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)
"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?"
This is an interesting question. I’m not really sure how the PCA’s GA would vote if FV was not the concern, but only the view of someone like Twisse. All in all he was solid theologian with a quirky view of active obedience. For example, in his Brief Catechetical Exposition of Christian Doctrine (1632), Twisse wrote, “This is the first lesson, to know the right way to the Kingdom of Heaven: and this consists in knowing the difference between the Law and the Gospel.” It’s also important to understand that Reformed theology was still developing in the 1600’s and the whole category of the active obedience was still being developed in the Reformed world. But after centuries of reflection, that doctrine came to be codified and became part and parcel of all Reformed Dogmatics. So it would be quite a different thing if a Presbyterian minister was to deny the active obedience of Christ in our own day. Nevertheless, the issue would not be anywhere near as serious as what we're dealing with in the theology of FV.
For the remainder of this response, I want to quote from the OPC report on Justification, as it deals with the issue of Twisse, and company at the forging of the WS. The full document interacts with Van Dixhoorn’s work (pp. 71-75) and is available here:
http://www.opc.org/GA/justification.pdf
“The original debate, in September 1643, in which Twisse was the proluctor and Vines and Gataker, among others, argued, heatedly at times, over whether the active obedience of Christ, as well as the passive, was imputed to us in our justification, focused on whether the word “whole” should be added to modify “obedience” in the article defining justification....What is important to note is that proponents of adding the word “whole” recognized that opponents of adding it opposed it as they did because they opposed affirming that Christ’s active obedience is imputed to us in our justification. When the vote finally came on September 11, 1643, after days of intensive debate, the revised article, with the addition of “whole,” was adopted with only three or four dissenting. This means that the Divines, when the active obedience of Christ was being hotly debated, adopted a phrase that all concerned agreed was a positive affirmation of the active obedience of Christ being imputed in justification. It is crucial to recognize that the only time, as far as we know, that there was a debate in the Westminster Assembly of Divines directly focused on the question of the imputation of the active obedience of Christ in justification, the Assembly determined positively to affirm the active obedience by the addition of the word “whole” to the revision of Article 11 of the Thirty-Nine Articles.”
Thus, according to the minutes, there are no records of any other debate on justifcation and active obedience than in Sept. 1643 when the “whole obedience language was approved. Why then was it later dropped? No one really knows, but it is perhaps because the term was no longer needed, given all the other clearer references to the merit of Christ, the covenant of works / covenant of grace framework, all of which I’ve mentioned above. Thus the OPC report on justification concluded, “....Any argument that the Westminster Assembly of Divines cast its teaching on justification to allow room for those who would deny the imputation of Christ’s active obedience is, at best, speculative, and does not comport, we would contend, with the tenor of the Standards as a whole or the church’s understanding of its Standards in subsequent years.”
SR
If on the whole the matter was being tightened up, why on earth would the divines drop "whole" at arguably the most important point (WCF 11.1)? If the majority wanted the imputation of active obedience affirmed and had won the day in 43 why drop "whole" when freed from the restraints of revising the Articles? If the matter was so clear and certain, why would the Independents use stronger language in the Savoy? I just don't get that line of argument. Call me thick-headed.
6But the righteousness that is by faith says: "Do not say in your heart, 'Who will ascend into heaven?'" (that is, to bring Christ down) 7"or 'Who will descend into the deep?'" (that is, to bring Christ up from the dead). 8But what does it say? "The word is near you; it is in your mouth and in your heart," that is, the word of faith we are proclaiming: 9That if you confess with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. 10For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you confess and are saved. 11As the Scripture says, "Anyone who trusts in him will never be put to shame." 12For there is no difference between Jew and Gentile—the same Lord is Lord of all and richly blesses all who call on him, 13for, "Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved."
It's just a thought.
http://www.leithart.com/archives/003078.php
Thoughts?
As a long time member of the PCA and a Deacon I can only applaud the GA stand on FV. We are being assaulted on every side by Satanic forces, but we must stand firm in Jesus Christ. Covenant theology is at the heart of our faith and if God wanted us to earn our position in Christ He would have issued us scorecards every now and then.Take away election and God's soverignty and we have the chaos present in Armenian denominations.
You’ve raised some good questions. The issues are complicated and I’ll try to sort things out as best I can.
In 1643 the language of "whole obedience" was debated and those in support of active obedience won the debate, and the term stayed in. This was the only record of a debate on the active obedience of Christ, and it ws during the time when the Divines were revising the Thirty Nine Articles of the Church of England. Then, in 1646 a decision was made to allow the Divines to completely draft a new confession. So much of the work done up to that time was significantly revised. Also William Twisse, one of the princple men opposed to the language of “whole obedience” in the 1643 debate died in July 1646 before the divines took up the subject of Justification and Adoption, according to the minutes.
There is no record as to why, the language of "whole obedience" was ultimately dropped when the Westminster Standards were crafted, and anyone who asserts anything at all on the matter is merely speculating.
My own thoughts on the matter is that the language of "perfect obedience" was substitued for the term "whole obedience" when the Divines were given the opportunity to create an entirely new confession. This language of “perfect obedience” is part of the covenant of works language outlined in the following sections throughout the Westminster Standards (see WCF 7.2, 19.1, WLC 20, 93, and WSC 12)
Thus, the divines used this covenant of works principle and language, which required "personal and perfect obedience" for Adam and his posterity, to describe the work of Christ:
WCF 8.5 “The Lord Jesus, by His perfect obedience, and sacrifice of Himself...has fully satisfied the justice of His Father; and purchased, not only reconciliation, but an everlasting inheritance in the kingdom of heaven...”
WLC 39 “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...that we might receive the adoption of sons...”
WLC 70 “Justification is an act of God’s free grace unto sinners, in which he pardons all their sins, accepts and accounts their persons righteous in his sight; not for any thing wrought in them, or done by them, but only for the perfect obedience and full satisfaction of Christ, by God imputed to them, and received by faith alone.”
So at the end of the day, those who argue that the WS is a concession document are merely speculting, and there are in fact good arguments that the “whole obedience” language was not dropped to appease Twisse, Vines and Gataker, but was replaced by the crafting of a better phrase, that of “perfect obedience.” Twisse himself wasn’t even alive during the forging of the WS discussions on justification and adoption in July of 1646, so he didn’t "need" to be appeased.
SR
Let me also say this, since i have the opportunity to say it: Mr. Rosenthal, i have, over the years, greatl appreciated and benefitted from your Reformation Ink website. I would, though, like to request your updating it from time to time. Lots of dead links there these days. It is a wealth of resources that i think should be available to folks like us, and i don't know where else i'd find many of the things you have posted there. Thanks for your work, and i encourage you to keep it up.
Four kids, School board work and WHI production tasks make it difficult to put time to updating Reformation Ink. It needs a major overhaul. Thanks for the encouragement to do so.
SR
Thanks for the response. I like the consistency speculation and think that it makes sense. Yet, it seems that the Independents didn't think that this consistency was so helpful.
Any thoughts on Declaration 9 and WCF 33.1?
in the world of blogdom, issues surrounding the FV seem a lot like fly tape or that backyard flood light turned on late at night, especially when the blog authors are relatively public figures. it always seems like the same "moths" for both sides show up, stick their tongues out at each other and cast aspersions, some admitting their "conversations" get everyone exactly no where while others lick their wounds.
scott clark was wise to shut his lights off.
zrim
You wrote, "it seems that the Independents didn't think that this consistency was so helpful."
My own personal thinking on this matter is that though the theology of active and passive obedience is biblical and has its roots accross the span of church history, and was especially recovered at the Reformation, the actual language of "active and passive obedience" does not appear on the landscape until the seventeenth century. So at the time of the Westminster Divines some described this theology by saying "whole obedience and satisfaction," others by "perfect obedience and sacrifice," or as Savoy 11.1 puts it "Christ's active obedience to the law, and passive obedience in his death." These were all ways of saying the same thing, but somewhere along the line, the language "active and passive obedience" became the official wording of the doctrine. That's my theory anyway, but I'm still researching this. It could be that Savoy framers thought that their way was a little more precise, or it's possible that by 1653 this phrase had become the accepted catch phrase for the idea, and that's why they added it.
If I could be shown that the Westminster Divines were familiar with the phrase "active and passive obedience," and that the phrase was the main way of communicating that doctrine in their day, this would not be good for my case. Because it would show that the Divines did seek to avoid the primary term, and did so perhaps to avoid an in-house controversy.
With regard to the PCA declaration 9 and WCF 33.1 I have a good answer for you, and I am amazed at Leithart's comments. But you'll have to wait til tomorrow....
SR
That makes two of us......
Regarding Leithart's comments about final judgement and justification, I offer the following response:
Leithart writes “Of all the declarations of the PCA FV Study Report, the most mystifying is the one that reaffirms justification by faith and rejects final justification according to works.” Yet even in saying this he claims that “justification by faith is not being challenged.”
Again Leithart writes, “It's also mystifying because the Confession clearly teaches judgment according to works (33.1).” Notice the slight of hand here. First he writes of final “justification” according to works, and then refers to WCF 33.1 on the final “judgment” according to works. But judgment and justification are two entirely different doctrines. Everyone will be judged, but only some will be justified. So when Westminster says “...all persons that have lived upon earth shall appear before the tribunal of Christ, to give an account of their thoughts, words, and deeds; and to receive according to what they have done in the body, whether good or evil,” it is simply saying that all men will stand before God’s judgment throne. But all who’s names are written in the book of life will not be condemned (Rev. 20:11-15).
For as Toplady rightly observed,
“Nothing in my hand I bring, Simply to the cross I cling; Naked, come to Thee for dress; Helpless look to Thee for grace; Foul, I to the fountain fly; Wash me, Savior, or I die.”
So as for our right standing before God, we look to Christ alone. But after this justification has been accomplished and we are guaranteed acceptance by God only on account of Christ, there may indeed be an act of God who in his fatherly condescention as a newly adoptive parent, rewards the good works that we did in this life (that is, good works that have been purged of all the sin clinging to them). In this case, he is rewarding the baby-steps in holiness performed by his saints, not as the ground of their acceptance, but as the result of their acceptance (compare for example Rev 7:14 with Rev. 19:8). The overall picture appears to be that the blood of Christ cleanses the spotted stains of sin from our garments, and leaves only the good works to be remembered as emblems of our faithful service. Again, this is not to be confused with the basis or ground of our being declared righteous.
So when Leithart observes that “the Confession says explicitly that what we receive at the final judgment will be ‘according to what they have done,’ which is clearly something other than the ‘perfect obedience and satisfaction of Christ received through faith alone,’" we respond by saying that everyone will be “judged” according to what they have done, and as a result no one at all will qualify for heaven (Rom 3). But those whose names are found in the book of life, i.e., those whom God has justified and declared righteous, will not be condemned (Rom 8). If Leithart is right, then we’ll all have to change the final verse of Toplady’s hymn as follows:
“When I soar to worlds unknown, See Thee on Thy judgment throne, Rock of Ages, cleft for me, Let me hide myself in Me.”
SR
I'm not sure that I understand pastor Leithart's positions on these topics well enough to expound on them and I don't know if all of these issues could (or should) be resolved by simply asking "What do you mean by that?" But in this situation, I would be interested to see the resulting discussion. It might've helped the report (and certainly the voting session) sound more like theology than ideology. As it sounded to me, there was little actual discussion of the topics at hand and it seemed as though most of the opinions had become hardened long ago.
Then again, as one more member of the laity, maybe I'm just in over my head...