PCA Adopts Report on the New Perspective and Federal Vision

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.