PCA and Steve Wilkins Update
I seem to get a lot of search hits related to Pastor Steve Wilkins and the investigation into his doctrine by the PCA. Here are a couple updates for readers to look into:
Steve Wilkins' response to questions raised,
An analysis of that response.
When the first Auburn Avenue conference was held and there was an initial flurry of reaction to it, the whole thing struck me as a tempest in a teapot. It seemed like people were talking past each other, and that critics were finding error where none was intended.
However, when the second conference was held it became clear that there was significant error, and my conviction that it is error has only increased as I've continued to follow the controversy. I read all the papers presented at the Knox Seminary colloquiam, and have read much (but certainly not all) of what has been written since.
What bothers me about this are two things. One is that, while I am very sympathetic to many of the concerns raised by the Federal Vision people I wish they could see that the answers to their questions are in our Reformed confessions and creeds already. Reformed theology already addresses their concerns, and doesn't need to be changed. This leads to the second concern, that in trying to "reform" Reformed theology they have changed it into something which it is not, and have created a theological system that is - in my very humble opinion - anti-biblical.
In addition, I am baffled that people who believe something different than what the Westminster Standards teach would want to continue to maintain that they are faithful to that teaching, and remain in a denomination that holds to those standards. But then I remember my church history, and that this seems to be the consistent M.O. of those who teach error. They try to argue that they are orthodox, outwardly affirm their agreement with creeds or confessions of faith, and then teach that which is contrary to those standards.
Steve Wilkins' response to questions raised,
An analysis of that response.
When the first Auburn Avenue conference was held and there was an initial flurry of reaction to it, the whole thing struck me as a tempest in a teapot. It seemed like people were talking past each other, and that critics were finding error where none was intended.
However, when the second conference was held it became clear that there was significant error, and my conviction that it is error has only increased as I've continued to follow the controversy. I read all the papers presented at the Knox Seminary colloquiam, and have read much (but certainly not all) of what has been written since.
What bothers me about this are two things. One is that, while I am very sympathetic to many of the concerns raised by the Federal Vision people I wish they could see that the answers to their questions are in our Reformed confessions and creeds already. Reformed theology already addresses their concerns, and doesn't need to be changed. This leads to the second concern, that in trying to "reform" Reformed theology they have changed it into something which it is not, and have created a theological system that is - in my very humble opinion - anti-biblical.
In addition, I am baffled that people who believe something different than what the Westminster Standards teach would want to continue to maintain that they are faithful to that teaching, and remain in a denomination that holds to those standards. But then I remember my church history, and that this seems to be the consistent M.O. of those who teach error. They try to argue that they are orthodox, outwardly affirm their agreement with creeds or confessions of faith, and then teach that which is contrary to those standards.
