PCA Study Report on Federal Vision released

Status
Not open for further replies.
Thanks Chris for the FYI. So that's the Jon Barlow that attends Jeff Meyers church with Mark Horne (who linked to this very thread on his blog who mentioned me as a 'guy' and Rich's response as a reprimand and called our collective give and take 'mob justice'.) If Jonathan is concerned about being associated with FV then he might want to step a bit further away from............. Ah, man! Now I don't know what to call them! They don't like 'sympathizers', they don't like 'advocates', they don't like 'movers' (cuz "it's not a movement"), they don't like 'conspirators'.

I'm hoping they can give us a name, a literary short-hand, by which we can refer to our theologically nimble brothers. How about 'the guys formerly known as FV sympathizers'?

I've never understood why you guys read the blogs of the Pastors who were formerly referred to as the Federal Vision. It is flattering to be quoted. I just wish he had quoted the whole thing and attributed it to me. That's the honest thing to do when you quote somebody. Maybe he can explain how the unregenerate look to the death and resurrection of Christ.
 
The church is no place for latitudinarianism when it comes to the gospel.
rsc

:amen:

How do you maintain a neutral position between those who subscribe to the Confession's view that the benefits of Christ's union only accrue to those who are truly in Him (the elect) with those who say otherwise?

This isn't rocket science.
 
The church is no place for latitudinarianism when it comes to the gospel.

Of all the lame points that the FV'ers have made concerning the committee report the fact that the PCA allows latitude with subscription vows is one that may have legs. The PCA has adopted "Good Faith" subscription. What "Good Faith" entails I have no idea and I don't think anyone really does. Those who were opposed to it said that it was going to be a :worms: and this controversy is going to be a good test.
 
Of all the lame points that the FV'ers have made concerning the committee report the fact that the PCA allows latitude with subscription vows is one that may have legs. The PCA has adopted "Good Faith" subscription. What "Good Faith" entails I have no idea and I don't think anyone really does. Those who were opposed to it said that it was going to be a :worms: and this controversy is going to be a good test.

Indeed. I mean, really, is this what we're shooting for:
"Where is the case for the view that our standards demand adherence to the imputed active obedience of Christ when the term “active obedience” is not found in them?"

What?!!! How do these men occupy the pulpits of Christian Churches, much less Reformed Churches, and ask this kind of question?!
 
Now I see that RN lists the CREC as a "Reformed" federation among the NAPARC groups.

Who made the CREC Reformed?

What qualifies them as Reformed?

Are they in fraternal relations with any of the NAPARC denominations/federations?

For that matter, what about the PCUSA?

If the CREC and the PCUSA why not the RCA or the various RB groups?

I note, randomly, that the first editorial piece was by Pete Leithart.

And the NY Times keeps saying, "We don't have a liberal slant."

Maybe RN stands for "Revisionist News"?

rsc

Indeed. I mean, really, is this what we're shooting for:


What?!!! How do these men occupy the pulpits of Christian Churches, much less Reformed Churches, and ask this kind of question?!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top