|
General Assembly Actions and Position Papers
of the Presbyterian Church in America
New Perspective, and Preface The 34th PCA General Assembly appointed an ad interim committee, to study the soteriology of the Federal Vision, New Perspective, and The
committee was asked to study the soteriology of the “New Perspective”
and the “Federal Vision.” It should be noted that “the New Perspective
on Paul” (NPP) is an academic movement associated since the 1960s with
scholars such as Krister Stendahl, E. P. Sanders, James D. G. Dunn, and
N. T. Wright. The committee recognizes that there is a variety of
viewpoints associated with the NPP; therefore, we are cautious in our
analysis of the movement as a whole. However, there are common issues
that characterize this theological movement. In particular, N. T.
Wright has had a significant influence in recent years on the broader
evangelical and Reformed communities; therefore, our study of NPP will
focus primarily on Wright’s writings. The
committee also understands that a major concern of the General Assembly
at the present time pertains to the views of what has been called
Federal Vision (FV) or Auburn Avenue Theology (AAT). These are one and
the same, different names designating the same theological movement.
The name “Auburn Avenue Theology” comes from its association with the
Auburn Avenue Presbyterian Church in We
further recognize that there are a variety of viewpoints among FV
teachers and writers. For example, some hold to particular doctrines
(e.g., monocovenantalism or paedocommunion) while others do not. In
addition, some have objected strenuously to the labeling of their
views, saying that there is no such thing as a “federal vision,” either
as a movement or a theological system. In response to the 2005
Mississippi Valley Presbytery report, the Auburn Avenue Presbyterian
Church web site stated: The
“report” assumed that there is a well-defined movement labeled the
“Federal Vision.” This is highly debatable….There is no organized
movement, formal or informal. Though there are some commonly held
perspectives, there are quite a few differences when it comes to
specifics and therefore there is no consistent system of theology which
can be labeled “Federal Vision” theology.[3] Nevertheless,
it is these “commonly held perspectives” that unite and distinguish the
FV from others within Reformed and Presbyterian communities. Their
writings are largely consistent on major points. They quote each other
approvingly; they stress the same points; they state many of their
issues using virtually the same language; and they joined together to
produce a book called The Federal Vision. We
recognize that many Federal Vision proponents affirm loyalty to the
Westminster Standards and frequently appeal to the Standards when
arguing their views. Nevertheless, the General Assembly has charged the
committee “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.” We proceed with the following principles in mind. First, we are a biblical church. We affirm the principle of sola scriptura
as articulated in our Standards: “The supreme judge by which all
controversies of religion are to be determined…can be no other but the
Holy Spirit speaking in the Scripture” (WCF 1:10). In
addition, we are a confessional church. The PCA has affirmed that “the
Confession of Faith and the Larger and Shorter Catechisms of the
Westminster Assembly, together with the formularies of government,
discipline, and worship are accepted by the Presbyterian Church in
America as standard expositions of the teachings of Scripture in
relation to both faith and practice” (BCO 29-1; cf. 21-5.2; 26-1;
39-3). The church has historically understood that this claim does not
elevate the Standards over Scripture itself; and yet, our Constitution
does recognize the Standards as our “standard expositions of the
teachings of Scripture.” Because this is the case, the main focus of
our study will be to determine whether the views of the NPP and AAT/FV
are in conformity with our Westminster Standards. Key
in the present discussion is the definition of doctrines that have been
crucial to our identity as a biblical and confessional church. In
the PCA, we use theological terms such as “regeneration,” “election,”
“justification,” and “perseverance” to define these doctrines in a
particular and agreed upon fashion through ecclesiastical action. The
committee affirms with the PCA that the Confession’s usage of these and
related terms is faithful to the teachings of Scripture. While
we are aware that the biblical usage of some of these words may have
varying nuances in different contexts, our task is to study the
theological claims that the NPP and FV proponents make about such
terms. Then, our purpose is to determine whether the theological claims
they make serve to undermine the system of doctrine taught in the
Scripture and Confession. It is certainly possible to say more than our
Confession does about biblical truth, but this should not necessitate a
denial of the vitals of our faith. The
committee also affirms that we view NPP and FV proponents in the PCA as
brothers in Christ. Thus, we take their published statements and
writings seriously. We have worked hard to be fair and accurate in our
study of their writings and in the statement of the issues they raise. Following this preface, the report has three major sections that outline soteriological issues raised by the NPP and FV: I. Election and Covenant; II. Justification and III. Perseverance, Apostasy, and Assurance. Each
of these major sections opens with a brief exposition of the relevant
materials in the Westminster Standards; is followed by brief overviews
of NPP and FV views on the same issues; and concludes by analyzing and
comparing the NPP/FV views with that of the Westminster Standards. In
this way, the committee fulfills the General Assembly’s direction “to study the soteriology of the Federal Vision, New Perspective, and The
fourth section sets forth nine features of NPP and FV teaching that the
committee finds to be contrary to the Westminster Standards. This
section is worded to assist presbyteries as they investigate these
matters. In offering these declarations, the committee fulfills the
General Assembly’s direction “to present a declaration or statement regarding the issues raised by these viewpoints in light of our Confessional Standards” and “to
determine whether these viewpoints and formulations are in conformity
with the system of doctrine taught in the Westminster Standards [or]
whether they are hostile to or strike at the vitals of religion.” Finally,
the committee brings five recommendations to the General Assembly and
urges their adoption. As we have prayed together, we have sensed the
prayers of God’s people and the power of God’s Spirit guiding our
deliberations. We hope that our efforts will serve to preserve the
peace, purity and unity of the church. We urge our beloved church to
stand together committed to God’s Word, the Westminster Standards, and
the Great Commission. Committee Members: TE TE Grover Gunn, Secretary TE Ligon Duncan TE Sean Lucas RE Robert Mattes RE William Mueller RE John White. I. Election and Covenant A.
The doctrine of election is vital to the whole doctrinal system set forth in the Westminster Standards.[4] As such, election is firmly set in the context of God’s eternal decree (WCF 3.1, 5, 6, 8). The Standards state that “Those of mankind that are predestinated unto life, God, before the foundation of the world was laid, according to His eternal and immutable purpose, and the secret counsel and good pleasure of His will, hath chosen, in Christ, unto everlasting glory…” (WCF 3.5; italics added) This election, before the foundation of the world was laid, was an election unto life and unto everlasting glory (WCF 3.5). “As God hath appointed the elect unto glory, so hath He, by the eternal and most free purpose of His will, foreordained all the means thereunto,” so that the elect “are effectually called unto faith in Christ by His Spirit working in due season, are justified, adopted, sanctified, and kept by His power, through faith, unto salvation” (WCF 3.6, italics added). Conversely, the same paragraph in the Confession goes on to state, “Neither are any other redeemed by Christ, effectually called, justified, adopted, sanctified, and saved, but the elect only.” Clearly, the Standards’ doctrine of election unto life is anchored in God’s decree from eternity past, provides the basis for the doctrines of final perseverance of the saints in the future, (WCF 17:1, 2) and the believer’s assurance of eternal life (WCF 17.2; 18.3). For the present, only those eternally elect are justified, adopted, and sanctified. The Confession is, of course, fully aware of the national, ethnic, external, covenant election of Indeed,
according to the Standards, decretal election leads to a distinction
even within the covenant community (WCF 7.5; LC 34; SC 88). This
distinction is not between those who are elect and persevere, and those
who are elect and do not persevere. Instead, the distinction is between
those who are elect and non-elect, even though both are numbered
amongst the people of God externally considered (WCF 10.4, 25.1-2, LC
31, 68). This is precisely one of the points of the Confession’s
visible/invisible distinction regarding the church: “All that hear the
Gospel, and live in the visible church, are not saved; but they only
who are true members of the church invisible” (LC 61). The church
considered in its invisible aspect “consists of the whole number of the
elect” (WCF 25.1, LC 64); in its visible aspect, it is made up of
professing members and their children, some of whom may be non-elect
(WCF 25.2, 4, 5).[5] Consequently, the Confession and Catechisms repeatedly qualify their references to the “effectual means of salvation” by pointing to God’s larger purposes of election (LC 161). For example, the Standards qualify sacramental efficacy with the assertion that the sacraments are efficacious and effectual to the elect (that is, the elect from the standpoint of the decree) and to them only (WCF 8.6, 8.1, 28.6; LC 154 [cf. 59]). Likewise, they also speak of the Word of God as effectual or refer to its efficacy in the same manner as they do the sacraments (LC 2, 155; SC 89). The decree of election also leads to a distinction in mankind, between those chosen and those passed by. “The rest of mankind God was pleased, according to the unsearchable counsel of His own will…to pass by; and to ordain them to dishonour and wrath for their sin, to the praise of His glorious justice” (WCF 3.7). This preterition is judicial in character, the just penalty for sin, and thus God’s righteous judgment is vindicated. While the Westminster Confession counsels us to exercise great care in our handling of the Bible’s teaching on election, it positively celebrates the importance of the doctrine of decretal election for assurance (WCF 3.8). Indeed, the doctrine of election is viewed as a matter “of praise, reverence, and admiration of God; and of humility, diligence, and abundant consolation” for all true believers (WCF 3.8). In summary, the Westminster Confession, because it views election as based upon God’s decree, contemplates an election that possesses the qualities of God’s decree. It is from all eternity, based on God’s holy and wise will, and unchangeable (WCF 3.1). It is unconditional; that is, it is not based upon anything in us or done by us, foreseen by God or otherwise (WCF 3.2). It is an election to everlasting life, and thus a saving election in the fullest sense of the term (WCF 3.3,6). God elects particular individuals and this decree is immutable, certain, definite and eternal (WCF 3.4,8). God’s election is based on his “mere free grace and love, without any foresight of faith, or good works, or perseverance in either of them, or any other thing in the creature, as conditions, or causes moving him thereunto; and all to the praise of his glorious grace” (WCF 3.5). Because God has appointed both the means and the end of his election, all of the elect, and only the elect, are redeemed by Christ, effectually called to faith in Christ by the Spirit, justified, adopted, sanctified, kept by the power of the Spirit and saved (WCF 3.6, 11.4, 14.1, 29.2, 33.2, LC 32, 45, 66, 75).
The
Westminster Standards set forth a bi-covenantal structure of federal
theology, with a covenant of works before the Fall and a covenant of
grace after the Fall providing the outline to the biblical story of
creation, fall and redemption (WCF 7.2-3).[6] The Confession explains that God himself is the blessedness and reward of his people, but that we could not have enjoyed him as such apart from his voluntary condescension (WCF 7.1). This is necessary because of the distance between God and man, which is not because of some inherent defect or want in man, but due to the Creator-creature distinction and the greatness of God (WCF 7.1). The Confession identifies God’s voluntary condescension with covenant in general, and the covenant of works in particular (WCF 7.1-2). To say it another way, the Confession identifies the “first” and “second” covenants (i.e. the covenants of works and grace) as ways in which God secures his people’s enjoyment of union and communion with him. Thus, the Confession teaches that the God of the Bible relates to his creatures covenantally. Apart from any obligation determined by humanity or imposed by just necessity, God extends life with him to his people first in a “covenant of works” and then through the various administrations of the “covenant of grace” (WCF 7.5). It is right then to see the covenant concept as an important architectonic principle of the theology of the Confession. The covenant made with man before the Fall, is called by our Standards a covenant of works (respecting its terms or conditions) (WCF 7.2), a covenant of life (respecting its goal or end) (LC 20), a covenant with Adam (respecting its party or representative) (LC 22), and the first covenant (respecting its chronological priority and indicating that there is a successor) (WCF 7.2). All four names describe the same pre-Fall covenant and aspects essential to it. This first covenant or covenant of works entailed both promises and conditions (WCF 7.2). Furthermore, it comprehended Adam as federal head or representative, and required of him perfect and personal obedience to the moral law (LC 22, WCF 19.1-3). When Adam fell, however, he made himself and all his posterity by ordinary generation incapable of life by the covenant of works, and plunged all mankind into a condition of sin and misery (WCF 7.3, LC 22, 23-25). Yet God in his love and mercy (LC 30) “was pleased to make a second, commonly called the covenant of grace,” in which he offers salvation to sinners by faith in Jesus Christ and promises to the elect the Holy Spirit (WCF 7.3). The Confession indicates that testamentary themes and terms in Scripture are to be subsumed under the rubric of the covenant of grace (WCF 7.4). The Confession affirms that there is one covenant of grace in the Old Testament era (“the time of the law”) and the New Testament era (“the time of the gospel”) (WCF 7.5). Hence the Confession asserts the unity of the covenant of grace in its various administrations (WCF 7.6), while also affirming its diversity or progress. The Confession is clear in its insistence that salvation is by faith in the Messiah, in the Old Testament as in the New (WCF 7.5). The Confession does not equate the instrumentality of faith in relation to justification in the covenant of grace with the conditions of the covenant of works. It carefully distinguishes conditions from requirements and reminds us that even the faith of the elect is the gift of God (WCF 11.1; LC 32). Likewise, the Confession draws a line from the conditions of the covenant of works to the obedience and satisfaction of Jesus Christ, teaching us that it is not our faith or faithfulness but Christ’s work which satisfies the covenant of works (LC 20, 32, WCF 3.5, 7.2, 11.1, SC 12). This
is precisely the point of the Standards’ use of the term and
theological category of “merit.” Merit relates to the just fulfillment
of the conditions of the covenant of works (LC 55, 174). This no man
can do since the Fall (LC 193) but Christ only (WCF 17.3). The
Standards consistently assert our inability to merit pardon of sin (WCF
16.5),[7] and contrast our demerit with Christ’s merit (LC 55, cf. WCF 30.4).
Christ’s work (active and passive, preceptive and penal, perfect and
personal, obedience and satisfaction) fulfills the conditions of the
covenant of works (WCF 8.5, 11.1, 3, 19.6), and thus secures a just and
righteous redemption that is at the same time freely offered and all of
grace. [8] Though it is common in Reformed theology to use the term covenant of grace both broadly and narrowly – that is, to speak of it entailing everyone who is baptized into the Christ-professing covenant community (broad) and in reference to those who are elect members of the invisible church, united to Christ by the Spirit through faith (narrow) – nevertheless, the Confession never speaks as if all those who are in the covenant of grace broadly considered (the visible church) are recipients of the substance or saving benefits of the covenant of grace narrowly considered (the invisible church). This is a vital distinction, and so those who deny or confuse it, or who assert that all the benefits of the covenant of grace accrue to all who are baptized, do err and are out of accord with both the Scriptures and the Confession (LC 61; Rom. 9:6, 11:7). B. New Perspective on Paul The
version of the NPP most attractive to Reformed evangelicals is taught
by N.T. Wright. Wright is more theologically conservative and has a
higher view of Scripture than other major figures associated with the
NPP (such as E.P Sanders and James D.G. Dunn). Wright also sees himself
standing in both continuity and discontinuity with the NPP, often
preferring to call his view a “fresh perspective” and disagreeing with
key ideas that are affirmed by other NPP exponents.[9] What all the various versions of the NPP have in common, though, is the shared opinion that: (1) The dominant, Reformation tradition of Pauline interpretation requires substantial revision and correction, especially in its (mis)understanding Paul on faith and works, grace and law, synergistic Jewish soteriology and monergistic Christian soteriology. (2) The various and diverse forms of Judaism contemporary to the NT era did not teach that obedience to the law is the way to salvation. Different NPP authors posit different views of the function of the law. Some view it, not as a means of “getting in” but rather of “staying in.” Others, in contrast, view the law and obedience to it, as functioning as a marker of unique religious-ethnic identity. (3) The law’s function in first century Judaism was, thus, ecclesiological rather than soteriological. That is, as a minority group within the dominant Hellenistic culture, the Jewish loyalty to God was expressed in terms of fidelity to practices like circumcision, food laws, and Sabbath-observance. These practices were an expression of divine election, not the basis of it. (4) Paul’s censure of his fellow Jews was thus not about a synergistic soteriology, but rather about a Jewish exclusivism that failed to embrace God’s purposes for the Gentiles. (5) Protestantism (and also Reformation-era Catholicism) thus misread Paul by anachronistically imposing on him their own contemporary theological categories and presuppositions, which were derived more from their own context than his. Hence, proponents of the NPP argue that in light of their fresh understanding of first century Judaism, the historic Protestant reading of Paul’s soteriology, whatever true and right insights it may offer, must now be refined. Wright
emphasizes the importance of “covenant theology” in Paul’s thought and
writings. According to Wright, what Paul “says about Jesus and the Law
reflects his belief that the covenant purposes of What
is also striking in Wright’s version of covenant theology is the
emphasis on corporate categories. Forensic language in Paul is seen to
refer to “covenant membership.” Election is viewed as national and
ecclesial. He roots election in Israel’s corporate election as God’s
own people; as he observes, “All through [the Old Testament] was a
basic belief that the one creator God had called Israel to be his
special people, and as part of that call had given Israel the land to
live in and the Law to live by.”[12] It is often this emphasis on the corporate that draws appreciation of Wright from those associated with the FV. As
will be detailed in the next section, Wright’s redefinition of election
will lead to a reworking of justification. Present justification is
about how covenant membership is discerned, and thus about how Paul’s
revised Christological election is ascertained. Writing on Galatians 2,
he observes that “there then follows the first ever statement of Paul’s
doctrine of justification, and, despite the shrill chorus of
detractors, it here obviously refers to the way in which God’s people
have been redefined.” Justification is not about “getting in” or
“staying in” but about “how we know we are in.”[13] Hence, we often hear the description that justification (in Wright’s version of the NPP) is more about ecclesiology than soteriology. Needless to say, this NPP version of Paul’s teaching on election and covenant stands in stark contrast to the confessional formulation of these themes. Both cannot be right as faithful presentations of the Pauline teaching on election and covenant. C. Federal Vision Over the last decade, a handful of voices within the American Reformed community have been advocating for theological revision. Concerned that the Reformed churches have been too influenced by revivalism and rationalism, and believing that traditional Reformed doctrine itself has not escaped the blind spots of this context, these men have articulated a need for Reformed pastors and churches to undertake some serious theological reassessment. This diverse group of conversation partners has embraced the designation “Federal Vision” (FV) as a description of its collective aspirations. Many FV proponents view this discussion as more about the boundaries of our community and about Reformed identity than about theology. Some are more respectful of confessional language, categories and formulations, while others are aggressively critical, but there are those who openly admit that the FV is desirous of redrawing the boundaries between Lutheran, Catholic and Reformed theological systems (appreciating aspects of each). FV advocates, of course, view this as refining our theology in light of Scripture in order to fulfill the aspiration of semper reformanda. FV opponents, of course, dispute this. Peter Leithart says: "Federal
Vision" theology messes with these boundaries. It attempts to follow
the lead of Scripture, even when that seems to conflict with
Confessional formulae and seems closer to Luther than Reformed
orthodoxy. It develops a baptismal theology that is not starkly at odds
with Luther, appreciates de Lubac on the doctrine of the church and
Alexander Schmemann on the Eucharist, finds Barth and Lindbeck
intriguing and helpful at a number of points, and is stimulated by
Anglican New Testament scholar N. T. Wright. As a result, "Federal
Vision" theology challenges conservative Reformed culture as much or
more than it does Reformed theology, for it questions the performances
and boundaries that once defined this culture. Though the specifics of
the debate can appear to be so much gnat-straining (particularly to
those few outside the Reformed world who pay attention), the debate
touches a nerve and provokes profound reactions because it's not just a
theological debate but an identity crisis. The Federal Vision
challenges some of the identifying symbols, the boundary-markers of
Reformed communal identity, and that kind of challenge cannot help but
provoke a heated response.[14] Two of those identifying symbols or boundary-markers are the doctrines of election and covenant. It is true that many FV proponents affirm the decretal view of election found in the Westminster Standards. As Douglas Wilson writes, “The fact of decretal election is affirmed by every FV spokesman that I know of.”[15] This view of election is accompanied, however, by an equally strong affirmation of the need to view election from Scripture and from the viewpoint of the covenant. According to Steve Wilkins, “The term ‘elect’ (or ‘chosen’) as it is used in the Scriptures most often refers to those in covenant union with Christ who is the Elect One.”[16] One of the real challenges in trying to understand the FV on these issues is the monolithic way they write about “the Covenant.” Rather than making distinctions between the “first” and “second” covenant in the fashion of the Westminster Standards, some either express hostility to the distinction while others simply collapse any distinction at all. Those who preserve the bi-covenantal distinction do so in such a way as to redirect the confessional understanding of the covenant of works.[17] Central to the FV understanding of “covenant” is their definition: “covenant” is defined as a vital relationship with the triune God. “To be in covenant is to be in real communion with God, attendant with real privileges and real blessings.”[18] Coupled with this definition is their understanding of the “objectivity” of the covenant. “A covenant is also objective, like your marriage. It’s there whether the members of the covenant feel it’s there, or they believe it’s there, whether they even believe in the covenant or not.”[19] As Douglas Wilson states, “We have noted repeatedly that baptism in water is objective, and it establishes an objective covenant relationship with the Lord of the covenant, Jesus Christ.”[20] This concept of covenant objectivity includes the view that “every baptized person is in covenant with God and is in union, then, with Christ and with the triune God.”[21] This confluence of “covenant objectivity” through baptism and “real and vital union” with Christ produces significant confusion about the relationship between the “sign” and “thing signified” and the nature of children who are “in this respect” within the covenant of grace (WCF 27:2, LC 166). A
major consequence of covenantal objectivity is that membership within
the covenant is viewed in an undifferentiated manner. One upshot of
this is that the BCO distinction between “communing” and
“non-communing” members is set aside or eliminated. Most FV proponents
also agree that the emphasis needs to rest on the “visible” church as
the “people of God.” Wilkins maintains that “Scriptures seem to use the terms ‘covenant,’ [and] ‘elect,’ … in a different way than the Westminster Confession uses them. Thus, in the Scriptures, the Covenant is a structured relationship of love with the Triune God in which man participates in Christ Jesus. The elect are all those who are presently ‘in Christ’ (as members of His body, the Church).”[22] He
also urges his readers to rethink their theological categories and
terminology “from the perspective of the covenant,” and adds: “All that
we as Calvinists have been concerned to preserve (the absolute
sovereignty of God in salvation, the absolutely gracious nature of
salvation, the supremacy of Christ over all, etc.) can be preserved
without falling prey to the error of forcing the Scriptures to submit
to a preconceived logical or theological construct and, thus, subtly
departing from Scripture as the supreme rule of faith and life.”[23] Furthermore, because the first covenant with Adam was a gracious covenant, coming from a gracious God, with the condition of the first covenant being the covenantal faithfulness of Adam, not merit, FV proponents suggest that believers should recognize the essential unity of the covenants from Adam through Christ. They are all basically the same with the same condition, covenant faithfulness. In addition, FV writers unanimously reject the concept of merit under the covenant of works: “God did not have an arrangement with Adam in the garden based on Adam’s possible merit. Everything good from God is grace. If Adam had passed the test, he would have done so by grace through faith.”[24] D. Comparative Analysis We often hear proponents and sympathizers of the NPP and FV who are part of confessional Reformed communities say, that while they go beyond the Westminster Standards in what they affirm, they do not contradict the Westminster Standards. But it is evident that the version of covenant and election taught by the NPP and FV is incompatible with the views of the Westminster Standards. In fact, these two approaches to covenant and election are not complementary ways of looking at the biblical data, but irreconcilably contradictory alternative accounts of the biblical data. The 1646 chapter title “God’s eternal decree” emphasizes the unitary and comprehensive nature of God’s divine plan. Thus views which juxtapose “election from the standpoint of the covenant” with the Standard’s decretal view of election, offering this as an alternative and superior way of thinking about (e.g.) the visible church, the sacraments and assurance are not only forsaking the language of the Standards, but undermining its theology.[25] 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 Bible teaches that the elect may fall from their election, is to set the Bible over against the Standards. The committee holds that by receiving and adopting the Westminster Standards as containing the system of doctrine taught in Scripture, we are saying that the terms used in the Confession faithfully represent what is taught in Scripture. 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. FV proponents also want to stress that covenant is a “relationship” but often assume their definition rather than closely scrutinizing the covenant concept in Scripture. Scripturally speaking, a covenant is, first, a special way in which a binding relationship is secured (and thus, it has the function of confirming and assuring divinely established relationships between God and his people). Secondly, by metonymy, covenant stands for the relationship secured by means of the covenant. Hence, covenants do not effect relationships, they secure them. Because
of their assumed definition of covenant as relationship, FV proponents
are apt to ascribe an objectivity and efficacy to the covenant (almost
always in the singular), covenant membership and covenant signs that
diminish or ignore the effectual character and priority of the word of
promise, as well as the reality of the invisible/visible distinction.
This tendency leads them to assign saving benefits ascribed to all
members of the visible church, elect and non-elect covenant members
alike.[26] Some
FV writers criticize the confessional doctrine of the covenant of
works, and wrongly parallel the condition of Adam’s obedience in the
covenant of works with the instrumentality of our faith in the covenant
of grace. The Standards are clear that an obedience principle lies at
the heart of the first covenant; and it parallels that obedience
principle, not to our faith, but to the work of Christ under the second
covenant. Often FV writers who criticize the covenant of works do so in
reaction to theologians who stress “merit” as part of that covenant.
Regardless of one’s stance on that issue, the major point of the
Standards is not the merits gained by Adam, but the merit of Christ’s
work.[27] Finally, the FV confuses the benefits of salvation by attributing them to non-elect members of the visible church and so undermines the security enjoyed by the believer in view of Christ’s perfect and personal fulfillment of the terms of the vitiated covenant of works. II. Justification and A. 1. The Westminster Standards only speak of a “union with Christ” as that which is effectual; or to say it another way, as that which is saving and belongs to the elect (LC 65, 66). This is the “work of God’s grace” whereby the “Spirit applieth to us the redemption purchased by Christ, by working faith in us, and thereby uniting us to Christ in our effectual calling” (LC 66; SC 30). This “thereby” of the catechism’s statement is important: it conveys that the Spirit uses faith to unite believers to Christ (cf. WCF 26:1). This union is such that believers are “spiritually and mystically, yet really and inseparably, joined to Christ as their head and husband” (LC 66). There is no sense in which believers are made “in any wise partakers of the substance of his Godhead, or be equal with Christ in any respect” (WCF 26:3). Rather, it is a spiritual union, whereby Christ is head and husband of all who are eternally saved, both singly as individuals and corporately as the church (WCF 25:1). Not only is this union spiritual, it is real and inseparable; the union attested in our Standards cannot be lost (LC 79). Confusing this “union with Christ” with visible membership in the body of Christ through outward profession or sacramental expression is a serious error and endangers our church’s faithful testimony to the Gospel essential of justification by faith alone. From this union with Christ, believers in the invisible church have a “communion in grace” in which they share all the benefits of redemption. By virtue of “Christ’s mediation,” “justification, adoption, sanctification, and whatever else, in this life, manifests their union with him” are applied to believers (LC 69; cf. SC 32, 36). The Standards, taken as a whole, view union with Christ as the umbrella category under which the individual aspects of Christ’s redemption fit. And yet, union with Christ does not make justification or the other benefits redundant. Interestingly, the Standards use different terms when talking about how baptism relates to union with Christ: they speak of baptism serving as “a sign and seal…of [our] ingrafting into Christ” (WCF 28:1; LC 165; SC 94). Water baptism does not effect this on its own, nor does it do so necessarily at the time of administration (WCF 28:5). Rather, baptism serves to exhibit and confer the gracious promises of the Gospel to the elect recipient in God’s appointed time (WCF 28:6). Further, baptism serves sacramentally to “strengthen and increase [our] faith” (LC 162); this is why we are urged to “improve” our baptisms (LC 167). 2. Justification When
the Westminster Standards describe what happens in justification, they
describe a judicial “act” that has two elements: “pardoning their sins”
and “accounting and accepting their persons as righteous” (LC 70; WCF
11.1).[28] Hence, we can say that, according to our Standards, justification involves both the forgiveness of sin and the accounting of sinners as righteous. When
the Standards go on to describe how that accounting and accepting of
sinners as righteous occurs, they further specify that “accounting”
involves imputation (“by God imputed to them” LC 70). God imputes both
the “obedience and satisfaction of Christ unto them” (WCF 11:1, 3; LC
70, 71).[29] To put it differently, Christ’s “perfect obedience” (his “active obedience” to the demands of the law) and his “full satisfaction” of God’s justice (his “passive obedience” in which he suffered on the Cross for sinners) are both imputed to sinners; they are then accounted to be and accepted as righteous in God’s sight. In other words, the sole ground for justification is the “righteousness of Christ,” which is “imputed” to sinners (WCF 8:5; LC 77). Further, the Standards assert that nothing that sinners do nor anything in them can serve as the ground of justification: “not for anything wrought in them, or done by them” (WCF 11:1; LC 70). Faith serves as “the alone instrument” “by which [the believer] receiveth and applieth Christ and his righteousness” (WCF 11:2; LC 72). This justifying faith “is a “saving grace wrought in the heart of a sinner by the Spirit and Word of God” in which the individual “not only assenteth to the truth of the promise of the Gospel, but receiveth and resteth upon Christ and his righteousness” (LC 72). This faith will be “accompanied with all other saving graces” (WCF 11:2) and yet, these other graces or good works do not serve as the ground for justification; rather, the ground by which God justifies the ungodly is the righteousness of Christ, his obedience and satisfaction (LC 73). While sinners offer nothing as the ground of justification, that does not mean that their faithfulness, or good works, is pointless. Rather, “good works” are accepted because of God’s prior acceptance of sinners “through Christ” (WCF 16:6). These works are accepted not because they are “wholly unblamable or unreprovable in God’s sight”; rather, in spite of their “weaknesses and imperfections,” God “is pleased to accept and reward” these works because he looks upon them “in his Son” and because they “proceed from his Spirit” (WCF 16:3, 5). Though these works serve to increase the Christian’s holiness in this life and so encourage him toward “eternal life” (WCF 16:2), they in no way “merit pardon of sin, or eternal life at the hand of God” (WCF 16:5). In fact, even good works done in faithfulness as Christians, proceeding from God’s Spirit, cannot of themselves “endure the severity of God’s judgment,” because they are “defiled and mixed with so much weakness and imperfection” (WCF 16:5). Once sinners experience this judicial act of justification, they “can never fall from [this] state” (WCF 11:5). That does not mean, however, that justified sinners may not know “God’s fatherly displeasure” for their sins; nor does it mean that Christians will not wrestle with their assurance of faith (WCF 18:4). It does mean that justified sinners cannot be “unjustified”; they “whom God hath accepted in his beloved…can neither totally nor finally fall away” (WCF 17:1). After death, these believers will be “made perfect in holiness and received into the highest heavens” (WCF 32:1; LC 86), while they await the “full redemption of their bodies” at the resurrection. At final judgment, which coincides with the resurrection of all, “the righteous” will be “openly acknowledged and acquitted” (LC 90; SC 38) because of the prior act of justification, which “free[s] all believers from the revenging wrath of God, and that perfectly in this life” and promises that “they [shall] never fall into condemnation” (LC 77). B. New Perspective on Paul 1. E. P. Sanders One
key area where the “New Perspective on Paul” has come under intense
scrutiny is justification by faith. Starting with E. P. Sanders’ Paul and Palestinian Judaism,
these NT scholars suggest that our understanding of the Pauline context
is shaped more by later, Reformational doctrinal contexts, rather than
the situation of the intertestamental period. This period, also called
“Second Temple Judaism,” has become a major historical battle ground in
seeking to understand the Pauline situation and teaching.[30] In
sum, those who follow Sanders suggest that the Judaism which confronted
Jesus and Paul in the first century of the Christian era was not a
“legalistic” religion, but a religion of grace. This divine
graciousness was demonstrated, first, by God’s election of According
to this view, Jews and Christians were fundamentally saying the same
things about the relationship between grace and works: grace was the
way an individual “got into” the covenant and so identified with the
people of God; this grace was evidenced in the election of the church
to be God’s people; obedient works represented the way that individual
“stayed in” the covenant, demonstrating his or her covenant loyalty to
God. The major problem that Paul had with Judaism was that it was not
Christianity; that is, Judaism did not properly assess the
world-historical significance of Jesus as Lord.[32] It
is important to note that not everyone who sees themselves as working
within Sanders’ categories agrees with him on every particular. For
example, Sanders suggests that Paul’s justification language was not
merely forensic, but also includes a transformative aspect to it. In
fact, he argued that the notion of participation in Christ is central
to Paul’s thought and that forensic categories are subsidiary to this
main concern. As a result, for an individual to be “righteous,” it was
necessary for him to “be-in-Christ,” which ultimately meant being in
Christ’s covenant people, who are his own body. Not all NPP proponents,
however, accept that the participatory language in Paul’s thought
swallows up, if you will, the forensic side of his theology.[33] 2. N. T. Wright By
far, the most influential NPP proponent for Presbyterian and Reformed
believers is N. T. Wright. There are helpful insights in much of
Wright’s work. For example, in his series of major volumes on NT
studies, he has proved to be a strong and noteworthy defender of the
historicity of the Christian religion, especially on the key
fundamentals of the historical Jesus and the reality of Christ’s
resurrection. By noting potential problem areas in his observations on
Paul’s theology, we do not mean to suggest that we have nothing to
learn from Wright.[34] The
challenge comes in Wright’s understanding of Paul’s theology of
justification. While acknowledging the forensic orientation of Paul’s
use of justification, Wright appears to read justification in corporate
terms first: “‘Justification’ thus describes the coming great act of
redemption and salvation, seen from the point of view
of the covenant (Israel as God’s people) on the one hand and the law
court on the other (God’s final judgment will be like a great law-court
with Israel winning the case).” In Jesus overturns Israel’s (and the pre-converted Paul’s) understanding of justification, according to Wright, because “the
one true God had done for Jesus of Nazareth, in the middle of time,
what Saul had thought he was going to do for Israel at the end of time.”
That is, God had vindicated or justified Jesus, the true Israelite, by
raising him from the dead. This meant that the crucified and
resurrected Jesus was exactly whom he claimed to be: the promised
Messiah who was Not
only was Jesus exactly who he claimed to be, but, through Jesus’
resurrection, God himself was shown to be “righteous” (i.e., faithful
to His covenant promises). For Wright, the term “the righteousness of
God” primarily relates to God’s own covenant faithfulness. God had
established his covenant with his people, a covenant that centered on
the promise he would be their Lord and Savior; and he demonstrated his
“righteousness” by showing that he was faithful to his covenant
promises. By this, God did far more than demonstrate his faithfulness
to And
so, this gospel was a proclamation to Israelite and Gentile to bow the
knee to Jesus, to confess him as Lord, and to join the elected people
of God. The means of initiation into God’s people, or the “badge of
membership,” was faith in Jesus as Lord. Those who belong to this
people are “justified”: justification “was about God’s eschatological
definition, both future and present, of who was, in fact, a member of
his people. In [E. P.] Sanders’ terms, it was not so much about
‘getting in,’ or indeed about ‘staying in,’ as about ‘how you could
tell who was in.’ In standard Christian theological language, it wasn’t
so much about soteriology as about ecclesiology; not so much about
salvation as about the church.” To put it briefly, according to Wright,
justification is chiefly the status of covenant membership, the status
of belonging as a member of God’s people. As he notes, for first
century Jews and Christians, justification was “membership language,” focused on “covenant membership” in the people of God.[38] Wright
does recognize that some may take this more “ecclesiological”
understanding of justification too far. In 2005, he observed that while
the NPP has succeeded in driving this point home, it has failed to show
“how this integrates with the traditional view that [Paul] is talking
about how sinners are put right with God.” Wright believes that these
two emphases “are in fact part of the same thing, both to be equally
stressed.” And yet, though he claims this, it does appear that his
default mode for understanding justification is the more corporate,
expansive understanding: Paul “is not simply assuming an implicit
narrative about how individual sinners find a right relationship with a
holy God…In so far as [Paul] would be happy with the former way of
stating matters at all, he would insist on framing it within the much
larger question of how the creator God can be true to creation, how the
covenant God can be true to the covenant, and how those things are not
two but one.”[39] With
this understanding, Wright proposed that Galatians, especially, be
re-read. The key issue in that Pauline letter, according to Wright, was
“how you define the people of God: are they to be
defined by the badges of Jewish race, or in some other way?” Paul
employs justification in Galatians to argue that the way to tell who
belongs to God’s people is not by pointing to Jewish circumcision,
dietary laws, or feast days, but by pointing to faith—all those who
have faith belong to God’s people and, hence, are justified. In other
words, justification has to do with “covenant membership; it is the gift of God, not something acquired in any way by the human beings involved; and this gift is bestowed upon faith.”[40] While
Wright notes that justification (covenant membership) is a declaration
that an individual’s sins are already forgiven, it does not mean that
there is a transfer of God’s or Christ’s righteousness to sinners. As
he argues, “The righteousness they have will not be God’s own righteousness…God’s
righteousness remains, so to speak, God’s own property. It is the
reason for his acting to vindicate his people. It is not the status he
bestows upon them in so doing.”[41]
Rather, justification means that sinners “are declared in the present,
to be what they will be seen to be in the future, namely the true
people of God.” Or to put it differently, “justification, for Paul, is
a subset of election, that is, it belongs as part of his doctrine of
the people of God.” Both justification and election are re-read in
corporate terms, focused on belonging to the covenant people of God. As
a result, according to Wright, the traditional idea of “imputed
righteousness,” whereby sinners are accepted and accounted as righteous
in God’s sight because of the righteousness of Jesus, is incorrect: “If
we use the language of the law court, it makes no sense whatever to say
that the judge imputes, imparts, bequeaths, conveys or otherwise
transfers his righteousness to either the plaintiff or the defendant.
Righteousness is not an object, a substance or gas which can be passed
around the courtroom.”[43] In
addition, Wright argues that Paul did not mean to suggest that “Jesus’
‘obedience’ was somehow meritorious, so that by it he earned
‘righteousness’ on behalf of others. That is an ingenious and
far-reaching way of making Paul’s language fit into a theological
scheme very different from his own.” Jesus, in his living, dying, and
rising again, simply was faithful to what God had intended the covenant
to achieve.[44] Thus,
the idea of a “gracious transfer” is simply not found in the biblical
texts, according to Wright. In dealing with Romans 4:3-5, Wright
understands the “book-keeping metaphor” of “counted” (ESV) as referring
to the individual’s “status of being a member of the covenant; ‘faith’
is the badge, the sign, that reveals that status because it is its key
symptom.” This badge of covenant membership is an act of sheer grace,
granted by God to the ungodly. As he observed in comments on Romans Those
who respond to Jesus in faith and are identified with God’s people are
justified and represent “the obedience of faith.” The Greek word pistis can
be translated either as faith or faithfulness: for example, Wright
understands Romans 1:17 (“the righteousness of God is revealed from
faith for faith” ESV) to mean “from God’s faithfulness to human
faithfulness”: “When God’s action in fulfillment of the covenant is
unveiled, it is because God is faithful to what has been promised; when
it is received, it is received by that human faith that answers to the
revelation of God in Jesus Christ, that human faith that is also faithfulness to the call of God in Jesus the Messiah.”[46] As
might be expected, “union with Christ” is revised in line with this
“covenantal” reading of Scripture. Wright suggests that, for Paul,
being in Christ “means ‘belonging to the people of God as redefined
around the Messiah.’ It is, in other words, a specifically covenantal
way of speaking.” And the means for being united to Christ is baptism.
The sacrament of baptism serves to unite the individual to the Messiah
and so unites him to the Messiah’s people. “That which is true of the
Messiah is therefore now true of them; that is what happened to him
happens to them with him…Their status and condition now, therefore, is that they are in Christ,
so that his having died to sin and being alive to God is true of them
also. This is the logic of incorporative Messiahship, and hence of
baptism.” Following Wright’s logic, though unstated – to
be baptized into the Messiah and, hence, into the Messiah’s body of
people means that the baptized one is justified and elect as well.[47] C. Federal Vision 1. Peter Leithart While
Federal Vision proponents frequently subsume the doctrine of
justification under the category of “union with Christ,” Peter
Leithart, in one influential essay, deals with justification language
in the Bible. Leithart suggests that while the Bible does use
“justification” in a forensic sense, readers must broaden their
understanding of what “forensic” means in order to understand
justification. That is to say, forensic usage in the Bible could cover
military, personal, and liberation contexts, as well as one oriented to
the court-room.[48] In
order to broaden the traditional Protestant reading of justification,
Leithart pays attention to the biblical usage of the justification
word-group as it is used in the OT Psalms and Prophets. By focusing on
these texts, he suggests that biblical readers will come to see that
God’s judgment is “never simply a declaration that changes one’s legal
standing without changing one’s condition or situation. When God
condemns, He acts to enforce that sentence.” Hence, the way most
Protestants would understand “forensic” must be expanded to include
both the declaration and the execution of a sentence.[49] God especially acts to justify or vindicate ungodly This
OT background, Leithart notes, informs Paul’s theology of
justification, especially in Romans. There are “echoes” of the Psalms
in Romans 3, which should allow biblical students to see that Paul and
the Psalmists were agreed that justification was “a favorable judgment
of God rendered through deliverance from enemies.” The public means by
which this judgment was declared was the resurrection of Jesus, “the
paradigmatic case of justification.” And because this is so, “our
justification must likewise involve deliverance from the power of death
and from the threat of enemies, including the enemies of sin and Satan.”[51] The
upshot is that “in this sense, justification and definitive
sanctification are two ways of describing the same act.” Drawing on
Romans 6:7, Leithart argues that “to be justified from sin is to be
liberated.” Because sinners are united to Christ through baptism, they
are “joined with the vindicated Son.” Sinners share in Jesus’ prior
vindication, evidenced in his resurrection, and realize liberation from
sin. This justification is realized in the present by faith, but awaits
the final judgment for the full and final vindication.[52] 2. Rich Lusk Another
important discussion of issues related to justification can be found in
Rich Lusk’s response/essay in the Knox Seminary Symposium. Responding
to Morton Smith’s essay on the “biblical plan of salvation,” Lusk
suggests that “bi-covenantal federalism begins to look more and more
like a theological grid imposed upon Scripture to satisfy the
requirements of a dogmatic system rather than an organic outgrowth of
biblical reflection and exegesis.” In particular, Lusk argues against
any understanding of covenant theology that uses the category of merit
to describe God’s relationship with Adam or Jesus.[53] While
the Federal Vision understanding of “covenant” is treated elsewhere in
this report, it is important to notice how Lusk’s reluctance to use the
concept of merit affects his understanding of justification and,
especially, the way imputation functions within the biblical doctrine
of justification. First, Lusk argues that the purpose of law was to
point the way to maturity, not to establish merit. He suggests that
“the law did not require perfect obedience” and that Moses suggested
that “the law was not too hard to keep, for it was a law of faith.” He
also claimed that “the Torah was not a law code in any modern sense.”
Rather, the law was intended to communicate “fatherly instruction,”
wisdom and counsel to gain blessing from God, and served as “the Gospel
in pre-Christian form,” giving the “blue print of the coming Gospel.”[54] And
so, while affirming that “the perfect obedience of Jesus played a vital
role in his salvific work on our behalf,” Lusk elaborates on that claim
by arguing that Christ’s active obedience was a “precondition of his
saving work in his death and resurrection.” That is, Christ’s active
obedience “is not saving in itself”; nor were these works that “would
be credited to Jesus’ people”; nor did Christ “merit” anything for
himself or his people that would be legally transferred to his people’s
account. For Lusk, “justification requires no transfer or imputation of
anything,” especially the “merits” of Jesus.[55] Rather,
what is required for God to justify sinners is union with Christ.
Following others who focus on this theological category, Lusk suggests,
“If I am in Christ, he is my substitute and
representative. All he suffered and accomplished was for me. All he has
belongs to me. With regards to justification, this means my right
standing before the Father is grounded in Christ’s own right standing
before the Father.” In fact, he states that “my in-Christ-ness makes
imputation redundant. I do not need the moral content of his life of
righteousness transferred to me; what I need is a share in the forensic
verdict passed over him at the resurrection.”[56] The
way of incorporation or union with Christ is by faith, sealed in
baptism. In a separate essay, Lusk holds that “the Westminster
standards teach that in baptism, the thing signified—which is nothing
less than union with Christ, regeneration, and forgiveness—is truly
sealed, conferred, applied, and communicated.” Hence, baptism unites
the individual to Christ effectually and, at that moment, the
individual is justified—the forensic verdict passed over Christ at the
resurrection is passed over the individual at baptism. Or as Lusk puts
it elsewhere, “faith is the instrument of justification on our end,
while baptism is the instrument on God’s side. God offers Christ and
applies Christ to us through the instrument of baptism.”[57] 3. Steve Wilkins A
similar way of thinking about justification, imputation, union with
Christ, and baptism can be found in Steve Wilkins’ essay. Wilkins
writes that “all the blessings and benefits of salvation therefore are
found ‘in Christ’…By virtue of union with the Second Adam we have
wholeness and restoration—new birth, regeneration, new life.”
Individuals are united to Christ and so receive the benefits of
salvation by baptism: “The Bible teaches us that baptism unites us to
Christ and His body by the power of the Holy Spirit (1 Cor. Part
of the salvific benefits received by union with Christ, which occurs in
baptism, is justification. This is because Jesus “is the Justified
One.” Because Jesus was “vindicated” by the Father at the resurrection,
we too are “vindicated” or justified; we share in Jesus’
“justification.” Elsewhere Wilkins states that “union with Christ means
that all that is true of Christ is true of us.” While not directly
addressing the issue of imputation, these statements would seem to
serve as Wilkins’ short-hand for understanding this view – that baptism
unites the individual to Christ in such a way that all that is true
about Jesus (as the Justified One) is true about the individual (as a
justified one).[60] Faith
plays a role in perseverance, or in “abiding in union with Christ”:
“Covenant life is always founded upon persevering faith in the faithful
One. If we are to abide in union with Him, we, by the grace and power
of the Spirit, must be faithful.” Hence, it would be possible for
someone who is baptized, united to Christ, and shares in the blessings
of Christ not to be truly elect and so to apostatize: “the elect are
marked by abiding in the Word of Christ.” While these
issues are treated later in the report, it is important to notice how,
for Wilkins, these issues relate to each other.[61] D. Comparative Analysis While the NPP, as represented by N. T. Wright, offers a thorough-going re-reading of the theology of the Apostle Paul, there are several areas of concern for officers who subscribe to the Westminster Standards. Wright’s re-reading of justification and union with Christ in “covenantal” (or ecclesiological) terms leads to different and incompatible understandings of those terms when compared with our Standards. What makes this terribly confusing is that Wright will affirm an individual aspect of justification; and yet, he quickly turns the focus back to the corporate: justification is “about God’s eschatological definition, both future and present, of who was, in fact, a member of his people.” Likewise, while there may be an individual aspect of union with Christ, Wright focuses attention on a corporate or ecclesiological reading of the teaching: it means “‘belonging to the people of God as redefined around the Messiah.’ It is, in other words, a specifically covenantal way of speaking.” This orientation around corporate categories places theological reflection on a different trajectory than that of the Standards. Moreover, there is some question raised by Wright’s understanding of what Jesus came to do, especially his obedience in relation to the status of his people. In his view, Jesus does not stand as a representative head whose perfect obedience is imputed to his people by faith. Rather, Jesus is the representative Israelite, who experiences in his own person all that corporate Likewise, the stance of Federal Vision proponents raises concerns for officers who subscribe to the Westminster Standards. While the Committee would agree that the Standards use “union with Christ” as an umbrella category for “Christ’s mediation,” the way Federal Vision proponents collapse the distinct benefits of this mediation (i.e. justification, adoption, sanctification) into “union with Christ” creates significant confusion. Similarly, Federal Vision’s appeal to “the biblical usage” of justification as a way to collapse forensic and transformative categories also confuses doctrines that our Standards rightly distinguish (i.e., justification and sanctification). Nevertheless, the truly problematic claims of the Federal Vision proponents come when some suggest that “Christ’s active obedience” is not transferred to his people or that imputation is “redundant” because it is subsumed in “union with Christ.” Such claims contradict the position of the Westminster Standards and strike at the vitals of the system of doctrine contained there. Further, to strike language of “merit” from our theological vocabulary so that the claim is made that Christ’s merits are not imputed to his people contradicts the position of the Westminster Standards (WCF 17:2; LC 55; 174). Finally, the claim of some FV proponents that all those who are baptized with water are savingly “united to Christ” flatly contradicts the Westminster Standards. The position of our Standards is that union with Christ occurs only to those who are effectually called (or who are the elect; LC 66-68). Further, the committee affirms that in baptism “the grace promised is not only offered, but really exhibited and conferred by the Holy Ghost,” with these qualifications, “to such (whether of age or infants) as that grace belongeth unto, according to the counsel of God’s own will, in His appointed time” (WCF 28:6). When FV writers tie together water baptism and baptismal efficacy in a fashion that may feel to some like ex opera operato (i.e., in the performance of the act), they run counter to WCF 28:6, which insists “the efficacy of baptism is not tied to that moment wherein it is administered.” Moreover, the efficacy of baptism is tied by our Standards to “the working of his [Christ’s] Spirit in them that by faith receive them [the sacraments]” (WSC 91). III. Perseverance, Apostasy and Assurance A. The 1. Perseverance WCF 17:1 states that those “whom God has accepted in His Beloved, effectually called, and sanctified by His Spirit, can neither totally nor finally fall away from the state of grace, but shall certainly persevere therein to the end, and be eternally saved.” Their perseverance is due not to “their own free will” (WCF 17.2), nor to their own perseverance of faith or good works (WCF 3.5), but strictly to “the immutability of the decree of election, flowing from the free and unchangeable love of God the Father.” WCF 17.2 adds that “the certainty and infallibility” of their perseverance is also based on “the efficacy of the merit and intercession of Jesus Christ, the abiding of the Spirit, and of the seed of God within them, and the nature of the covenant of grace.” Moreover, the Standards are very clear that God has appointed only “the elect unto glory” and that they are “kept by his power.” “Neither are any other redeemed by Christ, effectually called, justified, adopted, sanctified, and saved, but the elect only” (WCF 3:6). “The rest of mankind [the non-elect] God was pleased…to pass by; and to ordain them to dishonor and wrath for their sin, to the praise of his glorious justice” (WCF 3:7). The Westminster Confession repeatedly teaches that the Holy Spirit applies the work of redemption efficaciously to all the elect and only the elect (8:8, 10:1, 14:1, WLC 32). Indeed, the “Spirit is the earnest of our inheritance, whereby we are sealed to the day of redemption” (WCF 18:2). The non-elect, however, “although they may be called by the ministry of the Word, and may have some common operations of the Spirit, yet they never truly come unto Christ, and therefore cannot be saved” (WCF 10:4, emphasis added). The faith which the non-elect sometimes have is from the beginning a dead faith which does not work by love (cf. WCF 11.2). The works performed by the non-elect in the church are not pleasing to God because they are not "the fruits and evidences of a true and lively faith"(WCF 16.2) and because "they proceed not from an heart purified by faith" (WCF 16.7). All three of the Standards state that justification, adoption and sanctification are the benefits that flow from effectual calling (WCF 3:6, WLC 79, WSC 32). And the benefits that flow from justification, adoption and sanctification include “assurance of God’s love” and “perseverance therein to the end” (WSC 36; cf. WLC 74, 77; WCF 11:5). In short, all those whom God elected, all those for whom Christ died, all those for whom Christ intercedes, all those whom the Spirit regenerates, all those in whom the Spirit dwells, and all those in vital covenant union with Christ, all those justified, adopted and sanctified, will persevere. All these benefits refer to the same specific set of individuals in history (WCF 17). 2. Visible and Invisible Church As part of this teaching on perseverance and apostasy, the Standards distinguish between the visible and the invisible church. The visible church consists of all in the world who “profess the true religion [together with] their children” (WLC 62; cf. WCF 25.2). “The invisible church is the whole number of the elect, that have been, are, or shall be gathered into one under Christ the head” (WLC 64; cf. WCF 25:1). WLC 61 states that not all those in the visible church are saved, “but they only who are true members of the church invisible.” The Westminster Larger Catechism specifically addresses the issue of the difference between the grace experienced by the elect in the invisible church and the benefits available to all in the visible church. The elect in the invisible church “enjoy union and communion with him [Christ] in grace and glory.” This union is a “grace, whereby they are spiritually and mystically, yet really and inseparably joined to Christ,” based “in their effectual calling” (WLC 65-66). They also partake “of the virtue of [Christ’s] mediation, in their justification, adoption, sanctification, and whatever else, in this |