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.

Comments

[Mark Traphagen]

There was so much politics and railroading involved with this that I find myself very depressed for my denomination this evening. Craig Higgin's passionate appeal (quoting Francis Schaeffer) that we not sacrifice orthodox community in the name of orthodox doctrine (i.e., we need both) was a high point, but in the end was unheeded. The R. C. Sproul ugliness won out. What would have been lost by a year to overcome the obviously stacked committee and the almost total lack of biblical exegesis in the report? How pathetically lame was Dr. Fowler's answer to the question as to whether the FV supporters named in the report had been contacted for opportunity to comment as to the fairness of how they were represented.

A year ago a close confidant of Ligon Duncan's bragged to me in the bookstore that the committee had been carefully rigged to insure the 'right' outcome. I guess they should be happy about their work today.

[Travis Seitler]

Um... declarations #5 and #7 are contradictory. =p

And is it just me, or does this seem to fail to address the idea that, as the Body of Christ, he continues to work in and through us, thus (being the causal agent in such a situation) He continues to impute His meritorious works by treating them as "our" deeds?

[Kevin Courter]

They would be contradictory if "all of Christ's benefits" and "all the benefits of Christ's mediation" were the same thing. Not all of Christ's benefits are the result of his mediation. I don't necessarily agree with calling the work that God does in and through us an imputation of his meritorious work. Even if this is an acceptable way of viewing things, the terminology should not be used to deny that unique sense in which the meritorious works that are imputed to us are those that Christ did while living as a man among us.

[Jack Brooks]

If you don't have orthodox doctrine, you can never have orthodox community, and FV is unorthodox. May God bless the engineers who ran this particular railroad.

Happily for the rest of the evangelical world, this remains a peculiar contretemps limited to the Presbyterians. We've got enough problems with charismatic antinomianism without adding a covenant-theologized cousin of the Churches of Christ teaching.

[Steve Tipton]

Travis: Your ending comment is innuendo and is aimed primarily at discrediting the report based upon hearsay. Firstly, it could be simply that this close associate of Dr. Duncan simply believed that the committee was rigged, not that the committee itself actually was rigged nor that Dr. Duncan had any part in that. It could be that this person misunderstood what Dr. Duncan was trying to say to him. Or perhaps this person foolishly made a comment so as to make themselves look important and "in the know" in others eyes.

Secondly, if you have an accusation to make, make it in a forum where such can be investigated and dealt with. As it is, your comment is not based upon any verifiable fact. Even if you named the person you are using to smear Dr. Duncan's (and committee by extension, not to mention the PCA as a body) reputation, it would be your word against theirs. Further, unlike the accusation that the committee did not fairly represent the men whose theology they were charged to investigate, there exists no record of this conversation for us to determine what the person you paraphrase meant by his comment. Again, did he have first hand knowledge of the rigging of the committee or did he simply feel that this was so? Brother, I would repent of such mud slinging in order to attempt to cast a negative light on the report. If you disagree with it, simply say so and let that be your answer. Or, if you wish to stand behind such a comment, take it up with that person or Dr. Duncan or someone in your Presbytery so that the truth of the situation can be ascertained.

In addition, I would prefer if people would stop stating that the report has no basis in scripture. To make such a statement is analogous to saying that the Westminster standards are not based upon scripture. Further it is to say that the standards are not the primary exposition of scripture for our denomination. If anyone holds that the Westminster standards are not based upon scripture, or that they are not the best exposition of scripture, perhaps this is not the denomination for them. For men to berate the committee for not appealing to scripture, when the task the GA gave them was to investigate the FV in light of the confession, seems unwise and unfair to me. If I asked my daughter to make a cake, would I berate her for not making pancakes?

Kevin: Declarations 5 and 7 are not contradictory. Five states that imputation and union with Christ are not the same thing; that is that union does not make imputation redundant. Seven states that it is contra-confessional to state that one who is united with Christ does not receive all of the benefits of Christ's mediation. It does not claim that all of those benefits are subsumed under union, but rather that all those who are united with Christ do receive all of the benefits of Christ's mediation. To make it clearer, all those who are united with Christ will experience the imputation of Christ's active and passive obedience, but this imputation is not subsumed under union nor made redundant by union. Further, no one who is united with Christ will not experience the imputation of Christ's active and passive obedience. I hope that makes the declerations clearer.

[Kevin Courter]

Steve- I believe that your comments should be addressed to Mark and Travis rather than to Travis and me.

[Steve Tipton]

you are correct, I was seeing the "posted by" as above, not below...

I appologize.

[Kevin Courter]

No problem- those dotted lines do make it look that way.

[Andrew Roycroft]

Hi David,
I don't know whether this is the place to do this or not, but here goes:

I've had a read through the requirements for joining the league of Reformed Bloggers and am happy to state that I affirm the five solas, and ascribe to the London Baptist Confession. Could you thus add me to the League of Reformed Bloggers.

My blog address is: www.double-usefulness.blogspot.com

And the Atom feed for the site is: http://double-usefulness.blogspot.com/feeds/posts/default

Many thanks, and God bless,
Andrew Roycroft

[Amy]

No matter how the new report seems to offend others or those who were being put to trial... I am abosolutely relieved that the PCA church is clarifying and standing behind as well as reaffirming its statement of beliefs going back to the Confession, the Larger, and the Shorter as it's standard of teaching. It is a shame to me that those who believe the confession is not convanental remain in the church, take so many exceptions, and preach a confusing gospel to thousands of people. In that I came from a Pentecostal baground that stated they do not believe that Salvation is by works, but in that that same said Pentecostal church did in fact still effectively teach faith plus works is a prime example of how anyone can put in writing one thing, and still effectively get across a message that is different in teaching. Any person who questions Christ's imputation as effectively communicated in the word in Eph, Gal, Romans.... is in my opinion preaching agospel different than Paul's own as he stated that anyone preaching a different gospel should be questioned to a severe degree on the topics and should not at all be offended by such questioning.

[Michael Bates]

To Steve Tipton: You write, "In addition, I would prefer if people would stop stating that the report has no basis in scripture. To make such a statement is analogous to saying that the Westminster standards are not based upon scripture." I am not a supporter of FV or NPP, and I understand that this investigation was about conformity to the PCA standards, not conformity with Scripture.

But I wonder: If it turned out that the Westminster Divines were wrong about something, were inconsistent with Scripture, is there any practical way to fix that? Assuming the Westminster Standards are in error about doctrine X, wouldn't the fact that the PCA requires elders to accept what the Westminster Standards say about X mean that the PCA would never correct the error about X in the standards?