Overview of New Perspective on Paul

[smallbeans]

I agree. It is not kosher for Louisiana Presbytery to countenance all the aberrations it does, causing problems for a myriad of other presbyteries. It is very likely that the only reason Lusk was never brought up on charges was because he was in LA Presbytery.

It may be that you're talking about the federal vision stuff here in your comment, which does tend to isolate the Louisiana Presbytery because they are the only Presbytery so far that has released a study committee report that doesn't condemn certain aspects of the Federal Vision. But more broadly, I think you are underestimating the number of presbyteries in which the views of this pastor which prevented his transfer would be normal fare. In other words, some of the same concerns that make Federal Vision persona non grata in Birmingham also rule out a lot of other viewpoints not associated with the FV.

I also see in the most recent reply by Rev. King that he continues to conflate "THE PCA" with one of its presbyteries. Fact is, given our praxis, one powerful older presbyter can pretty much keep any pastor he wants out of any presbytery. And because in this case there is no official statement as to precisely why the pastor in question was rejected (correct me if I'm wrong here) it further strengthens the impression that we are not talking about a unified voice of a denomination standing behind this occurrence.

As for whether we should be smug or not - we have no reason to be snug about anything, regardless of which black pots are describing our black kettles. The PCA is being piloted with three or four different visions - most of which embarrass me. I think after you leave the "Purpose Driven Life" themed service at one of the "acceptable" PCA churches in Birmingham, you'd be ready to reexamine just which church is presbyterian. (Now I'm saying this having never met the rejected pastor, but having attended said Purpose Driven Life service. It could simply be that the pastor in question is a personally abrasive and unsavory character and that's why he was rejected, but I wouldn't know. So my comments are assuming it was his views and not his character that kept him out.)

 

[DTK]

I also see in the most recent reply by Rev. King that he continues to conflate "THE PCA" with one of its presbyteries. Fact is, given our praxis, one powerful older presbyter can pretty much keep any pastor he wants out of any presbytery. And because in this case there is no official statement as to precisely why the pastor in question was rejected (correct me if I'm wrong here) it further strengthens the impression that we are not talking about a unified voice of a denomination standing behind this occurrence.

I'm not conflating anything. The PCA BCO, Chapter 11 reads,

"Every court has the right to resolve questions of doctrine and discipline seriously and reasonably proposed, and in general to maintain truth and righteousness, condemning erroneous opinions and practices which tend to the injury of the peace, purity, or progress of the Church. Although each court exercises exclusive original jurisdiction over all matters especially belonging to it, the lower courts are subject to the review and control of the higher courts, in regular gradation. These courts are not separate and independent tribunals, but they have a mutual relation, and every act of jurisdiction is the act of the whole Church performed by it through the appropriate organ."

You are simply expressing an ecclesiastical notion/policy foreign to the PCA's own expressed mind on this matter. Our church courts are "catholic" in nature.

As for whether we should be smug or not - we have no reason to be snug about anything, regardless of which black pots are describing our black kettles. The PCA is being piloted with three or four different visions - most of which embarrass me. I think after you leave the "Purpose Driven Life" themed service at one of the "acceptable" PCA churches in Birmingham, you'd be ready to reexamine just which church is presbyterian. (Now I'm saying this having never met the rejected pastor, but having attended said Purpose Driven Life service. It could simply be that the pastor in question is a personally abrasive and unsavory character and that's why he was rejected, but I wouldn't know. So my comments are assuming it was his views and not his character that kept him out.)

The whole charge of smugness is one you've raised, imposed on us, and without warrant, and seeks to take us down a path none of us do well to tread. It's not smug to have serious disagreements. If so, then it's a double-standard.

Cheers,
DTK

 

[fredtgreco]

Originally posted by smallbeans

I agree. It is not kosher for Louisiana Presbytery to countenance all the aberrations it does, causing problems for a myriad of other presbyteries. It is very likely that the only reason Lusk was never brought up on charges was because he was in LA Presbytery.

It may be that you're talking about the federal vision stuff here in your comment, which does tend to isolate the Louisiana Presbytery because they are the only Presbytery so far that has released a study committee report that doesn't condemn certain aspects of the Federal Vision. But more broadly, I think you are underestimating the number of presbyteries in which the views of this pastor which prevented his transfer would be normal fare. In other words, some of the same concerns that make Federal Vision persona non grata in Birmingham also rule out a lot of other viewpoints not associated with the FV.

This might be accurate if:

1. Rev. Lusk and his proposed church had actually acted in accordance with their vows and appealed the case instead of running to another denomation
2. Rev. Lusk had not been criticized both formally (by study committees) and informally (by a host of elders in the PCA) for precisely the views that caused the failure of the transfer
3. The criticisms of the Federal Vision theology didn't come from such a wide spectrum of men and churches in the PCA. (Do we really think it is isolated when Rev. Joey Pipa, Dr. Morton Smith, Rev. Wilson Benton, PPLN men and TR men are all critical?)
4. Rev. Lusk's denial of transfer was but one of several credential denials/fights in a variety of PCA presbyteries, ranging from Mississippi Valley to Evangel to Tennessee Valley
5. Is it really coincidence when Mississippi Valley and Tennessee Valley agree that the views are troubling? How much broader a spectrum would you wish?
   [/list=1]
   
   Anyone who thought that there was any chance of Rev. Wilkins not being exonerated by LA Presbytery has no knowledge of that Presbytery or its politics.
   
   Have you read the response to the LA Presbytery report, which cites Rev. Wilkins making statements directly contradictory to the Confession?
   
   I don't think I am underestimating the number of Presbyteries where Lusk's views would be "normal fare." At least I hope not, for the sake of the PCA. I suspect that we will find out in a GA or two. If Rev Lusk had followed his vows and appealed, we would likely have found out this year.

 

[Scott]

"The PCA is being piloted with three or four different visions - most of which embarrass me. I think after you leave the "Purpose Driven Life" themed service at one of the "acceptable" PCA churches in Birmingham, you'd be ready to reexamine just which church is presbyterian."

I am sympathetic with you on this.

 

[smallbeans]

I'm not comfortable discussing in detail every point made but let me just agree that yes, the structure of PCA presbyterianism is that the voice of a presbytery is the voice of the PCA. But that's the formal construction of matters. In practice, we all know that different presbyteries have different concerns, tendencies, cultures, etc. In the MVP, for instance, men favorable to paedocommunion are suspect right off the bat, judging from what I've read here. In the Missouri Presbytery, men favorable to paedocommunion are likely in charge of the candidates and credentials. Similar differences exist between other presbyteries and the issue of creation days, etc. To me, that means that whatever the truth may be, by rule, in practice we have no grounds to identify a presbytery with "THE PCA".

 

[DTK]

Originally posted by smallbeans
I'm not comfortable discussing in detail every point made but let me just agree that yes, the structure of PCA presbyterianism is that the voice of a presbytery is the voice of the PCA. But that's the formal construction of matters. In practice, we all know that different presbyteries have different concerns, tendencies, cultures, etc. In the MVP, for instance, men favorable to paedocommunion are suspect right off the bat, judging from what I've read here. In the Missouri Presbytery, men favorable to paedocommunion are likely in charge of the candidates and credentials. Similar differences exist between other presbyteries and the issue of creation days, etc. To me, that means that whatever the truth may be, by rule, in practice we have no grounds to identify a presbytery with "THE PCA".

The difference, "in the MVP, for instance," is that they are seeking to resolve these issues through the proper channels of our church courts, not resign as ministers of the PCA. The pastor in question chose not to resolve his differences through right of appeal. He simply chose to leave the PCA. Moreover, it's not ever a tranfer to another presbytery in this other denomination. He is now in limbo while he waits to see if the CREC will receive him. There must have been some reason why. Perhaps, he either he believed that his examination would not be sustained upon appeal to a higher court of the PCA, or he believed that given his views he would be more readily received into the CREC, or perhaps a combination of these two or other reasons not disclosed.

Moreover, if you're expecting complete uniformity on the part of every doctrine and practice within a given denomination, then that is surely something of a perfectionist approach to ecclesiology. But, for all of our sins, faults, weaknesses and warts, our courts do provide for the right of appeal. The pastor in question chose not to go in that direction.

Cheers,
DTK

[Edited on 9-16-2005 by DTK]

 

[C. Matthew McMahon]

Originally posted by smallbeans
I'm not comfortable discussing in detail every point made but let me just agree that yes, the structure of PCA presbyterianism is that the voice of a presbytery is the voice of the PCA. But that's the formal construction of matters. In practice, we all know that different presbyteries have different concerns, tendencies, cultures, etc. In the MVP, for instance, men favorable to paedocommunion are suspect right off the bat, judging from what I've read here. In the Missouri Presbytery, men favorable to paedocommunion are likely in charge of the candidates and credentials. Similar differences exist between other presbyteries and the issue of creation days, etc. To me, that means that whatever the truth may be, by rule, in practice we have no grounds to identify a presbytery with "THE PCA".

In other words you are saying that the PCA is really a group of Congregationalist churches that do what they want? It sounds to me like you are saying that the PCA is a club, not a Church. Or am I misunderstanding you?

 

[AdamM]

This is just a general impression and could be wrong. But from my rather distant view of things, it seems to me that the NPP teaches that the chief texts for major reformation propositions on justification and other matters do not actually support the reformation position. They don't necessarily contradict it either. So, people who were reformed prior to reading Wright seem to embrace his reinterpretation and then keep reformed dogma (and sometimes they don't even do that), but just with little exegetical or textual foundation. Often these people have vocations or jobs that require affirmation of the WCF or similar standards and so they go to great lengths to try and show consistency b/t the NPP and reformed views - else they would have to give up their jobs. So, basically two reasons keep these people affirming reformed view, inertia and personal incentive.

Anyway, it would seem hard to convince later generations to accept reformed positions would be hard to do. As Fred mentioned, things happen with a process. Later generations to to work out and more logically embrace the consequences of new theologies or philosophies. They are not committed by the inertia of the founders.

For example, outside the theological realm we have Darwinism. Darwin's behavior did not change much from his English sensibilities. Yet, later generations of Darwinists used the materialistic views as a source of all sorts of moral changes.

Anyway, just musing aloud. I could be wrong and am not asserting anything dogmatically.

Very well put Scott!

What you wrote has been a serious concern of mine for sometime now. The Reformed proponents of the NPP claim to hold to imputation **as set forth in the standards,** but the NPP approach clearly undercuts the exegetical basis for doing so. Of course N.T. Wright has no such problem in that he clearly rejects as unbiblical the doctrine of imputation as found in the Reformed Confessions. I believe that puts a burden on officers in the PCA and OPC who promote the NPP to demonstrate exegetically how they can affirm the portions of the standards dealing with imputation in the same sense as the Reformed Confessions. Of course if people equivocate on the terms it can be attempted, but when Wright and others themselves juxtapose their "new" perspective against the "old" shouldn't that mean something?

 

[smallbeans]

In other words you are saying that the PCA is really a group of Congregationalist churches that do what they want? It sounds to me like you are saying that the PCA is a club, not a Church. Or am I misunderstanding you?

Again, let me distinguish between the polity of the PCA and the practice of that polity, or how that polity is lived out. No, PCA churches, with respect to formal policy, are not congregationalist churches. But with regard to the way things work out, we have very different standards in place in various presbyteries for accepting men into the ministry, or even for accepting transfers from one presbytery to another. I think that was the main reason the PPLN existed - because many of the men involved with it had some issue or another that was keeping students with their perspective out of some presbyteries. I never was clear exactly which issue it might have been (creation days?) but once the "good-faith subscription" issue passed, the PPLN disbanded. Now, there really is no official voice of any non-subscriptionist group saying "hey, we have a problem here" with standards for ordination, but Presbyteries vary widely on what kinds of exceptions they will permit. And this goes beyond the FV stuff to the Kline vs. Murray covenant theology stuff and other issues. We simply do not have a good-faith subscription system.

I'm not looking for uniformity of doctrine here; I realize that it is impossible without the kind of strict subscriptionism that I don't really buy into. But the net result of the way things are now is that candidates for the ministry are turned into lawyers, looking for churches in the right presbytery akin to a change of venue - because they know, given their views on this or that issue, some presbyteries will reject them out of hand. In general, the PCA works by churches finding the minister that they want for their church; the presbytery then examines the man. I think that's great and proper, but at the same time, whether or not the man is acceptable varies from presbytery to presbytery, and that's sad.

With regard to the Birmingham thing, I feel like we're all just repeating ourselves. I want to note that I totally understand the value of going through the courts of the church to resolve a matter like this. But in addition to that first order value, I also have been trying to point out that, for the peace of the church, there are other options - the church in Birmingham may have realized that such a fight would forever embitter the other churches in the presbytery against them, so being wise, might have decided that leaving would be better than staying and fighting. I don't know that was the calculation, but that is what they have publicly stated, and I don't have a reason to doubt this. I think they should have gone through the courts, but I'm not an elder there, and I didn't sit and have all the conversations that they had. I couldn't begin to imagine what it would have been like for them to try and appeal this thing, first to the same group of men who conducted the first examination, and then to the GA. And at the G.A., we're still not assured of getting a cross section of the denomination - the committee there could be filled with men of this or that perspective. The outcome sometimes vill vary greatly depending upon who is on a particular committee.

 

[JohnV]

It seems to me that, as far as individualties among churches and Presbyteries is concerned, we've been far too subjective in our common confession. It seems to me that some people who are practicing office just don't know that ruling something as not being outside the Confession is not at all the same as saying that it's God's Word. The former applies to liberties of conscience, not doctrine; but some seem to think that the decisions by GA's that some views are not outside the Confession is licence to preach those views. It is not! But these things seem to find fertile ground in different places, being allowed by those who agree with the views.

In other words, people are not being careful enough about their own liberties, to make sure that they do not impose upon doctrine itself. It should actually be the NPP themsleves that ought to be diligent about what is and is not taught. If what they preach is right, then truth will triumph in the church; it should be thoroughly tested by the churches, and that should be welcome to them. But as it is, they preach it to those who are glad to hear it, while not granting the church the opportunity to give it a wide and thorough examination by taking it to consecutive GA's, via overture and appeal. Anything this major is not decided by just one GA, so the examination is bound to get a lot of give-and-take input. Over-riding that procedure begs the question, produces dissent, and could eventually cause schism.

And all this based upon man-originated ideas, not Biblical necessity. It is not enough just to show that NPP is a possible interpretation, it has to be shown that it is a necessary interpretation of Scripture. It has to be clear that this is what God teaches, not what man's views on the Bible are. We have no right to call doctrine that which is only man's subjective views. And this is where I believe the NPP, and views like it, are outside the mainstream of the church: one view is as Biblical as another, even on matters of pivotal importance such as justification by faith.

[Edited on 9-17-2005 by JohnV]

 

[pduggan]

Originally posted by JohnV
If what they preach is right, then truth will triumph in the church; it should be thoroughly tested by the churches, and that should be welcome to them. But as it is, they preach it to those who are glad to hear it, while not granting the church the opportunity to give it a wide and thorough examination by taking it to consecutive GA's, via overture and appeal.

Prebyterians who find biblical teaching in the NPP probably don't consider that there is anything TO overture or appeal to GA about. If they think that the NPP in general is consistent with the limits reformed confessional theology, then they would have no reason to think that they need to get GA approval.

Pre-mils teach pre-mil doctrine as the word of God to their congregations without asking for GA approval, even though Pre-mil isn't specified in the WCF.

Your statement is REALLY ironic, since it sounds like the kind of thing the sanhedrin would say about the teaching of the apostles too. You had Gamaliel saying there's no point fighting it if its the word of God, but you also never had the apostles coming to the sanhedrin asn asking for permission to teach, since they taught what they thought was biblical and when the sanhedrin told them to stope teaching the bible they had to obey the word of God as they saw it rather than the sanhedrin.

 

[wsw201]

I'm not looking for uniformity of doctrine here; I realize that it is impossible without the kind of strict subscriptionism that I don't really buy into. But the net result of the way things are now is that candidates for the ministry are turned into lawyers, looking for churches in the right presbytery akin to a change of venue - because they know, given their views on this or that issue, some presbyteries will reject them out of hand. In general, the PCA works by churches finding the minister that they want for their church; the presbytery then examines the man. I think that's great and proper, but at the same time, whether or not the man is acceptable varies from presbytery to presbytery, and that's sad.

It is sad. And if the PPLN seriously thought that system subscription was going to alleviate the problems that they were attempting to resolve, they were very much in error. In fact it has caused more problems than it addressed. Though you might not buy full subscription, it is the only way that you can have any type of uniformity, much less a consistent Gospel message, between Presbyteries regarding the examination of candidates.

(And of course Sessions are left out in the cold to figure things out on their own.)

 

[JohnV]

Originally posted by pduggan
Prebyterians who find biblical teaching in the NPP probably don't consider that there is anything TO overture or appeal to GA about. If they think that the NPP in general is consistent with the limits reformed confessional theology, then they would have no reason to think that they need to get GA approval.

Pre-mils teach pre-mil doctrine as the word of God to their congregations without asking for GA approval, even though Pre-mil isn't specified in the WCF.

Your statement is REALLY ironic, since it sounds like the kind of thing the sanhedrin would say about the teaching of the apostles too. You had Gamaliel saying there's no point fighting it if its the word of God, but you also never had the apostles coming to the sanhedrin asn asking for permission to teach, since they taught what they thought was biblical and when the sanhedrin told them to stope teaching the bible they had to obey the word of God as they saw it rather than the sanhedrin.

The Apostles had Christ's own word on what to preach. What they taught, and what they wrote, was given them by the Holy Spirit. Peter testifies that "that no prophecy of Scripture comes from someone's own interpretation." And before that very Sanhedron Peter says, "'Whether it is right in the sight of God to listen to you rather than to God, you must judge, for we cannot but speak of what we have seen and heard."' It is clear from Scripture that the Apostles were teaching precisely what God had commanded them to preach, and that no man could over-ride that command.

As a guest at a Bible Study one time, my wife and I were the lone Postmillennialists. (Amillennialism is a form of Postmillennialism, and for the sake of simplicity that is how I presented what I believed. ) The Bible study was on the millennium, as a matter of fact. And you are right, that the teaching does make an impact on their theology to a degree. But for the most part I was only silent, saying nothing. Until someone asked me, at which point I told them politely that I did not agree with Premillennialism. This took them by surprise, but they questioned me politely about my view. When they asked me for particular texts, I simply took them back to the same texts they were using. For most of them they had never heard of this, but the leader had. And they were most kind and generous to us in regard to our views, respecting the fact that we held to the Bible in our difference. There was no debating, no charging with error, and no animosity. After the Bible study we enjoyed each others' company with a few games.

In this case, they didn't know any different. But I would fault the teacher for knowing that there were other views, but not informing the people. Instead he taught the view that prevailed in that circle as if the one and only Scriptural teaching. And that is not right, even though that was the teaching that everyone was used to. In this sense, Premillennialism and sometimes Amillennialism is taught from the pulpits. It is in the context of the absence of the other views, and without particular guidelines pertaining to the existence of several views in one congregation or denomination. Most churches will respect the fact that others have a different view, though.

There being only one view is not the case in the OPC, and I suppose in the PCA too, where it is widely recognized that three accepted views exist and are believed. In such a milieu it would be wrong to presume to over-ride the denominational standard and preach one view to the degree that it spurns the other accepted views. This violates the standard of preaching, the first mark of the church, and it violates liberty of conscience granted by the denomination. One minister's authority cannot over-ride that which is granted by the autahority of the entire church. And if the Session wishes to over-ride the liberty of conscience of a member of the church, there are avenues of appeal to the higher courts in the church. A Session may be rebuked; indeed even a Presbytery may be rebuked. And certainly entire denominations have been rebuked for following their own paths instead of maintaining the purity of the preaching of the Word.

The teachings of NPP have been controversial from the start. For the sake of the peace of the church this ought to have been submitted for careful study by consequent GA's, at least. And especially as the controversy grows should this be brought to GA in unison by both sides of the debate. To go about teaching different views without the denomination's approval is troubling to the denomination. It could lead to schism.

I've tried to avoid any reference to the issues themselves, just sticking to the concept of unified confessionalism within the churches. But I did begin this by asserting that NPP has a triple indictment against it by its own name, which the proponents took upon themselves. Simply changing the name would be one answer. But for now it remains a roadblock for myself and others like me: it claims itself to be "new"; it claims to be a "perspective"; and it centres on "Paul". And when I read the article which introduced this thread, that is what I read it was about. I just don't see how this does not undermine the legitimacy of it. The Bible is not a mine, from which we may pull all kinds of theories that fit the texts. Christ is a person, and knowing him personally is key to understanding the Bible, as He gives His Spirit to those that seek the Father through Him. His word is not a text from which we may seek our own meanings, as long as we stay true to the wording, as, for example, some creation days theories do. It is God's Word, and we must submit to its teachings alone, and not to man's writings and doctrines.

 

[ABondSlaveofChristJesus]

"The gospel, in other words, is not about calling sinners to find salvation through faith in Christ. The gospel, according to the new perspective, has to do with God´s work in Christ to tear down the wall of partition between Jew and Gentile, to bring the promises of the covenant to all peoples through faith in Christ." Venema



Is this an accurate representation?

 

[fredtgreco]

Originally posted by ABondSlaveofChristJesus
"The gospel, in other words, is not about calling sinners to find salvation through faith in Christ. The gospel, according to the new perspective, has to do with God´s work in Christ to tear down the wall of partition between Jew and Gentile, to bring the promises of the covenant to all peoples through faith in Christ." Venema



Is this an accurate representation?

Yes, Wright's famous dictum is that justification is more about ecclesiology then soteriology.

 

[pduggan]

Originally posted by ABondSlaveofChristJesus
"The gospel, in other words, is not about calling sinners to find salvation through faith in Christ. The gospel, according to the new perspective, has to do with God´s work in Christ to tear down the wall of partition between Jew and Gentile, to bring the promises of the covenant to all peoples through faith in Christ." Venema

Is this an accurate representation?

I don't think so. The following from Wright would clarify

When we are truly announcing the Lordship of Jesus, we must make it clear that, according to this gospel, the one true God has dealt in Jesus Christ with sin, death, guilt, and shame, and now summons men and women everywhere to abandon the idols which hold them captive to these things and to discover a new life, a new way of life, in him. But the gospel is not simply an offer of a new way of being religious....The gospel is the royal announcement.