# Siouxlands Presbytery Study Committee Report



## greenbaggins (Jan 28, 2007)

The Siouxlands Presbytery of the PCA has finished their report, and the presbytery has approved the version available here.


----------



## Romans922 (Jan 29, 2007)

greenbaggins said:


> The Siouxlands Presbytery of the PCA has finished their report, and the presbytery has approved the version available here.



This almost might be better than other reports because you just affirm and deny things, and so FV guys can't really be like...we didn't say that or you are misunderstanding us.


----------



## greenbaggins (Jan 29, 2007)

Our thinking precisely. We are not open to the unbelievably tiring accusations of misunderstanding (or libel, even worse) this way. This was completely intentional on our part.


----------



## Theoretical (Jan 29, 2007)

greenbaggins said:


> Our thinking precisely. We are not open to the unbelievably tiring accusations of misunderstanding (or libel, even worse) this way. This was completely intentional on our part.






> You could quite possibly ask that question until the cows come home, and it wouldn’t do any good, Todd. The instant I say “it was directed against this,” you’ll say “they don’t say that.” That is the reason why we were deliberately vague in this way: we didn’t want to deal with this problem, because we are tired of the ridiculous accusations of slander that always fly when such statements are made. Some proponents say this stuff, and if you cannot figure out who, then that is your problem, not ours.



That attitude is refreshing to hear - theological vagueness is their problem, and they bear the burden of proof for implications of their theology, especially if it is open to misinterpretation.

Bravo! I look forward to the supporting documentation.


----------



## greenbaggins (Jan 29, 2007)

Thanks for the vote of confidence. I think I'll post one of the supporting documents on Wed, and another on Friday.


----------



## Theoretical (Jan 29, 2007)

greenbaggins said:


> Thanks for the vote of confidence. I think I'll post one of the supporting documents on Wed, and another on Friday.


I come from a background of theological liberalism - it's nice to see a church laying out a set of specific doctrinal statements and forcing advocates of something vague and often aberrant to respond to your Presbytery's specific statements, yes or no.


----------



## greenbaggins (Jan 29, 2007)

At any rate, ours is a rather different kind of report than any that have been issued by any ecclesiastical body before now. That was intentional, since we didn't want to duplicate other people's efforts. There are many fine expositional reports of what these guys believe. But there did not seem to be any reports where the main focus was on the direct comparison of the WS with errant propositions, a more elenctic approach. Hence the result that you see.


----------



## tewilder (Jan 30, 2007)

greenbaggins said:


> The Siouxlands Presbytery of the PCA has finished their report, and the presbytery has approved the version available here.



Why was the reference to Norman Shepherd removed from the second to the last paragraph, as Shepherd himself is on record that the OPC should change from the Westminster Confession to the Heidelberg Catechism, or else modify the Confession, as he regards it as unbiblical?

See, especially the conclusion:
http://www.federal-vision.com/pdf/shepherd3.pdf


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Jan 30, 2007)

tewilder said:


> Why was the reference to Norman Shepherd removed from the second to the last paragraph, as Shepherd himself is on record that the OPC should change from the Westminster Confession to the Heidelberg Catechism, or else modify the Confession, as he regards it as unbiblical?
> 
> See, especially the conclusion:
> http://www.federal-vision.com/pdf/shepherd3.pdf


According to Lane in comment 33 on his blog on this report:
Norman Shepherd’s name was struck from the document because of Shepherd’s supporters in the Presbytery, not because of the lack of proof (Wes’s paper on Norman Shepherd quite adequately proves the point, in my estimation).​


----------



## greenbaggins (Jan 30, 2007)

Yes, it was a disappointment that we were not able to keep his name on the report, Mr. Wilder. I did not vote for striking his name (of course). However, other members of the presbytery (who were on the right side of things) saw that if Shepherd's name was kept, then the entire document would fail.


----------



## tewilder (Jan 30, 2007)

NaphtaliPress said:


> According to Lane in comment 33 on his blog on this report:
> Norman Shepherd’s name was struck from the document because of Shepherd’s supporters in the Presbytery, not because of the lack of proof (Wes’s paper on Norman Shepherd quite adequately proves the point, in my estimation).​



You don't need proof, when the man admits it himself.


----------



## greenbaggins (Jan 30, 2007)

Hey, I'm as disappointed as you are. The man is obviously not within the bounds of the WS. It was *not* because of lack of proof, because, as you say, the man admitted it himself. The problem was the other presbyters.


----------



## tewilder (Jan 30, 2007)

greenbaggins said:


> Hey, I'm as disappointed as you are. The man is obviously not within the bounds of the WS. It was *not* because of lack of proof, because, as you say, the man admitted it himself. The problem was the other presbyters.



But what I am wondering is, do these other presbyters know what Shepherd has said, e.g. that he advised dumping the WS?

The Federal Vision people try to hide behind confessionalism, by finding ways to mouth their ideas through its language, but Shepherd gave up the game. So, in terms of that evidence, the case against Shepherd is stronger than the case against the Federal Vision. 

Now, in your presbytery, as I understand it, the Federal Vision type of ideas are largely home grown, and not dependent on the Federal Vision writers. The people who explicitly like the Federal Vision leaders pulled out and started their own congregation. The only standard left inside your presbytery is Shepherdism, and you agree not to call it a false flag.


----------



## greenbaggins (Jan 30, 2007)

It certainly was not brought up that NS advised dumping the WS. The idea would probably have been denied had it come up. There are no FV guys in the Presbytery of which I'm aware.


----------



## tewilder (Jan 30, 2007)

greenbaggins said:


> It certainly was not brought up that NS advised dumping the WS. The idea would probably have been denied had it come up. There are no FV guys in the Presbytery of which I'm aware.



If the Federal Vision were correctly defined by Dr. Clark's form for repentance which he posted today:

http://www.puritanboard.com/showthread.php?t=18932

then there would be FV guys in the Presbytery. But because Dr. Clark is wrong, you are right, there are no FV guys in Siouxlands. The FV guys went here:

http://www.christchurchtc.com/

The heart and soul of the FV is their doctrine of worship and ritual, with its symbol system, as taught in books like this one:

The Lord's Service: The Grace of Covenant Renewal Worship, by Jeffrey J. Meyers

This is the ligurgy for covenantal renewal of the monocovenantal covenant. Behind it is Meredith Kline's typology.

What you do have is New Perspectives, denigration of decretal theology in favor of "covenant" theology, denial of the invisible church, denial of the Covenant of Works, making baptism the basis of assurance of salvation, teaching that salvation may be lost, and teaching that true theology is paradoxical, and thus it contradicts the Confessions and that is not a problem.


----------

