# FV in the PCA?



## jwright82 (Jun 27, 2010)

Two things need to be said up front:

1. I love my church and I am am very happy with the leadership.
2. I know next to nothing about how an actual presbyterian denomination actually operates, I know the theory not the practice.

That being said I had a very excellent conversation with a wonderful elder from my church today. I was in the library looking for a particuler book and he offered to help me, we have not really talked too much before so that was nice, find the book I wanted. We got to talking about FV somehow and I made a comment like "Well the PCA already condemed it as heresy in that position paper." He said something like "Well it determines if the individual presbyteries (is that the right spelling?) accept (and/or enforce maybe?) the GA's findings (or rulings I can't remember the exact word he used), after all without that we would viloate what a presbyterian goverment is all about." Something like that I can't remember the exact conversation it was very fast.

Now just for the record he is a very Godly man and no friend of FV, so I just wanted to make that clear, I for one am proud to have him as an elder (even if we have had limited conversations). But my question after all that is how does such a problem as FV work out in the individual presbyteries in relation to the position paper and the like? I am interested in two things here: complimenting my church and her leaders and learning about how a theological controversy like this is handeled in the nitty gritty procedures and such? I know I may not be making much sense but I hope you get the gist of what I'm saying. And Pinewood Presbyterian Church in Middleburg Fl is one of the best Presbyterian churchs I have ever attended, so if you are in town than stop on by and worship with us!


----------



## Scott1 (Jun 27, 2010)

What we call church discipline often plays out for doctrinal error or morals violations. So a teaching elder is accountable for teaching and practicing confessed doctrine of the church, and maintaining a life free from at least public, scandalous sin.

For a teaching elder (e.g. Pastor, Associate Pastor) they are examined for these by their presbytery.

Others, such as ruling elders and deacons are examined by their particular church usually, with presbytery as background authority.

Any session or presbytery can use the points in the PCA Study paper on "federal vision", particularly the 9 declarations http://www.pcahistory.org/pca/07-fvreport.pdf at the end that are designed to be used as a practical way to ferret it out. That's what the 9 declarations are intended to be- a useful tool for sessions and presbyteries to distill out the complex and confusing assertions of serious error from among them.

The first line basis for this with regard to the serious error of "federal vision" theology is against the confessed doctrinal standards set forth in the Westminster Standards, which every officer must receive as a faithful summary of the doctrine of Scripture.

In PCA polity, a study committee does not have absolute binding authority.

It is to be given "due and serious" consideration. Study committee reports that produce no dissent or minority report and that are received by overwhelming majorities by General Assembly (such as the federal vision one), carry more weight. 

Some may disagree, but divided studies (which produce separate majority and minority reports) don't really settle anything, nor add clarity to denomination position. Probably they do the opposite- tend toward disunity and confusion, although they might delay dealing with the underlying issue. They primarily allow two sides to "vent" and explain their positions. 

But such is not the case with Federal Vision study report, nor most reports made by the PCA- which are intended as practical resources to assist sessions and presbyteries in complex or new issues, or new applications to situations.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Jun 27, 2010)

The FV should not be tolerated. Some would think Wesley was a Godly influence. Will he be in heaven? I think he might. Some might say the same thing about Pelagius of the Early Church. I hate being harsh. Doctrine does make a difference. FV is heresy in my opinion. The Federal vision is not biblical. It violates the confessions because it goes against the Holy writ of the Bible. The Confessions are secondary. It violates them also even though they are secondary. Monocovenantalism is unbiblical. So are many other views they hold to.


----------



## jwithnell (Jun 28, 2010)

I recently heard an analysis on the time around 1900 when the future of the mainline Presbyterian church was largely decided. The speaker concluded that the liberals would never have succeeded had the moderates not supported them with a "we are brothers, we need to support one another in love" kind of mentality. In other words, men who would have _doctrinally_ disagreed with the liberals ended up helping them achieve the changes they wanted to move the PCUSA to the left where it disappeared over the horizon.

This sounded an alarm for me, since we are to show charity toward one another in brotherly love -- however the implications for doing so regarding sound doctrine can be extremely damaging to the church. If Federal Vision is permitted to go unchallenged in any corner of the PCA, it will destroy her, despite the loving intentions some may have for tolerating it in a particular church or presbytery.


----------



## Scott1 (Jun 28, 2010)

jwithnell said:


> I recently heard an analysis on the time around 1900 when the future of the mainline Presbyterian church was largely decided. The speaker concluded that the liberals would never have succeeded had the moderates not supported them with a "we are brothers, we need to support one another in love" kind of mentality. In other words, men who would have _doctrinally_ disagreed with the liberals ended up helping them achieve the changes they wanted to move the PCUSA to the left where it disappeared over the horizon.
> 
> This sounded an alarm for me, since we are to show charity toward one another in brotherly love -- however the implications for doing so regarding sound doctrine can be extremely damaging to the church. If Federal Vision is permitted to go unchallenged in any corner of the PCA, it will destroy her, despite the loving intentions some may have for tolerating it in a particular church or presbytery.


 
I think this is generally true, and even in our own lives when we compromise.

It seems that as with this serious error of doctrine, so with those who would openly violate their oath, and their constitution with deacon polity, let alone the underlying doctrine assumptions being made to support the violations.


----------



## greenbaggins (Jun 28, 2010)

James, it sounds like your question has to do with the relationship of Presbytery to GA when it comes to something like the FV. The plain fact of the matter is that GA no longer has the true ability to condemn erroneous opinions with anything that has teeth in it. Yes, there is the GA report. Yes, Presbyteries are supposed to give it due consideration when deliberating on matters within their bounds. That hasn't stopped the Pacific Northwest Presbytery, for instance, from thumbing their nose at the report (I say it like that, because they did it in an extraordinarily arrogant fashion, in my opinion) and exonerating an FV man. Now, to be fair to the GA, there are still two places where church discipline can happen on the national level: Review of Presbytery Records Committee, and the Standing Judicial Commission. The main difference here is between a report (which has no absolute binding status: it only has the "due consideration" weight mentioned above) and the church courts, which is where the battle is now being fought (and the church courts do have the teeth to get rid of FV men). So the battle has now morphed from the idea world to the church court world. And that's where it gets really ugly, let me tell you, because that's where good men get burned for telling the truth.


----------



## tcalbrecht (Jun 28, 2010)

Scott1 said:


> For a teaching elder (e.g. Pastor, Associate Pastor) they are examined for these by their presbytery.
> 
> Others, such as ruling elders (*and including Associate Pastors*) are examined by their particular church usually, with presbytery as background authority.


 
Incorrect. Associate pastors are teaching elders like pastors and members of, and subject to, the presbytery. See BCO 22-2.


----------



## lynnie (Jun 28, 2010)

James, you are young and new to the PCA. So let me offer a word of caution.

You will probably meet many young, zealous, wonderful guys who will tell you to "trust the process". I've had that said to my face and implied a lot in my PCA days. And don't get me wrong, the men who studied scripture and devised the Presbyterian structure tried to emulate as much as possible what seems to be the biblical model for organizing the visible church. It is a great model in many ways. I've seen far more Baptist trouble where local elders are the final rule andf there is no higher court or Presbytery to appeal to. 

That said, do not trust the process. Your only hope is in God who can change men's hearts. The process failed with Machen and it can fail again. I have seen to much reliance on "doing it right" and too little prayer for God to move in a lot of churches. ( my two PCA experiences were with praying pastors, but I've seen the bad too). Set yourself to prayer and asking God to work. The process is a wonderful means of grace, but infallible.


----------



## rbcbob (Jun 28, 2010)

lynnie said:


> James, you are young and new to the PCA. So let me offer a word of caution.
> 
> You will probably meet many young, zealous, wonderful guys who will tell you to "trust the process". I've had that said to my face and implied a lot in my PCA days. And don't get me wrong, the men who studied scripture and devised the Presbyterian structure tried to emulate as much as possible what seems to be the biblical model for organizing the visible church. It is a great model in many ways.* I've seen far more Baptist trouble where local elders are the final rule andf there is no higher court or Presbytery to appeal to*.
> 
> *That said, do not trust the process. Your only hope is in God who can change men's hearts.* The process failed with Machen and it can fail again. I have seen to much reliance on "doing it right" and too little prayer for God to move in a lot of churches. ( my two PCA experiences were with praying pastors, but I've seen the bad too). Set yourself to prayer and asking God to work. The process is a wonderful means of grace, but infallible.



Lynnie,

I understand what you are saying. However, at the end of the day you are precisely where Baptists leave the matter after their elders have made a ruling; in the hands of the Chief Shepherd. Our process is no less dependent on God than the Presbyterian system and, in our opinion, more biblical.


----------



## lynnie (Jun 28, 2010)

Bob, sorry if I appeared to criticize Baptist polity, such was not my intention. I am currently in a church where the final authority is local elders, but I have no problem with the Presbyterian polity either, other than that I think things can take too long sometimes, and "justice delayed is justice denied". 

Just wanted James, as he tries to understand how his denomination works, to avoid the pitfall of "trusting in the process." It is entirely possible the FV could go the way that liberalism did in Machen's day, and the PCA process will not eliminate heresy. I certainly hope it does, and you have a top tier now of influential guys like Sproul, Duncan, Keller, etc. When they pass on, in 25years will it be the same? I don't know. Best to pray a lot for true revival in my opinion.


----------



## Willem van Oranje (Jun 28, 2010)

James, you can find more information on the extent of the FV's reach in the PCA on my friend, Wes White's blog.

P. S., make sure to read this one, too, it's a classic.


----------



## jwright82 (Jun 28, 2010)

Thak you all. So let me get this straight if someone was openly advocating FV in my church, and no one to my knowledge is, the presbytery would have to decide whether or not FV was an exceptable conffessional position, if someone brought charges against him/her?


----------



## TimV (Jun 28, 2010)

Once you're in the church court system it ultimately doesn't matter what the Presbytery says, as long as you're willing to take it all the way. If you are, the Presbytery thumbing their nose ends up getting boxed on the ear.


----------



## Scott1 (Jun 28, 2010)

tcalbrecht said:


> Scott1 said:
> 
> 
> > For a teaching elder (e.g. Pastor, Associate Pastor) they are examined for these by their presbytery.
> ...


 


> Presbyterian Church in America
> Book of Church Order
> 
> CHAPTER 22
> ...



Yes, the Presbytery examines and ordains the Assistant Pastor (as Pastor and Associate Pastor).

Ruling elders and deacons are examined and ordained by their Session, with Presbytery as background authority.

The Session calls the Assistant Pastor, and he is not a member of the Session. He is most directly accountable to the Session.

Pastors and Associate Pastors are called by their congregations, and are members of their Session.


----------



## jwright82 (Jun 28, 2010)

How does the court system work in regard to a theological movement like FV?


----------



## Scott1 (Jun 28, 2010)

jwright82 said:


> How does the court system work in regard to a theological movement like FV?


 
A big question.

You may find helpful studying the PCA Book of Church Order on-line http://www.pcaac.org/2009 Reprint for web rev 8-24-09.pdf. It is a magnificent work with time-tested presbyterian principles, and even reflects some doctrine.

Here is one study guide for our "BCO": http://www.cepbookstore.com/p-4432-book-of-church-order-outline.aspx

Basically, "courts" are Session, Presbytery, General Assembly, in that order of ascendancy. Complaints often, but not always, get filed at the Session level and work their way up.

If serious error like "federal vision" theology is being promoted, it could work its way through those levels. The judicial arm of the General Assembly (Standing Judicial Commission (SJC) and Committee for the Review of Presbytery Records, and in rare occasions, the General Assembly itself, are the primary accountability mechanisms at the highest level).


----------



## jwithnell (Jun 29, 2010)

The _system_ is good in Presbyterianism but we still need to pray earnestly for the men who work within the system. As I pray with my children at lunchtime, I'm making a point to pray for the church as an institution, locally (a majority of the time), but also for our denomination, for reformed brethren, and other churches who profess a Biblical faith.


----------



## BJClark (Jun 29, 2010)

jwright82;



> Thak you all. So let me get this straight if someone was openly advocating FV in my church, and no one to my knowledge is, the presbytery would have to decide whether or not FV was an exceptable confessional position, if someone brought charges against him/her?



I think if there were an issue w/ the FV in our church, the session would deal rightly with them..

I have talked w/ a few of the elders re: this topic, and I know at least one of them has discussed it in the small group setting..

I know if you asked either John or JD, they would certainly sit down w/ you and discuss this at length on how the church would handle it inside the body itself. If you'd like I can suggest a few of the elders you could meet w/ to discuss it in more depth..


----------



## jwright82 (Jun 29, 2010)

BJClark said:


> jwright82;
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
No I know that no one in our church thinks this. I was trying to understand how the proccess worked and was using our church in a hypothetical way thats all. I talked to an elder breifly about it and that is what sparked this thread. I'm curious with how the proccess works, since I don't know it that well. I do not believe that anyone in our church beleives this way.

---------- Post added at 01:39 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:35 PM ----------

Would it be possible for a whole presbytery to become FVer's and not discipline anyone who beleived and taught it? How could the GA handle such a situation?


----------



## tcalbrecht (Jun 29, 2010)

Scott1 said:


> Yes, the Presbytery examines and ordains the Assistant Pastor (as Pastor and Associate Pastor).
> 
> Ruling elders and deacons are examined and ordained by their Session, with Presbytery as background authority.
> 
> ...


 

Correct. WRT Presbytery there is no difference between the various flavors of pastor. In each case the examination and ordination is conducted by the Presbytery. In the congregation, the assistant pastor is called by the Session yet is not a member of the Session. His oversight responsibility toward the congregation is obviously limited by that fact.


----------



## Scott1 (Jun 29, 2010)

tcalbrecht said:


> Scott1 said:
> 
> 
> > Yes, the Presbytery examines and ordains the Assistant Pastor (as Pastor and Associate Pastor).
> ...


 
Such are the intricacies of PCA polity!


----------



## BJClark (Jun 29, 2010)

Would it be possible? It certainly is IF that is what the pastor teaches and the church body doesn't know any different...

Have you been to the New Members Class at the church? If not, I'd recommend it, as they cover how these things work (at least I know Rod did before he retired) but I'm sure they still cover these things..it's also a good place to ask questions like this and how it would be handled..


----------



## jwright82 (Jun 29, 2010)

BJClark said:


> Would it be possible? It certainly is IF that is what the pastor teaches and the church body doesn't know any different...
> 
> Have you been to the New Members Class at the church? If not, I'd recommend it, as they cover how these things work (at least I know Rod did before he retired) but I'm sure they still cover these things..it's also a good place to ask questions like this and how it would be handled..



Yes I have it was J. D. who went through it with us. Unfortuanantly I was unable to attend every class but I talked with him and John and they let me join.


----------



## bill (Jul 1, 2010)

I know of a church who had a assistant pastor who believed in FV. He went before the presbytery like he should have. The presbytery said it was o.k. for him to have those convictions, but was not to teach the FV doctrines in the church. My opinion is that this was a big mistake. Much of his teaching though not directly teaching FV came very close. He is not with the PCA any more because he wanted to start a church, and guess what was one of his biggest reasons for starting his own church, the practice of FV. When he left this church he took a good following with him.


----------

