In this inclusive age in which we live it appears that many have turned their backs on one of the fundamental actions of the Reformation -- protesting. I wonder how many "reformed" people today identify themselves with this reformation principle and call themselves "Protestant."
TE Peter Leithart Not Guilty of Federal Vision
- Thread starter Romans922
- Start date
- Status
Reformed Musings
Puritan Board Freshman
Scott,
In the earlier NWP case, the SJC found that NWP erred in not finding a strong probability of guilt with Leithart given the evidence at that time. That was similar to the situation with Louisiana Pres (LAP) w/Wilkins, but not identical. But whereas LAP voted to punt the case directly to the SJC, causing Wilkins to bolt to the CREC as the prosecutor was drawing up the charges, NWP elected to conduct the required trial themselves. We've now seen the result of their secret tribunal.
The next step would be for someone in NWP to complain with grounds against the result. That shouldn't be difficult given the plethora of Leithart's writings and other output. I fully expect NWP to deny the complaint. The complainant then can file with the SJC.
So, this isn't over by any stretch. The fat lady may be warming up, but she's not close to singing yet and it remains to be seen what the score will be at the end. Psalm 46:10.
In the earlier NWP case, the SJC found that NWP erred in not finding a strong probability of guilt with Leithart given the evidence at that time. That was similar to the situation with Louisiana Pres (LAP) w/Wilkins, but not identical. But whereas LAP voted to punt the case directly to the SJC, causing Wilkins to bolt to the CREC as the prosecutor was drawing up the charges, NWP elected to conduct the required trial themselves. We've now seen the result of their secret tribunal.
The next step would be for someone in NWP to complain with grounds against the result. That shouldn't be difficult given the plethora of Leithart's writings and other output. I fully expect NWP to deny the complaint. The complainant then can file with the SJC.
So, this isn't over by any stretch. The fat lady may be warming up, but she's not close to singing yet and it remains to be seen what the score will be at the end. Psalm 46:10.
seajayrice
Puritan Board Sophomore
What is deeply saddening is the antiseptic and overly academic dissection of the very real problem of false doctrine. Those charged with pasturing the elect sometimes appear to reduce the pastoral office to academic arguments on orthodoxy while failing to address the issues of how such false doctrine affects God’s sheep. Here is one suggestion to the PCA on this matter - quit fiddling about with Roberts Rules and parliamentary procedure while the elect are being mislead! How would the Apostle Paul deal with matters of false doctrine? How will our Savoir deal with those that would lead the sheep astray? Our PCA church courts look more like the US Congress than the apostolic church of the bible. Thankfully, our fate does not rest in the hands of church officers, truly one prays, God be merciful yet may judgment begin in the House of the Lord! May God grant our Elders wisdom.
Scott1
Puritanboard Commissioner
But procedure also reflects the concern for truth.
For example, giving a chance for appeal to the body that made a decision (Presbytery) before appealing to a higher body (General Assembly).
That's a biblical principle, gives time for reconsideration and repentance.
The stated goals of the procedure is to not prejudice truth, and to protect the church from (doctrinal) harm.
A key principle of reformed theology is that the unity of the church must be grounded in doctrinal agreement. Doctrine matters because God's revealed truth matters to Him (God), and His creatures must respect their Creator's will.
And that truth, the "confession" of a communion is what it represents before the world.
As difficult as it is, that is more important than the egos, seeming friendships or temporary accommodations made by His creatures.
The procedures (and Mr. Roberts rules, and the Presbyterian Book of Church Order seem to implicitly reflect this) are designed to check and balance and give chance for repentance, reconciliation built in-
all aspects of what Scripture tells us is part of human nature and God's ordained means of interacting with it.
Reformed Musings
Puritan Board Freshman
I was late to the game. I was asked to be on the Ad Interim Study Committee for FV, NPP, and AAT. At that point, I started reading both sides of the issue, starting with the book on the Knox Colloquium. I read Wilkins, Wilson, Leithart, Meyers, some Jordan (he's a basket case), Horne, Lusk, N.T. Wright, Sanders, Dunn, and others I probably don't remember. Frankly, I was appalled at what I read.
Before the report was released and especially after, the FV bloggers flooded the Internet with spin. Meyers published his 30 reasons not to accept the report, Wilson and Jordan trashed the entire PCA with tirades for even bringing the subject up for discussion. Their blogarhia tried to cover the wealth of material that that PCA FVers had published and said favoring FV, but it had little effect. (BTW, don't go looking for most of the FV stuff written by the PCA FV crowd. They purged the Internet of everything that they could after the SJC accepted Wilkins' case.)
The Ad Interim committee's study report was accepted by about 98% of the 35th GA, joining 6 other orthodox Reformed denominations in rejecting the FV errors. However, that only increased the temperature on the FV blogs. I saw few blogging to hold FVers accountable, so I joined the fray. I continued to read FV material, both on blogs and in their books. Before they virtually withdrew from the Internet, I engaged them regularly on various blogs. The patterns that we discerned in FV during my time on the committee have coalesced significantly since then, including their own FV Statement. Since we published that report in May 2007, I haven't seen anything that even hints at the committee significantly missing the mark.
You are welcome to read my blog on these subjects. The Federal Vision tag will call up the entire corpus. Most of my FV analytical material dates from 2007 and 2008 with a few in 2010 and this year, as nothing has changed theologically since the earlier days. My posts have been directed at a number of underlying theological errors using Scripture and our Reformed fathers to refute FV errors. In doing so, I joined a few others who preceded me by several years on the topic. As I said, I was a late arrival.
I feel that my life experiences also uniquely positions me to observe and act on FV these days. My command experiences taught me a great deal about discipline - both its proper object and uses, and what's necessary to follow through. It also makes me somewhat impatient with what I perceive as an inability of church officers to hold fellow officers accountable. It's almost like a structural weakness in many TEs in regards to making tough decisions concerning their buddies. There are no real and personal consequences for such inability in the PCA like there is in the military. I find that frustrating. Without consequences for failure to lead, there really is little accountability.
There are many more knowledgeable on FV than I. I just try to live up to my vows - to work to preserve the peace and purity of the PCA. Lots of folks are happy to talk about peace. Purity is a more challenging goal, but without it there is no peace.
I hope that answers your question.
Ask Mr. Religion
Flatly Unflappable
Reformed Musings
Puritan Board Freshman
Lane read virtually everything Leithart wrote, which gave him a outstandingly broad perspective. Lane's diligence and efforts on this case were heroic.
This whole FV situation reminds me of a wise observation my pastor made: that when the mainline church were fighting so many battles around 1900s, the moderates, by their lack of conviction, handed the denomination over to the liberals. Own their own, the liberal wing would not have had the strength or numbers. If the PCA does not firmly refute FV, it shall loses its ability to stand on the scriptures and will lose the sound interpretation of the scriptures in the Westminster standards.
Re: membership. Someone who does not hold to a reformed position will likely be questioned closely about why he wants to join a Presbyterian Church. Most churches also require classes that explain the doctrinal distinctives of a denomination along with its history and practice. But a credible profession is what is required. Someone standing outside the reformed doctrines would not be permitted to hold office. And discipline would certainly become an issue if someone tries to hijack every discussion or otherwise disturb the teaching and peace of the church. I think this is one of the reasons why a presbyterian form of church government is so essential: those who hold to the confessional standards (the officers) make the major decisions for the church in a representative fashion. But if you are one of Jesus' sheep, you are welcome in the fold.
Re: membership. Someone who does not hold to a reformed position will likely be questioned closely about why he wants to join a Presbyterian Church. Most churches also require classes that explain the doctrinal distinctives of a denomination along with its history and practice. But a credible profession is what is required. Someone standing outside the reformed doctrines would not be permitted to hold office. And discipline would certainly become an issue if someone tries to hijack every discussion or otherwise disturb the teaching and peace of the church. I think this is one of the reasons why a presbyterian form of church government is so essential: those who hold to the confessional standards (the officers) make the major decisions for the church in a representative fashion. But if you are one of Jesus' sheep, you are welcome in the fold.
sastark
Puritan Board Graduate
Interesting you should write this, Rev. Winzer, as I have described myself as a "Protestant" more often, lately.
sastark
Puritan Board Graduate
Why?
If you mean close the thread, I think I can say that none of the moderators have seen any reason to do so. Please let the moderators moderate. If you feel strongly that some post or thread has crossed some line, use the Report post feature (the triangle with the exclamation point amongst the three symbols next to "Blog this Post" at the bottom of every post in a thread). A moderator will then look into it and make a decision.
Reformed Musings
Puritan Board Freshman
Thanks, Chris, and to your fellow mods. This continues to be an interesting, open discussion.
The Free Church and the Associate churches have much in common in this respect. We can be thankful we have protests forming a part of our constitutional documents.
Wayne
Tempus faciendi, Domine.
Matthew:
I'll gladly take this to a new thread if it requires or gathers more than your reply:
I've heard the contention that "Protestant" historically meant not "Protesting" but rather "Pro-testamentum" = "for the Gospel".
Anything to that, historically? Or just merely an artful ploy?
I'll gladly take this to a new thread if it requires or gathers more than your reply:
I've heard the contention that "Protestant" historically meant not "Protesting" but rather "Pro-testamentum" = "for the Gospel".
Anything to that, historically? Or just merely an artful ploy?
Wayne, it sounds like an artful ploy. It comes from protestari, to declare, protest. It is historically tied to the protestation against the decision of the Diet of Spires. The functionality of the protest in Presbyterian polity is a procedural bar to churches making their synods or councils the rule of faith and practice. Any measure taken to smother this important function is in effect a return to Popery and a denial of the Protestant nature of the church.
Reformed Musings
Puritan Board Freshman
Hi Wayne!
Google doesn't turn up anything on that, and I have not come across it before in anything that I've read. Sounds a bit like the popular myth that Apple computer's logo was based on Turin's suicide method, but I'm certainly open to being educated on the origins of the term "Protestant".
Google doesn't turn up anything on that, and I have not come across it before in anything that I've read. Sounds a bit like the popular myth that Apple computer's logo was based on Turin's suicide method, but I'm certainly open to being educated on the origins of the term "Protestant".
Reformed Musings
Puritan Board Freshman
Wayne,
OK, but I am particularly fond of my Apple logo reference. After all, that logo is actually the mark of the beast (see Gen 3).
Besides, Matthew can't even spell "armor" correctly.
OK, but I am particularly fond of my Apple logo reference. After all, that logo is actually the mark of the beast (see Gen 3).
Besides, Matthew can't even spell "armor" correctly.
Besides, Matthew can't even spell "armor" correctly.
It might have something to do with the fact that I don't sleep in the right time zone.
DMcFadden
Puritanboard Commissioner
Not guilty of being FV?
and the Westminster Confession is not Calvinist . . .
and the PC is not guilty of being a computer . . .
and oranges are not citrus fruit . . .
and the Superbowl winner does not play football . . .
Very curious. Very curious.
Thanks, Lane. It sounds like you were heroic (or at least legendary).
and the Westminster Confession is not Calvinist . . .
and the PC is not guilty of being a computer . . .
and oranges are not citrus fruit . . .
and the Superbowl winner does not play football . . .
Very curious. Very curious.
Thanks, Lane. It sounds like you were heroic (or at least legendary).
jwright82
Puritan Board Post-Graduate
As others have pointed out this is a lot like what Machen dealt with in his day, Godly men and women siding with compromise rather than truth. I do think that the question is worth raising though what danger is this view really for the average PCA member? I know and agree that this an error and is therefore wrong but it seems to me that the average church member wouldn't even know what is being talked about. This does raise concerns that a FV minister could teach his errors and people wouldn't even know the difference. But it seems to me that it is a smaller concern compared to our other problems.
I am sad by the result of these two cases but it seems to be a local problem in certian presbyteries and not the church in general. I mean why is there not a bigger stink about Enns, who is much more dangerous to a PCA dominated by more or less Evangelicals rather than strictly Reformed people. Evangelicalism is much accomodating to evolution and liberalism than FV ever will be. So why not focus our energy on the worse danger and than deal with the lesser problem?
I am sad by the result of these two cases but it seems to be a local problem in certian presbyteries and not the church in general. I mean why is there not a bigger stink about Enns, who is much more dangerous to a PCA dominated by more or less Evangelicals rather than strictly Reformed people. Evangelicalism is much accomodating to evolution and liberalism than FV ever will be. So why not focus our energy on the worse danger and than deal with the lesser problem?
It's not hard to imagine someone in, say, John Owen's time raising the same point about Arminians vs. Socinians, or Brownists vs. Antinomians, or any combination. What is particularly dangerous will vary from person to person. And the analysis of what is worse will probably also depend on what the analyst has a particular background in or is alert to. But when something is striking at the vitals of Reformed doctrine, it is hard to quantify the danger. How do you choose between being hanged, shot in the heart, or having your head cut off?
Reformed Musings
Puritan Board Freshman
Besides, Matthew can't even spell "armor" correctly.
It might have something to do with the fact that I don't sleep in the right time zone.
ROFL!!!
jwright82
Puritan Board Post-Graduate
Good point. It just seems odd to me that you see much more cries about this issue than the Enn's issue, not to get off topic. I would say that it is much more a danger in the OPC because it is smaller and seems less evagelical than the PCA. You are right that it is a perceptual thing. I am more concerned with the Enn's issue because of my backround in apologetics and dealing with accomodation to evolution by evangelicals. So I am glad that this issue is being dealt with but why plug what seems to me to be a hole in the ship when you have a gash on the other side, your still going to sink.
Yes, we need to plug all the fatal leaks and pump periodically for the non-fatal. Enns, Carolyn Custis James, Leithart - we need repair jobs on all of what they represent, perhaps even drydock.
Scott1
Puritanboard Commissioner
When one is talking about key doctrines like these:
It is difficult to pick a most serious place to start, because they are all so serious... and have such major implications for church doctrine and practice.
Undermining assurance of salvation, for example- it's hard to imagine something more damaging than that.
But that's not all-
confusing, or denying the biblical gospel so that it is earned by sacraments and works?
That's going to effect every person sitting in the congregation and how they view God, and their place in His church.
And that someone can contradict or confuse or undermine confidence in the the Westminster Standards (by implying they are substantially wrong or inadequate) with modern inventions emanating from a lone British Theologian and openly teach such, undermines the sanctity of vows....
It's hard to imagine something having more impact on the average member, nor being of a more serious nature to a confessional church.
timmopussycat
Puritan Board Junior
Besides, Matthew can't even spell "armor" correctly.
It might have something to do with the fact that I don't sleep in the right time zone.
But I spell armour correctly and I sleep in the right time zone. Three cheers for English English!
(If Samuel Rutherford had seen the Lions' Gate and the North Shore he wouldn't have called Anworth heaven.)
- Status
