RSSWhat Will the Justification Resolution Mean in the RPCNA?
The Synod adopted the 2008 Report of the RPCNA’s Synod Study Committee to Read and Evaluate Reports and Response of Fraternal (and other) Reformed Denominations and Institutions Concerning the “Justification Controversy.” What a handle!
I am wondering what it will mean for the RPCNA? What exactly are the “theological views that are generally associated with the movements identified as ‘the New Perspective(s) on Paul’ and ‘The Federal Vision’.” The resolutions were adopted with few questions asked. Everyone is against it in general principle but what about the specifics? If questions had been asked, I wonder what would be said about the following items:
1) Monocovenantalism;
2) the primacy of biblical theology over systematic theology;
3) the doctrine of definitive sanctification;
4) uber-protestant “me-and-my-bible says so-ism” over against the received traditions of the Reformed Confessions.
What exactly have we learned from the “justification controversy”? These are things to think about in the days ahead. Who knows what the future will bring.
Quasi-semi-pseudo Heresy | Theopolitical
June 26th, 2008 at 12:05 pm
[...] Update: Bill Chelis at De Regno Christi wonders aloud about the implications of the report. [...]
shawnanderson
June 27th, 2008 at 8:28 am
Thank you for saying this! I was thinking something along the same lines. A few questions:
1. Is the Declaration as substantial as the committee got?
2. If so, aren’t these two camps distinct from each other? Have we just made the error of reductionism?
3. If so, do we reject ALL of “the theological views that are generally associated with the movements identified as ‘the New Perspective(s) on Paul’ and the ‘Federal Vision’”?
4. If so, how many in the CREC would be able to agree with this statement: “2. That Synod REAFFIRM our commitment to the biblical, historical, and confessional, Reformed doctrine of justification– sola gratia, sola fide, solus Christus– which requires the imputation of the active obedience of Jesus Christ as an essential component of that righteousness which is the ground of our justification and is received by faith alone”?
C Brown
July 2nd, 2008 at 9:18 am
Bill,
Based on the comments to your posts about synod’s justification committee, it looks like the DRC blog may have given people some wrong impressions. As the lengthy name of the committee suggests, their focus was narrower than some observers realize. Theologically, the main accomplishment of the committee was to state that our doctrine of justification “requires the imputation of the active obedience of Jesus Christ”. This point is not explicitly stated in our Confession, Catechisms, or Testimony. But now our church has taken a clear position.
This is an important accomplishment for our church. I know that one of our presbyteries has been dealing with a ministerial candidate who denied the imputation of Christ’s active obedience to the believer. His license to preach was removed, and following this synod, I just heard that he decided to transfer out of the RPCNA. So, already, these declarations are bearing practical fruit in our church. You will not be allowed to preach from our pulpits if you do not affirm the IAO.
The questions you ask in this post are good ones, but not ones answered by this committee.
W.H. Chellis
July 2nd, 2008 at 10:28 am
Thanks Charles, your comments are helpful. I am not sure that IAO was as clearly tagged as “the” issue of the paper. I think you are correct in terms of intent.
Your comments raise the question of how these declarations relate to the larger corpus of our Constitutional law. What weight does such a declaration bear?
C Brown
July 2nd, 2008 at 12:03 pm
Good question, Bill. I would prefer that we amend our doctrinal standards, rather than issue declarations that will be soon forgotten. Seems like these declarations, while perhaps useful for the short-term, are destined to become lost in the RP archives.