Covenant Presbytery, Reformed Presbyterian Church in the United States
With reference to the "New Perspective on Paul" Movement
June 22, 2002
"We call upon the church of Jesus Christ to hold these teachings (the teachings of Douglas Wilson, Steve Schlissel, John Barach, and J. Steven Wilkins) in contempt."
Be it resolved that:
Any doctrine of justification that denies that faith alone, sola fide, as a resting upon Christ alone for salvation, is the only instrumental means of justification is contrary to the Bible and the Westminster Standards.
Any doctrine of justification by faith that defines faith as faithful obedience to God is contrary to the Bible and the Westminster Standards.
Any doctrine of justification that denies the forensic nature of justification is contrary to the Bible and the Westminster Standards. Therefore to define "to justify" as "to make righteous" and not "to declare and constitute as righteous" is contrary to the Bible and the Westminster Standards.
Any doctrine of justification that teaches that justification is a process beginning with baptism, which is contingent upon continual obedience to the Law of God, which can be lost by apostasy, and which is not completed until Judgment Day is contrary to the Bible and the Westminster Standards.
Any doctrine of justification that does not teach that immediately upon believing in Jesus, God instantly imputes the perfect righteousness of Christ to that believing sinner, so that on that basis he stands forgiven and accepted by God forever is contrary to the Bible and the Westminster Standards.
Any doctrine of justification that blends justification and
sanctification, or the imputing of righteousness and the imparting of righteousness, into one is contrary to the Bible and the Westminster Standards.
Any doctrine of the atoning death of Christ that does not teach that the death of Christ was a satisfaction of God's justice and a propitiation of His anger by the merits of Christ's life and death as the substitute of God's elect is contrary to the Bible and the Westminster Standards.
Any doctrine of baptism that teaches that all who are baptized with water are by that baptism incorporated into Christ and are recipients of all the benefits of Christ's accomplished work, e.g., regeneration and justification, is contrary to the Bible and the Westminster Standards.
Any doctrine of baptism that explains water baptism as the moment in which we are regenerated or as the point of transfer from death to life is contrary to the Bible and the Westminster Standards.
Any doctrine of election that teaches that the elect can apostatize or that baptism is the proof of election is contrary to the Bible and the Westminster Standards.
Any doctrine that believers in Jesus can lose their justification and salvation is contrary to the Bible and the Westminster Standards.
Any doctrine that teaches that God accepts less than perfect
obedience by Christ in behalf of the elect for fulfilling the
conditions of salvation is contrary to the Bible and the Westminster Standards.
Any doctrine that denies the Covenant of Works is contrary to the Bible and the Westminster Standards.
Any doctrine that denies that the covenant of grace was made with Christ as the second Adam, and in Him with all the elect as His seed is contrary to the Bible and the Westminster Standards.
Any doctrine of the covenant that denies that the Lord's Supper is to be served only to such as are of years and ability to examine themselves or that all ignorant and ungodly persons, as they are unfit to enjoy communion with him, so are they unworthy of the Lord's Table, and cannot, without great sin against Christ, while they remain such, partake of these holy mysteries, or be admitted thereunto is contrary to the Bible and the Westminster Standards.
Any doctrine of Biblical revelation that denies the propositional and systematic nature of the verbal and written revelation of God is contrary to the bible and the Westminster Standards.
Any ridiculing of the doctrines of sola gratia, sola fide, solo Christo, sola scriptura or Soli Deo Gloria is ridiculing the teaching of the Bible and the Westminster Standards.
Any ridiculing of the Westminster Standards as being a Greek and Hellenisitc, and therefore inadequate, interpretation of the Bible is ridiculing of Biblical Christianity in it purest human expression.
-Adopted unanimously by Covenant Presbytery, Reformed Presbyterian Church in the United States, June 22, 2002.
A Call to Repentance
June 22, 2002
Covenant Presbytery of the RPCUS declares that teaching presented in the 2002 Auburn Avenue Presbyterian Pastors Conference, involves a fundamental denial of the essence of the Christian Gospel in the denial of justification by faith alone.
That the teaching of the various speakers: Douglas Wilson, Steve Schlissel, John Barach, and J. Steven Wilkins [2.], has the effect of destroying the Reformed Faith through the introduction of false hermeneutic principles; the infusion of sacerdotalism; and the redefinition of the doctrines of: the church, the sacraments, election, effectual calling, perseverance, regeneration, justification, union with Christ, and the nature and instrumentality of faith.
That the rejection of the Bible as propositional and the introduction of an illegitimate post-exilic Jewish mindset as an interpretive scheme, denies the role of Scripture in interpreting itself. This view, while affirming the written work, yet gives license to reformulate and reinterpret that word through the glasses of an unrevealed and antipropositional mindset that is closely akin to the old liberal higher criticism of the early 20th century.
The denial of the distinction of visible and invisible church and the introduction of an historical and eschatological church, opens the door to new and mystical meanings being applied to the sacrament of the Lord's Supper that are sacerdotal in orientation; makes justification an eschatological process instead of a definitive legal act; obscures the reality and necessity of the new birth; and corrupts Gospel preaching by eliminating the call to repentance and faith within the congregation.
That baptismal regeneration constructed upon the principle of linking the sign and the reality in effect differs little from Roman Catholicism.
That the doctrine that maintains union with Christ is a external position and place in the church confounds regeneration, union with Christ, and the outward ordinances.
That the maintenance of the language of Calvinism in these speakers is superficial and misleading: their doctrine of perseverance is made to deny effectual calling; their doctrine of corporate election is made to deny particular redemption; and the native depravity of man is made to be removed in the outward administration of water baptism which thereby sufficiently qualifies the recipient for the Lord's Supper.
We therefore resolve that these teachings are heretical. We call these men to repentance. We call upon the church of Jesus Christ to hold these teachings in contempt. We call upon the courts of the churches that are responsible for these men to institute judicial process against them and to vindicate the honor of Christ and the truth of the Christian Gospel by bringing judgment upon them,
suspending them from office, and removing them from the communion of the church should they not repent.
May God have mercy upon their souls.
- Adopted unanimously by Covenant Presbytery, Reformed Presbyterian Church in the United States, June 22, 2002.
NOTES:
[1.] http://www.scccs.org/bts/faculty/default.asp etc.
[2.] 2002 Pastors' Conference
http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=73021699
Monday, July 01, 2002
Morecraft's Warpath
P. Andrew Sandlin | Charging Godly, Reformed men with heresy
I'm referring in this article to the documents "With reference to the `New Perspective on Paul' Movement" and "A Call to Repentance," enacted June 22, 2002 by the RPCUS, a denomination spearheaded by Joe Morecraft, an acquaintance of mine and a good, faithful and godly Presbyterian pastor in Atlanta, Georgia. The document "A Call to Repentance" charges John Barach, Steve Schlissel, J. Steven Wilkins and Douglas Wilson with heresy, on the basis of some messages they delivered at a pastors' conference a few months ago; and it clearly implies that they are not Christians (ending with, "May God have mercy upon their souls"). The document "With reference to the `New Perspective on Paul' Movement" excoriates the school of thought generally associated with British New Testament scholars J. D. G. Dunn and E. P. Sanders, though these men are not mentioned. The two documents are not explicitly linked, but they are implicitly linked, in that several of the same charges of heresy and false doctrine are found in both documents. Clearly, Joe believes these four Reformed ministers are propagating pestilent teachings.
Barach, Schlissel, Wilkins and Wilson are fully capable of responding to the anathemas if they choose, and I do not speak for them. I have, however, been asked to give an assessment (and my own views have been questioned); and while I don't intend to elaborate on the sensitive and complex theological issues this controversy raises, my brief comments below will disclose my general sentiments. They presume that the reader is acquainted with the documents under consideration.
Cannibalism Continues
First, let me say that these anathemas are simply the latest in a long, tiring, but injurious, line of conservative Reformed cannibalism, which was the self-destructiveness of twentieth-century Calvinism, and which has eviscerated it today. No wonder our culture thrashes in the waves of secularism! Often the folks most qualified to counter this ravenous evil devote their time to biting and devouring one another (Gal. 5:15)! There is an unsettling fundamentalist strain at work that seems convinced that fidelity to the Faith is impossible if one is not badgering or anathematizing other good Christians (as Barach, Schlissel, Wilkins and Wilson truly are): "There must always be enemies in the Church, and if we can't find them, we'll invent them." One thinks immediately of John Robbins, who has (I say it charitably) made a career of vilifying good Christians and who, not surprisingly, has leaped onto Joe's bandwagon.
Due Process?
In any case, one would have thought that Joe and his presbytery would have exercised greater care before issuing such incendiary documents. Were the defendants (all Reformed ministers in good standing) granted due process in the church courts, for instance? Were they allowed to answer their accusers' questions before suffering such obloquy? I am not an expert in presbyterian polity, but (as I understand it) no ecclesiastical charges were filed in any courts anywhere before this decisive action was taken. Did the accusers even carefully examine the exegetical and theological issues? Perhaps they think they did, but it doesn't seem so. The gravity of the accusations warranted a protracted consideration of the issues.
More importantly, what about the requirements in Matthew 18 first to confront an erring brother privately? I realize this text is at times mistakenly employed to shut off legitimate theological debate (which is what I'm trying to engage in here); but legitimate theological debate is not what we're observing in Joe's documents. It's not a debate — it's an anathema that forbids debate. We're observing the very sorts of anathemas that the Bible requires we reserve as a final step in an orderly, Biblical process among brethren. Then again, it's not clear from these documents that Joe considers Barach, Schlissel, Wilkins and Wilson brethren. But they are elders, and any such dire accusations against them should first occur in private and before witnesses (1 Timothy 5:19).
In addition, how would Joe's own beliefs and conduct be judged in light of the criteria by which he condemns others (Mt. 7:1-2)? If his own reading of the WCF is found to be flawed, should he be anathematized by an entire denomination, small though it may be? The sword of anathemas swings in both directions; and if we judge with an unbendable rigor that admits of little forbearance, we can expect the same rigorous judgment when our own flaws come to light.
Classical Christianity
I start from a somewhat different premise than Joe does (and perhaps even from some of those whom he anathematizes). He
and the other fine RPCUS men seem to believe there is little or no Christian orthodoxy outside seventeenth-century High
Calvinism (and especially outside the Presbyterian version of it). While I hold this theological school in high regard, I start from historic, orthodox Christianity anchored in the ecumenical Christian creeds — what Thomas Oden would call "classical Christianity." I see the Reformed Faith as the capstone, not the foundation, of Christian orthodoxy. It's the finish line, not the starting gate. It's the most highly developed, but surely not the only, species of classical Christianity, as the great Calvinist Benjamin Warfield wrote in his classic essay "Calvinism."
As I've written elsewhere, heresy is almost always defined in terms of deviation from classical Christianity, not from the distinctives of any particular species of the (orthodox) church, even the Presbyterian Church. So, even if the men charged are not Reformed (and I believe they are; they claim to be), they are not thereby heretics — and certainly not to be implicitly consigned to Hell. In short, you can oppose Calvinism without being a heretic, and you can espouse certain sub-Biblical views (recall the Galatians) without being a heretic. We Calvinists don't hold a monopoly on Christian orthodoxy!
But have Joe and Co., in fact, correctly understood sixteenth- and seventeenth-century Reformed orthodoxy at all points? Private correspondence to me indicates that several highly respected "old-school" Presbyterian scholars specializing in the theology of this era do not think so. I leave it to them to counter Joe's interpretation of the older Presbyterian tradition. To his credit, Joe champions his beloved Southern Presbyterianism. I commend him for this. But, after all, this is only one subspecies within the Reformed tradition, and a micro-species within the orthodox Christian tradition.
Christian Culture
I have a secondary strategic, and not only a primary theological, reason for bringing up this point. Joe's sectarian anathemas sow unnecessary division among those who should be committed to a broad, orthodox Christian culture (without sacrificing their own Presbyterian distinctives).
When I observe the sort of sectarian divisiveness Joe is sowing, it grieves me deeply. For years, I've committed my life to Christian culture. It's a passion in my soul. It's the objective of the Center for Cultural Leadership. In forging CCL, I'm committed to helping create a new Christian culture in our society — not a Presbyterian culture, a Baptist culture, a Roman Catholic culture, a Pentecostal culture, or what have you. I was reared a fundamentalist Baptist and am now a Reformed believer, yet I'm not certain by Joe's standards if I was ever a Christian. I am unabashedly Reformed, but I pant in coveting a unity of all believers in turning back the evils of our secular culture. There is a broader unity than the Presbyterian tradition — and tradition it is.
I can't elaborate in this article, but you can discover more about my vision on this website. If your heart longs for a new Christian culture, it likely pains at reckless, sectarian attacks that impede the unity among Christians contributing to that culture. That unity is not centered on Presbyterian distinctives, valuable though they may be.
Which WCF?
And speaking of Presbyterian distinctives, Joe seems to attack any deviation from the Westminster Confession (a truly great confession of doctrine), no matter how minute. A good example is paedocommunion, which, by implication, the WCF does not endorse. A similar issue is preterism; and I suspect there are orthodox preterists in Joe's denomination, or at least, I believe he would let them in. Yet no preterist would affirm the WCF at 25:6, which identifies the papacy as the Antichrist. Preterism deviates from the Confession at this point, and justifiably, in my view. If Joe responds that the RPCUS adheres to the American revision, and not the original WCF, I would rejoin, "On what consistent ground then do you attack those who deviate from the original WCF at other minor points, like paedocommunion?"
Heretics Galore
Then there are the specific theological issues, only a handful of which I'll mention.
Joe assaults anyone who denies the highly controversial Covenant of Works. Yet, the Protestant Reformed Church, following their great theologian Herman Hoeksema, denies it. Walter Kaiser, one of the prominent conservative Old Testament scholars of our day, opposes it. R. J. Rushdoony (whom Joe revered) considered it "deadly wrong" (his words). I must mention that RJR (no matter how firmly one may have disagreed with him) would not have been happy with these anathemas — not least because they implicitly anathematize him! He was too suffused with knowledge of church history and a catholic spirit to have been impressed. Indeed, he would have seen these documents as rather theologically sophomoric. At any rate, are all of these individuals who oppose the Covenant of Works heretics?
False Distinctions?
Joe is scandalized that one may call into question the distinction between an invisible and visible church, yet the venerable Reformed scholar John Murray surely did question this distinction. Was he a heretic, too?
Anathematizing Nicea
I don't support baptismal regeneration one whit, and I'm not sure the men anathematized are advocating it; but is Joe ready to overturn Nicene orthodoxy ("One baptism for the remission of sins") and indict with heresy the vast majority of the Christian church, which does espouse it? In opposing it, A. A. Hodge and others were not as censorious as Joe.
A Precisionist Justification
A big issue for Joe is (understandably) justification. Is
justification a work accomplished solely by the grace of God apart from human merit or good works? In contrast with Rome and in a breathtaking innovation, Luther came to believe that justification means to declare, not to make, righteous; and many modern Roman Catholic theologians (like Hans Küng) now agree. We (like our Reformed forefathers) grapple with texts like Psalm 106:30-31 and James 2:21, which don't seem to fit neatly into the tight Protestant scheme. But we do know that no individual (in any age) could ever obtain eternal life by merit, good works, the law, or any other human endeavor (like the odious Covenant of Works requires). The ground of salvation is solely Christ's obedient life, atoning death and bodily resurrection, appropriated by faith, a gift of God. Further, is there not an eschatological dimension to justification, an idea Joe savages? What, then, does Romans 2:13-16 mean? Joe is asking for a razor-sharp precision in the doctrine of justification that the Bible simply does not offer.
Yet I am surprised that Joe and the RPCUS define justification not just as God's declaring, but also as constituting, individuals as righteous. Does this not mean that God's work of justification is synthetic and not analytical, that it is creative, constituting believing sinners righteous, and not merely recognizing them as owning an imputed righteousness? This seems to be a staggering incongruity in the RPCUS definition to which its writers have not given sufficient attention.
Joe asserts that those who believe in Jesus are "instantly" justified and forgiven. I fully agree with him (Ac. 13:39). Yet the Bible does not hold out hope that those who defy God and persist in disobedience will be justified on the Final Day. Indeed, only those with true, persevering faith can expect salvation (Mt. 6:14-15; Col. 1:23; Heb. 12:14).
Paedocommunion
Joe anathematizes paedocommunion, but many thoroughly Reformed folks embrace it. Are they heretics also, to be consigned to perdition? Why not simply say they are wrong, and need correction?
Salvation by Merit?
In advocating the Covenant of Works and speaking favorably of merit, Joe implies that salvation at root is a matter of human merit (though hauling in Jesus to help us curry God's reward for merit!). Does he not consider that it was just this emphasis on merit in the Roman Catholic Church that led to the soteriological synergism (cooperative salvation) he rightly abhors? The notion of the Covenant of Works and human merit are (I believe) flatly un-Biblical; and to reintroduce them is to veer dangerously toward a works-righteousness salvation that, in fact, is the very root of the Covenant of Works. I abhor the Covenant of Works because (a) the Bible nowhere teaches it and (b) I want to stay as far as possible from the idea that man can merit his salvation by good works or law-keeping. I want Jesus Christ exalted as the only possible Mediator of eternal life. If this be heresy, I'm happy to be a Christ-honoring heretic!
Disobedient Faith?
The RPCUS attacks any definition of faith that includes "faithful obedience"; yet the great Old Testament heroes recounted in Hebrews 11 would have found this distinction arbitrary and artificial. They knew that faith without works is dead, being alone (Jas. 2:17) — note carefully that a faith that is alone (without faithful obedience) is no faith at all. Paul twice champions by name "the obedience of faith" (Rom. 1:5; 16:26). Jesus recognized only a faith that included faithful obedience (Mt. 9:22; Lk. 2:1-5). I believe that, in spite of their best intentions, the RPCUS men are setting forth a one-sided view of faith that could easily be used to justify antinomianism.
More than Propositional
I agree with Joe that the Bible is a propositional revelation; and as far as I know, nobody he is anathematizing denies this. But special revelation is more than merely propositional, as the most conservative theologians know; and if we do not see the Bible first as a divinely inspired revelation, attestation, and interpretation of redemptive events, we have missed the whole boat. In short, the Bible is explicative of, not a substitute for, what God has accomplished in history in Jesus Christ. I suggest that this view is far from heretical — though it may be nearly heretical to suggest otherwise.
Jewish Interpreters
Joe labels as "illegitimate [the] post-exilic [Jewish] mindset as an interpretive [Biblical] scheme." Indeed, he calls it heretical. This is astonishing. Why should I trust the uninspired interpretation of provincial, Western, twenty-first century exegetes (even reverent ones like Joe) rather than the divinely inspired folks of 2000 years ago (all Jews!) who actually observed the redemptive events they wrote about in the Bible? The Jewish context of the New Testament (and not just the Old) is self-evident. Anything or anybody that obscures our picture of the divinely inspired interpretation of the redemptive events of the New Testament is suspect. I don't want uninspired interpretation, but inspired interpretation — as the "post-exilic mindset" of the Biblical writers surely is. A Jewish outlook suffuses the New Testament. I want to see the Bible from that perspective. What is heretical about this? If it's heresy to want to understand the New Testament writers and the ethos in which they wrote, Joe is free to brand me a heretic.
The "Solas"
Joe criticizes those who "ridicule" the Protestant "solas." I
assuredly do not ridicule them — I glory in them — but I do suggest they must be properly understood and applied today, just as they had to be in the sixteenth century. The "solas" did not occur in abstraction then, and they must not occur in abstraction today. When we say Scripture alone, faith alone, and Christ alone, we must ask — alone in relation to what? Scripture is not alone in relation to subordinate, objective authorities like the creeds of the early church, pastors and elders within the church, civil and familial authority, and so on. Today we have a sola Scriptura of the heretical (as opposed to orthodox) preterists that denies the subordinately binding authority of orthodox Christianity in repudiating the precious, future Second Advent of our Lord; the glorious bodily resurrection of the saints; and the final judgment. In relation to this heresy, we do not believe in Scripture alone, and to assert that we do is to deny the Faith. For example, Scripture alone does not mean we may deny the Trinity on the grounds that the Bible does not explicitly teach it, as some early heretical Protestants asserted! Sola Scriptura must be carefully nuanced.
Similarly, under the guise of faithfulness to a gracious salvation, we have a Lutheranism (and a Lutheranized Calvinism) that boldly questions the need for sanctification (one author even warns of the threat that sanctification poses to salvation by grace). "Faith alone" in justification is supposed to suffice. Some do not understand that (in G. C. Berkhouwer's words) "Christ is the total substance of our justification"; it is not faith in justification by faith that saves, but faith in Christ that saves.
James' assertion that faith without works is dead (2:20) becomes an embarrassment to those who do not embrace Christ in His fullness, because that text cannot be reconciled with an abstract definition of "faith alone." I say that sola fide in relation to this notion is utterly false. The Bible that I read knows nothing of a salvation that does not elicit repentance and produce obedience. The Bible neither identifies nor separates justification and sanctification, but (as Calvin taught) weds them beautifully in our union with Christ, which is the central fact of Biblical salvation.
Likewise, we sometimes observe a solus Christus that centers so on the redemptive work of Christ that the exercise of His
kingly power evaporates. The Old Testament law is seen as little more than a "redemptive" prelude to Christ's earthly ministry, or a temporary hiatus that must now give way to "common grace," as Meredith Kline teaches. Its precepts are thought to be no longer binding. The Old Testament becomes essentially a "pretty theology." With as much emphasis as I can muster, let me suggest that of this Christ, I know nothing. I know nothing of a Christ who rejoices to redeem but fails to command. I know nothing of a Christ Who is not presently seated in heaven ruling the nations, waiting until all of His enemies are made His footstool. If "Christ alone" means only the sort of Christ that elects and saves but does not energize and sanctify, this is a Christ I do not encounter in the Bible, and this is a solus Christus I cannot abide.
In reaffirming the solas, but in anathematizing those who want to apply them properly in light of the burning issues of the day, Joe is not being entirely faithful to the Reformation solas. They must be more than slogans. We must properly nuance and rigorously apply them in light of the historical situation we confront — just as the Reformers did in their own day. I do not observe such a thoughtful treatment and application in the Morecraft anathemas.
These RPCUS documents are riddled with many such problems. They bear all the marks of a hastily conceived, triumphalistic, us-versus-them mentality. There are sensitive and complex theological issues here, but the RPCUS has treated them insensitively and simplistically.
Audacious Epistemology
Moreover, there's an audacious epistemology (Enlightenment-
influenced, it seems to me) at work in these anathemas that seems to conceive of theology as a timeless, eternal enterprise that operates outside human history and identifies the mind of God with the mind of the documents' writers. Cornelius Van Til, by contrast, championed the creaturely character of theology, that is, that men write theology, that it is a human enterprise and thus finite and subject to the limitations of finitude. It is ironic that many of the same Calvinists who champion the fact that sin invades every part of man's being seem not to recognize that it may invade their own theological formulations!
Functional Independency
I once talked with a fine elder in a good, conservative, small Reformed denomination. He was criticizing the "independency" of congregational churches, referring to their lack of accountability. It was in many cases a valid criticism, and I acknowledged it. Then I asked, "To whom is your denomination accountable?"
He seemed perplexed, but then replied, "To Jesus Christ."
"Well," I rejoined, "That's just what the independent churches would say. So how is your denomination any different?"
To whom are denominations accountable? To the entire Christian tradition. This is what makes Joe's and the RPCUS's
anathemas so objectionable. Not one orthodox church in the history of the world has declared the teachings of which these men are accused as outside the bounds of historic, catholic ("classical") Christianity, even were Barach, Schlissel, Wilkins and Wilson wrong on every teaching attributed to them. Virtually the entire Christian tradition would, I am confident, rise to reprimand Joe's denomination and find it recalcitrant, provincial and sectarian. It implicitly stands condemned by that entire orthodox Christian tradition, to which it should be submitted.
Conclusion
Joe is the dominant force in his church and denomination. I value his ministry and admire his leadership. In this case, however, I believe his ministry and leadership have been seriously flawed. His hubris and that of the other accusers is unsettling and divisive and destructive. I urge Joe and Co., for the sake of the peace of the Church and the advancement of Christ's kingdom, to reconsider their reckless charges.
