The PCA has published their “Report of Ad Interim Study Committee on Federal Vision (FV), New Perspective on Paul (NPP), and Auburn Avenue Theologies (AAT).” The Committee was tasked with this mission: “to determine whether these viewpoints and formulations [i.e., NPP and FV] are in conformity with the system of doctrine taught in the Westminster Standards, whether they are hostile to or strike at the vitals of religion, and to present a declaration or statement regarding the issues raised by these viewpoints in light of our Confessional Standards.”
The report has three major sections that outline the soteriological issues raised by NPP and FV:
I. Election and Covenant
II. Justification and Union with Christ
III. Perseverance, Apostasy, and Assurance
For each of these three headings, the Committee evaluated the teachings of (a) the Westminster Standards (i.e., the Westminster Confession of Faith together with the Larger and Shorter Catechisms of the Westminster Assembly); (b) the New Perspective on Paul, and (c) the Federal Vision, after which they provided a comparative analysis.
They conclude the study with nine 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.
The entire document is accessible and helpful.
Committee Members:
TE Paul Fowler, Chairman
TE Grover Gunn, Secretary
TE Ligon Duncan
TE Sean Lucas
RE Robert Mattes
RE William Mueller
(TE – Teaching Elder // RE – Ruling Elder)
Doug Wilson, a Federal Vision proponent, has responded.
An articulate response to the common elements of the New Perspective on Paul and the Federal Vision can be found in By Faith Alone: Answering the Challenges to the Doctrine of Justification
(HT: Jim Hamilton and Justin Taylor)