In the Reformed and Presbyterian world summer
usually means Synod or General Assembly, and the summer of 2007
was a particularly notable season for such assemblies since both
the Presbyterian Church in America (PCA) and the United Reformed
Churches in North America (URCNA) took action regarding the New
Perspective(s) on Paul and the self-described Federal Vision movement.
In turn, these assemblies followed on the heels of reports received
by three other confessional Reformed denominations and federations
(the Orthodox Presbyterian Church, Reformed Church in the United
States, and the Orthodox Christian Reformed Churches) also rejecting
the same movements. In the series of essays to follow I will explain
the statement of Pastoral Advice that was adopted by the delegates
to Synod Schererville (URCNA).
New Perspectives
Since 1974 the confessional Reformed and Presbyterian Churches
in North America have been troubled by a series of proposed revisions
of a series of related doctrines. The Rev. Mr. Norman Shepherd,
then a professor of Systematic Theology at Westminster Theological
Seminary (Philadelphia, PA), proposed to in a course of lectures
on the doctrine of salvation (soteriology) that sinners are justified
by "faith and works." This doctrine created considerable opposition
and ultimately led to Mr. Shepherd's dismissal from the seminary. Over the course of the controversy in the 1970s he
modified his language to teach justification through "covenant faithfulness"
but without discernable change to the substance of his theology.
Since that time he has openly rejected the historic Reformed doctrine
of the imputation of the active obedience of Christ (i.e. that all
of Christ's obedience was not for himself but for us and that all
that he did and not just his death on the cross is imputed to believers).
Along with this proposed revision of justification by faith alone
(sola fide) came proposed revisions of the doctrines of covenant,
election, and baptism (which have been addressed in the pages of
this magazine).
At the very same time these revisions were being proposed within
the Reformed churches scholars of Palestinian Judaism and scholars
of the New Testament were proposing equally far-reaching revisions
of our understanding of setting and doctrine of the Apostle Paul.
This movement has come to be known as the "New Perspective(s) on
Paul (hereafter NPP). In the 1990s these two movements coalesced
in certain quarters of the Reformed churches. The revisions first
proposed by Mr. Shepherd in the l970s seemed to have been given
a new lease on life by this vigorous academic movement that seemed
to be reaching similar conclusions. According to the NPP, speaking
quite generally, the Apostle Paul was much less concerned about
how one is "right with God" and much more concerned with determining
who is "in" the covenant community and who is "out." Some of the
more popular writers advocating versions of the NPP seemed to be
saying the same thing as Mr. Shepherd (and others): we get into
the covenant of grace by grace by baptism. which makes the baptized
person temporarily, historically, and conditionally united to Christ,
elect, and justified, and we stay in the covenant by cooperating
with grace.
Of course those who know their church history will recognize
this formulation as exactly that which was rejected by the Protestant
Churches in the sixteenth century. It also turns out that the picture
painted for by the proponents of the NPP is misleading. The impression
is sometimes created that because some rabbis sometimes talked about
grace that when the Protestants criticized Paul's opponents for
teaching a doctrine of righteousness by works that the Protestants
misrepresented the rabbis. The evidence seems to disagree, however.
What seems to have been happening is this: some rabbis spoke quite
baldly about appearing before God on the basis of works. Others
did speak of grace, and cooperation with grace. The proponents of
the NPP and the FV do not seem to be aware that righteousness before
God on the basis of "grace plus works" is not much better than righteousness
before God on the basis of works alone. In both cases our works
are definitive for our standing before God. Second, neither the
NPP nor the FV seem to understand that the Reformation was responding
to a very similar doctrine: righteousness before God on the basis of grace and cooperation
with grace. The Reformation agreed with the Apostle Paul (Rom. 11:6),
when it comes to righteousness before God, grace and works are two
opposite principles. As far as we are concerned justification is
either by God's unmerited and undeserved favor or it is by works.
We confess that Jesus has accomplished all righteousness (Matt 3:15—17)
for us and we benefit from all he did by faith alone, i.e. by a
"certain knowledge and a hearty trust" that "God without any merit
of mine, of mere grace, grants and imputes to me the perfect satisfaction,
righteousness, and holiness of Christ, as if I had never committed
nor had any sin, and had myself accomplished all the obedience which
Christ has fulfilled for me" (Heidelberg Catechism 21, 60).
Interpreting Synod
One of the main matters of business at Synod was to address an
overture brought by Class is Michigan regarding the FV theology.
As part of dealing with that overture Synod took two actions. First
it re-affirmed and strengthened the language first adopted at Synod
Calgary regarding justification by faith alone (sola fide). Synod
affirmed: "the Scriptures and confessions ... teach the doctrine
of justification by grace alone, through faith alone, based upon
the active and passive obedience of Christ alone" and "the Scriptures
and confessions teach that faith is the sole instrument of our justification
apart from all works." Synod also determined to "remind and encourage
individuals and churches that, if there are office-bearers suspected
of deviating from or obscuring the doctrine of salvation as summarized in our confessions, they are obligated
to follow the procedure prescribed in Church Order Art. 29,52,55,61,
and 62 for addressing theological error." That same assembly also
voted overwhelmingly against the distinctive doctrines that compose
the FV. So there were Three Points on sola fide and Nine Points
on the FV adopted in two motions.
It is important to note that we are discussing ecclesiastical
action. These are not private opinions of pastors and theologians
but represent the consensus of those delegated to Synod by the churches,
This means that we must exercise care in interpreting these points.
This approach, of course, assumes that the Nine Points can and should
be understood by ministers and laity alike. It has been suggested,
however, that only those who were actually in attendance can actually,
accurately interpret the these Synodical actions. This is an odd
hermeneutic. Neither you nor I were present during the history
of redemption, nevertheless we interpret the Bible daily. It is
true that "all things in Scripture are not alike plain in themselves"
(Westminster Confession of Faith, 1.7), but Scripture is clear enough,
with the help of God's Spirit, to be understood for faith and life,
that even the simplest of God's people can understand what they
must for righteousness and life. The proposed hermeneutic (only
those present can understand) would also make it impossible for
us to understand the Canons of Dort.
Fortunately, the Reformed Churches have and should never consider
that only those present at synods can actually discover the intent of the document and the intent of the body in adopting
a document. When an ecclesiastical body adopts a document or a series
of points that use the expressions, "synod affirms" or "synod denies"
the intent of Synod is not a mystery. The question remains what
exactly Synod is affirming and denying (hence these essays explaining
the Nine Points) but it is clear that Synod has taken a clear stand
for some doctrines and against others. Synod's rejection of the
inclusion of works in the definition of faith as it functions in
the act of justification is unambiguous. According to the Reformed
faith, sanctification and good works are necessary as "fruit" (Belgic
Confession, Art. 24; Heidelberg Catechism Q. 86) and evidence of
justification (James 2:14—26) hut not as part of the ground or instrument
of justification (righteousness before God'). The ground of justification
is certain: the imputation of Christ's active and passive obedience.
Further, it seems clear from the "Three Points on Sola Fide" that
Synod intended to reject the revision of the doctrine of justification
proposed by Mr. Norman Shepherd and his followers in the FV, that
we are justified by trusting and obeying.
Synodical Ambiguities
There is, however, a question about the nature of the action
taken by Synod Schererville in adopting the Nine Points. Synod took
the unusual step of describing the Nine Points as "pastoral advice."
The difficulty arises from the fact that the words "pastoral advice"
do not occur in the church order and thus there is some ambiguity
about the force of something called "pastoral advice." in one sense,
insofar as "Federative relationships do not belong to the essence or being of the church"
(Foundational Principles of Reformed Church Government, #7, adopted
at the first Synod in 1995), all actions of Synod are "pastoral
advice" in a federation since any congregation that cannot submit
to the decisions of Synod are free to withdraw from the Federation
(Church Order, Art. 29). In another sense, insofar as we are voluntarily
bound together in a federation, nothing Synod does is "pastoral
advice." Article 29 of the Church Order says in part, "All decisions
of a broader assembly are to be received with respect and submission.
and shall be considered settled and binding, unless it is proved
that they are in conflict with the Word of God or the Church Order."
Even though Synod described the Nine Points, as "Pastoral Advice"
they were adopted, after thorough and vigorous debate, by Synod.
Surely when the Church Order says "decisions of a broader assembly"
it means for us to think of those actions of Synod adopted by Synod.
The Nine Points constitute an act of Synod.
A second ambiguity about the Nine Points also emerged after Synod
Schererville. The same Synod that adopted the Nine Points also established
a study committee to bring a report to the next meeting of Synod
(2010) leaving something of a vacuum in the intervening period.
Thus these essays on the Nine Points are not offered as an authoritative,
ecclesiastical interpretation, in lieu of the committee's report,
but they are offered as an interim work for the edification of the
churches seeking to understand the issues surrounding the contemporary
controversy over the doctrines of covenant, election, justification, and baptism.
Whatever ambiguities may surround the Nine Points, one thing
is clear. They are a series of unequivocal denials of error adopted
overwhelmingly by the delegates to Synod Schererville. Those errors
are clearly stated and just as clearly rejected. Synod does not
"pastorally" reject a series of errors. It rejects them categorically.
The Righteousness of Synod
It has also been suggested that Synod acted improperly by considering
the committee recommendation of the Nine Points, in the years preceding
Synod Schererville it has sometimes been argued that Synod can only
address the FV problem if a minister or elder was charged with error
and if that case came to classis or Synod on appeal. Two things
are to be noted in response. First, Synod has not agreed with this
principle since Synod Escondido (2001) when the assembly adopted
a series of points on the creation controversy even though no officer
had been charged with error. Second, it is fortunate for us that
the Reformed Churches did not follow this procedure in the seventeenth
century or else there would never have been a Synod of Dort to produce
the Canons we rightly treasure.
It is clearly within the power of Synod to address matters "that
pertain to the churches of the broader assembly in common" (Church
Order Art 25). It is clearly within the power of Synod to make decisions
that are "to be received with respect and submission" (Art. 29).
Of course Synod can address doctrinal errors that threaten the whole Federation.
Finally, under this heading, some have objected that it was improper
for Synod to adopt the Nine Points since they did not come from
a consistory but from an ad hoc committee of Synod. This objection
is particularly hard to understand since, were the United Reformed
Churches to adopt this principle we would become genuinely congregational
and not Reformed in our polity. Second, it would mean that no broader
assembly could actually act as a deliberative body, i.e. it could
not adopt committee recommendations, amendments, or substitute motions.
Church Order Art. 25 says, "In the broader assemblies only those
matters that could not be settled in the narrower assemblies, or
that pertain to the churches of the broader assembly in common,
shall be considered. All such matters shall originate with a Consistory
and be considered by classis before being considered by synod."
It certainly appears that the Nine Points adopted by Synod meets
these tests. The Nine Points came to the floor of Synod from the
committee appointed by Synod to consider an overture by Classis
Michigan concerning these very issues. The doctrines of covenant,
justification, election, and sacraments affect all our churches.
This matter had already come, in a less developed form, to Synod
Calgary (2004) by way of an appeal of classical action. In response
to that matter Synod reaffirmed that the United Reformed Churches
understand the Word of God as confessed by the Reformed faith to
teach justification by faith alone, without works, and that the
basis of our righteousness before God is the imputation of the active and passive (suffering)
obedience of Christ. By Summer 2007, with an overture from Classis
Michigan before them, it become obvious to the delegates to Synod
Schererville that it was time for Synod to address these questions
more completely. We may be grateful that the delegates found a way
to speak clearly, biblically, amid confessionally to these difficult
issues.
Dr. R. Scott Clark is an Associate Professor
of Historical and Systematic Theology at Westminster Seminary in Escondido,
California.
Recommended Reading
R. Scott Clark, Baptism, Election,
and the Covenant of Grace (Grand Rapids: Reformed Fellowship, 2007).
-- "Baptism and the Benefits of Christ: The Double Mode of Communion
in the Covenant of Grace," The Confessional Presbyterian Journal
2 (2006): 3--19.
-- ed. Covenant, Justification
and Pastoral Ministry: Essays by the Faculty of Westminster Seminary
California (Phillipsburg: P&R Publishing, 2006).
Cornelis P. Venema, Getting the Gospel Right: Assessing the
Reformation and New Perspectives on Paul (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth,
2006).
-- The Gospel of Free Acceptance
in Christ: An Assessment of the Reformation and 'New Perspectives'
on Paul (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 2006).
Michael S. Horton, Covenant and Salvation: Union With Christ
(Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2007).
Guy P. Waters, The Federal Vision and Covenant Theology: A comparative Analysis (Phillipsburg: P&R Publishing, 2006).
-- Justification And The New
Perspectives On Paul: A Review And Response (Phillipsburg: P&R
Publishing. 2004).
Gary L. W. Johnson and Guy Waters, ed. By Faith Alone: Answering
the Challenges to the Doctrine of Justification (Wheaton: Crossway, 2007).
Report on Justification Presented to the Seventy-Third General
Assembly of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church (2006).
Mid-America Reformed Seminary, The Doctrinal Testimony Regarding
Recent Errors (2007).
For more resources see: http://www.wscal.edu/clark/fvnpp.php
