Steve Wilkins exonerated
- Thread starter biblelighthouse
- Start date
- Status
biblelighthouse
Puritan Board Junior
Yeah, Jacob . . . I'm sure all your PCA friends there in Monroe, LA, are real heretics. And I'm sure Robbin's latest horror file will be a hoot.
I have to admit, Pastor Steve Wilkins really ticked me off at first. I read a chapter by him in the "Federal Vision" book, and was completely convinced that he had gone off the deep end. However, unlike some, I did not brandish my weapons and air my disdain to the world. Instead, I contacted him to discuss the issue. I also exchanged a considerable number of emails with Doug Wilson's assistant, Mike Lawyer.
I believe that neither Wilson nor Wilkins have denied the core reformation principles of justifcation. Rather, the problem is that Wilkins is a real chucklehead when it comes to getting his point across clearly. Much of what he says would be heretical if his statements were intended to apply to ALL his theology. Rather, it seems that much of what he says is ONLY meant to be applied within the context of his view of the covenant. In other words, from the perspective of eternity, outside of the temporal, covenantal framework, he still ultimately agrees with the reformers regarding TULIP, justification by faith alone, etc. Wilson, on the other hand, while admittedly being not careful enough with his speech in the past, has much more quickly "gotten the point" that he needs to be careful how he articulates doctrine. Wilson's assistant has made it very clear to me that there is a very real difference between non-elect covenant members and elect covenant members, based on clear texts such as Matthew 7:23.
I am not a Federal Theology fan. But I also am extremely wary about throwing around the "H word". I am still waiting for someone to definitively demonstrate that the FV guys have actually denied the core reformation doctrine of justification. That is a very serious charge, and I will gladly join in calling them heretics if the charge can be shown to be true. But until that time, I'm not jumping on the bandwagon.
Here are some Steve Wilkins quotes to consider, before branding him a "heretic":
As a friend of mine pointed out to me, this comment cautions against using these theological categories for church IDENTIFICATION, but it assumes that they are valid theological categories in themselves. This interpretation is confirmed by Wilkins statement that we need to "view salvation from the perspective of the covenant as it is worked out in history." (AAC, 269) ANd again, "We are able to view and to deal with men in terms of indisputable realities. They have been baptized and thus, we know they are obligated to repent of their sins and trust and obey." (Ibid)
A personal friend of mine noted to me that these quotes clarify the fact that:
And here is more from the AAPC summary statement:
The documents notes contain this clear statement...
These documents were unanimously adopted by the session of Auburn Avenue Presbyterian Church.
Again, we may not like Federal Vision theology. But not liking it is not a reason for branding it heretical. It seems to me that Wilkins does stand in agreement with the Reformed doctrine of justification, but that he has done a really bad job of PR.
I have a friend on the puritanboard who made a very good comment to me in a personal email:
If AA theology is as thoroughly "heretical", unbiblical, and anti-confessional as some have made it out to be, then why doesn't someone get down to business writing a scholarly book refuting the Federal Vision error in detail? The Federal Visionists themselves don't seem to have any trouble pumping out books.
(Maybe Robbins' new book will fill this bill . . . I haven't read it yet . . . let's see how well-done it is.)
Out of all of you who responded with vigor in this thread's posts above, I am curious: How many of you have gone to the trouble of reading much of the FV literature, and how many of you have bothered to correspond with Wilkins, Wilson, et al for clarification? Or is it enough for you that a number of good PCA guys don't like them?
Again, just as I said earlier in this post, I am NOT a Federal Vision fan. So don't start sending me hate-mail. I am just saying that we need to be awfully careful about throwing the H-word around.
twogunfighter
Puritan Board Freshman
Dead right Joseph....The PCA has much greater problems than the FV issue. I wish that our elders were as up in arms over the abuse of the regulative principle of worship as they are over the FV. To me the evangellycalization of the PCA is a much greater cause for concern than Steve Wilkins et al.
WrittenFromUtopia
Puritan Board Graduate
I think the answer is that books from regular publishers take time to get out unless you have access to your own publishing house as the Wilson and Wilkens do. I think you will find that Dr. Waters has a book in the pipeline, along with the faculty of Westminster West. In addition, there have been many lectures and papers you can access at www.teachingtheword.org - under the justification tab or try www.paulperspective.com. The OPC is also working through the issues and should provide a very helpful study in the near future, plus I think the Mississippi Valley PCA report does a good job of explaing the errors.
I've read quite a bit of the FV literature as have many others here. I think using the published works of the FV advocates to make a judgment ought to be fine. If they can't make themselves clear, then how the onus to clarify things gets shifted to the reader is a strange leap if you asked me. Good teachers make things clearer and even putting the best spin on the FV, it is so full of complex nuance and equivocation, that I think it's harmful on that account alone.
Also, I also haven't seen the "H" word tossed around by anyone here other then a reference to something Robbins wrote. I am not nor is anyone else here defending Robbins, just so nobody here gets painted with that broad brush so many FV advocates complain about.
[Edited on 7-19-2005 by AdamM]
I disagree with this. Justifiction is not a small matter to be debated and discussed. It is one of the most important issues at hand. Change it and you can lose much more.
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Assessor
I categorically ignore what Robbins says. If it is truly important someone else will say it. I am worried that some unsuspecting reader will read Robbins on this, think he is right on ALL things, and then come away hating Van Til.
So, all you ruling elders out there who participated in Regional/State Presbyteries and General Assemblies, should we do as Robbins says and disregard/defy Church Courts? So, all your hard work for nothing?
Someone needs his mouth washed out
Being called a heretic by Robbins is not something to lose sleep over.
here is a list of potential heretics
So, all you ruling elders out there who participated in Regional/State Presbyteries and General Assemblies, should we do as Robbins says and disregard/defy Church Courts? So, all your hard work for nothing?
Someone needs his mouth washed out
Being called a heretic by Robbins is not something to lose sleep over.
here is a list of potential heretics
Scott Bushey
Puritanboard Commissioner
Chuck,
I hear you loud and clear. However, I agree with Randy in this case. Justification is the hinge that the door of salvation swings upon.
Agreed!
Justification, is the article upon which the Church stands or falls (and the article upon which each of us will stand or fall.) Muddying up the waters in regard to justification has consequences well beyond ignorance of and misuse of the RPW.
To me thats the most frustrating thing about the FV (and NPP) is that we have in the Reformed Confessions, solid Biblical, clear teaching on justification and somehow the FV manages to create this big ball of nuance and confusion that simply isn't there in our standards. What has been gained by this "nuance" other then strife, confusion and less clarity? How can that be defended as being an advance for the Church?
Absolutely agreed.
Without justification by faith alone, there is no hope for proper worship.
Originally posted by biblelighthouse
Yeah, Jacob . . . I'm sure all your PCA friends there in Monroe, LA, are real heretics. And I'm sure Robbin's latest horror file will be a hoot.
I have to admit, Pastor Steve Wilkins really ticked me off at first. I read a chapter by him in the "Federal Vision" book, and was completely convinced that he had gone off the deep end. However, unlike some, I did not brandish my weapons and air my disdain to the world. Instead, I contacted him to discuss the issue. I also exchanged a considerable number of emails with Doug Wilson's assistant, Mike Lawyer.
I believe that neither Wilson nor Wilkins have denied the core reformation principles of justifcation. Rather, the problem is that Wilkins is a real chucklehead when it comes to getting his point across clearly. Much of what he says would be heretical if his statements were intended to apply to ALL his theology. Rather, it seems that much of what he says is ONLY meant to be applied within the context of his view of the covenant. In other words, from the perspective of eternity, outside of the temporal, covenantal framework, he still ultimately agrees with the reformers regarding TULIP, justification by faith alone, etc. Wilson, on the other hand, while admittedly being not careful enough with his speech in the past, has much more quickly "gotten the point" that he needs to be careful how he articulates doctrine. Wilson's assistant has made it very clear to me that there is a very real difference between non-elect covenant members and elect covenant members, based on clear texts such as Matthew 7:23.
I am not a Federal Theology fan. But I also am extremely wary about throwing around the "H word". I am still waiting for someone to definitively demonstrate that the FV guys have actually denied the core reformation doctrine of justification. That is a very serious charge, and I will gladly join in calling them heretics if the charge can be shown to be true. But until that time, I'm not jumping on the bandwagon.
Here are some Steve Wilkins quotes to consider, before branding him a "heretic":
As a friend of mine pointed out to me, this comment cautions against using these theological categories for church IDENTIFICATION, but it assumes that they are valid theological categories in themselves. This interpretation is confirmed by Wilkins statement that we need to "view salvation from the perspective of the covenant as it is worked out in history." (AAC, 269) ANd again, "We are able to view and to deal with men in terms of indisputable realities. They have been baptized and thus, we know they are obligated to repent of their sins and trust and obey." (Ibid)
A personal friend of mine noted to me that these quotes clarify the fact that:
And here is more from the AAPC summary statement:
The documents notes contain this clear statement...
These documents were unanimously adopted by the session of Auburn Avenue Presbyterian Church.
Again, we may not like Federal Vision theology. But not liking it is not a reason for branding it heretical. It seems to me that Wilkins does stand in agreement with the Reformed doctrine of justification, but that he has done a really bad job of PR.
I have a friend on the puritanboard who made a very good comment to me in a personal email:
If AA theology is as thoroughly "heretical", unbiblical, and anti-confessional as some have made it out to be, then why doesn't someone get down to business writing a scholarly book refuting the Federal Vision error in detail? The Federal Visionists themselves don't seem to have any trouble pumping out books.
(Maybe Robbins' new book will fill this bill . . . I haven't read it yet . . . let's see how well-done it is.)
Out of all of you who responded with vigor in this thread's posts above, I am curious: How many of you have gone to the trouble of reading much of the FV literature, and how many of you have bothered to correspond with Wilkins, Wilson, et al for clarification? Or is it enough for you that a number of good PCA guys don't like them?
Again, just as I said earlier in this post, I am NOT a Federal Vision fan. So don't start sending me hate-mail. I am just saying that we need to be awfully careful about throwing the H-word around.
With respect,
You are wrong. And I doubt that you have studied the issue as much as Rev. Pipa, Rev. Duncan, Rev. O Palmer Robertson, Rev. Guy Waters, et al.
This is not a matter of clarity.
Well, here it is. These guys are allowing heresy about justification to be propagated. Or are they? No doubt, what I have heard is not biblical. But I do not know Steve Wilkes nor have read the findings.
C. Matthew McMahon
Christian Preacher
So, what the PCA going to do? Will they discipline the presbytery itself? Unlikely.
OK, so let's ask the hard question - who will leave the PCA over this issue? Fred, are you leaving? Jeff? Wayne? Anyone? Is this a "leavable" issue? If you are not leaving, why? Is not leaving giving acceptance to the PCA practice of allowing it overall?
In my humble opinion, like I said before, and will continue to say it - AA/FV/NP is heresy. If the PCA is going to "OK" it, then the PCA is going apostate (gone apostate).
[Edited on 7-19-2005 by webmaster]
The GA level is where the bus stops. Not that I'm sanguine about the GA taking action...
But when it gets there, that's when Robbins will declare the church apostate and announce the last train is leaving the station and we better get on because he's leaving and moving to Canada because he doesn't want to be in the South when the fire and brimstone starts falling and maybe you can be one of the few, the proud, the clarkian, the one true church presbyterian remnant that will be raptu-----
But when it gets there, that's when Robbins will declare the church apostate and announce the last train is leaving the station and we better get on because he's leaving and moving to Canada because he doesn't want to be in the South when the fire and brimstone starts falling and maybe you can be one of the few, the proud, the clarkian, the one true church presbyterian remnant that will be raptu-----
C. Matthew McMahon
Christian Preacher
OK. So when will they turn on the ignition? Why did GA this year, again, miss the bus?
Can a whole Presbytery be disciplined? Come on, someone has to see the light. Why do liberals and heretics have to come into solid organizations and take them over? Why do we let them? Is this a repeat of the United Presbyterian Church and others that have fallen by the wayside. What happened to the checks and balances, again? The RPCNA hasn't grown very fast but it is firm and steady. It still holds to it's foundation. I know Reformed Baptist Churches that have outlasted the PCA. This is crazy.
To Matt\'s question
This issue had yet to get there?
5 or 6 years ago, a N.C. presbytery successfully brought a matter to the G.A. regarding a Tennessee church's violations of women's ordination. That presbytery would not act. I don't remember how it all came about, but the pastor (and sadly the church too) were forced out of the denomination. (When they voted to leave, going to the EPC, the man led his flock in cheering "free at last! free at last! thank God almighty, free at last!")
So it happens that issues are forced. But we will have to wait and see. If something doesn't "give," some (good or bad) are going to "go."
Where? If we listen to Robbins, there's no place to go except the wilderness. According to him the OPC is a nest of iniquity, 10X worse than the PCA, much farther down the road to perdition. Why they haven't joined Rome is anybody's guess...
Someone was saying to me the other day: the world, the big picture, looks different to a covenant child who grew up in a denomination that was true to the old paths. Can I see clearer? Or can the other guy? I know the "let's wait and see what happens" attitude usually means you have fewer steps to take when the time comes. You just have to be willing to take them...
[Edited on 7-20-2005 by Contra_Mundum]
This issue had yet to get there?
5 or 6 years ago, a N.C. presbytery successfully brought a matter to the G.A. regarding a Tennessee church's violations of women's ordination. That presbytery would not act. I don't remember how it all came about, but the pastor (and sadly the church too) were forced out of the denomination. (When they voted to leave, going to the EPC, the man led his flock in cheering "free at last! free at last! thank God almighty, free at last!")
So it happens that issues are forced. But we will have to wait and see. If something doesn't "give," some (good or bad) are going to "go."
Where? If we listen to Robbins, there's no place to go except the wilderness. According to him the OPC is a nest of iniquity, 10X worse than the PCA, much farther down the road to perdition. Why they haven't joined Rome is anybody's guess...
Someone was saying to me the other day: the world, the big picture, looks different to a covenant child who grew up in a denomination that was true to the old paths. Can I see clearer? Or can the other guy? I know the "let's wait and see what happens" attitude usually means you have fewer steps to take when the time comes. You just have to be willing to take them...
[Edited on 7-20-2005 by Contra_Mundum]
Robbins has already endorsed a new denomination called the Evangelical Reformed Presbyterian Church. It seems to be a group of desenters.
Just what presbyterianism needs. Another micro denomination. Why don't these guys fight until they are kicked out? Why don't they join one of the other teensy denoms? Because they want to call the shots. No one wants to be the johnny-come-lately's. That would require humility. Passing some other group's entrance requirements. Maybe admitting, "We should have left when you did." The fact that they don't want to say that word speaks volumes to me.
WrittenFromUtopia
Puritan Board Graduate
Hey PCA brothers, the water in the RPCNA pool is nice and warm! Singing the Psalms is fun, I promise. Come on over!
Michael Butterfield
Puritan Board Freshman
I would come, but I cannot fully subscribe. I enjoy wine! Oh, and Beer too!
Originally posted by Michael Butterfield
I would come, but I cannot fully subscribe. I enjoy wine! Oh, and Beer too!
I also enjoy a good smoke also.
But you gotta admit they have been the only denomination that has been steadfast through the ages.
This is the year. Watch and see.
WrittenFromUtopia
Puritan Board Graduate
Originally posted by Michael Butterfield
I would come, but I cannot fully subscribe. I enjoy wine! Oh, and Beer too!
The first pastor I met in the RPCNA drank alcohol. They no longer hold a position of abstinence (nor do I). Churches are allowed to use wine in their communion, per last year's Synod.
Originally posted by puritancovenanter
Originally posted by Michael Butterfield
I would come, but I cannot fully subscribe. I enjoy wine! Oh, and Beer too!
I also enjoy a good smoke also.
But you gotta admit they have been the only denomination that has been steadfast through the ages.
Huh?
Pacifism?
Women deacons?
Prohibition?
WrittenFromUtopia
Puritan Board Graduate
Hypothetically speaking, Fred, Matt, and others in the PCA, what would you do if they approved the FV'ers in your denomination as being faithful to the Word of God and without error?
Gabe,
I don't know. I do think the PCA is worth fighting for. This year will say a lot.
(By the way - my comments on the RPCNA were not meant as a slam, but in response to the fact that it was described as "the only" faithful denomination)
WrittenFromUtopia
Puritan Board Graduate
I understand. They have recanted of the Prohibition mindset. I'm not familiar with the pacifism you mention. The women deacons thing doesn't seem to be very widespread in the denomination, even though it is allowed ... I've heard that there has been challenges to that position as of late. I'm not too dogmatic at this point (lack of Scriptural study on the issue), but whatever position I'm convinced of by Scripture, I would fight for it if I am, Lord willing, made a minister in this Church. Incidentally, the "Reformed baptist" church I attended prior to converting (SBC to RPCNA) allowed women deacons (elders such as Bruce Ware, Thomas Schreiner, etc. presiding in that church).
[Edited on 7-20-2005 by WrittenFromUtopia]
- Status
