After the premature decisions by Mississippi Valley and Central Carolina Presbyteries, Louisiana Presbytery has actually adopted a lucid position, and explicitly exonerated Rev. Steve Wilkins and declared him “faithful to the Confessional standards of the PCA”.
You can read the entire adopted report over at The Parchment.
UPDATE: William has also posted a response from a few “leaders” in the PCA (as much as the PCA has leaders).
12 responses to “Louisiana Presbytery on the Federal Vision”
Of course his presbytery exonerated him. Let’s see; we’ll redefine justification according to Shepherd’s BT analysis of sola fide, in favor of an “active faith”, then let’s reexamine Baptismal regeneration and let’s emphasize an efficacy the divines seemed to have failed to truly impart, then returning to our reformulation of sola fide, ala Shepherd, let’s emphasize an “obedient” faith without which there is no assurance, thus drawing the congregant away from the confessional emphasis of justifying faith being primarily resting upon and receiving Christ and set him instead upon navel gazing, then we’ll over correct for that tendency by emphasizing the “objectivity of the covenant” especially his baptismal sign and seal, and finally let’s find objection with the traditional law/gospel contrast ala Paul, Luther, Calvin and the scholastics and following Murray’s “recasting”, let’s flatten out all the covenants, claim they’re all gracious, contra reformed tradition, and tell everyone that a true meritorious covenant was never possible thus bringing into doubt the true “meritorious” nature of Jesus’ covenant keeping, since the original edenic covenant wasn’t based on strict justice, which by the way casts in ill repute God’s retributive judgement upon Adam’s failure (i.e. If Heaven could not “truly” be earned than damnation upon failure cannot “truly” be merited either). What, what, why the fuss, “we’re just saying!!!!!!!” Yeesh we’re just slinking toward Rome, ah it’s all just semantics. Nuance, nuance, who has time for nuance.
Well, the problem is that the people who think Wilkins is a heretic brought the matter to his Presbytery (correctly). When the Presbytery exonerates Wilkins, aren’t there more judicial procedures that should be followed? It’s rather hypocritical to appeal to an authority, and then disregard the authority when they don’t say what you want.
My interest in this whole affair has been the autonomous nature of everyone’s opinion. Everyone apparently has the right to hold a court of themselves and judge the teachings of others based on their own personal opinions. The fact is that Mr. Wilkins has been exonerated by those ordained to judge such matters. Who are you to say otherwise?
“My interest in this whole affair has been the autonomous nature of everyone’s opinion. Everyone apparently has the right to hold a court of themselves and judge the teachings of others based on their own personal opinions.” I assume you’re including the autonomous nature of the opinions of those of the Auburn Theology conference? They are the one’s who self-titled their ponderings as “correctives” to reformed tradition and “ambiguities” in the confession, scruples if you will, which they have sought to redress. They have openly debated and published their ruminations for popular/mass distribution, in doing so opened the door wide for response. Now, they want to bitch and whine that they’ve been unfairly undressed?! Boy, if you’re gonna step up to the plate and take your swings, be ready for the high hard one and don’t expect to hide behind your collar. As for Wilkin’s exoneration, I expected nothing else from that presbytery, he’s the big fish in that pond. This is the PCA after all, we’ll be granting admittance to Trentian catholics before long.
Ah, so now you condemn the whole presbytery, and even take a swipe at the PCA? Why don’t you just move yourself outside the camp, and condemn the Church as a whole? You can join the denomination of the pure, and scowl at the rest of us who don’t conform to your level of purity.
The Louisiana Presbytery and the PCA are now synonymous with the whole church? Hey listen, the Auburnites went out and picked this fight all on their own, now they don’t like it when they get punched in the mouth for their troubles? What, am I supposed to feel bad for them?! The Auburnites are messing with Sola fide, I have no compunction to give any ground WHATSOEVER on this doctrine, and I have no tolerance for church officials who do. Process is only as valuable or relevant as the caliber of people carrying it out. By the way, I’m attending an OPC church, so I have moved on to “greener” pastures. That was a joke by the way. I have respect for authority and process, but when the result of that process is in error, I have no biblical compulsion to be restrained or compelled by their decisions. Clergy has authority over my conscience in direct relation to their ability to render biblical judgement on an issue or issues, the minute they violate, err, or overstep those bounds, I am no longer bound to, nor should I submit to their authority, at least on that or those particular issues and if necessary, I will seperate and remove myself from their jurisdiction. Biblical submission requires no less diligence on my part in evaluating the leadership placed over me.
Sean
Wait? Who punched who in the mouth? What are you talking about? If you’re talking about the response to Louisiana Presbytery, I’d hardly think those men would characterized it as a “punch in the mouth”.
You seem to have a lot of your ego emotionally invested in this whole thing… do the words coming out of Wilkins’ mouth somehow make you less of a person? The “Auburnites” are not “messing with Sola fide”, as if anyone could, by their words, change objective reality.
Perhaps you’re afraid they’re right? What implications does that have with the way you’re living your life?
Well, now your divining the intentions/motivations of my heart. The punched in the mouth reference was to the response the Auburnites received upon publication of their “correctives”. The Auburnites couched their distinctions as “correctives”, they picked this fight. Nobody asked their opinion nor did anyone seek them out as to their stand on particular WCF statements. They assumed upon themselves the role of Jeremiads calling the reformed community and more specifically the evangelical community to heed their call. Quite frankly, they overshot. They have in fact entertained modifications to “Sola fide” (see my earlier post), and particularly Douglas Wilson has written of his distaste for the Law/Gospel contrast. They positioned themselves as polemicists, so I have merely responded in a polemical fashion.
Sean
I don’t see how the response was a “punch in the mouth”. Are you referring to the impotent actions of 10 churches in the RPCUS? Or the rebutted overtures of the Mississippi Valley Presbytery and the Central Carolina Presbytery? All the authoritative bodies over Rev. Wilkins have either taken no action (PCA) or explicitly exonorated him (Louisiana Presbytery and Auburn Avenue Presbyterian Church).
Now, all of a sudden you’re skipping over to Doug Wilson, who hasn’t even mentioned until now, but who himself was exonerated by his authoritative ecclesiastical body.
The only thing I can think of as a punch in the mouth is the harrumphing going on in certain Internet chat rooms, most of which carry little value except as sources of humor. The dour posturing of the impotent is about the only “entertaining” I’ve seen so far.
Wait would this be the same ecclesiastical body that Doug Wilson co-founded?! Now there’s some objectivity! Not quite the Nepotism displayed by the Osteen’s @ Lakewood church in Houston, but not too far off the mark. Yes, Wilson is relevant seeing as he is one of the Auburnites. Oh wait, you must be referring to the internet chat room harrumphing being carried out by the faculty @ Westminster West! Yeah, Horton, Godfrey, Clark, VanDrunen et al… They’re lightweights for sure, nothing like the measure of men that Wilkins and Wilson are. And the beat goes on……………..
Sean
As opposed to the purely objective ecclesiastical body that Joe Morecraft founded? Again, I’m not sure of your point.
So, are you suggesting that theology should be banged out by seminary heads? Perhaps you can point to some of these WTS West folks, and I’ll post to WTS East folks, and we can have an EAST MEETS WEST FINAL SHOWDOWN FOR YOUR SOUL!!!!! 🙂
Anyway, last time I checked, seminary heads had no more authority than any other elder (if they’re even elders), so yes, it’s pretty much at the same level of bellyaching… they just use bigger words.
Explain again why I should care what these people think, or how they have any bearing on ecclesiastical decisions? Methinks you should spend less time reading Van-somebody, and start reading the Book of Church Order.
Umm, I already did point to some of these WTS West folks. If your point is that the issue with Wilkins has NOW been dealt with “in proper order” because his own presbytery has now adjudicated the issue, than great. It still doesn’t prevent other PCA bodies from taking the issue to GA based on what they deem to be abberant theology being propagated from a PCA pulpit and due to the public and wide dispersement of views being touted from Monroe, LA. and the adverse effects those views are having on their own congregants. The auburnites didn’t hold themselves out as private citizens voicing their opinions. They held/hold themselves out as teachers/pastors and doctors of the church, whose opinion on these issues is a NEEDED remedy for what ails Evangelicalism and MANY reformed communities. Well, some of these reformed communities objected to the opinions that were being propounded, and particularly that a PCA pastor was meddling with the “diet” of their congregants under the auspice that he was “one of them”, a PCA pastor. Need I remind you by the way, based on your remark about whether I wanted the seminary heads to bang out the theology, that by and large THEY DO, the seminary “heads” are widely represented and deferred to on the doctrinal committees and boards of the major reformed denominations. WEST. East and West, RTS, Mid-America, Greenville, Covenant et al, have no small involvement in the issues discussed and hammered out at GA. Again if your point is that it has now been handled “in proper order”, fantastic, my response and under consideration now in the OPC and in the PCA, is whether the content of what is being propagated, is first biblical, then secondly within the confines of reformed tradition. As far as sounding off, if the Auburnites can sound off and publish their gripes, why can’t I or any other group?
Sean
That’s probably a great place to leave this conversation. I encourage you and others to continue to engage in this discussion, not in anger, but constructively.
Of course seminary folks are involved in the issue… that’s part of their job. My point is that it’s not a good idea to line degrees up on either side, and then count heads (“ok… 34 Ph.D’s say you’re heretics, 24 say you’re not… GUILTY!”).
I hope that the Presbyteries do call on the GA to adjudicate the issue. That would be the proper process, and it would force the GA to do their job, properly, and (hopefully) soberly. I would encourage you to work through those channels, and to encouage others to do the same.