August 4, 2004

http://sunnysideocrc.com/fdb/uploads/fedviss.htm

Beloved Church of Christ,

We are writing this paper to inform you of certain doctrinal issues in dispute among Reformed leaders and churches, to try to make some sense out of all the charges and counter charges, to guard you from any false teaching, and to reaffirm our own position. Since this will be a brief survey of some very large subjects, our comments will be general and we will not have time or space to quote from the various participants. If we have misrepresented anyone’s position, we would take it as a kindness if you would point this out.

Our study is organized as follows:

1. The origin of the controversy.

2. The subjects of the controversy.

3. Our study and reflection on these matters.

4. Our position on these matters.

5. Some concluding remarks.

1. The origin of the controversy.

In January 2002 the Auburn Avenue Presbyterian Church of Monroe, Louisiana held a pastor’s conference titled, “The Federal Vision: A Reexamination of Reformed Covenantalism.” Four pastors were scheduled to speak: Steve Schlissel of Messiah’s Congregation, Brooklyn, New York; Douglas Wilson of Christ Church, Moscow, Idaho; Norman Shepherd, retired, of the Cottage Grove Christian Reformed Church, South Holland, Illinois; and Steve Wilkins of the Auburn Avenue Presbyterian Church (PCA), Monroe, Louisana. Norman Shepherd could not attend and John Barach of the United Reformed Church, Grande Prairie, Alberta, took his place. We will hereafter identify them as the Monroe Four.

About six months later the Covenant Presbytery of the Reformed Presbyterian Church of the United States issued a call for repentance to all four ministers for alleged departures from the Scripture and the Westminster Standards. Their statement included serious charges of heresy in some of the most important doctrines of the Reformed faith.

Following these charges the larger Reformed world jumped into the fray. Cornelis Venema, president of Mid-America Reformed Seminary and Christian Reformed minister, and Robert Godfrey, president of Westminster Seminary in California and minister in the United Reformed Churches, although coming short of labeling the Monroe Four as heretics, expressed serious reservations and disagreements with their views, going so far as to say that the Monroe Four were leaning towards Rome in their view of justification.

Knox Theological Seminary of Fort Lauderdale, Florida invited seven men from each side of the issue to engage in a formal doctrinal discussion August 11-13, 2003. The resulting twenty-two papers did much to clarify the issues.

It is interesting to note that Iain Murray devotes a whole chapter in his recent book, Wesley and the Men Who Followed, to Wesley’s views on justification, bringing out the historical context for the present controversy, and illustrating how this debate has reappeared in many forms through the centuries.

2. The subjects of the controversy.

The 2002 Monroe Conference focused on the Biblical presentation of the covenant and its relation to justification, sanctification, the sacraments, assurance, election, and the church. Since all the Monroe men are confessionally Reformed, the way in which their views harmonized with their confessions naturally arose. They either implied or stated that the historic Reformed confessions had been misused and could be improved by clarification and further development particularly in the area of covenant.

At this point we want to affirm with the greatest possible strength that it is essential that we maintain the correct Biblical understanding and confession of the doctrines of the covenant and of its relation to the doctrines of justification, sanctification, the sacraments, assurance, election, and the church.

3. Our study and reflection on these matters.

When the consistory was made aware of the seriousness of the charges leveled against the Monroe Four, and when it also realized that some of our youth attend Christ Church, Moscow, pastored by Douglas Wilson, and that a number of our families attend an annual history conference in Moscow featuring two of the Monroe men, Douglas Wilson and Steve Wilkins, we began our study.

We resisted the temptation to begin with the critics of the Monroe Four. God tells us, “He who answers a matter before he has heard it, it is folly and shame to him.” (Prov. 18:13) In Lord’s Day 43 of the Heidelberg Catechism we confess that we must never “judge, or join in condemning, any man rashly or unheard;…”

With that before us, we first listened to the tapes of the Monroe Conference 2002 lectures. There were ten lectures of about an hour each, and we each listened to all of them. Three of the lectures had been transcribed by the speaker and one of our number transcribed the other seven lectures so we could study them all in print. In addition we have read the articles in the Christian Renewal issues of 7/15/02, 4/28/03, 10/13/03, and 10/27/03 which included interviews and comments. Some of the Consistory have also studied the papers prepared by seven men from each side of the discussion and published by Knox Theological Seminary. After studying the positions of the Monroe Four and their critics, we met together, discussed the issues, and decided to give you this statement.

Some of us have heard and read all these men over the past years, and know them to be men of faith, of firm commitment to the Reformed heritage, and of unswerving allegiance to the authority, inerrancy, and sufficiency of Scripture. We also note that three of them came to the Reformed faith later in life, and brought with them a vitality and freshness sometimes lacking in the older Reformed world.

Inevitably such vitality, as it does in our youth, sometimes brings a mis-step, and so we don’t necessarily concur with everything they say. But this we may observe: the mainline Reformed world towards the end of the 20th century had emerged from battles with both earlier liberalism and more recently neo-orthodoxy. Understandably she became entrenched behind her historic confessions and also in danger of stagnation and confessionalism (holding that the confessions are the final word.) It is these tendencies, among other things, that the Monroe Four challenged, perhaps not always wisely or even well, but certainly of necessity. It was needful and still is.

We also respect two of the Monroe Four opponents, Cornelis Venema and Robert Godfrey, and we believe they bring some valid criticisms. However, our respect for Venema is necessarily tempered by his ministry in a denomination whose World Missions has promoted Liberation Theology and whose Synod allows women in ecclesiastical office. A similar reservation applies to Godfrey who heads a seminary that teaches the framework theory of creation and does not appear to have a single professor teaching literal six-day creation.

We mention this to note that just because we find men in error in one area doesn’t mean we cannot profit by listening to them in other areas. We wish to extend the same courtesy to the Revs. Barach, Schlissel, Wilkins, and Wilson on the one side of the controversy, as we do to Drs. Godfrey and Venema, on the other side.

Examining the lectures of the Monroe Four we see that their view of covenant and its various aspects is much more compatible with our own heritage of Continental Reformed covenant theology than the heritage of Presbyterian Reformed covenant theology, as developed from the Westminster Standards. In other words the language of the Monroe Four fits the historical understanding of the Continental Reformed tradition more than the Presbyterian tradition, and rather than promoting new views in these areas, you will find that these matters have been discussed in the past, particularly among the Reformed churches in the Netherlands and in America. Since much of this language is unfamiliar to the Westminster Standards/Presbyterian world, it is not surprising that the heaviest criticism has come from them.

4. Our position on these matters.

We do not agree with the serious charges that have been laid against the Monroe Four. Some of their critics have misrepresented them and others have misunderstood them. However, there certainly do appear to be areas where their presentation of covenant theology runs counter to the Westminster Standards. Whether this is more in appearance than reality is open for discussion. If indeed they do find their covenant understanding runs counter to the Standards, we suggest that rather than say they agree with them, they would be wise to challenge them. It may also be that their presentation does not run counter to the Westminster Standards, but runs counter to the predominant view of them within the current Presbyterian world.

When one reviews both sides, it is striking that the Monroe Four draw the bulk of their support from Scripture while their critics usually cite the confessions or Reformed theologians. Now there need be no conflict between Scripture and confession of course, but it draws our attention to what appears to be the heart of the matter—from which viewpoint are you looking at life?

From which viewpoint does God usually portray life? Which viewpoint will determine the meaning of our terms? We believe that God usually speaks to and about us in terms of our covenant status rather than in terms of our election. In general the Reformed confessions, and particularly the Westminster Standards portray life from eternity, from the end, from the final outcome. Most confessional definitions are formulated from the perspective of the final outcome of God’s sovereign plan, His decrees, His predestination both of the elect and non-elect.

That perspective is gloriously Biblical and wonderfully comforting. It is not, however, the perspective God generally uses when speaking about life as it continues from day to day, from century to century.

What do we mean? Let’s ask some questions. Who are the saved? Who are justified? Who are God’s children? Who are really in the covenant? Who are really in the church? Who are really in Christ? From the perspective of the outcome, and just looking at the end result, we are apt to say that every one of those questions has one answer: the elect.

But God usually doesn’t speak that way. He says to His people through Hosea, “You were my people, but now you are not my people.” Christ says in John 15 that there are those who are in Him, branches in the vine, having a living connection with Christ, and yet because they bear no fruit, they were cut off. Now are we to take our theology or our confession and say that since they were cut off they were never in the vine, since they were not elect, they were not in Christ? God forbid.

This illustration helps us understand several important points that the Monroe Four have brought to our attention.

1. Although the confession of our Canons of Dort and the Westminster Standards seem to run counter to these illustrations, they in fact do not, but usually speak from the viewpoint of eternity and election.

2. Rather than try to make all the Scripture fit our confessions, we must see that our confessions do not claim to present every perspective of the Bible, nor do they claim to be perfect and complete.

3. We are reminded that our Belgic Confession, Article 7 says,

“Neither may we consider any writings of men, however holy these men may have been, of equal value with those divine Scriptures, nor ought we to consider custom, or the great multitude, or antiquity, or succession of times and persons, or councils, decrees or statutes, as of equal value with the truth of God, since the truth is above all; for all men are of themselves liars, and more vain than vanity itself. Therefore we reject with all our hearts whatsoever does not agree with this infallible rule, as the apostles have taught us, saying, Prove the spirits, whether they are of God. Likewise: If any one cometh unto you, and bringeth not this teaching, receive him not into your house.”

These comments apply to our confessions as well as to all writing outside Scripture. We may and do use our confessions as a map of the Bible to help us navigate. We may revise the map to fit the Bible, but never the Bible to fit the map.

4. Our Reformed fathers never supposed that when they completed the Canons or the Westminster Standards, no more growth was possible. To be Reformed means to be alive in Christ, and to be alive means to be growing in the grace and knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ. Our fathers saw that the church may add to, augment, expand, clarify, and develop her confessions.

5. Concluding remarks.

We wish to affirm the following:

We believe no one is saved by believing in justification by faith, but by faith in Christ. We joyfully confess in the words of Belgic Confession, Article 22,

We believe that, to attain the true knowledge of this great mystery, the Holy Spirit kindles in our hearts an upright faith, which embraces Jesus Christ with all His merits, appropriates Him, and seeks nothing more besides Him. For it must needs follow, either that all things which are requisite to our salvation are not in Jesus Christ, or if all things are in Him, that then those who possess Jesus Christ through faith have complete salvation in Him. Therefore, for any to assert that Christ is not sufficient, but that something more is required besides Him, would be too gross a blasphemy; for hence it would follow that Christ was but half a Savior.

Therefore we justly say with Paul, that we are justified by faith alone, or by faith apart from works. However, to speak more clearly, we do not mean that faith itself justifies us, for it is only an instrument with which we embrace Christ our righteousness. But Jesus Christ, imputing to us all His merits, and so many holy works which He has done for us and in our stead, is our righteousness. And faith is an instrument that keeps us in communion with Him in all His benefits, which, when they become ours, are more than sufficient to acquit us of our sins.

We believe that our justification before God is clearly implied in the heart of the Covenant of Grace, “I am your God and you are My people,” that God gave Himself to us in the person of Jesus Christ His Son, and that all His righteousness is our righteousness.

We believe that all baptized members of the church have inheritance in Christ’s righteousness by God’s promise and Christ’s sacrifice, just as our fathers had the inheritance of Canaan by God’s promise and His sacrifices. God commanded our fathers to take possession of their inheritance and to live in it.

We believe that God commands all baptized members to believe in the word and work of God and to take possession of and live in Christ’s righteousness by a true and saving faith. We believe that this helps define justification and its relationship to sanctification. We believe that failure to take personal possession of Christ’s righteousness shows unbelief and that God will cut such a one off from his inheritance as He did to our fathers.

We believe all the articles of faith relating to election. We believe that Reformed churches and our church among them must continue to grow in our understanding of God’s covenant salvation. We believe that we are not to turn back to be what the Reformed churches were in 1980, or 1950, or to go back to 1647, or 1619, or 1536, or 1517. We are to go forward, growing in faith.

We believe that a living and growing church is a confessing church, and will also confess her increase in understanding.

We believe that men on both sides of the current controversy are our brothers in Christ, and that as we are to read and appreciate them in a spirit of meekness and charity, so they should conduct their discussions in the same spirit, and refrain from all traces of sarcasm and finger pointing as they address their opponents in public.

We believe that we are also to search the Scriptures to see if what these men say is true (Acts 17:11), and that we are to test the spirits whether they be of God (1 John 4:1).

We believe that Christ’s church has an enemy who seeks ways to pervert her doctrine, and in contending for the faith once delivered, we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities and powers, against spiritual hosts of wickedness in the heavenly places. (Eph. 6:12)

We believe that we must test not only those things which are said, but also to especially note those things which ought to be said but are not.

We believe we should continue to support the work of Urban Nations, the mission outreach of Messiah’s Congregation, just as we continue to support the work of the Union Gospel Mission of Yakima, although we may have points of disagreement with both.

We believe that the families who so desire may entrust their college students to the spiritual oversight of the elders of Christ Church, Moscow, Idaho. We believe that we should not withhold our blessing from those families who wish to attend the annual Credenda-Agenda History Conferences.

Should you feel the need to discuss any of these matters more thoroughly, each and all of us are quite willing to do so. If anyone believes there is specific evidence that any of these Monroe Four teach false doctrine, we will thank you for bringing it to our attention. You will understand, we trust, that an accusation, whether from you or another, is not of itself either evidence or proof of false doctrine.

We covet your prayers. God has charged us to guard the flock entrusted to our care. We rejoice in your lively growth in understanding, faith, and love, and we urge you to continue steadfast in Christ, drawing your strength from Him, growing in Him in whom are hid all the treasures of godliness.

Yours for the glory of Christ and the edification of His Bride,

The Elders of the Sunnyside Orthodox Christian Reformed Church

Link: http://sunnysideocrc.com