Steve Wilkins exonerated

[Myshkin]

Originally posted by fredtgreco
This is the year. Watch and see.

Is this a reasonable confidence of good things to come (the ousting of the FV)? Or just a general statement that this is the year that we will know either way where the PCA stands?

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

Huh?

Pacifism?

Women deacons?

Prohibition?


Are you sure you are talking about the RPCNA?

Not mine. My Pastor was a WWII Naval flyer and advertises it on the Church website. I have never heard of female deacons either. Prohibition....well. Okay you got me here.

 

[Michael Butterfield]

a. Canon 9: "œif anyone says that the sinner is justified by faith alone, meaning that nothing else is required to cooperate in order to obtain the grace of justification, and that it is not in any way necessary that he be prepared and disposed by the action of his own will, let him be anathema."
b. Canon 10: "œIf anyone says that men are justified without the justice of Christ (Gal. 2:16), whereby He merited for us, or by any that justice are formally just, let him be anathema."
c. Canon 11: "œIf anyone says that men are justified either by the sole imputation of the justice of Christ or by the sole remission of sins, to the exclusion of the grace and the "˜the charity which is poured forth in their hearts by the Holy Ghost´ (Rom. 5:5), and remains in them, or also that the grace by which we are justified is only the good will of God, let them be anathema."

Canons and Decrees, p. 43 quoted in Sproul, Faith Alone, p. 128.

What are you willing to die for? Our opponents often better understand what we saying than ourselves. It is the forest for the trees syndrome.

 

[Michael Butterfield]

Originally posted by RAS

Originally posted by fredtgreco
This is the year. Watch and see.

Is this a reasonable confidence of good things to come (the ousting of the FV)? Or just a general statement that this is the year that we will know either way where the PCA stands?

I can only believe the latter, but I am only speaking for myself.

[Edited on 7-20-2005 by Michael Butterfield]

 

[gto]

Perhaps we could hold on for two seconds in all this.

Is the latest Louisiana Presbytery's statement even out and published in full yet? Or if so, had it already been while all the above rhetoric was posted (flung?)? Is "let everyone be quick to hear and slow to speak" (Jas. 1:19) suddenly not applicable in this case? Rather, in all this, it's been more like "Ready! Fire! Aim!" For mercy's sake, we don't even have a document to critique yet so as to hereticize the presbytery! We're already busy with plans for a new (and this time, pure!) denomination ("Hmm, what'll be our flag colors and insignia?") before the final document has even had a chance to be scrutinized. Yikes! Get a rope before the ink dries.

As far as another Presbyterian split, we ought not so easily ignore the following historical, theological, and pastoral observations by Frame. Or is he a heretic too?

http://www.christiancounterculture.com/40615/machen.html

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

John Frame has been criticized for defending Steve Wilkes in some of his stuff. Grant it John Frame has also called into question some of Wilkes positions from what I have read.

 

[wsw201]

Before we throw the entire denomination under the bus as apostate, lets not forget that it was a PCA Presbytery that told Rich Lusk to take a hike. It was also a PCA Presbytery that got the LA Presbytery to get off the schneid and do something about AAPC. It was also a PCA Presbytery that came out with a comprehensive report on NPP/FV/NS condemning it.

I said it before that I was not surprised that the LA Presbytery vindicated Wilkins. Actually, I would have been shocked if they hadn't. He has been preaching his views in that Presbytery for years and no one has done anything. Why would anyone in there right mind think that the LA Presbytery would do anything to Wilkins now? Because Central Carolina Pres. wanted them to? No way. The LA Presbytery exonerated him because they never had a problem with what he was preaching. And just like Lusk, if he leaves the cozy confines of the LA Presbytery, he'll get the same treatment.

But this is one Presbytery, and folks shouldn't be getting all antsy over what the LA Presbytery has done. It had to be expected.

[Edited on 7/20/2005 by wsw201]

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

So Wayne, Back to a question I had earlier. Will the LA. Presbytery be called upon to give an account and told what to do if it is in error?

 

[Puritan Sailor]

Originally posted by puritancovenanter
So Wayne, Back to a question I had earlier. Will the LA. Presbytery be called upon to give an account and told what to do if it is in error?

I believe at this point that can only happen if someone from that presbytery appeals the ruling to GA, which is not likely if they ruled unanimously. Though, perhaps the GA can be petitioned by other presbyteries to deal with the doctrinal issues.

 

[wsw201]

Originally posted by puritancovenanter
So Wayne, Back to a question I had earlier. Will the LA. Presbytery be called upon to give an account and told what to do if it is in error?

As I remember my BCO, 2 Presbyteries can take action by appealing to GA, but they would have to bring a specific charge against either Wilkins or the Presbytery. As far as I know, there have been no specific charges made against Wilkins or (as it should be) the AAPC Session. This was the situation in the Woods case in Tenn that was mentioned previously. (Two Presbyteries said that "action was not taken" against TE Woods (assuming I remember right). The SJC determined that sufficient action was taken in the Woods case, though the two Presbyteries didn't like it). The appeal would go to the SJC and they would determine if the situation was properly handled by the Presbytery (assuming they would consider the case at all). Since the LA Presbytery took action by examining his views and finding that they were in the bounds of the Standards, I don't think the SJC would do anything. Appealing a decision by a Presbytery is a pretty sticky situation and would probably not hold up.

For what it's worth, I think that those who are opposed the NPP/FV/NS are going to have to take a play out of the PPLN playbook (though I am fairly sure they wouldn't do it) and start stacking committees at GA and making sure their supporters show up at GA so that they could pass a resolution stating that NPP/FV/NS are outside the bounds of the Standards. But this type of resolution might run afoul of BCO 21-4 regarding "system subscription".

 

[C. Matthew McMahon]

Fred, there's only five months left in the year.

 

[JohnV]

There is another way, Wayne. Whether FV/NPP is within the Confessional standard is quite beside the point. The question is whether it is in that standard. Did Christ command it to be taught? Where does Wilkins derive his authority to teach it? He did not receive it from any Presbytery or GA or any committee, for they all inquired into it after the fact. And it was not in the normal guidelines of teaching strictures before that. So the question is really that he preached on his own authority, and no one else's, and especially not Christ's. He may have an entire Presbytery on his side, but he is a lone duck. That's a pretty specific charge, and easier to back up.

 

[turmeric]

Okay, I'm confused. Didn't we already have GA this year? I thought that's where my pastor went...

 

[Scott Bushey]

I am meeting with my pastor the beginning of next month; This is one of the topic we will address.

 

[fredtgreco]

Originally posted by webmaster
Fred, there's only five months left in the year.

But the PCA calendar runs from June to June.

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

So Wilkes has time to make things more confusing I assume. Somewhere there is deception. Written words mean things. Let the written words stand for themselves. And let them accuse their writers. Slippery is unacceptable and deceitful.

 

[RamistThomist]

Originally posted by puritancovenanter
So Wilkes has time to make things more confusing I assume. Somewhere there is deception. Written words mean things. Let the written words stand for themselves. And let them accuse their writers. Slippery is unacceptable and deceitful.

Not saying I agree with it, but read the federal vision, edited by Wilkins. This way you will have ammo "from the horse's mouth."

 

[Contra_Mundum]

Originally posted by fredtgreco

Originally posted by webmaster

The GA level is where the bus stops.

OK. So when will they turn on the ignition? Why did GA this year, again, miss the bus?

This is the year. Watch and see.

Yea. The broad-churchmen will laugh up their sleeves as they join arms with the men they view as "narrow-minded" to remove a thorn in their side. The "narrow-minded," on the other hand, will not be happy with either their bedfellows or their duty.

 

[Ex Nihilo]

Originally posted by biblelighthouse
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.

From my very limited knowledge of the FV, it seems that the biggest problem may be lack of clear communication. The actual views being advocated are not nearly so shocking as the language games they are playing might imply. Thanks for pointing this out. At the same time, I wouldn't want to minimize the potential damage that can come about through language games. A healthy respect for the implications of traditional Reformed theological terminology might be helpful.

Of course, if the FV really are heretics, I would readily admit this if I saw proof. I just know I can't figure out exactly whether they're heretics or not because my attempts to decypher what they actually believe have not been entirely successful. I do see that some on the board believe they are heretics, so if anyone wants to point me (and everyone else) towards resources that show that the FV actually deny justification by faith alone or that their beliefs must necessarily lead to a denial of justification by faith alone, I'm sure that would be immensely helpful.

[Edited on 7-21-2005 by Ex Nihilo]

 

[RamistThomist]

Originally posted by Ex Nihilo

Originally posted by biblelighthouse
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.

From my very limited knowledge of the FV, it seems that the biggest problem may be lack of clear communication. The actual views being advocated are not nearly so shocking as the language games they are playing might imply. Thanks for pointing this out. At the same time, I wouldn't want to minimize the potential damage that can come about through language games. A healthy respect for the implications of traditional Reformed theological terminology might be helpful.

Of course, if the FV really are heretics, I would readily admit this if I saw proof. I just know I can't figure out exactly whether they're heretics or not because my attempts to decypher what they actually believe have not been entirely successful. I do see that some on the board believe they are heretics, so if anyone wants to point me (and everyone else) towards resources that show that the FV actually deny justification by faith alone or that their beliefs must necessarily lead to a denial of justification by faith alone, I'm sure that would be immensely helpful.

[Edited on 7-21-2005 by Ex Nihilo]

If I may follow from that line of reasoning. The reason I have always been slow to roast them is that I (and evie can back me up on this) came from an arminian liberal college in many respects. I have had students come up to me and savagely mock my beliefs in Scripture, the Supernatural, etc. Now, I was schooled on Bahnsen/Van Til so I responded with lethal force.

I have also had philosophy profs make fun of traditional reformed theology while denying me a chance to respond and defend my beliefs. I guess if you want to talk about enemies of the faith let's talk about enemies of the faith.

So, back to the story, I began an intense and personal reclaiming of some of my friends that that whore liberalism (humanism). I won't claim to be successful but many dear friends did embrace Calvinism/partial-preterism.

What I am getting at is that the community at Auburn Avenue provided me with an arsenal of books and material cogently arguing for the Christian worldview at an extremely low cost.

[Edited on 7--21-05 by Draught Horse]

 

[Arch2k]

Jacob,

I hear what you are saying, but we can't defend these guys on the basis that they are battling humanism. If we follow that logic, the Catholics help fight abortion, and even Mormons aren't as bad as they possibly can be.

 

[RamistThomist]

Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel
Jacob,

I hear what you are saying, but we can't defend these guys on the basis that they are battling humanism. If we follow that logic, the Catholics help fight abortion, and even Mormons aren't as bad as they possibly can be.

I understand that I could be proving too much. Nevertheless, when people are selling Dabney, Calvin, Van Til, Bahnsen for VERY, VERY, VERY cheap, I "make friends with those of mammon" and "plunder the Egyptians." Although I think they are neither mammon nor Egyptians.

Also, there are not many good places to worship in Monroe. Pastor Wilkins doesn't preach on FV, but rarely and that only tangentially. He is a masterful pulpiteer and his sermons are always meaty and edifying, and this coming from a person who is not FV.

So it comes down to worshipping at happy clappy slappy church that despises the Reforme faith, or doing home church (not an option), or going to AAPC.

 

[Myshkin]

Originally posted by Ex Nihilo
From my very limited knowledge of the FV, it seems that the biggest problem may be lack of clear communication. The actual views being advocated are not nearly so shocking as the language games they are playing might imply. Thanks for pointing this out. At the same time, I wouldn't want to minimize the potential damage that can come about through language games. A healthy respect for the implications of traditional Reformed theological terminology might be helpful.

Of course, if the FV really are heretics, I would readily admit this if I saw proof. I just know I can't figure out exactly whether they're heretics or not because my attempts to decypher what they actually believe have not been entirely successful. I do see that some on the board believe they are heretics, so if anyone wants to point me (and everyone else) towards resources that show that the FV actually deny justification by faith alone or that their beliefs must necessarily lead to a denial of justification by faith alone, I'm sure that would be immensely helpful.

Evie, this may be of some help......
http://www.semper-reformanda.org/ericson.html

and...
http://www.apuritansmind.com/BookReviews/Sourpuss/WilsonDouglasReformedNotEnough.htm

and this thread, which contains a link to a recent interview with Wilson....
http://www.puritanboard.com/forum/viewthread.php?tid=11657#pid166077



[Edited on 7-21-2005 by RAS]

 

[JohnV]

We may debate 'til the cows come home whether what Wilkins teaches is heresy, but surely there can be no question that teaching on his own authority is heresy. A person must be convicted of the gospel he preaches, but that does not mean that everything he is convicted of is gospel. He may be ordained, but he still just a man; and he is ordained only to preach the gospel, not to soap-box. I see this as much more serious.

Discussing such issues on this Board is fine, that's where it belongs, as long as things are discussed with mutual concern for each other, and a mutual desire for truth, as opposed to a desire to establish one's opinions. But they do not belong on the pulpit. Opinions like Wilkins' are helpful sometimes, but when they become preaching material, then they become "winds of doctrine".

 

[Ex Nihilo]

Originally posted by RAS

Originally posted by Ex Nihilo
From my very limited knowledge of the FV, it seems that the biggest problem may be lack of clear communication. The actual views being advocated are not nearly so shocking as the language games they are playing might imply. Thanks for pointing this out. At the same time, I wouldn't want to minimize the potential damage that can come about through language games. A healthy respect for the implications of traditional Reformed theological terminology might be helpful.

Of course, if the FV really are heretics, I would readily admit this if I saw proof. I just know I can't figure out exactly whether they're heretics or not because my attempts to decypher what they actually believe have not been entirely successful. I do see that some on the board believe they are heretics, so if anyone wants to point me (and everyone else) towards resources that show that the FV actually deny justification by faith alone or that their beliefs must necessarily lead to a denial of justification by faith alone, I'm sure that would be immensely helpful.

Evie, this may be of some help......
http://www.semper-reformanda.org/ericson.html

and...
http://www.apuritansmind.com/BookReviews/Sourpuss/WilsonDouglasReformedNotEnough.htm

and this thread, which contains a link to a recent interview with Wilson....
http://www.puritanboard.com/forum/viewthread.php?tid=11657#pid166077



[Edited on 7-21-2005 by RAS]

Thank you.

 

[Ex Nihilo]

Originally posted by JohnV
We may debate 'til the cows come home whether what Wilkins teaches is heresy, but surely there can be no question that teaching on his own authority is heresy. A person must be convicted of the gospel he preaches, but that does not mean that everything he is convicted of is gospel. He may be ordained, but he still just a man; and he is ordained only to preach the gospel, not to soap-box. I see this as much more serious.

Discussing such issues on this Board is fine, that's where it belongs, as long as things are discussed with mutual concern for each other, and a mutual desire for truth, as opposed to a desire to establish one's opinions. But they do not belong on the pulpit. Opinions like Wilkins' are helpful sometimes, but when they become preaching material, then they become "winds of doctrine".

I certainly agree, but the few times I have been to AAPC, Wilkins did not preach the FV from the pulpit. I believe Jacob has had a similar experience there.

 

[JohnV]

The question, Evie, is not whether he preaches it all the time, but whether he preaches it at all. And even then, I was pointing more to the fact that it is one thing for the Presbytery to exonerate Wilkins views, it is quite another to approve it as doctrine. What has seemed to happen in one Presbytery is that a "no disapproval" is tantamount to "appointment to doctrine", when it comes to holding views. So, if you're ordained, it isn't just that you may hold such and such a view and still be within the confines of the Confessional standard, but the fact that you are convicted of it is licence enough to preach it.

This is not about whether or not Wilkins is raising havoc from Sunday to Sunday, but what the stand on preaching the Word is within a Presbytery and within a church. That Presbytery may make claims to Sola Scriptura, but it has no real right to that claim anymore, for they have tacitly added to it. For them it is now Scripture plus personal conviction, not just Scripture. Remember, they addressed it after the fact, not before. That is crucial.

 

[fredtgreco]

Response to Louisiana Presbytery

There is an excellent and timely response to the LA Presbytery report from:

Dr. E. Calvin Beisner, RE; Rev. Christopher A. Hutchinson, TE; Rev. Richard D. Phillips, TE; Dr. Joseph A. Pipa, TE; Rev. Carl D. Robbins, TE; Dr. Morton H. Smith, TE; Dr. R. Fowler White, TE

http://www.ecalvinbeisner.com/farticles/LA_Pres_Response.pdf

Some highlights:

65 B. We request clarification of your statement that the Standards allow for the view that we
66 should consider persons baptized in water who have not been excommunicated as
67 regenerated. Do you mean that we should charitably consider them such until evidence
68 shows otherwise? That is the best face we can put on it. But since Larger Catechism 171
69 requires all recipients of the Lord´s Supper (hence persons baptized in water and not
70 excommunicated) "œto prepare themselves thereunto, by examining themselves of their
71 being in Christ," it follows that no one should consider even himself regenerated solely
72 on the grounds that he has been baptized and not excommunicated. And if no one should
73 consider himself regenerate on those grounds alone, neither should others consider him
so on those grounds alone. Further, since Westminster Confession 74 25 teaches that
75 particular "œChurches . . . are more or less pure" and "œsubject both to mixture and error;
76 and some have so degenerated as to become no Churches of Christ, but synagogues of
77 Satan," it follows that the Confession, too, envisions the visible church as including
78 many"“and in some churches that have become synagogues of Satan surely the vast
79 majority"“who, though baptized in water and not excommunicated, are unregenerate.
80 Finally, WCF 18.1 contrasts "œunregenerate men" who "œvainly deceive themselves with
81 false hopes and carnal presumptions of being in the favour of God" with "œsuch as truly
82 believe in the Lord Jesus, and love Him in sincerity, endeavouring to walk in all good
83 conscience before Him." In other words the opposite of "œunregenerate" are those giving
84 a credible profession of faith. Surely among those the Confession warns against vain
85 presumption are baptized persons. It follows that the Confession denies that one´s water
86 baptism justifies a presumption of regeneration.

123 III. Specifically with regard to Mr. Wilkins, we would raise the following matters:
124 A. We were surprised to find no reference in your report to Mr. Wilkins´s teaching on
125 assurance, a doctrine on which we believe there is a strong contrast between his public
126 teaching and the Standards. In his 2003 Auburn Avenue Pastors´ Conference lecture,
127 "œCovenant and Baptism," Mr. Wilkins said: "œwhen we say . . . "˜Look to your baptism,´
128 we´re talking about looking to Christ in the covenant, and realizing what you can know
129 for certain. You cannot know if you were ever sincere. You cannot know if you really
130 meant it when you asked Jesus into your heart and threw the pine cone into the fire. You
131 can´t know those. Those questions are unanswerable. Were you really given a new heart?
132 Well, you can´t answer that question. God knows. You don´t know. What you can know
133 is that you have been baptized and you have the Lord´s Supper." Shortly he added that
134 this view helps pastorally in that "œIt makes our standing before God and that of our
135 children plain, and yet it prevents presumption. . . . We belong to Christ. Baptism is the
136 infallible sign and seal of this . . . . And in regard to our assurance, we are pointed away
137 from ourselves and what we think we perceive to be true of us inwardly, which no one
138 can know, and pointed to Christ, the only ground of our assurance."2
139 1. Three things appear clearly from these statements:
140 a. Mr. Wilkins said that "œno one can know" if he was sincere, if he meant it when he
141 asked Jesus into his heart, if he was given a new heart, or generally "œwhat [is] true
142 of us inwardly."
143 b. Mr. Wilkins said that one can know that he has been baptized and has the Lord´s
144 Supper.
145 c. Mr. Wilkins said that this view of baptism "œmakes our standing before God and
146 that of our children plain."
147 2. The first and third of these teachings is contrary to the Standards.
148 a. Contrary to the doctrine that "œno one can know" if he was sincere, meant it when
149 he asked Jesus into his heart, was given a new heart, or "œwhat [is] true of [him]
150 inwardly," the Confession teaches that "œsuch as truly believe in the Lord Jesus,
151 and love Him in sincerity, endeavouring to walk in all good conscience before
152 Him, may, in this life, be certainly assured that they are in the state of grace"
153 (WCF 18.1). "œThis certainty is . . . an infallible assurance of faith founded upon
154 the divine truth of the promises of salvation, the inward evidence of those graces
155 unto which these promises are made, [and] the testimony of the Spirit of
156 adoption witnessing with our spirits that we are the children of God" (WCF 18.2).
157 The "œtrue believer may wait long, and conflict with many difficulties, before he be
partaker of" this "œinfallible assurance," "œyet, being enabled by the Spirit 158 t to know
159 the things which are freely given him of God, he may, without extraordinary
160 revelation in the right use of the ordinary means, attain thereunto. And therefore
161 it is the duty of every one to give all diligence to make his calling and election
162 sure . . ." (WCF 18.3). "œTrue believers may have the assurance of their salvation
163 divers ways shaken, diminished, and intermitted; . . . yet are they never utterly
164 destitute of that seed of God, and life of faith, that love of Christ and the brethren,
165 and conscience of duty, out of which, by the operation of the Spirit, this assurance
166 may, in due time, be revived" (WCF 18.4). Further contrary to Mr. Wilkins´s
167 doctrine, LC 171 requires participants in the Lord´s Supper to examine
168 themselves "œof the truth and measure of their knowledge, faith, [and]
169 repentance""“which would be useless if no one could know such inward things.
170 b. Contrary to Mr. Wilkins´s doctrine of baptism´s making our and our children´s
171 standing before God plain, LC 171 requires partakers of the Lord´s Supper,
172 before partaking, "œto prepare themselves . . . by examining themselves of their
173 being in Christ," which would be unnecessary if none who were baptized in water
174 (and not excommunicated) were nonetheless outside Christ.

325 In light of all the foregoing, we believe, despite the Report´s assertion to the contrary, that Mr.
326 Wilkins has taught or written contrary to the Westminster Standards on at least the following matters:
327 1. the doctrine of assurance,
328 2. the relations of water baptism, covenant, union with Christ, and eternal salvation,
329 3. the Biblical use of proori,zw , and
330 4. apostasy.

 

[C. Matthew McMahon]

Its very good that they did that.
Hopefully that will illicit a response.

 

[WrittenFromUtopia]

That's awesome. Thanks for posting that, Fred.