Presbyterians Together

Status
Not open for further replies.
NaphtaliPress

NaphtaliPress

Administrator
Staff member
I hadn't seen notice of this on PB yet, but I just saw reference on the Warfield list to a paper circulating for signatures within PCA circles calling for charity and tolerence for FV adherents.
See below and discussion here.
--- In [email protected], "Bill Lyle" <blyle@...> wrote:

Here is a paper you may find interesting - below is a Blog link that is a
response to this paper-

For your information -






Presbyterians and
Presbyterians Together:

A Call to Charitable
Theological Discourse

United in Mission

We are followers of Christ and heirs to Presbyterian and Reformed
traditions, particularly as embodied in historic confessional standards. As
such, we are committed to our Reformational heritage and believe it has an
indispensable role in the mission of the Triune God, alongside and in
cooperation with other churches, in our local communities, in North America,
and throughout the world.

We embrace the highest view of Scripture's absolute authority and
trustworthiness and a fidelity to the Reformed theology of our doctrinal
standards. These commitments are in no tension with the church's missional
calling to function, by Christ's Spirit, as an alternative society within
our dominant cultures. These commitments do not undermine, but support the
larger shape of that calling:

* worshipping our God who meets us in Christ through Word and Sacrament

* proclaiming his Gospel of grace to the ends of the earth

* serving others in deeds of love and mercy, embodying God's justice and
peace

* engaging and countering our cultures with the renewing power of Christ

* nurturing healthy, growing, and reproducing churches

* developing gifts the Spirit has granted to men and women among God's
people

* uniting with other Christians in mission as an expression of Reformed
catholicity



In these areas God calls us in Christ, empowered by his Spirit, and guided
by his Word, to proclaim and be a sign of the reign of God to the eyes of a
watching world.

To remain faithful to this calling, we must not allow legitimate differences
and diversity within our own tradition to become obstacles to witness or to
obscure the Gospel's power in forming a new humanity around the person of
Jesus Christ.

Together in Diversity

The Reformed tradition, particularly as expressed confessionally, represents
a definite set of dogmatic contours, doctrinal boundaries, and exegetical
trajectories. And that is a tradition we happily and warmly embrace as our
own, in conformity with Holy Scripture.

Nevertheless, the Reformed tradition itself has evolved, and even in its
formative years, always included differing perspectives on matters of
theological detail. Moreover, our tradition typically allows those
submitting to its fundamental system of doctrine nonetheless to dissent
conscientiously from specific confessional expressions and propositions
where such dissent is neither hostile to the system as a whole nor strikes
at the vitals of religion, as determined by the judgment of our gathered
presbyters.

There are numerous areas in which acceptable differences historically exist.
Among others, these include:

* how we interpret the biblical doctrine of creation as to chronology,
timing, and process

* how we characterize the pre-lapsarian covenant, particularly as to
probation, grace, merit, and reward, and its relationship to and
distinction from the covenant of grace

* the way we prioritize and integrate the tasks of biblical theology,
historical-grammatical exegesis, apostolic typology, redemptive
historical thinking, and study of ancient contexts

* the relative role we grant to specific experiences of conversion in
relation to practices of Christian nurture and the ordinary means of
grace within the covenant life of God's people

* how we best characterize the spiritual life of covenant children prior to
their coming to a maturing faith through the ministry of the Word

* whether we regard sacraments truly to offer Christ and whether, when
effectual, they confer grace instrumentally or are only occasions for
the imparting or promise of grace

* how we interpret and enact biblical teaching on worthy participation in
the Lord's Supper

* how we apply the regulative principle of worship practically to worship
style and order, frequency of communion, the church year, and the
like

* how we translate scriptural teaching on the Jewish Sabbath into a new
covenant understanding of resting upon Christ and celebrating the
Lord's Day

* how we construe and implement biblical principles of church polity in
accordance with our respective church orders

* how the church rightly relates to the civil magistrate and wider culture
while maintaining her proper spiritual identity and mission

* the way we apply Scriptural teaching on election to the lived experience
of God's people as the church visible

* how we confess the return of our Lord and the final judgment in relation
to the millennium and progress of the Gospel



Of these differences, some are more matters of doctrinal content, emphasis,
or articulation, while others are more matters of pastoral application or
expression of our doctrine. Such diversity, we believe, is healthy and
welcome as part of the ongoing life of God's people as we seek to grow up
into unity of faith and live together in the peace of Christ. John Calvin
himself writes,

For not all articles of true doctrine are of the same sort. Some are so
necessary to know that they should be certain and unquestioned by all men as
the proper principles of religion. Among the churches there are other
articles of doctrine disputed which still do not break the unity of faith.
Does this not sufficiently indicate that a difference of opinion over
nonessential matters should in nowise be the basis of schism among
Christians? (Institutes 4.1.12)

We lament our past failures to love the brethren as we ought, the ways we
have broken the unity of faith over inessentials, and how we have
countenanced foolish controversies, strife, and disputes within God's
church.

In virtue of the church's mission, we purpose together to seek truth, all
the while bearing patiently with and listening carefully to one another. We
thereby seek to resolve our differences in the bonds of peace and unity, as
is befitting those who confess the name of Jesus Christ, seek to live the
Christian story, and work to advance his kingdom.



Paul H. Alexander, formerly a PCA pastor in Huntville, AL; now missionary
for MTW in Odessa, Ukraine.

John Armstrong, President, Act3; Carol Stream, Illinois

James Lincoln Ashby, Associate Pastor, Christ the King PCA; Houston,
Texas

Matthew Brown, Organizing Pastor, Park Slope PCA; Brooklyn, New York

Ray Cannata, Organizing Pastor, Redeemer PCA; New Orleans, Louisiana

Randy Crane, Pastor, West Friesland PCA; Ackley, Iowa

John Cunningham, Ruling Elder & Church Counselor, Trinity PCA;
Charlottesville, Virginia

Dan Dillard, Pastor, Grace Reformed OPC; Bend, Oregon

John Frame, Professor of Systematic Theology and Philosophy, Reformed
Theological Seminary; Orlando, Florida

S. Joel Garver, Assistant Professor of Philosophy, La Salle University;
Philadelphia, PA

Keith Ghormley, Associate Pastor, Zion PCA; Lincoln, Nebraska

Wayne Larson, Pastor, Redeemer PCA; Des Moines, Iowa

Thomas Lee, Pastor, Cornerstone PCA; St. Louis, Missouri

Samuel T. Logan, Executive Secretary, The World Reformed Fellowship;
Glenside, PA

Glenn Lucke, PhD student, sociology, University of Virginia;
Charlottesville, Virginia

Jeffrey J. Meyers, Pastor, Providence Reformed PCA; St. Louis, Missouri

Sam Murrell, Pastor, Forest Park PCA; Baltimore, Maryland

Leon Pannkuk, Regional Director, Evangelism Explosion; St. Louis, Missouri

George Stulac, Pastor, Memorial PCA; St. Louis, Missouri

Greg Thompson, Pastor, Trinity PCA; Charlottesville, Virginia

Travis Tamerius, Pastor, Christ the King PCA; Columbia, Missouri

Russ Theisens, Director of Student Ministries, Faith PCA; Cincinnati, Ohio

Mark Traphagen, MDiv student, Westminster Theological Seminary;
Philadelphia, PA

Michael Vendsel, MAR student, Westminster Theological Seminary;
Philadelphia, PA




-------------------

Here are some comments regarding the "Presbyterian to Presbyterian--can we
just get along" statement:



http://reformation21.org/Reformation_21_Blog/Reformation_21_Blog/58/?vobId=3
061
<http://reformation21.org/Reformation_21_Blog/Reformation_21_Blog/58/?vobId=
3061&pm=114&rev=2> &pm=114&rev=2.

--- End forwarded message ---
Click to expand...
 
No, I don't think he is, Scott.

You can see a response by (if I recall) Rick Phillips on the Ref21 blog. Check it out.
 
fYI. Here is some commentary my pastor made on the document.

--- In [email protected], "Richard Bacon" <pastor@...> wrote:

Working off Dan Landis' propaganda list (which he extracted from
"Presbyterians and Presbyterians Together" alias "Come into my parlor, said
the spider to the fly..."):

Wanna take the propaganda techniques to the next level? My remarks are the ones without question marks.

? how we interpret the biblical doctrine of creation as to chronology,
timing, and process

So what exactly is left -- maybe 6 days maybe not. We're sure somebody
sometime created something, though.

? how we apply the regulative principle of worship practically to worship
style and order, frequency of communion, the church year, and the like

A better way of stating this is whether or not we believe the regulative
principle of worship.

? how we translate scriptural teaching on the Jewish Sabbath into a new
covenant understanding of resting upon Christ and celebrating the Lord's Day

NB: It is the Jewish Sabbath (not God's Sabbath?) that we must translate. No
mention of the fourth commandment?

? how we construe and implement biblical principles of church polity in
accordance with our respective church orders

Interesting considering this is supposed to be about Presbyterians and
Presbyterians. Though I did note that at least one of the signers was not a
Presbyterian.

? how we characterize the pre-lapsarian covenant, particularly as to
probation, grace, merit, and reward, and its relationship to and distinction
from the covenant of grace

Again, it is not "covenant of life" or "covenant of works" but "the
pre-lapsarian covenant." This assumes that works and grace are the same,
reward and gift are the same, merit of Adam vs. merit of the second Adam are
the same.

? whether we regard sacraments truly to offer Christ and whether, when
effectual, they confer grace instrumentally or are only occasions for the
imparting or promise of grace

No mention of "when effection" is (like in the believer for example) nor
what the supposed difference is (if any) between conferring instrumentally
and working by themselves.

? how we interpret and enact biblical teaching on worthy participation in
the Lord's Supper

This is simply a plea for paedocommunion.

? the way we apply Scriptural teaching on election to the lived experience
of God's people as the church visible

This is an attempt to redefine the invisible and visible church
distinctions.

Dan, I do not disagree with your analysis at all. I'm simply suggesting that
the document itself is for the purpose of providing "wiggle room" so those
who do not believe our confessional documents can pretend that they do.

Dr. Richard Bacon, Pastor
Faith Presbyterian Church Reformed
Mesquite, TX
"Lameness is an impediment to the leg but not to the will." ~ Epictetus

--- End forwarded message ---
 
Are the links to Reformation 21's blog working for anyone? I copied and pasted them even and I get nowhere.


This subject is what I am studying right now. Also if you guys can fill me in on this Pre-lapsarian doctrine. It seems to be something that is being developed so that teachers can justify the teaching that a regenerate person can fall from grace or become apostate. After all that is what Adam did. Right? Just my humble opinion Maybe this is a topic for another Thread.

[Edited on 5-10-2006 by puritancovenanter]
 
What I dont understand is what is so innovative about FV as opposed to Reformed Theology in general?

Are they trying to reform Reformed Theology??

blade
 
Originally posted by Bladestunner316
What I dont understand is what is so innovative about FV as opposed to Reformed Theology in general?

Are they trying to reform Reformed Theology??

blade
Click to expand...

There is nothing innovative, it is all old rejected theological movements given air time again.

They're trying to redefine and reform Reformed theology. They think Semper Reformanda means always changing and redefining, not always reforming from the Roman Catholic Church.
 
Originally posted by Bladestunner316
:banghead::banghead::banghead:
Click to expand...

Nathan,

When you ask how the FV is trying to "reform" (revise would be a better verb) Reformed theology, are you being genuine or facetious?

I ask because there has been a lot of discussion of the FV and its distinctives on this board and having posted 4,900 times I guess you might have seen some the discussions.

rsc
 
The document is now online here.

There are some surprising signatures. When I saw the first list, I noticed John Armstrong right away. He's not a Presbyterian, at least not to my knowledge. Last I knew he, he was an ordained Baptist minister attending College Church in Wheaton. Now I read (whether reliably, I can't say) that he's seeking ordination in the RCA!

On the "quotes" page one signatory writes:

"For many years I have felt that Presbyterians have wasted valuable time debating one another, time that could better be spent in worship, evangelism, and nurture. Pure doctrine is important, but total unanimity on every disputable issue is impossible, and that is not required by Scripture. So we need to be more careful about our priorities. We also need to take much greater care to be fair and gracious to one another when debates do arise. The principles expressed by the Presbyterians Together document give us biblical guidance in this area."
Click to expand...

Okay, this is true. There have been useless fights, but if one surveys a list of Presbyterian arguments over the last century, most of them have centered around some pretty important ideas. Personally I think that the debate over the length of the days is fruitless, since we'll never know empirically how long the days were and, in my view, Scripture doesn't say unequivocally, and it's doesn't change our doctrine or affect the system of doctrine.

Still, I understand that it seems to some/many that questioning 6-24 creation calls the perspicuity of Scripture into question. Defenders of 6-24 creation have a right to ask non-6-24 types to explain and defend themselves. In my view, that was done a long time ago. We can continue to discuss it, but it shouldn't be a matter of discipline, but the Clark/Van Til case was, from the pov of the VT folk, about the Creator/creature distinction. That's one of the most central doctrines in Reformed and Protestant theology. That was a nasty fight at the time, but it was and remains an important argument.

These two arguments illustrate the difference between the important and the essential. The Clark argument touched on a Reformed essential, whether the human intellect, at some point, intersects with the divine. Whether there really is a Creator/creature distinction.

The theonomy argument was/is important. That's about hermeneutics, the nature of redemptive history, Christian freedom, civil life etc. As a result, many of us have been forced to think through their ethics and views of the relations between church and state and the two kingdoms etc. The ends don't justify the means, but the theonomists caught the rest of us being lazy and intellectually flabby.

The same is true of the Shepherd/FV/covenant moralism argument. Shepherd's views developed and flourished because we were not being faithful to our confession. We brought it on ourselves. At the same time we were being told (literally) "we all know what we think about the gospel" Shepherd was fundamentally revising Reformed covenant theology and soteriology. How many of us now "get" law and gospel who might otherwise never have been driven to find out about it without this controversy.

Again, nothing is more important in Scripture, in our confession, or in our mission than the gospel. How anyone can suggest that there is room in our churches for two sides in this argument is beyond me.

Paedocommunion, closely related to the above, again, arose because we were not being faithful to our confession. Had we all a full-bodied confessional theology of the sacraments, and covenant theology, we could probably have prevented this one, but many/most of us didn't. Many of us are/were quasi-Zwinglian or even quasi-Baptist (sorry fellows) in our view of the sacraments. If we don't understand the distinction between initiation and renewal, folks are bound to start moving toward paedocommunion. When folks discover that there are alternatives to Zwingli and the Baptist view, and they aren't confessional, then of course they're going to look into paedocommunion.

The same is true of the RPW. I wasn't taught it well or clearly. I wasn't made to get to grips, really, with Q 96 of the HC or BC 7 or the Westminster Standards. We just assumed 25 years ago that we could sing revival tunes and be Reformed so long as we were predestinarian. Now people assume they can sing, in stated services, "Shine Jesus Shine" so long as they are predestinarian. So we're having an argument about the RPW because we've been lazy. We've taken a 100 year vacation from our confession and it shows.

PPT, however, seems to be saying in effect, "sit down and be quiet." There is room for all sides on these (then they list a series of) issues.

Is there room in confessional Presbyterianism for denial of the Creator/creature distinction and affirmation of it? Denial of justification sola gratia, sola fide and affirmation of it? Denial and affirmation of paedocommunion? Really? Denial of the RPW and affirmation of it?

Our confessions don't speak clearly to these issues? There is a formal affirmation of the confessions in PPT but in substance aren't they denying the their reality and authority in adjudicating such issues?

Isn't their list misleading in that it groups together issues that really aren't matters of division and matters that really are?

Doesn't PPT suggest that what really matters is "mission" and not "theology"?

Well, what is our mission?

Who gets to define that mission?

Who gets to say what is important and what isn't?

Who gets to say what makes us Reformed and what doesn't?

Who gets to say what Biblical and Reformed worship is?

I thought that's why we HAVE confessions?

If they don't adjudicate issues this fundamental to theology, piety, and praxis, then they must be broken, but no such judgment has been made by any of our assemblies, so far as I know.

How isn't this latitudinarianism?

What are we going to say to the people whom we reach? The gospel is "either trust in Christ for justification" or "you've been united to Christ by your baptism and you can keep what you've been given by trusting and obeying"?

These are not the same gospel messages. As the show says, "one of these things is not like the other...." I think even Kermit the Frog could figure out this one.

How are we going to teach the "reached" to worship God? Are there 500 different versions of the RPW and if not, don't our confessions speak to this?

rsc

[Edited on 5-13-2006 by R. Scott Clark]
 
These are very good points that Dr. Clark has made.

It seems history is again repeating itself. The Church has always seemed to be reactive versus proactive in regards to brewing contraversies. With the advent of the internet, contraversial opinions can now spread like wildfire.

We all need to pray for the church as these contraversies come to a head.
 
Sorry :( Dr Clark I have not kept up to date on the FV issues. I wasnt being facitous or rude in anyway. Didnt mean to cause offense I generally dont join in on all the theological discussions here. Im just now coming around to wondering what this FV is all about. My apologies.
 
Originally posted by Bladestunner316
Sorry :( Dr Clark I have not kept up to date on the FV issues. I wasnt being facitous or rude in anyway. Didnt mean to cause offense I generally dont join in on all the theological discussions here. Im just now coming around to wondering what this FV is all about. My apologies.
Click to expand...

No need to apologize, it's not always possible to read tone in these posts.

There are probably dozens of threads, but searching I found this one.
Here's another.

More links

Here.

a lecture here.

It's a start.

I'm sure others can provide many other links. Try the "Paul Page."

You can search "federal vision" for yourself.

Read Guy Waters' new book from P&R. See the Cal Beisner ed book.

Blessings,

rsc
 
Very good points Dr. Clark. Like I said to you in my u2u. Now reading thorugh what you said I see now how important the confessions are and how urgently it is needed to not be theologically lazy in this regard so that these clever deceptions dont creep in the door. :candle:
 
DITTO DR. CLARK

And no offence taken by the quasi baptist comment. We are not Paedo's and believe differently about who is in Covenant with God. At least we know where we stand. And we are not trying to confuse the language.

Here are more than a few of my two cents.

This is going to be an emotional Rant. So please bare with me.


One thing that bothers me is that this is the way liberalism acts. I think being loving and patient is very important. I also think that some of the teachings in the FV are very troublesome. I definitely have problems with NPP definitions and the FV's view of the COW. These two systems which seem to interlap somewhat are in denominations that are finding some lines blurred and teachings confused. Another troubling thing is that the FV proponents are not all in agreement on their various teachings. That is making things hard to discern also. There are concerns. Some have been voiced very pointedly. Others are hit and miss. This stuff is just causing to much division in my opinion. And the scriptures do address the issue of being divisive. In my humble opinion...Those who have the views that are being found divisive should leave and go somewhere else if they don't want to recant and repent. So that they will not cause confusion and division. They can discover their truth and write and defend it where it will not be so hotly contested.

Our Nation is being challenged on everyside to conform to other nations of the world. Ungodly people are striving to have their views crammed down our throats, telling us we should be more christian. Their definition of us being more Christian is that we should be more receptive and accepting toward them. Be it known that they don't want the Holy Bible's views to be accepted as truth though. In my humble opinion that is what has been happening in the Church for years. Just look at the denominations that have lost their confessionalism. Look at the Churches that no longer hold to a right view of Scripture any longer. They want to claim to be Christian but not allow the Bible to speak. I believe that is how the downward spiral starts. Are we starting the downward spiral here?

I am not that familiar with how the United Presbyterians and other groups became PCUSA. I do know that these denominations slowly lost their moorings and now a few denominations that use to be confessional no longer hold to the WCF. Some may want to say they are but the proof is in the pudding.

Look. I am a credo and I go to a Presbyterian Church. My Pastor knows I am Credo and so do the Elders. I promised to promote the unity of this congregation and not promote my views. If someone has a question about baptism I would send them to the Pastor first. I promised to live in harmony with this church. It is the best thing I have in my area. I don't expect others to conform to my theology concerning baptism.

Likewise if a person finds themself becoming FV or NPP they should seek unity and harmony a little differently than it has probably been done. If they are causing division, confusion, and disputes to arise, they ought to leave and go where they can work it out without causing problems. Maybe that means that they leave a denomination for another. But they shouldn't expect for a whole denomination to become accomodating just for their particular views.

Just a side note. Just because something has been historically believed doesn't mean that is has been accepted. And I believe that that is some of the push here by others. Since it has been said Historically it should be okay for us to teach it. That is Bunk.

I can hear the cries of those who sign this document now. Oh, you didn't sign it? Well you should because you should want to obey Christ and be charitable. Here starts the downward spiral thingy again. You will probably find that the FV/NPP people will be the ones most likely to sign it. Just like you would find those people marching in parades and wanting the illegal immigrants from Mexico to stay in America without being called law breakers are the Illegal immigrants and their friends. Just my humble opinion.

I don't believe those who oppose the document want or encourage any uncharitable conversation. We all acknowledge the need for charity. So if someone opposes the document it doesn't mean that they are uncharitable or want others to be. To say that would be slanderous and uncharitable.

This is my rant. :banghead:

[Edited on 5-13-2006 by puritancovenanter]
 
Last edited:
Originally posted by NaphtaliPress
Why is that surprising?
Click to expand...

Because of course he is so anti-FV and he endorsed the greatest paper ever to be written on the subject of the FV by a non-ordained, young man who has no ecclesiastical, theological or ministerial experience.

Duh.
rolleyes.gif
 
Originally posted by fredtgreco
Originally posted by NaphtaliPress
Why is that surprising?
Click to expand...

Because of course he is so anti-FV and he endorsed the greatest paper ever to be written on the subject of the FV by a non-ordained, young man who has no ecclesiastical, theological or ministerial experience.

Duh.
rolleyes.gif
Click to expand...
:banghead:

The first line of the document is a lie. I can't believe someone would endorse it without even encouraging a change in the first line.
This essay is neither a defense nor a sustained critique of either the Federal Vision or the New Perspective on Paul
Click to expand...
That is about all he does in the whole document. Just my humble opinion

That is Defending the FV/NPP.

[Edited on 5-13-2006 by puritancovenanter]
 
Originally posted by puritancovenanter
This essay is neither a defense nor a sustained critique of either the Federal Vision or the New Perspective on Paul
Click to expand...
That is about all he does in the whole document. Just my humble opinion
Click to expand...

Randy,

Not just your opinion. I was talking with someone intimately familiar with the controversy and his remark was, "It is remarkable that for someone who is so "balanced" there is not one criticism of the FV that he finds credible or valuable."
 
;)
(I should add--burned right through irony to sarcasm; the eyes gave it away).
Originally posted by fredtgreco
Originally posted by NaphtaliPress
Why is that surprising?
Click to expand...

Because of course he is so anti-FV and he endorsed the greatest paper ever to be written on the subject of the FV by a non-ordained, young man who has no ecclesiastical, theological or ministerial experience.

Duh.
rolleyes.gif
Click to expand...

[Edited on 5-12-2006 by NaphtaliPress]
 
Originally posted by fredtgreco
Randy,

Not just your opinion. I was talking with someone intimately familiar with the controversy and his remark was, "It is remarkable that for someone who is so "balanced" there is not one criticism of the FV that he finds credible or valuable."
Click to expand...

That is a great point. I will have to remember that. And it is true. I laboured over it and found out it didn't discuss issues that were much more important. In my humble opinion No one would come away from that document understanding the problems and concerns of good men.

For example... In the Covenant of Works Adam didn't inherit life by obedience to the law. He had it solely by grace. (Meaning Unmerited Favor). And this strange new definition in turn points away from how Christ merited our salvation by obeying the law perfectly. It is very weird and problematic to me.

[Edited on 5-12-2006 by puritancovenanter]
 
I agree that this Presbyterians Together thing may seem sweet to the tongue... but it is rotten milk to the stomach.

Terrible stuff it is.

Randy, nice to see you again. :)
 
Originally posted by fredtgreco
Not just your opinion. I was talking with someone intimately familiar with the controversy and his remark was, "It is remarkable that for someone who is so "balanced" there is not one criticism of the FV that he finds credible or valuable."
Click to expand...

Ditto! It makes one wonder if the author of the document is counting on the naiveté or stupidity of his readers, perhaps he's the one being naïve. Moreover, it seems to suggest that those of us who are opposed to the FV/NPP are being uncharitable. I, for one, take exception to that.

Moreover, if we are Presbyterians, then let's take the matter to our church courts to adjudicate this doctrinal controversy rather than circulate petitions for sympathetic tolerance of something that has become doctrinally divisive. We've read and heard so much from the FV side about conciliar authority, while in practice they argue their case publicly over the internet.

DTK

[Edited on 5-12-2006 by DTK]
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

C
  • Locked
FVer attempts to equate Presbyterians (PCA) with medieval Romanists...
2
Replies
33
Views
5K
NaphtaliPress
NaphtaliPress
Back
Top