# OPC Justification Report Out



## NaphtaliPress (Apr 18, 2006)

I see from other chat groups that the OPC "Report of the Committee to Study the Doctrine of Justification" is out.

{Edit, to try and keep the PB from even the appearance of contributing to unauthorized spread. Let's abide by the OPC wishes, and not discuss anything pertaining to the report. Chris, you did nothing improper at the time to reference the links, I'm just making the change now.}

[Edited on 4-19-2006 by Contra_Mundum]


----------



## Arch2k (Apr 18, 2006)

Very interesting. I'm interested to hear where they've come down.


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Apr 18, 2006)

Jeff, 
One person says his OPC contacts say the report is a godsend and that it condemns both the FV and the NPP as out of accord with both scripture and the confession.


----------



## AdamM (Apr 18, 2006)

in my opinion, this outstanding report is the definitive treatment of the various New Perspectives for Evangelical and Reformed churches.

{Mod}
Let's not publicize PWs...

[Edited on 4-19-2006 by Contra_Mundum]


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Apr 18, 2006)

Sure but,...
It really doesn't matter how well written it is. JR already anathematized this church as of 1948.

{ghost of van til} "Boo!"


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Apr 18, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Contra_Mundum_
> Sure but,...
> It really doesn't matter how well written it is. JR already anathematized this church as of 1948.
> 
> {ghost of van til} "Boo!"


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Apr 18, 2006)

Is there a reason why they're not making the report available without a PW? Does somebody have the report? I can't get to it.


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Apr 18, 2006)

> _Originally posted by SemperFideles_
> Is there a reason why they're not making the report available without a PW? Does somebody have the report? I can't get to it.



I think it is only _intended_ for OPC GA use until it is approved by the GA. After that it will probably be public on the OPC website.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Apr 18, 2006)

> _Originally posted by puritansailor_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by SemperFideles_
> ...


Roger. Thanks.


----------



## Pilgrim (Apr 18, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Contra_Mundum_
> Sure but,...
> It really doesn't matter how well written it is. JR already anathematized this church as of 1948.
> 
> {ghost of van til} "Boo!"


----------



## fredtgreco (Apr 19, 2006)

This report appears to be very straightforward in its assessment of the FV and NPP. I would expect advocates of the FV to be vehement at the OPC GA - because if the report is adopted, they are likely done.

I would be surprised if the PCA feels the need to have its own study committee after this 91 page report, whose authors include one who has been heavily criticized (apparently wrongly) by John Robbins et al as being pro-FV (Gaffin).

I am not sure what several PCA ministers will say on their blogs tomorrow, since they have spent years defending the principles criticized in the report (think about their view of the efficacy of baptism, and moaning about grace in the covenant in Eden)

{Edit, removing quote}

[Edited on 4-19-2006 by Contra_Mundum]


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Apr 19, 2006)




----------



## NaphtaliPress (Apr 19, 2006)

fyi. There is some surprise expressed on the Yahoo OPC discussion forum that the report has been made so public since it has not yet been presented to GA which has to act on it; and some indicate it is likely to be tinkered with or attempts there at.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Apr 19, 2006)

> _Originally posted by NaphtaliPress_
> fyi. There is some surprise expressed on the Yahoo OPC discussion forum that the report has been made so public since it has not yet been presented to GA which has to act on it; and some indicate it is likely to be tinkered with or attempts there at.


In retrospect, that is quite astonishing that somebody published the report before adoption. That doesn't seem very Presbyterian for the committee to publish the report before it is adopted by GA.


----------



## Casey (Apr 19, 2006)

> _Originally posted by SemperFideles_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by NaphtaliPress_
> ...


This may be symantics . . but . . the Report has been made "public," but the report has not been "published." I'll see about talking to my professor today (Rev. Alan Strange) to ask why it's been made "public." My guess: It's a weighty matter, and the Report (being rather long) needs to be "digested" by the church before it can be received and the recommendations adopted. Yes?  Unless items of discipline, Presbyteries and General Assemblies are always public -- including most of their reports. It seems more a "Presbyterian thing" to remain transparent. Yes?


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Apr 19, 2006)

That is probably the situation. Prof. Strange told me some weeks back it would be "out" before GA (he wrote some 19K words of it if I recall what he told me correctly). Prof. Strange is one of the contributing editors to _The Confessional Presbyterian_ journal.


> _Originally posted by StaunchPresbyterian_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by SemperFideles_
> ...


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Apr 19, 2006)

> _Originally posted by StaunchPresbyterian_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by SemperFideles_
> ...


I don't know. I should have made it more of an interrogative. It just seemed that the GA's "job" is to determine which parts it's going to actually "make public" and approve. It might end up being scandalous if portions are omitted later. I'll be curious to hear what your professor says.


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Apr 19, 2006)

I do wonder, have all previous study committee papers "come out" like this or is it just the amount of contoversy over the issue that brings the pre distribution of the paper into discussion?


----------



## beej6 (Apr 19, 2006)

Actually, the report itself in the first page/introduction speaks briefly to the issue of the internet and its uses. I suspect the report's posting on the website is the fastest way to distribute it to OP presbyters and members. I suppose for those not familiar with Presbyterian/OP church government that a "disclaimer" could have been posted as well that the report is finished but not accepted. Clearly someone/some people felt this report was important enough to distribute in this way rather than by snail mail etc.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Apr 19, 2006)

The fact that it is so full a report means that ministers, sessions, and especially GA commissioners need the report in advance in order to give it proper study and consideration. This is much better to be done with a couple months notice, and not on the day everyone shows up at GA.

E-mail is the world's cheapest distribution system ever. This is a rather substantial report, just talking size. ANT can give you going rates for shipping. Then there's printing costs. Either the stated clerk's office could absorb all that at the nearest Kinkos, Staples, or OfficeMax, or blow it all on 7 or 8 toner cartridges, or let all the presbytery stated clerks crank it out (in addition to--most of them--pastoring their churches).

What about e-mail? Why not send it to all the minsters, pastors, and elders in the whole denomination? Well, not only does the STO not have all those e-mail addresses, it is not their job to have them. And maybe all these guys don't want (or need ) the report. The commissioners to GA are the ones in particular, although every minster and session really do need to be "up" on the issue.

So why the "secrecy"? Well, its not really "secret", after all, we don't hold secret meetings, or star-chamber deliberations. The church isn't a secret society. But this is not ready for general distribution. The present report has yet to be submitted to the church officially--at GA for deliberation, and from GA to the church. So, its not "hanging out there" on the web or anything else. You have to "try" to get it, and if you want it badly enough, you can get it without too much trouble. It's like a present wrapped up, under the tree. Its already been bought, and dressed up. It gets opened in a few weeks.

{Edit, again, we may discuss the _*fact*_ of the report, and other's references, but let us not "open the present" until Krissmiss.

[Edited on 4-19-2006 by Contra_Mundum]


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Apr 19, 2006)

Someone messed up. Here is a note I saw just now:


> I just called the Stated Clerk of the OPC. He informed me that the intention was to allow only those with OPC alias to have accecss to the report. So. I repeat my call for restraint. Barb, here are a few reasons why I believe it would be the right thing to do.
> 
> 1. It was not the intent of the Committee or the OPC for the report to be publically available until after the GA
> 2. It belongs to the GA in that it is a report to the GA from one of its committees
> ...


http://groups.yahoo.com/group/presbyterians-opc/post?act=forward&messageNum=33658

[Edited on 4-19-2006 by NaphtaliPress]


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Apr 19, 2006)

Not surprisingly at all, Peter Leithart has made his first "that's not what I really said" response on his blog: www.leithart.com


----------



## Casey (Apr 19, 2006)

For future reference, here is the link: http://www.leithart.com/archives/002002.php


----------



## AdamM (Apr 19, 2006)

Friends, as suspected by some earlier, the Stated Clerk of the OPC did not want the committee report released to the general public prior to consideration by the GA. I understand that they have requested that out of respect their process, folks hold off on web discussions until after the OPC speaks to the report. Let's be sure to respect their wish and keep a lid on it until after the June GA.


----------



## sastark (Apr 19, 2006)

Perhaps this thread could be locked until then?


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Apr 19, 2006)

The reason I didn't lock it, and yet did major editing in this one, is so that there is *one* place to talk about the fact that there IS a report, or related matters, but so that we aren't openning and closing 15-20 threads on the same topic. We will NOT discuss the report at all. And any post of substance dealing with its contents will be deleted. Until the 2006 OPC GA is concluded.


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Apr 19, 2006)

No problem; thanks for the edits Bruce.


----------



## Casey (Apr 20, 2006)

For additional clarification and confirmation of what has already been expressed: I asked my professor, the Rev. Alan Strange (who is on the Committee who wrote report), about the report . . he said it was intended for officers of the church to review, and explicitly said *he would not like the report discussed on the Internet*. Although he did suggest that he wasn't too concerned about the spread of the report, since it will most probably *not* be revised. The report will be presented to the GA in the form it presently is in (most probably). The only question is whether or not the recommendations will be adopted. Either way, we probably shouldn't discuss it online--though we can read it if we got it.


----------



## Civbert (Apr 20, 2006)

I'd like to read it just to be more informed on the issues involved.


----------



## gwine (Apr 25, 2006)

Hope I am not off-topic but I am trying to print the report out and I cannot get the Greek to print. Has anyone been able to do so? It is calling for GreekNT,Bold font.

I know, Bob, I should let it go, but I can't. I just can't.


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Apr 25, 2006)

Someone posted the missing Greek font everyone needs at the OPC discussion group files section. see the link below.
Hope it helps.
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/presbyterians-opc/files/
Page down to GreekNTb.TTF You may need to join to be able to get to this though. If so I'll post it here or maybe someone's else can if I don't soon enough.


> _Originally posted by gwine_
> Hope I am not off-topic but I am trying to print the report out and I cannot get the Greek to print. Has anyone been able to do so? It is calling for GreekNT,Bold font.
> 
> I know, Bob, I should let it go, but I can't. I just can't.


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Jun 27, 2006)

FYI. The OPC Justification Report is now free and clear to discuss on the OPC forum, here and anywhere else. 
The report is available on the BBWarfield list, files section,
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/bbwarfield/files/
The missing Greek font everyone seems to need is at the OPC list files section.
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/presbyterians-opc/files/


----------



## Bladestunner316 (Jun 27, 2006)

Im glad its available. 

To those who have read it what do you think?


----------



## fredtgreco (Jun 27, 2006)

For those without access to the OPC list (and ease), here is the file:


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Jun 27, 2006)

Thank you Fred!

And now, as the official "restrictor" of this thread, I would now like to proclaim this thread *OFFICIALLY* non-restricted.


You can bet your last dollar that the spin-meisters from all sides will be coming out of the woodwork. The OPC haters will say the report or its reception actually proves the denomination really is going to hell after all (just as they knew all along). The FV lovers will say they've once again been misunderstood (and so will publish additional reams of print and internet traffic that add obfuscation to the unintelligible).

Meanwhile, the report will be added to the growing body of literature critiquing the FV, and basically pointing out its anti-confessional, contra-sound-doctrine positions, vis a vis the historic reformed faith. Those who want to meld these positions are going to have to create their own denomination (or join the CRE).

For at least another year, the OPC proves it's still the little engine that could.

Oh well, haters, maybe next year they'll derail. Its bound to happen, right?

I'm going to keep praying her up though. Faithfulness is never a matter of yesterday's triumphs. Pride is what will bring her low, if/when.



Dear God! I love that lady! See, she's my mother...


----------



## Puddleglum (Jun 28, 2006)

Fred,

When I tried to open that file, I got a bunch of Greek letters, but that was it . . . ??


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Jun 28, 2006)

Jessica,
That is the Greek font to "use" with the report. Load the font as you would any in Windows (simply drag and drop it in the fonts folder). The report should be available at the bbwarfield link above. I couldn't find the old link to the opc.org site.


> _Originally posted by Puddleglum_
> Fred,
> 
> When I tried to open that file, I got a bunch of Greek letters, but that was it . . . ??


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Jun 28, 2006)

> We just went back to the Justification report. In short order we
> passed the following recommendations:
> 
> The 73rd G.A. requests the Committee on Christian Education: (1) to
> ...



Can we discuss this now?


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Jun 28, 2006)

Yes Randy. See Bruce's all clear above.


> _Originally posted by puritancovenanter_
> 
> 
> > We just went back to the Justification report. In short order we
> ...


----------



## JohnV (Jun 28, 2006)

Coming out of retirement just for this one post:

Without having read the report, but looking at it from the outside, I see both a positive and a negative in this action by the OPC. I still need to read the report, the official one. So I'll wait until it is published before I comment on it directly, if I do at all. 

But I think that it is important to us that the denomination has at least discussed it. We have to be careful that it doesn't turn into a sort of class-action suit against a certain party, whether they are actually named specifically or indirectly pointed to. If this is a heresy, then we have to actually have trials of persons for the doctrines they are propounding, not just for the views they are holding personally. Because this was an "issue" report, so to speak, I think the OPC did all it could really do. Because the views under question may change somewhat in definition according to the individual, it is most difficult to define a doctrine that is actually out there, as opposed to a generalization or a composite of the doctrine. What may be defined in the report may actually be, by definition, what none of the proponents actually hold to individually. So I think it was wise not to turn this into a theological class-action type of thing, and just deal with actual charges if they come up in light of the clarifications intended by the GA by this report. 

On the other hand, there are assertions of Biblical interpretation that are being propagated. And the Church is the stage being used for it. That is serious, I think. So I see this as a matter of the use of the ordained office to do something that is actually outside the office calling. And if this is suggested at all by the GA, then they had an obligation to that as well, not just to the report. Well, that's how I understand the Book of Order, anyways. I don't think that they are necessarily confined from making a proactive decision, if they have sufficient evidence for it. As I understand the BOCO, if they know something with sufficient evidence, then they are responsible for it, and cannot cite objections of propriety or procedure in order to escape that responsibility. And the way this has come about, it forced the GA to walk a very thin line that way. The wording of the report itself may have obviated some sorts of actions, but it may also have made it very difficult to walk that line for them, from a BOCO and responsibility perspective. And it seems to me that is why the provisos are included in the charge to publish it to the Presbyteries. 

In sum, the GA can't take action against individuals or even movements unless the charges are specific, as opposed to composites or generalized versions of the doctrine involved. This was a report of two separate things: the issue itself; and what is happening in the churches by it. They did the best they could with it under the circumstances, it seems. 

But that is just looking at it from the outside, in a way, from a perspective of looking at the thing generally: and not knowing the specifics of the report or the Committee's recommendations, but having read much of the material that was presented here on the PB about it. (This, then, assumes that the PB is a reliable source.)

Anyways, for what its worth, that's my take on it so far.


----------

