The 35th General Assembly approved the recommendations of its Interim Committee on Federal Vision*, formed last year to study “Federal Vision, New Perspectives on Paul, and Auburn Avenue Theologies.” The committee was asked to determine whether these views are “in conformity with the system of doctrine taught in the Westminster Standards” and to “present a declaration or statement regarding the issues raised by these viewpoints in light of our Confessional Standards” (M34GA, 34-57, pp. 229-30).

After several hours of debate and failed motions to extend the committee and include more exegesis of relevant biblical passages in its report, the General Assembly approved the recommendations of the Interim Committee with a 90 percent majority. The Assembly voted to approve the Committee’s five recommendations, which included nine theological declarations. The recommendations included the following:

--That the General Assembly reminds the Church, its officers and congregations of the provisions of BCO 29-1 and 39-3 which assert that the Confession of Faith and the Larger and Shorter Catechisms of the Westminster Assembly, while “subordinate to the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments…,” have been adopted by the PCA “as standard expositions of the teachings of Scripture in relation to both faith and practice.”

--That the General Assembly recommends the declarations in this report as a faithful exposition of the Westminster Standards, and further reminds those ruling and teaching elders whose views are out of accord with our Standards of their obligation to make known to their courts any differences in their views.

*Proponents of the Federal Vision/Auburn Avenue Theology think their conversations on the implications of Covenant Theology in relation to the sacraments and other doctrines related to ecclesiology (doctrine of the Church) and soteriology (doctrine of salvation) are necessary to rid Covenant Theology of the influences of American revivalism and individualism, to return to the theology of the 16th-century Reformers, and to incorporate insights of Biblical Theology developed since the Reformation. Critics hold that Federal Vision conversationalists have gone too far in the quest for continuing theological reformation. 

To view the entire report of the Interim Committee on Federal Vision, visit www.pcahistory.org/pca/07-fvreport.html. To order CDs, tapes, and MP3s from the Assembly, visit www.pcaga.com.

Declarations of Interim Committee on Federal Vision
 
In light of the controversy surrounding the NPP and FV, the committee unanimously made, and the General Assembly overwhelming approved, the following declarations:
 
1. The view that rejects the bi-covenantal structure of Scripture as represented in the Westminster Standards (i.e., views which do not merely take issue with the terminology, but the essence of the first/second covenant framework) is contrary to those Standards.
 
2. The view that an individual is “elect” by virtue of his membership in the visible church; and that this “election” includes justification, adoption and sanctification; but that this individual could lose his “election” if he forsakes the visible church, is contrary to the Westminster Standards.
 
3. The view that Christ does not stand as a representative head whose perfect obedience and satisfaction is imputed to individuals who believe in him is contrary to the Westminster Standards.
 
4. The view that strikes the language of “merit” from our theological vocabulary so that the claim is made that Christ’s merits are not imputed to his people is contrary to the Westminster Standards.
 
5. The view that “union with Christ” renders imputation redundant because it subsumes all of Christ’s benefits (including justification) under this doctrinal heading is contrary to the Westminster Standards.
 
6. The view that water baptism effects a “covenantal union” with Christ through which each baptized person receives the saving benefits of Christ’s mediation, including regeneration, justification, and sanctification, thus creating a parallel soteriological system to the decretal system of the Westminster Standards, is contrary to the Westminster Standards.
 
7. The view that one can be “united to Christ” and not receive all the benefits of Christ’s mediation, including perseverance, in that effectual union is contrary to the Westminster Standards.
 
8. The view that some can receive saving benefits of Christ’s mediation, such as regeneration and justification, and yet not persevere in those benefits is contrary to the Westminster Standards.
 
9. The view that justification is in any way based on our works, or that the so-called “final verdict of justification” is based on anything other than the perfect obedience and satisfaction of Christ received through faith alone, is contrary to the Westminster Standards.