The
Study Committee Report:
A Reply from
The Mississippi Valley Presbytery (MVP) of the PCA formed a Study Committee in
2003 to examine perceived threats to Reformed orthodoxy that are gaining
momentum in evangelical circles. Specifically, the committee was charged to
study “the teachings of Norman Shepherd, N.T. Wright, and the related systems
known variously as the New Perspective on Paul, which redefines Paul’s teaching
on justification, and the Federal Vision, which redefines the traditional
Reformed interpretation of the covenant concept.”
On
The purpose of this brief response is not to offer some kind of “counter-report”
to the work of the MVP Study Committee. Rather, the point is to demonstrate
that the Committee has not accurately described the position of the Session of
Auburn Avenue Presbyterian Church at numerous points. It appears to us that the
Committee, rather than addressing what we actually believe, has merely
addressed what it thinks we believe. Therefore, it would be a mistake for
Presbytery to adopt the report as it presently stands.
This response is not intended to be comprehensive. We will focus on the portion
of the document addressing the so-called “Federal Vision” and our own views. We
will leave those portions of the report not pertaining to us to others for
appropriate responses where necessary. Some preliminary
remarks appear appropriate:
1. The Study Committee frequently assumes a monolithic and univocal “Reformed
Tradition,” as though Reformed theology were all of one texture and hue. But,
at least in some cases, this overlooks the various shades of diversity within
historic Reformed theology (including the Westminsterian tradition). Reformed
orthodoxy has historically embraced a surprisingly wide field of views on
various issues. It is a more like a box than a pinpoint, and we impoverish
ourselves if we do not engage the breadth of our own tradition.
2. The “report” assumes that there is a well-defined movement labeled the “Federal
Vision.” This is highly debatable. The men who have been linked in various ways
to the “Federal Vision” (which was originally just the title for Auburn Avenue
Presbyterian Church’s annual Pastors Conference in 2002) have a number of
important differences amongst themselves. There is no organized movement,
formal or informal. Though there are some commonly held perspectives, there are
quite a few differences when it comes to specifics and therefore there is no
consistent system of theology which can be labeled “Federal Vision” theology.
The differences that exist between the positions held by the individuals
involved must be identified if any meaningful critique is to be offered.
3. There seems to be no appreciation of the nuances or qualifications or
specified terminology that has been utilized by the “Federal Vision” men.
Neither does there seem to be any serious engagement with the wide array of
exegetical, theological, and historical arguments set forth by the men
associated with the “Federal Vision.” Acknowledgment of these matters is
essential, however, if there is to be anything approaching an accurate
critique.
Consequently, we find in the “report” that the Committee has zealously
critiqued positions that we do not hold. Indeed, we question whether any of the
men addressed would recognize their teachings as accurately described. The “report”
evidences serious misreadings and misinterpretations of our statements (and
those of others) and, as a result, is a misrepresentation of our views. A few
specifics will reveal some of the theological problems of the Committee’s
report:
1. The report states, “FV proponents define the covenant as an objective
relationship that is independent of the covenant member’s subjective
considerations of the strength or nature of his membership.” We have never made
man’s subjective response to the covenant unimportant. Again and again, we and
FV writers have stressed that covenant membership is no automatic guarantee of
salvation. We have sought to be sensitive to the dangers of formalism and
subjectivism as well as antinomianism and legalism.
2. The report states that we have “downplayed . . . the legal and forensic
dimensions of the covenant.” In fact, we have maintained the legal and forensic
nature of justification at every point and have never denied it.
3. The report states without identification that “One proponent has denied the
imputation of Adam’s sin to his posterity.” We have no idea who has done this,
but we are confident neither we nor anyone we know of commonly associated with
the “Federal Vision” has ever done this. We do not deny the imputation of Adam’s
sin to his posterity.
4. The report states that “FV proponents deny the imputation of Christ’s active
(and perhaps passive) obedience to the believer for justification. The ‘righteousness’
of the believer in justification is sometimes said to be the believer’s
covenantal faithfulness. Justification is defined in terms of a process not a
definite act; and good works are said to be necessary to justification,
particularly to the believer’s ‘final justification’ at the Day of Judgment.
One proponent has argued for not fewer than three instruments of justification:
faith, covenantal faithfulness, and baptism.” This statement displays a
serious misunderstanding of what has been said by “FV proponents.” These men do
vary on how they formulate imputation, but no one denies it altogether. At most
imputation is seen by some as coming in conjunction with union with Christ.
Some FV writers have stressed the role of Christ’s resurrection in our
justification (Rom.
5. The report states that “The result is formulations of election that render
one’s election a process and a function of one’s covenantal obedience . . .
. One proponent has even denied the doctrine of individual regeneration.”
This is, at best, a terrible misinterpretation. We are unable to conceive of
how election could possibly be a process. No one that we know has rejected his
full, complete, and hearty belief in God’s sovereignty and soteriological
monergism.
6. The report states that “FV proponents point to objective grounds for one’s assurance
while practically denying subjective grounds for one’s assurance. For
assurance, the believer is directed away from discerning the inward and
spiritual graces unique to the regenerate person, and is directed towards his
water baptism.” Actually, we have argued that assurance has both objective and
subjective components and that such assurance can be “infallible.” FV writers
appear entirely at home in the teaching of the Westminster Confession on
assurance. We are as well.
7. The report states that “FV explanations of apostasy suggest that a believer
may genuinely possess Christ’s redemptive benefits and yet lose them.” This
completely ignores all the nuances and qualifications we have sought to make in
our teaching on apostasy. Whatever future apostates receive in the covenant is
fully commensurate with their membership in the visible church, which is the
8. The report states that “FV proponents understand the doctrine of the
sacramental union to mean that the sign and the thing signified invariably
accompany one another. Baptismal efficacy is affirmed, therefore, of every recipient
of the sacrament. All the blessings and benefits of Christ’s work are sometimes
said to be conferred upon the recipient in baptism. Baptism is assigned a place
in the doctrine of the Christian life that denigrates the place of preaching as
the instrument of conversion.” This badly twists what we and the FV proponents
have said about the objectivity and conditionality of sacramental efficacy. A
sacrament by definition includes the sign and thing signified. But just because
the thing signified is offered in the sign does not necessarily mean it is
received. We have repeatedly and in various ways stressed that faith is
absolutely necessary if the sacraments are to be effectual to eternal salvation
and frankly, are at a loss as to why this is not noted. The way the document
assumes that preaching and baptism are competing “instruments” of conversion is
overtly rejected by us, the FV proponents and by the parallelism found in WSC
questions 89 and 91. Both preaching and the sacraments are made “efficacious
means of salvation” by the Spirit.
9. The report states that “[The FV] operates with only one kind of covenantal
membership. It practically denies both the distinction between a
non-communicant and communicant membership and the distinction between the visible
and invisible church.” This is simply to say, most (though not all) FV
advocates are paedocommunionists. But the study report doesn’t actually address
paedocommunion. The question we would ask is, “Where are we told to distinguish
communing from non-communing members of the body?” If anything, both the Old
and the New Testaments forbid dividing the church that way (see 1 Corinthians
11). Moreover, at least some versions of the visible/invisible church
distinction have been roundly criticized and reformulated by the likes of John
Murray and Klaas Schilder. The FV is hardly novel at this point. It is still
well within the parameters of historic Reformed ecclesiology.
10. The report states that “[The FV] affirms, then, a form of baptismal
regeneration.” This is correct, but the question remains, what exactly do we
mean by this? Many of our Reformers also used “baptismal regeneration” language
(Calvin, Bucer, Burgess, etc.). The bare use of such a phrase is not sufficient
to prove heterodoxy. The various forms of “baptismal regeneration” must be
distinguished. We have striven to qualify what we mean by the phrase (i.e., the
work of the Spirit at baptism, transferring the baptized from union with Adam
into union with Christ). Our position actually has a long Reformed pedigree.
We find ourselves left with no alternative but to plead with the members of the
Study Committee and Mississippi Valley Presbytery to reconsider the statements
and accusations in this report. Taken as a whole, the report as it presently
stands is altogether inadequate as a fair and faithful representation and
evaluation of our position. It is filled with misstatements, misinterpretations
and misreadings. We have many times expressed our willingness for
brothers to study and interact with our teachings and continue to be open to
such critique and discussion. This requires, however, that our brothers be
willing to deal with our actual teachings and not those they merely suspect us
to hold.
It is our hope that before Mississippi Valley Presbytery acts on the study
report, it will request that the Committee engage in further study and
dialogue. The peace and purity of the church demand as much.
Adopted
_________________________
M. Dale Peacock, Stated Clerk