The PCA and the Federal Vision

Have you been following this controversy? I recently read the PCA's report on "Federal Vision, New Perspective, and Auburn Avenue Theology." It is very interesting and not a very long read (30+ pages).

Here are the declarations made by the study committee (restated to somewhat shorten them):

1. The view that rejects the bi-covenantal structure of Scripture is contrary to the Westminster Confession of Faith (WCF).
2. The view that contends that individuals are "elect" by virtue of membership in the visible church and this "election" includes justification, adoption, and sanctification; and that this "election" could be lost if the person forsakes the visible church is contrary to the WCF.
3. The view that Christ doesn't stand as a representative head whose perfect obedience and satisfaction is imputed to believers is contrary to the WCF.
4. The view that strikes the language of "merit" and so claims that Christ's merits are not imputed to believers is contrary to the WCF.
5. The view that "union with Christ" renders imputation redundant is contrary to the WCF.
6. The view that water baptism effects a "covenantal union" with Christ in which each baptized person receives the saving benefits of Christ's mediation is contrary to the WCF.
7. The view that one can be "united to Christ" and not receive all the benefits of Christ's mediation is contrary to the WCF. The primary benefit in view here is perseverance.
8. The view that some can receive saving benefits of Christ's mediation and yet not persevere is contrary to the WCF.
9. The view that justification is in any way based on our works or is based on anything other than Christ's perfect obedience and satisfaction received through faith alone is contrary to the WCF.

Doug Wilson takes issue with the report and claims the committee was "stacked." Here's a post from his blog:

In any controversy, it is always easy to move on to the next thing. And the next thing can be the next argument, the next bone of contention, the next chapter, the next dust up, the next round, and so on. When this happens, all the participants move on and the controversy continues. It is often the case that key moments in the early stage of the controversy are almost completely forgotten by the participants. But until that happens, as long as Asahel is dead in the road, people stop and look, and it slows the battle down.

This principle is why people do things that they are willing to brazen out. People brazen it out because brazening it out works. And this is why I intend to bring up the stacked nature of the PCA committee every chance I get, for as long as I can remember to do so. Not only will I do this, but I intend to memorialize it with as many metaphors as I can manage to come up with. That committee was as stacked as a double order of buttermilks, as stacked as some blonde in a tight dress, and as stacked as a brick house. The PCA, she's mighty, mighty.

Looking in from the outside, I don't get this last comment from Wilson. It looks as if he's saying, "I'm not going to win, so I'm going to keep crying "foul" whether anyone listens or not." Granted, I haven't read much of his stuff (mainly just for the past few weeks on his blog)... and I don't know enough about the PCA to know if the committee was stacked. This is just what it looks like to an outsider. Wilson did suggest that people should listen to or read his examination with the Confederation of Reformed Evangelical Churches, so I'll be checking that out and commenting later.

It does seem like it would be more profitable for Wilson to answer the PCA report point for point so that there will be no equivocation, as is often the case in controversies. Many times the "defendant" uses avoidance tactics and claims, "No one gets our views right. Everyone keeps misrepresenting what we believe." So, the best way to make sure everyone understands is to give a response to the charges, not come up with endless metaphors for how unfair the procedures have been.