I got a call Wednesday evening from Ligonier Ministries. I had previously been a supporter of Ligonier (it is one of those ministries that has enough of an ecclesiastical connection that i don’t have the qualms with it i do about parachurch ministries, which i refuse to support in any fashion), having once received Tabletalk Magazine and, at one point, the monthly sermon. So, they were calling to ask me if i would consider supporting again.

They had called last spring, too. I told the guy last year that i was unsure if i could continue my support of Ligonier because of that fall 2006 article they published in Tabletalk by Clark, which so clearly distorted and skewed the issues concerning the Federal Vision. (Please Note: i am not a Federal Visionist, but i also don’t believe that the Federal Vision is some heretical sect to be shunned and excised from our ecclesiastical institutions.) Well, he told me last year that he would forward my concerns to RC (i know! my personal message to RC Sproul—are you impressed?) and they’d send me a special backage of samples of Tabletalk and tapes. Well, when it got here, it was a few old issues of Tabletalk, a tape about Christology, and a form letter from RC about how they’re trying to advance Reformed teaching through Ligonier. Big whoop. Suffice to say, it didn’t inspire me to pull my checkbook out and put Ligonier Ministries on the dotted line.

Well, Wednesday’s call was the follow-up for that call months ago. He said that his notes showed my concern about Ligonier’s stance on the Federal Vision. I could hardly believe my ears when this caller (a man who sounded at least my age if not older) responded with this question: “You mean our view of government? Separation of Church and State, or something like that?” Um, no.

Of course i told him that since they had last called, RC royally stuck his foot in his mouth by saying what he said on the floor of 2007 GA. As a result, i told him, i won’t be able to support Ligonier anymore, unless something drastically changes. I don’t have enough money (nor do i have a low enough view of the Church) to give my money to a ministry that is perpetuating the division rather than trying to heal it. I’ll save my money for ministries (of the Church) that do seek for Christian unity and not further schism.

As is noted in the collect i quoted earlier today, New Year’s Day is the day of our Lord’s circumcision. I find it very interesting that Christians universally (now) recognize Christ’s circumcision day as the first day of the year. There had been Christian nations that celebrated the Nativity (December 25) as the first day of the year, some celebrated the Annunciation (i.e., the conception) of Christ (March 25), but over time, one week after the Nativity became universally recognized as the first day of the year. Sure, January 1 was the first day of the New Roman Calendar (i.e., the Julian Calendar), the much more prevalent pagan practice was to celebrate the beginning of the year in March. So, the sometime Christian disagreement on what to recognize as the first day of the year shows that the subsequent agreement to mark the beginning of the year from 1 January was thoughtful.

So, why mark the beginning of the year from the day on which Christ’s circumcision was celebrate? It seems to me that, even if implicit or unintentional, there is something really Covenantal going on in such a celebration. Did Christ’s earthly life begin at December 25 (assuming that was the date on which he was actually born)? Not at all. It actually began nine months earlier, when he was conceived by the Holy Ghost in the Virgin’s womb. But his life as Savior, sanctifying the Law of God and redeeming those under the Law and those not under the Law by fulfilling the Law began when his flesh was cut, and he shed his blood for the first time. This is as Covenantal as you can get. Christ’s blood is the blood of the Covenant, and this was the beginning of his work that would culminate in the full and final sacrifice. This is because circumcision is the Covenantal dedication of that which is circumcized, recognizing that if part is dedicated to the Lord, then the whole thing is (cf., tithing, firstfruits, redemption of the firstborn, &c.), and it is also the binding of the one circumcized to fulfill the Covenant God has entered into with him, or else be cut off just the way the dedicated part of him was cut off—either way, he belongs wholly and only to the Lord of the Covenant, whether obedient or disobedience, for good or for bad, for salvation or condemnation. It is fitting, then, that the Christian calendar (i.e., Anno Domini) would begin, not with the birth, nor even with the conception, but with the Covenantal dedication of our Lord Christ.

This, of course, i believe, has strong implications on where we view the beginning of the Covenantal life of each individual Christian. Just as Christ’s life as Savior of the world began with his circumcision as a member of God’s Church, so our life under the Lordship of that same Christ begins with our baptism into membership in the Church (through which God accomplishes, as he so pleases, and at the time he chooses, the circumcision made without hands in our hearts). In other words, because we cannot know when the Spirit moves and does what he does in the hearts of individuals, we must treat people Covenantally, marking the beginning of their lives at the point of their baptism.

A new era in the history of the world began when Christ was circumcized, and so a new era of our own personal history in the world begins when we are baptized. That is where we should look when asked about the beginning of our new life. Everything else—even subsequent conversion and true embracing of Christ by faith—are all simply our coming to grips with the fact that we belong to the Lord, our Redeemer, and with what we have vowed to do in our baptism.

So, as this New Year begins, let us remember Christ’s circumcision and reflect upon the new life we have in him, looking also in fear, knowing that we may be cut off if we do not love him truly and sincerely as our faithful God and Savior.

This is an excellent question.

An even better question, i think, is this: if it only took 400 years for the Church (a very small minority of the population of the world at the time) to go from persecuted back rooms and catacombs to cathederals and an almost universal Christendom, what have we been doing for the last 400 years (since the time of the Reformation) that has seen the absolute decline of our culture and the Chrstian world at large?

In all the debate i have heard over Rev. Steve Wilkins and his accusation of teaching things contrary to the Confession of Faith, as well as the current (or soon-to-be) trial of Louisiana Presbytery for finding that there was no “strong presumption of guilt” that Wilkins holds or teaches views contrary to the Confession of Faith, one document i have not seen cited at all by either side (for whatever reason) is the officially documented rationale (Word Document) of their finding. Reading through it, i find their rationale very compelling, and having read the indictment of Louisiana Presbytery, i find that many of the accusations of the presbytery’s finding being unsubstantiated are themselves unsubstantiated.

The popular notion around the internet is that Louisiana Presbytery just said “No strong presumption of guilt” and said nothing else about it—and that’s all you’d think they did if all you read was the Puritan Board or Green Baggins. However, on April 21, 2007, they officially adopted this lengthy statement that addresses not only what they view as faulty methodology of the Central Carolina Memorial, but also the actual contents of the memorial and how the presbytery as a whole views Wilkins’ theological positions (based on his written and oral responses) in light of the accusations proffered by Central Carolina Presbytery.

Whether you’re pro-FV, anti-FV, or just non-FV but somewhere in the middle (like i am), i encourage you to read the statement and allow Louisiana Presbytery to have a chance to answer in their own words why they did what they did. Most compelling to me are their quotes from John Murray. For those who may not take the time to read the whole report, here are the wise words from Dr. Murray that all Presbyterians should heed:

“The creeds of the church have been framed in a particular historical situation to meet the need of the church in that context, and have been oriented to a considerable extent in both their negative and positive declarations to the refutation of the errors confronting the church at that time.  The creeds are therefore, historically complexioned in language and content and do not reflect the particular and distinguishing needs of subsequent generations.”  (”The Theology of the Westminster Confession of Faith,” Collected Writings, IV, p. 242).

“There is the progressive understanding of the faith delivered to the saints.  There is in the church the ceaseless activity of the Holy Spirit so that the church organically and corporately increases in knowledge unto the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ . . . the Westminster Confession . . . is the epitome of the most mature thought to which the church of Christ had been led up to the year 1646.  But are we to suppose that this progression ceased with that date?  To ask the question is to answer it.  An affirmative is to impugn the continued grace of which the Westminster Confession is itself an example at the time of its writing.  There is more light to break forth from the living and abiding Word of God.” (Ibid. p. 242). 

“When any generation is content to rely upon its theological heritage and refuses to explore for itself the riches of divine revelation, then declension is already under way and heterodoxy will be the lot of the succeeding generation. … A theology that does not build on the past ignores our debt to history and naively overlooks the fact that the present is conditioned by history.  A theology that relies on the past evades the demands of the present (Ibid.  p. 248).

We may not agree with Steve Wilkins on what he says and what he advocates, but we should see him and the interaction that we should have with what he says as part of the ongoing activity of God the Holy Spirit in the Church to refine our knowledge and to bring us closer to “the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to mature manhood, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ” (Eph. 4:13, ESV). Constant accusations of heresy (for fear that something happening like what happened with the Liberals in the PCUS) do us no good. My own denomination, the ARP Church (it is still my home and the Church that ordained me, though i am currently a member of a PCA presbytery), combatted Liberalism successfully against great odds (e.g, an official statement by the General Synod in the mid-70s dismissing the whole notion of inerrancy outright, about which one of the leading advocates of moving toward a more liberal position said outside of the meeting, “Fundamentalism is dead in the ARP Church”), and they did it without a single heresy trial and without a church split. It’s certainly worth a try in this current controversy.

So i was doing my devotional reading in the WCF this morning (HA! just kidding—i do my devotional reading in Calvin ;-), and it occurred to me that the Westminster Confession of Faith isn’t so much a Presbyterian document as it is a Puritan Anglican document.

Remember: the Westminster Assembly met during and at the direction of the Long Parliament (seated from 1640-49), which was a Parliament that brought about the English Civil War. Yes, this Parliament agreed to the Solemn League and Covenant (to dissolve both monarchy and prelacy in England, Scotland, and Ireland to preserve the Reformed Religion), but they did so only under threat that the Irish Romanist forces would join with English ones loyal to the King. Also, remember that, while Archbishop of Canterbury William Laud was imprisoned and later put to death (under the direct action of Parliament) and there was no Archbishop of Canterbury from 1645, but there was still prelacy in place in the Church of England, with a Bishop of London serving until the army expelled Parliament in 1649, and with a Bishop of York in place until 1650. This is important, because the WCF was published in 1647 by the more balanced Parliament (not the more extreme Rump Parliament that had been forcibly purged of those members opposed to deposing the King).

The thing that got me thinking about this was not only the fact that the WCF was written as a Confession of Faith for the Church of England to replace (or improve) the 39 Articles, but also that, in reading the WCF, there is nothing that explicitly establishes Presbyterianism in any way whatsoever. Chapter 31 of the original WCF speaks of Synods and Councils, but of what specific officers compose them, and of the nature of “particular” synods (i.e., regional councils, as opposed to “general”) no direction is given. And, what is more important, nothing is said at all relating to a specific form of government of the Church of England, certainly not the disestablishment of the Episcopacy. Really, all you have when it comes to the WCF is a Puritan document, and there were lots and lots of Puritans who held to and happily lived under Episcopacy.

According to a prominent political and religious biographer, who recently completed a new book, God and Hillary Clinton, the New York Senator is “in lock step with the UMC.”

I went to seminary with a good many Methodists—many of them went there because the seminary was conservative, while others did so for convenience and just looked over the conservative elements (or derided them). In fact, since i have left, the General Conference of the UMC has withdrawn its approval of Erskine Seminary for its students to train there. It really doesn’t surprise me that Hillary is in perfect alignment with UMs, what surprises me is that Methodists don’t see it as a wake-up call that someone so vile and deceitful could be the poster-child for their denomination. It’s one thing to have a liberal faction in a denomination laregly marked by faithfulness. It’s another thing altogether to have a denomination wholly committed to liberal religion and politics, such that conservatives are beat down and disciplined for wanting to be true to Scripture and traditional limited government.

What a sad state of affairs.

Advent!?!? Further evidence of the Romanizing effect of the Federal Vision on the PCA!!!

Just kidding. :-)

(See? It just goes to show you that, if you try hard enough, you can find anything to latch onto and claim that people have departed from the Reformed faith. We need to try harder to be charitable in our reading and interaction with others rather than reading and believing the worst possible thing a person could have meant by what he said or wrote. That, above anything else, is at the heart of the FV issue.)

In reading this (and posting this very comment on the Bayly Blog), i couldn’t help but think of my very good friend (and dear brother), Tim, with whom i attended seminary. He was in the seminary break room between classes several years ago in February, and a female Methodist pastor innocently asked Tim what he was planning on giving up for Lent, and he replied, in good Scots Covenanter fashion, “Romish holidays!”

Mark Horne wrote (here): “For whatever reason, SJC has moved into unprecedented and unimagined ’space’ in which they have no restraints.”

I hate to tell you, Mark, but anybody with two brain cells to click together could see the danger in establishing a standing commission of such a thing as a General Assembly.

A body such as the SJC, because it exists to speak for and on behalf of the General Assembly of the PCA, without any possible means of appeal (unless a full third of the members object to the decision that was made), by definition has very few restraints. This is such a small group of men with so much unmitigated power that it is inherently dangerous.

There are lots of things about the PCA that i think are weird, quirky, and ridiculous. However, since i came into the PCA, the existence of the SJC has been the most troubling thing about it in my mind.

But the simple fact is, this is how the PCA has set it up. The powers that be in the PCA have entrenched this commission and rebuffed all attempts to mitigate its power or revert it to a judicial committee. This is how the members of the PCA wanted it, so that’s what they have.

So, two sayings come to mind when i’m thinking of this situation: “Power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely,” and “You made your bed, now sleep in it.”

We come here today to baptize a child of the Church into official membership of the Church. Of course, when we do this, we are being very different from the people and the culture around us. Whether it be other Christians or the non-Christians around us, what our culture and the people in it treasure is personal, individual actions and accountability. This is, of course, a long tradition in America. It is, after all, how America was colonized and how, to quote the title of a very entertaining and compelling movie, “How the West Was Won.”

With that kind of idea in mind, there are many of our brothers and sisters in Christ who say that it is improper to admit infants and young children into the Church through baptism, because they can’t make their own decisions, they can’t think about their actions, and, in essence, they haven’t yet reached the point of being like adults in the way they do what they do. That’s why many of our fellow Christians wait until children are older, beginning their teen years, or on into their adolescent years before allowing children to make a profession of faith and be baptized.

Yet, as well-intentioned as we know they are, we can’t help but see how this turns around the order that Christ himself established in his holy Kingdom. In Matthew 18:1-4, when the disciples came and asked him, “Who is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven?” Jesus called a child to himself, sat him down in the middle of them, and said, “Truly, I say to you, unless you turn and become like children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. Whoever humbles himself like this child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven.”

In imposing our cultural individualism and expectations on Scripture, many Christians have come to a system where they look at adults and say, “No need to change; remain adults, remain rational, and remain personally decisive in all that you do. You are just right to come to Christ.” And then turn to small children and say, “You aren’t yet qualified; you need to become more like these mature and sophisticated adults in order to come to Christ. Unless you do, you remain unqualified to be part of Christ’s Kingdom.”

Now it is plain to see, for anyone who is at all familiar with the teachings of the Gospels, that this turns Jesus’ teaching about how we come to him on its head. Rather than telling adults to become like children, as Jesus did, we’re telling children to become like adults, like good Americans who revel in their ability to pick themselves up by the boot-straps.

Of course, we can be fairly certain that those Christians who, for well-meaning purposes, follow such a teaching are not trying to make Christianity into a self-help religion, but we can see clearly that that is just what happens when that kind of thinking is followed out to its logical conclusion. It turns God into a manager, Christ into a salesman, and each man and woman (adults of course) into a consumer, who chooses, based on the latest consumer reports and success records, whether to take Christ up on what he is trying to sell. This is just the American mindset applied to Christianity.

Yet, when we come here today with a little child, we have in our midst, one like Jesus pointed to and said, “This is the kind of person who can enter into the Kingdom of Heaven.” This little child is an example to each one of us of how the Christian life is to be lived: loving, trusting, and submissive. And so it is important for each one of us here to remember, as we see this child beginning the Christian life we have long been on, that we not only need to begin the Christian life as little children, but we must always remain children—children of God, continually and perpetually trusting in our God and submitting to him as our loving and caring Father.

So, as we come here to this baptism today, we see that the baptism of an infant into the Church and Kingdom of Christ, is not something abnormal or unnatural; it is, really, the most natural and normal thing we can do, because no matter who does it, anyone who comes to Christ and enters into the Church through these baptismal waters must come as this child comes: as a helpless sinner who knows nothing but his own need and the provision given to him in love by his gracious Father.

Of course, this is just the beginning, and as Will grows and matures as a man, he must, at every turn, be taught what God’s Word says, and he must learn new obedience to the Lord Jesus Christ and how the Gospel applies to the new sins that crop up in his life. But his life should be no different than any other Christian’s, because that is precisely how we all must live as disciples of the Lord Jesus Christ. No matter how old and mature we get, we still remain dull in our understanding and half-hearted in our obedience. That’s because no one needs to teach us how to sin or disobey; that comes naturally to all of us, because we are all born sinners in Adam. What we must learn by the Spirit’s power at work in our lives is the new obedience to which Christ calls each one of us. Will must learn and grow even as we all must; but it is our duty and privilege each day to point him to the Savior and Lord who claims him and us alike, holding Christ alone up as the only answer for his faults and failures, and reminding him of the promise and Covenant God has made with him in the Lord Jesus Christ.

I am a Minister of Word and Sacrament in the Presbyterian Church in America, in which the controversy over the Federal Vision is currently raging. Now, i don’t usually comment on things like this, and as i’ve said before, i am not myself a Federal Visionist (so technically, i really don’t have a dog in this fight). Yet, it is difficult to do anything these days without this kind of thing coming up. When i was examined for membership in Westminster Presbytery, i was asked how i viewed the New Perspective on Paul and the Federal Vision. From the reading that i’ve done, i know that they are often confused and equated, but that they are distinct, so i pointed that fact out. But beyond that, i told my presbytery that i believe that both movements or conversations (or whatever you want to call them) are asking important questions that need to be answered. Whether you agree with their answers (some of them i do; many of them i don’t), the questions they’re asking need to be taken up by the Church from the Scriptures themselves to give the Reformed Church a solid answer.

Of course, what i’m talking about is the recent decision by the Standing Judicial Commission of the PCA General Assembly that Louisiana Presbytery (PCA) did not do its proper duty to examine Steve Wilkins and determine whether there were a “strong presumption of guilt” of being out of the bounds of the system of doctrine taught in the Westminster Confession of Faith. This is an absolutely important decision for the SJC and for the PCA, but there are lots of things that i have a problem with on how this has proceeded. Again, my problems have nothing to do with whether i’m really in agreement with Federal Visionists. My desire is to see the Church speak with the authority Christ has endued it. That’s the way that the Church is supposed to work. My problem is that this whole procedure is un-Presbyterian and un-biblical. Most of all, my problem is that this is a controversy of religion that hasn’t itself been dealt with.

Now, i know, everyone seems to think that this is nothing new, that it’s just some old heresy resurrected, or that whether this is new or not, the Confession sufficiently deals with the issue that the Church has already spoken to the issue. That’s really the only argument that can be put forward to justify the lack of action by the PCA (or, for that matter, any other Reformed Church, because all other Reformed Churches who have made statements about the FV or NPP have all done so in light of existing doctrinal standards, most of which are at least 400 years old; no other Reformed Church has come to the controversy and made any definitive decision the way that the Synod of Dordt did: based upon the Scriptures alone).

Procedurally, the SJC has no standing to take LAP to task for finding Steve Wilkins within the bounds of the standards, except that they were presupposing his guilt to begin with. In other words, from the reasoning of the SJC, LAP was wrong to have found that Steve Wilkins was within the bounds of the Confession, because the SJC had already (informally and unofficially) decided that he is not within the bounds of the Confession. Is this proper procedure? Isn’t there supposed to be a finding of fact before acting on the fact? And all this without Steve Wilkins having the ability to face accusers, have representation, and present counter-evidence to a court of the Church. This has all been said before by many, many people, so i suppose it doesn’t need to be harped upon. The fact of the matter is, though, that this issue of living up to basic procedural standards has yet to be dealt with. If anyone argues that the decision of the study committee at the Memphis General Assembly this past summer constitutes a finding of fact, even that argument falls flat, because Wilkins, nor anyone else implicated or mentioned in the report, were not on trial, with charges presented, with the ability to face accusers, and with representation to present arguments in defense of themselves, and there were no members of that committee who could or would represent the FV side of the issue and allow those deliberating to have even counter arguments.

Of course, the main problem i have with the study committee set up at the 2006 General Assembly and the findings that it presented to the 2007 General Assembly, beyond the fact that they had a committee that did not represent the full spectrum of the PCA (divided and full of disparate factions as it is), especially the factions who are disagreed in the current controversy, is that it did not seek to determine the standing of the issues in controversy in light of God’s Word. Let me give an example of what i’m talking about.

I have stated before that i am a very fond of the Second Helvetic Confession of Faith. In fact, i believe it is a better confession than the Westminster Confession of Faith. It is more appropos, less scholastic, more plain in its language, and more fitted to ministerial application on a regional and local level. However, Bullinger, in the 2HCF, says this about the use of traditional and extra-biblical authorities to determine sound doctrine:

The Apostle Peter has said that the Holy Scriptures are not of private interpretation (2 Pet. 1:20), and thus we do not allow all possible interpretations. Nor consequently do we acknowledge as the true or genuine interpretation of the Scriptures what is called the conception of the Roman Church, that is, what the defenders of the Roman Church plainly maintain should be thrust upon all for acceptance. But we hold that the interpretation of the Scripture to be orthodox and genuine which is gleaned from the Scriptures themselves (from the nature of the language in which they were written, likewise according to the circumstances in which they were set down, and expounded in the light of and unlike passages and of many and clearer passages) and which agree with the rule of faith and love, and contributes much to the glory of God and man’s salvation.

Wherefore we do not despise the interpretations of the holy Greek and Latin fathers, nor reject their disputations and treatises concerning sacred matters as far as they agree with the Scriptures; but we modestly dissent from them when they are found to set down things differing from, or altogether contrary to, the Scriptures. Neither do we think that we do them any wrong in this matter; seeing that they all, with one consent, will not have their writings equated with the canonical Scriptures, but command us to prove how far they agree or disagree with them, and to accept what is in agreement and to reject what is in disagreement.

And in the same order also we place the decrees and canons of councils.

Wherefore we do not permit ourselves, in controversies about religion or matters of faith, to urge our case with only the opinions of the fathers or decrees of councils; much less by received customs, or by the large number of those who share the same opinion, or by the prescription of a long time. Who is the Judge? Therefore, we do not admit any other judge than God himself, who proclaims by the Holy Scriptures what is true, what is false, what is to be followed, or what to be avoided. So we do assent to the judgments of spiritual men which are drawn from the Word of God. Certainly Jeremiah and other prophets vehemently condemned the assemblies of priests which were set up against the law of God; and diligently admonished us that we should not listen to the fathers, or tread in their path who, walking in their own inventions, swerved from the law of God.

Likewise we reject human traditions, even if they be adorned with high-sounding titles, as though they were divine and apostolical, delivered to the Church by the living voice of the apostles, and, as it were, through the hands of apostolical men to succeeding bishops which, when compared with the Scriptures, disagree with them; and by their disagreement show that they are not Apostolic at all. For as the apostles did not contradict themselves in doctrine, so the apostolic men did not set forth things contrary to the apostles. On the contrary, it would be wicked to assert that the apostles by a living voice delivered anything contrary to their writings.

Paul affirms expressly that he taught the same things in all churches (I Cor. 4:17). And, again, “For we write you nothing but what you can read and understand.” (II Cor. 1:13). Also, in another place, he testifies that he and his disciples - that is, apostolic men - walked in the same way, and jointly by the same Spirit did all things (II Cor. 12:18). Moreover, the Jews in former times had the traditions of their elders; but these traditions were severely rejected by the Lord, indicating that the keeping of them hinders God’s law, and that God is worshipped in vain by such traditions (Matt. 15:1 ff.; Mark 7:1 ff).

Second Helvetic Confession of Faith, Chapter 2.

In other words, no matter how well-respected, historical, or accepted a standard is, it cannot and should not take the place of God’s Word in being the only source of truth. The only views that may properly be seen as sound and orthodox are those that come from the Scriptures themselves. And since God doesn’t contradict himself, even as he has revealed his will through the writings of the holy apostles as the foundation of the Church, if we find anywhere that any statement of the Church, any tradition of the Church, or any interpretation of an important historical Church leader, they are to be rejected. So, in the trying of religious matters, Bullinger and all the Protestants for whom he speaks admits of no other authority in trying them than God himself speaking in the Holy Scriptures.

Now, of course, this was written in response to the prevailing traditions of the Church by the Roman Church in Bullinger’s day. However, does not the same principle apply, no matter what the Church tradition, when the traditional writings and received interpretations become the basis for what the Church believes and does equal with or rather than the Scriptures? Some have said, “But the Confession is a faithful summary of Scripture.” Yes, in most places it is. However, don’t you think that the Roman authorities could have and would have said the same thing about the Greek and Latin Fathers? That they are faithful interpreters of Scripture (and are from a time closer to their writing, after all), and hence, i’m sure they would have said that they were right to follow the tradition of the Church Fathers in matters of religion. But Bullinger deals with this very issue: yes, the interpreters of the Church are good to consult, and they have their place, but they are only to be received insofar as they can be shown (and they must be shown, not assumed from the start) to agree with Scripture. More importantly, though, if all we consider is the confessional standards of the Churches to answer these controversies, their age becomes a prohibitive factor, because the Church must answer the controversies that arise in each generation, and they must, in each generation, return to the Scriptures for themselves.

So, we do not automatically assume that such-and-such a source or religious authority (even Church councils, like the Westminster Assembly) is in agreement with Scripture on this or that matter of doctrinal controversy simply because they are high-sounding and well-respected, but in Bullinger’s own words, those authorities themselves “command us to prove how far they agree or disagree with [the Scriptures], and to accept what is in agreement and to reject what is in disagreement.” This is the Protestant principle: in order to be safe-guarded from any kind of ungodly devotion to tradition, in controversies over religion, we must always return to the Scriptures themselves, mediated by nothing, not simply to the writings of well-respected doctors of the Church or even the statements of councils. The Westminster Confession itself affirms this very thing: “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” (WCF 1:10).

Now, lest i be accused of just taking the FV “side” in this thing, let me say this:

If i were to be part of some PCA council (a special, extended council of the Church, representing all presbyteries, not simply a meeting of some committee that doesn’t represent the Church broadly, and not simply the General Assembly where no real debate [or willingness to engage in it] is possible), there are lots of aspects of what i have read in Wilkins that i would find troublesome and problematic from the point of view of Scripture and i’d have to vote against their being seen as sound doctrine.

For instance, in listening to his lecture at the original Auburn Avenue Pastor’s Conference, he mis-defines the origional Half-way Covenant, and so he misapplies its lessons to the current situation in the Reformed/Presbyterian Churches. He doesn’t seem to distinguish well between the ontological and epistemological ways of understanding the issues of Covenant, Union with Christ, Regeneration, and even Justification (i.e., if extreme “TR” Presbyterians are always ontological in their formulation, seeing things from God’s own perspective, from the perspective of the decrees; then Steve Wilkins and other FV folks go to the other extreme and see things only from the epistemological, from the human perspective, and the perspective of “the history of the Covenant”—both are true, but neither can be seen to the exclusion of the other without distortion of the truth. His understanding that someone can fall away from real, true union with Christ is astoundingly unbiblical and un-Reformed. I could mention more, but i won’t go on.

My point simply is that, just in the case of Wilkins, i have things i have problems with, and there are things that, i believe, should be dealt with; so do i think that, in an effort to resolve the issues, the Church should do nothing that is either unbiblical or un-Confessional—not even anyting that smacks of any kind of unfairness. To use a metaphor, if we burn down the house to get rid of a rat, we’ll soon see that it may have been better to put up with the rat for a little while longer than to violate the heart and soul of who we are to try and solve the relatively minor problem. If someone really believes that what he has expressed is so out of accord with Scripture (and this is the standard we need to return to in our accusations), he should go through the proper proceedures. Charge Wilkins himself before his presbytery; have his presbytery try him for those charges, and let the appeals process proceed as it should. Or, let’s have a Church council to try these matters by Scripture itself (not a stacked committee, but a full Reformed Council, inviting divines and doctors from all Reformed denominations, including even men from the CREC, much like Westminster itself or Dordt operated).

I am in favor of giving a good bit of latitude to presbyteries for working these things out best to fit the local and regional needs and emphases. This really is another one of the problems i have with this whole issue and the PCA as a whole. The Presbyterian Church in America has become as authoritarian and centralized as the PCUS ever was (can you honestly say that such a thing as the SJC represents balanced, republican, presbyterial government?), which was, ostensibly, one of the main reasons that the churches that withdrew from the PCUS and formed the PCA did what they did. Worse still, though, what is not centralized is no longer presbyterial, but has become congregational. In reality, the PCA has gutted almost all authority of presbyteries to do anything of any consequence. And that’s one of the things that makes me so confused about the PCA’s current actions. If Louisiana Presbytery has acted in a way that is in any way weak or ineffective in overseeing the ministry of its geographical region of the PCA, it is only the logical result of years of the PCA’s gutting presbyterial authority, exalting the power of congregations to call all the shots over what takes place locally, and the agencies of the GA usurping of the authority that properly only belongs to the presbyteries themselves.

I could go on and on about what is wrong with the PCA and how it’s affecting this injustice that the SJC is perpetuating, but i’ll stop. My only option is to continue to pray that the Lord would intervene in some way to alleviate this injustice and to quell my own conscience. I just don’t know what to do as a member of a PCA presbytery. What kind of recourse do i have? Sadly, the PCA GA has become as bloated and out of control as the Federal branch of our government.