greenbaggins
Puritan Board Doctor
You could be right. However, I think that the PCA has a much better chance of ousting FV/NPP/NS advocates than the OPC does. The SJC and the study committee both are not favorable toward these views.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Can you cite and prove this claim (concerning Kinnaird) of yours? If not, I'd appreciate it if you retract it and apologize publicly. Thank you.Frankly, and as far as I’m concerned, it’s certainly the prerogative of the OPC to permit the teaching of both a false gospel and the true gospel side by side since your highest court has already deemed the false one of John Kinnaird (and by extension Norman Shepherd) to be in harmony with your church's standards.
Had no idea OPC had/has? some FV pastors/elders and that it's been that much of a problem in the denomination itself....
Adam, I'm quite sorry about the situation you described. Had you mentioned that problem to me around that time I'd have advised you to contact Presbytery. The church is made up of sinners--and that church clearly had an agenda. But to impute the actions of that particular church, or even a few vocal FV advocates, to the whole OPC is erroneous. At the GA there was no argument over the findings of the Committee on Justification and their Report. I don't know how that can be so quickly forgotten or brushed aside.Did you try to take this up with any one else in the OPC or in the Presbytery? How did that go?
Thank you for your sincerity, Casey. I realize that there are a number of good men in the OPC, but when you're new to Reformed churches, and you get rocked back on your heels by a bad apple, it can inflict some pretty serious damage. I bounced back fairly quickly, but I know a few others from that church who took several years to get over the spiritual poison.
I think that one of the disappointments with the OPC GA, is that the report was never officially adopted, to my understanding. It has no constitutional power, and there was no follow up action taken to eradicate the Church of the men holding those views within. So, while the report, in and of itself, was an admittedly fine piece of academic work, it has no practically enforceable bite. Supposedly, the influence of those decisions are meant to work their way down into the churches, where the teaching will then be nullified, but I think that since ministers within the OPC have made public statements on that stuff, there needs to be some public retractions. For example, although it was pointed out on the PB a while back that Dick Gaffin signed onto the report, he has never taken back statements in Romans 2 that reflect an NPP understanding. I know that it would be a humbling experience for men in the OPC to admit to introducing wrong doctrine (I mean, they are the Orthodox Presbyterian Church, right?), but I think that for the Spirit to be pleased, and for the members to be reassured, something like that must be done.
Thank you for your sincerity, Casey. I realize that there are a number of good men in the OPC, but when you're new to Reformed churches, and you get rocked back on your heels by a bad apple, it can inflict some pretty serious damage. I bounced back fairly quickly, but I know a few others from that church who took several years to get over the spiritual poison.
I think that one of the disappointments with the OPC GA, is that the report was never officially adopted, to my understanding. It has no constitutional power, and there was no follow up action taken to eradicate the Church of the men holding those views within. So, while the report, in and of itself, was an admittedly fine piece of academic work, it has no practically enforceable bite. Supposedly, the influence of those decisions are meant to work their way down into the churches, where the teaching will then be nullified, but I think that since ministers within the OPC have made public statements on that stuff, there needs to be some public retractions. For example, although it was pointed out on the PB a while back that Dick Gaffin signed onto the report, he has never taken back statements in Romans 2 that reflect an NPP understanding. I know that it would be a humbling experience for men in the OPC to admit to introducing wrong doctrine (I mean, they are the Orthodox Presbyterian Church, right?), but I think that for the Spirit to be pleased, and for the members to be reassured, something like that must be done.
Many FV proponents think that Gaffin is on their side when he is not. I have taken four classes from him, and have had many telephone conversations and email conversations with him. I am no friend to the FV or NPP, and neither is Gaffin. Gaffin's views on Romans 2 come from some older lectures. He may have changed by now. The difficulty that many experience is due to the fact that Gaffin is a polite scholar. He is not one to bash anyone over the head. Consequently, after he spoke at the Auburn Avenue Conference in '05, people were thinking that he taught the same thing that N.T. Wright taught. Such people need to read his article in the WTJ entitled "Paul the Theologian." Furthermore, they need to read Gaffin's newest book, which sets the record straight: he is no friend to the FV or the NPP.
Having briefly considered the OPC Report on Justification, we are compelled to conclude the following. The committee report of the OPC does not recommend that unrepentant Federal Vision teachers and advocates be deposed and censured, which is precisely what the OPC needs. Unless a church officer from the floor alters the recommendation and a motion passes to begin the admonition and censure process, then the report is little more than words that can and will likely be ignored. On the one hand, the Federal Vision doctrine of justification is said to contradict Scripture; but on the other hand, the proponents of this doctrine are tolerated as though it was a non-vital error. This is a scandalous sin, a sin so great that it justifies separation or secession on the part of those who want to be faithful to Scripture.[25] How long are the Truly Reformed (TR) or “conservatives” in the OPC and PCA going to keep on tolerating blatant, serious and even deadly contradictions to Scripture and the Westminster Standards in their communions?[26] If one does not separate from the toleration of damnable heresy, then one is guilty of participating in these scandalous sins. Once we strip away all the excuses, pragmatism, worldly concepts of love, fund raising needs, and bureaucratic maneuvering, we are left with a toleration of a complete repudiation of the all-sufficiency of Christ’s redemption. This toleration of a false gospel is totally unacceptable. How many congregations and families need to be destroyed by heresy before a decision to depart is made? “Know ye not that a little leaven leavens the whole lump” (1 Cor. 5:6)? There comes a time when the best method of reformation is to protest and secede, with denouncing of jurisdiction. Faithfulness at this hour requires it. (http://www.reformedonline.com/view/reformedonline/The Current Crisis in the OPC and PCA.htm)
There are a number of OPC and PCA ministers and elders who have written papers, spoken at conferences in favor of this theology, and defended church officers holding the same in the church courts: e.g., Prof. Richard Gaffin, Thomas Tyson, Thomas Trouwburst, Peter Lillback, Richard Lusk and Steven Wilkins. There is substantially no difference between Shepherdism and the Federal Vision, as the advocates of both share in the same conferences and together promote the doctrine of justification by faith plus faithful obedience or good works. Norman Shepherd’s heretical book, The Call of Grace: How the Covenant Illustrates Salvation and Evangelism, published by Presbyterian and Reformed, was endorsed by Prof. Richard Gaffin.
Adam,Thank you for your sincerity, Casey. I realize that there are a number of good men in the OPC, but when you're new to Reformed churches, and you get rocked back on your heels by a bad apple, it can inflict some pretty serious damage. I bounced back fairly quickly, but I know a few others from that church who took several years to get over the spiritual poison.
I think that one of the disappointments with the OPC GA, is that the report was never officially adopted, to my understanding. It has no constitutional power, and there was no follow up action taken to eradicate the Church of the men holding those views within. So, while the report, in and of itself, was an admittedly fine piece of academic work, it has no practically enforceable bite. Supposedly, the influence of those decisions are meant to work their way down into the churches, where the teaching will then be nullified, but I think that since ministers within the OPC have made public statements on that stuff, there needs to be some public retractions. For example, although it was pointed out on the PB a while back that Dick Gaffin signed onto the report, he has never taken back statements in Romans 2 that reflect an NPP understanding. I know that it would be a humbling experience for men in the OPC to admit to introducing wrong doctrine (I mean, they are the Orthodox Presbyterian Church, right?), but I think that for the Spirit to be pleased, and for the members to be reassured, something like that must be done.
Frankly, and as far as I’m concerned, it’s certainly the prerogative of the OPC to permit the teaching of both a false gospel and the true gospel side by side since your highest court has already deemed the false one of John Kinnaird (and by extension Norman Shepherd) to be in harmony with your church's standards.
:bump:Can you cite and prove this claim (concerning Kinnaird) of yours? If not, I'd appreciate it if you retract it and apologize publicly. Thank you.
Can you cite and prove this claim (concerning Kinnaird) of yours? If not, I'd appreciate it if you retract it and apologize publicly.
:bump:
Apparently this post of mine was missed by you, Sean. I'd appreciate a response. Thank you.
Romans 2 puts it this way: “God will give to each person according to what he has done. To those who by persistence in doing good seek glory, honor and immorality, He will give eternal life. But for those who are self seeking and who reject the truth and follow evil there will be wrath and anger.’ Now by this we know the decision, the judgment as to who enters the city and who stays outside for eternity will be made on that great Day of Judgment in accordance with what you have done in this life.
God has provided not only justification from the guilt of sin, he has also, for all those begotten from above by the seed of God, provided that holiness without which no one will see the Lord. Hebrews 12:14. These good works are a required condition if we would stand in the Day of judgment and they are supplied by God to all his people . . . Who are these people who thus benefit – who stand on the Day of Judgment? They are those who obey the law who will be declared righteous . . . When God declares them righteous, that is a forensic declaration of righteousness . . . Thus we rightly conclude that those inside the city [of Rev 22] are those who have kept the law of God and those only . . . .
As to Gaffin, he was one of the men of the committee that worked on the Justification report. I'm rather confused that you don't consider his working on it and signing it to be sufficient for clearing his name of whatever associations people may have attributed to him with FV.
Actually, no -- I would not appreciate reading that man's material. Sorry to break that to ya. If you are not content with the work Gaffin did on the Justification Report . . well, that's your issue. If you're so concerned about it, perhaps you should contact him personally. I'm quite content.How would working on the OPC Justification report clear Gaffin? Where has he recanted or repented of his anti-Christian "union" with Christ through the water of baptism or his public defense of Neo-Liberals like Shepherd, Kinnaird and others? I must has missed that paper. Care to post a link here? While looking for that link, you might appreciate reading "The Orthodox Presbyterian Cover-up" at http://www.trinityfoundation.org/journal.php?id=227 .
You did not answer my question. I did not ask for a link to a repository of documents, much less quotes from Kinnaird himself. This was your claim:I did miss that post of yours.
Would you like to revisit the entire trial (http://www.trinityfoundation.org/kinnaird.php) or just some of Kinnaird’s specific doctrines. How about this one in reference to Romans 2:13:
Or, would you prefer to start with this one:
Let me know. And, no apologies necessary.
(The bolding is mine, to highlight the words I have taken issue with.)Frankly, and as far as I’m concerned, it’s certainly the prerogative of the OPC to permit the teaching of both a false gospel and the true gospel side by side since your highest court has already deemed the false one of John Kinnaird (and by extension Norman Shepherd) to be in harmony with your church's standards.
You claim here that "the OPC [has permitted] the teaching of [. . .] a false gospel [. . .] since your highest court has already deemed the false [gospel] of John Kinnaird [. . .] to be in harmony with your church's standards." This is the claim I want you to prove. Thank you.
“Baptism signifies and seals a transition in the experience of the recipient, a transition from being (existentially) apart from Christ to being (existentially) joined to him. Galatians 3:27 is even more graphic: “Those who have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ” . . . Consequently, the transition described in [Ephesians 2] verses 5f. as being an object of God’s wrath(v.3) to experiencing his love (v.4). takes place at the point of being joined (existentially) to Christ [50_51].”
The way of salvation proposed by Gaffin is through the water of baptism and existential union with Christ – not by mere belief alone in truth of Scripture and the message of the Gospel. His mission, or at least part of it, has been to undermine, and, if possible, supplant the biblical order of salvation with a new one derived from his own "new perspective of Paul." Admittedly, his book is subtly written, but I believe many have missed the far reaching implications of his (novel) views. At the very least, I was struck by how many broad and even bold assertions he makes throughout the book without even the slightest evidence. He just assumes his readers will agree or just take his word. Maybe this is how he has been able to fool so many people? Perhaps Gaffin gets a pass because he's such a "polite scholar"? Yet, from the above you can see it is the water of baptism which translates a person from an object of God’s wrath to an object of His love. It is baptism, not belief alone, which brings us into union with Christ. Union with Christ for Gaffin is an "existential" non propositional or legal bond. Besides confusing the sign with the thing signified, his view of baptism and Christological union explains his long defense of men like Norm Shepherd and John Kinnaird.
Let's graph it out:
Gaffin:
Baptism signifies and seals...
WCF:
Baptism is a sign and seal...
Gaffin
...a transition from being (existentially) apart from Christ to being (existentially) joined to him.
WCF:
...of his ingrafting into Christ
Ingrafting into Christ = being (existentially) joined to him.
I don't see the problem. What is Gaffin saying (in the quote you provided as support for Elliot's position) that the Confession is not???
What does Gaffin teach in this quote that WCF does not teach in the chapter on baptism?
How can you say that Gaffin is teaching "his own new perspective of Paul" when his quote is almost identical to the confession? Is the WCF teaching the same "new perspective of Paul" that Gaffin is?
Dan,
I tried reading the link to the old post, but the text that came up on my screen had been corrupted and was difficult to understand. I cannot therefore say whether or not you are confused by FV thought, nor whether or not the Gaffin passage under discussion is problematic. I will, however, point out the problem to which Sean is objecting. FV advocates typically say, "Hey look, Mr. X says this... Now look here, WCF says the same thing... Therefore, Mr. X is an orthodox, confessional theologian." That is what I heard at my church, and (if the passage on Gaffin is being read correctly by me) what seems to be the case here.
So one would think that an article full of bashing ministers in the OPC would be slam full of footnotes pointing to some evidence to back up the claims, right? The article in the link above has zero footnotes. What are we supposed to do, just take his word for it???
Both Gaffin and Rome teach that union with Christ through water baptism is the way of salvation and the means of redemption. Both Gaffin and Rome teach that baptism marks the transition from death to life, and that baptism brings about saving union with Christ. Both Gaffin and Rome teach that adoption comes through union with Christ in baptism. Both Gaffin and Rome teach that baptism brings about justification. Both Gaffin and Rome teach that baptism confers sanctification. Both Gaffin and Rome teach that justification and sanctification are indistinguishable, thus making both faith and works instruments of justification. Both Gaffin and Rome teach a ““first justificationâ€â€ at baptism as well as a ““final justificationâ€â€ at the Last Judgment, in which believers lay claim to entry into the Kingdom of Heaven based on their works plus Christ’’s.
Are you sure you're talking about the same Richard Gaffin Jr.? While I haven't read his latest book, what about his track record over the last thirty plus years? Here is a man who has provided decades long defense of some of the most egregious supporters and advocates of the so_called “Federal Vision,” so much so that he wrote the following glowing endorsement of Norm Shepherd’s counterfeit gospel and even allowed his name to be used as a selling point for The Call of Grace. Can you imagine someone opposed to Shepherd's errant doctrines writing:
“This lucid and highly readable study provides valuable instruction on what it means to live in covenant with God. God’s covenant is the only way of life that fully honors both the absolute, all_embracing sovereignty of his saving grace and the full, uninhibited activity of his people. The Call of Grace should benefit anyone concerned about biblical growth in Christian life and witness.”
Thank you Dick Gaffin. Hardly shocking since he has been consistently in agreement with Shepherd on more than a few fundamental points as he makes clear in his book “Resurrection and Redemption” where he writes:
“Baptism signifies and seals a transition in the experience of the recipient, a transition from being (existentially) apart from Christ to being (existentially) joined to him. Galatians 3:27 is even more graphic: “Those who have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ” . . . Consequently, the transition described in [Ephesians 2] verses 5f. as being an object of God’s wrath(v.3) to experiencing his love (v.4). takes place at the point of being joined (existentially) to Christ [50_51].”
The way of salvation proposed by Gaffin is through the water of baptism and existential union with Christ – not by mere belief alone in truth of Scripture and the message of the Gospel. His mission, or at least part of it, has been to undermine, and, if possible, supplant the biblical order of salvation with a new one derived from his own "new perspective of Paul." Admittedly, his book is subtly written, but I believe many have missed the far reaching implications of his (novel) views. At the very least, I was struck by how many broad and even bold assertions he makes throughout the book without even the slightest evidence. He just assumes his readers will agree or just take his word. Maybe this is how he has been able to fool so many people? Perhaps Gaffin gets a pass because he's such a "polite scholar"? Yet, from the above you can see it is the water of baptism which translates a person from an object of God’s wrath to an object of His love. It is baptism, not belief alone, which brings us into union with Christ. Union with Christ for Gaffin is an "existential" non propositional or legal bond. Besides confusing the sign with the thing signified, his view of baptism and Christological union explains his long defense of men like Norm Shepherd and John Kinnaird.
My guess is you took classes with a different Richard Gaffin. Either that or perhaps he puts on different faces for different audiences.
Now you've committed slander, and in two points: (1) in regard to the OPC, and (2) in regard to me.Thanks for the clarification but I already did per the citations from the decision and the protest filed in response to the Kinnaird acquittal. You can read the rest of it and the entire trial transcripts at the Trinity Foundation website. You don't agree with the protest filed, fine. I guess that only leaves one option concerning your view of the Kinnaird's teaching which would be that they are in harmony with your church's standards. Like I said, no apologies necessary. Although I'm starting to think there might be some due from you, particularly given your backhand to Paul Elliot who should be applauded for the work he's done exposing what is going on in the OPC. I'm sure many Presbyterians had a similar appreciation for Machen in the '20's.
But in phone conversations to me, he has admitted that Shepherd's theology is imbalanced, that Shepherd considers the inseparability of faith and works to the exclusion of the distinctness between the two.
The fact that he wholeheartedly endorsed the OPC study committee report, and that he endorsed my argumentation on the NPPdebate page, I think clearly indicates where his allegiances lie.
And if you are listening to that loose cannon, John Robbins, then I advise you to stop immediately. That man has done little good for the cause of Jesus Christ. Anyone who has the least questions about the theology of Gordon Clark is an outright heretic, according to Robbins.
And I can say this, because my father J.C. Keister was Gordon Clark's best friend. I grew up admiring Clark. I went to WTS and found out that there is much more to Van Til than disagreeing with Clark. I call myself Van Tillian now. Robbins would undoubtedly call me a heretic. Robbins is a vitriolic loose cannon with a publishing house. Don't listen to him.
What does Gaffin teach in this quote that WCF does not teach in the chapter on baptism?
Commentary on Ephesians 2:13
But now by Christ Jesus you who were once afar off have become near by the blood of Christ.
GHC: This place is as good as any for the consideration of the phrase “in Christ.” It occurs in many of Paul’s epistles, and we have already seen it here in 1:3 (in him), 6 (in the beloved), 7 (in whom), 10, 11, 13, 20, and 2:5..., 6, 7, 10, and now 13. Some of these instances are easily understood, but others have led exegetes to adopt a mystical interpretation. An early medieval theologian used iron and fire as an illustration. We merge with God as the fire impregnates the iron to such an extent that we cannot tell whether it is iron or fire. Thus we permeate God, or better, God permeates us. Less explicit, some Neo-orthodox writers, as I have indicated elsewhere, try to modify the doctrine of election by charging Calvinists with failing to notice that election takes place “in Christ.” This not only misrepresents Calvinists, but in itself lacks meaning. Various Baptists, as also noted elsewhere, insist that en must be local, as in a room. In addition to being poor Greek, the insistence on the locative meaning makes nonsense of scores of verses. Others, regarding themselves as orthodox and very devout, impose a mystic aura on the phrase, and lapse into rapturous vacuity.
In reply to all, we must insist that the rational God gave us a rational message that we are obligated to understand, or at least try to understand. All Scripture is profitable for doctrine. Of course, as Peter complained about Paul, the Scriptures contain material hard to understand, but they contain nothing but what is understandable. Now then, what is the meaning of “in Christ”? Different passages may indeed use slightly different meanings; but probably the large majority of puzzling passages become clear when en is translated by by. That is, en often denotes agency or means. Here the phrase means simply that Christ brought us near to the commonwealth of Israel, the covenants, and the promise. In other places en will indicate that Christ is our legal representative, so that his act counts as ours.
Comment: The “mystic aura” that some theologians throw around this phrase is not restricted to this phrase. They misinterpret other Scriptural words and phrases in order to generate more mystic auras. They simply do not understand what Christianity is.
. . . Commentary on Colossians 1:1
Paul, apostle of Christ Jesus by the will of God, and Timothy our brother, to the saints in Colosse, brethren who believe in Christ....
GHC: Some commentators object to the translation “brethren who believe in Christ.” They have two reasons. First, the word in question [pistois] is not a participle, that is, “who believe”; it is an adjective and should be translated faithful. Second, the preposition en, “in” Christ, does not indicate Christ as an object of belief, but rather refers to the Christians’ incorporation into the body of Christ. A spiritual union, not an object of belief, is the idea [they say].
This view is not without merit. But neither is it altogether convincing. As for the preposition en, instead of eis, “into,” or epi, “upon,” we shall see that it has several meanings. Surely in verse 4 it means faith in Christ. In addition to the connotations of Greek prepositions, if the idea were that of a spiritual incorporation, the word pistois would be superfluous. Simply “brethren in Christ” would be quite enough. Therefore, it makes better sense, to the present commentator at least, to take Christ as the object of their belief.
Commentary on Colossians 1:4
...having heard of your faith in Christ Jesus...
GHC: As with verse 2, some commentators, even here in verse 4, wish to see some sort of spiritual incorporation (a contradictory phrase, if there ever was one), rather than the object of belief. But here, even more clearly than in verse 2, the latter idea is obvious. Various prepositions can follow the idea of belief. One cannot properly say that eis or epi must be used. One can better argue that this verse demonstrates that en is quite possible.
The word pistis means faith, and the verses commentators cite to make it mean faithfulness do not always prove their point. For example, in Matthew 8:10 [“I have not found such great faith, not even in Israel!”], 9:2 [“When Jesus saw their faith”], and 9:22 [“Your faith has made you well.”], the people who had faith, had had no time to be faithful. Faithfulness takes a long time; faith does not. The woman touched the hem of his garment because she believed something about the nature and power of Christ; not because she had discharged many obligations faithfully. Her faith is called great because she was so thoroughly convinced of the truth she believed. Just as clear are Matthew 9:28-29 [“Do you believe that I am able to do this? According to your faith let it be to you.”] (see Matthew 15:28 [“O woman, great is your faith!”]). Matthew 21:21[“if you have faith and do not doubt”], contrasting faith with doubt, also allows no time for faithfulness. Even in Matthew 23:23 [“justice and mercy and faith”], where faith might seem to mean long obedience, the fact that the matters of obedience are mentioned separately might indicate that faith is an additional factor. In this regard, note that the Pharisees did not believe Moses (John 5:46-47 [“For if you believed Moses, you would believe me; for he wrote about me. But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe my words?”]). They were not the fundamentalists of Christ’s day; they were the Modernists. The Sadducees were outright humanists.
[Clark adds a footnote to his comments:]
This type of anti-creedal objection [the type that says that faith means faithfulness] is more vigorously leveled against the Old Testament. The Hebrew word, say some commentators, means faithfulness or firmness, and not belief. When it is pointed out to them that the LXX [Septuagint] translators, who used Hellenistic Greek, used the word pisteuo, they lamely reply that the Alexandrian rabbis were “obviously embarrassed.” James Barr, a scholar of unquestioned heterodoxy, writes, “The unwillingness of much modern theology [in contrast with the “fundamentalist” type of thinking] to admit that belief or faith can be properly given to a saying or words, or its tendency to insist that such belief in something said is totally different in kind from faith understood as a relationship with a person, may also affect the exegesis here” (Barr, The Semantics of Biblical Language, 172).
Comment: The attempt to obliterate the Biblical concept of belief (pistis) by saying it means faithfulness or obedience is a direct attack on the Gospel, on the doctrine of justification by faith alone, and an integral part of the “union with Christ” mysticism.
And you have continually dodged my question, over and over again (incidentally, I asked you to prove your claim, not Paul Elliot or John Robbins). And then you have slandered my name. Criticizing a denomination is not the same as slandering it. You have broken the Ninth Commandment, in regard to the OPC and myself. It seems to me your true colors are that which is only display here, not mine.I will say I find it funny how overly sensitive you OPC men are to even the slightest criticism of your denomination. Mr. "Staunch Presbyterian" is evidently so blinded that he can't even bring himself to read anything by former OPC RE Paul Elliot. I can only guess out of fear that it might break him of his ongoing illusions.