The Highway Forums General Discussion Open Forum Evangelical Reformed Presbyterian

Kim & Pilgrim

I'm not saying that we should just put our heads in the sand on aberrant teaching, but FV, AA, NPP is not where the fight lies. Theonomy is driving these teachings. I'm still not completely understanding the link between FV & AA with that of NPP except that the ahderents supports NPP to some degree. Therefore, IMO it is mostly intramural in-fighting amongst Theonomists. My guess is that the churches forming the new denomination has strong Theonomic ties, and their old comrades are going astray. The present fight in the PCA, besides cultural liberalism affecting the church (which will be ultimately its demise), is between those with Theonomy-leanings and those who do not. I don't know exactly what to call the majority side. What seminaries are you referring that are having difficulties with these theologies? Its only at seminaries that are producing a small number of Pastors in the PCA. (And, we can probably add the OPC). Its not RTS or Covenant. Are you thinking of Westminster; I guess that would be a major player? In fact back in the late 70's and early 80's there was this big kerfuffle at RTS regarding Theonomy (Bahnsen & his adherents). Finally, RTS purged the theonomists from the seminary.

I have heard where teaching elders with ties to these aberrant teachings, not passing examinations in other Presbyteries that they wish to transfer. So, I see action within the next 2 years against these theologies. However, unless they tackle Theonomy then it will always rear its ugly head in some form.

John,

Help me and other readers of this forum with a bit of background, if you will. What exactly is the tie between theonomy and NPP/AA/FV? How is theonomy "driving" this teaching?

This is unfortunately not accurate at all. NPP, FV, AA, etc., fyi, are very much related and only different on non-consequential matters. These heresies have infiltrated far more than Presbyterian Churches, e.g., Baptists like John Armstrong et al have gone over. Additionally, it is not restricted to the Theonomist camp at all. You might be surprised how widespread it is.

I can tell you from personal experience, that back in the late '70s and early '80s, Norman Shepherd was teaching this error when I was at WTS in Philadelphia. I personally have met and talked with students who graduated from WTS who embraced NPP (Shepherdism) and who became pastors. So, what do you think these men have been preaching since they entered the ministry?

Thus, for over 25 years now, this attack on sola fide has been going on in some of the most respected theological institutions and being taught in churches. I believe you will also find professors at RTS who are at least sympathetic to it as well. J_Edwards will be able to confirm that since he is matriculating there now.

In His grace,

Pilgrim,

You are obviously very well informed about the extent of this heresy. But at the risk repeating myself, I just don't think this debate is taking place in the fellowship hall after worship on Sunday. In seminaries and Internet forums it is a hot issue and there are many well-informed participants in the discussion. But are there actually enough malcontents out there in the pews to form a new denomination? If it were an matter of, say, ordination of homosexuals, then we would have an exodus of conservatives to form a new church because that's something every layman can understand and form an opinion about. But the NPP/AA/FV debate is too esoteric to create a groundswell of opposition to. Just my opinion.

Relztrah

"I just don't think this debate is taking place in the fellowship hall after worship on Sunday."

Again, this is where the problem lies. This should be a matter of discussion and alarm in the fellowship hall on Sunday! It is not only a matter of malcontents in the church stirring up trouble. It is the matter of the subtle bringing in of these errant views and a laity that is ill-equipped to identify it and what is wrong with it!

If the laity 1)really had a firm grasp of sound doctrine in the first place and 2) had a firm grasp of what is being taught in these circles and 3)had pastors and elders in the local churches who cared more about Biblical truth than appearing to be "open-minded" or "on the cutting edge" there would be no need for a new denomination or an overture to the General Assembly.

If this had been dealt with in the sessions of individual churches, I don't think we'd be where we are today. . .

Thanks for your insights.

NPP is as you say more widespread and dangerous to the church as a whole. FV/AA with its hyper-covenentalism is more localized to the Reformed. If you do any reading on Wilkins, one of the main front-men, his background comes from Theonomy. His citings of Bahnsen in his writings are frequent. So, I still stick to my guns that a Theonomic background led to FV/AA.

Why do FV/AA intersect with NPP? Is it because that NPP has a wider audience and its questioning of sola faith is attracted to the FV/AA's who want to put everything in the context of the covenant.

I just don't think the PCA has any worries over these theologies except for the possible loss of 20-25% of its congregations who has been battling the majority for years on issues such as the worship wars and Theonomy. Now those 20-25% congregations need to be extremely careful that they do not go over into heretical teaching. That is probably your concern, but sadly to say, many would say good riddance. The constant discontent and insistent barking makes for the loss of emphathy. FYI, Wilkins was ready to leave the PCA 4-6 years ago until he was talked out it from his friends at Greenville Presbyterian Seminary. That is why I say it is a intramural in-fight.

Relztrah,

But that is exactly my point and where the true danger lies. Aside from any speculation of the origin of these heretical teachings which seek to distort the biblical truth concerning justification by faith alone, the present danger is that those who embrace it are being allowed to teach it and preach it without hindrance. Thus, you are not going to find a NPP, FV or AA protagonist preacher coming straight out and clearly stating, behind the pulpit, that he thinks that the Reformers, Puritans and the WCF erred and that the Church needs to return to the "truth". And that later on that evening, there will be an open discussion on this matter. Without doubt, they are going to follow the methodology of the Evil One and say, "Hath God not said...?"

I tell you, that this is how denominations and churches "die". False teachers and false teachings are allowed to be promulgated for years and thus the virus is able to infect many people in the Church. In the N.T. we see Paul, Peter, et al dealing swiftly with such people and their false teachings, warning them not to allow those men a platform to speak. In fact, they were to be excommunicated from their respective assemblies. The problem, which has already been stated, is that those in authority today have failed to deal with the issue, for whatever reason(s), over many years. You might be shocked to see how widespread these false teachings have reached.

There is, of course, the other side of this matter and that is that the sovereign Lord has ordained that these things should occur in the Church. (1Cor 11:19; cf. 2Pet 2:1) However, the fact that such things have been ordained does NOT relieve those ordained to the office of Elder to guard the sheep (Acts 20:28, 29) and to ward off any "wolves" that might attack and consume them. Shepherds of actual sheep don't gather round and discuss whether or not what they see is actually a wolf or a sheep. They don't form committees to try and discover what the actual intent of the yet unidentified animal is, whether or not it means to harm the sheep or help them, etc., etc.... when all the while the wolves are killing off the flock!

Methinks that the wolves are getting fatter by the day.

In His grace,

The link goes to the NPP view of 1st century Judaism, i.e., that it was a religion of "grace" wherein "grace" consists of unmerited membership in the covenant community ( = salvation), which is maintained by obedience to the law, the end of which is ultimately "justification" (justification by faith . . . -fulness). So what the NPP says is that Paul was combatting a too-narrow Jewish definition of covenant boundaries that excluded the Gentiles. Ultimately, then, the Reformers were wrong to take the Lutheran view that Paul was combatting a religion of meritorious works by which we are saved.

FV/AA shares this same basic view and extends it all the way back to Adam. God's covenant with Adam was not the Covenant of Works, but the Covenant of Grace, since God "graciously" included Adam in His covenant. The Mosaic Covenant then, too, was not a reiteration of the Covenant of Works, but rather the Covenant of Grace. Again, it is by grace we are saved (i.e., brought into the covenant). By remaining faithful to the covenant, we are justified (justification by faith . . . -fulness). The idea being that since we didn't earn our way into the covenant community to begin with, we don't make God owe us (we don't merit from God) a place in that community by our continued obedience.

However, in their attempts to avoid merit and to reinterpret 1st century Judaism as a religion of grace, they are managing only to reproduce the errors of 1st century Judaism and to change the Covenant of Grace into a covenant of works-righteousness. This is why so many FV/AA people are theonomists, because they do not distinguish between the Covenant of Grace and the Covenant of Works—it's all the same. Furthermore, this creates all sorts of problems with imputed righteousness, since Christ by His obedience did not merit anything, but was a recipient of grace!

I don't know that I'd say that theonomy is driving NPP, but it certainly is a factor behind the teachings of FV/AA, which has adopted the basic ideas of NPP. The connection amounts to a denial of the Covenant of Works; there has never been a Covenant of Works, but rather, all of God's covenants are iterations of the Covenant of Grace. Thus, God's Law is gracious, which makes it very easy to be a theonomist. I've given a fuller explanation of the connections here.

OK, I started this this, Now will someone tell me what all of these NPP/AA/FV stuff is?

NPP - New Perspective of Paul
AA - Auburn Avenue
FV - Federal Vision

See Kyle's post above where he gives a good description.

1. You can do a search on this Board for "NPP" or "Doug Wilson" or "Auburn Avenue" (use the quotes).
2. You can read this article: The Attractions of the New Perspective(s) on Paul by Ligon Duncan.
3. You can read this series: The Great Exchange by Philip Eveson paying particular attention to the chapters dealing with N.T. Wright's views in Part III "Modern Revision".
4. ADDED: http://www.paulperspective.com/ I had completely forgotten about this website which is an excellent source of information regarding both the doctrines and the individuals espousing them in the FV and NPP camps.

That should give you a good foundation for understanding the profundity of error being taught by these several groups.

In His grace,

Thankee sir. You are a great source of info.