I have been on the road, and have only now had the opportunity to read the recently released PCA report on the Federal Vision. This is just an initial response; more will probably be forthcoming.
First, I appreciated the response of the Bayly brothers, which can be found here. And, like Mark Horne, I greatly appreciated the fact that we were identified as brothers in Christ. In line with this, the timbre of the report was judicious, and it looked to me as though the committee members did labor to understand us. But I also agree with the observation that the committee was stacked with critics, and I believe that this resulted in some of the standard misunderstandings.
Here is a sample of a standard misunderstanding.
“Moreover, to affirm the Standards, and then redefine the terms used in the Standards, is not to affirm the Standards. For example, to affirm the decretal view of election, and then to say that the BiAble teaches that the elect may fall from their election, is to set the Bible over against the Standards.”
Well, sure. But this is not the case if you do not redefine the terms, but rather suggest an additional stipulated use of the same term, while not denying the first stipulated. If I say that I believe in the Westminster Confession’s red use of the world election, but that I also believe that the Bible in various places uses election in the blue sense, I am not maintaining that blue is red. This is not redefinition; it is an additional definition.
“The Committee would suggest that the FV proponents have in effect provided an alternative hermeneutic for interpreting Scripture. They have done so 1) by concentrating their efforts on the ‘objectivity’ of the covenant, 2) by stressing the ‘covenantal’ efficacy of baptism, 3) by focusing on the undifferentiated membership of the visible church, 4) by holding the view that the ‘elect’ are covenant members who may one day fall from their elect status, and 5) by highlighting the need for persevering faithfulness in order to secure final election.”
This reveals, again, some of the standard misunderstandings (and yes, I know, another misunderstanding is that FV advocates constantly complain about imaginary misunderstandings. Nothing imaginary about it.) First, these five things are not a hermeneutic we bring to Scripture. They are, to the extent that we hold them, doctrines we believe are derived from Scripture. My views on the efficacy of baptism, for example, are not a hermeneutic. But notice that I also said “to the extent that we hold them.” 1. We do emphasize the objectivity of the covenant, but not as a hermeneutic. 2. We do stress the covenantal efficacy of baptism, but again, not as a hermenetic. 3. We do not believe in an undifferentiated membership of the visible church. For example, I believe the visible church can be differentiated into two categories, converted to God and unconverted to God — i.e. those headed for heaven and those headed for hell. 4. We believe that the covenantally elect (blue) can fall from their elect status; we deny that the decretally elect (red) can do so. 5. We deny that there is anything we can do to “secure” decretal election. This means that 3 out of the 5 representations here are just flat wrong, and the other two are fuzzed over with that hermeneutic business.
Here is a more striking example. The report says:
“Doug Wilson has implied that all baptized covenant members are participants in Christ in the same ‘strong sense,’ writing that ‘the person who did not persevere was not given less of Christ.’
I read that and thought something like, “Huh, that doesn’t sound like me.” So I went to the footnote and found a thread on this blog cited, a thread called “Life in the Regeneration.” Here is the section they footnoted.
“In order to take all baptized covenant members as participants in Christ in the “strong sense,” we would have to distinguish what is objectively given in Christ, and not what is subjectively done with those objective benefits. Perseverance would, on this reading, be what was subjectively done with what God has objectively given. In this view, the person who did not persevere was not given less of Christ. But this necessarily means that persevering grace is not an objective gift or grace. God’s willingness to continue “the wrestling” would depend upon what kind of fight we put up, or cooperation we provide, and because no one’s fundamental nature has been changed, those natures remain at ‘enmity with God.’ In this view, whatever total depravity means, it is not ontologically changed, just knocked down and sat upon. The Spirit pins one snarling dog, but not another. But this in turn leads to another thought—eventually at some time in the process we stop snarling and start cooperating (if we are bound to heaven), and what do we call this change or transformation. The historic name for this change has been regeneration, and I see no reason to change it.”
In this section, I am arguing for the traditional use of the word regeneration, I am arguing against a particular view (“on this reading,” “in this view”), and the PCA report here represented me as arguing 180 degrees from what I was in fact arguing. This is upside down and backwards. If they read that entire thread of posts, they would know that I believe it is incoherent to say that anyone receives “all of Christ” in the strong sense without receiving perseverance. This was simply sloppy.
There will be more later, particularly on the nine declarations at the end of the report.