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)
The NPP, however, sees more tension between present justification and final justification (the result of being judged rightly after the final judgment). Tom Wright notes that sanctification does not occur in present justification (as a Romanist would tend to think). However, NTW also seems to believe that Christ's death/resurrection 'overlaps' with the final death/resurrection, which means that being justified presently means that you will be justified finally. This assurance seems quite close to Luther's own, seeing that the work God begins in us will be fulfilled.
Sorry about the longish explanation, but Tom Wright's approach is one of the few theological perspectives that really makes sense to me.
You write, "but judgment and justification are two entirely different doctrines." Certainly we do well to distinguish them, but do we sever them? I believe the word "justified" is used in Matt. 12:36-37.
"Everyone will be judged, but only some will be justified." Of course, unless we are universalists. What will the judgment be for the righteous (those clothed in the righteousness of Christ who *evidence* this thru good works -- faithfulness)? The righteousness -- the whole obedience of Christ is the cause or ground of justification. Faith is the instrumental cause. But aren't works & faithfulness the evidence?
"So when Westminster says...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..." I believe it is saying more than that or there would be little need of the last phrase.
"So as for our right standing before God, we look to Christ alone." Indeed, we'd be fools not to. Are the FV guys saying otherwise?
"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..." Two minor quibbles -- I think I'd change "accomplished" to "declared," and "there may indeed" to "there will indeed."
"...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)." Yes, He judges and rewards these "good" works as they are considered in & thru Christ.
"In this case, he is rewarding the baby-steps in holiness performed by his saints..." I like the idea that our Lord rewards the fruit of his own gifts to us.
"...not as the ground of their acceptance, but as the result of their acceptance" Might we say "as the result of their acceptance which, by grace, lead to the very baby-steps that are judged/ rewarded."?
"Again, this is not to be confused with the basis or ground of our being declared righteous." I agree but I believe we also need to be careful not to give the impression that evidence of being in Christ will be absent or unnecessary or not judged on the Last Day.
"...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." Shane, I humbly suggest that you are not doing justice to WCF 33.1 nor to the typical proof texts that are attached to it by phrasing things this way. It doesn't seem as if the divines were saying, "...to receive according to what they have done in the body, whether good or evil (and of course we know there is no one who has done good)."
lee
Yes, judgment and justification are to be distinguished but not entirely separated. Judgment is being brought into the courtroom. Justification is the final verdict of not guilty. If we stand before God apart from Christ with a single sin, we will be eternally condemned (James 2:10). That is, unless we are clothed in Christ's righteousness.
You raised the question of Matt 12:26-37: “But I tell you that men will have to give account on the day of judgment for every careless word they have spoken. For by your words you will be acquitted, and by your words you will be condemned.”
This verse condemns me, because I have spoken a lot of careless words, both before and after my conversion. But there is one who will not be condemned. Christ’s words were never careless, and his words become mine. He gives his life to me, and as a result, God’s holy books show that I kept the law in full.
I think this verse is very similar to Romans 2:6-7. “God will give to each person according to what he has done. To those who by persistence in doing good seek glory, honor and immortality, he will give eternal life.” Sounds like salvation here is based upon good works, but if you continue to follow the Paul's argument, “there is no one who persists in doing good...all have turned aside (Rom 3). So in other words salvation by good works is a real possibility, but remains an empty set for all those in Adam due to sin.
Now Paul does write, “For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that each one may receive what is due for what he has done in the body, whether good or evil” (2Cor 5:10). So must Peter suffer time in purgatory due to his three denials and other sins? And what will become of the thief on the cross? In reality, both these servants were “reconciled to God” (2Cor 5:20), and in Christ they became the righteousness of God (2Cor 5:21). Yes there will be a final judgment and people will be condemned based on what they have done. But the justification of believers will be on the basis of the great exchange. Our access to heaven is based on what Christ did in his body. That’s why we can be told, “therefore there is now no condemnation (Rom 8).
Now, let’s bring WCF Chapter 16 on Good Works into this discussion:
4. They who, in their obedience, attain to the greatest height which is possibly in this life...fall short of much which in duty they are bound to do.
5. We cannot by our best works merit pardon of sin, or eternal life at the hand of God, by reason of the great disproportion that is between them and the glory to come; and the infinite distance that is between us and God, whom, by them, we can neither profit, nor satisfy for the debt of our former sins, but when we have done all we can, we have done but our duty, and are unprofitable servants: and because, as they are good, they proceed from His Spirit, and as they are wrought by us, they are defiled, and mixed with so much weakness and imperfection, that they cannot endure the severity of God's judgment.
6. Notwithstanding, the persons of believers being accepted through Christ, their good works also are accepted in Him; not as though they were in this life wholly unblamable and unreproveable in God's sight; but that He, looking upon them in His Son, is pleased to accept and reward that which is sincere, although accompanied with many weaknesses and imperfections.
WCF Chapter 16 (4-6) shows that final justification is not on the basis of our own works. When God graciously accepts our good works, he does so out of fatherly goodness, showing that he has already accepted us in Christ. In this sense the elect will in fact receive according to what they have done in the body. But they will recieve rewards from their newly adoptive father, rather than from a consuming fire (Heb 12:29).
SR
Yes. They are. Leithart interprets "the righteousness of God" in terms of covenant faithfulness, rather than as imputed righteousness, and argues that justification is less forensic and more transformational than Protestants have suggested (see his essay "Judge Me, O God," in the book The Federal Vision edited by Wilkins and Garner). And as already mentioned, Leithart complains that the PCA FV Study Report "rejects final justification according to works.” Classical Protestant theology has never made a distinction between initial and final justification (see for example WCF 11.5). So take off that word final and it simply reads, "justification according to works." That is clearly a different way of saying things, and that is why the PCA rejected the Federal Vision.
SR
If you wish to claim that Protestantism doesn't distinguish present from final justification, to be fair to what Leithart is saying, say that [present] justification is according to works, but he is saying that our final judgment is according to work. We might still argue with him, but this is what he's saying.
Also, just because one exegetes certain 'righteousness of God' differently than most historical theologians, this does not seem to necessarily imply (though it could) that Leithart must not believe in imputed righteousness.
What I mean is: it's simply much more complicated than you seem to be making it.
There is no distinction between present and final justification, therefore if any in the FV crowd claim that present justification is by faith alone but that the ground of final justification involves our works, then this is not justification by faith "alone." Also, FV guys don't mean what classical protestants mean by their view of present justification. For them it's often defined merely as entrance into the visible church. The problem is that the FV camp continues to use classical protestant terminology in non-classical ways. In reality, they are closer to the tridentine system.
FYI, many if not most of those in the FV camp explicitly deny imputed righteousness. Lusk even mocks this concept calling Jesus the "the true Pelagian who gets to heaven by works." I suggest you read their works!
SR
I just read the following from Leithart:
"We are judged, after all, according to works that are entirely gifts of God. The life we live in the flesh - the life of action and doing - is lived by faith in the Son of God who lives in me. As Augustine said, when God rewards our works, He is simply crowning His own works. At the judgment, the Father gives judgment into the hands of the Son, who approves the works we have done, which have been produced by the Spirit. God the Father looked at the fruit trees springing from the ground (the ground really producing them) on the third day, turned to the Son and Spirit, and said, "That's good." At the final judgment, the Son will approve what we have done, which is the effect and fruit of the Spirit working in us. We are not rewarded because we have earned the reward, because we done so well that we have staked a claim on God; there's no merit here any more than there was for Adam. We receive a reward of grace, just as Adam would have if he had remained faithful."
He's got a series of posts on his ideas about judgment according to works.
lee
SR
Confusion over the covenants is the wellspring of most of the FV problems. Take a look at WCF 7.2 and you’ll find the phrase "covenant of works,” and no mention of grace whatsover. Now, works imply duty and action. Who does this work apply to? To "Adam and his posterity." On what basis? On the condition of Adam's "perfect and personal obedience." If I told you that "you can only get to heaven "on the condition of personal and perfect obedience," wouldn't you think I was teaching salvation by works??!!?? And most importantly, if the covenant of works involves grace, perhaps the covenant of grace involves works? Tragically, this is what many FV folks have concluded. But take a look sometime at the gap in the Larger Catechism between the first mention of the covenant of works (Q. 20) and the first mention of the covenant of grace, or even of the word grace for that matter (Q. 30). The simple straightforward meaning of the Westminster standards is clear. Before the fall, grace is not in view, but this new covenant comes into play only by God's initiative after the fall.
The language that WCF 7.2 does use is that of "voluntary condescension" (which is a wonderful phrase). God did not have to do anything, he was not obligated to do anything, but he voluntarily entered into a covenant with Adam, etc. This is not grace becauce grace is giving mercy to sinners, and Adam was not a sinner.
SR
First, you're probably totally right on all those FVers deny imputation of Christ's active obedience. But that was not my argument. All I was saying was that exegeting a 'righteousness of God' passage differently than someone else does not necessitate the denial of imputation.
Do you really believe that there is no difference between the final and present justification? So, there is no tension between now and then, because then is now. What does this mean? Are you living out the perfectly fulfilled salvation right now?
Ok, obviously, I was being rather facetious. One can say that the present verdict is a perfect anticipation of the final verdict (ie they both say the same thing), but surely this doesn't mean that both verdicts are the same. One is now, the other is later. They're different. Ok, so there is some distinction.
I think that your real problem is that the idea that one can be by faith, and the other by works. But, if you are agreeing that there are two different justifications (two different ones in time), then lets look at the scriptural references to each and see what they say. Your complete rejection of two different moments (one now and the other later) skips over this necessary exegetical moment, and easily skips to a false victory.
You might be right that both are declared on the basis of faith.
My guess is that they're primary scriptural basis for that assertion is Rom 2:13. It specifies that one 'will be' justified (future justification) and that that one must be a 'doer of the law' (by works). This is certainly not a full description, exegesis, or even a full thought on the topic, but it's my guess that that would be their starting point.
“One can say that the present verdict is a perfect anticipation of the final verdict (ie they both say the same thing), but surely this doesn't mean that both verdicts are the same. One is now, the other is later.”
Actually, many of us bring in eschatology here. When Paul says that “there is now no condemnation for those in Christ Jesus,” he’s bringing forth the future “not yet” declaration into the present day “already.” Thus it is in fact the very same reality as viewed through two different time zones.
Rom 2:13 is set in the future tense because it is a hypothetical construction. Though it’s possible to be justified by being a “doer of the law” (see Jesus’s teaching to this effect in Matt 19:17), none of Adam’s children actually qualify (Rom 3:20). But the second Adam was a doer of the law and he was justified and vindicated in all that he did. And just as Adam shared with us his original sin, Jesus shares with us his original righteousness.
But when the discussion is not rooted in a hypothetical argument, but actually unpacking the reality of the doctrine of justification, the language is not in the future tense, as we find with the comments of Jesus in Luke 18:14 “That man went to his house justified.” See also Acts 13:38-39, Rom 3:24-28, Rom 5:1-9, 8:30-33, 1Cor 6:11, etc.
“You might be right that both are declared on the basis of faith.” I do not argue that justification is on the basis of faith. The Arminians argued that. The ground of justification is the doing and dying of Christ, and faith is the means or instrument by which this gift is received.
SR
"I'm with Kline on COW, though not so much on his Mosaic Covenant take." I studied under Kline and even I'm not sure about everything he taught. And many FV critics use this to their advantage saying, "According to you, the only legitimate reading of the Reformed Creeds and Confessions is through the lens of Meredith Kline." To which we reply, absolutely not. There is much more room for a diversity of opinions than that. But when the diversity begins to chip away at the bi-covenantal super structure that Irenaeus, Augustine, Luther, Calvin, Beza, Wollebius, Ursinus, Turretin, Cranmer, the Westminster Divines, and Old Princeton affirmed, and which is part and parcel of all Reformed Creeds and Confessions, that's when we get nervous.
SR
I'd be interested in returning to the Matt 12 passage, if you are interested, to see how far we might agree. Here's the verses in question and I'll use the ESV since it translates dikaiothasa, "justified."
"I tell you, on the day of judgment people will give account for every careless word they speak, for by your words you will be justified, and by your words you will be condemned.”
You write: "This verse condemns me, because I have spoken a lot of careless words, both before and after my conversion. But there is one who will not be condemned. Christ’s words were never careless, and his words become mine. He gives his life to me, and as a result, God’s holy books show that I kept the law in full."
I take this to mean that you read the verses as presenting merely a hypothetical argument in regards to our being justified at the final judgment on account of our own words, in other words that we are only and always condemned by our words. And that this text acts as Law to drive us to Christ the perfect speaker (I'll call this a 2nd use of the law -- drive us to Christ -- rendering). Am I reading you correctly? Are you saying this text couldn't conceivably be speaking in an evidentiary way about our thoughts, words & deeds at the last judgment?
The context would seem to argue for an evidentiary understanding -- at least at some level. Here are verses 33-35:
"Either make the tree good and its fruit good, or make the tree bad and its fruit bad, for the tree is known by its fruit. You brood of vipers! how can you speak good, when you are evil? For out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks. The good person out of his good treasure brings forth good, and the evil person out of his evil treasure brings forth evil..."
Do you see no possibility of an evidentiary reading of vv 36 & 37? I'm not saying that these verses are speaking of the ground of our justification being our own words. No, Christ's righteousness is the ground, and the divine gift of faith is the instrumental cause. Nevertheless, it is our Holy Spirit enabled & Christ's-righteousness cleansed words that are in view here -- the divinely ordained result of a changed heart (see Eph. 2:8-10). Is such a reading inconceivable?
If such a reading is possible, I'd understand it as a sort of 3rd use of the law approach, motivating me to strive after holiness of speech out of gratitude to God.
Thanks.
( seems to me there was some grace there at the very start :) )
So what is going to happen now, denominationally speaking? Another P in the split P soup? A new denomination? Do they have to recant or get kicked out?
Thanks,
Alan
It’s easy get caught up in our own theological definitions, but too often real exegesis gets overlooked in the process. So I welcome your challenge to examine Matt. 12 more closely. What I notice first off is that “the tree is known by its fruits” comment comes directly after Jesus has been told by the Pharisees that he is casting out demons by the power of Beelzebub (Matt 12:24-32). And this is the context for Jesus’ comment that “out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks” (Matt 12:34). In other words, the Pharisees were proving by the things they said that they were not actually true servants of God, but that their hearts were in reality far from Him. So he says to them “you brood of vipers! How can you speak good, when you are evil?” Elsewhere Jesus told them more plainly “you are of your father the Devil” (John 8:44).
Ultimately, the important thing to take home from this passage is that the mouth is merely a reflection of the heart. The words we speak reflect who we are deep down. He teaches the very same thing a few chapters later in Matt 15:10-20, “Hear and understand: it is not what goes into the mouth that defiles a person, but what comes out of the mouth; this defiles a person...what comes out of the mouth proceeds from the heart...For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false witness, slander. These are what defile a person.”
Think what the rich young ruler might have felt if he heard these words. Earlier he had said, “These commandments I have kept from my youth,” (Mk 10:20). But had he kept his heart pure? Or think of the Sermon on the Mount in which Jesus says that lust and hate are just as sinful as adultery and murder. In reality, Moses and the entire Old Testament pointed forward to the true servant of God to come, who would have clean hands and a pure heart (Ps. 24). But those who discovered in themselves a heart that was “deceitful above all things and entirely corrupt” (Jer. 17:9) were pushed back to the Abrahamic covenant where mercy could always be found. So when Jesus said, “Blessed are the pure in heart,” he was preaching law not gospel. For as the Proverbs ask, “Who can say, I have made my heart clean, I am pure from my sin?” (20:9). But the gospel says, “ Since we have a great priest over the house of God; “let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, with our hearts sprinkled clean from an evil conscience and our bodies washed with pure water.” (Heb 10:21-22).
The line in Matt 12 which says men will have “to give account of every careless word they speak” is also very similar to Matt 5:22, “anyone who says, ‘You fool!’ will be in danger of the fire of hell.” In both cases, men are warned that their words will be taken into account on the day of judgment. And when I stand before God, I expect the evidence of my condemnation to be overwhelming, for “I am a man of unclean lips” (Is. 6:5). But “we have one who stands before the Father in our defense, Jesus Christ the Righteous One” (1John 2:1). So we'll all be condemned by our words, that is, all but Christ who was pure in heart. He will be justified and vindicated. And all those whom the Father has given to the son, those whose names have been written in the book of life, will be justified and accounted righteous in Him.
Now all that I have said relates to our acceptance before an infinitely holy and just God. However, there is also a practical side, relating more to sanctification. Those who are God’s people, who are called, and justified will also be sanctified. And we are called to “put away falsehood and to “speak the truth” with our neighbors (Eph 4:25). We are called to live lives of repentance, which means that we must dealing honestly with our own remaining corruption (2cor 7:10). And we are called to “speak and so act as those who are to be judged under the law of liberty” (James 2:12). None of this sanctification activity actually justifies us, but it is real. The author of Hebrews makes this distinction clear when he writes, “he has made perfect forever those who are being made holy” (Heb 10:14). Our own holiness is imperfect, but thankfully it is not the basis of our justification. We have been made perfect in Christ alone.
SR