The OPC is Getting the Gospel Right

[greenbaggins]

You could be right. However, I think that the PCA has a much better chance of ousting FV/NPP/NS advocates than the OPC does. The SJC and the study committee both are not favorable toward these views.

 

[Casey]

Frankly, and as far as I’m concerned, it’s certainly the prerogative of the OPC to permit the teaching of both a false gospel and the true gospel side by side since your highest court has already deemed the false one of John Kinnaird (and by extension Norman Shepherd) to be in harmony with your church's standards.

Can you cite and prove this claim (concerning Kinnaird) of yours? If not, I'd appreciate it if you retract it and apologize publicly. Thank you.

 

[Redaimie]

Had no idea OPC had/has? some FV pastors/elders and that it's been that much of a problem in the denomination itself....

I didn't mean with my post to imply there is a problem in the OPC with FV pastors/elders. I don't think there are many at all but one does not have to read much on the internet without coming across a few advocates. I think our GA handled the issue quite admirably & I have confidence our denomination is handling the issue. My question was more on what to do when you come across the few who are on the net advocating a FV view.

I really don't think charges is the way to go but I hope their presbyteries are at least aware & correcting it.

Also I don't think Dr Gaffin is at all a FV advocate he was on the OPC committee that studied the issue, I do think some FV advocates like to claim he is, to prove their theology is correct but I honestly don't believe he advocates it.

 

[Casey]

Did you try to take this up with any one else in the OPC or in the Presbytery? How did that go?

Adam, I'm quite sorry about the situation you described. Had you mentioned that problem to me around that time I'd have advised you to contact Presbytery. The church is made up of sinners--and that church clearly had an agenda. But to impute the actions of that particular church, or even a few vocal FV advocates, to the whole OPC is erroneous. At the GA there was no argument over the findings of the Committee on Justification and their Report. I don't know how that can be so quickly forgotten or brushed aside.

 

[Archlute]

Thank you for your sincerity, Casey. I realize that there are a number of good men in the OPC, but when you're new to Reformed churches, and you get rocked back on your heels by a bad apple, it can inflict some pretty serious damage. I bounced back fairly quickly, but I know a few others from that church who took several years to get over the spiritual poison.

I think that one of the disappointments with the OPC GA, is that the report was never officially adopted, to my understanding. It has no constitutional power, and there was no follow up action taken to eradicate the Church of the men holding those views within. So, while the report, in and of itself, was an admittedly fine piece of academic work, it has no practically enforceable bite. Supposedly, the influence of those decisions are meant to work their way down into the churches, where the teaching will then be nullified, but I think that since ministers within the OPC have made public statements on that stuff, there needs to be some public retractions. For example, although it was pointed out on the PB a while back that Dick Gaffin signed onto the report, he has never taken back statements in Romans 2 that reflect an NPP understanding. I know that it would be a humbling experience for men in the OPC to admit to introducing wrong doctrine (I mean, they are the Orthodox Presbyterian Church, right?), but I think that for the Spirit to be pleased, and for the members to be reassured, something like that must be done.

 

[turmeric]

I think what makes it so hard to bear when an OPC or PCA gets it wrong is just that - the claim to orthodoxy. We kind of expect a little false teaching in more Arminian churches, but it can't happen here, can it? Apparently it can. It's the human factor.

 

[Pilgrim]

Thank you for your sincerity, Casey. I realize that there are a number of good men in the OPC, but when you're new to Reformed churches, and you get rocked back on your heels by a bad apple, it can inflict some pretty serious damage. I bounced back fairly quickly, but I know a few others from that church who took several years to get over the spiritual poison.

I think that one of the disappointments with the OPC GA, is that the report was never officially adopted, to my understanding. It has no constitutional power, and there was no follow up action taken to eradicate the Church of the men holding those views within. So, while the report, in and of itself, was an admittedly fine piece of academic work, it has no practically enforceable bite. Supposedly, the influence of those decisions are meant to work their way down into the churches, where the teaching will then be nullified, but I think that since ministers within the OPC have made public statements on that stuff, there needs to be some public retractions. For example, although it was pointed out on the PB a while back that Dick Gaffin signed onto the report, he has never taken back statements in Romans 2 that reflect an NPP understanding. I know that it would be a humbling experience for men in the OPC to admit to introducing wrong doctrine (I mean, they are the Orthodox Presbyterian Church, right?), but I think that for the Spirit to be pleased, and for the members to be reassured, something like that must be done.

To my knowledge the OPC has never "formally adopted" a report of that nature. This goes for the report on the Masonic Lodge and most of the others that have been received by the GA. Apparently the concern was that adoption would have meant that those at GA were voting to affirm every word in the report, and most were unwilling to do that even though apparently a large majority were in agreement with the report. (Someone correct me if I'm wrong here.) Regardless, there still must be trials if the men you speak of are to be "eradicated". If officers are erring in doctrine and practice and are not brought to account, the GA can adopt the greatest statements imaginable year after year and it won't make any difference.

 

[greenbaggins]

Thank you for your sincerity, Casey. I realize that there are a number of good men in the OPC, but when you're new to Reformed churches, and you get rocked back on your heels by a bad apple, it can inflict some pretty serious damage. I bounced back fairly quickly, but I know a few others from that church who took several years to get over the spiritual poison.

I think that one of the disappointments with the OPC GA, is that the report was never officially adopted, to my understanding. It has no constitutional power, and there was no follow up action taken to eradicate the Church of the men holding those views within. So, while the report, in and of itself, was an admittedly fine piece of academic work, it has no practically enforceable bite. Supposedly, the influence of those decisions are meant to work their way down into the churches, where the teaching will then be nullified, but I think that since ministers within the OPC have made public statements on that stuff, there needs to be some public retractions. For example, although it was pointed out on the PB a while back that Dick Gaffin signed onto the report, he has never taken back statements in Romans 2 that reflect an NPP understanding. I know that it would be a humbling experience for men in the OPC to admit to introducing wrong doctrine (I mean, they are the Orthodox Presbyterian Church, right?), but I think that for the Spirit to be pleased, and for the members to be reassured, something like that must be done.

Many FV proponents think that Gaffin is on their side when he is not. I have taken four classes from him, and have had many telephone conversations and email conversations with him. I am no friend to the FV or NPP, and neither is Gaffin. Gaffin's views on Romans 2 come from some older lectures. He may have changed by now. The difficulty that many experience is due to the fact that Gaffin is a polite scholar. He is not one to bash anyone over the head. Consequently, after he spoke at the Auburn Avenue Conference in '05, people were thinking that he taught the same thing that N.T. Wright taught. Such people need to read his article in the WTJ entitled "Paul the Theologian." Furthermore, they need to read Gaffin's newest book, which sets the record straight: he is no friend to the FV or the NPP.

 

[Magma2]

Many FV proponents think that Gaffin is on their side when he is not. I have taken four classes from him, and have had many telephone conversations and email conversations with him. I am no friend to the FV or NPP, and neither is Gaffin. Gaffin's views on Romans 2 come from some older lectures. He may have changed by now. The difficulty that many experience is due to the fact that Gaffin is a polite scholar. He is not one to bash anyone over the head. Consequently, after he spoke at the Auburn Avenue Conference in '05, people were thinking that he taught the same thing that N.T. Wright taught. Such people need to read his article in the WTJ entitled "Paul the Theologian." Furthermore, they need to read Gaffin's newest book, which sets the record straight: he is no friend to the FV or the NPP.

Are you sure you're talking about the same Richard Gaffin Jr.? While I haven't read his latest book, what about his track record over the last thirty plus years? Here is a man who has provided decades long defense of some of the most egregious supporters and advocates of the so_called “Federal Vision,” so much so that he wrote the following glowing endorsement of Norm Shepherd’s counterfeit gospel and even allowed his name to be used as a selling point for The Call of Grace. Can you imagine someone opposed to Shepherd's errant doctrines writing:

“This lucid and highly readable study provides valuable instruction on what it means to live in covenant with God. God’s covenant is the only way of life that fully honors both the absolute, all_embracing sovereignty of his saving grace and the full, uninhibited activity of his people. The Call of Grace should benefit anyone concerned about biblical growth in Christian life and witness.”

Thank you Dick Gaffin. Hardly shocking since he has been consistently in agreement with Shepherd on more than a few fundamental points as he makes clear in his book “Resurrection and Redemption” where he writes:

“Baptism signifies and seals a transition in the experience of the recipient, a transition from being (existentially) apart from Christ to being (existentially) joined to him. Galatians 3:27 is even more graphic: “Those who have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ” . . . Consequently, the transition described in [Ephesians 2] verses 5f. as being an object of God’s wrath(v.3) to experiencing his love (v.4). takes place at the point of being joined (existentially) to Christ [50_51].”

The way of salvation proposed by Gaffin is through the water of baptism and existential union with Christ – not by mere belief alone in truth of Scripture and the message of the Gospel. His mission, or at least part of it, has been to undermine, and, if possible, supplant the biblical order of salvation with a new one derived from his own "new perspective of Paul." Admittedly, his book is subtly written, but I believe many have missed the far reaching implications of his (novel) views. At the very least, I was struck by how many broad and even bold assertions he makes throughout the book without even the slightest evidence. He just assumes his readers will agree or just take his word. Maybe this is how he has been able to fool so many people? Perhaps Gaffin gets a pass because he's such a "polite scholar"? Yet, from the above you can see it is the water of baptism which translates a person from an object of God’s wrath to an object of His love. It is baptism, not belief alone, which brings us into union with Christ. Union with Christ for Gaffin is an "existential" non propositional or legal bond. Besides confusing the sign with the thing signified, his view of baptism and Christological union explains his long defense of men like Norm Shepherd and John Kinnaird.

My guess is you took classes with a different Richard Gaffin. Either that or perhaps he puts on different faces for different audiences.

 

[Magma2]

Since we're on the topic, while searching for something else I came across The Gospel Crisis in the OPC and PCA, by Brian Schwertley written in 2006.

Here's his concluding thoughts concerning the OPC and their highly praised wallpaper on justification:

Having briefly considered the OPC Report on Justification, we are compelled to conclude the following. The committee report of the OPC does not recommend that unrepentant Federal Vision teachers and advocates be deposed and censured, which is precisely what the OPC needs. Unless a church officer from the floor alters the recommendation and a motion passes to begin the admonition and censure process, then the report is little more than words that can and will likely be ignored. On the one hand, the Federal Vision doctrine of justification is said to contradict Scripture; but on the other hand, the proponents of this doctrine are tolerated as though it was a non-vital error. This is a scandalous sin, a sin so great that it justifies separation or secession on the part of those who want to be faithful to Scripture.[25] How long are the Truly Reformed (TR) or “conservatives” in the OPC and PCA going to keep on tolerating blatant, serious and even deadly contradictions to Scripture and the Westminster Standards in their communions?[26] If one does not separate from the toleration of damnable heresy, then one is guilty of participating in these scandalous sins. Once we strip away all the excuses, pragmatism, worldly concepts of love, fund raising needs, and bureaucratic maneuvering, we are left with a toleration of a complete repudiation of the all-sufficiency of Christ’s redemption. This toleration of a false gospel is totally unacceptable. How many congregations and families need to be destroyed by heresy before a decision to depart is made? “Know ye not that a little leaven leavens the whole lump” (1 Cor. 5:6)? There comes a time when the best method of reformation is to protest and secede, with denouncing of jurisdiction. Faithfulness at this hour requires it. (http://www.reformedonline.com/view/reformedonline/The Current Crisis in the OPC and PCA.htm)

And, in footnote he adds for those looking for some additional names and who are so eager to give Gaffin a pass in spreading Romanism wrapped in the Reformed Confessions:

There are a number of OPC and PCA ministers and elders who have written papers, spoken at conferences in favor of this theology, and defended church officers holding the same in the church courts: e.g., Prof. Richard Gaffin, Thomas Tyson, Thomas Trouwburst, Peter Lillback, Richard Lusk and Steven Wilkins. There is substantially no difference between Shepherdism and the Federal Vision, as the advocates of both share in the same conferences and together promote the doctrine of justification by faith plus faithful obedience or good works. Norman Shepherd’s heretical book, The Call of Grace: How the Covenant Illustrates Salvation and Evangelism, published by Presbyterian and Reformed, was endorsed by Prof. Richard Gaffin.

 

[Casey]

Thank you for your sincerity, Casey. I realize that there are a number of good men in the OPC, but when you're new to Reformed churches, and you get rocked back on your heels by a bad apple, it can inflict some pretty serious damage. I bounced back fairly quickly, but I know a few others from that church who took several years to get over the spiritual poison.

I think that one of the disappointments with the OPC GA, is that the report was never officially adopted, to my understanding. It has no constitutional power, and there was no follow up action taken to eradicate the Church of the men holding those views within. So, while the report, in and of itself, was an admittedly fine piece of academic work, it has no practically enforceable bite. Supposedly, the influence of those decisions are meant to work their way down into the churches, where the teaching will then be nullified, but I think that since ministers within the OPC have made public statements on that stuff, there needs to be some public retractions. For example, although it was pointed out on the PB a while back that Dick Gaffin signed onto the report, he has never taken back statements in Romans 2 that reflect an NPP understanding. I know that it would be a humbling experience for men in the OPC to admit to introducing wrong doctrine (I mean, they are the Orthodox Presbyterian Church, right?), but I think that for the Spirit to be pleased, and for the members to be reassured, something like that must be done.

Adam,

As I hope you gather from my posts, I'm not interested in promoting the idea that OPC stands for "Only Pure Church," because that's far from the truth. No church this side of glory is in a state of utter perfection. Because of that, because of sin, every church (every individual congregation) has the potential to inflict spiritual pain -- be it through the erroneous teachings of FV, or through mishandling a disciplinary case, or through an overbearing pastor trying to shove his own ideas onto others.

As to "adopting" the Justification report, that's just not the way the OPC works. Perhaps that happens in the PCA. The OPC's doctrinal standards (constitution, if you will) are the Westminster Standards. Period. That the report was not "adopted" is rather meaningless -- I don't recall that any report in the history of the OPC has ever been "adopted." The report was received. That's all the GA ought to procedurally have done, and that it did.

As to Gaffin, he was one of the men of the committee that worked on the Justification report. I'm rather confused that you don't consider his working on it and signing it to be sufficient for clearing his name of whatever associations people may have attributed to him with FV.

You say that it would be humbling for OP men to "admit introducing wrong doctrine" . . well, are you talking about Gaffin? Or the church at large? We're talking about the church, right? It has only ever sought to uphold what the Standards of the church teach. It will not do that perfectly, of course. But it has never "adopted" anything contrary to its Standards.

 

[Casey]

Frankly, and as far as I’m concerned, it’s certainly the prerogative of the OPC to permit the teaching of both a false gospel and the true gospel side by side since your highest court has already deemed the false one of John Kinnaird (and by extension Norman Shepherd) to be in harmony with your church's standards.

Can you cite and prove this claim (concerning Kinnaird) of yours? If not, I'd appreciate it if you retract it and apologize publicly. Thank you.

:bump:

Apparently this post of mine was missed by you, Sean. I'd appreciate a response. Thank you.

 

[Magma2]

Can you cite and prove this claim (concerning Kinnaird) of yours? If not, I'd appreciate it if you retract it and apologize publicly.

:bump:

Apparently this post of mine was missed by you, Sean. I'd appreciate a response. Thank you.

I did miss that post of yours.

Would you like to revisit the entire trial (http://www.trinityfoundation.org/kinnaird.php) or just some of Kinnaird’s specific doctrines. How about this one in reference to Romans 2:13:

Romans 2 puts it this way: “God will give to each person according to what he has done. To those who by persistence in doing good seek glory, honor and immorality, He will give eternal life. But for those who are self seeking and who reject the truth and follow evil there will be wrath and anger.’ Now by this we know the decision, the judgment as to who enters the city and who stays outside for eternity will be made on that great Day of Judgment in accordance with what you have done in this life.

Or, would you prefer to start with this one:

God has provided not only justification from the guilt of sin, he has also, for all those begotten from above by the seed of God, provided that holiness without which no one will see the Lord. Hebrews 12:14. These good works are a required condition if we would stand in the Day of judgment and they are supplied by God to all his people . . . Who are these people who thus benefit – who stand on the Day of Judgment? They are those who obey the law who will be declared righteous . . . When God declares them righteous, that is a forensic declaration of righteousness . . . Thus we rightly conclude that those inside the city [of Rev 22] are those who have kept the law of God and those only . . . .

Let me know. And, no apologies necessary.

 

[Magma2]

As to Gaffin, he was one of the men of the committee that worked on the Justification report. I'm rather confused that you don't consider his working on it and signing it to be sufficient for clearing his name of whatever associations people may have attributed to him with FV.

How would working on the OPC Justification report clear Gaffin? Where has he recanted or repented of his anti-Christian "union" with Christ through the water of baptism or his public defense of Neo-Liberals like Shepherd, Kinnaird and others? I must has missed that paper. Care to post a link here? While looking for that link, you might appreciate reading "The Orthodox Presbyterian Cover-up" at http://www.trinityfoundation.org/journal.php?id=227 .

 

[Casey]

How would working on the OPC Justification report clear Gaffin? Where has he recanted or repented of his anti-Christian "union" with Christ through the water of baptism or his public defense of Neo-Liberals like Shepherd, Kinnaird and others? I must has missed that paper. Care to post a link here? While looking for that link, you might appreciate reading "The Orthodox Presbyterian Cover-up" at http://www.trinityfoundation.org/journal.php?id=227 .

Actually, no -- I would not appreciate reading that man's material. Sorry to break that to ya. If you are not content with the work Gaffin did on the Justification Report . . well, that's your issue. If you're so concerned about it, perhaps you should contact him personally. I'm quite content.

 

[Casey]

I did miss that post of yours.

Would you like to revisit the entire trial (http://www.trinityfoundation.org/kinnaird.php) or just some of Kinnaird’s specific doctrines. How about this one in reference to Romans 2:13:

Or, would you prefer to start with this one:

Let me know. And, no apologies necessary.

You did not answer my question. I did not ask for a link to a repository of documents, much less quotes from Kinnaird himself. This was your claim:

Frankly, and as far as I’m concerned, it’s certainly the prerogative of the OPC to permit the teaching of both a false gospel and the true gospel side by side since your highest court has already deemed the false one of John Kinnaird (and by extension Norman Shepherd) to be in harmony with your church's standards.

(The bolding is mine, to highlight the words I have taken issue with.)

You claim here that "the OPC [has permitted] the teaching of [. . .] a false gospel [. . .] since your highest court has already deemed the false [gospel] of John Kinnaird [. . .] to be in harmony with your church's standards." This is the claim I want you to prove. Thank you.

 

[Magma2]

You claim here that "the OPC [has permitted] the teaching of [. . .] a false gospel [. . .] since your highest court has already deemed the false [gospel] of John Kinnaird [. . .] to be in harmony with your church's standards." This is the claim I want you to prove. Thank you.

Thanks for the clarification but I already did per the citations from the decision and the protest filed in response to the Kinnaird acquittal. You can read the rest of it and the entire trial transcripts at the Trinity Foundation website. You don't agree with the protest filed, fine. I guess that only leaves one option concerning your view of the Kinnaird's teaching which would be that they are in harmony with your church's standards. Like I said, no apologies necessary. Although I'm starting to think there might be some due from you, particularly given your backhand to Paul Elliot who should be applauded for the work he's done exposing what is going on in the OPC. I'm sure many Presbyterians had a similar appreciation for Machen in the '20's.

 

[Dan....]

“Baptism signifies and seals a transition in the experience of the recipient, a transition from being (existentially) apart from Christ to being (existentially) joined to him. Galatians 3:27 is even more graphic: “Those who have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ” . . . Consequently, the transition described in [Ephesians 2] verses 5f. as being an object of God’s wrath(v.3) to experiencing his love (v.4). takes place at the point of being joined (existentially) to Christ [50_51].”

The way of salvation proposed by Gaffin is through the water of baptism and existential union with Christ – not by mere belief alone in truth of Scripture and the message of the Gospel. His mission, or at least part of it, has been to undermine, and, if possible, supplant the biblical order of salvation with a new one derived from his own "new perspective of Paul." Admittedly, his book is subtly written, but I believe many have missed the far reaching implications of his (novel) views. At the very least, I was struck by how many broad and even bold assertions he makes throughout the book without even the slightest evidence. He just assumes his readers will agree or just take his word. Maybe this is how he has been able to fool so many people? Perhaps Gaffin gets a pass because he's such a "polite scholar"? Yet, from the above you can see it is the water of baptism which translates a person from an object of God’s wrath to an object of His love. It is baptism, not belief alone, which brings us into union with Christ. Union with Christ for Gaffin is an "existential" non propositional or legal bond. Besides confusing the sign with the thing signified, his view of baptism and Christological union explains his long defense of men like Norm Shepherd and John Kinnaird.

Sean,

I don;t know if you recall this, but back last September you and I had a discussion about this very quote in Gaffin's book.

Our discussion is on the following thread:

http://www.puritanboard.com/showthread.php?p=201683#post201683

At the time of the thread I had not yet read Gaffin's book. Since then I have. I enjoyed the book. I will not stand behind everything he says in the book; however, I was unable to find anything in his book that is outside the bounds of the Westminster Standards.

Anyway, when we were discussing this quote from Gaffin a few months ago, I pointed out that what Gaffin says in the quoted portion is almost identical with the Westminster Confession on baptism.

Allow me to quote myself from that thread:

Let's graph it out:

Gaffin:
Baptism signifies and seals...

WCF:
Baptism is a sign and seal...

Gaffin
...a transition from being (existentially) apart from Christ to being (existentially) joined to him.

WCF:
...of his ingrafting into Christ

Ingrafting into Christ = being (existentially) joined to him.

I don't see the problem. What is Gaffin saying (in the quote you provided as support for Elliot's position) that the Confession is not???

Back in September you did not respond to this portion of my post, but I let it go then.

But now that you are 5 months later using the same quote from Gaffin as "evidence" that he teaches that water baptism saves, I'm going to ask you to reply to my above quote.

What does Gaffin teach in this quote that WCF does not teach in the chapter on baptism?

How can you say that Gaffin is teaching "his own new perspective of Paul" when his quote is almost identical to the confession? Is the WCF teaching the same "new perspective of Paul" that Gaffin is?

 

[Archlute]

What does Gaffin teach in this quote that WCF does not teach in the chapter on baptism?

How can you say that Gaffin is teaching "his own new perspective of Paul" when his quote is almost identical to the confession? Is the WCF teaching the same "new perspective of Paul" that Gaffin is?

Dan,

I tried reading the link to the old post, but the text that came up on my screen had been corrupted and was difficult to understand. I cannot therefore say whether or not you are confused by FV thought, nor whether or not the Gaffin passage under discussion is problematic. I will, however, point out the problem to which Sean is objecting. FV advocates typically say, "Hey look, Mr. X says this... Now look here, WCF says the same thing... Therefore, Mr. X is an orthodox, confessional theologian." That is what I heard at my church, and (if the passage on Gaffin is being read correctly by me) what seems to be the case here.

One cannot just take similar language from the WCF and call a man orthodox; one must take the entirety of the theology found within. For example, the elders at that former OPC loved to stress the language of baptism being a seal. They would say emphatically, "Look the child has been sealed in baptism, therefore they have received all the benefits, are joined in union with Christ, yada, yada." What they hated to admit (and so never discussed), is that there is more to the WCF on sacraments and baptism than just that language. Taken as a whole, the WCF undermines the exact view that they are trying to promote. It does not promote a "head for head" view of existential union through baptism, as Dr. Clark so forcefully discussed at the "Meeting God on His Terms" conference last year. Yet that is exactly what their view of union through baptism emphasizes. The Westminster standards emphasize the requirement of faith in all the baptized who would actually receive the benefits, they emphasize the visible/invisible nature of the church. These men want to wrongly teach a uniform existential union with Christ in all the baptized. The Westminster Standards only admit that of those who have been joined by faith. The only way the FV reading of the Standards could be true, is if every single child baptized were given faith, and they do not teach that.


It may help to read these portions:

WCF 27.3 "... a promise of benefit to worthy receivers."

WCF 28.5 "...or that all that are baptized are undoubtedly regenerate."

WCF 28.6 "...[the grace is conferred] to such (whether of age or infants) as that grace belongeth unto, according to the counsel of God's own will, in his appointed time."

WLC Q.154 "...which are made effectual to the elect for their salvation."

WSC Q. 91 "...in them that by faith receive them."

WSC Q. 92 "...the benefits of the new covenant are represented, sealed, and applied to believers."


From the above, it is obvious that the section on the benefits of the sacraments must be read in light of these limiting statements. Not every child is elect, not every child (or adult) baptized will be given faith. The only way that baptism can be an existential union with Christ for all the baptized, is if all the baptized have faith, "head for head". That is true neither by Scripture, the standards taken as a whole, nor by experience. To emphasize the benefits of an ingrafting into Christ as found in WLC Q. 165 (remission of sins by His blood, and regeneration by His Spirit, of adoption and resurrection unto eternal life...) without understanding that these are sealed only unto the elect (as noted in the other statements given above), is exactly the thing that FVers do, and what gets them into trouble. They come with a Romanist view of the sacraments, and try to get that view to conform to the WCF. They can only do this, however, by ignoring the passages listed above (or by doing interpretive gymnastics to get around their plain, historical meaning).

 

[HanleyBri]

FPC\Article\Doctrinal Crisis in the OPC

I just noticed that FPC's magazine also has an article entitled; 'Doctrinal Crisis in the OPC' - Here's a quote if you interested.

"The report strongly affirms the orthodox position and opposes the
New Perspective, but the upholders of orthodoxy are not hopeful that it will
do any good. They point to the following defects: (1) The report does not
condemn the New Perspective as heresy. It is not enough merely to declare
that it is “error” when it is a false gospel destroying men’s souls. (2) The
report turns a blind eye to the existence of this heresy in the OPC. All its
criticisms are directed at those outwith the OPC. (3) It is not enough to
denounce error, even in strong terms, if one will not proceed eventually to
the discipline of those who are guilty. Heretics are generally not nervous
types, to be silenced with expressions of disapproval, and they do not usually
leave of their own accord. The Assembly has made it plain that those who
preach the New Perspective have nothing to fear."

-------------------------------------
The Free Presbyterian Magazine
Vol 111 August 2006 No 8 , Page 253
http://www.fpchurch.org.uk/Magazines/fpm/2006/August.pdf

 

[Dan....]

Dan,

I tried reading the link to the old post, but the text that came up on my screen had been corrupted and was difficult to understand. I cannot therefore say whether or not you are confused by FV thought, nor whether or not the Gaffin passage under discussion is problematic. I will, however, point out the problem to which Sean is objecting. FV advocates typically say, "Hey look, Mr. X says this... Now look here, WCF says the same thing... Therefore, Mr. X is an orthodox, confessional theologian." That is what I heard at my church, and (if the passage on Gaffin is being read correctly by me) what seems to be the case here.

Let me give you a brief synopsis of the other thread:

In post# 30, Sean (Magma2) recommended reading The Orthodox Presbyterian Cover-up by Paul Elliott. I took his recommendation. I read the article. In post#33 I replied:

So one would think that an article full of bashing ministers in the OPC would be slam full of footnotes pointing to some evidence to back up the claims, right? The article in the link above has zero footnotes. What are we supposed to do, just take his word for it???

In post#34, Anthony Coletti replied that he has Elliot's book that the online article was taken from and that he would check for footnotes.

In post #36 I gave an example of the lack of footnotes from the article -

Elliot says,

Both Gaffin and Rome teach that union with Christ through water baptism is the way of salvation and the means of redemption. Both Gaffin and Rome teach that baptism marks the transition from death to life, and that baptism brings about saving union with Christ. Both Gaffin and Rome teach that adoption comes through union with Christ in baptism. Both Gaffin and Rome teach that baptism brings about justification. Both Gaffin and Rome teach that baptism confers sanctification. Both Gaffin and Rome teach that justification and sanctification are indistinguishable, thus making both faith and works instruments of justification. Both Gaffin and Rome teach a ““first justification”” at baptism as well as a ““final justification”” at the Last Judgment, in which believers lay claim to entry into the Kingdom of Heaven based on their works plus Christ’’s.

No footnotes were given in the article to backup this claim.

In post# 37, Sean says, "I have recently finished reading Ressurection and Redemption for myself and I can say Elliot's analysis is on target."

He then gives the same quote from Gaffin's book Resurrection and Redemption that he gave above as "evidence" of Gaffin's error.


Then he says, "Or, pick up Gaffin's book and see for yourself."

Well I did pickup Gaffin's book and read it for myself.

All I'm asking is for Sean to prove from Resurrection and Redemption that Gaffin is teaching error. If he can't produce evidence from Gaffin's book, on the basis of which book he claimed that Elliot was "on target" in saying that Gaffin teaches Rome-like doctrines, then he should admit that he was wrong. Else, if he can, from the same book, demonstrate that Gaffin is teaching error, then I will retract my objection.

I've got the book. Step up. Produce some quotes.



By the way, Archlute, I agree with everything else you said in your reply to me above.

 

[greenbaggins]

Are you sure you're talking about the same Richard Gaffin Jr.? While I haven't read his latest book, what about his track record over the last thirty plus years? Here is a man who has provided decades long defense of some of the most egregious supporters and advocates of the so_called “Federal Vision,” so much so that he wrote the following glowing endorsement of Norm Shepherd’s counterfeit gospel and even allowed his name to be used as a selling point for The Call of Grace. Can you imagine someone opposed to Shepherd's errant doctrines writing:

“This lucid and highly readable study provides valuable instruction on what it means to live in covenant with God. God’s covenant is the only way of life that fully honors both the absolute, all_embracing sovereignty of his saving grace and the full, uninhibited activity of his people. The Call of Grace should benefit anyone concerned about biblical growth in Christian life and witness.”

Thank you Dick Gaffin. Hardly shocking since he has been consistently in agreement with Shepherd on more than a few fundamental points as he makes clear in his book “Resurrection and Redemption” where he writes:

“Baptism signifies and seals a transition in the experience of the recipient, a transition from being (existentially) apart from Christ to being (existentially) joined to him. Galatians 3:27 is even more graphic: “Those who have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ” . . . Consequently, the transition described in [Ephesians 2] verses 5f. as being an object of God’s wrath(v.3) to experiencing his love (v.4). takes place at the point of being joined (existentially) to Christ [50_51].”

The way of salvation proposed by Gaffin is through the water of baptism and existential union with Christ – not by mere belief alone in truth of Scripture and the message of the Gospel. His mission, or at least part of it, has been to undermine, and, if possible, supplant the biblical order of salvation with a new one derived from his own "new perspective of Paul." Admittedly, his book is subtly written, but I believe many have missed the far reaching implications of his (novel) views. At the very least, I was struck by how many broad and even bold assertions he makes throughout the book without even the slightest evidence. He just assumes his readers will agree or just take his word. Maybe this is how he has been able to fool so many people? Perhaps Gaffin gets a pass because he's such a "polite scholar"? Yet, from the above you can see it is the water of baptism which translates a person from an object of God’s wrath to an object of His love. It is baptism, not belief alone, which brings us into union with Christ. Union with Christ for Gaffin is an "existential" non propositional or legal bond. Besides confusing the sign with the thing signified, his view of baptism and Christological union explains his long defense of men like Norm Shepherd and John Kinnaird.

My guess is you took classes with a different Richard Gaffin. Either that or perhaps he puts on different faces for different audiences.

No, we are talking about the same Richard B. Gaffin, Jr., whom you are not only misquoting (out of context), but slandering in the process. I'm not sure I consider an endorsement of Shepherd's book to be the wisest thing he ever did in his life. But if you look at the endorsement closely, he didn't endorse everything in the book. Look, Gaffin was a personal friend of Shepherd. As long as there was any hint that the issues might be due to misunderstanding, he stood up for his friend. Can we not understand that he would wish to do that? He is a polite scholar. But in phone conversations to me, he has admitted that Shepherd's theology is imbalanced, that Shepherd considers the inseparability of faith and works to the exclusion of the distinctness between the two. I don't know if that would count as a repudiation of his earlier stance. But it seems to me that the longer this controversy has gone on, the more he has distanced himself from Shepherd, FV, and NPP. At the very least, his article in WTJ ought to clear him of teaching the same thing as the NPP. The fact that he wholeheartedly endorsed the OPC study committee report, and that he endorsed my argumentation on the NPPdebate page, I think clearly indicates where his allegiances lie. And if you are listening to that loose cannon, John Robbins, then I advise you to stop immediately. That man has done little good for the cause of Jesus Christ. Anyone who has the least questions about the theology of Gordon Clark is an outright heretic, according to Robbins. And I can say this, because my father J.C. Keister was Gordon Clark's best friend. I grew up admiring Clark. I went to WTS and found out that there is much more to Van Til than disagreeing with Clark. I call myself Van Tillian now. Robbins would undoubtedly call me a heretic. Robbins is a vitriolic loose cannon with a publishing house. Don't listen to him.

 

[Casey]

Thanks for the clarification but I already did per the citations from the decision and the protest filed in response to the Kinnaird acquittal. You can read the rest of it and the entire trial transcripts at the Trinity Foundation website. You don't agree with the protest filed, fine. I guess that only leaves one option concerning your view of the Kinnaird's teaching which would be that they are in harmony with your church's standards. Like I said, no apologies necessary. Although I'm starting to think there might be some due from you, particularly given your backhand to Paul Elliot who should be applauded for the work he's done exposing what is going on in the OPC. I'm sure many Presbyterians had a similar appreciation for Machen in the '20's.

Now you've committed slander, and in two points: (1) in regard to the OPC, and (2) in regard to me.

You still have not proved yourself. Quit beating around the bush. Prove that "the OPC [has permitted] the teaching of [. . .] a false gospel [. . .] since your highest court has already deemed the false [gospel] of John Kinnaird [. . .] to be in harmony with your church's standards."

This is no light matter, and I will not treat it lightly. You have falsely accused the OPC and myself, and I expect an apology.

 

[Magma2]

But in phone conversations to me, he has admitted that Shepherd's theology is imbalanced, that Shepherd considers the inseparability of faith and works to the exclusion of the distinctness between the two.

Then Rev. Keister you raise another problem with your friend Richard Gaffin. The problem with Shepherd's theology is not that it is "imbalanced," the problem is that it is a soul destroying damnable heresy. And if a teacher of the Word cannot see that and in those terms, then I guess I have to wonder if he is fit to teach no matter how polite a scholar he might be. Such a man is certainly unfit to defend Christ's sheep. Richard Gaffin's long record demonstrates that much.

The fact that he wholeheartedly endorsed the OPC study committee report, and that he endorsed my argumentation on the NPPdebate page, I think clearly indicates where his allegiances lie.

I don't see that this follows at all, your argumentation and its relative merits notwithstanding. The way I see the OPC report on Justification and even the New Horizon's article (evidently shared by others here as you can see by some of the posts above) is that it is nothing more than window dressing. It is akin to an inter-office memo letting Federal Visionists know to keep a low profile until the whole thing blows over. Paul Elliot was absolutely correct and the ongoing problem of the FV is not due to either side that make up the extremes, but rather the putrid middle (not his words, but mine) that are willing to accommodate almost any excuse just so their perceived sense of peace and fellowship can be maintained.

And if you are listening to that loose cannon, John Robbins, then I advise you to stop immediately. That man has done little good for the cause of Jesus Christ. Anyone who has the least questions about the theology of Gordon Clark is an outright heretic, according to Robbins.

Talk about slander! Perhaps you should heed your own words Reverend.

And I can say this, because my father J.C. Keister was Gordon Clark's best friend. I grew up admiring Clark. I went to WTS and found out that there is much more to Van Til than disagreeing with Clark. I call myself Van Tillian now. Robbins would undoubtedly call me a heretic. Robbins is a vitriolic loose cannon with a publishing house. Don't listen to him.

He might call you foolish for calling yourself a Van Tilian and so would I. For what it's worth I found out there is much more to Van Til too and very little of it has done any good for the cause of Christ. Actually, it's been positively detrimental and the fruits of which are now being born out in the heresies of the Federal Vision.

 

[wsw201]

[ MOD ON ]

Okay guys this is getting out of hand. This Thread is not about Richard Gaffin or John Robbins. Its about the the articles in the OPC magazine.

If you have issues about any of the articles or want to interact with Mr. Clark's blog then fine.

Stay on subject or move on.

[MOD OFF]

 

[Magma2]

What does Gaffin teach in this quote that WCF does not teach in the chapter on baptism?

Why don't you "step up" and demonstrate how the Confessional phrase ingrafting into Christ EQUALS being (existentially) joined to him? Adam Myer has already provided a sufficient outline by which to demonstrate it does not. Yet, you, for some reason say these terms are synonymous, therefore the onus is on YOU to demonstrate your assertion. I see no parity or equity at all in Gaffin's teaching concerning existential union and the Confession's definition of baptism.

I would probably go one step further than Mr. Meyer's excellent response where he said; "The only way that baptism can be an existential union with Christ for all the baptized, is if all the baptized have faith, "head for head". While I agree with what he is trying to convey, faith in Christ is a propositional and a legal, not an existential union. Here is a quote from Rev. Keister's father's good friend, Gordon Clark including a few comment by the much maligned and vilified John Robbins:

Commentary on Ephesians 2:13

But now by Christ Jesus you who were once afar off have become near by the blood of Christ.

GHC: This place is as good as any for the consideration of the phrase “in Christ.” It occurs in many of Paul’s epistles, and we have already seen it here in 1:3 (in him), 6 (in the beloved), 7 (in whom), 10, 11, 13, 20, and 2:5..., 6, 7, 10, and now 13. Some of these instances are easily understood, but others have led exegetes to adopt a mystical interpretation. An early medieval theologian used iron and fire as an illustration. We merge with God as the fire impregnates the iron to such an extent that we cannot tell whether it is iron or fire. Thus we permeate God, or better, God permeates us. Less explicit, some Neo-orthodox writers, as I have indicated elsewhere, try to modify the doctrine of election by charging Calvinists with failing to notice that election takes place “in Christ.” This not only misrepresents Calvinists, but in itself lacks meaning. Various Baptists, as also noted elsewhere, insist that en must be local, as in a room. In addition to being poor Greek, the insistence on the locative meaning makes nonsense of scores of verses. Others, regarding themselves as orthodox and very devout, impose a mystic aura on the phrase, and lapse into rapturous vacuity.

In reply to all, we must insist that the rational God gave us a rational message that we are obligated to understand, or at least try to understand. All Scripture is profitable for doctrine. Of course, as Peter complained about Paul, the Scriptures contain material hard to understand, but they contain nothing but what is understandable. Now then, what is the meaning of “in Christ”? Different passages may indeed use slightly different meanings; but probably the large majority of puzzling passages become clear when en is translated by by. That is, en often denotes agency or means. Here the phrase means simply that Christ brought us near to the commonwealth of Israel, the covenants, and the promise. In other places en will indicate that Christ is our legal representative, so that his act counts as ours.

Comment: The “mystic aura” that some theologians throw around this phrase is not restricted to this phrase. They misinterpret other Scriptural words and phrases in order to generate more mystic auras. They simply do not understand what Christianity is.

. . . Commentary on Colossians 1:1

Paul, apostle of Christ Jesus by the will of God, and Timothy our brother, to the saints in Colosse, brethren who believe in Christ....

GHC: Some commentators object to the translation “brethren who believe in Christ.” They have two reasons. First, the word in question [pistois] is not a participle, that is, “who believe”; it is an adjective and should be translated faithful. Second, the preposition en, “in” Christ, does not indicate Christ as an object of belief, but rather refers to the Christians’ incorporation into the body of Christ. A spiritual union, not an object of belief, is the idea [they say].

This view is not without merit. But neither is it altogether convincing. As for the preposition en, instead of eis, “into,” or epi, “upon,” we shall see that it has several meanings. Surely in verse 4 it means faith in Christ. In addition to the connotations of Greek prepositions, if the idea were that of a spiritual incorporation, the word pistois would be superfluous. Simply “brethren in Christ” would be quite enough. Therefore, it makes better sense, to the present commentator at least, to take Christ as the object of their belief.

Commentary on Colossians 1:4

...having heard of your faith in Christ Jesus...

GHC: As with verse 2, some commentators, even here in verse 4, wish to see some sort of spiritual incorporation (a contradictory phrase, if there ever was one), rather than the object of belief. But here, even more clearly than in verse 2, the latter idea is obvious. Various prepositions can follow the idea of belief. One cannot properly say that eis or epi must be used. One can better argue that this verse demonstrates that en is quite possible.

The word pistis means faith, and the verses commentators cite to make it mean faithfulness do not always prove their point. For example, in Matthew 8:10 [“I have not found such great faith, not even in Israel!”], 9:2 [“When Jesus saw their faith”], and 9:22 [“Your faith has made you well.”], the people who had faith, had had no time to be faithful. Faithfulness takes a long time; faith does not. The woman touched the hem of his garment because she believed something about the nature and power of Christ; not because she had discharged many obligations faithfully. Her faith is called great because she was so thoroughly convinced of the truth she believed. Just as clear are Matthew 9:28-29 [“Do you believe that I am able to do this? According to your faith let it be to you.”] (see Matthew 15:28 [“O woman, great is your faith!”]). Matthew 21:21[“if you have faith and do not doubt”], contrasting faith with doubt, also allows no time for faithfulness. Even in Matthew 23:23 [“justice and mercy and faith”], where faith might seem to mean long obedience, the fact that the matters of obedience are mentioned separately might indicate that faith is an additional factor. In this regard, note that the Pharisees did not believe Moses (John 5:46-47 [“For if you believed Moses, you would believe me; for he wrote about me. But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe my words?”]). They were not the fundamentalists of Christ’s day; they were the Modernists. The Sadducees were outright humanists.

[Clark adds a footnote to his comments:]

This type of anti-creedal objection [the type that says that faith means faithfulness] is more vigorously leveled against the Old Testament. The Hebrew word, say some commentators, means faithfulness or firmness, and not belief. When it is pointed out to them that the LXX [Septuagint] translators, who used Hellenistic Greek, used the word pisteuo, they lamely reply that the Alexandrian rabbis were “obviously embarrassed.” James Barr, a scholar of unquestioned heterodoxy, writes, “The unwillingness of much modern theology [in contrast with the “fundamentalist” type of thinking] to admit that belief or faith can be properly given to a saying or words, or its tendency to insist that such belief in something said is totally different in kind from faith understood as a relationship with a person, may also affect the exegesis here” (Barr, The Semantics of Biblical Language, 172).

Comment: The attempt to obliterate the Biblical concept of belief (pistis) by saying it means faithfulness or obedience is a direct attack on the Gospel, on the doctrine of justification by faith alone, and an integral part of the “union with Christ” mysticism.

I recommend you read the entire piece from which the above was taken since it includes a review of Gaffin's book (see http://www.trinityfoundation.org/journal.php?id=198).

I will say I find it funny how overly sensitive you OPC men are to even the slightest criticism of your denomination. Mr. "Staunch Presbyterian" is evidently so blinded that he can't even bring himself to read anything by former OPC RE Paul Elliot. I can only guess out of fear that it might break him of his ongoing illusions.

** I see after posting the mods are putting the kibosh on the direction of this discussion. If any would like to continue or respond to the above either start a new thread or email me. **

 

[Casey]

I will say I find it funny how overly sensitive you OPC men are to even the slightest criticism of your denomination. Mr. "Staunch Presbyterian" is evidently so blinded that he can't even bring himself to read anything by former OPC RE Paul Elliot. I can only guess out of fear that it might break him of his ongoing illusions.

And you have continually dodged my question, over and over again (incidentally, I asked you to prove your claim, not Paul Elliot or John Robbins). And then you have slandered my name. Criticizing a denomination is not the same as slandering it. You have broken the Ninth Commandment, in regard to the OPC and myself. It seems to me your true colors are that which is only display here, not mine.

 

[wsw201]

Okay guys this has now gotten out of hand and has gotten way too personal.

This thread is now closed.