Fed Vis

Status
Not open for further replies.
Originally posted by JohnV
Bruce and Fred:

I understand what you're saying. That is all well and good. I still have difficulty with this; and I guess its because of my own vested interests. The main point that I want to know is if it is indeed the case that a body of adjucators is made of individual adjudicators: that each member of a judicatory is to be considered an adjudicator individually. That is, that each member must have all the documentation before him to be eligible to have a say on the matter. It would seem irresponsible for an individual adjudicator to sit in judgment without all the facts to consider.

I'm still thinking through all this. May I take this just one step at a time? I'm having difficulty with a FV panelist sitting in judgment of a FV defendant on the charge of teaching FV, and doing that without bias. And if FV is not represented on the panel the FV-ists will cry "Foul!"

John,

I think you are putting the cart before the horse. There is no necessity to make sure that a doctrine has either adherents or no adherents on a judiciary before they sit in a discipline on a matter. There is no quota system. Also, if someone is a proponent of any view that is found worthy of discipline, he is bound by his vows to make that known after the fact to the ecclesiastical body.
 
Well, I'm not suggesting that there is a quota system in the proper order of things. I know that there doesn't need to be a FV-ist on the panel. That's not what I'm concerned about.

*What I am concerned about is the role that the individual plays on a judicatory panel: if he is regarded as an individual adjudicator in that one respect, in that he must be in attendance at all meetings (BCO); that he must have, therefore, every piece of evidence that is presented before the judicatory in order to be a legitimate adjudicator; and that as an individual adjudicator he is also committed to the findings of the whole, even if those findings and rulings disagree with his own views.

Fred, I've been in this editor's box for better than an hour, and typed at least three long posts. I'm not submitting any of them. I know what I am saying, and it is important, but I can't submit my thoughts.

Thanks for the information. If you will only confirm or correct what I said in the paragraph above, the one marked with an asterisk, then I will leave it at that.

[Edited on 11-20-2005 by JohnV]
 
John,

I believe you are correct. That is why most Presbytery/GA rulings occur in a single session.

I may be missing something - feel free to email me.
 
Originally posted by fredtgreco
John,

I believe you are correct. That is why most Presbytery/GA rulings occur in a single session.

I may be missing something - feel free to email me.

Its just that I've seen these things before. If the denomination saw these things as heretical, they would have moved by now to stop it. But this has been going for a while now, and its like a freight train anymore. Things have to be pushed and shoved just to get anything going on it. The idea of personally committed views, being what it is right now, will get in the way if that is not addressed too. I know full well that FV is not of that type, but that doesn't mean that they won't stand on that as much as they can. And I'm not confident that commissioners at that level know the difference. I have been gravely disappointed about such things in the past.
 
John, the timeliness of answering heresy is always frustrating, but it is common for a longer period to take place for the Church to decide these these things. Remember, it took a couple hundred years for the Church to get the Trinity and natures of Christ hammered out. The battle over Arminianism took roughly 10 years to finally come to a head in Dort. Though it's frustrating, we must be faithful and patient and let Christ rule His Church.
 
I agree with the last phrase, Patrick, about letting Christ rule His church. The hard part is knowing what is going on, and not being able to do anything.

What I see is a willingness to handle the sins of others, but a great unwillingness to see what is sinful within the ranks. As long personally committed views has the right of way that it does, that is, that these take precedence over confessional unity, then there is no length of time that will take care of this one. Unless we regain the first mark of the church, heresy trials will amount to nothing. And if there is one thing that I know with certainty it is this, that ministers are practicing licence to preach added doctrines, on the sole authority of it being their views; and doing so without first recourse to their binding or commitment under vows to fidelity under the Word.

I am in a unique position to look at things both from the inside and the outside: I am a member, and yet not a member. I cannot say more than that about that. But having the safety net pulled out from under me has forced me to rethink many things. And what is going on in the Presbyterian churches is not new. Different issues, but the same old thing.

The short of it is that by ruling FV as heretical it is not solving the problem behind it. Long before FV is ruled on, there will be other views to deal with that come into being. Look at the list on the first post on this thread, the grouping of them. That's just a corner of the pie. We still have, not just ordinary people in the pew forming their theologies on personally committed views, but ministers and Christian academics doing that too. The certainty of theology built on the uncertainty of personal views! Views such as Rushdooney's speach conveys, at the Chalcedon convention, are not that uncommon: basing vast theological conclusions upon personally committed views that have no solid grounding beyond those personal commitments. How ludicrous! And FV is going to stand on that for all they're worth; and do so because that little sin is sacrosanct.
 
Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel
Does anybody know the RPCNA's stance on Fed Vis?

It is deeply rooted error and unacceptable. They would not tolerate it, and have not felt the need to even bother making a "statement" on it at Synod. It is unanimously spoken out against by the Church as a whole.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top