PCA Study Report on Federal Vision released

NaphtaliPress · #1 (**permalink**) 04-25-2007, 04:46 PM

PCA Study Report on the Federal Vision is available here.

LAYMAN JOE · #2 (**permalink**) 04-25-2007, 05:08 PM

What have they been waiting for? Where is the recommendation to immediately tar and feather those who proclaim such false doctrine from the pulpit?

Quote:

Recommendation

4. That the General Assembly reminds the Sessions and Presbyteries of the PCA that it is their duty “to exercise care over those subject to their authority” and “to condemn erroneous opinions which injure the purity or peace of the Church” (BCO 31-2; 13-9f).

Bondman · #3 (**permalink**) 04-25-2007, 05:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LAYMAN JOE

What have they been waiting for? Where is the recommendation to immediately tar and feather those who proclaim such false doctrine from the pulpit?

I must agree. The recommendation sounds weak.

Maybe the GA as a whole will do something now?

C. Matthew McMahon · #4 (**permalink**) 04-25-2007, 06:55 PM

What if you are in the PCA and don't think the Federal Vision is heretical?

LAYMAN JOE · #5 (**permalink**) 04-25-2007, 07:58 PM

RECOMMENDATION:

Any PCA minister who teaches FV from the pulpit shall immediately be dragged to and launched from the DEFLOCKER.

bookslover · #6 (**permalink**) 04-25-2007, 08:41 PM

Overall, it looks like good news, though. I'll have to read it carefully later, but it looks like the OPC and the PCA are standing together on this.

I do wish, in their various condemnations, that they had said, "...contrary to the Bible AND the Westminster Standards". It's sort of dismaying that, in these condemnations, the Bible isn't listed first, as it should be.

Nevertheless, I'm encouraged.

fredtgreco · #7 (**permalink**) 04-25-2007, 08:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LAYMAN JOE

What have they been waiting for? Where is the recommendation to immediately tar and feather those who proclaim such false doctrine from the pulpit?

You guys have no idea what is going on.

It is the height of foolishness to judge a court before it has even acted.

Romans922 · #8 (**permalink**) 04-25-2007, 08:57 PM

This doesn't really sound weak to me:

IV. Declarations

In light of the controversy surrounding the NPP and FV, and after many months of careful study, the committee unanimously makes the following declarations:

1.The view that rejects the bi-covenantal structure of Scripture as represented in the Westminster Standards (i.e., views which do not merely take issue with the terminology, but the essence of the first/second covenant framework) is contrary to those Standards.

2.The view that an individual is “elect” by virtue of his membership in the visible church; and that this “election” includes justification, adoption and sanctification; but that this individual could lose his “election” if he forsakes the visible church, is contrary to the Westminster Standards.

3.The view that Christ does not stand as a representative head whose perfect obedience and satisfaction is imputed to individuals who believe in him is contrary to the Westminster Standards.

4.The view that strikes the language of “merit” from our theological vocabulary so that the claim is made that Christ’s merits are not imputed to his people is contrary to the Westminster Standards.

5.The view that “union with Christ” renders imputation redundant because it subsumes all of Christ’s benefits (including justification) under this doctrinal heading is contrary to the Westminster Standards.

6.The view that water baptism effects a “covenantal union” with Christ through which each baptized person receives the saving benefits of Christ’s mediation, including regeneration, justification, and sanctification, thus creating a parallel soteriological system to the decretal system of the Westminster Standards, is contrary to the Westminster Standards.

7.The view that one can be “united to Christ” and not receive all the benefits of Christ’s mediation, including perseverance, in that effectual union is contrary to the Westminster Standards.

8.The view that some can receive saving benefits of Christ’s mediation, such as regeneration and justification, and yet not persevere in those benefits is contrary to the Westminster Standards.

9.The view that justification is in any way based on our works, or that the so-called “final verdict of justification” is based on anything other than the perfect obedience and satisfaction of Christ received through faith alone, is contrary to the Westminster Standards.

Semper Fidelis · #9 (**permalink**) 04-25-2007, 09:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Romans922

This doesn't really sound weak to me:

IV. Declarations

In light of the controversy surrounding the NPP and FV, and after many months of careful study, the committee unanimously makes the following declarations:

1.The view that rejects the bi-covenantal structure of Scripture as represented in the Westminster Standards (i.e., views which do not merely take issue with the terminology, but the essence of the first/second covenant framework) is contrary to those Standards.

2.The view that an individual is “elect” by virtue of his membership in the visible church; and that this “election” includes justification, adoption and sanctification; but that this individual could lose his “election” if he forsakes the visible church, is contrary to the Westminster Standards.

3.The view that Christ does not stand as a representative head whose perfect obedience and satisfaction is imputed to individuals who believe in him is contrary to the Westminster Standards.

4.The view that strikes the language of “merit” from our theological vocabulary so that the claim is made that Christ’s merits are not imputed to his people is contrary to the Westminster Standards.

5.The view that “union with Christ” renders imputation redundant because it subsumes all of Christ’s benefits (including justification) under this doctrinal heading is contrary to the Westminster Standards.

6.The view that water baptism effects a “covenantal union” with Christ through which each baptized person receives the saving benefits of Christ’s mediation, including regeneration, justification, and sanctification, thus creating a parallel soteriological system to the decretal system of the Westminster Standards, is contrary to the Westminster Standards.

7.The view that one can be “united to Christ” and not receive all the benefits of Christ’s mediation, including perseverance, in that effectual union is contrary to the Westminster Standards.

8.The view that some can receive saving benefits of Christ’s mediation, such as regeneration and justification, and yet not persevere in those benefits is contrary to the Westminster Standards.

9.The view that justification is in any way based on our works, or that the so-called “final verdict of justification” is based on anything other than the perfect obedience and satisfaction of Christ received through faith alone, is contrary to the Westminster Standards.

armourbearer · #10 (**permalink**) 04-25-2007, 09:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fredtgreco

It is the height of foolishness to judge a court before it has even acted.

And to judge men before the court has heard them, John 7:51.

Me Died Blue · #11 (**permalink**) 04-25-2007, 09:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bookslover

I do wish, in their various condemnations, that they had said, "...contrary to the Bible AND the Westminster Standards". It's sort of dismaying that, in these condemnations, the Bible isn't listed first, as it should be.

It was explained in the Preface why they were stated along those lines.

turmeric · #12 (**permalink**) 04-25-2007, 09:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SemperFideles

What HE said!

Bondman · #13 (**permalink**) 04-25-2007, 10:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fredtgreco

You guys have no idea what is going on.

It is the height of foolishness to judge a court before it has even acted.

True, but is it foolish to judge a recommendation after it has been recommended?

I don't believe that the recommendations went far enough ESPECIALLY when one considers those nine points where FV departs from the WCF, and ultimately God's Word.

These points of doctrine are of no small importance. We are talking about heresy.

KMK · #14 (**permalink**) 04-25-2007, 10:44 PM

Has the PCUSA issues their statement yet?

fredtgreco · #15 (**permalink**) 04-25-2007, 10:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bondman

True, but is it foolish to judge a recommendation after it has been recommended?

I don't believe that the recommendations went far enough ESPECIALLY when one considers those nine points where FV departs from the WCF, and ultimately God's Word.

These points of doctrine are of no small importance. We are talking about heresy.

Do you have any idea how Presbyterian polity works? It seems not, given the way you judge the recommendations.

crhoades · #16 (**permalink**) 04-25-2007, 10:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fredtgreco

Do you have any idea how Presbyterian polity works? It seems not, given the way you judge the recommendations.

Fred,

If you have a moment and the inclination, would you mind summarizing the protocol with this report and the committes/GA and how the courts work in this instance?

LAYMAN JOE · #17 (**permalink**) 04-25-2007, 11:17 PM

Pastor Greco,

The session of my PCA church saw fit to inform our congregation of the ongoing FV teaching from the pulpit in the PCA. They immediately began teaching the congregation how the "new perspectives" are heretical. This systematic breakdown of FV was exhaustive and lasted several weeks.
This happened when FV first surfaced.

How long does it take to point out heresy in the church?

I agree with the GA report. I mean no disrespect to the court, Im simply frustrated on why it takes so long to point out and put a stop to heretical teaching within a denomination.

Bladestunner316 · #18 (**permalink**) 04-25-2007, 11:39 PM

They will have to check with GLAD before they can make an official statement

Poimen · #19 (**permalink**) 04-25-2007, 11:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by armourbearer

And to judge men before the court has heard them, John 7:51.

I am not sure as to what you are referring here: Are you saying that the PCA was in error by making this report?

armourbearer · #20 (**permalink**) 04-26-2007, 12:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Poimen

I am not sure as to what you are referring here: Are you saying that the PCA was in error by making this report?

I was backing up Fred's statement, pre-empting somewhat his latter statement about Presbyterian procedure. A presbyterian court can only give recommendations, it cannot order an Inquisition.