# Final Mississippi Valley Presbytery Report on Federal Vision



## fredtgreco (Feb 9, 2005)

Dear Members,

The final MVP report is now available. You can find the full PDF of the report here:

http://www.fpcjackson.org/resources/apologetics/PDFs/MSVP Ad Hoc Study Com Report.pdf

I will try and add some sections of text here in a moment.


----------



## fredtgreco (Feb 9, 2005)

*Actual action taken by MVP*

Fathers and Brethren,
A year ago the Presbytery of the Mississippi Valley (hereafter MVP) appointed 1 ed an ad hoc committee
2 charged with facilitating the presbytery's study of the issues surrounding the distinct but related
3 phenomena of the so-called "New Perspectives on Paul" (NPP) (including the theology of N.T. Wright,
4 hereafter NTW); the so-called "Auburn Avenue theology" (hereafter AAT, which is sometimes referred
5 to as the "Federal Vision," hereafter FV, or AAT/FV) and the theology of Norman Shepherd (hereafter
6 NS). The committee began its work well aware of the uniquenesses of and differences between these
7 various theological projects, but also realizing that they all share a certain similar attraction to a distinct
8 theological sub-culture within various Reformed denominations (PCA, OPC, CRC, URCNA, etc). Our
9 study committee's appreciation of the distinctness of these theological blueprints is reflected in the
10 provision of four separate summary outlines (and one critical overview) of these multifarious views.
11 The need for such a study has become increasingly obvious. In the PCA, at least two presbyteries
12 have refused to transfer PCA ministers sympathetic to the AAT/FV into their presbyteries. Recently,
13 Evangel Presbytery's Credentials Committee rejected for transfer into their bounds a PCA minister in
14 good standing, who embraces the AAT/FV, finding his views to be outside the pale of acceptable
15 doctrinal diversity. The minister and the calling church have now left the PCA for the CRE (the
16 fellowship of churches associated with Doug Wilson of Moscow, Idaho). Several PCA presbyteries have
17 established their own study committees on the NPP, the theology of NS, and the AAT/FV (among them,
18 Western Carolina, Blue Ridge and Missouri). One Reformed denomination (the RPC[GA]) and one
19 PCA presbytery (Central Carolina) have now sent communications asking for Louisiana Presbytery to
20 conduct a theological investigation of the AAT/FV within its own bounds. The OPC has also established
21 a study committee. Meanwhile, numerous books and articles are appearing on these subjects, and
22 conferences, seminars and lectures (pro and con) are proliferating (the PCA's Stated Clerk has recently
23 sponsored a lecture for all the Clerks of the PCA presbyteries, and our denominational seminary,
24 Covenant, has also held a series of talks). One PCA session and congregation has promoted through its
25 pastors' conference the teachings of NS and NTW as helpful to an ongoing intramural Reformed
26 dialogue and discussion on covenant and justification. Members transferring from AAT/FV-friendly
27 churches have attempted to force the sessions of the churches to which they have relocated to allow for
28 their practice of AAT/FV distinctives relating to child communion and membership (and in one case
29 have pursued a judicial appeal all the way through presbytery to the SJC). In one church, an AAT/FV30
sympathetic pastor has engineered the removal of an associate who was fully committed to the PCA
31 doctrinal position but objected to the pastor's extra- or anti-confessional views. Additionally, leading
32 pastor-theologians in the Reformed and evangelical world have raised concerns over the unbiblical and
33 anti-confessional views of the NPP, NTW, NS and the AAT/FV theologies. Sinclair Ferguson, Al
34 Mohler, Doug Kelly, Don Carson, Rick Phillips, John Piper, R.C. Sproul, Cal Beisner, Frank Barker and
35 more have publicly indicated their disapproval of the theological program of some or all of these various
36 figures and groups. Yet, a not insignificant number of PCA teaching elders shows significant sympathy
37 with these theological tendencies about which our most trusted churchmen and scholars have expressed
38 distress.
39 Hence, the presbytery's committee sponsored more than thirty hours of lecture and discussion on
40 the assigned subjects, and held a face to face meeting with representatives of the Auburn Avenue
41 Presbyterian Church of Monroe, Louisiana. The committee has also provided the presbytery with three
42 sets of audio recordings pertaining to the theology of the NPP, the theology of NS, and the theology of
43 the FV (AAT). One book has already been published as a result of the committee's labors, Guy Waters'
44 Justification and the New Perspectives (P&R, 2004) and another is on the way, Guy Waters' Covenant
Corrected, Approved and Adopted 2
Theology Improved? (P&R, 2005) (this volume deals with the AAT/FV). Dr. Waters' 45 work has been
46 widely lauded as a definitive Reformed treatment of the NPP and no doubt so also will his work of the
47 AAT/FV.
48 The presbytery's committee presented a preliminary informational report to MVP in November
49 of 2004. This report contained the following: a synoptic presentation of the views of the NPP (and
50 especially the teaching of NTW), of NS, and of the AAT/FV. At that time, the committee indicated to
51 presbytery that it would move adoption of a final report in February, 2005. The summary statements in
52 this report are improved and corrected versions of that preliminary information.
53 Since the time of the preliminary informational report, the Session of the Auburn Avenue
54 Presbyterian Church (hereafter AAPC) has issued a response charging our committee with
55 misrepresenting their positions (this has been distributed via email to the presbyteries of the PCA – it is
56 included in this report as an exhibit). Having met face to face with three representatives of the AAPC,
57 the MVP committee unanimously agreed that the committee's representations of the AAPC session's
58 original Summary Statement and of the AAT/FV in its Précis on the Federal Vision (AAT/FV) and in its
59 Critical Overview of the AAPC Summary Statement are both accurate and helpful, and MVP as a
60 presbytery concurs. The AAPC Session's response asserted three things globally – that the MVP
61 preliminary informational report: (1) "frequently assumes a monolithic and univocal 'Reformed
62 Tradition'" and "overlooks the various shades of diversity within historic Reformed theology (including
63 the Westminsterian tradition);" (2) "assumes that there is a well-defined movement labeled the 'Federal
64 Vision' and fails to take into account the "differences that exist between the positions held by the
65 individuals involved;" and (3) shows "no appreciation of the nuances or qualifications or specified
66 terminology that has been utilized by the 'Federal Vision' men" and does not engage "with the wide
67 array of exegetical, theological, and historical arguments set forth by the men associated with the
68 'Federal Vision.'"
69 In discussion with the representatives of AAPC, our committee denied the validity of each of
70 these concerns. First, it was pointed out that the committee was well aware of the diversity of the
71 Reformed tradition (one of the MVP committee members has published scholarly work on that very
72 subject). The issue at stake, however, is not whether there is diversity in the Reformed tradition, but
73 whether the AAT is within the bounds of acceptable diversity. Furthermore, it should be noted that we
74 do not subscribe to the "Reformed tradition," generically, as PCA elders, rather, we subscribe
75 specifically to the Confession of Faith.
76 Second, the committee indicated that it is well aware of the amorphous character of what is being
77 called the AAT/FV. Nevertheless, there are discernable common emphases and there is a generally
78 shared desire among FV proponents to stress what they call the objectivity of the covenant, a shared
79 desire to improve upon the classical formulations of Reformed covenant theology, and a consequent
80 willingness to reformulate historic Reformed teaching on election, covenant, justification, perseverance,
81 ecclesiology, and more. Whether one calls this a movement or not is immaterial. It is clear from the
82 above that something identifiable exists, and one of the key goals of the committee was to make it more
83 discernable.
84 Third, the committee, having studied thousands of pages of material from FV proponents, is
85 keenly aware of the nuances, qualifications, and terminological distinctions deployed by advocates of
86 the FV. Nevertheless, the committee sought to highlight the main commonalities and tendencies in this
87 theological approach, as well as some of the more striking aberrations being propounded by key
88 exponents of the FV. As to the charge of not engaging with the FV's exegetical, theological and
89 historical arguments, the committee's purview did not entail the provision of a definitive exegetical,
90 historical and theological rebuttal, but rather it set out to provide an (1) accurate and useful description
91 of the FV position, and (2) a juxtaposition of specific FV views with the confessional position. That
92 having been said, even the limited review, description and critique provided by the committee is
93 sufficient to indicate the FV's divergence from confessional theology and biblical teaching.
Corrected, Approved and Adopted 3
The MVP committee had initially thought 94 of not footnoting the FV summary statement, in order
95 to avoid having to name names and involving personalities (hoping that a more detached and
96 anonymous account of the FV theology would help keep the temperature of subsequent discussion
97 down). However, when the charges of misrepresentation were spread abroad, the committee determined
98 to provide full public documentation of its descriptions in order to vindicate the accuracy of the report,
99 as well as to be maximally helpful to other church bodies wrestling with these issues.
100 MVP is well aware that assessments of the theology of the NPP, NTW, NS, and the AAT/FV are
101 not uniform from within the larger Reformed community. Some examples of this may be helpful. For
102 instance, out of Westminster Seminary in Philadelphia, Old Testament professor Doug Green has
103 rendered a generally positive verdict regarding the work of NTW, while Systematic Theology professor
104 Dick Gaffin has registered a decidedly negative assessment of the NPP, and NTW in particular.
105 Additionally, Covenant Seminary, the denominational seminary of the PCA, has produced a mild, if
106 limited critique. Members of the Reformed Theological Seminary faculty (in Jackson, Charlotte,
107 Orlando and Atlanta) have also written negative criticisms of the NPP and NTW.
108 Meanwhile, when Westminster Seminary in California, the RCUS and the RPCUS recently
109 condemned the teachings of NS and the AAT/FV, respected Professor John Frame (of RTS Orlando)
110 called into question the conclusion of their appraisal, in his foreword to a book that contains chapters by
111 NS and advocates of the AAT/FV. Nevertheless, Frame (who has consistently defended NS's orthodoxy
112 even though he does not personally adhere to many of NS's opinions and formulations relating to
113 justification) has himself conceded that: "Shepherd has taken positions contrary to some elements of the
114 Reformed tradition."
115 Furthermore, many advocates of the AAT (within and without the PCA) have asserted that their
116 own views are an acceptable part of the Reformed tradition, consistent with the Westminster Confession,
117 and a biblical improvement upon traditional formulations, while at the same time their critics (again,
118 within and without the PCA) have called those views into question, argued that they are anti119
confessional and even labeled their teaching as "heresy." AAT proponents have called for dialogue and
120 discussion, viewing these matters as an intramural debate, while many in the PCA want to see decisive
121 judicial action to exclude their distinctive teachings.
122 What are we to say and do in the face of such a confusion of responses? Well, first of all, we
123 should note that our word is not intended to be the final word on the matter. As other presbyteries, the
124 General Assembly and other denominations continue their work on these issues, no doubt many things
125 will be clarified and put out of question. We welcome that, and trust that our own small and initial
126 contribution to the discussion will help the brethren. However, we do believe that we have made a good
127 and helpful start of the work.
128 Second, we continue to esteem and love our brothers, whether they view the theologies of the
129 NPP, NTW, NS and the AAT/FV as benign and useful, or have been influenced by their teachings. Our
130 committee genuinely appreciated the demeanor and candor of PCA TE Steve Wilkins and RE Dale
131 Peacock in particular as they dialogued with them. There are many in our midst with deep love for and
132 fraternal bonds with ministers and elders associated with the FV and these other theological tendencies.
133 Our greatest concerns lie not with the character and intentions of the proponents of these new views, but
134 with their theological formulations and their serious pastoral and theological consequences.
135 We agree with the insightful observations and questions that Jonathan Edwards once made and
136 raised, at the end of his own great messages on justification: "How far a wonderful and mysterious
137 agency of God's Spirit may so influence some men's hearts, that their practice in this regard may be
138 contrary to their own principles, so that they shall not trust in their own righteousness, though they
139 profess that men are justified by their own righteousness—or how far they may believe the doctrine of
140 justification by men's own righteousness in general, and yet not believe it in a particular application of it
141 to themselves—or how far that error which they may have been led into by education, or cunning
142 sophistry of others, may yet be indeed contrary to the prevailing disposition of their hearts, and contrary
Corrected, Approved and Adopted 4
to their practice—or how far some may seem to maintain a doctrine contrary to this gospel-doctrine 143 e of
144 justification, that really do not, but only express themselves differently from others; or seem to oppose it
145 through their misunderstanding of our expressions, or we of theirs, when indeed our real sentiments are
146 the same in the main—or may seem to differ more than they do, by using terms that are without a
147 precisely fixed and determinate meaning—or to be wide in their sentiments from this doctrine, for want
148 of a distinct understanding of it; whose hearts, at the same time, entirely agree with it, and if once it was
149 clearly explained to their understandings, would immediately close with it, and embrace it:—how far
150 these things may be, I will not determine; but am fully persuaded that great allowances are to be made
151 on these and such like accounts, in innumerable instances; though it is manifest, from what has been
152 said, that the teaching and propagating [of] contrary doctrines and schemes, is of a pernicious and fatal
153 tendency."
154 But third, we do believe that many of the positions being advocated by proponents of the NPP,
155 NTW, NS, and AAT/FV are confused and confusing, are unbiblical, are contra-confessional, and are (as
156 Edwards put it) "of a pernicious and fatal tendency." As such, we are ready to declare some of these
157 distinctive teachings to be outside the bounds of acceptable diversity in this presbytery, and we trust
158 also, in the PCA. Among these are their specific departures from our Confession's presentation of the
159 Bible's teaching on election, covenant membership, individual regeneration, sola fide, justification,
160 imputation, and perseverance. We believe our Confession to be more faithful to the Scriptures than are
161 these new formulations.
162 With regard to these new formulations, we find (1) views that assert that "final justification" is a
163 matter of performance not possession, and therefore based in some sense intrinsically rather than being
164 wholly extrinsic; (2) views that assert that new discoveries regarding "Second Temple Judaism" require
165 us to reject or radically modify the Reformers' and our Confession's understanding of the Pauline
166 Gospel; (3) views that reject or radically modify the Confession's presentation of the Bible's teaching on
167 imputation of Christ's righteousness to believers (including the imputation of Christ's active and passive
168 obedience); (4) views which confuse infused and imputed righteousness, or which do not recognize the
169 legitimacy of the important biblical and confessional distinction between faith as "the alone instrument
170 of justification" and yet a faith which is "not alone in the person justified"; (5) views which reject the
171 traditional bi-covenantal theology of the Westminster Confession (that is, views which do not merely
172 take issue with the terminology but reject the essence of the bi-covenantal, covenant of works/covenant
173 of grace framework of God's dealings with humanity); (6) views that undermine the forensic aspect of
174 justification by appeal to the "relational elements" or which suggest that justification is primarily a
175 matter of ecclesiology and less so soteriology; (7) views that categorically reject "merit" in relation to
176 the atoning work of Christ; (8) views which deny or undercut the biblical and theological legitimacy of
177 the distinctions between true/nominal believers, the invisible/visible church, and the outward/inward
178 aspects of the covenant of grace); (9) views that relate water baptism to regeneration in such a way as to
179 suggest that water baptism (rather than that which it signifies) unites us to Christ; (10) views that
180 suggest that justification in the NT always contemplates faith and the works of faith, or that deny that
181 faith is uniquely receptive in the act of justification; (11) views that understand a believer's "final
182 justification" to be a justifying verdict that embraces the believer's covenantal obedience [and not a
183 merely public declaration of the justification declared at the outset of the believer's Christian
184 experience]; (12) views that entail multiple instruments in justification (whether the terminology of
185 'instrument' is used or not); (13) views which posit the false antithesis of reading Scripture through the
186 "lens of the covenant" rather than the "lens of the decree;" (14) views which cannot sustain the
187 difference between the saving and common operations of the Spirit; (15) views of sacramental efficacy
188 that speak of the salvific effects of baptism and the Lord's supper, but fail to maintain adequately the
189 crucial distinction between the sign and the thing signified; (16) views that suggest that water baptism
190 conveys all the benefits of union with Christ, except for the "gift of perseverance" and final salvation;
191 (17) views which undermine the doctrine of the imputation of Adam's sin or which call into question the
Corrected, Approved and Adopted 5
doctrine of individual regeneration; – all of these and more, 192 re, we find to be out of the bounds of
193 acceptable diversity in this presbytery and in the PCA. As such they should not be taught or
194 countenanced as part of the public teaching of the church.
195 We are not asserting that any one person or group holds to all of these things, but those who do
196 hold to any of these views, and are desirous of laboring within our bounds, should expect a thorough
197 examination by the MVP credentials committee – because any one of these issues is serious in and of
198 itself. Hence, those open to or embracing of any of these positions should know that MVP will be
199 careful to ascertain the nature and relation of their view(s) to the public theology of the church – that is,
200 that which the church believes to be Scripture's teaching, as summarized in the Confession of Faith.
201 Fathers and brethren, we trust that our concerns in this whole matter are Gospel concerns. We
202 believe that the clarity of the Gospel, the freeness of grace and justification, and the assurance of the
203 believer are all undermined by the formulations of the NPP, NTW, NS and AAT/FV theologies. No
204 greater tragedy could befall the PCA today than to compromise the lucidity of her preaching of the
205 glorious Gospel of grace, yet that is, we fear, precisely what we are facing. To that end, we here pledge
206 again our commitment to the faith once delivered. By God's grace, it is our prayer that we would not
207 preach a different Gospel, which is really not another and contrary to that which we have received, but
208 rather that we would boldly proclaim that one true Gospel that is the power of God unto salvation to
209 everyone who believes.
Your brethren and servants,
The Presbytery of the Mississippi Valley
Unanimously adopted, February 1, 2005


----------



## LadyFlynt (Feb 9, 2005)

Could someone please explain what these are though. And did it just mention that they were teaching some of these items at Covenant Seminary? I have a friend there.


----------



## fredtgreco (Feb 9, 2005)

> _Originally posted by LadyFlynt_
> Could someone please explain what these are though. And did it just mention that they were teaching some of these items at Covenant Seminary? I have a friend there.



Colleen,

What do you want more informarion on? I'll try and supply it. Also, if you go to the pdf link, there are 4 Precis (a short summary theological description) describing the various theologies.


----------



## LadyFlynt (Feb 9, 2005)

ok, it was a description the aforementioned theologies. Thank you, I will go look as I am clueless and in case it comes up with our friend.


----------



## fredtgreco (Feb 9, 2005)

> _Originally posted by LadyFlynt_
> ok, it was a description the aforementioned theologies. Thank you, I will go look as I am clueless and in case it comes up with our friend.



Sure. And feel free to ask questions - that's why I posted it here. I just thought it would spark more questions and be a help to look at the Precis.

Also, the report says that Covenant Seminary produced a mild _critique_ of this bad theology, not that it was promoting it. So that should help you not to be concerned for your friend on this behalf.


----------



## Me Died Blue (Feb 9, 2005)

I just finished reading the unanimous statement comprising the first five pages, and so far that seems like a good sign.


----------



## wsw201 (Feb 9, 2005)

Fred,

Do you know if MVP is putting together a resolution for GA?


----------



## wsw201 (Feb 9, 2005)

> In one church, an AAT/FV sympathetic pastor has engineered the removal of an associate who was fully committed to the PCA doctrinal position but objected to the pastor's extra- or anti-confessional views.



Sounds familiar!


----------



## JohnV (Feb 9, 2005)

Fred:

Have you read the precis? Are they accurate summations, in your view?


----------



## pdn (Feb 10, 2005)

> _Originally posted by wsw201_
> 
> 
> > In one church, an AAT/FV sympathetic pastor has engineered the removal of an associate who was fully committed to the PCA doctrinal position but objected to the pastor's extra- or anti-confessional views.
> ...



In the case I'm familiar with, the associate pastor attempted to engineer the removal of the pastor and it backfired on him.

Paul
attending Colleyville PCA
Colleyville, TX


----------



## AdamM (Feb 10, 2005)

Fred, thank you for posting the link.

I think the final report is very helpful and hopefully it will be a catalyst toward addressing the various forms of covenantal nomism threatening the church today. I am especially grateful that the men of the MVP, who will no doubt be subject to many nasty personal insults and attacks from thier "irenic" opponents, chose to engage this issue rather then ignore it.

[Edited on 10-2-2005 by AdamM]


----------



## fredtgreco (Feb 10, 2005)

Adam,

Yes, the "irenic" discussion has already started, including a deacon at 10th Presbyterian in Philadelphia basically insulting Richard Phillip's Christian maturity, all because he is cited favorably by the report.


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Feb 10, 2005)

What I would like to see is all the Federal heretics tossed out of the PCA and OPC pronto. Why this is taking so long is beyond me. Take two seconds to ready ANY of their works, and you find teaching that not only opposes the Standards, but also the Bible. NT Wright has proved over and over again that he teaches heresy and is antichrist. Wilson, though some shy away from calling him a heretic, teaches the same doctrines in most places which speak to these things as Wright does. Others that keep propagating this nonsense, like Jordan, Smith, Leithart, Lusk, Horne, etc., are heretical in their new fangled neo-nomianism. They keep shouting "Oh! You don't understand us!" Nonsense! its so bogus. in other words, everybody misunderstand them except for themselves! They are false teachers that are doing damage to Christ's church.

Don't get me wrong, I would be heartily inclined to see them repent of their works salvation. But I am not sure that is going to happen seeing how far they have dug themselves into a pit of false teaching. What would be great is to see someone like Wilson get his theology straight (because he is no good for historical theology or Westminsterian Theology) and come back around to embrace the truth instead o panhandling these errors. These guys in general are so poor at understanding Westminster. 

I am glad for men like Lig Duncan and Richard Phillips who are taking up certain political issues that need to be address with these men, as well as writing against them. We need more pens to come into the forefront and put these guys to to shame. Guy Waters put out a good book recently that is a helpful overview of the subject. I am working on a book that sets down covenant theology easily. That way the laymen in all our churches will at least have a good base to work from when they hear false teachers propagating this stuff.

Its good news that a statement like this has emerged, and we need to see more of them.


----------



## AdamM (Feb 10, 2005)

Fred, it certainly comes as no surprise. After having paid attention to this controversy closely for several years now, I have been consistently shocked by the "rawness" of the * personal attacks * that I read on the pro-Federal Vision blog sights. If they are now mocking a godly man like Rick Phillips, I would say nothing could better illustrate their own immaturity.


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Feb 10, 2005)

AdamM - 

It is simply easier fr them to toss around ad hominem attacks when you are ignornat of actually dealing with the issues biblically. Since they can't then they resort to attacking character.


----------



## tcalbrecht (Feb 10, 2005)

> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> Adam,
> 
> Yes, the "irenic" discussion has already started, including a deacon at 10th Presbyterian in Philadelphia basically insulting Richard Phillip's Christian maturity, all because he is cited favorably by the report.



Didn't Richard Phillips minister at 10th at one time?


----------



## Scott Bushey (Feb 10, 2005)

Yes Tom. He was mentored under James Boyce. This is the pastor Matt and I sit under now.


----------



## DTK (Feb 10, 2005)

The Mississippi Valley Presbytery of the PCA is showing us leadership in the PCA. They are addressing this matter ecclesiastically, as it should be, and the language of the report uses restrained and temperate expressions. I am thankful for their leadership in dealing with this issue. Others, such as Pastor Richards Phillips, have likewise shown us leadership in addressing this problem. I look forward to the time when this issue is adjudicated in the courts of our church.

DTK


----------



## RBDude (Feb 10, 2005)

*What about RC Sproul Jr?*

Doesn’t RC Sproul Jr run in these circles?

See his link page http://www.gospelcom.net/hsc/links.php

If he does, I wonder what RC senior thinks of this?

Grace to All,
Steve Clevenger


----------



## Scott Bushey (Feb 10, 2005)

> _Originally posted by DTK_
> The Mississippi Valley Presbytery of the PCA is showing us leadership in the PCA. They are addressing this matter ecclesiastically, as it should be, and the language of the report uses restrained and temperate expressions. I am thankful for their leadership in dealing with this issue. Others, such as Pastor Richards Phillips, have likewise shown us leadership in addressing this problem. I look forward to the time when this issue is adjudicated in the courts of our church.
> 
> DTK



David,
Hopefully much sooner than later.


----------



## RamistThomist (Feb 10, 2005)

> _Originally posted by RBDude_
> Doesn’t RC Sproul Jr run in these circles?
> 
> See his link page http://www.gospelcom.net/hsc/links.php
> ...



I don't think so. Didn't he take the opposite side of A4 in the Knox Colloqium?


----------



## Bladestunner316 (Feb 10, 2005)

man at least these churchs(whether right or wrong) thoroughly as far as I can tell go through this stuff. My Old Church which I love never really thought of questioning any teachings allthough you could ask questions as far as the calvinists that I know at the time didnt do much a do about it.

Well hopefuly these men will repent or leave. Rather them have their own camp and take them down instead taking down an allready good denom. Not that anybody should be taken down anyway but it seems like North American Presbyterian churchs has seen more splits than any other church in NA that I can think of. 

blade


----------



## fredtgreco (Feb 11, 2005)

I am pleased to note that Mr. Duggan (who is NOT a deacon at 10th, that was my error) has retracted his initial comments regarding Rev. Phillips, and posted the following instead:



> Blogging makes it easier to be more sarcastic than one should. I was perturbed by several aspects of the introduction to the MVP report that seem to transparently be included not because they further an understating of the actual issues, but to posture the MVPs position with respect to its eminence and avoidance of controversy.
> 
> One such aspect (another is referenced above) is the list of "leading pastor-theologians", and "most trusted churchmen and scholars" who have reservations about the AAPC. I am sincerely pleased to see my former associate pastor's name listed among these scholars, but since I question the motivation of the introductory comments, the list struck me as questionably inclusive of names that might not fully qualify as described.
> 
> {This is a replacement for the unsanctified way I tried to make the same point in an earlier version. I hereby repent of it.}(from http://mysite.verizon.net/~vze2tmhh/




Thank you, Mr. Duggan - sincerely. I know myself the dangers of internet communication and have had to repent of the same several times.


----------



## Me Died Blue (Feb 13, 2005)

A few days ago, I received an interesting e-mail regarding the MVP report that read as follows:



> Here is an interesting commentary on the new MVP report. You might find it helpful to mention on the Puritan Board thread:
> 
> http://www.joelgarver.com/docs/response.htm



The "commentary" by Garver is an attempt to defend the views the report critiqued, and claim that the report misrepresented those views. I was going to mention this the day I received the e-mail, right afer I read Garver's response, but I decided to first reply to the sender, who I did not recognize, asking who it was and what prompted him to contact me. I have not received a response, so here it is.


----------



## fredtgreco (Feb 13, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Me Died Blue_
> A few days ago, I received an interesting e-mail regarding the MVP report that read as follows:
> 
> 
> ...



What was the email address you received it from? Was tere any name?


----------



## Me Died Blue (Feb 13, 2005)

There was no name, but the address was [email protected]

The odd thing is that it was sent to my Gmail account through my Xanga account. The response by Garver is basically what you'd expect it to be.


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Feb 13, 2005)

This guy just doesn't get it.....


----------



## ARStager (Feb 14, 2005)

Doesn't Garver simply note the instances where he was quoted by the report and give the specific contexts that he was quoted in - many of the times rejecting the doctrines he was purported to have affirmed?


----------



## lwadkins (Feb 14, 2005)

When their errors are highlighted then those who hightlight the errors are identified as being "uncharitable"


----------



## ARStager (Feb 14, 2005)

I'm not as concerned with charity as I am with accuracy. We who are guarding orthodoxy have to be smarter, wiser, more precise, and more rigorous in our analyses than those we find in error. I'd just hate to see such a great report and action by MVP be criticized for imprecision. Not a complaint or a softening on my part...just a call to research and indict above reproach. Obviously there'll be whining by the indicted, but it's got to always be clearly demonstrated that their whining is evasive and unjustified.


----------



## lwadkins (Feb 14, 2005)

Agreed, I just find it so annoying that instead of standing in defense of their "newly discovered" doctrines, they are only able to see that their critics lack some "christian virtue."


----------



## ARStager (Feb 14, 2005)

I hear ya.


----------



## CalsFarmer (Feb 14, 2005)

As far as the reply in the Boards regarding the 'engineered removal' of an Associate Pastor and the reply by a person named Paul:

The MVP report was correct in its statement. I have the necessary documentation.

As far as the attitudes of some of those who embrace this 'new' idea I have found the book "How To Talk to a Liberal, If you Must", By Ann Coulter a real help. Sometimes its all one can do not to laugh at the abusrdity of some of the personal attacks. 

Speaking as a Jewish person who is now a 5 pointer (Calvinism was really the only school of thought that made sense) these NP people have it SO WRONG. What's a mother to do?


----------



## CalsFarmer (Feb 14, 2005)

Clarification: 

In the case I am familiar with...the MVP report is correct IF that is the case they had in mind when making the statement. Page 1 lines 29-31 of MVP report.


----------

