# Presbyterians Together



## NaphtaliPress

I hadn't seen notice of this on PB yet, but I just saw reference on the Warfield list to a paper circulating for signatures within PCA circles calling for charity and tolerence for FV adherents. 
See below and discussion here.


> --- In [email protected], "Bill Lyle" &lt;[email protected]&gt; wrote:
> 
> Here is a paper you may find interesting - below is a Blog link that is a
> response to this paper-
> 
> For your information -
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Presbyterians and
> Presbyterians Together:
> 
> A Call to Charitable
> Theological Discourse
> 
> United in Mission
> 
> We are followers of Christ and heirs to Presbyterian and Reformed
> traditions, particularly as embodied in historic confessional standards. As
> such, we are committed to our Reformational heritage and believe it has an
> indispensable role in the mission of the Triune God, alongside and in
> cooperation with other churches, in our local communities, in North America,
> and throughout the world.
> 
> We embrace the highest view of Scripture's absolute authority and
> trustworthiness and a fidelity to the Reformed theology of our doctrinal
> standards. These commitments are in no tension with the church's missional
> calling to function, by Christ's Spirit, as an alternative society within
> our dominant cultures. These commitments do not undermine, but support the
> larger shape of that calling:
> 
> * worshipping our God who meets us in Christ through Word and Sacrament
> 
> * proclaiming his Gospel of grace to the ends of the earth
> 
> * serving others in deeds of love and mercy, embodying God's justice and
> peace
> 
> * engaging and countering our cultures with the renewing power of Christ
> 
> * nurturing healthy, growing, and reproducing churches
> 
> * developing gifts the Spirit has granted to men and women among God's
> people
> 
> * uniting with other Christians in mission as an expression of Reformed
> catholicity
> 
> 
> 
> In these areas God calls us in Christ, empowered by his Spirit, and guided
> by his Word, to proclaim and be a sign of the reign of God to the eyes of a
> watching world.
> 
> To remain faithful to this calling, we must not allow legitimate differences
> and diversity within our own tradition to become obstacles to witness or to
> obscure the Gospel's power in forming a new humanity around the person of
> Jesus Christ.
> 
> Together in Diversity
> 
> The Reformed tradition, particularly as expressed confessionally, represents
> a definite set of dogmatic contours, doctrinal boundaries, and exegetical
> trajectories. And that is a tradition we happily and warmly embrace as our
> own, in conformity with Holy Scripture.
> 
> Nevertheless, the Reformed tradition itself has evolved, and even in its
> formative years, always included differing perspectives on matters of
> theological detail. Moreover, our tradition typically allows those
> submitting to its fundamental system of doctrine nonetheless to dissent
> conscientiously from specific confessional expressions and propositions
> where such dissent is neither hostile to the system as a whole nor strikes
> at the vitals of religion, as determined by the judgment of our gathered
> presbyters.
> 
> There are numerous areas in which acceptable differences historically exist.
> Among others, these include:
> 
> * how we interpret the biblical doctrine of creation as to chronology,
> timing, and process
> 
> * how we characterize the pre-lapsarian covenant, particularly as to
> probation, grace, merit, and reward, and its relationship to and
> distinction from the covenant of grace
> 
> * the way we prioritize and integrate the tasks of biblical theology,
> historical-grammatical exegesis, apostolic typology, redemptive
> historical thinking, and study of ancient contexts
> 
> * the relative role we grant to specific experiences of conversion in
> relation to practices of Christian nurture and the ordinary means of
> grace within the covenant life of God's people
> 
> * how we best characterize the spiritual life of covenant children prior to
> their coming to a maturing faith through the ministry of the Word
> 
> * whether we regard sacraments truly to offer Christ and whether, when
> effectual, they confer grace instrumentally or are only occasions for
> the imparting or promise of grace
> 
> * how we interpret and enact biblical teaching on worthy participation in
> the Lord's Supper
> 
> * how we apply the regulative principle of worship practically to worship
> style and order, frequency of communion, the church year, and the
> like
> 
> * how we translate scriptural teaching on the Jewish Sabbath into a new
> covenant understanding of resting upon Christ and celebrating the
> Lord's Day
> 
> * how we construe and implement biblical principles of church polity in
> accordance with our respective church orders
> 
> * how the church rightly relates to the civil magistrate and wider culture
> while maintaining her proper spiritual identity and mission
> 
> * the way we apply Scriptural teaching on election to the lived experience
> of God's people as the church visible
> 
> * how we confess the return of our Lord and the final judgment in relation
> to the millennium and progress of the Gospel
> 
> 
> 
> Of these differences, some are more matters of doctrinal content, emphasis,
> or articulation, while others are more matters of pastoral application or
> expression of our doctrine. Such diversity, we believe, is healthy and
> welcome as part of the ongoing life of God's people as we seek to grow up
> into unity of faith and live together in the peace of Christ. John Calvin
> himself writes,
> 
> For not all articles of true doctrine are of the same sort. Some are so
> necessary to know that they should be certain and unquestioned by all men as
> the proper principles of religion. Among the churches there are other
> articles of doctrine disputed which still do not break the unity of faith.
> Does this not sufficiently indicate that a difference of opinion over
> nonessential matters should in nowise be the basis of schism among
> Christians? (Institutes 4.1.12)
> 
> We lament our past failures to love the brethren as we ought, the ways we
> have broken the unity of faith over inessentials, and how we have
> countenanced foolish controversies, strife, and disputes within God's
> church.
> 
> In virtue of the church's mission, we purpose together to seek truth, all
> the while bearing patiently with and listening carefully to one another. We
> thereby seek to resolve our differences in the bonds of peace and unity, as
> is befitting those who confess the name of Jesus Christ, seek to live the
> Christian story, and work to advance his kingdom.
> 
> 
> 
> Paul H. Alexander, formerly a PCA pastor in Huntville, AL; now missionary
> for MTW in Odessa, Ukraine.
> 
> John Armstrong, President, Act3; Carol Stream, Illinois
> 
> James Lincoln Ashby, Associate Pastor, Christ the King PCA; Houston,
> Texas
> 
> Matthew Brown, Organizing Pastor, Park Slope PCA; Brooklyn, New York
> 
> Ray Cannata, Organizing Pastor, Redeemer PCA; New Orleans, Louisiana
> 
> Randy Crane, Pastor, West Friesland PCA; Ackley, Iowa
> 
> John Cunningham, Ruling Elder &amp; Church Counselor, Trinity PCA;
> Charlottesville, Virginia
> 
> Dan Dillard, Pastor, Grace Reformed OPC; Bend, Oregon
> 
> John Frame, Professor of Systematic Theology and Philosophy, Reformed
> Theological Seminary; Orlando, Florida
> 
> S. Joel Garver, Assistant Professor of Philosophy, La Salle University;
> Philadelphia, PA
> 
> Keith Ghormley, Associate Pastor, Zion PCA; Lincoln, Nebraska
> 
> Wayne Larson, Pastor, Redeemer PCA; Des Moines, Iowa
> 
> Thomas Lee, Pastor, Cornerstone PCA; St. Louis, Missouri
> 
> Samuel T. Logan, Executive Secretary, The World Reformed Fellowship;
> Glenside, PA
> 
> Glenn Lucke, PhD student, sociology, University of Virginia;
> Charlottesville, Virginia
> 
> Jeffrey J. Meyers, Pastor, Providence Reformed PCA; St. Louis, Missouri
> 
> Sam Murrell, Pastor, Forest Park PCA; Baltimore, Maryland
> 
> Leon Pannkuk, Regional Director, Evangelism Explosion; St. Louis, Missouri
> 
> George Stulac, Pastor, Memorial PCA; St. Louis, Missouri
> 
> Greg Thompson, Pastor, Trinity PCA; Charlottesville, Virginia
> 
> Travis Tamerius, Pastor, Christ the King PCA; Columbia, Missouri
> 
> Russ Theisens, Director of Student Ministries, Faith PCA; Cincinnati, Ohio
> 
> Mark Traphagen, MDiv student, Westminster Theological Seminary;
> Philadelphia, PA
> 
> Michael Vendsel, MAR student, Westminster Theological Seminary;
> Philadelphia, PA
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -------------------
> 
> Here are some comments regarding the "Presbyterian to Presbyterian--can we
> just get along" statement:
> 
> 
> 
> http://reformation21.org/Reformation_21_Blog/Reformation_21_Blog/58/?vobId=3
> 061
> &lt;http://reformation21.org/Reformation_21_Blog/Reformation_21_Blog/58/?vobId=
> 3061&amp;pm=114&amp;rev=2&gt; &amp;pm=114&amp;rev=2.
> 
> --- End forwarded message ---


----------



## Scott

You are asking people to sign this?


----------



## Contra_Mundum

No, I don't think he is, Scott.

You can see a response by (if I recall) Rick Phillips on the Ref21 blog. Check it out.


----------



## NaphtaliPress

No. Folks should not sign it. See the links for some commentary for why it is a bad thing.


----------



## NaphtaliPress

fYI. Here is some commentary my pastor made on the document.

--- In [email protected], "Richard Bacon" <[email protected]> wrote:

Working off Dan Landis' propaganda list (which he extracted from
"Presbyterians and Presbyterians Together" alias "Come into my parlor, said
the spider to the fly..."):

Wanna take the propaganda techniques to the next level? My remarks are the ones without question marks.

? how we interpret the biblical doctrine of creation as to chronology,
timing, and process

So what exactly is left -- maybe 6 days maybe not. We're sure somebody
sometime created something, though.

? how we apply the regulative principle of worship practically to worship
style and order, frequency of communion, the church year, and the like

A better way of stating this is whether or not we believe the regulative
principle of worship.

? how we translate scriptural teaching on the Jewish Sabbath into a new
covenant understanding of resting upon Christ and celebrating the Lord's Day

NB: It is the Jewish Sabbath (not God's Sabbath?) that we must translate. No
mention of the fourth commandment?

? how we construe and implement biblical principles of church polity in
accordance with our respective church orders

Interesting considering this is supposed to be about Presbyterians and
Presbyterians. Though I did note that at least one of the signers was not a
Presbyterian.

? how we characterize the pre-lapsarian covenant, particularly as to
probation, grace, merit, and reward, and its relationship to and distinction
from the covenant of grace

Again, it is not "covenant of life" or "covenant of works" but "the
pre-lapsarian covenant." This assumes that works and grace are the same,
reward and gift are the same, merit of Adam vs. merit of the second Adam are
the same.

? whether we regard sacraments truly to offer Christ and whether, when
effectual, they confer grace instrumentally or are only occasions for the
imparting or promise of grace

No mention of "when effection" is (like in the believer for example) nor
what the supposed difference is (if any) between conferring instrumentally
and working by themselves.

? how we interpret and enact biblical teaching on worthy participation in
the Lord's Supper

This is simply a plea for paedocommunion.

? the way we apply Scriptural teaching on election to the lived experience
of God's people as the church visible

This is an attempt to redefine the invisible and visible church
distinctions.

Dan, I do not disagree with your analysis at all. I'm simply suggesting that
the document itself is for the purpose of providing "wiggle room" so those
who do not believe our confessional documents can pretend that they do.

Dr. Richard Bacon, Pastor
Faith Presbyterian Church Reformed
Mesquite, TX
"Lameness is an impediment to the leg but not to the will." ~ Epictetus

--- End forwarded message ---


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Are the links to Reformation 21's blog working for anyone? I copied and pasted them even and I get nowhere.


This subject is what I am studying right now. Also if you guys can fill me in on this Pre-lapsarian doctrine. It seems to be something that is being developed so that teachers can justify the teaching that a regenerate person can fall from grace or become apostate. After all that is what Adam did. Right? Just my humble opinion Maybe this is a topic for another Thread.

[Edited on 5-10-2006 by puritancovenanter]


----------



## fredtgreco

http://reformation21.org/Reformation_21_Blog/Reformation_21_Blog/58/?vobId=3061&pm=114

http://reformation21.org/?pageId=58&vobId=3095&pm=114

http://reformation21.org/?pageId=58&vobId=3099&pm=114


----------



## Scott Bushey

See how insidious this plague is...........


----------



## Bladestunner316

What I dont understand is what is so innovative about FV as opposed to Reformed Theology in general? 

Are they trying to reform Reformed Theology??

blade


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia

> _Originally posted by Bladestunner316_
> What I dont understand is what is so innovative about FV as opposed to Reformed Theology in general?
> 
> Are they trying to reform Reformed Theology??
> 
> blade



There is nothing innovative, it is all old rejected theological movements given air time again.

They're trying to redefine and reform Reformed theology. They think Semper Reformanda means always changing and redefining, not always reforming from the Roman Catholic Church.


----------



## Bladestunner316




----------



## R. Scott Clark

> _Originally posted by Bladestunner316_



Nathan,

When you ask how the FV is trying to "reform" (revise would be a better verb) Reformed theology, are you being genuine or facetious?

I ask because there has been a lot of discussion of the FV and its distinctives on this board and having posted 4,900 times I guess you might have seen some the discussions.

rsc


----------



## R. Scott Clark

The document is now online here.

There are some surprising signatures. When I saw the first list, I noticed John Armstrong right away. He's not a Presbyterian, at least not to my knowledge. Last I knew he, he was an ordained Baptist minister attending College Church in Wheaton. Now I read (whether reliably, I can't say) that he's seeking ordination in the RCA!

On the "quotes" page one signatory writes:



> "For many years I have felt that Presbyterians have wasted valuable time debating one another, time that could better be spent in worship, evangelism, and nurture. Pure doctrine is important, but total unanimity on every disputable issue is impossible, and that is not required by Scripture. So we need to be more careful about our priorities. We also need to take much greater care to be fair and gracious to one another when debates do arise. The principles expressed by the Presbyterians Together document give us biblical guidance in this area."



Okay, this is true. There have been useless fights, but if one surveys a list of Presbyterian arguments over the last century, most of them have centered around some pretty important ideas. Personally I think that the debate over the length of the days is fruitless, since we'll never know empirically how long the days were and, in my view, Scripture doesn't say unequivocally, and it's doesn't change our doctrine or affect the system of doctrine. 

Still, I understand that it seems to some/many that questioning 6-24 creation calls the perspicuity of Scripture into question. Defenders of 6-24 creation have a right to ask non-6-24 types to explain and defend themselves. In my view, that was done a long time ago. We can continue to discuss it, but it shouldn't be a matter of discipline, but the Clark/Van Til case was, from the pov of the VT folk, about the Creator/creature distinction. That's one of the most central doctrines in Reformed and Protestant theology. That was a nasty fight at the time, but it was and remains an important argument. 

These two arguments illustrate the difference between the important and the essential. The Clark argument touched on a Reformed essential, whether the human intellect, at some point, intersects with the divine. Whether there really is a Creator/creature distinction. 

The theonomy argument was/is important. That's about hermeneutics, the nature of redemptive history, Christian freedom, civil life etc. As a result, many of us have been forced to think through their ethics and views of the relations between church and state and the two kingdoms etc. The ends don't justify the means, but the theonomists caught the rest of us being lazy and intellectually flabby.

The same is true of the Shepherd/FV/covenant moralism argument. Shepherd's views developed and flourished because we were not being faithful to our confession. We brought it on ourselves. At the same time we were being told (literally) "we all know what we think about the gospel" Shepherd was fundamentally revising Reformed covenant theology and soteriology. How many of us now "get" law and gospel who might otherwise never have been driven to find out about it without this controversy. 

Again, nothing is more important in Scripture, in our confession, or in our mission than the gospel. How anyone can suggest that there is room in our churches for two sides in this argument is beyond me.

Paedocommunion, closely related to the above, again, arose because we were not being faithful to our confession. Had we all a full-bodied confessional theology of the sacraments, and covenant theology, we could probably have prevented this one, but many/most of us didn't. Many of us are/were quasi-Zwinglian or even quasi-Baptist (sorry fellows) in our view of the sacraments. If we don't understand the distinction between initiation and renewal, folks are bound to start moving toward paedocommunion. When folks discover that there are alternatives to Zwingli and the Baptist view, and they aren't confessional, then of course they're going to look into paedocommunion.

The same is true of the RPW. I wasn't taught it well or clearly. I wasn't made to get to grips, really, with Q 96 of the HC or BC 7 or the Westminster Standards. We just assumed 25 years ago that we could sing revival tunes and be Reformed so long as we were predestinarian. Now people assume they can sing, in stated services, "Shine Jesus Shine" so long as they are predestinarian. So we're having an argument about the RPW because we've been lazy. We've taken a 100 year vacation from our confession and it shows. 

PPT, however, seems to be saying in effect, "sit down and be quiet." There is room for all sides on these (then they list a series of) issues.

Is there room in confessional Presbyterianism for denial of the Creator/creature distinction and affirmation of it? Denial of justification sola gratia, sola fide and affirmation of it? Denial and affirmation of paedocommunion? Really? Denial of the RPW and affirmation of it?

Our confessions don't speak clearly to these issues? There is a formal affirmation of the confessions in PPT but in substance aren't they denying the their reality and authority in adjudicating such issues?

Isn't their list misleading in that it groups together issues that really aren't matters of division and matters that really are?

Doesn't PPT suggest that what really matters is "mission" and not "theology"?

Well, what is our mission?

Who gets to define that mission?

Who gets to say what is important and what isn't?

Who gets to say what makes us Reformed and what doesn't?

Who gets to say what Biblical and Reformed worship is?

I thought that's why we HAVE confessions?

If they don't adjudicate issues this fundamental to theology, piety, and praxis, then they must be broken, but no such judgment has been made by any of our assemblies, so far as I know.

How isn't this latitudinarianism?

What are we going to say to the people whom we reach? The gospel is "either trust in Christ for justification" or "you've been united to Christ by your baptism and you can keep what you've been given by trusting and obeying"? 

These are not the same gospel messages. As the show says, "one of these things is not like the other...." I think even Kermit the Frog could figure out this one.

How are we going to teach the "reached" to worship God? Are there 500 different versions of the RPW and if not, don't our confessions speak to this?

rsc

[Edited on 5-13-2006 by R. Scott Clark]


----------



## wsw201

These are very good points that Dr. Clark has made. 

It seems history is again repeating itself. The Church has always seemed to be reactive versus proactive in regards to brewing contraversies. With the advent of the internet, contraversial opinions can now spread like wildfire. 

We all need to pray for the church as these contraversies come to a head.


----------



## Bladestunner316

Sorry  Dr Clark I have not kept up to date on the FV issues. I wasnt being facitous or rude in anyway. Didnt mean to cause offense I generally dont join in on all the theological discussions here. Im just now coming around to wondering what this FV is all about. My apologies.


----------



## Bladestunner316

I am just genuinely curious thats all. From my little observation's.


----------



## R. Scott Clark

> _Originally posted by Bladestunner316_
> Sorry  Dr Clark I have not kept up to date on the FV issues. I wasnt being facitous or rude in anyway. Didnt mean to cause offense I generally dont join in on all the theological discussions here. Im just now coming around to wondering what this FV is all about. My apologies.



No need to apologize, it's not always possible to read tone in these posts.

There are probably dozens of threads, but searching I found this one.
Here's another.

More links

Here.

a lecture here.

It's a start. 

I'm sure others can provide many other links. Try the "Paul Page." 

You can search "federal vision" for yourself. 

Read Guy Waters' new book from P&R. See the Cal Beisner ed book.

Blessings,

rsc


----------



## Bladestunner316

Very good points Dr. Clark. Like I said to you in my u2u. Now reading thorugh what you said I see now how important the confessions are and how urgently it is needed to not be theologically lazy in this regard so that these clever deceptions dont creep in the door.


----------



## NaphtaliPress

FYI. Some OPC commentators opine on the PPT paper on their blogs.
What's a Presbyterian To Do? Barry Hofstetter
http://my.opera.com/barryhofstetter/blog/

Presbyterians Together? Jim Cassidy
http://www.johnstownopc.org/blog.php


----------



## SRoper

"There are some surprising signatures."

Like John Frame?


----------



## NaphtaliPress

Why is that surprising?


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

*DITTO DR. CLARK*

And no offence taken by the quasi baptist comment. We are not Paedo's and believe differently about who is in Covenant with God. At least we know where we stand. And we are not trying to confuse the language.

Here are more than a few of my two cents.

This is going to be an emotional Rant. So please bare with me. 


One thing that bothers me is that this is the way liberalism acts. I think being loving and patient is very important. I also think that some of the teachings in the FV are very troublesome. I definitely have problems with NPP definitions and the FV's view of the COW. These two systems which seem to interlap somewhat are in denominations that are finding some lines blurred and teachings confused. Another troubling thing is that the FV proponents are not all in agreement on their various teachings. That is making things hard to discern also. There are concerns. Some have been voiced very pointedly. Others are hit and miss. This stuff is just causing to much division in my opinion. And the scriptures do address the issue of being divisive. In my humble opinion...Those who have the views that are being found divisive should leave and go somewhere else if they don't want to recant and repent. So that they will not cause confusion and division. They can discover their truth and write and defend it where it will not be so hotly contested. 

Our Nation is being challenged on everyside to conform to other nations of the world. Ungodly people are striving to have their views crammed down our throats, telling us we should be more christian. Their definition of us being more Christian is that we should be more receptive and accepting toward them. Be it known that they don't want the Holy Bible's views to be accepted as truth though. In my humble opinion that is what has been happening in the Church for years. Just look at the denominations that have lost their confessionalism. Look at the Churches that no longer hold to a right view of Scripture any longer. They want to claim to be Christian but not allow the Bible to speak. I believe that is how the downward spiral starts. Are we starting the downward spiral here?

I am not that familiar with how the United Presbyterians and other groups became PCUSA. I do know that these denominations slowly lost their moorings and now a few denominations that use to be confessional no longer hold to the WCF. Some may want to say they are but the proof is in the pudding. 

Look. I am a credo and I go to a Presbyterian Church. My Pastor knows I am Credo and so do the Elders. I promised to promote the unity of this congregation and not promote my views. If someone has a question about baptism I would send them to the Pastor first. I promised to live in harmony with this church. It is the best thing I have in my area. I don't expect others to conform to my theology concerning baptism. 

Likewise if a person finds themself becoming FV or NPP they should seek unity and harmony a little differently than it has probably been done. If they are causing division, confusion, and disputes to arise, they ought to leave and go where they can work it out without causing problems. Maybe that means that they leave a denomination for another. But they shouldn't expect for a whole denomination to become accomodating just for their particular views. 

Just a side note. Just because something has been historically believed doesn't mean that is has been accepted. And I believe that that is some of the push here by others. Since it has been said Historically it should be okay for us to teach it. That is Bunk.

I can hear the cries of those who sign this document now. Oh, you didn't sign it? Well you should because you should want to obey Christ and be charitable. Here starts the downward spiral thingy again. You will probably find that the FV/NPP people will be the ones most likely to sign it. Just like you would find those people marching in parades and wanting the illegal immigrants from Mexico to stay in America without being called law breakers are the Illegal immigrants and their friends. Just my humble opinion.

I don't believe those who oppose the document want or encourage any uncharitable conversation. We all acknowledge the need for charity. So if someone opposes the document it doesn't mean that they are uncharitable or want others to be. To say that would be slanderous and uncharitable.

This is my rant. 

[Edited on 5-13-2006 by puritancovenanter]


----------



## fredtgreco

> _Originally posted by NaphtaliPress_
> Why is that surprising?



Because of course he is so anti-FV and he endorsed the greatest paper ever to be written on the subject of the FV by a non-ordained, young man who has no ecclesiastical, theological or ministerial experience.

Duh.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by NaphtaliPress_
> Why is that surprising?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because of course he is so anti-FV and he endorsed the greatest paper ever to be written on the subject of the FV by a non-ordained, young man who has no ecclesiastical, theological or ministerial experience.
> 
> Duh.
Click to expand...



The first line of the document is a lie. I can't believe someone would endorse it without even encouraging a change in the first line.


> This essay is neither a defense nor a sustained critique of either the Federal Vision or the New Perspective on Paul


That is about all he does in the whole document. Just my humble opinion 

That is Defending the FV/NPP.

[Edited on 5-13-2006 by puritancovenanter]


----------



## fredtgreco

> _Originally posted by puritancovenanter_
> 
> 
> 
> This essay is neither a defense nor a sustained critique of either the Federal Vision or the New Perspective on Paul
> 
> 
> 
> That is about all he does in the whole document. Just my humble opinion
Click to expand...


Randy,

Not just your opinion. I was talking with someone intimately familiar with the controversy and his remark was, "It is remarkable that for someone who is so "balanced" there is not one criticism of the FV that he finds credible or valuable."


----------



## NaphtaliPress

(I should add--burned right through irony to sarcasm; the eyes gave it away).


> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by NaphtaliPress_
> Why is that surprising?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because of course he is so anti-FV and he endorsed the greatest paper ever to be written on the subject of the FV by a non-ordained, young man who has no ecclesiastical, theological or ministerial experience.
> 
> Duh.
Click to expand...


[Edited on 5-12-2006 by NaphtaliPress]


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> Randy,
> 
> Not just your opinion. I was talking with someone intimately familiar with the controversy and his remark was, "It is remarkable that for someone who is so "balanced" there is not one criticism of the FV that he finds credible or valuable."



That is a great point. I will have to remember that. And it is true. I laboured over it and found out it didn't discuss issues that were much more important. In my humble opinion No one would come away from that document understanding the problems and concerns of good men.

For example... In the Covenant of Works Adam didn't inherit life by obedience to the law. He had it solely by grace. (Meaning Unmerited Favor). And this strange new definition in turn points away from how Christ merited our salvation by obeying the law perfectly. It is very weird and problematic to me. 

[Edited on 5-12-2006 by puritancovenanter]


----------



## SolaScriptura

I agree that this Presbyterians Together thing may seem sweet to the tongue... but it is rotten milk to the stomach.

Terrible stuff it is.

Randy, nice to see you again.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Good to see you also. Ben, Pray for me.


----------



## DTK

> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> Not just your opinion. I was talking with someone intimately familiar with the controversy and his remark was, "It is remarkable that for someone who is so "balanced" there is not one criticism of the FV that he finds credible or valuable."



Ditto! It makes one wonder if the author of the document is counting on the naiveté or stupidity of his readers, perhaps he's the one being naÃ¯ve. Moreover, it seems to suggest that those of us who are opposed to the FV/NPP are being uncharitable. I, for one, take exception to that.

Moreover, if we are Presbyterians, then let's take the matter to our church courts to adjudicate this doctrinal controversy rather than circulate petitions for sympathetic tolerance of something that has become doctrinally divisive. We've read and heard so much from the FV side about conciliar authority, while in practice they argue their case publicly over the internet. 

DTK

[Edited on 5-12-2006 by DTK]


----------



## SolaScriptura

> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> I was talking with someone intimately familiar with the controversy and his remark was, "It is remarkable that for someone who is so "balanced" there is not one criticism of the FV that he finds credible or valuable."



He´s right. As I read this paper, I was thinking, "œThis guy must´ve just _said_ he´s not FV so that non-FVists will actually read his paper."

Seriously, if he can´t think of one legitimate objection to FV then I would think that he would be intellectually dishonest to NOT become FV.


----------



## fredtgreco

> _Originally posted by DTK_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> Not just your opinion. I was talking with someone intimately familiar with the controversy and his remark was, "It is remarkable that for someone who is so "balanced" there is not one criticism of the FV that he finds credible or valuable."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ditto! It makes one wonder if the author of the document is counting on the naiveté or stupidity of his readers, perhaps he's the one being naÃ¯ve. Moreover, it seems to suggest that those of us who are opposed to the FV/NPP are being uncharitable. I, for one, take exception to that.
> 
> Moreover, if we are Presbyterians, then let's take the matter to our church courts to adjudicate this doctrinal controversy rather than circulate petitions for sympathetic tolerance of something that has become doctrinally divisive. We've read and heard so much from the FV side about conciliar authority, while in practice they argue their case publicly over the internet.
> 
> DTK
> 
> [Edited on 5-12-2006 by DTK]
Click to expand...


Exactly David.

And I suppose that it is pure conincidence that after screaming "take it to the church courts" so often (one minister in particular having used this call _ad nauseam_), now that church courts are finally dealing with this - the OPC justification report, various overtures in the PCA, etc., the call is now - let's stop the judicial process because it is so uncharitable.


----------



## SRoper

"Why is that surprising?"

I was asking if it is surprising. That's why I used a question mark.


----------



## NaphtaliPress

I guess not. Sorry.


> _Originally posted by SRoper_
> "Why is that surprising?"
> 
> I was asking if it is surprising. That's why I used a question mark.


----------



## SolaScriptura

> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by DTK_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> Not just your opinion. I was talking with someone intimately familiar with the controversy and his remark was, "It is remarkable that for someone who is so "balanced" there is not one criticism of the FV that he finds credible or valuable."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ditto! It makes one wonder if the author of the document is counting on the naiveté or stupidity of his readers, perhaps he's the one being naÃ¯ve. Moreover, it seems to suggest that those of us who are opposed to the FV/NPP are being uncharitable. I, for one, take exception to that.
> 
> Moreover, if we are Presbyterians, then let's take the matter to our church courts to adjudicate this doctrinal controversy rather than circulate petitions for sympathetic tolerance of something that has become doctrinally divisive. We've read and heard so much from the FV side about conciliar authority, while in practice they argue their case publicly over the internet.
> 
> DTK
> 
> [Edited on 5-12-2006 by DTK]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Exactly David.
> 
> And I suppose that it is pure conincidence that after screaming "take it to the church courts" so often (one minister in particular having used this call _ad nauseam_), now that church courts are finally dealing with this - the OPC justification report, various overtures in the PCA, etc., the call is now - let's stop the judicial process because it is so uncharitable.
Click to expand...


Mark Horne (remember him?) takes every opportunity he can to remind people that he is a member in good standing of his presbytery... hopefully other presbyteries will not allow FVists to hide behind orthodox language.

[Edited on 5-13-2006 by Contra_Mundum]


----------



## Casey

Why don't they just call it what it really is? Instead of _Presbyterians Together_ they should call it _Unconfessional Presbyterians Together_? How many points in the Confession do they have to deny and rework before they admit to not being confessional? (And what's with non-Presbyterians signing this so-called "Presbyterian" document?)

Are we bound to see schisms in the church on account of this? Does this thing smell of _Auburn Affirmation_, or what?



> AN AFFIRMATION
> designed to safeguard the unity and liberty
> of the Presbyterian Church in the United States of America



And, for some odd reason, the document quotes Calvin:


> For not all articles of true doctrine are of the same sort. Some are so necessary to know that they should be certain and unquestioned by all men as the proper principles of religion...Among the churches there are other articles of doctrine disputed which still do not break the unity of faith...Does this not sufficiently indicate that a difference of opinion over nonessential matters should in nowise be the basis of schism among Christians? (Institutes 4.1.12)


What? What is this fascination with quoting Calvin when trying to prove your point, while completely taking him out of context? This document is arguing for "tolerance" for anti-confessional beliefs--Calvin is arguing for unity in the face of "petty dissensions" (which certainly can't refer to what's contained in confessional documents).

One of the purposes of the Confession in the first place is that it is _the basis of our unity!_ To be anti-confessional is to be schismatic. Therein seems to be the irony in their call for "anti-confessional togetherness."



[Edited on 5-13-2006 by StaunchPresbyterian]


----------



## NaphtaliPress

News sure made the blog rounds quickly.


----------



## Casey

> _Originally posted by NaphtaliPress_
> News sure made the blog rounds quickly.


Looks like one of those bloggers that is happy about this document is in the PCUSA.


----------



## NaphtaliPress

Yes; I noticed that; and being promoted at not too surprising places elsewhere as well.


> _Originally posted by StaunchPresbyterian_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by NaphtaliPress_
> News sure made the blog rounds quickly.
> 
> 
> 
> Looks like one of those bloggers that is happy about this document is in the PCUSA.
Click to expand...


[Edited on 5-13-2006 by NaphtaliPress]


----------



## Bladestunner316

ben,
Im in good standing with my blog does that count


----------



## Pilgrim

This document, and particularly this quote by Frame are reminiscent of what often happens in SBC circles to cut off debate when theology begins to be discussed and debated: "Sit down and shut up, all this theological discussion about what the Bible actually teaches is a distraction so let's whip up enthusiasm for evangelism and missions, because we can all agree on that, right?" Before long, you have the Power Team coming in, and drama, films, and other foolishness crowding out the ministry of Word and Sacrament. 

I'd be about as likely to sign this as I would Evangelicals and Catholics Together, to which the title of PPT bears an eerie resemblance. I think those who have compared it to the Auburn Affirmation (in the sense of it eroding confessionalism) are probably on to something. 

And regarding censoriousness, you can find it on the FV side in spades, with their pejorative code words "Southern Presbyterian" "gnostic", "Zwinglian" and "revivalistic" being recklessly bandied about (usually being applied to people whose beliefs are anything but Zwinglian, revivalistic, etc.; many just assume that if you disagree with them that the label fits) and when used, acting as that ends the debate. 

"Baptistic" is another favorite of theirs, and as some have pointed out, a good many if not a majority of those pushing for paedocommunion and hypercovenantalism are from baptistic backgrounds and have overreacted to the other extreme.

[Edited on 5-14-2006 by Pilgrim]


----------



## Pilgrim

> _Originally posted by SolaScriptura_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> I was talking with someone intimately familiar with the controversy and his remark was, "It is remarkable that for someone who is so "balanced" there is not one criticism of the FV that he finds credible or valuable."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He´s right. As I read this paper, I was thinking, "œThis guy must´ve just _said_ he´s not FV so that non-FVists will actually read his paper."
> 
> Seriously, if he can´t think of one legitimate objection to FV then I would think that he would be intellectually dishonest to NOT become FV.
Click to expand...


 to Fred and Ben here. These were my thoughts as well upon reading the paper.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

> "Jonathan Edwards believed that censoriousness among Christians was one of the reasons why the Great Awakening lost its revival power. I believe he was right! And I believe that censoriousness is having the same kind of negative effect in our conservative Presbyterian circles today. The document 'Presbyterians and Presbyterians Together' is a wonderful Edwardsean call to orthodox and evangelical Presbyterians to avoid censoriousness for the sake of the Gospel. I am honored to sign the document and I hope that many, many others will do so as well."
> -- Samuel T. Logan



Maybe I am just stupid but what revival or Great Awakening did I miss. This is not the same thing. This is another downgrade controversy that is being addressed. Well, maybe it is a little more since we have a confessional church.

[Edited on 5-15-2006 by puritancovenanter]


----------



## R. Scott Clark

> _Originally posted by puritancovenanter_
> 
> 
> 
> "Jonathan Edwards believed that censoriousness among Christians was one of the reasons why the Great Awakening lost its revival power. I believe he was right! And I believe that censoriousness is having the same kind of negative effect in our conservative Presbyterian circles today. The document 'Presbyterians and Presbyterians Together' is a wonderful Edwardsean call to orthodox and evangelical Presbyterians to avoid censoriousness for the sake of the Gospel. I am honored to sign the document and I hope that many, many others will do so as well."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If censoriousness could kill a revival, as some of my folk might say, "It ain't a revival." Did censoriousness stop the work of the Spirit in Acts? No.
> 
> How is this different than, "You weren't healed because you didn't have enough faith/someone doubted." Really? Didn't someone doubt when Paul was bitten by that snake? Did Paul die? Didn't someone say, after seeing Paul under a pile of rocks, "Man, he must be dead."? Didn't someone say at the shipwreck, "We're all going to die."?
> 
> That's the difference between apostolic power and what has passed for "revival" since the 18th century.
> 
> This rhetoric also sounds like another version of: "It's those (unregenerate) confessional types again...." or "the danger of an unconverted ministry."
> 
> With them (the revivalists) it too often comes down to who is "more spiritual" or who is regenerate and who isn't.
> 
> Are those really the right categories for conducting this discussion?
> 
> rsc
Click to expand...


----------



## SolaScriptura

Dr. Clark,

I happen to think Gilbert Tennent's sermon is outstanding, and I do think that there is much danger in an unconverted ministry. I do think that confessionalism alone, without regeneration, will lead (at best) to dead orthodoxy.

Don't get me wrong, though: I do not for one minute believe that we must throw out confessionalism. We simply must recognize that confessionalism alone is not enough.

But I do agree with your criticism of that quote, especially your appeal to Scripture.


----------



## New wine skin

[The Reformed tradition, particularly as expressed confessionally, represents
a definite set of dogmatic contours, doctrinal boundaries, and exegetical
trajectories. And that is a tradition we happily and warmly embrace as our
own, in conformity with Holy Scripture.]

my favorite line is about "exegetical trajectories"

I am going dress up as purple dinosaur in my next bible study and ask people to happily and warmly embrace my exegetical trajectories.


----------



## R. Scott Clark

> _Originally posted by SolaScriptura_
> Dr. Clark,
> 
> I happen to think Gilbert Tennent's sermon is outstanding, and I do think that there is much danger in an unconverted ministry. I do think that confessionalism alone, without regeneration, will lead (at best) to dead orthodoxy.
> 
> Don't get me wrong, though: I do not for one minute believe that we must throw out confessionalism. We simply must recognize that confessionalism alone is not enough.
> 
> But I do agree with your criticism of that quote, especially your appeal to Scripture.



Well, you're not alone, a lot of folk like that sermon, but it was unfair and, to his credit, he repented of it later in his career.

There is no such thing as dead orthodoxy.

If it's orthodox, it isn't dead. If it's dead, it isn't orthodox.

rsc


----------



## Arch2k

> _Originally posted by R. Scott Clark_
> There is no such thing as dead orthodoxy.
> 
> If it's orthodox, it isn't dead. If it's dead, it isn't orthodox.
> 
> rsc


----------



## SolaScriptura

> _Originally posted by R. Scott Clark_
> Well, you're not alone, a lot of folk like that sermon, but it was unfair and, to his credit, he repented of it later in his career.
> 
> There is no such thing as dead orthodoxy.
> 
> If it's orthodox, it isn't dead. If it's dead, it isn't orthodox.



I believe he repented of his tone, not of his point. 

Please don't split hairs... I think you know exactly what I'm talking about when I make reference to "dead orthodoxy." 

Dead refers to the state of the heart... orthodox refers to the nature of their confessed beliefs.

[Edited on 5-15-2006 by SolaScriptura]


----------



## R. Scott Clark

> _Originally posted by SolaScriptura_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by R. Scott Clark_
> Well, you're not alone, a lot of folk like that sermon, but it was unfair and, to his credit, he repented of it later in his career.
> 
> There is no such thing as dead orthodoxy.
> 
> If it's orthodox, it isn't dead. If it's dead, it isn't orthodox.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I believe he repented of his tone, not of his point.
> 
> Please don't split hairs... I think you know exactly what I'm talking about when I make reference to "dead orthodoxy."
> 
> Dead refers to the state of the heart... orthodox refers to the nature of their confessed beliefs.
> 
> [Edited on 5-15-2006 by SolaScriptura]
Click to expand...


I'm not splitting hairs, I'm challenging your definition of "orthodoxy." I don't accept the premise of your analysis. Mere profession of truth isn't orthodoxy. 

We have, today, a truncated view of orthodoxy. If we asked any of "orthodox" of the 16th or 17th centuries, they would say, "no, that's an insufficient definition of orthodoxy." Orthodoxy entails true faith and true faith presupposes regeneration. 

We're the Pharisees orthodox? No. They were painted tombs. 

I think that you might have confused Whitefield's reconsideration of his tone with Tennent's repentance for his sermon. Whitefield did apologize publicly for the tone of some of his ciriticisms of his critics. Tennent, however, realized using the "U" word was a mistake. 

First, it isn't reformed. Second, it's not our business. It's not a private judgment. It is an ecclesiastical matter. If a session/consistory has not judged one to be outside of the kingdom, then we may not say that they are (even if we might harbor such suspicions in our hearts).

See Frank Lambert, Inventing "œThe Great Awakening," (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1999), 185-221.

rsc


----------



## SolaScriptura

I use the standard definition that is employed to refer to the situation in Lutheranism that gave rise to pietism. 

Call it what you will, but I know lots and lots and lots of people who can give you all the right answers - what is in their head is orthodox - but they are dead in their sins.

According to my class notes - and trust me, I am a diligent note taker - in 1756 he apologized for his "intemperate manner." Perhaps my professor was wrong...

Regarding the Pharisees... it wasn't their doctrine that Jesus condemned... it was its lack of effect on their lives.
However, I will concede that Paul apparently makes reference to unorthodox soteriology within the Jews in general (surely it would include the Pharisees) in Rom 9:32.

I'm simply trying to point out what I believe to be quite obvious: you can have a person affirm orthodox doctrine yet be dead in their sins. 
In fact, just yesterday I began reading Joseph Alliene who says basically the same thing... 

[Edited on 5-15-2006 by SolaScriptura]


----------



## R. Scott Clark

> _Originally posted by SolaScriptura_
> I use the standard definition that is employed to refer to the situation in Lutheranism that gave rise to pietism.



But I doubt the standard definition. It's written by mostly pietist scholars studying pietism. It's a self-interested definition. 

As I read the lit, the scholars of pietism make everyone who ever prayed or attended a Bible study into a pietist.

In other words, the beg the question, the assume the conclusion. The use the regnerate/unregenerate scheme in their definition! 



> Call it what you will, but I know lots and lots and lots of people who can give you all the right answers - what is in their head is orthodox - but they are dead in their sins.



This is interesting. It breathes the spirit of G. Tennent. 

Ben, be careful here. Are you saying that you know members of true churches who are admitted to the table who are actually sinning impenitently? How do you know this, by observation (you're not claiming special revelation I trust)?

If so, have you approached these persons about the incongruity between their lifestyle and their profession of faith?

Is their session aware of their impenitent sinning?

"Dead orthodoxy" (for the sake of discussion) exists because we *allow* it to exist - by not exercising the third mark of the true church! 

If folk do not live according to their profession of faith and if they live impenitently, they should come under discipline. Such folk, by my definition are not really orthodox.

rsc


----------



## Puritan Sailor

Dr. Clark,
What about "dead orthodoxy" in Calvinists who don't evangelize? How should the church discipline them? I see this as a serious problem in the Reformed church. For many, the doctrine is right. They aren't immoral outwardly, and they know all the right answers, but they never spread the gospel. How should a session go about correcting that?


----------



## R. Scott Clark

> _Originally posted by puritansailor_
> Dr. Clark,
> What about "dead orthodoxy" in Calvinists who don't evangelize? How should the church discipline them? I see this as a serious problem in the Reformed church. For many, the doctrine is right. They aren't immoral outwardly, and they know all the right answers, but they never spread the gospel. How should a session go about correcting that?



Well, they aren't very orthodox are they? 

Why should we concede that hyper-Calvinism is "orthodox?" 

That's why I keep saying that there is much more to being Reformed than predestination. 

As to immorality in the church, I guess that's been a problem since Corinth. I'm not making light, but trying put it in some context.

The answer is not to play "guess the elect," but to discipline those who profess faith and live impenitently.

rsc


----------



## turmeric

I guess we need to expand our defnitions of sin.


----------



## R. Scott Clark

I don't mean to say "discipline those who don't do evangelism," because I don't accept the premise.

I think we ought to distinguish between what is done in the pulpit (evangelism) from what is done by the "pew" as it were -- witness.

I'm not advocating discipline for those who do not witness sufficiently. Who would judge that? On what basis? 

I'm advocating discipline for those who openly defy their profession, who bring the church into disrepute and who scandalize the church.

Otherwise, regarding the "pew," we must pray and teach and wait for the Spirit to work. Willingness to testify to one's faith and the faith are borne of faith and conviction and compassion for the lost. I think that most folk will do what they see their pastor do.

If ministers won't fulfill their duty to "evangelize" by preaching the gospel then that is a matter for ecclesiastical discipline.

rsc


----------



## Civbert

> _Originally posted by R. Scott Clark_
> I don't mean to say "discipline those who don't do evangelism," because I don't accept the premise.
> 
> I think we ought to distinguish between what is done in the pulpit (evangelism) from what is done by the "pew" as it were -- witness.
> 
> I'm not advocating discipline for those who do not witness sufficiently. Who would judge that? On what basis?
> 
> ...
> rsc



I think we can discipline Christians who fail to evangelize via the pulpit. I know you are speaking of more official or "church" discipline, but is not the "sermon" also is a tool of discipline in an informal yet powerful way? We chastise as well as encourage the body through sermons. The Spirit will convict those who are not living out their faith as fully as they should.


----------



## R. Scott Clark

> _Originally posted by Civbert_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by R. Scott Clark_
> I don't mean to say "discipline those who don't do evangelism," because I don't accept the premise.
> 
> I think we ought to distinguish between what is done in the pulpit (evangelism) from what is done by the "pew" as it were -- witness.
> 
> I'm not advocating discipline for those who do not witness sufficiently. Who would judge that? On what basis?
> 
> ...
> rsc
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think we can discipline Christians who fail to evangelize via the pulpit. I know you are speaking of more official or "church" discipline, but is not the "sermon" also is a tool of discipline in an informal yet powerful way? We chastise as well as encourage the body through sermons. The Spirit will convict those who are not living out their faith as fully as they should.
Click to expand...


Yes, I agree, given the distinction between what laity do (witness) and what ministers do (evangelize). 

We should pray that God the Spirit will use the gospel to move his people to witness to their faith and the faith. 

We should discipline ministers who fail to discharge their most fundamental duty - to preach the gospel; which is nothing but evangelism.

rsc


----------



## NaphtaliPress

I thought Dr. Clark's discovery mentioned at the link below was interesting, regarding some being confused what they were signing and that there have been some signatures retracted from the P&PT document.
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/co-urc/message/17144


----------



## py3ak

Acid Ink takes this on.

Wednesday, 24th May, 2006
Little Known Document Recovered By Archivist

In 1860 the Democratic Party was the one institutional structure that was holding together the Union. Eventually the Democratic Party splintered into two parties -- the Northern Democrats who supported Stephen A. Douglas, and the Southern Democrats who supported John Breckenridge.

Now, what's not so well known is that those who were responsible for the division in the Democratic Party published a document that held out hope of reconciliation between the two factions. This document was titled as, "Democrats and Democrats Together." This document promised that those who had been instrumental in the division in the party would henceforth deal charitably with their fellow Democrats.

The 'Democrats and Democrats Together' document garnered many signatories but most of them were from Democrats who had, ironically, been the ones who stirred up the strife that they were now trying to conciliate or they were Democrats who were clueless about the Party politics that had been going on for years, or most odd of all, the document was signed by many Republicans, Whigs, and various Know Nothings.

Of course we know from History that the 'Democrats and Democrats Together' document had absolutely no effect of calming the troubled waters in the Democratic party of 1860.


----------



## Bladestunner316

Thats insanely weird...................

[Edited on 6-1-2006 by Bladestunner316]


----------



## Puritanhead

John Breckenridge for President in 2008!!!

Death is no excuse!!!


----------

