The Presbytery of the Mississippi Valley (PCA)
The Reverend Roger Collins, Stated Clerk
http://www.msvalleypresbytery.com
130 Byram Parkway
Byram, Mississippi 39272-9601

Fathers and Brethren,

A year ago the Presbytery of the Mississippi Valley (hereafter MVP) appointed an ad hoc committee charged with facilitating the presbytery's study of the issues surrounding the distinct but related phenomena of the so-called "New Perspectives on Paul" (NPP) (including the theology of N. T. Wright, hereafter NTW); the so-called "Auburn Avenue theology" (hereafter AAT, which is sometimes referred to as the "Federal Vision," hereafter FV, or AAT/FV), and the theology of Norman Shepherd (hereafter NS). The committee began its work well aware of the uniquenesses of and differences between these various theological projects, but also realizing that they all share a certain similar attraction to a distinct theological sub-culture within various Reformed denominations (PCA [Presbyterian Church in America], OPC [Orthodox Presbyterian Church], CRC [Christian Reformed Church], URCNA [United Reformed Church of North America], etc). Our study committee's appreciation of the distinctness of these theological blueprints is reflected in the provision of four separate summary outlines (and one critical overview) of these multifarious views.

The need for such a study has become increasingly obvious. In the PCA, at least two presbyteries have refused to transfer PCA ministers sympathetic to the AAT/FV into their presbyteries. Recently, Evangel Presbytery's Credentials Committee rejected for transfer into their bounds a PCA minister in good standing, who embraces the AAT/FV, finding his views to be outside the pale of acceptable doctrinal diversity. The minister and the calling church have now left the PCA for the CRE (the fellowship of churches associated with Doug Wilson of Moscow, Idaho). Several PCA presbyteries have established their own study committees on the NPP, the theology of NS, and the AAT/FV (among them, Western Carolina, Blue Ridge and Missouri). One Reformed denomination (the RPCGA [Reformed Presbyterian Church General Assembly]) and one PCA presbytery (Central Carolina) have now sent communications asking for Louisiana Presbytery to conduct a theological investigation of the AAT/FV within its own bounds. The OPC has also established a study committee. Meanwhile, numerous books and articles are appearing on these subjects, and conferences, seminars and lectures (pro and con) are proliferating (the PCA's Stated Clerk has recently sponsored a lecture for all the Clerks of the PCA presbyteries, and our denominational seminary, Covenant, has also held a series of talks). One PCA session and congregation has promoted through its pastors' conference the teachings of NS and NTW as helpful to an ongoing intramural Reformed dialogue and discussion on covenant and justification. Members transferring from AAT/FV-friendly churches have attempted to force the sessions of the churches to which they have relocated to allow for their practice of AAT/FV distinctives relating to child communion and membership (and in one case have pursued a judicial appeal all the way through presbytery to the SJC [Standing Judicial Commission]). In one church, an AAT/FV- sympathetic pastor has engineered the removal of an associate who was fully committed to the PCA doctrinal position but objected to the pastor's extra- or anti-confessional views. Additionally, leading pastor-theologians in the Reformed and evangelical world have raised concerns over the unbiblical and anti-confessional views of the NPP, NTW, NS and the AAT/FV theologies. Sinclair Ferguson, Al Mohler, Doug Kelly, Don Carson, Rick Phillips, John Piper, R. C. Sproul, Cal Beisner, Frank Barker and more have publicly indicated their disapproval of the theological program of some or all of these various figures and groups. Yet, a not insignificant number of PCA teaching elders shows significant sympathy with these theological tendencies about which our most trusted churchmen and scholars have expressed distress. Hence, the presbytery's committee sponsored more than thirty hours of lecture and discussion on the assigned subjects, and held a face to face meeting with representatives of the Auburn Avenue Presbyterian Church of Monroe, Louisiana. The committee has also provided the presbytery with three sets of audio recordings pertaining to the theology of the NPP, the theology of NS, and the theology of the FV (AAT). One book has already been published as a result of the committee's labors, Guy Waters' Justification and the New Perspectives (P&R, 2004) and another is on the way, Guy Waters' Covenant Theology Improved? (P&R, 2005) (this volume deals with the AAT/FV). Dr. Waters' work has been widely lauded as a definitive Reformed treatment of the NPP and no doubt so also will his work of the AAT/FV.

The presbytery's committee presented a preliminary informational report to MVP in November of 2004. This report contained the following: a synoptic presentation of the views of the NPP (and especially the teaching of NTW), of NS, and of the AAT/FV. At that time, the committee indicated to presbytery that it would move adoption of a final report in February, 2005. The summary statements in this report are improved and corrected versions of that preliminary information. Since the time of the preliminary informational report, the Session of the Auburn Avenue Presbyterian Church (hereafter AAPC) has issued a response charging our committee with misrepresenting their positions (this has been distributed via email to the presbyteries of the PCA – it is included in this report as an exhibit). Having met face to face with three representatives of the AAPC, the MVP committee unanimously agreed that the committee's representations of the AAPC session's original Summary Statement and of the AAT/FV in its Précis on the Federal Vision (AAT/FV) and in its Critical Overview of the AAPC Summary Statement are both accurate and helpful, and MVP as a presbytery concurs. The AAPC Session's response asserted three things globally – that the MVP preliminary informational report: (1) "frequently assumes a monolithic and univocal 'Reformed Tradition'" and "overlooks the various shades of diversity within historic Reformed theology (including the Westminsterian tradition);" (2) "assumes that there is a well-defined movement labeled the 'Federal Vision' and fails to take into account the "differences that exist between the positions held by the individuals involved;" and (3) shows "no appreciation of the nuances or qualifications or specified terminology that has been utilized by the 'Federal Vision' men" and does not engage "with the wide array of exegetical, theological, and historical arguments set forth by the men associated with the 'Federal Vision.'"

In discussion with the representatives of AAPC, our committee denied the validity of each of these concerns. First, it was pointed out that the committee was well aware of the diversity of the Reformed tradition (one of the MVP committee members has published scholarly work on that very subject). The issue at stake, however, is not whether there is diversity in the Reformed tradition, but whether the AAT is within the bounds of acceptable diversity. Furthermore, it should be noted that we do not subscribe to the "Reformed tradition," generically, as PCA elders, rather, we subscribe specifically to the [Westminster] Confession of Faith.

Second, the committee indicated that it is well aware of the amorphous character of what is being called the AAT/FV. Nevertheless, there are discernable [sic] common emphases and there is a generally shared desire among FV proponents to stress what they call the objectivity of the covenant, a shared desire to improve upon the classical formulations of Reformed covenant theology, and a consequent willingness to reformulate historic Reformed teaching on election, covenant, justification, perseverance, ecclesiology, and more. Whether one calls this a movement or not is immaterial. It is clear from the above that something identifiable exists, and one of the key goals of the committee was to make it more discernable [sic].

Third, the committee, having studied thousands of pages of material from FV proponents, is keenly aware of the nuances, qualifications, and terminological distinctions deployed by advocates of the FV. Nevertheless, the committee sought to highlight the main commonalities and tendencies in this theological approach, as well as some of the more striking aberrations being propounded by key exponents of the FV. As to the charge of not engaging with the FV's exegetical, theological and historical arguments, the committee's purview did not entail the provision of a definitive exegetical, historical and theological rebuttal, but rather it set out to provide an (1) accurate and useful description of the FV position, and (2) a juxtaposition of specific FV views with the confessional position. That having been said, even the limited review, description and critique provided by the committee is sufficient to indicate the FV's divergence from confessional theology and biblical teaching.

The MVP committee had initially thought of not footnoting the FV summary statement, in order to avoid having to name names and involving personalities (hoping that a more detached and anonymous account of the FV theology would help keep the temperature of subsequent discussion down). However, when the charges of misrepresentation were spread abroad, the committee determined to provide full public documentation of its descriptions in order to vindicate the accuracy of the report, as well as to be maximally helpful to other church bodies wrestling with these issues. MVP is well aware that assessments of the theology of the NPP, NTW, NS, and the AAT/FV are not uniform from within the larger Reformed community. Some examples of this may be helpful. For instance, out of Westminster Seminary in Philadelphia, Old Testament professor Doug Green has rendered a generally positive verdict regarding the work of NTW, while Systematic Theology professor Dick Gaffin has registered a decidedly negative assessment of the NPP, and NTW in particular. Additionally, Covenant Seminary, the denominational seminary of the PCA, has produced a mild, if limited critique. Members of the Reformed Theological Seminary faculty (in Jackson, Charlotte, Orlando and Atlanta) have also written negative criticisms of the NPP and NTW.

Meanwhile, when Westminster Seminary in California, the RCUS [Reformed Church in the United States] and the RPCUS [Reformed Presbyterian Church in the United States] recently condemned the teachings of NS and the AAT/FV, respected Professor John Frame (of RTS Orlando) called into question the conclusion of their appraisal, in his foreword to a book that contains chapters by NS and advocates of the AAT/FV. Nevertheless, Frame (who has consistently defended NS's orthodoxy even though he does not personally adhere to many of NS's opinions and formulations relating to justification) has himself conceded that: "Shepherd has taken positions contrary to some elements of the Reformed tradition."

Furthermore, many advocates of the AAT (within and without the PCA) have asserted that their own views are an acceptable part of the Reformed tradition, consistent with the Westminster Confession, and a biblical improvement upon traditional formulations, while at the same time their critics (again, within and without the PCA) have called those views into question, argued that they are anti- confessional and even labeled their teaching as "heresy." AAT proponents have called for dialogue and discussion, viewing these matters as an intramural debate, while many in the PCA want to see decisive judicial action to exclude their distinctive teachings.

What are we to say and do in the face of such a confusion of responses? Well, first of all, we should note that our word is not intended to be the final word on the matter. As other presbyteries, the General Assembly and other denominations continue their work on these issues, no doubt many things will be clarified and put out of question. We welcome that, and trust that our own small and initial contribution to the discussion will help the brethren. However, we do believe that we have made a good and helpful start of the work.

Second, we continue to esteem and love our brothers, whether they view the theologies of the NPP, NTW, NS and the AAT/FV as benign and useful, or have been influenced by their teachings. Our committee genuinely appreciated the demeanor and candor of PCA TE Steve Wilkins and RE Dale Peacock in particular as they dialogued with them. There are many in our midst with deep love for and fraternal bonds with ministers and elders associated with the FV and these other theological tendencies. Our greatest concerns lie not with the character and intentions of the proponents of these new views, but with their theological formulations and their serious pastoral and theological consequences. We agree with the insightful observations and questions that Jonathan Edwards once made and raised, at the end of his own great messages on justification: "How far a wonderful and mysterious agency of God's Spirit may so influence some men's hearts, that their practice in this regard may be contrary to their own principles, so that they shall not trust in their own righteousness, though they profess that men are justified by their own righteousness — or how far they may believe the doctrine of justification by men's own righteousness in general, and yet not believe it in a particular application of it to themselves — or how far that error which they may have been led into by education, or cunning sophistry of others, may yet be indeed contrary to the prevailing disposition of their hearts, and contrary to their practice — or how far some may seem to maintain a doctrine contrary to this gospel-doctrine of justification, that really do not, but only express themselves differently from others; or seem to oppose it through their misunderstanding of our expressions, or we of theirs, when indeed our real sentiments are the same in the main — or may seem to differ more than they do, by using terms that are without a precisely fixed and determinate meaning — or to be wide in their sentiments from this doctrine, for want of a distinct understanding of it; whose hearts, at the same time, entirely agree with it, and if once it was clearly explained to their understandings, would immediately close with it, and embrace it: — how far these things may be, I will not determine; but am fully persuaded that great allowances are to be made on these and such like accounts, in innumerable instances; though it is manifest, from what has been said, that the teaching and propagating [of] contrary doctrines and schemes, is of a pernicious and fatal tendency."

But third, we do believe that many of the positions being advocated by proponents of the NPP, NTW, NS, and AAT/FV are confused and confusing, are unbiblical, are contra-confessional, and are (as Edwards put it) "of a pernicious and fatal tendency." As such, we are ready to declare some of these distinctive teachings to be outside the bounds of acceptable diversity in this presbytery, and we trust also, in the PCA. Among these are their specific departures from our Confession's presentation of the Bible's teaching on election, covenant membership, individual regeneration, sola fide, justification, imputation, and perseverance. We believe our Confession to be more faithful to the Scriptures than are these new formulations.

With regard to these new formulations, we find

(1) views that assert that "final justification" is a matter of performance not possession, and therefore based in some sense intrinsically rather than being wholly extrinsic;

(2) views that assert that new discoveries regarding "Second Temple Judaism" require us to reject or radically modify the Reformers' and our Confession's understanding of the Pauline Gospel;

(3) views that reject or radically modify the Confession's presentation of the Bible's teaching on imputation of Christ's righteousness to believers (including the imputation of Christ's active and passive obedience);

(4) views which confuse infused and imputed righteousness, or which do not recognize the legitimacy of the important biblical and confessional distinction between faith as "the alone instrument of justification" and yet a faith which is "not alone in the person justified";

(5) views which reject the traditional bi-covenantal theology of the Westminster Confession (that is, views which do not merely take issue with the terminology but reject the essence of the bi-covenantal, covenant of works/covenant of grace framework of God's dealings with humanity);

(6) views that undermine the forensic aspect of justification by appeal to the "relational elements" or which suggest that justification is primarily a matter of ecclesiology and less so soteriology;

(7) views that categorically reject "merit" in relation to the atoning work of Christ;

(8) views which deny or undercut the biblical and theological legitimacy of the distinctions between true/nominal believers, the invisible/visible church, and the outward/inward aspects of the covenant of grace);

(9) views that relate water baptism to regeneration in such a way as tosuggest that water baptism (rather than that which it signifies) unites us to Christ;

(10) views that suggest that justification in the NT always contemplates faith and the works of faith, or that deny that faith is uniquely receptive in the act of justification;

(11) views that understand a believer's "final justification" to be a justifying verdict that embraces the believer's covenantal obedience [and not a merely public declaration of the justification declared at the outset of the believer's Christian experience];

(12) views that entail multiple instruments in justification (whether the terminology of 'instrument' is used or not);

(13) views which posit the false antithesis of reading Scripture through the
"lens of the covenant" rather than the "lens of the decree;"

(14) views which cannot sustain the difference between the saving and common operations of the Spirit;

(15) views of sacramental efficacy that speak of the salvific effects of baptism and the Lord's supper, but fail to maintain adequately the crucial distinction between the sign and the thing signified;

(16) views that suggest that water baptism conveys all the benefits of union with Christ, except for the "gift of perseverance" and final salvation;

(17) views which undermine the doctrine of the imputation of Adam's sin or which call into question the doctrine of individual regeneration;

– all of these and more, we find to be out of the bounds of acceptable diversity in this presbytery and in the PCA. As such they should not be taught or countenanced as part of the public teaching of the church. We are not asserting that any one person or group holds to all of these things, but those who do hold to any of these views, and are desirous of laboring within our bounds, should expect a thorough examination by the MVP credentials committee – because any one of these issues is serious in and of itself. Hence, those open to or embracing of any of these positions should know that MVP will be careful to ascertain the nature and relation of their view(s) to the public theology of the church – that is, that which the church believes to be Scripture's teaching, as summarized in the Confession of Faith.

Fathers and brethren, we trust that our concerns in this whole matter are Gospel concerns. We believe that the clarity of the Gospel, the freeness of grace and justification, and the assurance of the believer are all undermined by the formulations of the NPP, NTW, NS and AAT/FV theologies. No greater tragedy could befall the PCA today than to compromise the lucidity of her preaching of the glorious Gospel of grace, yet that is, we fear, precisely what we are facing. To that end, we here pledge again our commitment to the faith once delivered. By God's grace, it is our prayer that we would not preach a different Gospel, which is really not another and contrary to that which we have received, but rather that we would boldly proclaim that one true Gospel that is the power of God unto salvation to everyone who believes.

Your brethren and servants,
The Presbytery of the Mississippi Valley
Unanimously adopted, February 1, 2005