I read on Reformed News that Sam Duncan, former moderator of the PCA, has provided a summary of the FV in preparation for the big doings at the General Assembly of the PCA this week. But before I start in on my war dance, let me just say that you ought to check out Reformed News far more often than you do.
Anyhow, Sam Duncan’s summary can be found here. Let me just record and interact with a handful sample quotations. But before I do, let me just say, as a general point, that this is just freaking unbelievable.
“The business that comes before the Assembly will be highlighted by discussions of the Federal Vision, New Perspectives (on Paul), and Auburn Avenue theologies (the “Federal Vision”).”
Three problematic positions are listed here, the FV, the NPP, and the AA theologies, or, lumping them all together, “Federal Vision” for short. Never mind that FV and AA can’t be anything but lumped together, being synonymous and all. And then another set of issues entirely, the NPP, is thrown in to add a little stickiness to this doctrinal taffy pull that we have going on here.
“For the layman, who is not familiar with this topic, the Federal Vision basically teaches that membership in a local church makes one elect; once one is elect, his salvation may be lost; baptism results in regeneration; and justification is achieved through both faith and good works.”
Let me just say that there is a difference between holding to the five points of historic Calvinism, which I do, and holding to the five talking points of Calvinism. For a representative sample of latter, just check out the quotation we just retrieved our left rubber boot from. There are four substantive claims being made here about the FV, and all of them, one hundred percent of them, are, as the French say, le wrong. According to us’ns, decretal election is dependent in no way on membership in a local church. We are talking about decretal election, right? Decretal election cannot be lost, period. Baptism does not result ex opere quasimoto in personal regeneration. And our justification is not in any way “achieved” by any personal characteristics, ethical decisions, moral contributions, or boyish smiles we might try to come up with.
We have gotten to the point in this controversy where this kind of summary leaves us with only two options for understanding what is being said. Either we are dealing with (as the papists would put it) invincible ignorance, or we are dealing with a willful determination to shatter the ninth commandment. If this is the kind of reasoning that is going to be the guide for the men at the PCA helm, it will soon become apparent to the world that they are steering by the mast in front of them, and not by the North Star at all.
“The Federal Vision, many believe, takes election out of the hands of the Lord and places it on man’s shoulders.”
“Many believe” this, do they? I have what might appear to be an impertinent question, but it seems to me to be relevant. The “many” who believe this, and I hesitate to make such a gauche appeal to an old-fashioned concept like this, but, are they right?
“This is to be contrasted with the Federal Vision’s teachings that an individual’s good works and his faith are required for one to be justified.”
I scarcely know how to start. I am not going to refute this. I will describe it. Breath-taking. High-handed. Pole-axing. Serpentine. Devious. Wrong.
“Who is at the helm of the PCA?” This was a question tellingly raised on a list serve I am on, and the good folks who raised it set a train of thought in motion that made me remember a song I learned as a child.
A capital ship for an ocean trip was the Walloping Window Blind/No wind that blew dismayed her crew or troubled the captain’s mind/The man at the wheel was made to feel contempt for the wildest blow/Though it oft appeared when the gale had cleared/That he’d been in his bunk below.
There was one other item that I thought needed a comment.
“Other business that will come before the Assembly will be in the form of Overtures to change our Book of Church Order or requests to take other actions. This year, the Assembly will consider requests to . . . v) recognize the 500th anniversary of John Calvin’s birth in 2009”
I suggest that on this last item there needs to be a rider that says something like, “honoring a worthy man of God, while eschewing his sacramentalism, his views on regeneration, the Church, and temporary election, all of which have helped create the FV mess that we have just now cleaned up. Calvin, however worthy he might be of receiving a shiny prophet’s tomb, is, at least according to some, at the heart of all this trouble.”