For all of you study committee folk out there the PCA has just released the work of the Committee charged by GA to study the so-called Federal Vision/New Perspective(s) on Paul. You can find it at By Faith Online here.
Here are the summary declarations and recommendations to the 35th GA.
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 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.
V. Recommendations
1. That the General Assembly commends to Ruling and Teaching Elders and their congregations this report of the Ad Interim Committee on NPP, AAT and FV for careful consideration and study.
2. That the General Assembly reminds the Church, its officers and congregations of the provisions of BCO 29-1 and 39-3 which assert that the Confession of Faith and the Larger and Shorter Catechisms of the Westminster Assembly, while “subordinate to the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments, the inerrant Word of God,” have been adopted by the PCA “as standard expositions of the teachings of Scripture in relation to both faith and practice.”
3. That the General Assembly recommends the declarations in this report as a faithful exposition of the Westminster Standards, and further reminds those ruling and teaching elders whose views are out of accord with our Standards of their obligation to make known to their courts any differences in their views.
4. That the General Assembly reminds the Sessions and Presbyteries of the PCA that it is their duty “to exercise care over those subject to their authority” and “to condemn erroneous opinions which injure the purity or peace of the Church” (BCO 31-2; 13-9f).
5. That the Ad Interim Study Committee on NPP, AAT and FV be dismissed with thanks.
3 comments:
As an elder in the PCA for the past 24 years, and one who has attended many presbytery meetings and General Assemblies, I can firmly say that I am convinced beyond a shadow of a doubt, that the study committee was set up with the particular membership to bring about a desired conclusion. Historically, when a study committee has been set up, both proponents and opponents formed part of the committee. See the study committees on Creation, Women in the Military, Paedocommunion, to name a few. Look at results of study committees and note that there were both majority and minority reports. What does that tell you? Not everybody was in agreement. They knew that would be the case going into their study but the desire was to see two sides work together to try and reach a consensus through honest theological interaction, not just with writings and blog shoutings but with real people who could put forth cogent answerable thoughts and questions. This was not done here. One has to ask why? When I mentioned to one of the members of the church where I serve as a ruling elder that a committee had been formed by the PCA to “study” Federal Vision and NPP etc. and that they had finished their work, his first question to me seem reasonable. He asked who made up the committee and if there were those who were “for” and “against” so as to adequately study and discuss the matters at hand. When I told him that only opponents were on the committee (and I might add some of those proponents had already made their opinions quite well known in published writings and internet dialog) his gut response was “then the study committee was a sham. How can you have divergent theological views being espoused in a denomination, set up a study committee to actually study and dialog and only have one side represented?” My question indeed. I must admit that I am a presuppositionalist, but this kind of presupposition concerning my mother church I did not want to hold. At least a little window dressing to include a “token” FV proponent might have given more credibility to the committee. Certainly this committee’s report will do nothing to dissuade FV proponents that this is more a matter of a “witchhunt” with a forgone conclusion then a serious attempt to deal with the issues. Four presbyteries have already dealt with FV proponents and while they agree that they have disagreements with some of the FV musings, all have clearly made it known that the men under question are within the bounds of orthodoxy and Westminster. In all sincerity, why not have proponents on the committee? There are certainly men who are articulate, members in good standing in their respective presbyteries who could have adequately represented the position. The notable absence of such men was a great disservice to both the committee and the assembly at large. Are we viewed as men with such a lack of ability to follow theological arguments that we must be spoon fed the “appropriate” line and no more? This type of action demonstrates a great lack of trust and confidence the elders’ ability to actually do the work of “Bereans”. It is also a lack of faith in the Holy Spirit’s ability to rightly persuade men. We have been treated like children whose “parents” must do the thinking for them.
I am new to the Presbyterian Church of America and consequently am still working through certain issues. This article has led me to a fundamental question that I have been struggling with that hopefully someone can clarify for me. I admittedly agree that I know nothing about the issue in the article or how the committee discussed this issue other than what I have just read. However, I have noticed a trend in the document and more so in the PCA church (over generalizing of course) that is confusing. I appreciate the fact that the article states clearly what the PCA believes when it says, "the Confession of Faith and the Larger and Shorter Catechisms of the Westminster Assembly, while 'subordinate to the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments, the inerrant Word of God,' have been adopted by the PCA 'as standard expositions of the teachings of Scripture in relation to both faith and practice.' Although they stated this, when you read through the declarations, they consistently end with the statement, "is contrary to the Westminster Standards." It seems when reading through the declarations that we place more emphasis on a document other than the bible. I know that I am focusing on word choice but I think that sometimes word choice reflects what is really happening. Is the PCA putting more emphasis on the Confession of Faith, Larger and Shorter Catechism of the Westminster Assembly than they are on the bible? I hope when you read this you will not interpret this as a judgmental question but as an inquisitive believer trying to establish his theology and knowledge of truth. I would appreciate your constructive insights and feedback into this issue.
Thank you both for your comments. It's hard to know where to begin in response.
Its always telling when there is more concern about process than being in line with core convictions stated within our agreed upon Confessional standards.
In this case I think both the process will be tested and the Confession will be tested. I hope the PCA as expressed through the actions of the General Assembly will care about both process and theological consensus in all its deliberations.
Its also striking how this whole thing has been stirred up by 5 people with blogs within the PCA. Other than seminarians you really don't get a sense that the FV has a consitutency within the church outside of a few chat rooms.
From my point of view as a layman its time to move on.
Post a Comment