This is a copy of a letter I sent to the stated clerk of my Presbytery this morning.
To the Stated Clerk:
I don’t know if I’m technically required to send this letter, but following the GA’s vote on the Federal Vision study committee yesterday, I thought it would be helpful for the Presbytery if I laid out my views on the specific subjects covered in the study committee report. I am happy to discuss this further with the Presbytery, and will also cheerfully submit to any decision the Presbytery might make concerning my fitness to continue as a PCA Teaching Elder. I have tried to be clear and precise, but no doubt I’ve failed at various point, and I am happy to provide clarification.
I deal with the nine recommendations of the committee report in turn.
1. Bi-covenantal structure: There is discontinuity between the Adamic covenant and the post-lapsarian covenants, thoughI do not believe the discontinuity lies in the manner of communion with God. God sovereignly created Adam in a state of favor, and Adam was to walk in that favor by faith that expressed itself in obedience. So also, God sovereignly brings us into a state of favor through His Son, and we walk in that favor by faith expressed in obedience. The differences between Adamic and post-lapsarian covenants are not at a “soteriological” level (ie., not a contrast of a “legal” versus a “gracious” covenant), but at the level of covenant administration.
2. Election by baptism: The committee statement is ambiguous, since “election” can refer to the general election that applies to all who are members of the chosen new Israel or to the special, eternal election of the eschatological Israel. In either case, though, I don’t believe that election is “by virtue of” baptism. Election, in both its general and special senses, is an unconditional sovereign act of God. Baptism may express God’s election to membership in the church; but election is not dependent on baptism.
I suspect that the committee meant to deal with a view of this sort: Baptism expresses God’s eternal sovereign choice of an individual to be a member of the people of God; and those who are members of the church stand righteous before God, are holy, and are sons because they are members of the body inseparably joined to the Son of God, who is the righteous and holy Son (1 Cor 6:11; Gal 3:28-29); these benefits of baptism, however, belong finally only to the baptized who respond to God’s grace in faith; there are some who are made sons by baptism who fall away. That does express my view of baptism, and I refer you and the Presbytery to my recent book, The Baptized Body, for elaboration.
In saying this, I am trying to reflect the biblical usage of various terms. The Standards use terms like justification, sanctification, union to Christ, and adoption in a stipulated way; according to the standards, these blessings, by definition, belong only to the elect. But the Biblical usage is more elastic. Peter describes people who have been “rescued” from the world “by the knowledge of the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ” (2 Pet 2:20), but the next verses show that he is not talking about elect people. Paul talks about Israelites baptized into union with Moses, who drink from Christ the Rock, and yet later fall in the wilderness (1 Cor 10:1-4). Clearly, in these passages, rescue from the world and union with the covenant head are not blessings that belong only to the elect.
I believe that the elect, and only the elect, will stand before God on the last day as righteous, holy, forgiven sons. The elect will receive these benefits of Christ, and cannot lose them. But that’s not the only way these terms are used in Scripture.
3. Imputation of obedience: This is an issue I am still thinking about, and on which I don’t have a settled position. I affirm that Christ’s obedience was necessary for our salvation, and affirm too that Christ’s history of obedience becomes the life story of those who are in Christ. I’m not sure that “imputation” is the best way to express this. It’s not clear to me that the Westminster Standards require belief in the imputation of Christ’s active obedience.
4. Merit: I don’t believe that Adam or any human being could merit anything before God. God doesn’t owe anything to man as wages earned. Nor do I believe that Jesus, the incarnate Son, had to do anything to receive the favor of His Father. He is eternally favored by His Father, and that favor is the starting point of His incarnate work not the end point. Yet, because the eternal Son is the equal of the Father, He and His work have an inherent worth that no creature has before God. If this is what “merit” expresses, I do not disagree.
5. Union with Christ: I do believe that all of Christ’s benefits are “subsumed” under the heading of union with Christ. This renders imputation “redundant” if imputation if imputation is seen as a separate moment of justification, parallel to but distinct from union with Christ. We are united with Christ; Christ is righteous; therefore, God regards us (considers us, counts us) as righteous. This is imputation, but it is not a distinct act of imputation.
6. Baptism and covenantal union: I do believe that baptism unites the baptized in covenant with Christ. The import of this I’ve already discussion in point #2 above. I don’t see this as a “parallel” soteriological system to the decretal system. Rather, God works out His decrees in history through the various covenantal structures of biblical history.
7. Union with Christ and benefits: I do believe that some are united to Christ yet do not persevere (John 15). During the time they are branches in the vine, they do receive benefits from Christ through the Spirit and may enjoy real, personal, and deep communion with Jesus for a time. Yet, their relationship with Christ is not identical to the relationship of the elect. Put it this way: Some are united to Christ as members of the bride but are headed for divorce; others are united and headed for consummation. Marriages that end in divorce are not the same as marriages that end happily. I have discussed this at further length in chapter 4 of The Baptized Body.
8. Temporary benefits: I have already described my views on this above in #2 and 7. Biblically, I am convinced that some are united to Christ but do not persevere (John 15; 2 Pet 2:20-22).
9. Justification by works: We are righteous before God by faith because we are united to Christ the Righteous. James says that we are “justified by works.” I don’t know precisely how to take James, but I believe we must, in faithfulness to Scripture, affirm that we are justified by works in whatever sense that James means it.
As for judgment according to works, WCF 33.1 clearly teaches that we will receive according to what we have done: “In which day, not only the apostate angels shall be judged, but likewise all persons that have lived upon earth shall appear before the tribunal of Christ, to give an account of their thoughts, words, and deeds; and to receive according to what they have done in the body, whether good or evil.” Of course, our works are acceptable in Christ, but the Confession states that we receive according to our works. I don’t see how the committee’s statement on this subject is compatible with the Confession.
Please let me know if you require clarification on any of these points.
