RN - The Reformed News

Friday, July 13, 2007

» News: URCNA Synod Adopts Justification Declarations

The URCNA Synod, meeting this week in Palos Heights, IL, adopted the following statement concerning the doctrine of justiication on Thursday:

Synod affirms that the Scriptures and confessions teach the doctrine of justification by grace alone, through faith alone and that nothing that is taught under the rubric of covenant theology in our churches may contradict this fundamental doctrine. Therefore Synod rejects the errors of those:

1. who deny or modify the teaching that "God created man good and after His own image, that is, in true righteousness and holiness," able to perform "the commandment of life" as the representative of mankind (HC 6, 9; BC 14);

2. who, in any way and for any reason, confuse the "commandment of life" given before the fall with the gospel announced after the fall (BC 14, 17, 18; HC 19, 21, 56, 60);

3. who confuse the ground and instrument of acceptance with God before the fall (obedience to the commandment of life) with the ground (Christ who kept the commandment of life) and instrument (faith in Christ) of acceptance with God after the fall;

4. who deny that Christ earned acceptance with God and that all His merits have been imputed to believers (BC 19, 20, 22, 26; HC 11-19, 21, 36-37, 60, 84; CD I.7, RE I.3, RE II.1);



5. who teach that a person can be historically, conditionally elect, regenerated, savingly united to Christ, justified, and adopted by virtue of participation in the outward administration of the covenant of grace but may lose these benefits through lack of covenantal faithfulness (CD, I, V);

6. who teach that all baptized persons are in the covenant of grace in precisely the same way such that there is no distinction between those who have only an outward relation to the covenant of grace by baptism and those who are united to Christ by grace alone through faith alone (HC 21, 60; BC 29);

7. who teach that Spirit-wrought sanctity, human works, or cooperation with grace is any part either of the ground of our righteousness before God or any part of faith, that is, the "instrument by which we embrace Christ, our righteousness" (BC 22-24; HC 21, 60, 86);

8. who define faith, in the act of justification, as being anything more than "leaning and resting on the sole obedience of Christ crucified" or "a certain knowledge" of and "a hearty trust" in Christ and His obedience and death for the elect (BC 23; HC 21);

9. who teach that there is a separate and final justification grounded partly upon righteousness or sanctity inherent in the Christian (HC 52; BC 37).

The statement makes no reference to current controversies by name, but the discussion concerned a possible response to the Federal Vision controversy that has been discussed in many reformed denominations. References to "HC" are to the Heidelberg Catechism, "BC" refers to the Belgic Confession, and "CD" refers to the Canons of Dort.

The advisory committee reported to the floor of Synod a recommendation not to adopt the RCUS report concerning Norman Shepherd; grounds were supplied, but RN does not have access to those at present. Synod agreed and the RCUS report was not adopted. The nine declarations above were considered and honed by the committee and approved by Synod leading some to argue that forming a committee to study the Federal Vision would be unnecessary. The committee also recommended against a study committee to study the Federal Vision. Cornelius Venema's arguments in favor of forming a committee set the tone for passage of the idea at the Synod level. A committee was appointed to study the Federal Vision only with regard to the issue of justification by faith. The committee will report back to Synod after a period of three years. The committee consists of 14 members; as soon as the names are released, RN will be able to report on the committee's makeup.

URCNA Posts Press Releases Online Daily

Labels: , , ,

7 Comments:

At July 13, 2007 12:46 PM , Joel said...

Those look fine to me, with the exception of number 4. Does the URNCA really mean to suggest that Jesus Christ, at any time, was not accepted by the Father as his beloved Son in whom he was well-pleased and that, rather, he had to earn that status?

Perhaps the denial makes more sense against the backdrop of the relevant sections of the BC and HC, but on the face of it, it seems to verge on christological heresy.

 
At July 14, 2007 6:19 AM , Jeff Meyers said...

Yeah, I agree with Joel. The declarations are all okay, except for #4. Even so, I'm not so sure who they think they are dealing with in these declarations. I don't know any of the FV men, for example, who would deny any of these statements (sans 4).

As for #4, when I think of it I can't help seeing some sort of viral video running on YouTube that looks something like this: A young boy is standing before his stern father. The father is displeased or just disinterested in the young boy. The video shows a series of images that compress many years into a few seconds. The boy wears a Cub Scout uniform and badges and patches multiply on his chest and arms. The boy then has a Boy Scout uniform and the same happens. After a collection of merit badges is earned by the boy, the father finally smiles and accepts his boy. Then the final shirt, full of all the merits of the young boy, is removed from him and given to another boy standing nearby. The father now turns his accepting smile toward the other boy.

The idea that Christ had to merit the acceptance of his Father through multiple acts of moral achievement is preposterous. And that justification somehow means that the merits (plural) of all of Jesus' moral achievements are then somehow transfered to believers is really bad theology.

Please, someone, tell me that no one really believers this, that #4 is just an infelicitously worded declaration.

 
At July 14, 2007 10:48 AM , Wayne said...

This post has been removed by the author.

 
At July 14, 2007 11:11 AM , Wayne said...

I deleted my previous comment. I initially said that the phrase "acceptance with God" was meant to be read as "our acceptance with God," but that doesn't seem to work in conjunction with the second half of #4.

Oh well.

 
At July 14, 2007 8:22 PM , Kevin said...

Can't help but notice the absence of any citations after #3. I suppose that one is aimed at anyone who finds the appellation "Covenant of Works" problematic?

 
At July 16, 2007 7:58 AM , Bill Lamkin said...

Yet another Church coming down on the historic view(s) of justification with regards to the NPP/FV.

I'm currently reading "Grace in Practice" by Paul Zahl. I highly recommend it (published by Eerdmans).

 
At July 27, 2007 9:56 AM , Anonymous said...

Bill, that should be "Yet another church coming down on caricatures of what the NPP/FV believe" and showing that they really have no clue about what's going on.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home