Morning Coffee with Gomarus

The Federal Vision controversy has been an issue primarily among conservative Presbyterians who hold to the Westminster Standards; however, the theological ramifications of such a view affect basic biblical doctrine and as such is pertinent to us all. 

Yesterday, the PCA General Assembly overwhelmingly adopted their study committee report on the “Federal Vision” theology declaring that its teaching does not conform to the Westminster Confession, and by implication, the Scriptures.  See Kim Riddlebarger report and R. Scott Clark report for additional info.

As fellow blogger Darrin Brooker has noted, “The PCA is not the first Presbytery to rule this way, but it is definitely the largest. Why am I thankful? Because the Federal Vision, at its heart, is a denial of the gospel. It rejects the necessity of the imputation of Christ’s righteousness to those who believe as the ground by which we are declared just before God. It replaces imputation with a mystical union with Christ that occurs at baptism; a union that is kept by the person’s covenant faithfulness; a union after which, one may still fall away. Without imputation, there is no good news; there is no gospel.”

What happens now?  Notable proponents of the Federal Vision include Doug Wilson, Steve Schlissel, John Barach, Rich Lusk, and Steve Wilkins.  It would appear that those FV men in the PCA (like Wilkins) must either repent, cease and desist, or leave the PCA — not sure of the situation with the other Presby denominations.

For those who are unfamiliar with the Federal Vision, here are the nine recommendations from the PCA study report on why this theology should be rejected.

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.