PCA Study Report on Federal Vision released - Page 2

Gryphonette · #41 (**permalink**) 04-28-2007, 09:11 AM

Would it be accurate to say that if those who hold to the FV and/or NPP are "brothers in Christ" in the PCA's estimation, that the main effect would be (at least in theory) to not allow those views to be officially taught, but they could be privately held by lay members?

Paedobaptism is certainly a hallmark of Presbyterianism yet people sometimes join Presby churches without believing in it; a man wouldn't (right?) be ordained if he rejects it, though.

Is this what is likely to happen with the FV/NPP? It'll be permitted, albeit not encouraged, for lay people, but will be a hindrance to ordination?

larryjf · #42 (**permalink**) 04-28-2007, 09:26 AM

It may not even have an effect on ordination. I guess it really depends on what the General Assembly does in regards to this report.

If they bring these doctrinal issues to the point of baptism and limited atonement then it would have an impact on those who seek ordination.

wsw201 · #43 (**permalink**) 04-30-2007, 01:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gryphonette

Would it be accurate to say that if those who hold to the FV and/or NPP are "brothers in Christ" in the PCA's estimation, that the main effect would be (at least in theory) to not allow those views to be officially taught, but they could be privately held by lay members?

Paedobaptism is certainly a hallmark of Presbyterianism yet people sometimes join Presby churches without believing in it; a man wouldn't (right?) be ordained if he rejects it, though.

Is this what is likely to happen with the FV/NPP? It'll be permitted, albeit not encouraged, for lay people, but will be a hindrance to ordination?

Since non-officers in the OPC or PCA are not required to subscribe to the Standards, they can hold to this view. But a prudent Session that does not hold to these views would make it clear to all members that since this view is outside of the Standards it will not be taught. For those in the congregation that may be attracted to FV/NPP, the Session should make clear that these folks should not disturb the peace, purity and unity of the church by propegating these views.

If a man wishes to be ordained as an officer, whether Deacon, RE or TE, and rejects infant baptism, he definately should be rejected. As far as FV/NPP, I would hope they would be rejected by the court of jurisdiction as well as by the congregation.

Richard King · #44 (**permalink**) 04-30-2007, 09:21 PM

I just read this and thought it might be relevant and some may be interested...
http://www.dougwils.com/index.asp?Ac...=1&BlogID=3848

Magma2 · #45 (**permalink**) 05-01-2007, 09:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Richard King

I just read this and thought it might be relevant and some may be interested...
http://www.dougwils.com/index.asp?Ac...=1&BlogID=3848

I wonder how long these men can keep complaining that absolutely nobody ever understands them correctly except I suppose another FV'er?

BobVigneault · #46 (**permalink**) 05-31-2007, 07:30 AM

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. More details at http://www.reformednews.com/.

Semper Fidelis · #47 (**permalink**) 05-31-2007, 08:24 AM

Shouldn't you state that a group of ten ministers, sympathetic to the Federal Vision, have written a letter.

Here is but one example:

Quote:

Study Report:
• 2214- “The Westminster Standards only speak of a “union with Christ” as that which is effectual; or to say it another way, as that which is saving and belongs to the elect.”

...

Questions:
• Why does the committee narrowly interpret our standards to speak “only” of union with Christ as belonging to the decretally elect when there are ways that our standards understand this more broadly? 2

What is this killer footnote that will show that the committee "narrowly" interpreted the Westminster standards? Why here is the footnote:

Quote:

2 For example, WLC 167 asks, “How is our Baptism to be improved by us? Answer: The needful but much neglected duty of improving our Baptism, is to be performed by us all our life long, especially in the time of temptation, and when we are present at the administration of it to others…by drawing strength from the death and resurrection of Christ, into whom we are baptized.”
Isn’t this an instance when the standards encourage the entire visible church to draw strength from the one “into whom we are baptized?”

Umm...yes, but only the Elect can do so because they have hearts that have been transformed to look to the death and resurrection of Christ. Why would a minister of the Gospel, that calls himself Reformed, presume that an unregenerate man would look to the resurrection and death of Christ for strength?

BobVigneault · #48 (**permalink**) 05-31-2007, 08:42 AM

I just quoted from the site without commentary. My suspicion is that the anonymous reporter(s) behind the Reformed News is (are) sympathetic to the FV.

1. They quote FV sympathizers quite a bit.
2. I found the site because it was linked to by a FV guy.

Semper Fidelis · #49 (**permalink**) 05-31-2007, 08:50 AM

Bob,

I didn't intend for my commentary to be directed at you. I know you were quoting.

BobVigneault · #50 (**permalink**) 05-31-2007, 09:10 AM

Rich, I know that you knew that and furthermore, it should go without saying that I know that you knew that I knew you knew that. You know what I mean? Of course you do.

wsw201 · #51 (**permalink**) 05-31-2007, 01:07 PM

Just got finished reading the pastoral letter. This has to be one of the lamest responses I have seen. It comes across as even more desparate than Meyers comments.

Archlute · #52 (**permalink**) 05-31-2007, 02:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wsw201

Just got finished reading the pastoral letter. This has to be one of the lamest responses I have seen. It comes across as even more desperate than Meyers comments.

That was lame.

Notice especially the tactic of "I didn't see that exact word used anywhere in their writings (e.g. monocovenantalism, ex opere operato, etc.), if they didn't use the exact term then how can you say that they mean it? And, hey, even if you did find that word used by them somewhere, how can you be sure that they mean it in the same way that you think they mean it?"

Wow. The deceitfulness of sin never ceases to amaze. Others might say, "That's just stupid".

NaphtaliPress · #53 (**permalink**) 06-01-2007, 07:55 AM

FYI. For full disclosure it is probably good to know that Jonathan Barlow not only professionally hosts the RN site, but is someway involved in it. He says the goal is to be even handed, and kudos for that aim and hopefully it is reality. I can appreciate the difficulty if one is a known partisan and trying to establish a rep for impartiality on this subject anonymously would seem the only way to do it. Maybe not. But that was what he did. I thought RN tilted FV when I visited which is why I asked him if he was involved (the fact barlownet servers host the site is public info). Below is his response to my question over on Lane's Green Baggins blog:

Quote:

barlow said,

May 31, 2007 at 2:05 pm
Chris, Pastor Hutchinson asked me the same thing, and so I’ll just cut and paste my answer here to save time:
———
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.

BobVigneault · #54 (**permalink**) 06-01-2007, 08:39 AM

Thanks Chris for the FYI. So that's the Jon Barlow that attends Jeff Meyers church with Mark Horne (who linked to this very thread on his blog who mentioned me as a 'guy' and Rich's response as a reprimand and called our collective give and take 'mob justice'.) If Jonathan is concerned about being associated with FV then he might want to step a bit further away from............. Ah, man! Now I don't know what to call them! They don't like 'sympathizers', they don't like 'advocates', they don't like 'movers' (cuz "it's not a movement"), they don't like 'conspirators'.

I'm hoping they can give us a name, a literary short-hand, by which we can refer to our theologically nimble brothers. How about 'the guys formerly known as FV sympathizers'?

NaphtaliPress · #55 (**permalink**) 06-01-2007, 09:07 AM

Call them

(ok, for those who do not get it)

BobVigneault · #56 (**permalink**) 06-01-2007, 09:11 AM

Dang, I was going to say, 'maybe we could come up with a symbol for them in place of a name' but I thought the joke would be too obscure. I wasted my opportunity, but YOU didn't. Good one Chris, we are on the same page.

Gryphonette · #57 (**permalink**) 06-01-2007, 10:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BobVigneault

If Jonathan is concerned about being associated with FV then he might want to step a bit further away from............. Ah, man! Now I don't know what to call them! They don't like 'sympathizers', they don't like 'advocates', they don't like 'movers' (cuz "it's not a movement"), they don't like 'conspirators'.

I'm hoping they can give us a name, a literary short-hand, by which we can refer to our theologically nimble brothers. How about 'the guys formerly known as FV sympathizers'?

It's strange how loathe so many FV sympathizers/supporters are to actively, boldly, and unequivocally identify themselves with that movement/conversation/whatever. I don't think it'd be a stretch to say upwards of half of those who are around the internet arguing passionately on the FV's behalf insist they are not really sympathizers/supporters, just people who want to make sure the (apparently few) true FV sympathizers/supporters aren't misrepresented or something.

Christians are being tortured and are dying around the world for publicly proclaiming Christ....Protestants were tortured and killed during the Reformation for proclaiming the true gospel....but the FV seems to cause people to argue and cause division on its behalf without being willing to publicly stand in its camp and be identified with it.

Sort of reminds me of all those egalitarians who, while pushing through their feminist agenda, simultaneously insisted they certainly weren't feminists.

R. Scott Clark · #58 (**permalink**) 06-01-2007, 10:15 AM

As the FV becomes more marginalized the bigger issue is going to whether and to what degree it ought to be tolerated.

Here's an approach to this issue.

rsc