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.
Originally posted by markhorne
You know, yesterday this would have made me upset. I might have bothered to
and defend Wright. But instead I've been watching his Auburn Avenue lectures. It is great material that makes one want to
rather than
:starwars:
with his critics.
It also reminds me that, no matter how many serious disagreements I have with Wright, he is worth a hundred Phil Johnsons as a Bible teacher.
Eventually, it will be acknowledged, that the source of Wright's suffering is not his errors and his opponants' orthodoxy but his brilliance and his opponants' green eyes.
My opinion.
Mark Horne
Assistant Pastor
Providence Reformed Presbyterian Church
http://prpc-stl.org/
MO Pby
PCA
Theologia
Originally posted by markhorne
There are no Federal Vision members because there is no organization to which one could belong. FV is a subjective experience in a person's heart. More often than not it is the experience of a would-be exorcist who feels something is just not right and tries to do something about it by positing a "movement" afoot.
Compare "FV" to Theonomy from way back. Theonomy had a number of tenants one could list and that were listed by self-consciously Theonomic/Christian Recon publishers.
But what is FV? The name of a conference on covenant theology where some people expounded on Reformed doctrine and pointed out how Puritant introspectivis/revivalist concerns were not necessarily the only Reformed position one needed to take, or the most Biblical. These speakers were *not* all paedocommunionist. They did *not* have similare views of the sacraments (i.e. Schlissel). They did not all come from a single confessional tradition. They had not really compared notes before the conference.
If one wants to see the attempt to start a movement, look at the anti-FV jihad. There we see, at least in the PCA, a ragtag group that lost the battle over six-day creation, over strict subscription, and now we have the last gasp.
Subordinate to the Holy Scriptures, this Church adheres to the Reformed Faith as expressed in the Westminster Confession of Faith together with the Westminster Larger and Shorter catechisms as approved and adopted by the P.C.A. These documents are incorporated herein by reference and stand as part of this Constitution, as though fully set forth herein.
Though with a scornful wonder
Men see her sore oppressed,
By schisms rent asunder,
By heresies distressed:
Yet saints their watch are keeping,
Their cry goes up, “How long?”
And soon the night of weeping
Shall be the morn of song!
I'm all for confronting ministers on what they hold to and teach- we should do that, especially on issue that concerns a clear teaching of justification by faith alone. I just don't like the witch hunt feel this whole thing smacks of. Missouri Presbytery has some very strong, traditionally Reformed churches. It's a large Presbytery. I am confident they will handle this letter of concern equitably.
Presbyterian Church in America
Book of Church Order
CHAPTER 34
Special Rules Pertaining to Process Against a Minister (Teaching Elder)
34-1. Process against a minister shall be entered before the Presbytery of
which he is a member. However, if the Presbytery refuses to act in doctrinal
cases or cases of public scandal and two other Presbyteries request the
General Assembly to assume original jurisdiction (to first receive and
initially hear and determine), the General Assembly shall do so.
DIGEST: The provision here for the General Assembly to assume original jurisdiction is unique to the PCA, and the need for this provision was seen by the founders of the PCA as they reviewed the more recent history of the PCUS. Around 1940, the PCUS presbyteries of Harmony, Knoxville, Mecklenburg and Central Mississippi had each separately brought overtures before the PCUS General Assembly, requesting an investigation of the teachings of E.T. Thompson at Union Theological Seminary in Richmond, VA. These overtures were answered in the negative on the understanding of the PCUS BCO that original jurisdiction over a minister resided solely in the presbytery. Dr. Thompson was further protected when his presbytery, East Hanover Presbytery, indicated that they had investigated his teachings and found them to be in conformity with the Standards of the Church. As a result, modernism was further entrenched in the denomination and conservatives in the PCUS were left without judicial recourse. The PCUS General Assembly by its action turned original jurisdiction into exclusive jurisdiction. In brief this is the history that explains why the PCA has this provision in 34-1 that allows other presbyteries to request the General Assembly to assume original jurisdiction. [Conservatives in the PCUS did respond to their judicial defeat with the founding of The Southern Presbyterian Journal in 1942, using the magazine as a means of publishing their views on the health of the church. The Journal was key to the defeat of an attempted union of the PCUS with the PCUSA in the 1950s, and the magazine was later instrumental in the founding of the PCA.]
1989 - The PCA text of 34-1 originally was vague, specifying only that "other Presbyteries" could request Assembly to assume original jurisdiction. Then in 1989, 34-1 was amended [M17GA, 17-6, Item 14, p. 55]. The amendment began as one of the recommendations brought forward by the Ad Interim Committee on the General Assembly [M15GA, 15-55, Item 16, "Exhibit P", p. 120], but because not all of the presbyteries had reported their votes in the advice and consent stage, the matter was deferred to the 17th General Assembly, in accordance with BCO 26-6 [M16GA, 16-10, Item 14, pp. 105-106; see also the note on pg. 88]. Thus in 1989 the amendment was adopted and now two presbyteries were required to petition for original jurisdiction. This brought BCO 34-1 into conformity with 33-1, where two Sessions are required for successful petition for the Presbytery to assume jurisdiction when an erring Session fails in its responsibility.
2003 - Another attempt to amend BCO 34-1 failed [M31GA, 31-11, Item 1, p. 51-52]. Arising from a judicial case in 1999, some in the PCA began to be concerned about potential abuse of the principle of original jurisdiction. In 2001, Evangel Presbytery brought Overture 9 before the 29th General Assembly, seeking to amend both BCO 33-1 and 34-1. That effort was answered in the negative [M29GA, 29-44, III, Item 9, pp. 203-205]. Then by 2002, with the formation of the Presbyterian Pastoral Leadership Network as a supporting organization, overtures came before the 30th General Assembly from nearly two dozen presbyteries, seeking to amend 34-1 such that, instead of two presbyteries being required to petition for original jurisdiction, now ten percent of all presbyteries would be required. [M30GA, 30-50, III, Item 5, pp.213-218.] When the matter came back before the 31st General Assembly, the report of Presbytery voting indicated that the amendment had failed by a vote of 40 for the amendment and 24 against, a concurrence of 2/3's of the presbyteries being required for adoption.
Are you aware, is there a historical record of all Overtures proposed, their vote, status, etc.
From Mr. Meyer's response dated 3/31/10
....
WCF 7:2-3 (and 19.1). I think that the language of “covenant of works” is at best misleading. The Westminster Standards are not always consistent in using the same language to refer to man’s pre-lapsarian relationship with the Lord (WCF 4.2, 19.1, WLC 20). What I am concerned about is that the languages of “works” not lead to the erroneous conclusion that Adam and Eve did not enjoy life and communion with God before the fall as the gift of God’s goodness. Even WCF 4.2 speaks of pre-lapsarian man being “happy in their communion with God.” Communion with God was not something to be earned by Adam and Eve. They possessed “spiritual life.” It is misleading to say that Adam and Eve would have been rewarded with life because of their obedience. Genesis 1-2 seems to indicate that they had access to the tree of life, that they should have eaten from it, thereby acknowledging their utter dependence upon God for life and happiness. As a judicial consequence of their sin Adam and Eve lost the life that they possessed. They did not pass from a neutral state into an estate of death. The life Adam and Eve possessed, they lost.
Looking at the gentleman's response, above, an "exception" that he was granted (above) seems to me hard to believe that it was granted.
The covenant of works is so foundational to covenant theology and reformed theology and the Westminster Standards it's hard to understand how one could view it "misleading at best" and be able to receive the Standards.
Christ came as the "second Adam" and did what Adam failed to do (obey God) and therefore He, Christ satisfied God's standard of righteousness. Faith in that alone, under a covenant of grace now, saves us.
To even imply this was not necessary unravels many doctrines, all based on justification by faith in Christ's righteousness alone.
And then, as he declares that we are made righteous through the obedience of Christ, we hence conclude that Christ, in satisfying the Father, has provided a righteousness for us. It then follows, that righteousness is in Christ, and that it is to be received by us as what peculiarly belongs to him. He at the same time shows what sort of righteousness it is, by calling it obedience.
From Mr. Meyer's response dated 3/31/10
....
WCF 7:2-3 (and 19.1). I think that the language of “covenant of works” is at best misleading. The Westminster Standards are not always consistent in using the same language to refer to man’s pre-lapsarian relationship with the Lord (WCF 4.2, 19.1, WLC 20). What I am concerned about is that the languages of “works” not lead to the erroneous conclusion that Adam and Eve did not enjoy life and communion with God before the fall as the gift of God’s goodness. Even WCF 4.2 speaks of pre-lapsarian man being “happy in their communion with God.” Communion with God was not something to be earned by Adam and Eve. They possessed “spiritual life.” It is misleading to say that Adam and Eve would have been rewarded with life because of their obedience. Genesis 1-2 seems to indicate that they had access to the tree of life, that they should have eaten from it, thereby acknowledging their utter dependence upon God for life and happiness. As a judicial consequence of their sin Adam and Eve lost the life that they possessed. They did not pass from a neutral state into an estate of death. The life Adam and Eve possessed, they lost.
If this is inappropriate comment on a pending case, moderators please feel free to delete this post.
I am not familiar with the specific circumstances of this individual or this case.
Looking at the gentleman's response, above, an "exception" that he was granted (above) seems to me hard to believe that it was granted.
The covenant of works is so foundational to covenant theology and reformed theology and the Westminster Standards it's hard to understand how one could view it "misleading at best" and be able to receive the Standards.
Christ came as the "second Adam" and did what Adam failed to do (obey God) and therefore He, Christ satisfied God's standard of righteousness. Faith in that alone, under a covenant of grace now, saves us.
To even imply this was not necessary unravels many doctrines, all based on justification by faith in Christ's righteousness alone.
From Mr. Meyer's response dated 3/31/10
....
WCF 7:2-3 (and 19.1). I think that the language of “covenant of works” is at best misleading. The Westminster Standards are not always consistent in using the same language to refer to man’s pre-lapsarian relationship with the Lord (WCF 4.2, 19.1, WLC 20). What I am concerned about is that the languages of “works” not lead to the erroneous conclusion that Adam and Eve did not enjoy life and communion with God before the fall as the gift of God’s goodness. Even WCF 4.2 speaks of pre-lapsarian man being “happy in their communion with God.” Communion with God was not something to be earned by Adam and Eve. They possessed “spiritual life.” It is misleading to say that Adam and Eve would have been rewarded with life because of their obedience. Genesis 1-2 seems to indicate that they had access to the tree of life, that they should have eaten from it, thereby acknowledging their utter dependence upon God for life and happiness. As a judicial consequence of their sin Adam and Eve lost the life that they possessed. They did not pass from a neutral state into an estate of death. The life Adam and Eve possessed, they lost.
If this is inappropriate comment on a pending case, moderators please feel free to delete this post.
I am not familiar with the specific circumstances of this individual or this case.
Looking at the gentleman's response, above, an "exception" that he was granted (above) seems to me hard to believe that it was granted.
The covenant of works is so foundational to covenant theology and reformed theology and the Westminster Standards it's hard to understand how one could view it "misleading at best" and be able to receive the Standards.
Christ came as the "second Adam" and did what Adam failed to do (obey God) and therefore He, Christ satisfied God's standard of righteousness. Faith in that alone, under a covenant of grace now, saves us.
To even imply this was not necessary unravels many doctrines, all based on justification by faith in Christ's righteousness alone.
Scott, my understanding is that this is not a rare exception. If you read closely the exception is primarily focused on incorrect interpretations, not on the substance of the doctrine.