The PCA General Assembly Meets in Memphis this Month on Federal Vision

[Robert R. Higby]

The preliminary report from the appointed study committee, which is actually quite good in many aspects (I was pleasantly surprised!) can be found here:

http://pcaac.org/2007GeneralAssembly...%205-11-07.pdf

Any predictions on whether the PCA will actually and officially condemn the Federal Vision theology and NPP?

--Bob

[Eileen]

The preliminary report from the appointed study committee, which is actually quite good in many aspects (I was pleasantly surprised!) can be found here:

http://pcaac.org/2007GeneralAssembly/Fed%20%20Vision%20Rept%20%205-11-07.pdf

Any predictions on whether the PCA will actually and officially condemn the Federal Vision theology and NPP?

--Bob

I think the PCA will adopt something condemning the teaching of the FV and the NPP.

The RCUS judged the teachings of NT Wright (NPP) as another gospel in May 2005 and undertook a similar study with FV but focused solely on the FV Doctrine of Justification, which was reported just last week at Synod. They studied the teachings of Rich Lusk, Peter Leithart, Steve Wilkins, John Barach, Steve Schlissel and Doug Wilson and each individual’s ideas on justification. It is a very interesting piece to read.

The RCUS paper on FV isn’t online yet and so I can’t provide a link, but they will adopt only the conclusion which I copied here. There will be some minor additions/corrections made to the conclusion before the paper is adopted as a postion paper.

CONCLUSION

We believe this report as a whole leads us to no other conclusion than that the proponents of the Federal Vision herein reviewed and critiqued are substantially at odds with the Christian gospel. In particular we believe they promote another gospel in the following three areas:

1. In as far as proponents of Federal Vision so define baptism as to make it a saving ordinance that unites us to all the benefits of Christ, without distinguishing between those who have the inward washing of the Spirit and those who do not, we reject the Federal Vision. We confess that while baptism is a sign of God’s saving work, the external sign should not be confused with its internal reality (Col. 2:11; Eph. 5:26; 1 John 1:7; 1 Cor. 6:11; B.C. Art. 34, H.C. Q.72-73).

2. In as far as proponents of Federal vision teach that all those who are baptized bear the same relation to the covenant, without making a distinction between mere ecclesiastical membership and a vital union with Christ through faith in him alone, and that those in union with Christ can lose their position in Christ, we reject the Federal Vision. We confess that those who are vitally joined to Christ by a living faith not only shall never be lost, but also can be certain they have been predestined to eternal glory, even though our faith is often weak and we continue to sin. All the regenerate in covenant with God, on account of the redemptive work of Christ effectually applied by the Spirit of God, receive the gift of perseverance (Jer. 32:40; John 10:28-29; Rom. 8:29-39; B.C. Art. 24; Canons of Dordt. V, 1-15).

3. In as far as proponents of Federal Vision teach that justification by faith is not a one time in history declaration of God by which we are accounted righteous solely on the basis of the imputation of Christ's merits which is received by faith alone, but that our justification is contingent upon our continued covenant faithfulness, we reject the Federal Vision. We confess that salvation is in no way based upon what we do; else there would be no hope that any would stand (Ps. 115:1; Rom. 3:20, 24-28; 4:2-5; 8:33; 10:3-4; 1 Cor. 4:7; Phil. 3:9; Gal. 2:16, Heb. 7:19; BC. Art. 22-23; HC. Q.62-64).

[Robert R. Higby]

I really don't think so, Eileen. I think the report from the study committee will not be adopted.

There is an army of PCA pastors, teachers, and members who are fighting the acceptance of this report like dogs. The love of FV theology in the PCA now cuts very deep. A local St. Louis PCA pastor here (Jeff Meyers) is leading the charge against it in this area. This comes after Steve Wilkins was just vindicated against heresy by the Louisiana Presbytery in December. Also, the Missouri Presbytery study in defense of FV was released just a year ago.

They have already let this thing go too far and take over a massive number of churches. Even if they should go as far as adopting the study committe report, it would be mere symbolism and ignored. The outspoken opponents of FV will still continue to be ostracized in the PCA.

That's my take on it. --Bob

[wildboar]

I really have no clue as to what the current atmosphere in the PCA is at the given moment. I do know there are some rather horrible churches in the PCA that have absolutely nothing to do with the FV. Attacking the FV is an attempt to distract people from real problems in their own congregations. They are the current popular thing to blame. The RCUS is a good example. Was Norman Shepherd ever a pastor in the RCUS? Nope. Are there pastors who are part of the FV in the RCUS? Nope. So why even bother to adopt a report? The historic practice of reformed churches is to deal with controversies as they happen in congregations. If a member of a congregation believes his minister is outside of the bounds of the confessions then he can bring up charges to the elders of his churches. If he is unsatisfied he can make an appeal to classis and so on up to synod. This whole modern notion that we are just supposed to go about adopting reports on whatever groups we feel like is just plain ridiculous. Since the proper channels have not worked in convicting someone like Steve Wilkins in the PCA, people want to resort to unPresbyterian measures. The ends do not justify the means and their willingness to resort to such measures says more about the accusers than the accused.

[Robert R. Higby]

Since I'm not a Presbyterian I have no personal stake in what happens. I only believe NPP and FV to be apostasy from the gospel, based largely on the reasons given in the report. But I don't believe the PCA can save itself from its rush into apostasy and skepticism no matter what happens at the meeting this month.

[Saint Nicholas]

In my opinion, all of these problems within the PCA are symptomatic of a greater disease within it bowels. My only concern and prayer is that the wheat would come out from among them. When push comes to shove, the real determining factor in most of these ecclesiastical assemblies is the BOTTOM LINE. The philosophy employed is pragmatism. And pragmatism is used to protect assets $$$ and keep the un-biblical clergy system in power.

All one really needs to do is study the last 60-70 years of protestantism to see the awfull falling away from the truth of the Gospel, and a sickening ecumenicity.

Nicholas

[Robert R. Higby]

Right Nick, and it is pragmatism that will determine their decision. Which action will result in the least loss of members and dollars?

For a small denomination like the RCUS the issues were not the same; they had a far less corrupt leadership who were not responsible for a MASSIVE economic and churchian politic machine.

[Highlyfavored]

As time goes on, I believe that less and less light will be able to be detected from any denomination or local church body. All are becoming as dead as rome.

[Prakk]

"All are becoming as dead as rome."

Becoming? What have we reformed lately? Inside the circles of the reformation faithful I hear that we are "reforming, not reformed", but no one can answer the question I just posed.

[Highlyfavored]

Becoming? What have we reformed lately? Inside the circles of the reformation faithful I hear that we are "reforming, not reformed", but no one can answer the question I just posed.

Thanks for your correction Prakk, I'll try again.

As time goes on, I believe that less and less light will be able to be detected from any denomination or local church body. All have become as dead as Rome:

Rev 18:4, (MKJV), And I heard another voice from Heaven, saying, Come out of her, My people, that you may not be partakers of her sins, and that you may not receive of her plagues.

[Prakk]

Not a problem.

[wildboar]

The PCA adopted the report http://www.oceansideurc.org/the-heid...the-fvnpp.html

[Brandan Kraft]

TE R. C. Sproul speaks against the motion. The issue is imputation. The purity of the PCA is at stake. He said that he cannot understand the hesitancy. He spoke against adding a minority on the ground that it's like adding the accused to the jury. Applause and laughter. Before the moderator could gavel them down, R C said, "shame on you brothers for your righteous applause."

[Prakk]

Audio of that would be good, anyone got a link?

[Robert R. Higby]

I'm surprised but not pleasantly. Naturally, since I implicitly distrust 99+ percent of religious leaders, politicians, judges, and big business executives based on personal experience--I have to believe the motive in this is not pure.

The conclusions mention that the participation of Jeff Meyers, pastor of Providence Reformed Presbyterian Church near St. Louis (not named in the minutes) and exhuberant supporter of FV/NPP, had corrupted the Missouri Presbytery committee report by his presence and influence. Brethren, what kind of horrible nonsense is this? The president of Covenant Seminary Bryan Chappell, another veteran CS teacher Robert Peterson (of renowned fame for his opposition to Edward Fudge on the doctrine of hell in the IVP book "Two Views on Hell"), and the most respected 'veteran' preachers from the largest congregations were on that committee. Were these members so nauseatingly weak in their convictions that they did not have the God-given courage in Christ to resist the influence of Meyers? Yes, they were. Neither will they have the courage to resist such men of similar influence on the 'next' issue of heresy in the future. In principle nothing has changed.

This reminds me of the controversy in the Evangelical Free Church in the 80s/90s over the heretical views on the resurrection of Murray Harris from Trinity Evangelical Divinity School. After years of debate, his views were finally and officially rejected. However, the influence that he had over his students was forever burned into those minds. The preachers who revered and still revere him believe his doctrines without repentance (though they can't outrightly preach them any more). They still teach them subtely.

[Prakk]

"When push comes to shove, the real determining factor in most of these ecclesiastical assemblies is the BOTTOM LINE. The philosophy employed is pragmatism. And pragmatism is used to protect assets $$$ and keep the un-biblical clergy system in power."

The instant an institution is established, it becomes political.

"I'm surprised but not pleasantly. Naturally, since I implicitly distrust 99+ percent of religious leaders, politicians, judges, and big business executives based on personal experience--I have to believe the motive in this is not pure."

Yet God would have us submit to them, and will free us from them if it is his will. After a while in life, only ostriches and Polyanna think nothing is rotten.

[Highlyfavored]

Yet God would have us submit to them, and will free us from them if it is his will.

Why would you think we should submit ourselves to them?

[Prakk]

Why would you think we should submit ourselves to them?

Matthew 23:1-4:

"Then Jesus spoke to the crowds and to His disciples, saying: 'The scribes and the Pharisees have seated themselves in the chair of Moses; therefore all that they tell you, do and observe, but do not do according to their deeds; for they say things and do not do them. They tie up heavy burdens and lay them on men's shoulders, but they themselves are unwilling to move them with so much as a finger'."

Hugh McBryde

[wildboar]

And for those who think that only Jesus thought that and that it is now irrelevant:

1 Corinthians 16:15-16 I urge you, brethren -- you know the household of Stephanas, that it is the firstfruits of Achaia, and that they have devoted themselves to the ministry of the saints -- 16 that you also submit to such, and to everyone who works and labors with us.

On another note. One of the people I have been most impressed with throughout this controversy is Joel Garver. He often gets lumped in with the FV. But has also been a critic at times (such as his article on whether we can really call the covenant conditional). He provides a great source of historic documents on his website and has been kind enough to email me a particular hard to find one I was looking for. Anyhow Joel Garver provides his own evaluation of what this decision by the PCA actually means here: http://sacradoctrina.blogspot.com/20...f-comment.html Joel Garver's website can be found here: http://www.joelgarver.com/

[Robert R. Higby]

In the end it is all irrelevant; regardless of what the PCA endorsed or didn't those in love with FV will continue to find a way to promote their views within it and put out of their 'comrade' fellowship (which is all that exists in 'church') any that disagree with them.