# Leithart Redux in the Siouxlands' Presbytery



## Archlute

Presbytery of the Siouxlands Exonerates Member Suspected of Federal Vision Teaching, Complaint to SJC Contemplated

An interesting read from the Aquila Report. TE Joshua Moon uses some of the same argumentation as did Rob Rayburn during the hearing on Leithart, namely, employing the fear tactic of having our denomination run by "narrow confessionalists", thus making us ineffective and unattractive to outsiders.

And where did these guys complete their historical theology studies to continue claiming that Calvin, Ursinus, et al would have agreed with them in their FV reconstructions? Those claims are really quite amazing for the most part, and lead me to believe that some uncited and unsupported assertions are being thrown out there, and are being left unchallenged by the intimidated REs who don't have either the time or the care to research them. The opportunities that I have had to read the rare citation from FV supporters claiming to show where Calvin or others taught like unto their views made it quickly apparent that they were not talking about the same matter.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Christusregnat

Archlute said:


> The fear tactic of having our denomination run by "narrow confessionalists", thus making us ineffective and unattractive to outsiders being key.



The only thing worse than *that *would be to have those narrow minded members of the Westminster Assembly of Divines run our denomination. 

Cheers,


----------



## kevin.carroll

I spoke with Wes White last night. He brought the original case before the SJC (we talked about it at GA this year too). Keep him in your prayers. He is expecting a slug fest.


----------



## Edward




----------



## lynnie

_In attributing to all the baptized some form of union, adoption, new life, and forgiveness, TE Lawrence is speaking the language of our tradition and of our Scriptures. By refusing to attribute absolute and final union, adoption, new life, and forgiveness, TE Lawrence is directly in line with our standards._


So, this is like a girl who has some form of pregnancy with some new life and some union with a fetus, but not exactly, she does not have an absolute and final baby in the womb? Just some form of a baby?

Or do they call it half way regenerated maybe?

_Advocates of the committee recommendation were concerned about TE Lawrence’s statements that we are united to Christ and get new life in the water rite of baptism. They also argued that his teaching that in baptism even the non-elect in some sense receive new life, forgiveness of sins, adoption, and union with Christ was contrary to the Standards affirmation that such benefits only accrue to the elect. They believed that he was creating “a parallel soteriological system,” citing the General Assembly’s Federal Vision Report.

TE Joshua Moon, Pastor of Good Shepherd PCA in Minnetonka, Minn., a dissenting member of the committee, then arose and moved as a substitute motion that the work of the committee’s report and recommendations not be adopted. His motion passed 24-13._


24 to 13???????????????????

I am in the second PCA church of my life, and my church is solid. But I have lost all my rosy illusions about the PCA being a safe and secure place for good doctrine any more. I don't mind endless debates about things- like the Frame essay on Machen's Warrior Children- and all the many subjects that the Reformed argue about. It makes me think and study and revaluate and try to press into examining what the bible seems to be saying. But this horsepuckey is just too much, it is over the top. Union with Christ to the non regenerate? I don't agree with Arminians and dispensationalists but I understand their reasoning. I don't even undrestand the reasoning behind this. In my own PCA no less. Heartbreaking.


----------



## kevin.carroll

It is heartbreaking, Linnie.


----------



## Scott1

> Presbyterian Church in America
> Study Committee Report
> 2007
> 
> 
> IV. Declarations
> 
> In light of the controversy surrounding the NPP and FV, and after many months of careful study, the committee unanimously makes the following declarations:
> 
> 1. The view that rejects the bi-covenantal structure of Scripture as represented in the Westminster Standards (i.e., views which do not merely take issue with the terminology, but the essence of the first/second covenant framework) is contrary to those Standards.
> 
> 2. The view that an individual is “elect” by virtue of his membership in the visible church; and that this “election” includes justification, adoption and sanctification; but that this individual could lose his “election” if he forsakes the visible church, is contrary to the Westminster Standards.
> 
> 3. The view that Christ does not stand as a representative head whose perfect obedience and satisfaction is imputed to individuals who believe in him is contrary to the Westminster Standards.
> 
> 4. The view that strikes the language of “merit” from our theological vocabulary so that the claim is made that Christ’s merits are not imputed to his people is contrary to the Westminster Standards.
> 
> 5. The view that “union with Christ” renders imputation redundant because it subsumes all of Christ’s benefits (including justification) under this doctrinal heading is contrary to the Westminster Standards.
> 
> 6. The view that water baptism effects a “covenantal union” with Christ through which each baptized person receives the saving benefits of Christ’s mediation, including regeneration, justification, and sanctification, thus creating a parallel soteriological system to the decretal system of the Westminster Standards, is contrary to the Westminster Standards.
> 
> 7. The view that one can be “united to Christ” and not receive all the benefits of Christ’s mediation, including perseverance, in that effectual union is contrary to the Westminster Standards.
> 
> 8. The view that some can receive saving benefits of Christ’s mediation, such as regeneration and justification, and yet not persevere in those benefits is contrary to the Westminster Standards.
> 
> 9. The view that justification is in any way based on our works, or that the so-called “final verdict of justification” is based on anything other than the perfect obedience and satisfaction of Christ received through faith alone, is contrary to the Westminster Standards.


.


----------



## louis_jp

So..... are they not enforcing their own declarations?


----------



## Scott1

louis_jp said:


> So..... are they not enforcing their own declarations?



As I understand this, it's not quite that simple.

In the denomination, study committees are to be given "due and serious consideration" and are used for reference authority in church court proceedings (A "court" can be a local session, presbytery, or general assembly).

They are not absolutely binding and are not intended to be. The Westminster Standards and the Book of Church Order are binding.

But a study committee is more the representation of the opinion of a General Assembly at a given time.

It seems they can be useful in complex issues or for new applications to old issues as a source of guidance. When they are unanimous, as this one was, they are more useful for referential value, because there is not a minority report to also draw from for the opposition.

What we have, in our polity, is a highly divided vote of presbytery that likely will be appealed the Standing Judicial Commission based on enforcement of the Church constitution (Westminster Standards, Book of Church Order). The constitution is binding through the vows officers take, but study committee reports, in and of themselves, are not.


----------



## lynnie

I don't get it. (I may be in the PCA but the polity seems complicated).

White complains to the GA, they set up a comittee. Majority comittee vote finds this unacceptable. Presbytery thumbs their nose at majority vote. 

So what now, back to the GA and another committee? What was the point of the first one if the majority ruling holds no weight? 

Can the GA just get together and kick them out or what? The GA already wrote that unanimous FV paper and and said this position was wrong. So why are these teachers still in the PCA? I just don't get it.


----------



## Romans922

lynnie said:


> I don't get it. (I may be in the PCA but the polity seems complicated).
> 
> White complains to the GA, they set up a comittee. Majority comittee vote finds this unacceptable. Presbytery thumbs their nose at majority vote.
> 
> So what now, back to the GA and another committee? What was the point of the first one if the majority ruling holds no weight?
> 
> Can the GA just get together and kick them out or what? The GA already wrote that unanimous FV paper and and said this position was wrong. So why are these teachers still in the PCA? I just don't get it.



White complained to GA, because the Presbytery wouldn't look into the matter, so GA said to look into the matter. The committee was formed to look into the matter. The committee is typically the representative view of the whole presbytery, but not in this case. The presbytery voted against the committees decision, which they are able to do, although perhaps unwise in some situations, like this. 

Now what can be done is someone (which has already taken place) in the presbytery can lodge a complaint about the action to the Presbytery. So basically it is a plea for the Presbytery to reconsider their action. If the Presbytery votes the other way this time, in favor of the committee, then the minister is brought up on charges and church discipline occurs. He either changes his view or he is defrocked. But if the presbytery continues in their view (against the committee). Then after that decision, someone within the presbytery is able to lodge a complaint against the presbytery to GA. At that time GA (SJC) would handle the case. Then it would be similar to what happened with Steve Wilkins.


----------



## Scott1

Trying to read this respectfully and charitably, and without at all knowing the particulars here,



lynnie said:


> I don't get it. (I may be in the PCA but the polity seems complicated).
> 
> White complains to the GA, they set up a comittee. Majority comittee vote finds this unacceptable. Presbytery thumbs their nose at majority vote.
> The committee reports to presbytery which, after hearing defense is probably inclined to give a teaching elder in their midst the benefit of the doubt but on a very divided vote- the majority votes not to receive the committee report.
> 
> So what now, back to the GA and another committee? What was the point of the first one if the majority ruling holds no weight?
> Don't think so. A complaint can be filed based on violation of the PCA constitution (Westminster Standards and Book of Church Order) to the Standing Judicial Committee, which has authority of General Assembly. The SJC looks at this from the standpoint of the constitution, without respect of persons, and without regard for majority or minority vote.
> 
> Can the GA just get together and kick them out or what? The GA already wrote that unanimous FV paper and and said this position was wrong. So why are these teachers still in the PCA? I just don't get it.



In the Louisiana Presbytery case, the process worked to good ends and an entire presbytery repented, was purged of this serious error teaching, and is restored to good standing.


----------



## MW

lynnie said:


> Union with Christ to the non regenerate? I don't agree with Arminians and dispensationalists but I understand their reasoning. I don't even undrestand the reasoning behind this. In my own PCA no less. Heartbreaking.



There is a faulty reasoning behind it, as in the case of Arminians and dispensationalists. It is trying to do justice to the biblical concept of the temporary believer as participant of the benefits of Christ. It fails to do justice to this concept where it refuses to acknowledge the difference between eternal and temporal election, the invisible and visible church, internal and external union with Christ, and saving and historical faith.

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## lynnie

Thanks so much guys for the explanations of how it all works. 

It makes me think a lot about the deaconess thing. I have two friends in two different PCA churches (not mine) and they are very warm, gentle women who are functionally doing only works of helpful service in a non authoritarian capacity. And when the whole thing started up with the metro Presbyterian protest I was sympathetic to the Keller/Ryken position churches. Even though I don't believe biblically in women deacons, I wasn't sure it was worth arguing over. 

But when you start allowing exceptions and variations here and there in areas some deem nonessential, I guess people start to feel free to allow variations in what we'd call essential, like FV quasi baptismal regeneration. Maybe the slippery slope starts with things like deaconesses? I don't know. 

I guess I just can't wrap my head around the idea that this FV stuff is really going on in my supposedly solid denomination. Maybe I am delusionally naive despite all the church history I've read. It hurts to watch.

Thanks again for the posts.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## TimV

> But when you start allowing exceptions and variations here and there in areas some deem nonessential, I guess people start to feel free to allow variations in what we'd call essential, like FV quasi baptismal regeneration. Maybe the slippery slope starts with things like deaconesses? I don't know.



When you leave the barn door open, getting the animals back inside takes lots of really difficult and time consuming work, and you may never get them all back in in any event.

I don't think it deaconesses, I think it non-ordained deacons. At Trinity Presbyterian PCA in San Luis CA, the issue wasn't deaconesses, but baptist and arminian male deacons. From their position statement, which you can read here:

http://www.trinityslo.org/abouttrinity.html



> Deacons at Trinity may hold their credentials as either ordained or unordained. In keeping with the ordination requirements of the PCA, ordained deacons must be in substantial conformity with the Westminster Standards, must be men, and are elected by the congregation and ordained as per BCO 24. Unordained deacons are appointed by the Session (as per the process in BCO 9-7). Those who pursue the unordained deaconate may take broader exceptions to the Westminster Standards, or may prefer for other reasons not to pursue ordination. Unordained deacons may be men or women



The BCO says deacons must be ordained. By thumbing their noses at the PCA Constitution on this issue, they go on notice that they can do anything they please.


----------



## Scott1

lynnie said:


> Thanks so much guys for the explanations of how it all works.
> 
> It makes me think a lot about the deaconess thing. I have two friends in two different PCA churches (not mine) and they are very warm, gentle women who are functionally doing only works of helpful service in a non authoritarian capacity. And when the whole thing started up with the metro Presbyterian protest I was sympathetic to the Keller/Ryken position churches. Even though I don't believe biblically in women deacons, I wasn't sure it was worth arguing over.
> 
> But when you start allowing exceptions and variations here and there in areas some deem nonessential, I guess people start to feel free to allow variations in what we'd call essential, like FV quasi baptismal regeneration. Maybe the slippery slope starts with things like deaconesses? I don't know.
> 
> I guess I just can't wrap my head around the idea that this FV stuff is really going on in my supposedly solid denomination. Maybe I am delusionally naive despite all the church history I've read. It hurts to watch.
> 
> Thanks again for the posts.



You're picking up on something very important here, Lynnie.

Creating an office "deaconess" and investing it with governing power is a constitutional violation in the PCA. Perpetuating an office not chartered in the constitution, altering vows in the constitution to suit it, altering its terms of office, and ordination ceremonies is a violation of the vows officers have taken to uphold their constitution.

We don't have study committees to resolve constitutional violations. That would be like someone caught in a robbery when confronted, demanding a study and survey of the issue and opinions of "property rights" (while they continue the robbery).

It's taken a while for that to become clear, but now it is. The constitution is the binding rule, it can be changed by amendment, but not violating the vows taken to uphold it.

With "federal vision" there is very well written, usable guideline in place and it has worked with some effect.

...And don't get tired of it- this is only one of many ways God brings things that need to be dealt with to our attention- and for His Honor and His Glory.


----------



## Sven

Folks, I was at the meeting of the Souixlands presbytery. I want to say that I was disappointed by the Presbytery's decision. However, I am a very disappointed by TE Carpenter's publishing this on the Aquila Report. TE Carpenter is publishing unapproved minutes of the SP; a thing that has been frowned upon in the past in our presbytery. TE Keister can verify this from his own experience. As you discuss this here, keep in mind that what you are reading on the Aquila Report is unapproved minutes. Keep the conversation charitable and free from gossip until the facts are all straight.


----------



## Sven

I want to offer a bit of a retraction of my above statement. After some consideration and a three hour long conversation with one who was involved in this article being posted, I have come to the conclusion that it was written in good order and that it was necessary in the struggle against the FV in the Souixlands Presbytery. I also want to say that though unapproved minutes were quoted, yet presbytery meetings are public and anyone who would have wanted to be there would have heard all that was stated by those quoted. I don't think TE Carpenter was writing anything other than what a reporter could have written about if one was there.

I still maintain, though, that we should discuss this charitably, and free from gossip.


----------



## DMcFadden

> Deacons at Trinity may hold their credentials as either ordained or unordained. In keeping with the ordination requirements of the PCA, ordained deacons must be in substantial conformity with the Westminster Standards, must be men, and are elected by the congregation and ordained as per BCO 24. Unordained deacons are appointed by the Session (as per the process in BCO 9-7). Those who pursue the unordained deaconate may take broader exceptions to the Westminster Standards, or may prefer for other reasons not to pursue ordination. Unordained deacons may be men or women



Presbyterian brethren, please help an old Baptist.

Why would your polity allow those not holding to the Westminster standards to hold office??? Won't that simply lead to a theological down-grade within your fellowship??? I have toyed with the idea of attending a PCA congregation during retirement (Reformed Baptists are pretty hard to find!). But, I cannot imagine a group with integrity accepting someone like me as an officer unless my view changes on paedo-baptism. Regular attender, tither, participatant in communion, etc. . . . sure. Official office holder? No way!


----------



## Scott1

> Quote:
> Deacons at Trinity may *hold their credentials as either ordained or unordained*. In *keeping with the ordination requirements of the PCA*, ordained deacons must be in *substantial conformity with the Westminster Standards,* must be men, and are elected by the congregation and ordained as per BCO 24. *Unordained deacons *are *appointed by the Session* (as per the process in BCO 9-7). Those who pursue the *unordained deaconate may take broader exceptions* to the Westminster Standards, *or may prefer* for other reasons *not to pursue ordination*. *Unordained deacons* *may be men or women *



All I can say, Dennis, is after seeing this for the first time is that this appears to be unconstitutional in several ways for the PCA. I'm quite confident this would be an automatic complaint filed in the vast majority of sessions or presbyteries if this popped up.

Without going into detail, I have bolded likely violations of the PCA constitution (Westminster Standards, subject to Scripture and the Book of Church Order).

If a particular church government (session and diaconate) is publicly misrepresenting presbyterian policy, doctrine of ordination, the Book of Chruch Order in this way, it is grounds for church discipline, up to and including deposition from office and ex-communication.


----------



## bouletheou

*Ad Fontes*

Hi Guys,

I'm TE Carpenter, the one who wrote the article. 

First off, Steve, I appreciate your retraction, but I still disagree on one point. Unapproved minutes were not partially quoted. There are no unapproved minutes in my possession or anyone else's except the Stated Clerk. I cannot circulate that which I do not possess. The Siouxlands policy concerning unapproved minutes is not a necessary one, in my opinion, but I would honor it. However, to take this policy to the extreme which some presbyters seem to take it is absurd. Allow me to do a reductio ad absurdam to show how absurd it is.

The unapproved minutes, when they are received by in January, will contain the words "Siouxlands Presbytery" "September" and "TE Carpenter." Therefore, if I publish anything in writing with those words, I am guilty of circulating a portion of unapproved minutes.

It is more accurate to say that there is an overlap between the information contained in the unapproved minutes and other public information which is and ought to be freely available. The fact that the information is in the minutes does not trump anyone's right to circulate and discuss said information. 

Now, for my Baptist friend and those who wonder why these things have not been dealt with with greater speed. The wheels of presbyterianism grind slowly. A man's future is at stake here and we do not want to make any errors. The process works and we are utilizing the process. It has been slower than it could be due to the resistence of some presbyters, but it is proceeding apace. Truth will come out and good decisions will be made in the end. Until then we work and pray. To paraphrase Winston Churchill, the Siouxlands Presbytery will always do the right thing.... after it has exhausted all the other possibilities.


----------



## NaphtaliPress

Welcome to the PB Steve [sic, Brian; sorry; but that's what signatures are for] and thanks for posting. On a house keeping note, please fix your signature per the board policy. 
The PuritanBoard - Signature/Profile Reqts


----------



## TimV

Not to derail the thread, but as a relevant cautionary tale about how far things can go, from the same Position Statement



> At Trinity, a woman may serve the church in any way that a male layman may (see above). In the New Testament, the prime determiner of roles in church life is not gender but ordination. While the office of elder is only open to men (1 Tim. 2-3), women may use their teaching and leadership gifts in the church, under the authority of the Session


. 

Trinity regularly has non ordained men lead the Sunday service, and while to my knowledge a woman hasn't done so yet, it's obvious those who drafted the Statement were setting the ground work for it.


----------



## lynnie

Welcome, TE C, and thanks for the clarification.


----------



## Ivan

armourbearer said:


> It is trying to do justice to the biblical concept of the *temporary believer* as participant of the benefits of Christ.



Sorry, I'm confused. What is a temporary believer?


----------



## fredtgreco

I don't want to comment on the substance of the thread, since it is possible that I will be called upon to hear this case at SJC.

But I would also say that the report was published in the Aquila Report, and there are maybe a half-dozen men in the PCA equal to Dominic Aquila in understanding our Constitution. So I don't think this presents any problem.


----------



## bouletheou

Ivan,

The Reformed have always agreed that a person might be the subject of certain operations of the Spirit without having ever been regenerated. Baalam, King Saul, and those who will come to Christ on the Last Day and claim to have taught and even done miracles in His name, but to whom He will say, "Depart from me, I never knew you" can be said to have experienced the non-saving operations of the Holy Spirit, or "temporary faith."

Let me quote from AW Pink's commentary on Hebrews, p336 from the chapter on "Christian Perseverance"

"We dare not stop at the point reached at the close of the preceeding paragraph. Backsliding is dangerous, so dangerous that if it be persisted in, it is certain to prove fatal. If I continue to neglect the Divine means of grace for spiritual strength and support, if I go back again into the world and find my delight in its pleasures and concerns, and if I am not recovered from this sad state then that will demonstrate that I was only the subject of the Holy Spirit's _inferior_ operations, that I was not really regenerated by Him. The difference between the thorny-ground and the good-ground hearers is, that one brings forth no fruit "to perfection" (Luke 8:14) whereas the other brings forth fruit "with patience" or perseverance. (Luke 8:15) It is _continuance_ in Christ's word which proves us His disciples indeed (John 8:31) It is _continuing_ in the faith, grounded and settled and being "not moved away from the hope of the Gospel" (Col 1:23) which demonstrates the reality of our profession." (emphasis in original)

Hope that clarifies things a bit.

Kindest Regards,


----------



## Ivan

I understand the reasoning, but it sounds odd to me.


----------



## bouletheou

*One more thought*

Somebody remarked above that TE Moon's argumentation sounded a lot like Robert Rayburn's argumentation. I suspect that is not accidental. Guess who TE Moon's father-in-law is?

BTW, I'm not being a scofflaw. My signature worked once and then quit working. I see it in the preview changes mode, but it's not showing up when I publish.

Perhaps my signature function possesses only temporary faith. It is not appearing at the end when it counts.

TE Brian Carpenter
pastor, Foothills PCA
Sturgis, SD


----------



## Scott1

> *bouletheou*
> Perhaps my signature function possesses only temporary faith. It is not appearing at the end when it counts.



I think it was united with the text and had all the benefits and accouterments thereof. The text was at that time justified.

But in the full and final verdict of justification, the union with the text proved only temporary, and the text was not justified... but perhaps, however, that is only a quibble.


----------



## bouletheou

*Textus Unreceptus*

Perhaps if we could add another toolbar element out of Microsoft Word, we could force-justify the text and drag it kicking and screaming into a state of justification, making all the Arminian typists who observe us say "See, I told you that was what they believed!"

Though it still would not solve our issue here as to whether or not the sort of justification my signature is receiving is the sort that endures to the end, and how we might tell the difference between the decreetally elect justification and the non-decreetally elect justification. I do know that we ought not ask the text to do any internal examination or speculation, but rather tell it to look wholly to Bill Gates.


----------



## MW

Ivan said:


> I understand the reasoning, but it sounds odd to me.



Ivan, consider a text like 2 Peter 2:1, "denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction." One who holds to particular redemption is obliged to explain in what sense the Lord is said to have bought those who ultimately suffer destruction. It is perhaps the failure of the modern reformed church to clearly articulate a doctrine of the visible church which has opened the door for a false view as to how the benefits of Christ relate to the non elect.


----------



## TimV

Pastor W, isn't that verse talking about Jews who deny Christ is God? I understand that *bought them* is OT grammar for God delivering His people. In other words, Peter is saying whoever denies that Christ is God denies He who ransomed His people. So if a Jew says that Christ is not God he is denying the God of the OT.


----------



## Edward

bouletheou said:


> BTW, I'm not being a scofflaw. My signature worked once and then quit working. I see it in the preview changes mode, but it's not showing up when I publish.
> 
> Perhaps my signature function possesses only temporary faith. It is not appearing at the end when it counts.



Signatures appearing only in the first post that someone makes on the thread is a 'feature' of this board. It's an issue where I submit meekly to the board leadership.


----------



## TeachingTulip

TimV said:


> Pastor W, isn't that verse talking about Jews who deny Christ is God? I understand that *bought them* is OT grammar for God delivering His people. In other words, Peter is saying whoever denies that Christ is God denies He who ransomed His people. So if a Jew says that Christ is not God he is denying the God of the OT.



I have been taught that this verse signifies external deliverance of the nation of Israel and the like deliverance (external sanctification) of the_ visible _N.T. churches. God is sovereign over all; He "owns" all men, but His specific covenant promises of internal regeneration and justification does not extend to all.

Such _purchase and redemption unto salvation_ is only realized and manifested in the_ invisible_ church body, elected in Christ, before the foundation of the world.

In other words,'s, external sanctification and "deliverance" does not equate with internal regeneration and justification; such being known only by the elect of God; His invisible church body.

My


----------



## MW

TimV said:


> Pastor W, isn't that verse talking about Jews who deny Christ is God? I understand that *bought them* is OT grammar for God delivering His people. In other words, Peter is saying whoever denies that Christ is God denies He who ransomed His people. So if a Jew says that Christ is not God he is denying the God of the OT.




If they are denying Christ is God, and He is the Lord that bought them, there is no way of separating redemption from that which Christ accomplished.


----------



## Ivan

armourbearer said:


> Ivan said:
> 
> 
> 
> I understand the reasoning, but it sounds odd to me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ivan, consider a text like 2 Peter 2:1, "denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction." One who holds to particular redemption is obliged to explain in what sense the Lord is said to have bought those who ultimately suffer destruction. It is perhaps the failure of the modern reformed church to clearly articulate a doctrine of the visible church which has opened the door for a false view as to how the benefits of Christ relate to the non elect.
Click to expand...


Thank you, Matthew. That helps. The thorny-ground, good-ground concept helps as well. I have a better understanding of what is being expounded here.

And maybe it's just the bump on my head.


----------



## TimV

> If they are denying Christ is God, and He is the Lord that bought them, there is no way of separating redemption from that which Christ accomplished.



Just to clarify this for me as well, if the verse paraphrased is "Those of your fellow ethnic Jews who reject Christ are rejecting the God of the burning bush, who ransomed the whole Jewish nation from Egypt, even though they may be ignorant of the fact" then does that verse necessarily have anything to do with Christians?


----------



## discipulo

Every branch in me that does not bear fruit he takes away John 15:2

I find that distinction between Invisible and Visible Church is aboslutely required to understand there are unregenerate members of the Covenant, that later may not make professions of faith or deny their profession.

in my opinion this is the only sound interpretation of several passages Hebrews 6, 2 Peter 2:20 ff, John 15:2, etc, since it accepts its dreadful warning while maintaining the perseverance of the saints, that true regenerated christians, partakers of the substance of the Covenant will persevere to Glory Romans 8:29-30

Karl Barth was one voice that denied that distinction, but he messed up with a lot of biblical doctrines.

But how about Klaas Schilder and John Murray, who also argued against that distinction between Visible and Invisible Church ? 

Did they provide any strong arguments to the Federal Vision Folks?


----------



## Dearly Bought

discipulo said:


> Every branch in me that does not bear fruit he takes away John 15:2
> 
> I find that distinction between Invisible and Visible Church is aboslutely required to understand there are unregenerate members of the Covenant, that later may not make professions of faith or deny their profession.
> 
> in my opinion this is the only sound interpretation of several passages Hebrews 6, 2 Peter 2:20 ff, John 15:2, etc, since it accepts its dreadful warning while maintaining the perseverance of the saints, that true regenerated christians, partakers of the substance of the Covenant will persevere to Glory Romans 8:29-30
> 
> Karl Barth was one voice that denied that distinction, but he messed up with a lot of biblical doctrines.
> 
> But how about Klaas Schilder and John Murray, who also argued against that distinction between Visible and Invisible Church ?
> 
> Did they provide any strong arguments to the Federal Vision Folks?



I'm no Schilder scholar (I don't even read Dutch). However, Kloosterman's essay on Schilder and the legal/vital distinction gives me pause before yielding him to the FV.


----------



## discipulo

Dearly Bought said:


> discipulo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Every branch in me that does not bear fruit he takes away John 15:2
> 
> I find that distinction between Invisible and Visible Church is aboslutely required to understand there are unregenerate members of the Covenant, that later may not make professions of faith or deny their profession.
> 
> in my opinion this is the only sound interpretation of several passages Hebrews 6, 2 Peter 2:20 ff, John 15:2, etc, since it accepts its dreadful warning while maintaining the perseverance of the saints, that true regenerated christians, partakers of the substance of the Covenant will persevere to Glory Romans 8:29-30
> 
> Karl Barth was one voice that denied that distinction, but he messed up with a lot of biblical doctrines.
> 
> But how about Klaas Schilder and John Murray, who also argued against that distinction between Visible and Invisible Church ?
> 
> Did they provide any strong arguments to the Federal Vision Folks?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm no Schilder scholar (I don't even read Dutch). However, Kloosterman's essay on Schilder and the legal/vital distinction gives me pause before yielding him to the FV.
Click to expand...


Thank you, that is very helpful, I appreciate a lot Kloosterman's teachings, and he made his PHd in the GKvrigemaakt Theological School in Kampen, Holland, and Schilder is the founder of the GKv departing from GKN in 1944. So Kloosterman is very well prepared to adress Schilder, I will read with great interest.

I was not, by any way, suggesting that Schilder or Murray had anything to do with FV, after all they departed to the Lord long before FV proponents started to spread their error.

And while both Murray and Schilder were strong critics of Barthianism, the Covenant revision made by Murray, erasing the PreLapsarian Adamic Covenant of Works, has a certain Barthian flair about it.

It is again Grace Flattening Redemptive History. 

So I wonder what FV took from Schilder, Murray (and Barth for the same matter) to their theological ammunitions, so to speak.


----------



## bouletheou

_*Every branch in me that does not bear fruit he takes away John 15:2

I find that distinction between Invisible and Visible Church is aboslutely required to understand there are unregenerate members of the Covenant, that later may not make professions of faith or deny their profession.*_

Discipulo,

In what way are you using the phrase "members of the Covenant?"

Blessings, 
TE Brian Carpenter whose full signature may or may not be appended.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

TimV said:


> If they are denying Christ is God, and He is the Lord that bought them, there is no way of separating redemption from that which Christ accomplished.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just to clarify this for me as well, if the verse paraphrased is "Those of your fellow ethnic Jews who reject Christ are rejecting the God of the burning bush, who ransomed the whole Jewish nation from Egypt, even though they may be ignorant of the fact" then does that verse necessarily have anything to do with Christians?
Click to expand...


I know this is a derailed thought here but I like Gill on 2 Peter 2:1. And It answers Ivans question in my opinion. 



> who privily shall bring in damnable heresies: errors in the fundamental doctrines of the Gospel; such as relate to a trinity of persons in the Godhead; and to the person of Christ, to his proper deity, distinct personality, eternal sonship, and real humanity; and to his office as Mediator, rejecting him as the true Messiah, and as the only Saviour of sinners; denying his sacrifice and satisfaction, and the imputation of his righteousness; and to the Holy Spirit, his deity, personality, and divine influences and operations: these are "damnable", or "destructive", or "heresies of destruction"; which lead to eternal destruction both those that introduce and propagate them, and those that embrace and profess them; for they remove, or attempt to remove, the foundation of eternal life and happiness: the manner in which these are usually introduced is "privily"; at unawares, secretly, under a disguise, and gradually, by little and little, and not at once, and openly; and which is the constant character and practice of such men, who lie in wait to deceive, creep into churches at unawares, and into houses privately; and insinuate their principles under specious pretences and appearances of truth, using the hidden things of dishonesty, walking in craftiness, handling the word of God deceitfully, and colouring things with false glosses and feigned words: *and even denying the Lord that bought them; not the Lord Jesus Christ, but God the Father; for the word κυριος is not here used, which always is where Christ is spoken of as the Lord, but δεσποτης; and which is expressive of the power which masters have over their servants (i), and which God has over all mankind; and wherever this word is elsewhere used, it is spoken of God the Father, whenever applied to a divine person, as in Luk_2:29 and especially this appears to be the sense, from the parallel text in Jud_1:4 where the Lord God denied by those men is manifestly distinguished from our Lord Jesus Christ, and by whom these persons are said to be bought: the meaning is not that they were redeemed by the blood of Christ, for Christ is not intended; and besides, whenever redemption by Christ is spoken of, the price is usually mentioned, or some circumstance or another which fully determines the sense; see Act_20:28 whereas here is not the least hint of anything of this kind: add to this, that such who are redeemed by Christ are the elect of God only, the people of Christ, his sheep and friends, and church, and who are never left to deny him so as to perish eternally; for could such be lost, or deceive, or be deceived finally and totally by damnable heresies, and bring on themselves swift destruction, Christ's purchase would be in vain, and the ransom price be paid for nought; but the word "bought" regards temporal mercies and deliverance, which these men enjoyed, and is used as an aggravation of their sin in denying the Lord; both by words, delivering out such tenets as are derogatory to the glory of the divine perfections, and which deny one or other of them, and of his purposes, providence, promises, and truths; and by works, turning the doctrine of the grace of God into lasciviousness, being disobedient and reprobate to every good work; that they should act this part against the Lord who had made them, and upheld them in their beings and took care of them in his providence, and had followed them with goodness and mercy all the days of their lives; just as Moses aggravates the ingratitude of the Jews in Deu_32:6 from whence this phrase is borrowed, and to which it manifestly refers: "do ye thus requite the Lord, O foolish people and unwise! is not he thy Father that hath bought thee? hath he not made thee, and established thee?" nor is this the only place the apostle refers to in this chapter, see 2Pe_2:12 compared with Deu_32:5 and it is to be observed, that the persons he writes to were Jews, who were called the people the Lord had redeemed and purchased, Exo_15:13 and so were the first false teachers that rose up among them; and therefore this phrase is very applicable to them*:


----------



## discipulo

bouletheou said:


> _*Every branch in me that does not bear fruit he takes away John 15:2
> 
> I find that distinction between Invisible and Visible Church is aboslutely required to understand there are unregenerate members of the Covenant, that later may not make professions of faith or deny their profession.*_
> 
> Discipulo,
> 
> In what way are you using the phrase "members of the Covenant?"
> 
> Blessings,
> TE Brian Carpenter whose full signature may or may not be appended.



Pastor Carpenter, no need to use the red colour.

There is a difference between those who partake of the external 

administration of the covenant, preaching of the word and sacraments,

and are part of the visible church, but may or may not be regenerate,

like the children of believers till they profess faith, and even so, there are 

unfortunately false professions too. And there could be regeneration on a tender

age, that's why A Kuyper wrongly emphasized presumed regeneration, like

with John the Baptist. 

And those who also partake of the internal inward substance of the covenant 

by regeneration. Those are the Elect of God and the Invisible Church.

But these only God knows. So we keep this distinction of Invisible / Visible, Inward / External

Herman Bavinck RD vol 2 page 231


After reading Dr Kloosterman very interesting article I went to Louis Berkhof 

Systematic Theology (4th revised edition, pages 284-289) on the Dual 

Aspect of the Covenant, and Berkhoff follows Vos and Schilder here, he 

prefers to drop the inward outward formulation for a Legal Relationship vs 

Communion of Life page 286, so for Berkhof only the regenerated memebers 

of the Covenant actually partake in Union with Christ of this Life Communion.

I'm glad that this doesn't put any FV charge on Schilders, In my humble opinion.


----------



## bouletheou

*Red Letters*

Discipulo,

I meant no offense by using the red letters. I'm pushing all the right buttons but not getting the effect I desired. My expedient was to color your words (in the legal and not the communion life sense.)

I have to meditate on what you've said and consult my Berkhoff. My trouble, off the top of my head, (and it may very well be an ignorant and uniformed trouble) is that justification is something we've always put in the legal category as well.

What little I know of Schilder has bothered me a little bit and seemed, at least at the level of appearances, to have some overlap with F.V. But since I'm not Dutch (and therefore not Much) it has not been a pressing issue for me to resolve.

Kindest Regards,


----------



## MW

On 2 Peter 2:1, the "Lord" must be Christ because no heretic would be so bold as to deny God absolutely considered. If it is granted that Christ is "the Lord who bought them," there can be no doubt that Peter is referring to the work of Christ. Verse 20 makes this explicit: "For if after they have escaped the pollutions of the world *through the knowledge of the Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ*, they are again entangled therein, and overcome, the latter end is worse with them than the beginning."

On Schilder, his view is easily accepted on the basis that all saving benefits the reprobate receive are "seeming" benefits. Geerhardus Vos draws a very important distinction between phenomenological and real believers in his small work on the epistle to the Hebrews. It is well worth consulting for a balanced view of the warning passages.

On Murray, I doubt he actually denied the distinction between visible and invisible, but merely saw something infelicitous in the language and its usage. Sadly, by making "visibility" an essential component of his understanding of "church," he opened the door for folk to move towards Rome; but his exposition of election and its benefits serves to drag such folk back into the halls of orthodoxy.


----------



## charliejunfan

I thought this might go along with the discussion

John Owen (from his catechisms) on saving and temporary faith
Two Short Catechisms | Christian Classics Ethereal Library

Q. 1. By what means do we become actual members of this church of God?

A. By a lively justifying faith, whereby we are united unto Christ, the head thereof.
Acts ii. 47, xiii. 48; Heb. xi. 6, xii. 22, 23, iv. 2; Rom. v. 1, 2; Eph. ii. 13, 14.

Q. 2. What is a justifying faith?

A. A gracious resting upon the free promises of God in Jesus Christ for mercy, with a firm persuasion of heart that God is a reconciled Father unto us in the Son of his love.
1 Tim. i. 16; Job xiii. 15, xix. 25; Rom. iv. 5. Heb. iv. 16; Rom. viii. 38, 39; Gal. ii. 20; 2 Cor. v. 20, 21.

Q. 3. Have all this faith?

A. None but the elect of God.
Tit. i. 1; John x. 26; Matt. xiii. 11; Acts xiii. 48; Rom. viii. 30.

Q. 4. Do not, then, others believe that make profession?

A. Yes; with, first, historical faith, or a persuasion that the things written in the Word are true, James ii. 19; secondly, temporary faith, which hath some joy of the affections, upon unspiritual grounds, in the things believed.
Matt. xiii. 20; Mark vi. 20; John ii. 23, 24; Acts viii. 13.

Q. 1. How come we to have this saving faith?

A. It is freely bestowed upon us and wrought in us by the Spirit of God, in our vocation or calling.
John vi. 29, 44; Eph. ii. 8, 9; Phil. i. 29; 2 Thess. i. 11.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

armourbearer said:


> On 2 Peter 2:1, the "Lord" must be Christ because no heretic would be so bold as to deny God absolutely considered. If it is granted that Christ is "the Lord who bought them," there can be no doubt that Peter is referring to the work of Christ. Verse 20 makes this explicit: "For if after they have escaped the pollutions of the world *through the knowledge of the Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ*, they are again entangled therein, and overcome, the latter end is worse with them than the beginning."
> 
> On Schilder, his view is easily accepted on the basis that all saving benefits the reprobate receive are "seeming" benefits. Geerhardus Vos draws a very important distinction between phenomenological and real believers in his small work on the epistle to the Hebrews. It is well worth consulting for a balanced view of the warning passages.
> 
> On Murray, I doubt he actually denied the distinction between visible and invisible, but merely saw something infelicitous in the language and its usage. Sadly, by making "visibility" an essential component of his understanding of "church," he opened the door for folk to move towards Rome; but his exposition of election and its benefits serves to drag such folk back into the halls of orthodoxy.



Reverend Winzer, 
Are you saying that someone can come to a saving knowledge of the Lord and be redeemed by him and not be justified? Confusing.

Gill again.....


> 2Pe 2:20 For if after they have escaped the pollutions of the world,.... The sins of it, the governing vices of it, which the men of the world are addicted to, and immersed in; for the whole world lies in wickedness, and which are of a defiling nature: the phrase is Rabbinical; it is said (q),
> 
> "he that studies not in the law in this world, but is defiled בטנופי עלמא, "with the pollutions of the world", what is written of him? and they took him, and cast him without:''
> 
> these, men may escape, abstain from, and outwardly reform, with respect unto, and yet be destitute of the grace of God; so that this can be no instance of the final and total apostasy of real saints; for the house may be swept and garnished with an external reformation; persons may be outwardly righteous before men, have a form of godliness and a name to live, and yet be dead in trespasses and sins; all which they may have
> 
> through the knowledge of the Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. The Vulgate Latin, and all the Oriental versions, read, our Lord, and the latter leave out, "and Saviour"; by which "knowledge" is meant, not a spiritual experimental knowledge of Christ, for that is eternal life, the beginning, pledge, and earnest of it; but a notional knowledge of Christ, or a profession of knowledge of him, for it may be rendered "acknowledgment"; or rather the Gospel of Christ, which, being only notionally received, may have such an effect on men, as outwardly to reform their lives, at least in some instances, and for a while, in whose hearts it has no place. Now if, after all this knowledge and reformation,
> 
> they are again entangled therein; in the pollutions of the world, in worldly lusts, which are as gins, pits and snares:
> 
> and overcome; by them, so as to be laden with them, and led away, and entirely governed and influenced by them:
> 
> the latter end, or state,
> 
> is worse with them than the beginning; see Mat_12:45. Their beginning, or first estate, was that in which they were born, a state of darkness, ignorance, and sin, and in which they were brought up, and was either the state of Judaism, or of Gentilism; their next estate was an outward deliverance and escape from the error of the one, or of the other, and an embracing and professing the truth of the Christian religion, joined with a becoming external conversation; and this their last estate was an apostasy from the truth of the Gospel they had professed, a reception of error and heresy, and a relapse into sin and immorality, which made their case worse than it was at first; for, generally, such persons are more extravagant in sinning; are like raging waves of the sea, foaming out their own shame; and are seldom, or ever, recovered; and by their light, knowledge, and profession, their punishment will be more aggravated, and become intolerable.
> 
> (q) Zohar in Gen. fol. 104. 3. Vid. Bechinot Olam, p. 178.


----------



## MW

PuritanCovenanter said:


> Are you saying that someone can come to a saving knowledge of the Lord and be redeemed by him and not be justified? Confusing.



I don't see anywhere in my post which even hints at this, Randy. Someone can come to a knowledge of the Lord Jesus Christ, and be considered in the judgment of charity to be redeemed, called, justified, adopted, and sanctified; but for all that still eventually deny the Lord that they claim has bought them, because they never came to a genuine saving knowledge of Christ. Hence my second paragraph drew attention to the phenomenal/noumenal distinction.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

armourbearer said:


> PuritanCovenanter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you saying that someone can come to a saving knowledge of the Lord and be redeemed by him and not be justified? Confusing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't see anywhere in my post which even hints at this, Randy. Someone can come to a knowledge of the Lord Jesus Christ, and be considered in the judgment of charity to be redeemed, called, justified, adopted, and sanctified; but for all that still eventually deny the Lord that they claim has bought them, because they never came to a genuine saving knowledge of Christ. Hence my second paragraph drew attention to the phenomenal/noumenal distinction.
Click to expand...


The problem with what you are saying, and what I am seeing, maybe that the passage doesn't say anything (2 Peter 2:1) about those individuals claiming that Christ has bought them. It just says, "denying the Lord that bought them." I believe John Gill has hit the nail on the head here in light of Peter's ministry and those who Paul warns us about who have fallen from Grace preaching another gospel and turning the liberated unto bondage of the Old Covenant law. I see this perspective especially since Peter himself was deceived and turned back to truth by Paul. Paul even gets a commendation from Peter in the next chapter. 

As I said, I believe John Gill hits the nail on the head here. I mean no disrespect to you Reverend.


----------



## MW

PuritanCovenanter said:


> As I said, I believe John Gill hits the nail on the head here. I mean no disrespect to you Reverend.



It is no disrespect to me, Randy. But for your own sake, I would ask you to look a little further into the subject and not simply lay hold of an answer because it resonates with your theological system. Another answer might provide a richer and fuller exposition of theology, which does not in reality contradict your sysytem. Even if one explained away verse 1 in Gill's manner, one still has to wrestle with verse 20; but it makes sense to me to interpret the text as an integrated unit and to see verse 1 as addressing the same problem as verse 20.


----------

