PCA Report on the Federal Vision
4 comments | Permalink
The 34th PCA General Assembly appointed 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 (MGA 34:229-30)."
The report is now here. Doug Wilson, though saying that the report contains some "standard misunderstandings," appreciates that "the timbre of the report was judicious, and it looked to me as though the committee members did labor to understand us."
The report is now here. Doug Wilson, though saying that the report contains some "standard misunderstandings," appreciates that "the timbre of the report was judicious, and it looked to me as though the committee members did labor to understand us."
posted by JT at Sunday, April 29, 2007
4 Comments:
Thanks JT!
For the record, if a bunch of theological heavy-lifters from the PCA go through all this trouble of discussing and researching the subject, and STILL can't explain the AA, NPP, and FV positions to the satisfaction of those who hold those positions, maybe those who hold those positions should say to themselves, "hmm... maybe there really IS something wrong with what we're teaching, here."
At some point, theology needs to be intelligible to SOMEONE. It's not as if Doug Wilson and the others are THAT much smarter than the rest of the PCA. The lack of intellibility in what they are doing is sufficient cause for concern in and of itself.
As an elder in the PCA for the past 24 years, and one who has attended many presbytery meetings and General Assemblies, I can firmly say that I am convinced beyond a shadow of a doubt, that the study committee was set up with the particular membership to bring about a desired conclusion. Historically, when a study committee has been set up, both proponents and opponents formed part of the committee. See the study committees on Creation, Women in the Military, Paedocommunion, to name a few. Look at results of study committees and note that there were both majority and minority reports. What does that tell you? Not everybody was in agreement. They knew that would be the case going into their study but the desire was to see two sides work together to try and reach a consensus through honest theological interaction, not just with writings and blog shoutings but with real people who could put forth cogent answerable thoughts and questions. This was not done here. One has to ask why? When I mentioned to one of the members of the church where I serve as a ruling elder that a committee had been formed by the PCA to “study” Federal Vision and NPP etc. and that they had finished their work, his first question to me seem reasonable. He asked who made up the committee and if there were those who were “for” and “against” so as to adequately study and discuss the matters at hand. When I told him that only opponents were on the committee (and I might add some of those proponents had already made their opinions quite well known in published writings and internet dialog) his gut response was “then the study committee was a sham. How can you have divergent theological views being espoused in a denomination, set up a study committee to actually study and dialog and only have one side represented?” My question indeed. I must admit that I am a presuppositionalist, but this kind of presupposition concerning my mother church I did not want to hold. At least a little window dressing to include a “token” FV proponent might have given more credibility to the committee. Certainly this committee’s report will do nothing to dissuade FV proponents that this is more a matter of a “witchhunt” with a forgone conclusion then a serious attempt to deal with the issues. Four presbyteries have already dealt with FV proponents and while they agree that they have disagreements with some of the FV musings, all have clearly made it known that the men under question are within the bounds of orthodoxy and Westminster. In all sincerity, why not have proponents on the committee? There are certainly men who are articulate, members in good standing in their respective presbyteries who could have adequately represented the position. The notable absence of such men was a great disservice to both the committee and the assembly at large. Are we viewed as men with such a lack of ability to follow theological arguments that we must be spoon fed the “appropriate” line and no more? This type of action demonstrates a great lack of trust and confidence the elders’ ability to actually do the work of “Bereans”. It is also a lack of faith in the Holy Spirit’s ability to rightly persuade men. We have been treated like children whose “parents” must do the thinking for them.
I have posted a thorough evaluation of this report here:
www.jeffreyjmeyers.com
Or you can find it at the Reformed News web site:
www.reformednews.com
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home