Presbytery of the Siouxlands Exonerates Member Suspected of Federal Vision Teaching, Complaint to SJC Contemplated

An interesting read from the Aquila Report. TE Joshua Moon uses some of the same argumentation as did Rob Rayburn during the hearing on Leithart, namely, employing the fear tactic of having our denomination run by "narrow confessionalists", thus making us ineffective and unattractive to outsiders.

And where did these guys complete their historical theology studies to continue claiming that Calvin, Ursinus, et al would have agreed with them in their FV reconstructions? Those claims are really quite amazing for the most part, and lead me to believe that some uncited and unsupported assertions are being thrown out there, and are being left unchallenged by the intimidated REs who don't have either the time or the care to research them. The opportunities that I have had to read the rare citation from FV supporters claiming to show where Calvin or others taught like unto their views made it quickly apparent that they were not talking about the same matter.

__________________
Adam J. Myer
Slated for the Jan. 10th Chaplains Basic Officer Leadership Course
Estacada Christian Church
Sandy, Oregon

Soli Deo Gloria

The only thing worse than that would be to have those narrow minded members of the Westminster Assembly of Divines run our denomination.

Cheers,

__________________
Adam B., Wine Country, California, PCA

"I fear not to hold with Junius, de Politia Mosis cap. 6, that he who was punishable by death under that Judicial law, is punishable by death still; and he who was not punished by death then, is not to be punished by death now."

I spoke with Wes White last night. He brought the original case before the SJC (we talked about it at GA this year too). Keep him in your prayers. He is expecting a slug fest.

__________________
Rev. R. Kevin Carroll
Pastor Elect
Covenant Presbyterian Church (PCA)
Wheat Ridge, CO
Blog: Reformed and Loving It

__________________
Edward
Deacon
PCA
Texas

In attributing to all the baptized some form of union, adoption, new life, and forgiveness, TE Lawrence is speaking the language of our tradition and of our Scriptures. By refusing to attribute absolute and final union, adoption, new life, and forgiveness, TE Lawrence is directly in line with our standards.


So, this is like a girl who has some form of pregnancy with some new life and some union with a fetus, but not exactly, she does not have an absolute and final baby in the womb? Just some form of a baby?

Or do they call it half way regenerated maybe?

Advocates of the committee recommendation were concerned about TE Lawrence’s statements that we are united to Christ and get new life in the water rite of baptism. They also argued that his teaching that in baptism even the non-elect in some sense receive new life, forgiveness of sins, adoption, and union with Christ was contrary to the Standards affirmation that such benefits only accrue to the elect. They believed that he was creating “a parallel soteriological system,” citing the General Assembly’s Federal Vision Report.

TE Joshua Moon, Pastor of Good Shepherd PCA in Minnetonka, Minn., a dissenting member of the committee, then arose and moved as a substitute motion that the work of the committee’s report and recommendations not be adopted. His motion passed 24-13.


24 to 13???????????????????

I am in the second PCA church of my life, and my church is solid. But I have lost all my rosy illusions about the PCA being a safe and secure place for good doctrine any more. I don't mind endless debates about things- like the Frame essay on Machen's Warrior Children- and all the many subjects that the Reformed argue about. It makes me think and study and revaluate and try to press into examining what the bible seems to be saying. But this horsepuckey is just too much, it is over the top. Union with Christ to the non regenerate? I don't agree with Arminians and dispensationalists but I understand their reasoning. I don't even undrestand the reasoning behind this. In my own PCA no less. Heartbreaking.

__________________
Lynnie

PCA

Central NJ

It is heartbreaking, Linnie.

.

__________________
Scott
PCA
North Carolina


"Let us hold fast the profession of our faith without wavering; (for he is faithful that promised)"
Hebrews 10:23

So..... are they not enforcing their own declarations?

__________________
Louis DiBiase
Louisville, KY

As I understand this, it's not quite that simple.

In the denomination, study committees are to be given "due and serious consideration" and are used for reference authority in church court proceedings (A "court" can be a local session, presbytery, or general assembly).

They are not absolutely binding and are not intended to be. The Westminster Standards and the Book of Church Order are binding.

But a study committee is more the representation of the opinion of a General Assembly at a given time.

It seems they can be useful in complex issues or for new applications to old issues as a source of guidance. When they are unanimous, as this one was, they are more useful for referential value, because there is not a minority report to also draw from for the opposition.

What we have, in our polity, is a highly divided vote of presbytery that likely will be appealed the Standing Judicial Commission based on enforcement of the Church constitution (Westminster Standards, Book of Church Order). The constitution is binding through the vows officers take, but study committee reports, in and of themselves, are not.

I don't get it. (I may be in the PCA but the polity seems complicated).

White complains to the GA, they set up a comittee. Majority comittee vote finds this unacceptable. Presbytery thumbs their nose at majority vote.

So what now, back to the GA and another committee? What was the point of the first one if the majority ruling holds no weight?

Can the GA just get together and kick them out or what? The GA already wrote that unanimous FV paper and and said this position was wrong. So why are these teachers still in the PCA? I just don't get it.

White complained to GA, because the Presbytery wouldn't look into the matter, so GA said to look into the matter. The committee was formed to look into the matter. The committee is typically the representative view of the whole presbytery, but not in this case. The presbytery voted against the committees decision, which they are able to do, although perhaps unwise in some situations, like this.

Now what can be done is someone (which has already taken place) in the presbytery can lodge a complaint about the action to the Presbytery. So basically it is a plea for the Presbytery to reconsider their action. If the Presbytery votes the other way this time, in favor of the committee, then the minister is brought up on charges and church discipline occurs. He either changes his view or he is defrocked. But if the presbytery continues in their view (against the committee). Then after that decision, someone within the presbytery is able to lodge a complaint against the presbytery to GA. At that time GA (SJC) would handle the case. Then it would be similar to what happened with Steve Wilkins.

__________________
Rev. Andrew J. Barnes
Husband of Dena
Father of Oliver
Master of Bruce
Pastor of Tchula Presbyterian Church

What can I say, I like blogs!

Trying to read this respectfully and charitably, and without at all knowing the particulars here,

In the Louisiana Presbytery case, the process worked to good ends and an entire presbytery repented, was purged of this serious error teaching, and is restored to good standing.

There is a faulty reasoning behind it, as in the case of Arminians and dispensationalists. It is trying to do justice to the biblical concept of the temporary believer as participant of the benefits of Christ. It fails to do justice to this concept where it refuses to acknowledge the difference between eternal and temporal election, the invisible and visible church, internal and external union with Christ, and saving and historical faith.

__________________
Yours sincerely,


"Illum oportet crescere me autem minui."

Thanks so much guys for the explanations of how it all works.

It makes me think a lot about the deaconess thing. I have two friends in two different PCA churches (not mine) and they are very warm, gentle women who are functionally doing only works of helpful service in a non authoritarian capacity. And when the whole thing started up with the metro presby protest I was sympathetic to the Keller/Ryken position churches. Even though I don't believe biblically in women deacons, I wasn't sure it was worth arguing over.

But when you start allowing exceptions and variations here and there in areas some deem nonessential, I guess people start to feel free to allow variations in what we'd call essential, like FV quasi baptismal regeneration. Maybe the slippery slope starts with things like deaconesses? I don't know.

I guess I just can't wrap my head around the idea that this FV stuff is really going on in my supposedly solid denomination. Maybe I am delusionally naive despite all the church history I've read. It hurts to watch.

Thanks again for the posts.

When you leave the barn door open, getting the animals back inside takes lots of really difficult and time consuming work, and you may never get them all back in in any event.

I don't think it deaconesses, I think it non-ordained deacons. At Trinity Presbyterian PCA in San Luis CA, the issue wasn't deaconesses, but baptist and arminian male deacons. From their position statement, which you can read here:

http://www.trinityslo.org/abouttrinity.html

The BCO says deacons must be ordained. By thumbing their noses at the PCA Constitution on this issue, they go on notice that they can do anything they please.

__________________
Tim Vaughan
Member, Redeemer Presbyterian, OPC,
Santa Maria
California

You're picking up on something very important here, Lynnie.

Creating an office "deaconess" and investing it with governing power is a constitutional violation in the PCA. Perpetuating an office not chartered in the constitution, altering vows in the constitution to suit it, altering its terms of office, and ordination ceremonies is a violation of the vows officers have taken to uphold their constitution.

We don't have study committees to resolve constitutional violations. That would be like someone caught in a robbery when confronted, demanding a study and survey of the issue and opinions of "property rights" (while they continue the robbery).

It's taken a while for that to become clear, but now it is. The constitution is the binding rule, it can be changed by amendment, but not violating the vows taken to uphold it.

With "federal vision" there is very well written, usable guideline in place and it has worked with some effect.

...And don't get tired of it- this is only one of many ways God brings things that need to be dealt with to our attention- and for His Honor and His Glory.

Folks, I was at the meeting of the Souixlands presbytery. I want to say that I was disappointed by the Presbytery's decision. However, I am a very disappointed by TE Carpenter's publishing this on the Aquila Report. TE Carpenter is publishing unapproved minutes of the SP; a thing that has been frowned upon in the past in our presbytery. TE Keister can verify this from his own experience. As you discuss this here, keep in mind that what you are reading on the Aquila Report is unapproved minutes. Keep the conversation charitable and free from gossip until the facts are all straight.

__________________
Steven J. Carr (Sven)
http://beholdingthebeauty.blogspot.com/
Eagan, MN
PCA
"Weak is the effort of my heart / And cold my warmest thought / But when I see thee as thou art / I'll praise thee as I ought."--John Newton
Trophy Wife/Arm Candy: Crystal Ann Children: Steven Jr. and Hannah Grace

I want to offer a bit of a retraction of my above statement. After some consideration and a three hour long conversation with one who was involved in this article being posted, I have come to the conclusion that it was written in good order and that it was necessary in the struggle against the FV in the Souixlands Presbytery. I also want to say that though unapproved minutes were quoted, yet presbytery meetings are public and anyone who would have wanted to be there would have heard all that was stated by those quoted. I don't think TE Carpenter was writing anything other than what a reporter could have written about if one was there.

I still maintain, though, that we should discuss this charitably, and free from gossip.

Presbyterian brethren, please help an old Baptist.

Why would your polity allow those not holding to the Westminster standards to hold office??? Won't that simply lead to a theological down-grade within your fellowship??? I have toyed with the idea of attending a PCA congregation during retirement (Reformed Baptists are pretty hard to find!). But, I cannot imagine a group with integrity accepting someone like me as an officer unless my view changes on paedo-baptism. Regular attender, tither, participatant in communion, etc. . . . sure. Official office holder? No way!

__________________
Dennis E. McFadden, Ex Mainline Baptist (in Remission)
Atherton Baptist Homes, CEO
First Baptist Church of Alhambra, Member, Transformation Ministries (CA)

Click to get: Board Rules -- Signature Requirements -- Suggestions?

All I can say, Dennis, is after seeing this for the first time is that this appears to be unconstitutional in several ways for the PCA. I'm quite confident this would be an automatic complaint filed in the vast majority of sessions or presbyteries if this popped up.

Without going into detail, I have bolded likely violations of the PCA constitution (Westminster Standards, subject to Scripture and the Book of Church Order).

If a particular church government (session and diaconate) is publicly misrepresenting presbyterian policy, doctrine of ordination, the Book of Chruch Order in this way, it is grounds for church discipline, up to and including deposition from office and ex-communication.

Hi Guys,

I'm TE Carpenter, the one who wrote the article.

First off, Steve, I appreciate your retraction, but I still disagree on one point. Unapproved minutes were not partially quoted. There are no unapproved minutes in my possession or anyone else's except the Stated Clerk. I cannot circulate that which I do not possess. The Siouxlands policy concerning unapproved minutes is not a necessary one, in my opinion, but I would honor it. However, to take this policy to the extreme which some presbyters seem to take it is absurd. Allow me to do a reductio ad absurdam to show how absurd it is.

The unapproved minutes, when they are received by in January, will contain the words "Siouxlands Presbytery" "September" and "TE Carpenter." Therefore, if I publish anything in writing with those words, I am guilty of circulating a portion of unapproved minutes.

It is more accurate to say that there is an overlap between the information contained in the unapproved minutes and other public information which is and ought to be freely available. The fact that the information is in the minutes does not trump anyone's right to circulate and discuss said information.

Now, for my Baptist friend and those who wonder why these things have not been dealt with with greater speed. The wheels of presbyterianism grind slowly. A man's future is at stake here and we do not want to make any errors. The process works and we are utilizing the process. It has been slower than it could be due to the resistence of some presbyters, but it is proceeding apace. Truth will come out and good decisions will be made in the end. Until then we work and pray. To paraphrase Winston Churchill, the Siouxlands Presbytery will always do the right thing.... after it has exhausted all the other possibilities.

__________________
TE Brian Carpenter
Pastor, Foothills PCA Sturgis, SD
www.thehappytr.blogspot.com www.afiresidechat.blogspot.com
"In vain th' unlighted pipe you blow;
Your pains in inward means are so,
'Till heav'nly fire thy heart inspire.
Thus think, and smoke tobacco."

Welcome to the PB Steve [sic, Brian; sorry; but that's what signatures are for] and thanks for posting. On a house keeping note, please fix your signature per the board policy.
The PuritanBoard - Signature/Profile Reqts

__________________
Chris Coldwell, Lakewood Presbyterian Church (PCA), Dallas, Texas.
• Naphtali Press: Presbyterian & Reformed Books
• Westminster Letter Press
• The Confessional Presbyterian Journal
• The Blue Banner Archive

The Regulative Principle: The Scriptures are the “only infallible rule of faith and practice, no rite or ceremony ought to have a place in the public worship of God, which is not warranted in Scripture, either by direct precept or example, or by good and sufficient inference” (Samuel Miller).

Click to get: Board Rules -- Signature Requirements -- Suggestions? Joining PB's Politics & Government Forum

Not to derail the thread, but as a relevant cautionary tale about how far things can go, from the same Position Statement

.

Trinity regularly has non ordained men lead the Sunday service, and while to my knowledge a woman hasn't done so yet, it's obvious those who drafted the Statement were setting the ground work for it.

Welcome, TE C, and thanks for the clarification.

Sorry, I'm confused. What is a temporary believer?

__________________
Ivan R. Schoen, B.A., M.A., M.L.I.S.
Pastor of Maranatha Baptist Church (SBC)
Poplar Grove, IL, USA
http://maranatha-sbc.org

I don't want to comment on the substance of the thread, since it is possible that I will be called upon to hear this case at SJC.

But I would also say that the report was published in the Aquila Report, and there are maybe a half-dozen men in the PCA equal to Dominic Aquila in understanding our Constitution. So I don't think this presents any problem.

__________________
Fred Greco
Senior Pastor, Christ Church PCA (Katy, TX)
Christ Church Blog

"The heart is the main thing in true religion...It is the hinge and turning-point in the condition of man's soul. If the heart is alive to God and quickened by the Spirit, the man is a living Christian. If the heart is dead and has not the Spirit, the man is dead before God." (J.C. Ryle)

Ivan,

The Reformed have always agreed that a person might be the subject of certain operations of the Spirit without having ever been regenerated. Baalam, King Saul, and those who will come to Christ on the Last Day and claim to have taught and even done miracles in His name, but to whom He will say, "Depart from me, I never knew you" can be said to have experienced the non-saving operations of the Holy Spirit, or "temporary faith."

Let me quote from AW Pink's commentary on Hebrews, p336 from the chapter on "Christian Perseverance"

"We dare not stop at the point reached at the close of the preceeding paragraph. Backsliding is dangerous, so dangerous that if it be persisted in, it is certain to prove fatal. If I continue to neglect the Divine means of grace for spiritual strength and support, if I go back again into the world and find my delight in its pleasures and concerns, and if I am not recovered from this sad state then that will demonstrate that I was only the subject of the Holy Spirit's inferior operations, that I was not really regenerated by Him. The difference between the thorny-ground and the good-ground hearers is, that one brings forth no fruit "to perfection" (Luke 8:14) whereas the other brings forth fruit "with patience" or perseverance. (Luke 8:15) It is continuance in Christ's word which proves us His disciples indeed (John 8:31) It is continuing in the faith, grounded and settled and being "not moved away from the hope of the Gospel" (Col 1:23) which demonstrates the reality of our profession." (emphasis in original)

Hope that clarifies things a bit.

Kindest Regards,

I understand the reasoning, but it sounds odd to me.

Somebody remarked above that TE Moon's argumentation sounded a lot like Robert Rayburn's argumentation. I suspect that is not accidental. Guess who TE Moon's father-in-law is?

BTW, I'm not being a scofflaw. My signature worked once and then quit working. I see it in the preview changes mode, but it's not showing up when I publish.

Perhaps my signature function possesses only temporary faith. It is not appearing at the end when it counts.

TE Brian Carpenter
pastor, Foothills PCA
Sturgis, SD

I think it was united with the text and had all the benefits and accouterments thereof. The text was at that time justified.

But in the full and final verdict of justification, the union with the text proved only temporary, and the text was not justified... but perhaps, however, that is only a quibble.

Perhaps if we could add another toolbar element out of Microsoft Word, we could force-justify the text and drag it kicking and screaming into a state of justification, making all the Arminian typists who observe us say "See, I told you that was what they believed!"

Though it still would not solve our issue here as to whether or not the sort of justification my signature is receiving is the sort that endures to the end, and how we might tell the difference between the decreetally elect justification and the non-decreetally elect justification. I do know that we ought not ask the text to do any internal examination or speculation, but rather tell it to look wholly to Bill Gates.

Ivan, consider a text like 2 Peter 2:1, "denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction." One who holds to particular redemption is obliged to explain in what sense the Lord is said to have bought those who ultimately suffer destruction. It is perhaps the failure of the modern reformed church to clearly articulate a doctrine of the visible church which has opened the door for a false view as to how the benefits of Christ relate to the non elect.

Pastor W, isn't that verse talking about Jews who deny Christ is God? I understand that bought them is OT grammar for God delivering His people. In other words, Peter is saying whoever denies that Christ is God denies He who ransomed His people. So if a Jew says that Christ is not God he is denying the God of the OT.

Signatures appearing only in the first post that someone makes on the thread is a 'feature' of this board. It's an issue where I submit meekly to the board leadership.

I have been taught that this verse signifies external deliverance of the nation of Israel and the like deliverance (external sanctification) of the visible N.T. churches. God is sovereign over all; He "owns" all men, but His specific covenant promises of internal regeneration and justification does not extend to all.

Such purchase and redemption unto salvation is only realized and manifested in the invisible church body, elected in Christ, before the foundation of the world.

IOW's, external sanctification and "deliverance" does not equate with internal regeneration and justification; such being known only by the elect of God; His invisible church body.

My

__________________
Ronda Rush
Church of the Redeemer
Independent Reformed
California


" . . .It is written, 'Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.'" Matthew 4:4

If they are denying Christ is God, and He is the Lord that bought them, there is no way of separating redemption from that which Christ accomplished.

Thank you, Matthew. That helps. The thorny-ground, good-ground concept helps as well. I have a better understanding of what is being expounded here.

And maybe it's just the bump on my head.

Just to clarify this for me as well, if the verse paraphrased is "Those of your fellow ethnic Jews who reject Christ are rejecting the God of the burning bush, who ransomed the whole Jewish nation from Egypt, even though they may be ignorant of the fact" then does that verse necessarily have anything to do with Christians?

Every branch in me that does not bear fruit he takes away John 15:2

I find that distinction between Invisible and Visible Church is aboslutely required to understand there are unregenerate members of the Covenant, that later may not make professions of faith or deny their profession.

Imo this is the only sound interpretation of several passages Hebrews 6, 2 Peter 2:20 ff, John 15:2, etc, since it accepts its dreadful warning while maintaining the perseverance of the saints, that true regenerated christians, partakers of the substance of the Covenant will persevere to Glory Romans 8:29-30

Karl Barth was one voice that denied that distinction, but he messed up with a lot of biblical doctrines.

But how about Klaas Schilder and John Murray, who also argued against that distinction between Visible and Invisible Church ?

Did they provide any strong arguments to the Federal Vision Folks?

__________________
César Proença

there is no will nor running by which we can prepare the way for our salvation, it is wholly of the Divine Mercy Jean Calvin Institutes II . V. 17

Reformed Churches in The Netherlands (liberated) http://www.gkv.nl/main.asp?intTreeviewID=954

Igreja Reformada em Massamá Portugal http://www.igrejareformada.pt

I'm no Schilder scholar (I don't even read Dutch). However, Kloosterman's essay on Schilder and the legal/vital distinction gives me pause before yielding him to the FV.

__________________
Bryan Peters
Providence Reformed Church (URCNA)
Des Moines, Iowa

Doctrinal truth should be preached always, openly, without compromise, and never dissembled or concealed. There is no offence in it; it is the staff of uprightness.
~Martin Luther~