Several blogs have noted Sam Duncan’s statement about no one from Louisiana Presbytery getting a fair trial with the SJC. Jeff Meyers, for instance, has commented on it, as has the Haig blog. It is starting quite a discussion over on the PB as well. That Sam said it is incontrovertible. The question is this: what did Sam mean by it? This post is based on a phone conversation that I just had with Sam.
Firstly, Sam was referring to two SJC opinions that he had written. The first is the Chin case (see the minutes of the 33rd GA, pp. 113-118). In this (dissenting) opinion, Sam wrote this:
The Chin family came to Covenant Presbyterian Church by transfer from the Auburn Avenue Presbyterian Church of Monroe, Louisiana. The Chins were represented in this case by M. Dale Peacock, a Ruling Elder in the Auburn Avenue Presbyterian Church. Dr. Chin stated that he was sympathetic to Paedocommunion. Some might say that the foregoing are not popular and/or are outside of the mainstream of the PCA. However, it should be noted that the Chins, recognizing the PCA’s position against Paedocommunion, did not allow their covenant children to take part in the Lord’s Supper at the Covenant Presbyterian Church. The majority opinion seems, in our view, to reach its result based on the people and issues involved, instead of the Constitution, and it would be a violation of our vows to judge without respect to persons or according to appearances to concur with the majority.
I don’t currently have access to the second case. Sam was referring to the fact that the SJC has made up its mind against the Louisiana Presbytery. What is important to note here is that Sam does not mean that the (unofficial) conclusion the SJC has come to regarding the Louisiana Presbytery is incorrect. Sam agrees with the SJC that the LAP was wrong. Otherwise, he would not have accepted the position as prosecutor! I fear that some are taking Sam’s statements as implying that the SJC is wrong. The issue can be clarified by reference to a normal court case. In a normal case, the facts of the case are not divulged to the judge and jury prior to the case. In fact, people with a knowledge of the case are usually not allowed to serve on the jury, for fear of being biased. In the LAP case, just about everyone in the PCA knows about it at least somewhat. It would be well-nigh impossible for the SJC to find anyone who hadn’t heard a thing about it, and hadn’t formed any opinions about who is right. This is what Sam means. Sam is a lawyer. In comparison to a normal civil case, the LAP could not expect to receive a fair “clean-slate” trial. The evidence has been before us and before the SJC for many months. This is what Sam means. He told me.
Louisiana Presbytery update - The PuritanBoard said,
February 10, 2008 at 4:28 pm
[...] I just got off the phone with Sam. The results are posted here. [...]
anneivy said,
February 10, 2008 at 4:57 pm
So he didn’t mean to say there’s no way anyone in the LAP could ever receive a fair hearing from the SJC, so much as there’s no way anyone from the LAP can have their case heard by a completely neutral, impartial, unbiased “jury” (or whatever the appropriate term would be), because virtually everyone is not only acquainted with the situation but has formed an opinion on it……is that right?
Douglas Wilson said,
February 10, 2008 at 4:59 pm
Lane, “the evidence” had not been before the SJC for months because they had not heard from the defense yet.
I am not posting here in order to complain about Sam Duncan stating the obvious. But the opposite of fair is unfair, not “no clean-slate.” Nobody was expecting a clean-slate. Nobody was asking for that. What we wanted, and what we did not expect was a fair, objective trial.
If Sam Duncan meant simply that there was not going to be fresh ears listening to all this, then he should have said so — “Nobody from LAP should expect to encounter people who have heard nothing about this fray already, but they can expect to be handled objectively and fairly.” People would have believed this or not, but there could have no objections to what was said.
Bret McAtee said,
February 10, 2008 at 5:41 pm
Just because somebody does not expect a ‘fair trial’ doesn’t mean they would not have received a ‘fair trial.’ A fair trial does not require clean slates. A fair trial requires a willingness of jurors to suspend both belief and disbelief and listen to the dueling narratives of prosecution and defense. I don’t know why it would be believed that Godly jurors couldn’t or wouldn’t do that.
Lawyer’s think in terms of tainted and not tainted jurors. Given Duncan’s explanation I don’t see the problem…. unless one is refusing to give his statement a ‘fair trial.’
Bret
William Hill said,
February 10, 2008 at 5:47 pm
All spin…typical PCA politics at work.
Bill Lyle said,
February 10, 2008 at 6:10 pm
Re: #3
Why will the SJC not hear … “they had not heard from the defense yet ?” Because Wilkins fled PERIOD. From an earlier post.
It seems to me, from Wilkins own words:
“… Presbytery’s decision not to conduct a trial of me was influenced by the stated unwillingness of some to submit to the outcome of a presbytery trial if that trial resulted in a decision in my favor. Some of the members of the Presbytery informed us that they had already decided to file a complaint against the decision of the Presbytery to the SJC if a trial by the Presbytery exonerated me — regardless of what the trial evidence showed. They also acknowledged that the SJC would reverse any decision which exonerated me.”
1. He never took seriously the vows he took before the God and His people – see PCA BCO 21-5. 3, 4, 6, 7. (Could it be that Wilkins crossed his fingers when he took these vows and answered affirmative?)
Now I may be wrong, but for a simple person like me I guess he is stating the following: Now I will submit to a trial only if the following conditions are met:
a. Everyone in LAP must submit to the ruling of the presbytery.
b. All member of LAP must forgo their rights to complain and therefore PCA BCO 43 will cease to exist for this trial.
c. That in LAP – PCA BCO 14 does not exist, nor does PCA BCO 14-6 a, b, c, g, i,
2. That he, Wilkins, can see into the heart of all 24 men on the SJC and knows beforehand how they will vote on this matter.
3. That he, Wilkins, can see into my heart and knows how I will vote.
4. That he, Wilkins, believes the highest court of the PCA is the Presbytery.
5. That he, Wilkins, would only submit to LAP only if he could control the outcome of the trial and if there was a chance he could not do so, he fled. I guess this means he knows in his heart that his theology may not stand under any kind of examination.
6. That the men on the SJC lied when they took their vows before God and the church RAO 17-1
BTW the silence has been deafening from you. Dewey Roberts has thrown down the gauntlet with all the disinformation you have been saying and nothing from you.
I have spoken with Sam Duncan (three times in the past two days), have you?
Please do not speak about anything you really have NO KNOWLEDGE about!
Bret McAtee said,
February 10, 2008 at 6:18 pm
Hey, when you do x’s and o’s for a living its hard to lay off.
HaigLaw said,
February 10, 2008 at 6:30 pm
Doug Wilson said the following, and since I’m not signed in over there, I’ll comment here: “The real question is whether or not Louisiana Presbytery took any action in light of this perceived threat.”
There was no threat. Mr. Duncan was a welcome guest. He stated he was there to help. His comments were understood that way. The context was whether to change the plea to count 1 from not-guilty to guilty. Mr. Christman’s motion to do so is explained in my post at xanga.com/ haiglaw “LaP Hardens.” Mr. Christman argued in support of his motion that the worst we could expect is an acceptable handslap.
The vote that prevailed was to retain the not-guilty plea and defend it. Part of the argument for retaining the not-guilty plea and defending the case was — to have a remedy in case the SJC might want to sanction the LaP in ways the LaP might want to appeal.
I think all this discussion about what Mr. Duncan said and might have meant is missing the point of what actually happened. Mr. Duncan’s comment is at worst an opinion about what might happen in the future. And nobody knows. That’s obvious.
And even if Mr. Duncan’s opinion influenced us to retain the not-guilty plea and defend, that is what we had already decided to do in the Jan. 19 meeting anyway, so there was absolutely no harm done.
FV sympathizers who are using this Duncan comment as a way to criticize the SJC are misguided.
Chris said,
February 10, 2008 at 6:52 pm
Lane,
If this isn’t a “cover your ass” spin on something that was spoken publicly, I don’t know what is. Too bad the FV men weren’t called and specially asked what was meant when they wrote or stated something. Someone might actually respect such a “love covers a multitude of Top Ten Things NOT to say on a Presbytery floor” if a desire for clarity was sought by FV heresy hunters toward FV men. It’s amusing see how fast you rushed to the phone to get the facts straight. Did the SJC ever call Wilkins, Lusk, Leithart, etc. :-)
Ha!
Chris
Dewey Roberts said,
February 10, 2008 at 7:08 pm
I don’t know what Sam Duncan said and meant. I do know that Steve Wilkins, as far as I am concerned, would have received a fair trial. By fair I mean that he wouls have received a trial based on the facts of the case and the constitution of the PCA- and NOTHING else. There would have been no special favor extended to him, nor would there have been unconstitutional prejudice against him. He didn’t want that kind of trial. He wanted a trial by Louisiana Presbytery where his oppoenents would have had to agree ahead of time to waive all their rights of appeal. That is what I call an unfair trial.
But…. Doug Wilson… since you have waded in on this one. Why don’t you share with all of us what kind of trial an accused party would receive in the CREC and what rights of appeal are guaranteed or denied to parties to such cases- especially parties outside of the denomination. The CREC is not in a position to throw stones at the PCA. I say that on the basis of having examined the constitution of the CREC.
Dewey Roberts said,
February 10, 2008 at 7:23 pm
Also, I think it is interesting that Andy Webb refers to the Chinn case of a few years back- a former member of Auburn Avenue who moved to a congregation within Covenant Presbytery. I was the convenor and chairman of the panel which heard that case. I wrote the original reasoning and opinion of the panel which was favorable to the Chinns and against the presbytery. That opinion was not adopted by the full SJC because it went too far in denying the rights of lower courts. I was wrong. The full SJC was right. Does that make me biassed for or against Louisiana Presbytery? Fairness does not mean that a court must be favorable. I was fair- but wrong- when I wrote the original report for the panel. I am fair now in saying that I was wrong at that time because my “opinion” was out of accord with the constitution of the PCA. That is my definition of fairness.
anneivy said,
February 10, 2008 at 7:48 pm
Nonsense, Chris, the situations are scarcely comparable. Apparently Mr. Duncan made an off-the-cuff verbal comment. That’s not the same thing as widely available, posted/published material, which is what the PCA’s study committee evaluated.
Bill Lyle said,
February 10, 2008 at 7:59 pm
Re: #9
Chris, let me remind you one more time the following: A question was asked of me on another thread and my friend Dewey Roberts answered it well. So I am posting it again for you –
Maybe you will see the wisdom in Post #12!
The question you asked Bill would require a comment from him that he can’t give at this time. The SJC has not yet taken up those questions and it will have to be deliberated by that body and a decision will have to be made about such matters. It would be wrong for either Bill or myself or anyone else on the SJC to comment on what BCO 38-3 says concerning the aspects of this case which are still before the court.
I would like to point out to some on this board who often decry the SJC for not discussing matters face-to-face with Steve Wilkins that such a conversation with a party to a case which is either before the SJC or potentially may be before the SJC is strictly forbidden by the constitution of the PCA. Doug Wilson has tried to get a lot of mileage out of his “charge” against the SJC that we have never talked with Wilkins. Our constitution forbids us to do so! Think Al Capone. Capone wiggled out of several cases which the government brought against him by jury tampering. The members of the SJC are the jury of the highest court in the PCA. Would Wilson really want the SJC members to engage in despicable jury tampering? If Steve had remained in the PCA he would have had his opportunity to talk face-to-face with the SJC. He chose to leave instead. So, wise people will take what Wilson says with a grain of salt and consider them to be equal.
Steve Wilkins was one of my best friends at seminary. I have roomed with him at PCA General Assemblies. We have eaten together on many occasions. It gave me no joy that he might be tried before the SJC, but I would have done what I do in every case. I would strictly apply the constitution of the PCA to the record of the case without respect of persons. Wilson called the SJC a kangaroo court. What is a kangaroo court? I think it is a court where the law is ignored and matters are decided by personal favoritism- either for or against someone. The only thing Wilkins or anyone else has a right to expect out of any PCA court is an impartial decision based on the constitution of that body. Personally, I am a strict constitutionalist- and Steve Wilkins knows that very, very well
Dewey Roberts said,
February 10, 2008 at 8:45 pm
Chris,
You need to remember that the SJC has a charge to act according to the constitution of the PCA. The SJC is not at liberty to come to Green Baggins and take opinion poll on what we should do. We also are not at liberty to ask Doug Wilson or James Jordan for advice on what we should do. Our charge is simple- judge on the basis of the record of the case and the constitution of the PCA and nothing else. We can’t engage in jury tampering by having side conversations with parties to the case. We can’t show deference to some people simply because they are liked by the “Federal Vision” crowd.
So, Chris, I ask you this question. What part of the constitution of the PCA has been violated by the SJC with respect to Wilkins?
Mark said,
February 10, 2008 at 9:31 pm
Oh, please. When I quoted Lig Duncan on the covenant of works being non-meritorious, Lane was quick to tell me he was on the phone with Duncan, even though I was agreeing with Duncan and not calling him a heretic over the internet. When we all found that the utterly stacked study committee had framed Doug Wilson to say the opposite of what he actually said, Lane was again on the phone and assuring us that there was some secret but plausible explanation that would be shared with us when the committee presented its amended report (which never happened). And now he’s on the phone again justifying his friends in order to hurt his enemies.
There are the true human beings who are to be entrusted to guard the denomination and then there are the sub human animals who don’t even get the privileges that Luther received from the Roman Catholics. This is just sickening. Like waking up and finding that all your family were turned into vampires over night and are ready now to eat you.
anneivy said,
February 10, 2008 at 9:39 pm
“…then there are the sub human animals who don’t even get the privileges that Luther received from the Roman Catholics. This is just sickening. Like waking up and finding that all your family were turned into vampires over night and are ready now to eat you.”
[dumbfounded] Mark, are you feeling quite, er, alright?
That’s a smidge over-the-top, don’t you think?
Bret McAtee said,
February 10, 2008 at 10:11 pm
Mark,
If all the family are Vampires and if Buffy is booked, then the thing to do is collect your Crosses, Stakes, Mirrors, and Silver Bullets and get out of Dodge. I hear the family over at the CREC does not allow Vampires.
Ron Henzel said,
February 10, 2008 at 10:13 pm
Woodrow Wilson admonished us never to kill a man who is trying to commit suicide. Let’s keep that in mind when responding to Mark’s comments.
reformedmusings said,
February 10, 2008 at 10:22 pm
Mark,
I’m genuinely offended. The last time I and my brothers (fellow officers in good standing in the PCA, to use a phrase of which you seem fond) were equated to Satan. Now we’ve been demoted to mere vampires. Nobody likes to be demoted. My feelings are hurt. Really.
Wayne Whitmer said,
February 10, 2008 at 10:39 pm
FV=CREC Church Growth Plan! So far it’s working! + 1, who’s up next?
I’m Offended ;-) « Reformed Musings said,
February 10, 2008 at 10:54 pm
[...] Offended ;-) Here’s a comment posted on GreenBagginses by one of the more vocal but polity- and historically-challenged Federal Visionists in the PCA: [...]
Wayne Whitmer said,
February 10, 2008 at 11:42 pm
The AAPC was the SOURCE of the FV Conference held each year and now they are part of the CREC. Steve Wilkins was the focal point however there are plenty of current Teaching and Ruling Elders embracing and espousing the same FV doctrine in PCA churches currently. Will the SJC now charge other Presbyteryies where these TEs and REs reside to examine these men on an individual basis as to their views on Justification, the Gospel, Apostasy, Baptism, etc as was Wilkins?
reformedmusings said,
February 11, 2008 at 1:13 am
Wayne,
That’s not the SJC’s function. The courts of original jurisdiction for TEs are their Presbyteries. Only if their Presbyteries fail to act properly can others ask the SJC to assume jurisdiction. For REs, the court of original jurisdiction is their Session.
Howard Davis said,
February 11, 2008 at 2:13 am
Bill: “The only thing Wilkins or anyone else has a right to expect out of any PCA court is an impartial decision based on the constitution of that body.”
Dewey: “You need to remember that the SJC has a charge to act according to the constitution of the PCA.”
Dewey & Bill,
As a PCA pastor and LAP member, it is encouraging for me to hear you as SJC reps to hear these affirmations.
However, these are difficult to believe in light of decisions made regarding this broader case that deals with LAP. Dewey, you ask: “What part of the constitution of the PCA has been violated by the SJC with respect to Wilkins?”
I do not have my BCO in front of me, but I would ask:
* How has the higher court (SJC) given deference to the judgment of the lower court (LAP) in this matter, as required by the BCO?
* Why in the first case (that of the memorial) did LAP not receive specific accusations until after we arrived at the hearing? (In other words, we did not have the opportunity to prepare a defense before arriving at the hearing, esp to the accusation of defending our judgment, when memorials deal with procedural violations. This was a direct violation BY THE SJC of the rules.
* Why did the SJC give requirements that went far beyond BCO requirements as to how to examine Rev WIlkins, which in effect forced LAP to try Rev Wilkins before a trial?
* Why did the chair of SJC, consciously ’stack the committee’ going against Roberts Rules and against the advice of the Stated Clerk? Why has he promoted anti-Steve WIlkins materials through the By Faith emails? Why has he not recused himself from proceedings in light of voiced bias against Rev Wilkins?
* What is more why is SJC pressing ahead with trying LAP on count 1?
In my opinion, as to procedure, LAP has truly sought to be faithful to follow the BCO, much more so I might add than it seems that SJC has, and LAP has even sought to comply with SJC’s requests, even when these were at times extraneous and seem to diverge from what the BCO and SJCM called for. What is more, though LAP erroneously failed to find S Wilkins positions out of accord with the Confession, presbyteries do not seem to be required to have record non-exceptions and we mistakenly did not find Wilkins to have any exceptions. Again as to judgment, this was a grievous error; as to procedure, it was correct. What is more, if anyone wants to see his positions, the entire examination was both transcribed and recorded, so that his positions are open to all. I could go on but for what purpose.
I ask these questions as one who has openly opposed FV and openly requested that our presbytery try Rev WIlkins for departing from the Standards. I feel that we did grievously err in our judgment. Yet I also believe that we have not gotten a very fair shake from SJC in this matter to this point.
With a grieving heart and a longing to see the glory of Christ seen through His Church,
Howard Davis
Pastor, Grace PCA Shreveport
Howard Davis said,
February 11, 2008 at 2:17 am
What is more, there is no real relief when the SJC makes bad decisions or breaks/bends the rules. This is why the political nature of how this case has been handled thus far troubles me so deeply.
Douglas Wilson said,
February 11, 2008 at 4:23 am
Dewey, I am not quite sure what aspect of the CREC constitution you are questioning, but once a matter has been tried at the local assembly (the court of original jurisdiction), there is a right of appeal to presbytery. Presbytery is required to not hear frivolous appeals.
And everyone, apart from Mark’s expression of angst — consider the structure of his argument. Duncan said something that was 180 out from what he meant, and this was ascertained by personal contact the way it ought to have been. This is despite the fact that what he said was, on the face, really, really bad. And his explanation is accepted in Christian charity, no matter how unlike the original statement it is. This is a great idea and ought to be applied to more than just a small circle of friends and co-prosecutors.
Bill Lyle said,
February 11, 2008 at 7:24 am
Dewey,
Has anyone answered your question, “What part of the constitution of the PCA has been violated by the SJC with respect to Wilkins?” on or offline?
Bill
Chris said,
February 11, 2008 at 8:53 am
Yes, they have–many times. A stacked committee isn’t set up to have a fair trial. The committee was stacked–read Roberts Book of Rules and with that in mind, read the BCO.
Jeff Cagle said,
February 11, 2008 at 9:13 am
Doug (#24):
Duncan said something that was 180 out from what he meant, and this was ascertained by personal contact the way it ought to have been. This is despite the fact that what he said was, on the face, really, really bad. And his explanation is accepted in Christian charity, no matter how unlike the original statement it is.
You’re right. This was a better approach to determining what Sam said than what happened with, say, Lusk’s quote ‘My in-Christ-ness makes imputation redundant.’ As we all recall, Rich retracted this statement, but was unable to have it stricken from the collective record, nor from the PCA report. That’s too bad, because it meant, at minimum, that love failed to carry the day in that aspect of the report’s preparation (no offense meant, Bob).
So what, Doug, do you do with that? Do you nurse the grudge concerning the wrong done to Rich? Encourage others to resent it? Of course you would not wish to do this, right?
Well, Sam Duncan has been placed in a similar position. He spoke in a way that he did not intend, for an audience (the whole ‘Net) that he did not intend. Now what will you, and Jeff, and Mark, and Duane, do with this?
Will you do unto others as they have done unto you? Throw Sam’s quote into peoples’ faces, use it as ammunition to prove your point that the SJC gave your friend a raw deal?
That sure would be tempting.
But love covers over a multitude of sins. Do you love Sam? Are you willing to let his comment go, and strike it from the record, given that it did not mean what you thought it meant? Given that (according to HaigLaw) it did not influence LAPs already set-in-wet-concrete decision to plead ‘not guilty’?
I’m out of my mind to say these things to people I don’t really know. But were I in your shoes, I would want someone to say them to me. So take it as an appeal from a brother.
Grace and peace,
Jeff Cagle
Bill Lyle said,
February 11, 2008 at 9:25 am
Re: 26
Chris,
First, let me remind you what the constitution of the PCA is, found in the Preface –
“III. THE CONSTITUTION DEFINED
The Constitution of the Presbyterian Church in America, which is subject to and subordinate to the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments, the inerrant Word Of God, consists of its doctrinal standards set forth in the Westminster Confession of Faith, together with the Larger and Shorter Catechisms, and the Book of Church Order, comprising the Form of Government, the Rules of Discipline and the Directory for Worship; all as adopted by the Church.”
Second, a paper is not part of the constitution. Can you tell me what constitution weight this paper carries or can you point to where the SJC has made any reference to this paper? BTW – wasn’t this paper commended to the presbyteries and not to the SJC?
Third, my reading of forming a committee (from Roberts Rules) uses the words like “normally” or “should” or “advisable” (I think as I am moving and have packed my Roberts Rules.)
So, please again show me “What part of the constitution of the PCA has been violated by the SJC with respect to Wilkins?”
Please facts, chapter numbers, and paragraph numbers from the constitution above. Not what you think, or what you wish would be true, or what someone who has no real knowledge has told you, or just plain disinformation that is out here in the blog world. Just the facts and not ignorance!
Bill
Kevin D. Johnson said,
February 11, 2008 at 9:36 am
For my part, Presbyterian bickering outdoes the shallowness of today’s evangelical wasteland, the useless philosophical meanderings of a hungover Medieval church in Rome, and the striking irrelevance of the Eastern Orthodox.
‘Where much is given, much is required’ seems to be lost on all parties here.
magma2 said,
February 11, 2008 at 9:54 am
Let’s grant that Sam Duncan did say that the LAP could not get a fair trial since any and every jury would be already biased against the Federal Division.
The question I have, why do any of these PCA FV men remain in the PCA? If they really believe what they say, why don’t they leave the PCA in protest? Why stay when Wilson wants them and I’m happy to let him have them.
Do they view themselves as “Reformers” fighting a corrupt, “politicized” and sinful system? Wouldn’t that role have been much better played by Wilkins? Are any of these men more capable in defending the Federal Division than Mr. Wilkins? Yet, instead of fighting for what he believes to be true and submitting to the process, he ran away. Covering his shameful retreat we now have men like Wilson and Meyers trying to excuse Wilkins’ cowardice by attacking the SJC as a kangaroo court.
Even if what these men say is true, how does this change the fact that when the boom was about to fall, Wilkins shoved his tail between his legs and ran?
It doesn’t.
Wouldn’t actually staying and going through the process come what may actually demonstrate what these men merely assert?
It would have.
What if Wilkins did go to trial and the process was fair and unbiased as anyone could possibly hope for yet he was found guilty. Would he and Wilson be saying anything different?
Not a chance . . . but at least we would have a record of the process and not just empty assertions.
greenbaggins said,
February 11, 2008 at 10:12 am
Mark, get your facts straight. The problem with Wilson was explained on one of Wilson’s posts. I’m not going to go hunt for it. The basic explanation of that misinterpretation was that the original quotation had the surrounding context printed in order to avoid misunderstanding. However, the footnotes being too long, the footnotes were shortened, accidentally taking out the needed context. It was an honest mistake.
Secondly, there is quite a difference between a single sentence quoted all by itself, versus entire articles and books, where the context is there for the studying. So, the whole business about not calling FV guys is not in the least parallel to what I’ve done in trying to ascertain the context of a *spoken* word.
Mark, if you cannot even be reasonably civil on this blog, your comments will be banned. You are way over the line.
greenbaggins said,
February 11, 2008 at 10:16 am
Guys, Sam meant what he said. That much was quite clear from the phone conversation. The question is: what did he say and mean? I believe I have given a faithful account of what he meant in the post.
James Jordan said,
February 11, 2008 at 10:19 am
This is ridiculous. After years of tearing up the churches with lies about what “FV” people believe, and after years of smearing the names of “FV” people, whose beliefs are EXACTLY those of the WCF (save for paedocommunion), now this Star Judicial Chamber wraps itself in the cloak of PCA polity to justify two utterly godless decisions. Ichabod. Psalm 11:2-3, 6-7.
Ken Christian said,
February 11, 2008 at 10:48 am
Ref. #30
Bill wrote above:
“Third, my reading of forming a committee (from Roberts Rules) uses the words like “normally” or “should” or “advisable” (I think as I am moving and have packed my Roberts Rules.) ”
Can Bill or anyone else “in the know” tell us why the SJC chairmen found it necessary to not follow the Roberts Rules recommendations when forming the committee. In other words, what was unique about the FV study committee that demanded it be formed in a way that was abnormal and inadvisable?
greenbaggins said,
February 11, 2008 at 10:49 am
James, I don’t care if you have written 50 books. I don’t care if you are the godfather of the FV. I don’t care how helpful your books have been to however many people. You will not speak of the PCA in this fashion on this blog. Is that understood?
Ken Christian said,
February 11, 2008 at 10:51 am
Typo in #36, second paragraph: chairmen should be chairman. Sorry.
Bill Lyle said,
February 11, 2008 at 10:51 am
Re: 35
Give me a break! First the SJC is accused of *not* following the rules and being a kangaroo court, then when it is proven those statments are false now we are accused of hiding behind the cloak of PCA polity.
Which way do you want it?
BTW what is the “godless decision(s)” the SJC has made? There has not been a hearing, nor a trial.
Bill Lyle said,
February 11, 2008 at 10:53 am
Re: 30
THE SJC HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THE FORMING OF THE COMMITTEE!
Get your facts right.
Stewart said,
February 11, 2008 at 10:54 am
Yeah, Mr. Jordan, we may only speak of the CREC in that fashion on this blog.
greenbaggins said,
February 11, 2008 at 10:56 am
Oh, guess who’s back in town. Stewart, you are going to be on a very short leash. Comment 40 is already reprehensible.
Stewart, whatever happened to your blog? The last time I checked it was defunct because some porno bimbo had taken it over.
James Jordan said,
February 11, 2008 at 10:59 am
Okay. I won’t say it on YOUR blog!
Ken Christian said,
February 11, 2008 at 10:59 am
Ref. 39…
I thought D. Aquila chose the committee as the moderator of the 2006 Assembly? Correct me if I’m wrong (please) but isn’t Rev. Aquila chaiman of the SJC (or was at the time)?
Howard Davis said,
February 11, 2008 at 11:01 am
James Jordan: You have are the fountain of much controversy and ill will, and not just in recent years with FV. You consistently call for charity for those you agree with you and consistently show little to no charity, even hateful disdain toward those that you disagree with.
FWIW, many if not most “FV” people believe that those who eventually apostasize really do come to Christ and experience living, vital union and communion with him and lose it. That flies in the face of much of the WCF and the Westminster Standards.
But you do not seem interested in listening to real critiques, only spewing vile criticism. You have done much harm to Christ’s church and for you to complain of other’s doing so (which has merit on its own) is the proverbial kettle calling the pot black.
To all, everyone in this argument needs to be more critical of ourselves and those we agree with than we are of others and those we disagree with. I haven’t found this to be the case of many who are so prolific in commenting on these matters.
greenbaggins said,
February 11, 2008 at 11:03 am
Howard, you are absolutely right. And, by the way, welcome to my blog. I welcome your comments. As assistant prosecutor, of course, I have had occasion to observe from afar your conduct in all of these matters. Let me encourage you by saying that I think you have carried yourself in a very godly way.
Howard Davis said,
February 11, 2008 at 11:07 am
Thanks Lane. I have sought to be slow and fair in wrestling with these issues. But to be honest, I am deeply dismayed how this whole discussion/controversy is being carried out both by FVers and anti-FVers.
greenbaggins said,
February 11, 2008 at 11:13 am
Yes, there are problems on both sides. It is ever this way, unfortunately, when heterodox teaching is the issue. People start focussing on people, and attacking them, instead of talking about the ideas and the issues. That is what I have striven to accomplish.
Ken Christian said,
February 11, 2008 at 11:13 am
Ref. 39 – I tried to reply earlier but my post is missing…
Please set my facts straight if I’m incorrect, but didn’t D. Aquila choose the study committee due to his position as the 2006 Assembly moderator? And wasn’t D. Aquila chair of the SJC at that time? Or is now?
Dewey Roberts said,
February 11, 2008 at 11:19 am
First, to Doug Wilson… the constitution of the CREC permits an appeal or a complaint under certain very restricted circumstances, but does not guarantee that the appeal or complaint will be heard. It can be dismissed by a motion to dismiss which receives a 3/4 vote. In the PCA, a complaint “is the right of any communing member of the Church in good standing.” In the PCA, if a complaint is timely filed and filed first with the court of original jurisdiction it may be appealed all the way to the SJC, if necessary. The CREC has no such guaranteed provision. Advantage for church members goes to the PCA.
Second, to Howard Davis… Howard, you know that I cannot speak about matters that are presently before the SJC. As a general rule, though, you might want to read BCO 39-3 (4).
Third, to James Jordan… Well, I guess your embittered spirit can only remain silent for so long, Jim. I hope you don’t have another meltdown of epic proportions like you did a few weeks ago. You are long on castigations and very, very short on substance.
Fourth to Bill Lyle… No, Bill, my question has not yet been answered. And I don’t expect it will be answered because the correct answer does not fit in with the disinformation campaign which some people are promoting.
Jon said,
February 11, 2008 at 11:20 am
Re: 35
“After years of tearing up the churches with lies about what “FV” people believe, and after years of smearing the names of “FV” people, whose beliefs are EXACTLY those of the WCF (save for paedocommunion)”
Isn’t this kind of like Planned Parenthood saying that Roe is EXACTLY what the Constitution means?
James Jordan said,
February 11, 2008 at 11:21 am
FV teaching is totally orthodox and in keeping with the WCF and the Protestant Reformers. Nobody in the FV world has divided the Church over these issues. 100% of the conflict has come from the anti-FV people.
greenbaggins said,
February 11, 2008 at 11:31 am
Hmm. James Jordan versus 7 entire denominations. We know what Jordan thinks. But is it objective fact? I think not.
Tim Harris said,
February 11, 2008 at 11:32 am
To the claim of the right to appeal given in #26 — it is actually must worse than what Mr Roberts points out in #47. As I pointed out on another thread, appeal can only be made if the appelant is willing and able to accuse his elders of either “grievous dishonesty” or “gross misbehaviour” (IV M)!
James Jordan said,
February 11, 2008 at 11:35 am
Sadly, it is a fact. Seven denominations wrote attacks on straw men and scarecrows, never once dealing with what FV people teach and say. Never once phoning or contacting them. Luther was treated far better. Ichabod.
greenbaggins said,
February 11, 2008 at 11:38 am
Again, this as assertion, James, not argument. You are assuming that personal contact would make the reading of such writings more accurate. We don’t assume that with any dead author. Why is it so necessary with live authors?
Bret McAtee said,
February 11, 2008 at 11:41 am
FV teaching is totally orthodox and in keeping with the WCF and the Protestant Reformers. Nobody in the FV world has divided the Church over these issues. 100% of the conflict has come from the anti-FV people
FV also has 666 necessary vitamins and minerals meeting 100% of the FDA requirements for a healthy diet. It is also recommended by 4 out of 5 Reformed theologians to build strong and healthy bones.
You can trust us. We wouldn’t misrepresent the facts.
(Sponsored by the ‘Justify my Love’ FV Advertising agency.)
Howard Davis said,
February 11, 2008 at 11:45 am
Here is where I agree with Mr. Jordan’s comment (#49): FVers are orthodox…the controversial positions are Lutheran or Anglican at worst and most of their perspectives fit with WCF and the Protestant reformers, but not all. FV’s similarities but definitive disagreements at key points is what has made discerning these issues such a difficult job for me, as one who is seeking to be charitable and just.
Here is where I disagree with Mr Jordan’s comment: “Nobody in the FV world has divided the Church over these issues. 100% of the conflict has come from the anti-FV people.” This would make me laugh, if it did not grieve me so. I can list well many churches that I personally know of that have been divided by FV proponents and I am not all that well connected. Most of these had no agenda and were sideswiped by angry FVers like yourself. TO think and even suggest that 100% of this conflict has arisen from anti-FVers is ludicrous and the height of self-righteous pride and a reflection of how you have created so much damage as you have travelled along the way. Mr. Jordan, you are living in a fairy tale, all the while creating nightmares all around you by your blind positions. Look in your rearview mirror, even if you are gracious with yourself, you must admit that you have been involved in controversies that have been quite divisive for many years, even if you do not own the fact that you share responsibility for many of these controversies. This has been going on for years. Could you please shut your trap and so do a service the Church and the Lord’s work? Or else at least grow to be more gracious to others that you disagree with?
Howard Davis said,
February 11, 2008 at 11:48 am
What is more by what authority do you spew your invectives? What church has vested you as Bishop? Why do you feel like you have to be prolific in making authoritative condemnations about denominations that you have no part in, much less authority in?
James Jordan said,
February 11, 2008 at 11:51 am
It’s not a matter of disagreement. It’s a matter of lying.
Jon said,
February 11, 2008 at 12:08 pm
Theonomy didn’t divide any chruches either, did it?
Tom Wenger said,
February 11, 2008 at 12:13 pm
Howard,
While I concur with your assessment of James Jordan’s complete lack of ecclesiastical authority and (I would add) academic credibility, I have to disagree with your definition of orthodox.
Orthodox Reformed Christianity has NEVER affirmed that people can be justified by faith, but then fail to be acquitted at the last day because of a lack of obedience. And this is what the FV teaches across the board via their definitions of union with Christ and how that union can be lost. This of course strikes at the heart of the Gospel, and cannot be harmonized with orthodoxy.
So, Mark, James, Doug: do you concur? Can one be justified by faith and then fail to be acquitted in the end?
Howard Davis said,
February 11, 2008 at 12:25 pm
So Tom are you saying that Anglicans and Lutherans are not orthodox?
Both those denominations and the FVers use the definitions for many of these terms much differently than Reformed Presbyterians do. [E.g., they tie water baptism to justification, in a way that the two become virtually equated.] As such, they have substantial theological disagreements with us, such that strike at the vitals of the fundamentals. But they are still part of the Church IMO. They just should not be a part of a Reformed Presbyterian denomination. But the Church is bigger than just the PCA or Reformed denominations.
Dewey Roberts said,
February 11, 2008 at 12:29 pm
To Howard Davis: RE #24 – Sometimes in the heat of a discussion comments and assertions are made that impugn motives and assume concepts/facts/notions not in evidence. The questions asked here assume that the “facts” are true and all we need now are the reasons these actions were taken, since it assumed these actions took place in the manner asked in the questions.
“Why did the chair of SJC, consciously ’stack the committee’ going against Roberts Rules and against the advice of the Stated Clerk?” Do you know for certain that the GA moderator “consciously” stacked the committee (even using the phrase “stacked the committee” is prejudicial and assumes a diabolical motive)? Can you point to any source that supports this assertion? Can you provide evidence that the Stated Clerk gave advice as stated here, and that this advice was then not followed?
“Why has he promoted anti-Steve WIlkins materials through the By Faith emails?” Can you provide the “anti-Steve Wilkins materials” from ByFaith to demonstrate this, and its frequency (since “promote” imples an on going pattern)?
“Why has he not recused himself from proceedings in light of voiced bias against Rev Wilkins?” Can you provide or point us to evidence of his “voiced bias against Rev. Wilkins”? Urban legends develop when statements (whether true or false) are repeated often enough that they are accepted as true and settled and no longer challenged. These questions are of the “urban legend” variety; stated often but not based on true events and verified with substantiated evidence.
Wayne Whitmer said,
February 11, 2008 at 12:35 pm
I appreciate the additional clarification ‘reformed musings’ however I think I jumped the gun in my question assuming that there may be Presbyteries who have been negligent in addressing those (TEs) within their jurisdiction who have written and/or spoken in defense of the FV. But I would be extremely happy if I’m dead wrong.
Wayne Whitmer said,
February 11, 2008 at 12:39 pm
“100% of the conflict has come from the anti-FV people.” James Jordan
I’ve since picked myself up off the floor from a most hilarious laughter after reading this comment. Is this guy serious?
Howard Davis said,
February 11, 2008 at 12:42 pm
Dewey, I agree with you that hearsay is a dangerous thing. But with the chair
“Do you know for certain that the GA moderator “consciously” stacked the committee (even using the phrase “stacked the committee” is prejudicial and assumes a diabolical motive)? Can you point to any source that supports this assertion? Can you provide evidence that the Stated Clerk gave advice as stated here, and that this advice was then not followed?”
To these questions, my answer is that I am not absolutely certain (which would involve me being in the mind of the moderator), but with my own ears I have heard statements he made that lent themselves to such a conclusion and insiders who had direct conversations with the moderator and separately with the Stated Clerk told me what I here reported.
“Why has he promoted anti-Steve WIlkins materials through the By Faith emails?” Can you provide the “anti-Steve Wilkins materials” from ByFaith to demonstrate this, and its frequency (since “promote” imples an on going pattern)?”
I can but it will take me a few days to locate it on my computer.
“Why has he not recused himself from proceedings in light of voiced bias against Rev Wilkins?” Can you provide or point us to evidence of his “voiced bias against Rev. Wilkins”?
I have heard this bias with my own two ears, and it has grieved me deeply. I wish that it was only unsubstantiated urban legend. Every member of the SJC should be able to read this bias in multiple actions that he has taken.
Tom Wenger said,
February 11, 2008 at 12:48 pm
Howard,
They are not orthodox in any Reformed sense of the word and that is how the FV has been trying to paint itself. Are many in the FV as well as in Anglicanism and Lutheranism part of the invisible Church? Sure. Same with Rome. That’s not the issue.
The point I was making is that they cannot be construed to be orthodox in any Reformers sense, and it seems as though you think they are for the most part. You claimed that “most of their perspectives fit with WCF and the Protestant reformers”, and that at worst they were Lutheran or Anglican.
First of all, especially on the key issue of losing one’s justified status, they most certainly do NOT have anything in common with the WCF or Protestant Reformers. And second, I would venture to say that they have more in common with Rome or Eastern Orthodoxy than even with Lutherans and Anglicans. But regardless, we would not and should not permit the most orthodox of any of those communions to minister within the PCA. So the FV claims of orthodoxy as the PCA defines it for ministry, cannot be sustained.
Dewey Roberts said,
February 11, 2008 at 12:49 pm
To Jim Jordan,
Jim, a slanderer doesn’t have the right to call others liars.
Dewey Roberts said,
February 11, 2008 at 1:07 pm
Howard, thanks for responding.
First, reports you have heard are not facts- they are hearsay.
Second, I would like to see the materials which show that the chairman has promoted anti-Wilkins material through BY Faith. I haven’t seen them.
Third, a fact must be proven by two or three witnesses according to the Bible and the BCO. What you have heard may be true (I don’t know), but one person’s statement is never enough to prove a case. But what actions of the chairman should be enough for every member of the SJC to read his bias? I am on the SJC and I am not aware of those actions.
Howard, I appreciate a lot of things you have said in this larger thread, but I think you are still looking at things concerning the chairman of the SJC through the lens of “hearsay” (even if you are supposedly the one person who heard him say certain things). The standard of proof is often hard to obtain- 2 or 3 witnesses who are willing to testify openly. That is a tough standard, but also a very necessary standard.
Howard, I think you are a very honorable person. I have met your father and know people here in Destin who grew up with him in Mississippi. I do think, though, that you are stating things about the chairman of the SJC that simply do not meet the Biblical standards for truth.
Ron Henzel said,
February 11, 2008 at 1:17 pm
James,
I began attending a PCA church for the first time in 2002, just as this controversy was emerging. I was an occasional reader of Credenda/Agenda, I had been impressed with Doug Wilson, and so I naturally became concerned as the controversy became more heated beginning in 2003 when I became a member of my PCA church. Trying to keep up with all the charges and counter-charges became quite confusing. Whatever I could find online back then was only marginally helpful in clarifying the issues for me, and even the emerging blog discussions (quarrels, actually) only muddied the waters for me. Because of all the confusion I sometimes wondered whether I belonged in the PCA.
So I finally broke down and bought copies of The Federal Vision, “Reformed” Is Not Enough, and The Auburn Avenue Theology Pros and Cons. In addition to finally providing me with the kind of clarity I needed in order to confidently identify and describe the actual positions being contended, these books persuaded me that not only do those holding to the Auburn Avenue/Federal Vision approach not conform to the Westminster Standards, but their handing of those documents call into question whether they even know how to read them, and all their accusations of misrepresentation are utterly hollow and without substance.
Apparently I am not the only one who has read these books and come to these conclusions about the FV. All the pretentious, hyperventilating, vitriolic railing by the likes of you, Mark Horne, and others only serves to confirm in my mind the accuracy of the conclusions I have reached. At this point in time I can say that, based on everything I’ve read and heard, the PCA has handled this controversy very well, and I’m glad to be a member of it.
Ken Christian said,
February 11, 2008 at 1:41 pm
This is my 3rd attempt at responding to Bill’s post in #39 (a response to my post in #30). My previous attempts were caught in Lane’s spam filter. Let me try again.
Bill, please help me to get my facts straight: Didn’t D. Aquila choose the FV study committee, being the moderator of the 2006 Assembly? And isn’t D. Aquila the chairman of the SJC? I wasn’t saying the why the whole SJC chose the committee. I was just asking why a key member of the SJC chose to make a decision in the forming of the study committee that was abnormal according to Robert’s Rules (read post 30 again for original question).
Jesse Pirschel said,
February 11, 2008 at 1:43 pm
Men,
Can anyone step back and take an honest look at their “side” in this battle?
Sam Duncan makes a comment that doesn’t sound promising and his “team” rushes to the defense, knowing that this can’t be what it seems (while not extending that same courtesy to the other side and often reading their “opponents” in the worst light possible).
Yet, Rev. Jordan has called many in the church devils and informed us clearly that the PCA is now wholly without the presence of God in her midst (ichabod), yet I am confident that no public rebuke will come from his “team” (as the younger warriors who follow him get more emboldened by such comments and learn that its not really death that brings victory but power)? The other side is aghast (of course) but many of them will cheer it on if posted against an FV’r on the Warfield list or the PB or by their favorite seminary Prof..
We have drawn our lines, picked our sides and have our epistemological certainty in hand. I am of “FV”, I am of “TR”, I am of “WSC”, etc.
I am not asking that men stop contending for what they believe, but is it too much to ask that we pull our collective heads out and view these things in light of the Word, the confession and charity and not in light of how it is going to play for our “team”? And if we see someone err on our own side can we deal with that more forcefully than when we see it in “the other side”. Truly, do we run our homes and churches this way? If so God help us. Your wife might be loud and your kids unruly and while it might concern me, I am much more concerned if it’s coming from my own living room.
Kevin D. Johnson said,
February 11, 2008 at 1:49 pm
Excellent thoughts, Jesse. I echo much the same here:
That Oh So Presbyterian Way
Wayne Whitmer said,
February 11, 2008 at 1:57 pm
Hi Jesse,
My wife is pretty quiet and I have no kids yet so can’t really identify however what you say does come across as wise and prudent in what seems to be a back and forth conversation going nowhere. With that said, the only “team” I identify with is the team which promotes and defends the Gospel and in many instances they are TRs, EPs, and all other sorts of variations in between. On other topics I may find myself in disagreement with some of these men however on this one we all agree. I’m not quite sure that engaging in any conversation with the FVers is worth it as they seem quite emboldened in their position with no inkling of change in the horizon.
However I am just a laymember of a PCA congregation and there are men here who are TEs and REs who have an even greater responsiblity to protect their flocks as well as the denomination as a whole from this cancer which has most certainly spread to a point that a call for charity may be a few years too late at this point. We need the cure and coddling the cancer in its latest stage is not going to help.
Mark said,
February 11, 2008 at 2:10 pm
#33
My statements about attackers in the PCA are not statements bout the PCA as a whole.
I’ve got plenty of reason to love the PCA because of the godly men in it. Not wanting to add their names to a hit list, I don’t make a practice of mentioning them in public forums.
Steve Wilkins was never a strategic target. He was a decoy.
David Gadbois said,
February 11, 2008 at 2:12 pm
Tom W.,
I think this conversation fails to distinguish between Reformed orthodoxy (adherence to 3FU and WS that we require of our ministers) and a more broad, catholic sort of orthodoxy (those we acknowledge as being in true visible churches, as defined by the 3 Marks of the Church). We would put our confessional Lutheran and Anglican brethren in the latter category, while not in the former. We would only deny both categories to, say, Romanists.
I think FV’s errors overlap primarily with Lutheran and Anglican errors (on baptismal efficacy and rejection of perseverance of the saints), while having, to a much lesser extent, some features in common with Arminianism and even Romanism (for example, a transformative element of justification).
Since each FV proponent seems to have a different mix of errors, I’d probably take it on a case-by-case basis in assigning the above categories.
Jesse Pirschel said,
February 11, 2008 at 2:13 pm
Wayne,
Again, I have no qualms with men seeking to challenge that which they see as dangerous, but HOW one does it is just as important as the doing itself imo. The fact that “charity” is being pitted against “protecting the flock” is part of the problem.
Even if the man is wrong, he should be treated as love would dictate as he is being given the boot.
curate said,
February 11, 2008 at 2:44 pm
Ref. 73
David, if you keep up this kind of post I will find myself agreeing with you. We can’t have that now, can we? :)
I would suggest that you refine your terms further. Classical Lutheranism and Anglicanism are Reformed and orthodox. I think that you will find that the difference is with them on the one hand and WCF Puritanism on the other, which is much narrower than the theology of the Reformation proper.
Howard Davis said,
February 11, 2008 at 2:47 pm
Dewey,
Thanks for your challenge. I take it to heart.
Still, I do think that what I hearing someone’s statement in their presence in context with my own ears would constitute a valid witness, though others should take what I say with a grain of salt until they have other direct witnesses corroborate it. I did not write his statements down, I did not record them, for I have no desire to play political games, but hearing them deeply grieved me.
My greater concern is for the trustworthiness of the SJC and the reputation of the PCA as a part of the body of Christ passionate about the truth (both in doctrine and deed). As you know, SJC is the most powerful group in the PCA, as the actions it takes allow for no appeal, etc (largely out of necessity, for there has to be some court of final appeal). But when the actions of the SJC are questionable and its interpretations of the constitution of the PCA are loose and in favor of certain politically influential positions, the whole denomination’s reputation is threatened. When the leader of the SJC says and does questionable things, that threatens the reputation of the SJC and its decisions, and consequently the reputation of our honorable denomination. He must be held to the highest standard and all I am saying is that his actions and statements have compromised his trustworthiness, at least in my eyes and the eyes of many others. That is not hearsay, but an informed perspective/opinion.
I have no desire to see him prosecuted but I have a great desire to see the SJC being known as a trustworthy group with a reputation for not being swayed by politics of our denomination. For this to happen, repair is now necessary in my opinion. But being in LAP, my opinion is of little import and likely negative influence. I do pray for you and the rest of the SJC…the reputation of our denomination rests heavily on y’all’s shoulders.
greenbaggins said,
February 11, 2008 at 2:48 pm
#76
Mark, that does not excuse calling men like me sub-human and vampires. I am attacking the FV because I believe it to be out of accord with our confession. Call me mistaken. But don’t call me sub-human and vampiric. And, by the way, anyone else in the PCA who is attacking the FV is doing it for the same reasons I am.
Howard Davis said,
February 11, 2008 at 2:52 pm
Mark,
I am curious what you mean: “Steve Wilkins was never a strategic target. He was a decoy.” TIA
Tom Wenger said,
February 11, 2008 at 2:54 pm
David,
I hope that I did not come across as disagreeing with what you about the status of confessional Anglicans and Lutherans, because I definitely put them in the same category you do.
As far as the FV, though, I guess it makes no sense to me that there would be someone calling themselves “FV” while not adhering to their faulty view of justification. There is definitely enough consensus among them as well as clarification about what is being condemned in the movement by the 7 denominations that have done so, for us to be able to say that the FV is not orthodox.
Now will anomalies exist? Sure. Anomalies exist in Rome. But that doesn’t mean that we have to withhold our assessment of Rome just in case. I think that it is clear enough that the confessionally Reformed have defined what is wrong with the FV and we can follow suit. Should an anomaly be discovered in an individual that is being examined then they should be judged according to it.
But there’s no reason to withhold judgment of the movement itself. Anyone desiring to call themselves FV, in so doing, displays enough rejection or ignorance of the Reformed doctrine of the Gospel to be considered unorthodox (from a Reformed standpoint).
Wayne Whitmer said,
February 11, 2008 at 2:57 pm
Agreed Jesse! It would be easy to allow the flesh to raise its ugly head while defending the Gospel however there are times such as these where righteous anger is not only permissible but warranted as the Heart of the Gospel is under attack in our own back yard or in your analogy in our own homes. Strong and persistent error calls for strong measures and at times that will come accross as uncharitable especially by those immersed in the error.
Dewey Roberts said,
February 11, 2008 at 2:58 pm
Howard,
I cannot speak for anyone else. I can only speak for myself. I take my vows so seriously that even my wife feels left out of the loop (as well she should) about SJC matters. Many witnesses can testify that I refuse to discuss matters with them which either are or may be before the SJC.
But I do think that an internet blog is not the right forum to start throwing around statements you have heard first hand from the lips of any member of the SJC. That is something that should be done face-to-face or person-to-person.
Tom Wenger said,
February 11, 2008 at 3:09 pm
Jesse,
Your call for charity is not anything that anyone involved in adjudicating this case would deny, nor is it anything that they have lacked.
So to whom are you speaking?
You need to be careful what your words imply. If you think “that ‘charity’ is being pitted against ‘protecting the flock’” you really need to say in what context. This is a discussion of how our SJC is adjudicating a case. It is how they have clarified a statement that was unclear and how they have done so above board.
If you think that they are doing so in a manner that sinfully neglects the command to speak the truth in love, then that is a pretty significant statement that really ought to be backed up with evidence. Otherwise it simply casts doubt on all of these ministers who are doing their job and are in good standing.
If you think that they have failed, fine; show how. But making vague indictments like this doesn’t do anyone any good, and it lacks charity itself.
Jesse Pirschel said,
February 11, 2008 at 3:16 pm
Tom,
If you read my original post and where it comes in the context of “this” conversation it should be clear it was a general reference to the tone with which folks on all sides have carried out this debate on the internet etc. It had nothing to do with the SJC in particular, so I am not sure where your coming from, what “indictments” did I make?
Jesse Pirschel said,
February 11, 2008 at 3:16 pm
you’re not your
Gabe Rench said,
February 11, 2008 at 3:18 pm
Dewey,
Now only if your sentiments were followed by the head hunters in the PCA this whole fracas would have turned out differently. Imagine face to face interaction, or even a phone call. The tables have turned, one of your boys miss-spoke and of course there is an explanation. One sided charity is really charity is it? Cheers!
greenbaggins said,
February 11, 2008 at 3:24 pm
Gabe, see 33.
GLW Johnson said,
February 11, 2008 at 3:26 pm
Curate has gone and let the cat out of the bag – The issue surrounding the FV has to do with ‘Westminster Puritanism’ , does it not? After all the PCA study report centered around the FV being out of harmony with the Westminster Standards, did it not? Furthermore, I am pretty sure that confessional Lutherans do not consider themselves to be remotely confessionally Reformed.
Dewey Roberts said,
February 11, 2008 at 3:27 pm
Gabe,
Members of the SJC cannot engage in face-to-face contact with parties to a case which is either before the SJC or potentially may be before the court.
Mark said,
February 11, 2008 at 3:32 pm
Lane, you need to re-read my post as to who is being treated as sub-human.
And describing what it is like being devoured by one’s own is not the same as calling you a vampire.
Bill Lyle said,
February 11, 2008 at 3:33 pm
Re: 36, 44, 49 and 72
Ken,
Silence does not mean I am hiding or ducking the question. I had some duties that have taken me away from my computer. So just calm down!
Yes, Dominic Aquila is the current chairman of the SJC and Yes, Dominic Aquila was the moderator who appointed the committee.
You stated, “I was just asking why a key member of the SJC chose to make a decision in the forming of the study committee that was abnormal according to Robert’s Rules. . .”
1. I ma not sure what you mean by “key member” he has one vote just like the other 23 men who serve on the SJC. He is one of four officers who serve. I served once as Vice Chairman and I never saw that as a “key” role. You are implying with your terms that Dr. Aquila has this power over the SJC…He does not.
2. Further this “key member” had nothing to do with the committee after it was formed and had not control over how GA voted on the report as a whole.
3. Abnormal – is not a violation of the rules! The moderator, elected by the GA, is the one who appoints committees. Through out this entire thread, all I have heard is the SJC is violating the constitution (when facts proved that wrong, then the SJC was hiding behind the constitution) or the moderator of the GA violated our rules, now finally I guess you would say from your statements, Dr Aquila did not violate the rules.
4. So, abnormal (according to you and other FVers) is your opinion and not the opinion of the GA.
5. Just to make sure we all are clear, no rules were violated.
Re: 42
Lane, what crossed the line?
greenbaggins said,
February 11, 2008 at 3:34 pm
So, you’re accusing me of treating you as sub-human, is that it?
You said that it was like your family was turning into vampires and devouring you. How is that not calling me a vampire?
greenbaggins said,
February 11, 2008 at 3:35 pm
Bill, Stewart was accusing us of speaking about the CREC in the same way that we are accusing certain FV guys of speaking to us.
Tom Wenger said,
February 11, 2008 at 3:38 pm
Jesse,
If that is the case, then it is certainly better; but I’m curious who you think is not being charitable on the confessional side. We’ve seen the hatred coming from Jordan and Horne. What are the errors being made on the other side?
Mark said,
February 11, 2008 at 3:40 pm
#82
I mean he was a waste of time. If you want denominational purity from the “heresy” spending two years on AAPC is a pretty slow way to do it.
Maybe I’m wrong, but that’s how it looks to me
Not sure what way there really is except leaving the PCA and starting one’s own denomination. The only counter-evidence I’ve seen is the vote at GA. But unlike the GA, presbytery trials can’t have Sproul make up facts in order to win. It simply hasn’t translated into the desired action at the Presbytery level.
Having SJC micro-manage the purity of the presbyteries at the behest of a couple is a really s l o w strategy. How many presbyteries can SJC logistically tyrannize in one year?
Gabe Rench said,
February 11, 2008 at 3:41 pm
Lane,
I have read #33 and there is always an explanation- no doubt. Just because it is written word does not mean that the same charity should not apply. We have been arguing over what the Bible says since the Cannon was formed. Paul is not here to explain himself- Pastor Wilkins is here to explain himself! Simple love.
Mark said,
February 11, 2008 at 3:42 pm
BTW, this would make sense of the desire to continue to prosecute Louisiana presbytery. If SJC dissolves it, then they can, in effect, mass depose officers from the PCA rather than having to deal with trials for everyone they wish to prosecute.
kjsulli said,
February 11, 2008 at 3:45 pm
Gabe Rench, re: 89,
Statements made orally are a different case than statements written in books, articles, and pamplets. The comparison you present is null.
Jesse Pirschel said,
February 11, 2008 at 3:47 pm
Tom,
I’ll answer that if you can answer this; are you saying “no” errors or lack of charity has been shown from the “confessionalists”?
kjsulli said,
February 11, 2008 at 3:48 pm
re: 101, whoops, appears this was already answered…
Gabe Rench said,
February 11, 2008 at 3:53 pm
kjsulli,
your answer is a non answer because it is was not an answer. Your answer is null.
Andy Gilman said,
February 11, 2008 at 3:57 pm
Saruman’s staff has been broken and, predictably, he’s driven by his hatred to visit the Shire to attempt some minor mischief.
Gabe Rench said,
February 11, 2008 at 3:58 pm
My point is that I was not necessarily drawing a comparison between oral and written…I was for darn sure drawing out that Charity applies to both. Why do yall split hairs like this? You say there is no comparison well is say there is- no you don’t…yes I do. Black-eyed Peas says it best “where is the love”.
Tom Wenger said,
February 11, 2008 at 4:00 pm
Jesse,
I would certainly say that the 7 denominations who declared the FV to be heterodox were not uncharitable. The published works by Waters, WSCA and By Faith Alone (Johnson & Waters) etc, were not uncharitable either. I don’t have a finger on the pulse of all the blogging out there, but I haven’t seen a lack of charity on this blog or on other major discussion centers like Warfield List, OPC list, Heidelblog, De Regno Christi, and De Regnis Duobus (I don’t follow the Puritan board).
So, I’m not sure where else you mean, but as an ordained PCA minister, I stand behind what my denomination has done to preserve the Gospel from the yeast of the FV 100%. I pray that the remaining ministers who hold to the FV will sincerely recant, and if not, that we will take whatever steps we have to, to hold them to their ordination vows – all in the spirit of truth and love.
Tom Wenger said,
February 11, 2008 at 4:03 pm
Gabe,
You been swiggin’ a little of Granny’s White Lightin’?
Gabe Rench said,
February 11, 2008 at 4:08 pm
Why? do have some?
Ruben said,
February 11, 2008 at 4:11 pm
For whomever you are, and whatever side you come down on, there is a simple fact that should be considered.
Holding to error will damage you and your church.
Permitting ungodliness will damage you and your church.
Does error need to be driven out, and that promptly? Yes.
Does ungodliness need to be repented of, and that promptly? Yes.
We can’t tolerate error in the name of godliness: but nor can we tolerate ungodliness in the name of orthodoxy.
I believe that FV is bad for the PCA, bad for any professing Christian. I believe that there are other errors which are equally bad; and I believe that ungodliness is equally bad. My concern is not to defend any FV proponent or distinctive teaching; but let the opponents of the FV not be suckered by Satan into tolerating ungodliness in their hearts or in their midst under the cloak of opposing error.
And to be fair, though I sometimes worry that some are making that mistake, I am grateful for certain people, such as Lane, who clearly does not.
Gabe Rench said,
February 11, 2008 at 4:11 pm
Actually I prefer scotch. My favorite is Belenie. Any takers!
Tom Wenger said,
February 11, 2008 at 4:12 pm
It’s pretty hard to come by here in Annapolis. We’d have to head out to West VA, for that. And yankees like me know better than to try, because we’ve got these real purdy mouths. :-)
Tom Wenger said,
February 11, 2008 at 4:14 pm
Sorry, my comment in #112 was in reference to Granny’s White Lighting, not Scotch. That we have in bounty, and I’m a Glen Morangie fan myself.
Jesse Pirschel said,
February 11, 2008 at 4:25 pm
Just like I would in any situation at the church, let’s here from the other side that has expressed offense.
Mark or Doug or any who would like to chime in; can you agree with this statement and if not why not?
“but I haven’t seen a lack of charity on this blog or on other major discussion centers like Warfield List, OPC list, Heidelblog, De Regno Christi, and De Regnis Duobus (I don’t follow the Puritan board).”
And a quick shout out to JJS, your blog is now officially considered a “major discussion center”. And I knew you when you were just a nobody from nowhere! Warms my heart boy.
Gabe Rench said,
February 11, 2008 at 4:29 pm
Ah! the proper spelling for Belenie is “Belvenie”… and Glen Morangie is a good second choice. If there is no scotch available I prefer a little Evan Williams- a cheap, cheap substitute (not even a substitute) kind of like Granny Lighting, correct? :)
Tom Wenger said,
February 11, 2008 at 4:32 pm
Gabe,
I think it’s Balvenie, but that was probably just the “Granny’s” talking.
Gabe Rench said,
February 11, 2008 at 4:34 pm
Tom- thats right thanks. I have had a bad spelling day. Now back to our disagreement.
Mark said,
February 11, 2008 at 4:55 pm
“So, you’re accusing me of treating you as sub-human, is that it?”
Lane, it is typical for a tribe to refer to their own members as the real humans and everyone else as animals that talk. I’m saying you have two sets of behaviors, one for your friends, another for those you wish to destroy.
“You said that it was like your family was turning into vampires and devouring you. How is that not calling me a vampire?”
Do you really need to ask? Let one tenth of the imaginative brain power you use to make fine distinctions when it serves your purpose to do so be used on my behalf for once.
Jon said,
February 11, 2008 at 5:21 pm
“Let one tenth of the imaginative brain power you use to make fine distinctions when it serves your purpose to do so be used on my behalf for once.”
Always the victim.
GLW Johnson said,
February 11, 2008 at 5:22 pm
Mark
Are you deliberately trying to commit denominational suicide? My issues with you have been less about theological disagreement and more about your rabid manner of defaming people who disagree with you and your FV colleagues. You have poured utter contempt on the PCA study committee, the SJC, RC Sproul, Lane, etc., etc., etc. What do you hope to accomplish by this?
David Gray said,
February 11, 2008 at 5:30 pm
>Yes, Dominic Aquila is the current chairman of the SJC and Yes, Dominic Aquila was the moderator who appointed the committee.
Wasn’t he intimately involved in the By Faith startup?
Ken Christian said,
February 11, 2008 at 5:37 pm
Ref 94: Bill, my repeated posts had nothing to do with seeking to get an answer out of you or anything like that. As Lane will tell you (and as I think I mentioned in one of my posts), my posts were being caught by the spam filter and didn’t show up until about an hour ago. My multiple comments were merely attempts to shoot one through, if you will.
As for referring to D. Aquila as a key member, I only meant that he was chairman and thus, presumably, heavily involved in the work of the Commission. I’ve been on enough committees to know that some members are more participatory than others. The chairman usually always falls into this category. I meant nothing offensive towards Rev. Aquila or any other committee members.
As for my original post, you need to go read it again I did not accuse anyone of doing anything against the rules. I was referring to this quote from your post:
“Third, my reading of forming a committee (from Roberts Rules) uses the words like “normally” or “should” or “advisable” (I think as I am moving and have packed my Roberts Rules.)”
I’m only wondering if you or anyone else knows why Rev. Aquila apparently chose to not follow the normal procedures of Robert’s Rule. It’s not wrong to not follow them. I just think it would be helpful if someone could explain to us why a less-than-usual path was followed. Perhaps there was a very good reason. If so, I think we’d all benefit from knowing.
Bill Lyle said,
February 11, 2008 at 6:01 pm
ref: 122
Dear Ken,
My suggestion to you then is very simple. Call him!
His number can be found at:
http://www.newgeneva.org/
or in the PCA Grey Book.
I do not think it would be helpful for someone else to get involved – it would be proper for YOU TO CALL HIM- PERIOD!
Bill
magma2 said,
February 11, 2008 at 6:35 pm
Can you please provide a citation from Robert’s Rules? Under “Committees and Boards” it states: “The committee constitute a miniature assembly . . . .” Given the affirmative vote in favor of the committee report was easily 95%, I have to think the committee presented an incredibly accurate representation of the assembly; you, Pastor Sherbon and a handful of others excepted of course.
Also, you have been Johnny one note over the past several months. You think the committee was unfair, but so what? The vote was fair and you lost. Get over it. Isn’t that what you’d be saying to the rest of us if the vote went the other way? Methinks it is. It’s not like there wasn’t considerable lobbying prior to the vote to get your side heard. Frankly, looking at the buzzing over the Internet, one would have thought that your side had it in the bag. I didn’t realize what a little what bag it was. ;)
Finally, after you make that call to Rev. Aquila and since you keep on harping about the committee report, why don’t you provide some specifics where you think the report errs? I can tell you where I think it erred; assuming that FV teachers brothers in Christ. Begging the question is always fallacious and in this case it was a dangerous assertion without any biblical warrant.
Jesse Pirschel said,
February 11, 2008 at 6:43 pm
Magma,
Seeing as the assembly was so overwhelming in its vote, was Mr. Robbins wrong for leaving the PCA? Were his warnings about its leaving behind sola fide unwarranted or at least over exaggerated?
David Gray said,
February 11, 2008 at 7:21 pm
>You think the committee was unfair, but so what?
Enough said…
Kyle said,
February 11, 2008 at 8:49 pm
Gabe Rench,
My point is that I was not necessarily drawing a comparison between oral and written…I was for darn sure drawing out that Charity applies to both. Why do yall split hairs like this? You say there is no comparison well is say there is- no you don’t…yes I do. Black-eyed Peas says it best “where is the love”.
And our point is that the application of charity differs in these circumstances, where hearsay may need a kind of oral clarification that is not necessary with statements found written in books. It is an old saw that FV proponents have continued to bring out again and again, that the PCA study committee was not only stacked, but especially unloving because it did not call up each of the men whose writings it was examining to “clarify” what they said.
Honestly, if FV responses since then are any indication, I do believe most of them would simply repeat what they had written, adding an affirmation of support for the Standards without functionally validating their affirmation.
But I’m cynical after witnessing how they interact with their critics.
Andrew Webb said,
February 11, 2008 at 9:10 pm
Re #11.
Dewey, that was Lane who making reference to Sam Duncan’s minority opinion in the Chin case, not me. I haven’t responded at all to this as yet.
Personally, I’m not looking forward to the next few years of going through the tedious process of bringing overtures against the FV men in Missouri, Ohio Valley, PNW etc. setting all the processes in place and then having them flee to the CREC as soon as the stage is actually set for a trial. I don’t know if the rubber noses were an indication that they are having fun in this process, but I know this is about the furthest thing from “fun” I’ve experienced to date. It’s like a root canal that just never ends.
magma2 said,
February 11, 2008 at 9:25 pm
Jesse, no on both counts.
Ken Christian said,
February 11, 2008 at 9:41 pm
Ref 123:
Bill…OK, I WILL CALL HIM!. (Seriously though, no need for an all caps “shout”. I simply asked an honest question.)
Ken Christian said,
February 11, 2008 at 9:58 pm
magma2 –
As for the Roberts Rules quotes, you’ll have to ask Bill. I was asking about something he said was in there.
I do appreciate the sweet nickname – though I’d say I’ve been at least Johnny-three-note. As for your thoughts about what I’d be saying if my side won, you are gravely mistaken (although I don’t think anyone should speak about one side winning over the other).
By the way what is my side? Do you know me? Have we met?
As I have said numerous times on this and other blogs, I am not at all in support of everything the so-called FV men have said. My concern all along has been that they be treated in a loving and just way, particularly our fellow PCA ministers. In my mind, this would’ve included a committee makeup that ensured the FV positions were articulated to the satisfaction of FV men. Whether they were judged by the rest of the committee to be confessional or not would be another matter.
As for evidence for the fact that the report got the FV content wrong, just observe how everyone associated with the FV can’t find any of their views anywhere in the report. Most of them even agree with all the “Declarations”. Doesn’t that at least seem odd to any of us?
Ken Christian said,
February 11, 2008 at 9:59 pm
closing italics I hope, sorry…
Tom Wenger said,
February 11, 2008 at 10:02 pm
Ken,
Are you the Ken Christian who grew up in Fredericksburg, VA?
Ken Christian said,
February 11, 2008 at 10:08 pm
Tom,
Are you the Tom Wenger that knew my sister at LBC?
Terry W. West said,
February 11, 2008 at 10:26 pm
Andy,
You said:
“Personally, I’m not looking forward to the next few years of going through the tedious process of bringing overtures against the FV men in Missouri, Ohio Valley, PNW etc….”
As someone relatively new to presbyterian polity, I want to ask how this will work? Will someone in the local churches or presbyteries themselves have to make these overtures, or can they come from outside? This is an honest question. I really don’t know.
Thanks,
Terry
markhorne said,
February 11, 2008 at 10:33 pm
128
Well, since I know what the word “like” means, I don’t think I’m being dehumanized into a root canal by this post.
I will continue the image by pointing out that I think it is odd that the man threatening with the pliers is the one to use it.
Just out of curiosity, Andy, what do you think has gone wrong in all these Presbyteries that they have all become incompetent to protect the basic Gospel? Why do we need, in so many cases, to resort to the centralized apparatus that is supposed to only be used when the presbyteries fail?
markhorne said,
February 11, 2008 at 10:41 pm
“You have poured utter contempt on the PCA study committee, the SJC, RC Sproul, Lane, etc., etc., etc. What do you hope to accomplish by this?”
The defense of virtually all the presbyteries in the PCA.
It was fine with you that Sproul was as contemptuous as you are. Again, there are two different laws, one for those with power and another for those determined to be outsiders. It is Pharisaism.
markhorne said,
February 11, 2008 at 10:42 pm
i.e. determined by those in power.
Kevin D. Johnson said,
February 11, 2008 at 11:21 pm
Andy Webb blubbers:
Oh brother, didn’t anyone ever tell you in seminary that ministry isn’t always easy?!? In fact, didn’t they tell you it would be difficult. Gosh…what “men” we have in the halls of ministry these days.
Poor poor Andy didn’t get his trial. Poor poor PCA filled with pastors who are either too busy trying to conform to today’s postChristian culture or building their fiefdoms on the all since forgotten remains of a past they’re only vaguely familiar with. I just had to laugh when I heard the White Horse Inn via podcast berate revivalists for using technology to advance their agenda. You guys can’t see the forest for the trees.
And all this for the next twenty or thirty years–chasing other men in ministry all so .000000000000000000000001234313 percent of the Christian world can remain true to Andrew Webb’s and the SJC’s understanding of the Westminster Confession of Faith. Never mind Islam. Never mind Roman Catholicism. Never mind secularism. Never mind paganism. Never mind that no one will remember this controversy and possibly even the PCA in a hundred years.
Yeah, glorious battle. The one we’ve all been called to fight! Join with Andy on the Blubber Campaign to Eradicate the Single Most Important Heresy Facing Those Who Don’t Even Understand It!
NOT.
Jason J. Stellman said,
February 11, 2008 at 11:42 pm
Kevin,
You need to tone down the rhetoric there, amigo.
Now, let’s say for a moment that the majority of the PCA is actually correct, and that justification by faith alone is at stake here (I imagine you disagree, but for the sake of argument, just grant the premise). Now, if this is indeed the case, would this not be a battle worth fighting?
What is a CREC minister came out and affirmed Trent’s take on the issue? Would the doves in that denomination do anything about it?
My point is that you’re begging the question by your little harangue.
Jason J. Stellman said,
February 11, 2008 at 11:43 pm
I meant to type “what IF” in the 3rd paragraph.
Ron Smith said,
February 12, 2008 at 12:04 am
Jason,
Yes, if Sola Fide was at stake, it would be worth fighting. But no one has denied Sola Fide, so Kevin’s post certainly puts this squabbling in perspective.
Kevin D. Johnson said,
February 12, 2008 at 12:08 am
Mr. Stellman,
Well, first, I have to of course question the premise on more than one ground.
For one thing, the majority of the PCA has not determined the state of the question or even the legitimacy of the charges against men like Steve Wilkins even if they have appointed a committee to do so. As usual, these things on closer examination fail to pass muster when we consider all the attendant factors.
Secondly, it is clear–whatever you or others think of the matter–that Federal Vision theology springs generally from normal received traditions in flux at differing points in the Reformed traditions we have to this point since the sixteenth century. I am too much of a historian to admit the idea that the Reformed tradition was fully developed and constant throughout its entire five hundred year length to this point. So, is it really a compromise of the doctrine of justification by faith? Maybe it is according to Muller who has his own limitations in looking at the Reformed histories and the corresponding traditions but I daresay that some of the men he has studied would be less impressed with his results.
But to further throw a wrench in the works…let us do what you have supposed and grant the premise. I’m frankly not sure that this is the momentous occasion that the Reformation was in looking at ‘the article at which the church stands or falls’. Is the Church herself on the brink of destruction because sola fide is purportedly at risk in a denomination not .0000000000000000153254 percent of the entire Christian Body on this planet? Go ahead, drop a zero on the right side of the decimal from that percentage and include all the other Reformed bodies that have commented negatively on the FV and what do we have other than a very small group–something like the leaf way up high on massive oak that is hundreds of years old–telling the entire Church how she must view this issue.
No doubt a proper understanding of justification by faith alone is important and central to the gospel, but it is not equivalent to the gospel. There are times when other more central matters have pressed to the fore in the history of the Church and I believe we face more important issues than this one especially when (let us come back to reality now) it is not immediately clear that the Federal Vision advocates are in every instance denying that which they have sought to affirm every inch of the way.
I’m not going to answer the question of the CREC and what would happen if they affirmed Trent. For one thing, I think they affirm Trent often in practice but so does every Reformed denomination I am familiar with in one way or another. The Reformed scholasticism that passes as a legitimate heir to our Reformed communions today is simply the older scholasticism in new clothes. The discipline present in Reformed churches carries with it a stench that originally belonged to her Roman subjugators.
In saying all this, of course, I’m not advocating that every single Reformed congregation and their denomination on the planet mirrors these things. But the nature of the case forces us to speak generally when we encounter these errors among us.
If anything, the Reformed churches of our land are due for a major overhaul. I pray for revival. Repentance and true revival. The kind that would scare the crap out of the White Horse Inn guys. That would solve our problem a whole lot faster than the countless disciplinary actions sure to follow if the SJC and Mr. Inquisitor General Andy Webb gets their way.
Jason J. Stellman said,
February 12, 2008 at 12:14 am
Ron (#142),
I agree no one has explicitly denied sola fide, at least according to them. But lots of church courts have concluded differently. Our Confession says that it belongs to synods and councils to determine ecclesiastical and doctrinal matters. So just because James Jordan insists really loud, while breathing out threatening and slaughter, that the FV really is confessional, it doesn’t make it so, not if our synods and councils all univocally disagree.
Jason J. Stellman said,
February 12, 2008 at 12:19 am
Mr Johnson,
I guess we’re just coming from two very different perspectives.
Any “revival” that would “scare the crap out of the White Horse Inn guys” would also scare the crap out of me. With them, I am interested in seeing our churches faithfully exhibit our marks, trusting that God will add his blessings as he sees fit.
Kevin D. Johnson said,
February 12, 2008 at 12:23 am
I would further add, Mr. Stellman, that I am not convinced given the state of the PCA today that she would be able to rightly judge the matter and the appointment of the Standing Judicial Committee and the wide berth given it in terms of authority undoubtedly proves my point in that regard.
There are not enough well read men on the faculties of your various seminaries let alone laymen who have read enough on the topic to really dig deep enough here. That in and of itself coupled with the fact that the ordinary PCA minister is hardly equipped to handle these questions signals for me that the PCA is unable to fulfill the very duty you and others are demanding from her.
So, you reach a decision against the PCA? So what? Who is to say it is legitimate if you grant the premises that I put forward? Or is this sort of argumentation only effective for one side and not another?
Jeff Cagle said,
February 12, 2008 at 12:31 am
Kevin: The percentage is higher than you think.
330,000 in PCA / 2.1B nominal Christians worldwide = 0.02%.
Jus’ sayin’.
(And of the remaining, the vast majority thinks that the FV is a subset of heretical Presbyterianism anyways. I mean, how long would Jim Jordan last in a dispensational Bible church or a Methodist church?).
Jeff Cagle
Gabe Rench said,
February 12, 2008 at 1:04 am
Kyle #127,
Just because you can read the work does not mean that you should not call them. Why is written word your cut off for further interaction? What kind of standard is that? How would you like it if someone was taking your written word out of context and not calling you for further clarification. I am positive your argument would 360 itself in a heart beat. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.
Jeff Cagle said,
February 12, 2008 at 1:06 am
Kevin (#146):
There are not enough well read men on the faculties of your various seminaries let alone laymen who have read enough on the topic to really dig deep enough here. That in and of itself coupled with the fact that the ordinary PCA minister is hardly equipped to handle these questions signals for me that the PCA is unable to fulfill the very duty you and others are demanding from her.
My former post was humorous; this one not so much.
You offer a very disturbing argument. If I’m reading you correctly, you’re saying (a) that the Federal Vision is too lofty to be properly evaluated even by seminary professors, and (b) the PCA elders are intellectually unprepared to perform one of their basic tasks: guarding the flock.
If true, then heaven help us all.
On the other hand, I would submit that the Scripture is sufficiently perspicuous with regard to what must be understood for salvation that even a lowly MAR like myself should be able to distinguish bad views of justification from good. Yes?
(and I ask that without prejudicing the question as to which pile the various FV views of justification should be assigned).
Jeff Cagle
Gabe Rench said,
February 12, 2008 at 1:07 am
Jeff,
I believe Jim would last a lot longer than the anti-fv…they are the ones operating unecumenical in this whole process.
Jeff Cagle said,
February 12, 2008 at 1:13 am
It wasn’t a disparagement of Jim. I just meant that baptists think that infant baptism (and communion!) are denials of the gospel; methodists think that Calvinism is.
JRC
Ron Smith said,
February 12, 2008 at 1:22 am
No courts have concluded anything. Courts have defendants.
Kyle said,
February 12, 2008 at 2:12 am
Gabe, re: 148,
Just because you can read the work does not mean that you should not call them. Why is written word your cut off for further interaction? What kind of standard is that?
The written word comes with a great deal more immediate context, and the greater possibility of clarification and qualification before it goes off to print, than does an oral statement before it proceeds from the mouth. I don’t mean that futher interaction is absolutely cut off (although I hardly believe that it is absolutely required), but it’s a bit absurd to whine and complain about not being called when FV teachings had already been in print, and also preached from the pulpit, for several years before the PCA committee completed its report. These weren’t exactly “hidden” things, and if FV proponents actually intend to influence people to their position, then I can’t imagine they’ve in fact written and preached in such a way as to utterly confound the reading comprehension of the elders in the several Reformed denominations who have condemned their views. This defense of theirs becomes all the more pathetic when they grab for straws in this instance, crying hypocrisy where an oral statement, whose exact context cannot be known by anyone except those who actually heard it said (unless there’s a full transcript somewhere??), was clarified via a telephone call.
The situations are quite different, and the application of charity in each should not be expected to be precisely the same.
How would you like it if someone was taking your written word out of context and not calling you for further clarification. I am positive your argument would 360 itself in a heart beat. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.
Yes, turning 360 degrees does put one back where one started; I would present the same argument.
I know Federal Visionists must think their opponents are all either plain stupid or absolutely evil, but I do not believe that their writings have been consistently and seriously taken out of context. Certainly they’ve failed to demonstrate such to my satisfaction. But I’ll admit to being biased.
Kyle said,
February 12, 2008 at 2:16 am
I might also add, that the only person in this entire thread whom I believe actually heard Mr. Duncan’s words is HaigLaw, and his opinion was this way up in #8: “FV sympathizers who are using this Duncan comment as a way to criticize the SJC are misguided.”
Douglas Wilson said,
February 12, 2008 at 4:54 am
All, I have been away from the computer all day (in addition to the fact that I am in the UK, with time zone issues and an inconvenient computer issue), and that accounts for my silence here.
First, I do think some comments from both sides in this thread have been intemperate — I really believe that Lane tries to keep a civil tone here, and I would urge all of us to try harder to keep it more elevated than has developed in this thread. We have a lot of Christians in this dispute, some Pharisees, and no orcs. It would be nice if we sought to speak accordingly. We all tend to see the threshold of offense at different places when it is our own guys crossing it, but we all need to remember that there is a threshold for all of us.
Tom, no one who is justified in this life will ever lose that justification on the last day because of deficiencies in their works. The fact that you have asked me to qualify what I have already qualified countless times is a good example of why some are tempted to get exasperated.
All, provoking to wrath need not be wrathful itself in order to accomplish its natural end. Legalistic pettifoggery does not need to be angry to cause anger. When fathers are taught in Scripture not to provoke their children to wrath, it is this same kind of thing — a father’s wrath could certainly provoke wrath in children, but so can a host of other things. The PCA’s behavior throughout the entire course of this controversy has been provocative in the extreme — not meaning to say that the PCA has been personally evil, orcish, or vindictively malicious. At the same time, the processes have been counterproductive of the ends they were designed to achieve, a risible study committee was set up with the result that the GA voted to approve of mom and apple pie, a legalistic squeeze play was successfully run on Wilkins, and when certain subsequent developments created at least an appearance that made it hard to deny that this is what had happened, attempts were made to minimize the damage through personal contact — the kind of attempts that would have been praiseworthy had they been employed earlier in the controversy to head it off, instead of late in the controversy to put a happy face on a series of injustices.
Comments keep referring to the seven denominations that have condemned the FV error, and so why are you FV types still out there with your contra mundum stuff? Let’s take the PCA version of that — the approval of the study committee’s report by GA meant that I am vindicated. The review of my position by the CREC determined that my brand of being FV was okay, within the pale. The decision of the PCA meant that I must not be FV at all because I do not hold to the positions they condemned. If the PCA condemns the Arian heresy how does that nail me if I am not an Arian?
Ron Henzel said,
February 12, 2008 at 5:34 am
Doug,
Tom wrote in comment 62:
You responded in comment 155:
But what if, instead of asking about those who have been justified, Tom had asked whether those who are in union with Christ, and members of His covenant, will ever be finally and eternally cut off from Him?
Ron Henzel said,
February 12, 2008 at 6:16 am
Kevin,
So then, justification is central, but other things are more central? Do you disagree with Calvin’s statement that justification is “is the main hinge on which religion turns” (Institutes 3.11.1)?
Douglas Wilson said,
February 12, 2008 at 7:06 am
Ron, there is a kind of union with Christ that can be lost (the kind of union in view in John 15 and Rom. 11; whatever union that is, that is the only kind I mean), but this must never be confused with that efficacious union with Christ which only the elect may possess.
Ron Henzel said,
February 12, 2008 at 7:37 am
Doug,
So, then, you believe that there are two different kinds of union with Christ, one temporary and the other permanent. I take it you also hold that all union with Christ is covenantal union, correct? But if this is the case, must there not, according to you logic, then be two different kinds of covenantal union with Christ—one that includes the blessing of justification and one that does not? After all, do you not speak of “unjustified members of the Justified Body”? (“Reformed,” 175). Are there then two differing sets of terms for covenantal union with Christ, one that includes justification and one that does not?
anneivy said,
February 12, 2008 at 9:13 am
Re: #148 “Just because you can read the work does not mean that you should not call them. Why is written word your cut off for further interaction? What kind of standard is that? How would you like it if someone was taking your written word out of context and not calling you for further clarification.”
No, one would not call the various authors this reason:
If I understood correctly, the primary point of the study committee was to read and evaluate certain published and posted material, material which had been increasingly read by the PCA’s people in the pew. Some of the PiP’s read the stuff and thought it appalling, some of them didn’t get very far before being bored half to death and quitting, and some of them read the stuff and thought “Yowza! This makes scads of sense!” The pastors in PCA churches all across the nation – plus overseas, too – found themselves fielding questions about the viewpoints contained within these published and posted materials.
So the PCA formed a study committee to read and evaluate the viewpoints contained within the various writings which the laity (not to mention second year seminary students) were reading.
Since Penelope and Peter Presbyterian certainly weren’t picking up the phone and calling the various authors to see if they meant what it sure sounded like they said, the PCA’s study committee didn’t call ‘em either. What was being studied wasn’t the views of particular, specific authors, per se, but rather the published and posted material which was widely cited as the basis for particular theological theories.
If the point of the study committee had been to ascertain what theological views certain men hold, then absolutely, those men should have been personally contacted and quizzed.
But that wasn’t the point of the study committee. The point of the study committee was to evaluate the views contained within widely available published and posted material. Since if a passage appears to claim Theological Theory A, it really doesn’t matter whether or not the author actually intended to claim Theological Theory B, since the author isn’t sitting at the elbow of Peter Presbyterian to tell him, “Well, actually, that didn’t come out quite right. I didn’t mean it the way it sounds.”
Only the words on the page/screen matter, not the intent of the person who typed them, since it’s only the words on the page/screen that Penelope and Peter Presbyterian are reading.
Kevin D. Johnson said,
February 12, 2008 at 9:15 am
Ron,
Yes, from a pastoral perspective there are some things ‘more central’ than justification at particular points in the Church’s history. Perhaps the most obvious example would be the trinitarian controversy against Arianism. My guess is Athanasius while he was concerned with how men are saved and such things did enter into a discussion of the nature of the Son in reference to our salvation, the actual concept of forensic justification played no central role in the midst of that controversy.
Regarding Calvin’s statement, I believe I have already addressed that above–it is dangerous anyway to lift such a comment out of its context and try to apply it to every situation in which you think justification has been threatened by errant teaching.
Douglas Wilson said,
February 12, 2008 at 9:51 am
Ron, yes, I believe there are two kinds of covenant union with Christ — blessed and cursed, the kind that lasts forever, and the kind that does not. I believe there is the kind of union that is pictured by the branches that abide in the vine forever, and the kind of union that is pictured by the branches that are cut out, taken away, and burned. There is the permanent and efficacious union of elect branches and there is the temporary union of the reprobate branches.
Ronnie said,
February 12, 2008 at 10:16 am
Doug,
There is the permanent and efficacious union of elect branches and there is the temporary union of the reprobate branches
Maybe you can tell us what gifts are present in the temporary union even if the graces are temporary? For example, regeneration? Justification? Sanctification? Repentance? Saving faith? Feel free to add any. Just want to get an idea of what is involved in this temporary union vs permanent union.
Jesse Pirschel said,
February 12, 2008 at 10:45 am
I am confident that Doug and others would want to at least say it includes,
“being once enlightened, tasting of the heavenly gift, being a partaker of the Holy Spirit, have tasted of the good word of God and the powers of the age to come.”
or it also could be said to include those
“to whom pertain the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the service of God, and the promises;”
I mean, we wouldn’t want to deny the Bible on those points, would we? To go beyond those points into the secret workings of “how much” and “of what sort” each person gets is not revealed so we should leave those alone. In as much as at one point it seemed the FV wanted to go beyond this it got itself in trouble, in as much as it pointed out its not “that clean and easy” it was merely being Biblical.
Bret McAtee said,
February 12, 2008 at 10:45 am
For one thing, the majority of the PCA has not determined the state of the question or even the legitimacy of the charges against men like Steve Wilkins even if they have appointed a committee to do so. As usual, these things on closer examination fail to pass muster when we consider all the attendant factors.
Revisionist history. The PCA GA, by higher than 90%, accepted the committee report that clearly determined that FV was out of bounds. All that is happening here is the application of that denominational decision. Actually, upon closer examination what fails to pass muster when the attendant factors are considered are KJ’s assertions.
Secondly, it is clear–whatever you or others think of the matter–that Federal Vision theology springs generally from normal received traditions in flux at differing points in the Reformed traditions we have to this point since the sixteenth century.
You can find almost anything as a ‘normally received tradition’ somewhere at some time in 500 years of Reformed history. So what? Look, it’s this simple … If the gatekeepers in current Reformed denominations don’t desire FV then FV isn’t going to survive in those denominations. That is the way that all organizations work. Many Reformed denominations have determined that they don’t want FV getting into the water supply of Christendom through their channels thus bringing about the same kind of coup that dispensationalism won 100 years ago when it got into the water supply and infected everything.
The answer is easy here KJ. Let the FV people go build their own denominations. If, as many have said, ‘Ichabod’ is pronounced over the denominations that have given the old ‘heave ho’ to FV then in a short amount of time those denominations will dry up and FV will stand as champion on the grave of that which it detests.
I am too much of a historian to admit the idea that the Reformed tradition was fully developed and constant throughout its entire five hundred year length to this point. So, is it really a compromise of the doctrine of justification by faith? Maybe it is according to Muller who has his own limitations in looking at the Reformed histories and the corresponding traditions but I daresay that some of the men he has studied would be less impressed with his results.
Yes, and many men who study the works of those who don’t like Muller wouldn’t be impressed with their works. So What?
Certainly, the Reformed tradition is still not fully developed, and who would contend that it has ever been constant? These are ‘Captain Obvious’ statements. Again, the point of the matter is that different groups desire different trajectories for their version of the ‘Tradition.’ Let each go their own way.
And yes… it is a compromise on the doctrine of ‘jbfa.’
But to further throw a wrench in the works…let us do what you have supposed and grant the premise. I’m frankly not sure that this is the momentous occasion that the Reformation was in looking at ‘the article at which the church stands or falls’. Is the Church herself on the brink of destruction because sola fide is purportedly at risk in a denomination not .0000000000000000153254 percent of the entire Christian Body on this planet?
You don’t come to truth by counting noses KJ. By this reasoning something was amiss with Elijah since he was one of the .0000000000000000153254 percent of the entire faithful body in Israel. Being the avid student of history that you claim to be you surely realize that minorities often are those who save the day.
Remember the Mustard Seed.
Go ahead, drop a zero on the right side of the decimal from that percentage and include all the other Reformed bodies that have commented negatively on the FV and what do we have other than a very small group–something like the leaf way up high on massive oak that is hundreds of years old–telling the entire Church how she must view this issue.
Just imagine how small of leafs Luther and Calvin and Bucer, and Zwingli, and Peter Martyr and Bullinger et. all must have been. And yet …
No doubt a proper understanding of justification by faith alone is important and central to the gospel, but it is not equivalent to the gospel.
Is this like saying a proper functioning ovary is important and central to getting pregnant, but it is not equivalent to getting pregnant?
Well, sure, but no woman will ever get pregnant without a proper functioning ovary. Just so, no one will ever be saved without a gospel which casts all on Christ alone.
And, frankly the dismissing of the importance of JBFA is troubling.
There are times when other more central matters have pressed to the fore in the history of the Church and I believe we face more important issues than this one especially when (let us come back to reality now) it is not immediately clear that the Federal Vision advocates are in every instance denying that which they have sought to affirm every inch of the way.
There is some truth there. I believe that public square a-nomianism in the church is just as dangerous as FV. I believe that Feminism in the Church is just as dangerous as FV. I believe that humanistic psychology in the Church is just as dangerous as FV. There are many different ways in which the Church can be poisoned. I also agree that not all FV advocates are in every instance denying what they are being said to deny though certainly some of them do. Still, among all the dangers the Church faces FV is certainly a danger that the Church should react strongly against. Now, if she would only act against the other dangers.
The discipline present in Reformed churches carries with it a stench that originally belonged to her Roman subjugators.
That is always what the minority says who is getting tossed out on their ears. Sometimes, no doubt, they are correct. Sometimes they aren’t.
If anything, the Reformed churches of our land are due for a major overhaul. I pray for revival. Repentance and true revival. The kind that would scare the crap out of the White Horse Inn guys. That would solve our problem a whole lot faster than the countless disciplinary actions sure to follow if the SJC and Mr. Inquisitor General Andy Webb gets their way.
I join you with the prayer for Reformation in head and members. I support the idea that every generation must re-interpret and re-apply the Reformed faith so that it remains the living tradition of the dead and not the dead tradition of the living. I also agree that the WHI guys would probably soil their undergarments with the kind of Reformation I envision. But for all that I am pretty sure that our visions of Reformation are such at odds that we would be disappointed if either of our visions came to pass.
It’s a good think that God’s vision will come to pass and not Horton’s and not Webb’s and not Wilson’s and not Johnson’s and not McAtee’s.
Well … maybe McAtee’s
Mark said,
February 12, 2008 at 10:47 am
#163
Doug can answer for himself but I like the questions and will do my own take, if that is all right.
regeneration?
As gift of saving faith? No, as Rich Lusk has pointed out, if regeneration is defined in its typical scholastic sense, such an idea is a monstrosity–his word.
As “rebirth” into the house and family of God, the visible church? Yes.
Justification?
As a status only received by saving faith? No. Such justification cannot be temporary.
As a vindication of the visible Church, and an attitude of love and favor God bestows as “covenant common grace” (see John Murray) I think it might be possible to construct a Scriptural case for calling this a kind of justification. When Jesus weeps for Jerusalem, they are obviously headed for destruction. But he still weeps for them and not for pagans in North America. That shows that they have some sort of right relationship with God that they are squandering.
But that is speculative, for me at this point. What I do no is that God does regard the Church with special favor and that, by the judgment of charity, we are to regard all members as “the justified” encouraging them to trust God, repent of sin, and continue in God’s kindness. So, not exactly justification.
Sanctification?
Well, the word in 1 Cor 9.14 is used for even known unbelievers and the author of Hebrews warns what will happen to those who are sanctified who “go on sinning willfully.”
However, that is all more about status then behavioral change and the “holiness without which no one will see the Lord.” Obviously, only the elect, when the are regenerate, are given the holiness without which no one will see the Lord. But we do see the Spirit changing a person’s heart and behavior and making him a new man who then goes on to become demonically tortured and apostate (Saul). We also know that the Westminster Confession attributes temporary responses to the Gospel to the “common operations of the Spirit.” So, not sanctification as defined as efficacious (which is what Westminster does). But they do have something that resembles it for awhile.
Repentance?
Not unto life, ultimately, but they can be drawn by a common operation of the Spirit (which I take to mean, following John Murray, something common to elect and non-elect).
Saving faith?
Well, that’s impossible because they are not saved. So no saving faith. They, as Jesus says, “believed for awhile” but fall short of salvation.
Of course, again, they are part of the visible Church for whom Christ shed his blood (Acts 20.28) and are, while their profession is credible, to be regarded as the possessors of these things.
But those who fall away don’t really have them. They have have received the grace of God in vain.
Again, Doug will have his own answers to this. I’ve never talked to him about these things and my answers should not be attributed to him.
Ken Christian said,
February 12, 2008 at 10:56 am
ref 160: anneivy writes:
Only the words on the page/screen matter, not the intent of the person who typed them, since it’s only the words on the page/screen that Penelope and Peter Presbyterian are reading.
I could concede this point if the only purpose of the Study Committee Report was to evaluate those words on the page in a way that was disconnected from the ministers who wrote them – just a pure, abstract intellectual exercise in other words. Yet I don’t think any of us would say that was the only purpose of the report. Can you help us here, Bob?
Even if that were the original intent, very few FV critics seem to be aware of it. How often has a phrase like “Your views have been condemned by the approved report; you should accept this and leave the PCA!” been used on this very blog? By my count, it’s been frequent. Yet if the “words on the page” are all that matter, nothing like this would ever be suggested.
In light of all this, I don’t think it’s unreasonable to believe the Study Committee should have had the foresight and charity to contact the PCA men whose lives would certainly be affected by the content of the report. This would have ensured that their actual beliefs were evaluated fairly. Is that really too much to ask?
And yeah, if it was found that the FV men had meant to communicate something different from what most understood their writings to have said, the report should’ve come with a rebuke to speak/write more carefully next time.
Ken Christian said,
February 12, 2008 at 10:57 am
Ref #167 – My first paragraph should be in quotes. How do you do the cool “quote” formatting, where it’s offset I mean?
Tom Wenger said,
February 12, 2008 at 11:20 am
Ken,
Yeah, that’s me. Small world, huh?
Tom Wenger said,
February 12, 2008 at 11:40 am
Doug,
You argued above that: “there is a kind of union with Christ that can be lost (the kind of union in view in John 15 and Rom. 11; whatever union that is, that is the only kind I mean), but this must never be confused with that efficacious union with Christ which only the elect may possess.”
But the reason that people argue that you go farther than that is because of your other statements like this:
“You can be on the tree, someone can be on the tree right next to you and HE IS AS MUCH ON THE TREE AS YOU ARE, HE’S AS MUCH A PARTAKER OF CHRIST AS YOU ARE, HE IS AS MUCH A MEMBER OF CHRIST AS YOU ARE and he is cut away and you are not and you stand by faith, so don’t be haughty, but fear.” [Wilson, "Visible and Invisible Church Revisited,” Lecture delivered at the 2002 Auburn Avenue Pastors’ Conference]
These words most certainly do confuse things and when they are echoed by others in the FV movement and then coupled with language that says justification can be lost, how could you expect any thing else than the negative reaction that the FV has received?
Lusk’s language here flat out states that the white garment of justification can be lost because good works maintain the possession if it:
“[I]nitial reception of the white garment is by faith alone; ONGOING POSSESSION OF THE GARMENT IS MAINTAINED BY FAITHFUL OBEDIENCE. …The white robes stand first and foremost for Christ’s free gift to his people. Just as he is clothed in white (cf. Rev. 1, 19), so he clothes his people in white. Their “whiteness” before the Father’s throne is due solely to his death and resurrection. In this sense, the robes stand for INITIAL justification. But this forensic justification cannot be separated from the good works THAT MAKE THE SAINTS WORTHY OF THEIR NEW APPAREL. In other words, the poetic imagery points in the same direction as the theological prose of Paul (Rom. 2:13) and James (2:14ff): those who will be vindicated in the end are those who have been faithfully obedient.” [Lusk, “Future Justification to the Doers of the Law”, 2003]
There can’t be “clarification” of statements like this: they have to be recanted.
Ken Christian said,
February 12, 2008 at 11:41 am
Ref. 169: Tom,
Yeah, it sure is. If you want, ask Lane to send you my email address. It would be fun to catch up.
Towne said,
February 12, 2008 at 11:46 am
#167 & 168–
Ken:
Your kind-hearted error springs from not seeing that the Study Report, accurately assessed by Anne, is just that, a report. Nothing other than the published writings were under consideration, and properly so. And it is nothing more than a report until acted upon by the General Assembly as a lawful court of the Church.
Once the GA voted to reject the views stipulated, only thereafter is it required of us to go privately and seek to correct those holding these views.
Ken Christian said,
February 12, 2008 at 11:56 am
#172 –
Towne – Not being an expert on PCA polity yet myself, I can only admit that you are probably right. Your logic seems sound to me. However, I still stand by my point that going to the ends of the earth to represent the views of our fellow TE’s as accurately as possible was not too much to ask of the committee. I don’t remember the original motion that created the committee limiting their scope to the printed word (please correct me if I’m wrong). Thanks very much, Towne, for your kind interaction. I do appreciate your spirit.
Mark said,
February 12, 2008 at 11:58 am
#171
“You can be on the tree, someone can be on the tree right next to you and HE IS AS MUCH ON THE TREE AS YOU ARE, HE’S AS MUCH A PARTAKER OF CHRIST AS YOU ARE, HE IS AS MUCH A MEMBER OF CHRIST AS YOU ARE and he is cut away and you are not and you stand by faith, so don’t be haughty, but fear.” [Wilson, “Visible and Invisible Church Revisited,” Lecture delivered at the 2002 Auburn Avenue Pastors’ Conference]
These words most certainly do confuse things and when they are echoed by others in the FV movement and then coupled with language that says justification can be lost, how could you expect any thing else than the negative reaction that the FV has received?
================
Only if the Holy Spirit is guilty of confusion in John 15 and Romans 11.
If you interpret the Bible in a wider context then you should do the same for Doug.
Ken Christian said,
February 12, 2008 at 12:01 pm
Ref. 170 above:
Though I’ve been Johnny-one-note in pleading for the fair treatment of our FV bretheren, I’ve also stated I do not stand behind everything they say. Let be specific about that by saying that the Rich Lusk quote in Tom’s post above gives me a huge case of the heebie jeebies…
David Weiner said,
February 12, 2008 at 12:01 pm
Mark, re: #166,
I am not involved in the FV debate; I am just a lurker here. Nevertheless, I did appreciate your post as it seemed to be a sincere attempt to provide light where there is so much darkness and vitriol. I would like to ask you a question regarding something you said in your post. You said: “Of course, again, they are part of the visible Church for whom Christ shed his blood (Acts 20.28) . . . Would you be so kind as to describe the way in which the blood of Christ relates to the reprobate in the visible church in contrast to the way in which it relates to the reprobate who are not in the visible church.
anneivy said,
February 12, 2008 at 12:02 pm
Re: #167
“How often has a phrase like ‘Your views have been condemned by the approved report; you should accept this and leave the PCA!’ been used on this very blog? By my count, it’s been frequent. Yet if the ‘words on the page’ are all that matter, nothing like this would ever be suggested.”
(I’d also like to know how to do the cool block-quote thing.)
Well, Ken, I’m going to give you this one. You’re right. If the study committee’s task was to read and evaluate theological theories via the most commonly-cited materials, but without prejudice toward the authors, then no, the study committee’s report ought not be used as a mallet with which to beat them.
Mind, it’d be perfectly fair to observe that “Based upon what’s in this article/book/etc. you wrote, it appears there’s a problem with your theology. OTOH, it’s possible it’s just not written clearly, or that we misunderstood it.”
Valid point, Ken.
You may pick yourself up off the floor now. ;-)
Ken Christian said,
February 12, 2008 at 12:11 pm
Anne – Bless you! You crack me up.
Mark said,
February 12, 2008 at 12:14 pm
174 correction
Addressed to #170
Jesse Pirschel said,
February 12, 2008 at 12:18 pm
Revival just broke out.
greenbaggins said,
February 12, 2008 at 12:20 pm
The way to do blockquotes (Anne and others) is quite simple. I have to describe the steps separately, or it will read it as a blockquote. First . There are no spaces. This is at the beginning of what you want in the blockquotes. At the end of what you want blockquoted, you write . Please note that the slash is quite important, as that is what closes the blockquote. Hope this helps.
Andrew Webb said,
February 12, 2008 at 12:22 pm
Ref. #139
Kevin, you despise me, I get it. I understand I am an untutored, evil, girly-man, idiot. I understood that was your opinion of me over 5 years ago (ok, the girly-man thing is new) when it became clear that I was going to buy into your Comegys/Nevin-esque agenda. I am flattered you continue to stoop to excoriate a humble mollusk both here and on the Reformed Catholics blog.
If you might accept a bit of advice from a mere rodent, the “Inquisitor General” thing was a bit of an overreach. I’ll let you in on a not-so-secret, secret. Old School guys with 6 year old 123 member churches, don’t actually shape the agenda of the PCA or lead anything. Witness the inability of Old Schoolers with more clout and larger churches to make so much as a dent in the creation and subscription debates. If the majority and the real powers that be in the denomination don’t want something to happen, it doesn’t happen. It’s just that certain blubbering newts are willing to put their heads on the block, in order that men with real career potential and aspirations can maintain confirmed nice guy status.
Anyway, I’ll let you get back to your 24×7 schedule of intense theological study (thank heavens for EWTN eh?), as for me, I’m grouchy if I don’t get my Ovaltine and Nap time before watching my Elmo DVDs. I’m still very fragile as yesterday I misplaced my Wubbie, and I just couldn’t stop crying all day…
greenbaggins said,
February 12, 2008 at 12:23 pm
Arggh! I thought it wouldn’t read it funny, but it did. Let me try again. First, chevron opening. This is the key next to “m” on the keyboard that is achieved by using the shift key. Then the word blockquote, then chevron closing (the next key over with shift). No spaces. This is at the beginning of your blockquote. At the end of the blockquote you again put opening chevron, then forward slash (the question mark key on most keyboards), then “blockquote,” then closing chevron. This should do it.
Chris Coldwell said,
February 12, 2008 at 12:30 pm
Re 182.
I’m sure Andy means “wasn’t going to”.;)
rgmann said,
February 12, 2008 at 12:36 pm
155: Doug Wilson wrote,
Tom, no one who is justified in this life will ever lose that justification on the last day because of deficiencies in their works.
That’s still an ambiguous answer. Will anyone who is “justified in this life” ever lose that justification or be cast into Hell at the final judgment for any reason whatsoever?
The fact that you have asked me to qualify what I have already qualified countless times is a good example of why some are tempted to get exasperated.
If you would stop “qualifying” your doctrine of justification with ambiguous phrases (e.g., “because of deficiencies in their works,” etc.) then the temptation to get exasperated would be greatly diminished. State it clearly and concisely without any slippery “qualification.” Say what you mean and mean what you say.
Mark said,
February 12, 2008 at 12:38 pm
#170
“[I]nitial reception of the white garment is by faith alone; ONGOING POSSESSION OF THE GARMENT IS MAINTAINED BY FAITHFUL OBEDIENCE. …The white robes stand first and foremost for Christ’s free gift to his people. Just as he is clothed in white (cf. Rev. 1, 19), so he clothes his people in white. Their “whiteness” before the Father’s throne is due solely to his death and resurrection. In this sense, the robes stand for INITIAL justification. But this forensic justification cannot be separated from the good works THAT MAKE THE SAINTS WORTHY OF THEIR NEW APPAREL. In other words, the poetic imagery points in the same direction as the theological prose of Paul (Rom. 2:13) and James (2:14ff): those who will be vindicated in the end are those who have been faithfully obedient.” [Lusk, “Future Justification to the Doers of the Law”, 2003]
There can’t be “clarification” of statements like this: they have to be recanted.
=========================
OK. According to the Westminster Larger Catechism (to which Rich was oath bound as his system of doctrine) we find that many things are necessary (not just faith) to escape final judgment (to be declared in the right at the final judgment, to be justified).
Here’s some (not all!) of the relevant statements:
I don’t see how Rich can be accused of doing anything but popularizing a (currently rather unpopular) teaching of our doctrinal standards.
Do the Westminster Divines need to recant? What about James, who states that we are justified “by works and not by faith alone”?
It still looks to me that, rather than Reformed Orthodoxy being violated, a nuda fide doctrine has usurped its place and that those who are asking for Biblical and Reformational integrity are being attacked.
Mark said,
February 12, 2008 at 12:43 pm
#182
Andy, I thought Kevin’s language was over the top as well. But you might notice that it is declared fair game on these comments (and on an email list I can remember) to accuse people of whining when ever they complain about what their enemies are doing.
I don’t think this justifies it, but I do think it is worth mentioning.
Mark said,
February 12, 2008 at 12:47 pm
#176
Mark, re: #166,
I am not involved in the FV debate; I am just a lurker here. Nevertheless, I did appreciate your post as it seemed to be a sincere attempt to provide light where there is so much darkness and vitriol. I would like to ask you a question regarding something you said in your post. You said: “Of course, again, they are part of the visible Church for whom Christ shed his blood (Acts 20.28) . . . Would you be so kind as to describe the way in which the blood of Christ relates to the reprobate in the visible church in contrast to the way in which it relates to the reprobate who are not in the visible church.
====================
I liked what was said in post #164: The blood of Christ gives to the reprobate in the visible church, ““being once enlightened, tasting of the heavenly gift, being a partaker of the Holy Spirit, have tasted of the good word of God and the powers of the age to come.” and/or “the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the service of God, and the promises;”
greenbaggins said,
February 12, 2008 at 12:50 pm
Mark, does the blood of Christ give the reprobate any ordo salutis benefits like justification? What do you mean by adoption? Is it the same exclusively-to-the-elect benefit that the elect receive? Talk about Johnny-one-note. I have been asking this question ad nauseum and cannot get any kind of clear answer from the FV.
Ronnie said,
February 12, 2008 at 12:55 pm
Mark,
So according to you the reprobate can be regenerated/rebirth in a sense, justification maybe possible in some sense though it would be speculative, sanctification in a sense but not the confessional sense, repentenance in a sense, and saving faith you deny, because you state they are not saved and only believe for a while. But based on your other arguments one could argue they are saved in sense. One could even point to your argument that the WCF references the temporary responses to the Gospel and point to the temporary faith that does not have the root to persevere. So they have saving faith in a temporary sense, however it is not the saving faith that perseveres. We could even argue they have perseverance in a sense, because they may persevere for a little while. They don’t have the perseverance the Confession talks about because they don’t persevere to the end, right?
Andrew Webb said,
February 12, 2008 at 1:03 pm
Ref #184 – Quite right Chris, my mistake.
Ref. #188 – Eh, its ok. Kevin hasn’t been able to stand me for at least half-a-decade, that I’m used to. I’m just amazed he doesn’t get tired.
Hey, speaking of Kevin’s prayer for “true revival” – I’m struggling to think of any time when a “true revival” broke out in a high-church liturgical homilies, lectionaries, and sacraments only church or any revival. The kind where hundreds if not thousands of people both within and without the church are saved. I can think of plenty of cases where they occurred in say Old School Presbyterian settings but am still coming up with zip for the RCC, Anglo-Catholic style camp. Unless we count Lourdes that is. Can anyone else think of an example?
rgmann said,
February 12, 2008 at 1:05 pm
162: Doug Wilson wrote,
Ron, yes, I believe there are two kinds of covenant union with Christ — blessed and cursed, the kind that lasts forever, and the kind that does not.
If “the covenant of grace was made with Christ as the second Adam, and in him with all the elect as his seed” (WLC 31), then how can a non-elect person be in “covenant union” with Christ? Either the Catechism is wrong or your interpretation of John 15 wrong — they cannot both be correct at the same time.
Mark said,
February 12, 2008 at 1:09 pm
#185
“That’s still an ambiguous answer. Will anyone who is “justified in this life” ever lose that justification or be cast into Hell at the final judgment for any reason whatsoever?”
Does anyone really doubt that Doug’s answer will be “none whatsoever”?
But how about this: I think that here is perpetual danger of falling. No degree of progress we may have already made, no amount of privileges which we may have enjoyed, can justify the want of caution. That’s what 1 Cor 10.12 says, after all–”let anyone who thinks that he stands take heed lest he fall.” I understand Paul’s warning to apply to anyone who thinks himself secure. This may refer either to security of salvation, or against the power of temptation. The two are very different, and rest generally on different grounds. False security of salvation commonly rests on the ground of our belonging to a privileged body (the church), or to a privileged class (the elect). Both are equally fallacious. Neither the members of the church nor the elect can be saved unless they persevere in holiness; and they cannot persevere in holiness without continual watchfulness and effort. False security as to our power to resist temptation rests on an overweening self-confidence in our own strength. None are so liable to fall as they who, thinking themselves strong, heedlessly run into temptation.
So, what do you think?
Mark said,
February 12, 2008 at 1:11 pm
“I’m struggling to think of any time when a “true revival” broke out in a high-church liturgical homilies, lectionaries, and sacraments only church or any revival. The kind where hundreds if not thousands of people both within and without the church are saved. I can think of plenty of cases where they occurred in say Old School Presbyterian settings but am still coming up with zip for the RCC, Anglo-Catholic style camp. ”
Well, wouldn’t this be an observation on how the two traditions describe Spiritual phenomena differently, rather than proof that one was without the Spiritual operations that the other has enjoyed?
Mark said,
February 12, 2008 at 1:14 pm
“Mark, does the blood of Christ give the reprobate any ordo salutis benefits like justification?”
No.
“What do you mean by adoption?”
What Paul means in Romans 9.4
“Is it the same exclusively-to-the-elect benefit that the elect receive?”
The elect receive it too, but they receive more. They receive what is effectual to salvation.
“Talk about Johnny-one-note. I have been asking this question ad nauseum and cannot get any kind of clear answer from the FV.”
With respect, this reveals more about you than about any object of your criticism.
Jason J. Stellman said,
February 12, 2008 at 1:17 pm
Concerning whether reprobates receive adoption, I don’t think the reference to Romans (”to whom [Israel] pertains the adoption”) is relevant here.
The Mosaic covenant included an adopted, elected status for Israel as a nation that they could either retain or forfeit depending on their obedience or lack of it.
The elected and adopted individual believer under the New Covenant, on the other hand, is not in such danger, since his status depends on the law-keeping of Jesus the true Israelite and second Adam.
This doesn’t answer everything, of course, but it does narrow the field of prooftexts from which the FV loves to draw in order to scare people.
Jason J. Stellman said,
February 12, 2008 at 1:19 pm
But don’t fret, you FV-ers! You still have the warnings of Hebrews….
Jesse Pirschel said,
February 12, 2008 at 1:19 pm
Andy,
Was Geneva lacking because revival wasnt on the menu?
Ken Christian said,
February 12, 2008 at 1:19 pm
Thanks for tips on the block quotes, Lane
Did it work…
Ken Christian said,
February 12, 2008 at 1:20 pm
Oh yeah!
Jesse Pirschel said,
February 12, 2008 at 1:21 pm
So Jason, what about those warnings? And dont forget 1 Cor 10?
Do you disagree with Kline that “new covenant branches” can be broken off, though the tree itself is not in jeopardy?
Mark said,
February 12, 2008 at 1:21 pm
This doesn’t answer everything, of course, but it does narrow the field of prooftexts from which the FV loves to draw in order to scare people.
================
I’m only appealing to people interested in exegesis, Jason. There has been one covenant of grace both before Christ under Moses and after Christ under the Gospel. Don’t make me waste more time cutting and pasting from the Westminster Standards. Look it up yourself.
Mark said,
February 12, 2008 at 1:23 pm
#202
Jessie’s positive example fills me with shame. I apologize for the tone of my post.
Jeff Cagle said,
February 12, 2008 at 1:26 pm
Re: Blockquoting (#168, 177).
Around the quoted material, put these ‘tags’:
<blockquote>This material is quoted</blockquote>
It will come out like this
See here for more details.
Jeff
Ken Christian said,
February 12, 2008 at 1:29 pm
This might be our best day yet, gentlemen. I can almost feel the love. Let’s not mess it up. :)
Ken Christian said,
February 12, 2008 at 1:31 pm
Forgive me, Anne…gentlemen and ladies
Jesse Pirschel said,
February 12, 2008 at 1:31 pm
Hey Ken,
Put a cork in it!
Kidding men, I know this guy, never liked him but I do know him:^).
Tom Wenger said,
February 12, 2008 at 1:32 pm
Mark,
In reference to #186, nothing you quote from the WLC states that justification can be received and then lost. Or, to use Lusk’s words, that justification can be received by faith but that “ongoing possession of the garment is maintained by faithful obedience.”
What you quoted illustrates the nature of the faith that is justifying faith, but the actual definition of justification given by the WLC shows that it is not compatible with your and Lusk’s formula:
WLC Question 70: “What is justification?
Answer: “Justification is an act of God’s free grace unto sinners, in which he pardons all their sins, accepts and accounts their persons righteous in his sight; NOT FOR ANY THING WROUGHT IN THEM, OR DONE BY THEM, but only for the perfect obedience and full satisfaction of Christ, by God imputed to them, and received by faith alone.”
Justification is the final verdict brought into the present, therefore there is NOTHING that one must do to “maintain possession” of it. “Those He justified he has also glorified.”
Jason J. Stellman said,
February 12, 2008 at 1:33 pm
Mark,
If you’re “interested in exegesis,” then you should answer my point rather than referring to interaction with me as a “waste of time.”
The Mosaic covenant had elements to it that are distinct from the New (hence the latter’s being described as “not like the covenant I made with your father when I brought them out of Egypt, a covenant they broke”).
One of those distinctive factors about the Old Covenant was that it gave to the nation a status they could either keep or lose depending on their obedience and faithfulness in the land.
Since Mark’s reply, he tells us, will be a cut-and-paste of the Westminster Standards (which, I agree, would be a “waste of time” since I am not denying the covenant of works/covenant of grace distinction like he assumes), I’ll just throw this point out for others whose time is not as precious as his apparently is.
Joshua W.D. Smith said,
February 12, 2008 at 1:33 pm
“Mark, does the blood of Christ give the reprobate any ordo salutis benefits like justification? What do you mean by adoption? Is it the same exclusively-to-the-elect benefit that the elect receive? Talk about Johnny-one-note. I have been asking this question ad nauseum and cannot get any kind of clear answer from the FV.”
Huh? Every FV writer I’ve read on this has distinguished the benefits that the elect receive from those that the non-elect receive, and not just in terms of duration, but qualitatively. Now, I haven’t read them all on this particular question, but Wilson, Wilkins, and Leithart have clearly said this…I don’t know about Lusk or Horne.
I will grant that they have not been entirely clear about the nature of the benefits to the non-elect, but several of them have stated categorically that they are not qualitatively the same as the benefits to the elect, so at least your third question has been clearly answered.
Ken Christian said,
February 12, 2008 at 1:33 pm
Jessie, I knew someone saying you were a “positive example” sounded weird… ;)
Joshua W.D. Smith said,
February 12, 2008 at 1:36 pm
“The Mosaic covenant included an adopted, elected status for Israel as a nation that they could either retain or forfeit depending on their obedience or lack of it.”
And this adopted status was as a son–which Christ fulfilled perfectly, as was pointed to by the day of atonement, which was for the sins of the nation as a nation. So, even the possession of the land was not purely on the basis of works.
Kevin D. Johnson said,
February 12, 2008 at 1:36 pm
Andy Webb moans:
Just so we’re clear, I’m not a fan of EWTN, I just got done with the last several days defending what it means to be a Christian contra the claims of a Roman Catholic priest on my website while you’re busy complaining about all the work you’ve got to do in the upcoming years, and I’m generally non-plussed to see you so quickly identify me as someone who has Roman Catholic sympathies.
This is part and parcel your method in opposing those with whom you disagree. And, I might say that I hope such methods become startingly obvious to both sides how character assassination fits nicely within your paradigm to combat heresy.
Webb continues:
Heh. Honestly. Have you ever read anything about the Church in the last five hundred years?!?
You want an example of a revival among “high-church liturgical homilies, lectionaries, and sacraments only church”, for “RCC, Anglo-Catholic style camp[s]“?
Try the Reformation. Undoubtedly the largest revival in the history of the Church and your missing this one important fact just confirms to me you guys just can’t see the forest for the trees!!!!!!!!!!
Jesse Pirschel said,
February 12, 2008 at 1:38 pm
Jason,
The fact is that at the end of that particular argument in Romans, though Israel began as the issue the warning comes as forcefully to the Gentile in the NC.
I cant speak for everyone but I dont hold the warnings as real because I like to “scare” people (though they are scarey) but because “fear” is one of many motivators God uses to keep his folks to the end as they walk the road from here to there. Faith does indeed tremble at the warnings. And if our preaching never includes any trembling, maybe we have gone lopsided.
That said, the promise of the NC is better, the mediator is better, the forgiveness is certain etc. Our folks should know this as well, and the most gruesome sinner should be able to see that if he would only trust in Christ he will undoubtedly be saved, whether he is doing this for the first time or the hundred and first.
But then that leaves some tensions…
Jesse Pirschel said,
February 12, 2008 at 1:40 pm
Ken,
Honestly it sounded weird to me as well.
Mark said,
February 12, 2008 at 1:42 pm
Jason, professing Christians (like baptized infants, among others) have a covenant status they can lose for lives of unbelief. They are in “the house and family of God” which is the visible Church, and then they are cast out.
That was true both before and after Christ. Claiming that Israel’s adoption was about “law” as in some demand for obedience tied to the covenant of works, is simply not claimed by Confession or catechisms and is not some Reformed standard by which I can be judged.
Beyond that, you made no exegetical argument so I don’t have anything to work with. Why don’t you and Jessie wrestle with this issue, since I’ve put my foot in it.
On the other hand, I’ve also made myself feel somewhat defensive. But that started somewhere else. To explain what I mean, let me ask you this question, Jason. You wrote,
So, when you’re sitting there in your meetings with Rob Rayburn and Peter Leithart, is this the kind of thing you say to Peter’s face?
Stuff has been said about rhetoric and FV in this comment thread. Do you want calm discourse. Or do I make you happier when I act like I’m provoked? What do you really want?
Jason J. Stellman said,
February 12, 2008 at 1:45 pm
Jesse,
Of course there is a “godly fear” involved in the Christian life, and that the warnings are ways by which the elect persevere to the end.
But that is not what I hear from the FV.
Lusk says that we retain our justified status by our obedience, and further, that we make ourselves worthy of it by the same.
Mark said,
February 12, 2008 at 1:46 pm
#208
So why does one have to continue in all Christ’s ordinances to escape condemnation for sin?
Jason J. Stellman said,
February 12, 2008 at 1:50 pm
Mark,
You ask, “Do you want calm discourse. Or do I make you happier when I act like I’m provoked?”
Actually, I don’t know, since I’ve never seen you NOT acting provoked.
I liked you better when we met face to face. Every online interaction since has begun with a defensive snideness from you. You responded to me a couple weeks ago by saying that there is no curse strong enough to call down upon the seminary I attended for its “crimes” against the Reformed faith.
So what do I want? I want you to act like a civil human being, that’s what I want.
rgmann said,
February 12, 2008 at 1:52 pm
193: Mark wrote,
Does anyone really doubt that Doug’s answer will be “none whatsoever”?
I honestly don’t know what Doug’s answer will be, as FV proponents are well known for being ambiguous and self-contradictory. One writer sums it up well:
“In Wilson’s Wonderland, the reprobate are elect, the unjustified are justified, and the unregenerate are saved. Wilson equivocates on ‘regenerate’ and ‘justified,’ for when he applies those terms to a promiscuous group, they cannot mean what they mean when applied to elect individuals. A regenerate individual is one made alive by the action of the Holy Spirit in his mind. A group has no mind, and a promiscuous group of believers and unbelievers is never made alive by the Holy Spirit. A justified soul is one declared righteous by God, and the righteousness of Christ is imputed to his account. A group has no soul, and a promiscuous group is never the recipient of Christ’s imputed righteousness.”
Neither the members of the church nor the elect can be saved unless they persevere in holiness; and they cannot persevere in holiness without continual watchfulness and effort… So, what do you think?
I think that reprobate “members of the church” cannot and will not be saved (no matter how much they attempt to “persevere in holiness”), and that elect members of the church will “persevere in holiness” because they have been unconditionally chosen in Christ and justified once-for-all (i.e., forever) by faith in Christ alone — apart from works of any kind.
Towne said,
February 12, 2008 at 1:56 pm
#213–
Kevin:
A few months ago, you were making good sense in your posts. What happened?
Instead, today you decry Andy for character assassination, but forget what you said about him in post #139. Not to mention the larger digs you leveled against the whole PCA denomination and its ministers in posts #143 and 146. Are you having a bad day? Can you please live by the same standard you expect of others?
Finally Kevin, you’re not PCA, right? Then why are you taking your precious time to involve yourself in our affairs, especially if we’re such an admittedly small part of the visible Church?
its.reed said,
February 12, 2008 at 1:59 pm
A wee suggestion that y’all might focus a bit more on the subject of the thread here. Seems like there are quite a few rabbit trails being chased at this point.
Just a suggestion :)
Jeff Cagle said,
February 12, 2008 at 2:06 pm
Mark (#186):
I don’t see how Rich can be accused of doing anything but popularizing a (currently rather unpopular) teaching of our doctrinal standards.
Do the Westminster Divines need to recant? What about James, who states that we are justified “by works and not by faith alone”?
I would ask you to consider the possibility that Rich’s statement here comes across, to many, NOT as an expression of the Confessional standards but as a distortion thereof. NOT as a faithful outworking of James 2, but as a distortion thereof.
Note that I’m not asking you to consider whether Rich’s statement actually *is* a distortion. I’m sure you think it is not, and that he is simply expressing something more nuanced and Biblically faithful than more traditional readings of the Confession. I’m simply asking you to consider appearance: how an orthodox statement might look unorthodox because of the way in which it is expressed.
As you are considering, think also about your followup:
It still looks to me that, rather than Reformed Orthodoxy being violated, a nuda fide doctrine has usurped its place and that those who are asking for Biblical and Reformational integrity are being attacked.
Given that certain people come across that way to you (it’s usually helpful to name names, BTW, instead of making broad blanket statements that function as Rorschach tests), consider the possibility of Rich’s situation being mirrored: that “whoever” appears to be advocating nuda fide is actually advocating something more nuanced, more Biblically faithful than it appears to you.
What I would love to have here is this:
* That those opposing the FV would narrow the scope of their concerns and drop the over-the-top rhetoric, and that they would indeed approach their opponents personally, as required both in Scripture and in the BCO.
* And that the FV advocates would publicly consider the ways in which their approach has contributed to this conflict.
* And a pony.
Mark, I have concern for you as a brother. I have prayed before and will continue to pray for you to have grace under fire.
Grace and peace,
Jeff Cagle
(And for my part, I think Rich’s statement goes beyond the Confession and James. You probably knew that.)
Mark said,
February 12, 2008 at 2:09 pm
Mark,
You ask, “Do you want calm discourse. Or do I make you happier when I act like I’m provoked?”
Actually, I don’t know, since I’ve never seen you NOT acting provoked.
I liked you better when we met face to face. Every online interaction since has begun with a defensive snideness from you. You responded to me a couple weeks ago by saying that there is no curse strong enough to call down upon the seminary I attended for its “crimes” against the Reformed faith.
So what do I want? I want you to act like a civil human being, that’s what I want.
========================
I have offered you salient points without snideness. You broke in responding to one.
Again, I’m sorry for what I said to you about exegesis. Let’s move on.
Kevin D. Johnson said,
February 12, 2008 at 2:10 pm
“Towne” said:
Let’s just consider for a moment that if we are speaking about the truth of the matter, it is likely not character assassination.
Mr. Webb was promulgating falsehood about me in his comment #213 regarding where my theological and/or other loyalties are and that is why I used the term “character assassination”.
My own comments concerning the PCA and her ministers is my opinion and is simply not the same thing as assassinating the character of someone by lying about them or misrepresenting who they are. I’m happy to admit that I could be mistaken or proven wrong upon review of further evidence to the contrary but what I’ve said is no different than any other public commentary regarding these issues on either side of the fence (as if there are only two sides to this matter).
‘Towne’ continues:
I’m not involving myself in your affairs. I’m not receiving member churches into my ‘confederation’ or reviewing anything officially and I’m not a leading proponent of theology you or others may be opposed to in terms of the Federal Vision movement.
I’m reacting as one minister in the Body of Christ and speaking as a part of the wider Church often does on matters which garner her attention. In short, to the extent that these proceedings are public they deserve some amount of comment and attention from other quarters of the Body of Christ, His Church. But, to call it interference is so wide of the mark and uncalled for in the extreme.
Mark said,
February 12, 2008 at 2:16 pm
This is perfectly fine. Just consider the context of my defense of a recant or else accusation.
You’re asking for a conversation that is difficult to have under these circumstances. I applaud you for asking for it. But I can’t single-handedly deliver the goods and, in the meantime, it is hard to let these severe accusations go unanswered.
Jason J. Stellman said,
February 12, 2008 at 2:17 pm
Mark,
I’m sorry, I didn’t realize this was your idea of civility:
“I’m only appealing to people interested in exegesis, Jason…. Don’t make me waste more time cutting and pasting from the Westminster Standards. Look it up yourself.”
I’m done with you for now.
Joshua W.D. Smith said,
February 12, 2008 at 2:19 pm
Re #214
And the penalties are greater in the New Covenant as well…
Towne said,
February 12, 2008 at 2:21 pm
#225
Kevin:
Well, if you define it all away like that, then hey, I understand!
Ken Christian said,
February 12, 2008 at 2:22 pm
Ref 227: Jason, isn’t that the very quote for which Mark is rightly asking your forgiveness?
Jason J. Stellman said,
February 12, 2008 at 2:27 pm
Ken,
Mark referred to what he wrote as “offering salient points without snideness.” Saying that, then adding, “But sorry, let’s move on” doesn’t exactly reassure me that our future interaction will be fruitful and gentlemanly. \
I’m sure we’ll fight more in the future, but I have better things to do today than listen to Mark Horne insult people.
Ken Christian said,
February 12, 2008 at 2:28 pm
My additional two-cents about the Lusk quote, for what they’re worth…
Jeff is right to point out that the quote certainly sounds bad, to say the least. But Mark’s point is valid too: why does the bad sounding quote result in the instant demand for recantation “or else”? And this question needs to be asked, because this is the kind of thing that’s been going all along. Why not first respond with a, “Brother Lusk, your point sounds totally off the wall. Are you sure you meant it the way I’m hearing it?”
Ron Henzel said,
February 12, 2008 at 2:36 pm
Kevin,
In response to my citation in comment 157 from Calvin, in which he introduced his discussion of justification by faith by calling it “the main hinge on which religion turns,” you wrote in comment 161:
I have not lifted the quote out of its context, at least not in the usual pejorative sense that such an assertion is usually intended to convey, i.e., with the result of distorting the original meaning of the words cited. If you are actually contending that I have failed to capture Calvin’s meaning, that he did not really intend to claim that justification by faith stood at the center of all of Christian theology, and that he would not use that statement as a starting point for dealing with errant teachings that threaten the doctrine (or expect us to do so today), then the most charitable response I can muster is to suggest that you go back and re-read all of Institutes 3.11, for you have gravely and dangerously misrepresented the Reformer’s teaching. In Calvin’s very next sentence after the one I quoted he declares that without a proper understanding of justification by faith we lose the foundation for both salvation and piety.
Andrew Webb said,
February 12, 2008 at 2:41 pm
Kevin,
Ok, you got me. No, of course I haven’t actually read anything about the church in the last 500 years. I keep putting “learn how to read the books you own” in my day planner, but since I can’t read the reminders, it doesn’t help. I’ve just been making it up as I go along. You alone have finally figured me out Kevin, it must be all that ambient caffeine in your environment keeping you on your toes.
Anyway, you and Mark are right to regard the Reformation as the greatest revival of religion in the last thousand years, however I think you’ll find that it was the rediscovery and preaching of the solas along with Reforms that gradually removed many of the innovations and superstitious additions of men that was the key to the Reformation. It certainly was not Holy Days, Covenant Nomism, Baptismal Regeneration, Vestments, Church Architecture, Sacramentalism, and the Lectionary that produced that great revival of religion. As a matter of fact, the degree to which those elements were retained was generally the degree to which Reformation and Revival were impeded, and the degree to which they re-appeared was the degree to which revival died to be replaced by nominalism and then liberalism.
Generally speaking prayer and the preaching of sola fide (law and gospel) are the agents that bring in true revival.
The Memoirs of Jonathan Edwards, put it this way, note well what is said about that which stops revival:
Hodge essentially said the same thing writing on the nature of Revivals of Religion, note that objections 2,3,4 and compare them to the beliefs of the FV men or the Liturgists:
Tyndale summed up the nature of the evangelical preaching that brings heart changing revival thus:
So to sum it up, revival, which is something we should both pray for and expect, is the result of the simple preaching of God’s truth regarding man’s lost estate – though he may be a baptized member of the visible church – and God’s way of salvation through the righteousness of Christ imputed to us, and received by faith alone. True that saving faith is increased and strengthened by the right use of the sacraments, but the whole farago of inventions and innovations of men, regardless of their antiquity, does nothing to advance the cause of religion but rather retards and stifles it. The Reformation began the process of freeing the gospel from those shackles, and now once again we have a host who want the heavy yoke to be reapplied.
- Andy
Ron Henzel said,
February 12, 2008 at 2:44 pm
It cracks me up the way FV proponents and their friends keep claiming that Luther received better treatment from the Roman Catholic church than FVers have received from Reformed denominations. What? Did Prince Frederick send people to kidnap Steve Wilkins and hide him in the Wartburg?
Jeff Cagle said,
February 12, 2008 at 2:51 pm
Joshua (#210):
Every FV writer I’ve read on this has distinguished the benefits that the elect receive from those that the non-elect receive, and not just in terms of duration, but qualitatively. Now, I haven’t read them all on this particular question, but Wilson, Wilkins, and Leithart have clearly said this…I don’t know about Lusk or Horne.
Horne does. Jordan does *not*. Wilkins actually hedges on this, at least in the “Response to the Nine Declarations.” He states,
Wilkins’ statement contains enough degrees of freedom that I can’t say with confidence what he believes (although Mark Horne assures me that Jordan stands alone on this).
Jeff Cagle
barlow said,
February 12, 2008 at 2:52 pm
Just an historical note – revivalism has been part of the experience of all Christian traditions. Roman Catholic revivalism is a fascinating topic – you can read about it in Jay Dolan’s book “Catholic Revivalism”. In addition, a lot of enthusiastic revival is happening in the southern hemisphere in Anglican and Roman churches. Then there is the Catholic charismatic movement. Dolan’s book talks about the traveling preachers who held Parish Revivals in various parishes in America; some of the preachers were inspired by Protestant revivalism, of course. You might also check out the two volume “Religious Revivals in America” for more information on revivals in various traditions, including first-person accounts.
Mark said,
February 12, 2008 at 2:54 pm
#227
Jason, I apologized for that without reservation. I felt like I was paranoid for even mentioning that I felt provoked, but now I think I wasn’t paranoid enough.
Are you sure you’re not collecting grievances in order to rationalize a course of action you already want to pursue. It is easy to do, as I know from my own sinful behavior. I think the story of the Fall shows it is embedded in human nature to do so (finding fault with someone rationalizes opposing him).
I ask you to read back from the offending quotation you repeated through what I wrote after and compare it to what I wrote before you interjected.
More in another post.
Ron Henzel said,
February 12, 2008 at 2:54 pm
Andy,
It’s like you read my mind. I’m starting to feel goose-bumpy all over.
barlow said,
February 12, 2008 at 2:55 pm
Andy – I think you’re probably wrong about the sacraments prior to the Reformation; these things were hidden from the people in Medieval Catholicism behind screens and additions to the ceremonies. The Reformation was as much a restoration of the sacraments to the laity as it was a restoration of preaching. There should be no motive to pit God’s sacramental grace against the grace of prophecy.
Kevin D. Johnson said,
February 12, 2008 at 2:57 pm
Ron,
I believe I have already said that justification by faith alone stands at the center of all Christian theology and I agree with Calvin in the main. But my comment was simply meant to indicate that pastoral wisdom and discretion is in order in terms of prioritizing the challenges to the Church both inside and out. It is reasonable to assume Calvin felt similarly since his whole life was not spent exclusively on defending justification by faith alone but that he had other issues which at times took a front seat to his concerns.
Jason J. Stellman said,
February 12, 2008 at 3:00 pm
Mark,
There is no “course of action” that I am secretly pursuing which would be furthered by “collecting grievances” I’ve received from you. Honestly.
It’s just that I find much of what you write simply incredible. I mean, I have bad thoughts about certain other seminaries, and certain other people. But I don’t publish them all over the Internet for everyone to read.
So for the record, I do forgive you for the comments above. But you just get under my skin to such a degree that I can’t (nicely) interact further with you, at least not today.
Tom Wenger said,
February 12, 2008 at 3:00 pm
Ken,
I’m not, Mark suggested, threatening discipline of they Rich or Doug didn’t recant; they’re not even in the PCA.
And if this were the first time one of them said something like this, or if there hadn’t been significant attempts on the confessional side to ask for clarification then I agree with you, I would never make or endorse a demand for recantation.
But the point is, I and others have tried for years to get clarification from many within the FV, face to face, over the phone, in private e-mails etc. Additionally there have been several symposia and other gatherings to try and work these things out, again to no avail. And when our denomination, as well as six others, has collectively said that these positions are in error, there comes a point where you move to action.
Specifically, my point regarding “clarification” was that it is typical of the FV to make bold, jarring statements, like the Lusk quote, and then qualify them out of existence, only to make s similar quote the next week on one of their blogs. But there are some statements that are in such error that they are beyond clarification. They’re just simply wrong. And if those who made them would own up to that, we could actually make some headway.
That was all I was asking for, an admission that those words were wrong.
Tom Wenger said,
February 12, 2008 at 3:02 pm
Sorry, the first line of #243 should read:
“I’m not, as Mark suggested, threatening discipline of Rich or Doug don’t recant; they’re not even in the PCA.”
Mark said,
February 12, 2008 at 3:14 pm
#196
Let’s imagine how I might have responded had I not gotten upset by the way this post seemed to me to personally attack motives and character. Here it is in a much treasured blockquote format:
Lets say I answered this with exegesis rather than merely spouting forth about it.
I would point out that Paul explicitly states why Israel fell from that adoption–it was because the mystery of election to eternal life according to God’s sovereign grace. The difference wasn’t in the Law age. The difference was in God’s choice as the potter over the clay.
We know that the fall from their adoption, was not a unique possibility to the Mosaic Economy, because Paul explicitly states that New Covenant professing believers can do the same thing with the same result:
So I don’t see “adoption” as some sort of unique status that only obtains for Israel. It applies to the visible Church under the covenant of Grace both before the Law, under the Law, and under the Gospel.
And, as an extra, this is the position of the Westminster Standards though there are some prooftexts that were added to the Assembly’s work that demonstrate some probably held at least something like Jason’s view (maybe even identical to it). That’s why I don’t think Jason is contra-confessional in his opinions. I think he is contra-confessional to the extent that (as I perceive it) he demands agreement with himself on these points as a standard of orthodoxy, or sets forth these opinions as the unquestion hermeneutical framework of the Reformed Faith.
And I repeat, again, how sorry I am that I did not simply write the above rather than making a snide comment about exegesis and Westminster.
Mark said,
February 12, 2008 at 3:26 pm
On revivalism: most (all?) defenses of revivalism I have seen have made the transitions of Pentecost (like, say, Pentecost) into generic repeatable episodes of mass conversion or merely heightened repentance. I want to applaud and encourage all of that, but I’ve been taught through Reformed Biblical Theology (Vos, Gaffin, etc) not to make those sorts of connections.
Another negative impression I received about the whole culture of revivalism in Presbyterianism was from reading the Dr. David Calhoun’s awesome two-volume history of Princeton. He points out that both Samuel Miller and Charles Hodge both married people who were identified, and would identify themselves, as not Christian. They hadn’t been “revived” or converted in some sense which I really didn’t understand. The eventually were, but that just makes the whole “revival” idea seem much more tenuous. If I can’t bring myself to believe that these godly women were not really Christians, and they make such a big deal about some sort of experience as if it were conversion, what about other biographical and autobiographical statements from that period and place?
The whole culture seemed strange to anything I have found in the PCA. Samuel Miller makes a point that only Christians should should vote for Ruling Elders (in his book on “The Ruling Elder”). Why make the point? Well because he took it for granted that nonchristians attending and supporting Presbyterian churches could vote for the Pastor. That was all right because the Presbytery guarded the reception of ministers. It just seemed weird.
I hasten to add, I haven’t made a great study of this. I’ve relied on a lot of second hand arguments from people I trust. But the above are some of my personal experiences.
Kevin D. Johnson said,
February 12, 2008 at 3:29 pm
Andy Webb writes:
Andy,
I don’t know who you think you’re talking to here about lectionaries and liturgy and the like (and by the way, you sound rather Anabaptist in denying legitimate use of much of what the Church has used over the centuries to teach the faithful)….when did I ever say revival or better reformation ever occurred by means of these things?!? I don’t think Douglas Wilson even says crap like that. You’re like the crazy guy talking to himself in the corner over there. I don’t get it.
The Reformation happened first and foremost by the sovereign movement of God’s Holy Spirit among and in His people. That’s in Jonathan Edwards, too, incidentally.
Yes, they rediscovered the great truths of the Reformation found in the solas but fundamentally speaking the real way to reformation and revival is not through a forced program of catechetical instruction on these truths or a heresy-hunting parade. The Pharisees had all this down pat. The return to the more biblical understanding was a result of the work of the Spirit and sovereign action of God and not because of it.
And, after the magisterial Reformation, the new generations of now institutional Reformed found themselves very much in the same place as other guardians of the institutions that had been destroyed by God’s grace and the work of their fathers only years before. And here we are with similar issues five hundred years later in the PCA where after only 35 years her elders can’t even recognize the revival of the Reformation in their own heritage when it is staring them in the face.
Andrew Webb said,
February 12, 2008 at 3:39 pm
Senor Barlow,
One comment, and one question.
1) I am familiar with the so-called Catholic Charismatic revivals that occurred at places like Duquesne, but I would point out that all of them were a direct result of the participants embracing aspects of protestant Pentecostal theology (for instance Wilkerson’s Cross and the Switchblade played a part in the Duquesne U. revival as Laurentin documents in his book on Catholic Pentecostalism), and that none of them that I can recall were the result of the standard practice of the Roman Catholic Mass and Sacraments.
2) Do you honestly believe though that the “revivals” in Roman Catholicism are a result of Roman Catholic doctrine and practice? Or that revival can result from the preaching of a gospel that doesn’t include imputation or receiving and resting upon Christ alone for salvation?
To everyone else looking for works on the history and theology of biblical revival (and its counterfeit “revivalism”) can I recommend the works of Iain Murray on the subject – in particular his books Pentecost-Today? and Revival and Revivalism and his audio lectures on the subject many of which are available here:
Iain Murray’s Lectures on the subject of Revival
- Andy
magma2 said,
February 12, 2008 at 3:42 pm
Ken writes
No, we’ve never met. I saw you on the floor of the GA and have read your posts here for some time. At the GA you were ready to accuse the PCA of “grave corporate sin” if they adopted the report without the direct input of FV/NPP men. You have been Johnny one note (not three) on this blog, continually harping on the supposed relevance of Committee members failing to contact FV men to see if they agreed with the findings of the report. Everyone knows they don’t agree with the findings of the report. They all, and virtually to a man, whined that they “didn’t seem themselves” in the report.
We even have Doug Wilson above asserting that per the report he would be in the clear. OK, Doug, let’s see you try and join the PCA and not via the MO Presbytery. Yet, in spite of this dishonest blather, Wilkins frankly saw himself in the report and as clear as day, which is why he ran as fast as he could right into the arms of Doug’s mock presbyterian denom of the CREC.
That’s not what I asked Ken. I asked you to demonstrate where and how you think the report got the FV wrong? I would like to know where you think a phone call or having a Federal Divisionist on the Committee would have changed any conclusion already drawn in that report? Where have these men been misrepresented? Just you (or even them) saying so doesn’t make it so.
FWIW, I don’t care that you don’t “support” everything the FV men said. Even Wilson uses that tact to distance himself from others when pressed into a corner. Also, what is this with the “so-called FV men”? What, are you saying the Federal Division is a fiction, something invented in the fevered minds of TR’s manufacturing a make-believe enemy?
They have been. But, when love was about to bring Wilkins to account, as love is wont to do, he fled. In contrast, when Andy Webb laments the cowardice and tactics of these men still in the PCA and fears they too will simply run to the Krist Kirk Kult when love calls them to account for their aberrant doctrines, he’s ridiculed in ways I’ve rarely seen. I wouldn’t be surprised if Horne and Meyers routinely burn Webb in effigy complete with high heels, a skirt and a woobie.
And what would that “satisfaction” look like Ken? It seems to me after years of interacting with the FV men that they’re only satisfied by giving assent to their damnable doctrine of salvation by covenantal obedience.
What do you mean “another matter.” Their teachings were found to be completely un-confessional and in matters that cut to the vitals of the faith. Were the conclusions drawn in the report in error Ken? And, if so, how?
That proves nothing Ken. What might have proved your point would have been if Wilkins actually stayed around to defend his beliefs. Instead he ran away. I’ll tell you what the actions of these men evidence and that they are liars. Wilkins is a liar and he lied when he said he couldn’t find his views anywhere in the report.
Not at all. Not any odder when Norm Shepherd saying he affirms salvation by faith, even faith alone. Again, these men have a long WRITTEN record and their system is fairly well developed, and, frankly, quite transparent. Consequently, their agreement with certain of the the declarations is no different from the old liberals who could publicly vow to uphold the Confession while at the same time denying it.
David Gray said,
February 12, 2008 at 3:51 pm
>Yet, in spite of this dishonest blather, Wilkins frankly saw himself in the report
“Magma2″, what denomination do you reside in?
Jason J. Stellman said,
February 12, 2008 at 4:09 pm
Mark,
OK, your apology is hereby accepted. Thanks for saying what you said. And if I came off as overly heated, which I’m sure I must’ve, please forgive me for that.
You said that you “perceive” that I “demand agreement with [me] on these points as a standard of orthodoxy.” I’m not sure that’s true. I believe what I believe, and I argue for it, but nowhere in this thread do I recall calling anyone unorthodox for not agreeing with me.
On to your argument….
I agree that individual covenant members in every age of salvation history share a status, call it “covenant membership,” that can be lost due to unfaithfulness.
But Paul’s point in Romans 10 is that Israel attempted to establish their status as Abraham’s heirs upon what he calls “the righteousness that is based on the law” which says “do this and live.”
My point from this is that a couple things were happening under the Mosaic Covenant. On an individual level, people were saved by virtue of their believing the Abrahamic promises. But the NATION as a whole shared a collective, covenantal status that promised them earthly blessings for their collective obedience.
This is why it is illegitimate to draw a line straight from Israel’s precarious and typological situation to ours this side of the cross and empty tomb. Yes, it is true that we as individual believers are to be warned against unbelief and subsequent falling away. But that, to my mind, is different from the FV saying something like, “Israel was elected, adopted, and justified, yet they fell away. Therefore the very same thing can be true of people today: we can lose our election, adoption, and/or justification.”
I gotta bounce, so I’ll not be able to respond to whatever comments may follow, at least not for a few hours.
Blessings, all….
RBerman said,
February 12, 2008 at 4:11 pm
#152 Ron Smith:
Within the PCA, “court” has a specialized meaning referring to either a local church session, a presbytery as a whole, or the General Assembly. It rarely implies a trial of any sort.
#166 Mark Horne:
Mark, why are “regeneration” or “rebirth” good words to use to describe the process by which someone is externally united to the visible church through baptism? Especially knowing the import those words carry for the elect, and knowing how confused much of the Christian world is about what Reformed doctrine really teaches. But even ignoring that, I don’t see the impetus to choose the words “regeneration” or “rebirth” for what you describe.
rgmann said,
February 12, 2008 at 4:12 pm
249: Sean wrote,
Come on, Sean, we all know that they really have one of those little voodoo dolls of Andy, and are sticking pins into it as we speak! :-)
Ron Henzel said,
February 12, 2008 at 4:14 pm
Kevin,
Regarding your comment 241: what you give with your right hand you take away with your left. Justification by faith may be “central” for you, but there are things that are “more central,” things which you have yet to identify.
The problem with this is that Calvin’s famous “main hinge” statement about justification is not superseded by another “more main hinge” statement in his writings. There weren’t things that were “more central” for him than justification by faith. So, no, you do not agree with Calvin “in the main.” Yes, Calvin did turn his attention to other matters as the need arose, but he was very clear about what was most important to him, and foundational to his thinking.
You, meanwhile, have been very clear about what you think about both sides of the Federal Vision debate, as, for instance, when you wrote:
After reading this and so many other statements from you of a similar nature, and after noting that your web site bears the words of N.T. Wright, “The doctrine of justification by faith is in fact the great ecumenical doctrine,” it seems to me that you treat justification as the doormat on which heretics wipe their feet, rather than the main hinge on which religion turns.
Joshua W.D. Smith said,
February 12, 2008 at 4:16 pm
Re #236
Jeff, shall we meet somewhere else to discuss this? I’ve always found interaction with you most helpful, but there’s a lot of other issues getting in the way here. Wilkins’ first line in your block quote seems pretty clear about the non-identical nature of RCM and ECM blessings. I was thinking of his examination answers, in which he directly quoted and agreed with Leithart’s marriage analogy, that a marriage that ends in divorce has been qualitatively different all along. I don’t keep track of what Jordan does or does not deny–I find him wacky overall, which leads him to occasional hermeneutical insights, but just as often hermeneutical speculations that get passed off as the “truly biblical” way to read Scripture. And his responses to the current controversy…well, I hope that Wilson or someone has said something to him about it.
Douglas Wilson said,
February 12, 2008 at 4:22 pm
Rgmann, re: #185, for someone who is justified in this life, there is absolutely nothing that can cause that justification to be lost, revoked, withdrawn, or negated. Now is that ambiguous because I didn’t use the word misplaced? The only reason I denied that we can lose justification because of a deficiency in our works is that I thought that that was what we were discussing.
Tom Wenger, re: #170, the “just as much as” language there in my quote is emphasizing the branchness that is shared by the elect and reprobate branches. I am not saying that reprobate branches have any more of a connection to Christ than olive branches or vine branches have in those illustrations prior to being cut off. Whatever connection John 15 and Romans 11 are talking about, that is what I am talking about. Nothing more than that. But the reason this trouble continues is that I also want to assert nothing less than that.
James Jordan said,
February 12, 2008 at 4:30 pm
#255. Sir, my response to the CURRENT matter is that back-room conspiracies, phone calls threatening presbyters if they don’t vote the right way, open violation of PCA rules, all as a way to “get” an innocent individual and drive him out — that is sin. You folks don’t like it when anyone points out sin. All you want is a nice intellectual discussion. But it’s still sin. The 9th commandment is still in the Bible, no matter how many lies are told about FV people and their beliefs.
It’s odd that when the theological issues come up, some people can discuss them rationally, as we’ve seen here. But then again, if this matter had been a theological matter to begin with, it would have been over in 15 minutes. The controversy, however, has been driven by politics and envy since day one, and it’s sad that decent people have been ensnared in this evil.
Kevin D. Johnson said,
February 12, 2008 at 4:36 pm
Ron,
Your absolutist claims and your anachronistic reading of Calvin is really of no interest to me. The fact is that pastoral wisdom dictates that some controversies are more important than others. Why is that so hard for you to swallow?
Andrew Webb said,
February 12, 2008 at 4:40 pm
Kevin,
I just got pinged by someone for once again engaging in exactly the sort of pointless, time wasting, blood pressure increasing, sanctification retarding, dialogue I promised I would endeavor to avoid. So I’ll let this be the last of my posts. You may have the last word.
Look, I find it more than mildly ironic that the individual who accuses me of a pattern of “character assassination” has in one thread called me everything from a blubberer, a girly-man, a moaner, illiterate, unlearned, Anabaptist, and insane. As I noted before, you despise me and have for years, I can live with that and move on. Thankfully at the end of time, according to the Word I don’t have to stand at Kevin D. Johnson’s judgment seat.
Look, I find it mildly humorous that someone who signed off on Webber’s Ancient Future Faith document which makes the church year, music, the table, the word, etc. all equally part of the “incarnational” message of salvation, and a rather romantic notion of the “ancient church” the model for the “post-modern” church is suddenly the great defender of the Reformation and the primacy of Gospel Preaching in revival. Given your on again off again love/hate relationship with the Roman Catholic church and dialogues Like this one (oh look, there’s that bad insane guy Andy Webb again) it just doesn’t seem convincing, at least in my crazy guy world at least.
Anyway, tell you what, I’ll go back to trying to do what I think I was called to do, and you can go back to complaining about it, and I promise not to react anymore.
Ok?
- Andy
Ron Henzel said,
February 12, 2008 at 4:48 pm
Doug,
Regarding your comment 162 (in which you responded to my comment 159): you basically repeated what I already understood you to be saying, but you did not address the bulk of my questions, which concerned the relationship between your two kinds of covenantal union with Christ and justification. To summarize the issues on which I was trying to get clarification: I wanted to know how it can be possible for someone to be in covenantal union with Christ and not be justified, especially under the terms of the New Covenant as described in Jer. 31, Heb. 8, and 2 Cor. 3.
But since then Tom Wenger posted comment 170, and a quote from you that he included in it helps me to put a sharper point on my line of inquiry. He quoted you as follows:
So what I’d like to know is, how can a “non-elect covenant member” be as much of a partaker of Christ and as much of a member of Christ as an elect covenant member, and still not be justified? It seems to me that as soon as you say that one covenant member is justified and another covenant member is not, that the latter is not as much a member as the former, since the former is receiving covenant blessings that the latter is not.
This is similar to the question I was already going to ask, in light of your reference to “unjustified members of the Justified Body”? (“Reformed,” 175): if a non-elect person is a covenant member because he is part of the Covenant Body (the church), why is a non-elect person an unjustified member of the Justified Body in your thinking?
Kevin D. Johnson said,
February 12, 2008 at 4:55 pm
Andy,
You must have some sort of inferiority complex because it’s not that I don’t like you. I certainly don’t despise you as you have repeatedly claimed. I’m sure you’re a nice chap in person.
It’s that I just don’t agree with you and I don’t appreciate the way you try to paint me in a corner in regards to what it is I do believe and advocate.
Ron Henzel said,
February 12, 2008 at 4:59 pm
Kevin,
Your comment 258 reminds me of on of my favorite dialogue exchanges in The Princess Bride—
Absolutist…anachronistic…repristination…you and your cohorts keep using those words. I don’t think they mean what you think they mean.
Ron Henzel said,
February 12, 2008 at 5:10 pm
James,
I think there is also something in the Bible about every accusation being confirmed in the mouths of two or three witnesses. Or is that not in your Bible?
Howard Davis said,
February 12, 2008 at 5:10 pm
Mr Jordan you write in #255.
“Sir, my response to the CURRENT matter is that back-room conspiracies, phone calls threatening presbyters if they don’t vote the right way, open violation of PCA rules, all as a way to “get” an innocent individual and drive him out — that is sin.”
Mr. Jordan, could you PLEASE tell us who has received phone calls threatening presbyters if they don’t vote the right way? I am in the Presbytery and know everyone well. The only phone call I got asking me to change my perspective, asking me what would need to happen to change my vote, came from a pro-FV proponent (NOT Steve Wilkins, who has been gracious even in disagreement). Who is bearing false witness now?
You don’t know of what you speak. Please keep your mouth.
Howard Davis said,
February 12, 2008 at 5:11 pm
shut
Kevin D. Johnson said,
February 12, 2008 at 5:13 pm
Heh. Ron. Ironically, you and Catholic apologist Mark Shea agree. Maybe you two can start a fan club or something.
These sorts of non-responses really are tiring Ron. Can you please go chase some other guy you disagree with?
James Jordan said,
February 12, 2008 at 5:21 pm
Mr. Davis, I fear that I do know what I’m talking about. And time will tell.
Kevin D. Johnson said,
February 12, 2008 at 5:22 pm
The truth tends to come out in the end, that is for sure.
Howard Davis said,
February 12, 2008 at 5:22 pm
I fear that you are what you are talking about
Ron Henzel said,
February 12, 2008 at 5:23 pm
James,
There is a biblical process for airing the kinds of accusations you have brought to this blog. It is utterly disgraceful that you have chosen to disobey it so flagrantly. Shame on you!
Howard Davis said,
February 12, 2008 at 5:24 pm
BTW, could you answer my questions to substantiate your scathing accusations? I really want to know about the environment I am in that you speak so confidently.
James Jordan said,
February 12, 2008 at 5:33 pm
#270 Mr. Henzel, you are right that the Bible has rules. They have been violated consistently by the PCA and the anti-FV crusade for several years now. They are violated all over the 269 entries that preceded yours. Surely you don’t want suddenly to invoke them now?
Douglas Wilson said,
February 12, 2008 at 5:33 pm
Andy, re: #128, you said:
Why does it have to be this tedious process. Why doesn’t someone simply bring charges? Then the person concerned can’t flee, and the person bringing the charges has to prove his assertions. You just mentioned three presbyteries, four if we count Louisiana, where no one is convinced enough, courageous enough, or checked-out enough to take this on. Consequently it has to be done through this tedious process of shooting from a distance, submitting overtures, and getting the process into the bureaucratic mezzanine. This doesn’t have to be like a series of root canals — not if these presbyteries have men in them.
Put another way, Steve was not running from charges. He repeatedly asked men in his presbytery to bring charges — which would have closed the CREC avenue of escape had it been done. But it wasn’t done, and so Steve left as a member in good standing because he saw the handwriting on the wall, that is to say, he saw how this was going to unfold. So if you don’t want to keep doing this over and over and over again, then someone should bring charges.
James Jordan said,
February 12, 2008 at 5:41 pm
#271 Mr. Davis, your environment is well described in #273. Not that it’s anything new.
Douglas Wilson said,
February 12, 2008 at 5:41 pm
Ron, re: #260, you asked:
I am not sure, but I think I have answered this question before on this blog, but here it is again. You ask how, and I don’t know how. I know that, not how. The similarities between the elect and reprobate covenant members are described in the Bible in terms of connection and union (living branches and dead branches are both connected branches). The differences between them are described in terms of fruitfulness and lack of fruitfulness. So there is a real and substantive difference, forever, and there is also commonality, temporarily.
Howard Davis said,
February 12, 2008 at 5:42 pm
I love it when people write scathing essays on how they perceive others violating the 9th Commandment and then do the same thing that they have perceived.
Howard Davis said,
February 12, 2008 at 5:51 pm
Mr. Wilson is right that someone bringing charges can speed the process up. The case in LAP was a bit complicated by the fact that the SJC mandated that we basically “try” Rev Wilkins (the standard that they demanded for examining his views equaled if not exceeded standards for a trial) without a formal trial. After that process, I was convinced that Rev Wilkins should be tried and when I moved this to presbytery, I was unfairly lambasted by many presbyters (we have since made up). At that point, bringing charges seemed out of place, for 1, because LAP had basically already had a trial and voiced where we stood & 2 because I really didn’t want to bear the responsibility for putting the case in the hands of the SJC who I felt did not give us a fair hearing nor follow appropriate process in how they handled the memorial. But other presbyteries are not currently shackled with those complications.
Niels Jacobson said,
February 12, 2008 at 5:58 pm
Gentlemen:
I have been a member of a small PCA church and one of my sons is married to the daughter of a CREC pastor. My children take communion with me every Sunday. However, I no longer identify myself as a paedo-baptist or as a proponent of paedo-communion because of the obvious lack of heart for the unity of the body expressed in discourse of the kind I have been watching unfold here. Sincerely, Niels Jacobson Atlanta GA
Niels Jacobson said,
February 12, 2008 at 6:00 pm
Gentlemen:
I have been watching this dispute unfold, and I have a distinct sense that the great concern for the welfare of the covenant children has fallen by the wayside in the lust for pseudo-rhetorical sparring.
Jeff Cagle said,
February 12, 2008 at 6:14 pm
Joshua (#255):
I’m of two minds about your offer to discuss Wilkins’ responses. On the one hand, I would like to be straight in my mind about what he actually does believe. On the other, I don’t know whether the two of us discussing him would accomplish that.
But if I were discuss it with anyone, you would be on the short list. :)
Tell ya what: if you see any Wilkins posts on my blog, take that as an open invitation.
Jeff Cagle
Ron Henzel said,
February 12, 2008 at 6:15 pm
James,
You wrote in comment 272:
Since twelve of those 269 entries were mine, perhaps I should assume that you are accusing me of violating Scripture in my comments as well. But then, seven of those 269 entries were yours.
Hmmm…
Howard Davis said,
February 12, 2008 at 6:15 pm
I would also like to agree with Mr. Wilson, that Steve was not running from charges. I sincerely believe that he left for the good of our presbytery and for the peace of the denomination. I think that was the honorable move. I suggested that course of action over a year ago. How would a trial have helped him, our presbytery, or our denomination?
I believe that a fair and impartial jury in the PCA (is that possible?) would likely have found that he has departed from the Westminster Standards in some narrow but critical areas that place him squarely in the traditions of Anglicans and Lutherans but that departs from the mainstream Reformed Presbyterian tradition. So he would not be a heretic (in the sense that he has departed from Christian orthodoxy) and he would be forced to find a home in a denomination or confederation or association that allowed for broader views. In effect, the very thing that happened…only there is a possibility that LAP will not be forced to pay a pound of flesh as a ransom for Wilkins’ head and much controversy that would have inevitably arisen around such a politically-charged trial is avoided.
David Weiner said,
February 12, 2008 at 6:46 pm
Mark, re: 188,
Based on your suggestion I went back and read #164 and I must admit that I can’t see any reference to the blood of Christ. So I am confused by your answer in #188.
Also, my question must have been poorly stated since I can’t connect your answer to it. Let me provide one more piece of the puzzle and then ask that you please reread my question (I’ll insert it below so you won’t have to go searching) and if you are still satisfied with your answer, great. And, thanks for your time and efforts.
I understand that the Blood was the payment; but not the appropriation of the blessings. That to appropriate any of them there must be saving faith. Faith of the permanent kind. And further that no reprobate whether in or out of the visible church has saving Faith. So my question from #176:
Howard Davis said,
February 12, 2008 at 7:21 pm
Example #1 of Dominique Aquila circulating the court of the PCA regarding the case of Steve Wilkins and LA Presbytery.
http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:YY02kUAn5-IJ:www.knoxseminary.org/downloads/louisiana%2520response.pdf+%22Your+Final+Report+and+Recommendations+on+Federal+Vision+Theology%22+Steve+Wilkins&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us
If this does not come through, I can email you the PDF version of this (hqdavis (at) gmail (dot) com)
Note that the entire text of this letter was sent out on August 12, 2005, to all PCA TEs and many REs through the ByFaith (PCA denominational web information) email. This was a letter by personal letter of 7 PCA TEs and no official action of any presbytery…2 of the TEs were presbyters of Central Carolina Presbytery who submitted the memorial. As I wrote then: “To have them sent out to all the churches and pastors in the PCA is deeply troubling and, in my opinion, wrong. BCO 42-4 and 43-2 clearly states that “No attempt should be made to circularize the court to which complaint is being made by either party”. I know that technically, this issue is not currently before the court of the GA, but the possibility of it coming before this court is substantial. I not sure whether having the letter sent to all churches and pastors breaks the letter of the law (BCO) but it sure seems to violate the spirit of the law.”
Some of these apologized when I challenged them that this seemed like flagrant circularizing of the court… Mr. Aquila was not one who apologized to our presbytery. My desire in posting this is not to put any of these men in a bad light, for I respect these men, but only to substantiate my previous claims that LAP is not getting a fair hearing and that the chair should have recused himself from this case long ago. The failure for him to do so has severely tainted this case and the reputation of the SJC and of the PCA.
Note that this is the CHAIRMAN of the SJC handling this case who has NOT recused himself but on the contrary has pressed hard for an aggressive approach to this case.
Personally I agreed with many of the concerns and perspectives offered in their letter, but the fact that this was broadcast to the entire PCA through ByFaith outraged me as blatant circularization (but what good would protesting–how could you uncircularize a letter that has already been circularized, the damage had already been done).
WOW, looking back even now, this circularization is even more disturbing than it was then.
Most of the other examples are promoting conferences that were advertised as anti FV. I could detail these if you like, but would prefer not to spend the time detailing these unless greatly needed.
magma2 said,
February 12, 2008 at 7:24 pm
Spin wiz Wilson writes:
LOL! Unbelievable. The LAP which covered for Wilkins for years until they were finally forced to deal with his gross doctrinal errors and it’s at that precise moment Wilkins jumps ship and that’s not running away??? What do you call it then Doug? Fleeing?
I mean there was nothing casual about Wilkins departure. As soon as he got word that charges were about to be filed and the LAP wasn’t going to be his lap dog, he started his car and floored it. Then he turns to give the PCA one last Bronx cheer on his way out the driveway. Face it Doug, the writing was on the wall and he couldn’t call the tune any longer in the LAP so he ran like the dishonest coward that he is. What a man of conviction. FWIW I’m glad he’s in the CREC. My guess is there will be a few more men heading your way in short order. As others have noted, the Federal Division is really a growth industry for the CREC isn’t it Doug.
David Gray said,
February 12, 2008 at 7:41 pm
>FWIW I’m glad he’s in the CREC.
So “Magma2″, what are you in?
Jeff Cagle said,
February 12, 2008 at 8:10 pm
Howard (#282):
I’m confused. You cited this as an example of Mr. Aquila circularizing, but the report bears entirely different names.
Was the report itself improper, or its mode of distribution, or what?
Thanks,
Jeff Cagle
Mark Horne said,
February 12, 2008 at 8:30 pm
#283
I don’t know what to say but what I said:
I’m not sure what you’re trying to say about payment v. appropriation. Christ died to give some people only temporary gifts and others eternal gifts. We’re talking about a class in the former category.
Kevin D. Johnson said,
February 12, 2008 at 8:35 pm
I’m just posting again to see if we can crank this baby up and over three hundred comments. That would just be too cool. :)
Dewey Roberts said,
February 12, 2008 at 8:37 pm
Jimmy Jordan, please give facts concerning all these charges you make against the PCA and the SJC.
David Gray said,
February 12, 2008 at 8:43 pm
>Jimmy Jordan
Yes, you are one scary fellow…
Ron Smith said,
February 12, 2008 at 8:47 pm
RE: 208
But the westminster confession states that the final judgment is in accordance with “what they have done in the body, whether good or evil”. They also cited Romans 2 has proof. But even if they didn’t, isn’t justification a positive judgment? So a positive final judgment would be a final justification. The WCF says this is in accordance with “what they have done in the body, whether good or evil”.
Kevin D. Johnson said,
February 12, 2008 at 8:48 pm
C’mon we can do it!!!!! :)
Howard Davis said,
February 12, 2008 at 9:26 pm
Jeff (#287):
Good question: “Was the report itself improper, or its mode of distribution, or what?”
The letter as addressed to LAP was very appropriate in itself. However, when distributed to every TE & many REs, including most if not all on the SJC, it moved definitively IMO to circularizing the court for a matter that all involved had to know would become a case in the PCA, at least at the presbytery level and quite likely at the SJC level. The fact that 2 of the authors were from Central Carolina Presbytery who almost immediately sent the memorial to the SJC, chaired by the mass distributor of the letter, leaves very little room for explaining this away.
Howard Davis said,
February 12, 2008 at 9:33 pm
To James Jordan: Are you at all related to John Robbins?
Jonathan said,
February 12, 2008 at 10:34 pm
“Then the person concerned can’t flee, and the person bringing the charges has to prove his assertions.”
you mean like when Sproul Jr. joined the CREC while the RPCGA was in the process of bringing him to trial……hmmmm but of course you, Doug Wilson, would never encourage someone to rebel against his duly constituted authority would you?????????
Two more things……First, John Robbins has been warning you about men like James Jordan since I think 1995. You might wanna reconsider throwing spit wads at him.
Second, Confessional Lutherans wouldn’t have anything to do with FV, let alone the reformed. Confessional Lutherans put their faith in the cross of Christ not in their baptism.
Howard Davis said,
February 12, 2008 at 10:49 pm
Neils (#278-279): My heart truly goes out to you. I grieve to hear your frustration and I apologize for any part that I have played in your being soured.
Because our perspectives play out in the larger context of the story of our lives, I would doubt that this post and its associated comments play an enormous role in your perspective changing. But I can understand being soured at the fighting nature of the church. My burden is for the Church and for learning to love righteousness (more than being right) and to hate wickedness (especially in ourselves). That is what I see being compromised by this entire issues, with both sides of this issue. Ultimately, a concern for the Church and pouring out our lives with sacrificial love and Gospel-driven obedience for the health of the Church is the best way IMO to show concern for our covenant children.
Along those lines, I would ask you to reserve judgment of our character until you have spoken to those who know us in the long-range course of our lives. Ask people in our presbytery about my desire for unity…call Steve Wilkins about this if you’d like. For I deeply love and respect this man and his ministry at Auburn Avenue, even though I disagree strongly at a few important theological points.
Ultimately truth should be seen in the integrity of our lives but is not determined by the integrity of our lives. The Scriptures must be what shapes our view of truth; community ought to echo the Scriptures and it is all of our callings to work to that end. And blogs are a terrible place to go if you want to feel the love, esp blogs discussing controversial issues, for they tend to be filled with people who are a bit bulldogish and love controversy too much. People on blogs are a bit like people in their cars; outside their cars/blogs they can be an incredible person; but watch out when they step in their vehicle.
That is why I need to stay away for blogs. So to that end, I bid adieu and apologize for any inappropriate comments, even to Mr. Jordan, though it is true that Mr. Jordan has been a fountain of destructive controversy and mean-spirited rhetoric for many decades.
The larger context of my story being in Louisiana Presbytery for the last 6 years as a young pastor (I was 27 when I arrived) is that I have seen theological problems from the FV bunch, abuses by the SJC, and villanizing of those who disagree by folks on both sides of this issue. Oh that the Lord would rend the heavens and come down…
As Jesus prayed…
“I do not ask for these [the disciples] only, but also for those who will believe in me through their word [us], that they may all be one, just as you, Father, are in me, and I in you, that they also may be in us, so that the world may believe that you have sent me. The glory that you have given me I have given to them, that they may be one even as we are one, I in them and you in me, that they may become perfectly one, so that the world may know that you sent me and loved them even as you loved me. John 17:20-23
Isaiah 62:1-5
For Zion’s sake I will not keep silent, and for Jerusalem’s sake I will not be quiet, until her righteousness goes forth as brightness, and her salvation as a burning torch.
[2] The nations shall see your righteousness, and all the kings your glory,
and you shall be called by a new name that the mouth of the Lord will give.
[3] You shall be a crown of beauty in the hand of the Lord, and a royal diadem in the hand of your God.
[4] You shall no more be termed Forsaken, and your land shall no more be termed Desolate,but you shall be called My Delight Is in Her, and your land Married; for the Lord delights in you, and your land shall be married.
[5] For as a young man marries a young woman, so shall your sons marry you, and as the bridegroom rejoices over the bride, so shall your God rejoice over you.
May all of us hear and heed Mr. Jacobson’s challenge. May we pray for and pursue the beauty of the Bride as seen in self-effacing, self-sacrificial, others-embracing, others-esteeming unity that is our Savior’s passion.
Tom Wenger said,
February 12, 2008 at 11:17 pm
Mr. Jacobson,
In Comment #279, you said, “I have been watching this dispute unfold, and I have a distinct sense that the great concern for the welfare of the covenant children has fallen by the wayside in the lust for pseudo-rhetorical sparring.”
I’m wondering how you can possibly make this assertion. What evidence have you witnessed that could give you any window into what we do and/or say about our covenant children or our view of the issue in general?
Both sides have been clear here, that though they disagree, they are contending for the essence of what the Gospel is. The fact that the debate has gotten heated and even overly heated at times, does not mean that they are neglecting the “great concern for the welfare of the covenant children”, or that the reason is a “lust for pseudo-rhetorical sparring.”
That is quite a charge to level and it worries me that you would marginalize the centrality of the Gospel to such an extent. I’ll grant that some posts were out of line, but the men here are contending for the Gospel. That CLEARLY supersedes the welfare of covenant children because without it there is no concept of covenant or welfare of any kind.
I’m really at a loss to understand what your complaint is really about. It honestly reminds me of someone holding up a sign at a crucial arms summit arms summit that reads, “You can’t hug a child with nuclear arms.”
Obviously, the welfare of covenant children is incredibly important; I would hope that you see that defending and preaching a Gospel that is by grace alone through faith alone is perhaps the most important thing we can do for them.
Richard said,
February 12, 2008 at 11:18 pm
#257 James Jordon said:
“..if this matter had been a theological matter to begin with, it would have been over in 15 minutes. The controversy, however, has been driven by politics and envy since day one,and it’s sad that decent people have been ensnared in this evil”
James, please help me escape this evil. I have lost track. First off, when was “day one”? Second, what was the theological matter at hand? We are all(I am) willing to put politics and envy aside for 15 minutes so you can take us all back in time and set things right. Okay, we’re back to day one. Ready, set, GO!
Tom Wenger said,
February 12, 2008 at 11:20 pm
Sorry, make that only one arms summit.
G. Gusack said,
February 12, 2008 at 11:39 pm
I just read through all of the posts and found an interesting narrative. Howard Davis raised some questions about the chair of the SJC, alluding to apparent irregularities. Some of the words he uses are loaded with innuendos, leaving the impression of dastardly acts. Yet, further in this thread someone alleged that phone calls were made to LAP presbyters attempting to get them to vote a certain way. To this allegation Howard fulminates about the need “to substantiate your scathing accusations.” Interesting that he demanded substantiation for certain alleged actions but doesn’t provide it for his allegations against the chair of the SJC. What is that about the goose and the gander? Note the following:
In #24 Howard raises questions that he obviously believes are appropriate for him to raise:
“Why did the chair of SJC, consciously ’stack the committee’ going against Roberts Rules and against the advice of the Stated Clerk? [So the chair of the SJC "consciously" acted? I thought it was the moderator of the General Assembly that appointed the committee? Oh, and we can't miss the loaded "stack."] Why has he promoted anti-Steve Wilkins materials through the By Faith emails? Why has he not recused himself from proceedings in light of voiced bias against Rev Wilkins?”
But then Howard demands that no allegations be raised against folks within his sphere. In #264 Howard wrote:
…”could you PLEASE tell us who has received phone calls threatening presbyters if they don’t vote the right way? I am in the Presbytery [LAP] and know everyone well. …”
And again in #271 Howard wrote: “…could you answer my questions to substantiate your scathing accusations?”
Then in #276 Howard preaches to others but not to himself (Is a “Physician, heal thyself,” in order here?): “I love it when people write scathing essays on how they perceive others violating the 9th Commandment and then do the same thing that they have perceived.”
And in #284 Howard compares apples and oranges:
“As I wrote then [Aug. 2005]: ‘To have them sent out to all the churches and pastors in the PCA is deeply troubling and, in my opinion, wrong. BCO 42-4 and 43-2 clearly states that ‘No attempt should be made to circularize the court to which complaint is being made by either party.’ I know that technically, this issue is not currently before the court of the GA, but the possibility of it coming before this court is substantial. I not sure whether having the letter sent to all churches and pastors breaks the letter of the law (BCO) but it sure seems to violate the spirit of the law.’”
I looked back to some PCA minutes and found that in Aug. 2005 there was no case about LAP in any court in the PCA, Mr. Aquila was not the chair of the SJC, and no one could predict that there would be a case. The references to BCO 42-4 and 43-2 are completely bogus. To circularize a court requires that there be an actual case before an actual court (might be doesn’t cut it). Once a case is before a court then it is inappropriate to write or speak with members of the court with the intent of influencing them. Members of the church are not prohibited from writing or speaking to others about a pending case, they just can’t circularize court members. Howard is being disingenuous by misapplying provisions of the BCO in a completely inappropriate manner. Sounds like ” scathing accusations,” doesn’t it?
barlow said,
February 12, 2008 at 11:41 pm
Andy, you asked if I believe “that revival can result from the preaching of a gospel that doesn’t include imputation or receiving and resting upon Christ alone for salvation”
Yes, I think preaching the gospel can be done quite well without the idea of imputation so long as the alternative to imputation language isn’t “inherent righteousness” language. As for the second part – receiving and resting upon Christ alone for salvation – I think preaching the gospel requires that, and I also think that a lot of Roman Catholics believe that as well.
I don’t know how to take the spiritual temperature of a revival. I’m personally skeptical about the whole shooting match, personally, whether the revival is Protestant or Catholic, Brownsville or Northampton. Relationships have a narrative structure that may include periods of intense emotion or sudden commitment, but most relationships consist of “navigating” and learning to love and serve and cherish day by day. But I would rejoice for God to quicken a lot of people at one time and place, and so how can any Calvinist deny the possibility of a revival?
G. Gusack said,
February 12, 2008 at 11:55 pm
Wow! #300. Is that eschatological?
Jason J. Stellman said,
February 12, 2008 at 11:56 pm
Hey Barlow,
I’ve not followed the revivals bits of this long thread closely, so maybe this has already been said, but I would argue, along with Nevin, that revival is part and parcel of the “system of the catechism,” provided it is defined as God’s extraordinary blessing upon his ordinary means of grace.
Wayne Whitmer said,
February 13, 2008 at 12:19 am
I felt compelled to be # 300 however more importantly as I’ve read through these posts I’ve learned a lot about the contrast between what is orthodox and what is truly disturbing about the FV. As already stated heebeejeebies.
Kevin D. Johnson said,
February 13, 2008 at 12:37 am
And now…everyone can say, “the comment thread that garnered OVER three hundred comments”!!! :)
Extreme coolness! :)
Andrew Webb said,
February 13, 2008 at 12:47 am
Re: 284
Howard,
You wrote:
I hate to be the one to point this out, but since I’m a member of Central Carolina I can confidently tell you that NONE of the TEs mentioned in the letter are from my Presbytery, 1 is from Western Carolina (Chris Hutchinson), but none are from CCP. Who told you there were Central Carolina Presbyters on the letter?
Your Servant in Christ,
Andy
Douglas Wilson said,
February 13, 2008 at 3:52 am
magma, re: #285, you said:
A careful and judicious way of putting this would have been to say, “When they were finally required to deal with what appeared to some to be indictable doctrinal errors, but which an objective trial would have determined one way or the other . . .” Your rhetoric reveals the precise nature of the problem. Wilkins would not have been tried by the SJC in order to find out what he taught and believed. Your polity says that Wilkins left as a member in good standing. You believe, without every having heard his reply to charges in open court, that he is guilty of gross doctrinal errors. Is this mentality of yours qualified to sit on a body like the SJC? If you were on the SJC, would you recuse yourself on this case? Was Louisiana going to be tried (and after them Wilkins) by men in your frame of mind?
Of course, Steve was leaving in order to avoid something. That much is obvious, and none of us are denying it. What I said earlier is that he was not running from charges, which he wasn’t. No charges had been filed against him. He was running from a fix, that was what we call in.
Mark T. said,
February 13, 2008 at 8:22 am
A high-profile blogger who revises history and embellishes the truth wrote:
A careful and judicious way of putting this would have been to say, “Steven
“Machen”Wilkins fled the PCA in order to evade accountability to his covenantal vows, and the CREC welcomed him with open arms because, as in the cases of defrocked ministers Burke Shade & RC Sproul Jr, as well as Dennis Tuuri, the CREC has adopted a policy of harboring the Worst Lot of All.Thank you.
Don Hogan said,
February 13, 2008 at 8:30 am
magma #285
“so he ran like the dishonest coward that he is. What a man of conviction.”
Your rhetoric is obnoxious. You should be censured.
Jeff Cagle said,
February 13, 2008 at 8:34 am
Re: #303
Doug, I don’t entirely buy this explanation of Steve’s behavior. Yes, I can appreciate that he was certain which way the wind would blow. But still and all, your argument fails on several points.
(1) The structure of your argument is, “Other people were going to do bad things, so he had to leave.” Granted that this is often a move of prudence (Prov 22.3), but it’s certainly not the approach that Shadrach and friends took; nor Peter before the Sanhedrin.
If what Steve taught was a matter of conscience for him, then it seems like he ought to have given it a fair representation at a trial. The CREC would have gladly accepted him even had he been deposed on doctrinal grounds.
(I realize I’m playing Tuesday-morning quarterback here; I might have done the same as him. But the fundamental rationale “They were wrong, so I’m justified” strikes me as poor)
(2) Your standard for an “unfixed” court requires that the jury not bring an opinion about the merits of the case into the courtroom. But because of the construction of church courts — including those of the CREC — such a standard is impossible to meet.
Unlike American civil courts, the prosecutorial function and the judicial function are rolled into one body in the PCA. A session BOTH indicts and tries a case.
Thus, by the time a session gets around to indicting, it already has some good idea of what it believes concerning the charges.
You can’t erase that, Doug, unless you create an entirely new judicial structure.
So in the case of the SJC — of course they thought Steve’s writings were in error. They indicted LAP for that reason. What else would you want? That they deliberately recuse themselves from the evidence before they bring indictments?
(3) What SJC was relatively certain of is that Steve’s writings express a doctrinal error. There is an important distinction made between his writings and what he himself believes. As you can see from BCO 34-5 and 6, part of a heresy trial is to determine whether a man’s errors spring from his settled beliefs or from a weakness of human understanding.
That would have been the purpose of the trial.
Now, what your argument does provide, I think, is a rationale for reverting back to non-standing judicial committees. It seems to me that if there are going to be several FV cases, they ought to be tried by different groups of men.
My $0.02 on a snow day.
Jeff Cagle
Jeff Cagle said,
February 13, 2008 at 8:40 am
Andy Webb,
While I’m thinking about church discipline, there’s something bothering me that I want to ask about.
As we all know, the purpose of church discipline is restoration of a brother (Matt. 18). So for example, had Steve eventually been indicted and gone to trial, then the two best outcomes would have been either exoneration (if warranted) or else repentance.
And yet, you’ve stated that your aim is to bring charges against every FV proponent for the purpose of driving them out of the denomination.
Can you explain your rationale? On the face, it seems like you’re using discipline for a different purpose.
Thanks,
Jeff Cagle
curate said,
February 13, 2008 at 8:51 am
On the topic of Sam Duncan, it seems to me that he is an honourable man acting honourably.
1. He really believes that Steve Wilkins is out of bounds theologically, and it is right and proper that he acts according to his convictions.
2. Reading his minority opinion in the article above, he also believes that no-one in the LaP will receive a fair trial because others are not judging impartially, but for reasons of personal hostility.
This is a lose/lose situation. LaP cannot win, and neither can the PCA SJC, because their chief prosecutor has said that the SJC cannot judge impartially. Their moral authority is irrevocably lost in this case.
It seems to me that Mr. Duncan knows this.
What to do? Why not call in a third party to judge the case, one that is acceptable to both the PCA GA and SJC, and LaP.
Ken Christian said,
February 13, 2008 at 9:02 am
#308 – Best idea I have heard in a long time.
Niels Jacobson said,
February 13, 2008 at 9:06 am
Mr. Wenger,
Thank you for your response (296-297). Your analogy of a ‘crucial arms summit’ (even in the singular) is disturbing to me. Arms summits (plural) are not necessary between allies — are they? Are we not talking here about conference between allies? My reading of history indicates that the beneficiary of escalating disputes between allies is usually the enemy.
The state of the visible church, as far as I can see, indicates that it must be easier to ASSERT that one is contending for the essence of the Gospel, than to SHOW that he believes the unity of the Body. You think that I marginalize the centrality of the gospel. I hope I do not. Nor would I marginalize the unity of the Body. As Howard Davis reminded us above, this is the Lord’s prayer for His people. Dare we presume that our Gospel disputes are essential, and the Lord’s WILL accidental ? That matters of debate (and therefore of UNcertainty) supersede matters of certainty (‘that they may be one, as We are one’) ? I ask of both sides of this dispute, ‘What true proclamation of reconciliation between God and man yields yet another formal parting of ways between CHRISTIAN men?’ How is it that the ministers of reconciliation can be so irreconcilable? A divided Body is a lie about the Christ. It seems to me that it would occur to a thoughtful child that the outcome of these discussions might well be compared to a great building being dismantled, or to a body being dismembered, or to a great divorce. What good word, what eucharistic message, is this?
But I have no argument with anyone who finds this preposterous.
Yours in hope, Niels Jacobson
Bill Lyle said,
February 13, 2008 at 9:27 am
Re: 285
Howard,
You said:
“Note that this is the CHAIRMAN of the SJC handling this case who has NOT recused himself but on the contrary has pressed hard for an aggressive approach to this case.”
Just a couple of questions:
1. Was Dr. Aquila chairman of the SJC in 2005?
2. Have you asked him – or spoken to him about the concerns you are raising in this post?
3. Have you asked him, how items get into or printed in the ByFaith Newsletter and/or why he printed this communication?
4. How many men, since 2002, do you know who contacted either LAP or Wilkins himself about their concern with his teaching FV?
5. I know I have just returned to service on the SJC (my term began at the close of this past GA), so can you tell me how Dr. Aquila “has pressed hard for an aggressive approach to this case?”
I just want to make sure you practice what you preach – Re:276
Bill
Tom Wenger said,
February 13, 2008 at 9:41 am
Mr. Jacobson,
It seems pretty clear from your post that you believe unity is more essential than preserving the Gospel. What would your arguments have been to the Reformers? I mean, they affected the worst split in the history of the church. Did they err in this?
The lashing that Paul gives to the Galatians, that anyone who preaches a different Gospel be eternally condemned, is stronger than any other rebuke he gives, even to the Corinthians who were being arrogantly divisive.
I’m not in favor of division at all. But the history of Christianity shows that when people value unity over truth things go south very quickly.
The very fact that you believe this debate fall into the disputable matters category, illustrates that you have most likely marginalized the Gospel in some fashion.
Howard Davis said,
February 13, 2008 at 10:19 am
Bill,
I really am checking out of the blog-response mode but I will seek to answer any questions that you have on what I have written heretofore…
1. I don’t know (he was SJC chair in 2006 for sure and likely on the SJC in 2005), but what I do know is that he was party to circularizing the court in 2005 about a case that he has been very aggressive on.
2. No I have not confronted him about these issues: largely, because it is my impression that as a party to the case (being a member of LAP) that would break SJC rules.
3. Dominic was challenged by Dale Peacock from LAP about this. Here is Dominic’s response:
> Dale, Thank you for your comments regarding the
> “Communication to Louisiana Presbytery” that was in
> this week’s Byfaithonline Newsletter. Please be
> assured that there was no malice aforethought in
> referring to the communication. My sense is that
> there is a great interest within the PCA about
> matters and events related to the current discussion
> on Federal Vision and related namesakes. I did not
> interpret the communication as circularizing the
> court since Louisiana Presbytery had concluded the
> matter on TE Wilkins. I can agree that the
> communication does request the Presbytery to review
> its decision, but obviously the Presbytery can
> choose to respond by referring to its July 16, 2005
> action and leave it at that. It is also possible to
> interpret the communication as a commentary on the
> Presbytery’s final decision. You asked if this was
> an appropriate action and whether decisions of the
> SJC had ever been written about. You know that there
> have been a number of times when written
> commentaries were made regarding SJC decisions, even
> though those commentaries would not change the
> decision (as an example, I recall David Lachman
> writing a lengthy commentary presenting his defense
> in the former Presbyterian and Reformed News after
> the SJC failed to sustain his appeal). It is my
> desire to serve the PCA through the weekly
> newsletter by keeping the Church informed about
> matters of interest, and I mentioned above, the
> recent matters in Louisiana Presbytery were of
> interest to the Church. For the record, if I had
> received a communication addressed to Louisiana
> Presbytery (as the one you said you had received)
> indicating its support of the Presbytery’s actions,
> I would have been happy to publish the URL in the
> same manner as I did the other. Blessings, Dominic
> Aquila, EditorByfaithonline Newsletter
4. I don’t see the relevance of this question to the compromises that have been made by the SJC and its chairman. But I would venture to say that the number is great and would include ME and many of my close friends. I have had endless conversations with Steve Wilkins to both understand his perspectives and to confront him on what I viewed as vital errors.
5. I witnessed this in October 2006 when I was before the SJC defending LAP in reference to the memorial. The treatment I received was directly against the SJCM, and yet when I protested quoting the BCO and SJCM, the chair rebuffed my protest without addressing a justification. In April 2007 I heard him make statements publicly to that effect. If you want to know more, just read Sam Duncan’s resignation as prosecutor. And this is all that I know from being in public eye, if I was a betting man, I’d bet there is even more.
I have sought in everything to bear a true witness, based on what I have seen and experienced, that has been affirmed by corroborating testimony of others who are close to me.
The crazy thing with all this is that LAP is at great risk of being burned at the stake for supposedly breaking rules that the BCO does not mandate by a group that is breaking the rules that the BCO does mandate. We will be tried…SJC cannot be tried.
How do the prosecutor and the Stated Clerk appeal for dismissal of charge #1 and the motion to dismiss this not even receive a second that it might be discussed and debated? At this point, if there is not something compromised within the SJC (which is a possibility), there is the strong appearance of such. A strong presumption of guilt as it were, from my perspective. But what recourse, what memorial, is available for addressing violations by the SJC of the BCO? I tried to figure that out after our first memorial hearing and was told repeatedly by those who would know that there is none. That is quite likely necessary since there has to be a court of final jurisdiction, but that fact demands that court be above reproach, but from the compromises in following BCO and SJCM (bending and spinning the rules at best) along with the quite public actions of the SJC chair have compromised the appearance of that court being above reproach.
I personally have very little to gain from this and much to lose, for I am no friend of the FV. If the reputation of our denomination and of our Lord were not on the line, I would never have written any of this. But SJC’s actions & Dominic’s desire to “make LAP an example to MO and NWP presbyteries” demand action that hardly anyone else seems willing to take.
Dewey Roberts said,
February 13, 2008 at 10:31 am
A couple of things I have noticed in this thread. First, it started as mostly an attack on the SJC, but has morphed mostly into a debate on the federal vision. Why? I think it is simply because those making the attacks were asked to prove their accusations against the SJC with facts and they could not do so. I am still waiting on ANYONE to show how the SJC acted contrary to the constitution of the PCA and NO ONE has even attempted to do so as yet.
Second, I have also noticed that the proponents of the federal vision are the ones throwing about slanderous names against others. Mark Horne calls us “pharisees”. That is in line with what he has said in many forums. Jimmy Jordan calls us liars and makes totally unfounded charges against the SJC. Doug Wilson continues his mind-numbing, totally without foundation charge that the SJC forced Louisiana Presbytery to deliver up Steve Wilkins’ head on a platter. I can’t speak for Louisiana Presbytery, but I personally I would be offended to have some like Wilson defending me in that manner. If Wilson is right, that would make the whole Presbytery cowards. Let’s be clear about one thing- the SJC cannot make anyone do anything. We have no CIVIL POWER! The power of the SJC courts is purely spiritual and ministerial. If a lower court believes it has acted in conformity with the constitution it should have the courage of its convictions and vigorously defend itself along those lines. The same goes for a minister.
But these things said by Horne, Jordand and Wilson are once again unsubstantiated by reference to even a SINGLE FACT. That is the most interesting point in all this debate.
Howard Davis said,
February 13, 2008 at 10:35 am
On 3., I would add that Dominic’s response does not really address that this communication was circularization of the court. Commenting on SJC decisions after the fact does not influence the decision, but distributing chargeable material (that was very soon after developed into a memorial) to a court (SJC and PCA GA) before they decide a matter is unquestionably circularization IMO.
Dewey Roberts said,
February 13, 2008 at 10:38 am
Howard,
Once again please show which part of the constitution the SJC has broken- please don’t just make a charge without supporting evidence and facts.
Mark T. said,
February 13, 2008 at 10:42 am
Pastor Davis,
You put quotation marks around the phrase “make LAP an example to MO and NWP presbyteries”; can you please identify the source of that quote?
Howard Davis said,
February 13, 2008 at 10:49 am
Dewey,
With all respect, I have sought to substantiate my accusations against the SJC, at great length with some specificity. I could go into greater detail regarding the actual rules, but the most concerning departure from the BCO (and somewhat less direct and less quantifiable) is the utter disregard by the SJC to give deference to the lower court. That is mandated by the BCO in multiple places. And the SJC has continued to spin the issues so as to say that this does not apply for the SJC in regard to LAP. That rationalizing is utterly disburbing and is the same kind of rationalization that thrived in the PCUSA in the 1950s through 1970s though now by men with much sounder theology that I completely agree with.
FWIW, I have no desire to be associated with Horne, Jordan, and Wilson. My sharp responses to Jordan make that clear as least in regard to him. But the sad thing is that the SJC has given credence to their constant barrage of seemingly destructive attacks. Will the SJC reverse that pattern? You and the rest of the men of the SJC hold that power from here on out. Otherwise, you will see many godly young pastors become quite disillusioned with the SJC and moreover with the PCA and some with the Church of our Lord altogether, along with other layity like Mr. Jacobson who are utterly dismayed by the apparent political games at the expense of the spiritual and ministerial calling of the PCA and the Church.
Howard Davis said,
February 13, 2008 at 10:57 am
To all, as an example of what I am talking about in 318, here is a letter that I received yesterday. I have tried to delete the personal info to protect his identity..
Howard,
We don’t know each other, but I’ve seen your name around (I [went to] Covenant Seminary…, and of course I saw your comments on Lane Keister’s blog today.
Thanks for your words. I’m in ______, outside of everything going on in LA, but part of it nonetheless by being a TE in the PCA, and I’ve wondered at points if I wouldn’t be happier in the EPC or PCUSA. Not because I would fit theologically in either one, but because when the liberals fight, it’s at least over the vitals of our faith! This whole thing, and in particular the online part of it, more and more strikes me as embarrassing for all of us. I appreciated your comments because you, speaking from within LA, voiced concerns that I’ve wondered about for some time regarding the way everything has been handled. I’m certainly no friend of the FV, but it has always struck me that the whole thing has been politicized in such a way that makes both sides seem to believe that the end justifies whatever means– and whatever behavior– we think will accomplish our respective goals. And truth, love and charity be damned in the process.
…I remember Peter Leithart being asked why he was in the PCA, when he was serving a CREC church in Moscow. His response was that he would transfer his credentials were it not for pending overtures made against him (Central Carolina at that time had threatened to bring charges if PNW didn’t examine Leithart). He simply felt that he needed to submit to the church and hold off on transferring until things were resolved and he could do so cleanly. He gladly submitted his views to presbytery after GA this past year, only to be blasted by bloggers proclaiming “Leithart dares his presbytery to take action!” I cannot imagine that any of his accusers could believe that he truly is gentle, honest, and sincere in his actions. His views may well put him outside the pale of the PCA, but he is most certainly not the “turbulent priest” some of his fellow ministers have called him (and ironically, if other presbyteries had left him alone, he would most likely already be out of the PCA). It was heartening to see you write that Steve Wilkins has conducted himself the same way in LA.
Anyway, I’m just thankful to hear someone else suggest that yes, there are problems with the FV, but there are also problems in the way the PCA has responded. I don’t understand why we can’t have the humility to admit these things– which seem to be rather evident to any casual observer. I fear for the PCA in these things. I went to Covenant because of Francis Schaeffer, and joined the PCA because of Jerram Barrs and pretty much every other professor. And all of them taught us better than what I’m seeing now.
Thanks for listening; perhaps we’ll meet someday.
Grace and peace,…
G. Gusack said,
February 13, 2008 at 11:03 am
Howard,
You have not responded to #298. You continue to assert that circularization can possibly—might, perhaps, may, could—happen if there is a potential for a case somewhere down the road. How ludicrous and untenable. You have not addressed the fact of how you knew that the chair “consciously” stacked the committee? You have not addressed the fact that the basic facts and narrative you allege are not consistent with written facts. For example, there was no case of any kind against LAP in August 2005; if any were being contemplated there is no evidence of this. You continue to argue that circularization took place when there was no appeal or complaint—at all—before any court at the time. I can only assume that the whole debate on FV in LAP has taken its toll on you and you are lashing out—note that I said “assume” since I don’t know. But the venom that is flowing from your comments is too obvious to miss. Perhaps you need to speak with Dr. Aquila off line and work things out with him in private not on this public forum. Your hostility is showing and it is not becoming.
greenbaggins said,
February 13, 2008 at 11:06 am
Re 306 There is one comment thread on this blog that has over 450 comments. We’ve got a ways to go for that! ;-)
Dewey Roberts said,
February 13, 2008 at 11:12 am
Howard,
I think your definition of circularizing a court is rather narrow and confused.
BCO 42-4 speaks to circularizing a court. It says, “No attempt should be made to circularize the courts to which apeal is being made by either party before the case is heard.” The definition is narrow. The parties to an appeal cannot try to speak to the members of the court where an appeal is made in an atempt to get them to be sympathetic with their positions. In other words, no Al Capone tactics are allowed. That is why it was not allowed for the SJC to speak to Steve Wilkins face-to-face (despite Doug Wilson’s and Jimmy Jordan’s intrusive statements to the contrary) and why, as someone who has known Steve for over 34 years, I have never spoken to him about this matter.
In 2005, there was no case before the SJC or potentially before the SJC (unless Dominic had power to divine the future) about which either Dominic could be circularized by others or about which Dominic could be guilty of acting contrary to his vows as a member of the SJC.
BTW, in 2004-5, John White was Chairman of the SJC- not Dominic Aquila.
Andrew Webb said,
February 13, 2008 at 11:15 am
Howard,
I may be clueless , but I’m still not seeing how the letter you cite constitutes circularization, given that it was filed prior to the case, and it doesn’t contain the names of any Central Carolina Presbyters, I’m assuming you didn’t see my post above. Anyway, I’ll drop you a line off-line.
- Andy
Dewey Roberts said,
February 13, 2008 at 11:24 am
Howard,
BCO 39-4 says, “A higher court should not consider itself obliged to exhibit the same deference to a lower court when the issues being reviewed involve the interpretation of the Constitution of the Church.” Deference to a lower court in the PCA is not universal and unviolable. Otherwise, Howard, there would be no realistic right of appeal.
Also, from 2003 to 2006, I was secretary of the SJC and I know for a fact there was no case potentially before the SJC concerning Louisiana Presbytery until the Memorial from Central Carolina Presbytery was received by the SJC at the March 2006 meeting.
magma2 said,
February 13, 2008 at 11:29 am
Doug writes:
First, you’re the last person that should be giving advice on what is a “careful and judicious” to anyone. Second, the point of a trial would have been to convict Wilkins of heresy and of the most deadly kind. I already know what he teaches and believes. Now he teaches what he believes in the CREC.
Thanks for making it crystal clear that reason — and the only reason — Wilkins ran was to retain the title of “good standing” as he thumbed his nose at the PCA one last time as he ran for the FV land of Moscow, ID. Evidently both of you are so utterly foolish and blind to think that “good standing” means anything and that this pathetic title somehow justifies Wilkins’ heretical beliefs or protects him from being marked as the false teacher he is. As I’ve mentioned elsewhere, it’s like saying that a murderer who has been able to evade the law and who remains, at least in the eyes of the law, a citizen in good standing, is still not a murderer.
Also, your attempt at creating another smokescreen notwithstanding, we will never hear his reply in open court for the simple reason he ran away. But no one needs his court testimony to find out that the man is a dangerous heretic and a schismatic. We’ve known that all along. We have plenty of his writings and taped lectures along with his responses from his LAP examinations to prove it and I’m sure now that he’s in your denom we’ll have plenty more ammo from this plagiarist/false pastor.
I realize he said he was not running from charges, but he is a liar. Besides, let’s grant all of your slander against the courts of the PCA and that “the fix” was in. So what? Unless the court has long legs, a pouch and can jump like Michael Jordan as you claim, he would have be given every opportunity to clear his name (even if only for appearance sake) and perhaps even call a tale spinner like you to assist in his defense. Then, what if he lost? Would he have been drawn and quartered? Burnt on a stake like a very large corn dog? Tarred and feathered and sent out on a rail to Moscow? NO, the only thing this little man would have lost was the title: GOOD STANDING IN THE PCA. He ran away because he wanted to keep that title so he could better hide his false teaching behind an empty and meaningless title.
Pathetic.
Bill Lyle said,
February 13, 2008 at 11:30 am
Ref: 318
Howard,
You have stated, now many time the following about Dr. Aquila has had an “aggressive approach to this case” and yet the letter from Dominic to Dale demonstrates the opposite. It seems that Dominic was trying to report, “fair and balanced” concerning matter of interest to the church.
For the record, if I had received a communication addressed to Louisiana Presbytery (as the one you said you had received) indicating its support of the Presbytery’s actions, I would have been happy to publish the URL in the same manner as I did the other. Blessings, Dominic Aquila, EditorByfaithonline Newsletter
From here, I must agree with posts: 321, 325, 327
Bill
magma2 said,
February 13, 2008 at 11:33 am
Barlow writes:
Wow.
Howard Davis said,
February 13, 2008 at 11:40 am
Andy: Are Joey Pipa and Morton Smith not a part of CCP? If not, I was mistaken and I apologize. I am not all that good with North Carolina geography or presbyterian boundaries.
Mr. Roberts and Mr. Gussack (301): Nonetheless, the byfaith communication was circularization, to say “no one could predict a case” is a bit ludicrous to me, for at that point you would have to have your head in the sand to not think this was going to the courts of the PCA. As a matter of fact, that is what the entire letter itself was about. In every effect, the letter circularized the likely court. Is this technically circularization according to the letter of the law? I would say perhaps. Is this circularization according to the spirit of the law? I would say, definitely! As a matter of fact, the very next day I wrote the authors and said that, even while thanking them for sharing their very legitimate concerns with us… The problem was not the content (I agreed with virtually all their concerns); the problem was that it was circulated to likely deciders of the case.
Howard Davis said,
February 13, 2008 at 11:43 am
Mr. Lyle (331): Talk is cheap. Would he circulate any info without regard for its appropriateness? I hope not. Would he circulate a very strongly condemning perspective of someone who was almost certainly to be face an examination if not a trial that at that point was clearly destined for the courts of the GA and the PCA? I hope not, that would be circularizing the courts. But that is exactly what happened.
James Jordan said,
February 13, 2008 at 11:44 am
Mr. Davis: Reading your recent comments makes me wonder why you objected to mine. You’ve seen the same sin and tyranny that the entire watching Church has seen. You’ve seen Mr. Roberts and others answer Biblical morality with Pharisaical technical legalities of the PCA rules. We’ve all seen this. It is open and visible to many people, like me, who are not in the PCA but who have friends there. You object when I call it what it is: sin. You object when I point out that it is a scandal and brings dishonor on Jesus Christ. But then you make the same basic points.
Maybe you object to the fact that I’m not in the PCA but am making judgments on the PCA. Well, I’m a Christian and I live in John 17. The PCA is just a temporary arrangement; the Church is what Jesus died for. Yes, the PCA is not my own bailiwick, but if you don’t know it, you should be aware that these crimes have been observed by lots of people outside the PCA, and you should be aware of what they think about it.
Beyond this, if you don’t know it, then you should hear from someone that lots of younger men in the PCA have watched this tyranny in action, and are thinking seriously of leaving the PCA. They have learned that if they depart from any jot or tittle of what the gods of the PCA want, the will be tried without formal trial and slandered and abused and cast out. Do they want to have women serving in ministry as unordained deaconnesses to work in women’s ministry in a city situation? They will be brought before presbytery. And if presbytery exonerates them, then one member of presbytery will say, “I’m telling! I’m gonna call the SJC, and they’ll deal with it.” Don’t think I’m making this up, Mr. Davis. What I’m telling you is quite real.
If you and other serious men do not stop Aquila and these SJC tyrants, the PCA will fall apart over the next five years.
David Gray said,
February 13, 2008 at 11:44 am
That someone who is responsible for the production of a product like “By Faith” with its promotion of feminism among its failings, should be entrusted with a position of authority or influence makes one very doubtful as to where the PCA is headed.
David Gray said,
February 13, 2008 at 11:45 am
>lots of younger men in the PCA have watched this tyranny in action, and are thinking seriously of leaving the PCA
Some have already left.
Howard Davis said,
February 13, 2008 at 11:48 am
Mr Roberts, et al.,
Why did the SJC accept the memorial, which was created for procedural abuses, for a disagreement of the judgment LAP came to? Even Central Carolina’s letter appealed to the memorial as a second-resort, because it would be quite a stretch for this case to be taken up under the memorial.
40-5. When any court having appellate jurisdiction shall be advised, either by the records of the court next below or by memorial, either with or without protest, or by any other satisfactory method, of any important delinquency or grossly unconstitutional proceedings of such court, the first step shall be to cite the court alleged to have offended to appear by representative or in writing, at a specified time and place, and to show what it has done or failed to do in the case in question.
How the SJC bent and broke the rules of 40-5?
Bent rules: Memorials were set up for procedural abuses (confirmed before the hearing by Roy Taylor, PCA Stated Clerk). Yet before the SJC the questions that I received as the representative defending did not focus on procedure but judgment. If you remember (I can’t remember if you were there or not but I’m assuming you were), I said that I can’t defend the decision of our presbytery but I will try to give the rationale as it was demanded from me by the SJC. This was far beyond the bounds of addressing procedure.
Broke rules: “the first step shall be to cite the court alleged to have offended…to show what it has done or failed to do in the case in question”.
Grammatically this is the first step. Yet LAP and I did not receive accusations of what we had done or failed to do until after the hearing had begun. This obviously left me without any opportunity to prepare a defense and forced me to shoot from the hip in defending our presbytery.
What is more, the accusations were pertaining primarily to our judgment not our procedure, though I am sure that this fact could be heavily spun.
Howard Davis said,
February 13, 2008 at 11:53 am
Mr. Jordan,
It was your attitude of “it was all anti-FV” and no FV person bears any responsibility for this matter that set me off, along with the loaded rhetoric that you use, along with the fact that this is not your first rodeo that has ended in a major fight (for you are legendarily called the father of FV and your hermeneutic is largely what has spawned FV, for good of for ill).
But we both agree that something smells awry. It may be our own armpits but it seems stronger than that.
Dewey Roberts said,
February 13, 2008 at 11:55 am
To Jimmy Jordan:
Since you are not in the PCA, the hatred which comes through in your posts is very strange. BTW, are you now in favor of deaconeses?
James Jordan said,
February 13, 2008 at 11:57 am
I’ve always been in favor of deaconnesses. I’ve written on it numerous times. A deaconness is not a lady deacon, but a different function. Deaconnesses are all over the Bible, both OT and NT, and as a Christian, I am obliged to favor them.
Bill Lyle said,
February 13, 2008 at 11:58 am
Ref: 336
Dominic no longer is with ByFaith and I have similar(as well as many others) concerns about ByFaith
Ref: 334
Mr. Davis,
Again you are making my point. Of course Dr Aquila would not print any material that was not appropriate. But the issue you have raised is something along the lines of a personal vendetta against LAP. To me, the facts you have provided prove just the opposite. Go reread the last part of the email from Dominic to Dale.
Howard Davis said,
February 13, 2008 at 11:58 am
SJCM 7.1 A member of the Standing Judicial Commission should refrain from consulting or advising in any judicial matters that might conceivably come before this Commission, except in a case where such member is a party.
“might conceivably come before [the] commission”: this is strong language that a circularization seems to compromise. Remember Christian ethics is driven not only by the letter of the law but the stronger spirit of the law.
James Jordan said,
February 13, 2008 at 12:03 pm
Mr. Davis, I take your point. Blogs are not good places, but here we are.
Anyway, much as I’d like to take credit for FV, it’s not “my” hermeneutics that are at “fault” here. It’s really a clash between Continental Calvinism (my home, to be sure) and a highly scholasticised reinterpretation of the WCF that has recently come into force. I don’t think hermeneutics has much to do with it. The FV is just an affirmation of what we find in Calvin and in the WCF, if the WCF is not read through modern filters.
BTW, what I wrote above about members of LA presbytery being phoned: I’m now told by my informant that it was that they were “informed” that if the SJC dissolved LA Presbytery, they would not be readmitted to the PCA if they voted the wrong way. So, I have no idea how they were informed of this. And anyway, it should have been obvious even if they had not been warned.
Howard Davis said,
February 13, 2008 at 12:11 pm
I would never suggest that Dominic had a personal vendetta against LAP. I do think that he has had a decided bias against Steve Wilkins and other proponents of the FV. He has made that clear in personal conversations that I have been in with him.
Howard Davis said,
February 13, 2008 at 12:17 pm
Mr. Jordan: No one called me, and with the small size of our presbytery and my independent spirit would make me a candidate for receiving such a call if anyone was called. But as much as I love the PCA, the Church is bigger than the PCA.
Howard Davis said,
February 13, 2008 at 12:28 pm
Let me close my time here by saying, I think that the men of the SJC are good and honorable men. Yet they are men who have made mistakes as a group and their chairman has been both aggressive in directing their actions in this case combined with making questionable decisions regarding the dissemination of information both before and after the case arrived at the SJC.
Signing off for good… I am not embittered toward anyone but I am as my post reflect disgusted by how this entire matter has been handled. For most people this is just somewhere they visit to comment on; for me and the brethren of LAP this is our neighborhood and the decisions affect where we live. If you want any further questions answered, send me an email at hqdavis (at) gmail (dot) com.
greenbaggins said,
February 13, 2008 at 12:30 pm
Howard, I have appreciated both your posts, and the spirit in which they have been posted.
Dewey Roberts said,
February 13, 2008 at 12:36 pm
Howard,
I was not at the 2006 October meeting of the SJC. I was off the SJC for one year. I disagree with your interpretation of BCO 40-5. But, Howard, we are not going to resolve anything through this blog. It is obvious to me that you have a lot of angst at the present. Your view of deference to a lower court has already been explained. Under your view of deference to a lower court, there would be no realistic right of appeal. There is a “Reformed” denomination out there that believes in greatly restricting the rights of appeal. It is the CREC. In the PCA, we have the right of appeal WHICH WOULD NOT BE POSSIBLE IF A HIGHER COURT HAD TO ALWAYS DEFER TO THE LOWER COURT. Please, just step away from the computer, calm down, pray, and think about what I am saying.
As I told you yesterday, I think you are a fine minister of the Gospel and I respect you as such.
magma2 said,
February 13, 2008 at 12:37 pm
That’s right and Luther’s battle with Rome over justification by belief alone was much ado about nothing. Thanks Mr. Jordan.
Dewey Roberts said,
February 13, 2008 at 12:40 pm
Jimmy Jordan:
I read your slanderous post of a few weeks ago to a ladies Bible study at my church and they were incensed. They said, “Now, his church has to discipline him, don’t they?” I said, “They should discipline him, but they won’t. I have already talked with his pastor and he will do nothing about this matter.” The thing about you, Jimmy, is that you have no shame. None at all.
Chris said,
February 13, 2008 at 12:47 pm
Only an idiot would drag his ladies bible study into this. Keep this between ministers and elders and discussions like this. Unbelievable.
Andrew Webb said,
February 13, 2008 at 12:52 pm
Re: 333
Hi Howard,
No, Dr. Pipa is a member of Calvary Presbytery (where GPTS is located) and Dr. Smith is either a member of Calvary or Western Carolina (where his Church is located). No CCP men have participated in the study committee, colloquium, open letters and so on. We have one member on the SJC, but he recused himself from all LaP matters.
Your Servant in Christ,
Andy
greenbaggins said,
February 13, 2008 at 12:56 pm
Chris, mind your manners. If Jordan’s comment was public, then discussion about it is public also.
Bill Lyle said,
February 13, 2008 at 12:56 pm
Ref: 344
Mr. Jordan,
“I’m now told by my informant that” if I do not say Dewey Roberts has three eyes I will not be allowed to attend the next PCA GA. Yet, I am not really sure how I was informed or who was ‘encouraging” me to say Dewey has 3 eyes. But this is something I must take serious.
Unbelievable!
Burke Shade said,
February 13, 2008 at 12:57 pm
Concerning #309, written by a Mark T:
When the CRE accepted me as a minister, I was not coming in as a “defrocked” minister from the PCA. While under trial in the PCA, I was examined by the Federation of Reformed Churches (FORC) and accepted as a minister in good standing several weeks before my deposition in the PCA. The PCA threw me out, and I left. But when they threw me out, Illiana Presbytery had already received communication from the FORC asking them to send the trial on to the FORC, as a possibility mentioned in the BCO. Illiana chose not to, as was their right, and proceeded with my trial. I was then in the FORC until the church that I pastor sought membership in the CRE. I came into the CRE as a member is good standing in the FORC; if you have doubts, you may ask Dave Shank of the FORC. So in receiving me they did not receive a deposed minister presently in deposed standing.
Sincerely,
Burke Shade
Howard Davis said,
February 13, 2008 at 1:03 pm
Andy, I was wrong about that and I apologize. CCP to all my knowledge has been completely above board. You as the representative to the case from CCP were a breath of fresh air to a nerve-wracked rep from LAP.
What is more, all those men who were party to that letter and all their concerns were appropriate…it was the targeted broadcasting of the message (to PCA TEs and REs who would decide future cases by the official PCA news agency) and thus politicizing it and polluting future judicial perspective of those deciding these matters that was the problem.
Dewey Roberts said,
February 13, 2008 at 1:04 pm
Chris,
I will share the terrible things James Jordan said with anyone I so choose- including his pastor (as I already have).
Jon said,
February 13, 2008 at 1:07 pm
Re 352
I think its important for as many people as possible to know who and what Jordan is so they don’t get sucked into his little theological fiefdom.
Dave H said,
February 13, 2008 at 1:22 pm
As a hard-core Calvinist, it is humbling to sit back and watch God do His work, in His time. It allows a great degree of peace even while witnessing these matters so sadly played out in forums such as this – watching brothers fight (hate) brothers. But I confess that I am heartened to know that the Auburn Avenue church may soon be part of a growing, thriving and vibrant denomination like the CREC. Likewise, to learn recently that a new Chicago suburban church which hopes to soon join the CREC began church services this past Sunday is a matter of great delight. While it is sad to observe that we may not have “peace in our time” as N. Chamberlain infamously stated, it is still a wonder to sit back and watch God at work, even despite the sins of man. Peace! (Now go ahead and hit me hard…)
Dewey Roberts said,
February 13, 2008 at 1:23 pm
Howard,
As a member of the SJC, I can tell you in all honesty, I don’t remember receiving this communication you say (but wrongly) was circularizing the court. It didn’t make much impressions on me. I don’t pay attention to opinions of others very much. I guess that is because I have very strong opinions of my own. What I have focused on for a very long time is Steve Wilkins’ theological positions. I have been troubled by his views since the early 1980’s. I guess maybe in 1984 I should have been able to see some day that the PCA would form a commission called the SJC and that I would be on it and that a case concerning Steve Wilkins would come before the SJC and that I should have steadfastly refused to read any materials from any source that would possibly be viewed as my allowing myself to be circularized.
Mark T. said,
February 13, 2008 at 1:24 pm
Chris,
Pastor Roberts’ comment regarding the ladies Bible study struck me as a direct response to comment 341, where Mr. Jordan lauded the role of women in the church. It was not-too-veiled unveiling of Mr. Jordan’s hypocrisy. He esteems the role of women in the church on paper, but when he shocks them by sinning with a high hand, a stiff middle finger, and a foul tongue, there is no officer in the church — male, female, or confederate — to whom he will submit, let alone the Scriptures.
Along these lines, I invite Mr. Jordan — the fierce enemy of all tyranny — to share with us the story about the widow whom he and his fellow tyrants defrauded in Tyler. If I’m not mistaken, the Tyler session invited a blue-ribbon panel of three arbiters, which included Joe Morecraft and Gary Demar, to hear the case. The arbitrators ruled in favor of the widow, so the Tyler session blew off the decision and went their own way. “I’m told by my informant” that you stiffed her to the grave.
Ah, yes, James Jordan thinks well of women in the church, especially the widows and their mites.
Howard Davis said,
February 13, 2008 at 1:33 pm
Not to get back in the fray, but the situation in August 2005 and esp with the nature of the letter clearly forewarned of a coming case that the PCA as a whole would hear at some point. If I remember rightly, GA 2005 was where MVP sent up their position paper against FV, etc.
In 1984 you would have to have xray vision or ESP or both ;p). In 2005, really post 2002-2003, someone would have to have blinders on to not think this issue would come to this level and, for the SJC standard, to conceive of the possibility of it.
Please don’t cushion the reality of what happened when that letter was circulated.
I really am not calling into question your view being polluted nor necessarily any other member of the SJC, but I am saying that the current chair, the one who has precided over this entire issue, has done some very questionable at best things regarding this case. Yet in none of this has recused himself, but to the opposite has been very proactive in directing how the case has been handled by the SJC. And I am confident that you know in your heart that the last statement is true.
Douglas Wilson said,
February 13, 2008 at 1:37 pm
magma, you said:
Exactly. He would have been given every opportunity to try to prove his innocence, without ever having had his guilt established. That is what I have been objecting to throughout this whole process. This is lever pulling, not justice.
And notice where you are. You claim that the FV is pervasive in the PCA, and that it is still found in multiple places — three in addition to Louisiana have been mentioned by name here. You claim to know our game plan, which is to head for the tall grass at the last minute to preserve the status of “good standing.” But if the heresy is as plain as you claim, and as easy to show as you claim, and as pervasive as you claim, then why doesn’t anybody bring charges?
The answer appears to me to be that this would require establishing someone’s guilt by proof, rather than the easier way of establishing it by politics.
curate said,
February 13, 2008 at 1:42 pm
Magma2, have you told anyone here that you are a Clarkian and a friend of and co-editor with John Robbins? Does this explain in any way the things that you are saying? Are you even a friend of the PCA? I thought the Trinity Foundation regarded the PCA as heretical. Am I wrong?
Mark T. said,
February 13, 2008 at 1:52 pm
The PCA declared Burke Shade guilty in 1999 and defrocked him from the ministry for his sins after a fair trial. Despite this, the pastor of Christ Church, Moscow, promised Mr. Shade safe refuge in the CRE before his trial was finished, caring nothing for the judgment of the PCA.
In fact, the minutes reveal that the elders of Christ Church deceived the CRE confederates by not informing them that their pastor promised Burke Shade entrance into the CRE before his trial was over. I’m fairly confident that the confederates wouldn’t have cared, but it’s kind of ironic how that lever got pulled. It’s all fully documented in a post titled “Snakes Within the Covenant.”
Thank you.
magma2 said,
February 13, 2008 at 2:01 pm
Curate, anyone can see that I am a Scripturalist and co-author of a book dealing with Doug Wilson’s false gospel in the “About” section of my blog. I didn’t know this was a big secret or that I was trying to hide anything. Even Lane and I have locked horns a bit in the past as we’ve wrestled over the Clark/Van Til divide.
Beyond that, I love the work of Trinity Foundation very much and am extemely happy to be associated with the work of Dr. Robbins even if only in a very small way. Besides, as Jonathan mentions above, Dr. Robbins “has been warning you about men like James Jordan since . . . 1995.” It seems to me the rest of the folks here are just a little slow at catching up. ;)
As far as TF being regarded as heretical by the PCA, that’s news to me. I thought they were hated by Vantilians and assorted irrationalists everywhere?
Jason J. Stellman said,
February 13, 2008 at 2:05 pm
Doug,
As you know, Peter Leithart is (again) the subject of a study committee in the PNW Presbytery. The reason charges were not filed is that we wanted to be as prudent and methodical as we can. He is a gracious man, and well-esteemed, and I believe he deserves to have his responses to the Nine Declarations examined carefully, just like he requested.
Charges may come, or they may not, we’ll have to see. But given all the hands-on-hips foot-stomping about the supposedly unfair GA study committee, we figured we’d take things nice and slow.
tim prussic said,
February 13, 2008 at 2:24 pm
Should it take oppositional foot stomping for you to be careful and go nice and slow?! What a joke.
Bill Lyle said,
February 13, 2008 at 2:34 pm
Ref: 363
Howard,
You said, “And I am confident that you know in your heart that the last statement is true.”
Not speaking for Dewey, but for myself. One who has seen first hand, albeit since June 07, what is going on at the SJC and how they have approched this case. I know in my heart this is NOT TRUE!
Bill
greenbaggins said,
February 13, 2008 at 2:40 pm
Tim, are you sure that you are not reading into Jason’s comment a bit? It seems like the outside foot-stomping is seen as an *extra* reason to go cautiously, not the only reason to do so.
Burke Shade said,
February 13, 2008 at 2:49 pm
Mark T, regarding your post 366:
Two things:
First, you state that “Despite this, the pastor of Christ Church, Moscow, promised Mr. Shade safe refuge in the CRE before his trial was finished, caring nothing for the judgment of the PCA.” Nothing in your materials suggest or prove this. Even the minutes from April 17 do not suggest or say this. They say nothing of his speaking with me about this. This is your implication, and your implication is false. My name is mentioned in that he reported on the church and my situation. That is all; to read further into it is to conjecture.
Secondly, your second paragraph falls to the ground if the first is not true, and it isn’t. Doug Wilson never promised me safe passage into the CRE before my trial was over.
Sincerely,
Burke Shade
Jason J. Stellman said,
February 13, 2008 at 2:49 pm
Sorry we’re a “joke” to you Tim. What is your problem?
magma2 said,
February 13, 2008 at 2:52 pm
Good question. Not that it changes the fact that Wilkins ran like a dog when it was clear charges were about to be filed against him and in short order. But, if you are being honest (and I don’t want to presume anything) and you really want charges filed and trial, why do you continually make excuses for your buddy Steve?
I can’t speak for others, but I recognized the dangerous and heretical nature of the FV from the time I first read RINE, what I consider the FV manifesto. FWIW a good friend of mine gave me your book and asked; “can you tell me what’s wrong with this?” Well, I told him and Dr. Robbins had a lot more to say as well.
As for others, my guess is many have been pained to believe that you and others of your group really believe the things you say in RINE. I mean, look how long it took even a man as brilliant as Cal Beisner to finally see that you and the other FV men very much mean exactly what you say. You might recall Dr. Robbins taking him to task in his piece,
Why Heretics Win Battles. I know of some, even at this late date, who still have a hard time believing it. After all, they have all your books on marriage, education, basket weaving and beer brewing.
My guess is what you’re so afraid of now, and why Wilkins ran like Carl Lewis, is that now armed with a clear and simple to understand Committee report, a report sanctioned by 95%+ of the PCA GA, the wheels are now finally in motion to drive the FV from the PCA. The report makes it clear for anyone even remotely interested, exactly why your system is contrary to the Christian and Protestant system of faith outline in the WCF – the one every PCA TE, RE and Deacon has publicly vowed to affirm and uphold.
OTOH, you may still get your wish. For one thing, Pastor Webb has already expressed a desire to do exactly what you’re hoping for right here on this blog. I have to think others here and elsewhere have had enough of the slanderous shenanigans of you and Jimmy J, the so-called “Godfather of FV soul.” I for one would like to see every last one of you salvation-by-covenantal-faithfulness / election-through-baptism types leave the PCA one way or another. They can all feed your empire for all I care as every last one of them make their way back to Rome. I just feel bad for all those you’re taking with you.
However, what will you say when the next batch of FV men, and you know who they are, run into the loving heretical arms of the CREC just as charges are being drawn up answering once and for all Pastor Webb’s concern and frustration expressed above? Let me guess, you’ll whine that the SJC is a kangaroo court and these men were already tried on the Internet, yada yada yada.
tim prussic said,
February 13, 2008 at 3:06 pm
Pr. Lane, I’m not thinking Mr. Stellman offered that as the *only* reason. Mostly, I’m reacting not to the implication that foot-stomping generates the need for careful procedure (what I mentioned in #369), but to the tone and the attitude. As to the implication, you’re analysis/spin is probably correct, but that’s simply NOT what he said. What he said is that since there was a stink raised before, we’ll go nice and slow. The deeper issue I see is the underlying attitude. It seems that Mr. Stellman (along with so many others) seems glibly to dismiss concerns about due process and committee stacking. I think that those prosecuting FVers (or anyone else) ought to be extremely careful to avoid even the appearance of impropriety, don’t you? I think that objections raised about possible improprieties should be taken seriously, don’t you? I’m reading something quite different in Mr. Stellman’s post and that’s what I reacted to.