Wednesday
Jun132007
PCA General Assembly Vote on NPP/FV
Wednesday, June 13, 2007 at 04:36PM 
This just in from White Horse Inn producer and guest blogger Shane Rosenthal--Shane is also a member of the PCA.
On Wednesday, June 13th, the 35th General Assembly of the PCA voted overwhelmingly to approve the recent report on the theology of the Federal Vision and the New Perspective on Paul. The full report is available here:
See also R. Scott Clark's blow by blow report of the GA discussion and vote here:
Below are the nine summary declarations of the PCA report which was just adopted. It will be interesting to see what happens next. Will Federal Vision proponents be brought up on charges, given that their theology has been found to be out of step with the Westminster Standards? Or will they voluntarily leave the PCA? "Dark Days lie ahead Harry. You must choose between that which is right, and that which is easy."
IV. Declarations
In light of the controversy surrounding the NPP and FV, and after many months of carefulstudy, 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.
Yes, that's R. C. Sproul at the mic, giving his plea to pass the resolution . . .
Reader Comments (80)
Re: Rosenthal
It may not be a sufficient way of refuting Leithart's position, but it is an excellent place to start building the case.
A Romanist can be saved in spite of Roman Catholic theology. Yes, they believe in the same Jesus, but they also say the Nicene creed and hear the Bible at every mass, so they have exposure to the gospel and can respond in faith. They can believe in spite of Rome's view of justification. Either way, the Westminster Confession urges not to associate with Papists or 'anyone else professing damnable heresies.'
Spirit-wrought works leading to salvation (justification by the obedience of faith) doesn't sound consistent at all with the Westminster Confession's view.
Those divines who did not hold to the doctrine of the imputation of the active obedience of Christ could be satisfied with the statement if they believed that it was a consensual construction, not teaching their position, but not excluding it either... However, the divines who held to the doctrine of the imputation of the active obedience of Christ, who thought that the Confession and catechisms were consensual but wanted to exclude the theology of their opponents, were bound to be dissatisfied...
Also, please note not only "lee's" quotation of Dr. Van Dixhoorn, but also see the Westminster Delegate William Cunningham's own comments on the issue:
"It [the distinction between active and passive obedience] is to be traced rather to the more minute and subtle speculations, to which the doctrine of justification was afterwards subjected; and though the distinction is quite in accordance with the analogy of faith, and may be of use in aiding the formation of distinct and definitive conceptions,—it is not of any great practical importance and need not be much pressed or insisted on, if men heartily and intelligently ascribe their forgiveness and acceptance wholly to what Christ has done and suffered in their room and stead. There is no ground in anything Calvin has written for asserting, that he would have denied or rejected this distinction, if it had been presented to him. But it was perhaps more in accordance with the cautious and reverential spirit in which he usually conducted his investigations into divine things, to abstain from any minute and definite statements" (The Reformers and the Theology of the Reformation [Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 1967], 404).
Owen makes similar statements to Cunningham as to the relative unimportance of the distinct doctrine of the imputation of Christ's active obedience in justification. It is dishonest and disingenuous to assume that anyone who doesn't affirm it puts in its place some merit of their own. It is entirely possible to think this issue is secondary but still affirm it (as i do, along with Owen and Cunningham), or not to affirm it at all but still (as Cunningham said) attribute salvation to all that Christ did and suffered. The WCF was clearly written in such a way that both sides of that intramural debate could "live under" the WCF. What has changed that has made the imputation of the active obedience of Christ in justification a requirement now?
I agree with you, but i believe your reading of WCF 24:3 is flawed; clearly the Divines had two different thoughts in mind in their counsel whom Reformed Christians should not marry--one being of idolaters in general (including all kinds of infidels and papists, which are two different kinds of idolatry, clearly), and the second not being unequally yoked by marrying those who are notoriously sinful in their lifestyle or maintain damnable heresies. The two are clearly distinguished as ideas with the colon (functioning differently back then than in our grammatical usage, typically) and the work "neither," singifying a distinct issue that also should be seen as off-limits.
But the point is not to defend Roman Christians and their idolatrous tendencies or false doctrines (anymore than defending Dispensationalism, Arminainism, or Feminism, though all of those various theologies still fall within [though, arguably on the fringe because of their questionable nature] of Christianity considered as a whole) and certainly not to advocate associating with them unduly, but simply to affirm the ecclesiology of the WCF itself (which accepts Roman baptism as *CHRISTIAN* baptism), and the ecclesiology of faithful Old School Presbyterians like Charles Hodge (who maintained against men like Thornwell that the Roman Church is still part of the visible Church Catholic and their priests as lawfully ordained minsiters of the Gospel. Mr. Rosenthal should know that fact better than anyone, since he has that very article by Hodge posted on his Reformation Ink site, http://homepage.mac.com/shanerosenthal/reformationink/chrome.htm).
I couldn't agree, though, that the view that Spirit-wrought obedience is the instrument of justification is absolutely against the Westminster Standards, categorically and undeniably. The only person i have read in this controversy, though, who could validly come under that accusation in any sense is Norman Shepherd, and he seems to have backed off of some of those more radical statements he once made. Nothing i have read by any FV writer has said anything that could approximate their advocating spirit-wrought obedience leading to our being reckoned righteous in the sight of God. What they have affirmed, though, is that real saving faith is working faith, and that works, though not being the instrument of justification or any merit or credit to the justified sinner in God's sight, are certainly a sine qua non of justification, but that's no different than what the WCF itself says, as well as all the Reformed Divines.
The close-paran messed up the link.
Interesting.
So, if you don't fully embrace Nicea's formulaton, you're a heretic and cannot be redeemed (even if you believe in the imputation of Christ's righteousness alone for justification.)
However, if you don't fully embrace Chalcedon's (Copts & Greeks) that is not so much of a salfific issue. Interesing.
Where do you get this definition of heresy?
Romanists (that is, those who truly believe in the doctrine of justification as rome confesses it, not just those in her membership) are not saved and cannot be until they repent. This would also include many JWs as well.
Would you say that the Old Testament saints were not saved because their Christology was likely errant? Of course not, because correct Christology, while essental to the christian confession, it is not to salvific faith.
"It is dishonest and disingenuous to assume that anyone who doesn't affirm it puts in its place some merit of their own."
You're right, that would be dishonest and disingenuous. The confessional side does not do this. Maybe Kim should start demanding adherence to the 9th commandment like Wilson does. Be honest about the arguments against your postion.
"What has changed that has made the imputation of the active obedience of Christ in justification a requirement now?"
Nothing has changed. But then again, this is not the only heterodoxy that the federal vision holds to, is it?
Is that then a confessionally allowed heterdoxy?
"Is that then a confessionally allowed heterdoxy?"
Ask Pastor Trey that. He seems to be the one making that argument.
As far as I am concerned, it seems that the PCA has decided it for their churches, doesn't it?
Discussing the opinions of minority members of the Wesminster assembly seems a bit academic now. A bit like grasping at straws. Their opinion was not the majority one at the time, and now it's delcared to be out of harmony with the standards of the PCA writ large.
Please.
"it would also seem that neither view was seen as being heterdox."
At the time, the divines made a compromise to mollify a monority. It was in no way the majority opinion, and was frequently (if not always) looked at as heterodox, down to the present day.
Scrutiny has intensified due to the FV debate, and a decision was made, not contra, but as the natural flowering of the majority opinion of the divines.
Either way, my point stands that this is not the only issue that was settled for the PCA yesterday, now was it? Please, let it go!
The FV postion was heartily slapped down. To whine that one aspect of it was previously debated in the Westminster Assembly is such a waste of smoke.
But then again, the FVers say that none of their true opinions were addressed in the report, so they must have nothing to really worry about then, huh?
You wrote, “The only way you can claim that your quotations from the WSs require affirming the imputation of the active obedience of Christ in justification is to assume a particular meaning of merit that is the very disputed issue.” Please inform us of the various interpretive options for WLC 55, WLC 174, and WCF 17.2, specifically as these relate to the merit of his obedience and sacrifice being applied to believers, etc.
My own understanding is that Westminster frequently refers to both the active and passive obedience of Christ whenever it uses the “obedience and sacrifice” language. Indeed, this seems to be the plain meaning of the text. Westminster could have used a different recurring phrase, such as by his righteousness, or by the obedience of his sacrifice, etc, and this would have allowed more FV type renderings. But notice how often it uses the obedience and sacrifice / satisfaction wording: “his perfect obedience and sacrifice” WCF 8.5, “Imputing the obedience and satisfaction of Christ” WCF 11.1, “by his obedience and death” WCF 11.3, “the perfect obedience and full satisfaction” WLC 70, “in the merit of his obedience and sacrifice” WLC 55.
Unfortunately many FV advocates deny the very category of merit itself. Thus, the issue is not really how one interprets the word, but whether or not one believes in the word at all.
SR
The reason that the Divines used that very recurring phrase, "obedience and sacrifice," was so that both sides in the debate would be satisfied and could read their view in it. The view that you and i apparently hold (that justification includes the imputation of Christ's active obedience to the believer in addition to his passive obedience) obviously would interpret "obedience and sacrifice" as two different things, namely the active obedience ("(perfect)obedience") and the passive obedience ("sacrifice" or "full satisfaction"). However, that is clearly not the way in which Twisse, Gataker, and Vines would have read those phrases, since they denied the necessity of the doctrine (indeed, they not only denied the necessity of the doctrinal category, they denied that's what takes place in justification). They would have read the phrase "obedience and sacrifice" as all refering to what we call the "passive obedience," or what Scripture calls Christ's "obedience unto death."
Now, i don't agree with them, necessarily, and you clearly don't. Where you and i disagree, though, is that the view of those men is allowed by the confessional langauge. When i went to college and seminary, one of the things that i learned as a matter of course was that the Westminster Assembly specifically chose to craft the wording of the Confession (in particular) to allow for both of those views. After all, do you honestly think that the Assembly would have adopted language in the confession that would have automatically rendered three of the more prominent delegates immediately heretical and unfit for ministry in the Church of England (which the WCF was intended to serve)? I highly doubt it.
Yes, FV folks deny the category of merit, and i agree with them in the respect that it can be very confusing, and it carries alot of baggage with it from Medieval Scholastic Romanism. Are you saying that it is impossible to speak of Christ's work in an orthodox way unless one understands and affirms the concept of merit? And if so, must one (even though the Confession never does) apply that concept of merit (the way many in the PCA wish to do) to pre-lapsarian Adam as much as to Christ? My guess is that the Divines did not use the term "merit" in any technical sense, but only in a colloquial and familiar sense to express that Christ was perfectly obedient to his Father and that he earned our salvation by his life and/or death. I don't think that the Federal Visionists fundamentally disagree with that.
Yes, Nicea's formulation is "lowest common denominator" Christianity. Without it, one cannot rightfully claim to be a Christian in any sense.
Chalcedon is right up there, but i don't know where you get the idea that the Greeks are "weak" on Chalcedonian Christology. I agree with you that the Copts are, but not because they deny fundamentally the fact that Christ is both fully God and fully man. Their disagreement is the way in which Chalcedon was adopted (in terms of ecclesiastical politics), and the fact that their advocacy of "one" incarnational nature of Christ does not do the things that Chalcedon seeks to protect against (namely, to "confuse" or "mix" the natures, especially since the Greek word for "one" that they use, "mia," can be understood as a compound unit as opposed to the Greek word "monon," which is a simple, bare, individisble unit). This is one of those cases where having done some research on the issue has some benefit to understanding the positions of those with whom we disagree.
You said:
"Would you say that the Old Testament saints were not saved because their Christology was likely errant? Of course not, because correct Christology, while essental to the christian confession, it is not to salvific faith."
Well, i agree with your answer, but not with the reason. The reason i would say that our Fathers and Mothers under the Old Administration savingly trusted in Jehovah is because revelation is progressive, and the revelation of Christ himself was not so fully revealed as it is today. But by the same token, you can't go back that point once the revelation has fully come into light.
I'm glad to hear you say that it is dishonest and disingenuous to read ill motives into other people's views (e.g., denial of the imputation of the active obedeince of Christ in justification). However, your claim that no one has done that is, at the very least, misinformed. Almost every critique of the Federal Vision and Norman Shepherd impugns those men as adding human works/merit to justification, and they claim that they "must" do that because they don't include (as if none of them do, which is itself false) Christ's active obedience in justification. Maybe you haven't read as many poor FV/NPP/NS critiques as i have.
And BTW, i know it's hard for you to understand, but the FV is not "my position." Simply because i defend my own and my neighbor's good name doesn't mean that i agree with the things that my particular neighbors affirm.
I must say though, that your claim that "nothing has changed" in the way the view of Gataker, Vines, and Twisse is treated under the Confession, why has the PCA now officially said that none of these three men would be confessional, when they were, at one time, confessional? Your later answer to "lee" is that this is the "natural flowering" of the original view. But then, that natural flowering would itself be a change, then wouldn't it? So, there has been a change now, hasn't there? It's OK to say it: the PCA has narrowed the WCF from its originally intended limits. I know why people don't say that, though; it just doesn't sound right.
You sound like you follow this closely. I noticed the decision did not name names. I am curious about something. Shepherd was one of my hub's favorite profs at WTS in the 70's and I had the opportunity to take a class with him at WTS also. He had a huge impact with Covenant Theology on all the newly saved,fresh out of the "Jesus Revival" guys entering Westminster at that time.( When I got saved in '73 they gave me a bible and a copy of Late Great Planet Earth. I kid you not).
NS was also guest speaker at our church shortly after hub left seminary, and we've had a more than just intellectual interest following the situation. Hub always said that NS was one of the few profs at WTS who the students could really talk to. He listened, understood the other side, and then would lay things out from the Reformed Position w/o any of the condescending manner that some profs engaged in.
Up until recently, based on what Frame has said, Shepherd is orthodox, professes orthodoxy regarding justfication, and it was Frame who said the charges of heresy are "stupid".
I know that supposedly he can be so vague, and perhaps so disgusted with his accusers that he won't give straight answers when they start hurling questions at him, that the more extreme FV people have used his material and his vagueness to conclude and imply doctrines that do cross into heresy. But I thought Shepherd himself was still considered an orthodox brother in good standing. Is that true?
And at this point, is Doug Wilson still considered orthodox? We heard everything from him being a heretic to him being a moderate FV who is nonetheless orthodox. Just curious.
WCF 7.2 states “The first covenant made with man was a covenant of works, wherein life was promised to Adam; and in him to his posterity, upon condition of perfect and personal obedience.” WLC 20 refers to the condition of “perfect, personal and perpetual obedience.” Unfortunately, Twisse, Vines and company may not have been paying attention to what the majority of the divines were doing. Because whenever the WS refers to Christ’s obedience, it’s refering back to the “covenant of works” principle that it has laid out here (or, what many who find the term distasteful refer to as the “pre-lapsarian covenant”). WLC 39 states that “It was requisite that the Mediator should be man, that he might advance our nature, perform obedience to the law, suffer and make intercession for us in our nature, have a fellow feeling of our infirmities...” Thus it explains that “obedience” does not refer to the obedience unto death on the cross. That is an incorrect reading. It refers to the obedience of the law, separate and distinct from his suffering. Thus, when WLC 55 states that "Christ makes intercession, by his appearing in our nature continually before the Father in heaven, in the merit of his obedience and sacrifice on earth,” we should keep in mind this former theological construct that the divines set out.
Ultimately the issue isn’t heresy, but faithfulness to the WS. I am a member of the PCA which adheres to the WS, but I do not argue that all non WS Christians are heretics. The WS defines our church body, and the FV have been determined to be out of bounds from the WS by our GA. I am not arguing that all FV advocates are heretics. I am simply affirming with my denomination that their views are out of step with the WS as interpreted by our body. The issues by the way are much broader that a mere denial of the active obedience of Christ. Vines, Twisse and company didn’t deny justification sola fide by arguing that part of the ground of our final justification is rooted in our own works of “staying in the covenant.”
You ask, “Are you saying that it is impossible to speak of Christ's work in an orthodox way unless one understands and affirms the concept of merit?” Again, the issue on the table right now is not orthodoxy and heresy. The issue is conformity with the WS. The WS clearly affirms the catagory of merit (WLC 55, 174 and WCF 17.2). Christ’s obedience to the law (WLC 39) is the accomplishment that Adam failed to perform. And we are “required” to trust in Christ’s merits (WLC 174). If a person cannot affirm the theology of merit, he should not serve as a minster in a Presbyterian church. “Must one (even though the Confession never does) apply that concept of merit (the way many in the PCA wish to do) to pre-lapsarian Adam as much as to Christ?” I think we’re back where we started from. “Life was promised to Adam; and in him to his posterity, upon condition of perfect and personal obedience” (WCF 7.2). If he would have fulfilled those terms, according the WS framers, he would have merited the life that was promised to him. But we receive, by means of the covenant of grace, what Christ earned by means of the covenant of works.
SR
"he fact that their advocacy of "one" incarnational nature of Christ does not do the things that Chalcedon seeks to protect against (namely, to "confuse" or "mix" the natures, especially since the Greek word for "one" that they use, "mia," can be understood as a compound unit as opposed to the Greek word "monon," which is a simple, bare, individisble unit)."
Intersting. The Monophysites and their opponents of the time both thought there was a conflict. I guess something must have changed. They were outside then, but they're inside now. Hmmm. - Though, I really think that this is off topic. My point is that justification is by faith in Christ's imputation alone, and not in wether one does not hold to the specifically correct Christology (though I hold to Nicea and Chalcedon myself.) We don't need to be going down rabbit holes, and I'm sorry for my contribution.
"Maybe you haven't read as many poor FV/NPP/NS critiques as i have."
You're right. I haven't. Perhaps better ones should be on our collective plates. According to Wilson, the confessionalists are expected to know every distinction made by every FV proponent, where they agree and where they differ, before any just statement can be made condemning or supporting. If we do not, we are explicitly called sinners. If this is the FV's standard, perhaps they should apply it to their opponents.
Dr. Clark's and Dr. Johnson's books are good places to start. Perhaps fairness and honesty would be a better use of time than impugning the confessionalists (or outright accusing them of sin.)
"the PCA has narrowed the WCF from its originally intended limits. I know why people don't say that, though; it just doesn't sound right."
Again, missing the forest for the trees. Scroll up. You'll see NINE different teachings that the PCA has declared out of bounds of the confession. This is only one. If picking on this one makes FV defenders feel better, something is wrong.
"Ultimately the issue isn’t heresy, but faithfulness to the WS. I am a member of the PCA which adheres to the WS, but I do not argue that all non WS Christians are heretics. The WS defines our church body, and the FV have been determined to be out of bounds from the WS by our GA. I am not arguing that all FV advocates are heretics. I am simply affirming with my denomination that their views are out of step with the WS as interpreted by our body..."
Mr. Rosenthal, I appreciate this sentiment.
"The issues by the way are much broader that a mere denial of the active obedience of Christ. Vines, Twisse and company..."
The question at this point that I would have though is, would Gataker, Vines, and Twisse be suspect in the PCA today? I recognize there are others declarations; but would being out of accord with one of these declarations make you suspect?
If I correctly understand Van Dixhoorn's work and the words of these divines, and admittedly I might not, wasn't their argument basically that Christ's life of obedience was in great part what qualified him to be the perfect, without blemish, sacrifice? Although his life of obedience is not imputed to us (according to them), rather it is his one act of obedience in offering up himself upon the cross that is imputed to us; nevertheless, it is that life of obedience which makes the passive obedience possible and effectual.
For the record, I am not a member of the PCA, while appreciating concerns of the FV crowd I am not an FV advocate, and I believe in the imputation of Christ's active & passive obedience.