# Fed Vis



## Scott Bushey

After wading through various Xanga posts as well as some various links here on the web, having been associated w/ the PCA and read over their 'Colloquium', I am astonished how it is taking so long for any of the major orthodox bodies of Christs church to step up to the plate and denounce this blatant error. I am proud to say, our overseeing body, the RPCGA are not men in skirts! They are not fooled by the mystical shell game that Schlissel et. al. are playing. 


Here is the official statement:

*Preamble, Affirmations and Denials of the Reformed Presbyterian Church General Assembly, Concerning the Doctrines of Biblical Revelation, Covenant of Works, Covenant of Grace, Justification, Baptism, Good Works, The Church and the Westminster Standards.*


In response to the current justification controversy that has engulfed the Reformed Church, arising from doctrines propagated by the New Perspective on Paul, Shepherdism, and what has come to be commonly called the Auburn Avenue Theology, or any combination thereof, which has compromised the pure Gospel of the satisfactory work of Jesus Christ as the sole basis for salvation, this Assembly of the Reformed Presbyterian Church (GA), has enacted the following affirmations and denials for the protection and preservation of the Gospel and this ecclesiastical body in accordance with the Holy Scripture, the Westminster Confession of Faith and the Book of Church Order. 

Whereas some individual views may vary from person to person, nevertheless, the aforementioned theological issues have reintroduced the doctrine of semi-pelagianism and a latent form of Roman Catholicism in both theory and practice, which has already been condemned by the historic Evangelical and Reformed Church as is manifested in their creeds. 

*Biblical Revelation and Interpretation*
Whereas, any doctrinal teaching that denies or deviates from Biblical Revelation as propositional and logically systematic in nature, whether verbal or written, or asserts that such teaching is Greek and/or Hellenistic in nature, identifies historic Reformed teaching as some type of "˜Gnostic theology', denies the grammatico-historical method of interpretation, belittles or denies Christianity as that system of doctrine taught in the Scripture, is contrary to the Bible and the Westminster Standards. 

*Covenant of Works*
Whereas, any doctrinal teaching that denies or deviates from the Covenant of Works or Life, wherein Adam transgressed God's commandment, resulting in sin and condemnation for himself and all his posterity before a just God, leaving all men totally unable to merit acceptance with God (justification) as a result of this legal breach, whether by word or deed (thought or action), is contrary to the Bible and the Westminster Standards. 

*Covenant of Grace *
Whereas, any doctrinal teaching that denies or deviates from the historical Reformed interpretation that teaches God's covenant of grace (salvation by a sovereign God) was eternally founded, wherein the Father elected individuals in Christ (the elect), the Son agreed to redeem the elect as their Federal representative, being the only acceptable mediator between God and man; in the fullness of time, being born of a woman , He fulfilled all the necessary requirements for Divine justice and restitution in His atoning work upon the cross; wherein the Father and the Son sends the Holy Spirit to renew and impute Christ's righteousness to them, whereby all their sins, past, present and future, are forgiven, once and for all time; wherein they are declared righteous by God and are sealed by the Spirit as a guarantee of their promised eternal inheritance, that is, the salvation of their souls and their bodily resurrection, is contrary to the Bible and the Westminster Standards. 

*Justification*
Whereas, any doctrinal teaching that denies or deviates from the historical Reformed formula of justification by faith alone, that is, that man is forensically (legally) declared, not made, right with God through faith alone (which is the instrument and not the object), based wholly on the imputed righteousness of Christ's work through the regenerating power of the Holy Spirit, is adopted into the family of God, and sealed eternally in those covenant promises given to Christ as the Federal Head of the Elect, is contrary to the Bible and the Westminster Standards.

Whereas, any doctrinal teaching that defines justification by faith as a synthetic, co-operative work, as "œfaithful obedience" or "œcovenantal faithfulness" through the meritorious works of God and man, or by man alone, in salvation, or teaches that man keeps or maintains his redemptive status in God's covenant of grace as a means to final vindication, that is to say, "œa progressive justification", is contrary to the Bible and the Westminster Standards. 

*Perseverance of the Saints*
Whereas, any doctrinal teaching that denies or deviates from the historical Reformed interpretation, which errantly teaches that a Christian may lose their salvation, or the elect may become un-elected, or that any individual in covenant with Christ can apostatize or break the covenant of grace that was established in Christ's covenant of redemption from eternity is contrary to the Bible and the Westminster standards. 

*Baptism*
Whereas, any doctrinal teaching that asserts that Baptism regenerates, initiates or infuses Christ's righteousness, resulting in a personal righteousness, thereby making him acceptable to God in salvation, is contrary to the Bible and the Westminster Standards. 

Whereas, any doctrinal teaching that asserts justification is a process (progressive justification) beginning with baptism, whereby all who are baptized with water are considered incorporated in Christ and the recipients of all the benefits of Christ's accomplished work, being contingent upon continual obedience unto the law of God or "œcovenantal faithfulness" (wherein salvation or election might be lost due to apostasy), and which is not complete until Judgment Day, is contrary to the Bible and the Westminster Standards. 

*Good Works *
Whereas, any doctrinal teaching that asserts "œour good works" result in or contribute to our justification, rather than resulting from the imputed righteousness of Christ through the renewing and indwelling power of the Holy Spirit, being a manifestation of our faith and full acceptance with God, and are the fruits of the indwelling Spirit, is contrary to the Bible and the Westminster Standards. 

*The Church *
Whereas, any doctrinal teaching that denies or deviates from the existence of both, the universal or invisible church made up of all true believers, the elect in Christ Jesus our Federal Head, and the visible church, which is universal (not confined to one nation) and made up of all those who profess the true faith, together with their children, is contrary to the Bible and the Westminster Standards. 

Whereas, any doctrinal teaching that promotes the use of sacraments in a way that denies or deviates from the doctrine of the spiritual presence of Christ in the meal, or that teaches that salvation is infused, merited, or conveyed as a result of receiving the elements therein, is contrary to the Bible and the Westminster Standards and our Book of Church Order. 

*Westminster Standards* 
We believe and maintain that the Westminster Standards are the purest human expression of Biblical Christianity as interpreted in the Historic Reformed theological tradition. Further, we assert and adhere to the doctrines of sola gratia, sola fide, solo Christo, sola Scriptura, and soli deo Gloria as the common expression of the Reformation Church


Soli Deo Gloria



[Edited on 11-17-2005 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## SolaScriptura

Scott, I LOVE this new avatar you're using!


----------



## Scott Bushey

Thanks Ben. As you can tell, it is literally how I am feeling!


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon

The longer the major denominations wait and take thier sweet time about this, the more people are being infected and turning away from Christ back to a slick Roman Doctrine housed in Covenantal terms.


----------



## wsw201

I was talking to the Home Missions guy for the Southwest Presbytery of the OPC about the position paper that is being written on NPP/FV/Shepherd and he said that the group is targeting to have the paper finished by the next GA this Summer.


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia

Is it true that the OPC majority report approved of Paedocommunion?


----------



## wsw201

> _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> Is it true that the OPC majority report approved of Paedocommunion?



Yes that is true. But the Church rejected that opinion.


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia

> _Originally posted by wsw201_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> Is it true that the OPC majority report approved of Paedocommunion?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes that is true. But the Church rejected that opinion.
Click to expand...


So what does that mean, practically, for the OPC?


----------



## fredtgreco

> _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by wsw201_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> Is it true that the OPC majority report approved of Paedocommunion?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes that is true. But the Church rejected that opinion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So what does that mean, practically, for the OPC?
Click to expand...


That paedocommunion is outside the boundaries of the Standards of the Church. The majority or minority view of a committee has no bearing _per se_ on the church. What matters is what is adopted by the church itself (in this case, in the General Assembly).

If I recall the vote was something like 4-3 in committee. Interestingly enough, I can't find the report online anywhere, including the OPC's website or pro-paedocommunion websites.


----------



## wsw201

> _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by wsw201_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> Is it true that the OPC majority report approved of Paedocommunion?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes that is true. But the Church rejected that opinion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So what does that mean, practically, for the OPC?
Click to expand...


What it means is that peadocommunion is not tolerated in the OPC.


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia

> Interestingly enough, I can't find the report online anywhere, including the OPC's website or pro-paedocommunion websites.





So (excuse my newness to Presbyterian polity), when a minority report or majority report is submitted to the Synod, that does not necessarily determine what is Church standards, even if a majority report? It must be voted on? I guess I'm confused how a majority report would not be the standards of a Church if it was submitted to the Synod as the majority consensus?


----------



## wsw201

> _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> 
> 
> 
> Interestingly enough, I can't find the report online anywhere, including the OPC's website or pro-paedocommunion websites.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So (excuse my newness to Presbyterian polity), when a minority report or majority report is submitted to the Synod, that does not necessarily determine what is Church standards, even if a majority report? It must be voted on? I guess I'm confused how a majority report would not be the standards of a Church if it was submitted to the Synod as the majority consensus?
Click to expand...


What usually happens is that a committee is established by a Presbytery or GA to study an issue and bring back to the Church their findings. Then the Presbytery or GA will vote to accept it or reject it. In the case of the peadocommunion report, though the majority of the committee approved of peadocommunion, GA did not, so it was not accepted as the position of the OPC.

Take for instance the report from the MVPresbytery on FV/NPP. Many have said that it was basically the opinion of one or two men. Regardless of that, when it is adopted by the Presbytery, it becomes the opinion of that Presbytery and as DTK has noted in a previous thread, it becomes the opinion of the Church (if I remember this correctly!).

As a side note, there is a very interesting article in the Confessional Presbyterian Journal (here is an unsolicited plug for Chris!) on the topic of deliverances from a church body and the authority they have compared to judicial decisions.


----------



## fredtgreco

> _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> 
> 
> 
> Interestingly enough, I can't find the report online anywhere, including the OPC's website or pro-paedocommunion websites.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So (excuse my newness to Presbyterian polity), when a minority report or majority report is submitted to the Synod, that does not necessarily determine what is Church standards, even if a majority report? It must be voted on? I guess I'm confused how a majority report would not be the standards of a Church if it was submitted to the Synod as the majority consensus?
Click to expand...


Gabe,

This gets back to the fundamental distinction between a commission and a committee (something you will need to know later, if not now).

A commission is a smaller body made up of members of the ecclesiastical body (i.e. 10 presbyters elected from a Presbytery) to act on behalf od the larger body. The most obvious example of this are Commissions to Install ministers. The entire Presbytery cannot be there, but it is the Presbytery that installs, not the congregation. So they appoint/elect a commission to act on their behalf, and to _report back_. Another example is the PCA's Standing Judicial Commission, which is a standing body that acts for the General Assembly in discipline cases.

A committee is formed solely for the purpose of investigating a matter and taking it back for action by the ecclesiastical body itself (e.g. Presbytery or General Assembly, as applicable). The body is free to reject, accept, or amend the report of the committee. It is basically advisory. It has no ecclesiastical force whatsoever unless it is adopted.


----------



## JohnV

> Another example is the PCA's Standing Judicial Commission, which is a standing body that acts for the General Assembly in discipline cases.



Is there such a commission in the OPC too?

And as I said before, FV or NPP is not the problem. I know that it is heresy, but the way that the RPW is applied it is like straining out gnats while letting camels pass through. That is what is bringing us back to sacerdotalism.


----------



## DTK

> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> 
> 
> 
> Interestingly enough, I can't find the report online anywhere, including the OPC's website or pro-paedocommunion websites.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So (excuse my newness to Presbyterian polity), when a minority report or majority report is submitted to the Synod, that does not necessarily determine what is Church standards, even if a majority report? It must be voted on? I guess I'm confused how a majority report would not be the standards of a Church if it was submitted to the Synod as the majority consensus?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Gabe,
> 
> This gets back to the fundamental distinction between a commission and a committee (something you will need to know later, if not now).
> 
> A commission is a smaller body made up of members of the ecclesiastical body (i.e. 10 presbyters elected from a Presbytery) to act on behalf od the larger body. The most obvious example of this are Commissions to Install ministers. The entire Presbytery cannot be there, but it is the Presbytery that installs, not the congregation. So they appoint/elect a commission to act on their behalf, and to _report back_. Another example is the PCA's Standing Judicial Commission, which is a standing body that acts for the General Assembly in discipline cases.
> 
> A committee is formed solely for the purpose of investigating a matter and taking it back for action by the ecclesiastical body itself (e.g. Presbytery or General Assembly, as applicable). The body is free to reject, accept, or amend the report of the committee. It is basically advisory. It has no ecclesiastical force whatsoever unless it is adopted.
Click to expand...


If I may simplify the distinction here between a committee and a commission of Presbytery a little more. A committee, after conducting its business, can only make a recommendation(s) to the Presbytery. A commission has the power to act on behalf of the Presbytery. The difference between these two are almost always asked in ordination examinations. So again, a committee recommends, while a commission has the power to act.

DTK

[Edited on 11-18-2005 by DTK]


----------



## Contra_Mundum

Gabe,

Apparently, the OPC minority material is not available online. You would need to get the 1988 G.A. minutes to read it. The majority report is online because P.C. vested interests are willing to scan/type it and post it. Thankfully, there is also plenty of anti-P.C. stuff available as well. One of Dr. Lee's papers says that the minority side (of which there were at least two separate contributors) had Dr. Coppes writing for it. Some of Dr. Coppes material on the subject is available online, as his own work.

JohnV,
The OPC has no comparable structure to the PCA SJC. The SJC exists to relieve the G.A. of the responsibility of directly handling judicial cases. (Which, given the PCA G.A. structure would be a circus anyway. Right Fred?)

At the OPC G.A. (which is a smaller, delegated assembly, unlike the PCA), a committee reviews the case to see if it is in order, and properly before the court, yes or no. Then the court (the G.A. _in toto_) receives the committee's report, and if it accepts the recommendation (in order, properly before the court) it sits as court of appeal and hears the case.


----------



## JohnV

Thanks, Bruce.

So in the OPC, it is first in committee, and then before a commission, or which is the same as a committee of the whole. Correct?

What is "properly before the court"? 

And how, if in the PCA, does this differ if a commission is delegated to hear the case? Do they too have a subcommittee to determine propriety? Or does the commission itself decide that? So, what, if any, is the difference between "properly before the court" in the OPC, GA as opposed to the PCA, SJC then?


----------



## JohnV

Scott said "*any* of the major orthodox bodies of Christs church to step up to the plate and denounce this blatant error." (emphasis mine). I'm wondering how, if this were a disciplinary case (as I believe it should have been from the start) this would be handled by these different methods.


----------



## wsw201

> _Originally posted by JohnV_
> Thanks, Bruce.
> 
> So in the OPC, it is first in committee, and then before a commission, or which is the same as a committee of the whole. Correct?
> 
> What is "properly before the court"?
> 
> And how, if in the PCA, does this differ if a commission is delegated to hear the case? Do they too have a subcommittee to determine propriety? Or does the commission itself decide that? So, what, if any, is the difference between "properly before the court" in the OPC, GA as opposed to the PCA, SJC then?



In the OPC it goes to a committee as Bruce has outlined then it goes to the full GA, not a commission. All the representatives at GA will hear and adjudicate the case.

In the PCA the SJC acts on behalf of the GA (since it is a commission not a committee) and will deal with the whole case.


----------



## brymaes

> Some of Dr. Coppes material on the subject is available online, as his own work.



Is this Leonard Coppes?


----------



## JohnV

> _posted by Wayne_
> All the representatives at GA will hear and adjudicate the case.


Is this a rule at Presbytery level too? Does this mean that the entire GA (or Presbytery) forms the official judicatory? 

So what if they're split of the issue of Fed Vis, if it were a case of discipline instead of a debate on doctrine? What kind of majority would be needed to rule on it?


----------



## Contra_Mundum

> _Originally posted by SharperSword_
> 
> 
> 
> Some of Dr. Coppes material on the subject is available online, as his own work.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is this Leonard Coppes?
Click to expand...

Yes


----------



## Arch2k

Does anybody know the RPCNA's stance on Fed Vis?


----------



## Contra_Mundum

> _Originally posted by JohnV_
> 
> 
> 
> _posted by Wayne_
> All the representatives at GA will hear and adjudicate the case.
> 
> 
> 
> Is this a rule at Presbytery level too? Does this mean that the entire GA (or Presbytery) forms the official judicatory?
> 
> So what if they're split of the issue of Fed Vis, if it were a case of *discipline* instead of a debate on doctrine? What kind of majority would be needed to rule on it?
Click to expand...

The meeting of presbyters (whether session, Presb., Synod, or GA) is a sitting of a church court. As for cases of discipline, I do not have a BCO here that would tell me exactly, but ordinarily all that is needed to affirm or overturn a lesser/smaller court is a simple majority.


----------



## JohnV

So every member of that Presbytery, Session, or GA is an adjudicator, right? That is, they _each_ sit in judgment on the case at hand. 

I'm just thinking back to something Fred said about a committee to study Federal Vision, and how that defeats the purpose; that it should be a disciplinary panel. I am in agreement, but I just can't see how it won't break down into a committee anyways, the way it is set up. If it goes to committee first, to have everything proper and in order, and after that the adjudicators are deadlocked, or if they're split on the issue, then a simple majority is not going to be suitable. You can't have 49% thinking that no discipline is needed, and 51% thinking it is needed, and call that a decision.

Its something like a basketball game that goes 110 -109, with the last basket at the buzzer; the winner was just the last team with the ball, not the better team necessarily. And it could go that way in such matters. 

I'm just thinking about the practicality of it. A court could not decide the case on the issue of Federal Vision alone, because that issue is in contention; it has to be on something clearer than that. You can't decide the orthodoxy of an issue in a trial, because that has to be decided already for there to be a charge laid on it.


----------



## fredtgreco

> _Originally posted by JohnV_
> So every member of that Presbytery, Session, or GA is an adjudicator, right? That is, they _each_ sit in judgment on the case at hand.
> 
> I'm just thinking back to something Fred said about a committee to study Federal Vision, and how that defeats the purpose; that it should be a disciplinary panel. I am in agreement, but I just can't see how it won't break down into a committee anyways, the way it is set up. If it goes to committee first, to have everything proper and in order, and after that the adjudicators are deadlocked, or if they're split on the issue, then a simple majority is not going to be suitable. You can't have 49% thinking that no discipline is needed, and 51% thinking it is needed, and call that a decision.
> 
> Its something like a basketball game that goes 110 -109, with the last basket at the buzzer; the winner was just the last team with the ball, not the better team necessarily. And it could go that way in such matters.
> 
> I'm just thinking about the practicality of it. A court could not decide the case on the issue of Federal Vision alone, because that issue is in contention; it has to be on something clearer than that. You can't decide the orthodoxy of an issue in a trial, because that has to be decided already for there to be a charge laid on it.



John,

I believe that you are overthinking this. Discipline is different than a study of theology. In a discipline case you have specific charges, an individual who has been charged, and a decision to be made as to whether the individual is guilty or innocent of the charges. The each member of the judiciary casts a vote as to his decision (much like members of a jury). Pretty simple.


----------



## JohnV

Yes, it seems pretty simple. But that's not how things work out. If each member is an adjudicator, and someone is on trial before them for holding the view of Federal Vision, we still need a prior decision by the same Assembly that holding to Federal Vision is an offence. The only way that I can see this happening is if they charge that man for preaching what he has had no leave to preach, not for preaching Federal Vision. 

But in our milieu, you know that's not how its going to go. Some are preaching this view, some are preaching that view; and no one is saying that such practice is wrong. So by convention alone, Federal Vision has the right of way. There will be no discipline, for there cannot be discipline. In this case, every member has a vote, and the whole is the adjudicator on the matter. But it is also true that each person, because he has a right of vote, is an adjudicator as well. That means that if even one of the adjudicators is of the same opinion as the one on trial, then there cannot be a trial at all, for the adjudicator is judging himself as well. 

Do you see what I mean? It breaks down into committee after all is said and done. 

The only possibility is to lay charges on the issue of preaching extra-Biblical matter, not on the issue of Federal Vision itself. Matt's church could do it, because they've already made their decision, and have a specific statement on it. But without that, there can be no trial.


----------



## Contra_Mundum

A man certainly could be charged with teaching/preaching an unbiblical, or anti-confessional doctrine (which would amount to a "settled point" of biblical doctrine). Coming out with an official stance on a whole "movement", like FV, takes a bunch of theology and basically says: this "package" is bad news. It might make it easier to keep someone out, or try him for heresy if he espouses such from within, but ultimately a discipline trial comes down to violations of the constitution (W.S.) and the Bible.


----------



## fredtgreco

> _Originally posted by JohnV_
> Yes, it seems pretty simple. But that's not how things work out. If each member is an adjudicator, and someone is on trial before them for holding the view of Federal Vision, we still need a prior decision by the same Assembly that holding to Federal Vision is an offence. The only way that I can see this happening is if they charge that man for preaching what he has had no leave to preach, not for preaching Federal Vision.
> 
> But in our milieu, you know that's not how its going to go. Some are preaching this view, some are preaching that view; and no one is saying that such practice is wrong. So by convention alone, Federal Vision has the right of way. There will be no discipline, for there cannot be discipline. In this case, every member has a vote, and the whole is the adjudicator on the matter. But it is also true that each person, because he has a right of vote, is an adjudicator as well. That means that if even one of the adjudicators is of the same opinion as the one on trial, then there cannot be a trial at all, for the adjudicator is judging himself as well.
> 
> Do you see what I mean? It breaks down into committee after all is said and done.
> 
> The only possibility is to lay charges on the issue of preaching extra-Biblical matter, not on the issue of Federal Vision itself. Matt's church could do it, because they've already made their decision, and have a specific statement on it. But without that, there can be no trial.



John,

A court does not need to declare a teaching heretical before it tries a man. In fact, it is most often through a trial of a minister that a pronouncement of a heresy is found. Arianis, Apollinarianism, Nestorianism, and Arminianism were each judged to be false in the context of a trial.


----------



## JohnV

Bruce and Fred:

I understand what you're saying. That is all well and good. I still have difficulty with this; and I guess its because of my own vested interests. The main point that I want to know is if it is indeed the case that a body of adjucators is made of individual adjudicators: that each member of a judicatory is to be considered an adjudicator individually. That is, that each member must have all the documentation before him to be eligible to have a say on the matter. It would seem irresponsible for an individual adjudicator to sit in judgment without all the facts to consider. 

I'm still thinking through all this. May I take this just one step at a time? I'm having difficulty with a FV panelist sitting in judgment of a FV defendant on the charge of teaching FV, and doing that without bias. And if FV is not represented on the panel the FV-ists will cry "Foul!"


----------



## fredtgreco

> _Originally posted by JohnV_
> Bruce and Fred:
> 
> I understand what you're saying. That is all well and good. I still have difficulty with this; and I guess its because of my own vested interests. The main point that I want to know is if it is indeed the case that a body of adjucators is made of individual adjudicators: that each member of a judicatory is to be considered an adjudicator individually. That is, that each member must have all the documentation before him to be eligible to have a say on the matter. It would seem irresponsible for an individual adjudicator to sit in judgment without all the facts to consider.
> 
> I'm still thinking through all this. May I take this just one step at a time? I'm having difficulty with a FV panelist sitting in judgment of a FV defendant on the charge of teaching FV, and doing that without bias. And if FV is not represented on the panel the FV-ists will cry "Foul!"



John,

I think you are putting the cart before the horse. There is no necessity to make sure that a doctrine has either adherents or no adherents on a judiciary before they sit in a discipline on a matter. There is no quota system. Also, if someone is a proponent of any view that is found worthy of discipline, he is bound by his vows to make that known after the fact to the ecclesiastical body.


----------



## JohnV

Well, I'm not suggesting that there is a quota system in the proper order of things. I know that there doesn't need to be a FV-ist on the panel. That's not what I'm concerned about. 

*What I am concerned about is the role that the individual plays on a judicatory panel: if he is regarded as an individual adjudicator in that one respect, in that he must be in attendance at all meetings (BCO); that he must have, therefore, every piece of evidence that is presented before the judicatory in order to be a legitimate adjudicator; and that as an individual adjudicator he is also committed to the findings of the whole, even if those findings and rulings disagree with his own views. 

Fred, I've been in this editor's box for better than an hour, and typed at least three long posts. I'm not submitting any of them. I know what I am saying, and it is important, but I can't submit my thoughts. 

Thanks for the information. If you will only confirm or correct what I said in the paragraph above, the one marked with an asterisk, then I will leave it at that.

[Edited on 11-20-2005 by JohnV]


----------



## fredtgreco

John,

I believe you are correct. That is why most Presbytery/GA rulings occur in a single session.

I may be missing something - feel free to email me.


----------



## JohnV

> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> John,
> 
> I believe you are correct. That is why most Presbytery/GA rulings occur in a single session.
> 
> I may be missing something - feel free to email me.



Its just that I've seen these things before. If the denomination saw these things as heretical, they would have moved by now to stop it. But this has been going for a while now, and its like a freight train anymore. Things have to be pushed and shoved just to get anything going on it. The idea of personally committed views, being what it is right now, will get in the way if that is not addressed too. I know full well that FV is not of that type, but that doesn't mean that they won't stand on that as much as they can. And I'm not confident that commissioners at that level know the difference. I have been gravely disappointed about such things in the past.


----------



## Puritan Sailor

John, the timeliness of answering heresy is always frustrating, but it is common for a longer period to take place for the Church to decide these these things. Remember, it took a couple hundred years for the Church to get the Trinity and natures of Christ hammered out. The battle over Arminianism took roughly 10 years to finally come to a head in Dort. Though it's frustrating, we must be faithful and patient and let Christ rule His Church.


----------



## JohnV

I agree with the last phrase, Patrick, about letting Christ rule His church. The hard part is knowing what is going on, and not being able to do anything.

What I see is a willingness to handle the sins of others, but a great unwillingness to see what is sinful within the ranks. As long personally committed views has the right of way that it does, that is, that these take precedence over confessional unity, then there is no length of time that will take care of this one. Unless we regain the first mark of the church, heresy trials will amount to nothing. And if there is one thing that I know with certainty it is this, that ministers are practicing licence to preach added doctrines, on the sole authority of it being their views; and doing so without first recourse to their binding or commitment under vows to fidelity under the Word. 

I am in a unique position to look at things both from the inside and the outside: I am a member, and yet not a member. I cannot say more than that about that. But having the safety net pulled out from under me has forced me to rethink many things. And what is going on in the Presbyterian churches is not new. Different issues, but the same old thing.

The short of it is that by ruling FV as heretical it is not solving the problem behind it. Long before FV is ruled on, there will be other views to deal with that come into being. Look at the list on the first post on this thread, the grouping of them. That's just a corner of the pie. We still have, not just ordinary people in the pew forming their theologies on personally committed views, but ministers and Christian academics doing that too. The certainty of theology built on the uncertainty of personal views! Views such as Rushdooney's speach conveys, at the Chalcedon convention, are not that uncommon: basing vast theological conclusions upon personally committed views that have no solid grounding beyond those personal commitments. How ludicrous! And FV is going to stand on that for all they're worth; and do so because that little sin is sacrosanct.


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia

> _Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel_
> Does anybody know the RPCNA's stance on Fed Vis?



It is deeply rooted error and unacceptable. They would not tolerate it, and have not felt the need to even bother making a "statement" on it at Synod. It is unanimously spoken out against by the Church as a whole.


----------

