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

[P-Marlowe]

Here's the membership test:

Is there a cheat sheet?

[Dr. Eckleburg]

Amen. Great post, V_A.

"Be not afraid; only believe." -- Mark 5:36

[Larry Lucido]

Bump.

Oh, and I don't go for semi-pelicanism. I want the whole pelican or none at all.

[Calm_Cool_and_Elected]

I have always found reluctance to talk about anything that goes on at GA. I have tried to get a conversation started about the FV at my church for several years and no one is interested.

CC&E

[ears_to_hear]

Bible Presbyterian

[ears_to_hear]

***I’d be surprised if more than about 10 per cent of our church could fully assent; I’d guess less than half of them have read it. Standards for officers are significantly different than for members.

Here’s the membership test:

1. Do you acknowledge yourselves to be sinners in the sight of God, justly deserving His displeasure, and without hope save in His sovereign mercy?
2. Do you believe in the Lord Jesus Christ as the Son of God, and Savior of sinners, and do you receive and rest upon Him alone for salvation as He is offered in the Gospel?
3. Do you now resolve and promise, in humble reliance upon the grace of the Holy Spirit, that you will endeavor to live as becomes the followers of Christ?
4. Do you promise to support the Church in its worship and work to the best of your ability?
5. Do you submit yourselves to the government and discipline of the Church, and promise to study its purity and peace?****

---

I would say about 20% of our church is confessional . The rest have mixed acceptance of parts of the confession and we are about 30-40% members/non member attenders that are Arminian in belief. I do disagree with the fact we have at least one Sunday School teacher that is Arminian and baulks at reformed material . I think he needs to be relieved of his position or moved to the lower grades.

A good church is a good church period. I often think the non Calvinists really do not “hear “the parts of the sermons they would disagree with.

I wish we had a stronger reformed Sunday sermon, but there are lots of lambs that need to be fed.. and they are not all Calvinists :)

[PAR35]

I don’t know of any Arminian teachers in our church; I believe that is an issue that the Elders would be willing to deal with if it arose. Dispensationalists would be a bigger threat at our church.

I understand what you are saying about the sermon, but they do have to reach folks who are not used to getting much meat with their milk.

We tend to address that through adult Sunday School classes. A couple of hard core reformed classes, and then others more broadly evangelical in approach.

[PAR35]

Thanks. We can always use a few more theological conservatives in the PCA.

[ears_to_hear]

Most of our adult Sunday schools use reformed material but usually it is not doctrinal relevant . ie a class on relationships or something like that , although we did do “Amazing grace “ last year

Our Wed night study is always reformed but poorly attended.

I think most of the members and attenders have some understanding of reformed doctrine through class discussion etc. But you know there are not many in this world that are as passionate about doctrine as the folks on FR :)

[Saundra Duffy]

“Jesus Christ and Him crucified.”

That’s not a slogan; that’s straight outta the Good Book.

[Gamecock]

Bible Presbyterian

Great. That means you can now have a beer! (If you so choose.)

[ears_to_hear]

Exactly... LOL

[Gamecock]

But it’s not the entire book now, is it?

What about sanctification and justification and all those high falutin’ Bible words?!?

[rwfromkansas]

Can you point me to some good FV materials?

It is so stinking confusing, and of course the FV people say they are “misunderstood.”

It is hard to understand what they really believe.

[AnalogReigns]

I agree, FV stuff is a hard thing to get one's hands around. My understanding is that in reaction to the Zwinglian tendency, so prevalent in modern evangelicalism--washing over (heavily) into reformed evangelicalism also, to individualize faith, and a minimizing the sacraments into memorialism, or symbolism, they go the other way into a kind of hyper-covenentalism--a bit like the New Perspectives on Paul school. Baptismal regeneration is implied, as well as cult-like control over church members... Here's what I found about FV in "Theopedia.com" which looks to be a good resource:

* The Federal Vision introduces different views of covenant, faith, baptism, the Lord's Supper, election, regeneration, apostasy, and sacramental efficacy. While it is claimed that all these re-formulations are within the parameters of the orthodox Reformed Faith, critics claim that the Federal Vision is, in the end, contrary to the Westminster Standards.

* Critics see in the FV a loss of biblical balance regarding covenant theology. Union with the (visible) church automatically implies union with Christ in the Federal Vision teaching. This over-objective view of the covenant fails to distinguish between covenantal union in the visible church from the saving union of the invisible church.

* The FV perspective involves incipient sacramentalism. Critics see the FV imputing the efficacy of the thing signified to the sign itself, whether in regard to baptism or the Lord's Supper. The sacraments can communicate blessings apart from faith, and baptism appears to be a converting ordinance. The Federal Vision states that the unbelieving feed upon Christ when they partake of the Lord's Supper, and that a person is given new life by virtue of baptismal union with Christ.

Summarized from Banner of Truth review of "Auburn Avenue Theology, Pros and Cons: Debating the Federal Vision" by E. Calvin Beisner.

I know Beisner and the Banner of Truth Trust are theologically reliable sources--very orthodox and careful. Here's also what the Orthodox Presbyterian Church denomination has to say about FV too (another very reliable, careful source).

Primarily though, the PCA does not go out half-cocked about such things--so read the report from their general assembly about this.

[rwfromkansas]

Thanks. It is particularly difficult since I visited a church yesterday in Wichita since I recently moved there, and I know the pastor is FV...and it is in the CREC.

But, I have to say, I loved the worship. It was “covenant renewal worship,” which is what I have gotten used to in the Reformed Presbyterian Church, and I love that.

Also, we were kneeling during prayer and lifting up both arms during short praise responses like the Doxology. While odd at first, I really like that, and it is hard to get such expression in Reformed churches. Normally it comes down to standing and sitting. We never kneel before God. That was great. Furtheremore, the view on Communion was revolutionary.

While I was concerned they seemed to view it almost TOO much in terms of the presence....had almost a Lutheran feel....I was amazed by how they did it. The pastor flat out said this is not a time to be dour and serious, but a time for celebration. At first I was not so sure of that, but then, I was impressed. I got to thinking, was the Last Supper a dour event in which the disciples sat there with their heads bowed and eyes closed all quiet? No. Yes, we are to meditate on the body of Christ, but that does not require some morbid atmosphere like is so common. And that was very refreshing and changed my view of Communion. They do it weekly, which I also think is a much-needed change.

Now, the way they pass out the cup and bread is different. The head of household gets one for the family to share. While not sure about the head of household thing, I like the sharing of the cup as a family.

They also have head of household meetings, and that kind of concerns me since it goes to the hyper-covenantal issue. I think that goes too far. And, their view of baptism, while not as bad as it seems anti-FVers allege, goes a bit too far for my comfort.

So, at least based on this one experience, I would say there are parts to FV that are good.

There are some things that are a problem, and when RC Sproul attacks it, I take it seriously. But, at least at this church, some parts of what the FV is trying to do is not bad at all.

Nevertheless, in some areas, I believe they overextend and go too far. They go to the opposite extreme and come too close to Lutheran or Catholic views on some issues.

But, I must admit, it is still hard to get a handle around just what they believe since there are a variety of FV views. Shepherd is about the worst of the lot, while it seems he is a minority in the FV camp.

[AnalogReigns]

Forms of worship are important, but be sure and understand the theology behind it all. Just for fair notice, I myself am not a full Westminster affirming Presbyterian, although I am a member in good standing of a Presbyterian church (EPC). I belive the Lord is leading me into conservative Anglicanism (without compromising my 5 point Calvinism), and a big part of that is over the form of worship, and, the fact I am convicted of a more Lutheran view of the sacraments than is typically Calvinist...

I think that Zwinglian ideas, coming from popular evangelicalism (and Baptists) have sorely infected most Presyberterian/Reformed congregations, and hence the reaction of the FV take on things...but be careful, as the PCA and the OPC don’t condemn things in their midst lightly. Episcopal worship to me is wonderful—however most Episcopal churches (and the denomination for sure) are apostate...so beware, don’t let externals draw you into some place you should not go.

[rwfromkansas]

Thanks. I will definitely be careful.