PCA FV committee appointed

Status
Not open for further replies.

NaphtaliPress

Administrator
Staff member
FYI. Just saw this. This a good group?
MEMBERS OF FEDERAL VISION STUDY COMMITTEE APPOINTED

The 34th PCA General Assembly approved erecting an ad interim committee
"to study the soteriology of the Federal Vision, New Perspective, and
Auburn Avenue Theologies, which are causing confusion among our
churches. Further, to determine whether these viewpoints and
formulations are in conformity with the system of doctrine taught in the
Westminster Standards, whether they are hostile to or strike at the
vitals of religion, and to present a declaration or statement regarding
the issues raised by these viewpoints in light of our Confessional
Standards." The GA authorized the moderator to appoint the members of
this committee. The moderator, TE Dominic Aquila, has appointed the
following: TE Paul Fowler, Convener, Assistant Pastor, First
Presbyterian Church, Augusta, Georgia, TE Ligon Duncan, Pastor, First
Presbyterian Church, Jackson, Mississippi, TE Grover Gunn, Pastor,
Covenant Presbyterian Church, Jackson, Tennessee, TE Sean Lucas,
Assistant Professor of Church History, Covenant Theological Seminary,
St. Louis, Missouri, RE Robert Mattes, Christ Presbyterian Church,
Arlington, Virginia, RE William Mueller, Kendall Presbyterian Church,
Miami, Florida, and RE John White, Westminster Presbyterian Church,
Atlanta, Georgia.

[Edited on 7-19-2006 by NaphtaliPress]
 
Well, if nothing else, I'm certainly glad to see Ligon Duncan on the committee. Furthermore, from what I have read of his on the covenant and the sacraments, Sean Lucas is an excellent choice as well.
 
Sinclair Ferguson is not PCA - he is a minister in the Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church. Also, I think you have a little typo above!

Is anyone very familiar with any of the other elders on the committee?
 
:lol:

Glad to hear they are finally getting a committee together...could it be because other churches had done research committees on this topic (ie, OPC)?
 
It may be of interest that Mark Horne believes the committee not to be a "fair committee"
 
Originally posted by fredtgreco
It may be of interest that Mark Horne believes the committee not to be a "fair committee"

haha

I hope all is going well for you Fred.
 
Originally posted by ChristopherPaul
I think the PCA has already made up their mind. This is simply an act of due process.
A study committee is an act of due process? While I'm all for Presbyterian denominations settling this FV/NPP thing, it does need to be done properly. I agree with the cautions of Stuart Jones on the OPC board, echoing his article on in thesi deliverances in the 2006 Confessional Presbyterian journal (which was a response to Nick Wellborn's article on the same subject from the 2005 issue). See his post at the link below:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/presbyterians-opc/message/35068
 
Originally posted by SolaScriptura
Sean Lucas utterly despises federal vision theology.

Well, the composition of the committee does make it appear that someone has already made up their mind given the fact there there does not aoppear to be any pro-FV types appointed.

Originally posted by C. Matthew McMahon
Its OK Fred. He doesn't seem to believe the Bible is fair either. ;)

While said in jest, this comment does legitimize the concerns of those being attacked that the anti-FV position is, "we've already made up our minds so don't confuse us with the facts."

Can anyone fairly characterize this as an impartial committee? What the moderator appears to have done is appoint a committee that no one on the anti-FV side or middle-of-the-roaders can complain about, since the votes are probably already in place to ratify whatever they produce.
 
I'm not too surprised that Dominic Aquila did not appoint any pro-FV guys. From past dealings, he's not a big fan of what was going on at AAPC.
 
Originally posted by Puritan Sailor
Can people outside the Comittee submit or ammend a minority report at GA?
If the report was not favored by the majority of a GA then I would think the procedure would be to not receive the report and either augment the committee for a new study or get a new committee.

[Edited on 7-20-2006 by NaphtaliPress]
 
Originally posted by LadyFlynt
Yep, FVers are claiming the committee is "stacked".

Furthermore, I've seen one comment essentially expressing worry that this might just be the end of the PCA! Now, regardless of where one stands on the partiality issue, that is simply laughable, to put it frankly.
 
One thing to remember is this is a "study" just like the OPC paper was a "study" (and was not adopted as the official position of the OPC). The PCA would have to adopt the study and any recommendations as the position of the PCA. Otherwise, unless disciplinary action is taken, all FVer's are safe in the PCA, especially with BCO 21-4.
 
For it to be a fair and balanced committee, it would have to be one comprised of men who wholeheartedly believe and confess the doctrines of Scripture and the Westminster Confession of Faith, along with other historic Creeds of the Faith. Therefore, don't expect there to be any FV supporters on the committee.
 
Originally posted by wsw201
One thing to remember is this is a "study" just like the OPC paper was a "study" (and was not adopted as the official position of the OPC). The PCA would have to adopt the study and any recommendations as the position of the PCA. Otherwise, unless disciplinary action is taken, all FVer's are safe in the PCA, especially with BCO 21-4.

Unfortunately you're correct. Establishing a violation of "good faith" subscription in the courts of the church would be like establishing motive in a hate crimes trial...

I for one agree with the comments above my post here...
Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia
For it to be a fair and balanced committee, it would have to be one comprised of men who wholeheartedly believe and confess the doctrines of Scripture and the Westminster Confession of Faith, along with other historic Creeds of the Faith. Therefore, don't expect there to be any FV supporters on the committee.
it is completely fair because the committee is made up of men who subscribe to Holy Scripture as inerrant and infallible and to the Westminster Standards... of course, they too only do so "in good faith..." :banghead:

[Edited on 9-10-2006 by ef]
 
I dont see why we would need any pro-fv guys on the committe we wouldnt have arminian or mormon guys on a committe to examine there respective beliefs to see if there in line with the Holy Scriptures and westminister standards.
 
Originally posted by Bladestunner316
I dont see why we would need any pro-fv guys on the committe we wouldnt have arminian or mormon guys on a committe to examine there respective beliefs to see if there in line with the Holy Scriptures and westminister standards.

Sorry to hijack, but I thought there were Arminians at Dort. Not sure. Anyway, it's a little early to relegate these guys to the same category until the commission has completed it's report. (Off-record, In my humble opinion yeah, they gotta be in the same category!)
 
Yes, Arminians (Remonstrants) were invited to Dort. They were led by Simon Episcopius (Bishop) who actually argued that they (the Remonstrants) had equal right to the floor. Indeed, they tried to take over the Synod and had to rebuffed! Episcopius made long speeches about how they were treated unfairly etc.

Procedurally, the parallel with the PCA committee is in exact. Synod is more like the PCA GA.

There are lots of parallels between the FV movement and the Remonstrants. Both claim(ed) to be orthodox when they were not. Both use(d) orthodox language in confusing and misleading ways. Both movements whine(d) incessantly about they were/are misunderstood and misrepresented by the orthodox. Both jeopardize(d) the Reformation understanding gospel by their formulations and both were/are fueled by moralism (trying to get people to behave) and rationalism (taking a short-cut around the gospel to get there).

We should treat the FV the way the confessionalists treated the Remonstrants. We should have a Synod. We should put their doctrine on ecclesiastical trial. We should confess formally the truth in response to it.

rsc

Originally posted by turmeric
Originally posted by Bladestunner316
I dont see why we would need any pro-fv guys on the committe we wouldnt have arminian or mormon guys on a committe to examine there respective beliefs to see if there in line with the Holy Scriptures and westminister standards.

Sorry to hijack, but I thought there were Arminians at Dort. Not sure. Anyway, it's a little early to relegate these guys to the same category until the commission has completed it's report. (Off-record, In my humble opinion yeah, they gotta be in the same category!)

[Edited on 9-12-2006 by R. Scott Clark]
 
I certainly pray that the PCA does a better job of things than the OPC. See, The Orthodox Presbyterian Cover-up by Paul Elliott at http://www.trinityfoundation.org/latest.php . I´m afraid even in the best circumstances committee reports really don´t accomplish anything and sometimes, as per Elliot's piece above, only aid to make things worse.

:2cents:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top