» News: PCA GA, Day 2, Afternoon
We will blogging about the Federal Vision discussion in this space as it happens.
1:40 - Considering ammendment to SJC rules about making judicial briefs available to GA delegates so that they can understand the context of judicial cases. "new business" suggested by David Coffin. New Business was accepted.
1:44 - Ridge Haven Conference Center Report
1:51 - Report of cooperative ministries committee
1:53 - Singing a Hymn
1:54 - Streaker just ran by the camera (kidding - just checking you're awake)
1:57 - Paul Fowler presents the report, opens with prayer.
2:00 - Fowler introduces the committee members, calling it a "diverse" committee to which all the members contributed. He says, "This is a debate about what constitutes the fundmentals of our system of doctrine."
2:16 - Ligon Duncan defends the substance of the report, counters some common criticisms, including asking that the process objections be set aside in favor of the content
2:18 - Sean Lucas now defends the 9 declarations, characterizing them as relating to "fixed points" of doctrine vital to the standards.
2:30 - John White now presents the recommendations of the committee report and defends a focus on the standards.
2:43 - Discussion begins with George Robertson speaking for the report
2:45 - Speech against the report on the grounds that it does not exegete scripture - speaker is Larry Hoop
2:48 - Motion by Joe Novenson to delay the report for a year, add exegesis, add indications of the positive contributions of NPP, add 2 additional members who are sympathetic to NPP / FV
2:53 - John Day speaks in favor of the motion to delay
2:54 - Jeff Hutchinson speaks against motion to postpone, focuses upon other NAPARC denominations that have spoken to the issue already
2:56 - Paul Gilchrist speaks in favor of the motion to delay, based upon lack of scriptural exegesis - compares the report to the emperor who has no clothes - the report needs the clothes of exegesis.
3:02 (Missed a few back and forth) - now there is someone from GA speaking against the motion, defending the confessional focus of the report.
3:04 - Substitute motion to receive report yet allow the committee to add scripture proofs during the assembly - not allowed.
3:06 - Howard Q. Davis - speaks for the motion in order to heal perception of unfairness.
3:07 - Dewey Roberts - speaks against the substitute - calls it a "smokescreen" that the FV / NPP claims they are not fairly understood. Issue "is the most important decision we've ever had to make because it deals with the matter of justification by faith." Says "this error is insidious."
3:10 - David Cassidy - in favor of Novenson substitute motion
3:11 - Steve McGee - speaks against the motion, says body can affirm the existing report and then commission another report about biblical issues
3:13 - Jeff White - speaks for the motion, notes agreement with 9 declarations, but would like a more charitable report to aid peace and unity of church.
3:15 - Ken Clarke (sp?) - Speaks against the motion, calls this the "tip of the iceberg" and says urgency exists
3:16 - Joe Mullin - speaks in favor of the motion, appreciates the idea of bringing exegesis of scripture into the report in order to "undergird" it.
3:17 - R.C. Sproul - focuses upon justification, imputation speaks against the motion, the "purity of the PCA" is at stake. "This is the gospel that we're talking about, gentlemen." Motion is like "asking the accused to become members of the jury."
3:19 - Craig Higgins speaks in favor of the motion - quotes Schaefer about not "choosing between an orthodoxy of doctrine and an orthodoxy of community".
3:22 - Wes Holland - speaks against the motion. Urgency is needed, churches are being divided.
3:24 - Harry Long rises to make motion to address the first four committee recommendations by vote and give them time to "address the emperor" before ruling on the 5th recommendation. Motion is out of order.
3:26 - DeGraaf - "there are men standing at microphones .... not being recognized ... in the order" etc. Moderator explains balancing the for / against.
3:28 - Andrew Voelkel speaks in favor of motion - report does not provide Presbyteries any guidance on how to oppose FV - such as suggested study questions
3:30 - David Coffin - speaks against procedural motion - believes standards are sufficient, further exegesis is not needed, is "dubious" that there can be any credible expressions of "good things" that the NPP has to offer, finally argues against sympathetic members - uses analogy of inclusion of Arian on committee dealing with deity of Christ.
3:34 - Debate not extended. Motion to postpone going up for vote.
3:35 - Paul Fowler speaks to defend the report and advocates against the motion, pointing to the committee's faithfulness to its mandate.
3:37 - Vote on the motion with cards: prayer prior to vote. Motion to postpone: fails.
3:39 - back to main motion
3:40 - Tom Cox defers time to Microphone 10 - Dave Sarfolian Great Lakes Presbytery - speaks in favor of the study committee report to address allegations of the report's being railroaded through. Mentions Missouri Presbytery report as a previously rejected consensus report.
3:41 - Question whether the committee contacted FV men; response from Fowler is "no"; committee decided not to engage the FV until after the report, then after report's completion decided that further engagement not necessary. Defends focusing on written sources. Mentions reading blogs as well.
3:44 - Time expired, debate is not extended.
3:45 - Committee Report accepted by card vote. All rise to sing a hymn.
3:49 - Administrative Committee Report presented. We will cease liveblogging at this point for a moment in order to take a break.
55 Comments:
streaker...that's great! :)
"diverse" also great!
It's a debate now?
Did Wilson get invited?
How about other CREC pastors as well; are we too out of the reach of the long arm of the "law"? I mean after all it is guilt by association.....
If there weren't women and children, how do we need a streaker at this thing!
Good stuff, that was funny.
"add indications of the positive contributions of NPP"
I've heard some critics make claims that they appreciate some of the positives of the FV/NPP, but they're usually very nebulous as to what they find helpful.
I'd think "sympathetic" committee members wouldn't be necessary, just ones that weren't all overtly hostile.
Maybe there *is* a streaker at the GA...
O.o
"The subject of a sermon should be some verse or verses of Scripture,
and its object, to explain, defend and apply some part of the system of divine truth; or to point out the nature, and state the bounds and obligation, of some duty. A text should not be merely a motto, but should fairly contain the doctrine proposed to be handled. It is proper also that large portions of Scripture be sometimes expounded, and particularly improved, for the instruction of the people in the meaning and use of the sacred Scriptures.
Preaching requires much study, meditation, and prayer, and ministers should prepare their sermons with care, and not indulge themselves in loose, extemporary harangues, nor serve God with that which costs them naught.
So the GA should just go home?
REAL classy, R.C.
You are now officially a dinosaur.
So is it too late to ask why the prosecutors are sitting on the jury?
As Austin Storm stated in another thread, anonymity emboldens a lot of folks
Frank M
only cowards
[scowling] Then I wanna be a dinosaur.
Better to be a bold dinosaur than an anonymous, um, whatever.
Anne Ivy
Fort Worth
Thanks for providing the updates, RN.
So true, Anne Ivy!
LadyF
the Report is accepted/adopted!
now what?
Will FVers go to their presbyteries and confess their divergent views?
Best line of the debate had to come from RC Sproul. 'Bout time he contributed to a GA discussion!
Sola Gratia!
Bill Lamkin
Okay, so what does this mean for folks in the pews, or small town pastors?
michael
Not a whole lot of doubt where RC Senior stands on the issue after this afternoon. Don't know if there was to begin with.
Sproul said the report was a trial.
That seems to me to be a violation of procedure. No person is charged, but a report is a trial?
O.o
Now, the presbyteries have to deal with this/these issues (NPP/FV) at the local level.
Of course, TE's and RE's holding these views are supposed to honor their ordination vows and come before their respective courts.
why didn't more of the FV/NPP people speak up and cause another stir.
By Grace,
Bill Lamkin
Yes, thanks RN, you did a good job.
And I will even give you kudos for your objectivity too!
What does this mean for small town pastors? What RE White said: that they receive this recommendations with all due and serious consideration as the mind of the Church on this matter.
What does it mean for folks in the pews? That if asked about the FV, the pastor can say now that the PCA (or at least one Assembly) has spoken to the issue.
Of course, as has been said by many, one has the precious right to dissent and disagree with your denomination, and I think every elder has the right to tell his congregation that he may disagree with any given decision (as opposed to actively teaching an exception to the Constitution which is a more serious matter).
As the BCO Preface says, "God alone is Lord of the conscience." Otherwise, grace itself is undone. May we all remember that.
Bill, I sympathize with FV views. If you put a bunch of the writings of prominent FVers, from Wilson to Lusk to Wilkins to Jordan, in a pot, I'll agree with a whole stinkin' bunch of what they say. I am also under care as a person seeking ordination in the Northeast Georgia (Georgia foothills) presbytery). What am I supposed to do, on your view? What exactly am I supposed to go "confess" to?
Having said what I just said, and in partial answer to Xon, I do think those that are strongly sympathetic to FV views would be happier in other denominations.
For instance, Xon, if you came to my presbytery to be ordained, you could expect careful questions in this regard. This is not a witch hunt, but part of what we believe we must do to be faithful to our charge to guard the gospel.
BTW, this does not apply to those who quote NT Wright occasionally, or read his commentaries (as I do). It is important to make these kind of distinctions and treat each man individually as they are examined.
There is a distinction here which must be made.
I anticipate the CREC will grow through this debate over the next several years.
That may give Xon an answer as to where, I don't believe there are any CREC churches here in GA.(another NE GA resident)
Frank M
Okay, so in light of this, those who agree (in varying degrees) can still be faithful members, but ought not to be ordained to the office of elder (RE or TE) without a careful examination. They would not be seen as "Confessional" in the eyes of the PCA. Similar to how a Baptist, Methodist, etc.. may be welcomed as a brother but not affirmed as a Confessional Presbyterian within the PCA?
michael
As an outsider listening to the debate, it is clear to me that the assembly's mind was already decided before the debate was held. Time may have been better served doing other things...like drinking a beer.
re: jat
AMEN!!
Michael,
That's right, but it's up to every Session and Presbytery to conduct their own exams, and must be taken individually.
So, if someone says, "I have sympathies with the FV" that *should* not disqualify them, but those sympathies then examined to see whether they strike at the fundamentals of the system of doctrine or not.
Also, don't forget deacons, although their theological exams are often not as intense as REs.
jat, I agree...it seems that joe nevonson's (helpful, in my mind) proposal was a defeated attempt to actually think through the issue. It is my understanding that the paper was only distributed two days ago, and, to that end, I appreciate the recommendation earlier that proposed reports being emailed to delegates in the future. As much as the GA should be a place for debate, it seems as if blogs such as this are where minds get made up and then GA sessions are simply the "main event" as the moderator stated. Sad indeed.
XON -
I am glad that you are thoughtful in your studies as you seek a call to ministry.
As Mr. Hutchinson said, you should expect that you will be examined carefully with respect to the Gospel (Justification, especially). that is the duty of the courts. We are called to protect the flocks from error. A good man may have horrendous errors that need to be guarded against (I'm sure Arias was a likeable fellow with a magnetic personality - he had a huge following).
But, the summary is that FV/NPP men will be happier in a Church that is more sympathetic toward their views. So, we wish them well in such a denomination (CREC for one).
By Grace,
Bill Lamkin
Bros,
In my mind this is a sad day but your denomination (my former denomination) have spoken and that's that. The CREC will grow because of this and sacramentally-minded high-churchers should be able to find a home here where they are free to work out their convictions.
Garrett Craw
Pastor
St. Andrew's Community Church, CREC
Okay, that's what I thought.
I've been confused this past year on whether we'd be voting that they're 'non-Confessional' or full-blown heretics. The rhetoric tended to go both ways.
I thought it was the former, but some of the comments made by commissioners (e.g., 3:07 Roberts & 3:17 Sproul) made me think that they were being called heretics or someone whose salvation would be in great peril.
Thanks for clearing that up!
michael
As I listened to the debate, I was pleased (in the whole), with the tenor. Particularly with those who had reservations about the report -- they wanted to affirm the substance of it, but nevertheless improve it.
I was also really pleased to see the heart of guys like Joe Novenson, and Howie Q Davis (former moderator, and who has worshipped with our congregation), who were concerned that charity be preserved.
I think they reflect the heart of the PCA well (better than me at times for sure) so that even though their motion was defeated, I could agree with the tenor behind it.
Again, as with the good faith subscription debate, men of good will may disagree as to the wisdom and seasonableness of a matter.
Some of us thought it was important to speak now; others wanted to delay. Others seemed to be sincerely ignorant of what was at stake for a lack of study on their part.
But in the whole, there was little doubt where the PCA stood on making ourselves clear on justification.
Garrett,
Fair enough and soberly said. God bless your ministry in LA.
Chris H.
Second question: how then should this be applied to non-ordained staff members of PCA churches (e.g., directors of X, Y, & Z; music leaders; receptionists; teachers at PCA schools; etc...)
michael
Also included in the comments: quite a few dismissive remarks about one of the church's brightest and most engaging figures, N.T. Wright. Based on the comments, one would think he was nothing more than a inconsequential, crackpot bishop from overseas. The real enemies of the gospel (Jesus Seminar crowd, etc.) would be overjoyed to know that R.C. Sproul is considered their worst threat.
re: Bill L's comments to XON (I really wish comments were numbered!):
I haven't been to seminary, but I thought that Arius is universally considered a heretic suffering (most likely?) in the depths of hell.
This seems to be at odds with Pastor Hutchinson's comments. Help?
michael
Michael,
I have run across some who are ready to pronounce FV men fit for hell, but as far as I know, they are very small in number.
As I understood it, the point RC was making had to do with our being CLEAR on the Gospel, not whether individual teachers personally embrace it or not, thus questioning their personal salvation.
Blessings, Chris H.
Pastor Hutchinson--did you think RC Sproul's use of the term "the accused" was representative of the tenor of the debate? To my mind, Sproul confirmed what many thought this "report" actually was/is--namely, a form of accusation.
Michael,
As to your last two questions: for non-ordained staff, it would be up to each Session what their doctrinal qualifications should be. If a member of a PCA church believes a Session has erred in this regard (one way or the other), they have recourse to first petition the Session with their complaint, and then, if still unsatisfied, appeal to Presbytery.
As for the comparison to Arius, I can't speak for Bill, but I think he was just making an analogy, and did not mean to equate the FV with Arianism. At least I hope not!
From one who has been called "Gnostic" too many times!
Chris H
Thanks for all the coverage and helpful answers!
michael
Philip,
No, I did not think that was representative, but one of the more rhetorical devices employed, perhaps similar to Mr. Gilchrist's Emporer's New Clothes analogy.
Again, Mr. Sproul was making an analogy, perhaps overly rhetorical, but it was just an analogy.
Whatever, Chris. "not being clear" etc. That's sad. You got your way so now good luck stopping the spread of men who follow in what RC really said, "the gospel is at stake." etc. Now the sectarians can divide and kill one another. Like a bunch of Pharisees debating how to kill and remove Romans now that they got rid of Christ unjustly.
I don't buy your interpretation. I don't buy your charity either for that matter. You sided with the sectarians, and you are one. Now watch the result of a dying PCA in all areas starting with its academics.
And what was this "overly rhetorical" analogy intended to convey?
Chris, whats done is done and that is fine. I am not hoping to get into an argument on this blog. But, it seems to me (and I may be wrong), that RC Sproul's use of those terms was not a piece of overstated rhetoric, but actually a glimpse into the heart of the matter. The premise of Sproul's analogy of a court/jury presumes that the commitee, in fact, was just that--a court! Otherwise, the analogy wouldn't make any sense. Remember, RC was responding to Novenson's recommendation to put two people on and extend the work.
In my "Arias" quote, I was saying that the duty of the court is to protect the sheep from erroneous teaching - especially pertaining to justification and sanctification.
Often, we are too charitable when we examine men because, "he's a good man" or "I know his daddy" type of comments rule the day. In our examinations, we (the courts) have to examine the man's doctrine closely not his likeability. So, yes, some likeable fellows will be rejected for ministry on doctrinal grounds.
As for Mr Anon (2:49 pm), the 'sectarians' didn't win. The Gospel won. The PCA won - we aren't going to be double minded on Justification - Thank God.
this action will not kill the PCA, it will strengthen her around the Essential of Sola Fide!
By Grace,
Bill Lamkin
RC's analogy was perfect for the occasion! didn't you hear the applause? It was well-received, so it must be right?
Seriously - he made the point, that delaying this debate will not aid one bit. And, I agree with the analogy.
Bill Lamkin
Our academics will die because we don't want to allow multiple views on justification???
how's this?
Lamkin
So how many judicial cases does anyone think the adoption of the report is actually going to generate? Except for the one case taken over by the SJC, you might get a couple of cases, but how many "convictions" are likely, really? This is nothing more than the equivalent of the doctrinal deliverances of the PCUSA in first two decades of 20th century.
Bill--with all due respect, I think you are proving the point. The analogy made sense to folks (laughing and clapping) because Sproul put his finger on what the "report" actually was--namely, a form of accusation. What Nevonson and others were arguing for was the neccesary time to overcome those suspicions and present a full, charitable report.
Once again, I don't really have a dog in this fight--but it seems clear to me that Sproul's comment (and the reaction it got) was the most honest moment of the whole meeting.
Philip:
You may be right re: honesty.
David Coffin (I think) made the point that blogs have pretty well shown us where men stand on this. So, A LOT of minds were made up and 'debate' at GA is the wrong term. It was vote. And the only debating was about when to vote.
Bill Lamkin
""" Anonymous said...
Whatever, Chris. "not being clear" etc. That's sad. You got your way so now good luck stopping the spread of men who follow in what RC"""
Who are you?
Frank M
A new book is coming out about these things... (in addition to Piper's). You might want to check it out:
http://www.puritanboard.com/archive/index.php/t-13749.html
John Piper's criticism of the NPP is GREAT!! for a short tome, it sure is meaty stuff.
Bill Lamkin
I believe Dewey Roberts called the accusation that there was a lack of exegesis in the study report a 'smokescreen' b/c we already have vowed that the WCF is a proper understanding of Scripture.
Bill Lamkin
Ok, let's get this straight. No exegesis, no Bibles and heaven forbid...NO new perspective on anything! Just me and my WCF alone.
And when I'm not meditating on my WCF, I get to make fun of Roman Catholics for relying so much on Tradition and the Living Magisterium?!
Post a Comment
<< Home