Presbyterian Church In America Approves Recommendations of Federal Vision Study Report

PCA email | JUNE 14, 2007

[Gamecock]

Complete Title: 35th PCA GA Approves Recommendations of Federal Vision Study Report

MEMPHIS, TENN – The 35TH General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in America, meeting in Memphis, Tenn., on Wednesday, June 13, approved the recommendations of its Interim Committee on Federal Vision.

After the committee made its report, a motion was made to postpone taking action on the recommendations at this GA, to add two new members to the committee, and to direct the committee to include more exegesis of relevant biblical passages in its report. This motion failed. After further debate the General Assembly voted overwhelmingly to approve the recommendations.

The recommendations included the following:

1. That the General Assembly commends to Ruling and Teaching Elders and their congregations this report of the Ad Interim Committee on NPP, AAT and FV for careful consideration and study.

2. That the General Assembly reminds the Church, its officers and congregations of the provisions of BCO [Book of Church Order] 29-1 and 39-3 which assert that the Confession of Faith and the Larger and Shorter Catechisms of the Westminster Assembly, while “subordinate to the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments, the inerrant Word of God,” have been adopted by the PCA “as standard expositions of the teachings of Scripture in relation to both faith and practice.”

3. That the General Assembly recommends the declarations in this report as a faithful exposition of the Westminster Standards, and further reminds those ruling and teaching elders whose views are out of accord with our Standards of their obligation to make known to their courts any differences in their views.

4. That the General Assembly reminds the Sessions and Presbyteries of the PCA that it is their duty “to exercise care over those subject to their authority” and “to condemn erroneous opinions which injure the purity or peace of the Church” (BCO 31-2; 13-9f).

Recommendation 3 dealt with nine declarations proposed by the study committee. It asked the General Assembly to recommend that the declarations in the report be considered a faithful exposition of the Westminster Standards. The declarations are:

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

[Gamecock]

Blessed News From Memphis

While I can’t read this very closely right now it seems that the PCA has turned back the current wave of semi-Pelagianism (or maybe even total Pelagianism) that has been percolating up in the last couple of years.

Sola Deo Gloria!

[Saundra Duffy]

Greek to me. Too many hifalutin words. We should stick to Jesus Christ and Him crucified.

[Gamecock]

Sounds good until you realize we are called to renew our minds, not cling to simple slogans.

[adiaireton8]

Taylor Marshall, a former PCA member and Westminster grad, has more to say on that in his Federal Vision Loses, Zwinglians Win: PCA-GA 2007.

-A8

[visually_augmented]

So what aspect(s) of the Federal Vision do you consider Pelagian? I am a bit uninformed on the movement and wonder what teachings and beliefs have spurred this report?

[Calm_Cool_and_Elected]

Ping

[marshmallow]

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.

I have to ask.

What if an individual does forsake the visible Church? Does one lose anything, in terms of one's salvation?

The reason I ask, is that if losing "election" is not a consequence of forsaking the visible Church, then let's all forsake it. I have faith. I don't need no stinkin' Church.

Ergo, the Church has no raison d' etre.

A church with no raison d' etre will die, as surely as the sun rises.

[P-Marlowe]

As a non-Presbyterian I applaud the committee for standing firm on the Presbyterian confession of faith. In this day of creeping liberalism it is nice to see a denomination standing up for unwavering Biblical Principles.

Although I would probably not be be allowed to become a full member of the PCA because of my reluctance to make a full assent to the Westminster Confession, I would strongly recommend the PCA to any Christian who is looking for a solid, biblical Church in which to fellowship and grow in Christ.

[topcat54]

The very fact that the PCA's synods wrestle with these kinds of questions is indicative of their theological depth.

I thought about this; if each commissioner of the PCA GA entitled to vote were required to write an accurate one page summary of the report/FV as a prerequisite, how many would be able to pass. As one who has attended PCA GA's in the past (when there was more substance than show at the GA) I suspect the percentage would not be very high.

The PCA GA is not the place for significant theological discussion.

[topcat54]

Although I would probably not be be allowed to become a full member of the PCA because of my reluctance to make a full assent to the Westminster Confession,

One does not need to subscribe to the Westminster Standard to be a member of the PCA, although I think I know what you meean. Your inability to subscribe would prevent you from being an officer. You could still worship, receive the Lord's Supper and, in some cases, even teach and otherwise minister.

[adiaireton8]

In Reformed theology the reason for not forsaking the visibile Church is obedience to Christ's command not to forsake the assembling of ourselves. And the purpose of obedience is gratitude.

Notice that this reason is only *stipulatively* related to salvation.

-A8

[marshmallow]

Yet what if I do forsake?

Any consequences?

[marshmallow]

Although I would probably not be be allowed to become a full member of the PCA because of my reluctance to make a full assent to the Westminster Confession, I would strongly recommend the PCA to any Christian who is looking for a solid, biblical Church in which to fellowship and grow in Christ.

You're recommending a Church to others when you yourself can't assent to its profession of faith?

Strange.

Sounds like "the shopping mentality". Here, try on this jacket. Not ideal, not the best I've seen and certainly wouldn't suit me. It would look OK on you, though.

The Westminster Confession is either a) entirely true, b) partly true, or c) not at all true. If it's anything other than a), then it contains errors. Either you aren't sure whether it's the entire truth or you believe it isn't, yet you'd still encourage others to embrace it.

"Fellowship" and "solidity" (whatever that is) can be obtained at the local golf club. People want truth, the whole truth when it comes to their salvation.

This is an OK place doesn't cut it.

[AnalogReigns]

I skimmed the deluded Taylor Marshall’s response. Unless one wants to call Calvin and the Westminster divines “Zwinglian” (which is preposterous, by any measure), the PCA is hardly Zwinglian/anabaptist as he claims. The Federal Vision folks have been clearly contra the Westminster standards, and boardering on baptimal regeneration/hyper-covenantl/sacramentalist (Roman Catholic-like) and un-Reformed, un-Puritain, and un-Presbyterian, and any (competant) Westmnister Seminary graduate should know that.

Only the willingly ignorant lump Zwingli and Calvin, and their followers, together.

[AnalogReigns]

As the Westminster standards themselves teach, like ANYTHING other than the bible, it itself is “b) partly true,” (in your words) which is why it teaches that the bible alone is inerrant. Unlike followers of Rome, confessional Christians don’t demand a human authority claiming to to be TRUTH with a capital “T.” No minister is asked to vow that he believes (and will teach) every word of the standards as gospel truth...because, again, the standards themselves teach only the bible itself fits that inerrant standard.

Every Presbytery will ask what parts a minister-candidate takes exception to, and, will make a judgment call as to whether such points are essential or not, and as to whether such a minister should be ordained. If an issue becomes important enough, like the FV issue, it can be taken up to the General Assembly—who will make a decision, as they have done, on whether to exclude particular teachings and or teachers. Federal Vision is considered so divergent from Westminster as to be a complete departure from it—an error verging on heresy (heresy being defined here a doctrines which could not just lead others off, but lead some to hell).

So, since the Westminster standards proclaim the bible alone as inerrant, and itself as underneath the authority of the bible, one can logically teach Wesminster, having a high degree of confidence it is MOSTLY true, while knowing God’s Word alone is your final authority.

[adiaireton8]

Yet what if I do forsake? Any consequences?

The slogan is "We are saved by faith alone, but by a faith that is alone". So if your faith isn't reflected in your expression of your gratitude by obedience, then at some undefined and indeterminate point in your level of disobedience, you show that you don't actually have faith (which means, in Reformed theology that you never had any faith to begin with, and thus that in principle you cannot lose anything by forsaking the visible church). That is, if you are elect, you can't lose anything by forsaking the visible church. If you are non-elect, you can't lose anything by forsaking the visible church, because you didn't have anything to begin with. Either way, you can't lose anything by forsaking the visible church.

-A8

[Campion]

As the Westminster standards themselves teach, like ANYTHING other than the bible, it itself is “b) partly true,”

Then it can't be trusted even when it teaches that. After all, it's only partly true.

Christ promised to lead his Apostles to "all truth". Not some truth, not partial truth, not truth which may be voted down by the next general assembly of some man-made denomination, but "all truth".

[P-Marlowe]

You're recommending a Church to others when you yourself can't assent to its profession of faith? Strange.

You misunderstand Protestantism. Only inasmuch as the Westminister confession is consistent with the authority of scripture can it be considered correct. The Westminster confession is based upon solid Biblical principles, however, there is one word that has been inserted (which is not present in the Heidelburg or Belgic confessions) to which I cannot, in good conscience, fully assent. It is not even a point of assertion, but a point of denial.

In my mind the Westminster Confession could very well be correct in that point, however I disagree that it is a position that is clearly based solidly on scripture, but is instead, at best, a reasonable deduction to be drawn. It is not an unreasonable deduction, simply one I would not make.

It is a peripheral issue which the PCA holds as fundamental. That is why I would not apply for full membership, nor would I expect that they should grant it to me. I would, however, be more than happy to recommend to anyone looking for a solid biblically sound church to check out the PCA. If they can assent to their doctrinal statement without hesitation, then good for them. They will not be less of a Christian than me because of it. I admit that I may actually be wrong in my position and they might be right. As Protestants we are free to worship as the Lord leads us. The Lord has not led me there. But I acknowledge that the Lord has led many people there and I pray that he will continue to do so.

I have peripheral differences with most Protestant churches, including my own. On the other hand I have fundamental differences with the Roman Catholic Church.

Thank you for your comment Saint Marshmallow.