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.