Federal Vision Update

[Saiph]

I hear two different ideas being presented that seem inconsistent.

1) The FV authors are so vague and ambiguous that it is hard to pin down what they are saying.

2) They are heretics ! ! Burn Them !!



So which is it ? As for me, I think I will continue reading them to see if the accusations are true.

And Matt, if I can get that book from the library I will check it out.

 

[C. Matthew McMahon]

#2. But not burn them, pray for them. God will burn them later if they don't repent.

[Edited on 1-5-2006 by C. Matthew McMahon]

 

[tcalbrecht]

Originally posted by C. Matthew McMahon
#2. But not burn them, pray for them. God will burn them later if they don't repent.

[Edited on 1-5-2006 by C. Matthew McMahon]

If they are truly heretics, don't we also need to put them out of the church (after due process, of course)?

 

[Scott Bushey]

Originally posted by tcalbrecht

Originally posted by C. Matthew McMahon
#2. But not burn them, pray for them. God will burn them later if they don't repent.

[Edited on 1-5-2006 by C. Matthew McMahon]

If they are truly heretics, don't we also need to put them out of the church (after due process, of course)?

The major denominations are dealing with the issue.....
Excommunication does not necessarily mean that they should be dragged from the pughs.

[Edited on 1-5-2006 by Scott Bushey]

 

[C. Matthew McMahon]

If someone in the RPCGA was excommunicated, they would be dragged from thier pulpit. We don't allow heretics to preach.

Even if we "think" he is a heretic, we will suspend him from preaching and the Lord's Table until a trial is set and he if found guilty. If he does not repent, then we would excommunicate him from the church.

BCO:
Suspension
A. Suspension is a form of censure by which an officer or other member of the church is deprived of certain privileges, for a definite or indefinite period of time. Suspension of an officer from the privileges of membership shall always be accompanied by suspension from office, but the latter does not necessarily involve the former. When an officer has been indefinitely suspended, the judicatory shall immediately notify all presbyteries. A suspension of a member does not require written charges or a trial. However, the suspension of an officer does require written charges and a trial.

B. An officer or other member of the church, while under suspension, shall be the object of deep solicitude and earnest dealing, the goal being that he may be restored. When the trial judicatory, which pronounced the censure, is satisfied with the penitence of the offender, or when the time of suspension has expired, the censure shall be removed and the offender restored. This restoration shall be accompanied by a solemn admonition. Restoration to the privileges of membership may take place without restoration to office.

D 7:5 Excommunication
Excommunication is the most severe form of censure, and is only resorted to in cases aggravated by persistent impenitence. It consists of a solemn declaration by the presbyterial judicatory that the offender is no longer considered a member of the Body of Christ. Erasure is excommunication without full process.

Only some of the FV guys are of denominations that would censure or excommunicate. Wilson, for example, is for all intents and purposes, an independent in the way his church operates.

But we would never tolerate error in the pulpit, much less heresy.

[Edited on 1-5-2006 by C. Matthew McMahon]

 

[Scott Bushey]

Typo: I meant 'pughs'...... Certainly they would be jettisoned from the pulpits!

 

[biblelighthouse]

Originally posted by Saiph
I hear two different ideas being presented that seem inconsistent.

1) The FV authors are so vague and ambiguous that it is hard to pin down what they are saying.

2) They are heretics ! ! Burn Them !!


So which is it ? As for me, I think I will continue reading them to see if the accusations are true.

Your comments are very insightful, Mark, and are right on the money! These two accusations of FV are inherently contradictory.


Also, it REALLY irritates me that so many people won't listen to them when they say, "You just don't understand us!"


Go ask a Catholic scholar whether justification by faith alone is true or not, or whether sola scriptura is true, and you may get referred to a copy of Sungenis' "Not by Faith Alone" or "Not by Scripture Alone".

Go ask an Arminian whether TULIP is true or not, and you will get a clear "NO!"

Go ask a baptist whether he believes in credobaptism, or a paedobaptist if he believes in infant baptism, and you will get a hearty "Yes!" for an answer.


You see, we know we don't understood the other side, until we can state their side in such a way that THEY agree with it!

But for some reason, a lot of people are arrogant enough to think that they don't need to extend this basic courtesy to the FV folks. If you accuse them of denying justification by faith alone, and then they flatly DENY that they do that, then you HAVE NOT understood them yet. If you accuse them of denying TULIP, and then they flatly DENY that they have denied TULIP, then you HAVE NOT understood them yet. --- I have heard Wilson affirm TULIP, Wilkins affirm justification by faith alone, Horne affirm the WCF, etc. But for some reason nobody wants to believe them. Even though a person doesn't understand what they are saying, he thinks that he has the right to declare what they "really" believe.

If I thought that the FV people believed half of the things they were accused of, then I would anathematize them just as heartily as anyone else on this board. But the flat truth is that many of the accusers don't have a clue WHAT the FV people believe, and apparently they don't have the courtesy to even bother figuring it out.



I have a request:
Can anybody point me to an FV opponent who has clearly stated the FV position in such a way that an FV person would agree with it?

If an FV opponent would do that, and an FV proponent would agree with it, then we might actually start to get somewhere in the discussion. Until then, I think the FV accusers are just chopping up straw men, and fighting nonexistent phantasms.



Maybe someday I will getting around to doing something like this. I think I could state some of the FV beliefs in such a way that they would agree with it. It might take a few iterations, and I would want some of them to check it and verify that I'm understanding them correctly, but I think I could do it. Then, I could proceed to point out the areas where I think they are either helpful or in error. I definitely do think they have some error, but not of the heretical sort.

(Just for example, I disagree with Wilkins' use of the word "elect". I don't think he uses the word in the way Scripture uses it. Of course, however, Wilson would agree with me there, so it just goes to show that the FV people are not monolithic.)

 

[tcalbrecht]

Originally posted by Scott Bushey

Originally posted by tcalbrecht

Originally posted by C. Matthew McMahon
#2. But not burn them, pray for them. God will burn them later if they don't repent.

[Edited on 1-5-2006 by C. Matthew McMahon]

If they are truly heretics, don't we also need to put them out of the church (after due process, of course)?

The major denominations are dealing with the issue.....
Excommunication does not necessarily mean that they should be dragged from the pughs.

[Edited on 1-5-2006 by Scott Bushey]

So, until such time as the church courts of the respective denominations (specially PCA in the case of Wilkins) make their judgment, isn't it fundamentally unchristian to declare them heretics without trial? After all, until the facts are judged in an objective way, not by slogans or seminary committees without ecclesiastical jurisdiction, there is no opinion that carries any weight. (One John Robbins in this world is enough.)

A heretic is one who teaches heresy. If FV is deemed a heresy by the courts, and these men are found to teach the essentials of FV by the courts, then they are heretics, and can be identified as such publically. Anything else is uncharitable.

 

[Scott Bushey]

Originally posted by tcalbrecht

Originally posted by Scott Bushey

Originally posted by tcalbrecht

Originally posted by C. Matthew McMahon
#2. But not burn them, pray for them. God will burn them later if they don't repent.

[Edited on 1-5-2006 by C. Matthew McMahon]

If they are truly heretics, don't we also need to put them out of the church (after due process, of course)?

The major denominations are dealing with the issue.....
Excommunication does not necessarily mean that they should be dragged from the pughs.

[Edited on 1-5-2006 by Scott Bushey]

So, until such time as the church courts of the respective denominations (specially PCA in the case of Wilkins) make their judgment, isn't it fundamentally unchristian to declare them heretics without trial? After all, until the facts are judged in an objective way, not by slogans or seminary committees without ecclesiastical jurisdiction, there is no opinion that carries any weight. (One John Robbins in this world is enough.)

A heretic is one who teaches heresy. If FV is deemed a heresy by the courts, and these men are found to teach the essentials of FV by the courts, then they are heretics, and can be identified as such publically. Anything else is uncharitable.

I agree. However, in my case, my denomination (RPCGA) has deemed the teaching heretical.

 

[VictorBravo]

Originally posted by biblelighthouse

You see, we know we don't understood the other side, until we can state their side in such a way that THEY agree with it!

But for some reason, a lot of people are arrogant enough to think that they don't need to extend this basic courtesy to the FV folks. If you accuse them of denying justification by faith alone, and then they flatly DENY that they do that, then you HAVE NOT understood them yet. If you accuse them of denying TULIP, and then they flatly DENY that they have denied TULIP, then you HAVE NOT understood them yet. --- I have heard Wilson affirm TULIP, Wilkins affirm justification by faith alone, Horne affirm the WCF, etc. But for some reason nobody wants to believe them. Even though a person doesn't understand what they are saying, he thinks that he has the right to declare what they "really" believe.

Joseph, you have identified the problem I have with the debate, but I view it exactly opposite.

If someone, especially a minister of the gospel, is publicly using terms or making statements that seem to be denying orthodoxy or leading to misunderstanding, and if that person is called on it, he should clarify. When this is done in the FV context, it seems that the proponent's clarifications muddy the waters even more.

If one is using terms in a different way from the traditional meaning, he has the duty to clearly define them. Borrowing terms and imputing a different meaning is not clear expression. If done intentionally, it's a dirty trick.

Even thought the FV people are obviously not monolithic, they seem to have similar attributes. Saying something that pushes buttons and then claiming that you are not understood is disingenuous. I've read many of the writings and comments of the pastors mentioned and I keep getting the image of a kid playing with matches. They know what they are doing and, when caught, they run away saying "I'm not starting a fire." A mere denial in that case is not enough. The kid should clearly explain why he was acting in such an apparently irresponsible way. (And the explanation may actually be a good one).


I think some of the men associated with FV are good and well intentioned men and I agree that such should be given a fair hearing. But, if they play word games in the course of that hearing, I find no reason to cut any slack.

A simple example of what I'm talking about occurred in an exchange I had recently with a friend who is a self-described militant Calvinist warrior. I mentioned that I heard a sermon on salvation by works and was impressed. My friend promptly pronounced the preacher a heretic and railed at how easily I was led astray. I pointed out that the works discussed was the active obedience of Christ.

I (regrettably) was playing word games, but when called on it I quickly remedied the misimpression. I haven't seen much of that in the FV debate.

Vic

 

[Dan....]

Originally posted by biblelighthouse

Originally posted by Saiph
I am not abandoning the reformed concept of alien justification extra nos. But Wright's perspective brings up many questions for me regarding the liminal space between justification and sanctification. I have said before that I think it augments the reformed tradition.

I see different aspects of justification in three spheres: extra nos, intra nos, and supra nos.

God declares us righteous, works righteousness in us, to bring us to an eternal state of righteousness.

Sounds Romish to me...

Shows a failure to distinguish between justification and sanctification and necessitates justification by infused righteousness.

extra nos = justification
intra nos = sanctification
supra nos = glorification

 

[tcalbrecht]

Originally posted by Scott Bushey

I agree. However, in my case, my denomination (RPCGA) has deemed the teaching heretical.

But doesn't this foster guilt by slogan? You identified something called FV by "heresy". But heresy only exist because someone supposedly proclaims that heresy.

I believe that until such time as a trial can be conducted and men can answer specific charges and an objective court can weigh all the evidence, what your denomination has done is moot. You folks may feel better about it, but it is really of no regard in the larger church. It actually does much to undermine a truly biblical ecumenical spirit among what should be sister denominations.

If these man are not under your jurisdication, the only biblical recourse would be to first appeal to the court(s) of your sister denomination(s) urging them to investigate and, if necessary, bring charges. Only until they act -- either by investigating and convicting/exonerting or failing to act -- only then may you make a pronouncement. Because, frankly, you do not have all the facts. That is obvious. You have not done what the 9th commandment requires.

You are simply acting prematurely and unilaterally as a lone ranger denomination without regard to the larger visible church.

 

[Saiph]

Originally posted by Dan....

Sounds Romish to me...

Shows a failure to distinguish between justification and sanctification and necessitates justification by infused righteousness.

extra nos = justification
intra nos = sanctification
supra nos = glorification

Good points Dan, but I see the idea of the "righteousness of God" encompassing all three aspects throughout scripture.

I have said before that one can show distinctions without obliterating where justification and sanctification overlap. If we make a total dichotomy between the two then how can sanctification be the result of justification ? And how can we said to be judged by our works ?

 

[biblelighthouse]

Originally posted by tcalbrecht

So, until such time as the church courts of the respective denominations (specially PCA in the case of Wilkins) make their judgment, isn't it fundamentally unchristian to declare them heretics without trial? After all, until the facts are judged in an objective way, not by slogans or seminary committees without ecclesiastical jurisdiction, there is no opinion that carries any weight. (One John Robbins in this world is enough.)

A heretic is one who teaches heresy. If FV is deemed a heresy by the courts, and these men are found to teach the essentials of FV by the courts, then they are heretics, and can be identified as such publically. Anything else is uncharitable.

Originally posted by tcalbrecht

Originally posted by Scott Bushey

I agree. However, in my case, my denomination (RPCGA) has deemed the teaching heretical.

But doesn't this foster guilt by slogan? You identified something called FV by "heresy". But heresy only exist because someone supposedly proclaims that heresy.

I believe that until such time as a trial can be conducted and men can answer specific charges and an objective court can weigh all the evidence, what your denomination has done is moot. You folks may feel better about it, but it is really of no regard in the larger church. It actually does much to undermine a truly biblical ecumenical spirit among what should be sister denominations.

If these man are not under your jurisdication, the only biblical recourse would be to first appeal to the court(s) of your sister denomination(s) urging them to investigate and, if necessary, bring charges. Only until they act -- either by investigating and convicting/exonerting or failing to act -- only then may you make a pronouncement. Because, frankly, you do not have all the facts. That is obvious. You have not done what the 9th commandment requires.

You are simply acting prematurely and unilaterally as a lone ranger denomination without regard to the larger visible church.

Tom, your assessments are right on target, and are a breath of fresh air!!

 

[Romans922]

Originally posted by Saiph
I hear two different ideas being presented that seem inconsistent.

1) The FV authors are so vague and ambiguous that it is hard to pin down what they are saying.

2) They are heretics ! ! Burn Them !!



So which is it ? As for me, I think I will continue reading them to see if the accusations are true.

And Matt, if I can get that book from the library I will check it out.

As to number 1: Isn't this addressed in 2 Timothy 2

"Remind them of these things (which was just addressed), and solemnly charge them in the presence of God not to wrangle about words, which is useless and leads to the ruin of the hearers. Be diligent to present yourself approved to God as a workman who does not need to be ashamed, accurately handling the word of truth. But avoid worldly and empty chatter, for it will lead to further ungodliness, and their talk will spread like gangrene."

 

[Saiph]

Originally posted by Romans922

Originally posted by Saiph
I hear two different ideas being presented that seem inconsistent.

1) The FV authors are so vague and ambiguous that it is hard to pin down what they are saying.

2) They are heretics ! ! Burn Them !!



So which is it ? As for me, I think I will continue reading them to see if the accusations are true.

And Matt, if I can get that book from the library I will check it out.

As to number 1: Isn't this addressed in 2 Timothy 2

"Remind them of these things (which was just addressed), and solemnly charge them in the presence of God not to wrangle about words, which is useless and leads to the ruin of the hearers. Be diligent to present yourself approved to God as a workman who does not need to be ashamed, accurately handling the word of truth. But avoid worldly and empty chatter, for it will lead to further ungodliness, and their talk will spread like gangrene."

Good point also Andrew. R.V. Bottomly has brought up an excellent point that no one has yet addressed I think.
It is up to the one abiguously explaining their point to narrow it down.
When Christ told a parable, the disciples wondered what He meant. It was Christ's duty to reveal or explain it, not the disciples.

[Edited on 1-5-2006 by Saiph]

 

[Scott Bushey]

Originally posted by tcalbrecht

Originally posted by Scott Bushey

I agree. However, in my case, my denomination (RPCGA) has deemed the teaching heretical.

But doesn't this foster guilt by slogan? You identified something called FV by "heresy". But heresy only exist because someone supposedly proclaims that heresy.

I believe that until such time as a trial can be conducted and men can answer specific charges and an objective court can weigh all the evidence, what your denomination has done is moot. You folks may feel better about it, but it is really of no regard in the larger church. It actually does much to undermine a truly biblical ecumenical spirit among what should be sister denominations.

If these man are not under your jurisdication, the only biblical recourse would be to first appeal to the court(s) of your sister denomination(s) urging them to investigate and, if necessary, bring charges. Only until they act -- either by investigating and convicting/exonerting or failing to act -- only then may you make a pronouncement. Because, frankly, you do not have all the facts. That is obvious. You have not done what the 9th commandment requires.

You are simply acting prematurely and unilaterally as a lone ranger denomination without regard to the larger visible church.

Tom,
You may call us 'lone ranger', but what we are doing is stepping up to the plate where no one else will.

The 9th commandment has not been breached; the FV has tinkered and tampered with the hindge of our beloved faith; thats heresy, period! The RC's are heretical. They are Arminian; they have as well done the same thing to justification as the FV has.

I stand on what my church organization holds to.......

 

[Scott Bushey]

Originally posted by biblelighthouse

Originally posted by tcalbrecht

So, until such time as the church courts of the respective denominations (specially PCA in the case of Wilkins) make their judgment, isn't it fundamentally unchristian to declare them heretics without trial? After all, until the facts are judged in an objective way, not by slogans or seminary committees without ecclesiastical jurisdiction, there is no opinion that carries any weight. (One John Robbins in this world is enough.)

A heretic is one who teaches heresy. If FV is deemed a heresy by the courts, and these men are found to teach the essentials of FV by the courts, then they are heretics, and can be identified as such publically. Anything else is uncharitable.

Originally posted by tcalbrecht

Originally posted by Scott Bushey

I agree. However, in my case, my denomination (RPCGA) has deemed the teaching heretical.

But doesn't this foster guilt by slogan? You identified something called FV by "heresy". But heresy only exist because someone supposedly proclaims that heresy.

I believe that until such time as a trial can be conducted and men can answer specific charges and an objective court can weigh all the evidence, what your denomination has done is moot. You folks may feel better about it, but it is really of no regard in the larger church. It actually does much to undermine a truly biblical ecumenical spirit among what should be sister denominations.

If these man are not under your jurisdication, the only biblical recourse would be to first appeal to the court(s) of your sister denomination(s) urging them to investigate and, if necessary, bring charges. Only until they act -- either by investigating and convicting/exonerting or failing to act -- only then may you make a pronouncement. Because, frankly, you do not have all the facts. That is obvious. You have not done what the 9th commandment requires.

You are simply acting prematurely and unilaterally as a lone ranger denomination without regard to the larger visible church.

Tom, your assessments are right on target, and are a breath of fresh air!!

Some one cut one.......

 

[biblelighthouse]

Originally posted by Saiph

Originally posted by Dan....

Sounds Romish to me...

Shows a failure to distinguish between justification and sanctification and necessitates justification by infused righteousness.

extra nos = justification
intra nos = sanctification
supra nos = glorification

Good points Dan, but I see the idea of the "righteousness of God" encompassing all three aspects throughout scripture.

I have said before that one can show distinctions without obliterating where justification and sanctification overlap. If we make a total dichotomy between the two then how can sanctification be the result of justification ? And how can we said to be judged by our works ?

Bingo.

Nobody on this board denies double imputation. Our sin is imputed to Christ, and Christ's righteousness is imputed to us. We all certainly agree on justification extra nos, as Mark has pointed out.


But everybody on this board seems to get really nervous about considering whether there are *other* senses in which the Bible uses the word "justification". Is that word *always* used in the same sense? I think not. An obvious example is James 2:24, "You see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only." --- Is James talking about the same extra nos "justification" that we generally talk about in Reformed circles? Certainly not! So, unless we want to follow Luther in tossing James out of our Bibles, then we need to accept the fact that the word "justification" can be used in more than one way.

Is the standard doctrine of "justification by faith alone" true"? Is it true that justification has to do with double imputation, and the extra nos conferring of an alien righteousness? Certainly.

But, in other contexts, can the word "justification" be used to talk about something else? Absolutely. Scripture itself requires it.

 

[ChristopherPaul]

Originally posted by tcalbrecht
So, until such time as the church courts of the respective denominations (specially PCA in the case of Wilkins) make their judgment, isn't it fundamentally unchristian to declare them heretics without trial? After all, until the facts are judged in an objective way, not by slogans or seminary committees without ecclesiastical jurisdiction, there is no opinion that carries any weight. (One John Robbins in this world is enough.)

A heretic is one who teaches heresy. If FV is deemed a heresy by the courts, and these men are found to teach the essentials of FV by the courts, then they are heretics, and can be identified as such publically. Anything else is uncharitable.

Originally posted by tcalbrecht
But doesn't this foster guilt by slogan? You identified something called FV by "heresy". But heresy only exist because someone supposedly proclaims that heresy.

I believe that until such time as a trial can be conducted and men can answer specific charges and an objective court can weigh all the evidence, what your denomination has done is moot. You folks may feel better about it, but it is really of no regard in the larger church. It actually does much to undermine a truly biblical ecumenical spirit among what should be sister denominations.

If these man are not under your jurisdication, the only biblical recourse would be to first appeal to the court(s) of your sister denomination(s) urging them to investigate and, if necessary, bring charges. Only until they act -- either by investigating and convicting/exonerting or failing to act -- only then may you make a pronouncement. Because, frankly, you do not have all the facts. That is obvious. You have not done what the 9th commandment requires.

You are simply acting prematurely and unilaterally as a lone ranger denomination without regard to the larger visible church.

Well said!

 

[Robin]

Originally posted by biblelighthouse
I have a request:
Can anybody point me to an FV opponent who has clearly stated the FV position in such a way that an FV person would agree with it?

If an FV opponent would do that, and an FV proponent would agree with it, then we might actually start to get somewhere in the discussion. Until then, I think the FV accusers are just chopping up straw men, and fighting nonexistent phantasms.

Maybe someday I will getting around to doing something like this. I think I could state some of the FV beliefs in such a way that they would agree with it. It might take a few iterations, and I would want some of them to check it and verify that I'm understanding them correctly, but I think I could do it. Then, I could proceed to point out the areas where I think they are either helpful or in error. I definitely do think they have some error, but not of the heretical sort.

(Just for example, I disagree with Wilkins' use of the word "elect". I don't think he uses the word in the way Scripture uses it. Of course, however, Wilson would agree with me there, so it just goes to show that the FV people are not monolithic.)

Joseph, there was simply too much to reprint for you - here - so I'm providing the link to Rev. Richard Phillips "Convenant Confusion" essay, explaining (in good detail) the complex issues of FV. If one will take the trouble to look at the footnotes, it is obvious that Rev. Phillips has respectfully and soundly handled the references. (no strawmen)
http://www.alliancenet.org/CC/CDA/Content_Blocks/CC_Printer_Friendly_Version_Utility/1

Please consider that unbelief is "schizophrenic" by design. The most deadly and effective enemy of the Gospel is the subtle-counterfeit.

(Those engaging the FV, understand well, the movement is not monolithic.)

Calvin would require the revisionists justify the "authority" with which they revise an entire 1500 years of biblical study (Reformation theology.) Revising the Apostle Paul ought to send up red flags for starters.

FV pours out of the arrogance and ignorance of those puffed-up with their own pharisee-ism. Truly, that's what it comes down to.



Robin

 

[fredtgreco]

Originally posted by tcalbrecht

Originally posted by Scott Bushey

I agree. However, in my case, my denomination (RPCGA) has deemed the teaching heretical.

But doesn't this foster guilt by slogan? You identified something called FV by "heresy". But heresy only exist because someone supposedly proclaims that heresy.

I believe that until such time as a trial can be conducted and men can answer specific charges and an objective court can weigh all the evidence, what your denomination has done is moot. You folks may feel better about it, but it is really of no regard in the larger church. It actually does much to undermine a truly biblical ecumenical spirit among what should be sister denominations.

If these man are not under your jurisdication, the only biblical recourse would be to first appeal to the court(s) of your sister denomination(s) urging them to investigate and, if necessary, bring charges. Only until they act -- either by investigating and convicting/exonerting or failing to act -- only then may you make a pronouncement. Because, frankly, you do not have all the facts. That is obvious. You have not done what the 9th commandment requires.

You are simply acting prematurely and unilaterally as a lone ranger denomination without regard to the larger visible church.

Tom,

To be honest, it is not as if the criticism of the FV is occurring in a vacuum, or by self-appointed judges. Several prominent FV men have been denied transfer by PCA Presbyteries specifically because of their FV views. Obviously, the Presbyteries at issue can do nothing more than deny transfer. Several PCA Presbyteries have Study Committees/Reports that have criticized the FV. Prominent TEs and REs from the PCA, OPC, and other denominations have published and written lengthy criticisms - men who have been roundly respected for decades, such as Doug Kelly, Joey Pipa, Carl Robbins, Calvin Beisner, et al.

To say that nothing can be done before an official ecclesiastical pronouncement is just wrong. It also belies history. Anyone who has read the FV with a background in Presbyterian history sees the clear parallels between the Mercerberg movement and the Tractarians (both of which are lauded ad nauseam by the FV, it is impossible to read some of the websites with getting diabetes from their praise of Schaff and Nevin).

A charitable reading of Leithart and Jordan sees that there are major differences between both their hermeneutics and their conclusions and that of historical Reformed exegesis. One only has to review The Federal Vision itself to see that citations from Leithart, Jordan, Nevin and Schenck comprise about 85% of the supporting footnotes.

So here is a question: how does a Reformed denomination deal with a minister who has aberrant views, is denied transfer to another Presbytery and right afterwards runs to another denomination which does not have ecclesiastical relations with the first, taking a congregation of the Reformed denomination with him? It can't expect the new denomination to enact or respect discipline, since it does not have the same standards - and in fact holds standards that are heretical by the Confesson. So what should be done?

 

[Robin]

Originally posted by tcalbrecht

Originally posted by C. Matthew McMahon
#2. But not burn them, pray for them. God will burn them later if they don't repent.

[Edited on 1-5-2006 by C. Matthew McMahon]

If they are truly heretics, don't we also need to put them out of the church (after due process, of course)?

Tom,

Let's face a real situation.

Benny Hinn IS a heretic -- we'd all agree. That's because he poses as a "Christian" minister and teacher, using the name of Christ whilst misrepresenting the Truth. Can he be excommunicated? Not by traditional standards, of course. But because he uses a public platform to make his claims, we are duty-bound to likewise denounce those claims publically.

In our strange and unique place in church history, there is an attitude of acknowledging "the Church" visible whether it be independants or denoms. Mass-media connects everyone who names the name of Christ. (an unbiblical, sinful mess) From the New Testament on, it was only membership via Biblical confessions. This is precisely why the Modern Reformation movement attempts to retrieve the former confessions -- to uphold what the true Church as been united by for centuries! (We don't need to re-invent the wheel, surprise, surprise.)

Meanwhile, it is OK and appropriate to engage and counter false representations of the Scriptures where-ever they hail from, but especially from those claiming Christ. If the Apostle Paul did, so should we.


Robin

 

[biblelighthouse]

Originally posted by Robin
Joseph, there was simply too much to reprint for you - here - so I'm providing the link to Rev. Richard Phillips "Convenant Confusion" essay, explaining (in good detail) the complex issues of FV. If one will take the trouble to look at the footnotes, it is obvious that Rev. Phillips has respectfully and soundly handled the references. (no strawmen)
http://www.alliancenet.org/CC/CDA/Content_Blocks/CC_Printer_Friendly_Version_Utility/1

Robin,

For some reason that link is not working for me. Please try sending it to me again, and I will be happy to take a look.

 

[fredtgreco]

Originally posted by biblelighthouse

Originally posted by Robin
Joseph, there was simply too much to reprint for you - here - so I'm providing the link to Rev. Richard Phillips "Convenant Confusion" essay, explaining (in good detail) the complex issues of FV. If one will take the trouble to look at the footnotes, it is obvious that Rev. Phillips has respectfully and soundly handled the references. (no strawmen)
http://www.alliancenet.org/CC/CDA/Content_Blocks/CC_Printer_Friendly_Version_Utility/1

Robin,

For some reason that link is not working for me. Please try sending it to me again, and I will be happy to take a look.

A better link:

http://tinyurl.com/4zq2u

A very good article.

 

[NaphtaliPress]

Originally posted by fredtgreco
So here is a question: how does a Reformed denomination deal with a minister who has aberrant views, is denied transfer to another Presbytery and right afterwards runs to another denomination which does not have ecclesiastical relations with the first, taking a congregation of the Reformed denomination with him? It can't expect the new denomination to enact or respect discipline, since it does not have the same standards - and in fact holds standards that are heretical by the Confesson. So what should be done?

More generally what shape is any biblical discipline in generally, or at least attitudes toward it, if one only submits if he knows the court will side with him, or only if it sides with him?

 

[Dan....]

Originally posted by biblelighthouse

Originally posted by Saiph

Originally posted by Dan....

Sounds Romish to me...

Shows a failure to distinguish between justification and sanctification and necessitates justification by infused righteousness.

extra nos = justification
intra nos = sanctification
supra nos = glorification

Good points Dan, but I see the idea of the "righteousness of God" encompassing all three aspects throughout scripture.

I have said before that one can show distinctions without obliterating where justification and sanctification overlap. If we make a total dichotomy between the two then how can sanctification be the result of justification ? And how can we said to be judged by our works ?

Bingo.

Nobody on this board denies double imputation. Our sin is imputed to Christ, and Christ's righteousness is imputed to us. We all certainly agree on justification extra nos, as Mark has pointed out.


But everybody on this board seems to get really nervous about considering whether there are *other* senses in which the Bible uses the word "justification". Is that word *always* used in the same sense? I think not. An obvious example is James 2:24, "You see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only." --- Is James talking about the same extra nos "justification" that we generally talk about in Reformed circles? Certainly not! So, unless we want to follow Luther in tossing James out of our Bibles, then we need to accept the fact that the word "justification" can be used in more than one way.

Is the standard doctrine of "justification by faith alone" true"? Is it true that justification has to do with double imputation, and the extra nos conferring of an alien righteousness? Certainly.

But, in other contexts, can the word "justification" be used to talk about something else? Absolutely. Scripture itself requires it.

Certainly, justification can talk about other things. The question is who is being justified by whom?

In Deut 25:1, the accused person is justified by a judge.
In Romans 5, the sinner is justified by God.
In James 2, the one man is justified by another man (see vs 18).

When it comes to our salvation, it is God who justifies the sinner. We may be justified by other men, as in James 2, but that is not the justification that saves.

As long as we approach the subject by clarifying who is the justifier and who is being justified, then there is no problem.

[Edited on 1-5-2006 by Dan....]

 

[tcalbrecht]

Originally posted by fredtgreco
Tom,

To be honest, it is not as if the criticism of the FV is occurring in a vacuum, or by self-appointed judges. Several prominent FV men have been denied transfer by PCA Presbyteries specifically because of their FV views. Obviously, the Presbyteries at issue can do nothing more than deny transfer. Several PCA Presbyteries have Study Committees/Reports that have criticized the FV. Prominent TEs and REs from the PCA, OPC, and other denominations have published and written lengthy criticisms - men who have been roundly respected for decades, such as Doug Kelly, Joey Pipa, Carl Robbins, Calvin Beisner, et al.

To say that nothing can be done before an official ecclesiastical pronouncement is just wrong. It also belies history. Anyone who has read the FV with a background in Presbyterian history sees the clear parallels between the Mercerberg movement and the Tractarians (both of which are lauded ad nauseam by the FV, it is impossible to read some of the websites with getting diabetes from their praise of Schaff and Nevin).

A charitable reading of Leithart and Jordan sees that there are major differences between both their hermeneutics and their conclusions and that of historical Reformed exegesis. One only has to review The Federal Vision itself to see that citations from Leithart, Jordan, Nevin and Schenck comprise about 85% of the supporting footnotes.

So here is a question: how does a Reformed denomination deal with a minister who has aberrant views, is denied transfer to another Presbytery and right afterwards runs to another denomination which does not have ecclesiastical relations with the first, taking a congregation of the Reformed denomination with him? It can't expect the new denomination to enact or respect discipline, since it does not have the same standards - and in fact holds standards that are heretical by the Confesson. So what should be done?

Fred,

I would continue to assert that in the absence of due process all these study committees, etc amount to nothing, ecclesiastically speaking.

It's too bad there is no mechanism in the PCA for a minister denied transfer to file a complaint against the presbytery in question. At least there should be a way for his home presbytery to take action on his behalf. After all, they too are being found guilty by association with the minister under a cloud.

If there is truly sufficient concern about a man's teaching, and a group of presbyteries felt that another presbytery was harboring heretics, there is a constitutional way of dealing with the situation. Simply denying a transfer is not that way, because it leaves the church open to the potentiality that a minister might just take a congregation and leave. Any congregation can depart the PCA for reasons sufficient to itself. A minister in good standing is then immune for further action.

While I respect many of the men opposed to this FV stuff, I see the same tactics at work that have been used effectively against all other sort of "abberational" views, e.g., theonomy, "old school" presbyterianism, etc. It's the tyranny of the majority at work. (Anyone recall the "PCA Identity Statement" from a few years back?)

I believe it is a matter of fundamental Christian charity to follow due process. If a group is unwilling to take the often very painful and prolonged steps of process, then I would be very hesitant to hear their complaint regardless of where my sympathies lie. Fairness demands it. I think the fact that we receive these report so quickly is the error or our age. We wish for immediate satisfaction. GA study committees take too much time, and even they can be devisive at times. Let's just listen to the "experts." After all it's pretty "clear cut" to everyone that matters.

With all due respect to Joey Pipa, et al, I have no more reason to believe them on the FV thing than I have to believe Augustine on the nature of the eucharist or Luther and Calvin on the matter of the perpetual virginity of Mary. (And I have great respect for Pipa and Calvin.)

Let the church speak.

BTW, let me just affirm that my comments are neither endorsing nor repudiating what is called "Federal Vision". I'm trying to address the matter of how we respond to these issue that come up in the church. Speaking as a theonomist, I know first-hand the pain of shoddy or nonexistent "process". I can't tell you the number of times I've been accused of holding to views that I do not, in fact, hold just because of a label.

"Let's hang 'em first, and then we'll hold the trial after the dust settles."

[Edited on 1-5-2006 by tcalbrecht]

 

[biblelighthouse]

Well said, Tom!!

 

[tcalbrecht]

Originally posted by Robin
Tom,

Let's face a real situation.

Benny Hinn IS a heretic -- we'd all agree. That's because he poses as a "Christian" minister and teacher, using the name of Christ whilst misrepresenting the Truth. Can he be excommunicated? Not by traditional standards, of course. But because he uses a public platform to make his claims, we are duty-bound to likewise denounce those claims publically.

In our strange and unique place in church history, there is an attitude of acknowledging "the Church" visible whether it be independants or denoms. Mass-media connects everyone who names the name of Christ. (an unbiblical, sinful mess) From the New Testament on, it was only membership via Biblical confessions. This is precisely why the Modern Reformation movement attempts to retrieve the former confessions -- to uphold what the true Church as been united by for centuries! (We don't need to re-invent the wheel, surprise, surprise.)

Meanwhile, it is OK and appropriate to engage and counter false representations of the Scriptures where-ever they hail from, but especially from those claiming Christ. If the Apostle Paul did, so should we.


Robin

Robin,

Then why do all these anti-FV guys not spend their time going after the likes of Benny Hinn? It's precisely because they think that they can do something in churches like the PCA and OPC. They have order on their side. But order (process) is not do be used for convenience sake. Justice demands that it be followed with an eye towards the good of the person in question, not evil. That's why we are forced to give them the benefit of the doubt until we can conclusively prove them to be "heretics". A few snippets from a book or speech, or, even worse, attributing the views of one member of a "group" to all the members of that same group, does not a case make.

Speaking of our brother presbyterians, the only way that you and I can say that Joe So-and-so is not confessional in his beliefs is by the church speaking through its elected and ordained leaders.

Regarding the argument about the Apostle Paul, I would be very hesitant to bestow the apostolic office on any one man or group today. We have courts and process. We set them aside and listen to "experts" at our peril. After all, isn't that what got us into the mess? At this point in time it's just one set of opinions against another. Who carries more weight: Wilkins or Pipa? Phillips or Wilson? Line up behind your expert.