I was recently asked by a friendly fellow in the URC to read and comment on the URC report on the Federal Vision, which I have now done. Having read through it, I can only say that it appears to be the work of extraordinary animus, or extraordinary ignorance, and perhaps sometimes both. Update: Since first writing this, a third option occurred to me — that of ordinary fear. A man might see all these things clearly, have no animus toward us, and yet know that his position is such that if he says so, he makes himself a target.
With regard to their treatment of my positions and statements, the word that comes to mind is grotesqueries. I have been badly and baldly misrepresented.
The distortions are numerous and breathtaking. Adding insult to injury, the statement concludes with the statement that we “failed to guard the gospel of free justification on the basis of Christ’s work alone from serious error.” We are called upon to “repent” (“Report of the Synodical Study Committee on the Federal Vision and Justification,” hereafter URC, p. 58). Keep this context in mind throughout.
The Joint Federal Vision Profession (hereafter FV) was quoted twice, which shows that this committee did in fact know of its existence. But the two quotes were neither here nor there (pp. 12, 14), and in a number of other places, where quotation from that statement would have been thought a screaming necessity, it was ignored with a serenity that would have been a credit to the Buddha fifteen minutes after his enlightenment. They did this, despite the fact that they said their “mandate was to study the doctrinal formulations of the FV” (p. 6). So . . . why didn’t they?
Instead of taking statements that all the leading men in the FV signed off on, they took hold of numerous seemings, tendencies, summaries and so forth, which they culled from “some” or “many” FV authors. Bob and weave. Make us say what you think we are probably saying.
The accuracy of the results is therefore not surprising. Let us pair up some quotations. Fer instance . . .
“Proponents of the FV reject any distinction, however it is expressed, between those members of the ‘visible’ church who may truly be members of Christ by faith and those who are only ‘externally’ members of the covenant people of God” (URC, p. 11, emphasis mine).
“At some time in the earthly life of each person so chosen, the Holy Spirit brings that person to life, and enables him to persevere in holiness to the end. Those covenant members who are not elect in the decretal sense enjoy the common operations of the Spirit in varying degrees, but not in the same way that those who are elect do” (FV, “The Divine Decrees,” emphasis mine).
When you are done chuckling, here’s another one:
“FV proponents are unable to maintain clearly that those whom God elects in Christ will unfailingly be granted the fullness of salvation in unbreakable communion with God” (URC, p. 23, emphasis mine).
“We deny that any person who is chosen by God for final salvation before the foundation of the world can fall away and be finally lost. The decretally elect cannot apostatize” (FV, “Apostasy”).
But wait, as they say on the teevee, there’s more.
“Though FV emphasis upon the importance of the sacraments is laudable and not out of accord with the Confessions, it often leads FV authors to neglect the indispensability of faith to the appropriation or reception of the grace communicated in the sacraments” (URC, p. 33, emphasis mine).
“This baptism obligates such a lone to lifelong covenant loyalty to the triune God, each baptized person repenting of his sins and trusting in Christ alone for his salvation . . . Baptism apart from a growing and living faith is not saving, but rather damning” (FV, “The Sacrament of Baptism,” emphasis mine).
And to conclude, here is just one example of the egregious distortions of the positions held by your humble correspondent.
“Similar unqualified statements of the efficacy of the sacraments, especially the sacrament of baptism, can be found sprinkled throughout the writing of FV authors. See, e.g., Douglas Wilson, ‘Sacramental Efficacy in the Westminster Standards,’ in The Auburn Avenue Theology: Pros & Cons, p. 236: . . .”(p. 18, emphasis mine).
But on that same cited page, here is a small sampling of some of my qualifications about sacramental efficacy. I could multiply such qualifications, but to do so would be tedious. And besides, the people for whom such qualifications are made appear to be steadfastly refusing to read them. They can ignore them faster than I can type.
“Let us grant that the Catechsim here is not maintaining that all those who are baptized with water are automatically and inexorably saved. Let us grant that it is not saying that individuals are watertight jugs and that baptism pours an ‘effectual call fluid’ into each and every one of them. Let us grant that those who are baptized but who remain in unbelief are worse off for having been baptized, not better off. Of course the Confession is not teaching baptismal superstition (and, incidentally, neither are we). The Confession is talking about worthy receivers, who in the broader context of the Confession should be understood as the elect” (p. 236).
So, I teach sacramental efficacy in an unqualified way? I make no qualifications! I can only conclude that the members of this committee must have spent a good deal of time winding their rear ends and scratching their watches.