Posted on 06/15/2007 12:16:19 AM PDT by Gamecock
Complete Title: 35th PCA GA Approves Recommendations of Federal Vision Study Report
MEMPHIS, TENN – The 35TH General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in America, meeting in Memphis, Tenn., on Wednesday, June 13, approved the recommendations of its Interim Committee on Federal Vision.
After the committee made its report, a motion was made to postpone taking action on the recommendations at this GA, to add two new members to the committee, and to direct the committee to include more exegesis of relevant biblical passages in its report. This motion failed. After further debate the General Assembly voted overwhelmingly to approve the recommendations.
The recommendations included the following:
1. That the General Assembly commends to Ruling and Teaching Elders and their congregations this report of the Ad Interim Committee on NPP, AAT and FV for careful consideration and study.
2. That the General Assembly reminds the Church, its officers and congregations of the provisions of BCO [Book of Church Order] 29-1 and 39-3 which assert that the Confession of Faith and the Larger and Shorter Catechisms of the Westminster Assembly, while “subordinate to the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments, the inerrant Word of God,” have been adopted by the PCA “as standard expositions of the teachings of Scripture in relation to both faith and practice.”
3. That the General Assembly recommends the declarations in this report as a faithful exposition of the Westminster Standards, and further reminds those ruling and teaching elders whose views are out of accord with our Standards of their obligation to make known to their courts any differences in their views.
4. That the General Assembly reminds the Sessions and Presbyteries of the PCA that it is their duty “to exercise care over those subject to their authority” and “to condemn erroneous opinions which injure the purity or peace of the Church” (BCO 31-2; 13-9f).
Recommendation 3 dealt with nine declarations proposed by the study committee. It asked the General Assembly to recommend that the declarations in the report be considered a faithful exposition of the Westminster Standards. The declarations are:
In light of the controversy surrounding the NPP and FV, and after many months of careful study, the committee unanimously makes the following declarations:
1. The view that rejects the bi-covenantal structure of Scripture as represented in the Westminster Standards (i.e., views which do not merely take issue with the terminology, but the essence of the first/second covenant framework) is contrary to those Standards.
2. The view that an individual is “elect” by virtue of his membership in the visible church; and that this “election” includes justification, adoption and sanctification; but that this individual could lose his “election” if he forsakes the visible church, is contrary to the Westminster Standards.
3. The view that Christ does not stand as a representative head whose perfect obedience and satisfaction is imputed to individuals who believe in him is contrary to the Westminster Standards.
4. The view that strikes the language of “merit” from our theological vocabulary so that the claim is made that Christ’s merits are not imputed to his people is contrary to the Westminster Standards.
5. The view that “union with Christ” renders imputation redundant because it subsumes all of Christ’s benefits (including justification) under this doctrinal heading is contrary to the Westminster Standards.
6. The view that water baptism effects a “covenantal union” with Christ through which each baptized person receives the saving benefits of Christ’s mediation, including regeneration, justification, and sanctification, thus creating a parallel soteriological system to the decretal system of the Westminster Standards, is contrary to the Westminster Standards.
7. The view that one can be “united to Christ” and not receive all the benefits of Christ’s mediation, including perseverance, in that effectual union is contrary to the Westminster Standards.
8. The view that some can receive saving benefits of Christ’s mediation, such as regeneration and justification, and yet not persevere in those benefits is contrary to the Westminster Standards.
9. The view that justification is in any way based on our works, or that the so-called “final verdict of justification” is based on anything other than the perfect obedience and satisfaction of Christ received through faith alone, is contrary to the Westminster Standards
Cool. One of our session is there. We will get a full report from him.
Hey, by the way... Any Freepers out there is St Louis? I will be visiting this weekend and was wondering where to go to church.
Christ promised this to His apostles, not the “pope” in Rome, not some arbitrary collection of bishops 2000 years after the fact, nor a man with golden tablets.
The promise was fulfilled in the infallible written word of God. That is the product of Christ's promise to the apostles.
If you are going to use the Bible you’ll soon discover its claims cut both ways.
Exactly.
Then your church and its pastors are teaching error.
You're OK with that?
If only the Bible is inerrant, then it follows that anything written about the Bible (it's meaning, symbolism etc), will not be entirely true, at best, for only the Bible is inerrant. At worst, it may be completely wrong. Therefore, one cannot with confidence know the full truth contained within the Scriptures.
Does this sound like a situation created by a caring, loving God? Leaving us in a state of confusion?
And who decides if it's consistent with Scripture?
Whoever wrote it thought so, right? For if he or they didn't think so, they wouldn't have written it.
There's a ridiculous Catch 22 situation here, which you must surely see.
If only Scripture is inerrant, then it follows that anyone pronouncing on the concordance of the Westminster Confession with Scripture, could themselves be mistaken. You, the authors, or your local pastor. Conversely, if only Scripture is inerrant, then the Westminster Confession could well be bunkum, at least in part if not in toto. But how do we know? For there is nobody "inerrant" who can rule definitively on the matter.
As you say, there is nobody "inerrant". Nobody.
marshmallow:”And who decides if it’s consistent with Scripture?
Whoever wrote it thought so, right? For if he or they didn’t think so, they wouldn’t have written it.”
You seem to be hung up with the RCC view of the world. Unlike the Pope, the men who who framed the Westminster Confession understood that they were not infallible and that only the Holy Scripture is God-inspired.
The correctness of their interpretation of Scripture must stand the scrutiny of ALL men from the time of authorship to infinity. As in any man-made theological work (and unlike God’s work), it has the potential for refinement.
The longer the Westminster stands the test of time and analysis by those of us who study Scripture, the more credibility it carries (IMHO).
Occaisionally, throughout history, God has brought forth great minds and thinkers such as Luther and Calvin who have turned the status quo on it’s head. The men who crafted this confession understood this and humbled themselves in the understanding that God’s Word might be more fully acknowledged with the passing of time...
I'm not "hung up". I want to know how a Protestant ascertains the truth about the Christian faith with any degree of certitude. Don't say "we read the Bible". That begs the question. We've already passed beyond that.
If the Scriptures are "inerrant", then we must have an "inerrant" way of understanding them, no? Otherwise what good is an "inerrant" Scripture if there is no similarly inerrant key which unlocks them? A map which indicates the location of hidden treasure is worthless if nobody can read it.
The correctness of their interpretation of Scripture must stand the scrutiny of ALL men from the time of authorship to infinity.
I can't wait till "infinity". A man has a limited time on this earth and needs to know now.
As in any man-made theological work (and unlike God’s work), it has the potential for refinement.
By whom? And on what grounds? Who's to say the "refinement" is a step towards the truth and not in the opposite direction?
“Sola Deo Gloria!”
My congregation has just joined the PCA, This is wonderful news !
I won't get to excited about this. Even though the PCA denomination out there is better then most of the other denominations out there it is not perfect. In reality most PCA Churches and members out there will never ever hear any news about this recommendation. In fact probably more freepers will hear about this news then most PCA members. In fact my belief is that most of the Churches that do hear something about this recommendation will treat it as one of the many other recommendation that the General Assemble has issued over the years and that is to ignore it. I might not go so far as to say most of the PCA Churches are whoring after the world trying to be like the world but I'll say a lot of them are whoring after the world being more concern about getting their grand piano, getting a pipe organ, and getting stain glass windows.
I sent the thread to my Pastors, that I believe will care :)
Marshmallow: “If the Scriptures are “inerrant”, then we must have an “inerrant” way of understanding them, no?”
So let me use an analogy that might help. Let us say the Bible is like a ruler that is perfect in every way - that it can measure anything with infinite precision and accuracy. Now obviously we don’t have the eyes nor the faculties to use this ruler to it’s fullest extent and accuracy, but we can easily determine the general measurement of items around us. Most everyone with any basic comprehension can take the ruler and get useful comparative information. So when we begin to discriminate between two measurements that are very similar, we rely on people with “really good eyes” or a “very steady hand” to give greater clarity to a measurement.
Now I don’t propose this analogy to apply directly in every way, but the main point is obvious - we don’t need an “inerrant” judge to gain an understanding of basic precepts within Bible. There are many concepts of salvation that are universally understood by most all reasonable peoples.
Fortunately God has given us other tools to assist us: reason, logic, comprehension, and most importantly, His Holy Spirit. And God is sovereign. He has a vested interest in the preservation of His creation and truth and has promised that He will prevail (and has already).
Marshmallow:”A man has a limited time on this earth and needs to know now.”
How hard is it to understand this: (NKJV)
Act 2:37b “Brothers, what shall we do?”
Act 2:38 And Peter said to them, “Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.
The simple truth is what you need to know “now”...
Just kicking up some snow to see if any one was paying attention.
Anyway I do hope your pastors do care about the issues brought up in the recommendations.
Great!!!
After RC Sproul spoke, it was pretty clear what the result was going to be.
There were some folks in the GA chatroom making snarky comments who appeared to be FV supporters; based on their comments, the Church will be better off without them.
Glad to hear that. From whence did they come?
Since the seminary is there, there are a bunch of churches in the St. Louis area. Hit the directory and browse web sites
http://www.pcanet.org/directory.asp
You might try Kirk of the Hills
Mailing Address:
12928 Ladue Road
St. Louis, MO 63141
The current interim (Corty Cooper) was pretty good when I knew him almost 40 years ago.
I'd be surprised if more than about 10 per cent of our church could fully assent; I'd guess less than half of them have read it. Standards for officers are significantly different than for members.
Here's the membership test:
1. Do you acknowledge yourselves to be sinners in the sight of God, justly deserving His displeasure, and without hope save in His sovereign mercy?
2. Do you believe in the Lord Jesus Christ as the Son of God, and Savior of sinners, and do you receive and rest upon Him alone for salvation as He is offered in the Gospel?
3. Do you now resolve and promise, in humble reliance upon the grace of the Holy Spirit, that you will endeavor to live as becomes the followers of Christ?
4. Do you promise to support the Church in its worship and work to the best of your ability?
5. Do you submit yourselves to the government and discipline of the Church, and promise to study its purity and peace?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.