# Wilkins' Letter to Louisiana Presbytery Re: "9 Declarations"



## Semper Fidelis (Jul 8, 2007)

Steve Wilkins' Letter to Louisiana Presbytery Regarding the “9 Declarations" of PCA General Assembly’s Ad-Interim Committee’s Report on the Federal Vision/New Perspective”:

http://www.auburnavenue.org/documents/Wilkins9DeclarationsResponse.pdf

This about sums it up:


> 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.


It's the old "We agree with the WCF but Scripture uses these terms more broadly".

How does he come to this conclusion?


> 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.



He then admits:


> 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 "charitable judgment" to all the members of the church (i.e., rather than saying what is 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.


Except, Pastor Wilkins, these other two ways would not merely "...also be Confessional...." This assumes that Pastor Wilkin's first reading is Confessional. *It is not.*


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Jul 8, 2007)

One of the men on the PCA study committee observes in general to the FV answers so far to the nine declarations (see the rest here):
All the Federal Vision mens’ answers to the declarations so far display a clear, parallel theology to the Standards. Alternate definitions of terms and alternate extra-Confessional understandings of key Scriptural passages stand out in every set of Federal Vision answers so far. They caveat virtually every answer with that alternative theology. The myth that the orthodox Reformed community misunderstands Federal Vision sinks before these answers like a lead-cargo-carrying freighter broken in two on an iceberg. Blub, blub.​


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Jul 8, 2007)

NaphtaliPress said:


> One of the men on the PCA study committee observes in general to the FV answers so far to the nine declarations (see the rest here):
> All the Federal Vision mens’ answers to the declarations so far display a clear, parallel theology to the Standards. Alternate definitions of terms and alternate extra-Confessional understandings of key Scriptural passages stand out in every set of Federal Vision answers so far. They caveat virtually every answer with that alternative theology. The myth that the orthodox Reformed community misunderstands Federal Vision sinks before these answers like a lead-cargo-carrying freighter broken in two on an iceberg. Blub, blub.​



Well put!

I remember taking over a new job in 1996 right out of Grad School and I thought that this one contractor was really smart because she could throw around terms that I hadn't yet figured out because I had never worked around networks much. After about 6 months I realized she was a shell. She could impress all the non-technical leaders but I saw through the depth of her knowledge and realized she wasn't much of an asset and was happy when her contract was not renewed (though my boss was not).

The more I encounter some of these "theologians", the more I realize they are the pseudo-profound. How many times do I have to read: "Of course I believe the Confession on _this_ benefit. That belongs to the Elect alone." Then I hear the easily placated say: "Why, what's the big deal, he just fully affirmed the Confession."

...but then most seem to miss the "...but I'm talking about another kind of Union with Christ that the Scriptures talk about that the Confessions completely ignore...."

To quote Mubatu from _Zoolander_: I FEEL LIKE I'M TAKING CRAZY PILLS!


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Jul 8, 2007)

Incidentally, this begs a huge question that I posed in this open letter a while back:

http://www.solideogloria.com/article/2007/01/06/00.36.55

It seems Pastor Wilkins now wants to admit that there might be another way to view these things and he is just ambiguously defining this as "another" way of looking at this but "...Golly gee, I'm not trying to be dogmatic here...I'm just saying you could ambiguously view this in another way...."

Yeah.

That's what all this turmoil is about: just to be able to hold that there might be another way to look at the way Paul addresses the Churches! That's the reason for the Schism. Of course such an ambiguous, debatable thing is worth all of this. That's the reason we need a CREC! That's the reason why "Reformed is not Enough" - we need alternative definitions.

Do I need to quote Mubatu again?


----------



## Timothy William (Jul 8, 2007)

That's all there is to it? All these years I've been avoiding those long, complex FV threads for nothing then.


----------



## lwadkins (Jul 8, 2007)

It would seem that it has become trendy to pen superficially erudite papers and treatise that are but empty shells, when seriously and carefully considered. This trend is not only popular in theological academic circles but is surfacing time and time again in secular academic circles around our country. The language is chosen, it would seem, to be nebulous and indistinct and apparently support the conclusion that was its purpose. 

These thoughts, however, are crafted specifically to influence those who do not seriously and carefully consider the actual content thereof, but find the conclusion appealing.. Terms are redefined so that meaningful intercourse on the subject is, as a practical matter, impossible. Persons influenced become followers; any criticism becomes persecution, reveled in to produce further credibility/following. Seemingly it is now acceptable to begin with a conclusion then mine and misrepresent the facts to prove said conclusion.

The damage that is dealt to our academe is such that we find a growing anti-intellectual backlash growing into a search for “spirituality”. The “spirituality” that is pursued must sate the desire for a sense of peace, security, and happiness. It is the Truth, and submission to the Truth that bring us peace, joy, and hope. Instead most search for the sense of peace, security and happiness and call it “truth”.

Those looking to Christianity in order to find “truth” encounter a landscape littered with dozens of “truths” defended by hundreds of eloquent champions of the “real truth”. A landscape littered with invective, lack of charity, unloving attitudes and at times outright hate. A landscape littered with orthodoxy and heterodoxy, God’s church and cults.

Thank God that it is His Word that convinces and converts a pagan.

That it is God that accomplishes effectually His purpose in salvation does not excuse refusal to submit to the Truth He has made clear to us, as well it does not excuse us for propping up “truths” that are not His Truth.

Most especially it does not excuse us from contending for the Truth we cannot withdraw from the field and allow the forces of untruth to take it uncontested. To those of you who battle for the Truth, and are unafraid to recognize and submit to the Truth, I thank God for you, and pray that He gives you strength to resist the onslaught directed toward. To those who have yet to take the field I pray that God will give you the strength to join the fray!

The Federal Vision is not the only pernicious error that threatens, and it is a continual war, of which many battles have been fought over the centuries, now it is our turn to take the field.

Brothers make sure you contend for the Truth that has been delivered to us, and may God grant you courage to accept that Truth without the sinful modifications we can be deceived into accepting or generating.


Jude 3-16

Beloved, although I was very eager to write to you about our common salvation, I found it necessary to write appealing to you to contend for the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints. 4 For certain people have crept in unnoticed who long ago were designated for this condemnation, ungodly people, who pervert the grace of our God into sensuality and deny our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ. 

5 Now I want to remind you, although you once fully knew it, that Jesus, who saved a people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed those who did not believe. 6 And the angels who did not stay within their own position of authority, but left their proper dwelling, he has kept in eternal chains under gloomy darkness until the judgment of the great day — 7 just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding cities, which likewise indulged in sexual immorality and pursued unnatural desire, serve as an example by undergoing a punishment of eternal fire. 

8 Yet in like manner these people also, relying on their dreams, defile the flesh, reject authority, and blaspheme the glorious ones. 9 But when the archangel Michael, contending with the devil, was disputing about the body of Moses, he did not presume to pronounce a blasphemous judgment, but said, "The Lord rebuke you." 10 But these people blaspheme all that they do not understand, and they are destroyed by all that they, like unreasoning animals, understand instinctively. 11 Woe to them! For they walked in the way of Cain and abandoned themselves for the sake of gain to Balaam's error and perished in Korah's rebellion. 12 These are blemishes on your love feasts, as they feast with you without fear, looking after themselves; waterless clouds, swept along by winds; fruitless trees in late autumn, twice dead, uprooted; 13 wild waves of the sea, casting up the foam of their own shame; wandering stars, for whom the gloom of utter darkness has been reserved forever. 

14 It was also about these that Enoch, the seventh from Adam, prophesied, saying, "Behold, the Lord came with ten thousands of his holy ones, 15 to execute judgment on all and to convict all the ungodly of all their deeds of ungodliness that they have committed in such an ungodly way, and of all the harsh things that ungodly sinners have spoken against him." 16 These are grumblers, malcontents, following their own sinful desires; they are loud-mouthed boasters, showing favoritism to gain advantage. 
ESV


----------



## raderag (Jul 11, 2007)

lwadkins said:


> It would seem that it has become trendy to pen superficially erudite papers and treatise that are but empty shells, when seriously and carefully considered. This trend is not only popular in theological academic circles but is surfacing time and time again in secular academic circles around our country. The language is chosen, it would seem, to be nebulous and indistinct and apparently support the conclusion that was its purpose.
> 
> These thoughts, however, are crafted specifically to influence those who do not seriously and carefully consider the actual content thereof, but find the conclusion appealing.. Terms are redefined so that meaningful intercourse on the subject is, as a practical matter, impossible. Persons influenced become followers; any criticism becomes persecution, reveled in to produce further credibility/following. Seemingly it is now acceptable to begin with a conclusion then mine and misrepresent the facts to prove said conclusion.
> 
> ...



You really hit the nail on the head there.


----------

