# PCA Overture on New Perspective



## wsw201 (Nov 10, 2005)

Well it looks like the PCA will be considering an Overture to erect a study committee at next GA (its about time!).

Here is the Resolution (from ByFaithOnline):

OVERTURE 2 from Rocky Mountain Presbytery (to B&amp;amp;O, AC)

"œErect Study Committee on New Perspective, Etc."


Whereas, there has been a growing debate and discussion within the Presbyterian Church in America and its courts over a number of years on issues arising from viewpoints concerning the doctrines of justification, sanctification, covenant and related others, variously known as Federal Vision, New Perspective on Paul, Shepherdism and Auburn Avenue Theology; and



Whereas, there has been disagreement and confusion regarding what these various viewpoints actually teach; and



Whereas, questions have been raised regarding these viewpoints and their conformity to the system of doctrine taught in the Westminster Standards of the Presbyterian Church in America; and



Whereas, some of these viewpoints have brought confusion on theological definitions and concepts that appear to strike at the heart of the gospel and the vitals of religion; and



Whereas, Church courts have the responsibility to determine questions of doctrine and discipline seriously and reasonably proposed, and in general to maintain truth and righteousness, condemning erroneous opinions and practices which tend to bring injury to the peace, purity, or progress of the Church (BCO 11:4); and



Whereas, a significant number of churches, Sessions and Presbyteries within the Presbyterian Church in America have experienced disruption of their peace, purity and progress as a result of the controversy surrounding these viewpoints.



Therefore, be it resolved that the Rocky Mountain Presbytery overtures the 34th PCA General Assembly to erect an ad interim committee (RAO 8-1) to study the above named viewpoints and their formulations, and other similar viewpoints which are deemed by the committee to pertain to the above named viewpoints. Further, to determine whether these viewpoints and formulations are in conformity with the system of doctrine taught in the Westminster Standards, whether they are hostile to or strike at the vitals of religion, and to present a declaration or statement regarding the issues raised by these viewpoints in light of our Confessional Standards.



And further, that the expenses for this ad interim study committee be funded through the Administrative Committee (RAO 8-4).



Adopted by Rocky Mountain Presbytery at the stated meeting on September 22, 2005.

Attested by /s/ Kevin Allen, Stated Clerk

Do you think it has a chance? Will it be amended to include FV and Shepherdism?


----------



## JohnV (Nov 10, 2005)

> Whereas, Church courts have the responsibility to determine questions of doctrine and discipline seriously and reasonably proposed, and in general to maintain truth and righteousness, condemning erroneous opinions and practices which tend to bring injury to the peace, purity, or progress of the Church (BCO 11:4); and



That's a responsibility in matters of doctrine and practice. Dealing with the doctrines isn't even half the solution, in my opinion. The General Assembly still has to deal with the practice that they are always the *last* to deal with these things instead of the *first*. Elders, both ruling and teaching, are supposed to submit their changes of doctrine for examination before they publish them. This is not their office, its Christ's; and they hold by His calling only. They have no calling to add their own teachings to the gospel. Not even the Apostles had that permission. 

We look at two things: Biblical necessity; and good and necessary inference. These new teachings lack both; it is only a subjective opinion that the Bible may mean these things. It is not the result of perspicuity and sufficiency doctrines of the Word. 

So what's all the fuss about? They are wrong in their method, even if they have a claim to be right in their doctrine. And they can't prove ( "of necessity" ) that they are right in their doctrine. Case closed!


Sorry, just had to let off steam.


----------



## JohnV (Nov 11, 2005)

I have a question. If a committee was struck, and they studied it for some time, and finally ruled that Federal Vision, for example, was not heretical, would that be the end of it? 

If so, then I have a few problems with that. If it is preached, then ruling whether or not the teaching itself is heretical is not enough. Not all schismatic devices are heretical. Someone could be preaching something that is commonly accepted as a Biblical point of view, like one of the millennial views for example, and cause schism by imposing his view upon others when he has no mandate, no command, and no clear Scriptural warrant: he's stepping on other people's liberty of conscience by imposing his own. That is schismatic, but not heretical in and of itself. So a teaching may not be heretical, but that does not necessarily mean that it is right to preach it. 

And if FV is preached from the pulpit, it must be proven that God commands it, not merely that it is not a heretical point of view. If the minister kept it to himself, then no problem; but as he is preaching it, standing for God's Word, then he needs to prove the necessity of it. Otherwise it is wrong to preach it. So clearing it from heresy is not enough; it must be proven. Is it of man or of God?

And if FV is preached, then it still requires from the preacher that the normal rule of the church is not bypassed. The church is not ruled by one man, and he cannot decide on his own what is and what is not doctrine. Nor is the whole church ruled by one Session of one congregation. If the office is a holy calling of God, granted by Christ Himself, ordained through the Spirit, then it may not be bypassed.

And if FV is being preached from the pulpit, then where is the RPW? Does it not apply more to the preacher than to the person in the pew? Are there not pages upon pages of restrictions placed upon pastors and elders in the church confessions and forms, much more so than are placed upon ordinary members? Where are those rules, if they don't apply here?

All this without even going into the nitty-gritty of the doctrinal rectitude of the teaching. That too, and emphatically so to be sure, but there is much more here than just a debate about doctrine. Ministers do not have a licence to preach whatever they are personally convicted of, and freedom to believe something is not the same as freedom to preach it. 

This is clearly a matter of discipline first, before it would go to study committee. I don't disagree with having a study committee on it, to lay down the pros and cons of it, but that doesn't settle things at all, in my opinion. If all the church does is form a committee to study it, and after ruling it not heretical, everything is dropped, then that is a licence for ministers to force their own personal convictions upon people who may be convicted of other views also within the standards of faith. 

It also allows the minister to hide his personal views behind the cloak of office, so that ordinary members who object to his views could be seen as disrespecting the office, or even the preaching of the Word. Dissent from his teaching could be viewed as schismatic by a supportive Session, supporting the minister's point of view and opposing those who verbalize their differences. 

But is it God's Word? Sure, we could ask if it is heretical, but is it God's Word? If not, then its not for preaching. That's my beef with FV, NPP, etc., etc. So what if we rule them heretical, something else will just come in and take their place. All because we're not stopping this willy-nilly, poorly governed licensure. But the fact that it does not stop with personal views, that it goes on to also include heresy, is of great concern indeed.


----------

