PCA assessment of federal vision, NPP, etc.

a couple quotes from this PCA report that looks unfavorably on the Federal Vision concept and NPP and NT Wright....

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 Israel expected God to do for them. Jesus is vindicated by God in the resurrection, and hence, is righteous. And yet, this “righteousness” is not transferred to anyone else. In fact, Wright denies any understanding of “transfer” language in the NT, which also means a denial of imputed righteousness. This is a position that contradicts our Standards and strikes at the system of doctrine contained in them.

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).

Committee Members:

TE Paul Fowler, Chairman

TE Grover Gunn, Secretary

TE Ligon Duncan

TE Sean Lucas

RE Robert Mattes

RE William Mueller

RE John White.