Castle Church Discussion on PCA Adopts Federal Vision Report

DG Conference Videos

Fri, 24 Aug 2007 02:05:30 GMT

The guys at Desiring God have now posted all the videos (for free, of course) from the past two conferences.

A God-Entranced Vision of All Things looks at Jonathan Edwards life and theology, with addresses by John Piper, J. I. Packer, Iain Murray, Sam Storms, and Don Whitney. (It is available as a book, too.)

The Supremacy of Christ in a Postmodern World features John Piper, David Wells, Tim Keller, D. A. Carson, Voddie Baucham Jr., and Mark Driscoll--along with speaker interviews. (The book will be published in November.)

Bryan Chapell on the NPP (and FV)

Tue, 14 Aug 2007 02:45:28 GMT

New at The Resurgence.

Chapell is president of Covenant Theological Seminary, the denominational seminary of the PCA (whose General Assembly this summer rejected the distinctive views of both the New Perspective and Federal Vision movements).

QA: Family worship and unattentive children

Fri, 10 Aug 2007 19:19:57 GMT

The TSS mailbag is filled with excellent questions from readers. One such question comes from Phil, a man striving for a consistent family worship schedule despite an unattentive little child. What to do? Dr. J. Ligon Duncan has written about family worship and so I passed the question along to him for his advice. He kindly responded with this excellent perspective:

My own answer is you start family worship as soon as possible, as soon as one is married, and continue it after children come along, no matter how young the children are (and the younger the better). The point is not for the youngest children to be able to comprehend (or even to sit still during it!). The point is impress upon them, by paternal example the priority of God and his word in all of life. They learn this, even if they comprehend nothing in the reading, praying and singing, simply by seeing a father pausing day after day to read the word with his family.

Here is what I said in Give Praise to God (P&R):

“Now there is a whole host of practical questions and problems that come to mind once we determine to begin family worship. How long should it last? It should be regularly brief, as little as 10 minutes when the children are very young. Gradually, it will run a little longer as they grow older and conversations strike up. Don’t kill it by trying to go too long. Pace yourself. Regularity and repetition is the key. When should we do family worship? When it works – morning/breakfast, suppertime or bedtime are the three most common times.

“… There are dozens of potential hindrances: a lack of discipline, a lack of sense of the importance of family worship, a lack of experience of family worship in one’s own upbringing and more.

“But above all, there is the enemy of idealism. You have this picture of a Puritan family sitting around the table attentively and reverently reading the whole book of 1 Chronicles at a sitting, singing half the Psalter from memory, and praying for ninety minutes, and then you look around your table and your wife is rolling her eyes, your two-year old is throwing left-over spaghetti around the kitchen, your eight-year old is making faces at her sister and your teenager would rather do calculus. Don’t let the gap between the ideal and the reality stop you! Those unattentive children will grow up and thank you for persevering, and the memories of a father who loved them enough to make that kind of an effort will etch a permanent affection in their hearts.”

J. Ligon Duncan
First Presbyterian Church

Excellent advice! Thank you Dr. Duncan. For more insight on family worship see Duncan’s chapter in Give Praise to God: A Vision for Reforming Worship (P&R: 2003). Duncan lays the foundation for family worship – Scripture reading, song and prayer – and then addresses several other common hurdles to success.

————

Have a question to throw in the TSS mailbag? Pass it along via email (tony AT takeupandread DOT com). Thanks for reading! Tony

Derek Thomas on John Owen

Fri, 29 Jun 2007 21:56:55 GMT

John Owen’s Pastoral Theology
Lectures by Dr. Derek Thomas

Here are the valuable lectures of Dr. Derek Thomas on the Pastoral Theology of John Owen delivered at the Puritan Reformed Theological Seminary this past Spring. They are here posted with the kind permission of Dr. Thomas and the President of PRTS, Dr. Joel Beeke. Here you can stream the audio through this page or download the lecture audio files. The course description and objectives are below.

Audio

Lecture 1 (1:39:49, 45.7 MB) download

Lecture 2 (1:21:15, 37.3 MB) download

Lecture 3 (1:33:58, 43.1 MB) download

Lecture 4 (1:27:10, 40.0 MB) download

Lecture 5 (1:20:11, 36.8 MB) download

Lecture 6 (1:28:23, 40.5 MB) download

Lecture 7 (1:23:48, 38.4 MB) download

Lecture 8 (1:31:14, 41.8 MB) download

Course Description

“I owe more, I think, to John Owen than to any other theologian, ancient or modern” (J.I. Packer).

John Owen (1616-1683) was perhaps the weightiest of the Puritan theologians, often mentioned in the same breath as John Calvin and Jonathan Edwards as one of three greatest reformed theologians of all time. Remarkable though it is that he lived through the period of the Westminster Assembly without ever having been asked to take part in it, Owen nevertheless towers over this period, rising to the post of Vice-Chancellor of Oxford University.

His thoughts are massive, even intimidating; but a closer reflection reveals a man absorbed by the demands of piety and Christ-likeness, a truly humble man who could say “I hold myself bound in conscience and in honour, not even to imagine that I have attained a proper knowledge of anyone article of truth, much less to publish it, unless through the Holy Spirit I have had such a taste of it, in its spiritual sense, that I may be able, from the heart, to say with the psalmist, ‘I have believed, and therefore have I spoken.’”

The course will focus on those aspects of his theology which relate immediately to concerns of spiritual piety, including Owen’s view of the Christian life and the demands of mortification.

Initially lectures on Owenian theology will be given in order to introduce the student to the finer points of Owenian/Puritan theology and distinctives. At some point (to be determined) the format will assume the form of a seminar where participation (involving some preparation) will be expected.

Course objectives

According to Dr. Martyn Lloyd-Jones, “Owen on the whole is difficult to read” (Preaching and Preachers, London, 1971, p. 175). Similar sentiments are expressed by J. I Packer when he says, “There is no denying that Owen is heavy and hard to read” (Introductory Essay to The Death of Death, London, 1959, p. 25). But this need not be the case. Recalling that Owen wrote for teenagers at Oxford university, and that, in the main, his concerns were pastoral and eminently practical, Owen can be read, if not with ease, then with profit. A rule of thumb here may be to avoid beginning at the beginning! Several volumes contain some of Owen’s sermons (and it needs to be recalled that much of Owen was at one time sermonic in nature before being committed to writing); these might seem an ideal place to start. Choosing volumes for special study for this course has been difficult since there is a desire perhaps to obtain some knowledge of the whole range of Owen’s corpus. But we shall concentrate on a little with a view to the student gaining sufficient skill and interest to make the rest of Owen a lifetime’s study.

In a nutshell, you are to enjoy this course. Owen is one of those figures that will take a lifetime to master (and then some!). My hope is that I will whet your appetite to make him a companion who will accompany you on the journey of service for our Master.

When the Bible Is Boring

Fri, 29 Jun 2007 16:18:03 GMT

(Author: Abraham)

It would be hard to have a slow, careful, exegetical Bible study about the second half of the book of Joshua. Chapters 13 to 21 are mostly lists: what parcels of land are going to which tribe of Israel.

Much of the Old Testament is like this—genealogies, lists, rules, procedures. As lovers of the Bible, what should we make of these mundane details? Is it even appropriate to call parts of God's word mundane? It sounds sacrilegious.

What does it matter, though, that Issachar received the territories around Jezreel, Chesulloth, Shunem, and 13 other cities? Or that Manasseh's land reached from Asher to Michmethah, just east of Shechem?

Joshua tells us why these obscure details are important: So that the Israelites would have specific and extensive evidence that God does what he says he will do.

Not one word of all the good promises that the Lord had made to the house of Israel had failed; all came to pass. (Joshua 21:45)

The more detailed the report of God's faithfulness, the more proof that indeed not one word of his had been false. He promised their forefathers this land, and now, because of this account in the book of Joshua, they can remember specifically how God was faithful. Faithful in concrete detail. Faithful down to the most boring of trivia.

As Joshua died, he said to the Israelites,

You know in your hearts and souls, all of you, that not one word has failed of all the good things that the Lord your God promised concerning you. All have come to pass for you; not one of them has failed. (23:14)

It's true that knowing Michmethah is east of Shechem ranks very low in the list of facts that are important to know from the Bible. But it matters, because the sum of all the dull details that God has accomplished proves that whatever he promises, he will do.

We have a God who keeps a tally of sparrows, who counts the hairs on our head (Luke 12:6-7), and who watches over the grass as it grows (Matthew 6:30). If that's not boring, what is? But it is his power over the mundane and trivial details that proves his power over the universe. And because of this power, we know he can keep his promises.

General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in America Update: Federal Vision Study Report

Fri, 22 Jun 2007 08:05:09 GMT

NEWS FROM THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY
OF THE PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH IN AMERICA
MEMPHIS, TENN
JUNE 14, 2007

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:

Roman Convert to FV: "We'll Leave the Light on For You"

Fri, 15 Jun 2007 00:04:15 GMT

Now that they are no longer welcome in the OPC, PCA, or RCUS Taylor Marshall thinks that the CREC may not be the most logical home for the FV. I have a collect call here for "Fed Vis" here. It's Scott Hahn.

Judging by this refreshingly candid letter by Peter Leithart, Taylor may have a point. As it turns out there is at least one pro-FV minister in the PCA who DOES believe the stuff which, we were told repeatedly in the run up to GA, "no one really believes." So, the committee's declarations weren't fictions after all?

Dubious innovators

Thu, 14 Jun 2007 17:05:06 GMT

During the PCA debate on the Federal Vision, PCA minister David Coffin dismissed NT Wright's supposed claims to have discovered the gospel that had been hidden for centuries. Coffin found the claim dubious.

I am dubious that Wright actually makes the claims that Coffin attributes to him. He claims to have discovered fresh insight into Paul's letters, but he doesn't claim, as Coffin implied, that he's the first ever to understand Paul's gospel.

Leave that to the side. The irony of Coffin's statement runs deep, because in the end, the PCA voted in favor of the committee report because in the interests of defending justification by faith, which, if Alister McGrath is to be believed, is a theological innovation of the first order (a quite proper theological innovation, I should add).

It's not hard to imagine a sixteenth-century Cardinal saying, "Dr Luther, we have known since the time of Saint Augustine that iustificare means 'to make just.' Are you telling us that we have been wrong for a 1000 years?"

Theological debate in the PCA

Thu, 14 Jun 2007 17:05:05 GMT

It's long been a frustration that there are few fora for theological discussion and debate in the PCA. Presbyteries sometimes devote time to such discussion, but that's too rare. And GA is simply not a place where theological debate can be expected to happen.

Yesterday's debate on the Federal Vision was a case in point. Nearly two hours were devoted to the committee report, but virtually no theological claims were made or disputed. The GA quickly determined that justification by faith was the issue at stake, 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 obvious. We all know what we think about justification by faith; there's no need to discuss it; let's vote.

There are multiple problems here, no doubt, but one of them is certainly structural. 800 men with very different degrees of theological training are simply not capable of carrying on high-level theological discussion. The PCA's solution has been to delegate the heavy theological lifting to committees, but, like David Coffin, I am a study committee skeptic. Perhaps in addition to the business meeting of GA, there needs to be a delegated assembly to discuss theological questions at length when they come up.

A Pleasant Surprise in the PCA

Thu, 14 Jun 2007 10:05:14 GMT

I’m probably one of the few Baptists thankful for the vote in the PCA yesterday that overwhelmingly adopted their study committee report on the “Federal Vision” theology of Doug Wilson, Steve Schlissel, John Barach, Rich Lusk, Steve Wilkins, etc., declaring that their teaching does not conform to the Westminster Confession, and by implication, the scriptures. The PCA is not the first Presbytery to rule this way, but it is definitely the largest.

Why am I thankful? Because the Federal Vision, at its heart, is a denial of the gospel. It rejects the necessity of the imputation of Christ’s righteousness to those who believe as the ground by which we are declared just before God. It replaces imputation with a mystical “union with Christ” that occurs at baptism; a union that is kept by the person’s “covenant faithfulness”; a union after which, one may still fall away. Without imputation, there is no “good news”; there is no gospel.

What does this mean practically? I don’t know. I hope that the men who teach this error will either repent or leave the PCA. If they hold to a Presbyterian ecclesiology, they must submit to the ruling and take one of these courses of action. I would even go so far to say that if we start seeing an exodus from the PCA, we may see many travel all the way back to Rome. Once you leave “Geneva”, there is only one destination. Pray the the Lord will purge this and other errors from His church.

Hopefully now, many who have turned a blind eye to the teachings of these men will cease their fawning over them. This is no small issue and many have treated it as such. Hopefully now they will realize that the doctrine of justification IS the doctrine by which “the church stands or falls.” It is one thing to quote Luther in this regard; it is quite another to take it seriously.

For those who are unfamiliar with the Federal Vision, here are the nine recommendations from the study report on why this theology should be rejected.

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.

The Triumph of the Gospel

Thu, 14 Jun 2007 01:02:58 GMT

The report passed today by an overwhelming majority. Someone made a motion to postpone, so as to include exegetical discussion in the report, as well as add two members sympathetic to the FV. The motion was defeated by about a two to one majority. The recommendations themselves passed by approximately 95%. Indeed, that is probably a conservative estimate. It was a resounding triumph for the study committee report.

PCA General Assembly Adopts Recommendations of Study Committee on Federal Vision

Wed, 13 Jun 2007 23:42:14 GMT

Reformed News: "After rejecting a motion to postpone consideration of the report, the PCA General Assembly today adopted the recommendations of its Study Committee by a large majority. The committee report is available here (PDF). See our liveblogging below for a summary of the flow of the discussion." Scott Clark mentions that the motion passed "overwhelmingly."

PCA General Assembly Vote on NPP/FV

Wed, 13 Jun 2007 23:05:06 GMT

This just in from White Horse Inn producer and guest blogger Shane Rosenthal--Shane is also a member of the PCA.

On Wednesday, June 13th, the 35th General Assembly of the PCA voted overwhelmingly to approve the recent report on the theology of the Federal Vision and the New Perspective on Paul. The full report is available here:

http://www.pcaac.org/2007GeneralAssembly/Fed%20%20Vision%20Rept%20%205-11-07.pdf

See also R. Scott Clark's blow by blow report of the GA discussion and vote here:

http://www.oceansideurc.org/the-heidelblog/

Below are the nine summary declarations of the PCA reported which was just adopted. It will be interesting to see what happens next. Will Federal Vision proponents be brought up on charges, given that their theology has been found to be out of step with the Westminster Standards? Or will they voluntarily leave the PCA? "Dark Days lie ahead Harry. You must choose between that which is right, and that which is easy."

IV. Declarations

In light of the controversy surrounding the NPP and FV, and after many months of carefulstudy, 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.

Yes, that's R. C. Sproul at the mic, giving his plea to pass the resolution . . .

Report Condemning Federal Vision/NPP Passes By Overwhelming Majority

Wed, 13 Jun 2007 21:21:36 GMT

The PCA GA, just a couple hours ago, passed this report by an absolutely huge margin. Scott Clark blogged the substance of the debate (including what will become R.C. Sproul’s famous joke about the applause he received after speaking).

One thing Scott doesn’t make clear in his post is that twice the opportunity came for debate on this issue to continue and twice the Assembly voted to close debate. What this signifies is that our denomination has no desire to debate the doctrine of justification as held by these groups. We believe that both the Federal Vision and the New Perspective on Paul get justification wrong and therefore are outside both our Confession of Faith and the clear teaching of Scripture.

PCA Adopts Report on the New Perspective and Federal Vision

Wed, 13 Jun 2007 21:05:06 GMT

As is normal lately I am having a hard time sitting down long enough to compose a post, but I wanted to give a quick news update. I am at the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in America this week and the hottest issue on the table has been the report of our study committee on the New Perspective on Paul and the Federal Vision. You can find the report here. I realize that the Federal Vision controversy is something that is happening mainly in the Presbyterian and Reformed worlds, so I hope those of you who aren't in either of those camps will bear with me here, but many of my Presbyterian and Reformed friends will be interested to know about this.

After over 2 hours of debate which included a substitute motion to postpone (which was defeated), the Assembly voted to receive the report of the committee. It's a 36 page report which I won't try to summarize or post here, but the upshot is that, in adopting this report, the PCA adopts the following nine declarations:

IV. Declarations

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
7 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.

I'll try to say more later, but gotta run now, but I thought there would be some folks out there who would want to know about this.

PCA GA Report on the FV/NPP

Wed, 13 Jun 2007 19:26:58 GMT

Watching the PCA GA Live.

Glossary: TE = Teaching Elder (minister); RE = Ruling elder.

1. TE Dr Paul Fowler, noted that the committee followed the charge given to it by the 34th general assembly. He gave a good clear summary of the charge given to the committee to relate the committee's conclusions to the Westminster Standards.

2. In summarizing the survey of the issues, TE Dr Ligon Duncan argued that the body should focus on the issues rather than on the process. He urged the body to see that clarity on the doctrines of salvation is essential to the well-being of the body.

3. T E Dr Sean Lucas surveyed and explained the nature and intent of the committee's declarations.

4. A ruling elder, whose name I missed, surveyed the committee's recommendations.

TE George Robertson rose to speak in favor of the report arguing that they fulfilled their mandate within the prescribed period, leaves the conversation at the Presbytery level, and that the committee has studied Scripture in the course of the report.

TE argued that the committee report failed to exegete scripture sufficiently. He admits that he voted in favor of the mandate of the 34th GA but faults the committee for doing what they were told to do, not what he thought it would do.

TE Joe Novenson moves a procedural motion to postpone action on the report:

1.Biblical Exegesis be added;
2. Positive lessons to be learned by the assembly be included;
3. Two additonal members, who are sympathetic to the NPP and FV be added to the committee.

T E John Day spoke in favor of the procedural motion on the ground that the FV/NPP were not represented in the committee and didn't present enough biblical exegesis.

T E Hutchinson opposed the procedure amendment on the ground that to refuse to speak now on these issues would place the PCA out of step with NAPARC churches.

T E Paul Gilchrist spoke in favor of the procedural amendment to postpone on the ground that the committee did not go primarily to Scripture and secondarily to the Standards. He appealed to the example of the PCA GA Study Committee as an example of a mixed committee that did exegesis first.

The body votes to extend the debate for 30 minutes.

T E Frank Barker speaks against the motion on the ground that the body knows and understands what the Scriptures teach on the doctrine of justification.

T E Ken Christian speaks for the motion on the ground that the persons and issues cannot be separated. To fail to include FV/NPP proponents would be grievous sin.

R E Lanting, speaks against the motion on the ground that the body is familiar with the teaching of the WCF which is the body's summary of Scripture. To fail to pass this would be do an injustice to God.

A substitute motion is offered, to give the committee the opportunity to come back to the opportunity to come back to the assembly with Scripture proofs. The moderator ruled this this out of order.

T E Howard Davis speaks in favor of the motion on two grounds: the body should follow the Spirit not NAPARC and the committee composition was unfair.

T E Dewey Roberts, speaks against the motion on the ground that the FV/NPP has been heard on the basis of their published works and the claim that the lack of inclusion of a minority is a smokescreen. To postpone discussion will give the error an opportunity to gain influence in the PCA. The PCA is too young not to speak clearly. The media will report that the PCA refused to speak to the doctrine of justification.

T E David Cassidy speaks in favor of the motion. Grounds: A year of "deepening conversation" on this matter will not lead the body into error. With the inclusion of a minority the body will be assured that the FV/NPP was accurately represented.

T E Steve McGee speaks against the motion, on the ground that the original assignment was good. The committee answered the question whether the the FV/NPP is out of accord with the standards. The body can erect a committee to do further biblical study.

T E Jeff White, speaks in favor of postponement on the grounds that we can have a better report that is more just and more charitable to the FV/NPP by adding a pro FV/NPP minority.

An elder speaks against the motion on the grounds that the Westminster Divines and PCA pastors have done the exegesis. His congregation will be confused by the assembly's failure to act.

An elder speaks in favor of the motion on the basis of the need for more biblical exegesis.

Nearly every speaker thus far has endorsed the conclusions (though a couple have not explicitly endorsed them) and recommendations of the committee.

TE R. C. Sproul speaks against the motion. The issue is imputation. The purity of the PCA is at stake. He said that he cannot understand the hesitancy. He spoke against adding a minority on the ground that it's like adding the accused to the jury. Applause and laughter. Before the moderator could gavel them down, R C said, "shame on you brothers for your righteous applause."

T E Craig Higgins, speaks in favor on the ground Francis Schaefer's dictum that we should never choose between an orthodoxy of doctrine and an orthodoxy of community. He argued that they are ministers in good standing, not accused. By having more participation we can have an orthodoxy of community without compromising our orthodoxy on justification.

Moderator remonstrates with the body for applauding the previous speaker.

Elder Wes Holland, speaks against. Grounds: We have 400 years of study and exegesis. We should uphold
the committee report. Churches are being divided and will be divided.

T E Harry Long, moves a substitute allowing the assembly to speak to the first four recommendations of the committee but also allowing the committee to add biblical exegesis. Motion ruled out of order.

Long speaks against the motion. Chair ruled that the substitute would be in order if the procedural motion fails.

Point of order. A T E complained that some speakers who were being recognized. The chair has been alternating between pro and con. Chair continues alternating speakers.

Elder from S E Louisiana Presbytery speaks for the motion on the ground that the report doesn't do enough with the standards or provide help for presbyteries. The most persuasive and recent FV views were not presented or represented on the committee.

T E speaks against the procedural motion. Grounds: On the grounds that the insistence that this committee do exegesis would produce a huge report. He's not hungry for further exegesis. He's satiated. It's dubious that the gospel has been misunderstood for 400 years and only now become clear. Touching the addition of members, challenges to doctrinal standards, that should be done in the courts of the church not in committees. If someone was denying the deity of Jesus, would they add him to a study committee in order to keep community? This report will not be those of the PCA but of those who wrote it and recommended as helpful by the PCA.

Debate ended.

The procedural motion is before the body.

The moderator notes that to put more than 7 members on an ad interim committee requires a super majority.

Paul Fowler is given the floor. He speaks against the motion, with affection for T E Novenson, on the grounds that the committee did what it was charged to do. The motion asks the committee to do what it was not charged to do. It is best to handle it now, due to the gravity of the issues. If the body needs a scriptural committee, that could be done.

The moderator made sure that the voting members were properly within the chambers for the purposes of voting.

The moderator prays.

The procedural motion is defeated overwhelmingly.

Speeches to the main motion continue.

T E Tom Cox defers to the microphone 10 (a little neglected).

Elder Dave Sarfolian (sp?) speaks in favor of the report. Grounds: last year the Missouri Presbytery did produce a consensus document as an overture from the MO Presbytery, part of which was authored by a proponent of the FV and it was found deficient and defeated.

Question from the floor, through the chair, to the committee: Were proponents of the FV/NPP contacted and did they agree that they accurately represented? The chair asks Dr Fowler to answer. The committee did discuss how to contact the FV/NPP proponents. 3 of the members had already contacted proponents during the consortium at Knox and in other media. They decided to deal primarily with printed and published documents. The committee believes that they understood clearly what the FV/NPP proponents are saying.

Debate ended.

The motion is before the body.

The motion carries overwhelmingly.

*I apologize if names were misspelled. I'm guessing in some cases.