Now see here how sleepy-headed all our opponents are, and how little it helps a man to rely on the ancient fathers, for all their repute down the course of the ages! Were they not all equally blind to, yes, and heeldess of, Paul's clearest and and plainest words?
--Martin Luther
I'm surprised the SJC had that much backbone.
Isaiah 45:7: I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.
If they ever dismiss whole presbyteries that have been taken over by this doctrine (i.e., Louisiana & Missouri) & make individual churches in those presbyteries renouncing the doctrine form new presbyteries, then I will start believing they are serious in taking a stand.
Now see here how sleepy-headed all our opponents are, and how little it helps a man to rely on the ancient fathers, for all their repute down the course of the ages! Were they not all equally blind to, yes, and heeldess of, Paul's clearest and and plainest words?
--Martin Luther
A little appearance of discontent and disagreement does not persuade me in the least bit.
If the Presby's have not been able to purge out the enormous amount of leaven in their current doctrine, that has been held from their inception, why should I suppose they are sober and coherent enough to withstand the onslought of even more leaven.
The pew warmer (laity) will be silenced. And business will be maintained as usual. All malefactors will be excommunicated and shunned.
The triumphalistic one world, golden age, postmillenial ecumenical church will emerge, and a perfect clerical (THOMIST) rule will be maintained. God forbid I am living in that day and age!
Nicholas
My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me: And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand..........John 10:27,28
Here is the outcome of this interesting and continuing drama:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/bbwarfield/message/26677
Now see here how sleepy-headed all our opponents are, and how little it helps a man to rely on the ancient fathers, for all their repute down the course of the ages! Were they not all equally blind to, yes, and heeldess of, Paul's clearest and and plainest words?
--Martin Luther
They're looking for someone to hang. It's easier to go ranting about some group such as the FV than to deal with real pastoral concern and sins in your own church. If you deal with sins in your own congregation people will hang you out to dry. If you deal with sins which do not necessarily exist in your own congregation you can get all your congregation behind you in support.
The PCA is not a strictly confessional denomination. There are a number of ministers who are outside of the bounds of the confessions on certain issues which don't happen to be hot button issues and so they will continue without allegations being brought against them. The whole idea of a standing judicial committee is very unpresbyterian.
As a confessional Lutheran I know that the FV folks are outside of the realms of orthodoxy defined by the Lutheran confessions. But WCF does not provide the strict limits that the Book of Concord does and I don't believe it has adequately been proven that Wilkins is outside of the bounds of the WCF. The sacramental views held by members of the FV (which vary between various memebers of the movement) range on the high end with views shared by Michael Horton (who as far as I know has never been brought up on charges in the URC over it) to the low end (which nobody seems very concerned about.) You can hold a belief on the sacraments in the PCA or URC which basically says they are worthless and nobody would bring you up on charges but if you espoused the position of Calvin they would try to throw you out. I say all this as someone who holds to the Lutheran position on the sacraments. I recognize that my own views are in harmony with the book of concord but outside of the realm of the WCF. I find that those in the FV are within the realm of orthodoxy as found in the WCF, while many of their critics are not. Their critics often hold too low a view of the sacraments to be considered orthodox by the WCF.
Covenant communion is the only position that Steve Wilkins holds that is clearly outside of the bounds of the WCF and he has not practiced it in his church and has acknowledged his difference on this issue.
As far as the comment about postmillenialism--I myself tend to lean in the amil direction but it cannot be denied that many of the framers of the WCF were postmil. You can't change the rules in the middle of the game. If a person swares to uphold the confessions of a particular denomination--the original intent of those confessions must provide the basis for judging if that person is to be considered orthodox within that particular denomination--not the writings of some later theologian. The same is true for who is qualified to be president. If the person does not want to uphold the Constitution he is not qualified.
For whatever strength of arm he may have who swims in the open sea, yet in time he is carried away and sunk, mastered by the greatness of its waves. Need then there is that we be in the ship, that is, that we be carried in the wood, that we may be able to cross this sea. Now this Wood in which our weakness is carried is the Cross of the Lord, by which we are signed, and delivered from the dangerous tempests of this world.--St. Augustine
I guess you are wrong on this one Nick.Originally Posted by Saint Nicholas
But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control. Against such things there is no law.GALATIANS 5:22
Joe Please be more specific. Can you elaborate on this a little more?
My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me: And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand..........John 10:27,28
In no way do I see this as an issue of debating paedocommunion or the real presence of Christ; those are decoys. I think most of us have known persons (even elders and pastors) with those views in even the most conservative Reformed churches for decades (& they have probably been around continuously for centuries).
The issue is the alternate soteriology of the New Perspective on Paul, which has contained the same fundamentals since E. P. Sanders initiated the new theology in the 70's:
1. The denial of the imputation of Christ's active obedience.
2. The re-definition of the righteousness of God bringing salvation as a vindication of His people in history rather than as a perfect righteousness provided in the God-man Jesus Christ.
3. The re-definition of sola fide in terms of personal faithFULNESS (i.e., works akin to the theology of James) instead of simple belief in the gospel of Christ's finished work as an objective imputation.
4. The re-definition of justification itself as a subjective vindication by God's work of transformation in His people. The need for forgiveness in Christ's blood is still affirmed, however, this is provided only to cancel man's shortfall in personal righteousness.
5. The conditionality of justification in time, hence the impossibliity of knowing one's self to be justified in eternity.
Every church or denomination that adopts this theology teaches a version of it that harmonizes with the system of works believed to be required by God in the individual sect. I first became confronted with and opposed this teaching when I was at seminary in 1980. I have been a vehement opponent of it ever since. It was the reason that I split with Robert Brinsmead in 1982; he had come to believe in his own version of it that was also taught by the theologian Krister Stendahl. I read Stendahl, Sanders, and James Dunn extensively at his request but could never see the core of the theology as anything but white-washed Roman Catholic justification defined in a completely new world of scholarly presentation.
The Reformed system of works adapted to the NPP theology naturally includes all of its external requirements (infant baptism, church membership, Sabbaths, tithes, etc.). Other churches fit whatever their own required sytem of works is into the theology. The only argument they have left with one another is which system of works God requires (which has been the argument of the various denominations from the beginning!).
My stand here locally is that the PCA should dismiss the entire Missouri Presbytery because of its support of Jeffrey Meyers and the adoption of the 2006 statement on Federal Vision. Until it takes that action, I will not believe that their rejection of the New Perspective on Paul at General Assembly last year was genuine.
Without a judicial committe, the General Assembly has no authority over Presbyteries or individual congregations. If one wants to propose a different system of church government that is fine (and I would no doubt be sympathetic!) but this is how Presbyterianism itself works.
Last edited by Robert R. Higby; 02-02-2008 at 02:15 PM.
Now see here how sleepy-headed all our opponents are, and how little it helps a man to rely on the ancient fathers, for all their repute down the course of the ages! Were they not all equally blind to, yes, and heeldess of, Paul's clearest and and plainest words?
--Martin Luther
I meant you should give credit where credit is due. They targeted this thought and finally did something about it. Regardless of how, they did do something.
But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control. Against such things there is no law.GALATIANS 5:22
If any of you have never read the Mississippi Valley PCA report affirming that the whole controversy is a soteriological issue and not one of externals, here is the link:
http://www.fpcjackson.org/resources/...es%20AAPC2.pdf
Now see here how sleepy-headed all our opponents are, and how little it helps a man to rely on the ancient fathers, for all their repute down the course of the ages! Were they not all equally blind to, yes, and heeldess of, Paul's clearest and and plainest words?
--Martin Luther
I don't have time to comment on all these issues and I probably would just be repeating myself if I did. But I believe that the summary you provided is a hasty generalization. Different people within the FV have different views on each of these subjects, the one thing they all share in common is a belief that election should be viewed with through the lens of the covenant in terms of pastoral care. That's a position much older than E. P. Sanders.
But, I'll just concentrate on the first point you made for illustration purposes. As far as I recall Norman Shepherd who is related to the FV but not quite within it is the only one who completely denies the imputation of the active obedience of Christ. However, I would also point out as I have in the past that some of the Westminster Divines also denied the imputation of the active obedience of Christ--William Twisse was one of them if I remember correctly. The 39 Articles did affirm belief in the imputation of the active obedience of Christ but such an affirmation is absent from the WCF. Denial of the imputation of the active obedience of Christ would put one outside of the realm of orthodox Lutheranism or orthodox Anglicanism (whenever such a rare bird as an orthodox Anglican can be found) but not outside the bounds of orthodox Presbyterianism.
Presbyterianism existed until 1866 without every using a Standing Judicial Committee, so no that's not how Presbyterianism works.
For whatever strength of arm he may have who swims in the open sea, yet in time he is carried away and sunk, mastered by the greatness of its waves. Need then there is that we be in the ship, that is, that we be carried in the wood, that we may be able to cross this sea. Now this Wood in which our weakness is carried is the Cross of the Lord, by which we are signed, and delivered from the dangerous tempests of this world.--St. Augustine
If you substitute "pastoral care" for preist, it looks like a shell and pea game between Protestantism and Catholicism.
Isaiah 45:7: I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.
It is only the denominations heavy into ecclesiastical authority that incorporate THOSE perspectives on the rule of bishops into a NPP system of belief.
I don't care if you call it a judicial committee or what, either one believes in two or three levels of elder authority. If you believe in three the top level must have some means of authority over the lower two.
William Twisse had a completely different reason for his perspective than this new theology has respectively; he still viewed the 'passive' obedience, death, and resurrection/ascension of Christ the God-man as the sole basis of justification. In no way did any of the earlier Calvinist theologians questioning the imputation of Christ's active obedience teach this new perspective view of subjective justification.
The real issue is still soteriology and whether the covenant of salvation is conditional or unconditional as it unfolds in time. I don't care about any of the other peripherals.
Now see here how sleepy-headed all our opponents are, and how little it helps a man to rely on the ancient fathers, for all their repute down the course of the ages! Were they not all equally blind to, yes, and heeldess of, Paul's clearest and and plainest words?
--Martin Luther
What in the world are you talking about?
There are Presbyterian ways of bringing charges against a minister, when such Presbyterian attempts were made and failed because Wilkins was cleared of charges in the Presbyterian way, a standing judicial committee was called upon. The General Assembly in Presbyterian church polity was not intended to lord it over the churches. It happens, but this is an abuse of the GA.
Wilkins affirms decretal justification but also believes in covenantal justification. Here's what Wilkins wrote:
The Reformers and the later Reformed dogmaticians such as Turretin did in fact acknowledge that Scripture uses terms like justification in ways different from its popular theological usage. I think it is a huge mistake to lump the NPP with the FV. The NPP as espoused by a liberal like E.P. Sanders is far different from the things being taught by the FV. The NPP is really not the New Perspective on Paul, it is the New Perspective on the Pharisees. Sanders believes that the Pharisees were not legalists because he doesn't believe that the Biblical record is accurate. This has further implications for his understanding of justification. The FV on the other hand, acknowledges that the Pharisees were in fact legalists and so the very foundation of the NPP crumbles away.
Response: Dr. Lucas explained that the committee is referring here to decretal
election (i.e., the secret decree which results in eternal salvation) as described in the
Westminster Confession (WCF III.6). I do not believe that one is decretally elect by
virtue of his membership in the visible church. Election is the sovereign act of God.
I assume that the second part of the sentence — "that this ‘election’ includes
justification, adoption and sanctification" — refers to what I would call "covenantal
election" (the idea that Paul addresses all the members of the visible church as
"elect"). Here it appears, however, that the committee is using the terms
"justification, adoption and sanctification" as the Westminster Confession defines
them, i.e., as blessings given exclusively to the decretally elect and not to each
member of the visible church. If I am correct with this assumption, then I agree
with this declaration. However, I do believe that Paul uses these same terms in a
broader way in the Scriptures. For example:
1. He speaks of all who are washed (which I take as a reference to baptism) as being
"justified" (I Cor. 6:9-11). If I am correct, Paul is not using this term the same way
that the writers of the Confession are, because these same people are later warned
against the possibility of falling away and being condemned (I Cor. 10:1-11). Thus,
Paul is not referring to something that is only given to the decretally elect here.
2. Paul addresses all the members of the visible church as "members of Gods
household" (Eph. 2:19) and thus seems to view every member as "adopted" in some
sense. The apostle does not appear to restrict the phrase "members of God's
household" only to the decretally elect. The Westminster Confession seems to
embrace this same view in chapter XXV where it describes the visible church as
"the household, family, and kingdom of God" (indeed, the Confession cites Eph.
2:19 as one of the proof texts for this assertion). Members of the visible church are
in the "family" of God by "adoption" (since they were by nature, children of wrath)
– even though not all of the members of the visible church will persevere in faith to
the end. If this is correct, then Paul is not thinking of "adoption" in the precisely the
same way as it is defined by the WCF, for in this case, not all of the members of the
visible church or those "adopted into God’s household" are among the decretally
elect.
3. Paul commonly refers to the members of the visible church as "sanctified" or
"saints" (e.g., I Cor. 1:30-31) and thereby indicates that all members are sanctified
in some sense. Paul, however, frequently warns these same "saints" against falling
into condemnation. In light of these warning, it seems clear that Paul is applying
this term more broadly than the Westminster Confession which restricts
"sanctification" to the decretally elect.
If I am wrong in my reading of these texts, then I am left with two other ways of
understanding them that would also be consistent with the WCF. Paul could be
addressing these statements exclusively to those who are decretally elect and not to
the rest (i.e., in accordance with the Westminster Confession’s stipulated
definitions). Or, he could be giving, as some suggest, a form of "charitable3judgment" to all the members of the church (i.e., rather than saying what ismembers of the visible church).
objectively or covenantally true, he is simply saying what he charitably assumes to
be true, though he cannot be certain). Though neither of these options seem as
compelling to me, they would be consistent with the Confession.
In short, I do not believe that decretal election can be lost, but I do believe that those
who are "covenantally elect" as signified by their membership in the visible church
can fall away from the faith and be lost. I believe that membership in the visible
church brings with it a covenantal form of justification, adoption, and sanctification
which would not be identical to the stipulated definitions given to these terms in the
WCF. If I am correct here, then this would not contradict the Confession (since the
Confession speaks of all these blessings from a decretal perspective and blessings
which are give to the decretally elect exclusively), but it would mean that these
terms are used in a broader way in the Scriptures (i.e., they are applied to all
The real issue for these ministers and the real determining factor as to whether the PCA did a positive thing, is determined by showing whether or not Wilkins is outside of the bounds of the WCF. There were various positions held by those at the Westminster Assembly in regards to the covenant and the Confessions does not attempt to take a hard position on the issue. Meredith Kline was not at the Westminster Assembly and does not provide us with the basis of determining who holds to an orthodox position on covenant theology but many today want to make him the standard of orthodoxy. As I read through the various critiques of the FV, I am struck by real lack of concern for understanding the original intent of the WCF and real lack of concern for quoting the adherents to the FV in context. Both are absolutely necessary.
I also write all the above as someone who's a little sick of the various forms of covenant theology. Scripture must not be read chiefly as a book about the covenant, but as God's Word from which we hear Christ speakign to us.
For whatever strength of arm he may have who swims in the open sea, yet in time he is carried away and sunk, mastered by the greatness of its waves. Need then there is that we be in the ship, that is, that we be carried in the wood, that we may be able to cross this sea. Now this Wood in which our weakness is carried is the Cross of the Lord, by which we are signed, and delivered from the dangerous tempests of this world.--St. Augustine
I stand by the MV Presbytery statement; the FV is always claiming that it is just misunderstood and the real issue is not the NPP. But the issue is two different soteriology positions; i.e., two different plans of salvation. Whether this has anything to do with Presbyterianism--I really don't care because I'm not Presbyterian! I'm just interested in observing whether the PCA will end up embracing two distinct soteriologies (since I was a member of it for so long in the past).
If the issue is strictly the WCF then yes, WB, you are correct. Since the PCA has slipped long ago on the issue of strict interpretation Wilkins could be accomodated--they have accomodated a hundred other variances.
Now see here how sleepy-headed all our opponents are, and how little it helps a man to rely on the ancient fathers, for all their repute down the course of the ages! Were they not all equally blind to, yes, and heeldess of, Paul's clearest and and plainest words?
--Martin Luther
wb says:
How is that done since Jesus christ reveals the decrees of the everlasting covenant..:also write all the above as someone who's a little sick of the various forms of covenant theology. Scripture must not be read chiefly as a book about the covenant, but as God's Word from which we hear Christ speakign to us.
mal 3 1
Behold, I will send my messenger, and he shall prepare the way before me: and the LORD, whom ye seek, shall suddenly come to his temple, even the messenger of the covenant, whom ye delight in: behold, he shall come, saith the LORD of hosts.
jn 12 50
And I know that his commandment is life everlasting: whatsoever I speak therefore, even as the Father said unto me, so I speak.
For I have not spoken of myself; but the Father which sent me, he gave me a commandment, what I should say, and what I should speak.
ps 2 7
I will declare the decree: the LORD hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee.
I will declare the decree can be rendered declare the covenant as the messenger of the covenant..
heb 2:
12Saying, I will declare thy name unto my brethren, in the midst of the church will I sing praise unto thee.
13And again, I will put my trust in him. And again, Behold I and the children which God hath given me.
Jesus speaking ministry was primarily and opening up and revealing the everlasting covenant mercies to the church , the true body of christ...
jn 17
6I have manifested thy name unto the men which thou gavest me out of the world: thine they were, and thou gavest them me; and they have kept thy word.
Scripture is quite clear to me that Jesus spake as a messenger of the covenant, the new covenant. In fact paul spake as a messenger of the new covenat as well..
2 cor 3:
5Not that we are sufficient of ourselves to think any thing as of ourselves; but our sufficiency is of God;
6Who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life.
That is, his ministry was framed as to the contiuation as to what christ taught and that through his ministry and the attending of the Holy ghost the new covenant promises were being fulfilled [ and and communicated to the elect] via his and the other apostles ministry..
Last edited by beloved57; 02-04-2008 at 12:59 PM.
beloved:
I do not deny that the Scriptures also teach us about the covenant anymore than those who believe in a geocentric universe believe that there is a sun. But those who hold to a heliocentric model will view their relationship quite differently.
For whatever strength of arm he may have who swims in the open sea, yet in time he is carried away and sunk, mastered by the greatness of its waves. Need then there is that we be in the ship, that is, that we be carried in the wood, that we may be able to cross this sea. Now this Wood in which our weakness is carried is the Cross of the Lord, by which we are signed, and delivered from the dangerous tempests of this world.--St. Augustine
Occasionally, Green Baggin has some threads worth reading, here is one:
http://greenbaggins.wordpress.com/20...ederal-vision/
Now see here how sleepy-headed all our opponents are, and how little it helps a man to rely on the ancient fathers, for all their repute down the course of the ages! Were they not all equally blind to, yes, and heeldess of, Paul's clearest and and plainest words?
--Martin Luther
Robert Higby:
I think Baggins' piece is a fine example of someone who is trying to remove the speck from his brother's eye without removing the beam from his own. I have not been involved in the whole debate recently--I haven't really been reading Wilson or Baggins or whomever else. But I do know from past readings that there is a huge amount of ego demonstrated by the opponents of the federal vision. Although I am not in agreement with the FV on several key issues--I have yet to see anyone who has honestly critiqued these men strictly on confessional issues and I've seen a ton of slander.
What the FV is reacting against is the kind of pietistic Calvinism you find in the HNRC. That's pretty clear to anyone who listened to the Auburn Avenue tapes that caused such a rucous. They are telling people to stop the navel gazing and to look to the promises of Christ. I don't think it's so much a matter of the FV being showed that they are wrong from the Confessions and then having such a big ego that they refuse to repent of their errors as much as it's the fact that accusations which sometimes contradict each other are hurled about at them.
For whatever strength of arm he may have who swims in the open sea, yet in time he is carried away and sunk, mastered by the greatness of its waves. Need then there is that we be in the ship, that is, that we be carried in the wood, that we may be able to cross this sea. Now this Wood in which our weakness is carried is the Cross of the Lord, by which we are signed, and delivered from the dangerous tempests of this world.--St. Augustine
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks