# 30 Reasons Why It Would be Unwise for the PCA General Assembly to Adopt the FV Report



## NaphtaliPress (May 10, 2007)

Just saw where Jeff Meyers has written, _30 Reasons Why It Would be Unwise for the PCA General Assembly to Adopt the Federal Vision Study Report and Its Recommendations._ At the link below.
http://www.federal-vision.com/htmldocs/jjm30reasons.html
Thoughts?


----------



## tewilder (May 10, 2007)

Meyers is preaching post-modernism. Everything is someone's interpretation, a construction in someone's mind, therefore there is no authoritative standard that can be imposed.

If the nose of the FV camel that is looking into the PCA tent is Relativism, than what is the whole camel? Liberalism? Is that really what the PCA is being called on to be open to?


----------



## Ravens (May 10, 2007)

I didn't want to be the first to post, since my opinions don't hold much currency, but that's the exact same thought that I had.

I went to a liberal, Nazarene, open theist school for four years. However, local Nazarene churches (though Arminian) are considerably more conservative on inspiration, the omniscience of God, creation, etc. I was around "double-talk" for four years, listening to the dialogue between the professors and the churches.

Flowery language, lots of "complexity, dialogue, compromise, interpretation", etc.

That report was, by and large, more of the same.

He could have made the same point in three paragraphs, but as he had nothing real to say, he just fleshed it out to try to lose people in the smog of nice-sounding words.

Honestly even as a 26 year old layman, I have to wonder if the Presbyterian churches have learned anything over the years. It utterly and completely baffles me why this gangrene can't just be chopped off and left to die.


----------



## Kevin (May 10, 2007)

tewilder said:


> Meyers is preaching post-modernism. Everything is someone's interpretation, a construction in someone's mind, therefore there is no authoritative standard that can be imposed.
> 
> If the nose of the FV camel that is looking into the PCA tent is Relativism, than what is the whole camel? Liberalism? Is that really what the PCA is being called on to be open to?



???


----------



## Contra_Mundum (May 10, 2007)

Obviously, if we don't _need _ the Standards for anything, then we really ought to just *get rid of them now*. They're just _confusing_ the issues.

I know, I know, they _used to be_ the *codified* doctrinal understanding of the Scriptures around which all officers in the communion agreed, the common understanding of biblical truths that formed the *basis* for unity. But that notion is plainly outmoded now. Today, any appeal to them as something that *defines* and *draws lines* leaving some in (who do not dispute them) and some out (ones who do dispute) is alleged to be an attack on Scripture.

An appeal to the Standards didn't *used-to-be* tantamount to an _abandonment of sola scritura_. The question at issue is exactly a case of argument over the teaching of SCRIPTURE, not the teaching of the STANDARDS. Remember R. Scott Clark's rule: "All heretics quote Scripture." In other words, everyone from orthodox to lunatic references the Bible, including all heterodoxy in between. The whole argument is over what the Scriptures mean. The Standards give the *received* understanding of Scripture. The honest position *used-to-be*: "Disagree with the basis for unity => find a new home with people who agree with your latest convictions, or at least consider that "area" insufficiently critical to define as base of unity."

So, the assertion that the Standards have been raised OVER Scripture is a textbook example of poisoning the well. It is a tacit (if not explicit) admission that there is a disagreement over the basis for unity, a variance in one's views with the *interpretation of Scripture* offered in the Standards. The *easy* route is to claim that one's views are _within_ the Standard's bounds, but the price of that is 
<ding !> an appeal to the Standards. oops.

If he appeals to Scripture _against the Standards,_ then he will be properly opposed by the Standards themselves, appealing to Scripture. If he PREVAILS against the Standards, then the Standards themselves would have to be AMMENDED (according to the Standards themselves) by those who quite properly value Scripture over the Standards. But that, of course, is what TRIALS are for (if one is unwilling to depart amicably).


----------



## tcalbrecht (May 10, 2007)

Contra_Mundum said:


> But that, of course, is what TRIALS are for (if one is unwilling to depart amicably).



Why would one allow an alleged heretic to leave amicably?


----------



## Contra_Mundum (May 10, 2007)

Tom,
I'm speaking of a man who decides to leave honestly before the wheels of justice start to turn. In addition, early in adjudications if the accused flees jurisdiction, it can be hard to justify a trial in absentia. If everything is underway already, and the accused just doesn't show up day of, a trial could be (and often has been) held anyway. But if we're talking about someone who's tried (and failed) to challenge the Standards, or is an appellant, then ex post facto there's no way he's walking away without censure.


----------



## Romans922 (May 10, 2007)

I think Meyers is making this into a political thing. After all, it seems he is politicing (sp*?) in this paper he writes. It is a very secular way to go about it. 

I thought presbyterianism is this: God has ordained elders, when they all meet together, by God's will the God ordained thing will occur. Maybe elders should be in prayer about this instead of politicing what other elders should do.


----------



## Kevin (May 10, 2007)

I think his best points are procedural. The time people will have to review the report and the make up of the committee especially. He also seems to imply that if the report is adopted then the TE's who are named are in the position of haveing been found guilty without having an opportunity to present a defense. Anyone know what the procedural issue is here? What would the status of TE Wilkins (for example)be if the report is approved?


----------



## tewilder (May 10, 2007)

I have said it before and I will say it again. The Federal Vision people are very familiar with Gary North's book _Crossed Fingers_ on how the liberals took over the Northern Presbyterian Church. This is the strategy that they are imitating in the PCA. That is why there is the big emphasis to scare the Evangelicals with the threat of subscription and enforcement of the Standards. "If they can get us, they can get you." 

My guess is that it won't work. The Evangelicals would love to see the Federal Vision influence eliminated by the TR's with no help from the Evangelicals, but if necessary they will join the fight against the Federal Vision. The Evangelicals feel strong enough not to fear a threat from strict subscription.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (May 10, 2007)

Kevin,
Since such a report has no binding authority, it is not the case that these men are on trial. Wilkins is already in the middle of judicial proceedings. This report may have litte or no effect on his case. But a defeat for Wilkins and adoption of the report by the Assembly will make life more uncomfortable for those in that camp. It could be only a matter of time before charges were brought against others teaching the same stuff, named or not.

There is inherent *risk* in publishing and in adopting and formulating _*nuveaux*_ theology, mainly that your name gets mixed up with it. How many of them would be complaining if this stuff were being treated like gold instead of pyrite? If their names were being connected to something lauded as the next-great-theological-advance? They'd be so busy speaking at conferences, they would have hardly any time to complain that their "names" were being associated with the movement: "Stop! I don't want to be the next Calvin or Witsius!"

Wilder,
I agree. The BEs are smiling big because they know that no matter how disappointing and distasteful it is, the TRs are having to turn their teeth on the FVs, many of whom were once allies against the BEs.


----------



## Kevin (May 10, 2007)

Thanks, Bruce.

 T.E. Wilder, that is a very good observation about the group dynamics within the PCA. I wonder what possible "unintended" consequences we will be looking back on in 15/20 years?


----------



## Puritanhead (May 10, 2007)

Compromising with this issue is like compromising with communists.


----------



## wsw201 (May 10, 2007)

Darn Those Southern Presbyterians!!!!


----------



## tcalbrecht (May 10, 2007)

Contra_Mundum said:


> Wilder,
> I agree. The BEs are smiling big because they know that no matter how disappointing and distasteful it is, the TRs are having to turn their teeth on the FVs, many of whom were once allies against the BEs.



Frankly, what I see happening is years of alienation and recriminations within the PCA at work. The factions have done a great job of not talking to one another for so long that even one time allies are unable to communicate effectively. They couldn't even manage to find one FV guy to put on the committee.

Who will the BEs and TRs pick on when the FV guys are gone? Back to picking on each other, I guess.

Thus the political animal we call the PCA grows larger and more vicious.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (May 10, 2007)

Tom,
I think you're right. I also think the PCA is going to be BE for as long as it remains. Some Presbyteries will not be, but overall and in general I think the denominational direction is set. And the government at the GA--due to bureaucracization, composition, and size--will be more and more political as the years roll.


----------



## turmeric (May 11, 2007)

BE? TR? Whazzat?


----------



## Semper Fidelis (May 11, 2007)

turmeric said:


> BE? TR? Whazzat?



To BE or not to BE, that is the question. Broadly Evangelical and Traditional Reformed is what I gathered.

Bruce: Good analysis.

Took me about 5 seconds to notice the whole appeal to Scripture over the Confession. That is very seductive especially to this age where we believe the Bible was written for each of us to pick up and decide what we ought to believe it says on our own.

The WCF testifies that union with Christ is instrumented by faith along? Oh, well I agree with my Pastor that the Bible teaches something else.

The Pastor says I'm committing adultery? Well, I believe the Bible teaches something else because that was culturally conditioned.

A recent debate here has really amplified my sensors for this kind of "the Bible against the Confession" language. The Reformers had the same ire for people like that as they had for the papists. Both did the same thing to the Scriptures. The "me and the Bible" crowd differ only from Papists in that they replace themselves for Rome as the infallible interpreter of the Word of God.


----------



## wsw201 (May 11, 2007)

In reading the two volume set "Westminster in the 21st Century", particular chapters layout what happened to Confessional Presbyterianism with the down fall of the Church of Scotland and Australia and both mirroring what happened in the US. Its a fascinating history. The common denominator in these three cases is the attack on the Westminster Standards. The arguments usually go along the lines that "the Stanards are a concensus document, therefore allowing for diversity of views", "do the Standards really mean what they say?" "these are man made documents. You are giving them the same authority as Scripture". 

And my particular favorite " Joe Blow puritan was at the Assembly and he believed XYZ so that means my view is within the bounds". I have heard this one used to say that the Standards support baptismal regeneration along with a number of other aberrant views. Of course no one want to go very far with this type of argument since there were Armyaldians at the Assembly and I don't see anyone wanting to make the argument that Armyaldianism is within the bounds of the Standards!

At its current trajectory the PCA will eventually go down a well trodden path. The Standards will become "guidelines" making it pretty much worthless. 

It always amazes me how the church never learns from its past.


----------



## tcalbrecht (May 11, 2007)

wsw201 said:


> At its current trajectory the PCA will eventually go down a well trodden path. The Standards will become "guidelines" making it pretty much worthless.
> 
> It always amazes me how the church never learns from its past.



Isn't this what we saw several years ago in the controversy over the matter of "creation days" and the meaning of the Confession? I'm not sure anyone when so far as to suggest there were framework men at Westminster, but the result was a broadening of the meaning of the Confession to allow diversity of interpretation without the need to actually modify the Confession (a more painful task).

The BEs didn't want to be confined to a narrow range of options, and so they pushed for the new interpretation. 

It all depends on whose ox is being gored today.


----------



## DTK (May 11, 2007)

SemperFideles said:


> Took me about 5 seconds to notice the whole appeal to Scripture over the Confession. That is very seductive especially to this age where we believe the Bible was written for each of us to pick up and decide what we ought to believe it says on our own. ...
> 
> A recent debate here has really amplified my sensors for this kind of "the Bible against the Confession" language. The Reformers had the same ire for people like that as they had for the papists. Both did the same thing to the Scriptures. The "me and the Bible" crowd differ only from Papists in that they replace themselves for Rome as the infallible interpreter of the Word of God.


Strangely enough, this seems to be somewhat of a "flip-flop" in the way that FV men have argued. For those of us familiar with their methodology, they have been the ones who have stressed the need for the Bible to be interpreted authoritatively by the magisterium of the church. Now, the appeal is decidedly postmodern in its plea for the "big playground," so that everyone in the PCA may be permitted to pursue their own theological constructs, so long as no one uses our doctrinal standards as any kind of definitive or adjudicating norm. But the Westminster Standards are, to be sure, still a normed norm (_norma normata_), having been normed by that one Standard which is not subject to being normed, _viz_., Holy Scripture. And having been normed by Holy Scripture, the Westminster Standards are our _norma normata_ by which we determine the scriptural veracity of any given position that fails to conform.

The complaint that, if the report is passed, no one in the PCA will be permitted to do exegesis, tends, I think, to be something of the "slippery slope" brand. But it is a _non sequitur_, because it is not all exegesis that would be ruled out of bounds, but rather the peculiar exegetical tendencies employed by men of the FV. In other words, the magisterial interpretation of Scripture is lauded by the FV men, so long as they comprize the magisterium, but it ceases to be the desired paradigm if suddenly its proponents find themselves in the minority. 

DTK


----------



## Poimen (May 11, 2007)

SemperFideles said:


> To BE or not to BE, that is the question. Broadly Evangelical and Traditional Reformed is what I gathered.
> 
> Bruce: Good analysis.
> 
> ...



Exactly. My 'interpretation of the Bible' vs. the __________ (insert Reformed confession here) is not as objective as they would have us believe.


----------



## greenbaggins (May 11, 2007)

Kevin, I agree that his best points are the procedural ones. However, there are answers. The report is available now. I live in North Dakota, in the boondockiest place on earth, and yet I have a copy of the report, printed and stapled. If I can get it, then everyone should be able to get it. All one needs is the internet. 

In the PCA, the Moderator has always appointed the members of the study committee. That is his prerogative. It is obviously not the committee's fault what their makeup is. However, to say that the deck was stacked is premature. Do they know all the members of the committee? Lucas and Duncan have, of course, been outspoken in their critique of the FV. However, have Fowler and Gunn? And what about the RE's? You cannot just leave them out of the picture here. I think what it really comes down to is that there is no minority report.


----------



## NaphtaliPress (May 16, 2007)

FYI. Lane has been responding seriatim to Meyer's 30 Reason on his blog:
http://greenbaggins.wordpress.com/


----------

