Rejection of the Federal Vision

Reformed News: "After rejecting a motion to postpone consideration of the report, the PCA General Assembly today adopted the recommendations of its Study Committee by a large majority. The committee report is available here (PDF). See our liveblogging below for a summary of the flow of the discussion." Scott Clark mentions that the motion passed "overwhelmingly."

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From D.R. Brooker @ http://drbrooker.net

I’m probably one of the few Baptists thankful for the vote in the PCA yesterday that overwhelmingly adopted their study committee report on the “Federal Vision” theology of Doug Wilson, Steve Schlissel, John Barach, Rich Lusk, Steve Wilkins, Peter Leithart, etc., declaring that their teaching does not conform to the Westminster Confession, and by implication, the scriptures. The PCA is not the first Presbytery to rule this way, but it is definitely the largest.

Why am I thankful? Because the Federal Vision, at its heart, is a denial of the gospel. It rejects the necessity of the imputation of Christ’s righteousness to those who believe as the ground by which we are declared just before God. It replaces imputation with a mystical “union with Christ” that occurs at baptism; a union that is kept by the person’s “covenant faithfulness”; a union after which, one may still fall away. Without imputation, there is no “good news”; there is no gospel.

What does this mean practically? I don’t know. I hope that the men who teach this error will either repent or leave the PCA. If they hold to a Presbyterian ecclesiology, they must submit to the ruling and take one of these courses of action. I would even go so far to say that if we start seeing an exodus from the PCA, we may see many travel all the way back to Rome. Once you leave “Geneva”, there is only one destination. Pray that the Lord will purge this and other errors from His church.

Hopefully now, many who have turned a blind eye to the teachings of these men will cease their fawning over them. This is no small issue and many have treated it as such. Hopefully now they will realize that the doctrine of justification IS the doctrine by which “the church stands or falls.” It is one thing to quote Luther in this regard; it is quite another to take it seriously.

For those who are unfamiliar with the Federal Vision, here are the nine recommendations from the study report on why this theology should be rejected.

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.