Clarification: The “trial” here is the voting on a committee that condemns an alleged body of thought or “movement” (i.e. “The Federal Vison and/or “the New Perspective”) and attaches the names of ministers in good standing to that condemnation. In Presbyterianism, one is supposed to be protected from attacks on one’s doctrinal orthodoxy. Of course, there is a way of dealing with people who teach erroneous doctrine–it is called a trial. In a trial one is forbidden to “circularize.” In other words, one is forbidden from declaring a minister in good standing to be doctrinally aberrant on one’s website in order to dirty the jury pool so that, after years of campaigning, one has generated enough hysteria to perhaps win in a trial. In a trial, the accused is permitted to speak in their own defense and to confront their accusers. In a trial, the accusers can themselves be disciplined if it is discovered that they are making wild accusations.

By the way, I should not that the Missourri Presbytery committee reported on these manners in a way that did not participate in these injustices. It stuck to the actual issues and laid down some helpful guidelines. It stands out in that respect.

At the OPC General Assembly this year, I will be on trial in absentia. It is completely unconstitutional to do this, of course, by any sane understanding of Presbyterian polity, but it will be done nonetheless. A committee of the OPC has declared me aberrant and it will be voted up or down at this General Assembly. (Actually, one story is that the conviction was voted upon at the last GA and the Committee’s job was to decide who to include as the accused.)

One of the frustrations here is that, while I am mentioned in the report, and my name is smeared with all manner of night terrors, virtually nothing is said about my views in particular. I’m just somehow guilty of the entire work of science fiction that has been entitled “Attack of the Federal Visionists.” Thus, I haven’t been sure how to respond. I wrote a brief reply for Theologia but decided not to clutter up what could be a decent educational website swatting at gadflies.

Recently I was asked to respond to the twenty summary accusations made against the dire Sacradotal threat to American Calvinism in these last days. I refused at first, but then made the mistake of reading Rich Lusk’s reply to the report, and suddenly found myself reliving the nightmare of reading it myself (this also has a lot to do with the sudden spate of theological sarcasm corrupting the good clean fun I normally have on this blog). I was inspired to go ahead and write my thoughts.

But now Doug Wilson has inspired me further to go ahead and go public with it. So here it is:

1. Pitting Scripture and Confession against each other.

I’m a Presbyterian because I think the Confession is Biblical and teach its doctrine. My exceptions to certain statements in the Confession and Catechisms have always been noted before my presbyteries and they have judged them to be within the bounds of the system of doctrine contained in the Westminster Standards.

If the committee means that I don’t believe the Confession exhausts all that the Bible teaches, then I pray God I am guilty of the charge. But I also hope that is not their meaning.

2. Regarding the enterprise of systematic theology as inherently rationalistic.

This is simply untrue.

3. A mono-covenantalism that sees one covenant, originating in the intra-trinitarian fellowship, into which man is invited, thus flattening the concept of covenant and denying the distinction between the covenant
of works and the covenant of grace.

Well, the last part of this accusation is the only part that is precise enough to interact with; and it is entirely false. God required Adam to be perfectly obedient. That is not what God requires of us under the New Covenant. Rather, he requires faith–that faith being in a second Adam who was perfectly obedient and underwent the curse of disobedience in our place.

4. Election as primarily corporate and eclipsed by covenant.

I affirm and preach individual election. I don’t think of election as “primarily corporate,” though perhaps, if I studied the Bible, I might come to the conclusion that the Bible mentions corporate concerns more often than individual concerns. I don’t really know because I have never conducted such a survey. In any case, I affirm and preach everything listed in chapter 3 of the Confession. That means I am orthodox, the committee’s suppositions about what I think is “primary” notwithstanding.

5. Seeing covenant as only conditional.

The covenant is conditional as our confession plainly states: “Man, by his fall, having made himself incapable of life by that covenant, the Lord was pleased to make a second, commonly called the covenant of grace; wherein he freely offereth unto sinners life and salvation by Jesus Christ; requiring of them faith in him, that they may be saved, and promising to give unto all those that are ordained unto eternal life his Holy Spirit, to make them willing, and able to believe.”

And the Larger Catechism also, “The grace of God is manifested in the second covenant, in that he freely provideth and offereth to sinners a mediator, and life and salvation by him; and requiring faith as the condition to interest them in him, promiseth and giveth his Holy Spirit to all his elect, to work in them that faith, with all other saving graces; and to enable them unto all holy obedience, as the evidence of the truth of their faith and thankfulness to God, and as the way which he hath appointed them to salvation.”

Of course, I affirm unconditional election and the monergistic work of the Spirit as the only way that any sinners meet this condition. If I were not so sure of the integrity of the committee, I might think they were trying to induce people to believe that their targets do not affirm unconditional election and monergistic grace–without actually saying so, so that they could never be held accountable for such a bold slander. I’m glad I don’t need to worry about such a possibility.

6. A denial of the covenant of works and of the fact that Adam was in a relationship with God that was legal as well as filial.

I have never denied either of these two things. On the contrary, I have readily affirmed them. I have denied that Adam’s relationship with God was that of a contractual laborer, that is all. All mankind was judicially condemned in Adam’s fall. How can that fail to be legal?

7. A denial of a covenant of grace distinct from the covenant of works.

I do not deny but affirm that the covenant of grace is distinct from the covenant of works.

8. A denial that the law given in Eden is the same as that more fully published at Mt. Sinai and that it requires perfect obedience.

The heart of the law to love God and love neighbor was given both in Eden and at Sinai. All God’s commands are supposed to be obeyed perfectly (both in Eden and at Sinai), but because God has saved us through Jesus Christ, providing for forgiveness, Christians are not required to obey God perfectly in the covenant of Grace in order to inherit eternal life. Since the Law was an administration of the Covenant of Grace, it did not expect perfect obedience as a condition of the covenant, but rather included provision for the forgiveness of sins and a declaration that God forgives (Exo 33.12-34.8).

9. Viewing righteousness as relational not moral.

This is tantamount to accusing me of viewing “running” as something noses do and not joggers. Show me the sentence in which the word is being used and I can answer if it is one or the other or both. I think the word is used both ways in Scripture. I cannot possibly respond to this statement as written without a context to work with. It is nonsense as written.

10. A failure to make clear the difference between our faith and Christ’s.

I have always made a clear difference. Of course, from experience I know that no difference is great enough to satisfy Klineans if one affirms Christ possessed faith (the clear teaching of Hebrews 11.1-12.3 among other places). Jesus did not need an alien righteousness nor the forgiveness of sins; we do. So Jesus did not trust his father for these things; but we must trust Jesus, the Father, and the Spirit for them.

11. A denial of the imputation of the active obedience of Christ in our justification.

God imputes Christ’s active obedience to us in our justification. At Christ’s resurrection God publicly declare him to be faithful. That verdict is shared by all who are joined to Christ so that the verdict is ours.

12. Defining justification exclusively as the forgiveness of sins.

Not remotely true that I have ever done this. Justification, as Turretin pointed out, includes the positive status of adoption. I have always so taught.

13. The reduction of justification to Gentile inclusion.

I have never reduced justification to Gentile inclusion nor would I (nor has anyone else that I know of).

14. Including works (by use of “faithfulness,” “obedience,” etc.) in the very definition of faith.

Unless faith is disobedience to God’s command, I am not the one who needs to defend myself on this point.

The Westminster Confession of Faith explicitly says exactly what the committee interprets as a deviation here. Generally speaking, faith is, “yielding obedience to the commands, trembling at the threatenings, and embracing the promises of God for this life, and that which is to come.” Paul refers to coming to faith in Jesus Christ as becoming “obedient from the heart to the standard of teaching to which you were committed,” (Romans 6.17) and there are many other examples in both Scripture and the Confession and Catechisms. They are in agreement against the Committee as two witnesses.

The dichotomy between faith and works is all important. And for that very reason it is subversive to any real pastoral concern for people’s soul’s to confuse that basic distinction with an unbiblical and unconfessional opposition between faith and faithfulness. The latter can never stand to any sort of exegetical nor historical scrutiny and, if it sways people at all, will only lead them to reject the former as well.

15. Failing to affirm an infallible perseverance and the indefectibility of grace.

False. I affirm nothing else and set my hope upon Christ’s promises and power to save to the uttermost.

16. Teaching baptismal regeneration.

False. I affirm that by baptism one is solemnly admitted into the visible church just as the Confession teaches. I have never taught nor imagined that baptism is effectual calling.

17. Denying the validity of the concept of the invisible church.

False. The invisible church “consists of the whole number of the elect, that have been, are, or shall be gathered into one, under Christ the head thereof.” I can’t say I would root the concept in the prooftexts from Ephesians that the Confession uses, but it is a perfectly valid concept.

18. A overly-objectified sacramental efficacy that downplays the need for faith and that tends toward an ex opere operato view of the sacraments.

Whether or not my view of sacramental efficacy is “overly-objectified” is a matter for table discussion, not a court of the church. Until standards of what counts as “overly-objectified” are developed the accusation can only be useful in blackening the reputations of people in a way that does not allow them to respond. But, on downplaying the need for faith, I can say that the committee has got the facts completely backwards. It is precisely because we are justified only by faith, and must believe a promise not made to others, but to us, that the sacraments must be objective. The Bible does not mention me, but my minister baptized me in Christ’s stead, and every week I am assured, eye to eye, in the administration of the Lord’s Supper, that Christ’s body and blood were given “for you.” Believing this promise in no way downplays the need for faith, but encourages faith. As far as ex opere operato is concerned, I think that all lawful baptisms admit the party baptized into the visible church, the house and family of God. But they do not guarrantee resurrection to glory. Many are baptized who are not granted persevering faith and thus never truly come to Christ.

19. Teaching paedocommunion.

Yes, as I have been permitted to do so in four presbyteries in which I have been a member. I published the OPC Study Committee’s majority report on my website. Especially interesting is the report’s discussion of how the Standards would not need to be revised to allow for the practice.

20. Ecclesiology that eclipses and swallows up soteriology.

I consider this entirely too vague to answer. It is nothing but the committee’s own perjorative opinion. I affirm everything in the Confession regarding justification, sanctification, and adoption, etc, as well as everything affirmed about the church and sacraments. If that looks like “ecclesiology that eclipses and swallows up soteriology,” I think the problem is with the committee’s eyesight, not with my confessional faithfulness to my ministerial vows.