
Q. 167. How is our baptism to be improved by us?
A. The needful but much neglected duty of improving our baptism, is to be performed by us all our life long, especially in the time of temptation, and when we are present at the administration of it to others;[1068] by serious and thankful consideration of the nature of it, and of the ends for which Christ instituted it, the privileges and benefits conferred and sealed thereby, and our solemn vow made therein;[1069] by being humbled for our sinful defilement, our falling short of, and walking contrary to, the grace of baptism, and our engagements;[1070] by growing up to assurance of pardon of sin, and of all other blessings sealed to us in that sacrament;[1071] by drawing strength from the death and resurrection of Christ, into whom we are baptized, for the mortifying of sin, and quickening of grace;[1072] and by endeavoring to live by faith,[1073] to have our conversation in holiness and righteousness,[1074] as those that have therein given up their names to Christ;[1075] and to walk in brotherly love, as being baptized by the same Spirit into one body.[1076]
[1068] Colossians 2:11-12. In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ: Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead. Romans 6:4, 6, 11. Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life…. Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin…. Likewise reckon ye also yourselves to be dead indeed unto sin, but alive unto God through Jesus Christ our Lord.
[1069] Romans 6:3-5. Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death? Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life. For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection.
[1070] 1 Corinthians 1:11-13. For it hath been declared unto me of you, my brethren, by them which are of the house of Chloe, that there are contentions among you. Now this I say, that every one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ. Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul? Romans 6:2-3. God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein? Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death?
[1071] Romans 4:11-12. And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had yet being uncircumcised: that he might be the father of all them that believe, though they be not circumcised; that righteousness might be imputed unto them also: And the father of circumcision to them who are not of the circumcision only, but who also walk in the steps of that faith of our father Abraham, which he had being yet uncircumcised. 1 Peter 3:21. The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ.
[1072] Romans 6:3-5. Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death? Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life. For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection.
[1073] Galatians 3:26-27. For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus. For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.
[1074] Romans 6:22. But now being made free from sin, and become servants to God, ye have your fruit unto holiness, and the end everlasting life.
[1075] Acts 2:38. Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.
[1076] 1 Corinthians 12:13, 25. For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit…. That there should be no schism in the body; but that the members should have the same care one for another.
Robert K. said,
June 21, 2007 at 2:13 pm
Mark, get your baptismal regeneration at the hands of Doug Wilson himself. Fine. But just know this: when the Holy Spirit regenerates you you’ll know it. Then you’ll look back and realize that what you were demanding was man-centered. You can’t understand this now, but I tell you anyway. Meanwhile try not to do too much damage teaching such things as ‘baptismal regeneration’…
jared said,
June 21, 2007 at 2:25 pm
Jeff,
I don’t think all of those that voted will be praying; they’re too busy condemning in spite of the report’s extended hand of fellowship (or brotherhood, if you prefer). Also, given Leithart’s stated letter, it is not transparently clear that he is actually out of accord with the Standards and, thus, holding “aberrant views.”
Robert K. said,
June 21, 2007 at 2:25 pm
>And, as a matter of fact, I believe that the so called “FV” is nothing other than classical Reformed Federal Theology. Read Calvin.
Goodness that is funny. “Federal Theology” you write? You actually wrote those words, did you, FVist? (I could see Mark Horne desperately waving his hands through cyber space trying to stop you from writing those words.) You’re not initiated, Mark (Duncan). To be a successful FVist you must stay within the realm of Covenant Theology. You must never even *mention* Federal Theology. Covenant Theology provides the mush-margin you need. Federal Theology - classical Covenant Theology systematized - doesn’t.
And here’s some Calvin for you:
“How much evil has been caused by the dogma, ill expounded, that baptism is necessary to salvation, few perceive, and therefore think caution the less necessary. For when the opinion prevails that all are lost who happen not to be dipped in water, our condition becomes worse than that of God’s ancient people, as if his grace were more restrained than under the Law.”
William Hill said,
June 21, 2007 at 2:28 pm
I would like to add the James River Presbytery to that list and if James River I have to think perhaps other Presbyteries include FV men on their rolls.
Ya? Who Sean? Who in the James River Presbytery is FV? When (or IF) you answer be prepared to bring proof…
Robert K. said,
June 21, 2007 at 2:29 pm
>[1073] Galatians 3:26-27. For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus. For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.
How did John the Baptist say Jesus would baptize? With water? Or with something else…?
That’s OK, Mark (Horne), as I said to the other Mark, when the Holy Spirit regenerates you you’ll look back on this time of your life and want to write a thousand letters of remorseful apology…
William Hill said,
June 21, 2007 at 2:32 pm
Robert,
Are you calling Mark Horne and Mark Duncan unregenerate? Is usre looks that way. So lets be VERY clear: Are you calling them unregenerate? A simple “yes” or “no” will suffice.
Robert K. said,
June 21, 2007 at 2:35 pm
Take your Inquisition hood off, William. Baptismal regeneration is unregenerate doctrine. But as I said, twice, that’s OK. When the Holy Spirit regenerates you you’ll know. You can’t know now, but then you will know. Just try to not do too much damage teaching deathly doctrine such as baptismal regeneration in the meantime…
reformedmusings said,
June 21, 2007 at 2:38 pm
Nice try. Calvin on Titus 3:5:
“the washing of regeneration.” The efficacy and use of the sacraments will be properly understood by him who shall connect the sign and the thing signified, in such a manner as not to make the sign unmeaning and inefficacious, and who nevertheless shall not, for the sake of adorning the sign, take away from the Holy Spirit what belongs to him. Although by baptism wicked men are neither washed nor renewed, yet it retains that power, so far as relates to God, because, although they reject the grace of God, still it is offered to them. But here Paul addresses believers, in whom baptism is always efficacious, and in whom, therefore, it is properly connected with its truth and efficacy. But by this mode of expression we are reminded that, if we do not wish to annihilate holy baptism, we must prove its efficacy by “newness of life.” (Romans 6:4.)
No one gets to play dueling verses. Scripture is and must be consistent from end to end. I go back to what I said in my blog post on FV hermaneutics. You can pull out all the Scripture verses you want, but you might as well be speaking Mandarin Chinese. The FV hermaneutic will result in an interpretation growing out of the “objective covenant” framework, which includes “baptismal regeneration lite.” A standard Reformed interpretation based on sola fide and sola gracia will come out differently. Only one can be right because they are mutually exclusive frameworks.
Please believe me when I say that I read through a plethora of “Scriptural proofs” in FV publications during the last year. I didn’t see anything convincing, but I did clearly see the FV hermaneutical scheme along with my brothers. The committee documented that in the report and I quoted a portion of it on my blog.
Robert K. said,
June 21, 2007 at 2:41 pm
Notice how all the FVists went silent at the mention of Geerhardus Vos. When you are posing yourselves as creative, high intellectuals of a currently intellectually stagnant Reformed Theology it’s a bit embarassing that someone the caliber and orthodoxy (Covenant Theology orthodoxy) of Vos existed in such close chronological proximity. Best not to acknowledge even his name.
Vos is like the water on the wicked witch of the west…
reformedmusings said,
June 21, 2007 at 2:44 pm
That’s OK, Mark (Horne), as I said to the other Mark, when the Holy Spirit regenerates you you’ll look back on this time of your life and want to write a thousand letters of remorseful apology…
Robert,
I will speak for my brothers on the committee in this one post and only this one. When we wrote that we considered FV advocates brothers in Christ, we meant it. Whatever disagreements we have, and they are many, we did not and will not call anyone’s salvation into question.
Robert K. said,
June 21, 2007 at 2:44 pm
Nice try? So Calvin didn’t write the quote I posted? And I’ll bet you live in the ‘reality based community’…
And if you know your Calvin you’ll know this part of your quote carries great weight: “and who nevertheless shall not, for the sake of adorning the sign, take away from the Holy Spirit what belongs to him.”
Mark Duncan said,
June 21, 2007 at 2:47 pm
I like Vos.
With regard to “baptismal regeneration” you beef should be with the Confession, not me.
By the way, I have my Calvin quotes, too.
Robert K. said,
June 21, 2007 at 2:48 pm
>When we wrote that we considered FV advocates brothers in Christ
And I’m sure you know you’ve been criticized as being a bit schizophrenic regarding that. Anyway, brothers in Christ, just not in your church.
Personally I don’t hold people who teach Romanist doctrine and who call it orthodox Reformed Theology as brothers in Christ. Fellow human beings, sure…
Robert K. said,
June 21, 2007 at 2:55 pm
And since when is it questioning a person’s salvation to suggest they’ve yet to experience the work of the Holy Spirit in regeneration? I generally assume if I could be regenerated by the Word and the Spirit anybody could…and I also assume, blithely, innocently maybe, that everybody will (still holding to particular redemption)…
Jeff Hutchinson said,
June 21, 2007 at 3:00 pm
Robert K.,
Who are you? Are you a member of a PCA church? Is there any chance you might be willing to identify yourself on this blog?
Robert K. said,
June 21, 2007 at 3:02 pm
Read chapter 10 of the WCF and say that it teaches baptismal regeneration. Even in chapter 28 paragraph 5 controls everything else the confession says about baptism. The divines knew their Romanist doctrine.
William Hill said,
June 21, 2007 at 3:09 pm
Robert K,
How about you simply answer my question! “Yes” or “No”, are you calling Mark Horne and Mark Duncan unregenrate? You made such an implication and now I want you to be a man and answer the question…
Robert K. said,
June 21, 2007 at 3:10 pm
Jeff, ad whominem.
Who are you? Who who, who who
Did you know that Who song has a most beautiful Messianic lyric towards the end?
I know there’s a place you walked
Where love falls from the trees
My heart is like a broken cup
I only feel right on my knees
I spit out like a sewer hole
Yet still recieve your kiss
How can I measure up to anyone now
After such a love as this?
I’m a Christian, and a nobody, Jeff. But I’m zealous for the faith once delivered, and I want it to be known to others of my fellow human beings just as it was available to be known by me. God bless.
Robert K. said,
June 21, 2007 at 3:11 pm
It’s an inane question, William. If you insist on wearing that hood though go ahead…
William Hill said,
June 21, 2007 at 3:13 pm
WHY is it inane? Here is what you stated: That’s OK, Mark (Horne), as I said to the other Mark, when the Holy Spirit regenerates you you’ll look back on this time of your life and want to write a thousand letters of remorseful apology…
So, you have opened the door for the question. Apparently you are not man enough to simply answer the question.
Robert K. said,
June 21, 2007 at 3:18 pm
William, you’ve got alot of testosterone in you apparently. I don’t consider the subject of regeneration to be the third rail FVists want it to be. When a person is demanding the deathly, man-centered Romanist doctrine of baptismal regeneration it is clear they’ve yet to experience the work of the Word and the Spirit in regeneration. But as I stated, I - perhaps blithely and innocently - assume there will come a time when the Spirit will work in them and then they’ll know. Meanwhile, as I said to them, try not to do too much damage teaching poisonous doctrine such as baptismal regeneration…
William Hill said,
June 21, 2007 at 3:19 pm
I will take that as a “yes” you are calling them unregenerate. Thanks for cooperating…
Robert K. said,
June 21, 2007 at 3:21 pm
And for the record, radio stations never - never - play recordings of that Who song with that Messianic lyric included. Why? Maybe it’s not a conspiracy against the subject of the lyric, but it is something that makes one wonder…
William Hill said,
June 21, 2007 at 3:25 pm
Huh? What does any of that mean (and for the record, I am no fan of the WHO so I have no idea what song u are talking about….
While you are at it why dont you identify yourself to everyone…
Anne Ivy said,
June 21, 2007 at 3:25 pm
Speaking of being a man, did I miss where you answered me when I wanted you to support your accusation that I’d called people liars? Saying either back it up or apologize? “A Brief Response to Mark Horne”, comments #105 and 106:
William wrote:
“It is not an inference…I am saying it plainly. You are calling them liars. I know it –so does everyone else. Yes, you are obligated to give the benefit of the doubt and since you have had so many conversations with them you are in a position to give the benefit unless I have missed my guess and you have talked to them personally about this matter. Give Horne a call — tell him he is lying to the whole world. Better yet, spare us this junk.
“What are 1,000 dead lawyers at the bottom of the ocean? Heh….”
To which I replied in high dudgeon:
“You have the nerve of a bad tooth.
“SHOW US where I called someone…ANYONE…a liar.
“I can show you where I said “I am well aware at least most of the FV’ers (with one or two exceptions) ARE Calvinist”. Look up at #99.
“That is a bloody serious accusation you’ve made, and you will either back it up or you will apologize.”
Instead of doing either, you conveniently dropped off the radar for a few days.
Weaselly behavior, William.
Really, really weaselly. And now YOU’RE demanding responses from others?
I’m surprised you’ve got a tooth left in your head.
William Hill said,
June 21, 2007 at 3:26 pm
Anne,
I clearly misread you so if so I apologize.
William Hill said,
June 21, 2007 at 3:27 pm
Oh — and Anne — next time give me some benefit of the doubt for maybe havning not seen your post…IO do not sit at the computer all day reading blogs. Anyhow…
Anne Ivy said,
June 21, 2007 at 3:32 pm
Apology accepted, William.
And yes, to be fair, I’m aware it’s possible to miss a response, particularly after a couple of days has gone by. We are a chatty lot, are we not?
William Hill said,
June 21, 2007 at 3:35 pm
yes…and further — you could have emailed me. I would have received it and responded. I see more emails than I do blog comments.
Robert K. said,
June 21, 2007 at 3:35 pm
If I told you I am a Ph.D. or a fireman or a street sweeper would it change the way you are receiving my words? Should it? Who cares who I am. My words speak for me well enough. This “who are you!” “reveal yourself” is vaguely flattering, I suppose, but it’s vain. I’m a Christian and I’m zealous for the faith once delivered. I want it to be continuously delivered in apostolic purity to others like it was to me.
William Hill said,
June 21, 2007 at 3:35 pm
But okay — thanks…and I do have some teeth left.
William Hill said,
June 21, 2007 at 3:36 pm
Oaky — Robert, have it your way. Frankly, I really don’t care anyhow. My conversation with you is boring me to tears.
Robert K. said,
June 21, 2007 at 3:37 pm
And, William: was the beauty of that lyric lost on you?
William Hill said,
June 21, 2007 at 3:38 pm
Robert,
What part of I dont follow the WHO escaped you?
Robert K. said,
June 21, 2007 at 3:38 pm
“Frankly, I really don’t care anyhow. My conversation with you is boring me to tears.”
Careful, your name is going to become a byword for charm…
William Hill said,
June 21, 2007 at 3:39 pm
too late…
Robert K. said,
June 21, 2007 at 3:41 pm
I didn’t mean quoting the Who’s Messianic lyric in that song to hijack this thread, but you don’t have to follow them to read a lyric and have an impression of the lyric, William.
Meanwhile: baptismal regeneration is still bad doctrine…
Anne Ivy said,
June 21, 2007 at 3:49 pm
I dunno, Robert, why is it such an unreasonable request? For my part, I’ve tried to be quite clear that I’m a middleaged, married homemaker in Texas who attends a non-denom, Reformed-leaning Bible church.
This provides readers with a general background against which to place me and my comments. It gives context, so to speak (though I’ll use the word “contextualize” only after being tied down and threatened with a chain saw, LANE!
).
Plus, it puts a “face” on a name, which in such an impersonal environment as the internet is surely a boon.
Certainly, I wouldn’t read into such requests any more than that.
greenbaggins said,
June 21, 2007 at 4:05 pm
I would appreciate it also if Robert would give us his last name, and a bit more about himself. I have received several requests from readers who desire to know more about him. I don’t allow anonymous commenters, either.
William Hill said,
June 21, 2007 at 4:22 pm
Thks Lane! Finally we agree on something
Robert K. said,
June 21, 2007 at 5:39 pm
“I have received several requests from readers who desire to know more about him.”
I’ve just started this page about me. Give me some time to fill it out…
http://puritan.sources.googlepages.com/aboutme.html