# PCA FV committee appointed



## NaphtaliPress

FYI. Just saw this. This a good group?


> MEMBERS OF FEDERAL VISION STUDY COMMITTEE APPOINTED
> 
> The 34th PCA General Assembly approved erecting an ad interim committee
> "to study the soteriology of the Federal Vision, New Perspective, and
> Auburn Avenue Theologies, which are causing confusion among our
> churches. Further, to determine whether these viewpoints and
> formulations are in conformity with the system of doctrine taught in the
> Westminster Standards, whether they are hostile to or strike at the
> vitals of religion, and to present a declaration or statement regarding
> the issues raised by these viewpoints in light of our Confessional
> Standards." The GA authorized the moderator to appoint the members of
> this committee. The moderator, TE Dominic Aquila, has appointed the
> following: TE Paul Fowler, Convener, Assistant Pastor, First
> Presbyterian Church, Augusta, Georgia, TE Ligon Duncan, Pastor, First
> Presbyterian Church, Jackson, Mississippi, TE Grover Gunn, Pastor,
> Covenant Presbyterian Church, Jackson, Tennessee, TE Sean Lucas,
> Assistant Professor of Church History, Covenant Theological Seminary,
> St. Louis, Missouri, RE Robert Mattes, Christ Presbyterian Church,
> Arlington, Virginia, RE William Mueller, Kendall Presbyterian Church,
> Miami, Florida, and RE John White, Westminster Presbyterian Church,
> Atlanta, Georgia.



[Edited on 7-19-2006 by NaphtaliPress]


----------



## Me Died Blue

Well, if nothing else, I'm certainly glad to see Ligon Duncan on the committee. Furthermore, from what I have read of his on the covenant and the sacraments, Sean Lucas is an excellent choice as well.


----------



## New wine skin

I was surprised Sinclair Ferguson was not on that list. Anyway, ditto to what Christ said above.


----------



## Me Died Blue

Sinclair Ferguson is not PCA - he is a minister in the Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church. Also, I think you have a little typo above!

Is anyone very familiar with any of the other elders on the committee?


----------



## New wine skin

Oh my, I did make a typo on your name, I meant Chris not Christ....


----------



## LadyFlynt

Glad to hear they are finally getting a committee together...could it be because other churches had done research committees on this topic (ie, OPC)?


----------



## fredtgreco

It may be of interest that Mark Horne believes the committee not to be a "fair committee"


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon

Its OK Fred. He doesn't seem to believe the Bible is fair either.


----------



## py3ak

Is anyone on the committee at all pro-FV?


----------



## Bladestunner316

Well for some nothing is going to be fair.


----------



## LadyFlynt

Yep, FVers are claiming the committee is "stacked".


----------



## Romans922

> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> It may be of interest that Mark Horne believes the committee not to be a "fair committee"



haha

I hope all is going well for you Fred.


----------



## ChristopherPaul

I think the PCA has already made up their mind. This is simply an act of due process.


----------



## NaphtaliPress

> _Originally posted by ChristopherPaul_
> I think the PCA has already made up their mind. This is simply an act of due process.


A study committee is an act of due process? While I'm all for Presbyterian denominations settling this FV/NPP thing, it does need to be done properly. I agree with the cautions of Stuart Jones on the OPC board, echoing his article on in thesi deliverances in the 2006 _Confessional Presbyterian_ journal (which was a response to Nick Wellborn's article on the same subject from the 2005 issue). See his post at the link below:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/presbyterians-opc/message/35068


----------



## SolaScriptura

Sean Lucas utterly despises federal vision theology.


----------



## tcalbrecht

> _Originally posted by SolaScriptura_
> Sean Lucas utterly despises federal vision theology.



Well, the composition of the committee does make it appear that someone has already made up their mind given the fact there there does not aoppear to be any pro-FV types appointed. 



> _Originally posted by C. Matthew McMahon_
> Its OK Fred. He doesn't seem to believe the Bible is fair either.



While said in jest, this comment does legitimize the concerns of those being attacked that the anti-FV position is, "we've already made up our minds so don't confuse us with the facts."

Can anyone fairly characterize this as an impartial committee? What the moderator appears to have done is appoint a committee that no one on the anti-FV side or middle-of-the-roaders can complain about, since the votes are probably already in place to ratify whatever they produce.


----------



## wsw201

I'm not too surprised that Dominic Aquila did not appoint any pro-FV guys. From past dealings, he's not a big fan of what was going on at AAPC.


----------



## Puritan Sailor

Can people outside the Comittee submit or ammend a minority report at GA?


----------



## NaphtaliPress

> _Originally posted by Puritan Sailor_
> Can people outside the Comittee submit or ammend a minority report at GA?


If the report was not favored by the majority of a GA then I would think the procedure would be to not receive the report and either augment the committee for a new study or get a new committee.

[Edited on 7-20-2006 by NaphtaliPress]


----------



## Me Died Blue

> _Originally posted by LadyFlynt_
> Yep, FVers are claiming the committee is "stacked".



Furthermore, I've seen one comment essentially expressing worry that this might just be the end of the PCA! Now, regardless of where one stands on the partiality issue, that is simply laughable, to put it frankly.


----------



## Bladestunner316

How about we get all pro-fv guys for the comitte:bigsmile:


----------



## NaphtaliPress

> _Originally posted by Bladestunner316_
> How about we get all pro-fv guys for the comitte:bigsmile:


It would be the end of the PCA.


----------



## wsw201

One thing to remember is this is a "study" just like the OPC paper was a "study" (and was not adopted as the official position of the OPC). The PCA would have to adopt the study and any recommendations as the position of the PCA. Otherwise, unless disciplinary action is taken, all FVer's are safe in the PCA, especially with BCO 21-4.


----------



## LadyFlynt

Yeah, I do NOT see it as being the "end of the PCA". I've known too many conservative PCA guys.


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia

For it to be a fair and balanced committee, it would have to be one comprised of men who wholeheartedly believe and confess the doctrines of Scripture and the Westminster Confession of Faith, along with other historic Creeds of the Faith. Therefore, don't expect there to be any FV supporters on the committee.


----------



## ef

> _Originally posted by wsw201_
> One thing to remember is this is a "study" just like the OPC paper was a "study" (and was not adopted as the official position of the OPC). The PCA would have to adopt the study and any recommendations as the position of the PCA. Otherwise, unless disciplinary action is taken, all FVer's are safe in the PCA, especially with BCO 21-4.



Unfortunately you're correct. Establishing a violation of "good faith" subscription in the courts of the church would be like establishing motive in a hate crimes trial... 

I for one agree with the comments above my post here...


> _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> For it to be a fair and balanced committee, it would have to be one comprised of men who wholeheartedly believe and confess the doctrines of Scripture and the Westminster Confession of Faith, along with other historic Creeds of the Faith. Therefore, don't expect there to be any FV supporters on the committee.


 it is completely fair because the committee is made up of men who subscribe to Holy Scripture as inerrant and infallible and to the Westminster Standards... of course, they too only do so "in good faith..." 

[Edited on 9-10-2006 by ef]


----------



## Bladestunner316

I dont see why we would need any pro-fv guys on the committe we wouldnt have arminian or mormon guys on a committe to examine there respective beliefs to see if there in line with the Holy Scriptures and westminister standards.


----------



## turmeric

> _Originally posted by Bladestunner316_
> I dont see why we would need any pro-fv guys on the committe we wouldnt have arminian or mormon guys on a committe to examine there respective beliefs to see if there in line with the Holy Scriptures and westminister standards.



Sorry to hijack, but I thought there _were_ Arminians at Dort. Not sure. Anyway, it's a little early to relegate these guys to the same category until the commission has completed it's report. (Off-record, In my humble opinion yeah, they gotta be in the same category!)


----------



## R. Scott Clark

Yes, Arminians (Remonstrants) were invited to Dort. They were led by Simon Episcopius (Bishop) who actually argued that they (the Remonstrants) had equal right to the floor. Indeed, they tried to take over the Synod and had to rebuffed! Episcopius made long speeches about how they were treated unfairly etc.

Procedurally, the parallel with the PCA committee is in exact. Synod is more like the PCA GA. 

There are lots of parallels between the FV movement and the Remonstrants. Both claim(ed) to be orthodox when they were not. Both use(d) orthodox language in confusing and misleading ways. Both movements whine(d) incessantly about they were/are misunderstood and misrepresented by the orthodox. Both jeopardize(d) the Reformation understanding gospel by their formulations and both were/are fueled by moralism (trying to get people to behave) and rationalism (taking a short-cut around the gospel to get there).

We should treat the FV the way the confessionalists treated the Remonstrants. We should have a Synod. We should put their doctrine on ecclesiastical trial. We should confess formally the truth in response to it.

rsc



> _Originally posted by turmeric_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Bladestunner316_
> I dont see why we would need any pro-fv guys on the committe we wouldnt have arminian or mormon guys on a committe to examine there respective beliefs to see if there in line with the Holy Scriptures and westminister standards.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry to hijack, but I thought there _were_ Arminians at Dort. Not sure. Anyway, it's a little early to relegate these guys to the same category until the commission has completed it's report. (Off-record, In my humble opinion yeah, they gotta be in the same category!)
Click to expand...


[Edited on 9-12-2006 by R. Scott Clark]


----------



## Magma2

I certainly pray that the PCA does a better job of things than the OPC. See, The Orthodox Presbyterian Cover-up by Paul Elliott at http://www.trinityfoundation.org/latest.php . I´m afraid even in the best circumstances committee reports really don´t accomplish anything and sometimes, as per Elliot's piece above, only aid to make things worse.


----------



## R. Scott Clark

Sean,

I was heavily involved in the original Kinnaird trial trying to be useful to the Wilkenings. I'm grateful for their courage and steadfastness in the gospel. It was frustrating to see how little help and support the W's received from within the OPC. 

I'm not, however, very impressed by this line of argumentation. There's no evidence of a conspiracy. Such theories almost always rely on supposition, inuendo, and this is what this argument seems to do. 

The explanation for why the OPC was so slow to act or why folk had a hard time getting to grips with this issue is much more complicated than any conspiracy theory admits. Human behavior is usually too complicated to be explained by simple conspiracy theories.

rsc 







> _Originally posted by Magma2_
> I certainly pray that the PCA does a better job of things than the OPC. See, The Orthodox Presbyterian Cover-up by Paul Elliott at http://www.trinityfoundation.org/latest.php . I´m afraid even in the best circumstances committee reports really don´t accomplish anything and sometimes, as per Elliot's piece above, only aid to make things worse.


----------



## Magma2

> _Originally posted by R. Scott Clark_
> Human behavior is usually too complicated to be explained by simple conspiracy theories.



That may be, but I would say the heresies involved in the FV are not at all complicated and the glaring omissions in the OPC report are certainly worth noting, conspiracy or no conspiracy, don't you think? 

Human behavior being what it is, I would think it would be useful for those on the current PCA committee to learn from the mistakes of others. Elliot's piece is certainly a lot more critical and informative than the love fest that greeted the release of the OPC report.


----------



## Dan....

> _Originally posted by Magma2_
> I certainly pray that the PCA does a better job of things than the OPC. See, The Orthodox Presbyterian Cover-up by Paul Elliott at http://www.trinityfoundation.org/latest.php . I´m afraid even in the best circumstances committee reports really don´t accomplish anything and sometimes, as per Elliot's piece above, only aid to make things worse.



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???


----------



## Civbert

> _Originally posted by Dan...._
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Magma2_
> I certainly pray that the PCA does a better job of things than the OPC. See, The Orthodox Presbyterian Cover-up by Paul Elliott at http://www.trinityfoundation.org/latest.php . I´m afraid even in the best circumstances committee reports really don´t accomplish anything and sometimes, as per Elliot's piece above, only aid to make things worse.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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???
Click to expand...


Footnotes! We don't need no stinking footnotes! 

Just skimming through the article and I see dozens of references to other documents that you can check his claims against. And with the references inserted in the text, you "don't need no footnotes". 

The article comes from Paul M. Elliott's book _Christianity and Neo-Liberalism: The Spiritual Crisis in the Orthodox Presbyterian Church and Beyond_ and I've got the book at home -- if I remember too, I'll see if it has any footnotes. But to answer your question - no, you don't have to take anyones word for it - you can check these things out for yourself.


----------



## Magma2

> 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???



The review piece is taken from *A Denomination in Denial* (published by Teaching The Word). Appropriately titled given the tenor of your post. If Denial is anything like his Christianity and Neo-Liberalism, you'll have all the footnotes you could ever dream of.
:bigsmile:


----------



## Dan....

ï»¿Here is an example:




> 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 "œ"œfirst justification"" at baptism as well as a "œ"œfinal justification"" at the Last Judgment, in which believers lay claim to entry into the Kingdom of Heaven based on their works plus Christ´´s.



Where´s the footnotes? Later in the article he mentions a book by Gaffin, _Resurrection and Redemption_, although he neither explicitly nor implicitly links all of the charges to that book. Are we to assume that every one of those charges can be substantiated in this book? It would be nice if the author could have provided some quotes, or at least some page numbers, so when I get the book I can see specifically where Gaffin says such things.

[Edited on 9-12-2006 by Dan....]


----------



## Magma2

> _Originally posted by Dan...._
> ï»¿Here is an example:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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 "œ"œfirst justification"" at baptism as well as a "œ"œfinal justification"" at the Last Judgment, in which believers lay claim to entry into the Kingdom of Heaven based on their works plus Christ´´s.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where´s the footnotes? Later in the article he mentions a book by Gaffin, _Resurrection and Redemption_, although he neither explicitly nor implicitly links all of the charges to that book. Are we to assume that every one of those charges can be substantiated in this book? It would be nice if the author could have provided some quotes, or at least some page numbers, so when I get the book I can see specifically where Gaffin says such things.
> 
> [Edited on 9-12-2006 by Dan....]
Click to expand...


I apologize Dan. I wasn´t clear. I don´t have Elliot´s latest book, but I do have _Christianity and Neo-Liberalism_ where he cites Gaffin directly and I have recently finished reading _Ressurection and Redemption_ for myself and I can say Elliot's analysis is on target. Consider:



> 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: "œThose 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)



Hope that helps. As for a lack of footnotes per the Trinity Review piece I linked take it up with Dr. Robbins . . . or Paul Elliot . . . or pick up his books and see for yourself whether he can account for what he says. Or, pick up Gaffin's book and see for yourself.


----------



## Dan....

> _Originally posted by Magma2_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Dan...._
> ï»¿Here is an example:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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 "œ"œfirst justification"" at baptism as well as a "œ"œfinal justification"" at the Last Judgment, in which believers lay claim to entry into the Kingdom of Heaven based on their works plus Christ´´s.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where´s the footnotes? Later in the article he mentions a book by Gaffin, _Resurrection and Redemption_, although he neither explicitly nor implicitly links all of the charges to that book. Are we to assume that every one of those charges can be substantiated in this book? It would be nice if the author could have provided some quotes, or at least some page numbers, so when I get the book I can see specifically where Gaffin says such things.
> 
> [Edited on 9-12-2006 by Dan....]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I apologize Dan. I wasn´t clear. I don´t have Elliot´s latest book, but I do have _Christianity and Neo-Liberalism_ where he cites Gaffin directly and I have recently finished reading _Ressurection and Redemption_ for myself and I can say Elliot's analysis is on target. Consider:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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: "œThose 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)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hope that helps. As for a lack of footnotes per the Trinity Review piece I linked take it up with Dr. Robbins . . . or Paul Elliot . . . or pick up his books and see for yourself whether he can account for what he says. Or, pick up Gaffin's book and see for yourself.
Click to expand...


I am ordering Gaffin's book.

As for your quote from Gaffin, I do not see how he is saying anything different than did the WCF 28:1 - 
_I. Baptism is a sacrament of the new testament, ordained by Jesus Christ,[1] not only for the solemn admission of the party baptized into the visible church;[2] but also, to be unto him *a sign and seal* of the covenant of grace,[3] *of his ingrafting into Christ*,[4] of regeneration,[5] of remission of sins,[6] and of his giving up unto God, through Jesus Christ, to walk in newness of life.[7] Which sacrament is, by Christ's own appointment, to be continued in his church until the end of the world.[8]_

I'm trying to figure out which one of Elliot's claims your quote of Gaffin substatiates?

Here is the quote from Elliot again:



> 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 "œ"œfirst justification"" at baptism as well as a "œ"œfinal justification"" at the Last Judgment, in which believers lay claim to entry into the Kingdom of Heaven based on their works plus Christ´´s.



Which of these supposed similarities to Rome is Gaffin teaching in the quote you provided?


----------



## johnny_redeemed

> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> It may be of interest that Mark Horne believes the committee not to be a "fair committee"



Call me stupid ...but I am not sure who Mark Horne is. Can someone enlighten me?


----------



## tewilder

> _Originally posted by johnny_redeemed_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> It may be of interest that Mark Horne believes the committee not to be a "fair committee"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Call me stupid ...but I am not sure who Mark Horne is. Can someone enlighten me?
Click to expand...


First some history. 

The appointement of the study committee was a motion that was debated on the floor of the PCA General Assembly. The motion was that the Moderator would appoint the study committee. The Moderator had already been elected, and it was the author of one of the anti-Federal Vision overtures, so it was no secret where he stood. 

The Confessional people split on this. Some were against the appointment of the study committee, on the grounds that the proper thing to do was to proceed judicially against people holding Federal Vision, New Perspective, etc. views. Their position was substantially weakned by the fact the that Standing Judicial Committee had dumped most of the cases that had been brought. Other TR types supported the appointment of a study committee.

There were also some supporters of the study committee whose theological stand I don't know. They said it was about time that the issue was taken hold of at a denomination level.

Finally there were the Federal Vision supporters and sympathisers. All who spoke to the motion supported the appointment of a study committee. But now we are getting sour grapes from the very group that wanted the study committee. 

What is the purpose of favoring a study committee only to proceed to attack it even before it has met the first time? What is "of interest" about this strategem?


----------



## R. Scott Clark

Josh,

He's probably the most vocal proponent of the NPP, the FV in the PCA. 

He's an associate pastor in St Louis where he serves with Jeff Myers. He has a blog (or multiple blogs?) 

rsc



> _Originally posted by johnny_redeemed_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> It may be of interest that Mark Horne believes the committee not to be a "fair committee"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Call me stupid ...but I am not sure who Mark Horne is. Can someone enlighten me?
Click to expand...


----------



## Magma2

> As for your quote from Gaffin, I do not see how he is saying anything different than did the WCF 28:1 -



The difference is substantial and not particularly subtle. The way of salvation proposed by Gaffin above is via the water of baptism and existential union with Christ. It is baptism which translates a person from an object of God´s wrath to an object of His love. It is baptism which brings us into union with Christ, not belief. This is confusing the sign with the thing signified. At least in my mind, this is another gospel and not the one presented in the Confession. 

I realize you don´t see it, but what I see in Gaffin is virtually the same way of salvation asserted by Shepherd, Kinnaird, and, well, Rome. In addition, implied in Gaffin´s own perspective on Paul, and is something Elliot brings out in CvNL, is that there is then a different way of salvation for OT saints. This is an objection that was brought to Gaffin when, I believe (I don´t have the book in front of me), he was speaking at the 2005 Auburn Ave. conference and which Elliot recounts in his book. In any case, and hopefully you'll see for yourself when you read Gaffin's book, but baptism brings us into existential union with Christ and it is our ongoing existential union that leads to "final" justification. Categories like regeneration, imputation, justification, sanctification, glorification are all subsumed (or conflated) into Gaffin's existential union. If that's confessional in your mind, that is something I fail to see. 



> I'm trying to figure out which one of Elliot's claims your quote of Gaffin substatiates?



I think that would require "œseeing" what Gaffin says in contrast to what the WCF says. For what it's worth I think the following is a lot closer to Gaffin´s view:

"œThis sacrament is the door of the Church of Christ and the entrance into a new life. We are reborn from the state of slaves of sin into the freedom of the Sons of God. Baptism incorporates us with Christ's mystical body and makes us partakers of all the privileges flowing from the redemptive act of the Church's Divine Founder."

And, while I'm at it:

"œ...*aptism, the sign and seal of the covenant, marks the point of conversion. Baptism is the moment when we see the transition from death to life and a person is saved" 

The above quote is taken from another piece by Elliot that comes complete with footnotes, see http://www.trinityfoundation.org/journal.php?id=219 .

For what it's worth, I don´t know why there were no footnotes in the Trinity Review piece previously cited? As I said, why don´t you drop Dr. Robbins a line?

[Edited on 9-13-2006 by Magma2]

[Edited on 9-13-2006 by Magma2]*


----------



## Magma2

> _Originally posted by R. Scott Clark_
> Josh,
> 
> He's probably the most vocal proponent of the NPP, the FV in the PCA.
> 
> He's an associate pastor in St Louis where he serves with Jeff Myers. He has a blog (or multiple blogs?)
> 
> rsc
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by johnny_redeemed_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> It may be of interest that Mark Horne believes the committee not to be a "fair committee"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Call me stupid ...but I am not sure who Mark Horne is. Can someone enlighten me?
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...



To show you how stupid I am, I wrote Jeff Myers with some concerns per the Missouri Pres. FV study document not knowing who he was or which side of the fence he was sitting. I just saw his name on the document, googled his email address, and thought he was as good a person as anyone. Well, I quickly found out that exposing the heresies of FV was not high on his agenda. DOH!


----------



## johnny_redeemed

> _Originally posted by Magma2_
> heresies of FV



Why are we calling this view heresy? I thought they were fellow PCA members??? I must be lost....


----------



## R. Scott Clark

Josh,

Some of us have grave concerns over the FV. It's a complicated set of issues. There are responses to the FV/NPP  here.

See also Guy Waters' two books on the FV and NPP. 

It really is quite impossible to synthesize the FV or NPP with the Reformed confessions. "In by grace, stay in by works/faithfulness" is not Reformed. If the Reformed confessions are the standard of Reformed orthodoxy, and they are, then the FV/NPP complex of doctrines is gross error. The fact that someone is a member in good standing does not mean that their doctrine isn't serious errant. It just means the process has not yet caught up to them. 

It's a catch 22. If we do not call error what it is, and if we do not point out where and how it's errant and dangerous, then there's no motive to discipline. If we can't say it's error until it's been disciplined, how are we ever going to get to discipline? 

That said, there is a difference between private and ecclesiastical judgments. There have been ecclesiastical judgments however. The RCUS and a several consistories and presbyteries have spoken and the OPC has received (what's the correct verb? I don't recall just now) a report and commended it for study. It's not as if there hasn't been ecclesiastical work on this.

rsc






> _Originally posted by johnny_redeemed_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Magma2_
> heresies of FV
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why are we calling this view heresy? I thought they were fellow PCA members??? I must be lost....
Click to expand...


----------



## johnny_redeemed

> _Originally posted by R. Scott Clark_
> "In by grace, stay in by works/faithfulness"



I have read Guy Waters on NPP, I am not sure yet why the FVers are getting lumped in with the NPP. Doug Wilson (who is a FVer) says he is not NPP. Well anyway...

Where do the FVers say, "In by grace, stay in by works/faithfulness"? 


Thanks for your time. I know you must be a busy man....


----------



## tewilder

> _Originally posted by johnny_redeemed_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by R. Scott Clark_
> "In by grace, stay in by works/faithfulness"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have read Guy Waters on NPP, I am not sure yet why the FVers are getting lumped in with the NPP. Doug Wilson (who is a FVer) says he is not NPP. Well anyway...
> 
> Where do the FVers say, "In by grace, stay in by works/faithfulness"?
> 
> 
> Thanks for your time. I know you must be a busy man....
Click to expand...


Join the wrightsaid group on Yahoo, and read for yourself how the FVers see the NPP>


----------



## Dan....

> _Originally posted by Magma2_
> 
> 
> 
> As for your quote from Gaffin, I do not see how he is saying anything different than did the WCF 28:1 -
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The difference is substantial and not particularly subtle. The way of salvation proposed by Gaffin above is via the water of baptism and existential union with Christ. It is baptism which translates a person from an object of God´s wrath to an object of His love. It is baptism which brings us into union with Christ, not belief.
Click to expand...


That´s not what Gaffin said in the quote:



> 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.



Gaffin says "œsignifies and seals." Baptism is a sign of regeneration. It is not regeneration. What Gaffin says is almost identical to the WCF when it says "œ_Baptism is a *sign and sea*l"¦of his ingrafting into Christ_"

It seems to me that you are twisting what Gaffin said in the quote to make Gaffin to say that baptism is the transition, rather than that baptism signifies the transition.



> This is confusing the sign with the thing *signified*.


Really? Gaffin again: "œ_Baptism *signifies and seals* a transition_"



> This is confusing the sign with the thing signified At least in my mind, this is another gospel and not the one presented in the Confession.



On the contrary, it is almost word for word identical with the confession. If what Gaffin is saying in the quote is another gospel, then it must follow that you believe that the confession is teaching another gospel. Of course I don´t believe that you believe that the confession is teach another gospel, but what baffles me is that you have Gaffin teaching something unconfessional in a quote that is almost identical to the confession.

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???




> I realize you don´t see it, but what I see in Gaffin is virtually the same way of salvation asserted by Shepherd, Kinnaird, and, well, Rome. In addition, implied in Gaffin´s own perspective on Paul, and is something Elliot brings out in CvNL, is that there is then a different way of salvation for OT saints. This is an objection that was brought to Gaffin when, I believe (I don´t have the book in front of me), he was speaking at the 2005 Auburn Ave. conference and which Elliot recounts in his book. In any case, and hopefully you'll see for yourself when you read Gaffin's book, but baptism brings us into existential union with Christ and it is our ongoing existential union that leads to "final" justification.



The book is in the mail. I´m looking forward to reading it. By the way, the quote you provided says that that baptism "œsignifies" existential union with Christ, not that baptism "œbrings us into" this existential union.



> Categories like regeneration, imputation, justification, sanctification, glorification are all subsumed (or conflated) into Gaffin's existential union. If that's confessional in your mind, that is something I fail to see.



Again, from the quote that you provided, it is almost word for word identical to the confession.



> I think that would require "œseeing" what Gaffin says in contrast to what the WCF says.


Maybe I´m slow. See my comparison of Gaffin above to WCF. Tell me how he is in contrast to the confession.



> For what it's worth I think the following is a lot closer to Gaffin´s view:
> 
> "œThis sacrament is the door of the Church of Christ and the entrance into a new life. We are reborn from the state of slaves of sin into the freedom of the Sons of God. Baptism incorporates us with Christ's mystical body and makes us partakers of all the privileges flowing from the redemptive act of the Church's Divine Founder."
> 
> And, while I'm at it:
> 
> "œ...*aptism, the sign and seal of the covenant, marks the point of conversion. Baptism is the moment when we see the transition from death to life and a person is saved"
> 
> The above quote is taken from another piece by Elliot that comes complete with footnotes, see http://www.trinityfoundation.org/journal.php?id=219 .
> *


*

Who is the first quote from? The second quote is attributed to Norman Shepherd. I don´t think anyone is claiming that Shepherd is being confessional. I don´t see Gaffin saying the same thing, or anything near similar in his quote to these last two quotes posted.


[Edited on 9-14-2006 by Dan....]*


----------



## Magma2

> Who is the first quote from?



The Catholic Encyclopedia.



> The second quote is attributed to Norman Shepherd. I don´t think anyone is claiming that Shepherd is being confessional.



Gaffin does and was Shepherd´s chief and most vocal defender during the entire seven year controversy as it raged at Westminster East. See O. Palmer Robinson´s _The Current Justification Controversy_. Hey, according to Gaffin, John Kinnaird was being confessional too when he was convicted of teaching the heresy of salvation by faith and works. 



> I don´t see Gaffin saying the same thing, or anything near similar in his quote to these last two quotes posted.



You evidently don´t see a lot of things. As I said, Elliot´s new book is appropriately titled; _A Denomination in Denial._


----------



## R. Scott Clark

The FV and NPP are distinct but closely related programs. Virtually all of the FV fellows of whom I'm aware accept the basic scheme of the NPP. The latter makes the former possible.

Even if they do not all always use Sanders' expression, "in by grace, stay in by works" or "stay in by faithfulness," they have used it and it does structure their theology. This is the function of baptismal union with Christ. I've heard FV proponents preach sermons to this effect. 

Wilson does sometimes speak in orthodox ways. He is also the most political of the group. As I understand it, he has sought endorsements from some of our faculty concerning his orthodoxy. Fortunately, they had the wisdom to say that they've signed their confessional subscription and that's sufficient! In his interview with Mike Horton, Doug ducked and weaved better than most boxers. Then, as has been pointed out, he has written Reformed in Not Enough. Yikes! 

Doug is playing both sides against the middle. He's a culture warrior who needs the support of the NAPARC world to keep his enterprises (a school, a denomination, a magazine) going but he's rejected significant segments of the theology of part of his constituency. He wants to be able to present himself as just a plain ol' orthodox fellow to the NAPARC churches and a cutting-edge radical to another segment and a culture-warring, home-school supporting, anti-feminist (etc) to another segment. He was one of the first to say that there's no such thing really as "the federal vision." Really? Books, conferences, several writers using the expression and teaching a series of common views don't exist and never happened? These are just some fellows speaking out loud. Interesting view of reality. As it turns out, there are so many particulars among them that there are no real universals. Oh, okay. Thanks for the update. Good to know what we see is really an illusion. 

It's not easy to keep all these rhetorical and political balls in the air. We should give him credit but we should trust his theology no father than we can throw it. Speaking of throwing it....

rsc



> _Originally posted by tewilder_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by johnny_redeemed_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by R. Scott Clark_
> "In by grace, stay in by works/faithfulness"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have read Guy Waters on NPP, I am not sure yet why the FVers are getting lumped in with the NPP. Doug Wilson (who is a FVer) says he is not NPP. Well anyway...
> 
> Where do the FVers say, "In by grace, stay in by works/faithfulness"?
> 
> 
> Thanks for your time. I know you must be a busy man....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Join the wrightsaid group on Yahoo, and read for yourself how the FVers see the NPP>
Click to expand...


----------



## BobVigneault

"It's not easy to keep all these rhetorical and political guts in the air."

Tehehehehehehe! The '[email protected]' filter strikes again. Sorry Scott, not laughing at you, just thought I'd better interpret for the newbies. Carry on.


----------



## R. Scott Clark

I'm still waiting for Dick's new book to come in, but as one who has publicly criticized him in the past, I must say that the reports I've had back from the committee have been encouraging.

It's true that Dick supported Norm for many years. He wrote two papers during the controversy which are not orthodox and worthy of considerable criticism, which I've offered over the last 7 years or so. I was particularly critical of his support for John Kinnaird, whose doctrine is irreconcilable with the Standards. Certainly that GA was not a moment of glory in which the OP will want to bask!

That said, it's important to recognize that Dick agreed with and defended vigorously the Justification committee Report on the floor of GA. The FV fellows who were, only a couple of years ago, appealing to his theology and taking cover behind him, are now furious at him for abandoning them. 

It seems to have been a process. When Norm publicly rejected the IAO, Dick began to abandon him. Now that Norm has thrown the WCF under the bus publicly, I think the divorce is all but final. 

There are still questions. E.g. I don't know where he comes down on Rom 2:13. He has soundly rejected the NPP in the pages of the WTJ but he was holding a similar view of Rom 2:13.

The growth/development/revision (pick one) of Dick's doctrine of justification and change in stance toward NS is very encouraging and should be recognized. 

The point is to get it right, not to "be right." 

This development suggests more weakness in the "conspiracy" interpretation of what's happening in the OPC. It doesn't account for fellows such as David VanDrunen and Steve Baugh and John Fesko and and Darryl Hart and many others who are solidly and unquestionably orthodox and thoroughly confessional in their theology who are the rising generation of leaders in the OPC. 

Speaking from outside the OPC, this would not seem to be a good time to be jumping ship. As much as she seemed to be listing a few years ago just before, during, and after the Kinnaird controversy, things look MUCH better now. 

Would it have been good for the OPC to do more with the Report? I don't know. Are there pro-Shepherd or pro-FV folk in the OP? Sure. The tide has turned, however, with this report. A number of folk have had a wake-up call. 

The question is whether any of the pro-Shepherd or pro-FV folk will face ecclesiastical discipline, whether anyone will use the resources provided by the Report to apply the Scriptures as confessed in the OPC to those who continue to hold the errors of the NPP or the FV.

The OP (like most all the NAPARC constituents) is a relatively small denomination. Like most such there are a lot of personal and family ties. It's like living in a small town. It's relatively easy to discipline folk in NYC. You'll never see them again. It's more difficult to do it Menno, SD where everyone knows everyone else and has for a long time, where many folk are related by blood or marriage. To excommunicate the mayor isn't easy. Blood is often thicker than baptismal water and friendship often trumps confession. So, Reformation takes time and patience. It's something we all must do over and over. 

We must rid ourselves of the idea that we have "arrived," at Reformed orthodoxy and the struggle is over. Yes, the OP had Mr Murray and CVT but they're dead. We have decide that we're going to take up the Confession for ourselves or we're no different than the PCUSA. They can say, "We had the Hodges and Warfield." Yes, but what do YOU confess NOW? We need to ask ourselves the same questions that we ask the mainline.

rsc



> _Originally posted by Magma2_
> 
> 
> 
> Who is the first quote from?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Catholic Encyclopedia.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The second quote is attributed to Norman Shepherd. I don´t think anyone is claiming that Shepherd is being confessional.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Gaffin does and was Shepherd´s chief and most vocal defender during the entire seven year controversy as it raged at Westminster East. See O. Palmer Robinson´s _The Current Justification Controversy_. Hey, according to Gaffin, John Kinnaird was being confessional too when he was convicted of teaching the heresy of salvation by faith and works.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don´t see Gaffin saying the same thing, or anything near similar in his quote to these last two quotes posted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You evidently don´t see a lot of things. As I said, Elliot´s new book is appropriately titled; _A Denomination in Denial._
Click to expand...


----------



## Dan....

> You evidently don´t see a lot of things. As I said, Elliot´s new book is appropriately titled; _A Denomination in Denial_.



I appreciate your words of encouragement.
For me, it is not a matter of denial. It is a matter of giving a man, who is a minister in good standing in the OPC, the courtesy of being innocent (in my mind) until proven guilty.
I admittedly have not read anything to date by Gaffin, and am not familiar with his support for Shepherd or Kinnaird.
I do have the book on order and will read it shortly once I receive it; (What I won´t be doing is reading it to hang the man with it; but I will keep your warning in mind while reading).

As I read the last article that you linked to from the Trinity Foundation, another thing I see is this rather curious point:

1 The author spends a good bit of space labeling Bavnick and Van Til as liberals for believing that God is incomprehensible.
(Well Amen to Bavnick and Van Til; at least they didn´t try the alternative; i.e., to put God in a box)

2. The author ( along with the Trinity Foundation??) is Clarkian.
3. Clarkians do not like Van Til.
4. Van Til and Bahnsen were both renown ministers in good standing in the Orthodox Presbyterian Church.
5. Clarkians do not like the OPC because of the amount of support for Van Til and Bahnsen in the denomination.

Maybe I´m on to something, but then again, you could be right, maybe I "œdon´t see a lot of things."


----------



## Magma2

> _Originally posted by R. Scott Clark_
> I'm still waiting for Dick's new book to come in, but as one who has publicly criticized him in the past, I must say that the reports I've had back from the committee have been encouraging.



Some of us don't have the advantage of any inside information, but statements that I've read by him, including his entire thesis in R&R where existential union entered in through the water of baptism rather than mere belief alone in the propositions of Scripture alone, specifically the Gospel, is the "œway of salvation," not to mention those whom he has very publicly and vigorously defended, hardly provides any reason for encouragement. 

Has Gaffin ever publicly recanted or retracted his support for those he has publically and privately defended who teach "“ and continue to teach "“ the heresies entailed in FV? You imply as much in reference to Shepherd, but it sounds to me that his "œdistancing," if there really has been any, is more a matter of affiliation rather than theology. Gaffin has been on the wrong side of the debate for nearly thirty years and has been a key player in furthering the false gospel and heterodox doctrines of Shepherd, Kinnaird and many others. But now he puts his name on a committee report that, despite its pluses, has some serious and glaring failings (his take on Rom 2:13 is and its absence from the report is certainly no small matter as you point out) and you are willing to give him the benefit of the doubt as if everything has changed? I don´t see that anything has changed and it´s all a bunch of smoke and mirrors. 

Anyway, I appreciate your comments and your willingness to confront these men when you think they´re wrong. That _is_ something I find encouraging.

[Edited on 9-14-2006 by Magma2]


----------



## Magma2

> _Originally posted by Dan...._
> 1 The author spends a good bit of space labeling Bavnick and Van Til as liberals for believing that God is incomprehensible.
> (Well Amen to Bavnick and Van Til; at least they didn´t try the alternative; i.e., to put God in a box)



Suggesting that the God of Scripture is a rational God and that He has communicated to His creatures in such a way that we might understand is hardly to put God in a box. However, Van Tilianism has indeed played a foundational role in the current controversy (see http://www.trinityfoundation.org/journal.php?id=208 ) and it´s no accident that virtually all of the key defenders of FV identify themselves Van Tilians. The fact that there are some Van Tilians, like our Dr. Clark here, who have opposed some of these men and their teachings is, in my view, in spite of and not because of their Van Tilianism. For example, see Rev. Winzer´s penetrating analysis of Van Tilianism´s inability to provide an adequate epistemological basis to even refute open theism in his exchange with Van Tilian Paul Manata at http://www.puritanboard.com/forum/viewthread.php?tid=17988&page=3. 



> 2. The author ( along with the Trinity Foundation??) is Clarkian.



I don't know if Elliot is a "Clarkian." I do know he was, up until I believe around the time of the overturning of the Kinnaird conviction, an RE in the OPC. The Trinity Foundation publishes many books by men who are not "Clarkians." 



> 3. Clarkians do not like Van Til.



There is "œbad blood" between the two camps, but I think that has more to do with the mutual exclusivity of their respective epistemologies rather than any personal animus. Of course, this is irrelevant to the question of whether or not Gaffin´s view is, or is not, another gospel.



> 4. Van Til and Bahnsen were both renown ministers in good standing in the Orthodox Presbyterian Church.



As was Gordon Clark.



> 5. Clarkians do not like the OPC because of the amount of support for Van Til and Bahnsen in the denomination.



Someone please correct me if I´m wrong, but, as I recall, even the PCA wouldn´t join with the OPC due to doctrinal concerns surrounding the question of justification. So I don´t think this matter can be dismissed as simply Clark vs. Van Til and the OPC.


----------



## R. Scott Clark

Sean,

Kline, Godfrey, Horton, I, Arthur Kuschke, and a great lot of Shepherd/FV critics are so _because_ of our Van Tillianism. It's not as if there are a few exceptional Van Tillians who've overcome the handicap of our irrational theology to become rational momentarily. 

I just don't see how CVT is responsible for the FV. It doesn't follow. The first thing he does in Defense of the Faith is to survey the Reformed system, since it's this faith that he wants to defend and not some other generic theism, and that system (as presented there) is thoroughly orthodox. 

In fact, one of my chief concerns about the FV is it's implicit rationalism. This is a frequent twin to biblicism and I see a sort of rationalism in the Clarkians. So if we orthodox Van Tillians (on justification) seem irrational and inconsistent to you, Clarkians who are orthodox on justification seem rationalist and inconsistent to me. 

E.g., Clark's definition of faith, in the doctrine of justification, is not particularly amenable to either WCF 11.1 or HC 21. 

I refuse to concede CVT to some spooky conspiracy theory. 

As for public apologies etc, I think the TF has plenty for which should give account, namely the smearing of good men at WTS e.g., the insinuation without ANY evidence that Carl Trueman is a Barthian simply because he lived in Scotland! That's insane by any definition of the word.

Clarkians would do the cause of orthodoxy in the doctrine of justification a great favor by dropping the attempt to link CVT to the FV. Let us agree to disagree re epistemology etc (that's a distinct argument worth having) and let us concentrate on preventing the influence of the FV in the Reformed churches. 

The FV boys take great delight in seeing Clarkians and Van Tillians at war.

rsc



> _Originally posted by Magma2_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Dan...._
> 1 The author spends a good bit of space labeling Bavnick and Van Til as liberals for believing that God is incomprehensible.
> (Well Amen to Bavnick and Van Til; at least they didn´t try the alternative; i.e., to put God in a box)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Suggesting that the God of Scripture is a rational God and that He has communicated to His creatures in such a way that we might understand is hardly to put God in a box. However, Van Tilianism has indeed played a foundational role in the current controversy (see http://www.trinityfoundation.org/journal.php?id=208 ) and it´s no accident that virtually all of the key defenders of FV identify themselves Van Tilians. The fact that there are some Van Tilians, like our Dr. Clark here, who have opposed some of these men and their teachings is, in my view, in spite of and not because of their Van Tilianism. For example, see Rev. Winzer´s penetrating analysis of Van Tilianism´s inability to provide an adequate epistemological basis to even refute open theism in his exchange with Van Tilian Paul Manata at http://www.puritanboard.com/forum/viewthread.php?tid=17988&page=3.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2. The author ( along with the Trinity Foundation??) is Clarkian.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't know if Elliot is a "Clarkian." I do know he was, up until I believe around the time of the overturning of the Kinnaird conviction, an RE in the OPC. The Trinity Foundation publishes many books by men who are not "Clarkians."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 3. Clarkians do not like Van Til.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is "œbad blood" between the two camps, but I think that has more to do with the mutual exclusivity of their respective epistemologies rather than any personal animus. Of course, this is irrelevant to the question of whether or not Gaffin´s view is, or is not, another gospel.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 4. Van Til and Bahnsen were both renown ministers in good standing in the Orthodox Presbyterian Church.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As was Gordon Clark.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 5. Clarkians do not like the OPC because of the amount of support for Van Til and Bahnsen in the denomination.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Someone please correct me if I´m wrong, but, as I recall, even the PCA wouldn´t join with the OPC due to doctrinal concerns surrounding the question of justification. So I don´t think this matter can be dismissed as simply Clark vs. Van Til and the OPC.
Click to expand...


----------



## Magma2

> I just don't see how CVT is responsible for the FV. It doesn't follow.



I _does_ follow and necessarily so from his paradoxical/contradictory doctrine of Scripture and it is something John Frame recognized as necessarily following as well when he wrote; "œThus, the doctrine of justification by faith incorporates the paradox of divine sovereignty. The doctrine of justification by faith "“ when fully explained in its relations to the rest of Scriptural truth "“ is just as paradoxical as divine sovereignty." Note how it is that we come to a paradoxical view of justification. Paradoxes arise precisely when we attempt to explain a doctrine in relation "œto rest of Scriptural truth." For the Vantilian, the doctrine of justification is as resistant to logical harmonization as are all other Biblical doctrines. Again, I will refer you to Rev. Winzer´s analysis of Van Tilianism as it relates to a refutation of open theism. I hardly think if Van Tilianism cannot provide the philosophic basis for opposing open theism that it could fair much better against the paradoxical doctrines of someone like Norm Shepherd. 



> E.g., Clark's definition of faith, in the doctrine of justification, is not particularly amenable to either WCF 11.1 or HC 21.



Then you have failed to understand Clark and I suspect the Confession too. The only thing Clark did per his definition of faith was to remove the tautological element from the traditional definition which adds absolutely nothing to an understanding of what faith is. Besides, it is precisely this failing of the traditional definition which the FV folks have capitalized on to great affect, in that they argue that salvation by faithful obedience to the demands of the covenant is merely an expression of the "œfiducial" element of faith. 



> I refuse to concede CVT to some spooky conspiracy theory.



The only thing spooky is how intelligent men such as yourself will continue to cling to such an irrational epistemology which is completely hostile to the very system of doctrine you have vowed to uphold.

But to avoid having this thread degenerate into a rehash of the Clark/VT controversy, I'll give you the last word.


----------



## Civbert

> _Originally posted by R. Scott Clark_
> ...
> In fact, one of my chief concerns about the FV is it's implicit rationalism. This is a frequent twin to biblicism and I see a sort of rationalism in the Clarkians. So if we orthodox Van Tillians (on justification) seem irrational and inconsistent to you, Clarkians who are orthodox on justification seem rationalist and inconsistent to me.
> 
> ...



OK. I've looked up the definition of "rationalism" and I just don't see how you can connect Clark (or Van Til for that matter) to it. The shot definition I found was rationalism is a view that the *source* of knowledge is reason. Given that Clark considered scripture to be the foundation of knowledge (and Van Til might have said God), then it just doesn't apply.

Now biblicism seem to be contrasted with systematic theology - in that it rejects the systematization of theology. This also does not fit the mode of rationalism. 

The connection I see between VT and FV is philosophical. VT asserted there are"apparent" contradictions in scripture that man can not reconcile them. The biblicist would seem to agree. Systematic theology strives to reconcile apparent conflicts in scripture to produce a coherent non-contradictory system of Christian thought. I expect the FV'ers might prefer (like VT) to embrace the apparent contradictions they find (and call it "biblical theology"). 

Maybe you could explain what you mean by the "rationalism" of FV and how it is similar to Clark's views. I can't see applying the term to FV, VT, or GC.


----------



## johnny_redeemed

> _Originally posted by R. Scott Clark_In his interview with Mike Horton, Doug ducked and weaved better than most boxers.



Where can this be found? I would love to hear it.


----------



## wsw201

> _Originally posted by johnny_redeemed_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by R. Scott Clark_In his interview with Mike Horton, Doug ducked and weaved better than most boxers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where can this be found? I would love to hear it.
Click to expand...


This was on the White Horse Inn back in 2005. I checked their site and it appears that it is no longer up. You might be able to contact them and see if you can get a copy.


----------



## Civbert

> _Originally posted by R. Scott Clark_
> E.g., Clark's definition of faith, in the doctrine of justification, is not particularly amenable to either WCF 11.1 or HC 21.



Could you explain?



> _WCF 11.1_
> 11:1 Those whom God effectually calleth, He also freely justifieth(Rom_3:24; Rom_8:30): not by infusing righteousness into them, but by pardoning their sins, and by accounting and accepting their persons as righteous; not for any thing wrought in them, or done by them, but for Christ´s sake alone; nor by imputing faith itself, the act of believing, or any other evangelical obedience to them, as their righteousness, but by imputing the obedience and satisfaction of Christ unto them (Jer_23:6; Rom_3:22, Rom_3:24, Rom_3:25, Rom_3:27, Rom_3:28; Rom_4:5-8; Rom_5:17-19; 1Co_1:30, 1Co_1:31; 2Co_5:19, 2Co_5:21; Eph_1:7; Tit_3:5, Tit_3:7), they receiving and resting on Him and His righteousness by faith; which faith they have not of themselves, it is the gift of God (Act_10:44; Act_13:38, Act_13:39; Gal_2:16; Eph_2:7, Eph_2:8; Phi_3:9).



I see no conflict with Clark's definition of faith and this. Would it be that Clark said that faith is belief and the WCF seems to imply they were not the same when it says: "...nor by imputing faith itself, the act of believing, or any other evangelical obedience to them...". Even if that is the case, it hardly means Clark's definition conflicts with the WCF. WCF 11.1 would still say essentially the same thing in either case. If Clark is correct, then the WCF is simply being redundant, If Clark is incorrect, the WCF is just being a bit more explicit. They could have listed more acts of "evangelical obedience" and been even more explicit. But maybe you could explain what you mean. 

(I know this is off-topic, but I'm really scratching my head over this.)

P.S. I looked up HC 21 and I agree. I think the HC is just following the the (false) heard/heart dicotomy there. (I think it's a Greek thing.) Oh well, nobody's perfect. 



[Edited on 9-14-2006 by Civbert]


----------



## R. Scott Clark

Re: rationalism and the Clarkians see my essay in the Strimple festschrift edited by David VanDrunen and published by P&R. 

re: Clark's definition of faith, see his book What is Faith? He takes issue with the traditional Reformed definition as deficient. He reduces everything to the intellective faculty. 

rsc



> _Originally posted by Civbert_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by R. Scott Clark_
> ...
> In fact, one of my chief concerns about the FV is it's implicit rationalism. This is a frequent twin to biblicism and I see a sort of rationalism in the Clarkians. So if we orthodox Van Tillians (on justification) seem irrational and inconsistent to you, Clarkians who are orthodox on justification seem rationalist and inconsistent to me.
> 
> ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OK. I've looked up the definition of "rationalism" and I just don't see how you can connect Clark (or Van Til for that matter) to it. The shot definition I found was rationalism is a view that the *source* of knowledge is reason. Given that Clark considered scripture to be the foundation of knowledge (and Van Til might have said God), then it just doesn't apply.
> 
> Now biblicism seem to be contrasted with systematic theology - in that it rejects the systematization of theology. This also does not fit the mode of rationalism.
> 
> The connection I see between VT and FV is philosophical. VT asserted there are"apparent" contradictions in scripture that man can not reconcile them. The biblicist would seem to agree. Systematic theology strives to reconcile apparent conflicts in scripture to produce a coherent non-contradictory system of Christian thought. I expect the FV'ers might prefer (like VT) to embrace the apparent contradictions they find (and call it "biblical theology").
> 
> Maybe you could explain what you mean by the "rationalism" of FV and how it is similar to Clark's views. I can't see applying the term to FV, VT, or GC.
Click to expand...


----------



## RamistThomist

> _Originally posted by johnny_redeemed_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by R. Scott Clark_In his interview with Mike Horton, Doug ducked and weaved better than most boxers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where can this be found? I would love to hear it.
Click to expand...


RTS Jackson library.


----------



## Civbert

> _Originally posted by R. Scott Clark_
> Re: rationalism and the Clarkians see my essay in the Strimple festschrift edited by David VanDrunen and published by P&R.



I'm sure it's a fine book, but could you explain a little here?




> _Originally posted by R. Scott Clark_
> re: Clark's definition of faith, see his book What is Faith? He takes issue with the traditional Reformed definition as deficient. He reduces everything to the intellective faculty.
> 
> rsc



Yes he did. He removed the emotional and psychological baggage many people want to attach to faith. For Clark, the spiritual and the intellectual were essentially same ("we have the mind of Christ") - unlike the mystics and empiricist who explain faith as something "other" and mystical and babble babble nonsense. Clark defined saving faith as simply to believe the gospel (to believe in Christ as expressed in Scripture). It's refreshing!


----------



## Arch2k

> _Originally posted by Draught Horse_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by johnny_redeemed_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by R. Scott Clark_In his interview with Mike Horton, Doug ducked and weaved better than most boxers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where can this be found? I would love to hear it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> RTS Jackson library.
Click to expand...


It used to be able to be at this link:

http://www.paulperspective.com/page6.html

I have them downloaded in Mp3 format, but the two lectures are quite large (almost 50 MG each).


----------



## RamistThomist

Hmmm...one could try at St Anne's Pub, whatever that link is. But if it is an old one at St Anne's (which it is), it will probably only be in Real Audio (non-downloadable) format, but I could be wrong.


----------



## Arch2k

> _Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Draught Horse_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by johnny_redeemed_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by R. Scott Clark_In his interview with Mike Horton, Doug ducked and weaved better than most boxers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where can this be found? I would love to hear it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> RTS Jackson library.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It used to be able to be at this link:
> 
> http://www.paulperspective.com/page6.html
> 
> I have them downloaded in Mp3 format, but the two lectures are quite large (almost 50 MG each).
Click to expand...


It is available for download here for a small fee:

http://www.wordmp3.com/search.asp?itemid=1158


----------



## R. Scott Clark

1. In a word, no. That's why I write articles in books.

2. The Heidelberg's definition of faith isn't emotional. There are three aspects to faith in the act of justification. That's the Reformed doctrine. Clark disagreed, probably because of his Platonism. Fine. He's a revisionist in his own way. 

rsc



> _Originally posted by Civbert_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by R. Scott Clark_
> Re: rationalism and the Clarkians see my essay in the Strimple festschrift edited by David VanDrunen and published by P&R.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sure it's a fine book, but could you explain a little here?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by R. Scott Clark_
> re: Clark's definition of faith, see his book What is Faith? He takes issue with the traditional Reformed definition as deficient. He reduces everything to the intellective faculty.
> 
> rsc
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes he did. He removed the emotional and psychological baggage many people want to attach to faith. For Clark, the spiritual and the intellectual were essentially same ("we have the mind of Christ") - unlike the mystics and empiricist who explain faith as something "other" and mystical and babble babble nonsense. Clark defined saving faith as simply to believe the gospel (to believe in Christ as expressed in Scripture). It's refreshing!
Click to expand...


----------

