Questions for the CanRC (6)

Scott's sixth question:

6. Schilder spoke of the covenant of grace in a way that did not distinguish it clearly from the prelapsarian covenant with Adam. Among the CanRCs what is considered to be the difference between the prelapsarian and postlapsarian covenants? Do the CanRCs agree with the URC declaration that “we reject the error of those…who, in any way and for any reason, confuse the ‘commandment of life’ given before the fall with the gospel announced after the fall”? Do the CanRCs agree with the URC declarations that “we reject the error of those… 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” and “we reject the error of those…who deny that Christ earned acceptance with God and that all His merits have been imputed to believers”?

Answer: I would need to see some documentation before I can agree that Schilder did not clearly distinguish the covenant of grace from the prelapsarian covenant with Adam. All the evidence I have points to the contrary.

The difference between the prelapsarian covenant and the postlapsarian covenant is that the former is a loving relationship/friendship between the Creator and the human creature and the latter is a loving relationship/friendship between the Creator and the human sinner in which atonement for sin and the defeat of evil through the seed of the woman are now promised. In both scenarios, Adam and Eve had to "trust and obey" or else invite the covenant curses.

My own view of the prelapsarian arrangement might be different from some or most of my Can Ref colleagues. I'm not afraid to introduce eschatology in the Garden, though much of it is deduced from my reading of passages outside of Genesis, such as 1 Corinthians 15. I would say that Adam to be faithful to the terms of prelapsarian covenant and mature as a covenant child of God into a king of sorts, well qualified for the dominion to which he was called. Upon proving this maturity he would be entitled to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. NB: earlier God had said that he had given Adam ALL the trees in the garden to eat.

Discerning between good and evil is an index of the maturity required of kings. 2 Samuel 14:17: "Then your maidservant said, 'Please let the word of my lord the king be comforting, for as the angel of God, so is my lord the king to discern good and evil. And may the LORD your God be with you.'" 1 Kings 3:9: "So give Your servant an understanding heart to judge Your people to discern between good and evil." Cf. Hebrews 5:14: "But solid food is for the mature, who because of practice have their senses trained to discern good and evil."

I suspect that had Adam proved maturity, God would have translated him (through sleep-death perhaps) from a realm of posse peccare (able to sin) and posse non peccare (able not to sin) into a realm of non posse peccare (not able to sin). Many of my Can Ref colleagues might charge me with speculation and I would have difficulty defending myself!

But surely there is a difference between the pre-fall commandment of life and the post-fall gospel. The former ensures the continuation of sinless life through faith (trusting God) and obedience and the latter promises new life through Christ by faith. The ground of life in the prelapsarian context was trust in God and obedience to Him; the ground of life in the postlapsarian context is the (active and passive) obedience of Christ which becomes ours through faith.

Lastly, do we agree with the URCNA and "reject the error of those…who deny that Christ earned acceptance with God and that all His merits have been imputed to believers”? I hope we all recognize the infelicity of this statement. Did Christ need to earn acceptance with God? Or was Christ always the "beloved" Son of His Father in whom His Father was well-pleased? I suspect that the statement intends to say, "who deny that Christ earned acceptance for believers with God."

I have little objection to talk about the merit of Christ. One of my objections to using 'merit' to describe Adam's righteousness is the disproportion between the human act (finite) and the divine reward (infinite). This objection falls to the side when talking about Christ who as the eternal Son of God performed works of infinite worth. The Canons of Dort, for example, teach the death of Christ (2:4) "is of such great value and worth for the reason that the person who suffered it is--as was necessary to be our Savior--not only a true and perfectly holy man, but also the only begotten Son of God, of the same eternal and infinite essence with the Father and the Holy Spirit." In fact, this death (2:4) "is of infinite value and worth, more than sufficient to atone for the sins of the whole world."

Moreover, I recall Alistair McGrath in Iustitia Dei explaining how, at the time of the Reformation and before, the term "merits" simply denoted value and didn't necessarily imply proportionate justice. But my time is up and I'll have to dig up that citation later.

Questions for the CanRC (5)

5. It is common for Schilder-influenced theologians to speak of the prelapsarian covenant as a “covenant of favor.” The noun “favor” has often been a synonym for “grace” in Reformed theology. In light of that tradition, how do the CanRCs understand the language of the Belgic Confession Art. 14, when it says, “commandment of life”? Do the CanRCs agree with the declaration of the URCs that “we reject the errors of those…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”?

It is common for Schilder-influenced theologians to speak of the prelapsarian covenant as a "covenant of favor." This is also the preferred term for many in the URCNA, including Rev. Mark Vander Hart, whose section on the covenant with Adam in his Bible study on Genesis 1-11 is entitled, "The covenant of God's favor" (see, Genesis 1-11, Grand Rapids: Reformed Fellowship Inc., 2007, p.60). By using the term 'favor' these scholars distinguish the prelapsarian covenant from the postlapsarian covenant of grace while recognizing the infelicity of calling it a covenant of works.

Jelle Faber, in his article "The Covenant of Works" published in Clarion during the early 80s, rightly pointed out that the Three Forms of Unity, in distinction from the Westminster Standards, have no doctrine of a so-called covenant of works. Moreover, Faber objected to the nomenclature of "works" to describe this covenant because it intimates a legalistic or meritorious conception of human righteousness and fails to recognize the impossibility of humanity to earn or merit anything from God.

This is very much in line with what Calvin says in his commentary on Romans 11:35: "And Paul not only concludes, that God owes us nothing, on account of our corrupt and sinful nature; but he denies, that if man were perfect, he could bring anything before God, by which he could gain his favor; for as soon as he begins to exist, he is already by the right of creation so much indebted to his Maker, that he has nothing of his own. In vain then shall we try to take from him his own right, that he should not, as he pleases, freely determine respecting his own creatures, as though there was mutual debt and credit."

Lyle Bierma argues that Calvin saw the prelapsarian covenant with Adam as gracious. The sign of the tree of life was intended "to lead him to the knowledge of divine grace" (Comm. Gen.2.9). This view was shared by Ursinus, the primary author of the Heidelberg Catechism: “Ursinus too always presents this primal relationship in the context of divine grace — in both the Cat. maior and the commentary on HC.” The prelapsarian relationship is “surrounded by grace.” When Adam and Eve fell, “they robbed themselves and all their descendants of that grace of God.” Latin: voluntaria inobedientia se et universam posteritatem suam illa Dei gratia spoliarunt (From Lang, Der Heidelberger Katechismus).

Bierma concludes: Ursinus “consistently places this relationship in the context of divine grace. For him grace is not just a redemptive concept; it is manifest already in the original righteousness conferred by God at creation and repudiated by us at the fall. . . . Calvin’s emphasis on divine grace in the prelapsarian relationship with Adam clearly resurfaces in Ursinus.” This is from Bierma's essays,“Law and Grace in Ursinus’ Doctrine of the Natural Covenant: A Reappraisal” in Protestant Scholasticism: Essays in Reassessment, ed. Carl Trueman and R.S. Clark, UK: Paternoster Press, 1999.

Summing up John Owen's position, Sinclair Ferguson writes, "Eternal life by the covenant of works would not give a man ground for boasting, since that life would be his because of God's promise, not because of his merit. . . . This emphasis on grace on Owen's part is all the more significant in view of the strictures sometimes passed on federal theology" (in Owen on the Christian Life, Edinburgh: Banner of Truth Trust, 1987, p.23). Many Can Ref folk see the covenant with Adam along the lines of De Graaf, Berkouwer, Hoekema, Hoeksema and Murray.

How do the Canadian Reformed understand "the commandment of life" in Belgic Confession, article 14? If one sees the next sentence as epexegetical--a likely interpretation-- "transgressing the commandment of life" means "breaking away from God, who was his true life." God had commanded Adam not to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil and to violate that command was to invite death.

Lastly, Do the CanRCs agree with the declaration of the URCs that “we reject the errors of those…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”? I can't think of any reason why a Can Ref minister would not find this perfectly acceptable.

Questions for the CanRC (4)

4. Do the CanRCs agree with the URCNA when it said “we reject the errors of those…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”?

Yes, we agree with the URCNA on this point.

Questions for the CanRC (3)

Scott's third question:

3. Over the last 20 years or so, at least two theologians in the CanRCs have publicly endorsed the theology of Norman Shepherd. Over the last several years, many NAPARC denominations and at least three Reformed seminaries have publicly repudiated Shepherd’s covenant theology and doctrine of justification. How widely influential is the theology of Norman Shepherd in the CanRCs?

The preface to this question strikes me as careless and disingenuous. I suspect Scott has in mind the late Jelle Faber (1924-2004) and Cornelis Van Dam, both of whom admired things Shepherd stood for and neither of whom "endorsed" his theology. In his editorials in Clarion in the early 1980s, Faber commended Shepherd for, inter alia, his rejection of (a) a meritorious covenant of works and (b) the notion that the covenant of works was republished at Sinai. I seem to recall Faber quibbling about some things in Shepherd's writings, such as the phrase "the state of justification" which Faber found too static.

Cornelis Van Dam wrote a blurb on the back of Shepherd's new book on justification recommending it for its exegetical clarity. I doubt whether either Faber or Van Dam read every statement Shepherd published and whether either man would endorse every jot and tittle in his theology. I'm not prepared to do that for Calvin, Ursinus, Olevianus or, for that matter, Witsius, Voetius, Ames, Van Mastricht, Cocceius, Polanus and Wollebius. Now, if "endorse" simply means "publicly defend on some points" then Faber and Van Dam are guilty, as are Cornelius Van Til, Richard Gaffin, John Frame, Ralph Gore, Bill DeJong (unworthy to be in such a list) and a whole host of others.

As far as the apparent widespread repudiation of Shepherd's covenant theology is concerned, some qualification is necessary. The denominations and institutions (or at least individuals in some institutions) envisioned by Scott have all made critical statements about Shepherd's theology without necessarily "repudiating" it all. For what it's worth, I and some others in the Can Ref churches are disappointed with this; we think that Shepherd, as a Reformed father, deserves far better treatment. Moreover, we find that many of the critiques of Shepherd have a distinctively Presbyterian or Westminsterian bent. The Westminster Standards are fine expressions of Reformed theology, though many of us would be unwilling to subscribe to them, especially if strict subscriptionism is envisioned.

I happen to agree with Shepherd's rejection of a meritorious covenant of works and the notion that this covenant was republished at Sinai. I happen to agree with him that the faith which justifies is an active and living faith, and that "alone" in "justification by faith alone" is adverbial and not adjectival. Though I am unable to provide a head count, I think you will find many ministers in the Can Ref who share my assessment.

On the other hand, I suspect that Can Ref leaders read and enjoy Shepherd the way that they read and enjoy any scholar. When it comes to theologians and intellectuals, most of my Can Ref colleagues do not operate with nice and naughty lists the way that Scott does. Canadian Reformed pastors generally read very widely and with discernment and appreciate the insights of men and women with whom they sometimes disagree. Among intellectuals I enjoy reading I would list N.T. Wright and Stanley Hauerwas and among the deceased, Karl Barth, Richard John Neuhaus and Stanley Grenz. On the other hand I would oppose the ordination of any one of these men were they to apply for such in the Canadian Reformed churches.

Lastly, I suspect many Can Ref leaders wonder why the institutions and churches envisioned by Scott felt the need to publish critiques of Shepherd when Shepherd was/is not one of them. The chances of getting a Can Ref synod to adopt a statement on Shepherd are slim. Shepherd is not a member in a Can Ref church or any sister church.

The same applies to writers in the so-called Federal Vision movement. You will find some of us ranting and raving about James B. Jordan while others enjoy reading John Barach or Peter Leithart or Jeff Meyers. None of us would issue blanket endorsements of these men. We cherry pick with the federal vision writers the way we do with any writer. Many of us recognize that the impulses of the Federal Vision writers are the same as they were for Schilder, Holwerda et al, but I've written enough about that already.

Questions for the CanRC (2)

Clark's second question is:

2. In reaction to problems (real and perceived) in the Netherlands, Schilder formulated an idiosyncratic version of covenant theology that is at odds with much of the Reformed tradition and which helped to lay the groundwork for the contemporary federal vision movement. How do the CanRCs see Schilder’s relations to the Shepherdite and FV theologies How influential is the Federal Vision theology in the CanRCs?

Answer: Once again, the preface to the question is imprecise and somewhat pregnant with assumptions. I suspect, first of all, that Schilder himself would be offended by this caricature. He believed that his version of covenant theology was very much in line with that of his fathers in the Afscheiding tradition of the Reformed churches in the Netherlands. I suspect, secondly, that he would be surprised to be judged one who is at odds with much of the Reformed tradition. It's quite clear from my reading of Schilder that he prized the Reformed tradition and that he saw himself as a theologian working in this tradition.

On the other hand, Schilder did not see himself bound to "much of the Reformed tradition." He would probably question how one would go about determining such a thing. He saw himself as a theologian bound to the Three Forms of Unity and therefore somewhat free to deviate from Luther, Calvin, Vermigli or Witsius, etc. in areas not governed by the confessions. Schilder's homiletics (redemptive-historical preaching) represented a (positive) shift from Calvin's homiletics. I imagine that if one were to identify 600 Reformed theologians who insisted that Christ is the Head of the covenant (and not the Mediator), Schilder would say, "That's an impressive list. But I'm not bound in my theology by 'the great multitude' (Belgic, article 7). Show me where in the confessions I must believe that Christ is the head of the covenant."

Whether Schilder laid the groundwork for the so-called federal vision movement is debatable. Schilder is somewhat of a hero to John Barach and Barach's talk at the Auburn Avenue Pastor's Conference was very much in line with Schilder's emphases. In the end, I suspect that Barach's views owe more to Schilder's colleague, Benne Holwerda, and Schilder's disciple, Cornelis Trimp. I doubt that Doug Wilson and Steve Wilkins know much about Schilder's covenantal theology. More significant figures in the evolution of FV would probably be: Rousas J. Rushdoony, Cornelius Van Til, Eugen Rosenstock-Huessy, twentieth century neo-Calvinist writers and perhaps on the periphery, John Nevin, Philip Schaff, Gordon Wenham, John Millbank, Rene Girard and a handful of others.

There are clearly areas where Schilder would disagree with FV thought. Neither Schilder nor any prominent figure in the Liberated theological tradition, so far as I know, holds to paedo-communion. Moreover, Schilder's eschatology, unlike the postmillennialism of prominent FV players, was remarkably pessimistic, almost defeatist -- as was the case for many who endured two world wars.

The FV view of the covenant of works and the invisible/visible church, though similar to Schilder's views, probably derives more from John Murray and Anthony Hoekema. The FV emphasis on the centrality of union with Christ as the matrix through which to understand aspects of salvation probably derives more from John Calvin, Richard Gaffin, Anthony Hoekema and Sinclair Ferguson. The FV liturgical emphases are informed by various Reformed, Lutheran and Anglican liturgists.

The name of Norman Shepherd has always been respected in Canadian Reformed circles. Shepherd studied at the Free University of Amsterdam (where he had prepared to write a doctoral dissertation on Zanchius) and is fluent in Dutch. His facility with Dutch gave him access to the theological literature of the Dutch Reformed and Shepherd became quite fond of S.G. De Graaf, in particular. I have a slight recollection of Shepherd telling me that his views on the covenant of works were derived in part from reading De Graaf's book on the Heidelberg Catechism, entitled, Het Ware Geloof. Shepherd prized the Liberated tradition of Schilder, Holwerda and company and was thrilled with the translation and publication of Kamphuis's An Everlasting Covenant.

When Shepherd was dismissed from Westminster Theological Seminary for political and not theological reasons, Jelle Faber wrote a series of editorials in Clarion lamenting this, defending Shepherd, but not uncritically. I suspect Shepherd's more recent books are not widely read in Canadian Reformed circles.

Though I respect Norman Shepherd a great deal, and cherish him as a Reformed father and a brother in Christ, I do demur from some of his positions. In my mind he tends to over-accentuate continuity between old and new covenants. I'm not convinced either by his arguments against the imputation of Christ's active obedience in justification. That said, I'm not entirely comfortable with the theology of many of his critics either. I share with Shepherd the conviction, on exegetical grounds, that Romans 4 is not about the imputation of Christ's righteousness. I agree with Shepherd that faith is the sole instrument of justification and that faith without works is dead. I find it deeply regrettable and irresponsible that his name is so cavalierly tarnished in segments of the Reformed community.

Dr. Cornelis Van Dam, who teaches Old Testament at the Theological College, recently wrote a blurb on the back of Shepherd's new book on justification. I suspect he shares my fondness for Shepherd; I also suspect that he shares my unwillingness to endorse everything Shepherd says.

Questions for the CanRC (1)

Over at his blog, Scott Clark, an instructor at Westminster Seminary in California, has posed some questions for the CanRC. I can't speak for the CanRC, nor can I say how representative my views are within the CanRC, but I can answer his questions as best I can.

Question 1: "The CanRCs grew out of a controversy in the GKN. They are directly descended from one side of that controversy led by Klaas Schilder. How do the CanRCs now view Schilder’s influence in their theology, piety, and practice?"

Answer: The preface to this question strikes me as somewhat imprecise. The Canadian Reformed churches were established by post-war Dutch immigrants who in the Netherlands had been members of the GKN-V (the Liberated), a federation of Reformed churches whose formation was occasioned, in large part, by Klaas Schilder's ouster from the GKN. Schilder himself wanted to remain in the GKN and, though he disagreed with them vehemently, thought the views of his opponents were within confessional bounds.

A synod of the GKN decided in 1944, the worst year of the war, to depose Schilder for his views on covenant and baptism (while Schilder was still in hiding from the Germans). Many ministers and members in GKN regarded this judgment as ecclesiastical tyranny and on August 11, 1944 an Act of Liberation and Return was signed by those who rejected the ruling of the synod and a new federation of churches was born.

I think that leaders in the Canadian Reformed churches have always felt a sense of indebtedness to Schilder for his labors and his faithfulness to the gospel. Those of us who can read Dutch marvel at his genius. He was far less of a theological maverick than he is made out to be. On the other hand, he was not opposed to theological innovation, so long as the innovation was within confessional bounds. He was one of the first theologians to offer a substantial critique of Karl Barth and he remained, over the course of his life, a vigorous opponent of the Swiss theologian. Cornelis Vanderwaal once speculated that, had Schilder lived another 20 years or so, he might have attained the stature of Barth---so great were his intellectual capabilities.

Moreover, Schilder was a courageous and brilliant pioneer in the field of redemptive-historical interpretation and preaching and his published volumes of sermons, accessible to readers of Dutch, may perhaps be his greatest legacy.

He was fond of Abraham Kuyper, but refused to embrace all the theological categories Kuyper introduced or endorsed. He routinely castigated the fixation with Kuyperian theological categories and dichotomies as scholasticism. He was particularly perturbed by Kuyper's view of presumptive regeneration. Since the sacraments confirm faith (LD 25) and since we can't know whether an infant has faith, Kuyper insisted that regeneration and faith must be presupposed in the infant baptismal candidate in order for baptism to make sense. If we could see that the infant didn't or wouldn't have faith, Kuyper speculated, there wouldn't be any purpose in baptizing him or her. For this reason, some Kuyperian ministers, after baptizing a child, would say, "Let's hope this was a real baptism." The baptisms of children who proved to be unbelievers were meaningless spillings of water.

Schilder insisted that the basis for baptism must be God's objective promises and not our presuppositions. He did not want to narrow the scope of covenant to the decree of election. What God said in history was, for Schilder, just as important as what He decreed in eternity past. God speaks promises to children being baptized. Who are we to diminish the importance or doubt the sincerity of that speech?

Schilder thought that a lot of Kuyper's dichotomies (external covenant/internal covenant, visible church/invisible church, militant church/triumphant church, etc.), when pressed, hindered a proper interpretation of Scripture.

Schilder was also a cultural theologian and the contributions he made in this realm are increasingly being recognized in North America. Vincent Bacote of Wheaton College, Richard Mouw, president of Fuller Seminary, and James K.A. Smith of Calvin College are among the contemporary evangelical intellectuals interested in Schilder's cultural philosophy (which Mouw interestingly regards as a kind of hybrid between the creational worldview of Kuyper and the anabaptistic ecclesial worldview of Stanley Hauweras).

In conclusion, I suspect you'll find a lot of sympathy for the Schilder's theology among the leadership of the Can Ref.

Excursus on Baptism Becomes Discursive

Anthony Lane, the British theologian and Calvin scholar, makes the point I made in my previous excursus on baptism with greater authority and sophistication when he writes [in Baptism: Three Views, ed. David F. Wright (Downer's Grove: IVP Academic, 2009)126-127]:

"The instrumental role of baptism in receiving salvation ought not to need stating, but this aspect of New Testament teaching has been so widely suppressed in most (not all) evangelical teaching that it is worth quoting some passages in full. These all portray baptism, not as a symbol pointing to something but as having a role in the reception of salvation---not of course in opposition to faith, but together with it.

And Peter said to them, "Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit." (Acts 2:38).

And now why do you wait? Rise and be baptized and wash away your sins, calling on his name. (Acts 22:16).

We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life. (Rom.6:4)

For in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith. For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. (Gal.3:26-27)

Having been buried with [Christ] in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the powerful working of God, who raised him from the dead. (Col.2:12)

Baptism . . . now saves you. (1 Pet.3:21)

All of these passages portray baptism as (not in isolation but together with faith) the means by which we receive the gift of salvation, including forgiveness, union with Christ and the Holy Spirit . . . the New Testament writers were not embarrassed to attribute salvation to baptism as well as to faith . . . Of course, attributing this power to bring salvation to baptism separate from faith is an abuse of the New Testament."

Excursus on Baptism

The agenda of the FV school of thought is to talk about the things God talks about in the way God talks about them. I remember conversing a couple of years ago with someone of substantial theological pedigree who objected to my statement that we are joined to Christ through baptism. My interlocutor insisted that baptism was a sign and seal of the covenant and not a means by which we are united to Christ. I found this statement analogous to insisting that my minivan is a Ford and not a Windstar. What really floored him, though, was my use of the prepositional phrase, "through baptism." He seemed to think that nothing happens "through baptism" and that I should excise that formulation from my theological speech.

I tried to explain to him that I attributed no inherent power to baptism, but wanted to be faithful to the Bible's way of speaking about baptism. Paul says in Romans 6:4: "We were therefore buried with Christ through baptism (dia tou baptismatos) into death." If Paul, inspired by the Holy Spirit, didn't hesitate to use this language, why do we? Well, it's risky, people say. But the risk in using these formulations is the Holy Spirit's risk and we are simply not afforded the liberty to say, "The Holy Spirit should have been a little more cautious with his vocabulary."

I sometimes wonder whether the church languishes today because of our distance from biblical vocabulary and biblical locutions. Though we talk often enough about the power of the Word, we marginalize it through our hesitation to speak it.

Some might allege that I'm resorting to biblicism. My response is, "No, I'm resorting to the Bible." We don't need to discard our theological explanations of baptism; we do need to ensure that our theological explanations do not eclipse the Bible's formulations. I'm therefore appreciative of the FV school of thought for reminding us to speak about the things God does in the way God does.

Interaction with URCNA Report on FV (17)

The question remains, why did the URCNA Report consistently use the language of "saving union to Christ" or "savingly united to Christ" to describe the FV position on baptism or the covenant of grace when (a) this terminology, so far as I can tell, is absent from FV documents and (b) the FV documents themselves describe this union with other words --- namely, "covenantal union" or "formal union."

I would submit that this language is borrowed from point five of the nine points adopted by Synod Schererville 2007, which rejected the errors of those . . .

# 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).

By utilizing language of "savingly united" to describe the FV position, the report forces Synod 2010, if it accepts the report's portrayal of FV as accurate, to judge the FV position erroneous because Synod Schererville has already condemned those who teach that a person can be "savingly united" to Christ by virtue of participation in the outward administration of the covenant of grace.

There's great irony in this because the word "savingly" is my word.

Here's the history: At Schererville, a sentiment was growing that there was no way out of Synod apart from the adoption of a statement addressing some of the controversial issues of the day. The synodical advisory committee (on which I served) to deal with the Shepherd Overture from Classis Michigan had been presented with a document penned by an anonymous instructor at Westminster Seminary in California who had not been delegated to Synod, but apparently wanted to have his voice heard. This document contained points of perceived error to be rejected by Synod.

The initial impulse of the advisory committee was to consign this document to the trash-bin. Since when does an advisory committee admit documentation for discussion and possible adoption by Synod which the churches themselves have never had an opportunity to see??? After some lengthy discussion, however, there was a surprising change of mind and the document was lifted out of the trash-bin, put on the table and viewed as potentially helpful.

At a certain point, Rev. Harry Zekveld, a friend and colleague of mine who brims with congeniality, sat down beside me in the auditorium and asked me what, if anything, I found objectionable in the statement. I told him what I tell people today---that I found the statement to be largely innocuous from a doctrinal point of view, though I did prefer changes in wording here and there. One of the changes I suggested was the insertion of the word "savingly" in front of "united to Christ" in recognition of the fact that it's perfectly biblical and Reformed to speak of those in the covenant of grace as "united to Christ" (a sentiment with which the URCNA FV Report happily agrees). In fact, one of my reasons for suggesting the addition of adverb "savingly" was to leave room for the FV emphasis that those in the covenant of grace are, in some way, "united to Christ." Harry liked the suggestion, inserted the word with his pen, and the amended phrase was eventually adopted.

So the word "savingly" is, oddly enough, my word, a word from one of the delegates at Synod Schererville. So far as I know, the expression "savingly united" to Christ can't be found among the FV documents. So this adverb "savingly," though it originated with me in an attempt to exonerate FV, is now being used to indict it.

Today, I regret my suggestion to Rev. Zekveld, and think it was unhelpful. I now think that there is a way in which it is perfectly legitimate to talk about those in the covenant of grace as "savingly united to Christ." It all hinges, of course, on what is meant by "saving."