Federal Vision responds
This is theological post regarding matters within a particular denomination of the Presbyterian Church and as such may seem trifling to many of you. Nevertheless. Several months ago, we posted on the new “Report of the Ad Interim Study Committee on Federal Vision, New Perspective, and Auburn Avenue Theology” (for a primer on this theological issue, read this). The proponents of said theology have responded here, with an initial “24-theses” rebuttal by Dr. Peter Leithart of New St. Andrew’s College. His first thesis:
It’s long been a frustration that there is no forum for theological discussion and debate in the Presbyterian Church in America (PCA). Presbyteries sometimes devote time to such discussion, but that’s too rare. And General Assembly (GA) is simply not a place where theological debate can be expected to happen. The General Assembly debate on the Federal Vision (FV) was a case in point. Nearly two hours were devoted to the committee report, but virtually no theological claims were made or disputed. The Assembly quickly determined that justification by faith was the issue, on the assumption that some in the PCA are denying it (which is not true). Once the debate went in that direction, the outcome was predetermined, as we Calvinists like to say. We all know what we think about justification by faith; we in fact know all that needs to be known; no need to discuss; let’s vote.
For those with an interest in this debate, you will enjoy parsing out these points.




Learn it! Speak it! Live it!
Bring Christmas to a child in need!








Click to Print
Include Comments











back to top13 Comments to “Federal Vision responds”
Psalm 103:2,5,6,13,17,18
Bless Jehovah, Oh my soul, and forget not all his benefits:…who satisfieth thy desire with good things, so that thy youth is renewed like the eagle.
Jehovah executeth righteous acts, and judgements for all that are oppressed.
Like a father pitieth his children, so Jehovah pitieth them that fear him. For he knoweth our frame that we are dust…but the lovingkindness of Jehovah is from everlasting to everlasting upon them that fear him, and his righteousness unto children’s children; to such as keep his covenant, and to those who remember his precepts to do them.
My favorite of the Auburn Avenue lectures was “The Half-way Covenant” by Wilkins, from about 2003.
Report comment to moderator
In all of the endless debating, I fear that we have truly made it all about us.
Report comment to moderator
At the heart of the whining by the FV folks is the so called issue of ‘fairness,’ as if an assembly committee of learned and honorable men would not be fair. Implied in their complaining is a hidden issue that the men on the study committee lied to make their case. I find that assumption absurd.
The FV folks need to realize their views are outside the bounds of the Westminster Confession of Faith. The General Assembly of the PCA has spoken. They need to pack up and go out of the PCA as Auburn Avenue has done. That is the honorable thing.
Report comment to moderator
Reg,
Do you think that debate is ever justified? As you ponder that question, consider that the book of Galatians is mostly an argument against a particular heresy.
Don’t get me wrong. I agree that theological arguments *can* and often *do* degenerate into posturing. But as I see it, evangelicals in the US are currently far more likely to make the opposite error, which ultimately boils down to not caring enough about the truth to contend for it.
Report comment to moderator
Debate is healthy, necessary, and dangerous in a fallen world.
Report comment to moderator
4-
I am not saying that debate is never justified. I am weary of it, however. I am reading Pagan Christianity right now, which is on hold because my son took it to public high school and a classmate nabbed it. I will have more to say when I get that book back… AND, THANKS to the guy who introduced that book on WQW!!
Report comment to moderator
The Assembly quickly determined that justification by faith was the issue, on the assumption that some in the PCA are denying it (which is not true).
I’m willing to give Leithart the benefit of the doubt, but considering the man is a theologian, he needs to be more careful with his language. No one denies that FV adherents believe in justification by faith; the issue is whether they believe in justification by faith alone. In some ways this is similar to the Reformation debates on salvation by grace; Roman Catholics did not deny that salvation was by God’s grace — the issue was whether it was God’s grace alone or if human beings somehow contributed through such means as the use of the sacraments. That one word “alone” is an important one. And considering that some within the movement appear to adhere to a form of covenantal nomism, it is very difficult to believe, even given the grayness of the language sometimes used by the FV folks.
Report comment to moderator
Leithart’s complaints are without any substantial merit. The FV crowd has been provided with ample opportunity to air their views and to have them heard. They publish numerous books, hold numerous conferences, and run numerous blogs. No one can argue that they have somehow been silenced.
It is not at all in doubt that the FV folks have a distorted view of covenant theology — one that stands diametrically opposed to orthodox covenant theology as articulated by the early reformers and more recently by Vos and Kline. I agree that the FV folks’ views find some support in the writings of John Murray. Nevertheless, we must agree that Murray’s covenant theology suffered from serious error.
Of course, the real issue is Christian Reconstruction. FV is little more than theonomy dressed up in the language of post-modern philosophy. These folks want us to believe that they are different from guys like Gary North and Doug Phillips. This summer, though, the GA saw through the charade and recognized the FV for the poison that it is.
They should be happy that this isn’t the Sixteenth Century. They’d all have been burned at the stake by now. As it stands, they can go practice their graceless, Christless legalism elsewhere.
Report comment to moderator
Leithart is playing the hypocrite. He and his FV buddies had more than ample opportunity to speak at GA in support of their position, but chose not to do so. Kind of hard to have a debate when one side refuses to speak (just where was Leithart, Jeff Myers, Steve Wilkins and Mark Horne during that session?). His characterization of the debate over the committee report is not even remotely accurate. His whining now is nothing but sour grapes at having 98% of the denomination going against them. Then again, Leithart knows who signs his paychecks, so he does his master’s bidding (having learned that contradicting the Mendacious Mullah of Moscow is a fatal career move).
Kiyoshi is absolutely right. The FV debate in the PCA is about nothing less than whether the remnants of Christian Reconstruction will continue to operate in the background. The GA rightly spoke against theonomy in a position paper a number of years ago, but that wasn’t sufficient to put a stake into its heart. Like a pig wearing a dress and lipstick, CR resurfaces as the FV. Steve Wilkins flight into Doug Wilson’s CREC cult of personality is a positive sign for the PCA. Good ridance to all of them.
Report comment to moderator
Here’s a good article my pastor shared with me on the FV controversy.
Report comment to moderator
Mickey, isn’t Bill Marsh your pastor now?
Report comment to moderator
Yes, TJ, the Son of Westminster is our pastor, and we’re glad to have him and his family at our church after a long search.
Report comment to moderator
I like Bill. He’s a great guy. The Lord has blessed your church with him!
Report comment to moderator
back to topJoin The Conversation
You need to be a registered user of WORLDonTheWeb.com to "join the conversation."
If you are not a member yet, what are you waiting for? Register / Login Now!