PCA General Assembly
PCA General Assembly
The PCA General Assembly overwhelmingly accepted the PCA Study Report on the Federal Vision on Wednesday afternoon. Now it is time for me to state clearly what I think about this matter and if people want to label me as being a Federal Vision advocate as a result so be it. Keep in mind that many other men, who are a lot smarter than I am, have responded to the report itself and I am certainly not going to try to equal their lengthy papers. What I want to do is deal with the decision that was made on the floor of General Assembly.
1. I believe that this decision made by the Assembly was a huge mistake. I do not believe the denomination profited much from an argument about what the Confession says on matters that no FV person has a problem with. The topic of election comes to mind.
2. I believe the PCA has now opened the door for heavy handed tactics that will be argued on the basis of the Confession and not the Scriptures. Sure, we are a confessional denomination but we are not a confession only denomination. What disturbs me, and it seems I am not alone in this argument, is that the committee really did not deal with any of the main points exegetically. For instance, the topic of election as offered in the Westminster Confession of Faith is certainly decretal in the sense that God has a fixed number of people that will certainly be called, justified, sanctified and glorifed. I can think of no FV advocate that would disagree with that statement. The committee itself even made the distinction between the "elect" and the "decretally elect". Louis Berkof also made this distinction in his Systematic Theology and this work was required reading at Westminster Theological Seminary for many years. The Bible does not always talk in these kinds of terms and slogans. In fact, it rarely does.
3. The argument should have been presented by sound exegesis and examination of the Bible and not the Confession alone.
The supreme judge by which all controversies of religion are to be determined, and all decrees of councils, opinions of ancient writers, doctrines of men, and private spirits, are to be examined, and in whose sentence we are to rest, can be no other but the Holy Spirit speaking in the Scripture. (1.10)
I have said this before: If the argument that the FV position is so out of accord with the Confession and if the Confession actually deals wit hthe substantive matters relating to the FV issue then it ought to be quite easy to make the case from the pages of the Bible. I understand that the men on the Committee are learned men. I respect their experience and their theological prowess but I do not understand -- not at all -- why this matter cannot be settled on the basis of the Scriptures.
4. This observation has already been made elsewhere but I would have preferred that the Assembly adopt the motion to postpone discussion on the Study Committee paper for one year to allow for further discussion with other learned FV men. I believe the motion was to assign two FV proponents to the study committee so that their views could be heard and dealt with. For me, this would have been a far greater benefit for the Church then this lopsided committee (and yes, it was lopsided! If you chose to wiggle your way around this then you really have not been paying attention).
5. For all the talk of the FV proponents paving the way to Rome I honestly believe that the PCA, by their very decision yesterday and by observing numerous conversations and blog discussions behaves more like Rome in some ways. We have allowed our desire to be a confessional Church to replace the Bible as our sole rule of faith and practice. Please do not tell me that "no one thinks that". Of course, no one says it outloud but the practical result of a denomination that guards her confessions so closely as to ignore or fail to deal with critical passages in this issue would definitely lead some to this conclusion. At the very least we have brought the secondary standards far too close to the the prime standard -- the Word of God. Fact is, the Bible is the sole authority and the Confession is a distant, distant second. However, in recent days I have observed the confession closing that gap in the minds of some. Prior to the 16th century Rome began to guard her canons and traditions in much this way. It became nearly impossible to argue against them even if those canons and traditions were wrong. Rome clearly guarded her traditions and allowed all sorts of superstitions and silliness to creep into her. When the Reformers cried "foul" the Roman Church declared them heretics. What was the weapon the Reformers chose to use in their arguments against Rome? The Word of God alone. What was the weapon Rome used? Papal bulls, canons and tradition, by and large.
6. The PCA is a confessional denomination yet it seems we are going to be a confessional denomination even if it means we have to be wrong to do so. I know, the PCA holds that the confession is an accurate summary of what the Bible teaches. Well...
- Does it teach on everything?
- Is it exhaustive?
- Is there room for interpretation? If so, on what points?
- Is there room for discussion and conversation? If so, on what points and topics?
- Was it a contextual document written for a particualr reason in a particular time and place?
- What was the goal of the divines at Westminster?
- Why do we allow exceptions if it is so accurate a summary? Does every PCA minister hold to the eschatological position of the Confession?
Adopting of the study committee report now places the presbyteries in a mosty difficult place (or good one depending on what presbytery you are in or which side of the fence you are on). That is, the committee report has now defined for the entire denomination what the presbyteries are to believe on these matters. In otherwords, their interpetation of the Confession is now, in some sense, the law of the day as far as the Prtesbyteries are concerned. I am not well versed in parliamentary procedure and do not know, really, how binding the adoption of the report is on the presbyteries but I do know that we now have a defined, presented and adopted interpretation of the Confession. It seems that there is simply no room left for those who wish to explore the depths of what the Bible has to say on matters pertaining to election, the covenant, baptism and so forth.
SUMMARY: I was disappointed by the vote. Not because I am some sort of FV advocate but because we have failed to charge men to examine these issues from the pages of the Scriptures and make a final presentation, fairly and responsibly as to what they say. Furthermore, it seems we struggle to get our elders and so forth to examine and study the word of God on these kinds of matters and if that is true should we be so surprised when parishoners ignore the Bible or fail to read it each day?
Comments, Pingbacks:
I share some of your concerns here, and I was surprised by the lopsided vote; however, the way the whole matter was couched as a vote for or against the five recommendations, which included an affirmation of the nine declarations, I don't see how the study could have been rejected, or delayed, without creating even more confusion. I agree that NPP/FV/AA proponents were misrepresented, but from what I heard, this report doesn't amount to anything more than an advisement to the presbyteries, and a charge for anyone who disagrees with the nine declarations to make their disagreements public. I think it would be helpful for FV/NPP/AA proponents to take each of the nine declarations and show how they either agree or disagree (if in fact they do). I would be surprised if there is really much disagreement regarding these nine declarations.
David L. Parker
Redeemer Presbyterian Church (PCA)
Austin, Texas
Permalink
06/14/07 @ 08:49 · http://mysite.earthlink.net 1) You are certainly a very well read and thoughtful layman. Your insights and comments are often helpful and provocative, so don't worry on that score.
2) Allow me to say a few words on the confession vs. Scripture issue: for the majority of delegates, this is going to be a non-issue. The TE's in the OPC confess that the secondary standards contain the system of doctrine contained in the Scriptures. Without getting into issues of strict subscriptionism, for the majority of men at the GA, the teaching of the WS is the teaching of Scriptures. If exegesis really needs to be done, the burden of proof is not on those who have confessed the WS and the church's historic understanding of it, but on those who have a contrary position.
3. That leads to my third point. The FV appears to have no central locus, but to have emerged in fits and starts, through blogs, email discussions, conference presentations, and the like. It seems more reactive than pro-active, if you'll forgive the modernesque terminology. An "FV proponent" makes a comment which is challenged. This leads to further discussion, but in the minds of many, the discussion doesn't clarify, it only leads to confusion. The "occasional nature" of the various FV documents makes the NT look like a systematic theology by comparison. The result has been to make clarification and communication extremely difficult.
4. Well, what's the upshot? As I said above, the burden of proof has always been on the pro-fv'ers, but even more so now than before. If the PCA works anything like the OPC (and I believe here it does) it is now up to the local presbyteries to take whatever action they feel is appropriate and consistent with the report. The FV men now have the opportunity to file their own reports, protests, overtures, whatever is appropriate and consistent with presbyterian government at this point. What is really being asked, I think, is a revised understanding of the WS, and that revision is only going to come if handled properly in response by the pro-fv'ers.
My question: will they handle it like presbyterians, or will they show themselves to be de facto congregationalists, and form new associations based on what they perceive to be their distinctions?
Permalink
06/14/07 @ 08:54 · http://mysite.earthlink.net I meant to add: "and I assume TE's in the PCA make a similar confession."
Permalink
06/14/07 @ 08:56 · http://www.rtrc.net I share your concern and hope that those who are on the pro-FV side will act and behave like Presbyterians. Furthermore, I would like them to interact in a more substantive way with the 9 declarations as well as the 5 recommendations sine they have nbow been adopted.
However, I do think the report totally missed the point of the FV. On the point of decretal election, for instance, no FV advocate would disagree with the Confessional position on it. Nor would they disagree on the aspects raised by the study reoprt. What is the issue is not "decretal election" but what the Bible says about the "elect" in the sense of God's covenant community. The Confession, and I think you would agree with this, speaks in terms of "decretal election" which is Calvinism and on that I have absolutely no issue.
Permalink
06/14/07 @ 09:50 Permalink
06/14/07 @ 09:52 · http://www.rtrc.net I think politics are very much involved here without question. Personally I wish the vote to postpone would have passed in order to try as hard as possibler to appear to be avoiding this political looking stance.
Well, this is the end of the beginning. All is not lost yet and I will do all I can -- as a pea brained layman -- to further these views. The FV does not -- I repeat -- it DOES NOT attack the doctrine of salvation as given in the Confession or the Bible. It asks legitmate questions of the Bible and we need to answer them. True scholars of the Scriptures will work to do so. My prayer is that they do. I may be in the minority here (nothing new with that for those who know me) but that does not mean the minority is wrong.
Onward...
Permalink
06/14/07 @ 09:57 Umm . . . exactly who has the "church's historic understanding" is part of what's being argued over here.
People who have to let confessional statements do their thinking for them have no right to be voting on such matters. And the reason is simply, the confessional statements are not pre-digested food. They still have to be broken down and assimilated to be properly used.
Confessional statements are to understanding doctrine as EO icons are to worshipping Jesus. They can "point the way" but in both cases if you don't go to the Word, you're committing a form of idolatry. (I'm not EO and I'm well aware that EO icons may involve idolatry in any case, but I'm just making an analogy.)
The writing of confessions and similar doctrinal statements was going on constantly in the Reformation era until God descended to Sinai and wrote the WCF in stone. I think the Reformers and even the Westminster divines would be shocked to see the position that the WCF has assumed in some Presbyterian circles today.
In short, exegesis is indispensible to any responsible dealing with this sort of thing, and REGARDLESS OF WHICH SIDE OF THE ISSUE YOU ARE ON, the result should be a new, or at least an amended confessional statement.
By the way, the latter is in the process of happening, but it is happening in the worst possible way: because the understanding of the WCF is being considerably narrowed, and the PCA is being asked to endorse this narrower understanding as the "official" view of the denomination, in effect the WCF has been turned into a "living document" in the name of conserving and protecting it.
Did we just witness a coup d'etat of sorts in the PCA?
Perhaps.
In any case, William's comparison to Rome is apropos in more ways than one, because, like Trent, nobody has been "anathematized": charges that don't stick don't condemn either. That won't necessarily prevent the same sort of "railroading" process that we have witnesses thus far from continuing to its logical conclusion, but if that does happen it will be a pyrhhic victory for the "victors." In all of this I don't worry even a little about the FV's proponents but I do worry for their persecutors, and for the people who are being taken for a ride by them.
Permalink
06/14/07 @ 10:29 · http://www.rtrc.net Barry wrote: If exegesis really needs to be done, the burden of proof is not on those who have confessed the WS and the church's historic understanding of it, but on those who have a contrary position.
Barry, sure I understand why you make this point BUT if the PCA GA convenes a STUDY committe don't you think that the committee ought to be charged with an exegetical diagnosis of the FV issue and deal with it there? Afterall, if we are to hold to WCF 1.10 then it seems to me that this is where the argument ought to be settled and completed. To tell the denomination what they THINK the confession is saying on issues such as election, etc is fine but that is simply not all there is to it.
If we are going to study it and then lets study it on the substance of the Bible...
Permalink
06/14/07 @ 10:42 · http://www.rtrc.net Permalink
06/14/07 @ 10:46 · http://mysite.earthlink.net One interesting comment that should be made. We all remember when Luther was called before the council at Worms. He was allowed to stand and make his defense. He was allowed to speak for himself on his views. It was not enough for them to simply say they had his writings and that alone is enough (and he wrote much!). Yesterday, the PCA GA had a chance to allow their opponents to speak for themselves by adopting the proposal to recommit and allow a few FV guys to argue their case on the committee. Have we committed an error thaty history should have guarded us from?
Was it possible for any pro-fv at GA to speak in on these issues? Did any such discussion take place? It seems to me that open debate on the floor of GA would be a perfect place to speak in defense of or against any proposal or proposition...
Permalink
06/14/07 @ 10:58 · http://www.rtrc.net Was it possible for any pro-fv at GA to speak in on these issues? Did any such discussion take place? It seems to me that open debate on the floor of GA would be a perfect place to speak in defense of or against any proposal or proposition...
Sure, I considered this as I was writing my previous comment. However, and let's be painfully honest here: the PCA GA is not known for its lengthy and strenous deliberations over any issue let alone this one. Some did speak against the actual report (I have watched it twice now) and perhaps some of the major players felt what they would have said was all that was actually said by some. Of course I don't know but the reality is the PCA GA is not known for this kind of interaction.
Permalink
06/14/07 @ 11:17 Now there's a diplomatic way of putting it. Between Sam Duncan's "FV for Dummies" and R.C. Sproul's "FV for Arians who should be taken outside and summarily shot," I have spent the last few days wondering whether I want to laugh or cry at the spectacle.
Permalink
06/14/07 @ 11:44 An Unrealistic Dream
1. That Reformed thinkers continue to have bright, fresh ideas, but that they present these ideas with humility and treat with grace and patience those who are not immediately convinced.
2. That Reformed thinkers with bright ideas discourage the rapid formation of parties to contend for those ideas.
3. That those initially opposed to those bright ideas allow some time for gentle, thoughtful discussion before declaring the bright ideas to be heresy.
4. That these opponents also discourage the rapid formation of partisan groups.
5. That those contending for various doctrinal positions accept the burden of proof, willing to bear the difficulty of serious biblical exegesis.
6. That we try much harder to guard our tongues (Jas. 3:1-12), saving the strongest language of condemnation (e.g., “denying the gospel”) for those who have been declared heretics by the judicial processes of the church.
7. That Reformed churches, ministries, and institutions be open to a wider range of opinions than they are now—within limits, of course.
8. That we honor one another as much for character and witness as we do for agreement with our theological positions.
9. That occasionally we smile and jest about our relatively minor differences, while praying, worshiping, and working together in the love of Christ.
David L. Parker
Redeemer Presbyterian Church (PCA)
Austin, Texas
Permalink
06/14/07 @ 12:06 · http://www.rtrc.net I honestly admit that my intention was not to be diplomatic. I was simply pointing to the fact that the PCA GA is really weak, either by process or a rushed docket or whatever, to deal with these kinds of issues with any real deliberation or discussion or debate. Yes, there was some discussion on the floor yesterday but what did it really do? If memory serves they "discussed" it for about 1 hr (after you factor out the committtee's report time and other matters not directly tied to discussion). I don't think I am alone when I share this concern. The GA is supposed to be a "court" of the Church but oftentimes it becomes an informational meeting at best.
I know the following idea would probably not work practically speaking based on costs and other issues but I think the GA should convene a special meeting (a "called" meeting) whenever the PCA is facing a critical issue such as the FV. They should devote as much time as necessary (within reason) to deliberate, discuss, and debate these matters. That is how I see it and if we are going to act like Presbyterians when we conduct business this is what could be considered as we deal with these sticky issues.
Thoughts?
Permalink
06/14/07 @ 12:33 Permalink
06/14/07 @ 16:28 · http://www.rtrc.net Permalink
06/14/07 @ 16:30 · http://www.leithart.com/archives/003073.php http://www.leithart.com/archives/003073.php
Permalink
06/15/07 @ 02:59 · http://mysite.earthlink.net Umm . . . exactly who has the "church's historic understanding" is part of what's being argued over here.
People who have to let confessional statements do their thinking for them have no right to be voting on such matters. And the reason is simply, the confessional statements are not pre-digested food. They still have to be broken down and assimilated to be properly used.
Well Chris, I see that your bias on the issue is built into your response. What you call the narrow interpretation is the historic interpretation of the Standards and of the Scriptures normally associated with the appropriate statements. That is historically provable. Secondly, the report itself is not without scriptural support and exegesis, though several have complained that there isn't enough. Now, as far as I am concerned, there is always room for more exegesis, but I was explaining why most presbyterian TE's would find the report satisfactory. Frankly, I agree. If the pro-fv's really want their views received as within biblical and historically confessional grounds, it is up to them to prove it, and to do so in proper presbyterian fashion. It is largely due to how the proponents have communicated their views that both the OPC and the PCA responded by erecting study committees, and now they have an even harder task before them.
Permalink
06/15/07 @ 07:17 Permalink
06/15/07 @ 19:44 · http://www.rtrc.net Permalink
06/15/07 @ 20:47 Leave a comment: