OPC and Federal Vision?
- Thread starter jwright82
- Start date
- Status
In my opinion, the FV is not as high-profile an issue in the OPC. At one time, it seemed to be there because it was conflated with some other issues that were disturbing the church re. justification.
There are other issues which also seem to tie-in with FV, at least in the minds of some. Because FVers are often (though perhaps not exclusively) theonomist, if someone self-identifies as a theonomist he might be suspected of FV sympathies. But it should be recalled that the RPCUS (Morecraft and Co.) are theonomist, and blew the whistle on the FV (Wilkins, Auburn Ave, etc.).
This only makes it clear that the subject needs to be studied and critiqued narrowly, and not broadly, lumping-in other positions that do not deserve the same discredit. This was one aspect of the OPC GA appointed study-committee on FV that was quite good. It was a focused critique, and it answered the specified question (re. justfication) by contrasting the historic, biblical and confessional position with at least two modern recastings: NPP and FV. While no prophylactic endures forever, the present state is one in which the inoculation provided seems to be keeping FV-cancer "in remission" in the OPC.
For better or worse, the OPC is seen by outsiders already as a group too-homogeneous and too small to "matter" on a stage for greater influence; as well as too-beholden to "old guard" leadership, which changes slowly and from within. The OPC is too "historically self-conscious" to instinctively or uncritically view its identity as "inclusive." So why should FV "target" the OPC, when even if it were successful (quite unlikely at this moment), FV would still have little more influence on "culture" than does the RPCNA or the RCUS (both also small denominations).
The PCA is theologically fissiparous (in fact, if not on paper), and its big-tent mentality grants a degree of wiggle-room to innovations. There is irony here. The OPC is both less top-down controlled, and more homogeneous; while the PCA has developed a centralized bureaucracy (complete with "visionary leadership"), and a factional constituency. Is this just the "price" one must inevitably pay for numerical growth and financial clout?
There are other issues which also seem to tie-in with FV, at least in the minds of some. Because FVers are often (though perhaps not exclusively) theonomist, if someone self-identifies as a theonomist he might be suspected of FV sympathies. But it should be recalled that the RPCUS (Morecraft and Co.) are theonomist, and blew the whistle on the FV (Wilkins, Auburn Ave, etc.).
This only makes it clear that the subject needs to be studied and critiqued narrowly, and not broadly, lumping-in other positions that do not deserve the same discredit. This was one aspect of the OPC GA appointed study-committee on FV that was quite good. It was a focused critique, and it answered the specified question (re. justfication) by contrasting the historic, biblical and confessional position with at least two modern recastings: NPP and FV. While no prophylactic endures forever, the present state is one in which the inoculation provided seems to be keeping FV-cancer "in remission" in the OPC.
For better or worse, the OPC is seen by outsiders already as a group too-homogeneous and too small to "matter" on a stage for greater influence; as well as too-beholden to "old guard" leadership, which changes slowly and from within. The OPC is too "historically self-conscious" to instinctively or uncritically view its identity as "inclusive." So why should FV "target" the OPC, when even if it were successful (quite unlikely at this moment), FV would still have little more influence on "culture" than does the RPCNA or the RCUS (both also small denominations).
The PCA is theologically fissiparous (in fact, if not on paper), and its big-tent mentality grants a degree of wiggle-room to innovations. There is irony here. The OPC is both less top-down controlled, and more homogeneous; while the PCA has developed a centralized bureaucracy (complete with "visionary leadership"), and a factional constituency. Is this just the "price" one must inevitably pay for numerical growth and financial clout?
Page 60 of this report starts the critique that that Mr. Buchanan mentions.
jwright82
Puritan Board Post-Graduate
I agree. Some people do not see it as wrong. I do see it as essentially Roman Catholic. I just couldn't find anything on the state of FV in the OPC.
eqdj
Puritan Board Freshman
James,
Compare and contrast the OPC Report linked above with the PCA Report http://www.pcahistory.org/pca/07-fvreport.pdf and you'll see why FV is not the issue in the OPC that it remains in the PCA.
Compare and contrast the OPC Report linked above with the PCA Report http://www.pcahistory.org/pca/07-fvreport.pdf and you'll see why FV is not the issue in the OPC that it remains in the PCA.
Jack K
Puritan Board Doctor
I agree that this is the right approach. Deal with the particular offending doctrine, not the label or the loose movement as a whole.
jwright82
Puritan Board Post-Graduate
I will do that. If it is no problem to you could you lay out a few differences in broad strokes so that anyone who doesn't have the time to compare and contrast these two very large documents, you obviously have some. I don't just start threads for me but for anyone who might be interested in learning.
eqdj
Puritan Board Freshman
The PCA Report http://www.pcahistory.org/pca/07-fvreport.pdf is 36 pages and the OPC Report http://www.opc.org/GA/justification.pdf is 89 pages. I think they're both brief enough as is. I do definitely encourage anyone interested to read them both fully. btw, Of all the responses to FV/NPP I refer people to two sources, one being the OPC Report and the other being Ligon Duncan on the New Perspective Article/Audio
- Status
