Can the Presbyterian Church in America be Saved? by Sean Gerety. The Trinity Foundation, 158 pages. $9.95.
The Presbyterian Church in America (PCA) is in trouble. In many of the denomination’s churches, the central teaching of Christianity – which is that sinners are saved by believing the Gospel of Jesus Christ apart from any good works performed by them – is being supplanted by a clever substitute called the Federal Vision (FV) or New Perspective on Paul (NPP) that defines saving belief in such a way that it includes good works. Of course attacks on salvation by belief alone are not new within the church; read Paul’s epistle to the Galatians for an account of this very thing in the first century. The Roman Catholic Church-State, the largest visible church on earth, would later suppress this doctrine, also known as justification by faith alone, for a thousand years. In the sixteenth century, salvation by belief alone was the central issue at stake in the Protestant Reformation. Men such as Martin Luther and John Calvin – correctly distinguishing between justification and sanctification, between a sinner being declared righteous by God and the process of that sinner becoming more like Christ – understood and taught that good works contribute precisely nothing to salvation but are the fruits of salvation already accomplished. That much of the PCA , an heir of the Reformation, could fall away from sound Gospel teaching is a remarkable thing. How did the PCA get into such a mess? Is there any hope of it getting out? These are questions Sean Gerety addresses in his new book Can the Presbyterian Church in America be Saved?
Gerety’s crisply written book (the main body of the text is a brief 88 pages) falls into three main sections: 1) a discussion of the Report of Ad Interim Study Committee on Federal Vision, New Perspective, and Auburn Avenue Theology adopted by the PCA in 2007, 2) an analysis of how Van Tilian epistemology and apologetics have undermined the ability of many PCA church officers to respond effectively to the Federal Vision challenge, and 3) a refutation of key errors used by Federal Vision (FV) supporters to advance their ideas. A brief conclusion follows. (more…)