# PCA Study Report on Federal Vision released



## NaphtaliPress

PCA Study Report on the Federal Vision is available here.


----------



## Croghanite

What have they been waiting for? Where is the recommendation to immediately tar and feather those who proclaim such false doctrine from the pulpit?



> Recommendation
> 
> 4. That the General Assembly reminds the Sessions and Presbyteries of the PCA that it is their duty *“to exercise care over those subject to their authority” and “to condemn erroneous opinions which injure the purity or peace of the Church” *(BCO 31-2; 13-9f).


----------



## Bondman

LAYMAN JOE said:


> What have they been waiting for? Where is the recommendation to immediately tar and feather those who proclaim such false doctrine from the pulpit?



I must agree. The recommendation sounds weak. 

Maybe the GA as a whole will do something now?


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon

What if you are in the PCA and don't think the Federal Vision is heretical?


----------



## Croghanite

*RECOMMENDATION:*

Any PCA minister who teaches FV from the pulpit shall immediately be dragged to and launched from the DEFLOCKER.


----------



## bookslover

Overall, it looks like good news, though. I'll have to read it carefully later, but it looks like the OPC and the PCA are standing together on this.

I do wish, in their various condemnations, that they had said, "...contrary to the Bible AND the Westminster Standards". It's sort of dismaying that, in these condemnations, the Bible isn't listed first, as it should be.

Nevertheless, I'm encouraged.


----------



## fredtgreco

LAYMAN JOE said:


> What have they been waiting for? Where is the recommendation to immediately tar and feather those who proclaim such false doctrine from the pulpit?



You guys have no idea what is going on.

It is the height of foolishness to judge a court before it has even acted.


----------



## Romans922

This doesn't really sound weak to me:

*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.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Romans922 said:


> This doesn't really sound weak to me:
> 
> *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.


----------



## MW

fredtgreco said:


> It is the height of foolishness to judge a court before it has even acted.



And to judge men before the court has heard them, John 7:51.


----------



## Me Died Blue

bookslover said:


> I do wish, in their various condemnations, that they had said, "...contrary to the Bible AND the Westminster Standards". It's sort of dismaying that, in these condemnations, the Bible isn't listed first, as it should be.



It was explained in the Preface why they were stated along those lines.


----------



## turmeric

SemperFideles said:


>



What HE said!


----------



## Bondman

fredtgreco said:


> You guys have no idea what is going on.
> 
> It is the height of foolishness to judge a court before it has even acted.



True, but is it foolish to judge a recommendation after it has been recommended? 

I don't believe that the recommendations went far enough ESPECIALLY when one considers those nine points where FV departs from the WCF, and ultimately God's Word. 

These points of doctrine are of no small importance. We are talking about heresy.


----------



## KMK

Has the PCUSA issues their statement yet?


----------



## fredtgreco

Bondman said:


> True, but is it foolish to judge a recommendation after it has been recommended?
> 
> I don't believe that the recommendations went far enough ESPECIALLY when one considers those nine points where FV departs from the WCF, and ultimately God's Word.
> 
> These points of doctrine are of no small importance. We are talking about heresy.



Do you have any idea how Presbyterian polity works? It seems not, given the way you judge the recommendations.


----------



## crhoades

fredtgreco said:


> Do you have any idea how Presbyterian polity works? It seems not, given the way you judge the recommendations.


 
Fred,

If you have a moment and the inclination, would you mind summarizing the protocol with this report and the committes/GA and how the courts work in this instance?


----------



## Croghanite

Pastor Greco,

The session of my PCA church saw fit to inform our congregation of the ongoing FV teaching from the pulpit in the PCA. They immediately began teaching the congregation how the "new perspectives" are heretical. This systematic breakdown of FV was exhaustive and lasted several weeks.
*This happened when FV first surfaced. *

How long does it take to point out heresy in the church? 

I agree with the GA report. I mean no disrespect to the court, Im simply frustrated on why it takes so long to point out and put a stop to heretical teaching within a denomination.


----------



## Bladestunner316

They will have to check with GLAD before they can make an official statement


----------



## Poimen

armourbearer said:


> And to judge men before the court has heard them, John 7:51.



I am not sure as to what you are referring here: Are you saying that the PCA was in error by making this report?


----------



## MW

Poimen said:


> I am not sure as to what you are referring here: Are you saying that the PCA was in error by making this report?



I was backing up Fred's statement, pre-empting somewhat his latter statement about Presbyterian procedure. A presbyterian court can only give recommendations, it cannot order an Inquisition.


----------



## turmeric

The wheels of the GA grind slowly, but they grind exceeding fine! 

They'll get it done, legally, loophole-free and effectively. I'm just happy they're pointing out the error - teaching elders will hopefully feel more free to address this if the GA adopts this report. You notice they mentioned Wilkins?


----------



## Romans922

And Leithart (PCA ordained)


----------



## fredtgreco

armourbearer said:


> I was backing up Fred's statement, pre-empting somewhat his latter statement about Presbyterian procedure. A presbyterian court can only give recommendations, it cannot order an Inquisition.





crhoades said:


> Fred,
> 
> If you have a moment and the inclination, would you mind summarizing the protocol with this report and the committes/GA and how the courts work in this instance?



The General Assembly Committee did not have before it a judicial case. Even if it did, it could not decide ipso facto, since it was only a committee.

Presbytery is the court of original jurisdiction for TEs holding views contrary to the Standards; Session the court in the case of REs.

I won't say anymore, as a commissioner to GA, and a member of the Committee on Overtures.

But I will say that it is fruitless to have any discussion _before_ the actions of a court.


----------



## Romans922

fredtgreco said:


> The General Assembly Committee did not have before it a judicial case. Even if it did, it could not decide ipso facto, since it was only a committee.
> 
> Presbytery is the court of original jurisdiction for TEs holding views contrary to the Standards; Session the court in the case of REs.
> 
> I won't say anymore, as a commissioner to GA, and a member of the Committee on Overtures.
> 
> But I will say that it is fruitless to have any discussion _before_ the actions of a court.



 Because I don't know any better... Good report though, lovely!


----------



## bookslover

KMK said:


> Has the PCUSA issues their statement yet?


----------



## Magma2

> 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.



Thanks for providing the link Chris. I would think the perennial defenders of Richard Gaffin might choke a bit on at least these three "anathemas," but I think I'm more interested in finding out how the SJC handles the Wilkins case. I'm at least told not to expect anything until at least the Fall.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

This may sound cynical but I am sure the FVers are already redefining more terms to sound like they are confessional. I like how they redefine the Covenant of Works... and just move on from there.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Kevin said:


> From Mark Hornes blog...
> 
> deleted



Don't be so sure. This is pretty consistent with the FV. They say they are not teaching contrary to the Confession but that the Confession doesn't teach the full meaning of certain doctrines that the Scriptures more fully elaborate on. They believe they're filling in the blanks so to speak. See this:


> deleted


Of course it has been repeatedly demonstrated that their "fleshing out" (as they would view it) is in fact a repudiation of key Confessional understandings (especially implying that one is united to Christ "in some sense" not on the basis of faith but on the basis of Covenant membership). I find their claims to the contrary to either be ignorant or disingenuous and we've discussed that at length before.

I'm glad the language says that their teaching is contrary to the Westminster standards so they can't hide behind the skirts of less obvious language.


----------



## Me Died Blue

SemperFideles said:


> Don't be so sure. This is pretty consistent with the FV. They say they are not teaching contrary to the Confession but that the Confession doesn't teach the full meaning of certain doctrines that the Scriptures more fully elaborate on. They believe they're filling in the blanks so to speak.



Rich, except for the "Key in the present..." paragraph (which is from the report), all of the statements in Kevin's post were Horne's own.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Me Died Blue said:


> Rich, except for the "Key in the present..." paragraph (which is from the report), all of the statements in Kevin's post were Horne's own.



I must not have been clear. I was responding to Kevin when he wrote:



> Seems pretty careful from what I can tell. A couple of extracts with comments:



I was pointing out in my quote of Horne that he is not being as careful as Kevin thinks but is, rather, re-stating a consistent refrain: we're not teaching contrary to the WCF but merely filling in blanks to doctrines that the WCF doesn't fully elaborate on.

My commentary was both to point out that the tune really hasn't changed, to reject it, and to point out how encouraged I am that the PCA statement calls these views "...*contrary* to the Confession."

My apologies if any thought I was directing a criticism at Kevin.


----------



## Contra_Mundum

Guys,
We need to refrain from posting extracts from web-boards and blogs not our own. Just a "rule" reminder. To comment on MH's comments, please post to his blog. Thank you. Carry on...


----------



## Me Died Blue

SemperFideles said:


> I must not have been clear. I was responding to Kevin when he wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seems pretty careful from what I can tell. A couple of extracts with comments:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I was pointing out in my quote of Horne that he is not being as careful as Kevin thinks but is, rather, re-stating a consistent refrain: we're not teaching contrary to the WCF but merely filling in blanks to doctrines that the WCF doesn't fully elaborate on.
Click to expand...


Even that statement was Horne's, referring to _the report_ as being pretty careful. Then there were extracts from the report, with comments by Horne. Here is Horne's whole blog entry.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Chris: Roger. I guess I was confused then. Thanks.

Kevin: Helps if you use the quote feature. Hint, hint...


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Contra_Mundum said:


> Guys,
> We need to refrain from posting extracts from web-boards and blogs not our own. Just a "rule" reminder. To comment on MH's comments, please post to his blog. Thank you. Carry on...



Boy howdy. Shows the fallibility of man. I think I wrote the rule for that. Mea culpa.

More specifically the rule is not to post disparaging comments about other blogs and forums.

I think I need to clarify what that means and talk that out a bit.


----------



## bookslover

puritancovenanter said:


> This may sound cynical but I am sure the FVers are already redefining more terms to sound like they are confessional. I like how they redefine the Covenant of Works... and just move on from there.



Redefining terms and saying "you don't really understand us" while constantly shifting the ground under your theological feet is already SOP with FV/NPPers. This is what's going to make it difficult to prosecute them - because they are always saying that "you don't understand", it makes it more likely that they just won't quiety leave the PCA (or the OPC); they won't leave without a fight, I think.

It's been about a year since the OPC report and, as far as I know, no charges have been filed yet. It'll be interesting to see what happens at the PCA's GA this year.


----------



## KMK

bookslover said:


> Redefining terms and saying "you don't really understand us" while constantly shifting the ground under your theological feet is already SOP with FV/NPPers.



This is also true of some of the hyper-preterists.


----------



## turmeric

Maybe I really _don't_ understand. I remember getting Kristor Stendhal's book _Paul Among Jews and Gentiles_ shortly after I became a Christian. I was absolutely puzzled by his take on imputation - I didn't even have a category for it! I kept the book for a long time and once in a while I would re-read and once again go "Hmmm...". Then I heard about NPP and FV and went, "Aha!" The Lord must have been protecting me - it just wouldn't download into my mind!


----------



## MW

turmeric said:


> The Lord must have been protecting me - it just wouldn't download into my mind!



A firewall, Eph. 6:16.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

armourbearer said:


> A firewall, Eph. 6:16.


----------



## Magma2

C. Matthew McMahon said:


> What if you are in the PCA and don't think the Federal Vision is heretical?



Good question and I think the same could be said about the OPC. I don't recall if it was here or on the Warfield list, but one thing in the report that concerns me is:



> The committee also affirms that we view NPP and FV proponents in the PCA as brothers in Christ.



Then they proceed to demonstrate that both NPP and FV teach variants on the same scheme of justification by faith and works. 

Also, the report confuses tangential benefits to reprobate members in the visible church with grace and collectively affirms the Murrayian doctrine of the Well Meant Offer as evidently a matter beyond dispute:



> The benefits available to all within the visible church are sincere and genuine, just as is the grace of the free offer."



Evidently when the gospel comes as the aroma of death to those who are perishing, the stench of death is grace. 

Aside from a couple of flights of fancy, I still think the report is pretty good in that it is another nice summation of some of the many things wrong with NPP and FV just evidently not deadly wrong.


----------



## Gryphonette

Would it be accurate to say that if those who hold to the FV and/or NPP are "brothers in Christ" in the PCA's estimation, that the main effect would be (at least in theory) to not allow those views to be officially _taught_, but they could be privately held by lay members?

Paedobaptism is certainly a hallmark of Presbyterianism yet people sometimes join Presbyterian churches without believing in it; a man wouldn't (right?) be ordained if he rejects it, though.

Is this what is likely to happen with the FV/NPP? It'll be permitted, albeit not encouraged, for lay people, but will be a hindrance to ordination?


----------



## larryjf

It may not even have an effect on ordination. I guess it really depends on what the General Assembly does in regards to this report.

If they bring these doctrinal issues to the point of baptism and limited atonement then it would have an impact on those who seek ordination.


----------



## wsw201

Gryphonette said:


> Would it be accurate to say that if those who hold to the FV and/or NPP are "brothers in Christ" in the PCA's estimation, that the main effect would be (at least in theory) to not allow those views to be officially _taught_, but they could be privately held by lay members?
> 
> Paedobaptism is certainly a hallmark of Presbyterianism yet people sometimes join Presbyterian churches without believing in it; a man wouldn't (right?) be ordained if he rejects it, though.
> 
> Is this what is likely to happen with the FV/NPP? It'll be permitted, albeit not encouraged, for lay people, but will be a hindrance to ordination?



Since non-officers in the OPC or PCA are not required to subscribe to the Standards, they can hold to this view. But a prudent Session that does not hold to these views would make it clear to all members that since this view is outside of the Standards it will not be taught. For those in the congregation that may be attracted to FV/NPP, the Session should make clear that these folks should not disturb the peace, purity and unity of the church by propegating these views.

If a man wishes to be ordained as an officer, whether Deacon, RE or TE, and rejects infant baptism, he definately should be rejected. As far as FV/NPP, I would hope they would be rejected by the court of jurisdiction as well as by the congregation.


----------



## Richard King

I just read this and thought it might be relevant and some may be interested...
http://www.dougwils.com/index.asp?Action=Anchor&CategoryID=1&BlogID=3848


----------



## Magma2

Richard King said:


> I just read this and thought it might be relevant and some may be interested...
> http://www.dougwils.com/index.asp?Action=Anchor&CategoryID=1&BlogID=3848



I wonder how long these men can keep complaining that absolutely nobody ever understands them correctly except I suppose another FV'er?


----------



## BobVigneault

*Pastors Draft "Pastoral Letter" on PCA FV Report*

A group of ten ministers has written a "pastoral letter" concerning the Federal Vision study committee report releasedto be considered in June at the PCA's General Assembly in Memphis, TN. More details at http://www.reformednews.com/.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Shouldn't you state that a group of ten ministers, _sympathetic to the Federal Vision_, have written a letter.

Here is but one example:



> Study Report:
> • 2214- “The Westminster Standards only speak of a “union with Christ” as that which is effectual; or to say it another way, as that which is saving and belongs to the elect.”
> 
> ...
> 
> Questions:
> • Why does the committee narrowly interpret our standards to speak “only” of union with Christ as belonging to the decretally elect when there are ways that our standards understand this more broadly? 2


What is this killer footnote that will show that the committee "narrowly" interpreted the Westminster standards? Why here is the footnote:


> 2 For example, WLC 167 asks, “How is our Baptism to be improved by us? Answer: The needful but much neglected duty of improving our Baptism, is to be performed by us all our life long, especially in the time of temptation, and when we are present at the administration of it to others…by drawing strength from the death and resurrection of Christ, into whom we are baptized.”
> Isn’t this an instance when the standards encourage the entire visible church to draw strength from the one “into whom we are baptized?”


Umm...yes, but only the Elect can do so because they have hearts that have been transformed to look to the death and resurrection of Christ. Why would a minister of the Gospel, that calls himself Reformed, presume that an unregenerate man would look to the resurrection and death of Christ for strength?


----------



## BobVigneault

I just quoted from the site without commentary. My suspicion is that the anonymous reporter(s) behind the Reformed News is (are) sympathetic to the FV.

1. They quote FV sympathizers quite a bit.
2. I found the site because it was linked to by a FV guy.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Bob,

I didn't intend for my commentary to be directed at you. I know you were quoting.


----------



## BobVigneault

Rich, I know that you knew that and furthermore, it should go without saying that I know that you knew that I knew you knew that. You know what I mean? Of course you do.


----------



## wsw201

Just got finished reading the pastoral letter. This has to be one of the lamest responses I have seen. It comes across as even more desparate than Meyers comments.


----------



## Archlute

wsw201 said:


> Just got finished reading the pastoral letter. This has to be one of the lamest responses I have seen. It comes across as even more desperate than Meyers comments.



That was lame. 

Notice especially the tactic of "I didn't see that exact word used anywhere in their writings (e.g. monocovenantalism, ex opere operato, etc.), if they didn't use the exact term then how can you say that they mean it? And, hey, even if you did find that word used by them somewhere, how can you be sure that they mean it in the same way that you think they mean it?"

Wow. The deceitfulness of sin never ceases to amaze. Others might say, "That's just stupid".


----------



## NaphtaliPress

FYI. For full disclosure it is probably good to know that Jonathan Barlow not only professionally hosts the RN site, but is someway involved in it. He says the goal is to be even handed, and kudos for that aim and hopefully it is reality. I can appreciate the difficulty if one is a known partisan and trying to establish a rep for impartiality on this subject anonymously would seem the only way to do it. Maybe not. But that was what he did. I thought RN tilted FV when I visited which is why I asked him if he was involved (the fact barlownet servers host the site is public info). Below is his response to my question over on Lane's Green Baggins blog:


> *barlow said,*
> 
> May 31, 2007 at 2:05 pm
> Chris, Pastor Hutchinson asked me the same thing, and so I’ll just cut and paste my answer here to save time:
> ———
> Hi Pastor Hutchinson,
> Since you’ve asked point blank, for full disclosure, I am involved in other ways besides hosting too, but the goal of anonymity being not to reveal any identities until the paper can establish a reputation for unbiased reporting. So judge RN by the content of the articles on their own merits, and if you detect bias, feel free to point it out in the comments on the site or in the discussion area. Maybe it was not a great plan, but it was the plan that made the most sense in holding RN to the goal of proving its good will in the endeavor given all the ad hominem stuff online. Anyway, I’ve been trying to get people interested in the idea of an independent, Reformed press for a long time on my blog, so it shouldn’t be surprising that I’m involved in some way.
> Anyway, that’s pretty much all I want to say about my involvement right now. If it helps you to put a face on things, just assume I’ve done every single word of the site, but still judge the content on its own merit (and admire writers that don’t want personal recognition for their writings).
> I will confirm that if I ever write any opinion content, I will put my name on it.
> As for the poll, if you have some suggestion as to how the wording is biased or something, that would be a good thing to put in the discussion area for that post for other readers to see. RN is responsible for, at most, two or three votes cast to test it out. At various times throughout the poll’s run (it might still be running) different choices were ahead, so the outcome is just as much a surprise to RN as it would be to anyone.


----------



## BobVigneault

Thanks Chris for the FYI. So that's the Jon Barlow that attends Jeff Meyers church with Mark Horne (who linked to this very thread on his blog who mentioned me as a 'guy' and Rich's response as a reprimand and called our collective give and take 'mob justice'.) If Jonathan is concerned about being associated with FV then he might want to step a bit further away from............. Ah, man! Now I don't know what to call them! They don't like 'sympathizers', they don't like 'advocates', they don't like 'movers' (cuz "it's not a movement"), they don't like 'conspirators'.

I'm hoping they can give us a name, a literary short-hand, by which we can refer to our theologically nimble brothers. How about 'the guys formerly known as FV sympathizers'?


----------



## NaphtaliPress

Call them





(ok, for those who do not get it)


----------



## BobVigneault

Dang, I was going to say, 'maybe we could come up with a symbol for them in place of a name' but I thought the joke would be too obscure. I wasted my opportunity, but YOU didn't. Good one Chris, we are on the same page.


----------



## Gryphonette

*I was mulling over that last night, in fact.*



BobVigneault said:


> If Jonathan is concerned about being associated with FV then he might want to step a bit further away from............. Ah, man! Now I don't know what to call them! They don't like 'sympathizers', they don't like 'advocates', they don't like 'movers' (cuz "it's not a movement"), they don't like 'conspirators'.
> 
> I'm hoping they can give us a name, a literary short-hand, by which we can refer to our theologically nimble brothers. How about 'the guys formerly known as FV sympathizers'?



It's strange how loathe so many FV sympathizers/supporters are to actively, boldly, and unequivocally identify themselves with that movement/conversation/whatever. I don't think it'd be a stretch to say upwards of half of those who are around the internet arguing passionately on the FV's behalf insist they are not _really _sympathizers/supporters, just people who want to make sure the (apparently few) _true _FV sympathizers/supporters aren't misrepresented or something.

Christians are being tortured and are dying around the world for publicly proclaiming Christ....Protestants were tortured and killed during the Reformation for proclaiming the true gospel....but the FV seems to cause people to argue and cause division on its behalf without being willing to publicly stand in its camp and be identified with it.

Sort of reminds me of all those egalitarians who, while pushing through their feminist agenda, simultaneously insisted they certainly weren't feminists.


----------



## R. Scott Clark

*Why We Shouldn't Tolerate the Tolerant*

As the FV becomes more marginalized the bigger issue is going to whether and to what degree it ought to be tolerated. 

Here's an approach to this issue.

rsc


----------



## R. Scott Clark

*Objectivity v Neutrality*

There is sometimes a distinction between objectivity and neutrality, but in this case they overlap.

The idea that one so passionately involved in a heated controversy could suddenly and anonymously assume a stance either of utter objectivity or neutrality is a little strange. 

As in the case of Presbyterians and Presbyterians Together, such anonymity creates more suspicion than trust. 

Second, the idea, in this day and age, that a news provider could be anonymous (when we know the owners of most news media) and be credible is also improbable. 

No news provider can really claim utter neutrality or objectivity. There's a subjective element involved in which stories get picked, in deciding from what angle they get covered, who gets quoted and how. 

The Christian Renewal (a neo-Kuyperian Canadian Dutch Reformed paper) has consistently treated the FV as if were a controversial option for the orthodox. Though they want to be regarded as a neutral player in the controversy, for them to decide to tolerate the FV is not neutrality or objectivity. The CR has make an editorial decision that necessarily influences the news coverage. To treat the FV as if it had equal moral, theological, and practical standing with the orthodox, confessional view is an editorial decision. I should know. They just ran three pieces in the recent issue (which I still haven't seen) where I was apparently the object of scorn. Did I hear from the "fair" or "objective" CR? Was I given a chance to respond? No. When they ran a hostile and misinformed review of Mike Horton's book on covenant theology they only ran a response by Mike AFTER some of us screamed about it. 

In contrast, the Outlook (a magazine based in Grand Rapids with a similar if somewhat broader constituency) has decided against the FV. The difference between them is that the CR won't admit their bias and the Outlook has. At least the Outlook is being honest.

What responsible journalists do is to say, "Look, here are my biases and pre-possessions, but despite them I'm going to try to be fair." 

I'm not sure that's even a virtue to pretend to be utterly objective in news coverage. The only thing I seek is honesty. 

In RN we have a similar approach to the folks at "Covenant Radio." There is a pretense, by partisans, of objectivity. The result of giving these folks credibility will be to admit the FV as a tenured member of the Reformed community.

As I keep saying it's a good thing they didn't do this at Dort! The single biggest mistake the Dutch church made after Dort was to re-admit too many of the Remonstrants back into the churches. It wasn't very long afterwards that the DRC was shot through with rationalism.

The church is no place for latitudinarianism when it comes to the gospel. 

Call me intolerant, but I agree with Paul. He was right to rebuke Peter for his choice of dinner companions. Paul wasn't neutral in the least.

rsc



BobVigneault said:


> Thanks Chris for the FYI. So that's the Jon Barlow that attends Jeff Meyers church with Mark Horne (who linked to this very thread on his blog who mentioned me as a 'guy' and Rich's response as a reprimand and called our collective give and take 'mob justice'.) If Jonathan is concerned about being associated with FV then he might want to step a bit further away from............. Ah, man! Now I don't know what to call them! They don't like 'sympathizers', they don't like 'advocates', they don't like 'movers' (cuz "it's not a movement"), they don't like 'conspirators'.
> 
> I'm hoping they can give us a name, a literary short-hand, by which we can refer to our theologically nimble brothers. How about 'the guys formerly known as FV sympathizers'?


----------



## greenbaggins

*RN*

RN is mostly Jon Barlow. Read his comment here. Scott, you raise many excellent points, and ones that I have been thinking about as well. There is no such thing as neutrality here. The same thing is true of the letter from the twelve PCA pastors. It is anything but neutral.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

BobVigneault said:


> Thanks Chris for the FYI. So that's the Jon Barlow that attends Jeff Meyers church with Mark Horne (who linked to this very thread on his blog who mentioned me as a 'guy' and Rich's response as a reprimand and called our collective give and take 'mob justice'.) If Jonathan is concerned about being associated with FV then he might want to step a bit further away from............. Ah, man! Now I don't know what to call them! They don't like 'sympathizers', they don't like 'advocates', they don't like 'movers' (cuz "it's not a movement"), they don't like 'conspirators'.
> 
> I'm hoping they can give us a name, a literary short-hand, by which we can refer to our theologically nimble brothers. How about 'the guys formerly known as FV sympathizers'?



I've never understood why you guys read the blogs of the Pastors who were formerly referred to as the Federal Vision. It is flattering to be quoted. I just wish he had quoted the whole thing and attributed it to me. That's the honest thing to do when you quote somebody. Maybe he can explain how the unregenerate look to the death and resurrection of Christ.


----------



## greenbaggins

Oops, I see Chris beat me to it.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

R. Scott Clark said:


> The church is no place for latitudinarianism when it comes to the gospel.
> rsc





How do you maintain a neutral position between those who subscribe to the Confession's view that the benefits of Christ's union only accrue to those who are truly in Him (the elect) with those who say otherwise?

This isn't rocket science.


----------



## wsw201

> The church is no place for latitudinarianism when it comes to the gospel.



Of all the lame points that the FV'ers have made concerning the committee report the fact that the PCA allows latitude with subscription vows is one that may have legs. The PCA has adopted "Good Faith" subscription. What "Good Faith" entails I have no idea and I don't think anyone really does. Those who were opposed to it said that it was going to be a  and this controversy is going to be a good test.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

wsw201 said:


> Of all the lame points that the FV'ers have made concerning the committee report the fact that the PCA allows latitude with subscription vows is one that may have legs. The PCA has adopted "Good Faith" subscription. What "Good Faith" entails I have no idea and I don't think anyone really does. Those who were opposed to it said that it was going to be a  and this controversy is going to be a good test.



Indeed. I mean, really, is this what we're shooting for:


> "Where is the case for the view that our standards demand adherence to the imputed active obedience of Christ when the term “active obedience” is not found in them?"



What?!!! How do these men occupy the pulpits of _Christian_ Churches, much less Reformed Churches, and ask this kind of question?!


----------



## R. Scott Clark

Now I see that RN lists the CREC as a "Reformed" federation among the NAPARC groups.

Who made the CREC Reformed?

What qualifies them as Reformed?

Are they in fraternal relations with any of the NAPARC denominations/federations?

For that matter, what about the PCUSA? 

If the CREC and the PCUSA why not the RCA or the various RB groups? 

I note, randomly, that the first editorial piece was by Pete Leithart. 

And the NY Times keeps saying, "We don't have a liberal slant."

Maybe RN stands for "Revisionist News"?

rsc



SemperFideles said:


> Indeed. I mean, really, is this what we're shooting for:
> 
> 
> What?!!! How do these men occupy the pulpits of _Christian_ Churches, much less Reformed Churches, and ask this kind of question?!


----------

