# The OPC is Getting the Gospel Right



## R. Scott Clark

On the HB

rsc


----------



## Poimen

So many posts... 

I'm glad you didn't have a blog when I was at Westminster. How would you ever have gotten our papers back to us on time?


----------



## ChristopherPaul

Yes, Dr. Clark appears to be in the blogsphere equivolent of a "cage stage".


----------



## MrMerlin777

ChristopherPaul said:


> Yes, Dr. Clark appears to be in the blogsphere equivolent of a "cage stage".


----------



## Magma2

Haven't the courts of the OPC already spoken on this matter in the Kinnaird case? Where and when have they conceded their error? It seems to me New Horizons and committee reports are just so much window dressing. A Potemkin village. Business as unusual. Nothing has changed. Now go about your business.

I would love to be wrong, but are you seriously going to argue that because there was a good article in New Horizons that all those teaching the many doctrines they've learned at the hands of Norm Shepherd and others are all of a sudden going to stop? The Neo-Liberalism of the Federal Vision is alive and well in the OPC and the PCA and no article in a denominational magazine or committee report is going to change that.


----------



## Theogenes

Sean,
I agree and would add that there is no mention of Norman Shepherd in the New Horizon articles at all. This omission screams volumes.
Jim


----------



## Casey

Jim Snyder said:


> Sean,
> I agree and would add that there is no mention of Norman Shepherd in the New Horizon articles at all. This omission screams volumes.
> Jim


Sean and Jim,

And what of what the articles positively say? That means nothing at all? What of what the Justification Report and what it says? That means nothing?

What do you want the OPC to do about Norman Shepherd? Do you not realize that he's a member of the CRC? 

I'm rather confused. The title of this thread is: "The OPC is getting the gospel right." Are you saying that the OPC is getting the gospel _wrong_? Perhaps you don't intend it, but your posts suggest as much.

My experience is this: If you spend a lot of time on the Internet you'll end up thinking every church is in a worse position than it really is. Spend less time on the Internet, go to Presbytery's and GA's and see for yourself.

Really, what do you want? What would you have the OPC do to satisfy you personally?

If you have complaints to register, there are ways to do so. Is an Internet forum like the PB the right place to do it? You are in churches that are in ecumenical relations with the OPC (NAPARC), and if you think the OPC is in so bad a condition as to warrant breaking that ecumenical relationship, then you have the church courts with which to appeal that decision.

Where have the churchmen gone?  When you see a member of your church sin, do you immediately question their salvation? With such a broad stroke you paint the OPC . . . The hermeneutic of suspicion is contrary to charity, no?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## ADKing

StaunchPresbyterian said:


> Sean and Jim,
> 
> And what of what the articles positively say? That means nothing at all? What of what the Justification Report and what it says? That means nothing?
> 
> What do you want the OPC to do about Norman Shepherd? Do you not realize that he's a member of the CRC?
> 
> I'm rather confused. The title of this thread is: "The OPC is getting the gospel right." Are you saying that the OPC is getting the gospel _wrong_? Perhaps you don't intend it, but your posts suggest as much.
> 
> My experience is this: If you spend a lot of time on the Internet you'll end up thinking every church is in a worse position than it really is. Spend less time on the Internet, go to Presbytery's and GA's and see for yourself.
> 
> Really, what do you want? What would you have the OPC do to satisfy you personally?
> 
> If you have complaints to register, there are ways to do so. Is an Internet forum like the PB the right place to do it? You are in churches that are in ecumenical relations with the OPC (NAPARC), and if you think the OPC is in so bad a condition as to warrant breaking that ecumenical relationship, then you have the church courts with which to appeal that decision.
> 
> Where have the churchmen gone?  When you see a member of your church sin, do you immediately question their salvation? With such a broad stroke you paint the OPC . . . The hermeneutic of suspicion is contrary to charity, no?



I think the point that is being made, and needs to be made is that now that the OPC has made such bold (and good as far as they go) statements, it has yet to be seen whether or not they will follow through with discipline. There is at least one example (in the minds of many--I know we could debate this ad nauseum) of the OPC actually clearing someone whose teachings sounded an awful lot like Norman Shepherd and the FV on justification. Please do not take this as harsh or uncharitable but there are other instances in my opinion where the OPC claims to be one thing in its confessional documents and speaks loudly about certain positions in church publications, nevertheless in the actual practice of the church exactly the opposite takes place. It is good to say the right thing but this also needs to be followed by "practicing what is preached". 

I applaud those in the OPC who have spoken strongly in favor of the biblical doctrine of justification and the many who sincerely believe it! But it is not unreasonable for those on the outside to reserve judgment until we see how this plays out. Declaring an absolute victory in the OPC is premature in my humble opinion. But I pray that the victory may be won there!


----------



## Archlute

ADKing said:


> I think the point that is being made, and needs to be made is that now that the OPC has made such bold (and good as far as they go) statements, it has yet to be seen whether or not they will follow through with discipline. There is at least one example (in the minds of many--I know we could debate this ad nauseum) of the OPC actually clearing someone whose teachings sounded an awful lot like Norman Shepherd and the FV on justification. Please do not take this as harsh or uncharitable but there are other instances in my opinion where the OPC claims to be one thing in its confessional documents and speaks loudly about certain positions in church publications, nevertheless in the actual practice of the church exactly the opposite takes place. It is good to say the right thing but this also needs to be followed by "practicing what is preached".
> 
> I appluad those in the OPC who have spoken strongly in favor of the biblical doctrine of justification and the many who sincerely believe it! But it is not unreasonable for those on the outside to reserve judgment until we see how this plays out. Declaring an absolute victory in the OPC is premature in my humble opinion. But I pray that the victory may be won there!



100% Agreement.


----------



## Casey

ADKing said:


> I think the point that is being made, and needs to be made is that now that the OPC has made such bold (and good as far as they go) statements, it has yet to be seen whether or not they will follow through with discipline. There is at least one example (in the minds of many--I know we could debate this ad nauseum) of the OPC actually clearing someone whose teachings sounded an awful lot like Norman Shepherd and the FV on justification. Please do not take this as harsh or uncharitable but there are other instances in my opinion where the OPC claims to be one thing in its confessional documents and speaks loudly about certain positions in church publications, nevertheless in the actual practice of the church exactly the opposite takes place. It is good to say the right thing but this also needs to be followed by "practicing what is preached".
> 
> I appluad those in the OPC who have spoken strongly in favor of the biblical doctrine of justification and the many who sincerely believe it! But it is not unreasonable for those on the outside to reserve judgment until we see how this plays out. Declaring an absolute victory in the OPC is premature in my humble opinion. But I pray that the victory may be won there!


This is the statement that was made: "The Neo-Liberalism of the Federal Vision is alive and well in the OPC and the PCA and no article in a denominational magazine or committee report is going to change that." And yet, you seem to be referring to _one individual_.

Now, either the "Federal Vision is alive and well in the OPC" or, as you suggest, there is "at least one example (in the minds of many)" that represents FV tendencies.

I see a rather sharp discrepancy between these two sentiments. One is a broad brush, the other expresses a concern over a particular individual case.

I, like you, are concerned about whatever individual cases I am aware of, but I am not prepared to say that "the Federal Vision is alive and well in the OPC." Are you?

Reactions: Amen 1


----------



## ADKing

StaunchPresbyterian said:


> This is the statement that was made: "The Neo-Liberalism of the Federal Vision is alive and well in the OPC and the PCA and no article in a denominational magazine or committee report is going to change that." And yet, you seem to be referring to _one individual_.
> 
> Now, either the "Federal Vision is alive and well in the OPC" or, as you suggest, there is "at least one example (in the minds of many)" that represents FV tendencies.
> 
> I see a rather sharp discrepancy between these two sentiments. One is a broad brush, the other expresses a concern over a particular individual case.
> 
> I, like you, are concerned about whatever individual cases I am aware of, but I am not prepared to say that "the Federal Vision is alive and well in the OPC." Are you?



Perhaps I would not say that so strongly, no. Nevertheless, I think you are positing too sharp a contrast. I mention the trial of 2003(?) as a well known example of the sort of thing I have reason to suspect is broader than that one individual. I have no intention of providing names or examples since I do not want to get into danger of violating the 9th commandment! Rightly or wrongly the well-known case of which we speak leaves me cautious. Even if it is only a small number of individuals in the OPC who believe like him the fact that the General Assembly did not convict him leaves me wondering how and why all these men who make such wonderful statements about justification did not apply that teaching in what seems to me to be a perfect test case. If men who themselves may be orthodox do not discipline error when confronted by it, there is still grave cause for concern. One can be perfectly orthodox himself, but a toleration of error of this scale does a lot to nullify an orthodox testimony. 

Please understand I write these things with no animosity towards the OPC. I am not even accusing them of being "neo-liberals" as a denomination or apostate. What I am doing is waiting and seeing if the OPC will act upon what they have said. I am unwilling to render a final judgment either way now until they "prove it to me". I know that may take some time, but for me, personally, as an outsider to the OPC, the verdict is still out. I would _love_ to be convinced that the OPC means what it says and has indeed won the battle!


----------



## Magma2

StaunchPresbyterian said:


> If you have complaints to register, there are ways to do so.




Indeed there are, but perhaps you can explain to me what good it would do since the OPC court has spoken on this matter; "Mr. Kinnaird's teaching should not be judged to be out of accord with the Church's Standards . . . ." 

Frankly, those who signed the "Protest of the action of the General Assembly in sustaining Specification A of the Appeal of John O. Kinnaird" were exactly right:



> The failure of the Assembly to adopt reasons for deciding that the session and presbytery were in error in finding Mr. Kinnaird's teaching to be contrary to the Church's Standards, leaves the decision open to the impression that the entire content of the Kinnaird "Declaration" is fully acceptable in the Church, which the undersigned deny. In the opinion of the undersigned the "Declaration" is an untrustworthy document.



I recommend you read former OPC RE Paul Elliot's excellent book detailing the spiritual crisis in the OPC; Christianity and Neo Liberalism.


----------



## Puritan Sailor

If I may interject my  , all the positive publicity regarding the right view of justification will have a leavening effect. You would not believe how few of the people in the laity in the OPC (even more so in the PCA) had ever heard of Shepherd, or New Perspective, or Federal Vision. Now they are hearing it loud and clear and being taught what is wrong with it. If this doesn't perk up the ears of the laity when they are listening to their pastors and teachers, then I don't know what will. The alarm is sounding. Shepherd supporters will have to either tone it down or start facing tough questions from discerning members of their congregation. It's hard to bring a false teacher to trial if the people don't know he is a false teacher. So I would urge more patience brothers. It's not as if we are ignoring the problem. People must be educated. These things take time, much longer than it takes to post a blog article or debate an issue on the internet.


----------



## Archlute

StaunchPresbyterian said:


> I, like you, are concerned about whatever individual cases I am aware of, but I am not prepared to say that "the Federal Vision is alive and well in the OPC." Are you?



I, likewise, will not divulge names here, but I can name more than a handful of ministers/elders on several sessions in the Pacific NW who hold these views, and some quite belligerently. in my opinion, it's alive and well until they retract their past statements, statements like, "Baptism saves you - I'm glad to hear that your children are finally in the kingdom, now that they've been baptized - the invisible/visible church distinction is invalid, that's ST not BT - active obedience? Well, that all depends on whether or not you believe there is a covenant of works..." The last time I checked, all of these positions are violations and/or deviations from the confessional vows that these men took as ministers/elders.


----------



## Archlute

Puritan Sailor said:


> People must be educated. These things take time, much longer than it takes to post a blog article or debate an issue on the internet.



That's one of the problems within the OPC right now, they think that they can avoid the need for disciplining erring ministers by doing an administrative shuffle. Do laymen who already believe sound doctrine really need to be educated on the details of the errors that the presbyteries and GA should have already condemned and weeded out for those same people's protection? They've had three decades to deal with the root of the problem, how much longer do you think should be given them?


----------



## Archlute

StaunchPresbyterian said:


> You are each referring to a single individual and using it as a test case.



Maybe we've just crossed posts, but I'm not speaking of Kinnaird. I am speaking of men with whom I have had several conversations about these specific issues. One of them gave a totally pro-FV lecture series at a family camp several summers ago. He was invited by the church's pro-FV session, and he was totally suckering the people by changing terms and trying not to let on that he was giving them FV/NPP teaching in areas such as a final justification by works. He didn't expect to have a WSC seminarian in the audience, and after fumbling several of my probing questions, he quit acknowledging me. We left early, it was a huge sorrow for us that these things were going unchallenged.

Reactions: Sad 1


----------



## Archlute

SP, what happened to your post that I just responded to  did you delete it? You're making me look like I'm just trying to up my post count


----------



## Casey

Archlute said:


> SP, what happened to your post that I just responded to  did you delete it? You're making me look like I'm just trying to up my post count


Yeah, I deleted it. I figure there's no point in arguing about it. Sorry. 

(Did the picture on the top _just_ change?)


----------



## wsw201

Rant time!!!

I would ask of Adam or anyone else, if you know of any officer in the Church, whether OPC or PCA or any confessional reformed church, who is teaching or preaching counter to the Standards, what have *you *done about it? Have you filed charges or at least alerted either their Session or Presbytery? The only way this is going to stop is when we say "enough"!! Saying. "Well its not my responsibility. I'm not OPC or PCA. All I can do is complain about them" is not good enough.


----------



## Pilgrim

wsw201 said:


> Rant time!!!
> 
> I would ask of Adam or anyone else, if you know of any officer in the Church, whether OPC or PCA or any confessional reformed church, who is teaching or preaching counter to the Standards, what have *you *done about it? Have you filed charges or at least alerted either their Session or Presbytery? The only way this is going to stop is when we say "enough"!! Saying. "Well its not my responsibility. I'm not OPC or PCA. All I can do is complain about them" is not good enough.


----------



## Redaimie

> I would ask of Adam or anyone else, if you know of any officer in the Church, whether OPC or PCA or any confessional reformed church, who is teaching or preaching counter to the Standards, what have you done about it? Have you filed charges or at least alerted either their Session or Presbytery? The only way this is going to stop is when we say "enough"!! Saying. "Well its not my responsibility. I'm not OPC or PCA. All I can do is complain about them" is not good enough.



I can think of a number of PCA & OPC who are staunch defenders of the FV so what is one to do? Seriously what is the average lay person in the pew supposed to do about it? If you say you read what these people wrote on the internet I doubt you'll be taken seriously. So seriously asking what is the answer?


----------



## Casey

Redaimie said:


> I can think of a number of PCA & OPC who are staunch defenders of the FV so what is one to do? Seriously what is the average lay person in the pew supposed to do about it? If you say you read what these people wrote on the internet I doubt you'll be taken seriously. So seriously asking what is the answer?


The responsible action is the bring formal charges against them after contacting them and probably talking to your Session about it.


----------



## Magma2

wsw201 said:


> Rant time!!!
> 
> I would ask of Adam or anyone else, if you know of any officer in the Church, whether OPC or PCA or any confessional reformed church, who is teaching or preaching counter to the Standards, what have *you *done about it? Have you filed charges or at least alerted either their Session or Presbytery? The only way this is going to stop is when we say "enough"!! Saying. "Well its not my responsibility. I'm not OPC or PCA. All I can do is complain about them" is not good enough.



Then please allow me to rant right back at you. Yes, I believe it _is_ an OPC problem. It’s a problem the OPC has failed to deal with when it had the chance (and more than one I might add for those who can't remember to count).

Frankly, and as far as I’m concerned, it’s certainly the prerogative of the OPC to permit the teaching of both a false gospel and the true gospel side by side since your highest court has already deemed the false one of John Kinnaird (and by extension Norman Shepherd) to be in harmony with your church's standards. That’s your problem. You won’t see me getting into a froth over the CREC, but I’m not going to ever say everything is A-OK in Moscow -- even if they do publish a paper extolling the orthodox doctrine of justification. Given the current situation in the OPC I think there is a proper and biblical response to your current situation and Paul Elliot provides a convincing argument in his book. 

However, if you want to try your hand again in your courts, why don’t you start with Richard Gaffin Jr.?


----------



## JohnV

wsw201 said:


> Rant time!!!
> 
> I would ask of Adam or anyone else, if you know of any officer in the Church, whether OPC or PCA or any confessional reformed church, who is teaching or preaching counter to the Standards, what have *you *done about it? Have you filed charges or at least alerted either their Session or Presbytery? The only way this is going to stop is when we say "enough"!! Saying. "Well its not my responsibility. I'm not OPC or PCA. All I can do is complain about them" is not good enough.



Right now I am inclined to believe that the denominations do not have a proper context within which to handle such objections. I won't say that they are not equipped, but rather that the context is not right. As someone who has been through this, and over something much more obvious than FV or NPP, I see one basic weakness in the OPC: procedure. Too few know what it really is, and what it really is for. It is supposed to serve truth, justice, the Biblical grounding of the ecclesiastical court, and the cause of the Church of Christ. They are rules for the judges to follow, not obstacles for the petitioners or objectors. The onus is upon the Session, Presbytery, or GA to understand and respond to the petitions and objections placed before them, not to cast them aside because of some procedural error. Every procedural error is their own, not that of those who bring forth their complaints. It is up to the courts to actually hear the substance of the complaints, and to deal with them. That is what the procedural rules are meant for.

We have the procedural rules in place; we have the Books of Order and of Discipline. What we lack is the proper context within the assemblies to deal with cases properly. But we don't have unity on what these things are meant for in the churches. 

There are some who think that "always reforming" means changing as things come up. So for some there are new orthodoxies which never existed before. Like Presuppositionalism or Postmillennialism as doctrines, as was the case in my instance. But for others, like myself, it means always going back to the Bible, the original treatise of the Christian religion, so that there are never any new doctrines. What we inherited as the Reformed Church is the same teachings that were there at the first, with nothing added. As we go on in history it takes more and more words to describe and defend those truths, for we have a long, long history of those who have tried to get the Church to swerve off that path. 

I am inclined to believe that those who think of Reformed as progressing in doctrines are in the majority right now; or, if they aren't, at least they hold the higher ground of influence in the denominations. And that is FV's key position, the ground upon which they stand. They don't even claim, as I understand, to be holding *THE* Westminsterian position, but rather that their unique position does not fall outside the Westminsterian scope, which they see as wide instead of narrow, as progressive instead of orthodox.

I'm not saying that we should not follow Wayne's advice here. On the contrary, I agree that he is right. But I think that we need to sit down and count the cost first. It won't be just fighting against FV, we can be sure.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Archlute

Wayne, Chris, and Casey,

That would seem to be the appropriate thing to do, wouldn't it? However, as can be abundantly seen throughout the history of Israel, it doesn't matter that God has set up the system of government, when the corrupt are in power, justice will not be served. Eventually God takes them out, but until that time, His church will always have to suffer under the effects of that false teaching/corrupt behaviour.

Case in point, the first OPC my family attended was/is pro-FV/NPP and had also hosted Norm Shepherd to speak at their church a year or so before we began attending. Shortly thereafter, my wife and I both began to see errors in their teaching on baptism/justification. I spoke with a solid elder of long standing who had just left their church over the effects that the false teachings were having on the congregation (by that point a number of people had left besides him). Even after hearing the problems from him, we decided to stick it out anyway, and I can now say with conviction, "foolishly so". I thought about bringing the session up on charges during those 18mos., but why did I not do so? Answer, they had sniffed _me_ out and refused to let us join, and you can't press charges if you're not a member! We tried for the full 18mos. to gain membership, but they continued to deny us. Why was that so when, according to the OPC BCO, one need only be able to affirm the five membership vows to become a member? We were told by one of the elders, "It's because we don't think that you're Presbyterian enough yet", translated, "We know you're on to what we're teaching here, and your not FV enough yet, so we'll save ourselves the trouble of dealing with you by just refusing your family membership." They refused even to offer us a basic membership class for the duration of the 18 month period!

Clever them. The statute of limitations on a charge (if my memory serves me well) is a maximum of two years. Ignore this fellow until he goes off to seminary, where he won't have enough time to press charges even if he wants to, and by the time he's finished the two years will be up. Not only that, but you must have two or three witnesses to bring charges against an elder of the church, according to the BCO/scripture. All of these conversations only took place in back rooms, never in public; I see why now. My testimony alone would be disallowed, and I sure wasn't going to drag my tired, homeschooling wife into all of this as a second witness.

We haven't heard a good word from those men since we left. I spoke with the pastor on the phone once, but he was so in-my-face rude as to be considered acting as an unregenerate son of the world. Twice, their deacons tried to send us money in support of my schooling, and twice the pastor barred it. He told them that he would have a session member notify me of the denial, but lied to them also, as they later found out. 

Why am I bringing all these other issues up? It's to show that dishonesty in doctrine, leads to dishonesty in polity procedures, and dishonesty in keeping your word to others. This is why the FV will not go away easily in the OPC; these men are steeped in a spirit of doctrinal and pastoral dishonesty, and they have buddies to keep them safe. I've seen that at work in the presbytery several times, where communications with FV accusations are made, and the red herring of "Oh, this is a violation of the 9th commandment" is thrown out there, all the pro-FV presbyters nod their heads and say, "hmm, yes, yes, that's right, we can't allow it to be read or admitted", and the procedure that is supposed to protect the people is once again circumvented. 

So while I would agree with you all that there is a proper way on paper that should indeed be followed when it can, the reality is that when the system has flaws in the teaching and character of it leadership it is very, very difficult to turn around without some wholesale spine on the part of the entire church. This is a fact of Israel's history, and it is a fact that may be seen throughout the history of the post-apostolic church as well.


----------



## Theoretical

Archlute said:


> Wayne, Chris, and Casey,
> 
> That would seem to be the appropriate thing to do, wouldn't it? However, as can be abundantly seen throughout the history of Israel, it doesn't matter that God has set up the system of government, when the corrupt are in power, justice will not be served. Eventually God takes them out, but until that time, His church will always have to suffer under the effects of that false teaching/corrupt behaviour.
> 
> Case in point, the first OPC my family attended was/is pro-FV/NPP and had also hosted Norm Shepherd to speak at their church a year or so before we began attending. Shortly thereafter, my wife and I both began to see errors in their teaching on baptism/justification. I spoke with a solid elder of long standing who had just left their church over the effects that the false teachings were having on the congregation (by that point a number of people had left besides him). Even after hearing the problems from him, we decided to stick it out anyway, and I can now say with conviction, "foolishly so". I thought about bringing the session up on charges during those 18mos., but why did I not do so? Answer, they had sniffed _me_ out and refused to let us join, and you can't press charges if you're not a member! We tried for the full 18mos. to gain membership, but they continued to deny us. Why was that so when, according to the OPC BCO, one need only be able to affirm the five membership vows to become a member? We were told by one of the elders, "It's because we don't think that you're Presbyterian enough yet", translated, "We know you're on to what we're teaching here, and your not FV enough yet, so we'll save ourselves the trouble of dealing with you by just refusing your family membership." They refused even to offer us a basic membership class for the duration of the 18 month period!
> 
> Clever them. The statute of limitations on a charge (if my memory serves me well) is a maximum of two years. Ignore this fellow until he goes off to seminary, where he won't have enough time to press charges even if he wants to, and by the time he's finished the two years will be up. Not only that, but you must have two or three witnesses to bring charges against an elder of the church, according to the BCO/scripture. All of these conversations only took place in back rooms, never in public; I see why now. My testimony alone would be disallowed, and I sure wasn't going to drag my tired, homeschooling wife into all of this as a second witness.
> 
> We haven't heard a good word from those men since we left. I spoke with the pastor on the phone once, but he was so in-my-face rude as to be considered acting as an unregenerate son of the world. Twice, their deacons tried to send us money in support of my schooling, and twice the pastor barred it. He told them that he would have a session member notify me of the denial, but lied to them also, as they later found out.
> 
> Why am I bringing all these other issues up? It's to show that dishonesty in doctrine, leads to dishonesty in polity procedures, and dishonesty in keeping your word to others. This is why the FV will not go away easily in the OPC; these men are steeped in a spirit of doctrinal and pastoral dishonesty, and they have buddies to keep them safe. I've seen that at work in the presbytery several times, where communications with FV accusations are made, and the red herring of "Oh, this is a violation of the 9th commandment" is thrown out there, all the pro-FV presbyters nod their heads and say, "hmm, yes, yes, that's right, we can't allow it to be read or admitted", and the procedure that is supposed to protect the people is once again circumvented.
> 
> So while I would agree with you all that there is a proper way on paper that should indeed be followed when it can, the reality is that when the system has flaws in the teaching and character of it leadership it is very, very difficult to turn around without some wholesale spine on the part of the entire church. This is a fact of Israel's history, and it is a fact that may be seen throughout the history of the post-apostolic church as well.


 That's appalling conduct, but not surprising in the least. I will hand it to that session - they sure know how to keep their power.


----------



## javajedi

Theoretical said:


> That's appalling conduct, but not surprising in the least. I will hand it to that session - they sure know how to keep their power.



 That is awful!

[Disclaimer: I have no reason to doubt you and am assuming the situation is accurate as you describe as we are only getting one side.]

They had *no* grounds to deny you membership. Members do not need to subscribe to the WCF, only officers. You not need to be "Presbyterian enough". If you have a "credible profession of faith", and no moral issues being dealt with, they would have no grounds to deny membership. This is really bizzare.

Did you try to take this up with any one else in the OPC or in the Presbytery? How did that go?

This situation also indicate that they KNOW they are in violation of standards and are waiting until the "power-base" is secure enough to "come out of the closet".


Why is that "liberals" [for lack of a better term] operate this way? Why can't they have the integrity to state/admit their positions clearly and openly, resign if they no longer adhere to the standards [what ever they may be in a given situation] and join in with like minded people? Why must they abuse their power, positions and people and use stealth, subversive and deceitful means to push their agenda?


----------



## 5solasmom

Had no idea OPC had/has? some FV pastors/elders and that it's been that much of a problem in the denomination itself....


----------



## Augusta

5solasmom said:


> Had no idea OPC had/has? some FV pastors/elders and that it's been that much of a problem in the denomination itself....


----------



## Theoretical

5solasmom said:


> Had no idea OPC had/has? some FV pastors/elders and that it's been that much of a problem in the denomination itself....


 My impression was always that the PCA would be the first to succumb to liberalism and that the conservatives within it would migrate to the OPC as the next most conservative denomination. Of the two, I'd always perceived PCA to be the less strict and less Reformed of the two (especially on officer subscription standards - or are both system subscription oaths?)


----------



## greenbaggins

You could be right. However, I think that the PCA has a much better chance of ousting FV/NPP/NS advocates than the OPC does. The SJC and the study committee both are not favorable toward these views.


----------



## Casey

Magma2 said:


> Frankly, and as far as I’m concerned, it’s certainly the prerogative of the OPC to permit the teaching of both a false gospel and the true gospel side by side since *your highest court has already deemed the false one of John Kinnaird* (and by extension Norman Shepherd) *to be in harmony with your church's standards.*


Can you cite and prove this claim (concerning Kinnaird) of yours? If not, I'd appreciate it if you retract it and apologize publicly.  Thank you.


----------



## Redaimie

> Had no idea OPC had/has? some FV pastors/elders and that it's been that much of a problem in the denomination itself....



I didn't mean with my post to imply there is a problem in the OPC with FV pastors/elders. I don't think there are many at all but one does not have to read much on the internet without coming across a few advocates. I think our GA handled the issue quite admirably & I have confidence our denomination is handling the issue. My question was more on what to do when you come across the few who are on the net advocating a FV view.

I really don't think charges is the way to go but I hope their presbyteries are at least aware & correcting it.

Also I don't think Dr Gaffin is at all a FV advocate he was on the OPC committee that studied the issue, I do think some FV advocates like to claim he is, to prove their theology is correct but I honestly don't believe he advocates it.


----------



## Casey

javajedi said:


> Did you try to take this up with any one else in the OPC or in the Presbytery? How did that go?


Adam, I'm quite sorry about the situation you described. Had you mentioned that problem to me around that time I'd have advised you to contact Presbytery. The church is made up of sinners--and that church clearly had an agenda. But to impute the actions of that particular church, or even a few vocal FV advocates, to the whole OPC is erroneous. At the GA there was no argument over the findings of the Committee on Justification and their Report. I don't know how that can be so quickly forgotten or brushed aside.


----------



## Archlute

Thank you for your sincerity, Casey. I realize that there are a number of good men in the OPC, but when you're new to Reformed churches, and you get rocked back on your heels by a bad apple, it can inflict some pretty serious damage. I bounced back fairly quickly, but I know a few others from that church who took several years to get over the spiritual poison.

I think that one of the disappointments with the OPC GA, is that the report was never officially adopted, to my understanding. It has no constitutional power, and there was no follow up action taken to eradicate the Church of the men holding those views within. So, while the report, in and of itself, was an admittedly fine piece of academic work, it has no practically enforceable bite. Supposedly, the influence of those decisions are meant to work their way down into the churches, where the teaching will then be nullified, but I think that since ministers within the OPC have made public statements on that stuff, there needs to be some public retractions. For example, although it was pointed out on the PB a while back that Dick Gaffin signed onto the report, he has never taken back statements in Romans 2 that reflect an NPP understanding. I know that it would be a humbling experience for men in the OPC to admit to introducing wrong doctrine (I mean, they are the Orthodox Presbyterian Church, right?), but I think that for the Spirit to be pleased, and for the members to be reassured, something like that must be done.


----------



## turmeric

I think what makes it so hard to bear when an OPC or PCA gets it wrong is just that - the claim to orthodoxy. We kind of expect a little false teaching in more Arminian churches, but it can't happen here, can it? Apparently it can. It's the human factor.


----------



## Pilgrim

Archlute said:


> Thank you for your sincerity, Casey. I realize that there are a number of good men in the OPC, but when you're new to Reformed churches, and you get rocked back on your heels by a bad apple, it can inflict some pretty serious damage. I bounced back fairly quickly, but I know a few others from that church who took several years to get over the spiritual poison.
> 
> I think that one of the disappointments with the OPC GA, is that the report was never officially adopted, to my understanding. It has no constitutional power, and there was no follow up action taken to eradicate the Church of the men holding those views within. So, while the report, in and of itself, was an admittedly fine piece of academic work, it has no practically enforceable bite. Supposedly, the influence of those decisions are meant to work their way down into the churches, where the teaching will then be nullified, but I think that since ministers within the OPC have made public statements on that stuff, there needs to be some public retractions. For example, although it was pointed out on the PB a while back that Dick Gaffin signed onto the report, he has never taken back statements in Romans 2 that reflect an NPP understanding. I know that it would be a humbling experience for men in the OPC to admit to introducing wrong doctrine (I mean, they are the Orthodox Presbyterian Church, right?), but I think that for the Spirit to be pleased, and for the members to be reassured, something like that must be done.




To my knowledge the OPC has never "formally adopted" a report of that nature. This goes for the report on the Masonic Lodge and most of the others that have been received by the GA. Apparently the concern was that adoption would have meant that those at GA were voting to affirm every word in the report, and most were unwilling to do that even though apparently a large majority were in agreement with the report. (Someone correct me if I'm wrong here.) Regardless, there still must be trials if the men you speak of are to be "eradicated". If officers are erring in doctrine and practice and are not brought to account, the GA can adopt the greatest statements imaginable year after year and it won't make any difference.


----------



## greenbaggins

Archlute said:


> Thank you for your sincerity, Casey. I realize that there are a number of good men in the OPC, but when you're new to Reformed churches, and you get rocked back on your heels by a bad apple, it can inflict some pretty serious damage. I bounced back fairly quickly, but I know a few others from that church who took several years to get over the spiritual poison.
> 
> I think that one of the disappointments with the OPC GA, is that the report was never officially adopted, to my understanding. It has no constitutional power, and there was no follow up action taken to eradicate the Church of the men holding those views within. So, while the report, in and of itself, was an admittedly fine piece of academic work, it has no practically enforceable bite. Supposedly, the influence of those decisions are meant to work their way down into the churches, where the teaching will then be nullified, but I think that since ministers within the OPC have made public statements on that stuff, there needs to be some public retractions. For example, although it was pointed out on the PB a while back that Dick Gaffin signed onto the report, he has never taken back statements in Romans 2 that reflect an NPP understanding. I know that it would be a humbling experience for men in the OPC to admit to introducing wrong doctrine (I mean, they are the Orthodox Presbyterian Church, right?), but I think that for the Spirit to be pleased, and for the members to be reassured, something like that must be done.



Many FV proponents think that Gaffin is on their side when he is not. I have taken four classes from him, and have had many telephone conversations and email conversations with him. I am no friend to the FV or NPP, and neither is Gaffin. Gaffin's views on Romans 2 come from some older lectures. He may have changed by now. The difficulty that many experience is due to the fact that Gaffin is a polite scholar. He is not one to bash anyone over the head. Consequently, after he spoke at the Auburn Avenue Conference in '05, people were thinking that he taught the same thing that N.T. Wright taught. Such people need to read his article in the WTJ entitled "Paul the Theologian." Furthermore, they need to read Gaffin's newest book, which sets the record straight: he is no friend to the FV or the NPP.


----------



## Magma2

greenbaggins said:


> Many FV proponents think that Gaffin is on their side when he is not. I have taken four classes from him, and have had many telephone conversations and email conversations with him. I am no friend to the FV or NPP, and neither is Gaffin. Gaffin's views on Romans 2 come from some older lectures. He may have changed by now. The difficulty that many experience is due to the fact that Gaffin is a polite scholar. He is not one to bash anyone over the head. Consequently, after he spoke at the Auburn Avenue Conference in '05, people were thinking that he taught the same thing that N.T. Wright taught. Such people need to read his article in the WTJ entitled "Paul the Theologian." Furthermore, they need to read Gaffin's newest book, which sets the record straight: he is no friend to the FV or the NPP.



Are you sure you're talking about the same Richard Gaffin Jr.? While I haven't read his latest book, what about his track record over the last thirty plus years? Here is a man who has provided decades long defense of some of the most egregious supporters and advocates of the so_called “Federal Vision,” so much so that he wrote the following glowing endorsement of Norm Shepherd’s counterfeit gospel and even allowed his name to be used as a selling point for _The Call of Grace_. Can you imagine someone opposed to Shepherd's errant doctrines writing:

“This lucid and highly readable study provides valuable instruction on what it means to live in covenant with God. God’s covenant is the only way of life that fully honors both the absolute, all_embracing sovereignty of his saving grace and the full, uninhibited activity of his people. The Call of Grace should benefit anyone concerned about biblical growth in Christian life and witness.”

Thank you Dick Gaffin. Hardly shocking since he has been consistently in agreement with Shepherd on more than a few fundamental points as he makes clear in his book “Resurrection and Redemption” where he writes:

“Baptism signifies and seals a transition in the experience of the recipient, a transition from being (existentially) apart from Christ to being (existentially) joined to him. Galatians 3:27 is even more graphic: “Those who have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ” . . . Consequently, the transition described in [Ephesians 2] verses 5f. as being an object of God’s wrath(v.3) to experiencing his love (v.4). takes place at the point of being joined (existentially) to Christ [50_51].”

The way of salvation proposed by Gaffin is through the water of baptism and existential union with Christ – not by mere belief alone in truth of Scripture and the message of the Gospel. His mission, or at least part of it, has been to undermine, and, if possible, supplant the biblical order of salvation with a new one derived from his own "new perspective of Paul." Admittedly, his book is subtly written, but I believe many have missed the far reaching implications of his (novel) views. At the very least, I was struck by how many broad and even bold assertions he makes throughout the book without even the slightest evidence. He just assumes his readers will agree or just take his word. Maybe this is how he has been able to fool so many people? Perhaps Gaffin gets a pass because he's such a "polite scholar"? Yet, from the above you can see it is the water of baptism which translates a person from an object of God’s wrath to an object of His love. It is baptism, not belief alone, which brings us into union with Christ. Union with Christ for Gaffin is an "existential" non propositional or legal bond. Besides confusing the sign with the thing signified, his view of baptism and Christological union explains his long defense of men like Norm Shepherd and John Kinnaird. 

My guess is you took classes with a different Richard Gaffin. Either that or perhaps he puts on different faces for different audiences.


----------



## Magma2

Since we're on the topic, while searching for something else I came across The Gospel Crisis in the OPC and PCA, by Brian Schwertley written in 2006. 

Here's his concluding thoughts concerning the OPC and their highly praised wallpaper on justification:



> Having briefly considered the OPC Report on Justification, we are compelled to conclude the following. The committee report of the OPC does not recommend that unrepentant Federal Vision teachers and advocates be deposed and censured, which is precisely what the OPC needs. Unless a church officer from the floor alters the recommendation and a motion passes to begin the admonition and censure process, then the report is little more than words that can and will likely be ignored. On the one hand, the Federal Vision doctrine of justification is said to contradict Scripture; but on the other hand, the proponents of this doctrine are tolerated as though it was a non-vital error. This is a scandalous sin, a sin so great that it justifies separation or secession on the part of those who want to be faithful to Scripture.[25] How long are the Truly Reformed (TR) or “conservatives” in the OPC and PCA going to keep on tolerating blatant, serious and even deadly contradictions to Scripture and the Westminster Standards in their communions?[26] If one does not separate from the toleration of damnable heresy, then one is guilty of participating in these scandalous sins. Once we strip away all the excuses, pragmatism, worldly concepts of love, fund raising needs, and bureaucratic maneuvering, we are left with a toleration of a complete repudiation of the all-sufficiency of Christ’s redemption. This toleration of a false gospel is totally unacceptable. How many congregations and families need to be destroyed by heresy before a decision to depart is made? “Know ye not that a little leaven leavens the whole lump” (1 Cor. 5:6)? There comes a time when the best method of reformation is to protest and secede, with denouncing of jurisdiction. Faithfulness at this hour requires it. (http://www.reformedonline.com/view/reformedonline/The Current Crisis in the OPC and PCA.htm)



And, in footnote he adds for those looking for some additional names and who are so eager to give Gaffin a pass in spreading Romanism wrapped in the Reformed Confessions:



> There are a number of OPC and PCA ministers and elders who have written papers, spoken at conferences in favor of this theology, and defended church officers holding the same in the church courts: e.g., Prof. Richard Gaffin, Thomas Tyson, Thomas Trouwburst, Peter Lillback, Richard Lusk and Steven Wilkins. There is substantially no difference between Shepherdism and the Federal Vision, as the advocates of both share in the same conferences and together promote the doctrine of justification by faith plus faithful obedience or good works. Norman Shepherd’s heretical book, The Call of Grace: How the Covenant Illustrates Salvation and Evangelism, published by Presbyterian and Reformed, was endorsed by Prof. Richard Gaffin.


----------



## Casey

Archlute said:


> Thank you for your sincerity, Casey. I realize that there are a number of good men in the OPC, but when you're new to Reformed churches, and you get rocked back on your heels by a bad apple, it can inflict some pretty serious damage. I bounced back fairly quickly, but I know a few others from that church who took several years to get over the spiritual poison.
> 
> I think that one of the disappointments with the OPC GA, is that the report was never officially adopted, to my understanding. It has no constitutional power, and there was no follow up action taken to eradicate the Church of the men holding those views within. So, while the report, in and of itself, was an admittedly fine piece of academic work, it has no practically enforceable bite. Supposedly, the influence of those decisions are meant to work their way down into the churches, where the teaching will then be nullified, but I think that since ministers within the OPC have made public statements on that stuff, there needs to be some public retractions. For example, although it was pointed out on the PB a while back that Dick Gaffin signed onto the report, he has never taken back statements in Romans 2 that reflect an NPP understanding. I know that it would be a humbling experience for men in the OPC to admit to introducing wrong doctrine (I mean, they are the Orthodox Presbyterian Church, right?), but I think that for the Spirit to be pleased, and for the members to be reassured, something like that must be done.


Adam,

As I hope you gather from my posts, I'm not interested in promoting the idea that OPC stands for "Only Pure Church," because that's far from the truth. No church this side of glory is in a state of utter perfection. Because of that, because of sin, every church (every individual congregation) has the potential to inflict spiritual pain -- be it through the erroneous teachings of FV, or through mishandling a disciplinary case, or through an overbearing pastor trying to shove his own ideas onto others.

As to "adopting" the Justification report, that's just not the way the OPC works. Perhaps that happens in the PCA. The OPC's doctrinal standards (constitution, if you will) are the Westminster Standards. Period. That the report was not "adopted" is rather meaningless -- I don't recall that any report in the history of the OPC has _ever_ been "adopted." The report was received. That's all the GA ought to procedurally have done, and that it did.

As to Gaffin, he was one of the men of the committee that worked on the Justification report. I'm rather confused that you don't consider his working on it and signing it to be sufficient for clearing his name of whatever associations people may have attributed to him with FV.

You say that it would be humbling for OP men to "admit introducing wrong doctrine" . . well, are you talking about Gaffin? Or the church at large? We're talking about the church, right? It has only ever sought to uphold what the Standards of the church teach. It will not do that perfectly, of course. But it has never "adopted" anything contrary to its Standards.


----------



## Casey

Magma2 said:


> Frankly, and as far as I’m concerned, it’s certainly the prerogative of the OPC to permit the teaching of both a false gospel and the true gospel side by side since *your highest court has already deemed the false one of John Kinnaird* (and by extension Norman Shepherd) *to be in harmony with your church's standards.*





StaunchPresbyterian said:


> Can you cite and prove this claim (concerning Kinnaird) of yours? If not, I'd appreciate it if you retract it and apologize publicly.  Thank you.


:bump:

Apparently this post of mine was missed by you, Sean. I'd appreciate a response. Thank you.


----------



## Magma2

StaunchPresbyterian said:


> Can you cite and prove this claim (concerning Kinnaird) of yours? If not, I'd appreciate it if you retract it and apologize publicly.
> 
> :bump:
> 
> Apparently this post of mine was missed by you, Sean. I'd appreciate a response. Thank you.



I did miss that post of yours. 

Would you like to revisit the entire trial (http://www.trinityfoundation.org/kinnaird.php) or just some of Kinnaird’s specific doctrines. How about this one in reference to Romans 2:13:



> Romans 2 puts it this way: “God will give to each person according to what he has done. To those who by persistence in doing good seek glory, honor and immorality, He will give eternal life. But for those who are self seeking and who reject the truth and follow evil there will be wrath and anger.’ Now by this we know the decision, the judgment as to who enters the city and who stays outside for eternity will be made on that great Day of Judgment in accordance with what you have done in this life.



Or, would you prefer to start with this one:



> God has provided not only justification from the guilt of sin, he has also, for all those begotten from above by the seed of God, provided that holiness without which no one will see the Lord. Hebrews 12:14. These good works are a required condition if we would stand in the Day of judgment and they are supplied by God to all his people . . . Who are these people who thus benefit – who stand on the Day of Judgment? They are those who obey the law who will be declared righteous . . . When God declares them righteous, that is a forensic declaration of righteousness . . . Thus we rightly conclude that those inside the city [of Rev 22] are those who have kept the law of God and those only . . . .



Let me know. And, no apologies necessary.


----------



## Magma2

StaunchPresbyterian said:


> As to Gaffin, he was one of the men of the committee that worked on the Justification report. I'm rather confused that you don't consider his working on it and signing it to be sufficient for clearing his name of whatever associations people may have attributed to him with FV.



How would working on the OPC Justification report clear Gaffin? Where has he recanted or repented of his anti-Christian "union" with Christ through the water of baptism or his public defense of Neo-Liberals like Shepherd, Kinnaird and others? I must has missed that paper. Care to post a link here? While looking for that link, you might appreciate reading "The Orthodox Presbyterian Cover-up" at http://www.trinityfoundation.org/journal.php?id=227 .


----------



## Casey

Magma2 said:


> How would working on the OPC Justification report clear Gaffin? Where has he recanted or repented of his anti-Christian "union" with Christ through the water of baptism or his public defense of Neo-Liberals like Shepherd, Kinnaird and others? I must has missed that paper. Care to post a link here? While looking for that link, you might appreciate reading "The Orthodox Presbyterian Cover-up" at http://www.trinityfoundation.org/journal.php?id=227 .


Actually, no -- I would not appreciate reading that man's material. Sorry to break that to ya. If you are not content with the work Gaffin did on the Justification Report . . well, that's _your_ issue. If you're so concerned about it, perhaps you should contact him personally. I'm quite content.


----------



## Casey

Magma2 said:


> I did miss that post of yours.
> 
> Would you like to revisit the entire trial (http://www.trinityfoundation.org/kinnaird.php) or just some of Kinnaird’s specific doctrines. How about this one in reference to Romans 2:13:
> 
> Or, would you prefer to start with this one:
> 
> Let me know. And, no apologies necessary.


You did not answer my question. I did not ask for a link to a repository of documents, much less quotes from Kinnaird himself. This was your claim:


Magma2 said:


> Frankly, and as far as I’m concerned, it’s certainly the prerogative of the OPC to permit the teaching of both a false gospel and the true gospel side by side since *your highest court has already deemed the false one of John Kinnaird* (and by extension Norman Shepherd) *to be in harmony with your church's standards.*


(The bolding is mine, to highlight the words I have taken issue with.)

You claim here that "the OPC [has permitted] the teaching of [. . .] a false gospel [. . .] since your highest court has already deemed the false [gospel] of John Kinnaird [. . .] to be in harmony with your church's standards." This is the claim I want you to prove. Thank you.


----------



## Magma2

StaunchPresbyterian said:


> You claim here that "the OPC [has permitted] the teaching of [. . .] a false gospel [. . .] since your highest court has already deemed the false [gospel] of John Kinnaird [. . .] to be in harmony with your church's standards." This is the claim I want you to prove. Thank you.



Thanks for the clarification but I already did per the citations from the decision and the protest filed in response to the Kinnaird acquittal. You can read the rest of it and the entire trial transcripts at the Trinity Foundation website. You don't agree with the protest filed, fine. I guess that only leaves one option concerning your view of the Kinnaird's teaching which would be that they are in harmony with your church's standards. Like I said, no apologies necessary. Although I'm starting to think there might be some due from you, particularly given your backhand to Paul Elliot who should be applauded for the work he's done exposing what is going on in the OPC. I'm sure many Presbyterians had a similar appreciation for Machen in the '20's.


----------



## Dan....

Magma2 said:


> “Baptism signifies and seals a transition in the experience of the recipient, a transition from being (existentially) apart from Christ to being (existentially) joined to him. Galatians 3:27 is even more graphic: “Those who have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ” . . . Consequently, the transition described in [Ephesians 2] verses 5f. as being an object of God’s wrath(v.3) to experiencing his love (v.4). takes place at the point of being joined (existentially) to Christ [50_51].”
> 
> The way of salvation proposed by Gaffin is through the water of baptism and existential union with Christ – not by mere belief alone in truth of Scripture and the message of the Gospel. His mission, or at least part of it, has been to undermine, and, if possible, supplant the biblical order of salvation with a new one derived from his own "new perspective of Paul." Admittedly, his book is subtly written, but I believe many have missed the far reaching implications of his (novel) views. At the very least, I was struck by how many broad and even bold assertions he makes throughout the book without even the slightest evidence. He just assumes his readers will agree or just take his word. Maybe this is how he has been able to fool so many people? Perhaps Gaffin gets a pass because he's such a "polite scholar"? Yet, from the above you can see it is the water of baptism which translates a person from an object of God’s wrath to an object of His love. It is baptism, not belief alone, which brings us into union with Christ. Union with Christ for Gaffin is an "existential" non propositional or legal bond. Besides confusing the sign with the thing signified, his view of baptism and Christological union explains his long defense of men like Norm Shepherd and John Kinnaird.



Sean,

I don;t know if you recall this, but back last September you and I had a discussion about this very quote in Gaffin's book.

Our discussion is on the following thread:

http://www.puritanboard.com/showthread.php?p=201683#post201683

At the time of the thread I had not yet read Gaffin's book. Since then I have. I enjoyed the book. I will not stand behind everything he says in the book; however, I was unable to find anything in his book that is outside the bounds of the Westminster Standards.

Anyway, when we were discussing this quote from Gaffin a few months ago, I pointed out that what Gaffin says in the quoted portion is almost identical with the Westminster Confession on baptism.

Allow me to quote myself from that thread:



> Let's graph it out:
> 
> Gaffin:
> Baptism signifies and seals...
> 
> WCF:
> Baptism is a sign and seal...
> 
> Gaffin
> ...a transition from being (existentially) apart from Christ to being (existentially) joined to him.
> 
> WCF:
> ...of his ingrafting into Christ
> 
> Ingrafting into Christ = being (existentially) joined to him.
> 
> I don't see the problem. What is Gaffin saying (in the quote you provided as support for Elliot's position) that the Confession is not???



Back in September you did not respond to this portion of my post, but I let it go then.

But now that you are 5 months later using the same quote from Gaffin as "evidence" that he teaches that water baptism saves, I'm going to ask you to reply to my above quote.

What does Gaffin teach in this quote that WCF does not teach in the chapter on baptism?

How can you say that Gaffin is teaching "his own new perspective of Paul" when his quote is almost identical to the confession? Is the WCF teaching the same "new perspective of Paul" that Gaffin is?


----------



## Archlute

Dan.... said:


> What does Gaffin teach in this quote that WCF does not teach in the chapter on baptism?
> 
> How can you say that Gaffin is teaching "his own new perspective of Paul" when his quote is almost identical to the confession? Is the WCF teaching the same "new perspective of Paul" that Gaffin is?





Dan,

I tried reading the link to the old post, but the text that came up on my screen had been corrupted and was difficult to understand. I cannot therefore say whether or not you are confused by FV thought, nor whether or not the Gaffin passage under discussion is problematic. I will, however, point out the problem to which Sean is objecting. FV advocates typically say, "Hey look, Mr. X says this... Now look here, WCF says the same thing... Therefore, Mr. X is an orthodox, confessional theologian." That is what I heard at my church, and (if the passage on Gaffin is being read correctly by me) what seems to be the case here. 

One cannot just take similar language from the WCF and call a man orthodox; one must take the entirety of the theology found within. For example, the elders at that former OPC loved to stress the language of baptism being a seal. They would say emphatically, "Look the child has been _sealed_ in baptism, therefore they have received all the benefits, are joined in union with Christ, yada, yada." What they hated to admit (and so never discussed), is that there is more to the WCF on sacraments and baptism than just that language. Taken as a whole, the WCF undermines the exact view that they are trying to promote. It does not promote a "head for head" view of existential union through baptism, as Dr. Clark so forcefully discussed at the "Meeting God on His Terms" conference last year. Yet that is exactly what their view of union through baptism emphasizes. The Westminster standards emphasize the requirement of faith in all the baptized who would actually receive the benefits, they emphasize the visible/invisible nature of the church. These men want to wrongly teach a uniform existential union with Christ in all the baptized. The Westminster Standards only admit that of those who have been joined by faith. The only way the FV reading of the Standards could be true, is if every single child baptized were given faith, and they do not teach that.


It may help to read these portions:

WCF 27.3 "... a promise of benefit to _worthy receivers_."

WCF 28.5 "..._or that all that are baptized are undoubtedly regenerate_."

WCF 28.6 "...[the grace is conferred] to such (whether of age or infants) _as that grace belongeth unto_, according to the counsel of God's own will, in his appointed time."

WLC Q.154 "...which are made effectual _to the elect_ for their salvation." 

WSC Q. 91 "...in them _that by faith _receive them."

WSC Q. 92 "...the benefits of the new covenant are represented, _sealed, and applied to believers_."


From the above, it is obvious that the section on the benefits of the sacraments must be read in light of these limiting statements. Not every child is elect, not every child (or adult) baptized will be given faith. The only way that baptism can be an existential union with Christ for all the baptized, is if all the baptized have faith, "head for head". That is true neither by Scripture, the standards taken as a whole, nor by experience. To emphasize the benefits of an ingrafting into Christ as found in WLC Q. 165 (remission of sins by His blood, and regeneration by His Spirit, of adoption and resurrection unto eternal life...) without understanding that these are sealed only unto the elect (as noted in the other statements given above), is exactly the thing that FVers do, and what gets them into trouble. They come with a Romanist view of the sacraments, and try to get that view to conform to the WCF. They can only do this, however, by ignoring the passages listed above (or by doing interpretive gymnastics to get around their plain, historical meaning).


----------



## HanleyBri

*FPC\Article\Doctrinal Crisis in the OPC*

I just noticed that FPC's magazine also has an article entitled; 'Doctrinal Crisis in the OPC' - Here's a quote if you interested. 

"The report strongly affirms the orthodox position and opposes the
New Perspective, but the upholders of orthodoxy are not hopeful that it will
do any good. They point to the following defects: (1) The report does not
condemn the New Perspective as heresy. It is not enough merely to declare
that it is “error” when it is a false gospel destroying men’s souls. (2) The
report turns a blind eye to the existence of this heresy in the OPC. All its
criticisms are directed at those outwith the OPC. (3) It is not enough to
denounce error, even in strong terms, if one will not proceed eventually to
the discipline of those who are guilty. Heretics are generally not nervous
types, to be silenced with expressions of disapproval, and they do not usually
leave of their own accord. The Assembly has made it plain that those who
preach the New Perspective have nothing to fear."

-------------------------------------
The Free Presbyterian Magazine
Vol 111 August 2006 No 8 , Page 253
http://www.fpchurch.org.uk/Magazines/fpm/2006/August.pdf


----------



## Dan....

Archlute said:


> Dan,
> 
> I tried reading the link to the old post, but the text that came up on my screen had been corrupted and was difficult to understand. I cannot therefore say whether or not you are confused by FV thought, nor whether or not the Gaffin passage under discussion is problematic. I will, however, point out the problem to which Sean is objecting. FV advocates typically say, "Hey look, Mr. X says this... Now look here, WCF says the same thing... Therefore, Mr. X is an orthodox, confessional theologian." That is what I heard at my church, and (if the passage on Gaffin is being read correctly by me) what seems to be the case here.



Let me give you a brief synopsis of the other thread:

In post# 30, Sean (Magma2) recommended reading _The Orthodox Presbyterian Cover-up_ by Paul Elliott. I took his recommendation. I read the article. In post#33 I replied:



> So one would think that an article full of bashing ministers in the OPC would be slam full of footnotes pointing to some evidence to back up the claims, right? The article in the link above has zero footnotes. What are we supposed to do, just take his word for it???



In post#34, Anthony Coletti replied that he has Elliot's book that the online article was taken from and that he would check for footnotes.

In post #36 I gave an example of the lack of footnotes from the article -

Elliot says, 


> Both Gaffin and Rome teach that union with Christ through water baptism is the way of salvation and the means of redemption. Both Gaffin and Rome teach that baptism marks the transition from death to life, and that baptism brings about saving union with Christ. Both Gaffin and Rome teach that adoption comes through union with Christ in baptism. Both Gaffin and Rome teach that baptism brings about justification. Both Gaffin and Rome teach that baptism confers sanctification. Both Gaffin and Rome teach that justification and sanctification are indistinguishable, thus making both faith and works instruments of justification. Both Gaffin and Rome teach a â€œâ€œfirst justificationâ€â€ at baptism as well as a â€œâ€œfinal justificationâ€â€ at the Last Judgment, in which believers lay claim to entry into the Kingdom of Heaven based on their works plus Christâ€™â€™s.



No footnotes were given in the article to backup this claim.

In post# 37, Sean says, "_I have recently finished reading Ressurection and Redemption for myself and I can say Elliot's analysis is on target_."

He then gives the same quote from Gaffin's book _Resurrection and Redemption_ that he gave above as "evidence" of Gaffin's error.


Then he says, "_Or, pick up Gaffin's book and see for yourself._"

Well I did pickup Gaffin's book and read it for myself.

All I'm asking is for Sean to prove from _Resurrection and Redemption_ that Gaffin is teaching error. If he can't produce evidence from Gaffin's book, on the basis of which book he claimed that Elliot was "on target" in saying that Gaffin teaches Rome-like doctrines, then he should admit that he was wrong. Else, if he can, from the same book, demonstrate that Gaffin is teaching error, then I will retract my objection.

I've got the book. Step up. Produce some quotes.



By the way, Archlute, I agree with everything else you said in your reply to me above.


----------



## greenbaggins

Magma2 said:


> Are you sure you're talking about the same Richard Gaffin Jr.? While I haven't read his latest book, what about his track record over the last thirty plus years? Here is a man who has provided decades long defense of some of the most egregious supporters and advocates of the so_called “Federal Vision,” so much so that he wrote the following glowing endorsement of Norm Shepherd’s counterfeit gospel and even allowed his name to be used as a selling point for _The Call of Grace_. Can you imagine someone opposed to Shepherd's errant doctrines writing:
> 
> “This lucid and highly readable study provides valuable instruction on what it means to live in covenant with God. God’s covenant is the only way of life that fully honors both the absolute, all_embracing sovereignty of his saving grace and the full, uninhibited activity of his people. The Call of Grace should benefit anyone concerned about biblical growth in Christian life and witness.”
> 
> Thank you Dick Gaffin. Hardly shocking since he has been consistently in agreement with Shepherd on more than a few fundamental points as he makes clear in his book “Resurrection and Redemption” where he writes:
> 
> “Baptism signifies and seals a transition in the experience of the recipient, a transition from being (existentially) apart from Christ to being (existentially) joined to him. Galatians 3:27 is even more graphic: “Those who have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ” . . . Consequently, the transition described in [Ephesians 2] verses 5f. as being an object of God’s wrath(v.3) to experiencing his love (v.4). takes place at the point of being joined (existentially) to Christ [50_51].”
> 
> The way of salvation proposed by Gaffin is through the water of baptism and existential union with Christ – not by mere belief alone in truth of Scripture and the message of the Gospel. His mission, or at least part of it, has been to undermine, and, if possible, supplant the biblical order of salvation with a new one derived from his own "new perspective of Paul." Admittedly, his book is subtly written, but I believe many have missed the far reaching implications of his (novel) views. At the very least, I was struck by how many broad and even bold assertions he makes throughout the book without even the slightest evidence. He just assumes his readers will agree or just take his word. Maybe this is how he has been able to fool so many people? Perhaps Gaffin gets a pass because he's such a "polite scholar"? Yet, from the above you can see it is the water of baptism which translates a person from an object of God’s wrath to an object of His love. It is baptism, not belief alone, which brings us into union with Christ. Union with Christ for Gaffin is an "existential" non propositional or legal bond. Besides confusing the sign with the thing signified, his view of baptism and Christological union explains his long defense of men like Norm Shepherd and John Kinnaird.
> 
> My guess is you took classes with a different Richard Gaffin. Either that or perhaps he puts on different faces for different audiences.



No, we are talking about the same Richard B. Gaffin, Jr., whom you are not only misquoting (out of context), but slandering in the process. I'm not sure I consider an endorsement of Shepherd's book to be the wisest thing he ever did in his life. But if you look at the endorsement closely, he didn't endorse everything in the book. Look, Gaffin was a personal friend of Shepherd. As long as there was any hint that the issues might be due to misunderstanding, he stood up for his friend. Can we not understand that he would wish to do that? He is a polite scholar. But in phone conversations to me, he has admitted that Shepherd's theology is imbalanced, that Shepherd considers the inseparability of faith and works to the exclusion of the distinctness between the two. I don't know if that would count as a repudiation of his earlier stance. But it seems to me that the longer this controversy has gone on, the more he has distanced himself from Shepherd, FV, and NPP. At the very least, his article in WTJ ought to clear him of teaching the same thing as the NPP. The fact that he wholeheartedly endorsed the OPC study committee report, and that he endorsed my argumentation on the NPPdebate page, I think clearly indicates where his allegiances lie. And if you are listening to that loose cannon, John Robbins, then I advise you to stop immediately. That man has done little good for the cause of Jesus Christ. Anyone who has the least questions about the theology of Gordon Clark is an outright heretic, according to Robbins. And I can say this, because my father J.C. Keister was Gordon Clark's best friend. I grew up admiring Clark. I went to WTS and found out that there is much more to Van Til than disagreeing with Clark. I call myself Van Tillian now. Robbins would undoubtedly call me a heretic. Robbins is a vitriolic loose cannon with a publishing house. Don't listen to him.


----------



## Casey

Magma2 said:


> Thanks for the clarification but I already did per the citations from the decision and the protest filed in response to the Kinnaird acquittal. You can read the rest of it and the entire trial transcripts at the Trinity Foundation website. You don't agree with the protest filed, fine. I guess that only leaves one option concerning your view of the Kinnaird's teaching which would be that they are in harmony with your church's standards. Like I said, no apologies necessary. Although I'm starting to think there might be some due from you, particularly given your backhand to Paul Elliot who should be applauded for the work he's done exposing what is going on in the OPC. I'm sure many Presbyterians had a similar appreciation for Machen in the '20's.


Now you've committed slander, and in two points: (1) in regard to the OPC, and (2) in regard to me.  

You still have not proved yourself. Quit beating around the bush. Prove that "the OPC [has permitted] the teaching of [. . .] a false gospel [. . .] since your highest court has already deemed the false [gospel] of John Kinnaird [. . .] to be in harmony with your church's standards."

This is no light matter, and I will not treat it lightly. You have falsely accused the OPC and myself, and I expect an apology.


----------



## Magma2

greenbaggins said:


> But in phone conversations to me, he has admitted that Shepherd's theology is imbalanced, that Shepherd considers the inseparability of faith and works to the exclusion of the distinctness between the two.



Then Rev. Keister you raise another problem with your friend Richard Gaffin. The problem with Shepherd's theology is not that it is "imbalanced," the problem is that it is a soul destroying damnable heresy. And if a teacher of the Word cannot see that and in those terms, then I guess I have to wonder if he is fit to teach no matter how polite a scholar he might be. Such a man is certainly unfit to defend Christ's sheep. Richard Gaffin's long record demonstrates that much.



> The fact that he wholeheartedly endorsed the OPC study committee report, and that he endorsed my argumentation on the NPPdebate page, I think clearly indicates where his allegiances lie.



I don't see that this follows at all, your argumentation and its relative merits notwithstanding. The way I see the OPC report on Justification and even the New Horizon's article (evidently shared by others here as you can see by some of the posts above) is that it is nothing more than window dressing. It is akin to an inter-office memo letting Federal Visionists know to keep a low profile until the whole thing blows over. Paul Elliot was absolutely correct and the ongoing problem of the FV is not due to either side that make up the extremes, but rather the putrid middle (not his words, but mine) that are willing to accommodate almost any excuse just so their perceived sense of peace and fellowship can be maintained. 



> And if you are listening to that loose cannon, John Robbins, then I advise you to stop immediately. That man has done little good for the cause of Jesus Christ. Anyone who has the least questions about the theology of Gordon Clark is an outright heretic, according to Robbins.



Talk about slander! Perhaps you should heed your own words Reverend.



> And I can say this, because my father J.C. Keister was Gordon Clark's best friend. I grew up admiring Clark. I went to WTS and found out that there is much more to Van Til than disagreeing with Clark. I call myself Van Tillian now. Robbins would undoubtedly call me a heretic. Robbins is a vitriolic loose cannon with a publishing house. Don't listen to him.



He might call you foolish for calling yourself a Van Tilian and so would I. For what it's worth I found out there is much more to Van Til too and very little of it has done any good for the cause of Christ. Actually, it's been positively detrimental and the fruits of which are now being born out in the heresies of the Federal Vision.


----------



## wsw201

[ MOD ON ]

Okay guys this is getting out of hand. This Thread is not about Richard Gaffin or John Robbins. Its about the the articles in the OPC magazine.

If you have issues about any of the articles or want to interact with Mr. Clark's blog then fine.

Stay on subject or move on.

[MOD OFF]


----------



## Magma2

Dan.... said:


> What does Gaffin teach in this quote that WCF does not teach in the chapter on baptism?



Why don't you "step up" and demonstrate how the Confessional phrase ingrafting into Christ EQUALS being (existentially) joined to him? Adam Myer has already provided a sufficient outline by which to demonstrate it does not. Yet, you, for some reason say these terms are synonymous, therefore the onus is on YOU to demonstrate your assertion. I see no parity or equity at all in Gaffin's teaching concerning existential union and the Confession's definition of baptism. 

I would probably go one step further than Mr. Meyer's excellent response where he said; "The only way that baptism can be an existential union with Christ for all the baptized, is if all the baptized have faith, "head for head". While I agree with what he is trying to convey, faith in Christ is a propositional and a legal, not an existential union. Here is a quote from Rev. Keister's father's good friend, Gordon Clark including a few comment by the much maligned and vilified John Robbins:



> Commentary on Ephesians 2:13
> 
> But now by Christ Jesus you who were once afar off have become near by the blood of Christ.
> 
> GHC: This place is as good as any for the consideration of the phrase “in Christ.” It occurs in many of Paul’s epistles, and we have already seen it here in 1:3 (in him), 6 (in the beloved), 7 (in whom), 10, 11, 13, 20, and 2:5..., 6, 7, 10, and now 13. Some of these instances are easily understood, but others have led exegetes to adopt a mystical interpretation. An early medieval theologian used iron and fire as an illustration. We merge with God as the fire impregnates the iron to such an extent that we cannot tell whether it is iron or fire. Thus we permeate God, or better, God permeates us. Less explicit, some Neo-orthodox writers, as I have indicated elsewhere, try to modify the doctrine of election by charging Calvinists with failing to notice that election takes place “in Christ.” This not only misrepresents Calvinists, but in itself lacks meaning. Various Baptists, as also noted elsewhere, insist that en must be local, as in a room. In addition to being poor Greek, the insistence on the locative meaning makes nonsense of scores of verses. Others, regarding themselves as orthodox and very devout, impose a mystic aura on the phrase, and lapse into rapturous vacuity.
> 
> In reply to all, we must insist that the rational God gave us a rational message that we are obligated to understand, or at least try to understand. All Scripture is profitable for doctrine. Of course, as Peter complained about Paul, the Scriptures contain material hard to understand, but they contain nothing but what is understandable. Now then, what is the meaning of “in Christ”? Different passages may indeed use slightly different meanings; but probably the large majority of puzzling passages become clear when en is translated by by. That is, en often denotes agency or means. Here the phrase means simply that Christ brought us near to the commonwealth of Israel, the covenants, and the promise. In other places en will indicate that Christ is our legal representative, so that his act counts as ours.
> 
> Comment: The “mystic aura” that some theologians throw around this phrase is not restricted to this phrase. They misinterpret other Scriptural words and phrases in order to generate more mystic auras. They simply do not understand what Christianity is.
> 
> . . . Commentary on Colossians 1:1
> 
> Paul, apostle of Christ Jesus by the will of God, and Timothy our brother, to the saints in Colosse, brethren who believe in Christ....
> 
> GHC: Some commentators object to the translation “brethren who believe in Christ.” They have two reasons. First, the word in question [pistois] is not a participle, that is, “who believe”; it is an adjective and should be translated faithful. Second, the preposition en, “in” Christ, does not indicate Christ as an object of belief, but rather refers to the Christians’ incorporation into the body of Christ. A spiritual union, not an object of belief, is the idea [they say].
> 
> This view is not without merit. But neither is it altogether convincing. As for the preposition en, instead of eis, “into,” or epi, “upon,” we shall see that it has several meanings. Surely in verse 4 it means faith in Christ. In addition to the connotations of Greek prepositions, if the idea were that of a spiritual incorporation, the word pistois would be superfluous. Simply “brethren in Christ” would be quite enough. Therefore, it makes better sense, to the present commentator at least, to take Christ as the object of their belief.
> 
> Commentary on Colossians 1:4
> 
> ...having heard of your faith in Christ Jesus...
> 
> GHC: As with verse 2, some commentators, even here in verse 4, wish to see some sort of spiritual incorporation (a contradictory phrase, if there ever was one), rather than the object of belief. But here, even more clearly than in verse 2, the latter idea is obvious. Various prepositions can follow the idea of belief. One cannot properly say that eis or epi must be used. One can better argue that this verse demonstrates that en is quite possible.
> 
> The word pistis means faith, and the verses commentators cite to make it mean faithfulness do not always prove their point. For example, in Matthew 8:10 [“I have not found such great faith, not even in Israel!”], 9:2 [“When Jesus saw their faith”], and 9:22 [“Your faith has made you well.”], the people who had faith, had had no time to be faithful. Faithfulness takes a long time; faith does not. The woman touched the hem of his garment because she believed something about the nature and power of Christ; not because she had discharged many obligations faithfully. Her faith is called great because she was so thoroughly convinced of the truth she believed. Just as clear are Matthew 9:28-29 [“Do you believe that I am able to do this? According to your faith let it be to you.”] (see Matthew 15:28 [“O woman, great is your faith!”]). Matthew 21:21[“if you have faith and do not doubt”], contrasting faith with doubt, also allows no time for faithfulness. Even in Matthew 23:23 [“justice and mercy and faith”], where faith might seem to mean long obedience, the fact that the matters of obedience are mentioned separately might indicate that faith is an additional factor. In this regard, note that the Pharisees did not believe Moses (John 5:46-47 [“For if you believed Moses, you would believe me; for he wrote about me. But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe my words?”]). They were not the fundamentalists of Christ’s day; they were the Modernists. The Sadducees were outright humanists.
> 
> [Clark adds a footnote to his comments:]
> 
> This type of anti-creedal objection [the type that says that faith means faithfulness] is more vigorously leveled against the Old Testament. The Hebrew word, say some commentators, means faithfulness or firmness, and not belief. When it is pointed out to them that the LXX [Septuagint] translators, who used Hellenistic Greek, used the word pisteuo, they lamely reply that the Alexandrian rabbis were “obviously embarrassed.” James Barr, a scholar of unquestioned heterodoxy, writes, “The unwillingness of much modern theology [in contrast with the “fundamentalist” type of thinking] to admit that belief or faith can be properly given to a saying or words, or its tendency to insist that such belief in something said is totally different in kind from faith understood as a relationship with a person, may also affect the exegesis here” (Barr, The Semantics of Biblical Language, 172).
> 
> Comment: The attempt to obliterate the Biblical concept of belief (pistis) by saying it means faithfulness or obedience is a direct attack on the Gospel, on the doctrine of justification by faith alone, and an integral part of the “union with Christ” mysticism.


 
I recommend you read the entire piece from which the above was taken since it includes a review of Gaffin's book (see http://www.trinityfoundation.org/journal.php?id=198).

I will say I find it funny how overly sensitive you OPC men are to even the slightest criticism of your denomination. Mr. "Staunch Presbyterian" is evidently so blinded that he can't even bring himself to read anything by former OPC RE Paul Elliot. I can only guess out of fear that it might break him of his ongoing illusions.

** I see after posting the mods are putting the kibosh on the direction of this discussion. If any would like to continue or respond to the above either start a new thread or email me. **


----------



## Casey

Magma2 said:


> I will say I find it funny how overly sensitive you OPC men are to even the slightest criticism of your denomination. Mr. "Staunch Presbyterian" is evidently so blinded that he can't even bring himself to read anything by former OPC RE Paul Elliot. I can only guess out of fear that it might break him of his ongoing illusions.


And you have continually dodged my question, over and over again (incidentally, I asked _you_ to prove your claim, not Paul Elliot or John Robbins). And then you have slandered my name. Criticizing a denomination is not the same as slandering it. You have broken the Ninth Commandment, in regard to the OPC and myself. It seems to me your true colors are that which is only display here, not mine.


----------



## wsw201

Okay guys this has now gotten out of hand and has gotten way too personal.

This thread is now closed.


----------

