# What is the current state of FV?



## jwright82 (Jan 18, 2011)

Where are the major Reformed denomenations at with regard to handling FV?


----------



## Peairtach (Jan 18, 2011)

When the FV came out originally I heard someone calling it a "High Covenantalism". 

"High" on confusion and downright error.


----------



## jwright82 (Jan 18, 2011)

Richard Tallach said:


> When the FV came out originally I heard someone calling it a "High Covenantalism".
> 
> "High" on confusion and downright error.


 
I like that!


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion (Jan 18, 2011)

Providentially, the answer appears here just when needed.

http://www.puritanboard.com/f77/douglas-wilson-challenges-r-scott-clark-debate-fv-65522/#post842138



AMR


----------



## jwright82 (Jan 18, 2011)

I guess my question is more like this, are they still in the main presbyterian denomonations or have they left or what?


----------



## lynnie (Jan 18, 2011)

Good question.

I have wondered if they are in the OPC. It seems like you mostly hear about PCA guys. I know of some in the PCA.

Did anything ever happen with Higgens? I don't see how his Presbytery can have complaints going about deaconesses and deacons, and not Higgens. Is it some procedural thing that makes the difference?

How can anybody think that some of the works and fruits proceeding from regeneration and sanctification earn saving merit with God, and pretend to be classical confessional Presbyterian? It is just so dishonest. I wish they would all leave and start their own FV denomination.


----------



## jwright82 (Jan 18, 2011)

lynnie said:


> Good question.
> 
> I have wondered if they are in the OPC. It seems like you mostly hear about PCA guys. I know of some in the PCA.
> 
> ...


 
I agree. I don't know any specifics about anyone, that is why I started this thread.


----------



## brianeschen (Jan 19, 2011)

lynnie said:


> Did anything ever happen with Higgens? I don't see how his Presbytery can have complaints going about deaconesses and deacons, and not Higgens. Is it some procedural thing that makes the difference?



A complaint is against the action of a court. There would have to be charges brought forth against an elder for a specific sin. Apparently no one has done that with Higgins. It may be that the tools of discipline are a bit rusty in the PCA.


----------



## TimV (Jan 19, 2011)

Check this out from today's Aquila Report:



> 1. Missouri Presbytery erred because it was biased against the signers of the letter of concern, which led to the investigation. The investigation began in the context of accusing the signers of the Letter of Concern with violating the Ninth Commandment and stating, “The good name of TE Jeffrey Meyers has already been dishonored.” This statement indicates that these men thought that the allegations were false before they conducted an investigation. In addition, they demonstrated that they thought the signers had sinned in sending the letter to them: “We also consider your actions to be out of accord with the clear biblical injunction to put the cause of another’s honor even before our own.” This was contrary to the letter’s insistence that we should contact someone directly before we make such allegations. Thus, the Presbytery clearly erred from the outset by applying a standard to the signers that they did not even apply to themselves.
> 
> 2. Missouri Presbytery erred because it did not properly weigh the evidence. According to the Missouri Presbytery Investigative Committee Report (MICR), “Context, emphasis, purpose, and considering the full corpus of a [sic] what a person has written and taught are all crucial factors in accurately interpreting the meaning of his individual statements” (MICR, 24, emphasis original). However on several points the committee did not demonstrate that they properly considered the full corpus and context of Meyers’ writings.


Complaint Filed by Two Members of PCA Missouri Presbytery against their recent action to exonerate TE Jeffrey Meyers

That's actually pretty common in the PCA. Even in traffic court, if the judge says "I'm going to find you guilty" or "There's no way someone so nice as you could be guilty" before a trial, the judge would get in big trouble. But in several Presbyteries that sort of attitude is the order of the day. One wonders where it comes from.


----------



## greenbaggins (Jan 19, 2011)

James, the current state of things is that the reports that have been filed by the various denominations are now being implemented in the courts of the church. There are several cases going on right now. It is up to the denomination to enforce in the courts what it said on the reports. In the PCA, some people seem to have the attitude that the report that passed in 2007 completely eliminated all FV people in the PCA. Unfortunately, that did not happen in any way whatsoever. So now, we are battling it out in the church courts. It's in the courts right now. That's where we are.


----------



## Reformed Musings (Jan 19, 2011)

lynnie said:


> I wish they would all leave and start their own FV denomination.



Actually, the CREC welcomes all FVers with no waiting. That's where Wilkins ran as formal charges were being written up in the PCA. Lusk and a few others went on his own earlier. There are current processes in the PCA against three FV TEs of which I'm aware (or maybe four depending on what you count as process). The judicial processes work slowly, but so far, they have worked at the final stage. But just like investments, past performance is not a guarantee of future returns.


----------



## youthevang (Jan 19, 2011)

Richard Tallach said:


> When the FV came out originally I heard someone calling it a "High Covenantalism".
> 
> "High" on confusion and downright error.



Ha, I thought I was the only one that used a phrase like that. I usually call it "Hyper Covenantalism".


----------



## jwright82 (Jan 22, 2011)

So we are wittnessing due proccess at its finest. About how many cases are there for the courts to decide?


----------



## Reformed Musings (Jan 22, 2011)

jwright82 said:


> So we are wittnessing due proccess at its finest. About how many cases are there for the courts to decide?



There are four cases of which I'm aware in various stages. The finding that there was no strong presumption of guilt in the investigation of Jeff Meyers in MO has been complained against and will proceed to review in MO Presbytery. For what it's worth, that case seems to be paralleling the Wilkins case a few years ago in Louisiana. Peter Leithart's trial in NW should happen fairly soon. Siouxlands Presbytery eventually found a strong presumption of guilt for Greg Lawrence so he'll stand trial there. Siouxlands also has some issues with Joshua Moon. Although the SJC gave Moon a pass, it was primarily on a fine procedural point and they wrote that a full BCO 32-2 process (bringing charges) would have been a more appropriate approach. I suspect that will happen in the coming months. Moon makes the fourth case if it indeed comes to pass.

That's all of which I'm aware at the moment. I suspect that sooner or later we'll see one or two other actions as well.


----------

