The 35th General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in America was in Memphis last week. The Assembly discussed and approved the recommendations of the Study Committee on Federal Vision. The Study Committee had been formed at the 34th Assembly in Atlanta
to study the soteriology of the Federal Vision, New Perspective, and Auburn Avenue Theologies which are causing confusion among our churches. Further, to determine whether these viewpoints and formulations are in conformity with the system of doctrine taught in the Westminster Standards, whether they are hostile to or strike at the vitals of religion, and to present a declaration or statement regarding the issues raised by these viewpoints in light of our Confessional Standards (M34GA, 34-57, III, pp. 229-30).
You can download the PDF of their report here.
After the vote to approve the recommendations, Dr. Peter Leithart (a PCA minister in the Pacific Northwest Presbytery) wrote several entries on his website in order to clarify for others his beliefs on certain issues addressed by the Report. I must say, I’m not really sure whether I’m smart enough to be able to disagree with him in any meaningful way. This is a brief email conversation between him and me after I read this post of his on the benefits of baptism. (He was kind enough to grant permission to post this discussion.)
Peter
I find myself much in agreement with you regarding baptism conferring real benefits as it is an entrance into the covenant community. I appreciate your clarity also in stating that not all who have been baptized (or, not all covenant members), are the elect who will finally be saved.
You ask, “Do we say to our children, ‘God is your God, but He holds all your sins against you’? Do we say, ‘God is your God, but you are also a child of wrath’?”
If “not all Israel is Israel” (Rom. 9:6), then this must be a true possibility. Of course, we would never say it, as we follow the Scripture’s lead in “giving the benefit of the doubt” to all who are in the visible church, in order to encourage their faith. But in the End we will see that it could truly be said of some that they are covenant breakers.
Eric
Eric
Agreed. Some who are baptized end up in hell. My point is what you said: This is not what we say to them. And I don’t think we ought to say “God is your God” with the mental reservation that “Maybe He’s not.” I believe we can and should say with confidence that God is the God of our children.
Blessings,
Peter
Peter
I don’t see the statements, “God is your God,” and “you could be a child of wrath” as being intrinsically contradictory. God was the God of Israel, even of those who broke covenant and were finally lost. God is the God of our families, even of our rebellious children who will be finally lost. For God to be the covenant Lord of a person does not necessarily mean that there is a saving communion between the two.
In other words, to be in covenant with God means that there is a relationship with stipulations. Those stipulations—namely, faith faithfully and obediently working through love—must be kept by those who would see full and final salvation. Christ has kept those stipulations for the elect who are in him by true and graciously-granted faith. Covenant people who do not have true faith, and are therefore not truly in Christ, fail to keep the stipulations of the covenant. They were really in covenant with God, and they broke it.
I think this issue boils down to whether one would say that “all” the benefits of the “elect” (in the historic meaning of the word) are bestowed upon the one who is not elect, yet is part of the covenant people of God. If you cannot say this, then you must have some way of dealing with the fact that God is not in a saving relationship with all his covenant people. Maybe this is the concern of the FV, but I think (knowing as little as I do about actual FV-aries), they seek to address this concern by removing the fact altogether.
Eric
Eric
I agree that there is no contradiction between saying “God is your God” and saying “not all Israel is Israel.” Both are taught in Scripture, and so both are true. My point is a pastoral one about what we say to our children, and whether we can say it meaningfully, without taking away with one hand what we give with the other. I don’t think we teach our children to doubt whether or not God may be their God. We teach them to trust the God who has said He is their God. Some won’t trust Him.
I agree that the covenant is two-sided, but the covenant is a relationship of favor, not a kind of neutral standing. To be in covenant is a blessing of God’s grace, and God has favor toward His covenant people (cf Hosea 11; even in His wrath, Yahweh yearns for Ephraim). For some, membership in the covenant community will ultimately intensify judgment. But that’s because they sinned against God’s favor.
I also think that the word “salvation” has wider and narrower meanings in Scripture. If “saving” means “eternally saving, finally saving,” then clearly membership in the covenant is not necessarily a saving relationship. But Israel was redeemed from Egypt, and in that sense all Israel was delivered and saved. In 2 Peter 2:20-22, people who turn out to be reprobate are rescued from the world and its defilements by the knowledge of Jesus, only to return to it. So they are “saved” from the world in a sense and for a time.
Blessings,
Peter