PCA Study Report on Federal Vision released

Status
Not open for further replies.
Guys,
We need to refrain from posting extracts from web-boards and blogs not our own. Just a "rule" reminder. To comment on MH's comments, please post to his blog. Thank you. Carry on...
 
SemperFideles said:
I must not have been clear. I was responding to Kevin when he wrote:

Seems pretty careful from what I can tell. A couple of extracts with comments:
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

Even that statement was Horne's, referring to the report as being pretty careful. Then there were extracts from the report, with comments by Horne. Here is Horne's whole blog entry.
 
Chris: Roger. I guess I was confused then. Thanks.

Kevin: Helps if you use the quote feature. Hint, hint...
 
Contra_Mundum said:
Guys,
We need to refrain from posting extracts from web-boards and blogs not our own. Just a "rule" reminder. To comment on MH's comments, please post to his blog. Thank you. Carry on...
Click to expand...

Boy howdy. Shows the fallibility of man. I think I wrote the rule for that. Mea culpa.

More specifically the rule is not to post disparaging comments about other blogs and forums.

I think I need to clarify what that means and talk that out a bit.
 
puritancovenanter said:
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.
Click to expand...

Redefining terms and saying "you don't really understand us" while constantly shifting the ground under your theological feet is already SOP with FV/NPPers. This is what's going to make it difficult to prosecute them - because they are always saying that "you don't understand", it makes it more likely that they just won't quiety leave the PCA (or the OPC); they won't leave without a fight, I think.

It's been about a year since the OPC report and, as far as I know, no charges have been filed yet. It'll be interesting to see what happens at the PCA's GA this year.
 
bookslover said:
Redefining terms and saying "you don't really understand us" while constantly shifting the ground under your theological feet is already SOP with FV/NPPers.
Click to expand...

This is also true of some of the hyper-preterists.
 
Maybe I really don't understand. I remember getting Kristor Stendhal's book Paul Among Jews and Gentiles shortly after I became a Christian. I was absolutely puzzled by his take on imputation - I didn't even have a category for it! I kept the book for a long time and once in a while I would re-read and once again go "Hmmm...". Then I heard about NPP and FV and went, "Aha!" The Lord must have been protecting me - it just wouldn't download into my mind!
 
C. Matthew McMahon said:
What if you are in the PCA and don't think the Federal Vision is heretical? :blah:
Click to expand...

Good question and I think the same could be said about the OPC. I don't recall if it was here or on the Warfield list, but one thing in the report that concerns me is:

The committee also affirms that we view NPP and FV proponents in the PCA as brothers in Christ.
Click to expand...

Then they proceed to demonstrate that both NPP and FV teach variants on the same scheme of justification by faith and works.

Also, the report confuses tangential benefits to reprobate members in the visible church with grace and collectively affirms the Murrayian doctrine of the Well Meant Offer as evidently a matter beyond dispute:

The benefits available to all within the visible church are sincere and genuine, just as is the grace of the free offer."
Click to expand...

Evidently when the gospel comes as the aroma of death to those who are perishing, the stench of death is grace.

Aside from a couple of flights of fancy, I still think the report is pretty good in that it is another nice summation of some of the many things wrong with NPP and FV just evidently not deadly wrong.
 
Would it be accurate to say that if those who hold to the FV and/or NPP are "brothers in Christ" in the PCA's estimation, that the main effect would be (at least in theory) to not allow those views to be officially taught, but they could be privately held by lay members?

Paedobaptism is certainly a hallmark of Presbyterianism yet people sometimes join Presbyterian churches without believing in it; a man wouldn't (right?) be ordained if he rejects it, though.

Is this what is likely to happen with the FV/NPP? It'll be permitted, albeit not encouraged, for lay people, but will be a hindrance to ordination?
 
It may not even have an effect on ordination. I guess it really depends on what the General Assembly does in regards to this report.

If they bring these doctrinal issues to the point of baptism and limited atonement then it would have an impact on those who seek ordination.
 
Gryphonette said:
Would it be accurate to say that if those who hold to the FV and/or NPP are "brothers in Christ" in the PCA's estimation, that the main effect would be (at least in theory) to not allow those views to be officially taught, but they could be privately held by lay members?

Paedobaptism is certainly a hallmark of Presbyterianism yet people sometimes join Presbyterian churches without believing in it; a man wouldn't (right?) be ordained if he rejects it, though.

Is this what is likely to happen with the FV/NPP? It'll be permitted, albeit not encouraged, for lay people, but will be a hindrance to ordination?
Click to expand...

Since non-officers in the OPC or PCA are not required to subscribe to the Standards, they can hold to this view. But a prudent Session that does not hold to these views would make it clear to all members that since this view is outside of the Standards it will not be taught. For those in the congregation that may be attracted to FV/NPP, the Session should make clear that these folks should not disturb the peace, purity and unity of the church by propegating these views.

If a man wishes to be ordained as an officer, whether Deacon, RE or TE, and rejects infant baptism, he definately should be rejected. As far as FV/NPP, I would hope they would be rejected by the court of jurisdiction as well as by the congregation.
 
Pastors Draft "Pastoral Letter" on PCA FV Report

A group of ten ministers has written a "pastoral letter" concerning the Federal Vision study committee report releasedto be considered in June at the PCA's General Assembly in Memphis, TN. More details at http://www.reformednews.com/.
 
Shouldn't you state that a group of ten ministers, sympathetic to the Federal Vision, have written a letter.

Here is but one example:

Study Report:
• 2214- “The Westminster Standards only speak of a “union with Christ” as that which is effectual; or to say it another way, as that which is saving and belongs to the elect.”

...

Questions:
• Why does the committee narrowly interpret our standards to speak “only” of union with Christ as belonging to the decretally elect when there are ways that our standards understand this more broadly? 2
Click to expand...
What is this killer footnote that will show that the committee "narrowly" interpreted the Westminster standards? Why here is the footnote:
2 For example, WLC 167 asks, “How is our Baptism to be improved by us? Answer: The needful but much neglected duty of improving our Baptism, is to be performed by us all our life long, especially in the time of temptation, and when we are present at the administration of it to others…by drawing strength from the death and resurrection of Christ, into whom we are baptized.”
Isn’t this an instance when the standards encourage the entire visible church to draw strength from the one “into whom we are baptized?”
Click to expand...
Umm...yes, but only the Elect can do so because they have hearts that have been transformed to look to the death and resurrection of Christ. Why would a minister of the Gospel, that calls himself Reformed, presume that an unregenerate man would look to the resurrection and death of Christ for strength?
 
I just quoted from the site without commentary. My suspicion is that the anonymous reporter(s) behind the Reformed News is (are) sympathetic to the FV.

1. They quote FV sympathizers quite a bit.
2. I found the site because it was linked to by a FV guy.
 
Rich, I know that you knew that and furthermore, it should go without saying that I know that you knew that I knew you knew that. You know what I mean? Of course you do. :D
 
Just got finished reading the pastoral letter. This has to be one of the lamest responses I have seen. It comes across as even more desparate than Meyers comments.
 
wsw201 said:
Just got finished reading the pastoral letter. This has to be one of the lamest responses I have seen. It comes across as even more desperate than Meyers comments.
Click to expand...

That was lame.

Notice especially the tactic of "I didn't see that exact word used anywhere in their writings (e.g. monocovenantalism, ex opere operato, etc.), if they didn't use the exact term then how can you say that they mean it? And, hey, even if you did find that word used by them somewhere, how can you be sure that they mean it in the same way that you think they mean it?"

Wow. The deceitfulness of sin never ceases to amaze. Others might say, "That's just stupid".
 
FYI. For full disclosure it is probably good to know that Jonathan Barlow not only professionally hosts the RN site, but is someway involved in it. He says the goal is to be even handed, and kudos for that aim and hopefully it is reality. I can appreciate the difficulty if one is a known partisan and trying to establish a rep for impartiality on this subject anonymously would seem the only way to do it. Maybe not. But that was what he did. I thought RN tilted FV when I visited which is why I asked him if he was involved (the fact barlownet servers host the site is public info). Below is his response to my question over on Lane's Green Baggins blog:
  1. barlow said,

    May 31, 2007 at 2:05 pm
    Chris, Pastor Hutchinson asked me the same thing, and so I’ll just cut and paste my answer here to save time:
    ———
    Hi Pastor Hutchinson,
    Since you’ve asked point blank, for full disclosure, I am involved in other ways besides hosting too, but the goal of anonymity being not to reveal any identities until the paper can establish a reputation for unbiased reporting. So judge RN by the content of the articles on their own merits, and if you detect bias, feel free to point it out in the comments on the site or in the discussion area. Maybe it was not a great plan, but it was the plan that made the most sense in holding RN to the goal of proving its good will in the endeavor given all the ad hominem stuff online. Anyway, I’ve been trying to get people interested in the idea of an independent, Reformed press for a long time on my blog, so it shouldn’t be surprising that I’m involved in some way.
    Anyway, that’s pretty much all I want to say about my involvement right now. If it helps you to put a face on things, just assume I’ve done every single word of the site, but still judge the content on its own merit (and admire writers that don’t want personal recognition for their writings).
    I will confirm that if I ever write any opinion content, I will put my name on it.
    As for the poll, if you have some suggestion as to how the wording is biased or something, that would be a good thing to put in the discussion area for that post for other readers to see. RN is responsible for, at most, two or three votes cast to test it out. At various times throughout the poll’s run (it might still be running) different choices were ahead, so the outcome is just as much a surprise to RN as it would be to anyone.
Click to expand...
 
Thanks Chris for the FYI. So that's the Jon Barlow that attends Jeff Meyers church with Mark Horne (who linked to this very thread on his blog who mentioned me as a 'guy' and Rich's response as a reprimand and called our collective give and take 'mob justice'.) If Jonathan is concerned about being associated with FV then he might want to step a bit further away from............. Ah, man! Now I don't know what to call them! They don't like 'sympathizers', they don't like 'advocates', they don't like 'movers' (cuz "it's not a movement"), they don't like 'conspirators'.

I'm hoping they can give us a name, a literary short-hand, by which we can refer to our theologically nimble brothers. How about 'the guys formerly known as FV sympathizers'?
 
Call them
20px-Prince_symbol.svg.png
:D
(ok, for those who do not get it)
 
Last edited:
Dang, I was going to say, 'maybe we could come up with a symbol for them in place of a name' but I thought the joke would be too obscure. I wasted my opportunity, but YOU didn't. Good one Chris, we are on the same page. :up:
 
I was mulling over that last night, in fact.

BobVigneault said:
If Jonathan is concerned about being associated with FV then he might want to step a bit further away from............. Ah, man! Now I don't know what to call them! They don't like 'sympathizers', they don't like 'advocates', they don't like 'movers' (cuz "it's not a movement"), they don't like 'conspirators'.

I'm hoping they can give us a name, a literary short-hand, by which we can refer to our theologically nimble brothers. How about 'the guys formerly known as FV sympathizers'?
Click to expand...

It's strange how loathe so many FV sympathizers/supporters are to actively, boldly, and unequivocally identify themselves with that movement/conversation/whatever. I don't think it'd be a stretch to say upwards of half of those who are around the internet arguing passionately on the FV's behalf insist they are not really sympathizers/supporters, just people who want to make sure the (apparently few) true FV sympathizers/supporters aren't misrepresented or something.

Christians are being tortured and are dying around the world for publicly proclaiming Christ....Protestants were tortured and killed during the Reformation for proclaiming the true gospel....but the FV seems to cause people to argue and cause division on its behalf without being willing to publicly stand in its camp and be identified with it.

Sort of reminds me of all those egalitarians who, while pushing through their feminist agenda, simultaneously insisted they certainly weren't feminists. :banghead:
 
Objectivity v Neutrality

There is sometimes a distinction between objectivity and neutrality, but in this case they overlap.

The idea that one so passionately involved in a heated controversy could suddenly and anonymously assume a stance either of utter objectivity or neutrality is a little strange.

As in the case of Presbyterians and Presbyterians Together, such anonymity creates more suspicion than trust.

Second, the idea, in this day and age, that a news provider could be anonymous (when we know the owners of most news media) and be credible is also improbable.

No news provider can really claim utter neutrality or objectivity. There's a subjective element involved in which stories get picked, in deciding from what angle they get covered, who gets quoted and how.

The Christian Renewal (a neo-Kuyperian Canadian Dutch Reformed paper) has consistently treated the FV as if were a controversial option for the orthodox. Though they want to be regarded as a neutral player in the controversy, for them to decide to tolerate the FV is not neutrality or objectivity. The CR has make an editorial decision that necessarily influences the news coverage. To treat the FV as if it had equal moral, theological, and practical standing with the orthodox, confessional view is an editorial decision. I should know. They just ran three pieces in the recent issue (which I still haven't seen) where I was apparently the object of scorn. Did I hear from the "fair" or "objective" CR? Was I given a chance to respond? No. When they ran a hostile and misinformed review of Mike Horton's book on covenant theology they only ran a response by Mike AFTER some of us screamed about it.

In contrast, the Outlook (a magazine based in Grand Rapids with a similar if somewhat broader constituency) has decided against the FV. The difference between them is that the CR won't admit their bias and the Outlook has. At least the Outlook is being honest.

What responsible journalists do is to say, "Look, here are my biases and pre-possessions, but despite them I'm going to try to be fair."

I'm not sure that's even a virtue to pretend to be utterly objective in news coverage. The only thing I seek is honesty.

In RN we have a similar approach to the folks at "Covenant Radio." There is a pretense, by partisans, of objectivity. The result of giving these folks credibility will be to admit the FV as a tenured member of the Reformed community.

As I keep saying it's a good thing they didn't do this at Dort! The single biggest mistake the Dutch church made after Dort was to re-admit too many of the Remonstrants back into the churches. It wasn't very long afterwards that the DRC was shot through with rationalism.

The church is no place for latitudinarianism when it comes to the gospel.

Call me intolerant, but I agree with Paul. He was right to rebuke Peter for his choice of dinner companions. Paul wasn't neutral in the least.

rsc

BobVigneault said:
Thanks Chris for the FYI. So that's the Jon Barlow that attends Jeff Meyers church with Mark Horne (who linked to this very thread on his blog who mentioned me as a 'guy' and Rich's response as a reprimand and called our collective give and take 'mob justice'.) If Jonathan is concerned about being associated with FV then he might want to step a bit further away from............. Ah, man! Now I don't know what to call them! They don't like 'sympathizers', they don't like 'advocates', they don't like 'movers' (cuz "it's not a movement"), they don't like 'conspirators'.

I'm hoping they can give us a name, a literary short-hand, by which we can refer to our theologically nimble brothers. How about 'the guys formerly known as FV sympathizers'?
Click to expand...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

C
  • Locked
Anti-Federal Vision Study Bible
2
Replies
45
Views
12K
Reformed Covenanter
Reformed Covenanter
fredtgreco
  • Locked
Final Mississippi Valley Presbytery Report on Federal Vision
2
Replies
34
Views
5K
CalsFarmer
C
Sovereign Grace
Federal Vision?
Replies
19
Views
2K
jwright82
jwright82
Me Died Blue
  • Locked
Studying the Federal Vision
Replies
15
Views
3K
wsw201
wsw201
A
  • Locked
Alan Strange on Federal Vision
Replies
3
Views
3K
GloriousBoaz
GloriousBoaz
Back
Top