# Steve Wilkins Presbytery Examination and Response



## DaveJes1979 (Dec 13, 2006)

http://auburnavenue.org/documents/wilkins_presbytery_response.htm


----------



## DaveJes1979 (Dec 13, 2006)

I have posted a bit of a quickie off-the-cuff response to some of Wilkins' responses here, including some back-and-forth with some FV sympathizers/advocates in the comment box.

--------------

“This is hot off the press–Wilkins’ written responses to questioning from his presbytery, from this Saturday, I believe. Audio will probably be available soon: ”

Since I’m on a lunch break, I just glanced over it. It still shows, and indeed greatly confirms, what Lane and I have been saying here. Wilkins is following Wilson’s re-definition of the “invisible church” as the “eschatological church” which is, really a functional denial of it (his formal affirmations notwithstanding):

“the invisible Church does not yet exist though it is surely foreordained by God and will surely and certainly exist at the last day (but then of course, it will exist as a very visible body). It is only “invisible” in that we can’t see all the members of it now.”

The second sentence may not be objectionable if he only means that we can’t SEE the invisible church, but that the invisible church does exist NOW. But in the first sentence, he says that it DOESN’T exist now. 

“Christ has only one Bride and she is a Bride that is in the process of being perfected (sanctified and cleansed) for Him through time (Eph. 5:25-27) until that day when she shall be “spotless and without blemish.” Thus, the Church which throughout history had blemishes and imperfections, will finally be glorified and perfectly holy at the last day.”

You see, he denies that the visible and invisble church BOTH EXIST NOW in favor of a single conception of the church as “only one Bride”, the only distinction being chronological. Today, it is the “historical church” but will be the “eschatological church” on the last day, although it will be the same Bride.

This is inexcusable. Not especially that WCF 25.1 calls the invisible church Christ’s “spouse”. 

The whole point of I John, indeed, is that the visible and invisible church BOTH EXIST NOW and are intermingled. How can a Reformed minister miss this? Jumpin’ Jehosaphat!

“this does not mean that there is such a thing as an “invisible Church” of which you must become a member.”

Oh really? Nicodemus WAS a member of the covenant body of Israel, but Jesus said that he had to be born again (unto the invisible church).


----------



## Blueridge Believer (Dec 13, 2006)

I wish Wikins and crew would just go away.


----------



## kceaster (Dec 14, 2006)

*A thought from one who hasn't posted in a while*

If Paul uses the term elect, could he not be meaning, "he who has ears to hear, let him hear"?

In other words,, Paul wrote in 1 Cor. 2 that only the spiritual can discern the spiritual. Wouldn't that necessarily mean that when he addresses the elect, he's speaking to those, who by God's grace, can discern spiritually?

Why should there be a tertium quid? In the end, there are sheep and goats. There aren't half-sheep or half-goats. And I can't see anywhere in Scripture that would suggest there are two different types of election. In my humble opinion, it is a faulty interpretation.

In Christ,

KC


----------



## wsw201 (Dec 14, 2006)

Interesting response from Wilkins. Amazing how he can agree with the Standards and disagree with them at the same time.


----------



## CDM (Dec 14, 2006)

wsw201 said:


> Interesting response from Wilkins. Amazing how he can agree with the Standards and disagree with them at the same time.



Or more clearly, he _claims_ to agree with the Standards but in actuality disagrees with them.


----------



## CDM (Dec 14, 2006)

DaveJes1979 said:


> I have posted a bit of a quickie off-the-cuff The whole point of I John, indeed, is that the visible and invisible church BOTH EXIST NOW and are intermingled. *How can a Reformed minister miss this? Jumpin’ Jehosaphat!*
> 
> “this does not mean that there is such a thing as an “invisible Church” of which you must become a member.”
> 
> Oh really? Nicodemus WAS a member of the covenant body of Israel, but Jesus said that he had to be born again (unto the invisible church).



In my speculative opinion, he doesn't "miss" this fact. He rejects it outright. But he just doesn't have the courage of his convictions to say it plainly...yet.


----------



## wsw201 (Dec 14, 2006)

Chris,

You are right, when you get through all his verbal gymnastics, he can't have it both ways. Using his terms, you either have to say that Scripture is speaking "covenantally" or "decretively". Since he states that Paul, Peter, Jesus and everyone else in Scripture is speaking covenantally, then the Standards, which summarizes what Scripture is teaching, is wrong because the Standards looks at Scripture "decretively".


----------



## Romans922 (Dec 14, 2006)

Can we get some Fred Greco action here for some helpful input?


----------



## Pilgrim (Dec 15, 2006)

Romans922 said:


> Can we get some Fred Greco action here for some helpful input?



"Fred Greco action" here. The whole thread is worth reading, especially this post.


----------



## wsw201 (Dec 16, 2006)

You can listen to the LA Presbytery examination of Steve Wilkins http://www.auburnavenue.org/


----------



## fredtgreco (Dec 16, 2006)

Pilgrim said:


> "Fred Greco action" here. The whole thread is worth reading, especially this post.



Just popping in quickly, but I would also heartily recommend this post from Rev. Jeff Hutchinson, which I think gets at the heart of the matter.

When looking at this issue, one really sees the air of a forgone conclusion. Did anyone really think that the FV men would simply say "You're right!" and change? Out of one side of their mouths they bash the PCA, and declare that the CRE is going to be the fastest growing Reformed body in coming years - because of its embrace of paedocommunion, FV and the like (if you don't believe me, search the archives of blog posts by several _PCA_ pastors); and out of the other they decry that anyone in the PCA would ever criticize them.

What I don't get is if Doug Wilson gets them, and the most prominent, most degreed theologians in the PCA don't, _why don't they go over to Wilson's denomination?_ The affair with Sandlin and his church have made even more clear that it is Wilson's denomination, and that Wilson et al. are into Empire building. If the PCA is so wrong, and so intractable, then why not just leave? 

The irony is, that this matter (as Jeff points out so well) has really come down to issues of fellowship and ecclesiology. Either Louisiana Presbytery can have fellowship with the PCA, or with Wilkins. It can't have both.


----------



## JohnV (Dec 16, 2006)

Mr. Bacon might be right, that paedo communion is the engine that drives FV. It makes sense. But my concern is the rail that it runs on. There are so many other engines running on that rail too, it seems. It is not the rail that the Reformed church runs on, I believe, but a siding rail that has branched off the mainline. 

Again, to make a tired old point, its like the other views of the creation days, which find no direct warrant in Scripture, but which can be argued to be not inconsistent with Scripture; and the putting these, therefore, as if equal to the one that Scripture itself suggests. After the "acrobatics", as Wayne put so nicely, with words such as "yom" is over, it is still only an elevating of man's theories to the same level as Biblical revelation. 

I don't see how Wilkins escapes that charge in regard to covenant; I don't even see him trying to do so. I don't even see an appreciation of it at all. And yet to me its the most basic thing, the very first principle of church. It is the thing which ordinary members, such as myself, are the first concerned about: is it the gospel? Not, Can it fit in with the parameters of the confessional standard; but, is it the gospel? Is there room for men to preach what they themselves are convinced of without the necessity of establishing these things as clearly and only Biblical?

The point is that this was done without first clearing it with the denomination. Is FV clearly the gospel? That has to be Wilkins' first and foremost concern, that the denomination clears him to teach it as the Bible's clear meaning. He didn't. It is under question after the fact. This is lawlessness. He is not licenced to preach by his own conscience, or by people who think alike, but by Christ through His church. Nor is he called to preach what he is personally convicted of; but he is called to be personally convicted of that which he is called to preach. 

He is running on the frontier-like and lawless track that runs beside the mainline of ecclesiastical order. That's what gives him the licence to interpret things his own way and not worry about whether he's in line with the historic church. He's only worried about whether he's within the widening margin of what it means to be within the medern sense of confessional standard. Its not unlike those who believe they can preach the Framework Hypothesis, or preach Postmillennialism, or Presuppositionalism, or any other number of secondary and non-necessary things of _adiaphora_. They are not, must not be confused with, Bible doctrine. And it is Bible doctrine that preachers are called to preach, that office-bearers are called to represent and defend, even in spite of their views on these other things. 

Office in the church is not a soapbox platform. And I think that this is the biggest fault here.


----------



## Magma2 (Dec 18, 2006)

> What I don't get is if Doug Wilson gets them, and the most prominent, most degreed theologians in the PCA don't, _why don't they go over to Wilson's denomination?_ The affair with Sandlin and his church have made even more clear that it is Wilson's denomination, and that Wilson et al. are into Empire building. If the PCA is so wrong, and so intractable, then why not just leave?



in my opinion these men believe themselves to be Reformed and Christian. To leave would be to admit they're neither.


----------



## R. Scott Clark (Dec 18, 2006)

But don't they assert the same is true of Wilson's sect? In that case, how is there any shame in realigning?

rsc



Magma2 said:


> in my opinion these men believe themselves to be Reformed and Christian. To leave would be to admit they're neither.


----------



## wsw201 (Dec 18, 2006)

Dr. Clark

What do you think of the arguement that the Standards are speaking decretively but the Scriptures are speaking covenantally?


----------



## R. Scott Clark (Dec 18, 2006)

In a word: rubbish and all it's synonyms.

It's a re-hashing of the Calvin v the Calvinists argument that has been thoroughly discredited by a host of books and articles. 

Beside the simply boring and tired C v C'ists argument, the claim assumes other false premises. It assumes, e.g., a sort of dichotomy between biblical and systematic theology that didn't exist then as today; it assumes that the divines were unaware of how to read Scripture redemptive-historically or that they brought no such perspective to bear on their work. 

As I've said many times, I dearly wish the ambitious and intelligent FV boys and their lesser minions would spend just a little time reading the Muller school. If they invested the same energy into Muller as they invest into Tom Wright and his biblicism they and we all would be well served.

rsc



wsw201 said:


> Dr. Clark
> 
> What do you think of the arguement that the Standards are speaking decretively but the Scriptures are speaking covenantally?


----------



## wsw201 (Dec 18, 2006)

R. Scott Clark said:


> In a word: rubbish and all it's synonyms.
> 
> It's a re-hashing of the Calvin v the Calvinists argument that has been thoroughly discredited by a host of books and articles.
> 
> ...


----------



## ChristopherPaul (Dec 18, 2006)

R. Scott Clark said:


> In a word: rubbish and all it's synonyms.



Wow, so you think the argument is: debris, dregs, dross, junk, litter, lumber, offal, refuse, rubble, rummage, scrap, sweepings, trash, waste, balderdash, bilge, bunkum, claptrap, ****, drivel, gibberish, hogwash, hooey, junk, moonshine, poppycock, rot, and tommyrot.

Would you really go as far to say "bunkum"? I guess you are serious!


----------



## Magma2 (Dec 18, 2006)

R. Scott Clark said:


> But don't they assert the same is true of Wilson's sect? In that case, how is there any shame in realigning?
> 
> rsc



I agree they assert the soundness of Wilson's anti-Christian denomination (would that be a cult?), but from their point of view why should they realign? Realign to what? Besides, why should they give their opponents the pleasure of their departure? After all, it's only the blindness, boorishness and bigotry of their pea-headed critics that have made their insights and distincitves suspect in the first place. in my opinion realignment, while certainly a convenient solution, would be tantamount to running away. 

Besides, the Presbyteries have a duty to hold these men to account for their gross and prolonged disruption of the peace and purity of the church. The OPC sinfully let Norm Shepherd realign himself with the CRC and see what that got them. Should the PCA follow suit in the case of Wilkins? Trying to sweep things under the rug makes the house look better, but does nothing to get rid of the dirt.


----------



## R. Scott Clark (Dec 19, 2006)

Sean,

I agree that they (federal visionists) ought to be disciplined where ever they are. That probably isn't going to happen in every case, however. I don't see why they persist in the PCA or anywhere they aren't wanted. They aren't wanted in the URC or the OPC or any of the NAPARC groups so far as I can tell. So, it seems to me that they should quit troubling churches that profess to be confessional and align themselves with a federation (which I regard as a sect as defined by Belgic Art 29 for its theology and as a cult for its slavish submission to one or two personalities) that is clearly becoming the _de facto_ home of the FV movement. 

It should be no more shameful for these folk to unite with Wilson than it would be for someone who, having realized that he is really, deep down, an evangelical Arminian, realigns himself with the Weslyans.

I am encouraged by the OPC committee report and the work of the RCUS and I anticipate a solid report from the PCA study committee and perhaps even more definitive action from them in re the FV. 

Certainly this is what this wailing and gnashing of teeth by the FV boys is really all about. If there was nothing afoot I doubt the reaction to the investigation of Wilkins would be so intense. They know that once the Wilkins Code has been broken that he has likely given his critics enough rope to hang him, ecclesiastically speaking. 

That lynching, combined with the committee report, could be the end of the FV in the PCA. I expect they're checking out the bus schedules to Moscow about now. 

rsc



Magma2 said:


> I agree they assert the soundness of Wilson's anti-Christian denomination (would that be a cult?), but from their point of view why should they realign? Realign to what? Besides, why should they give their opponents the pleasure of their departure? After all, it's only the blindness, boorishness and bigotry of their pea-headed critics that have made their insights and distincitves suspect in the first place. in my opinion realignment, while certainly a convenient solution, would be tantamount to running away.
> 
> Besides, the Presbyteries have a duty to hold these men to account for their gross and prolonged disruption of the peace and purity of the church. The OPC sinfully let Norm Shepherd realign himself with the CRC and see what that got them. Should the PCA follow suit in the case of Wilkins? Trying to sweep things under the rug makes the house look better, but does nothing to get rid of the dirt.


----------



## AdamM (Dec 19, 2006)

Greetings Dr. Clark,

It appears that the cry being raised up by some FV types is that TE Wilkins can't possibly be unorthodox if he claims to hold to the five points or affirms the sovereignty of God in salvation. Since you are very familiar with the history of Dort, isn't that also what the Remonstrates claimed? I'm not equating the specific errors of the Remonstrates to Rev. Wilkins, but it seems to me the idea that the claim that you believe in election or the sovereignty of God and that that then functions as a get out jail free card has never historically been the case. 

Is my take on Dort wrong?


----------



## R. Scott Clark (Dec 19, 2006)

Adam,

You're right, that's what they're saying.

But, as I think I showed in the essay in the _Confessional Presbyterian_, the FV has two parallel soteriologies, a "covenantal" (read: virtually Arminian) and a "systematic" wherein they mouth confessional and systematic formulae which they otherwise contradict in substance.

I agree that Dort is a good parallel to our situation and have argued such in a piece I hope will be forthcoming. The Remonstrants whined about being misunderstood and mistreated and they too spoke out of both sides of their mouths. Like the Remonstrants, the present threat is a combination of biblicism and rationalism. In this they are also like the early Socinians. 

No, the 5 points are not enough (Leonard Coppes was right). It is quite possible to be a strong predestinarian and also be a moralist. It was done for the entire middle ages. The fortunes, if you will, of doctrine of predestination waxed and waned (mostly the latter) for a millennium, but most all of them were moralists - they believed in justification by grace and cooperation with grace. This is the very nature and structure of the covenantal nomist (whether FV or NPP) scheme: In by grace, stay in by cooperation with grace.

Saying "grace," doesn't make one Reformed. Being confessional does. Mouthing confessional formulae doesn't make one Reformed. Holding to the substance of what we confess does.

My hope is that the Reformed churches, whether in Presbytery (can the PCA GA actually act against the FV? My understanding is that OPC did all it could do _as_ GA) or in Synod (the URC Synod meets this summer and expects to see overtures concerning the FV) to act as decisively as the Synod of Dort. It took the Reformed about 30 years to deal with the Remonstrants and it's taken us about 30 years to warm to this business, but perhaps it's coming to a head. Let us hope so. 

rsc




AdamM said:


> Greetings Dr. Clark,
> 
> It appears that the cry being raised up by some FV types is that TE Wilkins can't possibly be unorthodox if he claims to hold to the five points or affirms the sovereignty of God in salvation. Since you are very familiar with the history of Dort, isn't that also what the Remonstrates claimed? I'm not equating the specific errors of the Remonstrates to Rev. Wilkins, but it seems to me the idea that the claim that you believe in election or the sovereignty of God and that that then functions as a get out jail free card has never historically been the case.
> 
> Is my take on Dort wrong?


----------



## R. Scott Clark (Dec 21, 2006)

I'm getting notices that Doug Wilson and the FV folk are up in arms about my "lynching" comment. Apparently they didn't get it so I suppose I should explain it to them: It was a joke, an attempt at sarcasm and irony. It was a reference to Wilkins' "League of the South" stuff and Wilson's take on the benefits of slavery. 

Do I think it's a good thing that the PCA SJC took the action it did? Yes. Do I hope that the PCA and URC do more? Yes, certainly. It will be a good thing just like it was a good thing for the Synod of Dort to expel the Remonstrants from their pulpits. I hope it's the beginning of sort of ecclesiastical anti-FV [SIZE=-1]Beeldenstorm[/SIZE].

rsc


----------



## Philip A (Dec 21, 2006)

R. Scott Clark said:


> I'm getting notices that Doug Wilson and the FV folk are up in arms about my "lynching" comment.



You mean the folks that complain about being misunderstood and quoted out of context? hrm...

And some of them don't seem to recognize that you're URC, and not Presbyterian in the denominational sense. Don't they read any blogs? I mean, come on. You'd think if they did they'd have figured out by now that you and Mike Horton are both Lutherans...


----------



## wsw201 (Dec 22, 2006)

Philip,

I am sure that in some sense the FV folks appeared to contact Dr. Clark for further clarification, in Christian charity of course, since they would never rush to judgment by taking the word "lynching" in the wrong sense of the context of his post. Also allowing him to review their comments to further clarify, in Christian charity of course, any misunderstandings. 

For instance, Dr. Clark's explanation of his use of the word "lynching" is a prime example of a potential misunderstanding. He states that the word is in reference to Wilkins LOS stuff and Wilsons take on Southern slavery. If Dr. Clark had dropped the "g" in lynching in his original post and gone with "lynchin'" then it would seem, in some sense, that his explanation would make sense, otherwise it makes no sense. Of course a more appropriate explanation is that since Dr. Clark is URC he is using the word in a Dutch sense, which would then make sense, with due Christian charity of course.


----------



## turmeric (Dec 22, 2006)

Ah think this thread done got hung up somewheres.


----------

