# Overview of New Perspective on Paul



## Scott (Sep 14, 2005)

The Theopedia article New Perspective on Paul is a useful high-level overview of the topic. Not analytical. Seems to just try and show what it is and how is differs from other theologies.


----------



## CalsFarmer (Sep 14, 2005)




----------



## Herald (Sep 14, 2005)

*How serious do we take the N.P.?*

This is a question that the elders (in my church) have been questioning. Like Lordship Salvation and Open Theism, it seems that these doctrines occur at the bible college and seminary level. This means, that if left unchecked, they will infiltrate the church 5, 10 or 15 years down the line through the medium of the pulpit. To the credit of astute biblical scholars, the aforementioned heresies were countered and exposed. The N.P. is certainly not new, but it is current reemergence threatens future generations. That is, of course, if it is left unchecked. Thankfully there are those who are standing up for the truth of God's word.

Although this is not a biblical argument, I have to wonder how much new biblical truth we are going to uncover, nearly 2000 years after the bible was written. Apology of the text must be exegetical, but I cannot wonder how the church as missed such an important issue for nearly 2000 years.


----------



## JohnV (Sep 14, 2005)

Scott:

Just the name itself is a giveaway. They took the name upon themselves, so it is indicative of their view: that it human derived or human dependent, not divinely mandated. The words, "new" and "perspective", and that they refer to "Paul", all show the subjectivity of the foundation. It is just using the Bible, not reading it for what it says. 

We have the same difficulty with other views, such as Dominion Theology, which is presupposing Postmillennialism upon theology. Just the idea alone goes against sound elementary Biblical interpretation. But that doesn't seem to bother the proponents of it. I don't need to read what its all about to know that it is nonsense right from the start. 

As far as I'm concerned, the name is the same as an admission that they are not serious about the Bible as God's Word.


----------



## Scott (Sep 14, 2005)

I don't think the NPP will appeal to the rank and file in large numbers, because it does not address issues they deal with. One of the points Wright made in his Romans in a week series was that NPP stuff is hard to preach about. It is complicated and hard to distill into sermons (especially the 15 minute Anglican variety). Its extreme contextualization localizes much of its relevance to first century Jewish/Christian relations. This is largely irrelevant to ordinary Christians today. 

Still, some intellectually-oriented people find the work mentally stimulating.

[Edited on 9-14-2005 by Scott]


----------



## biblelighthouse (Sep 14, 2005)

> _Originally posted by JohnV_
> Just the name itself is a giveaway. They took the name upon themselves, so it is indicative of their view: that it human derived or human dependent, not divinely mandated. The words, "new" and "perspective", and that they refer to "Paul", all show the subjectivity of the foundation. It is just using the Bible, not reading it for what it says.
> 
> We have the same difficulty with other views, such as Dominion Theology, which is presupposing Postmillennialism upon theology. Just the idea alone goes against sound elementary Biblical interpretation. But that doesn't seem to bother the proponents of it.



John, I like you, but I really take offense at your statements above. First, you are being pretty high-and-mighty to dismiss the likes of Bahnsen, Gentry, Rushdoony, etc., as if they were lightweights in Scripture, and didn't really care much about God's Word. I myself have studied the Bible quite a bit, and I think postmillenialism comes through quite clearly from the text of Scripture itself, so your statement is an attack upon me, as well, and upon a number of people on this board.



> _Originally posted by JohnV_
> I don't need to read what its all about to know that it is nonsense right from the start.



Amazing! After having the audacity to basically say "big me, little you" regarding both postmillenialists and dominion theologians, you then turn around and say that you "don't need to read what it's all about". Incredible! So you have the God-given ability to determine an argument's worthiness without even bothing to read and consider it? Amazing!



> _Originally posted by JohnV_
> As far as I'm concerned, the name is the same as an admission that they are not serious about the Bible as God's Word.



And as for this comment, I am sick and tired of hearing the vitriolic comments being hurled toward all NPP people, as if they were all a homogenous group, and as if none of them are really "serious about the Bible as God's Word". Olliff, for instance, *only* pays attention to God's Word, and doesn't even refer to 2nd temple Judaism sources. Nevertheless, some of the conclusions in his Galatians article fall right in line with some of the NPP stuff. Here is the Olliff article.

So, does that automatically make Olliff a full-fledged NPP guy and therefore a "heretic" in your eyes?

Since I like some of what Olliff has to say regarding Galatians, does that mean that you are now going to suddenly lump me in with all the NPP guys, and call me a heretic too? Are you going to tell me that I don't take God's Word seriously?


If you want to offer some specific Biblical arguments against postmillenialism, dominion theology, NPP, or whatever, then great. But please stop carelessly throwing around the vitriolic blanket condemnations upon huge groups of theologians. A lot of those theologians happen to be your brothers in Christ, and they happen to be working really hard to understand the Scriptures. Some of them just happen to disagree with you on some points that *don't* affect their salvation or yours.





[Edited on 9-14-2005 by biblelighthouse]


----------



## fredtgreco (Sep 14, 2005)

> _Originally posted by biblelighthouse_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by JohnV_
> ...



Joseph,

You are right in that there are differences and not necessarily links between the New Perspective(s) and Federal Vision, et al. But I will say that regardless of how one gets to the NPP type conclusions, they are dangerous and unbiblical. Olliff may get to his heterdox opinions differently than Sanders or Dunn (Wright has few original thoughts, he is for the most part a popularizer who is unfamiliar with the primary literature), but they are dangerous none the less.

There is no place for such in Reformed (or evangelical) churches.


----------



## biblelighthouse (Sep 14, 2005)

> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> 
> Joseph,
> 
> ...



Fred, have you read Olliff's article? Or did you just dismiss it out of hand?

I personally liked his article. What exactly is heterodox about it? And since I liked the article, are you saying that there is no place for me in a Reformed or evangelical church? That is a pretty hefty slam.

I have hardly looked at any of the NPP stuff out there. Most of what I have learned about it has come second-hand. I liked Olliff's article strictly because of his exegetical considerations. I did not base my decision on any pro or anti NPP sentiment that may or may not be in it.

I still believe in justification by faith alone, Covenant Theology, monergism, etc. So what's the problem?

What is in that article that should get a person thrown out of church?


----------



## fredtgreco (Sep 14, 2005)

Joseph,

His analysis of the Pharisees and their problem is off, and as such leads inevitably to "covenant faithfulness" and, further on, to a tacit denial of assurance and justification by faith alone. The Pharisees were not simply accretionists. They limited the law in many contexts (this is wat Christ deals with in the sermon on the mount), they expanded it in some others. All this was done in the context of their belief that they had kept the law and thus had no need for salvation. That was at the core of their rejection of Christ, not some "we don't like Gentiles and Jesus does."

In my opinion, which I hope will also be expressed by the PCA, OPC and other reformed denominations in the near future, any man who desires to teach the New Perspective views or Federal Vision views should not be allowed to do so or have credentials.

This is a classic case of how heresy gets into the Church. Even the early liberals did not "deny justification by faith alone" outright. It is a process. We are living in the first stages of this process.

In your particular case, I believe that you are simply naive about these views. Olliff's article is a good case in point. Without coming out and saying it, he is denying (just as Mark Horne has done and has been pointed out by my friend David Bayly here) the traditional Reformed and evangelical understanding of how one is right with God.

But then again, perhaps that does not even matter, since Wright could care less how a person is right with God; he is all about who is in the people of God.


----------



## biblelighthouse (Sep 14, 2005)

> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> In your particular case, I believe that you are simply naive about these views. Olliff's article is a good case in point. Without coming out and saying it, he is denying (just as Mark Horne has done and has been pointed out by my friend David Bayly here) the traditional Reformed and evangelical understanding of how one is right with God.



Thank you for your kind assessment of me. I am glad you are not lumping me in with people you consider heretical. And I do not mind being called "naive" on this particular topic, since I have readily admitted that I have not studied the NPP much at all.

Thanks for the link. I look forward to reading that article. It will be interesting to see what Bayly has to say about Horne.


----------



## fredtgreco (Sep 14, 2005)

> _Originally posted by biblelighthouse_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> ...



Joseph,

I also want you to know that I used "naive" in its best sense - I am naive of a good many things myself! In point of fact, the vast majority of the Reformed Church (maybe 90%+) has never heard of NT Wright, merit legalism vs. covenant boundary markers and the like.

I would also suggest that you read the response to Louisiana Presbytery by Pipa, Robbins, Hutchenson, and the rest. They do an excellent job of dealing with some of Wilkins' double talk.

http://www.tulipfaith.com/files/LA_Pres_Response.pdf

[Edited on 9/14/2005 by fredtgreco]


----------



## DTK (Sep 14, 2005)

> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> Joseph,
> 
> His analysis of the Pharisees and their problem is off, and as such leads inevitably to "covenant faithfulness" and, further on, to a tacit denial of assurance and justification by faith alone. The Pharisees were not simply accretionists. They limited the law in many contexts (this is wat Christ deals with in the sermon on the mount), they expanded it in some others. All this was done in the context of their belief that they had kept the law and thus had no need for salvation. That was at the core of their rejection of Christ, not some "we don't like Gentiles and Jesus does."
> ...


Fred, 

This has been my understanding of the NPP being advocated today. In short, the one thing that all adherents of this view agree upon is that 1) our Reformers misunderstood Paul on justification, 2) the various, different forms of Judaism, as practiced around the early Christian era, did not teach obedience to the law as a way of salvation, and 3) that the main concern of Judaism then was to maintain its cultural identity. The emphasis is on covenant faithfulness as a means of "staying in" the covenant. This term "covenant faithfulness" seems to me (at least) to be what Calvin addressed, among other things, in his Commentary on Habakkuk, except he called it "righteousness by covenant." Your post made me recall his words, and I'll reproduce them here...



> *John Calvin commenting on Habakkuk 2:4:* They go astray still more grievously as to the remission of sins; for as it is well known, they obtrude their own satisfactions, and thus seek to expiate the sins of men by their own merits, as though the sacrifice of Christ was not sufficient for that purpose. Hence it is that they will not allow that we are gratuitously justified by faith; for they cannot be brought to acknowledge a free remission of sins; and except the remission of sins be gratuitous, we must confess that righteousness is not by faith alone, but also by merits. But the whole Scripture proves that expiation is nowhere else to be sought, except through the sacrifice of Christ alone. This error, then, of the Papists is extremely gross and false. They further err in pleading for the merits of works; for they boast of their own inventions, the works of supererogation, or as they call them, satisfactions. And these meritorious works, under the Papacy, are gross errors and worthless superstitions, and yet they toil in them and lacerate themselves, nay, they almost wear out themselves. If they mutter many short prayers, if they run to altars and to various churches, if they buy masses, in a word, if they accumulate all these fictitious acts of worship, they think that they merit righteousness before God. *Thus they forget their own saying, that righteousness is by covenant; for if it be by covenant, it is certain that God does not promise it to fictitious works, which men of themselves invent and contrive. It then follows, that what men bring to God, devised by themselves, cannot do anything towards the attainment of righteousness.*
> 
> There is also another error which must be noticed, for in good works they perceive not those blemishes which justly displease God, so that our works might be deservedly condemned were they strictly examined and tried. The Papists rightly say, that we are not justified by the intrinsic worthiness of works, but afterwards they do not consider how imperfect our works are, for no work proceeds from mortal man which can fully answer to what God´s covenant requires. How so? For no work proceeds from the perfect love of God, and where the perfect love of God does not exist, there is corruption there. It hence follows, that all our works are polluted before God; for they flow not except from the impure fountain of the heart. Were any to object and say, that the hearts of men are cleansed by the regeneration of the Spirit, we allow this; but at the same time much filth always remains in our hearts, and it ought to be sufficient for us to know that nothing is pure and genuine before God except where the perfect love of him exists.
> 
> As, then, the Papists are blind to all these things, it is no wonder that they with so much hostility contend with us about righteousness, and can by no means allow that the righteousness of faith is gratuitous, for from the beginning this figment about free-will has been resorted to "” "œif men of themselves come to God, then they are not freely justified." *They, then, as I have said, imagine a partial righteousness, they suppose the deficiency to be made up by satisfactions, they have also, as they say, their devotions, that is, their own contrived modes of worship. Thus it comes, that they ever persuade themselves that the righteousness of man, at least in part, is made up by himself or by works. They indeed allow that we are justified by faith, but when it is added, by faith alone, then they begin to be furious;* but they consider not that righteousness, if obtained by faith, cannot be by works, for Paul, as I have shown above, reasons from the contrary, when he says, that righteousness, if it be by the works of the law, is not by faith, for faith, as it has been said, strips man of everything, that he may seek of God what he needs. But the Papists, though they think that man has not enough for himself, do not yet acknowledge that he is so needy and miserable, that righteousness must be sought in God alone. But yet sufficiently clear is the doctrine of Paul, and if Paul had never spoken, reason itself is sufficient to convince us that men cannot be justified by faith until they cast away every confidence in their own works, for if righteousness be of faith, then it is of grace alone, and if by grace alone, then it cannot be by works. *It is wholly puerile in the Papists to think, that it is partly by grace and partly by the merits of works; for as salvation cannot be divided, so righteousness cannot be divided, by which we attain salvation itself. As, then, faith acquires for us favor before God, and by this favor we are counted just, so all works must necessarily fall to the ground, when righteousness is ascribed to faith.* _Calvin´s Commentaries_, Vol. XV, trans. John Owen, Commentary on Habakkuk 2:4, (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, reprinted 1979), pp. 80-82.


Blessings,
DTK


----------



## Scott (Sep 15, 2005)

This is just a general impression and could be wrong. But from my rather distant view of things, it seems to me that the NPP teaches that the chief texts for major reformation propositions on justification and other matters do not actually support the reformation position. They don't necessarily contradict it either. So, people who were reformed prior to reading Wright seem to embrace his reinterpretation and then keep reformed dogma (and sometimes they don't even do that), but just with little exegetical or textual foundation. Often these people have vocations or jobs that require affirmation of the WCF or similar standards and so they go to great lengths to try and show consistency b/t the NPP and reformed views - else they would have to give up their jobs. So, basically two reasons keep these people affirming reformed view, inertia and personal incentive.

Anyway, it would seem hard to convince later generations to accept reformed positions would be hard to do. As Fred mentioned, things happen with a process. Later generations to to work out and more logically embrace the consequences of new theologies or philosophies. They are not committed by the inertia of the founders.

For example, outside the theological realm we have Darwinism. Darwin's behavior did not change much from his English sensibilities. Yet, later generations of Darwinists used the materialistic views as a source of all sorts of moral changes. 

Anyway, just musing aloud. I could be wrong and am not asserting anything dogmatically.

Scott


----------



## DTK (Sep 15, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Scott_
> This is just a general impression and could be wrong. But from my rather distant view of things, it seems to me that the NPP teaches that the chief texts for major reformation propositions on justification and other matters do not actually support the reformation position. They don't necessarily contradict it either. So, people who were reformed prior to reading Wright seem to embrace his reinterpretation and then keep reformed dogma (and sometimes they don't even do that), but just with little exegetical or textual foundation. Often these people have vocations or jobs that require affirmation of the WCF or similar standards and so they go to great lengths to try and show consistency b/t the NPP and reformed views - else they would have to give up their jobs. So, basically two reasons keep these people affirming reformed view, inertia and personal incentive.
> 
> Anyway, it would seem hard to convince later generations to accept reformed positions would be hard to do. As Fred mentioned, things happen with a process. Later generations to to work out and more logically embrace the consequences of new theologies or philosophies. They are not committed by the inertia of the founders.
> ...



Scott,

I think your "impression" and Fred's observation are both helpful. When language needs to be subjected to the death of a thouand qualifications in order to yield, at the very least, lip service to it, then something is amiss. The adherents of the NPP among the ranks of those who still profess conformity to our doctrinal standards (and with whom I'm somewhat familiar) often complain that they are misunderstood and/or misrepresented, even by many of the "best lights" among us. Either they cannot communicate effectively what they're trying to say, or the rest of us are too dim-witted to understand them.

One should and must extend graciousness to them, as much as is possible according to the dictates of Christian charity. But that does not mean that we are compelled thereby to yield to them in their proffered nuances and corrections, and accept what we discern to be novelties and aberrations to our standards. I, for one, have grown rather tired of the explanation often offered to us for our relunctance to embrace their views, _viz._, that we're just a bunch of rationalists imprisoned by our enlightenment presuppositions. 

One of the constant emphases from some of these same folk is that of conciliar authority; and they're all for it, i.e., so long as they constistute the magisterium. One notable example comes to mind of a minister called to a PCA Church in Alabama, but when the Presbytery upon his examination refused to receive him, that church forsook its magisterium and left the PCA to find affiliation elsewhere. Perhaps, now, Scott, this gives you somewhat of an insight as to where I've been coming from in some of our discussions with respect to conciliar authority. Private judgment can wreak horror, no doubt. But conciliar authority hasn't fared much better in ecclesiastical history. In reality, conciliar authority is as much dependent on, and only effective to the extent, that the collective individuals under it acquiesce in humble submission, which is itself rendered by multiple acts of private judgment. This is why I think that we must maintain conciliar authority to the extent we find it supported by biblical prescription. On the other hand, appeal to the church as the official interpreter of Holy Scripture, under what Obermann has identified as "Tradition I" must be assessed for what it is as well, _viz._, an arbitrary appeal when viewed against the panorama of the history of the church. In his monumental work, _The Divine Rule of Faith and Practice_, 2nd ed., (London: John Henry Jackson, 1853), Vol. II, p. 58, the Evangelical Anglican, William Goode (who was arguing against the Tractarians of his day) observed...


> Even the Romanist himself, who begins with the doctrine of the infallibility of his Church, begs you to examine the credentials of its infallibility, and thereby grants, in that point at least, the right and duty of private judgment.


Nonetheless, we must have the _norma normans_ (a normed norm) of doctrinal standards such as those of Westminster, as well as others that have been and remain very helpful, and which have come to us historically from the Church, in order to define and set boundaries, while recognizing at the same time that Scripture alone is the _norma normans non normata_ (the norm that norms [but] is not normed) by any other authority, not even the Church. I think this is the reason for the wisdom of the Westminster divines themselves when they warned in Chapter 31 of the Confession that "All synods or councils since the Apostles´ times, whether general or particular, may err; and many have erred. Therefore they are not to be made the rule of faith or practice; but to be used as an help in both." They underscored here the arbitrary nature of the appeal to conciliar authority.

Nonetheless, that has not prevented many of the adherents of the NPP among the "Reformed" to appeal to the Church as "a rule of faith," but then, in the actual outworking of its implications, to abide by it only insofar as they themselves constitute its magisterium. 

Well, as always, thanks Scott, for patiently enduring my own ramblings.

Blessings,
DTK


----------



## JohnV (Sep 15, 2005)

Joseph:

You said, 


> If you want to offer some specific Biblical arguments against postmillenialism, dominion theology, NPP, or whatever, then great. But please stop carelessly throwing around the vitriolic blanket condemnations upon huge groups of theologians. A lot of those theologians happen to be your brothers in Christ, and they happen to be working really hard to understand the Scriptures. Some of them just happen to disagree with you on some points that *don't* affect their salvation or yours.


If you read carefully, I did not at all argue against Postmillennialism, Bahnsen or Gentry or the others. What I said was in direct reference to views that directly contradict the concept of Sola Scriptura, or Scripture interpreting Scripture. When we put man's theoretics as a crucial, critical point in theology, we've undermined the principle. If you are saying that Bahnsen, Gentry, et al, taught the vital importance of human presuppositions for theology, then you are saying that, not me. All I said was that this is an obvious mistake. 

The Dominion Theology that was presented to me required Postmillennialism as a basic root concept, that this was the import of New Testament teaching and impact. I am not saying that Postmillennialism is itself Biblically wrong, for that is more than I know; what I am saying is that giving it a critical place in theology is an error clearly addressed in our standards. Neither the witness of the church, nor the traditions of man, nor the most advanced theories of man, not even a resurrected Apostle, nor even an angel from heaven, as authority in interpreting the Word of God. It is very clear: Scripture interprets Scripture, not man's theory interprets Scripture. I would say the same if a theology were based upon Amillennialism. 

Don't get me wrong, it is good to have all these ideas, and to have them because that is what the Bible appears to us to say. That is one thing. It is quite another the misplace the importance of them, to place them overtop of the universally accepted teachings of Scripture. I understand the sentiment that all men must make presuppositions in order to begin to reason. But if someone can critique my presuppositons, then why cannot I also critique my own? And what better anchor for my soul have I than than the unspoiled Word of God, unspoiled by anything I have to add to them? So it is my aim in life to make havoc of my presuppositions, not to hang theology on them. I will have no other presuppositions than Christ's, that is my aim. 

If you find Postmillennialism taught throughout the Bible, then that is how the Word is impacting you. As long as it is your aim to submit yourself the the Bible at every opportunity, even to the point to being ready to toss out your own favourite ideas for the sake of submission. Just know that any millennial view belongs at the end of theology, not at the beginning. 

So I was not criticizing any one view, I was criticizing the fact that some do not find themselves at all discredited when they freely put men's theories at the front of theology. I'm not elevating myself overtop of anyone; I'm just saying what the church has always said:

Belgic Confession, art. VII,


> We believe that those Holy Scriptures fully contain the will of God, and that whatsoever man ought to believe unto salvation is sufficiently taught therein. For since the whole manner of worship which God requires of us is written in them at large, it is unlawful for any one, though an apostle, to teach otherwise than we are now taught in the Holy Scriptures: nay, though it were an angel from heaven, as the apostle Paul says. For since it is forbidden to add unto or take away anything from the Word of God, it does thereby evidently appear that the doctrine thereof is most perfect and complete in all respects.
> Neither may we consider any writings of men, however holy these men may have been, of equal value with those divine Scriptures, nor ought we to consider custom, or the great multitude, or antiquity, or succession of times and persons, or councils, decrees or statutes, as of equal value with the truth of God, since the truth is above all; for all men are of themselves liars, and more vain than vanity itself. Therefore we reject with all our hearts whatsoever does not agree with this infallible rule, as the apostles have taught us, saying, Prove the spirits, whether they are of God. Likewise: If any one cometh unto you, and bringeth not this teaching, receive him not into your house.


BC, art. XXVIII


> ...The marks by which the true Church is known are these: If the pure doctrine of the gospel is preached therein; if it maintains the pure administration of the sacraments as instituted by Christ; if church discipline is exercised in chastening [1] of sin; in short, if all things are managed according to the pure Word of God, all things contrary thereto rejected, and Jesus Christ acknowledged as the only Head of the Church. Hereby the true Church may certainly be known, from which no man has a right to separate himself....
> As for the false Church, it ascribes more power and authority to itself and its ordinances than to the Word of God, and will not submit itself to the yoke of Christ.



Westminster Confession of Faith, Ch. 1, art. IV


> The authority of the Holy Scripture, for which it ought to be believed, and obeyed, dependeth not upon the testimony of any man, or church; but wholly upon God (who is truth itself) the author thereof: and therefore it is to be received, because it is the Word of God.[9]
> 
> 9. II Peter 1:19-20; II Tim. 3:16; I John 5:9; I Thess. 2:13; Rev. 1:1-2



Having views and discussing them is a sign of health in the churches; placing them in crucial position in theology is not. 

I have every right to conclude that, when theologians place human importance in a pivotal place in their theology, that all it is is interesting reading, no more. But they are teaching it in churches, and that is dangerous.

[Edited on 9-15-2005 by JohnV]


----------



## smallbeans (Sep 15, 2005)

Pastor King,

That interpretation of events in Birmingham, AL is certainly one interpretation that could be argued for, but I thought in the interests of fairness that we should probably also introduce, into evidence, the testimony of the church itself about the matter:

http://www.trinity-pres.net/pastoral-letters/summer2005.php

I think the PCA's presbyteries deal very differently with issues, and so it is important to get both sides of the story when you hear about a minister's problems with a particular presbytery.

-Jonathan


----------



## DTK (Sep 15, 2005)

> _Originally posted by smallbeans_
> Pastor King,
> 
> That interpretation of events in Birmingham, AL is certainly one interpretation that could be argued for, but I thought in the interests of fairness that we should probably also introduce, into evidence, the testimony of the church itself about the matter:
> ...



Thank you for the link. It makes my point very eloquently, the difference was between not only the examining committee of that Presbytery and this pastor, but between the PCA and this pastor on the issue of covenant children, and more to the point, paedocommunion. He disagreed with the magisterium of the PCA and left on what he regarded as the best terms possible. Thank you kindly for both sides of the story. I think it expresses my point even more clearly than I did. It was the magisterium of one vs. the magisterium of many.

Blessings,
DTK


----------



## pduggan (Sep 15, 2005)

> _Originally posted by JohnV_
> I am not saying that Postmillennialism is itself Biblically wrong, for that is more than I know; what I am saying is that giving it a critical place in theology is an error clearly addressed in our standards.


Where do you see the clear idea that biblical theologies developed to maturity after the standards were written may not occupy a critical place in theology?


> If you find Postmillennialism taught throughout the Bible, then that is how the Word is impacting you. As long as it is your aim to submit yourself the the Bible at every opportunity, even to the point to being ready to toss out your own favourite ideas for the sake of submission. Just know that any millennial view belongs at the end of theology, not at the beginning.


That's begging the question proposed by postmillenial theologians. A faithful adherent of postmillenialsm likely considers his view as accurate a summary of biblical teaching, and as important for proper theologizing and exegesis as his view of sanctification or effectual calling. So you don't get very far by just saying "well, that's mans theology". Unless we want to simply argue "no creed but Christ" it's all "man's theology" in one sense or another.

Luther had to place his human reading of scripture at a crucial place in his theology to have even had a Reformation. Are there excesses of taking a generalized account of biblical teaching (a human 'theology' like the law/gospel hermeneutics)? Surely there are. Has every law/gospel theologian gotten every text correct using that heremeneutic? Certainly we must say no.

Oh: hello to everyone. Clearly I'm new here. Hope i didn't violate protocol jumping in with no introduction.

I attend Tenth PCA in Philadelphia as a member, and was raised at Knox OPC, American home of John Murray when he was on earth.

[Edited on 9-15-2005 by pduggan]


----------



## JohnV (Sep 15, 2005)

welcome, PDuggan:

If I may answer your post,


> _Originally posted by pduggan_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by JohnV_
> ...


You are talking here about "biblical theologies", not matured theories. Postmillennialism is the latter, not the former. By its very nature it cannot be a theology, because it is speculative at best. 

As I recall, the OPC and the PCA allow three different millennial views as not contravening the WCF. That means that, at best, there are three non-mutual dogmas, and that means that they cannot be doctrinal. 


> > If you find Postmillennialism taught throughout the Bible, then that is how the Word is impacting you. As long as it is your aim to submit yourself the the Bible at every opportunity, even to the point to being ready to toss out your own favourite ideas for the sake of submission. Just know that any millennial view belongs at the end of theology, not at the beginning.
> 
> 
> That's begging the question proposed by postmillenial theologians. A faithful adherent of postmillenialsm likely considers his view as accurate a summary of biblical teaching, and as important for proper theologizing and exegesis as his view of sanctification or effectual calling. So you don't get very far by just saying "well, that's mans theology". Unless we want to simply argue "no creed but Christ" it's all "man's theology" in one sense or another.


A faithful adherent of Postmillennialism would remember the place of eschatological speculation, and would not build theology upon tenous ground. Doctrinal theology must be built only on the solid ground of revelation, not man's speculations about that revelation. Just because we may dig out a theory that does not contradict Scripture, and can even find some Scriptural warrant for it, that does not make it revelation. Theology is doctrinal, and doctrine must be unquestionably God's teaching alone. 



> Luther had to place his human reading of scripture at a crucial place in his theology to have even had a Reformation. Are there excesses of taking a generalized account of biblical teaching (a human 'theology' like the law/gospel hermeneutics)? Surely there are. Has every law/gospel theologian gotten every text correct using that heremeneutic? Certainly we must say no.


I'm not sure what you are saying here, but it was not Luther's human reading that brought about the Reformation. It was clearly the demand of Scripture, and Scripture alone, that compelled him to advocate salvation by faith, not his theorizing. Placing these extremes in juxtaposition does not negate the necessity of bowing before Scripture, even in our theorizing and presupposing. Bibical doctrine cannot be dependent in any way upon man's input into it. Theology has developed because churches have opposed error by faithfulness to Scripture; it has developed because godly men faced each other to deliberate upon Scripture, and to submit themselves to it. The trail of faith is littered with the theoretical remnants and refuse cast out by godly men themselves. 



> Oh: hello to everyone. Clearly I'm new here. Hope i didn't violate protocol jumping in with no introduction.
> 
> I attend Tenth PCA in Philadelphia as a member, and was raised at Knox OPC, American home of John Murray when he was on earth.



Well, its OK to jump right in. But one of the moderators will remind you about signatures. We'd like to know at least your first name, so I'll know how to address you. 

This is not the forum for it, but


----------



## Scott (Sep 15, 2005)

David: I agree with what you wrote about conciliar authority above. I have always suspected that our disagreement was likely on emphasis over substance. I think the rubber-to-the-road test would be what model does one use to handle serious theological disagreements in the church. We would both utilize the model of Acts 15 and would agree that the decision of a lawful synod has authority because the synod was convened as an ordinance of God. This authority is in addition to to being consistent with the Word. People have a duty to obey these decisions. Like most duties towards authorities (say, child/parent or citizen/government), the duty to obey is high but qualified. Neither of us would say that any church council is infallible. 

To me there are striking parallels between church courts and civil courts. Civil courts interpret constitutional and statutory text, which are authortative. Courts have no authority to add to, substract from, or misinterpret the texts. The courts are not infallible and they are reformable. Yet, they have actual authority. They are charged with interpreting the texts and administering them. Individuals have a high duty to act in accordance with the court's rulings, although this duty is qualified. 

Scott


----------



## fredtgreco (Sep 15, 2005)

> _Originally posted by DTK_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by smallbeans_
> ...



Exactly.

I love the fact that the view on covenant children was so critical that it required affiliation with a denomination that allows a complete rejection of covenant theology and paedobaptism (i.e. credobaptism is permitted).


----------



## pduggan (Sep 15, 2005)

> _Originally posted by JohnV_
> 
> Theology is doctrinal, and doctrine must be unquestionably God's teaching alone.



Nobody who affirms postmillenialism is going to conceed that their doctrine (in its broad outline: perhaps specifics are presented as more tentative conclusions) is not composed of God's unquestioned teaching alone, or that the fact that rival theologies exist is any more a challenge to their Biblicity than RC theology's existance are to protestant theologies.


----------



## JohnV (Sep 15, 2005)

Paul: (thanks for that)
I am not saying that Postmillennialism is not derived from the Bible. Indeed, it is. But that doesn't make it Biblical in the sense that it is God's intended teaching. If it were that, then churches would not only have the right to demand adherence to it, but would be found to be unfaithful if they neglected to demand adherence to it. The fact that the OPC and the PCA allow three non-mutual views on the millennium shows that it cannot be determined which God teaches. And neither of these denominations would say that God teaches one in one church and another in another church: that would be ridiculous. What they are saying is that the church does not know, and cannot say which God intends to teach. The fact that some people make up their minds for the church does not make it any more doctrinal. 

Millennial views, specifically, are matters of conscience for which you have liberty in the churches to believe one or the other of the three (not the fourth one). But as matters of liberty of conscience, it would violate another's liberty to impose your own upon him, even if, and especially if, you are an officer in the church. (As an officer in the church, he represents Christ, not himself; and he clearly violates the passage where Jesus says that they should not do as the Gentiles "to lord it over them to exercise authrity over them". Matt. 20:25; 2 Cor. 1:24) 

All this to say that when I hear of people propounding theology which confesses human necessity upon it, that I believe it to be discredited from the get-go (to bring this back to the subject. )


----------



## smallbeans (Sep 15, 2005)

Well, I see your point, certainly, but I think there is a an issue of catholicity here that is being made on both sides. You're portraying situations such as that one as a conflict between one person and a "magisterium" but in reality, we're talking more about a conflict between a church that called a minister in line with its commitments, and a presbytery which examined the minister in a way that not all other presbyteries do. To put it differently, that church could have stayed in the PCA in a different presbytery while still calling the same minister. So from one perspective, that church has left the PCA, and from another perspective, the presbytery has chosen a standard that is not held by all presbyteries of the PCA. Certainly, under presbyterianism, it is their right to do so, but there are not simply two magisteriums in the picture - one, an individual, and another, a whole denomination or something. The situation is a bit more complicated.

I too think it is sad that a Presbyterian church would need to join a church that countenaces credobaptism in order to be able to practice its views consistently, but I think that points really to the liberality which which the CREC approaches sacramental practice (which, from what I understand, has a genetic basis in the founding church of the CREC) more than it says that this church is somehow sub-Presbyterian. After all, that Birmingham church could get along fine in many other PCA presbyteries. Thus, the voice of one presbytery is not the voice of the PCA.

In short, I think we would all grant that there are various voices in the PCA right now that oppose some beliefs and practices that other parts of the PCA do not oppose, and some even promote. We have a disunity of vision and purpose, and that's certainly a sad thing from a certain perspective. And I certainly think we have no room to be smug about the CREC vis a vis covenant theology. We have quite a few pockets of baptists in the PCA (some may say there is a particular concentration in Birmingham) who begrudgingly baptise infants and spend more time at baptisms explaining what isn't happening than what is (that was the kind of PCA Presbyterianism I grew up in, in Mississippi).

[Edited on 9-15-2005 by smallbeans]


----------



## smallbeans (Sep 15, 2005)

One more thing - it doesn't seem really kosher to me that the definition of the bounds of presbyterian doctrine within the PCA should differ that greatly from presbytery to presbytery. We essentially lost a congregation by the accident of geography. I think we can do better.


----------



## fredtgreco (Sep 15, 2005)

> _Originally posted by smallbeans_
> One more thing - it doesn't seem really kosher to me that the definition of the bounds of presbyterian doctrine within the PCA should differ that greatly from presbytery to presbytery. We essentially lost a congregation by the accident of geography. I think we can do better.



I agree. It is not kosher for Louisiana Presbytery to countenance all the aberrations it does, causing problems for a myriad of other presbyteries. It is very likely that the only reason Lusk was never brought up on charges was because he was in LA Presbytery.


----------



## DTK (Sep 15, 2005)

> Well, I see your point, certainly, but I think there is a an issue of catholicity here that is being made on both sides. You're portraying situations such as that one as a conflict between one person and a "magisterium" but in reality, we're talking more about a conflict between a church that called a minister in line with its commitments, and a presbytery which examined the minister in a way that not all other presbyteries do. To put it differently, that church could have stayed in the PCA in a different presbytery while still calling the same minister. So from one perspective, that church has left the PCA, and from another perspective, the presbytery has chosen a standard that is not held by all presbyteries of the PCA. Certainly, under presbyterianism, it is their right to do so, but there are not simply two magisteriums in the picture - one, an individual, and another, a whole denomination or something. The situation is a bit more complicated.


I made the point, and it stands. He knew it was a PCA church to which he was called. After the presbytery refused to receive him, which it had every right to do, He decided to resign from his presbytery in order to leave the PCA, and to lead that church out of the PCA and seek affiliation elsewhere. If he had a problem with the decision of presbytery, he should have appealed to the PCA general assembly, which he did not. Apparently, conciliar authority is only important when it doesn´t conflict with one´s own interests.


> Another thing I want to point out is that you brought up paedocommunion here, but nowhere in that pastoral letter did I see a mention of paedocommunion - it was simply said that the sticking point in the minister's examination related to the church's view of covenant children. In my experience, most of the time when people disagree about paedocommunion they are disagreeing over the nature of the communion rite, not over the nature of covenant children. Both sides agree that children cannot engage in adult forms of self-examination, and so the nature of the self-examination requirement gets a lot of attention. Disagreements about the "nature of covenant children" tend to be about our appraisal of a child with respect to salvation or with respect to a capacity for faith. I think those issues are in principle separable, though I grant that they often go together, as they probably did in this case. But I could imagine, as a though experiment, a Zwinglian approach to paedocommunion coupled with a commitment to the normalcy of regeneration in infancy for covenant children.


If you didn´t see the reference to paedocommunion, you need to re-read the letter.


> I too think it is sad that a Presbyterian church would need to join a church that countenaces credobaptism in order to be able to practice its views consistently, but I think that points really to the liberality which which the CREC approaches sacramental practice (which, from what I understand, has a genetic basis in the founding church of the CREC) more than it says that this church is somehow sub-Presbyterian. After all, that Birmingham church could get along fine in many other PCA presbyteries. Thus, the voice of one presbytery is not the voice of the PCA.


Yes, that is the problem isn´t it, the double-standard. Accuse their fellow Presbyterians of being subconfessional, and then rejecting the same standards for the sake of countenancing credobaptism and the exercise of "œliberality." Yes, and the Birmingham church didn´t leave the PCA until one pastor decided to resign from his PCA presbytery. One could turn your whole argument around and insist that he should have stayed in his former PCA presbytery, since the voice of another presbytery is not the voice of the PCA. However, in the PCA, the voice of individual courts are regarded as the voice of the church until challenged.


> In short, I think we would all grant that there are various voices in the PCA right now that oppose some beliefs and practices that other parts of the PCA do not oppose, and some even promote. We have a disunity of vision and purpose, and that's certainly a sad thing from a certain perspective. And I certainly think we have no room to be smug about the CREC vis a vis covenant theology. We have quite a few pockets of baptists in the PCA (some may say there is a particular concentration in Birmingham) who begrudgingly baptise infants and spend more time at baptisms explaining what isn't happening than what is (that was the kind of PCA Presbyterianism I grew up in, in Mississippi).


No one was trying to be smug. I have listened to the adherents of the FV/NPP and members of the CREC complain repeatedly that other Presbyterians are subconfessional and *baptistic* in their perspective, but we are smug to point out the double-standard? 

Cheers,
DTK


----------



## Poimen (Sep 16, 2005)

> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by DTK_
> ...



Now now; play nice Fred. 







On a more serious note, I've always wondered how Steve Schlissel can remain friends with people who embrace credobaptists within their federation and then rebuke Westminster West for allowing Reformed Baptists on their campus. 








> People will begin to understand the difference, except maybe those among the Reformed who are really Baptists in disguise. And there are many such. That´s why Westminster Seminary has an institute on the church led by so-called Reformed Baptists, an oxymoron if ever there was one. Calvin and Calvinism thoroughly repudiate those who repudiate 99% of the baptisms performed in the world. Yet that is exactly what Reformed Baptists do. Somehow, though, these Baptists have their own institute on the church within Westminster Seminary, while at the same time a truly Reformed Westminster subscriber such as Norman Shepherd can´t even be mentioned there. But the Baptists are accepted. There is a sorting out going on. Some people are not getting it yet. But they will. If you´re Reformed, you can´t be Baptist.



-Steve Schlissel being interviewed in the _Christian Renewal_ April 28, 2003

[Edited on 9-16-2005 by poimen]


----------



## Scott (Sep 16, 2005)

What institute on the church do Reformed Baptists have at Westminster?


----------



## Poimen (Sep 16, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Scott_
> What institute on the church do Reformed Baptists have at Westminster?



http://www.reformedbaptistinstitute.org/irbs/


----------



## smallbeans (Sep 16, 2005)

> I agree. It is not kosher for Louisiana Presbytery to countenance all the aberrations it does, causing problems for a myriad of other presbyteries. It is very likely that the only reason Lusk was never brought up on charges was because he was in LA Presbytery.



It may be that you're talking about the federal vision stuff here in your comment, which does tend to isolate the Louisiana Presbytery because they are the only Presbytery so far that has released a study committee report that doesn't condemn certain aspects of the Federal Vision. But more broadly, I think you are underestimating the number of presbyteries in which the views of this pastor which prevented his transfer would be normal fare. In other words, some of the same concerns that make Federal Vision persona non grata in Birmingham also rule out a lot of other viewpoints not associated with the FV.

I also see in the most recent reply by Rev. King that he continues to conflate "THE PCA" with one of its presbyteries. Fact is, given our praxis, one powerful older presbyter can pretty much keep any pastor he wants out of any presbytery. And because in this case there is no official statement as to precisely why the pastor in question was rejected (correct me if I'm wrong here) it further strengthens the impression that we are not talking about a unified voice of a denomination standing behind this occurrence. 

As for whether we should be smug or not - we have no reason to be snug about anything, regardless of which black pots are describing our black kettles. The PCA is being piloted with three or four different visions - most of which embarrass me. I think after you leave the "Purpose Driven Life" themed service at one of the "acceptable" PCA churches in Birmingham, you'd be ready to reexamine just which church is presbyterian. (Now I'm saying this having never met the rejected pastor, but having attended said Purpose Driven Life service. It could simply be that the pastor in question is a personally abrasive and unsavory character and that's why he was rejected, but I wouldn't know. So my comments are assuming it was his views and not his character that kept him out.)


----------



## DTK (Sep 16, 2005)

> I also see in the most recent reply by Rev. King that he continues to conflate "THE PCA" with one of its presbyteries. Fact is, given our praxis, one powerful older presbyter can pretty much keep any pastor he wants out of any presbytery. And because in this case there is no official statement as to precisely why the pastor in question was rejected (correct me if I'm wrong here) it further strengthens the impression that we are not talking about a unified voice of a denomination standing behind this occurrence.


I'm not conflating anything. The PCA BCO, Chapter 11 reads, 


> "Every court has the right to resolve questions of doctrine and discipline seriously and reasonably proposed, and in general to maintain truth and righteousness, condemning erroneous opinions and practices which tend to the injury of the peace, purity, or progress of the Church. Although each court exercises exclusive original jurisdiction over all matters especially belonging to it, the lower courts are subject to the review and control of the higher courts, in regular gradation. *These courts are not separate and independent tribunals, but they have a mutual relation, and every act of jurisdiction is the act of the whole Church performed by it through the appropriate organ.*"


You are simply expressing an ecclesiastical notion/policy foreign to the PCA's own expressed mind on this matter. Our church courts are "catholic" in nature.


> As for whether we should be smug or not - we have no reason to be snug about anything, regardless of which black pots are describing our black kettles. The PCA is being piloted with three or four different visions - most of which embarrass me. I think after you leave the "Purpose Driven Life" themed service at one of the "acceptable" PCA churches in Birmingham, you'd be ready to reexamine just which church is presbyterian. (Now I'm saying this having never met the rejected pastor, but having attended said Purpose Driven Life service. It could simply be that the pastor in question is a personally abrasive and unsavory character and that's why he was rejected, but I wouldn't know. So my comments are assuming it was his views and not his character that kept him out.)


The whole charge of smugness is one you've raised, imposed on us, and without warrant, and seeks to take us down a path none of us do well to tread. It's not smug to have serious disagreements. If so, then it's a double-standard.

Cheers,
DTK


----------



## fredtgreco (Sep 16, 2005)

> _Originally posted by smallbeans_
> 
> 
> > I agree. It is not kosher for Louisiana Presbytery to countenance all the aberrations it does, causing problems for a myriad of other presbyteries. It is very likely that the only reason Lusk was never brought up on charges was because he was in LA Presbytery.
> ...



This _might_ be accurate if:


Rev. Lusk and his proposed church had actually acted in accordance with their vows and appealed the case instead of running to another denomation
Rev. Lusk had not been criticized both formally (by study committees) and informally (by a host of elders in the PCA) for precisely the views that caused the failure of the transfer
The criticisms of the Federal Vision theology didn't come from such a wide spectrum of men and churches in the PCA. (Do we really think it is _isolated_ when Rev. Joey Pipa, Dr. Morton Smith, Rev. Wilson Benton, PPLN men and TR men are all critical?)
Rev. Lusk's denial of transfer was but one of several credential denials/fights in a variety of PCA presbyteries, ranging from Mississippi Valley to Evangel to Tennessee Valley
Is it really coincidence when Mississippi Valley and Tennessee Valley agree that the views are troubling? How much broader a spectrum would you wish?
[/list=1]

Anyone who thought that there was any chance of Rev. Wilkins not being exonerated by LA Presbytery has no knowledge of that Presbytery or its politics.

Have you read the response to the LA Presbytery report, which cites Rev. Wilkins making statements directly contradictory to the Confession?

I don't think I am underestimating the number of Presbyteries where Lusk's views would be "normal fare." At least I hope not, for the sake of the PCA. I suspect that we will find out in a GA or two. If Rev Lusk had followed his vows and appealed, we would likely have found out this year.


----------



## Scott (Sep 16, 2005)

"The PCA is being piloted with three or four different visions - most of which embarrass me. I think after you leave the "Purpose Driven Life" themed service at one of the "acceptable" PCA churches in Birmingham, you'd be ready to reexamine just which church is presbyterian."

I am sympathetic with you on this.


----------



## smallbeans (Sep 16, 2005)

I'm not comfortable discussing in detail every point made but let me just agree that yes, the structure of PCA presbyterianism is that the voice of a presbytery is the voice of the PCA. But that's the formal construction of matters. In practice, we all know that different presbyteries have different concerns, tendencies, cultures, etc. In the MVP, for instance, men favorable to paedocommunion are suspect right off the bat, judging from what I've read here. In the Missouri Presbytery, men favorable to paedocommunion are likely in charge of the candidates and credentials. Similar differences exist between other presbyteries and the issue of creation days, etc. To me, that means that whatever the truth may be, by rule, in practice we have no grounds to identify a presbytery with "THE PCA".


----------



## DTK (Sep 16, 2005)

> _Originally posted by smallbeans_
> I'm not comfortable discussing in detail every point made but let me just agree that yes, the structure of PCA presbyterianism is that the voice of a presbytery is the voice of the PCA. But that's the formal construction of matters. In practice, we all know that different presbyteries have different concerns, tendencies, cultures, etc. In the MVP, for instance, men favorable to paedocommunion are suspect right off the bat, judging from what I've read here. In the Missouri Presbytery, men favorable to paedocommunion are likely in charge of the candidates and credentials. Similar differences exist between other presbyteries and the issue of creation days, etc. To me, that means that whatever the truth may be, by rule, in practice we have no grounds to identify a presbytery with "THE PCA".


The difference, "in the MVP, for instance," is that they are seeking to resolve these issues through the proper channels of our church courts, not resign as ministers of the PCA. The pastor in question chose not to resolve his differences through right of appeal. He simply chose to leave the PCA. Moreover, it's not ever a tranfer to another presbytery in this other denomination. He is now in limbo while he waits to see if the CREC will receive him. There must have been some reason why. Perhaps, he either he believed that his examination would not be sustained upon appeal to a higher court of the PCA, or he believed that given his views he would be more readily received into the CREC, or perhaps a combination of these two or other reasons not disclosed. 

Moreover, if you're expecting complete uniformity on the part of every doctrine and practice within a given denomination, then that is surely something of a perfectionist approach to ecclesiology. But, for all of our sins, faults, weaknesses and warts, our courts do provide for the right of appeal. The pastor in question chose not to go in that direction.

Cheers,
DTK

[Edited on 9-16-2005 by DTK]


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Sep 16, 2005)

> _Originally posted by smallbeans_
> I'm not comfortable discussing in detail every point made but let me just agree that yes, the structure of PCA presbyterianism is that the voice of a presbytery is the voice of the PCA. But that's the formal construction of matters. In practice, we all know that different presbyteries have different concerns, tendencies, cultures, etc. In the MVP, for instance, men favorable to paedocommunion are suspect right off the bat, judging from what I've read here. In the Missouri Presbytery, men favorable to paedocommunion are likely in charge of the candidates and credentials. Similar differences exist between other presbyteries and the issue of creation days, etc. To me, that means that whatever the truth may be, by rule, in practice we have no grounds to identify a presbytery with "THE PCA".



In other words you are saying that the PCA is really a group of Congregationalist churches that do what they want? It sounds to me like you are saying that the PCA is a club, not a Church. Or am I misunderstanding you?


----------



## AdamM (Sep 16, 2005)

> This is just a general impression and could be wrong. But from my rather distant view of things, it seems to me that the NPP teaches that the chief texts for major reformation propositions on justification and other matters do not actually support the reformation position. They don't necessarily contradict it either. So, people who were reformed prior to reading Wright seem to embrace his reinterpretation and then keep reformed dogma (and sometimes they don't even do that), but just with little exegetical or textual foundation. Often these people have vocations or jobs that require affirmation of the WCF or similar standards and so they go to great lengths to try and show consistency b/t the NPP and reformed views - else they would have to give up their jobs. So, basically two reasons keep these people affirming reformed view, inertia and personal incentive.
> 
> Anyway, it would seem hard to convince later generations to accept reformed positions would be hard to do. As Fred mentioned, things happen with a process. Later generations to to work out and more logically embrace the consequences of new theologies or philosophies. They are not committed by the inertia of the founders.
> 
> ...



Very well put Scott!

What you wrote has been a serious concern of mine for sometime now. The Reformed proponents of the NPP claim to hold to imputation **as set forth in the standards,** but the NPP approach clearly undercuts the exegetical basis for doing so. Of course N.T. Wright has no such problem in that he clearly rejects as unbiblical the doctrine of imputation as found in the Reformed Confessions. I believe that puts a burden on officers in the PCA and OPC who promote the NPP to demonstrate exegetically how they can affirm the portions of the standards dealing with imputation in the same sense as the Reformed Confessions. Of course if people equivocate on the terms it can be attempted, but when Wright and others themselves juxtapose their "new" perspective against the "old" shouldn't that mean something?


----------



## smallbeans (Sep 17, 2005)

> In other words you are saying that the PCA is really a group of Congregationalist churches that do what they want? It sounds to me like you are saying that the PCA is a club, not a Church. Or am I misunderstanding you?



Again, let me distinguish between the polity of the PCA and the practice of that polity, or how that polity is lived out. No, PCA churches, with respect to formal policy, are not congregationalist churches. But with regard to the way things work out, we have very different standards in place in various presbyteries for accepting men into the ministry, or even for accepting transfers from one presbytery to another. I think that was the main reason the PPLN existed - because many of the men involved with it had some issue or another that was keeping students with their perspective out of some presbyteries. I never was clear exactly which issue it might have been (creation days?) but once the "good-faith subscription" issue passed, the PPLN disbanded. Now, there really is no official voice of any non-subscriptionist group saying "hey, we have a problem here" with standards for ordination, but Presbyteries vary widely on what kinds of exceptions they will permit. And this goes beyond the FV stuff to the Kline vs. Murray covenant theology stuff and other issues. We simply do not have a good-faith subscription system.

I'm not looking for uniformity of doctrine here; I realize that it is impossible without the kind of strict subscriptionism that I don't really buy into. But the net result of the way things are now is that candidates for the ministry are turned into lawyers, looking for churches in the right presbytery akin to a change of venue - because they know, given their views on this or that issue, some presbyteries will reject them out of hand. In general, the PCA works by churches finding the minister that they want for their church; the presbytery then examines the man. I think that's great and proper, but at the same time, whether or not the man is acceptable varies from presbytery to presbytery, and that's sad.

With regard to the Birmingham thing, I feel like we're all just repeating ourselves. I want to note that I totally understand the value of going through the courts of the church to resolve a matter like this. But in addition to that first order value, I also have been trying to point out that, for the peace of the church, there are other options - the church in Birmingham may have realized that such a fight would forever embitter the other churches in the presbytery against them, so being wise, might have decided that leaving would be better than staying and fighting. I don't know that was the calculation, but that is what they have publicly stated, and I don't have a reason to doubt this. I think they should have gone through the courts, but I'm not an elder there, and I didn't sit and have all the conversations that they had. I couldn't begin to imagine what it would have been like for them to try and appeal this thing, first to the same group of men who conducted the first examination, and then to the GA. And at the G.A., we're still not assured of getting a cross section of the denomination - the committee there could be filled with men of this or that perspective. The outcome sometimes vill vary greatly depending upon who is on a particular committee.


----------



## JohnV (Sep 17, 2005)

It seems to me that, as far as individualties among churches and Presbyteries is concerned, we've been far too subjective in our common confession. It seems to me that some people who are practicing office just don't know that ruling something as not being outside the Confession is not at all the same as saying that it's God's Word. The former applies to liberties of conscience, not doctrine; but some seem to think that the decisions by GA's that some views are not outside the Confession is licence to preach those views. It is not! But these things seem to find fertile ground in different places, being allowed by those who agree with the views. 

In other words, people are not being careful enough about their own liberties, to make sure that they do not impose upon doctrine itself. It should actually be the NPP themsleves that ought to be diligent about what is and is not taught. If what they preach is right, then truth will triumph in the church; it should be thoroughly tested by the churches, and that should be welcome to them. But as it is, they preach it to those who are glad to hear it, while not granting the church the opportunity to give it a wide and thorough examination by taking it to consecutive GA's, via overture and appeal. Anything this major is not decided by just one GA, so the examination is bound to get a lot of give-and-take input. Over-riding that procedure begs the question, produces dissent, and could eventually cause schism. 

And all this based upon man-originated ideas, not Biblical necessity. It is not enough just to show that NPP is a possible interpretation, it has to be shown that it is a necessary interpretation of Scripture. It has to be clear that this is what God teaches, not what man's views on the Bible are. We have no right to call doctrine that which is only man's subjective views. And this is where I believe the NPP, and views like it, are outside the mainstream of the church: one view is as Biblical as another, even on matters of pivotal importance such as justification by faith.

[Edited on 9-17-2005 by JohnV]


----------



## pduggan (Sep 19, 2005)

> _Originally posted by JohnV_
> If what they preach is right, then truth will triumph in the church; it should be thoroughly tested by the churches, and that should be welcome to them. But as it is, they preach it to those who are glad to hear it, while not granting the church the opportunity to give it a wide and thorough examination by taking it to consecutive GA's, via overture and appeal.



Prebyterians who find biblical teaching in the NPP probably don't consider that there is anything TO overture or appeal to GA about. If they think that the NPP in general is consistent with the limits reformed confessional theology, then they would have no reason to think that they need to get GA approval.

Pre-mils teach pre-mil doctrine as the word of God to their congregations without asking for GA approval, even though Pre-mil isn't specified in the WCF.

Your statement is REALLY ironic, since it sounds like the kind of thing the sanhedrin would say about the teaching of the apostles too. You had Gamaliel saying there's no point fighting it if its the word of God, but you also never had the apostles coming to the sanhedrin asn asking for permission to teach, since they taught what they thought was biblical and when the sanhedrin told them to stope teaching the bible they had to obey the word of God as they saw it rather than the sanhedrin.


----------



## wsw201 (Sep 19, 2005)

> I'm not looking for uniformity of doctrine here; I realize that it is impossible without the kind of strict subscriptionism that I don't really buy into. But the net result of the way things are now is that candidates for the ministry are turned into lawyers, looking for churches in the right presbytery akin to a change of venue - because they know, given their views on this or that issue, some presbyteries will reject them out of hand. In general, the PCA works by churches finding the minister that they want for their church; the presbytery then examines the man. I think that's great and proper, but at the same time, whether or not the man is acceptable varies from presbytery to presbytery, and that's sad.



It is sad. And if the PPLN seriously thought that system subscription was going to alleviate the problems that they were attempting to resolve, they were very much in error. In fact it has caused more problems than it addressed. Though you might not buy full subscription, it is the only way that you can have any type of uniformity, much less a consistent Gospel message, between Presbyteries regarding the examination of candidates. 

(And of course Sessions are left out in the cold to figure things out on their own.)


----------



## JohnV (Sep 19, 2005)

> _Originally posted by pduggan_
> Prebyterians who find biblical teaching in the NPP probably don't consider that there is anything TO overture or appeal to GA about. If they think that the NPP in general is consistent with the limits reformed confessional theology, then they would have no reason to think that they need to get GA approval.
> 
> Pre-mils teach pre-mil doctrine as the word of God to their congregations without asking for GA approval, even though Pre-mil isn't specified in the WCF.
> ...



The Apostles had Christ's own word on what to preach. What they taught, and what they wrote, was given them by the Holy Spirit. Peter testifies that "that no prophecy of Scripture comes from someone's own interpretation." And before that very Sanhedron Peter says, "'Whether it is right in the sight of God to listen to you rather than to God, you must judge, for we cannot but speak of what we have seen and heard."' It is clear from Scripture that the Apostles were teaching precisely what God had commanded them to preach, and that no man could over-ride that command.

As a guest at a Bible Study one time, my wife and I were the lone Postmillennialists. (Amillennialism is a form of Postmillennialism, and for the sake of simplicity that is how I presented what I believed. ) The Bible study was on the millennium, as a matter of fact. And you are right, that the teaching does make an impact on their theology to a degree. But for the most part I was only silent, saying nothing. Until someone asked me, at which point I told them politely that I did not agree with Premillennialism. This took them by surprise, but they questioned me politely about my view. When they asked me for particular texts, I simply took them back to the same texts they were using. For most of them they had never heard of this, but the leader had. And they were most kind and generous to us in regard to our views, respecting the fact that we held to the Bible in our difference. There was no debating, no charging with error, and no animosity. After the Bible study we enjoyed each others' company with a few games. 

In this case, they didn't know any different. But I would fault the teacher for knowing that there were other views, but not informing the people. Instead he taught the view that prevailed in that circle as if the one and only Scriptural teaching. And that is not right, even though that was the teaching that everyone was used to. In this sense, Premillennialism and sometimes Amillennialism is taught from the pulpits. It is in the context of the absence of the other views, and without particular guidelines pertaining to the existence of several views in one congregation or denomination. Most churches will respect the fact that others have a different view, though.

There being only one view is not the case in the OPC, and I suppose in the PCA too, where it is widely recognized that three accepted views exist and are believed. In such a milieu it would be wrong to presume to over-ride the denominational standard and preach one view to the degree that it spurns the other accepted views. This violates the standard of preaching, the first mark of the church, and it violates liberty of conscience granted by the denomination. One minister's authority cannot over-ride that which is granted by the autahority of the entire church. And if the Session wishes to over-ride the liberty of conscience of a member of the church, there are avenues of appeal to the higher courts in the church. A Session may be rebuked; indeed even a Presbytery may be rebuked. And certainly entire denominations have been rebuked for following their own paths instead of maintaining the purity of the preaching of the Word. 

The teachings of NPP have been controversial from the start. For the sake of the peace of the church this ought to have been submitted for careful study by consequent GA's, at least. And especially as the controversy grows should this be brought to GA in unison by both sides of the debate. To go about teaching different views without the denomination's approval is troubling to the denomination. It could lead to schism.

I've tried to avoid any reference to the issues themselves, just sticking to the concept of unified confessionalism within the churches. But I did begin this by asserting that NPP has a triple indictment against it by its own name, which the proponents took upon themselves. Simply changing the name would be one answer. But for now it remains a roadblock for myself and others like me: it claims itself to be "new"; it claims to be a "perspective"; and it centres on "Paul". And when I read the article which introduced this thread, that is what I read it was about. I just don't see how this does not undermine the legitimacy of it. The Bible is not a mine, from which we may pull all kinds of theories that fit the texts. Christ is a person, and knowing him personally is key to understanding the Bible, as He gives His Spirit to those that seek the Father through Him. His word is not a text from which we may seek our own meanings, as long as we stay true to the wording, as, for example, some creation days theories do. It is God's Word, and we must submit to its teachings alone, and not to man's writings and doctrines.


----------



## ABondSlaveofChristJesus (Sep 25, 2005)

"The gospel, in other words, is not about calling sinners to find salvation through faith in Christ. The gospel, according to the new perspective, has to do with God´s work in Christ to tear down the wall of partition between Jew and Gentile, to bring the promises of the covenant to all peoples through faith in Christ." Venema



Is this an accurate representation?


----------



## fredtgreco (Sep 25, 2005)

> _Originally posted by ABondSlaveofChristJesus_
> "The gospel, in other words, is not about calling sinners to find salvation through faith in Christ. The gospel, according to the new perspective, has to do with God´s work in Christ to tear down the wall of partition between Jew and Gentile, to bring the promises of the covenant to all peoples through faith in Christ." Venema
> 
> 
> ...



Yes, Wright's famous dictum is that justification is more about ecclesiology then soteriology.


----------



## pduggan (Oct 17, 2005)

> _Originally posted by ABondSlaveofChristJesus_
> "The gospel, in other words, is not about calling sinners to find salvation through faith in Christ. The gospel, according to the new perspective, has to do with God´s work in Christ to tear down the wall of partition between Jew and Gentile, to bring the promises of the covenant to all peoples through faith in Christ." Venema
> 
> Is this an accurate representation?



I don't think so. The following from Wright would clarify


> When we are truly announcing the Lordship of Jesus, we must make it clear that, according to this gospel, the one true God has dealt in Jesus Christ with sin, death, guilt, and shame, and now summons men and women everywhere to abandon the idols which hold them captive to these things and to discover a new life, a new way of life, in him. But the gospel is not simply an offer of a new way of being religious....The gospel is the royal announcement.


----------

