PCA and FV

The PCA has recently published a study report on "Federal Vision" (FV) and the "New Perspectives on Paul" (NPP) movements. The study committee was composed of 7 individuals: 4 teaching elders and 3 ruling elders. My wife and I were actually talking about this the night before we both found out that the PCA had published its study. The study could not be more timely, as far as I'm concerned. The NPP movement has been around for a couple decades now and FV has been around probably at least as long but has recently come to light because of the Auburn Avenue controversy that took place a few years ago (2002). I've taken some time to read through the report and I don't want to go through the whole thing here, but I do want to say a few things about the declarations at the end (section IV). Maybe I can demonstrate some of the vocabulary issues I mentioned in my last post. I will paste each of the declarations and follow each with my brief commentary.

-start-
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. – FV doesn’t reject the bi-covenantal structure of Scripture. Instead, FV understands that both covenants are gracious. This is not the same thing as saying that both covenants are covenants of grace, though this is how the PCA seems to be interpreting FV. To argue that the covenant of works, had it been kept, could only have been kept by grace through faith is not to say that it is really a covenant of grace. I haven't read much about the NPP so I don't know if mono-covenantalism can be found there (though I suspect it can be given this declaration).

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. – This one is a bit trickier. FV associates “visible church” with “covenant members” (by virtue of baptism) and, thus with “the elect” as the people of God. Care is taken, however, to maintain a difference between “the elect” as the body of Christ (who is the Elect One and in whom we have our identity with via baptism) and “the elected individual” as one who is chosen by God, is a member of the “invisible church” and, thus, will be saved. So in the former sense, one can lose his election (and, thus, salvation) by completely forsaking the visible church. If he is a member of the invisible church though, his forsaking of the visible church will be temporary as the salvation of the invisible church is guaranteed. This should not, in reality, be called “forsaking” on the part of the true believer; rather it’s sinful disobedience that needs to be corrected.

Here we begin to see the disparate views of the covenant between the PCA and the FV. From what I can gather, the FV is taking cues from the NPP on its sense of corporate application of the covenant. Because of this, the FV understanding of election is expanded to include the entire visible church within the body of Christ. They are arguing that the body of Christ as a whole is "the elect" and, thus, enjoys all the benefits of union with Christ (justification, adoption, sanctification, etc.). The Westminster Standards aren't diverse enough to allow for such an expanded understanding of election (or covenant, for that matter) and so FV only seems at odds with the Standards on this point. But because the PCA is bound to the Standards, it sees the expansion as a threat to doctrinal (and denominational) purity. I think there is a legitimate concern here, but if we are careful not to equivocate on some key terms then there could be agreement.

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. – FV advocates say that a separate imputation of Christ’s work to the individual is redundant if the individual is already in Christ. In other words, Christ's work becomes our work as a result of our union with Him. If Jesus is justified and we are in Jesus, then we also are justified and there is no need for a separate (and/or distinct) declaration of justification for the sake of the individual. Once again we find that emphasis on a corporate understanding of covenant coming out in contrast (but not in opposition to) an emphasis on the individual understanding. I think there are NPP advocates who deny that Jesus' work is imputed to us, but that is not something the FV has adopted from them.

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. – This is kind of the same thing as (3), just worded differently. Again, it's more applicable to NPP than FV.

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. – Ditto with (4)

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. – Finally some good meat and, really, I think this is the heart of the whole issue (or very near to it). What does “covenantal union” mean? Do we say, or believe, that those who are members of the visible church are united to Christ? Further more, can a person be only partly united to Christ? As the preceding (to these declarations) analysis states, the WCF speaks of “union with Christ” in one sense: it is applicable only to those who are members of the invisible church, i.e. those whom God has chosen for salvation. The problem with this is that nobody knows who is in the invisible church; according to the WCF the invisible church can only be seen and known by God. So what we essentially have here is the WCF saying that (a) only members of the invisible church can be united with Christ and (b) only God knows who those members are. Okay, so where does that leave us who are in the visible church now? Can we know if we are united to Christ? It would seem that the WCF is teaching (according to the PCA’s interpretation of it, no less) that we can’t know if we are members of the invisible church or not. Tons and tons more could be written here, but I’m trying to keep this short.

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. – Here we see the failure of the PCA's position (and the failure of the WCF, I think) to make sense of “covenantal union” as it relates to the visible church. FV maintains that there’s a very real sense in which a member of the visible church, who is united to Christ by virtue of that membership, can lose the salvation he also has by virtue of being in that visible relationship (the PCA would say such an individual was never really saved to begin with, which is practically the same thing). This is part of what FV calls the “objectivity of the covenant,” if you break the covenant by being unfaithful then you reap the rewards of infidelity. Now, I think FV would make a distinction between type of salvation such a “covenant breaker” has in comparison with one who is a member of the invisible church (whose salvation is guaranteed). Actually, the distinction is made between the salvation we have corporately as the visible church and the salvation we have individually as members of the invisible church. The point being, I think, that warnings against apostasy aren't about mere hypothetical situations. The FV position makes very real the vine metaphor in John 15; those branches which are cut off the vine are cut off from union with Christ.

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. – More of the same.

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. – I haven’t ever gotten the impression that FV teaches we have to wait until death to find out if we’re saved. Nor have I gotten the impression that FV teaches we earn that salvation or gain it in some other way that isn't by faith alone. I suppose that this is more against some of the NPP conclusions than against FV.
-end-

Having interjected all this, I still am not willing to side with the FV position, at least not 100% (in other words, I still consider myself a good PCA presbyterian). If nothing else, it seems to me that this debate should serve to spark a desire to revise the Standards themselves. I don’t mean to imply that they should be revised to incorporate FV teachings either; they should be revised because (a) they're 500 years old, (b) the tradition has gone through many and varied theological and philosophical eras, and (c) it should be written up to date considering the change in definition of various theological and biblical terms and concepts that has come with the intermediate scholarship. Don't get me wrong here, I'm a huge fan and supporter of the Standards. I was born and raised within the PCA, graduated from the PCA's college, frequently teach Sunday school at a PCA church and currently am leading a Bible study group of fellow PCA members. So I suggest a revision of the Standards not as an outside (or inside) critic, but as someone who wants to see domestic violence cease amongst those who would call themselves Reformed. This is something I believe a good revision of the Standards could help to accomplish.

The Auburn Avenue Controversy

I've linked a letter by David Bahnsen (Greg Bahnsen's son) to the title of this entry in which I agree with his assessment of the "problem" that has given rise to this controversy. My entry here won't be as long as his letter but I will, essentially, be saying the same thing. I will preface my position by qualifying that I have not read any of the published books flowing from this controversy; either in support of Federal Vision theology (also called Auburn Avenue theology, for obvious reasons) or in support of the Traditional Reformed position's critque of Federal Vision theology. I will be using "FV" to refer to the Federal Vision position and "TR" to refer to the Traditional Reformed position. In formulating a balanced opinion on the Auburn Avenue controversy I've found in necessary to start at the beginning. What caused this thing in the first place? What is this controversy about? My current understanding is as follows.

A long time ago (January of 2002) in a galaxy far far away (Monroe, Louisiana), a PCA church held a pastor's conference. The title of the conference was "The Federal Vision" and its theme(s) revolved around various aspects of covenant theology, particularly focusing on how the covenant can/should be viewed objectively in the life of the church. Seems innocuous enough, doesn't it? Nothing out of the ordinary for a PCA pastor's conference, right? Several months (in June) after the conclusion of this conference the RPCUS issued, or sanctioned, a resolution which called for the repentance of those who spoke at the conference: namely Douglas Wilson, Steve Schlissel, John Barach and Steve Wilkins (Wilkins is the pastor of AAPC, the hosting church). The resolution concluded with an ominous "May God have mercy on their souls" seeming to imply that these men were to be considered heretics lest they repent. A couple of weeks later Wilson's church responded and another week later Schlissel's church responded. Since then it has become quite the ruckus.

As I've already mentioned, I have not read or listened to any of the materials that were presented/given at this conference. My experience with the controversy has come via being a proponent of the TR view, reading TR and FV material online (including Wilkins's examination), participating, witnessing, and lurking in blog (start from the bottom if you visit this link) discussions, visiting official church websites and talking with various people about individual aspects of FV. Not having much experience with the polemics involved with this controvesry (from either side) affords me, I think, a unique perspective. Since I learned about FV I've been an avid reader of Doug Wilson's blog (linked above), as he is generally considered to be spearheading the movement. I've even had the pleasure of sitting down with him and talking about some of the issues tied up in this controversy.

So, just what are the issues anyway? I think it's hard to pin down specific issues because of how organic FV is; what I mean is, when talking about a particular issue, say justification, the FV and the TR are pulling from very similiar yet differently nuanced systems. Because of this there is a vocabulary barrier that needs to be overcome, or at least acknowledged, before true discussion about specific points of contention can be fruitful. The main issue is how FV understands (or interprets) the practical implications of "covenantal union," also known as union in/to Christ. The particular issues include the efficacy of baptism (i.e. what baptism does/means for the one baptized), justification as it pertains to union in Christ, the distinction between the visible and invisible church, and covenantal apostasy. As you can tell, it would difficult to speak about one of these issues without relating, or relying on, all of them in some form or fashion.

Now that we know what the cause of the controversy is and what the controversy is about, I feel like I can share my opinion safely. First, the way this controversy came about is regrettable, lamentable, disgraceful and unscriptural. For an entire denomination, of Reformed Christians no less, to draw up such a resolution as the RPCUS has drawn up without even so much as contacting the individuals involved is flat out wrong. I don't mean wrong in the sense of incorrect either, I mean sinfully wrong as in they should be asking for forgiveness if they haven't already. It takes a special kind of pride and a lack of brotherly love to pull something like this off. Where there is controversy and confusion there should have been dialogue and attempted understanding. I am convinced that this would not be a controversy at all had proper procedure been followed, or at least it wouldn't be so bloated of a controversy.

Secondly, while it is true that the issues invovled are not nominal, it is equally true that (and obvious) that the advocates of FV are Christians. The desciptor "heretic" should not be thrown around lightly, nor should it be used of someone who is a Christian even though he may be wrong on certain points of a systematic theology; the gospel truth is a bit more flexible and forgiving, so should we be. Having said this, it is important that these issues get talked about. Our credo isn't "ecclesia semper reformanda est" for nothing and I, for one, say that FV needs to be given a little more careful consideration. I realize that books have been written, but I've also seen these books reviewed by Wilson (who, I think, knows what he believes better than his critics know what he believes) and I'm not certain that scholars on the TR side of things are getting it. As I mentioned earlier, I believe vocabulary barriers are one of the major contributing factors.

From what I can tell, FV is mostly an expansion over and above what TR already teaches. FV advocates take few exceptions to the Westminster Standards, fully embrace the doctrines of grace (at least from what I've seen), and have a strong desire to live worthy of the calling they have received as followers of Christ. What's not Reformed about that? TR should be working with FV to win more souls for the kingdom, as brothers and as fellow Christian soldiers. While I may not agree with what FV teaches, I do believe they preach the true gospel. We would do well to remember the words of our Savior, "Every kingdom divided against itself will be ruined, and every city or household divided against itself will not stand."

A Perspective Bit on Baptism

Since I'm a good PCA presbyterian I'm not going to bother actually constructing an argument that justifies infant baptism. There are already plenty of decent (and lengthy) books and a host of articles online which can establish baptism's continuity with circumcision understood within the context of an individual becoming a member of each respective covenant. As a good example, you can read Meredith Kline's take in his two part article. What I want to do here is assume the validity of infant baptism and briefly dig deeper into its covenantal ramifications while at the same time undermining the credo-baptist view.

A lot of confusion surrounding this matter can be cleared up by making a distinction between being a member of the covenant (Old or New) and being a believing, or what some people might call a "true", member of that covenant. This distinction is important because Paul explicitly teaches us that not all who are in Israel are of Israel; the same would also be true of the Church:

Rom. 9:3-8 [NASB] - For I could wish that I myself were accursed, separated from Christ for the sake of my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh, who are Israelites, to whom belongs the adoption as sons, and the glory and the covenants and the giving of the Law and the temple service and the promises, whose are the fathers, and from whom is the Christ according to the flesh, who is over all, God blessed forever. Amen. But it is not as though the word of God has failed for they are not all Israel who are descended from Israel; nor are they all children because they are Abraham's descendants, but: "THROUGH ISAAC YOUR DESCENDANTS WILL BE NAMED." That is, it is not the children of the flesh who are children of God, but the children of the promise are regarded as descendants.

What amounts to a practical parallell to this passage appears in the Sermon on the Mount when those who come to Jesus crying "Lord, Lord" are denied because Jesus claims to never have known them. Certainly Jesus knew all about them and that knowledge is what actually prompts His remark. We also find the apostle John expressing a similar thought in his first epistle (1 John 2:17-19). We can see from passages such as these that there can be Christians and Israelites who aren't really Christians or Israelites (i.e. who aren't saved). The problem is that those of us on the more conservative side of evangelicalism ascribe a very strict and specific meaning to the descriptor "Christian." Namely, we understand the term to be equal with "believer" and/or "one who is saved." Under such a definition it would be impossible for a Christian to be a non-believer or unsaved. If we understand "Christian" to refer to a member of the Church or to a member of the covenant family then it is quite possible for a Christian to be a non-believer and unsaved; in fact, most of America is Christian in this sense.

It should be noted here that the arguments for infant and cred0-baptistm are both made from silence as far as the recorded baptisms in Scripture are concerned; you can actually make both arguments from the passage in Romans 9. Proponents of credo-baptism will argue that every instance of baptism found in the New Testament is always of new believers. That is, baptism is given as a sign of the New Covenant only after one has made a conscious decision to become part of the covenant family. The backside of this is that the children of believers should not be considered part of the covenant family until they become believers themselves. Though credo-baptists disagree, this aspect of credo-baptism is the logical conclusion that follows from their understanding of baptism.

It is not, however, the picture that the New Testament presents when we consider the words of Christ Himself while rebuking His disciples: "Let the children alone, and do not hinder them from coming to me; for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these." (Matt. 19:14). To say that some of the children being brought before Jesus were not infants or babes is to make an argument from silence; but so is asserting that there must have been infants and babes. I think many Greek scholars would argue that there most likely would have been infants and babes present. The point is that here is a clear example of believers trying to deny children access to the Bread of Life and, consequently, being rebuked by that very Bread who has said "let them come" (here is also the heart of the paedocommunion argument but that's another story for another time).

The problem I have with the credo-baptist view is that they seem to understand baptism as a sign and seal of the Holy Spirit in the individual. So what happens when one of these adults ends up going the path of rebellion and never repents? Was the seal of baptism ineffective? Maybe I'm simply misunderstanding what credo-baptism really is, but if it is supposed to be an outward symbol/type of an inward reality then this creates problems with other aspects of what the Scriptures teach concerning salvation. What we have, then, with credo-baptism is Christians (i.e. one's who are supposed to be saved) falling away from their faith and into final condemnation; but Paul says that God is faithful and He will finish the work He begins (1 Cor. 1:4-8; Phil. 1:6).

From here it is easy to see 1) baptism isn't required for gaining salvation and certainly doesn't guarantee one salvation; thus there is no reason not to baptise infants in this regard. And 2) the outward sign of baptism is just that, outward. There's no promise made in relationship to this outward sign that obligates God to save the one who is baptised. What is often confused here is equating water baptism with Water baptism. Water is often associated with the Holy Spirit in the New Testament; just as real water gives life, so the Spirit of God gives life. Jesus is the fountainhead of that living water and He promised that anyone who partakes of the water He gives would never thirst.

Proponents of credo-baptism place a great amount of emphasis on the pre-requisite of faith for the administering of baptism, but they also won't allow the faith of the parents to be a "stand-in" for their children until the children make a conscious/unconcious decision one way or the other. They say that the passages in Acts where baptism is for households do not necessarily imply that infants were included amongst those households. Of course, it doesn't say infants aren't included either and it seems extraordinarily unlikely that all of the households coming into the body of Christ at that time would be free of infants. There is also the matter of early church practice; the first written record of infant baptism being found in the writings of Origen a scant century after the last book of the Bible was written (less than a century if you say Revelation was written c. 90 A.D.). It is probable that the tradition of infant baptism came about as a result of baptising whole households, some of which would have invariably contained infants; in other words, it was unavoidable.

So we come full circle: what, exactly, does baptism mean for an infant since it is safe to say it can't/doesn't mean anything to an infant? It seems to me that if we're going to maintain any sort of continuity between circumcision and baptism then, at the very least, we must consider who is supposed to participate. The Old Testament is quite plain and clear that all males, regardless of age, were to be circumcised (Gen. 17:10-14). Even if you weren't a Jew you were required to be circumcised in order to be considered a member of the covenant. It is also clear that infants were not excluded (vs. 12). Two things are fascinating about this: 1) the most obvious: females were not (and could not be) included. The women did not receive any kind of sign or mark of membership that showed they were included in the covenant. Women were actually members by virtue of being under the headship of a man (Father, husband, uncle, etc). 2) Faith was not required of anyone else in the household before they were to receive circumcision. There's no "age of accountability" to be met in order to be circumcised. If you're born or adopted into the family of God then you receive the sign of membership whether you are capable of understanding the significance of it or not.

We see baptism working in a similar manner in the New Testament. Because it is instituted as the sign of the New Covenant, the sign is for all those who were already considered God's covenant people, for those families as they become covenant members and for families as they grow in the covenant. John was baptizing people in the Jordan and who's to say infants weren't present? Like the baptizing of families recorded in Acts, is it really feasible that absolutely no infants or small children were participating? I can imagine the conversation Peter has with the fathers of those households: "Okay guys, now that you've accepted Jesus as your Lord and Savior, I'm going to baptize you in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, as per His final instructions to us. I will baptize you and your family; but not your babies or your children under 12..." Now, imagine Peter is talking to Jews, who were given the original mark of God before they ever had any conception or recognition of it's meaning. Do you think they would take kindly to Pete's method of bringing them into this new and supposedly better covenant? He would essentially be telling them that their children aren't God's children and are, therefore, to be exluded from the covenant family until they decide to join on their own.

The closest thing resembling a sound argument against this view is the credo-baptist's contention that baptism doesn't have any bearing on whether or not one is a member of the covenant. A child born to believers is a member of the covenant by virtue of being born to believing parents. This, however, introduces a completely foreign idea into the theology of covenants, especially when we consider the continuity issue. In the Old Covenant, being born into a Jewish family had nothing to do with being or not being an Israelite. If you weren't circumcised or a female under the authority of one who was circumcised then you were not an Israelite. Of course, we find out in the New Testament that even if you did meet the physical requirements it doesn't necessarily mean you are an Israelite (Romans 9 above).

The point is, as an outward sign of covenant membership, circumcision and baptism serve the same purpose. It is not unlike the relationship between Passover and the Lord's Supper; Passover was a celebration of promises kept and of promises to be delivered and the Lord's Supper is a celebration of promises fulfilled and promises to be fulfilled. As celebratory meals they serve the same purpose, i.e. to remind God's people of His promises to them. Does this mean there is no significant difference between the two? Certainly not! The same is true with baptism and circumcision; there are differences between the two, but not so much as to exclude certain elements of continuity. What this means is that the cred0-baptist view doesn't have any ground to stand upon when taking covenant signs as a whole. Baptism, as an outward sign of covenant membership, should be administered to all who are members of that covenant, including the infants of believing parents.

When Christianity Begs

"We forget that we are Christians, which means we are to confess the lordship of Jesus Christ over every aspect of life. For some mysterious reason, we have settled for the lordship of Christ over some precincts of heaven, but everything else belongs to Time Warner or Ted Turner. We have made our peace with our situation. But at least the prodigal son had the good sense to be revolted when the pig food was starting to look good to him -- we in contrast take our hunger as an indication that we will soon be accepted into the best porcine circles, over there on the other side of the pen. We wait patiently for our place at the trough... er, table. We do not cast our pearls before swine; we cast ourselves." - Douglas Wilson (emphasis mine)

Why is it that Christianity in America is trying to emulate her surounding secular society? I understand, from an evangelist's point, that Christians need to be integrated into their culture (not something difficult to do in the States) but why integrate through immitation? Paul said that to the Jews he became like a Jew and to the Gentiles he became like a Gentile, but this "becoming like" on the part of Paul was not in the form of immitation and assimilation; he was not a cultural sponge. No, Paul understood that his citizenship was in the Heavenly kingdom and this is what enabled him to be all things to all men. The goal is salvation from the culture of the world to the culture of heaven.