PCA Study Report on Federal Vision released
- Thread starter NaphtaliPress
- Start date
- Status
Croghanite
Puritan Board Sophomore
What have they been waiting for? Where is the recommendation to immediately tar and feather those who proclaim such false doctrine from the pulpit?
Bondman
Puritan Board Freshman
I must agree. The recommendation sounds weak.
Maybe the GA as a whole will do something now?
C. Matthew McMahon
Christian Preacher
What if you are in the PCA and don't think the Federal Vision is heretical? 
Croghanite
Puritan Board Sophomore
RECOMMENDATION:
Any PCA minister who teaches FV from the pulpit shall immediately be dragged to and launched from the DEFLOCKER.
Any PCA minister who teaches FV from the pulpit shall immediately be dragged to and launched from the DEFLOCKER.
bookslover
Puritan Board Doctor
Overall, it looks like good news, though. I'll have to read it carefully later, but it looks like the OPC and the PCA are standing together on this.
I do wish, in their various condemnations, that they had said, "...contrary to the Bible AND the Westminster Standards". It's sort of dismaying that, in these condemnations, the Bible isn't listed first, as it should be.
Nevertheless, I'm encouraged.
I do wish, in their various condemnations, that they had said, "...contrary to the Bible AND the Westminster Standards". It's sort of dismaying that, in these condemnations, the Bible isn't listed first, as it should be.
Nevertheless, I'm encouraged.
You guys have no idea what is going on.
It is the height of foolishness to judge a court before it has even acted.
Romans922
Puritan Board Professor
This doesn't really sound weak to me:
IV. Declarations
In light of the controversy surrounding the NPP and FV, and after many months of careful study, the committee unanimously makes the following declarations:
1. The view that rejects the bi-covenantal structure of Scripture as represented in the Westminster Standards (i.e., views which do not merely take issue with the terminology, but the essence of the first/second covenant framework) is contrary to those Standards.
2. The view that an individual is “elect” by virtue of his membership in the visible church; and that this “election” includes justification, adoption and sanctification; but that this individual could lose his “election” if he forsakes the visible church, is contrary to the Westminster Standards.
3. The view that Christ does not stand as a representative head whose perfect obedience and satisfaction is imputed to individuals who believe in him is contrary to the Westminster Standards.
4. The view that strikes the language of “merit” from our theological vocabulary so that the claim is made that Christ’s merits are not imputed to his people is contrary to the Westminster Standards.
5. The view that “union with Christ” renders imputation redundant because it subsumes all of Christ’s benefits (including justification) under this doctrinal heading is contrary to the Westminster Standards.
6. The view that water baptism effects a “covenantal union” with Christ through which each baptized person receives the saving benefits of Christ’s mediation, including regeneration, justification, and sanctification, thus creating a parallel soteriological system to the decretal system of the Westminster Standards, is contrary to the Westminster Standards.
7. The view that one can be “united to Christ” and not receive all the benefits of Christ’s mediation, including perseverance, in that effectual union is contrary to the Westminster Standards.
8. The view that some can receive saving benefits of Christ’s mediation, such as regeneration and justification, and yet not persevere in those benefits is contrary to the Westminster Standards.
9. The view that justification is in any way based on our works, or that the so-called “final verdict of justification” is based on anything other than the perfect obedience and satisfaction of Christ received through faith alone, is contrary to the Westminster Standards.
IV. Declarations
In light of the controversy surrounding the NPP and FV, and after many months of careful study, the committee unanimously makes the following declarations:
1. The view that rejects the bi-covenantal structure of Scripture as represented in the Westminster Standards (i.e., views which do not merely take issue with the terminology, but the essence of the first/second covenant framework) is contrary to those Standards.
2. The view that an individual is “elect” by virtue of his membership in the visible church; and that this “election” includes justification, adoption and sanctification; but that this individual could lose his “election” if he forsakes the visible church, is contrary to the Westminster Standards.
3. The view that Christ does not stand as a representative head whose perfect obedience and satisfaction is imputed to individuals who believe in him is contrary to the Westminster Standards.
4. The view that strikes the language of “merit” from our theological vocabulary so that the claim is made that Christ’s merits are not imputed to his people is contrary to the Westminster Standards.
5. The view that “union with Christ” renders imputation redundant because it subsumes all of Christ’s benefits (including justification) under this doctrinal heading is contrary to the Westminster Standards.
6. The view that water baptism effects a “covenantal union” with Christ through which each baptized person receives the saving benefits of Christ’s mediation, including regeneration, justification, and sanctification, thus creating a parallel soteriological system to the decretal system of the Westminster Standards, is contrary to the Westminster Standards.
7. The view that one can be “united to Christ” and not receive all the benefits of Christ’s mediation, including perseverance, in that effectual union is contrary to the Westminster Standards.
8. The view that some can receive saving benefits of Christ’s mediation, such as regeneration and justification, and yet not persevere in those benefits is contrary to the Westminster Standards.
9. The view that justification is in any way based on our works, or that the so-called “final verdict of justification” is based on anything other than the perfect obedience and satisfaction of Christ received through faith alone, is contrary to the Westminster Standards.
And to judge men before the court has heard them, John 7:51.
Me Died Blue
Puritan Board Post-Graduate
It was explained in the Preface why they were stated along those lines.
turmeric
Megerator
What HE said!
Bondman
Puritan Board Freshman
True, but is it foolish to judge a recommendation after it has been recommended?
I don't believe that the recommendations went far enough ESPECIALLY when one considers those nine points where FV departs from the WCF, and ultimately God's Word.
These points of doctrine are of no small importance. We are talking about heresy.
Do you have any idea how Presbyterian polity works? It seems not, given the way you judge the recommendations.
crhoades
Puritan Board Graduate
Fred,
If you have a moment and the inclination, would you mind summarizing the protocol with this report and the committes/GA and how the courts work in this instance?
Croghanite
Puritan Board Sophomore
Pastor Greco,
The session of my PCA church saw fit to inform our congregation of the ongoing FV teaching from the pulpit in the PCA. They immediately began teaching the congregation how the "new perspectives" are heretical. This systematic breakdown of FV was exhaustive and lasted several weeks.
This happened when FV first surfaced.
How long does it take to point out heresy in the church?
I agree with the GA report. I mean no disrespect to the court, Im simply frustrated on why it takes so long to point out and put a stop to heretical teaching within a denomination.
The session of my PCA church saw fit to inform our congregation of the ongoing FV teaching from the pulpit in the PCA. They immediately began teaching the congregation how the "new perspectives" are heretical. This systematic breakdown of FV was exhaustive and lasted several weeks.
This happened when FV first surfaced.
How long does it take to point out heresy in the church?
I agree with the GA report. I mean no disrespect to the court, Im simply frustrated on why it takes so long to point out and put a stop to heretical teaching within a denomination.
Bladestunner316
Puritan Board Doctor
They will have to check with GLAD before they can make an official statement 
Poimen
Puritan Board Post-Graduate
I am not sure as to what you are referring here: Are you saying that the PCA was in error by making this report?
I was backing up Fred's statement, pre-empting somewhat his latter statement about Presbyterian procedure. A presbyterian court can only give recommendations, it cannot order an Inquisition.
turmeric
Megerator
The wheels of the GA grind slowly, but they grind exceeding fine! 
They'll get it done, legally, loophole-free and effectively. I'm just happy they're pointing out the error - teaching elders will hopefully feel more free to address this if the GA adopts this report. You notice they mentioned Wilkins?
They'll get it done, legally, loophole-free and effectively. I'm just happy they're pointing out the error - teaching elders will hopefully feel more free to address this if the GA adopts this report. You notice they mentioned Wilkins?
The General Assembly Committee did not have before it a judicial case. Even if it did, it could not decide ipso facto, since it was only a committee.
Presbytery is the court of original jurisdiction for TEs holding views contrary to the Standards; Session the court in the case of REs.
I won't say anymore, as a commissioner to GA, and a member of the Committee on Overtures.
But I will say that it is fruitless to have any discussion before the actions of a court.
Romans922
Puritan Board Professor
Because I don't know any better... Good report though, lovely!bookslover
Puritan Board Doctor
Magma2
Puritan Board Sophomore
Thanks for providing the link Chris. I would think the perennial defenders of Richard Gaffin might choke a bit on at least these three "anathemas," but I think I'm more interested in finding out how the SJC handles the Wilkins case. I'm at least told not to expect anything until at least the Fall.
This may sound cynical but I am sure the FVers are already redefining more terms to sound like they are confessional. I like how they redefine the Covenant of Works... and just move on from there.
Don't be so sure. This is pretty consistent with the FV. They say they are not teaching contrary to the Confession but that the Confession doesn't teach the full meaning of certain doctrines that the Scriptures more fully elaborate on. They believe they're filling in the blanks so to speak. See this:
Of course it has been repeatedly demonstrated that their "fleshing out" (as they would view it) is in fact a repudiation of key Confessional understandings (especially implying that one is united to Christ "in some sense" not on the basis of faith but on the basis of Covenant membership). I find their claims to the contrary to either be ignorant or disingenuous and we've discussed that at length before.
I'm glad the language says that their teaching is contrary to the Westminster standards so they can't hide behind the skirts of less obvious language.
Me Died Blue
Puritan Board Post-Graduate
Rich, except for the "Key in the present..." paragraph (which is from the report), all of the statements in Kevin's post were Horne's own.
I must not have been clear. I was responding to Kevin when he wrote:
I was pointing out in my quote of Horne that he is not being as careful as Kevin thinks but is, rather, re-stating a consistent refrain: we're not teaching contrary to the WCF but merely filling in blanks to doctrines that the WCF doesn't fully elaborate on.
My commentary was both to point out that the tune really hasn't changed, to reject it, and to point out how encouraged I am that the PCA statement calls these views "...contrary to the Confession."
My apologies if any thought I was directing a criticism at Kevin.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
