# Steve Wilkins exonerated



## biblelighthouse (Jul 19, 2005)

A unanimous decision:

http://www.upsaid.com/scarecrow/index.php?action=viewcom&id=413


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Jul 19, 2005)




----------



## heartoflesh (Jul 19, 2005)

Who is Steve Wilkins and what was he exonerated of? If someone could just post a link to some information I would appreciated it.

Thanks!


----------



## Poimen (Jul 19, 2005)

> _Originally posted by biblelighthouse_
> A unanimous decision:
> 
> http://www.upsaid.com/scarecrow/index.php?action=viewcom&id=413



Well I don't think everyone in his denomination will concur with that: Pipa and the faculty at GPTS are none too pleased with the direction that Wilkins (and others) have gone.


----------



## john_Mark (Jul 19, 2005)

http://www.louisianapresbytery.com/AAT-FV_prelim.htm


----------



## wsw201 (Jul 19, 2005)

I'm not surprised at all. Steve Wilkins is a pretty big fish the Louisiana Presbytery.


----------



## AdamM (Jul 19, 2005)

I agree Wayne. 

Since the request for the inquiry didn't originate from the Louisiana Presbytery to begin with, one has to assume that the TE's in the presbytery have been ok with his teachings all along.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Jul 19, 2005)

Is this politics as usual? Is this the way other Presbyterian denominations have lost their footing? It looks like indecision is the game of the day. 



> Committee recommendations:
> 
> We recommend that the presbytery allow the committee to continue further study on these and related issues, and report back to LA presbytery at our next meeting with a fuller report, including a response to the concerns expressed by our brothers in MS Valley presbytery.
> We strongly exhort all concerned to demonstrate patience and Christian charity in interacting with these issues and with one another. On the one hand, we would urge all to be slow to make hasty judgments and accusations until after discussing these things with the proponents of FV theology and being able to fairly represent their positions. On the other hand, since some legitimate areas need to be explored in further depth and the way much of the terminology is being used is confusing, we recommend that everyone exercise caution in all public discourse on these issues and limit their teaching in the churches to those formulations which do not contradict the Confession in essence.
> Adopted April 9, 2005.



I wonder what their findings were. Is the FV so slippery that a finger can't be put on what has been written or taught?


----------



## wsw201 (Jul 19, 2005)

Since the LA Presbytery has taken action to exonerate Wilkins, it will be virtually impossible for any other Presbytery to do anything about him at GA. I don't think the SJC would touch it.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Jul 19, 2005)

Here we go down the slippery slope........

Has any Presbytery condemned or made a solid statement concerning the FV teachings?


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Jul 19, 2005)

> _Originally posted by puritancovenanter_
> Here we go down the slippery slope........
> 
> Has any Presbytery condemned or made a solid statement concerning the FV teachings?



See this thread.


----------



## Poimen (Jul 19, 2005)

> _Originally posted by wsw201_
> Since the LA Presbytery has taken action to exonerate Wilkins, it will be virtually impossible for any other Presbytery to do anything about him at GA. I don't think the SJC would touch it.



SJC?


----------



## Robin (Jul 19, 2005)

> _Originally posted by puritancovenanter_
> Here we go down the slippery slope........
> 
> Has any Presbytery condemned or made a solid statement concerning the FV teachings?



See here:

http://www.wscal.edu/resources/Justification.htm

and:

http://www.banneroftruth.org/pages/articles/article_detail.php?186

Robin

[Edited on 7-19-2005 by Robin]


----------



## Arch2k (Jul 19, 2005)

Is this what the PCA is coming to?


----------



## RamistThomist (Jul 19, 2005)

I can't wait for the next John Robbin's "Horror Files" to come out! I can just see it now:

"The ENTIRE PCA has abandoned the Faith!"


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Jul 19, 2005)




----------



## BobVigneault (Jul 19, 2005)

I just received brother Robbins email regarding the decision. I'm still trying to get the fire out in my hard drive.

Titled: New Horror file.
Dear Friends, Just as we predicted some time ago, the Louisiana Presbytery of the Presbyterian Church in America has exonerated Steve Wilkins of all charges and accusations against him. In response to the recommendations of the Louisiana Presbytery Ad Hoc Committee on Federal Vision Theology, Louisiana Presbytery has unanimously adopted the following motion: ...that Rev. Steve Wilkins be publicly exonerated by Louisiana Presbytery and declared to be faithful to the Confessional standards of the PCA. For those of you not familiar with the heresies being taught and promoted by Wilkins, please read the book A Companion to The Current Justification Controversy, available at our website, www.trinityfoundation.org, as well as the score of Trinity Reviews posted at our website that discuss the errors and heresies of the Auburn Avenue Theology. Question: When church courts -- and the Session of the Auburn Avenue Presbyterian Church and the Louisiana Presbytery are both church courts -- exonerate heretics and endorse heresy, what is the proper response of the Christian? The Christian must denounce the church courts and their actions, just as the Reformers and Protestants have done for the past 500 years. A good place to start is by signing the Reformation Day Declaration at our website. If the Christian is under the jurisdiction of these courts, he must renounce that jurisdiction and leave, publicly stating his reason for separating from error and those who teach and defend it. There is and can be no neutrality on the Gospel.

Cordially,

John Robbins

[Edited on 7-19-2005 by maxdetail]


----------



## BobVigneault (Jul 19, 2005)

Brother John never misses an opportunity to sell a couple books.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Jul 19, 2005)

It looks pretty precise to me. Hopefully this thing will not become political and will remain on the forefront as a primary thing that needs to be dealt with. They are teaching heresy or unbiblical doctrine. Plain and Simple. To what degree Steve Wilkens is holding to these teachings I do not know. The list of poor unbiblical doctrine is plain in the Mississippi Valley's Statement.



> As such, we are ready to declare some of these
> 157 distinctive teachings to be outside the bounds of acceptable diversity in this presbytery, and we trust
> 158 also, in the PCA. Among these are their specific departures from our Confession's presentation of the
> 159 Bible's teaching on election, covenant membership, individual regeneration, sola fide, justification,
> ...



[Edited on 7-19-2005 by puritancovenanter]


----------



## Arch2k (Jul 19, 2005)

I agree with Robbins. 

[Edited on 7-19-2005 by Jeff_Bartel]


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Jul 19, 2005)

Was anything mentioned or addressed at the General Assembly concerning these aborational (or heretical) teachings?


----------



## Myshkin (Jul 19, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Draught Horse_
> I can't wait for the next John Robbin's "Horror Files" to come out! I can just see it now:
> 
> "The ENTIRE PCA has abandoned the Faith!"



He at least implied this already in his article, "Why Heretics Win Battles".

[Edited on 7-19-2005 by RAS]


----------



## Michael Butterfield (Jul 19, 2005)

> _Originally posted by maxdetail_
> Brother John never misses an opportunity to sell a couple books.



Without wanting to read more into the statement than is meant, if you had a book you would be trying to sell it too.

This is a small concern in the light of the seriousness of the situation, is it not?


----------



## AdamM (Jul 19, 2005)

> Was anything mentioned or addressed at the General Assembly concerning these aberrational (or heretical) teachings?



I am not even sure a statement by GA would change things at all, since there is not even agreement as what authority those declarations carry. The GA spoke on paedocommunion and that hasn't stopped TE's and RE's from openly advocating that contra-confessional practice. Why would the FV be any different? 

With the current structure of the PCA, I think this will just lead to a further "Balkanization" of the denomination. You are going to have presbyteries where candidates will be rejected due to FV leanings and others where those same views held by the candidate will be no problem. It has the potential for a huge mess and I can't fathom how the FV advocates believe that their agenda is benefiting the Church, when you see the disruption it is causing? I keep hearing from them that all they are doing is restating Westminster Theology in different terms, well if that really is the case, is it worth causing so much trouble for the Church over their less clear terminology? 

(For what it's worth, I don't believe it is just a semantics issue.)


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Jul 19, 2005)

I hate the devil. God has a purpose in this I suspect.


----------



## Michael Butterfield (Jul 19, 2005)

This is a very serious situation and I cannot help but believe it will split the denomination at some point in the future if something serious is not done in the near future. I am not encouraged to believe anything will be done. I fear the PCA is in no condition theologically to address this in sufficient time. It is a sad situation indeed and something to be lamented!


----------



## Myshkin (Jul 19, 2005)

I have a practical question regarding all this....

How should the laity deal with what is going on? It seems unfeasable for a prospective member of a PCA church to sit down and interview every elder in that congregation. What do we do when one of these FV proponents are found to be in your presbytery or worse in your local eldership? Do we leave? What if there are no other reformed churches in the area? Do we go independent? That sees unfeasable also. While the debates are going on back and forth theologically, maybe it is time we discuss what the laity should do throughout this ordeal if it is of such serious importance. If justification is the doctrine upon which the church stands or falls, and false views of justification are tolerated in the PCA, what does this mean? Of course we can pray for change, be good witnesses for the truth, etc...but this issue will effect us more deeply than these two areas. Matters of conscience and ability within personal circumstances are going to float to the surface the more this carries on. As our faithful elders stand strong against this stuff, we are going to need them to tend to the flock also in giving wise guidance on a personal and maybe even denominational level. Any thoughts? Or am I wrong to ask this at this point in the controversy?


----------



## wsw201 (Jul 19, 2005)

> _Originally posted by poimen_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by wsw201_
> ...



Standing Judical Commission. This committee reviews and adjudicates all judicial cases in the PCA. It was set up so that the entire GA would not have to deal with each case that came up.

If you want to read something that is really convoluted, here is the link to the SJC Manuel.


----------



## Poimen (Jul 19, 2005)

> _Originally posted by AdamM_
> 
> 
> > Was anything mentioned or addressed at the General Assembly concerning these aberrational (or heretical) teachings?
> ...



 This is the same problem my denomination is dealing with! What benefit do these doctrines have for the church, especially when FV advocates are exalting ecclesiology and unity to the status of papal decrees? This seems hypocritical to me.


----------



## wsw201 (Jul 19, 2005)

> _Originally posted by RAS_
> I have a practical question regarding all this....
> 
> How should the laity deal with what is going on? It seems unfeasable for a prospective member of a PCA church to sit down and interview every elder in that congregation. What do we do when one of these FV proponents are found to be in your presbytery or worse in your local eldership? Do we leave? What if there are no other reformed churches in the area? Do we go independent? That sees unfeasable also. While the debates are going on back and forth theologically, maybe it is time we discuss what the laity should do throughout this ordeal if it is of such serious importance. If justification is the doctrine upon which the church stands or falls, and false views of justification are tolerated in the PCA, what does this mean? Of course we can pray for change, be good witnesses for the truth, etc...but this issue will effect us more deeply than these two areas. Matters of conscience and ability within personal circumstances are going to float to the surface the more this carries on. As our faithful elders stand strong against this stuff, we are going to need them to tend to the flock also in giving wise guidance on a personal and maybe even denominational level. Any thoughts? Or am I wrong to ask this at this point in the controversy?



The PCA BCO has procedures for removing an Elder or any officer by the congregation. The vast majority of the folks in the pews have no idea about anything in the BCO, but its all spelled out in there.


----------



## Poimen (Jul 19, 2005)

> _Originally posted by wsw201_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by poimen_
> ...



Thanks.


----------



## biblelighthouse (Jul 19, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Draught Horse_
> I can't wait for the next John Robbin's "Horror Files" to come out! I can just see it now:
> 
> "The ENTIRE PCA has abandoned the Faith!"






Yeah, Jacob . . . I'm sure all your PCA friends there in Monroe, LA, are real heretics. And I'm sure Robbin's latest horror file will be a hoot.


I have to admit, Pastor Steve Wilkins really ticked me off at first. I read a chapter by him in the "Federal Vision" book, and was completely convinced that he had gone off the deep end. However, unlike some, I did not brandish my weapons and air my disdain to the world. Instead, I contacted him to discuss the issue. I also exchanged a considerable number of emails with Doug Wilson's assistant, Mike Lawyer.

I believe that neither Wilson nor Wilkins have denied the core reformation principles of justifcation. Rather, the problem is that Wilkins is a real chucklehead when it comes to getting his point across clearly. Much of what he says _would be heretical_ if his statements were intended to apply to ALL his theology. Rather, it seems that much of what he says is ONLY meant to be applied within the context of his view of the covenant. In other words, from the perspective of eternity, outside of the temporal, covenantal framework, he still ultimately agrees with the reformers regarding TULIP, justification by faith alone, etc. Wilson, on the other hand, while admittedly being _not careful enough_ with his speech in the past, has much more quickly "gotten the point" that he needs to be careful how he articulates doctrine. Wilson's assistant has made it _very_ clear to me that there is a very real difference between non-elect covenant members and elect covenant members, based on clear texts such as Matthew 7:23.

I am not a Federal Theology fan. But I also am extremely wary about throwing around the "H word". I am still waiting for someone to definitively demonstrate that the FV guys have actually denied the core reformation doctrine of justification. That is a very serious charge, and I will gladly join in calling them heretics if the charge can be shown to be true. But until that time, I'm not jumping on the bandwagon. 

Here are some Steve Wilkins quotes to consider, before branding him a "heretic":



> "We may define 'regeneration' as the work which God does in giving 'effectual calling' to the elect." (Steve Wilkins on legitimate theological use of "regeneration" in Auburn Avenue Colloqium, Pg. 268)





> "The question of when a man is regenerated, or given saving faith, or truly converted, are ultimately questions we cannot answer, and therefore, they cannot be the basis upon which we define the Church or identify God's people." (FV, Pg. 66)



As a friend of mine pointed out to me, this comment cautions against using these theological categories for church IDENTIFICATION, but it assumes that they are valid theological categories in themselves. This interpretation is confirmed by Wilkins statement that we need to "view salvation from the perspective of the covenant as it is worked out in history." (AAC, 269) ANd again, "We are able to view and to deal with men in terms of indisputable realities. They have been baptized and thus, we know they are obligated to repent of their sins and trust and obey." (Ibid)

A personal friend of mine noted to me that these quotes clarify the fact that:


> . . . EVERYTHING Steve Wilkins has written on this subject are addressing a single side of the issue, the side of the "covenant." (objectivity) From that perspective, all "faith" is the same. This does not mean that all "faith" is the same in every sense, but that all "faith" is the same, except for duration, with respect to objective covenant realities. But this does not deny that, behind these realities, in the greater knowlege and wisdom of God, the faith of the elect and reprobate have no difference. Indeed, I assume Wilkins would agree with his former assistant pastor, Rich Lusk, who says in the same volume, "perseverance is not merely the caboose on the end of the train...rather, its presence or absence qualifies one's whole participationin the ordo salutis." (FV, 275) That little word "qualifies" implies that the reprobate to participate in SOME sense (covenentally/objectively) in the ordo, but not in the same way that the eternally elect do. Yet, as the AAPC summary statement on covenant, baptism, and salvation states, "the Bible does not explain the distinction between the nature of the work of the Spirit in the reprobate and the nature of His work in the elect." One may disagree with this statement, but its orthodoxy is preserved by carefully indicating that there IS a distinction. The simple statement is that the Bible does not precisely "explain" that distinction. Still, the distinction is further implied in the revised version of this same document...



And here is more from the AAPC summary statement:



> "Those who 'believe for a while' enjoy blessings and privileges of the covenant only for a time and only in part, since their temporary fiath is not true to Christ, as EVIDENCED by by its eventual failure and lack of fruit."
> 
> The document goes on to say that the "difference between those who are predestined to eternal life and those who 'believe for a while' is not merely one of duration (i.e. God works 'effectually' in those whom He has predestined to etnernal life so that they do not fall away in unbelief)." ANd again the document says,
> 
> ...



The documents notes contain this clear statement...



> "The difference between those who are predestined to eternal life and those who 'believe for a while' is not merely one of duration. God does work 'effectually' in those whom He has predestined to eternal life so that they do not fall away in unbelief. In this sense, we may say that there are things which are true of the 'elect' which are never true of the reprobate. But these distinctions normally manifest themselves over time and, thus, are impossible to recognize at the beginnings of one's Christian experience within the visible church."
> 
> And finally, "it is only in the face of final apostasy that we can know with certainty who was and was not 'effectually called.'"



These documents were unanimously adopted by the session of Auburn Avenue Presbyterian Church. 


Again, we may not *like* Federal Vision theology. But not liking it is not a reason for branding it heretical. It seems to me that Wilkins does stand in agreement with the Reformed doctrine of justification, but that he has done a _really bad job_ of PR. 


I have a friend on the puritanboard who made a very good comment to me in a personal email:



> Greg Bahnsen said, "If something is a gross error, then it should be _easy to refute_! If someone is biblically/logically in error, then they should be mown down in a formal debate. As of yet, where are the books refuting Auburn?



If AA theology is as thoroughly "heretical", unbiblical, and anti-confessional as some have made it out to be, then why doesn't someone get down to business writing a scholarly book refuting the Federal Vision error in detail? The Federal Visionists themselves don't seem to have any trouble pumping out books. 

(Maybe Robbins' new book will fill this bill . . . I haven't read it yet . . . let's see how well-done it is.)


Out of all of you who responded with vigor in this thread's posts above, I am curious: How many of you have gone to the trouble of reading much of the FV literature, and how many of you have bothered to correspond with Wilkins, Wilson, et al for clarification? Or is it enough for you that a number of good PCA guys don't like them?

Again, just as I said earlier in this post, I am NOT a Federal Vision fan. So don't start sending me hate-mail. I am just saying that we need to be _awfully careful_ about throwing the H-word around.


----------



## twogunfighter (Jul 19, 2005)

Dead right Joseph....The PCA has much greater problems than the FV issue. I wish that our elders were as up in arms over the abuse of the regulative principle of worship as they are over the FV. To me the evangellycalization of the PCA is a much greater cause for concern than Steve Wilkins et al.


----------



## AdamM (Jul 19, 2005)

> That little word "qualifies" implies that the reprobate to participate in SOME sense (covenentally/objectively) in the ordo, but not in the same way that the eternally elect do.



Joseph, not to sidetrack the thread, but name me the benefits of the ordo that the non-elect participate in?

Perhaps, we can do a thread in the CT forum on it?

[Edited on 7-19-2005 by AdamM]


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Jul 19, 2005)

> _Originally posted by twogunfighter_
> I wish that our elders were as up in arms over the abuse of the regulative principle of worship as they are over the FV. To me the evangellycalization of the PCA is a much greater cause for concern than Steve Wilkins et al.


----------



## AdamM (Jul 19, 2005)

> If AA theology is as thoroughly "heretical", unbiblical, and anti-confessional as some have made it out to be, then why doesn't someone get down to business writing a scholarly book refuting the Federal Vision error in detail? The Federal Visionists themselves don't seem to have any trouble pumping out books.



I think the answer is that books from regular publishers take time to get out unless you have access to your own publishing house as the Wilson and Wilkens do. I think you will find that Dr. Waters has a book in the pipeline, along with the faculty of Westminster West. In addition, there have been many lectures and papers you can access at www.teachingtheword.org - under the justification tab or try www.paulperspective.com. The OPC is also working through the issues and should provide a very helpful study in the near future, plus I think the Mississippi Valley PCA report does a good job of explaing the errors. 



> Out of all of you who responded with vigor in this thread's posts above, I am curious: How many of you have gone to the trouble of reading much of the FV literature, and how many of you have bothered to correspond with Wilkins, Wilson, et al for clarification?




I've read quite a bit of the FV literature as have many others here. I think using the published works of the FV advocates to make a judgment ought to be fine. If they can't make themselves clear, then how the onus to clarify things gets shifted to the reader is a strange leap if you asked me. Good teachers make things clearer and even putting the best spin on the FV, it is so full of complex nuance and equivocation, that I think it's harmful on that account alone. 

Also, I also haven't seen the "H" word tossed around by anyone here other then a reference to something Robbins wrote. I am not nor is anyone else here defending Robbins, just so nobody here gets painted with that broad brush so many FV advocates complain about. 


[Edited on 7-19-2005 by AdamM]


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Jul 19, 2005)

> _Originally posted by twogunfighter_
> Dead right Joseph....The PCA has much greater problems than the FV issue. I wish that our elders were as up in arms over the abuse of the regulative principle of worship as they are over the FV. To me the evangellycalization of the PCA is a much greater cause for concern than Steve Wilkins et al.



I disagree with this. Justifiction is not a small matter to be debated and discussed. It is one of the most important issues at hand. Change it and you can lose much more.


----------



## RamistThomist (Jul 19, 2005)

I categorically ignore what Robbins says. If it is truly important someone else will say it. I am worried that some unsuspecting reader will read Robbins on this, think he is right on ALL things, and then come away hating Van Til. 

So, all you ruling elders out there who participated in Regional/State Presbyteries and General Assemblies, should we do as Robbins says and disregard/defy Church Courts? So, all your hard work for nothing?


Someone needs his mouth washed out

Being called a heretic by Robbins is not something to lose sleep over.

here is a list of potential heretics



> J.G. Vos
> Murray
> Clowney
> Kline
> ...


----------



## Scott Bushey (Jul 19, 2005)

> _Originally posted by puritancovenanter_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by twogunfighter_
> ...



Chuck,
I hear you loud and clear. However, I agree with Randy in this case. Justification is the hinge that the door of salvation swings upon.


----------



## AdamM (Jul 19, 2005)

> I disagree with this. Justification is not a small matter to be debated and discussed. It is one of the most important issues at hand. Change it and you can lose much more.



Agreed!

Justification, is the article upon which the Church stands or falls (and the article upon which each of us will stand or fall.) Muddying up the waters in regard to justification has consequences well beyond ignorance of and misuse of the RPW. 

To me thats the most frustrating thing about the FV (and NPP) is that we have in the Reformed Confessions, solid Biblical, clear teaching on justification and somehow the FV manages to create this big ball of nuance and confusion that simply isn't there in our standards. What has been gained by this "nuance" other then strife, confusion and less clarity? How can that be defended as being an advance for the Church?


----------



## fredtgreco (Jul 19, 2005)

> _Originally posted by AdamM_
> 
> 
> > I disagree with this. Justification is not a small matter to be debated and discussed. It is one of the most important issues at hand. Change it and you can lose much more.
> ...



Absolutely agreed.

Without justification by faith alone, there is no hope for proper worship.


----------



## fredtgreco (Jul 19, 2005)

> _Originally posted by biblelighthouse_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Draught Horse_
> ...



With respect,

You are wrong. And I doubt that you have studied the issue as much as Rev. Pipa, Rev. Duncan, Rev. O Palmer Robertson, Rev. Guy Waters, et al.

This is not a matter of clarity.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Jul 19, 2005)

Well, here it is. These guys are allowing heresy about justification to be propagated. Or are they? No doubt, what I have heard is not biblical. But I do not know Steve Wilkes nor have read the findings.




> Dear Friends, Just as we predicted some time ago, the Louisiana Presbytery of the Presbyterian Church in America has exonerated Steve Wilkins of all charges and accusations against him. In response to the recommendations of the Louisiana Presbytery Ad Hoc Committee on Federal Vision Theology, Louisiana Presbytery has unanimously adopted the following motion: ...that Rev. Steve Wilkins be publicly exonerated by Louisiana Presbytery and declared to be faithful to the Confessional standards of the PCA. For those of you not familiar with the heresies being taught and promoted by Wilkins, please read the book A Companion to The Current Justification Controversy, available at our website, www.trinityfoundation.org, as well as the score of Trinity Reviews posted at our website that discuss the errors and heresies of the Auburn Avenue Theology. Question: When church courts -- and the Session of the Auburn Avenue Presbyterian Church and the Louisiana Presbytery are both church courts -- exonerate heretics and endorse heresy, what is the proper response of the Christian? The Christian must denounce the church courts and their actions, just as the Reformers and Protestants have done for the past 500 years. A good place to start is by signing the Reformation Day Declaration at our website. If the Christian is under the jurisdiction of these courts, he must renounce that jurisdiction and leave, publicly stating his reason for separating from error and those who teach and defend it. There is and can be no neutrality on the Gospel.
> 
> Cordially,
> 
> ...


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Jul 19, 2005)

> With respect,
> 
> You are wrong. And I doubt that you have studied the issue as much as Rev. Pipa, Rev. Duncan, Rev. O Palmer Robertson, Rev. Guy Waters, et al.
> 
> This is not a matter of clarity.



So, what the PCA going to do? Will they discipline the presbytery itself? Unlikely.

OK, so let's ask the hard question - who will leave the PCA over this issue? Fred, are you leaving? Jeff? Wayne? Anyone? Is this a "leavable" issue? If you are not leaving, why? Is not leaving giving acceptance to the PCA practice of allowing it overall?

In my humble opinion, like I said before, and will continue to say it - AA/FV/NP is heresy. If the PCA is going to "OK" it, then the PCA is going apostate (gone apostate).

[Edited on 7-19-2005 by webmaster]


----------



## Arch2k (Jul 19, 2005)

AMEN!

My pastor does NOT support FV, and in fact denounces it. If my church supported it, I would leave in a heartbeat.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Jul 19, 2005)

The GA level is where the bus stops. Not that I'm sanguine about the GA taking action...

But when it gets there, that's when Robbins will declare the church apostate and announce the last train is leaving the station and we better get on because he's leaving and moving to Canada because he doesn't want to be in the South when the fire and brimstone starts falling and maybe you can be one of the few, the proud, the clarkian, the one true church presbyterian remnant that will be raptu-----


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Jul 19, 2005)

> The GA level is where the bus stops.



OK. So when will they _turn on_ the ignition? Why did GA this year, again, miss the bus?


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Jul 19, 2005)

Can a whole Presbytery be disciplined? Come on, someone has to see the light. Why do liberals and heretics have to come into solid organizations and take them over? Why do we let them? Is this a repeat of the United Presbyterian Church and others that have fallen by the wayside. What happened to the checks and balances, again? The RPCNA hasn't grown very fast but it is firm and steady. It still holds to it's foundation. I know Reformed Baptist Churches that have outlasted the PCA. This is crazy.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Jul 19, 2005)

*To Matt\'s question*

This issue had yet to get there?

5 or 6 years ago, a N.C. presbytery successfully brought a matter to the G.A. regarding a Tennessee church's violations of women's ordination. That presbytery would not act. I don't remember how it all came about, but the pastor (and sadly the church too) were forced out of the denomination. (When they voted to leave, going to the EPC, the man led his flock in cheering "free at last! free at last! thank God almighty, free at last!")

So it happens that issues are forced. But we will have to wait and see. If something doesn't "give," some (good or bad) are going to "go."

Where? If we listen to Robbins, there's no place to go except the wilderness. According to him the OPC is a nest of iniquity, 10X worse than the PCA, much farther down the road to perdition. Why they haven't joined Rome is anybody's guess...

Someone was saying to me the other day: the world, the big picture, looks different to a covenant child who grew up in a denomination that was true to the old paths. Can I see clearer? Or can the other guy? I know the "let's wait and see what happens" attitude usually means you have fewer steps to take when the time comes. You just have to be willing to take them...

[Edited on 7-20-2005 by Contra_Mundum]


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Jul 19, 2005)

Robbins has already endorsed a new denomination called the Evangelical Reformed Presbyterian Church. It seems to be a group of desenters.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Jul 19, 2005)

Just what presbyterianism needs. Another micro denomination. Why don't these guys fight until they are kicked out? Why don't they join one of the other teensy denoms? *Because they want to call the shots.* No one wants to be the johnny-come-lately's. That would require humility. Passing some other group's entrance requirements. Maybe admitting, "We should have left when you did." The fact that they don't want to say that word speaks volumes to me.


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Jul 19, 2005)

Hey PCA brothers, the water in the RPCNA pool is nice and warm! Singing the Psalms is fun, I promise. Come on over!


----------



## Michael Butterfield (Jul 19, 2005)

> _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> Hey PCA brothers, the water in the RPCNA pool is nice and warm! Singing the Psalms is fun, I promise. Come on over!



I would come, but I cannot fully subscribe. I enjoy wine! Oh, and Beer too!


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Jul 19, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Michael Butterfield_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> ...



I also enjoy a good smoke also. 

But you gotta admit they have been the only denomination that has been steadfast through the ages.


----------



## fredtgreco (Jul 19, 2005)

> _Originally posted by webmaster_
> 
> 
> > The GA level is where the bus stops.
> ...



This is the year. Watch and see.


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Jul 19, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Michael Butterfield_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> ...



The first pastor I met in the RPCNA drank alcohol. They no longer hold a position of abstinence (nor do I). Churches are allowed to use wine in their communion, per last year's Synod.


----------



## fredtgreco (Jul 19, 2005)

> _Originally posted by puritancovenanter_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Michael Butterfield_
> ...



Huh?

Pacifism?

Women deacons?

Prohibition?


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Jul 19, 2005)

Hypothetically speaking, Fred, Matt, and others in the PCA, what would you do if they approved the FV'ers in your denomination as being faithful to the Word of God and without error?


----------



## fredtgreco (Jul 20, 2005)

> _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> Hypothetically speaking, Fred, Matt, and others in the PCA, what would you do if they approved the FV'ers in your denomination as being faithful to the Word of God and without error?



Gabe,

I don't know. I do think the PCA is worth fighting for. This year will say a lot.


(By the way - my comments on the RPCNA were not meant as a slam, but in response to the fact that it was described as "the only" faithful denomination)


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Jul 20, 2005)

> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> (By the way - my comments on the RPCNA were not meant as a slam, but in response to the fact that it was described as "the only" faithful denomination)



I understand. They have recanted of the Prohibition mindset. I'm not familiar with the pacifism you mention. The women deacons thing doesn't seem to be very widespread in the denomination, even though it is allowed ... I've heard that there has been challenges to that position as of late. I'm not too dogmatic at this point (lack of Scriptural study on the issue), but whatever position I'm convinced of by Scripture, I would fight for it if I am, Lord willing, made a minister in this Church. Incidentally, the "Reformed baptist" church I attended prior to converting (SBC to RPCNA) allowed women deacons (elders such as Bruce Ware, Thomas Schreiner, etc. presiding in that church).

[Edited on 7-20-2005 by WrittenFromUtopia]


----------



## Myshkin (Jul 20, 2005)

> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> This is the year. Watch and see.



Is this a reasonable confidence of good things to come (the ousting of the FV)? Or just a general statement that this is the year that we will know either way where the PCA stands?


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Jul 20, 2005)

Huh?

Pacifism?

Women deacons?

Prohibition? 


Are you sure you are talking about the RPCNA?

Not mine. My Pastor was a WWII Naval flyer and advertises it on the Church website. I have never heard of female deacons either. Prohibition....well. Okay you got me here.


----------



## Michael Butterfield (Jul 20, 2005)

> a.	Canon 9: "œif anyone says that the sinner is justified by faith alone, meaning that nothing else is required to cooperate in order to obtain the grace of justification, and that it is not in any way necessary that he be prepared and disposed by the action of his own will, let him be anathema."
> b.	Canon 10: "œIf anyone says that men are justified without the justice of Christ (Gal. 2:16), whereby He merited for us, or by any that justice are formally just, let him be anathema."
> c.	Canon 11: "œIf anyone says that men are justified either by the sole imputation of the justice of Christ or by the sole remission of sins, to the exclusion of the grace and the "˜the charity which is poured forth in their hearts by the Holy Ghost´ (Rom. 5:5), and remains in them, or also that the grace by which we are justified is only the good will of God, let them be anathema."
> 
> Canons and Decrees, p. 43 quoted in Sproul, Faith Alone, p. 128.



What are you willing to die for? Our opponents often better understand what we saying than ourselves. It is the forest for the trees syndrome.


----------



## Michael Butterfield (Jul 20, 2005)

> _Originally posted by RAS_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> ...



I can only believe the latter, but I am only speaking for myself.

[Edited on 7-20-2005 by Michael Butterfield]


----------



## gto (Jul 20, 2005)

Perhaps we could hold on for two seconds in all this.

Is the latest Louisiana Presbytery's statement even out and published in full yet? Or if so, had it already been while all the above rhetoric was posted (flung?)? Is "let everyone be quick to hear and slow to speak" (Jas. 1:19) suddenly not applicable in this case? Rather, in all this, it's been more like "Ready! Fire! Aim!" For mercy's sake, we don't even have a document to critique yet so as to hereticize the presbytery! We're already busy with plans for a new (and this time, pure!) denomination ("Hmm, what'll be our flag colors and insignia?") before the final document has even had a chance to be scrutinized. Yikes! Get a rope before the ink dries.

As far as another Presbyterian split, we ought not so easily ignore the following historical, theological, and pastoral observations by Frame. Or is he a heretic too?

http://www.christiancounterculture.com/40615/machen.html


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Jul 20, 2005)

John Frame has been criticized for defending Steve Wilkes in some of his stuff. Grant it John Frame has also called into question some of Wilkes positions from what I have read.


----------



## wsw201 (Jul 20, 2005)

Before we throw the entire denomination under the bus as apostate, lets not forget that it was a PCA Presbytery that told Rich Lusk to take a hike. It was also a PCA Presbytery that got the LA Presbytery to get off the schneid and do something about AAPC. It was also a PCA Presbytery that came out with a comprehensive report on NPP/FV/NS condemning it.

I said it before that I was not surprised that the LA Presbytery vindicated Wilkins. Actually, I would have been shocked if they hadn't. He has been preaching his views in that Presbytery for years and no one has done anything. Why would anyone in there right mind think that the LA Presbytery would do anything to Wilkins now? Because Central Carolina Pres. wanted them to? No way. The LA Presbytery exonerated him because they never had a problem with what he was preaching. And just like Lusk, if he leaves the cozy confines of the LA Presbytery, he'll get the same treatment.

But this is one Presbytery, and folks shouldn't be getting all antsy over what the LA Presbytery has done. It had to be expected.

[Edited on 7/20/2005 by wsw201]


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Jul 20, 2005)

So Wayne, Back to a question I had earlier. Will the LA. Presbytery be called upon to give an account and told what to do if it is in error?


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Jul 20, 2005)

> _Originally posted by puritancovenanter_
> So Wayne, Back to a question I had earlier. Will the LA. Presbytery be called upon to give an account and told what to do if it is in error?



I believe at this point that can only happen if someone from that presbytery appeals the ruling to GA, which is not likely if they ruled unanimously. Though, perhaps the GA can be petitioned by other presbyteries to deal with the doctrinal issues.


----------



## wsw201 (Jul 20, 2005)

> _Originally posted by puritancovenanter_
> So Wayne, Back to a question I had earlier. Will the LA. Presbytery be called upon to give an account and told what to do if it is in error?



As I remember my BCO, 2 Presbyteries can take action by appealing to GA, but they would have to bring a specific charge against either Wilkins or the Presbytery. As far as I know, there have been no specific charges made against Wilkins or (as it should be) the AAPC Session. This was the situation in the Woods case in Tenn that was mentioned previously. (Two Presbyteries said that "action was not taken" against TE Woods (assuming I remember right). The SJC determined that sufficient action was taken in the Woods case, though the two Presbyteries didn't like it). The appeal would go to the SJC and they would determine if the situation was properly handled by the Presbytery (assuming they would consider the case at all). Since the LA Presbytery took action by examining his views and finding that they were in the bounds of the Standards, I don't think the SJC would do anything. Appealing a decision by a Presbytery is a pretty sticky situation and would probably not hold up.

For what it's worth, I think that those who are opposed the NPP/FV/NS are going to have to take a play out of the PPLN playbook (though I am fairly sure they wouldn't do it) and start stacking committees at GA and making sure their supporters show up at GA so that they could pass a resolution stating that NPP/FV/NS are outside the bounds of the Standards. But this type of resolution might run afoul of BCO 21-4 regarding "system subscription".


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Jul 20, 2005)

Fred, there's only five months left in the year.


----------



## JohnV (Jul 20, 2005)

There is another way, Wayne. Whether FV/NPP is within the Confessional standard is quite beside the point. The question is whether it is *in* that standard. Did Christ command it to be taught? Where does Wilkins derive his authority to teach it? He did not receive it from any Presbytery or GA or any committee, for they all inquired into it after the fact. And it was not in the normal guidelines of teaching strictures before that. So the question is really that he preached on his own authority, and no one else's, and especially not Christ's. He may have an entire Presbytery on his side, but he is a lone duck. That's a pretty specific charge, and easier to back up.


----------



## turmeric (Jul 20, 2005)

Okay, I'm confused. Didn't we already have GA this year? I thought that's where my pastor went...


----------



## Scott Bushey (Jul 20, 2005)

I am meeting with my pastor the beginning of next month; This is one of the topic we will address.


----------



## fredtgreco (Jul 20, 2005)

> _Originally posted by webmaster_
> Fred, there's only five months left in the year.



But the PCA calendar runs from June to June.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Jul 20, 2005)

So Wilkes has time to make things more confusing I assume. Somewhere there is deception. Written words mean things. Let the written words stand for themselves. And let them accuse their writers. Slippery is unacceptable and deceitful.


----------



## RamistThomist (Jul 20, 2005)

> _Originally posted by puritancovenanter_
> So Wilkes has time to make things more confusing I assume. Somewhere there is deception. Written words mean things. Let the written words stand for themselves. And let them accuse their writers. Slippery is unacceptable and deceitful.



Not saying I agree with it, but read the federal vision, edited by Wilkins. This way you will have ammo "from the horse's mouth."


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Jul 21, 2005)

> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by webmaster_
> ...


Yea. The broad-churchmen will laugh up their sleeves as they join arms with the men they view as "narrow-minded" to remove a thorn in their side. The "narrow-minded," on the other hand, will not be happy with either their bedfellows or their duty.


----------



## Ex Nihilo (Jul 21, 2005)

> _Originally posted by biblelighthouse_
> I believe that neither Wilson nor Wilkins have denied the core reformation principles of justifcation. Rather, the problem is that Wilkins is a real chucklehead when it comes to getting his point across clearly. Much of what he says _would be heretical_ if his statements were intended to apply to ALL his theology. Rather, it seems that much of what he says is ONLY meant to be applied within the context of his view of the covenant.





From my very limited knowledge of the FV, it seems that the biggest problem may be lack of clear communication. The actual views being advocated are not nearly so shocking as the language games they are playing might imply. Thanks for pointing this out. At the same time, I wouldn't want to minimize the potential damage that can come about through language games. A healthy respect for the implications of traditional Reformed theological terminology might be helpful.

Of course, if the FV really are heretics, I would readily admit this if I saw proof. I just know I can't figure out exactly whether they're heretics or not because my attempts to decypher what they actually believe have not been entirely successful.  I do see that some on the board believe they are heretics, so if anyone wants to point me (and everyone else) towards resources that show that the FV actually deny justification by faith alone or that their beliefs must necessarily lead to a denial of justification by faith alone, I'm sure that would be immensely helpful.

[Edited on 7-21-2005 by Ex Nihilo]


----------



## RamistThomist (Jul 21, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Ex Nihilo_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by biblelighthouse_
> ...



If I may follow from that line of reasoning. The reason I have always been slow to roast them is that I (and evie can back me up on this) came from an arminian liberal college _in many respects_. I have had students come up to me and *savagely mock* my beliefs in Scripture, the Supernatural, etc. Now, I was schooled on Bahnsen/Van Til so I responded with lethal force.

I have also had philosophy profs make fun of traditional reformed theology while *denying me a chance to respond and defend my beliefs*. I guess if you want to talk about enemies of the faith let's talk about enemies of the faith.

So, back to the story, I began an intense and personal reclaiming of some of my friends that that whore liberalism (humanism). I won't claim to be successful but many dear friends did embrace Calvinism/partial-preterism.

What I am getting at is that the community at Auburn Avenue provided me with an arsenal of books and material cogently arguing for the Christian worldview at an extremely low cost.

[Edited on 7--21-05 by Draught Horse]


----------



## Arch2k (Jul 21, 2005)

Jacob,

I hear what you are saying, but we can't defend these guys on the basis that they are battling humanism. If we follow that logic, the Catholics help fight abortion, and even Mormons aren't as bad as they possibly can be.


----------



## RamistThomist (Jul 21, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel_
> Jacob,
> 
> I hear what you are saying, but we can't defend these guys on the basis that they are battling humanism. If we follow that logic, the Catholics help fight abortion, and even Mormons aren't as bad as they possibly can be.



I understand that I could be proving too much. Nevertheless, when people are selling Dabney, Calvin, Van Til, Bahnsen for VERY, VERY, VERY cheap, I "make friends with those of mammon" and "plunder the Egyptians." Although I think they are neither mammon nor Egyptians.

Also, there are not many good places to worship in Monroe. Pastor Wilkins doesn't preach on FV, but rarely and that only tangentially. He is a masterful pulpiteer and his sermons are always meaty and edifying, and this coming from a person who is not FV.

So it comes down to worshipping at happy clappy slappy church that despises the Reforme faith, or doing home church (not an option), or going to AAPC.


----------



## Myshkin (Jul 21, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Ex Nihilo_
> From my very limited knowledge of the FV, it seems that the biggest problem may be lack of clear communication. The actual views being advocated are not nearly so shocking as the language games they are playing might imply. Thanks for pointing this out. At the same time, I wouldn't want to minimize the potential damage that can come about through language games. A healthy respect for the implications of traditional Reformed theological terminology might be helpful.
> 
> Of course, if the FV really are heretics, I would readily admit this if I saw proof. I just know I can't figure out exactly whether they're heretics or not because my attempts to decypher what they actually believe have not been entirely successful.  I do see that some on the board believe they are heretics, so if anyone wants to point me (and everyone else) towards resources that show that the FV actually deny justification by faith alone or that their beliefs must necessarily lead to a denial of justification by faith alone, I'm sure that would be immensely helpful.



Evie, this may be of some help......
http://www.semper-reformanda.org/ericson.html

and...
http://www.apuritansmind.com/BookReviews/Sourpuss/WilsonDouglasReformedNotEnough.htm

and this thread, which contains a link to a recent interview with Wilson....
http://www.puritanboard.com/forum/viewthread.php?tid=11657#pid166077



[Edited on 7-21-2005 by RAS]


----------



## JohnV (Jul 21, 2005)

We may debate 'til the cows come home whether what Wilkins teaches is heresy, but surely there can be no question that teaching on his own authority is heresy. A person must be convicted of the gospel he preaches, but that does not mean that everything he is convicted of is gospel. He may be ordained, but he still just a man; and he is ordained only to preach the gospel, not to soap-box. I see this as much more serious. 

Discussing such issues on this Board is fine, that's where it belongs, as long as things are discussed with mutual concern for each other, and a mutual desire for truth, as opposed to a desire to establish one's opinions. But they do not belong on the pulpit. Opinions like Wilkins' are helpful sometimes, but when they become preaching material, then they become "winds of doctrine".


----------



## Ex Nihilo (Jul 21, 2005)

> _Originally posted by RAS_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Ex Nihilo_
> ...



Thank you.


----------



## Ex Nihilo (Jul 21, 2005)

> _Originally posted by JohnV_
> We may debate 'til the cows come home whether what Wilkins teaches is heresy, but surely there can be no question that teaching on his own authority is heresy. A person must be convicted of the gospel he preaches, but that does not mean that everything he is convicted of is gospel. He may be ordained, but he still just a man; and he is ordained only to preach the gospel, not to soap-box. I see this as much more serious.
> 
> Discussing such issues on this Board is fine, that's where it belongs, as long as things are discussed with mutual concern for each other, and a mutual desire for truth, as opposed to a desire to establish one's opinions. But they do not belong on the pulpit. Opinions like Wilkins' are helpful sometimes, but when they become preaching material, then they become "winds of doctrine".



I certainly agree, but the few times I have been to AAPC, Wilkins did not preach the FV from the pulpit. I believe Jacob has had a similar experience there.


----------



## JohnV (Jul 22, 2005)

The question, Evie, is not whether he preaches it all the time, but whether he preaches it at all. And even then, I was pointing more to the fact that it is one thing for the Presbytery to exonerate Wilkins views, it is quite another to approve it as doctrine. What has seemed to happen in one Presbytery is that a "no disapproval" is tantamount to "appointment to doctrine", when it comes to holding views. So, if you're ordained, it isn't just that you may hold such and such a view and still be within the confines of the Confessional standard, but the fact that you are convicted of it is licence enough to preach it. 

This is not about whether or not Wilkins is raising havoc from Sunday to Sunday, but what the stand on preaching the Word is within a Presbytery and within a church. That Presbytery may make claims to Sola Scriptura, but it has no real right to that claim anymore, for they have tacitly added to it. For them it is now Scripture plus personal conviction, not just Scripture. Remember, they addressed it after the fact, not before. That is crucial.


----------



## fredtgreco (Jul 29, 2005)

*Response to Louisiana Presbytery*

There is an excellent and timely response to the LA Presbytery report from:

Dr. E. Calvin Beisner, RE; Rev. Christopher A. Hutchinson, TE; Rev. Richard D. Phillips, TE; Dr. Joseph A. Pipa, TE; Rev. Carl D. Robbins, TE; Dr. Morton H. Smith, TE; Dr. R. Fowler White, TE

http://www.ecalvinbeisner.com/farticles/LA_Pres_Response.pdf

Some highlights:



> 65 B. We request clarification of your statement that the Standards allow for the view that we
> 66 should consider persons baptized in water who have not been excommunicated as
> 67 regenerated. Do you mean that we should charitably consider them such until evidence
> 68 shows otherwise? That is the best face we can put on it. But since Larger Catechism 171
> ...





> 123 III. Specifically with regard to Mr. Wilkins, we would raise the following matters:
> 124 A. We were surprised to find no reference in your report to Mr. Wilkins´s teaching on
> 125 assurance, a doctrine on which we believe there is a strong contrast between his public
> 126 teaching and the Standards. In his 2003 Auburn Avenue Pastors´ Conference lecture,
> ...





> 325 In light of all the foregoing, we believe, despite the Report´s assertion to the contrary, that Mr.
> 326 Wilkins has taught or written contrary to the Westminster Standards on at least the following matters:
> 327 1. the doctrine of assurance,
> 328 2. the relations of water baptism, covenant, union with Christ, and eternal salvation,
> ...


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Jul 29, 2005)

Its very good that they did that. 
Hopefully that will illicit a response.


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Jul 29, 2005)

That's awesome. Thanks for posting that, Fred.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Jul 30, 2005)

Hallelujah! I am grateful for good men of God.


----------

