Some time ago I discovered the audio for the debate and
listened with considerable interest.
I found it interesting that it wasn't only the advocates of
Federal Vision theology that were concerned with the actions of the General
Assembly. They simply requested that
judgment would be delayed, that Scriptural proofs and exegetical work would be
provided and that the committee would be revised to include at least a couple
of voices who could advocate for the Federal Vision.
In the end this would be rejected and though I already knew
the outcome I was curious to hear what was said... even though it meant
enduring the torture that is Presbyterian procedure and polity. If you've ever
wondered if Presbyterianism was the polity of the New Testament, just listen to
one of these sessions. It's a disgrace to those who profess a belief in the
Sufficiency of Scripture and certainly alien to New Testament doctrine, let
alone its ethos.
If only Paul had only known about Robert's Rules he probably
could have been more effective at the Jerusalem Council in Acts 15.
There was a lot of disingenuous and frankly ignorant
commentary. Dewey Roberts once again did not disappoint in this regard as he
insisted there was no need to delay in passing judgment. The issues were
resolved in the Westminster Confession. The scary thing is that he was probably
sincere and after spending a career supposedly in the study of theology he has
failed to grasp the rich and complex heritage that is Reformed Covenant
Theology... a spectrum both wide and diverse and one that for the most part condemns
the Baptistic assumptions represented by Roberts and many others within the
PCA.
The now deceased RC Sproul once again played the role of
showman and entertainer and few would question his gifts when it comes to
oration and the ability to communicate. In his case though I'm afraid he was
being less than honest as he cannot claim ignorance of the Reformed tradition.
Sproul ought to have known better. But Sproul whipped out the 'Article by which the Church stands or
falls' Justification fallacy which additionally rests on the fallacious
Council of Trent narrative.
In other words, Rome still (somehow) affirmed Sola Fide until
it was formally denied at Trent and thus the mantle of the True Church was
taken up by the Magisterial Reformers. This fictitious and mythological view of
history ignores a millennium of Catholic teaching in which one is hard pressed
to find the Reformation doctrine of Sola Fide taught anywhere.
On the contrary one can fill volumes with citations
demonstrating Rome's denial of this very doctrine though never put in those
terms. Why not? Because prior to Luther's revision of Romans 3, the verbiage
and to some extent the concept was hitherto unknown. Justification by Faith is
of course an Old Testament concept and one embraced by the Church from the
beginning. But what is that faith? How is it defined? And is it alone in the
sense meant by Luther? The historical record is pretty clear and thus Sproul's
statement along with its assumptions falls flat.
Sproul paints the hesitation to condemn as something akin to
cowardice or trepidation rooted in uncertainty and he all but rebukes his
fellow denominationalists. And yet I would argue that many of his fellows were
actually exercising a modicum of wisdom, realising that there was more to the
story and that the zeal of the Federal Vision opponents was suspect.
Sproul of all people in that assembly should have realised
and acknowledged there are diversities in opinion as to the basic questions
surrounding Christian epistemology and how Sola Fide is to be understood. A
simple cut and dry conceptualisation is misleading and he must have known it.
It's especially ironic in that many Calvinists would actually view Sproul's
epistemological assumptions as suspect and guilty of undermining the truly
gracious nature of Reformed Soteriology. They would argue his more-than-latent
Thomism presents a viable threat not just to Sola Fide but to Sola Scriptura
itself.
Sproul's position which could be described as Sola Fide
Ultimism is exposed as a false argument, the generator of a false dilemma. It
points again to a larger reality... the importance of understanding Sola Scriptura as the article by which
the Church stands or ultimately falls but these roads lead to revisionism and a
reassessment of the accepted Church History narrative.
Sola Fide means little apart from Sola Scriptura.
One of the men at the meeting made an interesting statement
which reflected Declaration #6 from the Ad Interim Report. Federal Vision it is
said puts forth a parallel soteriological
system which undermines the decretal system of the confessions....
But dare it be asked, do the Scriptures put forth parallel
(or better multifaceted) frameworks of soteriology? If they do, then what is to
be done? The Confessionalists have a dilemma at this point.
If the Scriptures do teach such parallelism (and duality) it
would indicate that not only is Sproul in error both theologically and in his
reading of Church History but that the very methodology of the Confessions
itself is flawed.
Resting one's conceptions of coherence on finite space-time epistemological
foundations won't allow for multi-faceted parallelism. Such duality (as opposed
to absolute dualism) is not easily put into the kind of concise and unequivocal
terms needed for a Confession. The resulting reductionism is a convenient and
functional tool for those building institutions and bureaucracies but they run
the risk of pulling the Church from the true path. And to be blunt it's a less
than faithful expression of Scriptural doctrine, and in other cases it has
strayed into error. False premises leading to false deductions bound by
fictional coherences, nevertheless the document is rendered unassailable.
And yet the Confession is elevated as the standard and thus
the real danger of Confessionalism is not only revealed in this exercise it is
put on ignominious display. Where's the shame in it? It's in the sad reality
that the Confessionalists put their man-crafted and hewn documents on par with
and even above the Scriptures. Did some at the General Assembly sense this? I
wonder and yet others seem to embrace this way of thinking without even
realising their doing it.
How often is the assumption that 'these issues' are 'solved'
and thus the Scriptures do not need to be revisited concerning them?
Is that the Berean spirit? Is that a spirit in accord with
Sola Scriptura? Maybe it was there (within Magisterial Reformation
Protestantism) at one time but clearly no longer. Confessionalism is clearly
the bane of Berea. Are these men such fools as to fail to realise that words
change and external ideas reshape how they are understood? Words and concepts
change even within their own tradition. Historical Theology demonstrates this
but of course they employ academics whose sole task seems to be constructing a
narrative that either rejects this reality... or obscures it. This is not
relativism but an acknowledgement that our ideas are bound to something
fluid... language. This at the very least demands that we must (from time to
time) revisit these questions and ponder them anew. Much more could be said in
this regard but for the sake of brevity we'll move on.
The episode demonstrates what many have long known. What
denominationalism comes down to is control. Denominations are large
bureaucracies with a lot at stake. Most of the opponents of the Federal Vision
will say that conservative Anglicans, Lutherans and Arminians are fellow Christians.
I've heard more than a few say that Federal Vision isn't really a problem as
long as it's outside the denomination and that's what the battle is really all
about. They're fellow Christians unless they appear within the bureaucracy
itself. Suddenly they become no longer 'brethren with whom we differ' but arch-heretics
who threaten the very Gospel itself. So then what is the Gospel?
I've heard several men within the PCA proclaim something I
would never say... that they know of Roman Catholics who are true Christians,
that Thomas Aquinas was a Biblical Christian.... but then they're going to
chase off the Federal Visionists as men opposed to the Gospel? Something is
rotten, something is dishonest. Is the issue the Gospel, or is it really about
control of a denominational bureaucracy? The latter is far less compelling and
it doesn't preach very well does it? It doesn't rally the troops. The myriad
warnings which the opponents of Federal Vision have issued seem to fall flat
when considered in such light.
And once again we're back to the extra-Scriptural man-made
nature of Presbyterian Church government and the operating assumption that they
comprise the True Church. They of course will completely deny this and at a
minimum they will point to their NAPARC affiliates as proof of this. And as I
just mentioned they will happily point to many Christians who exist far beyond
the boundaries of their denominational tradition.
But as a denomination they proceed on the basis that they are
and speak for the True Church. At least everything they say and do points to
this.
I wouldn't want to be taken as ecumenical in my denunciations
of denominations and in particular Presbyterianism. In no way am I suggesting
this. In many ways I'm taking a much harder line on many doctrinal points than
the leaders of the PCA. However when these questions are placed within a Congregational
framework the whole nature of the debate changes and one realises it's not the
Federal Visionists who are guilty of schism per se but the denominations
themselves.
Here's the audio link to the debate which presently doesn't
seem to work. I hope it will be remedied in time:
Here's a downloadable mp3 link that I posted through Google.
It functions as a download button and then you can listen to it on whatever player
you like. Embedding a player was a task beyond what I had patience for.
I have considered interacting with the declarations but the
question as to their viability vis-à-vis the Westminster Confession is of
little interest to me. I think both sides are probably wrong to some degree.
The paramount question is how these questions are answered in light of
Scripture. If one takes out the term 'Standards' and replaces it with Scripture
then we have a very different sort of debate and one I am keen to engage in.