» News: Pastors Draft "Pastoral Letter" on PCA FV Report
A group of ten ministers has written a "pastoral letter" concerning the Federal Vision study committee report releasedto be considered in June at the PCA's General Assembly in Memphis, TN. This letter first came to our attention at the blog of PCA Deacon, Joel Garver. Download the letter here (PDF). The signatories are: Vito Aiuto, Matt Brown, Ray Cannata, Sam Downing, Josh Eby, John Haralson, Mike Khandjian, Iron Kim, Sam Wheatley, and Shayne Wheeler.
The letter divides its discussion into seven issues - the procedure of the committee's appointment, the issue of confessional interpretation, the issue of election, covenant theology, ecclesiology, baptism, and justification. The letter concludes, "Fellow presbyters, until the committee clarifies these issues, it would be premature for us to ratify their report. We encourage you to carefully and prayerfully think through these issues and not enter into this vote hastily. We are convinced that the report as it now stands lacks the quality and scholarship of a PCA General Assembly position paper. "
Vito Aiuto is the pastor of Resurrection Presbyterian Church in Williamsburg, Brooklyn.
Matt Brown is the pastor of Park Slope Presbyterian Church in Park Slope, Brooklyn.
Ray Cannata is the pastor of Redeemer Presbyterian Church of New Orleans, LA.
Sam Downing is the pastor of City Presbyterian Church in Denver, CO.
Josh Eby pastors at Redeemer Presbyterian Church in Knoxville, TN.
John Haralson is pastor of Grace Seattle in Seattle, WA.
Mike Khandjian is pastor of Chapelgate Presbyterian Church in Marriotsville, MD.
Iron Kim is pastor of Trinity Presbyterian Church in Orange, CA.
Sam Wheatley is pastor of Newsong Presbyterian Church in Salt Lake City, UT.
Shayne Wheeler is pastor of All Souls Fellowship in Decatur, GA.
Discuss the pastoral letter in our forums.
Labels: fv, news, pastoralgroups, pca, pcaga
78 Comments:
“We are not FV men. We are PCA pastors and elders who believe that it would be premature and unwise to ratify this report as it now stands.”
I am not sure this statement is accurate (see letter 1 page 2 paragraph). Most are on record as being sympathetic towards FV/NNP. (A fact seen on one of their web page – see Matt Brown Park Slope Presbyterian Church in Park Slope, Brooklyn.)
So, how are we to view a open letter that begins with what appears as open deception?
Mr. Anonymous - perhaps the signatories will respond to your question here; thanks for your participating at RN!
Following up on the first post, it is telling that these fellow PCA pastors self-identify themselves as "not FV men," but they DON'T self-identify themselves as "not NPP men."
Perhaps they will be willing--whatever their objections to the rest of the paper--to identify themselves as "not NPP men"? (Neither the Study Committee nor I claim that NOTHING can be learned from the NPP. The question is whether one's theology is characterized by the Reformation's understanding of justification et al, or the NPP's, at those points where there is a direct conflict.)
Perhaps they will be willing to gladly commend the nine declarations at the end of the report?
Perhaps they will be willing to acknowledge that the NPP at those nine points (recognizing that some of the nine address the NPP, some the FV, and some both) is outside the bounds of our system of doctrine?
I hope so, because silence from them at these point would speak pretty loudly.
Warmly,
Jeff Hutchinson
Pastor, Trinity PCA
Asheville, NC
Just who are the "FV men" anyway? Generally speaking they are the men identified in the various reports from presbyteries and now this GA study committee document.
None of the men who signed this document are in any of these lists.
Even if someone is "on record as being sympathetic towards FV/NPP," how does that make the statement that they are not FV men a deception?
There's a more generous way of reading this statement. They mean that they are not on some FV bandwagon. They're not at the FV conferences or writing books and articles for the publishers who publish books by FV guys. They don't run in those circles. They are not "FV men."
Furthermore, just what counts as making one sympathetic anyway? If you say that you like some of NT Wright's books in public does that make one sympathetic to FV and/or NPP?
The culture of this debate is really bizarre.
Pastor Hutchinson - you've brought up the "9 points" again; do you not think that I showed pretty clearly that the 9 points are too flawed to be meaningfully applied as a test of a minister's faithfulness?
http://tinyurl.com/2ckzdy
Wow.
this 'discussion' of the merits of the NPP (or FV) is really dragging on toward the mire.
In the letter, the signators did not interact with the 9 summary points of the Study Committee's Report. And, Mr. Barlow only asked questions about the 9 points with no answers.
The 'discussion' or 'conversation' regarding the NPP/FV has been going on for long enough. We are at a cross-roads as a Church. It is time to take a stand on the Gospel. We are either going to stand with Westminster (and history) or we are going to allow 'two gospels' in the PCA.
Rather than taking the paths of least resistance atop a fence of kindness, we must vote and declare where we will stand.
Sola Gratia;
Bill Lamkin
1st Presbyterian
Panama City, FL
Yes, Jeff H. I woould love to see some serious interaction with Barlow's comments on the nine declarations.
Pastor Lamkin - it sounds like you're essentially saying "Let's not confuse this situation with the facts." But a vote can only demonstrate where we stand, after all, if we all know what it is we're voting *for*.
I think the fact that I asked questions about the 9 points doesn't mean that I didn't interact with them. My approach essentially asked questions that deserve an answer, or else the questions serve to illustrate that the 9 points are too murky to be helpful.
Anyway, how are we at a "crossroads"? It looks to me like we're simply at yet another point in our yearly internecine battles.
Are there only 2 choices? FV or anti-FV? NPP or anti-NPP?
This is an unnecessary dilemma. By way of example, I know a pastor who would say (with these signatories) - and emphatically - that he is not a FV man. And yet he can also say that the FV conversation has legitimate concerns and contibutions to make for our day.
I'm really sorry to see this come to such a sectarian head.
The 9 declarations are really useless. Even though most of them are harmless and could be agreed to by anyone (thus, the uselessness) no self-respecting confessional presbyterian would be caught dead being blackmailed into signing on. Take your HUAC loyalty oath and stick it someplace that is appropriate for it. My ordination vows are still sufficient and still the only constitutional requirements.
This Delores Umbridge Ministry of Magic crackdown is getting to be too much to bear.
"but they DON'T self-identify themselves as "not NPP men.""
This is exactly what led to the stacked committee. Excuse me Jeff, but these are ministers in good standing that are telling you that you've proven nothing wrong about appreciating the NPP. Your objection amounts to simply saying you already know that NPP is wrongly appreciated and you can discount anyone who attempts to say otherwise.
All fine in one sense. I only bring it up because I got the (perhaps mistake) impression you thought you were advancing a persuasive argument rather than an intra-choir song sheet.
You are, again, excluding any voice from consideration that does not match your own, and are thus verifying the injustice and unpresbyterian nature of the committee's formation.
So, Jonathan Barlow, since you confirmed that you host this site, are you one of its editors? Did you or one of your friends come up with the poll last week about what should be done with at GA with the FV report?
It is commendable to pursue the goal of providing a dispassionate, objective source of information. But a goal rarely achieved this side of glory, and so I for one, believe that a frank admission of one's leanings and affiliations serves the truth far better than pretending to stay anonymous.
Seriously, it only adds to the bizarre "culture of debate" your pastor mentions above, not to mention the culture of suspicion.
Again, my pastoral work here has me swamped. If I have time for more substantive dialog, I will give it my best.
Chris Hutchinson
Hi Pastor Hutchinson,
Since you've asked point blank, for full disclosure, I am involved in other ways besides hosting too, but the goal of anonymity being not to reveal any identities until the paper can establish a reputation for unbiased reporting. So judge RN by the content of the articles on their own merits, and if you detect bias, feel free to point it out in the comments on the site or in the discussion area. Maybe it was not a great plan, but it was the plan that made the most sense in holding RN to the goal of proving its good will in the endeavor given all the ad hominem stuff online. Anyway, I've been trying to get people interested in the idea of an independent, Reformed press for a long time on my blog, so it shouldn't be surprising that I'm involved in some way.
Anyway, that's pretty much all I want to say about my involvement right now. If it helps you to put a face on things, just assume I've done every single word of the site, but still judge the content on its own merit (and admire writers that don't want personal recognition for their writings).
I will confirm that if I ever write any opinion content, I will put my name on it.
As for the poll, if you have some suggestion as to how the wording is biased or something, that would be a good thing to put in the discussion area for that post for other readers to see. RN is responsible for, at most, two or three votes cast to test it out. At various times throughout the poll's run (it might still be running) different choices were ahead, so the outcome is just as much a surprise to RN as it would be to anyone.
Yet more talk that avoids the fact: The Study Report has found that the NP/FV is a substantive break with Confessional Christianity.
As for the usefulness of the 'conversation.' The conversation is useless: There are at least two camps - traditionally confessional and the new confessionalists who want to re-work the Confession (while claiming to adhere to the Confession- huh?).
Mr Barlow asked 'what crossroads'?
The Cross-roads is this: we can take the newfound road of the NP/FV and sacrifice the Gospel (Sola Fide) or we can adhere to the old Gospel of Scripture. So, which will it be?
June 13 will reveal our position as a Church.
Sola Gratia - Bill Lamkin
Bill,
I don't think anyone is denying "the fact", as you call it - "the Study Report has found that the NP/FV is a substantive break with Confessional Christianity" - hence the very nature of this open letter and much of the discussion/conversation going on.
Plenty of people, however, are questioning whether the report has its facts right. If the committee does not, then their declarations and recommendations are misdirected at best.
Considering the FACT that the Committee "affirms that we view NPP and FV proponents in the PCA as brothers in Christ", why your insistence on "we can take the newfound road of the NP/FV and sacrifice the Gospel (Sola Fide)"? This sort of rhetoric is to suggest that FV & NPP are preaching a false Gospel, hence they are not brothers. Are you suggesting that the Committee found that we are brothers with those that sacrifice the Gospel? If so, June 13 will reveal a lot of where we stand as a Church, huh? It looks like we are damned if they do and damned if they don't.
Good stuff.
Mr. Hutchinson,
Thanks for recognizing that there is a clear cut distinction between FV and NPP, because this is rarely recognized. Maybe, just maybe, FV'ers will not have to hear this charge thrown at them anymore.
Claim: The Confession makes a careful distinction between requirements and conditions...
Claim: Merit = keeping the covenant of works by perfect obedience...
Claim: Christ fulfilled the Covenant of works...
So says the committee, either openly on its own authority, or with a string of confessional citations that don't make the claim.
Bill, we certainly agree that there is a small group in the PCA--"new confessionalists who want to re-work the Confession (while claiming to adhere to the Confession- huh?)."
But the committee found no substantive break with confessional Chritianity. It found a fictional group of people who substantially break from a made-up Confesson.
But here in reality the FV's are quite obviously confessional and the whole reaons for a stacked committee was to circumvent and seriouly pressure the courts of the Church that have been continuously recognizing that fact.
Barlow,
As long as we are clearing the air with truthfulness; may I suggest that the lines in the open letter declaring ““We are not FV men. We are PCA pastors and elders who believe that it would be premature and unwise to ratify this report as it now stands” be removed as this seem to be not factual. Again no one has answered the question from the first post.
“So, how are we to view a open letter that begins with what appears as open deception?”
Hey there, Jon (Barlow)/ Editor.
As I said elsewhere, I am glad you have engaged the 9 Declarations directly on your blog. Thank you for doing so.
I have read your arguments there and thought about them for some time, and am not persuaded that you "showed pretty clearly that the 9 points are too flawed to be meaningfully applied as a test of a minister's faithfulness." In other words, I continue to think that the 9 Declarations may (and ought to) be meaningfully applied as a test--not of a minister's faithfulness (there are plenty of faithful Episcopal and Baptist and Lutheran et al ministers)--nor of whether the PCA's tent ought to be big enough to contain contrary views (folks who cannot affirm the 9 Declarations will always be welcome as members of PCA churches, as long as they can affirm the 5 membership questions)--but of whether an officer's views are consistent with the system of doctrine contained in our Standards.
"...but of whether an officer's views are consistent with the system of doctrine contained in our Standards."
Which is henceforth to be decided by an interetingly chosen committee and their living document?http
Anonymous,
Can you please provide specific quotes and citations showing where they ARE FV men? Right now, it is simply your assertion that they are "sympathetic", which wouldn't prove anything. I could be sympathetic towards the environment, but it is a leap to conclude that I am in Green Peace. After all, we just have your "I am not sure" and "appears" to you to go on. Is this really the way a Confessional Presbyterian goes about his business?
Whenever this discussion comes up it makes me think of the larger catechism and Jesus' words, "They honor it with their lips, but their hearts are far from it."
Question 145: What are the sins forbidden in the ninth commandment?
Answer: The sins forbidden in the ninth commandment are, all prejudicing the truth, and the good name of our neighbors, as well as our own, especially in public judicature; giving false evidence, suborning false witnesses, wittingly appearing and pleading for an evil cause, outfacing and overbearing the truth; passing unjust sentence, calling evil good, and good evil; rewarding the wicked according to the work of the righteous, and the righteous according to the work of the wicked; forgery, concealing the truth, undue silence in a just cause, and holding our peace when iniquity calls for either a reproof from ourselves, or complaint to others; speaking the truth unseasonably, or maliciously to a wrong end, or perverting it to a wrong meaning, or in doubtful and equivocal expressions, to the prejudice of truth or justice;speaking untruth, lying, slandering, backbiting, detracting, tale bearing, whispering, scoffing, reviling, rash, harsh, and partial censuring; misconstructing intentions, words, and actions; flattering, vainglorious boasting, thinking or speaking too highly or too meanly of ourselves or others; denying the gifts and graces of God; aggravating smaller faults;hiding, excusing, or extenuating of sins, when called to a free confession;unnecessary discovering of infirmities; raising false rumors, receiving and countenancing evil reports, and stopping our ears against just defense; evil suspicion; envying or grieving at the deserved credit of any, endeavoring or desiring to impair it, rejoicing in their disgrace and infamy; scornful contempt, fond admiration; breach of lawful promises; neglecting such things as are of good report, and practicing, or not avoiding ourselves, or not hindering: What we can in others, such things as procure an ill name.
Specific quotes please.
Jonathan,
Just back from a busy day. Thanks for your straightforward response.
I understand your approach, and do think that, though difficult, men are able to don different hats in different contexts, and that one is able (in theory) to advocate for something one moment, and then report on it in another with quite a different tone and objective.
In fact, a mark of sanctification is the ability to be able to do that about our own shortcomings! Difficult, but certainly possible, with God's help.
Blessings,
Chris H.
I am sorry KNDY - is your question addressed to me or to those that signed this letter? Notice their words.
Committee Formation:
Several members of the committee had already pronounced their condemnation of FV teaching, prior to being named to the committee.
On another blog someone tries to prove the above, but the problem is ... it is a he said he said logic.
So how about this, I have personally talked with some on this list and they are Pro - FV/NPP so therefore the deception is still there.
Come on give me a break. Do not accuse me of something you will not accuse those who wrote this "open letter"
For clarity's sake, can you define what you mean by "Pro-FV/NPP"?
Do you mean (1) they positively embrace either or both of those views or do you mean (2) whatever their own views, they believe FV/NPP views should be tolerated as within the bounds of the Standards?
After all, some people think that any attitude short of outright condemnation is "Pro."
This post has been removed by the author.
Anonymous,
Given Sean Lucas' public repentance for his language used in his condemnation of "FV" folk I don't understand your "he said he said logic"? It could just be me.
I am just looking for quotes. Given the language tossed to and from in this "conversation", I think it appropriate to demonstrate, especially given the Catechisms application of the 9th Commandment, diligence when making accusations, especially when one claims another minister is denying the Gospel.
So far you have made a charge and have backed it up with "it appears", "I am not sure", and "I have heard it said", but it is written that they are not. All you have to do is provide some quotes. After all, you even gave a web site, so surely there should be a few quotes there, right?
By "pro" I would mean an advocate or supporter of.
As you write on this topic "anonymous", please keep in mind question 145 of the LC. If we did this, it would serve the Church and God's glory well.
Would anyone please inform us of a reformed denomination that has studied the NPP/FV and returned with a favorable opinion?
I'm not asking about presbytery studies, but denominational studies.
So far, the RCUS, OPC, PCA (did the ARP?) have concluded that the NPP/FV are out of accord with historic confessional christianity. Did Dominic Acquila somehow appoint the members of those committees, too?
If one man call you a horse, no big deal, but if 3 call you a horse, shouldn't you get a saddle?
Sola Gratia,
Bill Lamkin
Bill, why can't we count the presbytery studies? Have you read the report of the Missouri Presbytery?
Bill,
The OPC report was not adopted at their GA. The motion failed. The PCA report has not been adopted. Right now it's just the opinion of 6 men. Only the micro RCUS is left in your list.
Presbytery studies have as much credibility as blogs b/c each presbytery can say anything they wish. When a denomination erects a committee, that committee's report is the finding of that Church.
I've read the MO presby study and think it is a lot of words with nothing to offer beyond a Rodney King conclusion: "can't we all just get along."
Sola Gratia,
Bill Lamkin
Jeff,
fine, the OPC didn't adopt the report. But, what was the finding of the report?
The adoption is not really the issue. The findings of the report(s) are really what we are discussing. right?
At least the 'micro RCUS' took action. Their size is not relevant. Truth is Truth whether a majority like it or not.
Please don't tell us that you are basing your views on the amount of popular support they garner in polls.
Sola Gratia,
Bill Lamkin
Ideally - yes, and that's why Robert's Rules of Orders commend that special committees represent the spectrum of opinion in the organization. But the PCA's committee doesn't meet this criteria.
Mr. Barlow:
You have to quit chirping about the make up of the committee. That bell has been rung. The committee is done, and continually complaining that some of "our guys" weren't on the committee is really crying over spilled milk. Come on!
The Report makes a declaration (9 really) that the NPP/FV is out of accord with the Confession.
Either their findings are right or not (Wright).
Sola Gratia,
Bill Lamkin
Lastly, I'll ask again.
Has any reformed denomination studied the NPP/FV found that the NPP/FV is in accordance with the Westminster Standards?
BTW - how many arminians were on the Council of Dordt or Arians at Nicea?
Sola Gratia,
Bill Lamkin
Well, people have tried to discuss the report's findings here, but you have simply appealed to authority.
Currently, the OPC report stands undefended (unanswered critiques are found at federal-vision.com)
Currently, the PCA report (both versions) stands undefended (several critiques are available online and no one from the committee has stood up to defend its work)
I don't know anything about the RCUS report and I agree that its size is irrelevant.
Counting noses doesn't really get to the truth of any issue. A lot of people watch Grey's Anatomy. So if truth is your aim, why not engage in substantive discussion about the issues? Answer the critiques. The committee isn't defending its own report, perhaps you can help them to defend it?
The Committee is not allowed to answer the critiques (at this time). They have to wait until GA.
so far the critiques are all the same: (1) our guys were left off the committee, (2) we don't want to subscribe to something we don't believe, (3) the critics of the NPP/FV don't really understand what they are criticizing and aren't really enlightened enough to comment, and (4) we're all confessional if you allow us to re-work/re-wright the confession to fit our new post-modern understanding of our new post-modern gospel.
Sola Gratia;
Bill Lamkin
As for Arminians at Dort, to take one example, the British delegation to the Synod (Calvinists all) had plenty of quibbles with the growing opinion at Dort and worked hard to shape the outcome and soften some of the conclusions drawn by some Calvinists. They were not Arminians, but they may well have been called Arminians had the outcome of Dort been different. Asking if there were doctrinal "Arminians" at Dort is a bit like asking if St. Augustine was a Catholic or a Protestant. There was no bounded concept of the evil "Arminian" until after Dort's conclusions were set down and codified. It's true that Dort expelled the party of the "arminians" and that Dort had a good idea of the contours of Calvinism and Arminianism prior to the conference, but the precise expression of those Contours emerged through discussions and speeches from international delegations.
Suppose the Federal Vision isn't consistent with Westminster. If so, how isn't it? Are these differences allowable exceptions? And even if they aren't, does this mean that the Federal Visionists are not Calvinists? Not orthodox Christians? And so the degree of severity of the claim against the FV is relevant to whether the claim can be sustained. I mean, I'm sure you could find 10 guys in the PCA who would say that Sonship is inconsistent with the WCF. Suppose an anti-sonship moderator appoints 5 of those men and 3 ruling elders of a neutral disposition to study Sonship. How do you think that report would end up looking? Would you be so willing to make an argumentum ad populum in favor of it?
You wrote:
"The Committee is not allowed to answer the critiques (at this time). They have to wait until GA."
How do you know that is the case? It might be standard protocol, but that doesn't mean it is a hard and fast rule. And the OPC report stands undefended too, and it is old news.
They told Green Baggins why there were two versions, they just won't answer even that little question publicly.
Mr Barlow:
You again make my point for me.
You wrote:
"Suppose the Federal Vision isn't consistent with Westminster. If so, how isn't it? Are these differences allowable exceptions? And even if they aren't, does this mean that the Federal Visionists are not Calvinists? Not orthodox Christians?"
The report does find that the FV/NPP is not consistent with Wesminster and it explains how (the dreaded 9 points). And, by inference, yes we should assume that those in the NPP/FV camp are not Calvinists and are not orthodox.
But, here's my point from earlier: If no serious denomination has come out in favor of the NPP/FV (via it's study reports) doesn't that something about the NPP/FV?
Namely, it's not confessional.
So, rather than trying to convince the world that non-confessionalism is confessional, why not secede to a more favorable denomination?
Have good weekend.
Sola Gratia,
Bill Lamkin
"But, here's my point from earlier: If no serious denomination has come out in favor of the NPP/FV (via it's study reports) doesn't that something about the NPP/FV?"
No, it doesn't say anything about it at all.
Sola Gratia,
George
Now let's not bring Calvin into this. He was a "FV Man" - an Arminian by some standards.
Sure you want side with him?
Bill Lamkin asked:
"Would anyone please inform us of a reformed denomination that has studied the NPP/FV and returned with a favorable opinion?"
Yes, the CREC did:
http://www.crechurches.org/html/federal_vision.html
As has already been mentioned, the only sizable denomination that ruled definitively against the FV is the RCUS. The RCUS is a 75+ year old denomination with just 51 churches so I’m not sure what kind of “horse caller” that is. BTW the CREC will have twice as many congregations as the RCUS by November so I’m not sure what weight their condemnation of the FV/NPP is supposed to carry.
So, it seems your implicit assertion (no Reformed denomination has been favorable to the FV) is, in fact, incorrect.
Garrett Craw
Pastor
St. Andrew’s Community Church, CREC
One last thing. In order to pre-empt anyone saying the CREC isn't a "serious" denomination they ought to at least look at the facts first. The CREC has, at this point, less than 100 churches but has the following within the realm of its confederation:
1. Credenda Agenda
2. Canon Press
3. Veritas Press
4. Logos School
5. Biblical Horizons Ministries
6. New Saint Andrew's College
7. Cantus Christi (hymnal)
Much of the above ministries have deeply penetrated the larger evangelical culture (my children attend a classical school sponsored by an evangelical mega church but they use Veritas materials and send their teachers for training at the Logos School). Not to mention numerous vibrant, liturgical and urban church-plants. I'll let the reader decide whether the CREC is a serious Reformed denomination or not.
Garrett Craw
Pastor
St. Andrew's Community Church, CREC
"chirping"?
Bill, instead of signing off with grace in Latin, why not just show some to other people once in awhile?
"The Committee is not allowed to answer the critiques (at this time). They have to wait until GA. "
Then why are they allowed to silently edit the report? How is that any different?
By the way, aside from Jon's great answer about the British delegation, the truth is that yes, there were Arminians invited to participate at the Synod of Dordt and they did participate.
Also, Arians were invited to the Council of Nicea.
Christians, Bill, used to be able to prove and defend orthodoxy without running away from conversation and debate.
Mark,
Because God wasn't gracious and isn't gracious to anyone until they fully subscribe (without exception) to the Westminster Confession of Faith and, clearly, the "FV" guys don't subscribe to the WCF, so God isn't gracious to them, so why should he?
Bill also needs to decide if he wants the "FV guys" to be his brothers or not. If so, then he really needs to adjust his attitude, because if he interacts with his wife, kids, and brothers in the same I would hate to have dinner at his house. If he doesn't want them to be his brothers, then maybe he needs to secede, finding a more friendly home with John Robbins, because he is in direct violation of the church's finding in the report under discussion.
So, what is it, Bill? Are they brothers? Please check the box:
Yes
No
Maybe
This post has been removed by a blog administrator.
KDNY:
How have I violated the findings of the Report? Because I don't think the FV 'gospel' is correct?
I never said that these men weren't christians. I have repeatedly said that they don't belong in the PCA because they aren't confessional.
as to my earlier question about historic denomination and their study of the FV/NP, I don't think the CREC fits my criteria: they are new, founded in the image of the Dougs and are clearly pro-FV/NP.
Did someone say Calvin was an FVer? what did you drink before typing that?
Let's just be intellectually honest: the FV/NP is not in agreement with historic presbyterianism/confessionalism. Now - if we can agree to that statement, we can get along (just separately).
Sola Gratia;
Bill Lamkin
"Let's just be intellectually honest: the FV/NP is not in agreement with historic presbyterianism/confessionalism."
It would be very easy to use this sentence if you didn't care whether FV was Confessional or not. This is in one sense a big improvement because it gets us away from the falsehood that the FV are unconfessional. On the other hand, it makes us subject to whatever is popular this year rather than to the denominations doctrinal standard.
But still, appreciate the bona fides. Without expressing an opinion one way or the other on Calvin as FVer, hereht is a possible source
Mr. Lamkin,
I understand you are supposed to be a pastor and so I have to say that your lack of percision is very apparent. You keep changing the terms in your argument as you go along...makes it almost impossible to respond to. First you asked:
"Would anyone please inform us of a reformed denomination that has studied the NPP/FV and returned with a favorable opinion?"
But now that I have responded by saying that the CREC did, you suddenly change your argument and add a new feature:
"...as to my earlier question about "historic denomination" and their study of the FV/NP"
My dear sir, what on earth do you mean by a "historic denomination?" The OPC that began in 1938? The RCUS that began at roughly the same time? The PCA that began in 1973 and received the RPCES in 1983? The RPCUS which began in 1983? The URCNA that began in 1995? If you want to say that a certain denomination is remnant of continuers, you're on slippery ground. Every split off of a mainline denomination (and a split off of a split from a mainline like the RPCUS) conveniently says those words. In the conservative reformed world there are no "historic denominations" unless you consider the term "historic" to be something that occured in lives of those still alive today.
The idea the of "historic" in conservative reformedom is normally disabused when a student is writing his PCA denominational paper in seminary.
Garrett Craw
Pastor
St. Andrew's Community Church, CREC
I'll ask again:
Is there one reformed denomination (outside of the "Church of the Dougs") - young or old - that supports/embraces the NPP/FV?
I also find it comical that the loudest voices for the NPP/FV seem to repeatedly come from the same three/four churches, blogs, and men.
Hmm
Sola Gratia -
Bill Lamkin
For the sake of clarity, what is "The Church of the Dougs"? I am assuming you mean the CREC but want to make sure because I don't want to also assume that you are being terribly insulting to a lot of people without having some clarification first.
I don't know about other denominations, but other than the CREC I know that many presbyteries in the PCA have been friendly (which I think has been noted before). And I don't think many reformed denominations have taken any definitive action against them.
It seems like you are trying to make a point, but I fail to see what it is.
George
MDiv student at CTS
Yes, "the Church of the Dougs" is supposed be a cute way of referring to the CREC.
As I've mentioned above, presbytery reports are not the same as a denominational statement. It's like blogs: each can say what they want.
When a denomination speaks, it is a bigger/more authoritative voice.
As to the adoption of studies by other churches, I've addressed this too.
the point I've been raising is this: were the findings of any other Church reports favorable toward the FV/NP?
So far, "NO."
What denominations have denominational statements against them? I was under the impression that most of the reformed world was still in the discovery phase regarding these issues.
Also, here is some friendly advice, take it or leave it. I don't think members of CREC churches think its cute to call their denomination "the church of the Dougs." From someone on the outside looking in (I'm not in the CREC), it looks to me like you are implying that they worship "Dougs". My guess is that they might take offense to that. Maybe that was your intent, or maybe you were trying to be funny, either way I think your reputation suffers for it and you might be better off not calling them that anymore. At least not here on a general Reformed news blog.
George
Bill writes:
"Is there one reformed denomination (outside of the "Church of the Dougs")"
And you're a pastor? I minister Word and Sacrament every week in an urban context here in Los Angeles as we joyfully expand the Kingdom of God. What do you do?
http://saintandrews.typepad.com/
You really ought to do some serious soul-searching before you go out spitting on part of the Body of Christ. That's a scary place to be.
Garrett Craw
Pastor
St. Andrew's Community Church, CREC
I apologize for making an offensive joke about the CREC.
Again, however, I'll ask, has any reformed denomination written a favorable report on the FV/NP?
Sola Gratia,
Bill Lamkin
I'd like to know if ANY reformed denomination has written ANY kind of report on the FV. All the attempts I have read have missed it so badly that it can't be said they are reporting on the FV but on some strange distortion of it.
Seriously, for those of us who are looking for help in making heads or tails of this stuff our assigned helpers have done nothing but muddy the waters and cause more trouble. For a tradition that prides itself on scholarly, careful, and Biblical approach to theology the efforts of the current chapter have been embarrassing. I have been looking into this stuff for 5 years and hoping that someone could convince me of the evils of the FV. But precious few have even entered the right room to begin to make a case.
Anybody got a report on the real FV out there? I have been waiting a long time for one.
George:
could it be that the confusion on the NPP/FV matter is because the terms under discussion are continually redefined by the FV/NPP crowd so that they can't be pinned down to a position?
I've had better success hanging jell-o on the wall.
Sola Gratia,
Bill Lamkin
"As I've mentioned above, presbytery reports are not the same as a denominational statement. It's like blogs: each can say what they want."
This is an utter inversion of Presbyterianism. The courts, not study committees, determine the orthodoxy of ministers of the Gospel.
Bill,
Can you please provide 2 or 3 examples from 3 or 4 different "FV" reps, as examined in the interim study report, showing their equivocation?
Thanks, kdny
Bill, I'd be interested in knowing who you've been reading. I haven't come across this continual redefining you mentioned. Most of the guys I read have bent over backwards to clarify their meaning. I'd like to see some of that effort from the other side. Maybe we could make a little progress with this monkey.
The only one who is re-defining around here is Bill Lamkin who seems to be confused about the difference between a denomination, "historic" denomination, blog, and church courts. How a person like this gets ordained without being able to draw such distinctions illustrates why we are having a debate on rather simple and self-apparent issues.
Garrett Craw
Pastor
St. Andrew's Community Church, CREC
Hey Garrett, I don't want to sound like the "nice" police, but there are ways to make your point without going that far with the insults.
-begin sermon
I wonder if we are all so used to heated exchanges on discussion boards and personal blogs (and also un-used to news blogs), that we forget that average Joe congregant might actually be reading this thing for reformed news. Just like Susie CREC would be upset to see someone call her denomination "church of the dougs," Pepe PCA probably wouldn't appreciate the implications you are making about his pastor. I'm all for a good argument, but maybe we should consider the audience a little more.
-end sermon
George (is this Mr. Edema?),
I agree generally but there is one big difference, I don't have a problem w/ Mr. Lamkin's theology. I may believe he is probably too baptistic and revivalistically-oriented but that doesn't stop me from seeing him as a strand in the same tradition and embracing him as a brother. But I know that he believes views like mine are outside the pale. So, I think when I make a vigorous defense, note that distinction, it is indeed vigorous. I actually do believe needlessly and ignorantly attacking people in order to push them out of their denominations is far different than teasing apart someone's silly, inconsistent, and constantly changing argument. Particularly, when ironically, it is the very thing they charge FVers with.
But...I will take your admonishment into account. If this is G.E. I hope you are well in STL.
Garrett Craw
Pastor
St. Andrew's Community Church, CREC
"When a denomination erects a committee, that committee's report is the finding of that Church."
"The adoption is not really the issue. The findings of the report(s) are really what we are discussing. right?"
"Truth is Truth whether a majority like it or not."
"Again, however, I'll ask, has any reformed denomination written a favorable report on the FV/NP?"
------
Dear Pastor Bill Lamkin,
The OPC did write a report in favor of the paedocommunion position, which supports the FV view of Baptism & Covenant. The report recommends making changes to the Westminster Standards and the OPC Baptism Liturgy in order to facilitate Covenant Communion and emphasize One Baptism for Union Into Christ.
G.I. Williamson Co-authored this denominational majority report. --- It is a worthy read!
-Andrew Voelkel
Dear all:
as to some of your questions:
who have I read: primarily Mark Horne's blog since he has catalogued MUCH of the pro-FV/NPP stuff over the years. There, I've seen some of the worst isogesis in support of the NPP/FV pretexts I could ever imagine.
I've also read Schlissel, Wilkins, some Wright, Lusk, and before Jeff Steele moved I dialogued a great deal with him, et al...
Earlier Mark Horne stated that 'courts determine orhtodoxy.' Absolutely correct. But, what standard of orthodoxy is being used for the measuring stick? "hey, I think he's orthodox" from a few pals in presbytery is no test of orthodoxy. There has to be a standard in place that the court refers to in order to state that a view(s) is within the pale of orthodoxy. This Report is seeking to answer some questions regarding some of those specifics as they relate to the NPP/FV (the 9 points).
As for redefining, I'll offer a few examples: "GOSPEL" from Romans 1. In the classical understanding, 'gospel' has meant the message of salvation/regeneration/new life.
According to the NPP/FV lexicon, 'gospel' is supposed to be something about gentiles and jews having the same status within the covenant community. Or as it has been summarized, "Gospel" is more about WHO is in rather than HOW one gets in (to the Body of Christ).
According to the NPP/FV we are now being told that 'covenant faithfulness' is the equivalent of regeneration rather than proof of regeneration.
Maybe I'm a bit more 'revivalistic,' but souls need reviving before they need to be pretending to be revived (it seems that Jesus told a prominent Jew that he had to be BORN AGAIN to be truly a part of the Covenant Community).
As for equivocating: I'd refer folks to Mr. Meyers' paper (point 17) for a great example of equivocation. In that point, he states that it would be wrong to require men to subscribe to the imputation of the "active obedience of Christ's" righteousness because the phrase isn't in the confession.
Well folks, from where I am, 'obedience' is a term of activity not simply passivity.
For the sake of space, I'll sign off now.
Sola Gratia,
Bill Lamkin
Bill, thanks for responding to my question. I'm no scholar, but your list is not sound.
Some examples of that isegesis would be a nice accompaniment to your claim.
I'll let those who know better respond to your comments about the gospel. Off hand I'd say you are conflating the NPP and FV here and possibly over-reading their emphasis.
Have you read the 9 points? They don't answer many questions about this particular debate. They seem to invite more questions.
From what I know of the Missouri Presbytery things went down a lot different then you characterize them as.
Your comments about regeneration are off base. I don't think you understand their argument at all. Or maybe I don't, but it looks like you are mixing definitions of regeneration.
And in regard to your comment about Meyers' statement about active obedience, it seems that you are the one redefining things and equivocating. There is a theological difference between those uses and the historic evidence demonstrates that this was taken into account when they chose the terms they did when drafting the standards.
Bill,
Pastor Jeff Meyers is totally, absolutley, and positively correct in your comment:
"As for equivocating: I'd refer folks to Mr. Meyers' paper (point 17) for a great example of equivocation. In that point, he states that it would be wrong to require men to subscribe to the imputation of the "active obedience of Christ's" righteousness because the phrase isn't in the confession."
Where's the equivocation here? Where? Show me.
Its put up or push off time, Bill. Show me where in the confession the imputation of the ACTIVE obedience of Christ is demanded. Last time I checked the confession went no further than simply "obedience."
So, again, show me where the imputation of the ACTIVE obedience of Christ is demanded by the confession.
Garrett Craw
Pastor
St. Andrew's Community Church, CREC
I'm sorry Bill, but you are not a very good reader.
"As for redefining, I'll offer a few examples: "GOSPEL" from Romans 1. In the classical understanding, 'gospel' has meant the message of salvation/regeneration/new life.
According to the NPP/FV lexicon, 'gospel' is supposed to be something about gentiles and jews having the same status within the covenant community. Or as it has been summarized, "Gospel" is more about WHO is in rather than HOW one gets in (to the Body of Christ)."
According to Romans 1.3,4 the Gospel is the declaration that Jesus has been raised to new life. All who believe this message and entrust themselves to Jesus, have the full salvation given to them, both Jew and Gentile alike (Romans 1.16, 17; 10.9-13). We both have this new life through nothing more than faith in Jesus.
Bill may claim to have read something, but what he is articulating is fiction.
"According to the NPP/FV we are now being told that 'covenant faithfulness' is the equivalent of regeneration rather than proof of regeneration."
This is false witness against not only ministers but against presbyteries as if they would allow this monstrosity in their midst.
If the presbyteries are this far gone than no committee report can hope to fix the situation.ht
"As for equivocating: I'd refer folks to Mr. Meyers' paper (point 17) for a great example of equivocation. In that point, he states that it would be wrong to require men to subscribe to the imputation of the "active obedience of Christ's" righteousness because the phrase isn't in the confession.
Well folks, from where I am, 'obedience' is a term of activity not simply passivity."
Bill, the Reformed heritage has allowed the term "passive obedience" for time out of mind. If you are denying that the passive obedience of Christ is imputed to us then you are the innovator, not anyone associated with "FV."
Mark,
You're spot on and in regards to the IAO and as one of our seminary professors used to say: "If it were so very important they would have put it in there."
BTW I hold to the IAO of Christ but don't think that viewing the whole enchilada from another perspective puts one outside the pale. The fact that we are disemboweling one another over this tells me we have reached the end of the confessional Reformed tradition being relevant. People attack their own family members when they have lost a larger vibrant vision.
Garrett Craw
Pastor
St. Andrew's Community Church, CREC
Bill,
Are you signing off to save space or face? Your last post shows you don't have a cursory understanding of the issues or what the "FV" OR what the NPP teaches. If that is your example of equivocation, then Jeff Meyers is sound.
This reminds a lot of those Holiday Inn Express commercials. You have the guy pouring blood on the scuba diver and discussing how dangerous the great white shark is, able to smell a drop of blood up to a mile away and nature's perfect killing machine. The scuba diver, appropriately, asks, "How long have you been studying the great white?" "Well, none. I don't even swim, but I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night."
KDNY:
Are you saying that there's 'blood in the water' on this issue, now?
Psst - I've never stayed in a HI Express but i have read much of this NPP/FV tripe.
5 Solas:
Bill Lamkin
Bill,
What's kind of funny, Bill, I almost picked a different episode of those commercials, because I knew *you*, or someone, would read that into it. Given that, I now can believe that you might have read some of FV/NPP. However, given this statement: "According to the NPP/FV lexicon, 'gospel' is supposed to be something about gentiles and jews having the same status within the covenant community. Or as it has been summarized, "Gospel" is more about WHO is in rather than HOW one gets in (to the Body of Christ)", I don't think you've either read closely or comprehended much. Can you site your source for this?
Given your attempt to jump all over Jeff Meyers for the way HE understands obedience, which is not the same as equivocation unless HE is using it differently throughout HIS writings, you would think that you would get a basic definition like this correct. As is, this would be closer to Wright's understanding of "justification", but not his understanding of the Gospel.
Hey Brothers - Mike Khandjian here - I am reading this blog with interest with the hope that there can be possibly a bit more charity than what seems to be evidenced. No doubt you all are great guys - we are all more inclined to stridency online than face to face.
A few thoughts:
- I am a signer of the letter as you know - it was a personal decision to stand with brothers (yours and mine) who had issues with the wording and process involved in this report. I stood with them and continue to do so with great joy.
- I have never met a PCA pastor who believes anything other than that we are justified by faith alone - ever. This is not and has never been based on a desire to change the essentials of our faith.
- Our denomination did not need a vote to determine that we are committed to the Reformed Faith and to any of the 'solas' - we already ascribe to them. So let's be clear - this vote was more intended to send a message to any who may be sympathetic to the fv (none whom I know, by the way) or to np.
- There are times when we become a bit threatened by what may appear to be an attack on what we hold to - and in those times our integrity is tested. Either we will be so confident of what we believe that we will allow for discourse, interraction and debate, or our on relative insecurity will translate into either sloppiness, or outright sin. In my opinion this has happened here. Look at how you all are talking with one another - you are brothers - we are brothers. And I believe there was a measure of this toxin in the report, debate and vote - there was little or no sign of charity except in the words Jeff White and Craig Higgins offered. That is my opinion and observation.
- My greater concern is that our denomination become a collection of angry, fearful and ungracious men who use fearmongering and bullying tactics to avoid dealing with others. Words like 'those people,' and 'the world is watching,' etc were employed in the debate to scare men into thinking that if we did a more careful job with the report over the period of another year would have sold the pca down the river - this is ludicrous and we all know it.
- Somewhere, some time we need to recognize that there are voices, brilliant, God-honoring, grace-filled, Gospel-loving voices that are in our denomination - they are young men (I don't qualify there!) who will either help in our continuing definition of being the Church - or who will one day throw their hands in the air while we become a collection of bitter old men with no teeth, literally and figuratively.
- So this isn't to complain or whine about the process - only to say that the pca won't survive too many more of these railroad jobs - we will sacrifice these people at great expense to our denominational health. And it was a railroad job - any time the culture of a people group cannot stand the weight of dialogue it becomes oppressive.
Hey - I don't know you guys but in Christ I love you - and look forward to meeting you one day - if not here, at the Feast.
peace.
Post a Comment
<< Home